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.

Thats true, and when Rome became and Empire they also controlled majority of the Mediterranean. I was just implying that cultural transitions are not as simple as first Etruscans, then Roman. There was in depth connectivity between cultures. Even within Italy itself, there was never a uniform Roman culture. Roman culture, as with most cultures, was extremely dynamic and was constantly influenced/influencing and integrated aspects of other cultures, even ones they annexed. The Etruscans did not become Roman, rather they culture was slowly integrated into the Roman cultural identity, with many aspects of Roman culture to have originated from foreign influence.

Edit: P.S I apologise for my long winded response. I am currently researching Etruscans relationship with Rome for uni, so I am quite passionate about this topic.

There was no linear transition of the Etruscans into the Roman empire. Yes, the Etruscans were around before the republic, but they did not become the Republic. The Roman Republic developed in parallel to the Etruscans, with a great deal of cultural exchange between them. It was not Etruscans, then Republic, then empire, but rather a development in tandem to each other with connectivity between them, whether that be through trade or warfare.

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.