The Gutian IE is a best-guess thing (only hypothesis I've seen is some early relation to Tocharian, not sure how accurate that is), but it isn't important anyway. As for Etruscans and Minoans being Anatolian-like - I'm sticking by that. It doesn't seem to be an amateur-only hypothesis even if not consensus, and the description of the spread of warlike elites across the Aegean and beyond in this paper, as well as obvious parallels to Kura-Araxes and the spread of major CHG, seals it for me:
"“DALL’ARMELLINA, Vittoria Ca'Foscari University of Venice, Department of Humanistic Studies, Sciences of Antiquity Images of a New Aristocracy – A koinè of symbols and cultural values in the Caucasus, Anatolia and Aegean during the Bronze Age The paper will present the preliminary results of the author's PhD project, which deals with the diffusion between the Southern Caucasus, Anatolia, the Aegean Islands, Crete and Mainland Greece, in the course of the Bronze Age, of selected types of insignia dignitatis. These apparently reflect the birth of a new ruling elite that maintains its power through military exercise, and is also associated to the spread of particular funerary customs (e.g. funerary burrows and other elite burial types) mainly. It becomes increasingly clear that these northern portions of the Near East share some cultural specificities witch set them apart from the better known traditions of Mesopotamia and the SyroLevantine region. A series of characteristics items, mainly weapons but also parade standards, and different types of ornaments, spread in this northern areas. They are strongly linked to a warlike symbolism, and characterise a warrior aristocracy whose concept apparently originated and developed between the Caucasus and Anatolia and spread from there toward mainland Europe, in particular towards the Aegean area. In the presentation, these concepts will be illustrated by the distribution of selected categories of items."
So basically, I think Kura-Araxes is the origin of Anatolian, Gutian, Minoan/Pelasgian and Tyrsenian. Minoan has really strong evidence linking it to Anatolian from what I've seen at the very least.
None of that matters. Linguistically Etruscan is not IE and that's it. We have the language to see and analyze it, it's definitely not Anatolian and it could be at best described as a distantly related para-IE, but even that is a stretch that's mostly a wild speculation and nothing else. The hypothesis is the one that needs to adjust to the evidences, not the other way around.
As for Minoan, if it were really strongly similar to Hittite or Luwian it probably would've been deciphered by now. Additionally Eteocretan, which is the best candidate for a descendant of Minoan, has not been successfully interpreted as related to any other IE language.
It's like European colonialism: it didn't spread just one language or one language family. Ditto for a gener
spread of warlike elites across the Aegean and beyond in association with spread of major CHG. Look at the Anatolia/Caucasus in the modern era and add to the native language families there the Bronze Age language families we know once existed there. It is and was very multilingual even when genetically they might've become similar in some cultural ways (particular those pertaining to the state, war, economy, elite status symbols - such things are very easily borrowed by any people who wants to survive and preferably thrive while their neighbors adopt the same innovations. Even today that pattern is still
totally the same), and they even might have spread similar admixtures (for example, higher amounts of CHG). That does not mean they were ethnically and linguistically homogeneous, though.
Quite on the contrary, the evidence points to the opposite: the many language families we see there (and now) don't seem to have come from very remote lands, the land just seems to have not been thoroughly IE (let alone necessarily Anatolian/Proto-Anatolian) at all since the Bronze Age. For your hypothesis to make some sense, Anatolian and Tyrsenian had to derive from a
much older culture than Kura-Araxes and had to have remained geographically separated for a lot longer time in order to explain such a huge linguistic differentiation.
As for Gutians, I just think that you, I and everyone else have too little information to speculate about their language or even ethnic and genetic origins. The "Tocharian hypothesis" is widely rejected mostly because it relied on a couple of "sound-alikes" comparing a late 3rd millennium BC language (Gutian) to an Early Medieval language (Tocharian - I'm not sure if A or B) some 2500 years later. That's totally pseudoscientific. Additionally, considering the very early attestation of the names of several Gutian kings (~2200 B.C.), Gutian would be supposed to be a
very archaic IE language still without too much linguistic divergence from the reconstructed PIE spoken only some 1000-2000 years before. Nonetheless,
all the names of Gutian kings in the Sumerian list cannot be interpreted and deciphered easily (or difficultly, for that matter) as deriving from PIE roots. It's possible, but unlikely it was IE.
), and so on.
