Talk:Etruscan civilization/Archive 2

Evidence from DNA is now bring to light that the Etruscans may have come from Turkey
News from yesterdays genetic fraternity appears to have solve the mystrey surrounding the origins of the etruscan civilization. DNA sample taken from people in Tuscii Region, living there for three generation or more, and those from Southern Turkey, suggest they come from the same gene pool. The ramifaction is that the Etruscans where originally from Anatolia (Lydia), now modern day Southern Turkey.

This, also, lends credence to the fact that cattle found in Tuscii is related to species found only in turkey, reported in SCIENTIFIC AMERICA and elsewhere.

Laupw 12:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming the Tuscii people tested are descendants of the Etruscans. Three generations doesn't seem like much in the big picture. Are people living in Rome descendants of those who lived there 2000 years ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.88.255 (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This connects up interestingly with Woudhuizen's theory of Luvian ancestry. He essentially posits that the Etruscans came from northern Turkey (Mysia) after first being pushed out of southern Turkey (Lydia) by the Cimmerians.


 * To the unsigned comment, while there is obviously not a perfect correspondence, the connection between ancient Rome and modern Rome is not completely zero--and it's much higher in smaller villages. While there are both mass migrations and individual settlers throughout history, there are also a good number of people who stay put in the land of their fathers, and genetic evidence (especially mitochrondial and sex-chromosome DNA) can help distinguish these cases. --75.36.140.167 15:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be an old discussion, but I would like to agree with the above editor. It is very difficult to correctly trace a gene pool in a large cosmopolitan city such as Rome. Smaller towns and villages are far easier as familys tend to remain in rural areas for many generations. Thanks. Skipper 360 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the Vernesi et al. 2004. In that paper, they state that they have got 80 samples from different sites from the Etruscan time. They have also received samples from modern populations with a representative sample size. They have applied several methods to avoid any kind of misinterpretation. They conclude, explicitly on several occasions that the samples from Turks are the closest of all the DNA samples. Strange enough in the Wikipedia article it looks like someone tried to omit the word Turk on purpose. Instead he refers as Anatolians, which is misleading. The paper says Turks not Anatolians of ancient origin or so. And they only had samples from Turks living in Turkey. I'm a wikipedia author myself and I find the Wikipedia article on Etrusks biased. What's wrong with associating Etrusks with Turks:). Rhetorical one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.132.254 (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The sentence about genectic samples from people in the region of Tuscany matching that of Murlo and Volterra in Turkey is completely inane. Volterra and Murlo are in Tuscany not in Turkey. Perhaps people from Murlo and Volterra were sampled and found to have genetic commonality with people from Turkey. Another thing that is very misleading is this discussion of whether they were from Anatolia or Turkey. Anaotlia is in Turkey so this is still fairly meaningless. Overall it seems that the genetics reinforce the history, archaeology and linguistic evidence that the people of Rasenna (Etruscans) were related to the Trojans, Lydians, the Island of Lemnos and the Phoenicians. Reference Tyre ancient Phoenician port which founded colonies in North Africa which were ruled by a King Tyr who was routed from North Africa and fled with his people to the Tyrhennian coast which was already populated by the people of Rasenna. Lydia is the southwestern coast of Turkey including Mount Olympus (no its not in Greece). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.248.67 (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The people who do this genetic work aren't stupid. They do know how to sort through samples to find older and younger markers.  If the markers go back to the days of the Etruscans, and the same markers are found at the same time in Anatolia (NOT Turkey - Turkey is a modern place that was in ancient times divided into several political units), then there can be no other explanation (the odds would be astronomical against people having these minor genetic markers in both places, and the route between the two places is traversable - and there's archaeological evidence of a connection as well!  It still remains controversial of course, but if you want an abstract of the actual scientific data, here's a link:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1181945/  If you read the entire article (and its bibliography), you'll come back to understanding the cultural shift between Etruscia and the earlier cultures that were in what is now, generally, Tuscany.--LeValley 21:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, no matter if Anatolia or Turkey, if now or then, the fact is that there are genetic similarities between the inhabitants of present Tuscans in Italy and present Turks in Turkey, more specifically in nowadays Turkeys region called Anatolia. No way to get around this fact. They are relatives because they have the same ancestors. This is living history. --217.82.145.110 (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Mythology versus Religion
I wonder if we might change references to Etruscan mythology to religion. What we now call mythology was a complex system of beliefs, more than a mere collection of superstitions and symbols, which may be better categorized as religion. Opinions welcome--- CassiasMunch (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. It is time that we stop referring to belief systems as "myth" and instead as they were perceived by the civilization in question: "religion". The Duke of Etruscan civilization 22:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't the distinction that "myth" refers to the stories that people told to explain the world, while "religion" refers to the rituals, priesthoods, temples, ceremonies, etc? They overlap, but are different things (religions usually incorporate myths, but also other stuff as well, and not all myths need be part of a religion).  For example, the Biblical story of Creation is a Christian and Jewish myth (which some believe to be literally true, while others consider it to be a meaningful story), but the Christian and Jewish religions are a lot more than just Bible stories.  What we currently have in the "Religion" section is just a basic summary of the gods they believed in, a myth about how knowledge of the gods was revealed, and a mention of their depiction of Homeric heroes in art.  The first two items are relevent to both myth and religion, while the latter is really just myth (unless relevent to a hero cult).  To make this more about religion it needs more about how these beliefs affected people's lives, how they worshiped the gods, what festivals they held in their honour, etc.  Etruscan mythology has some details about this, but I'm not sure what is best to describe here rather than there.  62.172.108.24 (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Uncited "Literature" section.
Re the queried material relating to "Varrio" - I suspect that's Varro, but only on a mere hunch. The article history shows that the section heading and most of its content were added in this uncited edit.


 * [copied and pasted] "Etruscan literature covers the Etruscan texts, written in a space of seven centuries, since the Etruscan people adopted the alphabet Greek Ischia and Cumae to the VII BC until it was no longer used, at the beginning of the 1st century, period in which disappeared already latest inscriptions in Chiusi, Perugia and Arezzo. Survive her few fragments, religious and especially funeral, most of whom are late (from the 4th century BC). In addition to the original texts that have survived to this day, we have a large number of quotations and allusions from classical authors. It should be noted that in the first century a. C. Diodorus of Sicily wrote that literary culture was one of the great achievements of the etruscans. we don`t know too much of it, and even what is known of their language is due to the repetition of the same few words in the many inscriptions found (by way of the modern epitaphs) contrasted in bilingual or trilingual texts with latin and the Carthaginian. Out of the aforementioned genres, is just one such Vorrio (Vorrius) cited in classical sources mention."

The editor started a new article on "Etruscan Literature", which was deleted because it had no references; content was essentially the same as we see here, translated by the editor from a corresponding article on Spanish (or perhaps the Basque) Wikipedia. Some edits since have improved the grammar and spelling, but no cite has been added. Nothing particularly contentious in what's written but it might be easier to delete and start afresh. Haploidavey (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Rosenberg Nazi Research: The Myth of the 20th Century
I added the following to the Article under Religion from Der Mythos by Alfred Rosenberg. There is no reason to leave this out. Maybe someone can correct the format for me as it seemed to have malfunctioned.

"Attempts were made quite early to interpret Etruscan inscriptions on graves, mummy wrappings, and papyrus rolls, but not until Albert Grünwedel was the script successfully deciphered, and the results show the Etruscans in a hideous light. Even the Greek solar myth that the sun dies and is then reborn as a god out of the dark night and with redoubled potency, was appropriated as an Etruscan motif. But in the hands of the Etruscan priests this becomes Asiatic magic, witchcraft linked with pederasty, masturbation, the murder of boys, magical appropriation of the manna of the slaughtered by the priestly murderer, and prophecies derived from the excrement and the piled up entrails of the victims. The virile sun impregnates itself with the magical phallus on the solar disc (the Egyptian point in the sun) which finally penetrates it. From this is born a golden boy, the foetus of a boy with a magical orifice. This is the so called seal of eternity. The violence of the magical phallus is imagined as a bull which copulates with such frenzied force that the disc rolls and the phallus bearer of the horn turns to fire, the phallus of him who possesses the heavens. In endlessly repeated obscenities, the original myth is degraded into repulsive homosexual love. This is to be seen on the wall paintings of graves, as in the Golini tomb where the dead man holds a banquet with his boy lover in the next world, and where two gigantic phalluses spring up from a sacrificial fire as a result of magical satanic rite. According to the inscription, this, the lightning of perfection, is thus perfected. Translated from the jargon of magic, that means that the creature born of woman is deified after putrefying, and becomes a phallus. From the inscription of the Cippus of Perugia, there is recorded a convocation of satanic priests who perfect a spectral manifestation so as to burn in demonic frenzy. He who has this boy has the demonic knife. Eternal is the fire of the boy ..... a magus of the perfected seal. The murdered boy now becomes a little goat. Thunder personified is a metamorphosis of the son gained by violation—the perfected little goat. Here is to be found the origin of the horned apparition and the goat headed devil, whose appearance in the literature of witchcraft was hitherto an unsolved riddle. Its antique types are the Minotaur, especially the one over the well known grave of Corneto, the Tomba dei Tori, and the Greek Satyr. He clearly illustrates a crime crying out to heaven, comments Grünwedel. The meaning of these constantly repeated customs of the Etruscan religion is to be seen in the fate of the shamefully abused boy prostitute who is slit open to symbolise the birth of the diurnal sun from the egg that his apparition has developed when fertilised by the semen collected in bowls."

"The Etruscans generally dwelt with sadistic pleasure over every possible representation of torture, murder and sacrifice. The slaughter of human beings was especially delightful for them. Musically untalented, lacking any poetic gifts, incapable of producing an organic architecture of their own, and without even the rudiments of philosophy, this near eastern people devoted itself to the study of birds’ entrails, and to complex magical and sacrificial rites. Not without some technical ability, it was almost wholly dedicated to commerce, and because it was tenacious, it poisoned Roman blood and transmitted its obsession with hellish torments in the world to come to the churches..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.176 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All you did was put in huge quotes. I deleted it saying it was a copyright violation but on second thoughts it is not copyvio. However, not only would we not use such a huge quote, the book is not a reliable source (see WP:RS on Etruscan religion nor is it a significant point of view on Etruscan religion. Thus it doesn't belong in the article. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But how is it not a reliable source when we even have a page on the man who wrote it (Albert Grünwedel)?? Are you saying he is not the author of the work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.155.135 (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to read WP:RS. He's not an expert on the Etruscans, his work is ideologically driven, his views aren't accepted by the relevant academic community, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There's been a lot of use made out of the Etruscans since they aren't around to refute it. Alfred Rosenberg's agenda in this snippet was to make the Etruscans responsible for the cruel and creepy side of Rome because he was a Nazi and wanted to make Mussolini look good.  German nationalists have a complicated relationship with Rome and A.R. was considered nutty even by the rest of the Nazis.  He probably should've courted the fascists in Hungary with flattering hogwash about the Etruscans.  Being Estonian you think he'd be that smart.  This was a best selling book in Germany thanks to censorship and the appeal of "mystical" ideas was to hook young soldiers into having fanatical morale.  As excerpts show it was a mix of shock tactics, lies, and hysterical anger which was the Nazi house style.  Rosenberg was hung for war crimes at Nuremberg.  The Etruscan inscriptions he describes have never been identified.  2601:1C2:F00:AACF:B515:6FE0:58A6:AE6 (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Powerful and wealthy
I think 'powerful and wealthy' should be removed from the introduction. Nationalists and regionalists always want to have a rich and powerful history, and every historian studying a civilisation thinks the civilisation he is studying is pretty special. But compared to other civilisations at the time this one is not special in any way except being relatively rich in the region at the time. Other civilisations at the time like the Greek, Celts, Egyptians, Persians, Chinese, Olmecs, Carthagians controlled much bigger parts of the world, Alexander conquered half the world shortly after and the Roman Empire half of Europe. This was a smallish civilisation that even at it's hey-day just controlled a portion of northern and middle Italy. Sure it was relatively rich because of trade and mining, so objectively you can put 'relatively rich' in the introduction, but is that something we want?

Can't we describe these civilisations in neutral terms without resorting to these unnecessary claims of grandeur? Wikipedia is meant to describe reality anyway, not to add these kind of value-assertions. It doesn't add anything and in this case is surrounded with too many doubts. It's too much a question of opinion to be listed so prominently in the introduction. If it is interesting to make these kind of arguments (i don't think so) you could add a paragraph somewhere in the article with arguments in favour or against. --83.128.131.207 (talk) 11:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources always comment on the wealth of the Etruscans, whose tombs are far richer than those of the Celts or Greeks (and stuffed with Greek art). Unlike the monarchical empires beyond Europe, Etruscan wealth was spread widely across a rather large elite class - they are more like Renaissance Venice (and Rome and Athens) than the monarchies.  I don't think 400 years+ is "shortly after".  750 BC is very different from 350 BC - the Persians for example were still mostly living in tents, under the vague rule of the Assyrians. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all you're not replying at all to my comments on the necessity to make these kind of claims in the introduction of an article. Second of all I already admitted that the people living there were on average rich, and that you could theoretically put this introduction, but it was only a small civilisation, so that doesn't mean its total wealth was larger than that of other civilisations around that time as those were much bigger. (in case you want to make the argument that wealth is power)
 * Also at around 500 BCE the etruscan civilisation was still more or less at its biggest, and Alexander started his conquest only 150 years later, not 400, and the roman civilisation rose as the etruscan civilisation fell in the same breath. How can you say that is not shortly after?
 * Also you gave some arguments for them being relatively rich, but none for them being especially powerful.--83.128.131.207 (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as 'neutral terms' -- we can try to have NPOV about which terms we use and how, but the idea that there is some way to 'describe reality' of human societies without those terms carrying some set of values is a non-starter.
 * It is clear from the literature that the Etruscans were unusually materially well-off in their sphere of influence. To say that a century and a half later some other civilization was wealthier does not change that, any more than saying 'The Romans had a large empire' is invalidated by the later, and much larger, British empire.
 * Similarly, 'relatively rich' is a tautology -- all rich societies are measured in relative terms. The Song Dynasty, the Mayan Empire, and the contemprary United States were all rich in this way, and no one is confused by those claims. However, since wealth is a form of power, the phrase 'powerful and wealthy' risks being a tautology as well, unless the kind of power is explained. The Etruscans' power seems mainly to have been mercantile rather than militaary, and we could perhaps re-write that sentence to say "...wealthy and influential trading civilization of ancient Italy...' or similar cshirky (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course there is such a thing as neutral terms, I quote from WP:NPOV While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity.. I mean, sure, everything is relative, but exactly because everything is relative, we still have to define our language such that we can define terms predominantly on one end of the neutrality spectrum as 'neutral terms' and terms predominantly on the other end as 'biased terms', with 'subjective terms' somewhere in between (also depending on context of course). Instead of saying an empire was large you can describe from where to where it reached, or how many km2 it was, instead of saying Albert Einstein was smart you can point to his achievements in theoretical physics, instead of saying Ivanka Trump is beautiful you can point to her achievements in modelling. Of course that takes longer, but that's why you don't necessarily have to put them into the first sentence, and you can stick with more factual information there. This is not a preposterous concept that I'm advocating, it's in fact done this way all over wikipedia.
 * That also goes for 'rich', sure, it's a concept based on relativity, but by saying 'relatively rich', i'm not trying to make a tautology, but emphasising how relative the richness in this case is, being pretty limited in spacial and temporal scope and considering the small size of the civilisation!
 * And the 'powerful' is even more contentious, sure with money comes power, but this civilisation was not a single state, the civilisation was relatively small and consisted of a lot of city-states that were not necessarily politically aligned while its contemporaries and near-contemporaries wear bigger and more united, so they were relatively not so powerful.--83.128.131.207 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * But starting out with 'sure, [rich] is a concept based on relatively', then noting that the Etruscans were relatively rich, means the Etruscans were rich.


 * There is no spatial dimension to their wealth -- they were a trading civilization, not an empire. Temporal scope is likewise meaningless in a historical context -- if they were rich when they existed, and relative to their neighbors, they were rich, and given common use, readers won't think this is a statement saying 'They were rich compared to the U.S. of 2017', or the Argentina of 1904', for that matter. To say a civilization was rich is precisely to say it had significant economic resources for its time, in its region. And their wealth has nothing to do with the political alignment of the city-states, since the article clearly calls the Etruscans a civilization, not a country or a political union etc.


 * I agree with you about powerful, which, in an introductory context might suggest military prowess rather than cultural and economic influence. I think the first sentence could be re-written to make that clearer. cshirky (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I see your point! Actually I didn't mean that necessarily the word 'relatively' should be included and i didn't realise it came across in that way before, I just tried to emphasise the relativeness to argue against unqualified value-assertions. I also looked for a way to make the introduction more specific in regards to the wealth, what do you think of this:
 * The Etruscan civilization (/ᵻˈtrʌskən/) is the modern name given to a civilization in the area corresponding roughly to Tuscany, western Umbria, and northern Lazio in ancient Italy that grew very wealthy through trading and mining.?--83.128.131.207 (talk) 08:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any problem with "a powerful and wealthy civilization of ancient Italy" - this actually contextualizes the claims, and I think makes it sufficiently clear that comparisons with ancient China or the Olmecs are not in fact being attempted. What the article needs is more on the wealth lower down, which all the decent sources will provide. The same for the power, but this is less needed. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are trolling at this point, and I've a mind to have this article protected from contentious IPs like you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * People like you are exactly why wikipedia has a steadily falling number of editors, even though it's one of the most-used sites on the web. First you revert my constructive edits with as the only reason given that you don't know who I am. Now you are threatening to block me from editing this article even though I'm following policy, and take to discussing this before even reaching 3RR, and again without even given a single argument. Please read WP:AGF. --83.128.131.207 (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Wealthy people don't get that way from the size of their nations. Tuscany might look small on a map but it was densely populated with cities and they had a famous merchant navy and lots of handicrafts.  I'm betting they were one of the wealthiest peoples in Europe at the time and what they left behind proves it.  I've got to say that comments on this subject are some of the stupidest in the world and I wish the Etruscans could stop dumb people from knowing about them.  2601:1C2:F00:AACF:B515:6FE0:58A6:AE6 (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Etruscan civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060508054703/http://www.eng.archeopg.arti.beniculturali.it/canale.asp?id=499 to http://www.eng.archeopg.arti.beniculturali.it/canale.asp?id=499

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Etruscan civilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922180308/http://www.theculturedtraveler.com/Museums/Archives/U_Penn.htm to http://www.theculturedtraveler.com/Museums/Archives/U_Penn.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

DNA and linguistics
this seems to directly contradict the linguistics, germans are indo europeans while etruscans are not, the europeans are the one who moved form steppe to europe, this is what aryan theory states, so etruscans are not europeans or native europeans like native americans who were overrun by indo europeans/ anglo saxons. This tells me that linguistics and DNA is actually trying to make confirmation bias here, suggesting that both etruscans and indo europeans are europeans which should not be the case according to aryan migration theory because their language in not indo european. either etruscans are the europeans or the indo europeans, both cannot be europeans at the same time and speak indo european and non indo european languages.

my position is, all indo european theories and their relations with genetics are BS, connecting linguistics with DNA is a load of crap.

the eurocentric scholars declare that ancient egyptians are not related to present egyptians and declare them migrating from west asia whereas etruscans are being declared europeans, what sort or bias is that, on one hand we have definite proof of egyptian language as language isolate of afro asiatic being declared west asian which was dominated by semitic languages whereas on the other hand we have non indo europeans speakers being declared europeans. If etruscans are really europeans and share genetics with the germans then aryan migration theory really need to rebute against it because it seems to demolish indo european genetics. Anatolians who also seem to be originally indo european seem to share more genetics with the middle east J haplogroup than the indo europeans, this also seem to debunk indo european genetics.202.188.53.210 (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * See WP:FORUM for sharing your personal feelings on the Indo-Eurpean migrations. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Urartu reference
I have tried and failed many times to battle with specious references by nationalist Armenian "academics", and this appears to be another case. First, they would have the pages of Wikipedia make claims of some direct descendence of the modern Armenian people from the ancient Urartuians, and now they connect Urartu to the Etruscans? This reference, by the very nature of its claim, is unreliable and should therefore be removed, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.55.3 (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

They are reliable, at least, by the genetic studies clarrifying no admixture of armenians since Bronze Age and supported by the up to 10 % armenian incursion in tuscans. Turks affinity with Tuscan also supports it since that there is no doubt that nowadays turks are ex-armenian population. Asatrian (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Genetic studies: recent edits on SNPs associated with light skin and blue eye
The paragraph that makes a comparison between Iron age population and modern populations in the frequency of snps related to light skin pigmentation and blue eye color is completely inaccurate and it's based on a personal interpretation of who made the edits. The Stanford 2019 study shows in the supp info only a graphic figure with the allele frequencies for alleles of functional importance (the alleles examined are 8), without drawing any conclusions and making no comparison between ancient and modern populations. Nowhere the study states that "Iron Age population had a much lower frequencies of SNPs associated with both light skin and eye pigmentation compared to modern Italians, who instead are similar to other modern Europeans (British, Finnish and Spanish), althoug the authours are cautious about these results". Furthmore, there is no sample of modern Italians in this specific analysis (there are samples called "Medieval & Early Modern" ranging from 700 CE-1800 CE), and present-day populations are represented by some samples of Finns, British and Spanish, who also get different results (Spanish have less SNPs associated with light eye than Finnish and British). Among the examined alleles, there are three that regulate the skin pigmentation, and two out of three are connected with the light skin pigmentation, the third is connected with the ability to tan. The first snps connected with light skin pigmentation has its peak in the Iron Age population, and the second in the present-day populations (specifically in British and Finnish). Hence it is really a stretch the whole paragraph, which is good to remember: it isn't written anywhere in the study. --Tursclan (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The fact the authours don't comment those results, doesn't make them false. The cline is clear: Iron Age populations had much less of those light skin/eyes SNPs compared to the modern population, who instead resemble other Europeans. You can cry all the day, it won't change the reality of facts.LambdofGod (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Cry? This is not a forum. There is no local modern population in this analysis, but a sample of Medieval and Early modern population (700-1800 CE, n=28). Modern population is only represented by Finnish, British and Spanish that don't get the same results.--Tursclan (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Lambrusco red grapes and wine
Curiously the extant article does not mention the Etruscans cultivating Lambrusco red grapes and making wine from same. Insofar as ancient wine-making goes, the Etruscans are one of the ancient civilizations that developed grape vines and artificially selected for a specific wine taste. That should perhaps be mentioned and referenced with citations in the extant article. Seems rather significant since Lambrusco grapes were handed down to the Romans and are still being used today in wine making. SoftwareThing (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Succeeded by Roman Republic not empire
It's a technicality, but it was the Roman Republic that conquered the Etruscans. The Roman Empire didn't officially form until well after all of Italy was conquered. I understand that the term "empire" can be applied loosely, but when talking about states, the Roman Republic and Roman Empire were two different things. Saying that the Etruscans were succeeded by the Roman Empire is like saying the Margavate of Brandenburg was succeeded by the German Empire. Yes, the land was eventually under the German Empire, but it was under the Kingdom of Prussia first before they formed the German Empire. Pz Kmpf VI Ausf B (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Done Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no perfect answer to the template, it is a technicality that only risks creating a lot of confusion, to make the Etruscan civilization succeeded by the Roman Republic starting from 509 B.C. is highly misleading and in contrast with the chronology of the Etruscan civilization accepted by the etruscologists. This gives the impression that the Etruscan civilisation ended at the end of the 6th century B.C. and this is a huge mistake. The Roman Empire remains the least deceptive option, because the Etruscan civilization, in a strict sense, does not end before the 1st century BC. According to "Introduzione all'etruscologia" (p. 16, main textbook in university etruscology courses) the Etruscan civilisation ends with the "inclusion of Etruria in the Regio VII of the Augustan division of Italy (27 B.C.)." --Tursclan (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What complete nonsense! This is not how these fields work. Either have it as the Republic, or remove the field entirely. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * According to "Introduzione all'etruscologia" (p. 16, main textbook in university etruscology courses) the Etruscan civilisation ends with the "inclusion of Etruria in the Regio VII of the Augustan division of Italy (27 B.C.)." So, it's clearly Roman Empire and it can't be Roman Republic in any way. --Tursclan (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Why you don't accept resources?
a non-Indo-European population, I'm just added that. Add or I'm report  you. HistoriaTurce (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Why you don't accept resources?
a non-Indo-European population, I'm just added that. Why u don't accept this? Added this or I'm reported you. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoriaTurce (talk • contribs) 09:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is this fully protected?
No, seriously — Preceding unsigned comment added by RusherLeBFDIFan (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

History stops too early
The history of the Etruscans seems to stop with them founding Rome. Surely there should be something about their struggles with a rising Rome, and their eventual conquest by Rome? The 1911 Britannica has this incredibly brief coverage which I suppose would be better than nothing: "After the expulsion of the Tarquins the chief events in Etruscan history are the vain attempt to re-establish themselves in Rome under Lars Porsena of Clusium, the defeat of Octavius Mamilius, son-in-law of Tarquinius Superbus, at Lake Regillus, and the treaty with Carthage. This last event shows that the Etruscan power was formidable, and that by means of their fleet the Etruscans held under their exclusive control the commerce of the Tyrrhenian Sea. By this treaty Corsica was assigned to the Etruscans while Carthage obtained Sardinia. Soon after this, decay set in. In 474 the Etruscan fleet was destroyed by Hiero I. (q.v.) of Syracuse; Etruria Circumpadana was occupied by the Gauls, the Campanian cities by the Samnites, who took Capua (see CAMPANIA) in 423, and in 396, after a ten years' siege, Veii fell to the Romans. The battle of the Vadimonian Lake (309) finally extinguished Etruscan independence, though for nearly two centuries still the prosperity of the Etruscan cities far exceeded that of Rome itself. Henceforward Etruria is finally merged in the Roman state." David Bofinger (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not at all true that the history of the Etruscans seems to stop with them founding Rome. Rome is founded in 753 BC according to tradition. I have studied archaeology and the chronology in Etruscan texts is exactly what is given on the page. The 1911 Britannica is a very old and completely inadequate source. Romanization was a very long process. Lake Vadimone is a few kilometers north of Rome, it is where Orte is today, and it was on the border of the Sabine world. But Etruria extended as far as the Tuscan-Emilian Apennines for at least another 3-400 km to the north. Even after the granting of Roman citizenship (89 BC) it does not begin the peace, and the process ends only 27 BC. Tursclan (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there is nothing of this in the article, which doesn't cover the later period very well at all. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As soon as I have time I will. Tursclan (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Evaluation of Sources
When looking at the sources linked, I found that each of the links worked and the information was correctly cited with footnotes. The sources linked supported the article and brought me to other articles that described the topic in question in an effective way. TitianGecko9602 (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. Does that mean this should be listed as a featured/good article? — Llywelyn II   06:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of things that are entirely missing from the article
Upon scanning the outline and cursory CTRL+Fing, there appears to be absolutely nothing on Etruscan fashion, its preservation in the archeological and historical record, and its known influence on the Romans and others. Inter alia, they apparently had the first fad for ridiculously pointed shoes that broke out again with such force in the early Renaissance.

For people with JSTOR access (not a small number for people reading up on the Etruscans and writing with such good sourcing so far, right?) this article seems like it could serve as a very good overview for a general article like this, until there's enough content to deserve a split. — Llywelyn II   06:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)