From: george knysh
Message: 51258
Date: 2008-01-14
> Mr. Knysh****GK: One has to be "strange" when conversing with
> you are a strange "historian"
> if I understood well your job.
>****GK: What I actually said is that the proof
> Your "proof" is that the hypothesis
> that Etruscans might have come from somewhere else
> is true as of right now
> because it might happen in the future to be proved
> right.
> I'm sorry****GK: Yes. It would be nice if you remembered this
> I don't believe in promises
> I thought history was a serious science dealing with
> facts.
> Alleging an article in a newspaper doesn't sound****GK: Certainly more serious (given what is cited in
> serious at all.
>****GK: Jews, Arabs, Turkis, Ugrians, Magyars,
> So far you have not answered my questions :
>
> 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.
> these people settled in *many* places : They did not****GK: Lydia sounds like a good hypothesis. As
> 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 ?****GK: Within the "cattle" parameters mentioned by
> - why is it we have no traces of Etruscans somewhere****GK: For reasons similar to those which led to the
> else ?
> - why is it Etruscans precisely chose only Etruria,****GK: Probably because they did not have you as
> when they had plenty of places to choose from (Cf
> Phoenicians)
>****GK: Happy waiting. I on the other hand have long
> I am still waiting for something more that a fuzzy
> article in NYT.
>____________________________________________________________________________________
> Arnaud
>
>