Talk:Etruscan origins

Name
Well, don't you think we should move this to Hypotheses and Theories ... etc. or are we to suppose only one hypothesis and many theories?Dave (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * English ain't my native tung sad enough and if you see holes in my grammar you are probably right Dave. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Various issues
I'm not at all convinced that this was the time for a content fork. I don't understand why, if it should be a new article, it wasn't called Origins of the Etruscans or something like that. By copying and pasting from other articles, eg Armenian Origin of the Etruscans and Etruscans without a link to those articles in the edit summaries, the GFDL licence is broken and the edit histories lost. I've already spotted some minor copyvio and major nonsense. Notice the bit "a suggestion offered thirty years ago by the late Dr. Robert Ellis of London"? Well, that Ellis is very much alive, and the Ellis who made the suggestion made it in 1841, which would make this 1871 (and of course no article should say that something happened n years ago, it should give the date). We also have the wrong Isaac Taylor linked. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

More sources
The Etruscan timeline: a recent Anatolian connection F Brisighelli, C Capelli, V Álvarez-Iglesias, V … - European Journal of Human Genetics, 2008 - nature.com...

The Origins of the Ancient Etruscans By Kristin Adamson Published by University of Wisconsin -- La Crosse, 2002

Searching for Etruscan Identity Author(s): Helen Nagy 1 | Larissa Bonfante 2 | Jane K. Whitehead American Journal of Archaeology Volume: 112 | Issue: 3 July 2008 page(s): 413-417

Robert S. P. Beekes's on the oriental origin hypothesis Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

there may be an article in this, but the article as it stood was an unacceptable heap of fringecruft. We don't have to keep absolutely anything people see fit to dump on Wikipedia just because it has a footnote stuck to it. --dab (𒁳) 20:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Trust Is All You Need", with this edit, you have restored an article full of utter bollocks. You may want to present a rationale for that. You are supposed to take responsibility for the content you restore. "Dr. Bugge, a learne Norwegian, has developed a suggestion offered thirty years ago by the late Dr. Robert Ellis of London, that the Etruscan was an Armenian dialect"? Wth is this even supposed to mean? "Etruscan words have been successfully explained from the resources of the Armenian, the Albanian, and the Rhaeto-Romansch languages"? What? Oh, there's a "reference", let's see. "Etruscan researches - Page 351 by Isaac Taylor". "Isaac Taylor (1787 - 1865) was an English philosophical and historical writer, artist, and inventor."

is this some kind of joke? Are you trying to make fun of Wikipedia or something? --dab (𒁳) 12:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsigned text removed, personal attack. But I share the sentiment. If you are going to move material, you need to take responsibility for what is moved, and this bit simply made no sense whatsover. It linked to someone who is very much alive (Robert Ellis), it wasn't referenced and claimed that someone thirty years ago (from when? never use relative dating like this) had suggested something when the correct Ellis had in fact written that in 1841 and Bugge, whoever he is (and we don't call people 'learned' wrote in what, 1899?. And it was absolutely trivial. So far as Isaac Taylor goes, a quick check should have shown it was the wrong one and should have been Isaac Taylor (canon). It should have been cleaned up first. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay sorry, i just feel a bit cornered against you guys. Again sorry --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge
No, should be the other way around, Tyrsenian languages should be merged into this article. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Categorising hypotheses and title
Thanks Dab for the title change, I had that in mind once I'd fixed the licence problem but I'm glad you beat me to it.

Baldini, 1999, writes

"Serious theories on Etruscan origins fall basically into four groups (see Pallottino (1975.1984) and Cornell (1995); Van Der Meer (1992) and Beekes (1993) provide useful linguistic summaries). The first theory holds that the Etruscans were invaders from the north. The second position holds, with Dionysius (Ant. Rom. 1.26-30), that the Etruscans were indigenous in Italy, and that they belong to the oldest ethnic layer of the Italian peninsula. The third position is Pallottino's "formation process", which holds that the Etruscan ethnos should be viewed in terms of a long evolutionary process on Italian soil, in which Indo-European and Eastern components formed into a unity. The fourth theory is that of Eastern origins, which holds, with Herodotus (1.94), that the Etruscans were from the Aegean area. There is a fifth, quite novel position which asserts that the Etruscans were identical to the Trojans."

Although I'm not sure that there are 4/5. You could argue that indigenous versus invaders are the two basic categories.

I have '"The Etruscan timeline: a recent Anatolian connection" European Journal of Human Genetics (2009) 17, 693 – 696 which I'll add later today or tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Etruscan study that extracted ancient Y-chromosome DNA
I recall reading a study a few years back that claimed to have extracted Y-chromosome DNA from an ancient male Etruscan skeleton. The analysis revealed that his haplogroup was J2. Does anyone else here recall that study? If anyone can send me a link or provide a citation please let me know either here but preferably on my talk page. Thanks. Geog1 (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Geog1

India or indoiranian plateau
I would like to inform the English speaking readers of the contribution made in 1984 by prof. Bernardini Marzolla. He published a book under the title 'Etruscan, a found again laguage' in which he relates his personal research on some Etruscan linguistic monuments. Through a rigorous philologic method of analysis he succesfully proves these being strictly related to Sanscrit or even pure Sanscrit. Among the others the Volterra magpie. The Etruscan names Tyrhsenos is related to Turasena, Porsenna to Purasena, Aisar to Aiswar, clan to jilan etc. His results include the reconaissance of Persian, Arabic and Phenician words. This tallies with the authority of Herodotus' testimony too. The Lydians were they themselves, as far as we know, closely related to the Indoiranians. Of course Lemnian too was the same or a related language. Personally I consider prof. Marzolla's work definitive even if it has left the academic world indifferent. His findings are absolutely compelling. The recent theory that Etruscan is related to Rhetic on the other hand is founded on the analysis of a language which is in itself too little documented to provide anything comparably significative. Moreover most IE languages if enough archaic can be proved to be related.Zanzan1 (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But if it's left the academic world indifferent, it's interesting but doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is academic recognition a paradigm of scientific accuracy and validity? In Europe and in particular Italy, if you do not yet know, etruscologists are a big 'mafia' that protects itself actively against alien ideas. Professor Marzolla's 'fault' was being a classic philologist and not an etruscologist or glottologist. I supposed the aim of this site was to offer the general public access to high quality, objective, balanced and exhaustive information. Are you aware this is simply censorship? Btw I just read what is written in the Etruscan language section and find the method and results of Helmut Rix's as being comparatively by far looser and far fetched. That said, I shall refrain from posting on a site that is not open to free debate.Zanzan1 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Zanzan1 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Last Paragraph in Genetics Section
There needs to be a source for this paragraph but quite honestly I've never heard of a scenario articulated quite like this. For instance, the relevant linguistic debate can be found in the Journal of Indo-European studies specifically the Adrados article and the Woudhuizen article. Both of these guys are linguisitics so they are actually arguing for Etruscan as an IE Anatolian language but one that is NOT HITTITE. Instead the focus is on the Etruscan languages alleged similarities to Luwian, one of the major IE Anatolian languages, but again NOT HITTITE. It should also be noted that while Woudhuizen supports the view, he finds actual linguistic problems with Adrados' stance so this position really isn't that strong or so it seems.

The only other IE Anatolian connection that has been made is with the Lydians and this was of course Herodotus writing. This account is usually regarded as more of a garbled or false historical account then actual truth and was written retrospectively rather than when the supposed migration of Lydians actually occurred. The Lydians are also NOT HITTITE.

Another thing to consider here is that the removed paragraph was based more on linguistics rather than genetics so if we are going to write on the alleged IE Anatolian connections then there needs to be a separate linguistics section here addressing such. I can only contribute to this section the JIES articles but that's it. I know others somewhere have been trying to reevaluate Etruscan's linguistic status/grouping but I haven't been following it. It is certainly relevant to the issue of Etruscan origins but again there needs to be a separate section here for it rather a merging of the data with genetics.

There are also some linguistics, if I recall correctly, who have tried to connect Etruscan more with the non-IE ancient agglunative languages of the Caucasus/eastern Turkey. This is probably discussed in Mallory's 1989 and 1997 book.Geog1 (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Geog1
 * Here's the current situation. Etruscan remains mainly an inscriptional language. There are two other related inscriptional languages: Lemnian and Raetian. Less than half of Etruscan can be read. The connections with Lemnian and Raetian are based on fortuitously similar formulae. Lemnian is too scanty to prove anything whatever. The language is probably not as old as the Bronze Age. Raetian is in a very ancient pocket in the mountains. Raetians do not come from any historical Etruscans. The group remains unrelated to any other known language. Only chance random similarities to words in other languages can be shown. Etruscan is still not Indo-European. That means it is not any form of Anatolian and especially not Lydian. What the classical authors write of Etruscan origins of any sort is a bunch of lies, some speculative, some political. It would be very hard to find anything they said that was substantiated. That is because all the events of which they write occurred several hundred years before in a time when no one could read or write (but scribes) and nothing was written down. They just plain didn't know anything about the Etruscans so they made it up. Just about everything that is said about the Sea Peoples is pure fantasy. In conclusion: all these arguments that are dabbled at in this discussion are about as substantial as spider webs. There is NO way to reconcile all the proto-historic lies. That is because they are not historic, they are speculations. I don't know what the furor is here. What do YOU care? You argue as though your grandmother was an Etruscan immigrant from the old country. What's he to Hecuba or Hecuba to him? A professional approach is the best here and the only ones with that right now are the archaeological etruscologists. The rest are just strutting about full of sound and fury and no evidence in the slightest. You needn't go strutting about here in imitation of them. There is nothing worthy of imitation in those quarters. What's he to Hecuba or Hecuba to him?Dave (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"What's He to Hebuba or Hecuba to him"...please stop with repetitive annoying quotes, you sound like a robot. Furthermore your behavior is pretty uncivil and doesn't help. Besides you pretty much regurgitated what I said, but pretend like you know more which is also childish. If you want to start a dialog with someone on Wikipedia it is best you don't come to the discussion page over a year later and not contribute anything all that new or useful. This is totally inappropriate and demonstrates novice on your part. Besides you were the one who espoused this garbage: "Armenian origin theory" The Armenian Origin of the Etruscans defines a link between the Armenians and the Etruscans.

Just so you know, Etruscans are NOT ARMENIANS...but you write as if you're in some imaginary geo-racial-ethno-linguistic kindergarten fantasy land. Its too late for the voice of insanity to to act like the voice of reason now. Please stop! Geog1 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

All of them!
Etruscan people = Anatolian people + Native peoples of Italy Böri (talk) 14:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luwian_language#.22Luwian.22_place_names_in_Italy Böri (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just speculation at this point. Historians lean more to an indigenous Italian origin of the Etruscans today.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Calm down please
Now, now. This is a topic that generates a lot of emotion so some restraint is necessary. First of all, there is no pro-indigenous mafia. Italian archaeologists highly trained and very skilled have been working on Etruscan archaeology by the hundreds for decades. The gist of their considered opinion is that the Proto-Etruscans came out of the Bronze Age population. This is seconded by all the major Etruscologists abroad. The Anatolian view still lives but it is running far behind. There is just no substantial evidence either of an Etruscan ingress into Italy or an Etruscan residence and egress from Anatolia. Such a thing would have to have been a major event and would have to have disrupted the existing peoples of Italy, whoever they would have to be presumed to have been. For the supposed genetic "evidence", the proponents do not tell you that the genetic events are no no way tied to any time or place. They are in short massively uncontrolled and cannot be considered scientific evidence of anything beyond general assertion that domestic cattle seem to come partly from Anatolia (where they were domesticated in prehistoric times) and one person in an Etruscan tomb is generally related to another one there.

The emotionalism is entirely coming from the last linguistic hold-outs. The most professional of these work in the Netherlands. Now, I read Beekes. I wish I had not. It does not do such a good scholar any credit. He invents a population out a gap in the record in northern Anatolia. Then he explains how it was masked under another population. Then pulling linguistic rag-tags out of any words that sound like an Etruscan place name anywhere in the Mediterranean he asserts that he has indisputably found linguistic proof of an Etruscan migration. To find a place where they could possibly leave Anatolia (the coast was occupied by Greeks) he has to go back into the late Bronze Age. To explain the lack of evidence in Italy he has to presume that only small bands arrived over time in the Proto-Villanovan Period. His derivations are not supported by any contexts, they are purely linguistic. Using linguistic rules you can make any word into any word. Frankly I was reminded of the work of Von Daniken who spun an equally invalid fantasy out of rag-tags of unrelated "evidence" to prove beyond dispute (these fellows are always proving beyond dispute) that space men built the monuments in South America. The other linguists spin tales of the same ilk. Good entertainment, bad scholarship. If you are not going over to the world of entertainment, Mr. Beekes, let us hope you get hold of yourself soon. The archaeological evidence, which is massive and covers the whole Etruscan range, is all to the contrary.

I see this article even caught the famous Germanic studies editor, dab. Sorry, dab, I am not going to do the Iranians. I'd rather do this, but I don't have much time. I'm working on the cities first. Don't know when I will get to this but matters stand pretty much where I just said. There is no Etruscological mafia, fellows. Just calm down. Your points of view are not professional and the professionals are trying to tell you that. Speculation - fine, very entertaining. I'm entertained and amused. Maybe you can get something going like Von Daniken had, make a lot of money. We could all use that. I don't think you should try to use WP for that (my opinion).Dave (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Etruscan as an Anatolian language
Sources supporting it:

P. 141-149 http://books.google.es/books?id=resUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA149&dq=etruscans+lemnos+anatolia&hl=es&ei=9ulgTsWUH8qk-gb5v6kk&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

P. 169 http://books.google.es/books?id=afsDrP9K3pQC&pg=PA165&dq=etruscan+anatolian&hl=es&ei=2O5gTqDWMtCr-Qa4muwd&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=etruscan%20anatolian&f=false

--Bentaguayre (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The second source actually rejects a connection with Anatolian. But this is the wrong article, we have an article on the Etruscan language. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced DNA study
"Another study showed that the areas of historical Etruscan occupation share a relatively high concentration of y-haplogroup G with Anatolians, and the people of Caucasus, where the haplogroup reaches its greatest presence, particularly amongst the Ossetians and Georgians. This evidence is not specific to any period or calendar date, and might reflect contiguous populations or significant migration far back in the Stone Age."

This appears to be a politically motivated link. The study is not referenced and should be removed unless someone can quote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.243.219 (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * See the original at - it's been reworded since to change 'The studies' to 'Another study'. I'll tell the editor who wrote the original. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Etruscans and Turks and Tuscans are relatives
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-etruscans18jun18,1,159086.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=2&cset=true

I may quote:'' A study by geneticist Alberto Piazza of the University of Turin presented at the European Society of Human Genetics in Nice, France, linking the Etruscans to Turkey. The team compared DNA sequences with those from men in modern Turkey, northern Italy, the Greek island of Lemnos, the Italian islands of Sicily and Sardinia and the southern Balkans. They found that the genetic sequences of the Tuscan men varied significantly from those of men in surrounding regions in Italy, and were most closely related to those of men from Turkey.'' http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/18/science/sci-etruscans18

It is written that the nowadays Turks (modern Turkey) share the same genetic sequences with nowadays Tuscans because they have the same ancestors, the Etruscans. Of course this has do to with the past but effects nonetheless the present population of both countries. It is not something that has gone. Therefore, why not mention it in the article? --217.82.132.13 (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Turkish are mostly proxy nation - it will be correct to show connection with nations that at least are ancestors of turks and got mo admixture like present day armenians. Asatrian (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Tuscans and Turks are not relatives and aren't even very similar genetically, as showed in many DNA studies. That's a completely wrong interpretation based on an old study based on mitochondrial DNA, which is no longer considered very credible. --Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

A dual origin
Could not the Etruscans be of dual origin - one descended from Neolithic peoples and the other from a Near Eastern incursion. The haruspicy and liver-reading seem to be Babylonian (indeed the Etruscan word for a liver reader is 'maru' and the Babylonian 'baru). Exiled babylonians who invaded Etruria, possibly? Some of the name forms sound Akkadian or Sumerian. The pantheon may just be an agglutination from many sources. 203.217.59.229 (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * haruspicy and liver-reading arrived after the beginning of the orientalizing period, long after the ethnogenesis of the Etruscans, so they have nothing to do with the origins of the Etruscans.--Tursclan (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, their language was non Indo-Europeans but their genetics were apparently Indo-European So it’s a dubious matter that here they try to treat like a scientific CONFIRMATION of the native theory. Which is clearly not the case in a topic that involves archeology, anthropology and when they try to infer absolutely too many things based on genetic studies. The article seems to want to end the debate and make people agree with the supposed majority (Which is NOT a scientific confirmation, it’s the majority, it’s completely different from things like the Theory of Relativity, which are confirmed empirically and without leaving room to differing interpretations). The fact that they had to study first the Etruscan language to decipher the Lemnos stele is just a strong fact in favor of some influences, at least some small scale migration that affected the local language of the Rasena people (Etruscans). The counter theory about supposed “Etruscan colonization in that island” is just a convenient scape to whosever invented that theory, they believe in it in order to not ruin their logic (That emotionally supports the nativist theory). There’s a lot of problems, but the in the article you think you’re reading about mathematics, cause they want you to believe that this “consensus” is so close to reality as 2+2=4. This is about Human Sciences, calm down. 2804:1530:105:54FF:F9BF:D224:6B31:3B9C (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Etruscan origins. 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/20081218230512/http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf to http://vetinari.sitesled.com/euroaims.pdf

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) 07:54, 24 September 2017 (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. 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 from Italy 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, and is good to remember: it isn't written anywhere in the study. --Tursclan (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I've changhed the wording to make it closer to the original article. Take a look at my talk page as well. LambdofGod (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This the actual description from the article.

Fig. S29. Allele frequencies for alleles of functional importance. Imputed genotypes for alleles previously shown to be of functional importance (and under selection), denoted by putative function, associated gene, variant ID, and derived allele, are shown for study individuals from central Italy, ordered by time on the x-axis. For reference, the population allele frequency for three present-day populations in the 1000 Genomes Project (British/GBR, Finnish/FIN, Spanish/IBS) are designated by the first letter of the population name. Sample points for study individuals are colored by their time period. For each variant, a LOESS (locally weighted smoothing line) is plotted all points excluding the three modern populations.

Pay attention to the last part. They used an algorithm to show graphically the change over time of frequencies of certain SNPs.

I'm awaiting for your response. LambdofGod (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion is now at the NOR noticeboard where I see you repeated the quote I added and two editors besides me said your edits weren't appropriate, so you now have 4 editors saying they don't belong. Doug Weller  talk 21:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Demand for Policy Compliance
Wikipedia policies clearly state that opinions may not be stated as facts, and that contributions should not be deleted by other editors or admins, but rather, should be improved. This editor made such improvements and clarifications, on a basis of fact, not opinion, to correct what was obviously false claims and opinions stated as fact. Etruscans are not "autochthonous". This needs to be stated clearly. The article suggests that there is no evidence that Etruscans came from Lydia. However, the same article claims that Etruscans share a common genetic ancestry with Anatolians. Yet the article fails to mention that Lydians are Anatolians. Most casual readers would not notice the fact. It's as if the article wishes to mislead the reader to believe that Etruscans came from nowhere, but materialized from the dirt beneath their feet, and they certainly did not come from Lydia, even though the Lydians and the Etruscans came from the same place, from northern Europe, which ALL the evidence shows, and are directly related, and it is absurd to make it seems as if it were just some strange coincidence that the Etruscans said they came from Lydia, then lo and behold, several thousands years later, all genetic evidence implies that Etruscans are Lydians, that Lydians are their closest and only known genetic relatives, other than the Etruscans' later descendants, that Etruscans maintained trading ties with the Lydians from very early on, and that it is therefore not purely a politically motivated invention to claim that Etruscans came from Lydia, as this article falsely claims. In fact, many Etrucans surely did come from Lydia, and those who didn't came from the same place as the Lydians, and the same peopless as the Lydians. The argument that Etruscans are "indigenous" is absurd, and is a very real politically motivated invention, designed to minimize the reality that all humans came from a common origin, and seized whatever territory they have, everywhere they went, with the exception of those who remained in the place of origin, Africa/Australia.

Therefore, there is a great deal of misinformation, disinformation, distortion, misguided opinion masqueraded as fact, baseless claims presented as irrefutable fact, and other violations of Wikipedia's policies. Whenever anyone tries to correct this fact, your admins immediately remove all of their work. They don't fix what few minor errors there may have been. They delete it completely, even though it is factual, and what is replaced was an actual falsehood. However, if anyone then tries to delete the falsehoods, having not been allowed to correct the falsehoods, they are immediately replaced and the person who removed the lies is accused of edit warring. You can't have it both ways. Either I can remove the whole section, on the actual basis that it is false and absurd, and I have already proved it, or else you can't remove any of my contributions, and if you have an issue with them, you must add to them or only correct the errors, without removing the rest. In reality, according to your policies, I may do both. I may remove false sections, and you cannot remove accurate contributions I make. But you ignore your own policies, in order to preserve a lie and mislead readers.

So, since you won't allow me to fix the errors in this article, '''you will fix all of them yourselves, I will demand you fix them, and you have no choice but to do so. I already fixed them, and you un-fixed the fixes, so now I will simply repeatedly demand that you make the corrections, every single day they persist, until you comply with your own policies and remove the false claims from this article.'''

I expect those who reverted the corrections to make the corrections themselves, immediately. The admins of this page initiated an edit war by refusing to do so, then accused others of doing what they themselves had done, and broke the very policies they pretended to be enforcing.184.155.110.238 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not make assumotions of bad faith. See WP:AGF. And here on Wikipedia, policies require civility. Please see WP:CIVIL. Also, the Etruscans' ancestry from Anatolia dates to the Neolithic (when Stone Age Anatolian farmers migrated to Europe and mixed with local European hunter-gatherers) and is an ancient component shared with virtually all other Europeans (to varying degrees). It is not unique to Etruscans. It (as far as we know) probably did not come from the Lydians (a much later historical Anatolian group) specifically (which would have involved a much later migration). In other words, they probably did not have a recent Anatolian origin. The Etruscans were especially similar genetically to other contemporary northern and central Italian groups, including those that spoke Indo-European languages (such as the Latins), though their language may have existed in Italy before the arrival of Indo-European ones. And, like the Latins and others, they had other ancestry components besides the Anatolian one. The Etruscans would have been autocthonous/indigenous in the same way that other local ethnic groups were, in that they, as we know them, had formed/diverged/evolved as an ethnic group in that region; Etruscan culture and language, as far as we know, were not imported from outside. This does not mean that its ancient roots (just like those of all other cultures in the area) did not derive/descend/evolve from somewhere else (and ultimately from Africa, as all humans originally do). Skllagyook (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It is not an assumption. It is a statement of fact. It is uncivil to remove contributions which were factual and highly pertinent to the topic. Correct the article immediately. I am not going to do it for you, because you violated your own policies to remove my work, then threatened me with false accusations of an edit war which was initiated by the people who made the accusation. That was not civil. You cannot be uncivil to people while violating your more important policies on factualism, vandalism and respecting contributions then improving on them rather than destroying them and deterring future contributions by such behavior. That was action in bad faith. That was a violation of your policies.

The Lydians did not say when the Etruscans came from Lydia. However, the proponents of the theory which half of the article on where the Etruscans came from does say when the Etruscans came to Etruria, and it makes the false claim as if it were a statement of fact, or at least as if it were a statement of a reasonable scientific theory with some basis in fact, when that is clearly not the case. Proponents of this "theory" claim the Etruscans' ancestors never came to Etruria. They claim they came from nowhere and materialized out of the dirt. Why is this being stated as if it had any remote possibility of explaining the Etruscans origins.

The Etruscans came from the same place that all Greeks and Italians came from, with the exception of a very few ancestors from Asia and Africa (who did not spring up out of the ground either). They came from northern Europe, toward the end of the last ice age, as abundant food supplies and other resources became available along the Mediterranean coast. They seized the territory and slayed the current inhabitants at that time. That is what happened. That is what all the evidence indicates. Express that fact in the article, and label the autocthonous "theory" (which is not a theory in the modern sense of the world at all )as what it is, a creation myth, which has zero basis in scientific fact, which was most likely designed to dissuade other peoples from doing to the Etruscans what the Etruscans' ancestors had done to whoever was there before the Etruscans were there, or what the Dorians and Ionians did to the Pelasgians, while also attempting to explain something for which the people from that time had no explanation for, i.e. the origin of mankind in general, but which did so in a way that was not a corruption of fact, like the flood and the Lydian ancestry of Etruscrans, but which was mostly a complete fabrication, unless one would attribute the myth to the primordial tidal pools where the first uni-cellular lifeforms existed, but even then, it would be quite a stretch to claim that "men" grew the soil. This is a classic case of might and intellect made right, then intellect and might pretended that what was was right, because what was had always been, and therefore should never be un-done.

Whether it is a mere coincidence or not that the ancients claimed the Etruscans came from Lydia, and then modern DNA studies indicate that Lydians and Etruscans are the same period should be left up to the reader to decide. You cannot delete the statement of the fact because you think that anyone who reads the facts might infer the logical conclusion, on the grounds that the person who presented both facts in the same paragraph was synthesizing the research. That is a violation of your policies in itself. You are required to let the facts be presented. You cannot remove them. I did not say that, because A, therefore B. You said that to yourself, then acted as if I had said it. I said A. Then I said B. Both are true. Just because they seem related does not mean that both can be deleted. They probably seem related to you because they probably are related. They would probably seem related to any reasonable person, but that does not mean you can delete it just because you infer the relation. Whether the relation exists is an excellent thesis for a paper, but I didn't propose the paper. I didn't claim the inference. I simply stated the fact that many in the ancient world claimed what the modern science also happens to say.

Whether the Lydians came after earlier people from Anatolia is a moot point. The ancients didn't say the current peoples in Lydia at their time were the peoples who colonized Etruria. They said the peoples in Etruria came from Lydia. Lydia is in Anatolia. The peoples who inhabited both places have common genetic ancestors.

All of this is beside the point. My point is A. your policy forbid you from deleting all of my contributions because you disagree with a small portion of my contributions, so restore most of my contributions, and fix the rest. Your policies forbid you from stating opinions as if they were fact, and myths as if they were theories based in fact and evidence. So fix the article.

Beyond that, the fact is, ALL the evidence states that Lydians and Etruscans come from the same ancestors, and migrated from the same geographic area. So say that in the article, and mention the reality that when the ancients said the Etruscans came from Lydia, Lydia was in the region called Anatolia, and when geneticists claim that the Etruscans' DNA MOST CLOSELY resembles the Anatolians, they are referring to the Lydians of that time as well, who were within Anatolia not long after the time period being referenced by the ancients (not that long after the genetic divergence occurred), so the ONLY genetic evidence we have at least partly agrees with the ancient claim that Etruscans came from Lydia, and therefore, the claim in the article that there is no evidence that Etruscans came from Lydia is false (as where NONE of the evidence we have in any way agrees with the "theory" that Etruscans grew up out of the mud of Etruria, even though the latter theory is presented in this article as if it were the more likely of the two). This claim of a Lydian origin may or may not date from a neolithic migration wave, just as many "native" (native meaning neolithic-era migrant colonists from Asia) American myths date from the neolithic period, yet they were nonetheless preserved by word of mouth from those ancient times, much as the story of the Great Flood appears to date back to the time when the coastlines of the first cities in Mesopotamia became inundated with rising sea levels, after the last glacial maximum. This story also dates from neo-lithic periods, yet it is still with us today, and is not a mere myth, but is supported by ALL scientific evidence we have. What is not factual about it does not disprove the overall story though, or at least not its likely slightly altered meaning, nor does it make the ancient Lydian tradition any less valid in understanding where the first cities came from. But rather, what is not factual about it is only a slight misunderstanding misinterpretation, derived from gradual alterations of the story over time, as it was passed down by word of mouth. There was a great flood. It took place over thousands of years though. However, even though it took place over a very long period of time, that does not change that fact that it visibly unfolded on a daily basis. The sea moved a meter inland every day, for thousands of years. So even if one only observed it for any 1 month period, it would appear to be an ongoing flood. Thus the myth was what actually happened, even if you did not properly understand what was meant by it. That flood happened at the same time when the Asiatic migrant's landbridge to the Americas became submerged, and also the same time when the Lydians DNA diverged from the Etruscans, starting around 12,000 years ago, in the neolithic era. It is not only possible that stories of these events were passed down from that far back, but a near-certainty. Human language is believed by most modern scholars to be far older than 12,000 years old, probably more than 10 times that old according to most linguists seeking to explain the diversity of languages in the world. So it makes perfect sense that there would be an oral tradition dating from the neolithic of such a connection between Lydia and Etruria, which is then fully supported by ALL the genetic evidence we have. The genetic studies did not say that Etruscans have a close genetic ancestry with all Europeans. They specifically singled out Anatolians. "...genetic links between Tuscany and western Anatolia date back to at least 5,000 years ago during the Neolithic and the 'most likely separation time between Tuscany and Western Anatolia falls around 7,600 years ago'." Those ancients who singled out Lydia as the place of origin are not at all likely to have differentiated between Anatolians and Lydians as you have. They would have been seen as analogous to them, as a common place of origin. But just as the flood was not a flood from rain, but from meltwater, they would have also corrupted the place of origin and the father race, i.e. the neolithic north central Europeans, into the sister race and the first place of relocation, i.e. Lydia and the Lydians, also known as Anatolia and the Anatolians. Granted, this is not all 100% published research. However, what I put in the article was. I did not synthesize it. I simply avoided misleading the reader by making it known that Lydia is in Anatolia, and so, yes, there is evidence to support the Lydian origin, if Lydians are seen as a migrant people who came from farther north, before diverging in two directions, some into Etruria, the rest into Lydia, which is precisely what the genetic evidence shows. That is a fact. You must correct the article to read in such a way that it does not deliberately conceal that fact, and so that it does not deliberately lie to the reader by saying there is no evidence to support the connection between Lydia and Etruria, when the very same article says that there is a connection, yet says it in a way that makes it nearly impossible for the lay reader to see that connection, then tells the lay reader no connection exist, when in fact it does.184.155.110.238 (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No modern (e.g. scientific) theory claims that the Etruscans emerged "out of the dirt", nor is that claimed here. The "Autochthonous origin" section is a summary of the history of the idea of autochthonous origin. The "Genetics" section (summarizing modern genetic evidence) makes clear what I outlined above: the Anatolian ancestors of Etruscans (like those of most other Europeans) split from other Anatolians/left Anatolia around 7,000-5,000 ago, and Etruscans were genetically most similar to other contemporary Italian groups in the region (even having acquired come steppe admixture despite speaking a non-IE language). It does not imply anywhere that Etruscans emerged from the dirt or did not have ancestors originating from elsewhere/outside Italy. Your edits have been reverted by several editors, not only me. The addition I reverted was a clear case of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Here on Wikipedia, we only edit based on what is explicit in reliable sources (WP:RS). Adding any material/statements not explicitly made in a reliable source is against Wikipedia policies, as is adding any synthesis of one's own from two or more sources not explicitly stated in either. On this, please familiarize yourself with WP:NOR, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:NPOV, as well as https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Skllagyook (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

i am familiar with the policies. That is how I know you are violating them.

Why don't you quote me where I synthesized the statements, because that did not happen? Stating that Lydia is located in Anatolia is not exactly controversial. All I did was make it clear that Lydia and Anatolia can be referred to interchangeably, and would have been by the ancients when discussing where their ancestors came from. I believe my exact words were "However, genetic studies do indicate a common ancestor and a common geographic origin of both the Etruscans and the Lydians." That is not a material statement, nor a synthesis. That was exactly what the source states, paraphrased very closely. You know that's what it says. The only synthesis that took place was in your own head, and it only took place there because it is a reasonable and likely conclusion, but I didn't say that, nor did I infer it. The facts infer it, when they are not specifically hidden by using the words Anatolia in one paragraph, then Lydia in another, as if they were not both the same place referred to by both the genetic sources and the ancient story of the Etruscan origin.

Fix the article, or else restore my contributions and fix them. Do not claim there is no link between the Etruscans and the Lydians, when in fact there is. Do not call their "grew from the soil" myth a "theory", or suggest that the Etruscans are indigenous and did not migrate from elsewhere, when in fact they are not indigenous, and they did migrate, from Africa if you go back far enough. 184.155.110.238 (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of the Autochthonous origins section. Both the "Autochonous origins" and "Allochtonous origins" sections are meant to present the histories of both ideas (there are claims for each idea going back centuries, and this history is notable to the topic). Neither (of those sections) is a statement/summary of modern scholarly opinion on the origins of the Etruscans. Thus there is no need to add an amendment or addition to either of those sections commenting on its truth or "half truth" (which is your own commentary and thus WP:OR. And the Chris Stringer source you used there, re the African origin of H. sapiens, never mentions Etruscans, ancient Italy, or Anatolians - thus also would be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH).


 * For scientific research and recent opinion, there are the archaeological and genetics sections of the article (the former, of course, being titled "Archaeological evidence and modern etruscology"). The genetics section makes clear that the Etruscans (like other Europeans) had some ancient roots/common ancestry in Anatolia and with Anatolians, and (also like other Europeans) from other places - including from West European hunter-gatherers and herders from the steppe (all groups with roots outside Etruria/Italy), but they are not unique in this, as they derive from the same ancient Anatolian migration as other Europeans. Nowhere (in any section detailing modern scholarly opinion) is it implied that they any of these groups generated out of nowhere in Italy with no external roots (but instead the reverse, that they descended from populations originally from outside Italy). The archaeology section also makes clear that the "ethnogenesis" of the Etruscans as a culture occurred in Italy (and that they came from the local Villanovans), but that they (like other local peoples, including their common Villanovan ancestors) shared a distant connection with Anatolia (and, like other Mediterranean peoples, likely had contacts with the East, including Asia Minor/Anatolia, in later periods after they had already formed as a culture).


 * On another point, indeed every human/Homo sapiens group comes from Africa if you go back far enough (and in that sense, are not indigenos to anywhere else), but there seems no need to make a point of explaining that in this article (let alone in the section for describing the history of the autochthony idea). That Homo sapiens came from Africa is a widely understood mainsteam fact (and there are many articles here concerning it, and mentioning it where relevant, when the relevant sources mention it), but in an article about a particular ancient historical European culture, it is, at the very least, of questionable relevance (just as it would not seem necessary to add an explanation of that fact to every article about the origin/history any ancient people that lived outside of Africa. (And unless a reliable source explicitly connects the origin of Etruscans specifically to the origin of modern humans/Homo sapiens in Africa, adding that would be WP:OR.) As mentioned, the rest (that Etruscans were distinct but shared a common Neolithic ancestor with Anatolians) is already covered in the relevant (archaeology and genetics) sections, and in the "Allochthonous origins" section, it is already mentioned that Lydia is in Asia Minor (i.e. Anatolia). Skllagyook (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I will respond to your reply one paragraph at a time. Please give me 24 hours before you reply, to give me time to respond to each paragraph. I'm baking bread at the moment, and must attend to other matters as well. It may be clear to the author that these are not statements of fact about the origins of the Etruscans, but it is not clear to the reader. The article is not an article about the creation mythology of Etruscans, but about actual Etruscan origins. I do not see much in the article which actually states the scientific facts on the Etruscans origins, which are that they likely migrated from Northern Europe in the late neo-lithic, as the ice age was ending, just at the Greeks did when they expelled the Pelasgians, and that they are indeed genetically related to the Lydians, the Lydians of ancient times, and were likely the same peoples, before the groups diverged 5,000 to 7,000 years ago. If it is a creation myth about their origins, you should say so explicitly, and then clearly states that the actual evidence indicates that did not happen, and here is what actually happened. I am not synthesizing anything in terms of what I contributed to the article. It does seem highly likely to me that their common ancestry with Lydians is where the Lydian origin myth came from, but that's not what I said. It seems as if you are deliberately trying to prevent the reader from realizing that the Lydian origin may possibly have some connection to the Lydian-Etruscans common ancestry. Why would you do that? Why use Lydian when speaking about the myth, then Anatolian when speaking about the genetics, when the fact is they are the same place, for these purposes. Genetic testing could not possible discriminate between Lydian genetic relations and Anatolian genetic relations. The results would be essentially the same, since one is the subgroup of the other, not a distinctive group, nor was it a distinctive group 5,000 to 7,000 years ago, nor when the myth began. Nor could those who told the myth have differentiated Anatolia from Lydia in their story of the origins of the Etruscans. The two would have been interchangeable. So it seems important to clearly state that when some historians claim there is no basis in science for the Lydian origin story, that is simply not true. There is a genetic relationship, not between Etruscans and "all Europeans", as you strangely claimed, in contrast with the source, but specifically between the Etruscans and the Anatolians, which includes the Lydians, rather than being a distinct and separate region from Lydia, and therefore, there is evidence of that. The article need not declare that the genetic study gives evidence of a Lydian origin. That is a leap from a genetic common ancestry, and that would indeed be synthesis. However, the article should not conceal the fact that the genetic ancestry is not merely Anatolian, but that Lydia is a region in Anatolia as well, and the read may draw their conclusions. Those are fact. You cannot call that synthesis, because I didn't synthesize it. I simply stated an extremely pertinent geographical and sociological fact, which changes the meaning of the evidence whether it is said aloud, or goes unspoken. It rightly ought to be said. Tell the whole truth, not a half truth, because context matters.

Besides that, if you want to have an article on Etruscan creation myths, that's fine. If you want to have a section on Etruscan creation myths, that's fine to. But this is an article on actual, factual Etruscan origins. The myths are pertinent, but they need to be properly introduced and described as myths, and it needs to be stated plainly whenever thee myths is controverted by fact, as well as when the myth is even partly supported by fact, as it is with the common ancestry with the Lydians/Anatolians. It rightly ought to be explained, however, that no one in Italy is indigenous, except in the sense that their culture developed there after they settled the land from elsewhere. This is what the evidence shows. Peoples migrated from Africa/Australia, established the first civilization throughout Mesopotamia, but sometime before that, in the neo-lithic, during the ice age, they wandered into Europe, and then came back toward the Mediterranean when the ice began to melt and fruits and game became plentiful along the warmer coasts of Italy and Greece. Those are the Etruscans actual origins, but no one would know that from reading this article.

The fact is, there is a certain standard of describing creation myths on Wikipedia. If you look at the article on Noah, or Genesis, for example, the authors go to great lengths to tell the reader that these events did not happen, whenever there is any modern scientific evidence that indicates they did not. Then on certain pagan deities whom no one alive today worships, they sometimes write the article as if the gods of Babylon were really walking among us to this day, describing it not as a myth, not as belief, but as actually history. That's what's wrong here. You can say that is what the Etruscans believed. But again, this article is about their true origins, and if they didn't "spring up from the soil", which they didn't, and they weren't indigenous, which they weren't the article should say so, and should say why and how we know that, and ideally, it might also explain how those myths came to be, and whether there is any truth in them which is supported by modern science, as there is with the Great Flood, and as there is with the Lydian origin of the Etruscans, although not exactly as the myth tells it, in either of those two cases, which is to be expected. Again, it is a matter of telling the whole story, not misleading the reader, not concealing facts just because you think those facts might be synthesized in the mind of the reader. That's not what WP:Synth is about. It's about not synthesizing facts FOR the reader IN the article, as opposed to hiding facts because you thing the facts might be synthesized BY the reader OUTSIDE of the article, which is something always happens when any reader reads any encyclopedia, and is often the inspiration for new research OUTSIDE of the encyclopedia BY the reader, which is a good thing, not a thing to be avoided, especially not when it is necessary to conceal pertinent contextual facts in order to avoid the reader drawing conclusions from those facts which were not specifically stated by the research. If you feel it necessary, you can specifically state that the research does not say that the common ancestry implies support for a potential Lydian origin, but if you do so, you would also have to state that is does not not rule it out either, and it does say that Etruscans and Lydians have a common ancestry, and came from the same place, before they diverged and some went to Italy, while some went to Lydia, which is exactly what the source says.184.155.110.238 (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Please try to make your responses a bit shorter (which I will as well). See WP:WALLOFTEXT).


 * A quick respose:
 * You wrote: "Why use Lydian when speaking about the myth, then Anatolian when speaking about the genetics...?"


 * The reason would be that the myth speaks about Lydia, while the genetic evidence finds evidence of a distant connenction with Anatolians, and says nothing about Lydia in particular. Also, in the section about the myth) mentioning Lydia, it is mentioned that Lydia is in Asia Minor (i.e. Anatolia), but if you think it beneficial to point out in that section that Asia Minor is Anatolia (to make it more consistent with other sections of the article, that is not unreasonable (I will make that change).


 * I do not know what you mean when you say the studies find a connection between Etruscans and Anatolians that is unique and not found in Europeans in general. I do not believe that to be the case (can you cite the source that states that?). The studies find evidence that the Etruscans shared the EEF component with other Europeans (it being highest generally in southern Europeans) that came to Europe from Anatolia in the Neolithic (the split between Etruscans and Anatolians was dated to around that period, by around 5,600 BC, i.e. around the Neolithic). It is not unique to Etruscans, who, as the genetics section explains, were genetically very similar to Latins (having roughly the same porportions of the same components) with little difference, despite their differing languages. (The one study that claimed a special recent connection between Etruscans and Anatolia was heavily criticized, as the genetics section also mentions.) In Italy, the Etruscans descended/evolved from the local Villanovan cultures, who were also ancestral to Italic peoples such as the Latins and Faliscans, and who themselves had roots in both southern and central Europe.


 * As the article states regarding Etruscans and Latins:
 * "The Etruscan individuals and contemporary Latins were distinguished from preceding populations of Italy by the presence of ca. 30-40% steppe ancestry.[68] Their DNA was a mixture of two-thirds Copper Age ancestry (EEF + WHG; Etruscans ~66–72%, Latins ~62–75%) and one-third Steppe-related ancestry (Etruscans ~27–33%, Latins ~24–37%) (with the EEF component mainly deriving from Neolithic-era migrants to Europe from Anatolia and the WHG being local Western European hunter-gatherers..."


 * Your suggestion that the sections dealing with "myth"/legend/historical claims be marked as such could indeed be helpful (though it seemed to me perhaps not necessary, there seems no problem with the idea). The sections could be relabelled for instance as "Historical claims of autochthonous origins" and "Historical claims of allochthonous (indigenius) origin" to make clear that these are historical claims (or historical theories) and that neither are a summary or survey of modern schollarly opinion. Skllagyook (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hypotheses should give room to other hypotheses
Etruscan people might have immigrated from Lydia, back when Hittite Empire was still strong and Mycenaean Greeks also known as the Achaeans were stronghold in the western Anatolia. Even the origin story of Rome was linked to Greeks at first, that the originally the first king of Rome was Greek warrior king who along with his army got hired by the Etruscans to protect their sheeps for they were shepherds in the region where Rome was founded. But the Romans, later on shed the Greek association out of mere pride for the Romans had outgrown the Greeks by mythicising the origin story giving two founders stranded as orphans nursed by wolves with one killing another instead of the story of a powerful Greek warrior king coming to the Etruscans for becoming their mercenary for hire to protect their sheeps. See the point here, it is easy to mess with origin hypotheses but from a historical perspective the truth is what matters.

Lydia is not some ordinary place, it is where the first gold and silver coin was introduced along with the first retail stores.


 * All of this comment is based on a complete lack of knowledge of studies on the origins of the Etruscans and everything else. The story of the origin of the Etruscans from Lydia has not been considered true for many years. Enough with the pseudoscience. You removed an entire paragraph with many sources, that's vandalism. Next time you will be reported to the administrators. --Tursclan (talk) 19:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, with the point that the article is biased and now I raise the point of intolerance. The editor above could not be more mistaken. Pseudoscience is what YOU are doing, you can not disqualify a theory this way without empirical confirmation, without DIRECT empirical prove. Interpretations based on empirical data are not science, are theories that need to be comproved directly. The question about Lydian origin is not pseudoscience, it’s a minority view, but you’re mistaking academic majorities for empirically tested interpretations. There are some data supporting the other way, so you’re clearly not trained in sciences or engineering, Tursclan. I don’t agree with the Lydian origin, but i think it’s valid until science proves it wrong empirically without interpreting too much over empirical data. The article properly mentions it with the other two major theories. I personally believe in the third one, some Pelasgian cultural influence based on Lemnian stele, the non Indo-European origin of the Etruscan language, with matches the non Indo-European language of the Pelasgians plus they had to study more about Etruscan language to at lest decipher the Lemnian stele, the languages are absolutely similar, there are many important literary ancient sources supporting this theory, most of the Greeks that wrote about it agreed with it, or cited it as a hypothesis, et cetera. But, I don’t think I’m 100% right and everyone else should be censored because i am the ultimate enlightened individual, it’s about linguistic, scientific, literary leads, but it’s not a direct confirmation, we’re dealing with archeology, linguistics... we can not make too much interpretations and still think this is a valid scientifically as the laws of physics. The above editor threatening this guy over his free exercise of opinion and his attempt to diversify the tone in this biased article is shameful and not so polite. Enough with people trying to talk in the name of scienc without the due scientific rigor 2804:1530:105:54FF:F9BF:D224:6B31:3B9C (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Very biased article
The writer of this article for whatever reason seems to really want to have a huge bias for the indigenous theory. It goes on and on about how ancient greek sources are not to be trusted(coincidentally only the ones that disagree with the indeginius theory) and then closes with much later roman greek source that supports his theory which for some reason is very trustworthy. Even funnier is the fact that the source explaines his reasoning the Etruscans are indigenous and its completely flawed. Different laws and religion is not an indication of origins.

The idea that since Etruria was settled by neolithic farmers up until the roman assimilation the people living there were mostly the same is absurd. The idea that for some reason some Etruscans migrated to lemnos of all places also seems very poorly reasoned. I think there is a window for an Anatolian migration from 2000bc to 1400bc. That could explain the lemnian connection and the connection between etruscan and the pre greek substrate.

Anyways the article is very biased and it shouldnt be. The indigenous hypothesis should be placed on a pedestal when its clearly lacking while all other hypothesis are attacked. 37.6.79.6 (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has studied archaeology and ancient history knows that the indigenous theory of the origin of the Etruscans enjoys the greatest consensus among scholars. Comments like yours well represent a viewpoint still very much entrenched in pseudo-science and pseudo-archaeology, which should find no place in any encyclopedia worthy of respect. Chiorbone da Frittole (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The German Wikipedia article de:Etrusker is far more balanced and points out that a synthesis of the autochthony and migration hypotheses is more plausible than either. Languages can be spread through a small migrating population, a thin layer exerting élite dominance but leaving little genetic input (the classic example mentioned by Mallory in In Search of the Indo-Europeans is Gaelic in Scotland), so genetic research is fairly meaningless for this question. Lemnian is particularly difficult to explain under the "pure" version of the autochthony hypothesis, while Rhaetian is obvious considering the historically known facts. The Proto-Villanovan culture was most plausibly Italic-speaking; the Etruscan language can easily explained as intrusive after 1000 BC, overlaying an Italic substratum. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The article in English is all based on authoritative and up-to-date sources. The German Wikipedia article is, instead, quite outdated and not very balanced. Migration from outside and the concept of domination of elites are considered by specialists of Etruscan civilization to be outdated and unproven theories. It is a fact that specialists in Etruscan civilization do not believe either the theory of migration from outside or the concept of domination of elites. Languages are not viruses, as some Indo-European linguists, still today influenced by a nineteenth-century view of languages and ethnicities, seem to believe. The Lemnos Stele was recently exhibited in Italy, there was a conference where it was reiterated once again that nothing has been found in Lemnos that would suggest a migration from Lemnos to Italy or the Alps. Indo-European linguists do not read, unfortunately, archaeological texts, or even the texts of those linguists who are not aligned with certain very dated Indo-Europeanism. The idea that the Proto-Villanovan culture was most plausibly Italic-speaking is one of those ideas that was fine in the 1800s. There are dozens and dozens of texts over the past 70 years that discredit the idea that late Bronze Age material cultures corresponded to one language only. Unfortunately, the same mistakes of the past are still being repeated today. While only inscriptions exist in Lemnos (a very very small number compared to the Etruscan in Italy, attested before than Lemnian, and Rhaetian in Italy and Austria), there is neither in Lemnos a material culture nor the prerequisites for the definition of an ethnicity attributable to these inscriptions, archaeologists have already been arguing for years that the Raeti are archaeologically in continuity with what has been attested in those territories since the end of the Bronze Age, and that the Raeti are not descended from the Etruscans, and certainly not descended from Etruscans who took refuge in the Alps during the Gallic invasions of the 4th century BC because the Raeti are attested in the Alps from much earlier. At present that "the Etruscan language can easily explained as intrusive after 1000 BC, overlaying an Italic substratum" is just a user's opinion, and Wikipedia is not a forum, I remind you, because this dating was not even supported by Helmut Rix who spoke in one of his last writings of the last quarter of the 2nd millennium BC, taking no position on whether it was an intrusive or native language, because the last quarter of 2nd millennium BC. was, according to Rix, the date of the hypothetical Proto-Tyrsenian, not the arrival of an intrusive language. In the last 15 years, other linguistic texts have been published which hypothesize an even more remote date for the Proto-Tyrsenian period. Even if we admit that the language spoken at Lemnos might have been the ancestor of Etruscan and Rhaetian, this does not prove that the Etruscans were eastern migrants and that Herodotus was right. It remains a fact that the major consensus among specialist of the Etruscan civilisations is that the Etruscans were an autochthonous population, and Wikipedia should give space primarily to that, not to personal researches, outdated theses, or pseudoscientific theses, which by the way are already largely covered. --Tursclan (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Mistaken handling of sources
"A 2021 study by the Max Planck Institute, the Universities of Tübingen, Florence, and Harvard, published in the journal Science Advances, analyzed the Y-chromosome, mitochondrial DNA, and autosomal DNA of 82 ancient samples from Etruria (Tuscany and Latium) and southern Italy (Basilicata) spanning from 800 BC to 1000 AD, including 48 Iron Age individuals." < As in many population genetics articles, this absurdly inflated source citation does not belong in the text! That's what the references are for! On the other hand, the abbreviated author citation belongs here!HJJHolm (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Your amended text improves the paragraph. Kanjuzi (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)