http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/etrusk/po/origins.html

The origins of no other people of the antiquity were so debated by modern historiography as in the case of the Etruscans. The reasons of this situation deserve some words of explanation. In the first place we have to mention the interest awaked in ancient Greek historiographers by this nation which, although hellenized, remained so "different". In the second place the undeniable ethnic, cultural and linguistic dissimilarity of the Etruscans from the other Indoeuropean peoples of Iron Age Italy attracted the attention of the historiographers in the early 19th century. Moreover, the problem of the origins of this people often mingled with the problems of classification and hermeneutics of their language. These are the reasons that gave birth to the myth of the "Etruscan mistery", a sort of devil's kitchen or magician's shop suited for testing all kinds of irrational theories and hypotheses concerning history and linguistics. We have therefore to clear the decks and go back to the real terms of the problem.

Classical historiography is unable to offer any evidence but the mention -- made by Varro -- of a work named Tuscae Historiae, that could have offered a key for a better comprehension of the origins of this people. Unfortunately the Etruscan literature, however great might its value have been, went completely lost in the very moment when the Etruscan language dwindled away and people terminated to copy and to hand down to posterity the works written in a dead language. In the so-called "Tomb of the Reliefs" in Cerveteri, the locus sepulturae of the man is marked with the tokens of masculine role, like the symposiac cup and a large chest locked with a key. On the chest there is a liber linteus, that is a linen book. The linen book is the symbol of both sacerdotal wisdom and authority of the founder of a family. Only one example of such linen books has been preserved (see under Materials). We have therefore to rely on other sources.

Apollo of Veio
(detail of the head),

A masterpiece
of the Etruscan art of
archaic age (end of
the VI century B.C.)

(Roma, Museo di
Villa Giulia)

According to the mentality of ancient Greeks, the origins of a polis were seen as the result of a ktisis (=foundation) made by a mythic ecizer (=colonizer) as in the case of Theseus for Athens or Cadmus for Thebes. Much in the same way, they imagined that the origins of the single peoples were due to the migration of an archegétes, i.e. a mythic chieftain.

According to Herodotus (I,94), the Etruscans migrated from Lydia under the leadership of the eponymic king Thyrsenos or Thyrrenos:

"The Lydians have very nearly the same customs as the Greeks, with the exception that these last do not bring up their girls in the same way. So far as we have any knowledge, they were the first nation to introduce the use of gold and silver coin, and the first who sold goods by retail. They claim also the invention of all the games which are common to them with the Greeks. These they declare that they invented about the time when they colonised Tyrrhenia, an event of which they give the following account. In the days of Atys, the son of Manes, there was great scarcity through the whole land of Lydia. For some time the Lydians bore the affliction patiently, but finding that it did not pass away, they set to work to devise remedies for the evil. Various expedients were discovered by various persons; dice, and huckle-bones, and ball, and all such games were invented, except tables, the invention of which they do not claim as theirs. The plan adopted against the famine was to engage in games one day so entirely as not to feel any craving for food, and the next day to eat and abstain from games. In this way they passed eighteen years. Still the affliction continued and even became more grievous. So the king determined to divide the nation in half, and to make the two portions draw lots, the one to stay, the other to leave the land. He would continue to reign over those whose lot it should be to remain behind; the emigrants should have his son Tyrrhenus for their leader. The lot was cast, and they who had to emigrate went down to Smyrna, and built themselves ships, in which, after they had put on board all needful stores, they sailed away in search of new homes and better sustenance. After sailing past many countries they came to Umbria, where they built cities for themselves, and fixed their residence. Their former name of Lydians they laid aside, and called themselves after the name of the king's son, who led the colony, Tyrrhenians."

According to Hellanikos though (apud Dion. Hal. I,28) the Etrurian Thyrrenoí should be identified with the Pelasgians, the mysterious migrating people that, after wandering in the Aegean sea, settled in Etruria.

In the view of Anticlides (apud Strab. V, 2, 4) the Etruscans who arrived in Italy under the leadership of Thyrrenos were Pelasgians and they belonged to the same strain that colonized the Aegean isles of Lemnos and Imbros as well as several sites on the Anatolic seaside. This thesis is reported also in some Rhodian documents going back to the third century BC, thus partially supporting the assumption that the Etruscans might have been one of the Peoples of the Sea (the TRSH) mentioned in the Egyptian sources.

As a matter of fact, the Egyptian inscriptions of Ramses III (1197-1165 BC) relate of the so-called "Peoples of the Sea", i.e. a set of peoples who came from land and sea to invade Egypt. Some of these peoples were known under the same name a couple of centuries before, since they were mentioned among the peoples that supplied mercenary troops to the Pharaoh during the rule of Amenophis III and Merneptah (1413-1220 BC). Some of the "Peoples of the Sea" can be easily identified, as in the case of the Achaei -- called Jqjwsh.w in the inscriptions -- or the Philistines -- called Prst.w. The identification of other peoples is debated, as in the case of the Siculians (Shqrsh.w) and the Sardinians (Shrdn.w). Other peoples can be identified only in a highly hypothetical way. Among the latter ones we find the Trsh.w, to be possibly identified with the Thyrsenoi mentioned by later Greek sources. These hypothetical identifications are questionable, and the question is further complicated by the forms these names assumed in the Egyptian language, thus making the identification even more complex. For example, the Egyptian name of the Siculians, i.e. Shqrsh.w, was formerly related both to the Anatolian place-name of Sagalassos and to the name of a misterious Palestinian people named Sikalayu. Even the ethnonym Trsh.w, that is the would-be name of the Etruscans in the Egyptian sources, some researchers related it to the Anatolian place-names of Tarsus and Torrebos. As we see, in the Egyptian sources there is not much to go by.

Common consensus of the ancient historiographers had it that the Etruscans migrated from the Orient, the only disagreement being in the connection with the Lydians or Pelasgians. Dionysius of Halicarnassus represented an exception. He came to Rome in 30 BC and remained there to study the ancient Roman history for twenty-two years. From him we know that the self-denomination of the Etruscans was Rasenna (see the cippus of Cortona, where this name appears as Rashna). This confirms that the denomination by which the Etruscans are known in the Greek sources, that is Thyrsenoí ~ Thyrsanoí or Thyrrhenoi ~ Thyrranoí, is either a translated ethnonym or a name invented by the Greeks. The suffix -eno- is a typical ethnic suffix of the Aegean-Anatolic area. Dionysius, after examining the opinions expressed by other writers (Dion. Hal. I, 25-30), concludes by stating that the Etruscans are an autochthonous people of Italy. According to Dionysius, this is what the Etruscans themselves told him.

The opinions expresses by the ancient historiographers influenced modern commentators. The ones base their theories on alleged "migratory waves", the others on the "autochthony" of the Etruscans.

The supporters of the eastern origins suppose that the Etruscans came from east in connection with the "oriental" phase of their culture (VII century BC). This hypothesis is untenable from an archaeological point of view, owing to the fact that the "oriental" cultural influx affected both Greece and Etruria in the seventh century. The transition was gradual and diversified from area to area, thus excluding the process of sudden change that would be expected in the case of a migration. Moreover, all the ancient sources univocally confirm that the Etruscans lived in Italy before the historical age.

Another migrationist hypothesis assumes that the Etruscans arrived from the north; this is mainly based on the fact reported by Livius (V, 33, 11), according to whom the Rhaetic population in central and eastern Alps are the relict of an Etruscan people. Yet, Livius talks of a non-migratory relict and namely he mentions the fact that the Rhaetians were separated from the Etruscans as a consequence of the arrival of the Celts. The archaeological sources, although showing a strict connection between the Etrurian iron culture and Central Europe, do not legitimate the theory of a migration from the north from the very point of view that other Italic and Mediterranean cultures entertained a more or less strict cultural relationship with Central Europe during the Iron Age.

The old autochthonous hypothesis of Dionysius finds an echo in the modern theories of those scholars who think that the Etruscans are a relict of a neolitic Mediterranean people that lived in peace up to the Bronze Age, while the Italic peoples --- who spoke an Indo-European language and used cremation --- should be identified with the proto-Villanova and Villanova culture. This cannot be true though as the area where the Villanova culture developed overlaps almost perfectly the historical borders of Etruria.

In contradiction with so many theories, there are very few facts. Archaeology shows that there was a cultural continuity from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. The sudden and spectacular changes that could mark the arrival of a migrating people are lacking. On the other hand, the most ancient literary sources -- as in the case of Dionysius -- do stress the peculiar relationship tying the Etruscans together with Aegean peoples (= Pelasgians) or Anatolian peoples (=Lydians) and relate them to the prae-Greek inhabitants of Lemnos and Imbros. The inscriptions of Lemnos, going back to the period antecedent the Athenian conquest (510 BC) seem to confirm that Lemnian is very similar to Etruscan.

The Lemnian inscriptions raised once again the entire problem of Etruscan origins. One of the best represented tendencies in Etruscan research is to adopt the most economical thesis: the Etruscans were a non-Indo-European people native to Italy who adopted many items and styles of east Mediterranean provenience by way of trade. Yet, the similarity between Etruscan and the Lemnian inscriptions must be acknowledged and is admittedly difficult to explain. As a consequence of this, another thesis sees both Etruscan and Lemnian as remnants of a continuum of non-Indo-European "Mediterranean" languages which spanned the eastern and central Mediterranean before the intrusion of Indo-European speakers.

There is no easy solution since the evidence is extremely self-contradictory. In my eyes, though, the similarity between Etruscan and Lemnian is too great to be explained by anything else but a more direct and immediate historical connection. It follows from this that Etruscan cannot be considered any more an "isolated" language in the Mediterranean.......(more)

Axiom: some native Italians, Greeks and Portuguese (and perhaps some Spaniards) are non-white.
Hair colour has nothing to do with determining ancestral racial type, as Coon shows. Hair type (viz. Frenz's analysis) and physiognomy are good indicators of non-white mixture.
If the non-white element is pre-Aryan - which would explain why American mongrels look almost 100% white whereas 2000 year old Italian/Greek muds look non-white - then that does nothing to disprove that Europe has shitskin elements.

http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/etrusk/po/origins.html

A quick summation: No one knows and everything is speculation. One theory says indigenous - but it is based on no hard evidence. Another theory says immigration from some eastern place, often situated in Anatolia, but again, no hard evidence.

As the Etruscan language has not been deciphered and probably won't be perhaps we will never know. Most Etruscan inscriptions are funerary and deal (they think) in lineage anyway.

One thing that is known about the Etruscans is that their shot at empire failed. The barbaric Goths who burned their colonies checked their Northern expansion into the Po valley and Veneto. Their southern enclave in Campania was stopped and then destroyed by first the Sammnites and then the Latins. When this happened, Etruria imploded into itself and this manifested itself in a simultaneous debauch into all the good, soft, pleasant things in this life (all those smiling couples - the guy being usually quite fat - on their funerary statuary) and an exaggerated, rather ridiculous simulated bellicosity. Those tombs (there are lots and lots of Etruscan tombs, it seems - whole cities of them) are festooned with a profusion of sculptural hunting, military, war and warrior symbols like battle-axes, spears, shields, dead animals, etc. The Etruscan equivalent of current dying Western culture with its keyboard warriors and big talk. They were finished and knew it and hid in a fantasy of militaristic imagery, we are finished too, but too craven and stupid (many at any rate) to either admit or know it. The Etruscans did fight back – repeatedly - before they were destroyed. We didn’t even fight – unless verbal bullshit counts as fighting.

P.S. diddling around here sure beats work...

........ The Etruscan equivalent of current dying Western culture with its keyboard warriors and big talk. They were finished and knew it and hid in a fantasy of militaristic imagery, we are finished too, but too craven and stupid (many at any rate) to either admit or know it. The Etruscans did fight back – repeatedly - before they were destroyed. We didn’t even fight – unless verbal bullshit counts as fighting.

P.S. diddling around here sure beats work...

reading your posts beats work too. come on back more often eh?

Axiom: some native Italians, Greeks and Portuguese (and perhaps some Spaniards) are non-white.
Hair colour has nothing to do with determining ancestral racial type, as Coon shows. Hair type (viz. Frenz's analysis) and physiognomy are good indicators of non-white mixture.
If the non-white element is pre-Aryan - which would explain why American mongrels look almost 100% white whereas 2000 year old Italian/Greek muds look non-white - then that does nothing to disprove that Europe has shitskin elements.

What is the point? Most of the peoples of Europe have been moving around - often ending very far indeed from where they began - for millennia. What's pure about the German people? Mongols and other quite eastern racial groups periodically conquered and enslaved many of the Teutonic tribes. That is one of the main reasons so many of those tribes begged refuge and protection within the Roman Empire - only the Roman Empire had the discipline and technology to usually defeat the Mongols (as well as the Germans).

In other words - Germany has been raped and pillaged repeatedly over a period of many centuries and consequently there is nothing particularly racially pure about Germans.

The NSDAP laudably tried to bring all the 'ethnic German' peoples back together in Germany - Pomeranians, Silesians, etc., many of whom had and have large admixtures of Slavic and even more eastern blood. If it was OK for Himmler, it's fucking OK with me.

Europe is, or rather, WAS, the culmination of millennia of such mixing - so what? Don't knock some when it applies to virtually all.

In a world where the White Race basically gave up, it seems not just ridiculous, but surreal to squabble over who is fucking pure and who isn't. We are all fucking dead, kamerad and we did it to ourselves (with guidance from the good ol kikes - who we happily obeyed).

Barring the recent influx of shitskins, where are Germany's nonwhites? The Germans eradicated the 19th century's Semitic influence, whereas Mussolini preferred to complain that the Germans were inferior because the Romans could write before Germans (no mention of the Middle East's precedent, though), while utterly failing to replicate the Romans' military prowess against tiny and weak nations like Albania. Simply put, some Greeks/whatever are not white! Fuck them! They are not us! They are part of the problem, not the solution. Why do southern Europeans have a problem realising this when the Germans took active measures to remedy their own population? 'Methinks thou doth protest too much'.
Slavs as such ain't non-white, although Eastern Europe may have tiny nonwhite elements.
The more I think about it, the more it seems that only the Protestants were racists. The French, Spanish, Portuguese, were more than happy to mix lineages with Stone Age savages. The Catholic French were overjoyed at the thought of bringing blue-skinned niggers and yellow Gooks into Europe to fight the Germans and Bulgarians in WW1.
The point is to 'be white'. I see physiognomically nonwhite Euros and I see their arse-chasing, faggot-imitating behaviour and I conclude that they are simply not us, even if they are European.

My father was German with one Prussian and one Bavarian parent. If you asked a north German 'where are Germany's nonwhites?' the answer you used to get was 'in Bavaria.' Ask a Bavarian and he would answer 'in Austria.' Ask an Austrian - 'in the Sud Tyrol.' Ask a North Italian - 'in Lazio' and ask a Roman and he will say 'in Campania,' etc. In other words, it's all relative.

Today, of course, Germany's non-whites are turks, millions and millions of them. And probably lots and lots of genuine niggers in there too, just like you Brits have every disgusting mixed nightmare from your extinct empire at home as citizens. Even in the good ol' white days, I believe the Anglo Saxons regarded the Welsh in sort of the same light. Today that game is pointless as half of africa is either in Europe or the US with the other half on the way.

Germans look like Germans to us because what they look like (soon to be looked like) is what we are used to. Germany - for one thing - didn't exist till 1870 and as a free nation stopped existing in 1945. That is, historically speaking, nothing. And what a white Prussian looks like is radically different from what a white Bavarian look like. Yes, Germans were united by race, but more by culture - that's why the joos murdered culture first.

Not that I disagree with much of what you say...I just don't see the point of it. Sure, the farther south you go in Italy the more radically the look of the population differs from what Northern Italians look like, and also the feel, the tone and the behavior of the place. The dusty corners of South Italy are indeed pretty damn exotic. All of this is true; it is also true that Naples is closer to Africa than it is to Torino...but again, so what? It isn't the look or the tone of white (within sensible reason, that is) to me, it's the mind set, the cultural allegiance. There have always been immigrants to any country and as long as the dominant culture stays dominant, that's sort of OK with me. But we don't have any culture any more and though the joos are behind it, they couldn't have done it without the active participation of the majority of white people.

So then, other than our now extinct culture - German and Italian with French lagging a bit behind, or Italian and German with French lagging a bit behind - you pick the order - what exactly has ''the white race" done in the last 100 years that is so fucking wonderful that there is any point in squabbling over blood lines and such? I know of no other people in all the fucking history of the world who complacently gave up, handed all that their great men had achieved to their underlings and then committed suicide. The white race eagerly embraced slavery – and I should give a piss about who is or isn’t whiter or more white, or genuine white, etc. Why?

Phoenicians, who originated from today's Lebanon, settled in Spain and had it out with the Romans. They crossed the Alps on elephants to rush the unwary Romans from behind. There are still enclaves, in Spain, where the language, chants and song are still alive!

"...Cadiz is one of the oldest cities in Spain, founded by Phoenicians. It is fascinating for its typical Andalusian ambience with whitewashed houses and tropical vegetation..."

http://www.red2000.com/spain/region/r-anda.html

more:

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=phoenicians+spain&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

Etruscans were not white and were quite swarthy. I believe they were principally of Armenoid racial type. Basques are a completely different story as they are descended from Cro-Magnids in western Europe...having no Levantine roots whatsoever. They are still white in my books, and can't be anything but. (Basques have low levels of Haplogroup J in their Y-Chromosomes and amongst Europeans they have the lowest levels of Haplogroup J in their mtDNA lineages).

Southern Italians are considered non-white due to their Haplogroup J lineages even though 50% of these came from Greeks who are considered white. I'm sorry but the logic doesn't make sense. Meanwhile Lebanese and Syrians have much more haplogroup J (along with other non-European haplogroup frequencies) and yet can be considered white? ????

All the same, I would have to say that the average Greek is less swarthy than the average south Italian, but not by much. Most of the slaves in Imperial Roman times came from the Middle East and most of them settled in the southern half of Italy to work on the farms. South Italy was the "breadbasket" of the empire in those days due to its abundance of grains.

Ancient Italic tribes were kin to the ancient Celts (this is testified by Linguistic evidence, by anthropological evidence, and by archaelogical evidence that showed the ancient Italic cultures growing out of the Villanovan/Urnfield cultures that had also developed the contemporary Celts), unfortunately, there were not enough of them in Italy to dilute the pre-Aryan populations.

The truth the mongrel 'pan aryan' nord hunters refuse to acknowledge. Rather than employ eugenics programs to reduce the admixture, they would rather arm-twist purer whites into accepting them as white. As a result, I only accept 'Italians', 'Greeks', and 'Russians' on a case-by-case basis.

Right Limey! check out your own dna and all the other mixbreed idiots from the british Isles! and don't forget the Huns blood in the Germans!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/changing_face_of_britain.stm

Border people are descended of Africans!

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/11/nswall11.xml

There really aren't that many pure Whites. anybody who tans has melanin in their skin, like niggers, so the only pure Whites are people who get freckles or albinos. If you tan, you're a mongrel, at the least.

Axiom: some native Italians, Greeks and Portuguese (and perhaps some Spaniards) are non-white.
Hair colour has nothing to do with determining ancestral racial type, as Coon shows. Hair type (viz. Frenz's analysis) and physiognomy are good indicators of non-white mixture.
If the non-white element is pre-Aryan - which would explain why American mongrels look almost 100% white whereas 2000 year old Italian/Greek muds look non-white - then that does nothing to disprove that Europe has shitskin elements.

Show me a fucking picture EVEN ONE! Its been 6 years now...DEAD SILENCE
WHEREARE THESE "ITALIAN MONGRELS"? SHOW ME PHOTOS SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBING THEIR NW RACIAL TRAITS FOR MOTHERFUCKING GODS SAKE JUST ONE

There really aren't that many pure Whites. anybody who tans has melanin in their skin, like niggers, so the only pure Whites are people who get freckles or albinos. If you tan, you're a mongrel, at the least.

LMWAO! Only fucking ALBINOS dont have melanin. BTW many Albinosare Blacks!

Axiom: some native Italians, Greeks and Portuguese (and perhaps some Spaniards) are non-white.
Hair colour has nothing to do with determining ancestral racial type, as Coon shows. Hair type (viz. Frenz's analysis) and physiognomy are good indicators of non-white mixture.
If the non-white element is pre-Aryan - which would explain why American mongrels look almost 100% white whereas 2000 year old Italian/Greek muds look non-white - then that does nothing to disprove that Europe has shitskin elements.

If these Italian children from Southern Italy are not white, then neither are your mother and father you race mixing anglo nordic mongrel.

http://img160.exs.cx/img160/9361/campanianaples092xz.jpg