The origin of the Etruscans is one of the great problems of early Italian history. They apparently emerged directly from the Villanovan culture. Yet they spoke a bizarre non Indo-European language with no known cognates.

Ancient historians were puzzled about where the Etruscans came from. Herodotus (1.94) says they migrated from Lydia in Asia Minor. Dionysius of Halicarnassus says they didn’t migrate but were indigenous to Italy (1.30.2).

A popular theory in modern times follows Herodotus and claims they came from Asia Minor. They place this migration circa the 8th century BC. This idea claims that the orientalising phase in their locale was not due to interactions with Greeks and others from the East but was instead due to the Etruscans bringing that culture with them.

This is problematic because there have been no successful attempts to trace the language to Asia Minor, yet linguistic experts suggest it would be possible if the migration happened prior to 2,000 BC. We have found no decisive breaks in the archaeological record which could suggest an invasion / migration of another people with a different material culture.

As historical debates often go, now it has swung in the opposite direction. Massimo Pallottino claims that the formation of the Etruscan civilisation was a gradual process, and many now believe this.

Whether or not any prehistoric migration took place is of marginal relevance to this historical process of development. For this reason the problem of Etruscan origins is nowadays (rightly) relegated to a footnote in scholarly accounts.

T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, 47

Edit Clarified that the orientalising phase was not due only to Greek influences.