Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

loups t1_ivlkux0 wrote

Reply to comment by FateEntity in Discovery of bronzes rewrites Italy’s Etruscan-Roman history by VoloNoscere

As far as I could tell from the article the statues had both Etruscan and Roman inscriptions, and shows that the elites of both nations prayed together even though they warred.

342

Fatshortstack t1_ivm4k6t wrote

I though this was well known.

67

MagicCuboid t1_ivma10q wrote

It was, Livy wrote about it 2000 years ago lol

121

Reatina t1_ivnal2f wrote

3 of the first 7 mythical Roman kings were Etruscan: Tarquinio Prisco, Servio Tullio and Tarquinio il Superbo.

It was mostly histories, but well accepted and not meaningless.

48

Averla93 t1_ivnw4qj wrote

Yes it is, but historians and archaeologists use to think that by the II Century B.C. - I century A.D. period (from which the bronzes are) Etruscan culture and language had already died out, Etruscan influences on roman culture have always been dated in the Monarchy and early-mid republic, some of those statues are from the Flavian period.

19

AyeItsMeToby t1_ivo1tqy wrote

So the old line “Emperor Claudius was the last known person to have known/written in Etruscan” has been pretty much been disproved by these?

7

Averla93 t1_ivo42wd wrote

I've been reading a lot of articles but "Flavian dinasty" was the most precise thing i found about the most recent of those statues and inscriptions, almost all articles just say I century B.C. So the answer is probably yes but we should wait further news.

8

Fatshortstack t1_ivohzck wrote

I'm no historian, but I was under the impression that the Etruscan culture died when they were sacked by rome?

3

Averla93 t1_ivonk2e wrote

There were a lot of Etruscan cities, just a few were destroyed by the Romans, Veium and Volsinii (Orvieto) come to mind, most were integrated as "allies" and then gradually given Roman citizenship until there was total integration, this discovery might move this integration a few centuries later.

3

MagicCuboid t1_ivm9vnw wrote

Livy already mentions this when he describes how Romans would invite Etruscan leaders to visit Rome... I don't know, I don't think these statues revolutionize much

55

artaccforbjarne t1_iw1zq6w wrote

Livy was writing centuries later, so historians know not to take it at face value, something like this confirms it.

2

MagicCuboid t1_iw2q73z wrote

When you're dealing with ancient history Historians work with what they have. Short of anyone claiming the contrary this still means Rome as host to shared sporting/religious events has always been the prevailing narrative. The work archaeologists do is really astounding sometimes, but it requires the context provided by writers like Livy to derive meaning. I'm thankful we found these statues though, as confirming something that was until now merely a possibility is a great win

1

[deleted] t1_ivltz2l wrote

I thought this was known since there are shared gods v

31

Tidesticky t1_ivnsect wrote

Didn't they limit this conclusion, for now, to just the subject temple?

2