Salve Favoni

Scripsisti:
so I guess through this debate we have arrived at the consensus that I mentioned a week or two earlier.

Yes, no problem. Rome was influnced by Etruscans, as well as by other cultures, and arguing over the extent of foreign influences in Rome and when they occurred is futile. The problem comes in saying that certain things originated with Etruscans where no related evidence is available, or the available evidence says otherwise, and where marked differences are notable. I accept that Roman augury was influenced by Etruscan augury, but not that it originated with Etruscans.

From the other side, if you wanted to research Etruscan augury, it does not help to assume it was the same as Roman augury and then make the kinds of errors as Heurgon made. Often times reconstructions place together bits of unrelated material and pose a fictitious model that leads to greater confusion than simply admitting we don't know. Something which comes to mind is Carl Thulin's Scriptorum Disciplinae Etruscae Fragmenta, 1906. The material he used concerned Roman augury and Etruscan harupicy as told in Roman sources. It really does not tell us about Etruscan practices.