Re: Etruscans

----- Original Message -----

From: george knysh

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:34 PM

Subject: Re: Re: [tied] Etruscans

> Etruscans are just Etruscans
> and they originate in the place where they are known
> to live.
> And this needs no further explanation at all.
>
> Arnaud

==========

****GK: What is the evidence that "Etruscan" as a
language (as against "Etruscans" as a people- 75%(:=))
or 90 or 95% may be descendants of "those who were
always there" (well for thousands of years) no matter
what language they spoke) was "always there"? What
"needs no further explanation" to the purveyors of
Arnaud rubbish (if you don't like the term don't use
it re others) is a problem for more serious
investigators. ****

=======

Arnaud

The major problem for any theory that makes Etruscans arrive from somewhere else is teleology.

People with a known capacity of moving somewhere else : PIE, Vikings, English, Romans, Greeks. All these people settled in *many* places : They did not move from place A to place B. They scattered from place A to places B C D etc.

So the problem with the non-autochtonous theory is at least four-fold :

- where from ?

- when did they move ?

- why is it we have no traces of Etruscans somewhere else ?

- why is it Etruscans precisely chose only Etruria,

when they had plenty of places to choose from (Cf Phoenicians) 

 

The autochtonous theory is simple :

they arrive around -37 000 as first-sapiens settlers.

they remained there

they tried to resist IE invasion but they ultimately disappeared.

 

Arnaud

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo. com/r/hs