Avec le développement des études historiques on assiste à l’apparition des premières conjectures – souvent fort féeriques – sur l’origine des Étrusques. L’approche relativement scientifique à la question des origines faisait son entrée à partir du XVIIIe siècle en se dirigeant sur trois diverses théories qui prévoyaient des origines orientales, septentrionales ou bien autochtones. Aux trois thèses portant sur les origines des Étrusques, Massimo Pallottino avait opposé la nécessité d’éviter l’application de simplismes schématiques pour un problème à la complexité remarquable. À son avis, le procès de formation de la nation étrusque ne pouvait avoir lieu que sur le territoire de l’Étrurie propre, et dans ce procès les échanges culturels et commerciaux avec les voyageurs provenant de la Mer Égéenne (attirés par les ressources métallifères du territoire étrusque) ont joué un rôle très important. Les caractéristiques orientales de leur culture – selon Pallottino – étaient dues à une influence culturelle qui avait été absorbée et faite propre par les Étrusques, plutôt qu’à une origine orientale de ce peuple. À notre avis, les complexes caractéristiques culturelles et linguistiques de ce peuple ne peuvent être expliqués que par la somme d’une série de facteurs, selon l’opinion de Pallottino, auxquels il faudra toutefois ajouter l’englobement de plusieurs peuples ou bien groupes de population, parlant des langues différentes, qui ont laissé des traces très évidentes dans les coutumes des Étrusques si bien que dans le corpus épigraphique., U razdoblju humanizma napredovale su povijesne znanosti te epigrafska i arheološka istraživanja. Tada je bio učinjen i prvi korak u pogledu teorije o podrijetlu Etruščana. Međutim, više-manje znanstveni pristup pitanju podrijetla pojavio se tek u 18. stoljeću, i zatim krenuo u tri smjera. Prema jednoj teoriji, Etruščani su istočnog podrijetla, prema drugoj potekli su sa sjevera, a prema trećoj oni su starosjedilački narod Italije. Prva se teorija temelji na tradiciji iz vremena Herodota, koji je govorio o seobi jedne skupine Lidijaca pod vodstvom Tirena, sina kralja Atisa. Iako su moderni kritičari odbacili tu zamisao, našla je potvrdu u epigrafskoj građi s otoka Lemna, nedaleko od nekadašnje lidijske obale. Pismo i stanoviti jezični sadržaji u epigrafu s Lemna vrlo su slični jeziku Etruščana. Drugi su povjesničari, ukazujući na veliku količinu predmeta istočnoga podrijetla i uopće istočnih kulturnih utjecaja, pogotovo u VII. i VI. stoljeću prije n.e., snažno poduprli ideju o istočnom podrijetlu. Prema njihovu mišljenju, takva se količina istočnih kulturnih sadržaja može objasniti jedino masovnom migracijom s istoka. Druga je teorija, polazeći od arheoloških istraživanja paleoetnologa Luigija Pigorinija, pretpostavila da su Etruščani i italski narodi stigli u migraciji sa sjevera. Smatralo se da su ti ljudi prenijeli obred kremacije u Italiju, koji je djelomično zamijenio inhumaciju. Prema toj teoriji, koja nije naišla na veliku potporu, etruščanski je element povezan s kulturom Villanove. Čini se da je treća teorija, starosjedilačka, koju je odavno iznio Dionizije iz Halikarnasa, postala dosljednija nakon pojave novih jezičnih studija koje su težile dokazati postojanje predindoeuropskoga jezičnog sloja. Taj su sloj jezikoslovci nazvali »tirenskim«, smatrajući da je bio stariji od italskih narječja indoevropske porodice. Prema tome, Etruščani su navodno potekli iz spoja kulturnih i etničkih elemenata iz ranijeg sloja i iz superponiranih slojeva iz brončanoga doba. S tim u vezi Massimo Pallottino ističe potrebu izbjegavanja shematskih pojednostavljenja složena problema. Prema njemu, etruščanski narod oblikovao se u Etruriji. Tijekom tog procesa važnu je ulogu odigrala kulturna i trgovačka razmjena s putnicima iz Egeje koji su stizali privučeni rudnim bogatstvom otoka Elbe, Rudonosnih brda (Colline Metallifere) i Planina Tolfe (Monti di Tolfa). Istočna obilježja, prema Pallottinu, posljedica su kulturnih prinosa koji su proželi etruščansku kulturu. I autor članka, poput Pallottina, smatra da se složeni kulturni i jezični sklop Etruščana može objasniti jedino kao posljedica više čimbenika, uključujući i vjerojatnu amalgamaciju većega broja naroda i skupina naroda koji su govorili različite jezike i ostavili svoje utjecaje u etruščanskim običajima i epigrafima., During the Humanist period there was a development of the historical studies as well as epigraphic and archaeological investigations. It was then that the first hypotheses about the origins of the Etruscans appeared. Yet, the more or less scientific approaches to the question of the origins made their appearance in the eighteenth century and they took three different directions. The one theory assumes an oriental origin, the second one a northern origin and the third one presupposes that the Etruscans are an autochthonous people. The first theory is based on the tradition handed down to us by Herodotus, who narrates the migration of a group of Lydians under the guidance of Tyrrhenos, son of king Atys, and this one would be the reason why the Greeks called the Etruscans “Tyrrhenians”. Although having been rejected by modern criticism, this idea found some support in the discovery of epigraphic material in the Isle of Lemnos, in front of the Lydian seaside. The writing and some linguistic elements of the Lemnian epigraphs are very similar to the language spoken by the Etruscans. Other historians, setting out from the great number of objects of oriental origin and, generally speaking, on the culture of the VII and VI century BC which was strongly influenced by eastern elements, spoke emphatically in favour of an oriental origin. According to the latter historians, such an abundance of eastern cultural elements could only be explained by a mass immigration in Etruria of a people coming from the East. Another theory, based on the archaeological studies of the paleo-ethnologist Luigi Pigorini, hypothesizes a southward migration of Etruscan and Italic peoples coming from the north. These peoples are assumed to have introduced in Italy the ritual of incineration or cremation, which partly ousted inhumation. This theory, which did not enjoy much favour, assumes that the Etruscan element is connected with the Villanovan. The third theory, going back to the autochthony thesis maintained by Denys of Halicarnassus, seemed to become consistent after the publication of some linguistic studies which aimed to show the existence of a prae-Indo-European linguistic layer. Linguists called “Tyrrhenian” the linguistic layer, which is assumedly much older than other Italic dialects of the Indo-European family. According to the latter theory, the Etruscan people originate from the union of cultural and ethnic elements of a pre-existing layer with other superposed layers of the Bronze Age. Massimo Pallottino opposed to such theses the need to avoid schematic simplifications for a complex problem. In his view, the process of formation of the Etruscan people took place in Etruria. During such process, the cultural and commercial exchanges with travellers from the Aegean Sea – attracted by the metal resources of the Isle of Elba, Colline Metallifere and Monti della Tolfa – played a very important role. The oriental characteristics, according to Pallottino, were rather due to a cultural influx, which imbued and permeated the Etruscan culture. In our view, though, the complex cultural and linguistic characteristic of the Etruscans cannot be explained but by a sum of factors, as in Pallottino’s opinion, to which we should add the probable amalgamation of a number of peoples or groups of peoples who spoke different languages and left evident traces in both the Etruscan customs and the epigraphic corpus.