Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FateEntity t1_ivljhw7 wrote

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

Could you elaborate, please, what this changes or why is such a big find? For those of us who don't know much about this kind of stuff.

230

loups t1_ivlkux0 wrote

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

ADROSIDI t1_ivlupq9 wrote

The traditional historical narrative is that the Etruscans became 'Romanised' implying their culture passively adopted Roman culture and was completely taken over by it. This discovery implies that rather then a holistic transformation into Roman culture, the Etruscans and Romans integrated their cultural identities. This allowed for elites to use votive artefacts together, such as these bronzes, even though there were heaps of war and conflict at the time.

It rewrites history as it changes our perception of relationship between the Etruscans and the Romans, suggesting a continuous Etruscan cultural identity in tandem with the Romans, rather then a complete domination as the traditional historical narrative implies.

Edit: Just to clarify, I am not denying that the Romans were in control of Italy at the time, obviously they were. I am trying to say that Roman culture was dynamic and was influenced/influencing with their interactions with other cultures, such as the Etruscans.

95

TrippyReality t1_ivm92bi wrote

I thought that it was history that Rome was just a small city in the periphery of the Etruscan city-state coalition but the Romans just took on other cultures ideas like religion and sailing. Although, any Etruscan artifacts are hard to come by. It’s like to how they incorporate Greek, Carthiginian, Persian, and Egyptian influences.

20

ADROSIDI t1_ivmb10t wrote

Absolutely, the Etruscans were heavily involved with trade with those cultures, so they were also influenced each other. However due to a lack of Etruscan literary sources and that we do not fully understand their language, much of what we know about them is from a Greek and Roman persepctives, so it is slightly skewed. The Romans are commonly viewed as being culturally dominant in Italy, rather then being part of a large network of interaction, with the Etruscans tending to be forgotton in the cultural landscape in comparison to the Greeks and Romans. By describing the Etruscans with terms such as 'Romanisation' sort of implies that the Romans influenced the Etruscans in a one way exchange, rather then a complex cultural exchange. Part of what made the Romans so successful in their conquest of Italy was their integration of cultures, rather then complete replacement. Artefacts like the bronzes in this article demonstrate this integration of cultures, even within Roman control.

23

Tiako t1_ivnk0u8 wrote

> I thought that it was history that Rome was just a small city in the periphery of the Etruscan city-state coalition

While it is a common cliche to say Rome was "just a small village" it is worth noting that is mostly Roman self mythologizing being accepted uncritically--By the late sixth/early fifth century Rome was already the great power in central Italy. As an illustrative proxy, the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus one of the largest in the entire Mediterranean, larger than any Etruscan temple.

10

bik1230 t1_ivo66dd wrote

>The traditional historical narrative is that the Etruscans became 'Romanised' implying their culture passively adopted Roman culture and was completely taken over by it. This discovery implies that rather then a holistic transformation into Roman culture, the Etruscans and Romans integrated their cultural identities. This allowed for elites to use votive artefacts together, such as these bronzes, even though there were heaps of war and conflict at the time.

Whenever I've heard of other peoples in Italy being Romanized, it's been presented as something that didn't even really start until after the apparent period this find is from. So I find this slightly puzzling.

3

FeDeWould-be t1_ivm8u6y wrote

Some low-paid Roman engraver who was given that job after the previous owners heads were chopped off is looking down saying little do they know

2

812many t1_ivlwitx wrote

The pertinent info from the article:

>Jacopo Tabolli, who coordinated the dig for the University for Foreigners in Siena, said the discovery was significant because it sheds new light on the end of the Etruscan civilization and the expansion of the Roman Empire in today’s central Italy between the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.

>The period was marked by wars and conflicts across what is today’s Tuscany, Umbria and Lazio regions, and yet, the bronze statues show evidence that Etruscan and Roman families prayed together to deities in the sacred sanctuary of the thermal springs. The statues, including depictions of Apollo and Igea, the ancient Greek god and goddess of health, bear both Etruscan and Latin inscriptions.

>“While there were social and civil wars being fought outside the sanctuary ... inside the sanctuary the great elite Etruscan and Roman families prayed together in a context of peace surrounded by conflict,” Tabolli said. “This possibility to rewrite the relationship and dialectic between the Etruscan and Romans is an exceptional opportunity.”

One reason we know so much about the Romans is that they put inscriptions on everything. And wrote it in stone. Very handy for us 2000 years later. For example, gravestones often had short life stories about the person, even if they were just a small shop owner.

85

DigitalDiogenesAus t1_ivnjekh wrote

For me it's the bronzes. There aren't that many bronze statues because people melted them down. Many of the famous statues are stone copies of bronze originals-you can't melt down marble, so they are the ones that survive.

10