Not at all. We agree that Livy's is a mythological history of Early Rome. The fact is that sources like Livy provides us with a record of what Romans believed to be true. He is not the only one to express certain views, as Cicero, Ovid, and others also offer us the Roman view of their tradition. They worked from earlier sources, but no more than perhaps late third century sources.

I do not recall Cicero or Ovid specifically talking about Etruscan influences other than speaking of Augury in their time, and that really has little to do with this discussion. (And if you keep comparing Republican augury and haruispeces it will just betray your desperate argument). Livy would have a political reason for making Rome seem founded by her own efforts rather than Etruscans, therefore he is not to be relied. Really the only evidence we have is archaeology.

No I cannot dig up a million and one archaeology journals for you to back up the fact that during this time Etruscan flavored temple and structure architecture was in Rome, along with Etruscan wares and similar findings which would suggest an avid flow of information from early on. Nor can I go into more detail into the Roman adoption of Etruscan governmental artifacts. This is what every source I have seen says. From history books to online sources. You'll have to take my word for it along with probably a majority of others as well.

Can YOU give me evidence, other than a single ambitious historian or graduate student with a desire to be contrary and thus have a voice in the field, to back up YOUR claim in terms of archaeology?

I can also accept the notion that the augury process spread across the Mediterranean about the same time just as most gods had similarities between each other due to an area wide sharing of information. But I cannot accept that the Latins just completely came up with on their own augury alongside neighboring cultures in total isolation. That makes no sense.



Round and round we go, isn't it funny how Moravius just can't let go?