Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ADROSIDI t1_ivlupq9 wrote

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

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