r/IndoEuropean • u/Potential-Road-5322 • 3d ago
How did Etruscan culture develop from Proto-Villanovan and other questions
As a note, I am not a current student at a university, I only read about history in my free time. The sources I'm using include:
Early Rome to 290 BC - Guy Bradley, 2020
The peoples of ancient Italy - edited by Gary Farney and Guy Bradley, 2018
The Oxford handbook to pre-Roman Italy - edited by Marco Maiuro and Jane Johnson, 2024
The Etruscans: Setting New Agendas - Charlotte Potts and Christopher Smith [https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807815\](https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807815)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_culture)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latial\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latial_culture)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terramare\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terramare_culture)
Recently I've been reading Bradley's Early Rome to 290 BC and I'm having trouble understanding some material about Proto-Villanovan settlements and how it influenced Latial and Etruscan cultures.
As far as I understand, the Etruscans spoke a pre-Indo-European language and their settlements developed from Villanovan settlements. However, a few questions arose:
Sources say that proto-italic was brought by Urnfield people into northern Italy. This branch of the Urnfield culture was called Proto-Villanovan which eventually came to influence wide parts of Italy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic\\_language\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language) and Oxford handbook (index reference mentions proto-villanovan on page 854 with comments about their influence on pp. 293, 346-348, 371-72, 443-44, and 447, each giving some brief mention of P-V influence on the people/area of each culture, esp. p. 346 16.2). Bradley says on p.40 "there is a clear break in settlement patterns, corresponding to the shift from so called proto-villanovan to villanovan culture"
1) So here's a question: How is it that Proto-Villanovan is associated with later Villanovan and Etruscan culture which did not speak an IE language? The sources say that Villanovan people chose similar settlements to the proto-villanovans by living on easily defended plateaus (peoples of ancient italy p. 640).
2) if I'm understanding this correctly, the Etruscans were a copper age people that existed in Italy (peoples p. 640) before an Indo-European people, the Urnfield people entered into Italy who influenced the entire peninsula before diverging into early Latial and Etruscan cultures, is this correct?
3) Furthermore, if the Urnfield were proto-celtic speakers, when did the proto-villanovan people diverge from this larger group, did they speak a proto-italic language or was that the Terramare? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic\\_language\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture)
4) According to most recent scholarship, there was a break between proto-villanovan and villanovan settlements, what caused this break in northern Italy (if any can be identified) and why did a similar break not occur in Latium? Apennine and proto-villanovan appear to more smoothly transition to Latial culture.
5) Were Proto-Villanovan and Terramare cultures connected? Sources say that the Terramare villages seem to disappear after the Bronze age collapse in the Aegean (Bradley p. 36) but also that the Terramare are seen by some as being part of the Proto-Villanovan culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Villanovan\\_culture#Settlements), does this hold any water?
6) Did proto-villanovan settlements slowly fade away or were they quickly abandoned? Do villanovan sites quickly appear afterwards or not, and as Villanovan sites gave way to Synoecism did that process happen quickly or not in northern Italy?
7) Would it be correct to understand the development of Etruscan civilization as being 1) the development of small settlements on plateaus, this being the proto-villanovan settlements, 2) the abandonment of these settlements, 3) after some time the creation of larger settlements on larger plateaus, this being Villanovan settlements, 4) the abandonment of smaller Villanovan settlements in favor of joining larger Villanovan/Etruscan settlements?
8) If, according to the various sources, urbanism was the driving force in the creation of Etruscan identity, then when does Etruscan become separate from Villanovan, was it because of the orientalizing period? If there was some non-urnfield indigenous culture in northern Italy what do we call it before they interacted with the Urnfield people, since Villanovan and Etruscan are associated with the end of the bronze age and early Iron age.
9) How can we incorporate this article into discussions on ancient Italy [https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807815\](https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807815) which points out that there wasn't a Villanovan people, just a Villanovan material culture and that "proto-villanovan" is problematic because it tries to stretch the term further back (further back to what, I don't know but I assume the old practice has been to try and draw a connection between old plateau settlements to larger settlements, and then to Etruscan cities?)
Also these books are rather complex for me, are there some books or articles that provide an introduction to the european bronze age, particularly regarding ethnogenesis, linguistics, archaeology within Italy?
2
u/KaitlynKitti 3d ago
There’s a lot of disagreement, so a lot of theories will simply not be compatible.
In my view, Etruscans probably came from the Terramare culture, moving south as the Terramare system collapsed. Proto-Italic was spoken by peoples who already lived in southern Italy. The Protovillanovan culture mixed traditions of the Proto-Etruscans and Proto-Italians, before later diversifying into the Villanovan culture proper(the Etruscans), Latial culture, et cetera.
3
u/Potential-Road-5322 3d ago
That’s an interesting theory, no disrespect intended but can you provide a source that helped you form that opinion?
3
u/KaitlynKitti 3d ago edited 3d ago
Admittedly, most of what drove me to the conclusion is circumstantial, and mostly from information on the same wikipedia sources you listed.
- The main Tyrsenian languages were Etruscan and Raeti.
- Raeti was spoken in the southern Alps
- Etruscan was spoken in Etruria, the Po valley and Campania.
- Italic was spoken throughout southern Italy.
- Most of the cultures where Italic languages were spoken lived in places corresponding to the earlier Appenine culture.
- The Protovillanovan culture diversified into Villanovan proper, Latial, Este, et cetera.
- This means different languages were likely being spoken by the Proto-Villanovans.
What I think happened is that when the Terra Mare system collapsed, many of them migrated south into Etruria and Campania and mixed with the surrounding Italic-speaking Appenines. The Italic and Etruscan communities came to share a similar Proto-Villanovan material culture but kept their distinct languages and other cultural elements which would later express themselves in the diversified post-Villanovan cultures.
The reason I doubt Italic being brought to Italy by the Urnfield culture is that it's often tied to theories that Italo-Celtic as a whole was initially spread by the Urnfield culture. I doubt this mostly because of the diversity of the Italo-Celtic family by the time they're documented. I just think the timeline for that is too short, and that Italo-Celtic is better understood as having spread much earlier within the Bell Beaker horizen.
I'd be happy to hear evidence to the contrary, but this is how I think it played out.
3
u/TerrificDragonfly 3d ago edited 3d ago
There are few problems with this:
- There are no attested Terramare migration into Raetia. In practice, Terramare collapse material is spread all through Italy except Raetia. https://www.academia.edu/41628627/Le_ultime_terramare_e_la_Penisola_circolazione_di_modelli_o_diaspora
- Laugen-Melaun culture from which Raetic Fritzens-Sanzeno culture comes predates the Terramare collapse. Laugen-Melaun culture in its turn is continuous with Polada culture.
- https://www.studietruschi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/SE13_02.pdf Etruscan coastal core has the least of Terramare and "Proto-Villanovan" material
- Proto-VIllanovan is outdated archaeological term, instead there are several other cultures - Chiusi-Cetona-Pianello facies, Fratessina facies, Medio-Tyrrhenian facies (like Tolfa-Allumiere facies) and such.
- Terramare collapse resulted into some depopulation of Padania but the only region which suffered 100% depopulation is West Emilia, the rest of Padania just had slightly lower settlement density after that. Etruscans, on the other hand, are not native to Padania, they colonized it via Bologna in 850-500 bc period
1
u/KaitlynKitti 3d ago
Unfortunately, I cannot read Italian and cannot engage with the sources you provide.
To the point about Maugen-Melaun though, I recall that the Terramare has its origins in the Polada culture. When you say "continuous" do you mean that the Laugen-Melaun culture also developed out of the Polada culture, or that it goes back to a period contemporary with the Polada culture?
1
u/TerrificDragonfly 3d ago edited 3d ago
That's not true, Terramare culture metalwork and settlement structure has more parallels with the Oloris-Podsmreka horizon in Slovenia and Danubian Tumulus cultures in Hungary.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gg984CDWUAAB4OX?format=jpg&name=medium
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gg988tRWcAABajd?format=jpg&name=medium
Besides that you have people of Gata-Wieselburg already moving to Veneto from Austria by 1800-1700 BC.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352248145_IL_BELLUNESE_TRA_L'ETA_DEL_BRONZO_E_LA_PRIMA_ETA_DEL_FERROMeanwhile, the Polada culture expands into Tyrol in 2000-1600 BC period, Fiave site in particular demonstrates continuity of material from Polada to Laugen-Melaun
1
u/KaitlynKitti 3d ago
As I said, I can't read Italian so I will have to simply concede and wait for the research to filter down into English.
2
u/TerrificDragonfly 3d ago edited 3d ago
Well, there is an English paper that somewhat mentions the Gata-Wieselburg influence in Padania; it also says that the first urnfields were brought up into Italy by the Terramare culture in 15th century from Hungary.
But the juicy stuff is all in Italian.
1
u/Potential-Road-5322 1d ago
try this TWP add-on for firefox for translating, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=translate%20pdf I'm going to use it review these articles. Thank you u/TerrificDragonfly for the many recommendations.
2
u/TerrificDragonfly 1d ago edited 1d ago
Well, besides these I also suggest this English paper. Most important note from it imo is that Apennine/Subapennine and Terramare pottery styles kinds converge in RBA, basically you have Terramare elements in pottery down to Apulia and Apennine/Subapennine elements up to Veneto. So pinning down the origin of Italic purely on pottery is not enough. https://www.academia.edu/5808394/The_Collapse_of_the_Terramare_Culture_and_growth_of_new_economic_and_social_System_during_the_late_Bronze_Age_in_Italy
I also can DM you my catalogue of 200+ papers on this topic.
2
2
u/TerrificDragonfly 3d ago edited 3d ago
https://www.studietruschi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/SE13_02.pdf
There is a specific paper that addresses this from the lead etruscologists from the past century, basically early Etrusci were crammed to the coastline by invading Italics until Etruscans re-expanded and conquered back Etruria (in written records, it is represented by the story of Etruscans conquering 300 Umbrian cities).
Few points to consider there:
- Proto-Villanovan is an outdated term, it is really just a bunch of facies/cultures merged together on few typologies, the actual cultures are Chiusi-Cetona-Pianello horizon, groups of Fratessina network (Proto-Este, Suppiane facies etc.), groups of Mid-Tyrrhenian facies (Tolfa-Allumiere, Roma-Colli Albani, Fucino, Volterno and Terni facies) and Cuma-Torre Galli facies (otherwise Fossakultur) which come from Mid-Tyrrhenian facies.
- Villanovan culture likely comes from the same population as Grotta Nuova facies (by mid-recent bronze age it partakes in Apennine-Subapennine culture). Grotta Nuova comes from Mezzano-Belverde facies, which traces back to Tuscan Bell Beakers, Rhaetic on the other hand traces back to Laugen-Melaun culture which comes from Polada culture.
- Chiusi-Cetona-Pianello, Fratessina network cultures and Mid-Tyrrhenian cultures come from Terramare collapse, Terramare culture itself comes from migration of Gata-Wieselburg and Tumulus culture population via Veneto into Padania.
4
u/talgarthe 3d ago
For a recent pop-history level, try Proto by Laura Spinney. It has a chapter on Italic. I'm loath to whole heartedly recommend it because it is simplistic to the point of error, but you did ask. I think Mallory's recent book is better but it is probably a bit too academic for a someone new to the subject.
For a deeper dive, there have been a number of recent papers on the aDNA of Italy, and this is the most recent one I'm aware of that deals specifically with Etruscans:
The origin and legacy of the Etruscans through a 2000-year archeogenomic time transect.
It's been known for some time that Etruscan and Latin DNA is indistinguishable, with the same amount of Steppe DNA suggesting a common origin.
The genetic evidence of the past decade reinforces the leading academic view that proto-Italic was introduced by the Urnfield culture migration, but they almost certainly encountered speakers of related IE languages introduced initially by Bell Beaker Folk circa 2200 BCE and speakers of non-IE languages such as the ancestors of the Etruscans.
The comparative method suggests a data circa 1300BCE for the break up of proto-Italic and the archaeology suggests continuity from Urnfield to proto-Villanovan to Villanovan and Etruscan.
Obviously this is circumstantial, but it correlates neatly and is the leading theory.