MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Etruscans (History)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
admin
Librarian


View user's profile
Reply with quote

This, from Bernie, will serve to start our collected thoughts on these mysterious dudes.

I have spent hours in the Etruscan sections of museums in Bologna, Rome, Arezzo, Orvieto and at the giant excavation site at Volterra. I have read a number of books and articles about them. But I still feel as though I know absolutely bugger all about them except that they produced some nice pottery, were efficient pirates and knowledgeable miners/metalworkers and spent as much time, effort and money on funeral arrangements as the ancient Egyptians. Weird folk.

And even weirder when you think that they appeared to have acquired and adapted the alphabet by 700-650BC, that they wrote copious inscriptions and religious documents and yet not a scrap of literature or philosophy in the 4-500 years before they packed up written Etruscan and switched to Latin. The Romans (i.e. Latin-speakers) on the other hand, within 100 years of getting into script were producing poetry, drama and so on. Very Weird.

And I really don't think we can blame this on the historians or archaeologists. With something like 13,000 "documents" discovered and semi-deciphered there really should have been at least some scrap of "cultural" writing, if it had existed.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Tuscany's Estruscan claim knocked

http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-05-16_1164259.html

The Tuscans' proud claim to be the descendants of the ancient Etruscans has taken a knock...

A DNA comparison of Etruscan skeletons and a sample of living Tuscans has thrown up only "tenuous genetic similarities", said lead researcher Guido Barbujani of Ferrara University...

It's infuriating that this article doesn't say who they found the Etruscan skeletons to be related to.

"It could be that the skeletons from which we extracted the DNA belonged to an elite group that did not spread demographically," Barbujani said.

This is no surprise at all (though for them it's special pleading). Over on The Ancient Islamic Empire thread, Komorikid wrote:

I gleaned this line from the article and I wonder if the Etruscans were in some way related to the early inhabitants of west Britain and Ireland.

"There are stone grave markers very like those used by the Picts and votive offerings just like those you still see in Mediterranean churches"

[In response to which, I wrote:]
Notice that the Etruscans occupied an arc on the western coast of Italy, as though radiating from megalithic Corsica.

This recent research supports us: the Etruscans were, as usual, a ruling class. (Quite possibly Megalithic/Celtic.)
Send private message
Oakey Dokey



View user's profile
Reply with quote

DPCrisp wrote:
komorikid wrote: I wonder if the Etruscans were in some way related to the early inhabitants of west Britain and Ireland.

Notice that the Etruscans occupied an arc on the western coast of Italy, as though radiating from megalithic Corsica.

This is what pricked my interest.

That and the fact that the Greeks weren't the first in their Mediterranean lands. Maybe a super-power was already here with little or no written language who would speak for them and their deeds? My god, maybe their stones? They are beginning to sound more and more like the forgotten peoples of Europe.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Re Oakey's Etruscan enquiry, this entry

http://www.serebella.com/encyclopedia/article-Etruscan_language.html

suggests that latest thinking is that Etruscan is Turkic. The problem here is that the same muppets tend to believe that "Turkic" means from the Asian steppes but we know that means Troy. Or it used to till Ray's got us all thinking Madagascan or somesuch.
Send private message
Ray



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I've just been checking out the website. It leads to Etruscanesque inscriptions found in Lemnos, which the author then proceeds to compare to modern Turkish.

The language does seem to be agglutinative; the words do appear to more or less tally and they do more or less make sense when rendered into English via Turkish, but I don't go along with his statement:

'In fact it is highly probable that the prehistoric people were more Central Asian in origin than the Indo-European Mediterranean people.'

The Meds were definitely not I-E speakers; nor were they, for the most part, Central Asian in origin (by which he means Turkic). In any case the Turkic people actually originated in the Pacific.

It is quite possible that a limited number found their way to the Med though.

What do you mean Turkic means Troy?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I meant that according to THOBR principles the ordinary inhabitants of the Anatolian peninsula spoke Turkish then just as they do now. But I grant that up to 1918 the inhabitants of the coast of Anatolia spoke Greek so the Trojans could have been Greek-speakers.

I also concede that in Ancient times all city dwellers and especially all coastal city dwellers and especially especially all really major coastal city dwellers spoke languages other than that of their respective hinterlands. So Trojans may have spoken Etruscan. Or Madagascan. Or, from what you now say, Fijian.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don't buy any of this Turkic/from the depths of Central Asia shit. Let us think political structures. Every one of the peoples who swooped on Europe out of Asia wanted to build cohesive unified polities (i.e.empires). Whereas the Greeks, the Phoenicians/ Carthaginians, the Celts and the Etruscans were all into city states and/or tiny kingdoms and/or semi-autonomous colonies.

And I think we should give Troy a bit of a swerve. The foundation myths of virtually every poor sod throughout Europe who didn't think that they originated in Scandsca include Troy as their point of origin.

Another mystery that, so far as I know, nobody has any explanation for is, "Who were the guys who totally destroyed the Mycenean civilisation in 1200 BC (plus and minus)?" Maybe there is a linkage here. Were the Etruscans the marauders who then moved on?
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Another mystery that, so far as I know, nobody has any explanation for is, "Who were the guys who totally destroyed the Mycenean civilisation in 1200 BC (plus and minus)?"

If you adopt the common sense position that the Greek Dark Ages are a figment of historians' imaginings, and Mycenae (not to mention Minoan Crete and Dardanian Troy) are eighth century rather than thirteenth century then the mystery gets blown away in the winds of True History.

None of these places get 'totally destroyed', they just get beaten by more efficient competitors and just fade away (whether the mother-city gets sacked or not). And who are these competitiors? Well, speaking of creation myths, both Greece and Rome adopt the eighth century for their own origins which puts the Etruscans as one of them too.

The only question that remains is whether the Etruscans are Minoans/ Trojans /Mycenians forced to relocate or new people filling the vacuum.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The only question that remains is whether the Etruscans are Minoans/ Trojans /Mycenians forced to relocate or new people filling the vacuum.

Did Etruscans have to come from elsewhere or could they not have simply been 'natives', Tuscans or the original Romans?

In any case the Turkic people actually originated in the Pacific.

A few scattered islands doesn't seem the obvious birthplace for a nomadic land-based group. More likely to have been colonised by another, larger island people (such as the Taiwanese).
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

If you adopt the common sense position that the Greek Dark Ages are a figment of historians' imaginings, and Mycenae (not to mention Minoan Crete and Dardanian Troy) are eighth century rather than thirteenth century then the mystery gets blown away in the winds of True History.

Nope. There was a written record just for once and there is a gap in it of about 400 years.

None of these places get 'totally destroyed', they just get beaten by more efficient competitors and just fade away (whether the mother-city gets sacked or not)

Sorry to be so contrarian this morning, but the archeological record shows several palaces burned to the ground. In fact it is the baking effect of the palace fires that preserved hitherto fresh clay tablets that gives us all (I think) of the Linear B stuff outside of Crete.

The only question that remains is whether the Etruscans are Minoans/ Trojans /Mycenians forced to relocate or new people filling the vacuum.
.
Absolutely agree.
Send private message Send e-mail
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Did Etruscans have to come from elsewhere or could they not have simply been 'natives', Tuscans or the original Romans?

Yes v. good point. And academia is split on this.

Not the "original Romans" though because there is enough in the record to show definitely that the Romans recognised the Etruscans as being quite distinct from themselves. "Original Tuscans" is, I feel, just a red herring because after 2500 years of mixing and miscgenation you'd be lucky to show that a few sample DNAs of modern residents of Florence had anything significantly in common with anybody.

But indigeneous? Why not. We get trapped in the Indo-European language paradigm to thinking that all "Europeans" must have spoken an I-E language. But we know in reality that that is not true. There is every reason, for example, to believe that the Basques are truly indigenous to their region. And I don't think that anybody is claiming that Euskara is I-E. But I would be interested in Nick's comment on this.
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nope. There was a written record just for once and there is a gap in it of about 400 years.

Don't understand. Since it's fairly unlikely that a bunch of dudes had a written civilisation and then (more or less) the same bunch of dudes had another written civilisation, how could these same dudes forget how to write for four hundred years?

It's a simple application of Ockham to conclude that the four hundred years never happened. Unless you've got some evidence to the contrary of course.

whether the mother-city gets sacked or not

Sorry to be so contrarian this morning, but the archeological record shows several palaces burned to the ground

It's not uncommon. The archaeological record shows the Palace of Westminster was burned to the ground several times, most recently in 1834. Successful invaders are rarely so stupid as to destroy the place they've gone to all that bother of conquering.

But anyway, it is common ground that one lot of Greeks kyboshed another lot of Greeks. The only point at issue is whether four hundred years has passed in the meantime.

In fact it is the baking effect of the palace fires that preserved hitherto fresh clay tablets that gives us all (I think) of the Linear B stuff outside of Crete.

Speaking of which, Velikovsky predicted that Linear B would be Greek since it all happened c 700 BC. Ridiculous, cried the historians (since to them it all happened 1300 BC). Enter Michael Ventris stage left. Collapse of orthodox party? Nah, slightly more careful ignoral.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

And I don't think that anybody is claiming that Euskara is I-E.

Never mind bleedin' Basque, we say Welsh ain't I-E.
Send private message
berniegreen



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nope. There was a written record just for once and there is a gap in it of about 400 years.

Don't understand. Since it's fairly unlikely that a bunch of dudes had a written civilisation and then (more or less) the same bunch of dudes had another written civilisation, how could these same dudes forget how to write for four hundred years?

Linear B was laundry list writing strictly for accounts and inscriptions and writ by the clerks and the scribes. When the Mycenean mob got done over (by whom see below) the warrior caste/palace economy collapsed. The new mob had no use for this scribal accounts keeping and so, inevitably, within a generation Linear B was forgotten. Somewhere between 800BC and 750BC the Greeks imported and adapted the alphabet. So it all depends really on the phrase "written civilisation". The Myceneans were like the Ancient Egyptians. They had the writing but....!

What is for sure is that there was a discontinuity between one bunch of dudes writing and the other lot of dudes writing of about 400 years.

Successful invaders are rarely so stupid as to destroy the place they've gone to all that bother of conquering.

Amazingly, they are, particularly in two situations - (a) When the "culture" of the conquered group is hated/despised/seen to be useless by the conquerors; and (b) When the conquerors wished to punish/make an example of/really destroy the conquered viz Carthage.

But anyway, it is common ground that one lot of Greeks kyboshed another lot of Greeks. The only point at issue is whether four hundred years has passed in the meantime.

Yes that is the accepted view but one thing strikes me as odd. The Greeks were very good at developing their foundation mythology but there are no myths which tell of how the newly advancing Dorians conquer with plenty of rape and pillage the old Myceneans.
The Trojan wars were myths of the power struggle of Mycenea versus Illium. You could say that the myths of how the Olympian Gods triumphed over Chronos et al represent the overcoming of the Mycenean civilisation. But I think that seems a bit phoney.
So, to me, despite it being the accepted view of most (but not all) classicists, I still think there is a mystery.

Speaking of which, Velikovsky predicted that Linear B would be Greek since it all happened c 700 BC. Ridiculous, cried the historians (since to them it all happened 1300 BC). Enter Michael Ventris stage left. Collapse of orthodox party? Nah, slightly more careful ignoral.

I feel pretty confident that good brother William of O would not have been very impressed by Mr Velikovsky. To invent some radical celestial mechanics in order to give real dates to mythological events is just a tad OTT, dont you think?

And I just don't understand the reference to Ventris. He did the decipherment but are you saying that he took a different position on the dating of the Linear B remains? I was not aware of that.
Send private message Send e-mail
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What is for sure is that there was a discontinuity between one bunch of dudes writing and the other lot of dudes writing of about 400 years.

Actually it used to be one hell of a lot longer than that but even orthodoxy gets embarrassed by this inexplicable hiatus so they've been busy nibbling away from both ends (by re-interpreting of course not from new finds).

So, Bernie, what's your explanation? This is probably your most baffling remark to date

The new mob had no use for this scribal accounts keeping and so, inevitably, within a generation Linear B was forgotten

I've never heard of people that eschewed writing - a wondrously useful thing. But even so I've never heard of writing dying out 'within a generation' just because the new mob didn't rate it. Why, it's almost as if you are grasping at straws.

Successful invaders are rarely so stupid as to destroy the place they've gone to all that bother of conquering.

Amazingly, they are, particularly in two situations - (a) When the "culture" of the conquered group is hated/despised/seen to be useless by the conquerors; and (b) When the conquerors wished to punish/make an example of/really destroy the conquered viz Carthage.

Well, you only give one example of this odd behaviour and it's an unfortunate one. Yes, the Romans destroyed Carthage so thoroughly in 202 that they had to do it all over again in 146. And they did it so thoroughly then that it was surprising that it was the second largest city in the Western Med only a little later and remained so right up to Augustine's time.

And I just don't understand the reference to Ventris. He did the decipherment but are you saying that he took a different position on the dating of the Linear B remains? I was not aware of that.

Velikovsky made his prediction in 1950, Ventris confirmed his prediction in 1953. I would strongly asdvise you to concentrate on V's grasp of ancient history (which is brilliant) rather than his strictures on celestial mechanics (which aren't).
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 4

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group