Talk:Tyrrhenians

Googling turns up the following text in the [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=309575&page=5 white-supremacist Serbian? webite "Stormpower"]: "There is a Greek-Etruscan bilingue at Delphi from this period where the Etruscan tribal name Velthanes is rendered as Tyrrhenoi in Greek." This Wikipedia-only "bilingue" is apparently a bilingual inscription: is there any responsible source for this? A sentence or so of the Delphi context in which it was found would improve credibility. --Wetman 15:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC) [reply ]

Waited long enough: commented-out and notified User:Dbachmann. --Wetman (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

"Stormfront" must have got this from here. I think I remember I took this from a book by Woudhuizen, perhaps The Language of the Sea Peoples (1992), which would qualify as academic, even if somewhat fringy-within-academia. I'll have to dig for the exact page though. When I added this in May 2006, cite.php footnotes for each and every bit of information was not yet as standard as it is now. Which reflects a development to the better, of course. dab (𒁳) 17:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

You should see what they've done to some of my old efforts from 2003!--Wetman (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

The article needs a lot of work in development, referencing and formatting. Meanwhile, a major theory is that these were the sea people of this name. That needs to be worked up and this is the article in which to do it. Sea peoples is looking pretty good now so I moved the text from Etruscan civilization on sea peoples to here and there will be a ref to it in that article. For now though it is not good enough just to go in, so I put it here instead for future ref. By that I mean, not the distant future, as I am working on this set of articles now. Don't be misled by the poor quality of the text removed. Everything about it will suffer a sea change. The text:

An Egyptian inscription at Deir al-Madinah records a victory of Ramesses III over Sea Peoples, including some named Tursha (spelled [twrš3] in Egyptian script). These are probably the same as the earlier Teresh (found written as [trš.w]) of the Merneptah Stele, commemorating Merneptah’s victory in a Libyan campaign at about 1220 BC. This may be too early for the Trojan War. Some have connected the name to the city Taruisas, Troy. The Greeks referred to them originally as *Tyrsenoi, later as Tyrrhenoi. Etruscans referred to themselves as "Rasena", possibly a later corruption of "Trasena" ' even "Tlasena" (from Thalassa = pre-Greek or "Pelasgian" for Sea. The first Etruscan settlement in Italy was said to have been Piombina, after an initial settlement in Elba. From there they are said to have spread throughout Etruria.Dave 19:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply ]

Just so that everyone knows, I added the "Necropolis" section in order to add an archaeological dimension to the article. Keep in mind that I do not care who the Tyrrhenians were or who today is related to them. I just don't care. So, please do not engage in edit wars or fill my discussion page with questionable statements. All I did was add sourced content. That is all. Elysonius (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

it's alright, your additions are fine, the question is only, is this the right place for them? You are ostensibly discussing the archaeology of Lemnos, not "Tyrrhenians" per se, so I suggest this content should rather go to History of Lemnos (and can become a separate Prehistoric Lemnos vel sim. if enough material accumulates). Thanks for your contributions in any case. dab (𒁳) 13:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you. I am glad that you appreciate my contributions. The sourced content I provided does describe the Tyrrhenians (or Pelasgians) of Lemnos as a "remnant of a Mycenaean population" (according to Professor Della Seta). If the section only discussed the existence of a Tyrrhenian necropolis and not the Tyrrhenians per se, then I would completely advocate moving the section to a better place. Since the section I added does mention Tyrrhenians, would it be okay if we could allow it to remain on this particular article?

Of course, if you insist that my additions are better suited for another article, then you have my support. I have no interest in causing any dissonance. I am sure you will make the right decision. Take care. Elysonius (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Now that I think about it, my section would actually be pertinent to both the Tyrrhenians and Lemnos articles. Just trying to help out. Elysonius (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

I think we could briefly refer to the necropolis here. The "Tyrrhenians" are only mentioned in passing. In fact, the Della Seta quote reads "the Tyrrhenians or Pelasgians of Lemnos may be recognized as a remnant of a Mycenaean population.", viz. "Tyrrhenian" and "Pelasgian" are casually used as synonyms for pre-Greek. dab (𒁳) 16:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

I apologize for the late response Dbachmann. Yes, I would not mind having the "Tyrrhenian necropolis" briefly mentioned here. Please take whatever measures are necessary. If you need any help, then feel free to contact me. Take care and thank you for your help. Elysonius (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

The section on Spard has what looks like a single, tangential source while the claim it supposedly supports is explicitly dealt with in the previous second. It also asserts, without sourcing, a "homeland" for the Tyrrhenians that the previous section discounts. It looks like another example of the Troy->Italy trope that never turns out to be true. Are there any better sources, or is it worth letting the previous section deal with the question and just remove this section entirely? Endie (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with everything, the paragraph should be removed. --Tursclan (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC) [reply ]