On the genetic relationship of the Caucasian Iberians and Basques

Valeria Prusova

On the genetic relationship of the Caucasian Iberians and Basques

From the mid-19th century to the present day, scholars have attempted to prove or disprove the reality of the relationship between the Basques and the Iberians, trying to determine the ethnic roots of these two peoples through archaeological, ethnographic, and anthropological data.

"The Basque-Iberian problem is now a problem of worldwide significance," wrote V.F. Shishmarev in 1948. "The problems arising over Basque and its other 'prehistoric' brethren are theoretically so valuable and important that their specter unwittingly troubles European linguistics, especially in the last two decades in connection with the political role of national minorities." /1/

The long-standing interest in the Basques in Western European science is due to the fact that they are the only people in Southwestern Europe whose language does not belong to the Indo-European language family. This interest grew when parallels with the languages of the ancient Eastern civilizations of Sumer and Akkad were found in the roots and structure of the Basque language. /2/

A hypothesis of the Mediterranean origin of the Basques arose, comparing them with the Caucasian peoples, whose origins scholars trace to the Near East and Mesopotamia (Georgians, Mingrelians…). /3/

From this time (19th century), a special interest in Caucasian languages and peoples emerged in European science (mainly in linguistics).

However, as G.A. Klimov writes, "Caucasian linguistics has long acquired an unenviable reputation as a sphere of many unfounded… genetic constructions." /4/

According to G.A. Klimov, N.Ya. Marr, and K.D. Dondua, this situation in Caucasian linguistics is because there are few specialists among European scholars studying the Caucasus who are genuinely proficient in Caucasian languages.

"Throughout the entire 19th century, it was hardly possible to count two or three linguists who fully mastered the Caucasian material." /5/

From the multitude o f early genetic constructions of this kind, one can mention the opinion of F. Bopp on the belonging of the Kartvelian language to the Indo-European languages /6/, F. Hommel's position on an "Alarodian" family comprising many ancient languages of the Near East, the Mediterranean, and the Caucasus; /7/ the development of ideas of a Caucasian-Etruscan kinship by V. Thomsen and a Caucasian-Elamite kinship by R. Winkler, the Caucasian-Urartian hypothesis of F. Lenormant and A.H. Sayce. /10/

Many similar constructions were proposed in the first half of the 19th century. These include, in particular, the broad Caucasian-Semitic construction of A. Trombetti /11/, the famous Kartvelian-Semitic concept of N.Ya. Marr, the opinion of R. Bleichsteiner on the genetic connection of Caucasian languages with the Burushaski language /13/, the viewpoint of E. Forrer and J. Mészáros on the relationship between the Hattic language of ancient Anatolia and the Abkhaz-Adyghe languages, /14/ the opinion of A. Paizat on the kinship of the Nakh-Dagestanian languages with Urartian on one hand, and with Sino-Tibetan on the other /15/, various comparisons of Caucasian material in numerous publications by K. Bouda, /16/ the Basque-Caucasian-Yeniseian construction of O.G. Tailleur, /17/ the opinion of M. Tsereteli on Sumerian-Kartvelian kinship, /18/ and the assumptions of I.M. Diakonoff about the kinship of Hurro-Urartian and Nakh-Dagestanian languages. /19/

A few words must be said about the Nostratic hypothesis in the part where it operates with Kartvelian material. According to this hypothesis, the Kartvelian languages are distant relatives of the Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Dravidian, Uralic, and Altaic languages. /20/

Not all hypotheses that compare the Caucasian language family with other language families are mentioned here. I do not have the opportunity to discuss them in detail, as this is not the subject of this work. The scope of my work allows me to cover only the problem of the Basque-Iberian relationship in the works of linguists, ethnographers, archaeologists, and anthropologists from some countries of Western Europe, Russia, and Georgia.

Most of the material on this problem is exclusively of a linguistic nature, as it has been mainly studied by linguists until now. Only recently have works appeared in the anthropological and ethnographic fields comparing the Basques and Iberians, and there are separate mentions by archaeologists investigating the megalithic cultures of the Near East, Transcaucasia, and Western Europe.

Unfortunately, not all the material on the topic under study is covered here, as it is inaccessible to us. But I have tried, as far as possible, to highlight the main works on this issue available in Moscow libraries, especially since there is not much material due to the specificity and difficulty of the topic.

The main difficulty lies in the fact that the sought-after kinship existed in the 19th millennia BC, and we have little information about that distant era.

Even A. Meillet, while admitting the probability of kinship, doubted the possibility of revealing it at the current level of study of the material. /21/

The second difficulty of this issue lies in the need to compare two peoples located very far from each other, which until now has not given ethnographers the opportunity, historically or geographically, either to draw any parallels between them or to study them in comparison.

In ethnographic literature, the methodology for the narrow regional study of individual issues of ethnographic parallelism is well developed, but the study of a number of more general problems requires a special approach and the creation of new methods.

It was mainly on this ground (methodological) that disagreements arose among linguists (N. Marr, W. von Humboldt, C. Uhlenbeck, H. Vogt, etc.), which I will discuss later.

In the ethnographic study of these two peoples, only one single attempt at comparative research has been made so far, which is especially valuable because it is the first work in Soviet ethnography (1988) studying the Basques /22/, and the only ethnographic work comparing the Basques and Iberians.

Moreover, this work attempts to define the methodological positions from which a systematic scientific investigation of Basque-Iberian ethnographic parallels could begin.

The hypothesis of Basque-Iberian kinship long seemed to be merely a legend. Nevertheless, it has always attracted the attention of scholars. Increased interest in it, in some cases, leads to excessive schematization and simplification of its solution. Despite this, a deep and serious joint investigation of this theory by specialists in several fields could realistically and definitively prove the kinship of the Basques and Iberians or refute it.

To illuminate the research of Basque-Iberian kinship in scientific literature, it is necessary first to show the current level of study of both peoples, especially since this topic is directly related to their ethnogenesis. This determines the structure of this article: first, it discusses the state of study of the origin of the Basques; then, the Caucasian Iberians; and only then, the Basque-Iberian hypothesis, that is, their comparison.

1. The State of Basque Studies

The study of the Basques has been ongoing for several hundred years.

Currently, in Spain and France, scientific and educational activities related to the Basques are being intensively stimulated. This is due to a very sharp decline in the number of Basque speakers. As early as the 1920s, N. Marr mentioned that he had met Basques in France who were ashamed to speak their native language. Now, Basque national culture is catastrophically disappearing. The language, whose antiquity is estimated at five (if not more) millennia, a language considered more ancient than the civilizations of Sumer and Akkad, is under threat of extinction.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, institutes, departments, and centers for Basque studies have been created in various countries. To provide evidence, I will cite the following facts:

In 1918, the Academy of the Basque Language was established in Spain.

In 1948, Basque linguistics in France was concentrated in the Department of Basque Language at the University of Bordeaux. From that time, departments and centers for the Basque language began to be established in Pau, San Sebastián, Salamanca, Pamplona, Deusto, and other cities.

In 1961, a course in the Basque language was introduced at the University of Toulouse.

In 1965, a department-institute of Basque linguistics was founded at the "Spiritual University" of Deusto (Biscay).

The Basque language began to be studied at this time in Pamplona, at the University of Navarre.

At Georgetown University (USA), a course "Introduction to Basque Linguistics" was introduced.

In 1976, the "Society of Basque Language and Culture" was established at the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR.

Since mid-1976, a course in the Basque language has been taught at Tbilisi State University.

In 1982, the first International Courses in the Basque Language (May 15 – August 22) were held in Arantzazu, organized by the University of the Basque Country and the Royal Academy of the Basque Language.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, periodical publications dedicated to Basque etymology and linguistics began to appear. Among them:

"Cuadernos de etnología y etnografía de Navarra" (published since 1969)

"Revue internationale des études basques" (published from 1907 to 1936)

"Bulletin du Musée Basque" (since 1924)

In Russia, currently, articles on Basque studies are published periodically (very rarely) in the collection "Iberica".

Nevertheless, despite the substantial number of organizations and publications dedicated exclusively to Basque studies, the origin of the Basques remains an unclear issue.

The most controversial issue is the opinion about the origin of the Basques from the (Pyrenean) Iberians.

Regarding this, there are three points of view in the scientific literature:

The first derives the Basques from the Pyrenean Iberians, who originally lived on the Iberian Peninsula before the arrival of the Celts, and who themselves came to the Pyrenees from North Africa and belong to the Hamitic branch by origin. /23/

The second traces the origin of the Basques to the Ligurians, who (according to this theory) inhabited the Iberian Peninsula before the arrival of the Iberians.

The third, which emerged quite recently and seems the most substantiated, states that the Basques are the only descendants of the pre-Iberian layer of the population of the Iberian Peninsula, carriers of the name "Iberians," which became fixed in the toponymy of the peninsula and was passed on to subsequent Hamitic tribes who came from Africa and conquered the Iberian Peninsula. /25/

On the peninsula, the term "Iberians" has been recorded since the 6th century BC. It is generally accepted that it is associated with the names of the rivers Iber in Catalonia (modern Ebro) and in the south – modern Rio Tinto. In addition, there is Ibari in Catalonia, Iberro in Navarre, etc.

It has been proven that the term "Iber" is of Basque origin. In Basque, ibar means "river valley" and related terms are ibai – "river," ibon – "lake."

In this case, there was a change in the ethnic content of the term.

Moreover, the discovery of a number of new texts, including a major acquisition in 1948 in Cigarrales, located near Alcoy (an inscription on a lead disk with 203 signs, dated to the 4th century BC), showed the presence of "echoes" of Basque in the typically Iberian language (cf. Iberian ikbai – Basque ibai "river") and the non-Basque character of this language.

This point of view is held by C.C. Uhlenbeck, J. Laca, R. Lafon, A. Tovar, J. Caro Baroja, K. Bouda, and others. /26/

As Y.V.Zytsar writes, no one now adheres to W. von Humboldt's point of view on the Iberian-Hamitic origin of the Basques.

In 1932, a work by Ziglage appeared, in which the comparison of Basque with Hamitic languages was revised, and their distinctness was very convincingly proven. In his work, he concludes that Basque-Hamitic kinship is unprovable. /27/ This was recognized by G. Bähr, A. Campión, and C.C. Uhlenbeck.

The Hamitic version of Basque kinship has been dismissed, and thus, the connection of the Basques with the Iberian population of the Iberian Peninsula cannot be called kindred.

It should be said that in another of his works, Yu.V. Zytsar, clarifying the reasons for the preservation of the Basques in Roman Spain, came to the conclusion that one of the initial and "deep" reasons was the difference between the Basques and the majority of the Iberians. /28/

Currently, there is no single point of view on the origin of the Basques, whose self-name is "Euskaldunak," while they received the name Basques, probably, from the Basque tribe of the Vascones.

2. The Problem of Studying the Caucasian Iberians

There are various theories about the origin of the Georgian people, and scholars have not yet reached a unified solution to this question. In the diverse interpretations of this problem, several main currents can be distinguished.

Information on this issue is found even among ancient Greek scholars, who expressed a legendary version of the Egyptian origin of the Georgians (Herodotus, 5th century BC), /29/ or considered Spain their original homeland (Megasthenes, 3rd century, etc.). /30/

According to another concept, based on the data of the chronicle "The Conversion of Kartli," it is believed that the Georgians were resettled during the time of Alexander the Great from the country of "Arian-Kartli," the name of which is interpreted differently.

Thus, the Georgian historian M. Janashvili considers it the Central Asian "Ariana," while academician S. Janashia considers it the country of "Harri," uniting Mitanni and Urartu. /31/

The Georgian historian of the first half of the 19th century, an honorary member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Teimuraz Bagrationi, shares the position of Josephus Flavius (1st century) on the identity of Georgians and the biblical Tubals – a tribe that really existed in the 2nd-1st millennia BC in Asia Minor. /32/

The Greek historian Herodotus provides many details about the life of the Colchians but never mentions the Iberians. It is interesting that in his works, the tribal name "Saspers" is found, and the territory of this tribe approximately coincides with the territory of the historical Iberians. S. Janashia, analyzing this information, concludes that the "Saspers" are the same as the Iberians.

It must be said that in Georgia, migration theories were supported by the local written tradition, reflected in the chronicle "The Life of Kartli." According to the latter, the Caucasian peoples were formed as a result of the migration of Thargamos (the great-great-grandson of the biblical ancestor of mankind, Noah) and his clan from Northern Mesopotamia to the confines of the Caucasian isthmus. /33/ (The connection of this tradition with similar texts of Armenian sources is obvious). Similar information is reported in the history of Agvan by Movses Dasxuranci, which derives the Agvans, i.e., modern Udis, ultimately from Japheth. /34/

However, the idea of the non-Caucasian origin of many Caucasian tribes is also shared by leading Western Caucasologists.

For example, A. Trombetti noted in the 1920s: "we must admit, along with Schuchardt and other researchers, that peoples who were previously spread over a much wider territory have concentrated in the Caucasus region and that a part of these peoples was absorbed by these tribes." /35/

In Georgian historical science, there is a current whose followers assert the idea of the autochthony in the Caucasus of the speakers of not only Kartvelian but also other Caucasian languages.

S.N. Janashia /36/ and G.A. Melikishvili spoke out most decisively in favor of autochthony. The latter, polemicizing with I.A. Javakhishvili, writes: "at present, we cannot be satisfied with the solution of ethnogenetic questions that is found in the works of I.A. Javakhishvili, excluding the problem of linguistic kinship with other peoples. The question of the origin of the Georgian people in I.A. Javakhishvili's work is reduced to the question of the migration of Georgian tribes from their original homeland. I.S. Javakhishvili considered both Georgian and all other Caucasian (Ibero-Caucasian) tribes as tribes that migrated to the Caucasus from the south sometime in the pre-antique era… However, at present, such a formulation of the question is hardly justified by anything; archaeological research with full clarity reveals the continuity of the process of development of the local original culture that has been taking place here since ancient times, which excludes (at least for the period of time that we can judge by the materials we have) the idea of a radical change in the ethnic composition of the population that occurred here." /37/

Summarizing some of the results achieved by science in the study of the genesis of the modern population of the Caucasus by the mid-1960s, the authoritative Georgian anthropologist M. Abdushelishvili comes to the conclusion that craniological materials speak of the continuity of the population of both Georgia and the Caucasus as a whole. /37f/

The assumption of the autochthony of the speakers of Caucasian languages is also defended by Yu.D. Desheriev. /37b/

Now let's turn to the Caucasian term "Iberian."

Even in the works of ancient writers, we find mention of Eastern Iberia (Herodotus, Strabo, Appian, etc.).

As is known, Greco-Roman historians and foreign chronicles in general recognize only the state of the Iberians on the territory of Eastern Georgia and mention only the kings of Iberia, while the Kartlian state of the Iberians, called "Kartli" and "Sakartvelo," is unknown to them.

Just as Western Georgia was known by different names at different times (Egrisi, Colchis, Lazica, Abkhazia), Eastern Georgia was called Iberia before the spread of the term "Kartli." This is associated with the dominance of one or another tribe. In other words, before the establishment of the dominance of the Kart tribe in Eastern Georgia, the Iberian tribe dominated.

Sh. Dzidziguri writes that the names "Karts" and "Iberians" are not synonyms, but names of different tribes. /38/ N.Ya. Marr writes more precisely: "…it becomes clear that by Iberians in the local ethnographic sense of this term, one should understand not the eastern Georgians, but the western, or more precisely, the middle ones, that is, the second row of Georgian tribes after the coastal Lazs, adjacent directly to the Lazs and located along the inner strip of the Caucasus in a curved line from Spar to Svania (Svaneti), therefore including a good half, if not all of Mingrelia. A significant part of this… Iberian region was assimilated in language by the eastern Georgians, the Kartvelians, who attached all of it to the Kartvelian Christian culture…" /39/

And here is the assumption of I. Javakhishvili: "in the valley (meaning Eastern Georgia), besides others, there must have been three main tribes: the Kakhs, the Kartlians, and the Iberians, by whose tribal name the whole country was named in the 1st century BC. We know that the Iberians or Imeretians belonged to the Mengrelo-Laz branch, but later… some tribe that penetrated from Kartli made them adopt its language. Of course, the Iberians or Imeretians must have lived among the Megrels and Karts. It was precisely this Iberian tribe that had the advantage in the 1st century BC and afterwards gave its name to the whole country; it is only possible that these Iberians were not Kartized at that time." /40/

The origin of the tribal name "Iberians" has given rise to numerous hypotheses.

One of them is about the direct connection between the Pyrenean Iberians and the Caucasian Iberians.

Socrates: "these Iberians, living by the Pontic Sea, originated from the Spanish Iberians." /41/

The second is about the origin of the term "Iberian" from the name of the tribe of the Tibareni or Tibarenes.

tabar-tibar-tobar (identified with hiber-hiberian) /42/

Sh. Dzidziguri connects these names with the ethnonyms – the biblical Tubal-Tobel and the Tabal of the Assyrian inscriptions.

Flavius: "Tobel gave rise to the tribe of the Tobels, who are now called Iberians." /43/

A third point of view derives the origin of the Caucasian ethnonym "Iber" from the name of the Asia Minor tribe of the Saspers-Sabers.

"The bridge that connects historical Iberia-Kartli with the ancient East is illuminated by literary sources… It should be noted that Kartli, the Mtskheta-Armazi kingdom, was only a new political formation of the people who were well known to the Greeks in the 6th-5th centuries BC, under the name of Saspers-Sabers, and whose southern borders were still very far from their homeland. Of great importance for the Georgian nation is the fact that even in the first half of the 5th century, of the four greatest tribes (Persians, Medes, Saspers, Colchians) living on the main territory of the Near East… two peoples – the Colchians and the Saspers – were of Kartvelian origin…" – believes S.S. Janashia. /44/

Here Janashia confuses the Karts and the Iberians.

There is another interpretation of the origin of the term "Iberian," first given by M. Brosset.

M. Brosset believes that this term appeared from the Armenian ver, meaning "above," "on top," from which comes virk, – as the Armenians call the Georgians, – which means "upper," in the sense of northern inhabitants, in relation to the Armenians. From the same root, M. Brosset also derives the name of the countries: Greek, or later Iviria and Latin Iberia. /45/

The next point of view on the origin of the term "Iberian" is mentioned by L.M. Melikset-Bekov: