In historical linguistics, the origin of the Etruscan language has long divided scholars into two main camps. One school of thought, popularized by ancient historians like Herodotus, posits that the Etruscans migrated from Lydia in Asia Minor, bringing their non-Indo-European tongue to Italy. Conversely, a competing theory suggests that Etruscan was an autochthonous language, meaning it developed locally in Etruria from prehistoric populations. While both positions have historically relied on sparse epigraphic evidence, recent mitochondrial DNA studies of ancient remains have begun to provide empirical support for the migration theory, though proponents of the local-origin model remain skeptical of these biological correlations.
Which choice best describes the overall structure of the text?
- It presents a long-standing debate between two explanations, outlines the premises of each, and describes how recent findings have provided support for one over the other.Answer
- BIt outlines an established scientific theory, details a challenge that arose to dispute it, and argues that a new synthesis resolves the conflict between them.
- CIt proposes a new hypothesis to explain a historical mystery, contrasts it with a traditional view, and identifies the experimental steps needed to prove it.
- DIt highlights a specific linguistic problem, criticizes the methodology used by past researchers to study it, and suggests a non-biological alternative.