Etruscan–Hurro-Urartian Relations

1. Motivation

This study evaluates the hypothesis of an Anatolian origin for Etruscan and its relatives via a genetic link with Hurro-Urartian, as an alternative to proposed ties with Indo-European languages of Anatolia (e.g., Adrados 1989, 1994, 2005; Georgiev 1962, 1974, 1979; Woudhuizen 2019; critically, Neu 1991; Simon 2021).¹

2. History of Research

The Etruscan language is the best-documented member of the Tyrsenian language family, which also includes two other epigraphic languages: Raetic and Lemnian. The family was named by Helmut Rix (1998). The close relationship between Lemnian and Etruscan was first demonstrated by Brandenstein (1948, cols. 1925–1929) and subsequently refined by Eichner (2012, 2013, 2019).

The Hurro-Urartian language family is a well-established genealogical unit, first proposed by Hrozný (1915: 42) and definitively demonstrated by Friedrich (1935; cf. also Kapancjan 1936: 61–63). It comprises two languages attested in cuneiform: Hurrian (2nd millennium BCE) and Urartian (first half of the 1st millennium BCE). A third member, Kassite, has been suggested (Schneider 2003), but is not considered here. Early comparisons with North Caucasian, particularly the Nakh branch, were pioneered by Bork (1909) and summarized by Trombetti (1922–23: 105–108).

The Etruscan–North Caucasian relationship was first anticipated by Thomsen (1899: 375–381). Hrozný (1917: 57; 1928: 172–173) discussed and expanded these grammatical comparisons, though he attributed them to Indo-European influence. A new era in Hurro-Urartian diachronic studies began with Igor M. Diakonoff, a leading specialist in cuneiform languages. His comparative grammar (1961) marked the first milestone, followed by studies (1967; 1979) that noted ties to East Caucasian without specific evidence. In later works (1971; 1978), he incorporated East Caucasian comparanda into his Hurro-Urartian grammar sketch. Collaborating with Sergei Starostin, Diakonoff (1986; Russian 1988) advanced the field by integrating preliminary East Caucasian reconstructions into Hurro-Urartian comparisons. This lexical material was included in A North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary, where Nikolaev and Starostin (1994) presented their Proto-North Caucasian model. Meanwhile, Ivanov (1988) explored Etruscan parallels with Hurrian, Urartian, and early reconstructions of North Caucasian branches. Independently, Orel and Starostin (1990) compared Etruscan with reconstructed East Caucasian, first at the 1988 Ann Arbor Symposium on Language and Prehistory. Their study offered 59 Etruscan–East Caucasian correspondences, including 13 involving Hurro-Urartian. Similar tripartite comparisons appear in Robertson (2006) and Blažek (2010). Exceptions include Facchetti (2002; 2018) and Akulov (2024), which focus directly on Etruscan–Hurrian relations.

The Etruscan data in this study draw primarily from Steinbauer (1999), supplemented by Wallace (2008), Facchetti (2008), Rix (2004), Bonfante (2002), and d’Aversa (1994). Lemnian follows Eichner (2019). Hurrian relies mainly on Richter (2012, 2016), with additional material from Laroche (1980), Wilhelm (2004), Wegner (2004), and Nozadze (2007). Urartian is based chiefly on Arutjunjan (2001), supplemented by Wegner (2004b), Salvini and Wegner (2014), and Diakonoff (1963).

3. Comparative Wordlist

1. Etruscan ac- ‘machen’ (Steinbauer 1999, 391) // Hurrian ag- ‘to lead, bring, take up’ (Steinbauer 1999, 4-5); Urartian ag(u)- ‘to lead’ (Arutjunjan 2001, 431). Note 1: Concerning semantics, cf. Latin agere ‘to lead, drive, conduct’ and ‘to do, act, labor’. Note 2: In Etruscan there were no voiced stops. Note 3: Diakonoff & Starostin (1986: 57, n. 142) connected HU *ag- with North Caucasian *ʔVrḳV- ‘to drive’ = *=ărḳĚw (NCED 267). Note 4: Orel & Starostin (1990: 63, n. 47) compared Etruscan ac- ‘to have; to do’ with North Caucasian *ʔăGGV ‘to hold, take’ = *-ăGĂr (NCED 254–55).

2. Etruscan ali- ‘geben, schenken, weihen’ (Steinbauer 1999: 396) // Hurrian al(e)- ‘nahe heranbringen, annähern; heranreichen; apportare, avvicinare’ (Richter 2012: 11). Note 1: Orel & Starostin (1990: 61, n. 1) compared Etruscan al- ‘to give’ with HU *ar- ‘to give.’ Note 2: Cf. East Caucasian *-ĭŁV ‘to give’ > Čečen -al-a id. etc. (NCED 640–41).

3. Etruscan am- ‘to be’ (Steinbauer 1999, 397) // Hurrian amm- ‘to reach, arrive at; ankommen, gelangen, erreichen; atteindre, arriver, faire parvenir’ (Wegner & Bomhard 2020/2023, 99; Richter 2012, 23). Note 1: The semantic difference is compatible, cf. Czech přibýt ‘to arrive’ vs. být ‘to be’. Note 2: Orel & Starostin (1990, 61, 4) compared Etruscan am- ‘to be’ with Hurrian mann-, Urartian man- and Proto-Lezgian *ʔi-ma(n)- ‘to be’.

4. Etruscan an ‘he, she; which’; in ‘it’ (Pfiffig, while Rix preferred the relative function; see Steinbauer (1999: 93, 397) // Hurrian anni ‘this’ vs. ani ‘that’ (Kassian 2010 [2011]: 418–19), Urartian ini ‘this,’ anaph. ina (Arutjunjan 2001: 448; Wilhelm 2004: 128; Salvini & Wegner 2014: 37).

5. Etruscan ara- ‘to put, place; make’ (Wallace 2008: 247) // Hurrian ar-, Urartian ar(u)- ‘geben’ (Richter 2012: 41–43; Arutjunjan 2001: 436). Note 1: Diakonoff & Starostin (1986: 51, n. 125) compared HU *ar- ‘to give’ with East Caucasian *ʔi-ʒ̂ʒ̂V ‘to give’ > Čečen -al-a id. etc. = *-ĭŁV (NCED 640–41). Note 2: Orel & Starostin (1990: 61, n. 1) compared HU *ar- ‘to give’ with Etruscan al- ‘to give.’

6. Etruscan atia- ‘Mutter’ (Steinbauer 1999: 400) // Hurrian ašte/i ‘(Ehe)Frau,’ atte ‘Frau’ (Richter 2012: 59–60, 69). Note 1: Cf. Lithuanian mótė ‘wife’, móteris ‘woman’ vs. Latvian māte ‘mother’, Latin māter id. Note 2: Independently identified by Akulov 2024: 42. Note 3: Orel & Starostin (1990: 63, n. 42) compared Etruscan ati ‘mother’ with East Caucasian *ada(j)- ‘mother’ = *ʔadaj ‘mother / father’ (NCED 397–98). Note 4: Diakonoff & Starostin (1986: 39, n. 86) compared Hurrian as̄ti ‘woman, wife’ with East Caucasian *ć(V)dV > Dargwa cade ‘female’; Čečen stē id. = *cVjdV (NCED 375).

7. Etruscan avil ‘year’, Lemnian aviz ~ Etruscan gen. sg. avils (Steinbauer 1999: 401–402) // Hurrian oarbu ‘year’ in such compounds as šin=arbu ‘two years old;’ kig=arbu ‘three years old,’ (Nuzi) tumun=arbe ‘four years old,’ etc. (Wilhelm 2004: 115; Richter 2012: 201, 381, 468). Note 1: The comparison is acceptable only in the case of the compatibility of Etruscan l and Hurrian r and the metathesis in one of these languages. Alternatively, it is possible to speculate about the Etruscan protoform *arvil. Note 2: Orel & Starostin (1990: 62, n. 30) compared Etruscan avil- ‘year’ with Hurrian šawali ‘year’, Urartian šāli id., but for the correspondence of HU *š- vs. Etruscan ø there are no supporting arguments. That is why it is possible to offer an alternative solution: the HU compound *ša(w)- + *(a)wali, ‘full year’ vel sim., cf. Hurrian ša(w)- ‘vollmachen’ (Richter 2012: 340).

8. Etruscan calusu- ‘ausgezeichnet, blühend, best-’ (Steinbauer 1999: 403) // Hurrian kel- ‘beneficare, zufrieden/wohl sein, to be/make well, please’ (Richter 2012: 202).

9. Etruscan cap(i)- ‘take’ (Wallace 2008: 248) // Hurrian kab-, kapp- ‘(aus)füllen, aufschütten’ (Richter 2012: 186). Note: Compared by Facchetti (2018: 14).

10. Etruscan caru ‘gebaut’, ceriχunce ‘er baute, ließ bauen’, cerinu ‘errichtet’ (Steinbauer 1999: 407–08) ~ car-, cer- ‘to make, build’ (Bonfante 2002: 215) // Hurrian kur- ‘herstellen’ (Richter 2012: 227).

11. Etruscan cel- ‘Erde’ (Steinbauer 1999: 407) // Urartian kaquli- ‘stone’ (Arutjunjan 2001: 451). Note: Cf. North Caucasian *q̇wiɫə ‘rock, cliff, stone’ (NCED 939).

12. Etruscan ci- ‘three’, ciem ‘minus three’, citz, ciz(i) ‘three times’, cis-um ‘aber dreier’, ciemzaθrum- ‘17’ = ‘20 – 3’, cialχ-/cealχ- ‘30’, besides cezp- ‘8’, cezpz ‘8 times’, cezpalχ acc. ‘80’ (Steinbauer 1999: 96, 100, 408–09), if cezp- originates from *ce-z=p(i) ‘three times on {five}’ (Robertson 2006: 6). // Hurrian kige ‘three’, kigae ‘dreifach’, kiški ‘three times’ or ‘third’ < *kikši < *kig(a/e)=ži, kikmani ‘13’ or ‘30’ (Richter 2012: 201–202). Note 1: Gluhak (1978: 26) compared the Etruscan and Hurrian numerals, the latter he mistakenly designated as Urartian. Note 2: Ivanov (1988: 214) and Orel & Starostin (1990: 61, n. 10) already compared Etruscan ci- ‘three’ with Hurrian kig- ‘three’ and Proto-Nakh *qo id.

13. Etruscan clan ‘Sohn’, gen. clens/ś (Steinbauer 1999: 409), pertinentive pl. celeniarasi, besides clenaraśi, gen. pl. cliniiaras (Wallace 2008: 248) // Hurrian kalge ‘small, weak’ (Richter 2012: 181). Note: The semantic dispersion corresponds to Sumeraian tur ‘small, little, young; child’, tur5 ‘newborn; weak, sick’ (Halloran 2006: 282).

14. Etruscan ei ‘not’ (Bonfante 2002: 215; cf. Steinbauer 1999: 416) // Hurrian oi̯a (u-ia-) ‘nein’ (Wilhelm 2018: 573) ~ ua / uja ‘nein’ (Richter 2012: 481), Urartian ui̯ ‘not’ (Arutjunjan 2001: 47) ~ ú-i ‘nein’ (Salvini & Wegner 2014: 114). Note: Cf. Robertson (2006: 18).

15. Etruscan -em ‘minus’ (in subtraction), e.g. θunem ‘minus one’, eslem ‘minus two’, ciem ‘minus three’ (Steinbauer 1999: 416, 489; Bonfante 2002: 215) // Hurrian -ma ~ -mma ‘negative forms of the 3rd person’ (Kassian 2010 [2011]: 408), Urartian mi ‘negative (prohibitive) proclitic in the optative’ (Diakonoff & Starostin 1986: 94) ~ me(i) ‘пусть не; ни’ (Arutjunjan 2001: 454). Note 1: Cf. Robertson (2006: 18). Note 2: Diakonoff & Starostin (1986: 94) compared HU with North Caucasian *ma ‘a prohibitive and negative particle’ (NCED 797).

16. Etruscan ena- ‘jetzt, heute, gegenwartig’ (Steinbauer 1999: 417) // Hurrian ḫenne/i ‘jetzt, damals, nun’, Urartian ḫini(e) ‘jetzt’ (Richter 2014: 151; Arutjunjan 2001: 446). In HU, it is probably a compound of the deictic element *ḫi, which is identified in Urartian ikukaḫini ‘the same’ < *iki=uka=ḫi=ni vs. ikukani ‘the same’ < *iki=uka=ni (Salvini & Wegner 2014: 37, 110), and *eni/*ini; cf. Hurrian inna ‘now; if’ or temporal ‘wenn, als’ (Richter 2012: 86). Note: Diakonoff & Starostin (1986: 32, n. 61) compared HU with North Caucasian *hVnV ‘now’ = *h[ä]nV (NCED 487).

17. Etruscan esvi- ‘später, nachher’ (Steinbauer 1999: 418) // Hurrian ešawa ‘on the far side’ (Richter 2012: 102–103).

18. Etruscan eśi ‘vom selben’, sa- ‘dasselbe’ (Steinbauer 1999: 418, 462) // Urartian isi ‘всякий’, i.e. ‘every’ (Arutjunjan 2001: 449) or aišei ‘irgendjemand’ (Salvini & Wegner 2014: 107).

19. Etruscan heva ‘all, jeder’ (Steinbauer 1999: 418) // Hurrian ḫeyari, pl. ḫeyarunna / ḫé-pa-ru-un-na ‘alle, every’ (Nozadze 2007: 153). Note: Cf. North Caucasian *xwE ‘together, close to’ (NCED 1063–1064).

20. Etruscan pl. huśur & husiur ‘Kind, Nachkomme’ (Steinbauer 1999: 430) // Hurrian ḫišši ‘Sproß’ (Richter 2016: 418). Note: Orel & Starostin (1990: 62, n. 19) compared Etruscan hus-, huś- ‘boy, son’ with Urartian aršə ‘adolescents, boys’ and East Caucasian *u̯-ɨšwV = *-á̆šwĚ ‘son, daughter’ (NCED 671–672).

21. Etruscan ica ‘this’, later eca, acc, ican, ikan, later ec(u)n, loc. ec(-s), with postp. eclθ(i); proclitic nom. ca, acc. cn, gen. cla, loc. ce(-ś), cei(-ś), c(-ś), with postp. calti, clθ(i) (Steinbauer 1999: 92–93, 430; Bonfante 2002: 92) // Urartian *iki in ikukaḫini ‘the same’ < *iki=uka=ḫi=ni & ikukani ‘the same’ < *iki=uka=ni (Arutjunjan 2001: 448; Salvini & Wegner 2014: 37, 110).

22. Etruscan ilacva- ‘Monat, Fest’ with the suffix -cva- (Steinbauer 1999: 431, 87) // Hurrian eli ‘Fest’ (Richter 2012: 82). Note: Independently identified by Facchetti (2018: 14).

23. Etruscan ipa-, later epa- ‘who, which’ (Bonfante 2002: 94) // Hurrian abi ~ awi ‘who’ (Kassian 2010 [2011]: 425, #98; Richter 2012: 38; Wegner & Bomhard 2020/2023: 55).

24. Etruscan ita ‘this’, later eta, acc. itan, itun, later et(a)n, gen. etula, loc. etule; proclitic nom. ta, acc. tn, loc. tei, tei(-ś) (Steinbauer 1999: 92; Bonfante 2002: 92) // Urartian ute ‘nobody’, analyzable as u-te; the first component can be identified with Urartian ui̯ ‘not’, ui̯ ai̯ni ‘nobody’, where the second component means ‘another’ (Arutjunjan 2001: 471; Salvini & Wegner 2014: 107, 114). Note: Cf. East Caucasian *tV ‘that’ > Dargwa: Akuša it, Čirag it, taʕ etc. (NCED 993).

25. Etruscan lautn ‘family’, lautni ‘freedman’, lautnita & lautniθa ‘freedwoman’ (Wallace 2008: 250) // Urartian lutu, attested in several variants: SALlu-tú, LU.SALlu-tú-ni, SALlu-tú-ni-e ‘woman’ (with the same suffix as the synonym LU/SALuediani), SALlu-túMEŠ ‘women’ (Arutjunan 2001: 453). Note: Robertson (2006: 12) made the same comparison, adding Avar ʎ:ádi, pl. ʎ:ud-bí ‘wife’ (NCED 764–65).

26. Etruscan maχ ‘five’, muvalχ ‘fifty’, Lemnian mav ‘five’ (Steinbauer 1999: 439; Wallace 2008: 220), if the final -χ was the ordinal suffix as in θunχ- ‘first’ (Jacemirskij 2007: 190) // Hurrian eman ‘ten’ (Richter 2012: 83–85), if the final -n can be identified with the Hurrian plural relator -na (cf. Wilhelm 2004a: 106–108). Note 1: First compared by Blažek (2010a: 121). Note 2: If the final -χ was the enclitic conjunction (Wallace 2008: 116), it is legitimate to interpret Tyrsenian *mu(va)-χ as ‘plus X’, where X = ‘4’ with regard to the interpretation of Etruscan > Latin mundus as *“four cardinal points” (see below). In this case the Etruscan/Tyrsenian numeral ‘5’ would be formed as the sum *θu-mu(va)-χ ‘1+4’. This hypothesis supports the existence of the common numeral ‘4’ in Tyrsenian *mu(va)- & mundus and Hurrian *(ta-)muni- (see #29). Accepting it, this isogloss conspiciously resembles the Anatolian numerals ‘4’: Hittite me(i̯)u-/mei̯au̯-; Cuneiform Luwian māuu̯a- ‘four’, Hieroglyphic Luwian miwa-, reconstructed on the basis of the sign IIII mi and the record nom.-acc.pl.c. IIII-wa/i-zi; Lycian mupm̃m- ‘fourfold’ (Kloekhorst 2008: 571), and it is legitimate to ask, who borrowed from whom.

27. Etruscan men- ‘errichten, setzen, weihen’ (Steinbauer 1999: 443) // Hurrian min- ‘geben, nehmen’ (Richter 2012: 250).

28. Etruscan mi ‘I’, acc. mini ‘me’ (Steinbauer 1999: 91) // Urartian -me enclitic dat. ‘me’ (Arutjunan 2001: 454; Salvini & Wegner 2014: 37).

29. Etruscan > Latin mundus ‘heavens, sky; world, earth; subterranean vault’ [Plautus+], originally perhaps ‘four cardinal points’ with regard to the probable equivalence Roma quadrata = mundus (cf. Carter Platner 1901: 420–25; 1908: 180; Toporov 1983: 123–24), which is applicable to both ‘sky’ and ‘world’ // Hurrian tumni ‘fourth’, tumunzi ‘fourth’, tumnadi ‘consisting of four; Vierheit’ (Richter 2012: 468–69). With regard to the ordinal tumunzi ‘4th’ and cardinal tamri ‘9’ (Richter 2012: 436), the numeral ‘4’ is derivable from *tamuni and ‘9’ from *tamun-nari- ‘4 + 5’ (cf. Blažek 2010: 118–19). It is tempting to identify in the first syllable the Hurrian form tea, which has been interpreted as ‘much, many, very, numerous, big, completely’. The hypothetical compound *tea-muni- would mean ‘completely four’, perhaps about fingers of a hand without the thumb. Without the first component, but with the derivational suffix -adi we have got munadi ‘consisting of four’, which perfectly corresponds to Latinized Etruscan mundus. Note: Cf. Quechua tahuantinsuyu /tawantinsuyu/ ‘four regions of Andes’ (tawa ‘four’; Anti ‘Andes’; suyu ‘region’ – DQEQ 16–17; 595, 617) = ‘the Inca empire’.

30. Etruscan netei ‘Schwiegermutter’ (Steinbauer 1999: 449) // Hurrian nera ‘Mutter’ (Richter 2012: 275) ~ ‘жена деверя’ (Nozadze 2007: 257). Note 1: Perhaps a primary compound of the type *ner-atia ‘man’s mother’; cf. Urartian nara ‘people, nation’. Note 2: Kapancjan (apud Martirosyan 2010: 505) connected the Hurrian kinship term nera with Armenian nēr, gen.-dat.sg. niri ‘husband’s brother’s wife; husband’s the other wife’. The latter has been derived from IE *(H)i̯enh₂-ter-ih₂-.

31. Etruscan nu-θe ‘to listen to’ (Wallace 2008: 251); the suffix -θ- is productive in the Etruscan verbal morphology (Steinbauer 1999: 142) // Hurrian nui ‘ear’ (Richter 2012: 281).

32. Etruscan nun- ‘to bring, involve’, nuna ‘offering’ (Bonfante 2002: 217) // Urartian nun(a)- ‘to come, arrive’ (Arutjunan 2001: 456); cf. Hurrian un- ‘kommen’, trans. ‘bringen’ (Richter 2012: 490). Note: Connected by Robertson (2006: 9).

33. Etruscan rasna ‘etruskisch; national’ (Steinbauer 1999: 459) = Ῥασέννα by Dionysius Halicarnassus (Antiquitates Romanae, 1.30.3: ‘Their own name ... is the same as that of one of their leaders, Ῥασέννα’) // Urartian arše ‘child, boy, lad, youth’ (Arutjunan 2001: 436). The Hurrian counterpart may be identified in the Ugaritic alphabetic record a̓ršm ‘young boy’? (Richter 2012: 48). Note 1: The ethnonyms motivated by the meaning ‘child, boy, youth’ are relatively frequent in Indo-European traditions: e.g. Čech can be etymologized on the basis of the appellative preserved in Slovenian čèh ‘boy from 10 to 15 years; herdsman’, Kašubian čeχ ‘youngster, child’, all from Common Slavic *čexъ; Goth of the same origin as Norwegian gut, Swedish gutt ‘boy’; the Germanic tribe of Buri [Tacitus: Germania 43] of the same origin as Old Norse burr, Old English byre ‘son’ etc. (Blažek 2010b: 17). Note 2: Diakonoff & Starostin (1986: 36, n. 71) compared the Urartian word with such the North Caucasian forms as Lak ars ‘son’, Dargi urši ‘son, boy’ etc. (NCED 671–672: North Caucasian *=á̆šwË, where the forms with the medial -r- are explained through the metathesis of the r-suffix of the oblique stem).

34. Etruscan rene-θi ‘in der Hand; zur Verfügung’ (Facchetti 2008: 231; cf. Steinbauer 1999: 460 without any translation) // Hurrian nariya ‘five’ (Wilhelm 2004: 115). Note 1: Facchetti (2018: 20) connected these forms, accepting metathesis in one of the compared languages. Note 2: The probable external cognates from other branches of the Sino-Caucasian macrofamily indicate that the sequence r...n is primary: Burušaski of Hunza -ríin & -ríiṅ, pl. ríiṅćiṅ, Nagir pl. in oćaṅ, Yasin -rén, (together with the root): pl. -réiṅ(ćiṅ) ‘hand’ (Berger 1998: 364–65); Yeniseian *ŕɔŋ ‘hand’ > Ket ľaŋ, Yug ľɔŋ ‘hand’, Arin lan-ťūŋ ‘wing’ (Starostin 1995: 178). In North Caucasian a promising cognate can be identified in the numeral *ʔrǟnλE ‘6’ (NCED 219–220), if it is analyzable as a compound of *ʔrǟn- ‘5’ & *λE. The latter component is derivable from the North Caucasian verb *=äλĚw ‘to lie, put, lead’ > Nakh *=ill- ‘to lie, put upon (something)’, *t-ill- ‘to put (from above)’; Čamalal =aλ- ‘to begin’; Tsezian ɔL ‘to be’; Bežta =oλ-, Gunzib =ol- ‘to finish’; Lezgian ʔeλ:wɨ- ‘to put, lie’; West Caucasian *λ'ə- ‘to lie’ (NCED 278–79). The primary semantics could be ‘six’ = ‘(one) put upon five’ or ‘beginning the (new) five’. A similar structure is assumed for Indo-European *(K)su̯ek̂s ‘6’, namely *ĝhes- ‘hand’ & *u̯ek̂s- ‘to grow, rise’ (*-k̂- is confirmed by Lithuanian vešė́ti ‘to grow vigorously, thrive; prosper, flourish’), i.e. ‘overgrowing the hand’ (see Blažek 1999: 239–41).

35. Etruscan ruva ‘Bruder’ (Steinbauer 1999: 462) // Hurrian ewuru / ewiru ‘heir, Erbe’ (Nozadze 2007: 131). Note 1: These forms are compatible only in the case of metathesis in one of the compared languages. It seems, it was Hurrian, where the initial r- was probably impossible in the inherited lexicon (see n. 24). Note 2: The semantic difference has analogy e.g. in Old Irish orb ‘heir’, com-arbe ‘successor’, Gothic arbi ‘heir’, vs. Russian rebënok ‘child’, rebjáta ‘children’ (Pokorny 1959: 781–82).

36. Etruscan seχ ‘Tochter’ (Steinbauer 1999: 463), if it is derivable from selχ; cf. meχ ‘Herrin, Königin’, if it represents an adaptation of Phoenician mlkt ‘queen’ (Krahmalkov 2000: 289); cf. Hebrew malχah ‘wife of the king’ (HAL 592) // Hurrian šala ‘Tochter’ (Richter 2012: 344), Urartian sila ‘wife’ (Arutjunan 2001: 460). Note 1: Cf. Ivanov (1988: 212). Independently identified by Akulov (2024: 42). Note 2: Related can be Common Burušaski *salé-n > Yasin salén, selén ‘sister(s) and daughter(s) of a man’, Hunza & Nagir silaʒị́n ‘woman, female relatives’ (Berger 1998: 373, 378). Note 3: Orel & Starostin (1990: 63, n. 43) compared Etruscan sec, seχ ‘daughter’ with East Caucasian *CVḳwā ‘female’. Note 4: Diakonoff & Starostin (1986: 42, n. 94) connected Hurrian šala ‘daughter’ and Urartian sila ‘wife’ with East Caucasian *-ilććwi ‘female relative’ = *rīlćwī (NCED 952).

37. Etruscan snenaθ ‘Genossin, Zofe, Magd’ (Steinbauer 1999: 467) ~ ‘maid, companion’ (Bonfante 2002: 219) // Hurrian šena ‘brother’ (Richter 2012: 384–85). Note 1: Concerning semantics, cf. Egyptian sn ‘brother; companion’ (Erman & Grapow IV: 150–151) ~ sn ‘brother’ vs. snw ‘companion, fellow’, snt ‘sister’ vs. dual snwt(y) ‘female companions’ (Faulkner 1962/1991: 230). Note 2: Independently identified by Akulov (2024: 42). Note 3: Cf. East Caucasian: Avar-Andi *ccVnV ‘second cousin’ (NCED 322).

38. Etruscan sval(a)- ‘lebend(ig)’ (Steinbauer 1999: 469) ~ sval ‘alive, living’ (Wallace 2008: 252) // Hurrian šawali ‘year’ (Richter 2012: 351), Urartian šāli id. (Arutjunan 2001: 462). Note 1: Cf. Vedic ā́yu- ‘life, lifetime’ vs. Latin aevum ‘period of time’. Note 2: Orel & Starostin (1986: 30, n. 55) compared HU *šawal- ‘year’ with North Caucasian *swěrHo ‘year; old’ (NCED 968–69). Note 3: Orel & Starostin (1990: 62, n. 30) compared Hurrian šawali ‘year’ with Etruscan avil- ‘year’, while Etruscan sval- ‘to live’ they combined with Hurrian zurgi ‘blood’ and East Caucasian *ćạ̈ʒ̂wV ‘alive; blood’ = *ćạ̄ŁwV (NCED 376).

39. Etruscan ten-, tn- ‘to act as magistrate’ (Bonfante 2002: 219) ~ ‘ableisten’ (Steinbauer 1999: 476) // Hurrian tan-, dial. (Ugarit) tin- ‘tun, machen’ (Richter 2012: 436–438), Urartian tan- ‘machen’ (Salvini & Wegner 2014: 114) ~ tanu- ‘to found’ (Arutjunan 2001: 466).

40. Etruscan tinia- ‘Tag; Zeus, Juppiter’ (Steinbauer 1999: 478) // Hurrian tueni ‘Tag’ (Richter 2012: 478). Note: Orel & Starostin (1990: 62, n. 31) compared Etruscan tin- ‘day’ with PNakh *dē, obl. *dēni- ‘day’ < East Caucasian *rīhV (NCED 952).

41. Etruscan trepu- ‘Handwerker, Zimmermann’ (Steinbauer 1999: 481); Lemnian tover ‘Schmiedegott’, reconstructed on the basis of the Lemnian city-name Toverona, corresponding to ancient Ἡφαιστία [Herodotus, 6.140] according to Eichner (2019: 120) // Hurrian tabiri ‘smith’ > Sumerian TABIRA/TIBIRA ‘coppersmith’ > Assyrian tabīru id. (Richter 2012: 439).

42. Etruscan trutnuθ ‘Blitzdeuter’ = Latin fulguriator (Steinbauer 1999: 482), if it is analyzable as *t(V)ru- *‘fire’ & ten-/tn- ‘to act as magistrate’ ~ ‘ableisten’ (see above), together perhaps ‘that one which attends to {celestial} fires’ // Hurrian tari- ‘fire’ (Richter 2012: 444). Note: The semantic development from ‘fire’ to ‘lightning’ has analogy e.g. in Old Norse elding ‘lightning’ vs. eldr ‘fire’ or in Irish teintreach ‘lightning’ vs. teine ‘fire’ (Buck 1949: #1.57).

43. Etruscan Tursikina ‘gens’ from Chiusi, 7th cent. BCE; cf. Greek Τυρσενοί, later Τυρρενοί, Umbrian Tursko-, Latin Tusci (d’Aversa 1994: 55; Steinbauer 1999: 483) // Hurrian tarše ‘Mensch’, taršuwan(n)i ‘Menschheit’ (Richter 2012: 447); Urartian LÚtaršuani(e) ‘man, human being’, LÚtaršuanarani ‘people, settlement’ vs. nara ‘people, nation’ (Arutjunan 2001: 456, 467). Note: Diakonoff & Starostin (1986: 39, n. 87) reconstructed the HU compound *tar-s(u)wa-, where the first component was connected with Hurrian turoḫḫə ‘male’ and the second one with North Caucasian *ćwĭjo ‘man, male’ (NCED 336).

44. Etruscan θi ‘Wasser; Bach, Fluß’ (Steinbauer 1999: 488) // Hurrian šije ‘eau’ ~ ṯı̓ in the Ugaritic transcription (Richter 2012: 366, 544). Note 1: Independently identified by Facchetti (2018: 14) and Akulov (2024: 43). Note 2: Diakonoff & Starostin (1986: 49, n. 118) connected Hurrian šije ‘water’ with East Caucasian *ʔäŝV ‘to become wet’; alternatively with East Caucasian *xxänʕy ‘water’ > Karata ŝŝẽji id. etc. = *xä̆nɦá̆ (NCED 1060).

45. Etruscan θu(n)- ‘eins’, later θu, further θunem ‘weniger eins’, θunz ‘einmal’ (Steinbauer 1999: 100, 489) // Hurrian šukki ~ šugi ‘one’, šukši ‘erstens’ (Richter 2012: 406–407), Urartian šuki ‘once’, šusi(ni) ‘ein ... einzig’ (Arutjunjan 2001: 466; Salvini & Wegner 2014: 114). Note 1: The first one who compared the Etruscan and Urartian numerals ‘1’ was probably Stoltenberg (1943: 243). Note 2: Orel & Starostin (1990: 62, n. 20) compared Etruscan θu ‘one’ with Urartian š(V)-usə ‘first’ and North Caucasian *cHə̆ ‘one’ (NCED 323–324).

46. Etruscan un acc. sg., une dat. sg.; unu acc. pl. ‘you’ (Rix 1991; Bonfante 2002: 91, 220; cf. Wallace 2001: 58–59, 254) // Hurrian we ‘selbständige Person der 2Ps. Sg.; wella 2Ps. Pl. (Richter 2012: 309–310). Note 1: The comparison with Etruscan nom. mi, acc. mini ‘I’ indicates the unattested nom. sg. u vel sim. Note 2: Diakonoff & Starostin (1986: 82) compared Hurrian we with East Caucasian *w1V ‘thou’ > Lezgin wun, Arči un id. etc. < North Caucasian u̯ō id. (NCED 1014). Note 3: Related are also Burušaski un ‘thou’ (Berger 1998: 456); Yeniseian *ʔaw/ʔu id. > Ket ū, Yug u; Kott au, pl. auoŋ; Arin au; Pumpokol úe.

47. Etruscan zal ‘zwei’, loc. esals, subtracted eslem, multiplicated eslz ‘zweimal’, zelur ‘two at the time’ (Bonfante 2002: 97); zaθrum ‘zwanzig’ (Steinbauer 1999: 96–100, 499); Raetic þal ‘zwei’ (Rix 1998: 57; Salomon 2020: 283); Lemnian azlas ‘den zweien’ (Eichner 2019: 96). // Hurrian ošella in šinišella, which should correspond to Hittite 2-an-ki ‘twice’ by Kammenhuber (see Laroche 1980: 234; Richter 2012: 382), but a more fitting interpretation could be ‘two both’² or German ‘zwei beide.’³ Friedrich (1934: 314–316), followed by Laroche (1980: 171, 288) also mentioned the Hurrian suffix -ššil appearing in the theonyms of Mitanni-Aryan origin, namely DINGIRmešMi-it-ra-aš-ši-il and DINGIRmešú-ru-wa-na-aš-ši-il. They apparently correspond to the Vedic divine names in dual Mitrā́ ‘both Mitras’, i.e. ‘Mitra and Varuṇa’, and Váruṇā ‘both Varuṇas’, i.e. ‘Mitra and Varuṇa’. Both the theonyms are also attested as the copulative compound of the type dvandva, with the common dual ending: nom. Mitra-Váruṇau, gen.-loc. Mitra-Váruṇayoḥ, dat.-abl.-instr. Mitra-Váruṇābhyām. Laroche (1980: 171) interpreted the suffix -ššil as ‘les deux’. Note 1: The Etruscan-Hurrian comparison was identified by Ivanov (1988: 214). Note 2: Orel & Starostin (1990: 61, n. 12) compared Etruscan zal ‘2’ with HU counterparts: according to more recent sources Hurrian šina, šine/i ‘2’ (Richter 2012: 380), Urartian šinamdini ‘вдвое’ (Arutjunan 2001: 464), plus Nakh *šiʔ, obl. *šina- ‘2’ (NCED 845–846). But HU *šina- ‘2’ is apparently of Semitic origin, cf. Akkadian m. šina (status absolutus), Eblaite šina ‘2’ (Blažek 2010: 118; Robertson 2006: 9; Facchetti 2018: 18, following p.c. with Mauro Giorgieri in 2011), while Nakh *šiʔ, obl. *šina- ‘2’ looks as a result of the areal influence of Hurrian or Urartian. Note 3: The comparison of Etruscan zal ‘2’ with HU *šina- ‘2’ would imply the correspondence of Etruscan -l- and HU -n-, but for it are missing other supporting arguments.

4. Conclusion

Of the 47 proposed comparisons, 20–21 are nouns (substantival or adjectival), 11 are pronouns, adverbs, or grammatical words, 6 are numerals or numeral-derived, and 9–10 are verbs. Given the small size and low semantic overlap of the attested Etruscan, Hurrian, and Urartian lexicons, this distribution supports—tentatively—a genetic relationship between Etruscan (or more broadly Tyrsenian) and Hurro-Urartian. The connection appears stronger than any with North Caucasian, though the latter awaits systematic quantification.

Additional evidence includes Hurro-Urartian etymologies for Greek mythological names (Apollo, Artemis, Leto, Athene, etc.; cf. Blažek 2007, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2022) and archaeological-linguistic traces of Hurro-Urartian dialect(s) in western Anatolia, the Aegean, and possibly Cyprus. Northwest Anatolian origins for pre-Etruscan Tyrsenians are also defended (Beekes 2003; Kloekhorst 2021: 58–72). The present data allow the hypothesis that these two population movements reflect a single ethno-linguistic continuum.

Appendix A1: Correspondences among consonants

Etruscan – Hurrian

Etruscan – Urartian

Appendix A2: Correspondences among vowels of the first syllable

Etruscan – Hurrian

Etruscan – Urartian

Appendix B: Text passages

Dionysius Halicarnassus: Antiquitates Romanae, 1.27

1.27.1. οἱ δὲ μετανάστας μυθολογοῦντες αὐτοὺς εἶναι Τυρρηνὸν ἀποφαίνουσιν ἡγεμόνα τῆς ἀποικίας γενόμενον ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ θέσθαι τῷ ἔθνει τοὔνομα: τοῦτον δὲ Λυδὸν εἶναι τὸ γένος ἐκ τῆς πρότερον Μῃονίας καλουμένης, παλαιὸν δή τινα μετανάστην ὄντα: εἶναι δ᾽ αὐτὸν πέμπτον ἀπὸ Διὸς, λέγοντες ἐκ Διὸς καὶ Γῆς Μάνην γενέσθαι πρῶτον ἐν τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ βασιλέα: τούτου δὲ καὶ Καλλιρόης τῆς Ὠκεανοῦ θυγατρὸς γεννηθῆναι Κότυν: τῷ δὲ Κότυϊ γήμαντι θυγατέρα Τύλλου τοῦ γηγενοῦς Ἁλίην δύο γενέσθαι παῖδας Ἀσίην καὶ Ἄτυν:

2. ἐκ δὲ Ἄτυος καὶ Καλλιθέας τῆς Χωραίου Λυδὸν φῦναι καὶ Τυρρηνόν: καὶ τὸν μὲν Λυδὸν αὐτοῦ καταμείναντα τὴν πατρῴαν ἀρχὴν παραλαβεῖν καὶ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ Λυδίαν τὴν γῆν ὀνομασθῆναι: Τυρρηνὸν δὲ τῆς ἀποικίας ἡγησάμενον πολλὴν κτήσασθαι τῆς Ἰταλίας καὶ τοῖς συναραμένοις τοῦ στόλου ταύτην θέσθαι τὴν ἐπωνυμίαν.

3. Ἡροδότῳ δὲ εἴρηνται Ἄτυος τοῦ Μάνεω παῖδες οἱ περὶ Τυρρηνὸν, καὶ ἡ μετανάστασις τῶν Μῃόνων εἰς Ἰταλίαν οὐχ ἑκούσιος. φησὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς Ἄτυος ἀρχῆς ἀφορίαν καρπῶν ἐν τῇ γῇ Μῃόνων γενέσθαι, τοὺς δὲ ἀνθρώπους τέως μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς φιλοχωρίας κρατουμένους πολλὰ διαμηχανήσασθαι πρὸς τὴν συμφορὰν ἀλεξητήρια, τῇ μὲν ἑτέρᾳ τῶν ἡμερῶν μέτρια σιτία προσφερομένους, τῇ δ᾽ ἑτέρᾳ διακαρτεροῦντας: χρονίζοντος δὲ τοῦ δεινοῦ διανείμαντας ἅπαντα τὸν δῆμον διχῇ κλήρους ταῖς μοίραις

ἐπιβαλεῖν: τὸν μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἐξόδῳ τῆς χώρας, τὸν δ᾽ ἐπὶ μονῇ, καὶ τῶν Ἄτυος παίδων τὸν μὲν τῇ προσνεῖμαι, τὸν δὲ τῇ.

4. λαχούσης δὲ τῆς ἅμα Λυδῷ μοίρας τὴν τοῦ μεῖναι τύχην, ἐκχωρῆσαι τὴν ἑτέραν ἀπολαχοῦσαν τῶν χρημάτων τὰ μέρη, ὁρμισαμένην δ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἑσπερίοις μέρεσι τῆς Ἰταλίας, ἔνθα ἦν Ὀμβρικοῖς ἡ οἴκησις, αὐτοῦ καταμείνασαν ἱδρύσασθαι πόλεις τὰς ἔτι καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον οὔσας.

1.27.1. ‘But those who relate a legendary tale about their having come from a foreign land say that Tyrrhenus, who was the leader of the colony, gave his name to the nation, and that he was a Lydian by birth, from the district formerly called Maeonia, and migrated in ancient times. They add that he was the fifth in descent from Zeus; for they say that the son of Zeus and Gê was Manes, the first king of that country, and his son by Callirrhoê, the daughter of Oceanus, was Cotys, who by Haliê, the daughter of earth-born Tyllus, had two sons, Asies and Atys:

2. from the latter of whom by Callithea, the daughter of Choraeus, came Lydus and Tyrrhenus. Lydus, they continue, remaining there, inherited his father's kingdom, and from him the country was called Lydia; but Tyrrhenus, who was the leader of the colony, conquered a large portion of Italy and gave his name to those who had taken part in the expedition.

3. Herodotus, however, says that Tyrrhenus and his brother were the sons of Atys, the son of Manes, and that the migration of the Maeonians to Italy was not voluntary. For they say that in the reign of Atys there was a dearth in the country of the Maeonians and that the inhabitants, inspired by love of their native land, for a time contrived a great many methods to resist this calamity, one day permitting themselves but a moderate allowance of food and the next day fasting. But, as the mischief continued, they divided the people into two groups and cast lots to determine which should go out of the country and which should stay in it; of the sons of Atys one was assigned to the one group the other to the other.

4. And when the lot fell to that part of the people which was with Lydus to remain in the country, the other group departed after receiving their share of the common possessions; and landing in the western parts of Italy where the Umbrians dwelt, they remained there and built the cities that still existed even in his time.’

1.30.3. Ῥωμαῖοι μέντοι ἄλλαις αὐτὸ προσαγορεύουσιν ὀνομασίαις: καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς χώρας, ἐν ᾗ ποτε ᾤκησαν, Ἑτρουρίας προσαγορευομένης Ἑτρούσκους καλοῦσι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους: καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐμπειρίας τῶν περὶ τὰ θεῖα σεβάσματα λειτουργιῶν, διαφέροντας εἰς αὐτὴν ἑτέρων, νῦν μὲν Τούσκους ἀσαφέστερον, πρότερον δ᾽ ἀκριβοῦντες τοὔνομα ὥσπερ Ἕλληνες Θυοσκόους ἐκάλουν: αὐτοὶ μέντοι σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν ἡγεμόνων τινὸς Ῥασέννα τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκείνῳ

1.30.3. ‘The Romans, however, give them other names: from the country they once inhabited, named Etruria, they call them Etruscans, and from their knowledge of the ceremonies relating to divine worship, in which they excel others, they now call them, rather inaccurately, Tusci, but formerly, with the same accuracy as the Greeks, they called them Thyoscoï. Their own name for themselves, however, is the same as that of one of their leaders, Rasenna.’

Dionysius Halicarnassus: Antiquitates Romanae, Vol I-IV, ed. Karl Jacoby. Leipzig: Teubner 1885.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus: The Roman Antiquities, Vol. I, with an English translation by Earnest Gary, on the basis of the version of Edward Speliman Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press – London: Heinemann 1937.

Herodotus: Historiae 1.94

[3] ἐπὶ Ἄτυος τοῦ Μάνεω βασιλέος σιτοδείην ἰσχυρὴν ἀνὰ τὴν Λυδίην πᾶσαν γενέσθαι, καὶ τοὺς Λυδοὺς τέως μὲν διάγειν λιπαρέοντας, μετὰ δὲ ὡς οὐ παύεσθαι, ἄκεα δίζησθαι, ἄλλον δὲ ἄλλο ἐπιμηχανᾶσθαι αὐτῶν. ἐξευρεθῆναι δὴ ὦν τότε καὶ τῶν κύβων καὶ τῶν ἀστραγάλων καὶ τῆς σφαίρης καὶ τῶν ἀλλέων πασέων παιγνιέων τὰ εἴδεα, πλὴν πεσσῶν τούτων γὰρ ὦν τὴν ἐξεύρεσιν οὐκ οἰκηιοῦνται Λυδοί. [4] ποιέειν δὲ ὧδε πρὸς τὸν λιμὸν ἐξευρόντας, τὴν μὲν ἑτέρην τῶν ἡμερέων παίζειν πᾶσαν, ἵνα δὴ μὴ ζητέοιεν σιτία, τὴν δὲ ἑτέρην σιτέεσθαι παυομένους τῶν παιγνιέων. τοιούτῳ τρόπῳ διάγειν ἐπ᾽ ἔτεα δυῶν δέοντα εἴκοσι. [5] ἐπείτε δὲ οὐκ ἀνιέναι τὸ κακὸν ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι ἐπὶ μᾶλλον βιάζεσθαι οὕτω δὴ τὸν βασιλέα αὐτῶν δύο μοίρας διελόντα Λυδῶν πάντων κληρῶσαι τὴν μὲν ἐπὶ μόνῃ τὴν δὲ ἐπὶ ἐξόδῳ ἐκ τῆς χώρης, καὶ ἐπὶ μὲν τῇ μένειν αὐτοῦ λαγχανούσῃ τῶν μοιρέων ἑωυτὸν τὸν βασιλέα προστάσσειν, ἐπὶ δὲ τῇ ἀπαλλασσομένῃ τὸν ἑωυτοῦ παῖδα, τῷ οὔνομα εἶναι Τυρσηνόν. [6] λαχόντας δὲ αὐτῶν τοὺς ἑτέρους ἐξιέναι ἐκ τῆς χώρης καταβῆναι ἐς Σμύρνην καὶ μηχανήσασθαι πλοῖα, ἐς τὰ ἐσθεμένους τὰ πάντα ὅσα σφι ἦν χρηστὰ ἐπίπλοα, ἀποπλέειν κατὰ βίου τε καὶ γῆς ζήτησιν, ἐς ὃ ἔθνεα πολλὰ παραμειψαμένους ἀπικέσθαι ἐς Ὀμβρικούς, ἔνθα σφέας ἐνιδρύσασθαι πόλιας καὶ οἰκέειν τὸ μέχρι τοῦδε. [7] ἀντὶ δὲ Λυδῶν μετονομασθῆναι αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τοῦ βασιλέος τοῦ παιδός, ὅς σφεας ἀνήγαγε, ἐπὶ τούτου τὴν ἐπωνυμίην ποιευμένους ὀνομασθῆναι Τυρσηνούς. Λυδοὶ μὲν δὴ ὑπὸ Πέρσῃσι ἐδεδούλωντο.

<https://sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh1090.htm>

[3] ‘In the reign of Atys son of Manes there was great scarcity of food in all Lydia. For a while the Lydians bore this with what patience they could; presently, when the famine did not abate, they looked for remedies, and different plans were devised by different men. Then it was that they invented the games of dice and knuckle-bones and ball and all other forms of game except dice, which the Lydians do not claim to have discovered. [4] Then, using their discovery to lighten the famine, every other day they would play for the whole day, so that they would not have to look for food, and the next day they quit their play and ate. This was their way of life for eighteen years. [5] But the famine did not cease to trouble them, and instead afflicted them even more. At last their king divided the people into two groups, and made them draw lots, so that the one group should remain and the other leave the country; he himself was to be the head of those who drew the lot to remain there, and his son, whose name was Tyrrhenus, of those who departed. [6] Then the one group, having drawn the lot, left the country and came down to Smyrna and built ships, in which they loaded all their goods that could be transported aboard ship, and sailed away to seek a livelihood and a country; until at last, after sojourning with one people after another, they came to the Ombrici, where they founded cities and have lived ever since. [7] They no longer called themselves Lydians, but Tyrrhenians, after the name of the king's son who had led them there.’

Herodotus: The Histories, with an English translation by A. D. Godley. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1920.

‘In the reign of Atys the son of Manes their king there came to be a grievous dearth over the whole of Lydia; and the Lydians for a time continued to endure it, but afterwards, as it did not cease, they sought for remedies; and one devised one thing and another of them devised another thing. And then were discovered, they say, the ways of playing with the dice and the knucklebones and the ball, and all the other games excepting draughts (for the discovery of this last is not claimed by the Lydians). These games they invented as a resource against the famine, and thus they used to do: on one of the days they would play games all the time in order that they might not feel the want of food, and on the next they ceased from their games and had food: and thus they went on for eighteen years. As however the evil did not slacken but pressed upon them ever more and more, therefore their king divided the whole Lydian people into two parts, and he appointed by lot one part to remain and the other to go forth from the land; and the king appointed himself to be over that one of the parts which had the lot to stay in the land, and his son to be over that which was departing; and the name of his son was Tyrsenos. So the one party of them, having obtained the lot to go forth from the land, went down to the sea at Smyrna and built ships for themselves, wherein they placed all the movable goods which they had and sailed away to seek for means of living and a land to dwell in; until after passing by many nations they came at last to the land of the Ombricans, and there they founded cities and dwell up to the present time: and changing their name they were called after the king's son who led them out from home, not Lydians but Tyrsenians, taking the name from him.’

The History of Herodotus: translated into English by George Campbell Macaulay. London: Macmillan and Co. 1904.