Doubts and Dogmas. By Etruscan Corner

“Less than 50% of what we see is based on actual visual information. The rest is based on what we believe, what we expect to see, and on ingrained beliefs” ~ Karl Pribram, neurophysiologist

There are things that official archaeology is unable to explain; indeed, at times it ignores them by looking the other way. In this chaos, there are people who continue to carry out their work as independent researchers, desperately but with great determination.

Archaeologists often refuse to listen to those who question their dogmas. And they refuse to relate archaeological discoveries to other disciplines. In particular, they forget to incorporate the human and spiritual aspect into their interpretations of artifacts or, something we consider important, of the places themselves.

The interpretive effort is always directed towards understanding the history of humanity. And one cannot ignore anthropology, human behavior, and a spirituality freed from materiality.

It is in this context that independent researchers and scholars fit in, whose research topics are free and whose results are not tainted by the orientations of their affiliated institution or the need to maintain a certain status quo.

In Italy, this type of activity is not recognized and is often considered the pastime of some “pseudo-scientific jokers,” always in contrast with the dogmas of prevailing thought.

Luigi Catena is an enthusiast of Etruscan culture, archaeology, and an independent researcher and scholar of the history of the territory around Lake Bolsena.

I consider myself fortunate to live in an environment as ancient and rich in history as the territory surrounding Lake Bolsena. In 2002, I met Giovanni Feo, an unconventional scholar, whom I assisted in studying this territory.

My research and interpretations first clashed with academic ones in 2011 when Ca’ Foscari University began excavations on Monte Landro, in which I participated with Feo as an observer.

A part of academic archaeology seems to want, at all costs, to identify Orvieto as the site of the Fanum Voltumnae.

The results did not correspond to my and Feo’s analyses, since the archaeologists started from the assumption that Velza (Volsinii in Latin) corresponded to the city of Orvieto and that the Fanum Voltumnae, the Etruscan federal sanctuary, was located there.

The Etruscan temple on Monte Landro is located in the municipality of San Lorenzo Nuovo.

The period of use of this sacred site dates back to the 15th century BC until its demolition and abandonment in the 3rd century AD. It is one of the largest temples in Etruria and deserves a new historical description. Why? Everything published so far on the matter by various archaeologists and Etruscologists is highly questionable and detached from reality, considering the archaeological evidence found and, in many cases, deliberately deemed unimportant.

For example, the sacred volcanic stone puteal is considered a simple well. The puteal is only 60 cm wide at the base and just 33 cm tall, with a central hole of only 27-29 cm.

Likewise, the interpretation of an artifact carved into the tuff, with the following dimensions: 5 meters in length, 2 meters in width, and 3 meters in depth.

Initially, the archaeologists responsible for the excavations interpreted it as a cistern for collecting rainwater, where pilgrims would wash their feet before entering the temple (an incorrect interpretation lacking logical and scientific sense). Then, following some observations made by myself, the interpretation changed: it was a structure built after the demolition of the temple (3rd century AD), still for collecting water, but we don’t know what this collected rainwater might have been used for.

Actually, it is an oracle chamber, which was perhaps built after a seismic event that caused hot steam to emerge from the subsoil, right through the temenos wall—a wall that then housed the oracle chamber, falling within the middle of the temenos and causing its rupture.

From the photo, you can see the hole from which hot steam emerged, and the puteal was placed directly above it. Equally significant is the Etruscan inscription on a stone fragment where the writing in Etruscan letters is very clearly visible: “…V E L (abraded) and the CH” and a swastika. It would indicate the God Vulcan, as already highlighted in the Piacenza Liver.

The inscription was deemed a forgery by those responsible for the excavations; subsequent analyses carried out by the University of Viterbo dated this find to the 5th century BC. However, it was never taken into consideration by Prof. Adriano Maggiani, even though it proved to be far more important than the fragments of Roman-period tiles.

These fragments bore some incisions, including the letters HE, which led the archaeologists-Etruscologists to write that the temple on Monte Landro was dedicated to Hercules.

The doubts raised by the archaeologists’ reports are as large as a palace; doubts that hint at the possibility of a severe conflict of interest on the part of the said archaeologists who, for over a decade, have claimed to have “discovered” the Etruscan federal temple (Fanum Voltumnae) in Orvieto, without having a single piece of scientific evidence to support their thesis.

The conflict of interest is possible because the archaeologists excavating at Monte Landro are exactly the same ones who claim to have “discovered” the Fanum Voltumnae in Orvieto; and it is obviously in their interest to support their “discovery,” avoiding the enhancement of the Etruscan antiquities of Monte Landro, Bolsena, and the lake which, if truly enhanced and made known, would cause the “sacred” centrality of Orvieto to collapse like a house of cards.

For these and other reasons, the history of this sacred place must be entirely rewritten through new interdisciplinary studies involving archaeologists, Etruscologists, anthropologists, and geologists.
Despite the exceptional finds discovered at the Monte Landro temple dating back to the Archaic age, the temple is defined by “Etruscologists” as an “Etruscan-Roman” temple (3rd-2nd century BC).

But even more serious is the intolerance and arrogance with which these “professors” address those who pose legitimate questions and requests for explanations. Arrogance and bullying are the weapons of those who are weak and have no dialectical basis, nor any willingness to debate and engage.

Altering historical truth is equivalent to destroying the identity-based bond that unites a territory with those who live in it, and it means polluting common memory and identity, creating the premises for those conditions of subculture and incivility that are the reference point for all social instability.