Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
* M.Sc. in electro-mechanical and nuclear engineering (University of Gent, Belgium, M.Sc. in nuclear
engineering (M.!."., #ambridge M$, US$ and %r. $&&. Sc. (University of Gent, Belgium
'ormerly &.t. (rof.of )ngineering, University of Gent, Belgium.
$mateur linguist s&eciali*ing in ancient Mediterreanean languages for over +, years -ith the hel& and advice of
various academic &rofessionals from different countries. .ong time member of the Bas/ue-l grou& -ith
numerous contributions, still searchable on the internet.
#ontact0 edsel1telenet.be
2
besides demonstrating an absence of insight in historical linguistics. $ special case is that of 8aul
$rnold, who rec+lessly used modern !as"ue )with 5atin-derived loanwords, li+e .mutil*, included, to
.translate* 7retan 5inear-$ te#ts- I mention this because it cannot totally be e#cluded that the earliest
5inear-$ te#ts might be in an Iberian-li+e language, because 7rete is on the presumed migration path
of the Iberians )This may not be so for later te#ts, which may be in some form of $natolian .Indo-
European*, e.g. according to a recent publication by 9. /1abchy+ov
:
, based upon both linguistic and
cultural interpretations,. If so, this would be another case of far overstretched and misunderstood
.vasco-iberismo*, in addition to lac+ of +nowledge of the !as"ue language*s +nown history.
The method I propose is based on the idea, on which I lay no claim of originality, that language
evolution has to be seen as a networ+ phenomenon that is not 1ust linguistic but also human
)migration, con"uest, contact, mi#ing, ;, and that the pure genealogical tree model needs lots of
rather drastic improvements, as demonstrated e.g. by %ermanic. The application to the conte#t at
hand is e#posed in 1. Introduction and 2. Underlying hypothesis.
$s to .proving* the resulting ideas/theses put forward in this paper, suffice it to say that, strictly
spea+ing, wor+ing hypotheses don*t have to be proven, only that it is sufficient that they cannot be
disproved. and that wouldn*t be a small feat in this case.
The general approach of this article is to paint a wide panorama with broad brush stro+es, entering
into details only here and there, whenever needed to underpin its plausibility. $t the same time it is an
invitation to all to fill in the gaps and/or provide more or better evidence, or come up with
alternatives.
1. Introduction
Since Mario $linei3s
+
4 still contentious 4 discovery that )truscan may be related to or
descend from a very ancient form of 5ungarian (&resumably &re-26
th
century B#), the &retty
-ell established, albeit not universally acce&ted, arrival time in -est-central !taly, or, if -e
-ant to be more cautious0 from some ancient Uralic, &resumably Ugric, i.e. an )ast-Uralic
language, it might be -ise to loo7 outside the traditional domain for the e8&lanation of still
very &oorly understood elements 4 in fact most of them 4 in !berian.
9uite a number of &resumed !berian cognates in Bas/ue have been identified, but this only
shifts the &roblem0 first, Bas/ue loo7s a lot li7e a language isolate (! -ould rather call such
languages :or&han languages3 since their isolation stems from the loss of :relatives3, and
second, are those common elements in Bas/ue actually original Bas/ue, or are they the result
of language contact, S&rachbund, &idgini*ation;creoli*ation or any other form of convergence
-ith !berian< ! -ill not venture into the debate about -hether any s&ecific mechanism of
these too7 &lace0 it has caused rivers of in7 to flo- in all directions. .et me =ust stic7 to this0
!t seems li7ely that !berian had a higher standing than Bas/ue during the &re->oman heyday
of !berian, and that it -as a con/ueror3s language, the language of the commercial and
economic hub, or a lingua franca 4 or any combination of the above? so it cannot be e8cluded
(and henceforth, ! -ill use this as a -or7ing hy&othesis that Bas/ue as -e 7no- it since the
$/uitanian inscri&tions is actually a mi8ed language of (re-(roto-Bas/ue (see belo- and
!berian, in my o&inion very li7ely the language of invaders or immigrants from the eastern
Mediterranean via the islands, according to various facts, li7e :Bas/ue3 linguistic remnants in
Sardinia, hydronyms (li7e .Ibar* in the Bal7ans and the #aucasus, and many other facts or
traces that have been used in the age-old discussion about the &resumed #aucasian or
$rmenian roots of Bas/ue. $s a matter of fact, ! am &retty convinced that -hat has been
+
&resented in those conte8ts, actually concerns !berian, rather than Bas/ue, for -hich there is
no indication, let alone evidence, that it ever -as s&o7en beyond the $tlantic 'a@ade.
"he !beriansA culture and language -ere clearly dominant in ). S&ain (and they -ere
culturally /uite a bit 5elleni*ed, li7e the )truscans, and ! believe, according to the Aili-brigaA
line (the border that se&arates the #eltic and .usitanian !ndo-)uro&ean to&onyms to the -est
from the Bas/ue-!berian to&onyms to the east, that they -ere in long intense contact -ith the
(yrenean ancestors of the Bas/ues via the )bro valley ( (5!berus B !bar<, -hich is li7e a
high-ay bet-een the Mediterranean and the >io=a;southern $lava region at the southern
fringe of the Bas/ue #ountry0 early genetic studies by #avalli-Sfor*a already demonstrated
there is a continuum from the Bas/ue #ountry (including !&arralde to the .evant. #ontrary
to e.g. de 5o*, ! am convinced that the Bas/ues form &idgins;creoles very easily, as
demonstrated later -ith the !celanders. So, ! have no &roblem believing later Bas/ue
($/uitanian -as a 7ind of creole, es&ecially if (yrenean and !berian had many common
characteristics (and maybe some very ancient common roots, -hich seems to be generally
acce&ted no-, -ell, i.e. as far as !berian and $/uitanian are concerned. C! thin7 de 5o* and
many others, reasoning in a S&anish environment, seriously underestimate the degree of
multilinguism, creoli*ation and the li7e in &roto-history, the reason being the absence of a
nation-state and the brea7-u& of ancient small-scale tribal organi*ation, once the great
migrations and long-range cultural e8&ansion and economic e8change began in the early
neolithicD.
!n short0 ! thin7 $/uitanian -as a (yrenean-!berian creole, based on a &reviously
significantly EF Uralic-influenced (yrenean language (but &robably not a creole, !berian
being a )ast-Uralic-li7e language -ith /uite some $ltaic in it, through contact before the
-est-ard migration, &robably some-here bet-een the lo-er Golga and the !rtysh river.
$dditionally, ! thin7 that Hld (yrenean -as actually a variety of Hld )uro&ean (-hich -as
certainly not a single standard language, -hich -ould e8&lain the observations of "heo
Gennemann etc.
Michel Morvan
6
-as definitely not the first to suggest or im&ly a Uralic relationshi& or
&artial origin for Bas/ue, - and even a much longer range relationshi& (as far as Siberian and
$merindian - but he certainly &rovided the strongest evidence, e.g. in relation to the first
and second &erson singular &ronoun and;or &ossessive suffi8 (and :*ero3 for the third &erson.
5e may be right, but it is also &ossible that it actually a&&lies to !berian, if Bas/ue is a mi8ed
language -ith an !berian admi8ture. 5e also might be right in three res&ects0 once for Hld
(yrenean (i.e. before the .ast Glacial Ma8imum, once for (re-(roto-Bas/ue, if defined as
the successor of Hld (yrenean after the e8&ansion from the Bas/ue >efugium and e8&osure
to -estern Uralic (most li7ely some early form or &redecessor of Saamic on its northern
border along the $tlantic #oast (and not in .a7arra3s
I
sense -hich, in my o&inion, refers to a
&re-Hld (yrenean stage, and once again for !berian.
6
2. Underlying hypotheses
2.1. Southern origin of Uralic
Hf course, a relationshi& to Uralic, or even an influence of Uralic on essentially South-
)uro&ean and Mediterranean or #aucasian-(ontic languages -ould seem farfetched -ithout a
&lausible underlying hy&othesis about &o&ulation movements and language contact in
&rehistory. ! -ill not venture into details because they are not all that im&ortant here, but let
me say ! have been influenced by the general line of thin7ing of various authors -ho have
-ritten about the &rehistory of Uralic, li7e Jalevi Fii7
,
or $go JKnna&
L
, even though ! am
&retty reluctant to follo- them in several &arts of their theses, fortunately not generally those
that really matter for the &resent &ur&ose.
!n brief, the last glacial ma8imum (.GM that ended ca. +M,MMM yrs. ago, &ushed the &eri-
$rctic;sub-$rctic hunter-gatherer &eo&les living along the Eorthern !ce #a& >im (E!#> far
more south than their &resent locations. !t is e/ually &ossible that those northern regions -ere
very s&arsely &o&ulated to begin -ith, and that the ma=ority of the hunter-gatherers ! refer to
in the rest of this &a&er, actually already lived further south than the &re-.GM ice ca& rim
because of the inhos&itable climate and environment. ! believe they formed some sort of a
cultural and linguistic continuum0 S&rachbund, different forms of mi8ing, mutual influence or
other &rocesses, leading to a &retty advanced degree of convergence. ! base this belief on the
numerous linguistic facts from numerous &ublications by re&uted linguists, as carefully
&ic7ed, tested for veracity and &lausibility, and collected by Morvan, and also on
archaeological finds along the old ice ca& rim &ointing to very similar -ays of life and cults.
Members of this continuum -ould have been those (much later identifiable as Uralic, $ltaic,
(aleo-Siberian etc., stretching into the $mericas after crossing the Bering Strait. "his does
not (necessarily im&ly :genetic3 relationshi& (neither biological or linguistic-&hylogenetic,
but it does assume a &retty high degree of resemblance, es&ecially grammatically and
ty&ologically, and rather less le8ically, e8ce&t for direct neighbors.
Hne might -onder -hat ha&&ened in Festern )uro&e during the &eriod leading u& to the
.GM. Given the essentially flat geogra&hy of )uro&e north of the $l&s and the (yrenees, it
-ould be logical to assume the &o&ulation, the :Hld )uro&eans3, -ho already lived there
&robably since the U&&er (aleolithic, -as &art of the continuum mentioned above. "he
-esternmost Hld )uro&eans -ithdre- in the Bas/ue >efugium -hen the climate became
much colder. !n that isolation, -hich lasted for many millennia, they -ould have become the
&eo&le that -ould later be 7no-n as the Bas/ues, or rather0 the core of the later Bas/ue
&o&ulation. "his hy&othesis has very im&ortant conse/uences0 first, the original core of the
Bas/ue language (&ossibly identifiable -ith the (re-(roto-Bas/ue in the sense of .a7arra,
-hich ! &refer to call &re-Hld (yrenean, see belo- -ould have been &art of the continuum
I
that encom&assed the very earliest &recursors of Uralic and $ltaic, and second, this same core
-ould be identifiable -ith at least some -estern variant of the almost legendary :Hld
)uro&ean3 linguistic layer that is often referred to, even -hen it is sim&ly a -ay of saying -e
don3t 7no- the origin of a -ord but feel that it is due to an underlying much older and more
)uro&e--ide root belonging to an undefined language, sometimes assumed to be :vasconic3
or the li7e. $nd thirdly, most im&ortantly in the conte8t of this article, it -ould lead us to
believe that Bas/ue -as already related in some remote -ay to an e8tremely early &recursor
(i.e. &re-.GM of Uralic.
Fhen the ice ca& began to retreat, many of those hunter-gatherers follo-ed it north-ards,
follo-ing their habitual &rey, but, and this is the core of my hy&othesis, far from negligible
grou&s stayed behind and en=oyed the milder climate and -hat it had to offer. "hey may
have migrated a bit, but in essence, they stayed more or less at the same longitude, very
roughly s&ea7ing0 the &re-&roto-Uralic ancestors centered on the Urals (the middle and lo-er
Golga valley and the !rtysh-middle Hb valley, and the &re-&roto-$ltaic ancestors in the
south-east /uadrant (east of the !rtysh and south of the u&&er reaches, i.e. the east--est
flo-ing &art, of the Hb, but staying in contact, and influencing each other, some-here near
the !rtysh or even further south, closer to the $ral and #as&ian Seas. "hese grou&s are not to
be seen as unified nor homogeneous, but rather as the origin of a varied collection of later
&eo&les that &reserve certain traits in their language. "hey may or may not have been
genetically related, but that does not matter here.
Eote that ! am largely follo-ing here the ne-er insights and ideas of 'innish linguist Naa77o
5O77inen
P
Q
. 'or those unfamiliar -ith this, ! re&roduce his ne- grou&ing of Uralic branches
based on &honology only0
$ &ossible direct influence of Uralic (&ossibly already &roto-Saamic on Bas/ue is &robably
related to the north-ard e8&ansion from the Bas/ue >efugium combined -ith the EF
Uralics3 south-ard e8&ansion (after the initial e8&ansion to the north, follo-ing the retreat of
the ice ca&, and turning left around the northern rim of the remnant of the ice ca& over
Eor-ay and S-eden from the Eor-egian coast do-n to the Eetherlands or thereabout. "he
megalithic monuments (not roofed tombs li7e dolmens and hydronyms seem to &oint to a
ma8imum northern e8&ansion of the Bas/ues to the northern edge of the )nglish #hannel,
around the former confluence of the "hames, the Scheldt, the Meuse and the >hine, in late
%oggerland times, i.e. before the %ogger Ban7 became the bottom of a large shallo- &art of
the Eorth Sea.
,
!n contrast to general o&inion, ! do believe that 5ungarian (or rather an ancestor that may
have been some non-differentiated Ugric, before +MMM B#) or so has never left the
(annonian basin, but disa&&eared from history because of lac7 of attestation due to the
sub=ect status of its s&ea7ers. "he local &o&ulation, &robably mostly the southeastern section,
became .atini*ed;>omani*ed li7e the %acians, but it is not certain that the -hole &o&ulation,
farther to the -est, under-ent this fate. !n fact, almost nothing is 7no-n about that. >ecorded
history is usually that of the -inning side, seldom of the van/uished. Hf course, much later,
6MM-RMM #), clearly identifiable MSgySrs &rovided a infusion of ne-comers, but less than
6MT of the resulting total &o&ulation, coming from the east (-here they had been in contact
-ith "ur7ic &eo&les, adding a ne-, maybe even over-helming, source of modern
5ungarian. !t is hard to believe that less than 6MT ne- &o&ulation, s&ea7ing a language of
lo- status as com&ared to local .atin, and belonging to rather uncivili*ed nomadic tribes,
could so easily have im&osed its language over the -hole domain (and even encroaching
u&on the %acians, if there had not been an im&ortant local &o&ulation s&ea7ing a similar
language. So, the many $ltaic elements may not be e8clusively of relatively recent "ur7ish
origin (-hich is -ell attested, but &ossibly also from a much earlier age, thousands of years
earlier, as e8&lained before.
Some-hat off-to&ic, ! might mention that ! believe the original languages of $natolia, before
!ndo-)uro&eani*ation, -ere essentially Uralic (&robably Ugric, maybe -ith some $ltaic
elements. "hat -ould not only rule out $natolia as the Urheimat of ((roto- !ndo-)uro&ean,
but also e8&lain the rather :e8otic3 nature of the $natolian !ndo-)uro&ean languages, and of
.ydian (the most deviant in &articular0 e.g. the .ydian &ile-u& of consonants, a &henomenon
also found in )truscan, very li7ely the result of a strong first-syllable accent, ty&ical of
Uralic, and massive synco&e;a&oco&e. .ydian also contains remnants of a &reviously
agglutinative character, -hich &oints to !ndo-)uro&eani*ation of an older native,
agglutinative, language rather than to an !ndo-)uro&ean origin. 'or those -ho believe in the
!ndo-Uralic common ancestor of ((roto-!ndo-)uro&ean and ((roto-Uralic, the e8&lanation
-ould rather be that during the &eriod -hen !) -as brea7ing a-ay -est-ard to the U7raine,
and before :canonical3 (!) became clearly se&arate, there -as an earlier, some-hat more
south-eastern &art of the brea7a-ay grou& (and therefore sharing some features -ith eastern
(!), namely $natolian :(!)3 (-hich -as &robably first :#as&ian3 rather than $natolian, that
-as still much closer to ((roto-Uralic (cf. $. Jloe7horst3s
R
vie-, or at least to a southern
form of it, that lac7ed the :-7- suffi8 family3, as o&&osed to more northern (later north-
-estern ((ontic-#aucasian forms that share it -ith the rest of !ndo-)uro&ean (See 6.L.. !n
that scheme, )truscan -ould have been the in situ remnant of Ugric (according to M. $linei
&ro&er, albeit -ith some traits inherited from !ndo-)uro&ean, since it &ossesses the -7
:ablative;originative3 in the form of the ad=ectival suffi8 -aU.
So, if there is any truth in the above, it should come as no sur&rise that one could find Uralic
(even $ltaic, directly or via influence on south-eastern Uralic elements or even actual
ancestry in languages that -ere or are no- very far a-ay from the &resent-day Uralic
languages. "hat -ould be the case of )truscan, -hich came from the general vicinity of
$natolia (e.g. the EF $natolian island of .emnos, or !berian, -hich may have its
geogra&hical origins in or near the #aucasus (ancient .Iberia*.
L
2.2. The presumed Iberian Odyssey
"he geogra&hic and cultural origin of the !berians is still largely shrouded in mystery. "he
$ncient Gree7s related them to #aucasian !beria (Georgia or thereabout, and they might
have been right u& to a certain &oint. "he !berians in S&ain -ere living along the .evantine
coast, from the >oussillon ()nsVrune to $ndalusia ()l $rgar, and maybe even farther -est,
if the "artessians -ere actual !berians (-hich is &ossible but far from being demonstrated,
but centered on the region of #astellWn-Galencia-$licante, slightly inland (e.g. .a Serreta,
$lcoy and .a Bastida near Moi8ent &robably for defensive reasons. "he recent discovery of
the big fortified city of .a Bastida near "otana, Murcia, dating bac7 to +,+MM B#), in the
southern !berian ()l $rgar region, -ith a&&arently im&ortant cultural and technical traces
from the )astern Mediterranean, com&letes the &icture of a &eo&le arrived by sea from the
)ast. !t seems li7ely this -as accom&lished by island-ho&&ing, via #y&rus, #rete, the
#yclades (li7e Santorini, the Malta archi&elago, Sicily, Sardinia, and some Balearic islands
(es&ecially Menorca and the (ityusas li7e !bi*a;)ivissa, formerly Gr7. )byssos. "he reason
for that assum&tion is mainly cultural0 along the -hole &ath, there are &retty similar facts that
&oint to an agriculturalist matriarchal society and its religious e8&ression, a chthonic religion0
the statuettes (and bigger ones e.g. in Malta of a fat seated ®nant -oman, clearly a
fertility goddess;earth-mother, underground :tem&les3 (natural caves or e8cavated ones, the
role of a male counter&art of the earth-mother associated -ith real or mythical horned
animals li7e the he-goat, fauns etc., found as remnants e.g. in Gree7 and >oman religion, as
-ell as some -ild animals li7e the -ild boar or the -ild aurochs (later identified -ith the bull
-hen the domesticated aurochs, the ancestor of bovine cattle, vanished. "his counter-god
re&resents -ild nature, al-ays bent on re-con/uering the fertile land or destroying it (e.g. by
the -ild boar. "he fertility rites on %elos, that consisted of seating -omen on the holy fertile
ground by the &ond (no- a reed marsh to transfer fertility, go bac7 to these chthonic
religious beliefs that are clearly related to the emergence of agriculture in the Eeolithic.
"here are also - &retty difficult to inter&ret -ith any certainty - traces of human sacrifice
(baby s7eletons in small am&horae in the small tem&le ruins a $lcudia de )lche;l3$lcXdia
d3)l8, the ancient !li7i - a trans&arent name, also in Bas/ue, for an advanced defensive &ost
based on a former island, no- a slightly (a fe- meters elevated &lateau in the middle of lo--
lying alluvial land in the former mouth of the >Yo Ginalo&W, bloc7ing the access to the city
&ro&er, farther u&stream? in the tem&le there is an interior room -ith a stone slab that loo7s
very much li7e a sacrificing table? if this really &oints to a religious &ractice, it certainly
comes from the Middle )ast, cf. baby sacrifice among the (hoenicians to their god Moloch,
and more generally, the finding of such am&horae -ith baby s7eletons from !srael to )lche,
on the islands in bet-een and in Eorth $frica, li7e in )gy&t and in the (hoenician
settlements.
So, ! -ill use the -or7ing hy&othesis that the !berians came from the eastern Mediterranean,
bringing an agriculturalist &eo&le3s &ractices, societal organi*ation, technology and belief
system to the S&anish .evant, and that this ha&&ened some-here in the third millennium
B#) or maybe even (much earlier. $ccording to Strabo, the !berians &retended to have
L,MMM years old &oetry, but that is &robably to be ta7en -ith the &roverbial grain (or rather a
si*eable chun7 of salt, although it also li7ely means that the !berians -ere a-are of a very
long history of their culture before Strabo3s time. )ven so, it cannot be e8cluded that the
initial -est-ard migration -as triggered by an often overloo7ed &henomenon (at least in
linguistics that must have had a ma=or im&act on the early farmers living in the then much
P
larger (ontic &lain, including the Sea of $*ov, and the lo- lying northern $natolian coastal
regions0 the sudden filling u& (Z2MM m or so of the Blac7 Sea basin follo-ing the breaching
of the natural Bos&horus dam in the L
th
Millennium B#), better 7no-n as the Biblical and
Gilgamesh flood. !t may also be res&onsible for the early s&lit of the $natolian and the main
branch of the emerging ((re- !ndo-)uro&ean languages, by causing the main branch to move
north--est, dee&er into the U7raine.
!t should be noted that the Bas/ues, as sub-arctic hunter;fishermen-gatherer !ce $ge refugees,
are unli7ely to have had agriculture or even &ro&er animal husbandry (see belo- during their
time in the >efugium, and their later contact -ith the Uralics along the $tlantic fa@ade could
only reinforce their hunter;fishermen-gatherers3 &ractices and associated shamanic beliefs
(Great Bear, .ittle Bear, etc.. !t is very difficult to imagine they got agriculture and
associated chthonic beliefs and social organi*ation from anybody else than the !berians.
#ertainly not from the !berian !ndo-)uro&eans -ith their Hlym&ic-style religion and
&atriarchal societies, -ho a&&eared only later in the !berian (eninsula. $lmost incredibly,
these chthonic beliefs -ere still alive in the early +M
th
century, not-ithstanding #hristianism.
$nd so -as matrilinear inheritance.
"he origins of animal husbandry also &lay an im&ortant role in my assum&tion about the
eastern origin of the !berians, so ! shall d-ell on this sub=ect bit further0
#o-s are believed to descend from about QM domesticated aurochs from u&&er
Meso&otamia;S. "ur7ey;E. !ra/ ca. 2M,MMM B#), e8actly the &lace -here the :bull cult3
("auros, cf. "aurus Mountains seems to come from. "his cult s&read -est-ard from island
to island (see e.g. the #retan Minotauros or the :bull lea&ers3 from JnossWs until it reached
the !berian (eninsula, -here it still lives on in the :corrida de toros3 and other bull games.
"he &ure (JnossWs form of acrobatic bull game is &er&etuated in the :course de taureau83 in
the >h[ne delta (#amargue, .a #rau. "he original religious base is /uite obvious0
agricultural man against -ild nature, taunting it and -inning 4 most of the time.
Goats are descended from -ild goats from SF. $sia and ). )uro&e. "he remains of the small
tem&le (see above at $lcudia de )lche, $licante, sho- very clearly that the !berians had a
form of goat (cf. Bas/ue $7er< cult.
Shee& are most li7ely descended from the -ild mouflon of S) )uro&e and $sia.
"he origin of domesticated &igs is no- believed to be a hybrid of a domesticated descendant
of the $sian -ild boar, and of the )uro&ean -ild boar that -as never domesticated.
%omesticated chic7ens and duc7s originated in S) $sia.
So it can be safely assumed that animal husbandry as -e 7no- it has its origins in the
easternmost reaches of the Mediterranean and beyond, east-ard. $nd the only sufficiently
early candidates for having brought it to the !berian (eninsula are the !berians.
Maybe this is the &lace to attem&t to e8&lain the ambivalent attitude of the early Eeolithic
farmers (li7e the !berians already settled in the S&anish .evant in relation to animal
husbandry. !t seems that animal husbandry did not originate -ith the ). Mediterranean
farmers but -ith nomadic tribes -ith herds, e8ce&t maybe in the case of co-s, -hich seem to
have been domesticated from the aurochs by already settled farmers in u&&er Meso&otamia;S.
"ur7ey. "he farmers must have been very -ary of ado&ting domesticated goats and &igs, not
Q
only because of their -ild history of destroying farm- and grassland, but also because even
the domesticated herds -ere and still are very destructive0 -ild boar and &igs transform
grassland into a mud &ool in a nic7 of time? goats tear out the vegetation instead of cutting it
above ground -ith their teeth li7e shee&. "he ancient Gree7s already com&lained about goat
herds destroying their land. Hbviously, to nomadic herdsmen this is a minor &roblem0 they
=ust move to a ne- &lace, something farmers cannot do easily. "his reasoning might e8&lain
-hy in their mind, goats, boars (and even domesticated, but still dangerous bulls in certain
conte8ts continued to re&resent -ild nature bent on destroying their land, -hile ado&ting
animal husbandry at the same time. $s a result, the goat and the boar could continue to &lay
the role of the (male anti-earth-mother, or its instrument, in chthonic religions and the traces
they left in the #lassic &eriod Hlym&ic religions.
3. Suspected Uralic elements in Iberian
.1. The !i suffi!
"he value of the !berian letter -ritten as < is still some-hat in doubt, but a -ide consensus is
gro-ing around the general idea that is a nasal of some 7ind. "he attested e/uivalence of
<bar and U)m,mar (in .atin scri&t leads to the hy&othesis that at least in this conte8t < must
be some sort of &re-nasali*ation (m in this case because of the follo-ing labial, similar to the
-ell 7no-n Bantu feature (li7e in S-ahili .mtoto*- .child* or =d1ili )toponym,0
m
bar, or else,
< -ithout b could be a syllabic n or a fortis n - -hile
m
b -ould then be a gra&hism for syllabic
m or fortis m.
$s to the meaning of the -<i suffi8, Bas/ue ni comes to mind, the first &erson singular
&ronoun (:!3, but also similar forms -ith the same or closely related meaning (li7e
&ossessive suffi8 in various Uralic (and $ltaic - and $merindian - languages, as cited by
Morvan
+
. 5is vie- is that there is a sub=acent &ronoun;&ersonal &article system for the first
and second &erson -ith m;ni - 7;ti )ni-hi in Bas/ue as the singular, and m;nu 4 7;tu (gu-2u in
Bas/ue as the &lural form (and a *ero form for the third &erson. "his clearly tolerates an
inter&retation of -<i as -
n
i or -
m
i. Eote that a fortis n could -ell be the origin of the n/d
alternation for the first &erson in the con=ugated Bas/ue verb, in -hich case the modern ni
-ould be the result of lenition.
So, ! &resume that <i can be the first &erson &ronoun -ith verbal roots, and the &ossessive
suffi8 -ith nouns.
!t seems to follo- other suffi8es, li7e in eban-en-<i (e.g. the Sinarcas stele.
.2. The "ord seltar and the suffi! #$e%tar
!t is generally acce&ted that seltar means, or is related to the meaning of, :tomb, headstone3
vel sim. "his comes from internal analysis and &lausibility -ithin a conte8t. "here is no
similar -ord -ith this meaning in Bas/ue, so -e have to loo7 farther a-ay.
!n modern 5ungarian there is a root that may e8&lain the !berian -ord3s etymology0 s2el)et,.
(Eote that s2- in 5ungarian is &ronounced as )ng. s.
R
"he root s2el- has a meaning of :slicing, s&litting, cutting, etc\3. "he -ord s2elet is the
corres&onding noun meaning :a slice, a cut, \3 ("his noun-forming suffi8 .-et* might be
derived from an ancient :originative3 et or et, or the (roto-Uralic ablative ta, see the ne8t
t-o &aragra&hs. Eote that s2el- is sometimes re&orted as of $ltaic origin
2M
, -hile it seems to
be even more -ides&read in the former sub-arctic region south of the E!#>. #uriously or not,
it also a&&ears in Sumerian (as .sil-..
So, ! &resume this could be related to the origin of the !berian -ord, -ith a meaning of
something li7e :slab3 (i.e. a slice of roc7, :cut CstoneD3 vel sim. Fhence :headstone, tomb,
etc\3 by broadening of the semantic field.
"his hy&othesis has a history ! couldn3t deny the reader. Fhen ! first suggested this in 2RRL
22
and a bit later in a Bas/ue blog, an internationally recogni*ed authority in Bas/ue linguistics
as7ed me, rhetorically ! guess, -hy ! thought the !berians -ould have been :sho&&ing around
for -ord roots3 in &laces that, according to him, could not &ossibly have anything to do -ith
either Bas/ue or !berian. )ven though he didn3t really believe in a Bas/ue-#aucasian
relationshi& (i.e. geogra&hically about as far a&art as you can get - but seemed to sho- a
measure of res&ect for the most famous &ro&onents nonetheless, a&&arently my suggestion
offended him more. ! ho&e this -hole article -ill &rovide an ans-er as to -hy it is a real
&ossibility, albeit almost 2M years late for him to read it.
"he addition of the suffi8 4(tar may be e8&lained in various -ays, e.g. as a &assive &artici&le
mar7er or result of an action (cf. Gr7. -ma 4 -hich ! don3t thin7 to be li7ely - or an ob=ect
having a certain characteristic, contained in the first &art. !n the latter case -(tar might be a
com&ound suffi8 -te-ar, the first &art having an :ablative-li7e3 meaning (i.e. indicating an
origin of some 7ind as suggested by Hrdu]a
2+
and several authors before him (&erha&s not
coincidentally, (roto-Uralic has a .-ta* as ablative, the e/uivalent of (!) .-od*, -hile the
second &art -ould indicate a noun-forming suffi8. "he Bas/ue &arallel, only used for humans
(i.e. animate :gender3, -ould &robably be the tribal derivative suffi8 4etar, -hich, by the
-ay, also &o&s u& in !berian0 cf. ^aitabietar, i.e. member of the &eo&le of ^aitabi(a, &robably
modern _Stiva (NStiva, $licante. "he .atin e/uivalent of this 4etar is of course 4(etanus,
-ith the n;r alternation.
"he Bas/ue suffi8 .eta* suggests multi&licity in the sense of a (maybe large number of
similar items in a &lace or a grou&. !t is often believed to stem from .atin .-etum*, li7e in
:arboretum3. "his is not necessarily so, and ! believe they could both be due to a &re-!ndo-
)uro&ean stratum, &ossibly from !berian or related languages. 'ollo-ing Hrdu]a, if !b. .-te*
really is some form of ablative-li7e feature (-ith a &ossible variant through metathesis .-et*, a
common 4 and very distinctive - feature of #atalan and its Galencian variant, both s&o7en in
the !berian heartland, maybe not by coincidence, -e might o&&ose it to the .-+-. family of
suffi8es (see 6.L0 the former -ould indicate :&art of a numerous grou&3, li7e a tribe 4 -hich
is something different from a sim&le origin or &artitive mar7er containing .-+-.. "hat -ould
differentiate the !berian suffi8es .-)e,tar* and .-+ar*, resulting from .-)e,t)e,-ar* and .-+o/+u-
ar* res&ectively, and e8&lain the e8istence of t-o ablative-li7e (:from3 features -ithout
significant overla&&ing. So, the -ord .bai+ar* might mean something li7e .man from the
river valley/ban+, )S&. .ribere>o*,*.
2M
!t is not entirely clear -hether other .-t-. in some Bas/ue suffi8ed elements li7e .-)t,egi*, .-
)t,alde* etc. might have a similar meaning and function (.of a family, tribe, group;*,. ! tend
to believe it is of !berian or Uralic origin (-hich might be more or less the same thing, via
different routes. $s discussed belo-, the .-+-. in .-+ume* almost certainly has such an origin.
Eote that .egi* is &robably a derivative of .egin* (do, ma7e, a &retty e8act &arallel of S&.
.hacienda* from S&. *hacer*, and (ort. .fa2enda* from (ort. .fa2er*, both verbs meaning :do,
ma7e3, a fact that ma7es it highly im&lausible that the .-t-. is &art of the original -ord, as
o&&osed to a &retty generali*ed &o&ular belief, es&ecially for .)t,alde* (meaning .part,
grouping* and similar, not to be confounded -ith the root .alda-. derived from .at. .alter*.
.. The suffi! "ba#n$
"he suffi8 ba as such is rather uncertain0 it could very -ell be a shortened form of .ban*
-hen combined -ith other suffi8es. "he form ben could be either a vocal harmony variant
li7e in 5ungarian (i.e. )ast-Uralic, Ugric, or a another com&ound suffi8 be)n,.
!n 5ungarian ba (and vocal harmony variants is a very -ell 7no-n suffi8 meaning :into*,
i.e. an inessive meaning. "he related 5ungarian ban means .in, inside*(e.g. :)uro&aban3
means :in )uro&e3 "he n li7ely &lays a locative role li7e in Bas/ue (:at3 the &lace :into3
leads to.
!n Bas/ue, the notions of .interior/inside* and .inferior/below* are &retty close (cf. .-barne,
barren*. !f -e assume the same for !berian, it could be that ban means .in)side,* and be)n,
.below*? ho-ever, it cannot be e8cluded that it sim&ly is a vocal harmony variant.
So, seltar-ban-<i could mean .in my tomb* or .under my headstone*.
!t is generally acce&ted that the to&onym 7alpe (the modern munici&ality in $licante, and the
ancient name of Gibraltar, of !berian and "artessian origin, res&ectively means .below/at the
foot of the roc+*, by analogy -ith Bas/ue (-be and the &resumed meaning of +al)un, as
.roc+*/*pe>?n*, sometimes su&&osed to be the origin of Bas/ue har)ri,.
'ollo-ing the reasoning above, it -ould be &lausible that the ancient name actually had a
final n as a locative mar7er.
.&. The suffi! "en
.uis Michelena
26
-as &robably the first to suggest that this !berian suffi8 may have the same
meaning as the Bas/ue one, namely indicating &ossession, and thus similar to a :&ro&er3
&ossessive genitive. "here has not been substantial o&&osition to his vie- ever since.
Fhat has not been investigated much (or at all is that it bears the hallmar7 of an old
)uro&ean suffi8, &resent in very diverse languages. )ven though absent from 5ungarian, it is
&resent (as )e,n in most 'inno-Ugric languages (li7e 'innish and )stonian, but also in
"ur7ish (i.e. $ltaic, and, very remar7ably, in the oldest, the so-called :-ea73 genitive in
Germanic (e.g. Ger..des @err-en*, %u. des @e)e,r-en. !n general, those that believe in the
s&ecial &osition of Germanic among the !ndo-)uro&ean branches, also believe it is the
language of !ndo-)uro&eani*ed Uralics living in S. Scandinavia and;or E. Germany, or a
Uralic- (and other-ise influenced !) language close to !talic and maybe #eltic. !f so, the
Germanic en genitive could very -ell be a loan from Uralic.
22
Besides, and a bit off-to&ic, Germanic and Slavic in &articular, and (ancient !ndo-)uro&ean
in general, sho- characteristics &ointing to an evolution from an agglutinative language (li7e
Uralic and $ltaic to a flectional one (e.g. 'innish is on that -ay, and from an inanimate-
animate :gender3 system to a threefold gender system, the masculine coming from the
animate, the neuter from the inanimate, and the female being a later variant of the masculine
gender form. "he fact that the neuter nominative and accusative have the same form as the
animate (male accusative &oints to an initial conce&t that inanimate (:dead3 ob=ects could
not be agents, i.e. the sub=ect of a verb, and could only be the direct ob=ect of an action by an
animate being.
Eo-, -hy should en have the same meaning in Bas/ue and in !berian< !t follo-s from our
underlying hy&othesis (See +.0 (robably, !berian is the descendant of Uralic remnants in S)
)uro&e, the #aucasus or $natolia, and Bas/ue has undergone Uralic influence from the E.
$tlantic coast after e8&ansion from its >efugium. $ctually, this is not a necessary
re/uirement, as it may have an even older ((re-.GM relationshi& -ith the E!#> d-ellers.
.'. The family of % suffi!es
"he term .-+-suffi#* must not be inter&reted in a literal sense0 it encom&asses a series of
&honetic variants in various languages and in various stages of language develo&ment of the
same language. "he original core being a root of the ty&e (G
2
J(G
+
, -here G stands for a
vo-el and J stands for +, its voiced form g, a fricativi*ed form li7e an ich- or ach-laut, an
as&irated form A (7
h
i and &otentally other renditions (uvular (", glottal, \. Suffi8es li7e
e.g. -age or -aga may come under this definition, de&ending on meaning and origin.
Modern Bas/ue has lots of non-verbal suffi8es containing -7-, and so has !berian. "here is
one thing they all seem to have in common0 they indicate origin of some 7ind, four to be
&recise0
2. $blative (in a figurative sense;genitive. Maybe -e should call it :originative3. "he
&rototy&e is Bas/ue .-+o*, -hich often translates as .of* or .from3. (ossibly .-+u* in
!berian.
+. )rgative sub=ect0 this is =ust an indication of the origin of the action, i.e. the agent.
"his mechanism is abundantly clear in German0 .von* means both .of/from/off* (.atin
.ab, de* and .by* (agent, author.
6. (artitive0 "his usage is that something is &art of a collection, of a 7ind, etc. Bas/ue .-
+i* in the sense of .a piece of* is a ty&ical e8am&le. #f. .atin :Ei(hil novi3, 'r. :rien
de neuf3, )ng. :lots of &eo&le3. !berian .saliBg* might belong to this category (-g being
a &ositionally voiced .-+* 0 if .saliB* is a monetary unit, as some tend to acce&t, it
might be an e8&ression similar to :ChundredsD of dollars3 or the ancient Gree7 -ay of
using units (in the genitive.
I. (lural0 !n my o&inion this is actually another form of &artitive. #f. 'r. :beaucou& de
choses3, and the indefinite &lural in e.g. 'rench and !talian0 'r. :des hommes3, !t. dei
uomini3. !n German and %utch, the oldest &lural ending en coincides -ith the oldest
&ossessive genitive ending en. ! thin7 this can safely be attributed to the same
mechanism, albeit using the other, the :real genitive3.
$ctually, ! -ould ta7e the argument even further0 it loo7s li7e most E. )urasian
languages came from an original isolating &hase -hen they had no conce&t of &lural
2+
forms (the $merindian $lgon/uin also sho-s signs of a &ast -ithout, i.e. before
&lurals, according to M. Morvan, and so, at a certain stage, some mechanism had to
be em&loyed to create &lural forms? the use of &artitive constructions is one
&ossibility, and e.g. redu&lication is another one seen in some languages outside the
)urasian realm, even though there is a sus&icion that it may also have e8isted in the
very oldest form of the &recursor of Bas/ue (.a7arra. !t is true that redu&lication is
more often used to e8&ress intensity than &lurality, but on the other hand, the close
&ro8imity of the conce&ts of :many;much3 and :very3 is obvious, so much that during
language evolution, the -ords for those conce&ts may be confounded, e.g. S&.
:mucho3 and :muy3 are both derived from .at. :multu-3, -hich only indicates
multi&licity.
"he &lural .-a+* e8ists both in Bas/ue and in 5ungarian (and other languages, as far
a-ay as some $merindian ones, and ! strongly believe they have not only the same
mor&hological origin, but also, at least initially, stem from the same underlying
mechanism, ! mean it might have develo&ed inde&endently, but from the same
underlying idea, something that -ould also e8&lain -hy not all nor an even larger
number of Uralic languages have chosen this &ath.
! &resume it (or a variant .-e+* for dissimilation or vocal harmony has the same
meaning in !berian, e.g. in .gaue+* (&ossibly .nights* < in the stele from Sinarcas.
Since -e 7no- too little to be able to assign values to most of the !berian -7- suffi8es, ! shall
abstain from further comments, e8ce&t for one0 the !berian (a&&arent &lural genitive :-s7en3
might contain a &lurali*ing .-+-., unless, of course, it stems from .-s+o-en* since it seems to
occur mainly in the conte8t of tribal membershi& or origin. "hat -ould be an interesting fact,
for since $ntonio "ovar
2I
suggested in 2R,I that the -7o suffi8 -as a not only !ndo-)uro&ean
(-ith the e8ce&tion of $natolian, but belonged to an older layer that encom&assed a -ider
:)uro&ean and #ircum-)uro&ean3 (as he called it linguistic landsca&e, many others seem to
have acce&ted this idea and some even e8tended it to include the com&ound suffi8 4s7o and
its Bas/ue /uasi-analogue :2+o* that consists of -7o and the instrumental;modal .-2-..
Eote that the ablative-li7e derivative;ad=ectivi*ing suffi8es .-)s,+-. are -ides&read in !ndo-
)uro&ean 0 Grm;%u. isch, )ng. -ish, Slavic -s+i/s+o, -+o, Gr7. -)i,a+?s, Gallo->oman acus,
etc. $lso in )truscan0 -aA , li7e in ./umaA* (:>oman, from >ome3.
&. Some #un'$related problems(pu))les
&.1 The pu((le of um#e$* or is it
m
b#e$'
Fhile discussing the <i suffi8, -e mentioned <bar and U)m,mar (in .atin scri&t as the
source of the hy&othesis that that < is an initial nasali*ation (li7e in
m
bar or a syllabic or
fortis nasal. But there is more0 "he mb- also a&&ears in $/uitanian (a li7ely old form of
Bas/ue in .sembe* -hich is generally thought to be the e/uivalent of .seme* ).son* i.e. .male
child* in Bas/ue. 'ollo-ing a reasoning by Michelena
2,
, ! believe that it actually stems from
an !berian form .Csen)i,-
m
be* or at least that it contains the !berian -
m
b-. #ombined -ith
Bas/ue .ume* (.child, infant*, one might conclude that
m
b)e, might be its !berian origin.
Hn the other hand, the Bas/ue .sein* means :boy*, so, .Csen)i,-
m
be* may be inter&reted as
.boy-child* , i.e. .son*. !t gets a bit more com&licated -hen considering Bas/ue .senar*,
(.husband*0 does it really ma7e sense to inter&ret it straightfor-ardly as .boy-man*< Fhile
26
.Cseni* &robably carried the meaning of :male3 (See Michelena
2L
for instance, it is not
obvious that it also carried the meaning of :child;youngster3? if so, -hy this &artly &leonastic
:boy-child3< Hr could it be that .Cseni* originally only meant a reference to male 7inshi& 4 by
blood or by marriage, as might be deduced from .senide*< "hat -ould ma7e more sense for
both .senar* and .seme* simultaneously.
But -hat about !berian .
m
bar* < .child-man* < ! sus&ect it actually means something li7e
.man )-ar, of children*, i.e. .father*. "hat -ould lead to an inter&retation of B/. .senar* and
.seme* as .related man*, i.e. a man -ho has become a member of the family (by marriage,
and .male child related by blood*, res&ectively. $dditionally, the famous $/. :Ummesahar*
(B/. .ume 2ahar* or literally .old child* -ould rather mean .elder/eldest child/son* even
though the element of 7inshi& is not e8&licit. Hr could it be that it -as actually &art of the
meaning of !berian :
m
b)e,*, but not in the mind of the Bas/ues -ho inherited it from the
$/uitanians, -ho -ere still a-are of the meaning it had for the !berians< Maybe because the
$/uitanians already had a -ord or root indicating 7inshi&, .Csen)i,* that became the &referred
term, -hile .ume* lost that &art of its meaning. "he fact that some (often .atini*ed
$/uitanian names follo-ing the !berian mould contain .Csen)i,* does not necessarily im&ly
that the !berians had such a -ord.
Conclusions0 2. Bas/ue .ume* is &robably an !berian loan-ord, and +. !berian .<bar*
&robably means .father*. $nd .<bar-<i* (li7e in the Sinarcas stele -ould mean .my father*,
a very &lausible meaning in its conte8t.
!t should be noted that the discussion about .Csen)i,-
m
be* and .ume* is very old one, but !
ho&e ! have been able to shed some ne- light on certain as&ects, es&ecially in relation to
!berian.
&.2. The )ander"ort iri(ili(uri(uli
"he origin of the -ord :iri/ili/uri/uli3 is a&&arently a &retty -ides&read Fander-ort from the
eastern Mediterranean. Fe find it in various regional to&onyms and languages0
- Ilion ("roy, @yr4a0 both came to us via the ancient Gree7s, but very li7ely from earlier
languages. "he meaning seems to be :(fortified city3 (actually more li7e the Germanic-
derived S&anish :burgo3, -hich may have been lost to the later Gree7s.
- Sumerian Ur -hich -as ado&ted by the $77adians;Babylonians.
- 5ebre-0 .ir (long form yeru, cf. `eru-shala3im, Nerusalem, $77adian0 ur (cf. Ur-salimmu,
Nerusalem, same meaning in both Semitic languages.
"he -ord a&&ears in Bas/ue, sometimes -ith a still mysterious (in my o&inion added suffi8
.-un* (often .-uB* in !berian, -hich might be due to the fre/uent n-r e8change -e 7no- from
Bas/ue. My guess -ould be that it is some 7ind of augmentative? alternatively, it could also
mean something in the semantic field of :hill, elevated &lace3 as has been suggested for the
etymology of Bayonne ()i,bai-o/una. !n that case, .il)d,un/uB* might refer to a hill fort, and
Ili-on might actually be derived from .Ili-u/on)e,* (consistent -ith 5omeros3 :the stee& !lion3,
i.e. on a stee& hill, no-adays 7no-n as "r7. 5isarla7, :&lace of fortresses3
)verything seems to &oint to an eastern Mediterranean origin of .iri/uri* in Bas/ue via the
!berians. "he least one can say is that such a hy&othesis ma7es things fall into &lace.
2I
$nother /uestion is that of the -lt or ld s&elling in !berian -hen follo-ed by .-uB*. $s
suggested by Michelena many years ago, this could sim&ly be a -ay of encoding a fortis l,
since in .atin scri&t it is normally -ritten as l.
&.. *o" could $suspected% +ltaic elements possibly get into ,as-ue.
"here are some &retty troubling coincidences or &ossible cognates bet-een Bas/ue and
"ur7ish, i.e. $ltaic0
Buru-Burun:
$t first sight, they have nothing in common, B/. .buru* having .head*, and "r7. .burun*
.nose* as &rimary meanings. 5o-ever, both are used in many other meanings that have one
thing in common0 they all refer to some form of .e#tremity* or .protuberance*, sometimes
even for the same conce&t, e.g. ca&e (in geogra&hy. 5o-ever, as far as ! 7no-, .buru* is not
attested in !berian, -hich does not necessarily mean it didn3t e8ist.
Egun-Gn:
Both mean:day3. "he "ur7ish -ord for :sun3, :gKneb, is derived from :gKn3. $ccording to ..
"ras7 :!arandiar6n ):DEF, suggests an original sense of .sun*, .light*, which is possible but beyond
chec+ing* for B/. .egun*. "hat -ould mean that the Bas/ue -ord for .sun*, .egu2+i*, is derived fom
.egun* (in its meaning of .day* by means of a com&ound suffi80 .egu)n,-)e,2-+i*. $ &erfect &arallel0 even
the derivative suffi8es could be related. Both :sun* -ords -ould then mean something li7e .GstarHof-by-
day*. (ure coincidence< ! thin7 not. "hat 7ind of internal relationshi& is too strong to be
doubted. $nd the resemblance seems too obvious.
!n Bas/ue there is a &erfect analogue for the moon0 .ilargi*, meaning .light )argi,, i.e. star,
in/of the dar+ )ilun,*.
Adi(n)-Aydn :
Both a have strong relationshi& -ith intellectual ca&acity and the li7e0 the Bas/ue -ord has
several acce&tances li7e .age* (&robably through a lin7 -ith .wise*, .understanding*,
.1udgement*? the "ur7ish -ord means *intellectual, literate, etc.*. "he Bas/ue -ord
fre/uently occurs in $/uitanian names, so an !berian origin cannot be e8cluded since
$/uitanian names often mimic or co&y !berian names.
Izen-Isim:
Both mean .name*. $nother &ure coincidence< ! begin to thin7 there are too many of them.
-kume-Kme:
"his time !3m venturing into &erilous territory, but it might contribute something. "he Bas/ue
suffi8 means .offspring, young animal* and is obviously related to .ume*, es&ecially since
there is a variant .hume*, -hich is a sure indication that the original form of .ume* might have
been .+ume*. $t first sight, this loo7s unli7ely from the discussion of .
m
b)e,*. Since in
modern usage the form -ith 7- only occurs in the suffi8 form, it is &ossible, even li7ely, that
the initial -7- is actually another, &receding, suffi8 of the 7-series, e.g. -7o0 in that case the
com&ound suffi8 might actually be .-+o-ume*, e.g. .+atu-+o-ume*, .the young of the cat*. But
2,
.-+o-+ume*, -ith elision to avoid an a&&arent redu&lication, is e/ually &ossible. 5o-ever, that
-ould create a ne- &roblem -ith .
m
b)e,*, unless the initial 7- had already been reduced to an
uncertain h- (as&irated only in some dialects in the autonomous form. Hn the other hand, it
cannot be e8cluded that once a form .+
m
b)e,* may have e8isted, maybe -ith a syllabic
.fortis* m.
"he "ur7ish -ord has a basic meaning of .conglomeration, group ;*, including .family*.
)ven though the reasoning above might destroy the direct analogy, de&ending on the
hy&othesis about the former (non-e8istence of .+
m
b)e,*, it is still &ossible that originally the
"ur7ish -ord carried some conce&t of relationshi&, or of being &art of a grou&.
en!"!i#e conclusion (for !$is sec!ion only): "here are a&&arently elements in Bas/ue and
$/uitanian that seem to have $ltaic origins. $ &ossible e8&lanation is given by my
:Underlying hy&othesis30 the southern remnants of (eastern Uralics and $ltaics -ere close
neighbors ever since the .GM and influenced each other a lot, and not =ust during the
Httoman domination of )astern )uro&e. "his -ay, the !berians, coming from far more eastern
regions than the Bas/ues from the >efugium, may have &ic7ed u& /uite some elements from
their neighbors before their migration to the -estern Mediterranean. $ny-ay, in my vie-,
they -ere all &art of the sub-arctic long-range cultural-linguistic community.
$s an illustration (not :&roof3c of the actual &ossibility of such long-range relationshi&s
during the !ce $ge, ! -ould li7e to &resent the -eird 4 to say the least - case of "r7. .tepe*
(.hill* and EShuatl ($*tec .tepe-tl* (.mountain*0 a&art from the nominative;absolutive
ending -tl of EShuatl, the t-o -ords are identical, and so is their basic meaning. "here are
other such e8am&les li7e e.g. 9uechua .+illa* (.moon* and Bas/ue .il-argi* (.moon I light in
the dar+*, root .il-. dar7ness, .hil-. death. Morvan cites a several more very credible
e8am&les in his boo7. !f this is real, it must date bac7 to the times before the first migration of
(aleo-Siberians to $las7a. ! thin7 the right labeling of such coincidences is :atavisms3,
-hether (very ancient common -ords or e/ually ancient Fander-drter.
Eote that all $merindian languages are of the (suffi8ing agglutinative ty&e as -ell, and have
many other characteristics in common -ith Bas/ue and;or !berian, li7e e.g. multi&ersonal
verbs, first and second &erson mar7ers, and u& to a &oint, their internal structure, &ossessor
&receding the &ossessed, etc. Hf course, this is not &roof of :genetic3 relationshi&, but it does
create a strong sus&icion of at least indirect contact (e.g. as a contact chain &henomenon, and
even of &robable influence or e8change through mediation.
Epilogue
$s will be clear by now, this paper is not to be read li+e a standard scientific publication, but
rather as a hopefully - inspiring document to entice the recogni2ed e#perts into loo+ing at
the problems of ma+ing sense of the relatively limited Iberian facts from other more
speculative standpoints, and into venturing outside their comfort 2one. I don*t e#pect
anybody to accept my views without criticism, but I would be most satisfied if somebody,
anybody, would do further research along the lines I tried to s+etch here.
@aasdon+, !elgium 3uly F':J.
2L
2
>eferences0
htt&0;;---.academia.edu;6LRR+L+;$bouteaeMinoane"e8teoneane)gy&tiane(a&yrus
+
$linei, Mario0 Etrusco- una forma arcaica di ungherese, Bologna, !l Mulino, +MM6.
6
Morvan, Michel 5es origines linguisti"ues du bas"ue, (resses Universitaires de Bordeau8, 2RRL
I
.a7arra, Noseba0 8rotovasco, munda y otros- /econstrucci?n interna y tipolog4a, hol4stica diacr?nica,
B!B.!% C226P-II,I (+MML, +2? ++R-6++D, online
,
Fii7, Jalevi0 Europe*s 0ldest 5anguageK Boo7s from 'inland 6;2RRR0 +MP-+2+, online
htt&0;;---.finlit.fi;boo7sfromfinland;bff;6RR;-ii7.htmf
L
JKnna&, $go0 8ossible 5anguage 9hifts in the Uralic 5anguage %roup, University of "artu ()stonia,
+MM+, online htt&0;;---.ut.ee;Ural;7ynna&;7&ls.html
P
htt&0;;anthro&ogenesis.7inshi&studies.org;+M2+;2M;on-the-homeland-of-the-uralic-language-family;
Q
5O77inen, Naa77o - 8roblems in the method and interpretations of the computational phylogenetics
based on linguistic data $n e#ample of wishful thin+ing- !ouc+aert et al ., +M2+, online0
htt&0;;---.elisanet.fi;al7u&era;(roblemseofe&hylogenetics.&df
R
Jloe7horst, $l-in0 Etymological Lictionary of the @ittite Inherited 5e#icon. (5eiden Indo-European
Etymological Lictionary 9eries, ,. .eiden, Brill.
+
2M
Ma=lSth, "ibor0 MSgySr Ford .ist, on his -eb &age? 'or .s2el* see
htt&0;;member.melb&c.org.au;gtma=lath;magyar+,.html , u&date +M2M
22
Selleslagh, )duard0 5a estela ibMrica de 9inarcas- Una interpretaci?n esencialmente Mus+ara y su
base, in 'ontes .inguae Gasconum nh P6, Se&t.-%ic. 2RRL, 6I2-6,R.
2+
Hrdu]a $*nar, )duardo0 9egmentaci?n de te#tos ibMricos y distribuci?n de los segmentos, %octoral
thesis, UE)% +MM,.
26
Michelena, .uis0 IbMrico -en, in N$ctas del I 7olo"uio sobre lenguas y culturas prerromanas de la
8en4nsula IbMricaO, 2RPR, 6,6-6L2.
2I
"ovar, $ntonio0 El sufi1o -+o0 indoeuropeo y circumindoeuropeo, in $rchivio %lottologico Italiano
nh 6R;2-+(2R,I, ,L-LI.
2,
Michelena, .uis0 5os nombres ind4genas de la inscripci?n hispano-romana de 5erga )=avarra,, in
8r4ncipe de Piana nh. Q+-Q6, 2RL2-2RL+, L,-PI.
2L
Michelena, .uis0 Le onoma6stica a"uitana, in 8ireneos Q, 2R,I, IMR-I,,
Eote0 "he collection of many old but &ioneering articles by .. Michelena can be found in the boo7
:.engua e 5istoria3, ed. (araninfo (Madrid, 2RQ,, !SBE QI-+Q6-26PR-+.