Salve Favoni

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

And once again you make vague references without any attempt to present a case for your opinion. Is that what passes as scholarship in AW? Perhaps my initial assessment of this place was mistaken.

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.

And I am not really saying they did. First, it appears to me from your wording that you take all forms of augury to be the same. That I would not agree with, but I am not sure that is what you meant to imply. What I claim is that Roman practices developed in the multicultural setting that existed along the Tyrrhennian coast. What you refer to from books you have read has mistakeningly identified certain material evidence as specifically Etruscan when it is not. That is, the Villanovan material culture cannot be clearly identified with any specific ethnic culture. Urbanization and orientalizing occurs throughout the Tyrrhennina coast at the same time, so it too cannot be taken as specifically Etruscan. What materials that are found at Rome and are clearly identifiable as Etruscan are found along side other materials that are either Greek or Italic copies of Greek wares. Rome was in contact with various cultures, so they did not evolve in isolation, nor were they so heavily influenced by Etruscans alone, as some have posited in the past.

Going back to that earliest of periods, where Latium is developing as one of the Villanovan cultures, Holloway points to the fact that miniaturization of grave goods "is found only rarely outside Latium. The hut urn for cremated remains, although known in Etruria and Campania as well, is typical of Latium. Although the documentation of the early Alban and Latin tombs is scattered, it still shows that the Roman tradition that their founders were descendents of the Alban kings reflects a true bond between the Romans of the early Iron Age and the Alban Hills. The Alban/Roman type of burial is not found outside Latium. It belongs to the nomen Latinum, the speakers of the Latin language." That is, within the Villanovan material culture there were still regional differences that can be distinguished. Holloway goes into a good summary of some discoveries, discusses some of their potential implications, but also cautions against making too much out of them. Still it is clear from the evidence that Latins had their own religious practices prior to what can be termed an Etruscan period at Rome. The affinity of Rome's material culture is decidedly linked to the Alban regions, and thus it follows that the origin of Roman religious practices is with the Latins of that region, as the tradition claims. With regard to augury specifically, the Lavinium lituus dates to this period when Rome was connected so closely to the Alban region. That does not mean there were not Etruscan augures, or that Etruscans did not use a lituus, too. There is some evidence that they did in this period. We know there were differences between the Latin form of augury and that used by Etruscans. Other things in Roman augury could have been borrowed from Etruscans. But I do not think you claim an Etruscan origin of Roman augury when there were such clear differences and when Roman tradition held their form to have had a Latin origin. Etruscan observed the calls of birds, but not the flight of birds as did Romans. We do not know if they used the same oscines, but it is highly probable that Romans borrowed something of this sort from Etruscans as well as from Latins. Both observed lightning flashes, but Etruscans did not apparently observe thunder claps. And the Etruscan use of lightning was more complex than used by Romans. Again the Romans likely studied Etruscan lore on lightning, borrowed some things from them, but not everything, so that their use of lightning as omens differed. The main difference between Roman augury and that of Etruscan augury came in which direction they held to be most propitious. That indicates that Romans used a different procedure from Etruscans, since it indicates Etruscans took the auspices while facing north, where Romans always faced south. So when you look at details it does not follow that Roman augury originated with Etruscans. That is not to say that Latin or Roman augury evolved in isolation, but the basic assertion in Roman tradition of a Latin origin for Roman augury seems the better claim. The assumption of an Etruscan origin OTOH as little or no evidence to support it, in fact the little we do know about Etruscan augury comes from Roman sources about Roman augury.


And if you keep comparing Republican augury and haruispeces it will just betray your desperate argument.

There is a distinct difference between Etruscan haruspicy and Roman augury. Confusing the two makes no sense. If you are talking about Etruscan augury, then you have to look at the Etruscan fulgares. We know nothing about their practices, and very little about their lore on lightning. What we have is only indirect, from Seneca, quoting a Late Republic source. Do you have any earlier sources than Late Republican on which to base a comparison?