Why "Etruscan is not readable" or history as politics
Why "Etruscan is not readable" or history as politics

The situation with the Etruscans is very strange. On the one hand, on the basis of the Etruscan writing, the Latin alphabet was created (about half of the letters of the Etruscan and Latin alphabets are written almost the same), like many other things the Romans adopted from the Etruscans:


There are no problems with phonetic identification of Etruscan texts. Linguistic scientists know the phonetics (sound) of Etruscan letters and, accordingly, Etruscan words …


But, on the other hand, the Etruscan texts do not lend themselves to deciphering at all. Here is how Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a Soviet and Russian linguist, translator, semioticist and anthropologist, expressed his opinion on this issue: “The situation in the study of Etruscan texts seems paradoxical. Their study and probable phonetic interpretation does not cause difficulties due to the sufficient clarity of the Etruscan graphic system … nevertheless, the understanding of Etruscan texts has made extremely little progress, if we do not bear in mind very small funerary inscriptions, standard in content and usually consisting of sequences of proper names indicating related relationships between their carriers. So far, more and more complex texts cannot be translated at all."

"Apart from the possible kinship of Etruscan with two other dead languages ​​- Rethian and Lemnos (presumably identical to the reconstructed Pelasgian), Etruscan is considered an isolate language and has no scientifically recognized relatives." - This is the verdict introduced by the Etruscan language by official science.

At the same time, there is a whole camp of Etruscan researchers who deciphered Etruscan inscriptions based on Slavic languages:


Tadeusz Wolanski


Alexander Dmitrievich Chertkov

Image Image

and some others.

The research of these authors can be viewed in different ways. Linguistics is not an exact science, and there are no 100% identical translations, even from modern languages. In any translation from one language to another, there is always a subjective element - the translator himself, who can always be blamed for the inaccuracy of the translation. This especially applies to translations from dead languages, which include Etruscan: its speakers have long been gone, and there is simply no one to confirm or deny the correctness of the translations of Chertkov, Volansky or other Etruscan linguists.

However, this does not detract from the fact that the Etruscan letter was nevertheless deciphered, and more than once, by a number of researchers, starting from the 19th century. And they made these translations only with the help of Slavic languages. All attempts to decipher the Etruscan script using other languages, both scientists and amateurs, ended in complete failure. And this can also serve as an indirect confirmation of the commonality of the Etruscan and Slavic languages, as the only language group on the basis of which all known translations from Etruscan were made.

But academic science continues to stand its ground: Etruscan is not readable (etruscum non legitur), period. Moreover, Etruscan cannot be read on the basis of Slavic languages, because:

"The Slavs as a formed people were first attested in Byzantine written sources of the middle of the 6th century. In retrospect, these sources mention Slavic tribes in the 4th century. Earlier information relates to peoples who could take part in the ethnogenesis of the Slavs".


- This simple and uncomplicated phrase contains an equally simple answer to the question in the title of this article:

The Etruscan letter therefore cannot be read on the basis of the Slavic languages, because official science denied the Slavs in history, that is, in the very existence of the Slavs, before the IV century AD. Moreover, the Slavs were denied writing during the period of the Roman Empire. And writing is also statehood. For there is no statehood without writing, and vice versa. Because the state (supra-tribal and supra-tribal construction) exercises its power not on the basis of clan and tribal oral traditions (although they can also be taken into account), but on the basis of the Law. And the Law is also a written language, without which even a principality does not exist.

But what kind of statehood can the Slavs have if in Europe in the IV century A.D. there was (according to OI) only one state - the Roman Empire (we will talk about the time frame of the Roman Empire later)!

The oldest state in Europe is San Marino. Older only the Roman Empire itself (according to the OI, the Roman Empire is a state), after the collapse of which, according to the OI, separate states began to appear on the territory of Europe.


That is why all the options for decoding Etruscan writing based on Slavic languages ​​are not just "anti-scientific", they are against the West and its "exceptional" history. Because if we admit that Rome (the mother of Russian European cities) was founded, even if not by the Slavs, but by the Proto-Slavs, or a people related to the Slavs (and this also means that the Slavs already existed then), then the entire ideological structure of historical superiority crumbles like a house of cards Western European peoples over the Slavs, led by the Russian people - a historical rival of Western civilization, which also has an imperial history, and therefore imperial thinking and ambitions, as the only correct national strategy of survival. Only not at the expense of other peoples as colonies, as is customary in the West, but on the basis of equal rights for all ethnic groups in the Russian civilizational empire, and even more, their advanced development, as it was during the Soviet era.

Let's just imagine for a moment that Western historical science recognized that Etruscan writing is closest to the South Slavic etymology, and that the founders of Rome and Roman culture were the ancestors of the modern Slavs (or a people related to the Slavs) - the Etruscans (self-name - Rasenna, Raśna), who, in fact, they cast a bronze capitol wolf with two babies - symbol of the BEGINNING of European civilization


This is where all Russophobia, as the main life-giving source of Western chauvinist ideology, will end right there. The BASIS of the historical "exclusiveness" of the Western world in front of all other peoples will disappear. Yes, and its own electorate will begin to treat the Slavs and Russians differently if it sees them as the founding fathers of European civilization, as opposed to the current Western chauvinistic version of history, according to which the Slavs during the Roman Empire were not so close (like the barbarians - the ancestors of the present Germans and French), and generally did not exist in ancient times.

But what is "ancient times"?..

Official history offers us a version, by the way, which has not been confirmed by anything other than the "historical" (but is it a science?), That with the collapse of the Roman Empire, technical progress stopped for 1000 years, people stopped inventing and improving their work; arts and crafts have degraded; society voluntarily dropped to the level of barbarism. Such a deep fall of the European economy could still be somehow explained, for example, by a sharp reduction in natural reserves of oil and gas, in relation to the present times, followed by the return of society to coal and steam, although it is possible to make liquid fuel from coal - an analogue of automobile and aviation fuel.That is, a reduction in energy consumption per person could cause society to return to an earlier stage of its development with a subsequent slowdown. But even in this case, scientific progress would not have stopped for 1000 years, and maybe even accelerated in search of a new technological and energy order.

But no energy failure occurred 1500 years ago (according to the official chronology). The muscular energy of people and animals, a water wheel and sails, as they were during the Roman Empire, remained the basis of the economy until the first technological order - the First Industrial Revolution at the end of the 18th century. The official history still does not have an intelligible answer, what incredible power was able to stop technical progress for 1000 years, and then also "revive" with millimeter precision the Roman ancient traditions in construction, culture, art, clothing, and even in military equipment: leather belts in the form of a Spartan "pteryuges" skirt and leather or metal muscle "with cubes" cuirasses successfully survived until the 17th century, as evidenced by Karion Istomin's primer published in 1694:



What the Roman Empire really was, when and by whom the Julian calendar was introduced, how, with the help of the Gregorian calendar, they lengthened the history by exactly 1500 years and transferred the events of the 15-17 centuries into antiquity, inventing the "Middle Ages", and much more … read in my Another History of the Roman Empire, the first three chapters of which have already been made available as films on my YouTube channel.

Popular by topic