Iberian and Uralic

Supected Finno-Ugric-like elements in the Iberian language

(and maybe even Altaic ones)
by
Eduard Selleslagh-Suykens

Revised version of July 2013

Revision note: The article has been adapted to reflect newer insights in the problem of the
presumed homeland of Uralic, and the branching of the Ugric/East Uralic sub-family. I also
elaborated on several points that seemed to lead to unintended conclusions, and re-
formulated some other ones in order to convey my ideas more clearly.
Preface
Much has been and is still being - written about the ancient language of the Iberians, and even
much more about the !as"ue language. The latter is still largely being considered a language isolate,
by some even in a pretty absolute sense, while Iberian is often studied in a conte#t of a possible
relatedness to $"uitanian - which is almost universally accepted to be a precursor of historic !as"ue.
%reat progress has been made in both fields over the last &' years. (hile !as"ue studies have
reached a certain maturity e#cept on the "uestion of its origins, Iberian studies have almost come to
a standstill )which doesn*t +eep people from writing a lot about it, due to a lac+ of more inscriptions,
and especially the lac+ of true bilingual ones- it often loo+s li+e the discipline is waiting for a
./osetta stone* while not much more by ways of le#icon or structure, let alone grammar, can be
e#tracted from what is available.
0n the other hand, !as"ue studies are being hampered by non-linguistic, mainly nationalistic
preconceived ideas that !as"ue*s uni"ueness cannot be in doubt and that any attempt to relate it to
other languages is tantamount to sacrilege. $ pre1udice strengthened by the failings of classic .vasco-
iberismo* and other .vasco-#y2-ismos*.
In a certain sense, this paper is a plea for widening the hori2on in different ways- first, to get rid of
pre1udices and loo+ at a wider linguistic conte#t, second, to ta+e into account historical,
demographic, geographic, climatologic and other useful data, not necessarily only the proven ones,
but also the hypothetical and plausible, that provide a framewor+ for the wider linguistic conte#t.
I am well aware of the fact that stic+ing one*s nec+ out this way may be ris+y for established
professionals with an academic reputation at sta+e. This is why I, as a non-professional linguist, want
to present these ideas, however unproven or unprovable for the time being they may be, in order to
get specialist researchers to consider more adventurous avenues of investigation, without falling in
the trap of the .miracle translators* of Iberian li+e 3. $lonso %arc4a, 3.5. /om6n del 7erro and others
who firmly believe in .vasco-iberismo* and stretch it far beyond the core of truth it li+ely contains,

* 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 &regnant -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-+.