Talk:Etruscan civilization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article is on a subject of -importance within classical antiquity.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Etruscan civilization article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
plan of the stonehenge site
Archaeology Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Founding

Please look at the map. Rome was founded by the "Ramnes, Luceres, and Tites". Ramnes = Romans. Luceres = Ligurians (nearby). And Tites seems to be cognate with Celto-Germanic *Tuatha, *Theod, *Diot meaning tribes, cf. Deut-schland, Pennsylvania DUT-CH. CURIAE is cognate with GREEK *KURIOUS = Lord. And could *LAUTNI = Freedman in Etruscan be the root of LATIN? That is, could the Latins who overthrew Etruscan overlordship have been FREEDMEN who rebelled against their former masters? That *Etera = (foreign) bondsmen seems strange... doesn't it resemble ETRUscan?

Also, could *LUCAIR meaning ruler really come from *RUCAIR, cognate with IE *Rex? L <-> R in many tongues. Furthermore, could LICTOR come from Etruscan LUCAIR? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.235.44.73 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 25 December 2006.

I will just give a brief answer to this one. Basically the connections you make here are unsubstantiated and have no evidence; in short, they are a fantasy, like the many Atlantis fantasies. Anyone can fantasize on anything. You can really get quite wrapped up in your fantasies and think you have discovered new worlds and vistas. I did it when I was young and probably so did most others. To be honest with you, that is why you go to graduate school and train with professionals. They teach (or should teach) you not to do that, not that they are trying to quell original research or extinguish inspiration, but if any assertions have any hope of being true, they need evidence of some sort. The study of ancient history is a kind of myth-making process itself. The most remarkable characters run around its stage. That is the "historicity problem." Historicity is a constant battle with the rampant imagination in which we seem to delight.Dave 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aryan theories?

Glengordon01, you, as "an amateur in the field of comparative linguistics" you should not spread disinformation. Where are the pure-blood "aryan" theories? The first "Etruscans" or Tirsenoy of the coasts, that later occupied Vetulonia, Vulci etc. were Sardinian islanders of the XII-IX, and this is archaeologically proved. (Later Festus wrote: Reges soliti sunt esse Etruscorum qui Sardi appellantur.) About Biogenetics, read Dr. Tozzi's lines. About the Sardinian-Etruscan language, I think you still ignore that there are many books on the subject. Try reading French and Italian books written by Professor Jean Rene Jannot of Nantes, Prof. Massimo Pittau of Sassari, Prof. Giovanni Camporeale of Florence, Prof. Giovanni Lilliu of Cagliari, Prof. Giovanni Ugas etc. and the same writings belonging to the scholars of the UNESCO about the ancient myth of Atlantis, the Sardinians and the Etruscans. You say you are obsessed with ancient languages, why don't you study the Sardinian letters of Zricottu instead of writing useless and adverse criticism, especially your personal opinions? --Nicholas 19:49, January 2006 (UTC)

Who deleted his comments? it would be nice if we could see the context to which you replied so heatedly. 216.229.227.141 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation? Sigh. Wow, some anonymous guy on Wikipedia with one name and no bio suddenly professes to be a specialist by decree. Gee, we're so impressed! >:P Care to cite anything tangible rather than being childishly accusatory, and against Wikipedia's albeit weakly enforced policies? Your self-aggrandizement is telling. What you're claiming flies against published work and logical reasoning. Let me explain further:

A) Your obsession with UNESCO: UNESCO can't solve all historical mysteries. The answer does not lie in one bloated organization, one individual, or one area of study. It's one thing to say that Sardinia is important to Etruscan pre-history (yes, I most definitely agree to that), but quite another to make absolute assertions of their origins based solely on genetics (which is just like all the other race-related theories of old, repackaged for a naive PC-sensitive generation as "genetics-based").

Your subtle misunderstandings become clear when you say things like "The first 'Etruscans' or Tirsenoy of the coasts, that later occupied Vetulonia, Vulci etc. were Sardinian islanders of the XII-IX, and this is archaeologically proved."

* 1. It's not Tirsenoy. It's Tyrsenoi as clearly attested in Classical Greek with "upsilon". Nice try but if you fail with such simple facts, it's hard to take you seriously.
* 2. No, this fact does not prove your claim; it merely "suggests" it (and only in a partial, non-absolutist manner). If you think otherwise, you fail in Logic 101.

You can only seek to prove from this that the first known evidence of Etruscans happen to be there but we have no possible guarantee that we've excavated everything we need to along the Mediterranean coastline as of 2007! Strange that you are unaware that archeology is a continuously evolving field, especially for someone who cloaks himself as a specialist on this topic.

Logically, only a percentage were from Sardinia but you purposely ignore all the irrefutable Etruscan texts that show that others were from Magna Graecia, Carthage and Greece. No big shocker if you have any grasp of the basics of ethnology. Afterall, I've never heard of a "pure ethnic group" outside of Nazi propaganda and the like. Have you?

You apparently failed to read the Etruscan inscriptions with names like Hipucrate (TLE 155; clearly Greek "Hippocrates"), Karθazie (TLE 724; "Carthaginian") and who can forget TLE 131, the sarcophagus of Laris Pulena who according to his own inscription is grandson of Laris Creice "Laris the Greek" (Laris Pulenas, Larces clan, Larθal papals, Velθurus nefts, prumts Pules Larisal Creices.)? What misinformation? Don't you have access to this simple, published information?

Do we need genetic studies to figure this all out? Nope, it's called 'logical thinking'.

Plus, need I have to also explain to you how there are also Etruscans of Italic origin too (whether it be Roman, Umbrian or Faliscan)? Also did you fail to read that a lot of pottery is fashioned along Greek styles and much of the mythology is clearly related to the Greek, including the legend of Troy? Why so many links to Greece if they all just came from Sardinia? Sorry bud, but Etruscan architecture isn't really "Sardinian-motivated" either and you know that. So all of the material culture shows us clearly that Etruscans were multi-ethnic and obviously cosmopolitan. If they were culturally cosmopolitan, it stands to reason that they were genetically so to an appreciable degree as well.

Yet despite all these readily accessible facts and most basic reasoning, you have the gull to insist on an absolutist theory cloaked as "science". From what you're saying so far, you're contradicting every known principle of mainstream linguistics and archaeology combined. You speak as though you're neither a linguist nor historian, nor archaeologist, so what are you then? It sure sounds like an aryan theory alright.

In order to continue on with your rot, you must presuppose a "pure race" (Etruscans as a single demic entity) coming from a single place (Sardinia). If you had said "Etruscans are from Sardinia as well as other places", you'd be on solid footing, although you'd merely then be stating the obvious!

B) Your odd hatred of "amateurs": An "amateur" is hardly a leper. Academic caste systems tend to be a way of masking one's own feelings of inadequacy with irrational politics and petty ad hominem.

There are plenty of amateurs (ie. people without PhDs in their field of interest) that despite this mirage of a handicap make valid contributions in their field. Amateurs can be as competent and as knowledgeable as their certificate-bejeweled counterparts, or even in some rare cases, more so.

A PhD is simply an individual's title and, aside from displaying one's financial capacity to amass tens of thousands of dollars in all for university enrollment, it does little to assure us of their diligence, their competence or their honesty. These qualities are rather to be witnessed in their character and in the work that they produce, and of course, no one needs a degree to produce solid work nor to be of noble character. In some ways, "amateur" is a badge of honour since it suggests that the person in question is honestly dedicated to an area of study beyond the drug of money and status.

I hardly think that you're not an amateur so I wouldn't protest too much on this one unless you can prove your notability in Etruscology, Mr. Nicholas X.

C) Your random bibliography: Yes, yes, it's all well and good that you've joined a book-of-the-month club. I can list a bunch of authors too but why does anyone care what we've read if we've never first thoroughly questioned what we've read and acquired an understanding of it?

I've read some of the people you list and I'm not as easily intoxicated by the mere smell of a printed page. Festus lived in the second century AD in case you weren't aware so in what way then can he offer us a trustable account of Etruscan origins an entire millenium after the fact? He can only ever be second-hand information once we've assessed the primary data. And Jean-René Jannot Religion in Ancient Etruria (2005) is one book in which I've found some ennerving errors. I'm not terribly satisfied with him. (PS: I'm finding that it pays to keep digi-notes and a personal linguistic database of Etruscan to nail contradictions that less organized non-techies might miss. It's amazing what a little PERL coding can do.)

--Glengordon01 09:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your poor listing of sources, perhaps it should also be mentioned the poor quality of "Doctor" Massimo Pittau's work while we're at it.

On his site, it's actually claimed the word sran is "vocabolo finora non documentato che però, sembrando corradicale di sar, sar, sra «dieci» (LEGL 94), probabilmente significa «decimo-a»". Total nonsense.

It means "image" as published already by Larissa Bonfante and proven by their usage in the published inscriptions found in TLE. I've also collected this information and organized them by etymon in my own personal database for quick on-the-fly look-up so that jackasses can't trump me (ah, thank god for PERL):

  • sren [TLE 399], śran-c [CPer A.xv] (na.sg.) // śrenχve [LL 2.ii, 3.xiii, 4.ix, 4.x, 4.xvi, 9.xv], śrencve [LL 2.xii, 4.xii, 5.viii] (loc.pl.)

CPer here stands for Cippus Perusinus (CIE 4538) and LL for Liber Linteus (TLE 1), of course. There is no way a competent Etruscologist cannot see that sran is *demonstrably* an inanimate noun because of A) the use of inanimate plural marker -χva ~ -va (attested elsewhere as in pulum-χva "stars") and B) the use of the nominal conjunctive -c instead of the phrasal conjunctive -m. In the locative case, it is declined as śrenχve (< *śrenχva-i). End of discussion.

Pittau is so unprofessional that he apparently overlooks the famous inscription on a mirror next to an image of Heracles suckling Hera's breast:

  • Eca sren tva iχ nac Hercle Unial clan θra sce
  • Literally: "This image shows thus when Heracles Uni's son breast suckled."
  • "This image thus shows the time when Heracles, Uni's (Hera's) son, suckled [her] breast."

Sorry, but Pittau's result, "This tenth shows...", isn't worth commenting further on. He's clearly not even trying to make sense. Why do people still get conned into buying this nonsense? --Glengordon01 16:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etruscan Society, Patriarchal or Egalitarian

Etruscan society was most likely egalitarian rather than patriarchal ,as someone entitled 'hector' keeps writing. By the sentence put before it in the article one can conclude they were more likely egalitarian. They used the title of both their mother and their father. Unlike patriarchal cultures were they did not recognise the mother's name. This is in addition to the depictions of women with writing on their mirrors and possessions, indicating that they were educated. And women were also depicted alongside men at equal statue on sarcopahgi ie: the smiling couple of cerveteri.

Firstly, sign your messages. Secondly, what u have just said does not justify to name their society 'egalitarian'. this word contradicts to what the paragraph says. read more carefully: Females could state that they were the daughter of a father [...] and the wife of a husband, Conversely, a man was never described as a husband of a woman. Clearly patriarchal society. --Hectorian 03:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. The infectious meme of "classical patriarchy" has reared its ugly head. There's a danger that our own society is ironically too patriarchal in some respects to understand Etruscan society ;)

I perfectly agree with the "anonymous entity" above. Etruscans were more egalitarian than patriarchal and there should be nothing shocking about ancient cultures being this way. Consider for example that Etruscan burial inscriptions mention always both the father and the mother of the deceased. They don't have to, but they do, suggesting a bilateral kinship system like we have. (See Kinship terms for more goodies.)

Even Roman women had equal rights to men in terms of owning property, divorce and marriage... and that's nothing new because the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi also allowed women to divorce and covered the act of rape in a surprisingly so-called "modern" way by sympathizing with the female victim. There's a good chance that Minoans were also egalitarian like the Etruscans. Plus, there should be no question that Egyptians demonstrated non-patriarchal attitudes too when, for example, Hatshepsut came into power as a female pharaoh. She wasn't the only Egyptian female ruler either. Not all ancient cultures were as patriarchal as we tend to stereotype.

Now perhaps, we are too obsessed with the absolute label "patriarchal" and not obsessed enough with the details that may show a little masala of attitudes going on at once, as in any culture. So when we talk about men not being described as "husband of so-and-so", only in that context might we say that Etruscans kept "patriarchal" attitudes, perhaps from a past where this was more pervasive. It seems like a tiny thing to justify the patriarchy label, though. It would be like saying, "Because we may tend to use 'he' to refer to a person of unknown gender, we are a completely patriarchal society." Hmm. I dunno, maybe I'm ranting. Somebody else wanna add their two cents? --Glengordon01 05:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etruscan Book

Shouldn't this book be refrenced somewhere? It seems pretty important, and directly relates to them. 134.71.132.140 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's described at Etruscan_language. --Wetman 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More work, men

I'm thunderstruck at all the excellent responses to this article, which I put on the right track by giving it its current organization and leading us into the scholarship. But, you know what? At the time I didn't understand notes so I didn't put any in. But, there are some things in this discussion page that ought to be in notes! Not only that but I notice there are some unsourced theories that could use notes. So, I'll tell you what I'm gonna do. I'm putting in a blank notes section. If you gentlemen and clearly scholars would fill some in I would appreciate that personally and also I think it would make the article better and more Wikipedic. Some of those Etruscan quotes would go great in a note, or whatever. Thank you so much and I am gratified to see such general recognition of Etruscan cultural importance. What we need is to find a copy of the Iliad translated into Etruscan. PS. I'm going to throw in a few requests for sources but don't get upset. They look like great theories. I would just like to know where they come from if possible.Dave 02:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Later. Oh excuse me, there are two notes. More, please.Dave 02:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Dave, the article shows many mistakes, above all "personal opinions" given by pseudo-linguists with no experience in archaeology and not supported by sources. Recent theories say that the first Etruscans of the coasts were Sardinian islanders. You should read the books written by Dr. Sergio Frau. His discoveries are still studied by archaeologists and researchers of the UNESCO. They are reliable sources. --Nicholas 12:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree that there continues to be linguistic errors in the article but "pseudo-linguist" is a matter of degrees when it comes to Etruscan studies. They're all pseudo-linguists. Massimo Pallottino, Larissa Bonfante, Jean-René Jannot and Nancy DeGrummond all have published numerous comments or essays concerning the Etruscan language, and all have contradicted each other, all in ignorance of a coherent grammatical structure. I mean, a "real" structure; the kind linguists understand. But then, are they specialized in linguistics? No. Have most 'experts' in Etruscology ever heard of vowel typology, markedness, ditransitive verbs or structural linguistics? Judging by their books, I'd say nope. Instead, I see a lot of persistent folk etymologies.

Speaking of modern folktales and "pseudo-linguists", I especially like the one about crapśti found in the Liber Linteus being an Umbrian god named Grabuvie even though no one has yet explained how you can validly tease that name out of crapśti by any phonetic process known to humankind. How does a "v" turn into "pś"? No point asking, really; it's bunk. When the word is examined within its *proper* context within the Liber Linteus wrappings, it looks to be simply an inessive noun in -ti by way, at least, of the modest grammatical model on which non-linguistic-trained Etruscologists seem at all to agree.

At any rate, someone can change "zilath" or "zilach" on the page which was already translated by Pallottino (The Etruscans, 1975) as "praetor" which, therefore, is not "the leader of the people (methlum)", is it? I've noted that Nancy DeGrummond (2006) accepts this as well. Please everyone, look up praetor to understand what it does. It's not a "leader of the people" per se unless you use the phrase very loosely. I suppose a teacher or an engineer is a leader of the people too :P There are different types of praetor just as it is believed, based on the above inscriptions I mentioned earlier, that there are different kinds of zilath. So the current article's statement is plain wrong and contradicts attested inscriptions.

In fact there are more grammatical contradictions concerning zilath and many other words but I'll save it for a book perhaps <:P --Glengordon01 13:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rasna

Rasna and similar things should redirect to this. --199.197.113.86 18:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed statement

I've removed the following statement from the article: "Today, the Etruscan aura lingers in the plowed fields of Tuscany, especially in the late afternoon when the sunlight accentuates the amber furrows." If anyone can state exactly what encyclopedic information this statement is meant to convey, then it should be reworded and inserted back into the article. Robotman1974 19:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

it's obvious : "Today, the Etruscan aura lingers in the plowed fields of Tuscany, especially in the late afternoon when the sunlight accentuates the amber furrows." is a badly writtern way of saying "popular location for British ex-pats with property values increasing." 217.7.209.108 09:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived talk

I've archived some of the previous discussion for this page at Talk:Etruscan civilization/Archive 1. If any of that discussion is still ongoing, please copy the relevant sections back here. Robotman1974 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Originality of Etruscans

These people are originally from ancient India from Vedic time, who moved towards norther hemisphere of earth i.e. around Europe. In fact there is great influence of vedic culture on Etruscan and then their descendants like Greek, Romans etc. Please visit below links.

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/photographic_evidence_of_vedic_influence.htm

[edit] Épigraphie étrusco-italique

Under External Links, you have:

Web bibliography of Etruscan-related sites (in Italian)

It's actually in French

203.49.162.74 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Etruscan mummies"

Am I mistaken to think that the following, added by AbUser:207.27.152.51, is simply based on third-hand rumor of the Liber Linteus that was used, in Egypt, to provide linen for mummy wrappings and was rediscovered in Zagreb? Is the rest of this just an improv? (Wetman 09:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

Recently, there have been quite a few discoveries of Etruscan mummies, ironically all in Souther Italy. It is guessed that this is a result of the large population of nomadic preists and especially due to their great "Festitius de deas Dianae" of "Festival of the Goddes Diana", in which many Etruscans traveled to the South Eastern coast of Italy.

A closer look shows that neither edit was in good faith. Deleted and the IP warned. --Wetman 09:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inscrutable passage

In my second pass I found this inscrutable passage tucked in there without any relevance that I can see to what was being said, so I have removed it to here. I have read this carefully and I honestly can say that I am no more enlightened than when I first read it. It says nothing. However I am willing to admit the author may have intended to say something and knew what he meant to say. It did not get through, author. I would guess that the paragraph uses too few words for the meaning or else the wrong words. I would say, if after reading my second pass you still think it has relevance as some sort of caveat, rewrite it addressing the clarity issue, study the logic of the article, and put it in, this time in the most relevant place. The passage:

"While this study gives an insight into the genetic composition of the Etruscans, it cannot resolve the linguistic controversy: An invasion of an elite imposing itself over autochthonous subjects often leads to linguistic changes as part of cultural hegemony without leaving genetic traces."Dave 02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs to follow

There is so much to be said of interest to the public concerning the Etruscans that an article like this can only be a bare introduction. And, at this moment it is up to 39 KB. There is only one answer, cell mitosis. So, I plan to create a bunch of stubs of the formula Etruscan X, where X is history, magistracies, and what not. That will give us the opportunity to add Etruscan art, which everyone is dying to do, as you can tell from the commons. If you have anything to say, say it, as I plan to do it right away.Dave 03:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic statement

I removed this statement from the intro: "numerous artifacts of Etruscan culture survived the Roman conquest. For example, according to doctrinal studies, the ancient roots of Roman Law derive directly from the Etruscan religion. [ref] J. Szmodis, The Reality of the Law: From the Etruscan Religion to the Postmodern Theories of Law; (Kairosz, Budapest), 2005.[1]. [end ref]"

The main problem is, this is a book in Hungarian and is not available in Engish. The site given as reference is mainly in Hungarian but it does contain a brief abstract in English. Unless the reader knows Hungarian, he/she cannot verify anything from the book and the abstract is little help.

I understand what the author is trying to do. However, examples are't necessary at that location, in the intro. The whole article is about "artifacts" of the Etruscan civilization. I notice also that the author has given the same reference under Etruscan mythology. As this is an English Wikipedia it needs English references, not that the original has to be in English, but translations should be available. Otherwise, you could write a whole article and have nothing but references in, say, Chinese, Russian or Arabic script. I am sure plenty or work has been done on most topics in countries speaking those languages.Dave 12:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encarta link

The Encarta link was in there before and I took it out but now I see there is some demand for it I need to explain my reasoning. You can't just go to the link and read about Etruscans. It is a commercial site and sells Encarta. First you subscribe and then you can read the article. I had Encarta once myself so I know how it works. If you have Encarta you can access the online articles from it. I lost mine, not because I gave it up, but my daughter wrote on the disk. In order to get it back I have to buy it. I don't believe commercial sites ought to be in Wikipedia. The links here ought to be free of charge. We aren't selling articles. There are exceptions for exceptional material not available elsewhere (I think) but Encarta is not one of those. When I first looked at this article it just about had only links that were trying to sell you something. Please, Wikipedia is not for selling Encarta. Thanks.Dave 10:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Dr. Bugge

The book was published before the date, my mistake for quoting the date exactly. --Vonones 22:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bugge's theory is not accepted by anyone who actually studies either Etruscan or Armenian. It's not that it's completely implausible, so much as that it's no more plausible than any of the other speculations people have put forth over the centuries (Aramaic, Ugric, Sumerian, Basque, Luvian, indigenous Mysian, Phrygian, Lydian, Illyrian, pre-Mycenaean Cretan, etc.).
At present, almost everyone agrees that Etruscan is part of the Tyrsenian family, which includes Rhaetic and Lemnian. Beyond that, most believe that this family is an isolate; there are some who argue that Tyrsenian is distantly related to Indo-European, but a direct connection to Armenian is not taken seriously.
At any rate, this discussion belongs on the Etruscan language page, not here. --75.36.140.167 14:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] improvement needed

I've just seen this article for the first time, and it's awful. One thing is very clear about the Etruscans: there are major problems in knowing anything much about them, because of lack of evidence and because of powerful myths that get in the way. And there has not been a lot of integrative work done on them by modern scholars. This is the first message that the article needs to give, but it's silent about it. Indeed, there is not much here other than quotes from primary or very old secondary sources; and the talk page is full of secondary-school level primary research! What a mess. Deipnosophista 06:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources Any aspects of Latin lexicology should be checked in the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, not even large school dictionaries like Gaffiot! 88.114.139.127 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] roads

people would use the roads. roads as meaning roads is an area where cement.Romans use lava blocks as roads.Romans won the first punic war. After the second punic war there was a 50 yrs of peace.70.150.50.100 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)lexie70.150.50.100 (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)