By Graziano Baccolini

Firstly, I think the mystery of this people is due, above all, to the fact that their literary sources, the writings of their contemporaries, as the Etruscan history in 20 volumes by emperor Tiberius Claudius, and their religious symbols were deliberately destroyed in the first centuries of Christianity to cancel, probably, something of very important for the survival of the "new" religion. The documents that show this destruction, as for example the edicts of Teodosio (391-392 d.c), exist, but till now many historians say, with euphemistic expression, that "unfortunately there are no traces of Etruscan literature or of historical accounts or they are disappeared !"

Therefore, when we speak about Etruscans we use the term of "mysterious people" whose origins are still an object of debate for many scholars and writers .On the other hand, surprisingly, many Etruscologists think it is irrelevant knowledge!

Nowadays, there are three different hypotheses that are presented in opposition among them. There is the hypothesis of the oriental origin firstly formulated by Herodotus and supported also by many other important ancient authors. Now, this theory is accepted by many non–italian historians . In opposition, there is the hypothesis, exposed firstly by Livio, of a northern origin whose the Reti and other populations like the Veneti could be the descendants. Now, this hypothesis is practically abandoned by the contemporary historians. Then the theory of autochthonous origin formulated firstly by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the unique dissenting voice among the ancients, probably for ideological reason and about four centuries later Herodotus. This theory was in part reformulated¹ by Massimo Pallottino in 1942. He wished to turn away from the question of the "origin" and instead discussed the "formative process of the Etruscan which can only take place on the territory of Etruria itself . "The mark received by earl, fresh , primitive, flexible soul of oldest Etruscan, influenced by great overseas cultures, was as great as to definitively draw spiritual trends and the structure of the nation".

I think that this Italian formative process postpones the problem of the pregnant "origin" of their culture that certainly cannot be formed in Etruria with only some commercial contacts with the east or with small groups of immigrants from east arrived in "remote pre-historic times". Besides, knowing when this theory was enunciated by the Pallottino, published in 1942 by Hoepli in an editorial collection dedicated to Mussolini, we may suppose some ideological motivations to choose this hypothesis to "underline glories and priority of ancient Italian civilization"². Successively he become the founder of a "School" and his numerous assistants defended and defend still now his hypothesis which is the most followed by italian hystorians. However, reading a recent book of M. Torelli³, a hystorian of Pallottino’s School, I have found that Pallottino theory is evolving towards the orientalist theory. In fact Torelli say that probably "the arrive of omogeneous groups of not-numerous people with the same advanced cultural knowledge and the same language might have influenced the indigenous populations". But for Torelli this possible arrival is an "hystorical marginal fact".

Personally, I think that the above theories may be, more or less, corrected only if they are considered as a whole. In other words, the populations that have had a fundamental role for the Etruscan culture have been people with oriental origins and permeated of Anatholian and Mesopothamian culture. During the Bronze Age and for several centuries they arrived in Italy firstly from the North, probably going up the Danubio and subsequently the Po and the Reno (at that time called Spinete) crossing first the Adriatic sea, therefore subsequently more easily from the Tyrrhenian sea crossing the oriental Mediterraneum sea. Obviously their culture is further matured in that rich zone of Italy, to south of the Po subsequently called Etruria. If it is so, it is not justified to define indigenous this culture but its pregnant origin is oriental. In addition, I think that when we speak of the origin of the Etruschans it is more correct to speak of the origin of their advanced culture in contrast with the primitive culture of other italic peoples. On the other hand there is no evidence of a strong immigration as was happened for the Greeks in the South of Italy, but, probably, there will have been a gradual and constant migration of small groups of persons with very similar culture and probably all of anatholian -mesopothamian origin. Below I will propose the motivations and the circumstances of these small migrations.

Probably, these migrations beginned just at the end of the Bronze Age when there are very few indigenous inhabitants in Italy. However, the advanced knowledge of this immigrants in all the fields allowed them to become the dominant group. After some centuries at the beginning of the Iron Age this new culture was called Villanovians and it occupied part of the Padana lowland and of the Centre of Italy. Subsequently, with new and more substantial migrations of other peoples from the same oriental place and with similar language and arriving from south by sea, this culture defined Villanovian was transformed in that more evolved civilization so-called Etruscan. Then, the Villanovians already mark the beginning of Etruscan culture, as proved by the overlap of Villanovian area with the later extent of Etruscan inhabitation in the historical period.

In a simple manner, I think that, the development of the Etruscan nation and culture may be compared to the growth of our contemporary American nation and culture that all people know without doubts. The continuous arrival of European immigrants and the wealth of the place has allowed the American nation to become, after some centuries from the first European immigrants, a new cultural center and a new economic power. But now nobody would risk to define autochhonous our contemporary American culture neither that its formative process is occurred only on the American soul but everybody would recognise that its fundamental origin, also cultural, is European, even if, after some centuries, a difference will be noticed between Europeans and Americans that now already exists.

The Anatolian-Mesopotamian cultural origin of the Etruschans are confirmed by numerous series of advanced knowledges in different fields as metallurgical, hydraulic, building, artistic, religious ones and some affinities as the art of the divination, the jewellery and attire, the refined taste etc. For this when we visit an Etruscan museum it seems to us to be in a museum of oriental cultures. Their opulence and their refined taste in the choice of the joys of life had to be in contrast with the one of surrounding Italian peoples, but also with their contemporary Greeks that conducted a most modest standard of life. The structural resemblances between the Etruscan and Lemnian languages is in favour to an origin from Aegean-Anatolian area around 1000 B.C. Also the fundamental role that had the female figure in Etruscan culture connects them to archaic oriental matriarchal civilizations where the Big Goddess was venerated. This element differentiated them from other contemporary cultures where the male figure had supplanted that female relegating the woman to a subordinate role that only in our last century has regained its role. Remember to us that even Plato, in the Timeo, considered the woman a sub-human being, and this reveals what deep differences there were between Greek culture and the Etruscan one even if the Greeks have been also influenced, by the oriental Aegean culture.

In addition, as reported in my articles⁴ and web pages⁴, after the discovery of a probable Etruscan Oracular Centre on the top of the mountain of Montovolo, analysing several facts such as symbols, legends and toponimous, I have found unequivocal connections between this mountain and the Etruscan city of Marzabotto. These findings have permitted to me to realize that the Oval stones, set on Marzabotto’s Tombs as well as in other Etruscan Necropolises, were a very important religious symbol even for Etruscans. This symbol of the Oval stone, is another affinity with archaic oriental cultures. It should be noted that today these stones are considered by Etruscologists only simple cippi or Tomb signals! The other symbols found at Montovolo as a cross inscribed in a circle, a snake and two doves are often found in other ancient Oracular Centers as Delphi, Delos, Milethos, Metsamor, Tebe as well as many other oriental centres. These symbolism make evident the oriental origin of the Etruscans because such archaic symbols cannot be accepted by simple commercial exchanges. The Cross, often inscribed in a circle, that I have found at Montovolo and at Marzabotto like in a lot of other Etruscan findings is also a Villanovian symbol up to now underestimated and defined by many historians a simple ornamental motive. The equilateral cross was already used in ancient Sumerian carvings as indication of the Divinity. A so deep rootedness of these religious symbols in a whole people presupposes a distant origins in the time. The Oval stone can also bring back us to the Pelasgian myth of Eurinome that gave birth to the Primordial Egg after she was fertilized by Ofione, the snake, that immediately rolled up himself on the egg staying motionless up to when it was opened making go out the wonder of the universe.

Images of Oval stones with a snake rolled up are also depicted on mural frescos in Pompei, notoriously of Etruscan origin.

It is interesting to note that also now the Moslem pilgrim entering in the Ka’bha shrine, in Mecca, kisses the sacred Black stone which is of an oval shape about seven inches in diameter.

Now, it remains to explain the most important question! How and why these oriental immigrants with probable same culture, came continually in Etruria, forming after several centuries a rich and homogeneous people in a new earth? We know that the first European immigrants that reached America, finding in that place a rich country informed their European compatriots that they can also reach this rich earth. It is very probable that even, in archaic ages, there was a constant connection between several Sacred Centres of different and very distant regions. As I have explained in my preceding studies, such connection was possible using traveller pigeons that owed to be replaced, at least every one or two years, by others pigeons deriving from the interested regions. (See my page regarding the use of traveller pigeons⁵) . This periodically transport and reintegration of the pigeons had to be done by caravans and secretly. This necessity became the origin of the constant arrival of new groups of persons that were settled in that new rich region that will become the Etruria. Probably this easy and necessary connection between ancient Sacred Centres might give interesting explanations of others so- called ancient mysteries or mythological events.

Finally, after the reading of Giovanni Semerano’s books⁶, I have found a farther confirmation of the oriental origin of the Etruschan culture. In fact, after sixty years of studies this 90 years old philologist, Member of the Oriental Institute of Chicago, has demonstrated the Accadian and Sumerian origin of the Etruscan language and therefore also of the Latin and European languages. In such a way the theory of the Indo-European origin becomes a mere fable. His theories had been snubbed for years by the Italian Academy that had always ignored his contributions until just recently, when his book "The Origins of European Culture" was greeted with great interest by the philosophers Massimo Cacciari, Emanuele Severino and Umberto Galimberti. But many other academic historians ignores his discovery, because this is in great contrast with their acclaimed axiomatic theories.

References