MR. TAYLOR ON THE ETRUSCANS.* (SECOND NOTICE.]
LEAVING the question whether Mr. Taylor has or has not dis- covered the true key to the Etruscan tongue, to be decided by more competent explorers in these little-trodden fields of philo- logy, we will proceed to say a few words on the collateral argu- ment he adduces in support of the Turanian origin of the Etruscans, based on a consideration of their physical peculiarities, civil and religious polity, mythology, laws of inheritance, marriage customs, sepulchral usages, and monumental remains. Commencing with the last, he maintains that "it is not E0 much the type, as the object and character of such remains, which is the sure sign of ethnic affinity," and he asserts that although the Aryan and Semitic nations have built temples and palaces, basilicas and theatres, and constructed roads, bridges, and sewers, they have never been notable as tomb-builders. The Turanians, on the contrary, in every part of the world they have inhabited, have left conspicuous sepulchral monuments,—the expression of their belief in a future state of existence, and of their worship of the spirits of their ancestors. For this reason the resting-places of their dead were constructed on the exact model of the abodes of the living ; in its form, -arrangement, and furniture the tomb was the counterpart of the house ; the dead were provided with all they had required during life ; the warrior with his weapons, women with their ornaments ; -domestic utensils and food were placed by their side ; slaves, horses, and dogs were buried with them, in the belief that the spirits of the dead could still enjoy the -spirits of everything they had used in life. These characteristic features of sepulture, the writer assures us, are to be found in all lands which the 'primeval Turanian peoples have inhabited, and thus enable us to track their footsteps across continents, and to unite the scattered -indications of their presence.
Mr. Taylor's statements on this point are too general, too vague 'to be implicitly trusted, and savour too much of preconceived theory to carry conviction to unprejudiced minds. What proof have we—Mr. Taylor offers none—of the existence of "a great ancient tomb-building race, whose conspicuous and unmis- takable monuments are scattered over the world from Algiers to liamtschatka, from the Orkneys to Ceylon, and who formed the ethnological substratum of the whole world "? We find conspicuous sepulchral monuments in many lands widely remote, but we have no evidence that they were all constructed by one and the same family of mankind. Mr. Taylor appears to invert the ordinary process of reasoning in this case. Instead of proving from history that the lands where these conspicuous sepulchral monuments exist were once inhabited by people of the Turanian stock, be assumes that none but Turanians could or would have raised such tombs, and then claims the monuments, -wherever be finds them, as the work of that race. This is bending facts to theory. Who were the Turanian people, we would ask, who raised the tumuli and dolmens on the coast of Algiers,— the Nurhags of Sardinia, or the Talayota of the Balearic Isles? And, on the other band, where are the conspicuous sepulchral monuments erected by the Finns, by the Magyars, and by the Basques? The existence of such monuments, which, in the early ages. were generally of tumular form, in countries widely remote, admits of explanation quite apart from all theories with respect to races. It is explained by the ease with which such monuments were constructed. In a rude state of society, the corpse would be laid on the ground, or beneath the surface, and covered with earth, which would be piled high above it, the better to preserve it from beasts of prey, and also to mark the site of the interment. The most illustrious dead would naturally have the most conspicuous monuments, the largest being also the most secure from violation. Such a simple mode of sepulture might be adopted by any people under similar circumstances, especially by the inhabitants .of stoneless plains, like the steppes of Russia and of Tatary, where tumuli are most abundant. Where the ground is rocky or broken into cliffs, the sepulchre sunk below the surface or hollowed in the rock is naturally suggested. From the simple mound of earth piled over the body, there was an easy step to the stone chest or coffin ; thence to the rectangular chamber rudely con- structed of unhewn slabs, as in the cromlechs of the British Isles, the dolmens of France, and of Saturnia in Etruria ; and thence, again, to the gallery-shaped chambers of Cortona and Cervetri, ell alike incased in mounds of earth. Similar causes produce similar effects in countries widely remote. Tumular sepulchres are often memorials of the battle-field,—monuments raised over ,the slain by the survivors, to whatever family of mankind -they • Xtnucan Researches. By Isaac Taylor, MA. London : Macmillan and Co. 1874. might belong. There is nothing externally to mark a tumulus as the construction of a Turanian, rather than of an Aryan or Semitic, people. The contents of the sepulchre it covers might possibly determine the point, but very few ancient tumuli have been disturbed by the pick-axe in modern times, and still fewer have been compelled to tell their tale. it appears to us a purely gratuitous assumption that all tumuli and other conspicu- ous sepulchral monuments must have had a Turanian origin. it is true we are told by Mr. Fergusson, the Virgil to whom Mr. Taylor trusts implicitly for guidance through the selva oscura of ethnic affinities, that "no Aryan or Semite ever built a tomb that could last a century, or was worthy to last so long." Ytt this assertion is upset by the remains on many ancient sites. To say nothing of the sepulchres of Lydia and Lycia, some of which may be pre-Hellenic, and possibly not Aryan, are we to ignore the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, the most conspicuous tomb of Greek antiquity, or the tumuli raised over the Athenians at Marathon, and over the Bceotians at Chmronea ? Can we ova-- look the necropolis of Cyrene, the most remarkable and abounding cemetery of undoubted Greek origin that has been preserved to us? And though of later times, are we to forget the tomb of Ciecilia Metella, the Mausoleum of Augustus, and the Mole of Hadrian ?
A word on Etruscan sepulchres. One point in which they differ from Greek tombs, is that the former are more generally con- structed for families, while the latter more frequently serve only for individuals, or at the most for man and wife. Mr. Taylor classifies the Etruscan as of two types :—" 1. Chambered tumuli, or tent-tombs ; 2, rock-cut chambers, or cave-tombs," both being imitations of the two ancient types of the house. If Mr. Taylor had travelled in Etruria, he would have recognised other types,— the sarcophagus, or individual tomb, sunk in the rock, and covered with a slab,—the niche tomb, in the face of a cliff, either for the deposit of the corpse, or for the urn containing its ashes ; to which we may add the gallery or passage-tomb, which bears no resemblance to a house ; and others which show a nearer analogy to temples. By the "tent-tomb," Mr. Taylor means the conical mound of earth which he fancies to have been raised over the dead expressly to imitate the tent of the Calmuck or Turco- man ; and he perceives in the circle of stones which surround many of these early tumuli, an imitation of the heavy stones which are needed to keep down the skins which form the covering of the tent. An ingenious idea, truly, but one which could hardly have entered the brains of the constructors of these mounds, for the simple reason that they bear no resemblance whatever to tents, save externally in their conical form. The circle of masonry round the base of these tumuli (the xpncsic of Herodotus, i. 93), which Mr. Taylor pronounces to have served no useful purpose, was manifestly necessary to sustain the mound of earth, and to give it a distinct and permanent form. We are not aware of a single instance in Etruria of a tumulus enclosing a conical or bell-shaped chamber. The large tumuli generally contain several chambers, or sets of chambers at different elevations, but with no re- semblance to tents. Nor are the smaller mounds any index to the tombs they indicate. They never enclose circular or conical chambers, very rarely any chamber at all, but are raised over one or more chambers excavated in the rock, deep below the surface, and which often bear a striking resemblance to houses, but none whatever to tents. The mound was thrown up simply to mark the site, a rude tomb-stone, if we may so call it, origi- nally surmounted by a stele, or some sepulchral emblem. The best known ancient tombs which bear a near resemblance to tents are those at Mycenas and Orchomenos, the so-called Treasuries of Atreus and Minyas. Others of the same tholos form, but hollowed in the rock beneath the surface, and without a superincumbent mound, are not uncommon in Greek cemeteries, e.g., Acragas and Camarina, in Sicily. Tombs of similar form have occasionally been found in Etruria, but never, so far as we are aware, within or beneath a mound. The hut-urns of the Alban Mount are un- doubted imitations of rude structures of boughs and skins, the dwellings of the pritnmval inhabitants of the Roman Campagna, but they prove nothing in support of Mr. Taylor's tent-theory.
Mr. Taylor remarks on the absence of all remains of temples on Etruscan sites, and thence deduces that the Etruscans were not a race of temple-builders, like the Greeks, but, as they worshipped the Manes of their forefathers, "every tomb was in fact a temple." We know, however, that the Etruscans did raise temples to their gods, and we know the peculiar style in which they were built, which was the prevalent style of architecture at Rome for the first few centuries of her existence. The reason why no remains of Etrus- can temples are extant is that they were constructed in great part of wood ; we know at least that the epistylia were of this material, and that the order owes its peculiarities to this fact.
We have not space to follow Mr. Taylor in his search for Turanian affinities in the mythology and religious observances of the Etruscans, in their ancestral worship, their system of govern- ment, their law of inheritance from the mother, their morals, their Mongoloid type of features, their mental characteristics, and their artistic faculty. His observations on these several points are often suggestive, and generally interesting, and he is here, for the most part, a more trustworthy guide than when he descants on language and on sepulchral monuments. We will merely notice a few facts that struck us as we perused them. The Lydian and Etruscan custom of prostituting girls before marriage, which Mr. Taylor claims to be peculiarly Turanian, was practised also by the Aryan Armenians, as we learn from Strabo (xi., 14-16).
Ancestral worship was not confined to the Etruscans among the nations of classical antiquity. The Roman; we know, borrowed their kindred customs from the Etruscans, but Mr. Taylor appears to have overlooked the very similar usages that prevailed among the Turanian Greeks, who were wont to celebrate funeral feasts in honour of their dead at stated intervals after the interment, to -decorate their sepulchres with ribbons and flowers, and to sacri- fice to their spirits, offering them victims, as well as bloodless viands, together with milk, wine, and water. It is evident from their sepulchral usages, that the Greeks entertained, though per- haps in a less degree, that reverence for their dead, akin to hero-worship, which Mr. Taylor would have us believe was peculiarly Turanian. We would further remind him that the sepulchral customs of the Greeks bore in most respects a 'close analogy to those of the Etruscans, and were the expres- sion of a similar belief that their departed friends in another state of existence stood in need of the same appliances which had ministered to their requirements and their gratification in this. Hence the practice of interring with the corpse, vases of terra- -cotta or bronze, household utensils, weapons and armour, mirrors -and jewelry in the graves of females ; dolls and toy-pottery in those of children. Whatever object was most prized by the Greek during his life was placed in the grave by his side,—a custom to which we owe the victors' wreaths of gold, and the beautiful vases won as prizes in the Panathenaic games. The -descriptions Mr. Taylor gives at page 35 of the furniture of Turanian tombs in general, and of Etruscan in particular at page 47, are equally applicable to the sepulchres of the Aryan Greeks.
We are surprised to observe that in his notices on the Art of the Etruscans, Mr. Taylor has entirely ignored their skill in the plastic arts, for which they were celebrated of old, and which is -confirmed by extant examples ; and that he should have said so much of their harmonious colouring, of which we have scarcely sufficient evidence. The best of the wall-paintings in their tombs show unmistakably the influence of Hellenic art. Certainly we have no remains of Etruscan pictorial art which surpass the few works of the Greek pencil which have come down to us. Ile is far astray also when he claims for the Etruscans the beautiful de- aigns and ornamentation on the vases found in their tombs. The -ceramic art with which he credits the Etruscans, and which he terms "the one great permanent legacy which they have bequeathed to the world," is, unfortunately for the honour of Etruria, and for Mr. Taylor's Turanian theory, of Hellenic origin. The really distinctive ceramic art of Etruria is of a widely different character, unbaked, unglazed, unpainted black ware, rude, coarse, and clumsy, with designs and decorations sometimes scratched in, more usually in relief, quaint in the extreme, and purely Oriental, both in design and subjects, but in general devoid of artistic beauty. This uncouth pottery, characteristically Etruscan, Mr. Taylor may claim as Turanian, if he will, for it is certainly not Hellenic.
After what we have said on the pictorial art of Etruria, we need hardly add that the pleasant theory Mr. Taylor propounds— viz., that the great masters of the Tuscan school of painting, from Giotto down to the Caracci, owed their eminence as colourists to the Etruscan, i.e., the Turanian blood circulating in their veins— has no claims on our acceptance.
At page 75 we meet with an instance of carelessness into which Mr. Taylor's hurry to rush into print appears to have betrayed him. Speaking of the Huns and their invasion of Gaul in the fifth century, he observes, " Had.it not been for the sword of Charles Martel, the world would probably have seen a race of 'Ugric conquerors, speaking a Turkic tongue, establish a -Ugric civilisation on the Seine," thus strangely confounding the Turanian Huns with the Semitic Saracens, and the conquest of the latter at Tours in 732 with the defeat of Attila at Chalons in 450. Apropos of the Huns, he has fallen into an amusing blunder at page 368. He gives a woodcut of an Etruscan mirror, in which figures the Trojan horse under the name of Pekse (Pegasus), in the course of fabrication by Sethlans (Vulcan). In an open door behind the horse is inscribed a word which he tells us "can only be explained by means of the prinneval traditions of the Resell/la as to their early home." He reads it HV1NS, and says it has hitherto been dismissed by commentators as an unintelligible equivalent of " Danaioi," but that it appears to mean in Etruscan " warriors " or "enemies." He proceeds to state that we learn from the Chinese annals that at a period not far remote from that at which the Rasenna are supposed to have reached Italy, two hostile nomad tribes, called Hiong-nu and Asena, roamed along the frontier of China, and that the former prevailing, drove the latter to the westward. These tribes he seeks to identify with the Huns and the Rasenna, and he would connect the Chinese record with this Etruscan mirror. Theory will sometimes blind us strangely to facts, however obvious. We are astonished that Mr. Taylor's experience in Etruscan inscriptions should not have taught him that the character which he here takes for a V is not unfrequently so formed as to be easily mistaken for an L, and vice versa, and that the slight difference between the two is not ob- served in the cursive character, as it may be called, on mirrors and such-like portable monuments. By reading this inscription, HUNS, we have " Hellenes," the very word wanted to tell the story.* Why, then, when the meaning of the epigraph is so obvious, travel to China to fetch up the Hun; who may or may not have been at loggerheads with the Etruscans, but certainly had nothing to do with the taking of Troy ?
Although we do not absolutely reject Mr. Taylor's theory of the Turanian origin of the Etruscans, we must express our opinion that he has failed to establish it. We will concede to him, how- ever, that he has made out a prima facie case of affinity. He also appears to have arrived at the true interpretation of certain words and formulm of common occurrence in Etruscan sepulchral in- scriptions. Notwithstanding the defects; of his work, which we have pointed out pretty freely, we must accord him due praise for his industry and renal* and for his skill in writing a readable book on a subject which possesses so little interest for the general public.
Previous page
