Balkan Museum - Balkanski Muzej
present historical artifact find by myself on different sources
in area of former prehistoric area of Illyricum and present Balkan countries
I WILL PRESENT HERE MY DISCOVERY AND VISUAL EXPLANATION OF UNKNOWN PERSON VISIBLE ON STECAK-TOMBSTONE ON RADIMLJA AREA IN BIH, EUROPE, EARTH.
PAGE UNDER CONSTRUCTION
The Etruscans are the people who occupied the area north and west of the river Tiber up to the River Arno.
They later expanded south into Campania and northeast toward the Po valley.
The salient characteristic of the Etruscans is that they spoke a unique non-Indo-European language. They evidence for this language takes the shape of inscriptions. Most are formulaic funerary inscriptions of little content.
Etrur TOMBSTONES - Etrur STEĆAK
This four stecak images below I find
on John Stojko web site. Copyrighted
C by John Stojko
Original web page is here http://home.att.net/~oko/etruscan/e-tombstones.htm
Text on stecak from Etrur past...
A few longer texts are preserved. The nature of the evidence is such that while the gist of most funerary inscriptions can be made out, the longer ones are often unclear in many respects--there simply isn't enough documentation or translation into known languages to allow for a very detailed understanding, though the general outlines of the grammar are clear enough.
Text on stecak from Etrur past...
Text on stecak from Etrur past...
The question is, where did these people come from?
THEY COME IN ITALY, VIA GREECE, BALKAN, FROM TURKEY WHEN EVERYTHING WAS CONNECTED,ONE LAND IN ONE PART...
BEFORE HUGE TECTONIC DISTURBANCE OF PLANET EARTH...
THIS HAPPENED WHEN PLANET EARTH START TO SLOWING DOWN THEIR OWN ROTATION...
SOME OBJECT WHEN ARRIVE IN NEAR SPACE OF PLANET EARTH COURSE THAT PLANET CHANGE ROTATIONAL SPEED, THIS OBJECT WAS MOON...
THAT ROTATIONAL SPEED IS SLOWING DOWN FROM THAT TIME, AND HERE I WILL TRY TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPEN WITH ETRUR ...
IN MANY OLD DOCUMENTS THERE IS MYSTERY EXPLANATIONS...
THIS WAS DESCRIBED IN BIBLE AS A HUGE FLOODING, BUT THIS HAPPENED MANY THOUSAND YEARS TEN JESUS APPEAR...
Bosnia TOMBSTONES - STEZJAK - SNEZJAK - STEĆAK
Herodotus (Book 1 Chap. 94), a Greek historian writing in the late 5th century BC, says that the Etruscans were Lydians in origin. Lydia is an area of western Asia Minor(=modern Turkey).
How they arrive where they now? See above map.
According to Herodotus, before the Trojan war there was a great famine in Lydia that went on for 25 years.
Finally, the king decided to split his people in two, half staying, half emigrating. His two sons drew lots to see who would lead the emigrants, and the lot fell to Tyrrhenos, who led them to Italy.
The details of the story are clearly unreliable.
HERE IS MY LATEST RESEARCH, WHICH CAN EXPLAIN A LOT OF THINGS: WHAT WAS IN THAT ANCIENT TIME, PLEASE READ WITH GREAT ATTENTIONN http://bev.ba/MOMARAFO/ANCIENTPLANETEARTH/index.html
The Trojan war was dated by the Greeks to the early 12th century BC, and by the time of Herodotus there were no reliable records for this period, just myths.
Here is images done by RUDOLF BOSNJAK and HIS THEORY HOW they move in Italy and why PLANET EARTH rotation SLOWING DOWN. This can CAN EXPLAINS many misteries on our planet...
LOOK CLOSE Sea BETWEEN GREECE AND TURKEY, what missing there.
Below i make them as was in very old past...
If YOU look carefully every
map of Europe you will see something like grabbing, screeching Greece from Turkey,
you will see Earth connection between Greece and Turkey in the very old past.
Also, the Etruscans were called Tyrrhenoi by the Greeks, so the name of the leader of the expedition was made up to explain the name of the people (it is a practice to make up the name of the founder of a people or city on the basis of the people's or city's name and then say that the founder gave his name to the people or city).
But could the story reflect a real event, namely that the Etruscans moved from Asia Minor to Italy?
Same was with Italy and Balkan peninsula. In very old past Adriatic see does not exist, no dividing Balkan from Italy and Turkey from Greece. In my theory I use computer graphic to put together this land and all this part fit almost together.
Now, How Etruscans arrive from Turkey.
If so, when did they arrive?
How does there arrival fit in to the archaeological record?
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote about in Early Rome at the end of the first century BC, argued that the Etruscans were autochthonous, that is, that they were the original inhabitans of their territory. If this tradition is correct, does this mean that Etruscans represent the Apennine culture of the second millennium?
1) Acceptance of Lydian origin.
On the Aegean island of Lemnos was found an inscription of about 600 BC written in a language clearly similar to Etruscan. Thucydides, a contemporary of Herodotus, wrote that the pre-Greek population of the island was Tyrrhenian (=Etruscan). Perhaps on this island there was a holdover of the population from which the Etrucans emigrated to Italy, or perhaps the Lemnian "Etruscans" were left behind there during the migration. Certainly, the Etruscan practice of hepatoscopy (divination through examination of the livers of sacrificial animals) is alien to other Italian peoples but is common in the Near East. It is argued that these Etruscan immigrants were not mass invaders who supplanted the locals, but groups of males seeking land (and mineral resources?) who settled among the more primitive locals, intermarried with them, and provided leadership for them. Eventually, the locals adopted the language of these incomers. These incomers therefore did not affect the material culture of the local population directly, so they don't leave any record of their arrival through the immediate introduction of some new form of artifact (like a new style of pottery). They are compared to the Normans, whose arrival in England greatly changed the direction of Anglo-Saxon culture but did not represent a wide-spread shift in the general population. It is argued that the Etruscans arrived around 800 BC, and their arrival is the "leaven" that causes the precipitous increase in the level of culture in the Orientalizing period.
Problems with this theory:
There is no evidence for their arrival, and the comparison with the Normans is simply an attempt to explain this away. Yet, there is no indication in the archaeological record of any change in population or practice apart from the shift in locations of sites at the Proto-Villanovan/Villanovan divide (ca. 900). The same general developments in the advance of culture are visible in non-Etruscan Latium.
2) Etruscans as Autochthonous
Some would accept the idea that the Etruscans were a remanant of the original, non-Indo-European inhabitants of Italy ("autochthonous" means "there from the beginning"). The Etruscans were thus swamped by the Indo-European invaders and maintained themselves only in the area between the Arno and Tiber. Yet the area later occupied by the Etruscans is virtually identical with that of the novel cremating Villanovan culture, while the inhuming practices of the Apennine period continue in the non-Etruscan areas of Iron Age Italy. In effect, the Bronze Age burial practices continue in the areas where the Etruscans do not appear at the end of the Iron Age, while the Etruscan homeland in Italy is the location of the novel practice of cremation. The archaeological evidence thus argues directly against this hypothesis: continuity of burial practices exists in the regions of Italy outside of the Etruscan homeland, while the latter is the prime location for the new practice. (And it is also clear that Dionysius of Halicarnassus was preserving no earlier tradition about the origins of the Etruscans and was just guessing.)
3) Recent Attempts at a Solution by Etruscologists
There has been a trend among Italian Etruscologists (esp. Massimo Pallottino) to argue the problem away. They wish to turn away from the question of the "provenance" or "origin" of the Etruscans, and instead discuss the "formation" of the Etruscan nation.
From Pallottino's book The Etruscans (2nd. ed., 1975) pp. 79-81:
"... they [the Etruscans] formed a complex of eastern, continental [i.e. central European] and indigenous elements which must be isolated, weighed, and compared one with the other... [F]or the time being we can state quite safely that the formative process of the Etruscans can only have taken place on the territory of Etruria itself, and we can witness the final stages of this process thanks to the rich archaeological documentation we possess for the period from the ninth to the seventh centuries...[T]he distinction between theories of eastern origin and of autochthony fades if we suppose a Tyrrhenian east-to-west movement in remote pre-historic times (or even later: perhaps during the Bronze Age)... The Villanovan [period], considered as a whole, is a new and original phenomenon, locally wrought upon the foundations laid by the Bronze Age Apennine culture, some of the characteristic elements of which it absorbs (e.g. the shape of the large biconical urn...). It is not necessary, therefore, to postulate a radical ethnic transformation at the beginning of the Villanovan period; but rather an impulse, a determining ferment which brought about the crystallization of "Tyrrhenian" and Indo-European ethnic elements into what was to become the Etruscan nation as we know it north of the Tiber."
This isn't very satisfying, and begs the issue. The Etruscans are considered immigrants from the east, but their arrival is shuffled off to the "remote pre-historic times" where there is no real evidence for it. Even here there is fuzziness. The suggestion that they may have arrived in the late Bronze Age surely only makes sense as a suggestion that they are the proto-Villanovans. Are they or aren't they? And why should they be, since the proto-Villanovan period has a counterpart in the non-Etruscan Latial Phase I. This talk of "ferment" is just a way to avoid making clear the actual relationship between the early "Etruscans" and the Villanovan culture.
Overall, it seems best, given the overlap of the Villanovan area with the later extent of Etruscan inhabitation in the historical period, to imagine that the appearance of proto-Villanovan culture marks the arrival of the Etruscans, though the circumstances of their arrival are uncertain. If they did arrive from elsewhere, this conclusion does not by itself demonstrate the truth of Herodotus's story (they could have come from somewhere else), though the Lemnian inscription does lend credence to it.
The cities of Etruria appear to have been at the forefront of the great development in urban life that took place in the Orientalizing period (seventh and sixth centuries). They led the way in the development of city building, both the physical and the organizational sense. Traditionally there were 12 "peoples" of Etruria, that is, twelve territories grouped around one major urban area after which all the inhabitants were named (e.g., all those living in the territory of the city of Tarquinii were called Tarquinians, even if they lived in a small outlying town or the countryside). The process by which these city states were formed is unknown. In this period the cities seem to have been ruled by kings, the Etruscan word for king being "lucumo." Each king had an attendant called a lictor, who carried as a symbol of royal authority a bundle of rods tied around an axe (the Latin word for a bundle is fascis, plural fasces). The kings wore purple robes and sat on a throne called the sella curulis in Latin. All of these symbols were adopted by the magistrates of the Roman Republic, and presumably reflect the usages of the Roman kings under the Etruscan dynasty.
It seems that in the fifth and sixth centuries the city states saw a change of government. The kings were overthrown by the land owning aristocracy and a government of annual magistrates was introduced. A similar process occurs in Rome. The details of Etruscan republican government are by no means clear, though the titles zilath, maru and purthne are attested for the chief magistrate.
Even the identity of the 12 city states of Etruria is unclear. It appears that they at times operated together in some sort of league, but the details escape us. Certainly, there was never any unity among the Etruscan cities, and this was a major factor in their being conquered by the Romans, who subordinated all Latium to their own control.
There appears to have been a fair amount of interaction between the early Romans and the Etruscans. In Veii we have an inscription mentioning in Etruscan a Titus Latinus, clearly a Roman name. An orientalizing sanctuary found in Rome has a votive gift with an Etruscan inscription. The influence of the Etruscans on the Romans is also clear from the many borrowings the Romans made of Etruscan practices.
The Etruscans were heavily influenced by Greek art. They adopted many Greek forms, though they strongly adapted them in spirit. They build temples that were like Greek ones, but differed in having a front (Greek temples were symmetrical) and having a three-fold interior (division into three rooms). They were decorated with terra cotta figures. The Romans adopted all these forms
The Etruscans were considerd a very religious people in antiquity, and the Romans borrowed many religious customs from them. The traditional Roman form of divination was to observe the flight of birds (auspicium) but they adopted divination through inspection of livers (hepatoscopy/haruspicy) and thunder from the Etruscans. (In the Republic, Etruscan diviners were often called upon as experts to interpret omens.)
The Etruscans also adopted a primitive form of the Greek alphabet. Though we saw that a pot with (apparently meaningless) letters was found in the Osteria dell'Osa cemetery from Latial Phase IIB, it would seem that the Roman alphabet (used in modified form by us) was borrowed by the Romans from the Etruscans rather than directly from the Greeks. There are no voiced stops in the Etruscan language so the Etruscans used the Greek letter gamma to represent the sound of the letter K instead of the Greek value of G. The Romans took this over, despite the fact that they had a G sound in their language and also had the redundant letters K and Q. (The letter form G was later developed to provide for the sound.) This use of the gamma to represent the K-sound and not the G-sound makes sense only for Etruscan.
In the seventh century, the Etruscans began to expand outside of their original homeland, though the details of this are poorly recorded, and even the political organization used to carry out this expansion is unknown (Did cities act individually or was a league involved? If the latter, how was it organized?) They expanded to the northeast, but for our purposes the important direction of expansion was to the south. Around 650 they established themselves in Campania (the area south of Latium), creating a major settlement at Capua. It seems that at the same time they established some sort of hegemony in Latium in general and Rome in particular. Rome was strategically important because it was situated on a ford of the Tiber, the southern boundary of Etruria, and thus gave (or hindered) access to the south. The Etruscans also became a naval power, and co-operated with the Carthaginians in opposing Greek settlements in Corsica and Sardinia. In 524, the Etruscans attacked Cumae, the major Greek city of Campania and were defeated. This marked a decline in Etruscan power, which presumably explains (at least in part) the expulsion of the last (Etruscan) king of Rome in about 507 BC. Certainly, the Greeks of Cumae assisted in warding off an Etruscan attempt to regain control of Rome. In 474 the Greeks defeated the Etruscan fleet. From now on the Etruscans no longer expanded, and eventually succumbed to the Romans, as we will see in later lectures.
moje misli objavljene, tekst i sve slike objavljene su POD PRAVOM KOPIRANJA.
Sva prava zadržana Rudolf Bošnjak
PAŽNJA SVIM KORISNICIMA OVOG MATERIJALA, SVE STO JE NAPISANO I SVI CRTEŽI SU COPYRIGHT
Copyright C 1952-3000. All rights reserved. Rudolf Bosnjak.