Valentyn Stetsyuk, Lviv; Ukraine

Introduction to the Study of Prehistoric Ethnogenic Processes in Eastern Europe and Asia
The Turkic languages and cultures.
While working with the Turkic language family certain difficulties, namely the determination of the analysis objects, occurred. As it is known, this family is large and has as many as thirty members including extinct languages. Some of them are similar in such measure that one can assume their common origin from a language of higher level than parent unitary Turkic. Different classifications of the Turkic languages exist consistent with each other in the recognition of closest relationships. Multi-level historical classifications of the well-known turkologist Baskakov were used for this study.1 He divided several groups and subgroups of Turkic languages on the highest level. They comprise from one to five-six modern Turkic languages. If we unite close cognate modern languages of separate subgroups in one conventional language, we obtain only thirteen languages that can be considered as self-contained objects for this graphic analysis. Though two extinct tongues as Old-Uighur and Karluk-Uighur could not be analysed because of the absence of necessary dictionaries. According to the genetic connections established by Baskakov, conventional names were used for all Turkic languages taken for the analysis, sometimes identical to the modern names for some languages, but without claim to the historical accuracy and only for the convenience for the further narrative. Thus, the Bulgarish (Volga-Bulgarish) language will be corresponded with the present-day Chuvash and extinct Khazarian languages; Tartaric − with the modern Tatar and Bashkir languages; Kypchak − with modern Kumyk, Karachai, Balkarian, CrimeaTatar, and Karaim; Nogai − with modern Kazakh, Karakalpakh and properly Nogai; Oghuz − with modern Gagauz and the dialects of Balkan Turks; Seljuqic − with modern Turkish, Azerbaijani and south dialect of Crimean Tatars; Karlukish − with modern Uzbek and New Uighur; Tuba − with modern Tuvinian and Karagasian; Khakassian − with modern Kamasinian, Shorian, North-Altaic, Sari-Uighur, tongue of Chulim Tatars and properly Khakassian; Altaian − with modern South-Altaic. The Kyrghyz, Turkmen, and Yakut languages correspond with proper present-day languages. The table-dictionary of the Turkic languages was composed of the data taken from etymological dictionaries of Turkic languages.2 The numbers of mutual words in the pairs of languages are given in the table 5.

Table 5. The number of mutual words in the pairs of the Turkic languages.
Lang Nogai Karluk Kyrgh Tartar Seljuk Kypch Khak Turkm
1 2

Nog 1195 948 949 921 752 810 636 752

Karl 3,0 1178 882 830 790 801 681 755

Kyrg 3,0 3,2 1111 809 676 721 650 671

Tart 3,1 3,4 3,5 1077 676 759 563 669

Selj 3,7 3,6 4,1 4,1 1060 750 571 724

Kypc 3,5 3,5 3,9 3,7 3,8 1020 591 673

Khak 4,2 4,4 4,3 4,9 4,9 4,7 945 480

Turk 3,7 3,7 4,2 4,2 3,9 4,2 5,6 936

Bulg 5,6 5,6 6,7 5,4 6,4 6,2 9,3 6,7

Tuba 6,5 6,5 6,2 7,3 7,9 7,9 5,9 8,6

Alt 5,6 5,9 5,5 6,1 7,1 7,1 6,4 7,5

Oguz 7,3 7,2 8,3 7,8 5,5 7,1 10,3 6,7

Yak 7,5 7,9 7,4 8,6 9,9 9,0 7,6 10,5

BASKAKOV N.A. (1960): Tiurkskiye yazyki. (In Russian) - Turkic Languages. Moscow: 37-60. SEVORTYAN E.V. (1974 - 2003): Etimologicheskiy slovar’ tyurkskikh yazykov. (In Russian) - Etymological Dictionary of Turkic Languages. V.1-7. Moscow. CLAUSON GERARD, Sir. (1972): An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford. EGOROV V.G. (1964) Etimologicheskiy slovar’ chuvashakogo yazyka. Cheboksary (In Russian) - Etymological Dictionary of Chuvassh Language.


Bulg Tuba Altai Oghuz Yakut

484 414 488 363 348

453 412 463 366 333

405 429 494 312 354

523 359 442 335 297

428 327 373 493 253

432 341 376 378 271

273 461 418 239 344

401 297 346 403 234

668 169 231 231 136

13,7 629 313 130 334

10,7 8,5 598 155 231

10,7 16,7 14,7 541 100

16,2 7,9 10,7 20,0 521

Despite of mutual language influence of historical time, the model of genetic relationships of Turkic languages was built by using the calculated distances between languages according the formula: L=K0/(N + a), where K0 – initial value of the proportional coefficient which is a little depended from the distance between languages therefore the constant a is introduced into the formula for correction. We took K0 = 3000 and a = 50 for the graphical model which is presented on the figure 6.

Figure 6. Graphic model of Turkic language relationship.
In search of a place proper for this model, all attempts to place it on the map near Altai region or in Siberia failed. The model can be put only on the region between the rivers Dnepr and Don where characteristic bend of the both rivers suggests us how to place the model (see map 4). Thus, we have the reason to posit that Tutkic Urheimat was not in Altai but in Eastern Europe. Consequently the ProtoTurkic could not descend from a primaeval language called Altaic or Proto-Altaic as Sir Gerard Clauson expressed this though already fifteen years ago3.


CLAUSON GERARD, Sir (2002): Studies in Turkic and Mongolic linguistic: 36. 2

Map 4. The map of the Turkic habitats

The Proto-Armenians resided on the left banks of the river Dniepr in the closest vicinity with Türks. Accordingly, the most words of the Türkic origin were found in the Armenian language. Some part of the Türkic words through the Armenian language even reached the ancient Greeks. The Türkisms in the Armenian, to which sometimes can be found matches in Greek, are shown below: 1. Arm ałtiur “low ground, moist meadow, swamp” - Tur, Tat, Karach, Balk alt “low” a.o. Sir Gerard Clauson writes about Türkic word: “There is grave doubt whether this is really an independet ancient word. If it was it means ‘the bothom, or lower surface (of something)’. Armenian can mean properly speaking “the bottom”. 2. Arm aŕu “canal” - common Türkic aryk (aryğ) “canal”. 3. Arm acux “coal” - common Türkic očak/ očok “heart, fire-place” (Chuv vučax, Tur ocak a.o.), moreover Türkm čog, Tur şövg, Kaz šok, Uzb čůg “red-hot coal” a.o. 4. Arm alap’-em “plunder” - Türkic alp “tough, resistant, hard to overcome”, can be also “hero, warrior” (Chuv ulăp “lgiant, titan”, OT, Tur alp, Tat alyp a.o. “hero”).


5. Arm alik’ “wave”, “billow”, Gr alox “furrow” - Türkic oluq “gutter” (Tur oluk “trough”, Chuv valak - “trough”, Karach, Balk uuaq “wavy”). 6. Arm antaŕ “forest” - Gag. andyz “grove, bushes”, Tur andîz “kind of weed”. Similar words are present in other Türkic languages but all they have a meaning of severel plants. Only Armeinan and Gagauz words have the meaning of the forest. 7. Arm atkhi “foot” – common Türkic ajaq/adaq “foot”. 8. Arm cŕuk “muzzle, mug, snout”, Gr gorgos “terribble, fearful” - Türkic qorq- “to fear, to be afraid” (Türkm gorky “fear, fright”, Tur korku “fear, fright”, Gag. korku “fear, fright” a.o). 9. Arm çup “stick” - extended Türkic čybyk “switch”. Sir Gerard Clauson pointed: “perhaps the basic word of which čybyk was a diminutive form of noun (*čyp). 10. Arm garš-i-m “to have an aversion” - Türkm garšy, Gag. karšy, Tur karşi, Chuv xirěs “opposed, opposite, the opposite”. 11. Arm hełg “lazy, idle” - common Türkic jalta/jalka “lazy, idle” ( Karach, Balk jalk, Chuv julxav, Tat jalkau, Kaz žalkau a.o.) 12. Arm kamurj’ “bridge”, Gr γεϕυρα “dam, bridge” - common Türkic köpür “bridge” (Chuv kěper, Karach, Balk köpür, Tat küper a.o.). Sir Gerard Clauson supposed the origin of Türkic word from the root köp- “to swell, foam, boil over”. But Armenian, Greek, and other IE words (Lat caper, Celtic caer, gabor a.o. “he-goat”) can give an evidence about Indo-European origin of the word. Türks borrowed the word from Indo-Europeans with meaning “he-goat” but became it back with new meaning “bridge”. Some later IE words with meaning near to „bridge“ (Dutch keper, Germ Käpfer a.o.) originated from Lat caper. 13. Arm sta-na-m “to buy” - Chuv sut “to sell”, Tur satın “buying”, Balk, Karach satyb “to buy” a.o. 14. Arm šeł “slant, curved”, Gr σκολιοσ “curved” – Türkic čal- as Sir Gerard Clauson think “to cknock down, to throw to the ground” (Chuv čalaš “slant”, Tat čulak, Tur çalîk “curved”). 15. Arm tal, Gr γαλοωϑοσ, Lat glos „the daughter-in-law, sister-in-law“ – Türkic gelin „the daughter-in-law, sister-in-law“. 16. Arm tarap’ “downpour, gush” - Chuv tapăr “watering place”. 17. Arm teli “place” - Chuv těl “place”. 18. Arm tuk “saliva” - Türkm tüjkülik, Karach, Balk tükürük “saliva”, Gag. tükürmää “spit” a.o. 19. Arm thošel “to fly” – common Türk düš- “to fall”. Not all Türkic loan-words survived in the Armenian language, and some part of them have not been found yet, that is why a small group of Türkic roots exist only in Greek. There is no doubt that matches to a part of them can be found in the Armenian language sometime. A separate deal of the Türkic-Greek lexical correspondences is represented by the Greek-Chuvash parallels which date from the more late time as a part of Greek ethnos stayed in Pontic steppes after the great deal of Ancient Greeks went for Balkan Peninsula. The Proto-Bulgars, the ancestors of the Chuvash, had to stay on this territory for a long time too and adopted from the Greek some words, but the Armenian matches are not obligatory for them. They also are included in this list. 1. Gr αγροσ, Lat ager, Germ Acker “field” – common Turkic ek- (Chuv ak, akăr) “to sow”. The origin of Greek and Latin words is dark. 2. Gr αιτεω “to ask” - Chuv vitěn “to entreat”, Tur ötünmek “to ask, to solicit”, OT ajit- “to ask, to question” etc. Frisk didn't give sure etymology of the Greek word. 3. Gr ακακια, Lat acacia “acacia” – common Türkic agač (yğa:č) “tree”. Frisk considers the Greek word as "Fremdwort". 4. Gr αραχνη, Lat araneus “spider” - Chuv erešmen, Gag örümžäk, Az hörümčêk “spider”. Frisk didn't give sure etymology of the Greek word. 5. Gr αρωµα "smell, odour" – Turk aram/erem (Chuv erĕm ) "wormwood". See also Chuv armuti. 6. Gr αρσην “man, male” - Chuv arçyn “man”. Frisk connected the Greek word with OInd árṣati "to flow". Obviously, the Chuvash word is borrowed from Greek.


7. Gr αρταω “to bind, hang up” - Chuv urtăn “to hang up”, Tur, Tat, Kaz art- etc “to hang on”. Frisk considered Greek word as a derivate from Gr αειρω what is doubtful. This is loan-word from Turkic. 8. Gr δεω “to tie, to bind” - common Türkic düv- “knot”, Türkm düvün, Chuv těvě. Frisk connected the Greek word with OInd ditá- "bound". 9. Gr ηθµοσ “sieve” - Chuv atma “fishnet”. Frisk didn't give sure etymology of the Greek word but it is a derivate out of ηθεω "to sift". Obviously, Chuvash word is borrowed from Old Greek. 10. Gr ιαµα “remedy” - common Türkic em- “remedy”, Türkm, Gag., Tur em. 11. Gr κηροσ “wax, honeycombs” - Chuv karas “honeycombs”. The root is IE. The source of the loan in Chuvash is unknown. 12. Gr λακκοσ , Lat lacus, OIr loch a.o. “pool, lake, pit”, - Chuv lakăm “pit”. 13. Gr λισγαριον (λισγοσ) “mattock” – Crim-Tat ülüskär, Kaz lesker “mattock” (M. Vasmer). Frisk wrote about the Greek word: "Nicht sicher erklärt" (Not sure explained). 14. Gr πυργοσ “tower”, Lat burgus “castle, tower” Germanic *burg (German Burg “castle) Chuv purak “bast, bast-basket (cylindrical)”, Karach buruu “fence”. Frisk supposed the Greek word is borrowed from some Germanic language. 15. Gr πυροσ “wheat”, Lit pūraĩ "winter wheat" a.o. IE - Chuv pări “spelt, the kind of wheat”. The root is IE. The source of the loan in Chuvash is unknown. 16. Gr σακκοσ “sack”, Lat saccus “sack”, - Chuv sak “weir-basket, coop”, Ukr, Rus sak “fishing-tackle in the form of sack” and other similar Slavic and Germanic words. 17. Gr χαρτησ “papyrus chart”, Lat carta “paper, letter” - Chuv hărta “patch”. Frisk noted the Greek word as "unerklärt" (unclear). 18. Gr χολη “bile, gall” - Chuv xăla “light-yellow” . The root is IE. The source of the loan in Chuvash is unknown. 19. Gr χορτοσ “kraal”, Lat hortus “garden”, OG gardon “garden” - Cuv karta “fence”. Many known linguistic facts contradict Asian origin of Turks but scholars try to find them whichever explanation if only not refuse conventional views. For example, Sir Gerard Clauson, having examined the common Turkic name kendir for hemp (Cannobis), says: „Unlikely to have been an indigenous plant in the area originally occupied by the Turks and probably an Indo-European (?Tokharian) l.-w.“4 It seems to be a strange thought considering the currency of this word in Turkic languages and its absolute absence in Indo-European languages. The Turkic languages are characterized by the lack of great diversity between them. This phenomenon is explained by the enough small territory occupied by Turks during forming their particular languages. The exchange with new invented and loan words could embrace large parts of this territory contrary to the Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages. We have all the grounds to associate them with the creators of Seredniy Stiğ (Sredniy Stog – in Russian) and Yamna (Pit) cultures which existed in Pontic steppes in the 4th -3rd mill. It is naturally that the idea about the Altai Urheimat of Turks may contradict Turkish scholars, among them, e. g. Osman Karatay 5. The papers about European origin of Turks are readily published in Turkey, e.g. about Turkic belonging of some European archaeological cultures6). The similar ideas have been supported in Europe? In particular, by Italian scholar Mario Alinei: "The most economical and productive hypothesis is then to consider both the Serednyj Stog and the Yamnaya cultures as Turkic, which would imply that Turkic people were the first to have mastered horse domestication, and to have passed to the neighboring people7"

4 5

CLAUSON, SIR Gerard. (1972): An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford. KARATAY OSMAN. (2003): Iran ile Turan. Hayali Milletler Çağında Avrasya ve Ortadoğu. Ankara. (In Turkish) – Iran and Turan. Eurasia and the Middle East in the Age of Imaginary Nations. Ankara. 6 STETSYUK VALENTYN. (2008): Seredniy Stoh ve Yamnaya kültürleri: Akedimik bakış. Cilt 1. Sayı 2. Ankara. (In Turkish) – Seredniy Stih and Pit cultures: Acadimic review. Ankara. Volume 1. Issue 2. 7 ALINEI MARIO (2003). Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Palaeolothic contunuity of IndoEuropean, Uralic, and Altaic population in Eurasia, with an excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis. 5

In that case Türks had to force out Indo-Europeans from Pontic parts and forest-steppe zone at the end of the 5th mill B.C. Copper-age (Chalcolithic) culture of Seredniy Stih (Sredniy Stog in Russian) was discovered during excavation in the locality of Seredniy Stih (“Middle Rock”) on a rocktop on the Dnepr's bank near the city of Zaporizhia in 1927. About 100 settlements, cemetries, and separated relics of this culture were studied by Ukrainian scholars in the next 40 years. The region of their spreading occupied the steppe country between the Dnieper and the Don, and also the south part of forest-steppe of Left-side Ukraine. This culture existed from the middle 4th mill till the middl 3d mill BC and had three local variants in the catchment of the rivers Dnieper, S. Donets, and Don.8 The author of the monograph concerning the SS culture D. Telegin wrote that its origin is very unclear, but he thought that it was created by Indo-Iranians.9 This view prevails among scholars till present but according to conclusion of our study the mentioned territory was settled sometime by Turkic tribes. Therefore in this contribution, we can try to connect archaeological data with linguistic material confirming the Türkic origin of this culture. The culture of Seredniy Stih (SS) is characterized by certain mutual features which evidently distinguish it of other cultures of Eastern Europe of that time. The pottery of the culture SS had such peculiarity that fine pounded shells were added to the clay paste used for making pots, basins, bowls, goblets, etc. Pots and bowls had a high neck, reached to 1/3 or 1/4 of the whole height, and the great deal of them was decorated by comb, cord, and prick ornamentation. The sides of vessels were cone-shaped with rounded bottom. Some found artifacts, such as human or animal statuettes were made of clay too. Tools, weapons were made of flint, stone, bone, and horn. The most part of tools were presented by knives made of big flint plates. Axes were manufactured of flint in the shape of wedge oval. Diverse articles were made of horn – fighting hammers, mattocks, harpoons, fish-hooks etc. The hammers and mattocks were similar to those of Trypilla culture (in the basins of the Dnester and Southern Bug) and Maykop culture (on the Northern Caucasus) but they were differed much from horn tools of the north-western part of Eastern Europe. All hammers had a perforated round hole for handle. They were used as weapons. Copper was used for making of adornment and very seldom for axes. The chemical analyses of copper indicates sometimes on its Balkan origin but the greatest deal of copper articles were made on this locality10 In obedience to archaeological data, the economy of the SS culture had stock-raising character, mainly horse breeding. According the volume of bones found at excavations of some stands, horse took more than 50% domestic herd. It was used mainly for riding, what was proved by the finds of horn elements (psalias) of bridles11. Horsemen could control horse herds easier and more efficient as pedestrian herdsmen therefore horse herds could be very numerous. Wide development of horse breeding among Türkic people is confirmed by linguistic data. Common Türkic words vocabulary has two words for the name of horse, in addition separately for mare and stallion, names for colts of several age, also mutual words for names of rider, saddles, bridles, stirrups, whip, manes, hoofs, amble. Wild horses were present in Pontic steppes as long ago as at Herodotus’ time, consequently there are all grounds to assume that they were domesticated by Old Türks for the first time. The Trypillians, the neighbors of Turkics on the Dnepr's right bank parts knew wild horses too but they began to use it later as Türks and the role of horse was very small in the economy of the Trypillians. The rivers Dnieper, Don, and their tributaries were very rich on fish such as sturgeon, stirlet, pike, perch-pike, bream, sheat-fish and other therefore fishing had the special significance for the SSpeople. They used fishing-rods with horned hooks, nets, fish-traps, and other fishing-baskets. Many fish scales of sheat-fish were found in cooking refuses in many excavated settlments of the SS culture. It is interesiting that the name of sheat-fish (yayın) is widely extended in many Türkic languages as other fish names too (čortan, čöke, süjrük, sazan etc). On the contrary, Indoeuropean languages have no common names for fishespecies and some names are borrowed by them from Türks (e.g. Eastern Slavic sazan, čabak have Turkic origin, plausible Lat sarda, sardina stems also from Turkic čortan ). All this can prove the long tradition of fishing among Türks which went back to the time of Türkic community. Thus, Türkic Urheimat could not be located near to the waterless steppes of Central Asia.
8 9

Archeology of Ukranian SSR, (1985): 305. TElEGIN D.Y. (1973): Seredniostohivska kultura epokhy midi (In Ukrainian). – The Seredniy Stih Culture of Copper-age. Kyiv: 144-146. 10 Ibid: 78-80. 11 Archeology of Ukranian SSR, (1985): 309. 6

Well known cord-like ornament of pottery, fighting hammers which later were extended throughout large territory of Europe, had appeared for the first time in the sphere of the SS culture. The scholars know that the SS culture was in a close genetic relationship with the Old Pit (Yamna) culture being a main component of its creation. The Old-Pit cultural-historical region was the first tribe association of East Europe in the Early Bronze Age, tied by the integrity of the inhabited territory, by the prevailing of common genetic components of material and spiritual culture (pottery’s shapes, their ornamentation, burial rite etc), by the same level of social and economical development, by the proximity of religious imaginations and the system of social relations 12. Some scientists unite the Pit, SS, and other cultures in the one, so called „kurgan culture” (burial mound culture). But the first kurgans (barrows) appeared only at the late period of the SS culture. The widespread construction of burial mounds above graves developed only at the times of the Pit culture, although the lay-out of graves stayed almost the same, as well as at the times of the SS culture. Graves were done in soil and recovered at the top level by flagstones or trees. The walls of grave were covered by rind, reed, or branches. Reed, rind and sometimes mats was laid on a bottom. Burrials were solitary, rarely paired. The deceaseds were put on the back with their legs bent in knees at various orientation of the deads but mainly the head was turned to the sunrise (east or north-east according to season). The deads were often powered with red paint (ochre). The various accessories such as flint knives, axes, vessels, ornamentations were laid near the deceaseds. Some copper articles can be found in graves but very seldom. The kurgans at present have 1-1,5m height, rarely they reach 34 m, very rarely to 5-6,5m. The diameter is approximately 10 times more of the height. Owning to an asymmetric section of kurgans, they can be easily distinguished from the Scythian ones. This asymmetry appeared under natural influence during long time. Sometimes some graves of a different time were put in a one kurgan. Their number may reach to 10 and ever to 15-16. The size of kurgan evidenses the social status of a deceased. Large tribe associations already had at the head authoritative leaders. A rich equipped grave has been found in an enormous great kurgan near the village of Vasylivka in Kherson district can confirm this conjecture. A stone sceptre lain alongside of the body and it confirmed that the deceased was a leader of some tribe or/and simultaneously a supreme priest, as it was at the pharaohs of Egypt and rulers of Mesopotamia. A sceptre was most likely the sign of power, and also to be used in religious-magic aims13. Excavations evince that SS-men were of europeod race type with the predominance of dolichokranial shape of the skull. The Pit culture, developed on ths base of the SS culture, existed since 25 till 19 century BC 14. It occupied more large territory as the SS culture did: "Territory of the extension of relics of Pit culture is enough broad. In the east it reached to the regions of Orenburg, Magnitogorsk, and the river Emba. The southern frontier of their spreading goes along the river Terek, along the whole coast of the Azov Sea and in the Crimea. In the north their records are found at Forest-steppe zone and arrived to the Samara curve on the Volga, riverheads of the Don, and Kiev on the Dnieper. The western frontier is lost in the country between of the South Bug and the Dniester"15. The level of the Pit culture was higher as the SS culture, though metallic artefacts in graves are been found very rarely. Obviously, old metalic tool were melted once again to new ones. Besides for tools, metal was used for preparing woman adornment, i.e. ear- and finger-rings, necklaces, pendants etc. which are sometimes found among the remains of the Pit culture. As such things existed they had to have their names which had to be similar in related languages because the speakers of these languages dwelled in close adjacency at this ancient time. At least one of such names exists in almost all Turkic languages – syrga “ear-ring”. Indo-European languages have no common words for woman

SHAPOSHNIKOVA O.G., FOMENKO V.N., DOVZHENKO N.D. (1986): Yamnaya kulturnoistoricheskaya obshchnost (Yuzhnobugskiy variant) (In Russian) – The Pit Cultural and Historical Community. Kiev. Naukova dumka: 5. 13 KUBYSHEV A.I., NECHYTAYLO A.L. (1988): Kremnievyi inventar Vasilevskogo kurgana: Novye pamiatniki yamnoy kultury ctepnoy zony Ukrainy (In Russian) – The Flint Implement of Vasivevka’s Kurgan: The New Monuments of the Pit culture in the Steppe of Ukraine. Kiev: 116-117.

TELEGIN D.Y. (1976): Ob absolutnom vozraste yamnoy kultury: Problemy arkheologii Povolzhia i Priuralia. (In Russian) – About theAbsolute Age of the Pit Culture: The Problems of Archaeology of Volga and Ural regions. Kuybyshev: 29. 15 Archeology of Ukranian SSR, (1985): 337.

adornments that is the Ancient Indo-Europeans had no such things at the time when they stay in close neighborhood on their Urheimat. Metallurgy of Pit-men was based on the use of copper without alloyed admixtures, are stemed by greater from the South Urals and the Caucasus. In the east of their territory, SS-men entered into the contact with cattle-breeding tribes, wich had the dominant of their economy in the sheep breeding. The speading of the sheep breeding among the neolithic tribes of East Europe is connected with cultural and economic influences from the south and the east part of the catchment of Caspian Sea, where natural environment was favourable for the domestication of sheep. Frugal in the feed sheep gave large offspring and easily endured the distant trips on waterless steppes. Development of the sheep breeding among Türkic tribes was one of the factors caused the forming of the Old Pit culture played a deciding role in mastering of the steppes of Eurasia16. The population of the steppes rose with increased speed what was the reason for the mass migration of Turkic tribes. At first there was only certain infiltration of transmitters of SS culture westerward to the territory of Trypillian culture. This people reached to the rivers Syniukha and Ingulets17. Plausible they moved further to the Middle Dniester, as it can be confirmed by Trypillian pottery resembled sometimes the pottery of SS culture having the admixture of pounded shells or sand in clay paste. Obviously, these people, which as the first Türkic tribes left their Urheimat, were the ancestors of Volga-Bulgars and modern-day Chuvash. The remnants of Ancsient Türks stayed on their Urheimat still for a long time, their languages developed in close mutual contact and became some mutual features which were absent in Proto-Bulgarish. Therefore Chuvash language stands something aside from other Türkic languages. From the end of 3-rd mill. BC the mass penetration of Pit-people begun to the catchment of the Dnister. This fact may be confirmed by existence of the Usatovo group of Trypillian culture, some features of which are undoubtedly typical for the Pit culture. The Pit-men didn’t lose their customs on new settlements. The skeleton of the man buried on the back with feet bend in knee was found among other in the burial place near the village of Nezvisko of Ivano-Frankovsk district. This posture is characteristic for the burial places „kurgan” cultures. Also the ceremony of kurgan interment was scattered among the Trypillians18. Some part of the Pit-men from the basin of the Dniester moved further northwestward to the Central Europe. Using riding horses, they resettled quickly in great distances away, exerting cultural influence on indigenes and founded new cultural regions. In such a way well-known Corded Ware and Battle Axe cultures belonging to Turks was extended on the large territory of Europe. The Trypillian culture was at this time already in the stage of decline. Wenn late Pit-men tribes setteled the country between the Souther Bug and the Ingulets rivers, Trypillian population was already absent here19. The Trypilla culture was predominant based on the agriculture which lost its efficiency at that time. The nomadic sheep- and cattle-breeding gave the greater additional production than the farming as it could better utilize the steppe resources. The transition to the nomadic living way was accompanied by mutual assimilation Pit and Trypillian people. At the increase of the population, the reverse transition to agriculture became unavoidable. In almost five centuries the population in the area of the Middle and Upper Dnister turned to the settled way of living again. The archaeological records of the Battle Axe Komariv culture of the Middle Bronze Age, which developed on this territory, advised that the sedentary agriculture and cattle-breeding formed the basis of economy of the indigenous population. But the most part of Pit people crossed the Don and dispersed in the Volga river's basin, the Northern Caucasus, and further in the steppes of Kazakhstan. Plausible they were creators of the Fatianovo and the Balanovo cultures in the catchment of the Oka and the Volga. These cultures are considered as some variants of Corded Ware cultures, or the culture of fighting hammers. The Balanovo culture existed during the II mill BC approximately on the territory of modern-day Tatarstan and did


MASSON V.M., MERPERT N.Y. (1982): Arkheologia SSSR. Eneolit SSSR. (In Russian) – Archaeology of the USSR. Eneolith of the USSR. Moscow. Nauka: 238. 17 TELEGIN D.Y. (1973): Seredniostohivska kultura epokhy midi. (In Ukrainian). – The Seredniy Stih Culture of Copper-age. Kyiv: 12. 18 ibid. 212, 230.

SHAPOSHNIKOVA O.G., FOMENKO V.N., DOVZENKO N.V. (1986): Yamnaya kulturno-istoricheskaya oblast’ (In Russian) - The Historical Region of Pit Culture. Kiev: 59. 8

large influence on the development of culture and economy of indigenous population20. Probably the creators of the Balanovo culture were the ancestors of the modern Volga Tatars. Scattering in Kazakhstan, Pit tribes, that were Ancsient Türks, created the Andronovo culture in this area. Here meeting people of Central Asia they were mixed with them: "The South-Siberian group of population was the product of mixing of Central-Asian Mongoloids with the representatives of the Paleo-European type, in particular with the population of the Andronovo culture existed in Kazakhstan and in Southern Siberia at the time of Bronze" 21 Another study resulted that there were two large independent tribe associations on the territory of Mongolia already from the end the 3rd mill BC. One of these associations (the eastern) was related to Mongoloid population, and the second (western) had Europoid (Caucasoid) origin22. However, although probably all speakers of Türkic languages changed their anthropological type due drawing new anthropological groups into Türkic association, the population of the western part of Türkic territory avoided the cross-breeding with Mongoloids. These Türks were mixed only with other Europoid types in Middle Asia, Asia Minor and in East Europe. Various opinions exist about the chronological frontiers of the Seredniy Stih Culture. Ukrainian archaeologists date it from the beginning of the second half of the 4th mill BC till the end of the first quarter of the 3rd mill BC, but M. Gimbutas considers it thousand years older. But the most important fact for us is that its creators are well identified with Turks. Further we shall consider the population of the territory between the rivers Dnepr and Don from the Sea of Azov to the forest-steppe zone as of Turkic origin and of European anthropology. The Pit Culture had three stages of development and should be related to the Copper Age because it ceased its existence with the beginning of the Bronze Age. Radiocarbon analysis dates its latest stage at 25-19 century BC.23 Karl Menges indicated that there are few Altaic words in the Chuvash language.24 Only Chuvash is distinguished from the rest of Turkic languages by peculiarity of the well-known phonetic passage r, l → z, s/š.. Probably, just Proto-Bulgars were in majority among all Turkic tribes which crossed the river Dnepr and stayed in the Right-side Ukraine. The first people whom the Bulgars met on the right bank of the Dniepr were the creator of Trypilla (Tripolie in Russian) culture. Some words of their language could remain in the language of the Chuvash who are the descendants of Bulgars. Moreover, in that period the Proto-Bulgars had language contacts with the ancient Hittites, Italics and Illirians. The shown below Turkisms in Latin came from that time. Naturally, most frequent of all in the list are the Chuvash words 1. Lat abbas “abbot” - Chuv. apăs “priest”. 2. Lat. alga “alga, seaweed” - Chuv. yălma “ooze”. Kornilov gives in concordance jylxa. I do not found such word. 3. Lat amicus “friend” - Chuv. ami “friend, brother”. 4. Lat arca “box” - Chuv arča “chest”. 5. Lat artemisia “wormwood” - Chuv armuti “wormwood”. Germ Wermut “wormwood” too. 6. Lat cama “bed” - Chuv khăma “board”. 7. Lat. casa “house” – Chuv. kasă “street”. 8. Lat cera “evening” - Chuv. çer “night”. 9. Lat cicuta “toxic plant” - Chuv kiken “toxic plant”. 10. Lat cito “fast, quick” - Chuv xytă “fast, quick”, Karach, Balk qaty “fast, rapid”.

BADER O.N., KHALIKOV A.K. (1976): Balanovskaya kultura i yeye sviazi v Povolzhie: In: Problemy arkheologii Povolzhia i Priuralia (In Russian) – The Balanovo Culture and its Connections in the Volga Region: The Problems of Archaeology of Volga and Ural regions. Kuybyshev: 41. 21 ALEKSEEV V.P. (1974): Geografia chelovecheskikh ras (in Russian) – The geography of human races. Moscow: 85. 22 NOVGORODOVA E. A. (1981): Ranniy etap etnogeneza narodov Mongolii: Etnicheskie problemy istorii Tsentralnoy Azii v drevnosti (In Russian) – The Early Stage of the Ethnogenezis of Mongolian People: Ethnogenitic Problems of the History of Central Asia in Acient Times. Moscow: 214. 23 Archeology of Ukranian SSR, (1985): 352. 24 MENGES K.H. (1979): Vostochnyje elementy v “Slove o polku Igoreve.” (In Russian) – The Oriental Elements in the Vocabulary of the Oldest Russian Epic, “The Lay of Igor’s Warfare”. Leningrad: 51. 9

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

Lat Cocles namely “wry, one-eyed” - Chuv. kuklek “wry”; Lat codex “stump, trunk” - Tur, Gag. kütük “stump, trunk”. Lat cura “care” - Chuv khural “protection”. Lat cursarius “pirate” - Chuv xarsăr “bold, courageous”, Karach., Balk oğursuz “wicked, vicious”, Tur hırsîz “thief” a.o. Lat. fàbula “rumour” – Chuv. pavra “to chatter, to talk”; Lat * falterna (Aristolochia) - Chuv věltěren “nettle” (Urtica Gen) - Latin word was restored by W. Meyer-Lübke from Fr fauterne and Old Prov fauterna with the remark “Woher?” (where from?). One can suppose from Old Chuvash (Bulgarish). Lat farnus “ash tree” - Chuv věrene “maple”. Lat faux “throat” - Gag. buaz Kyrg buvaz, Tur, Kaz, Karach, Balk boğaz a.o. “throat”. Lat imber “downpour, gush” - Türkm jagmyr, Chuv çumăr, Tat jaŋğır, Uzb jomğyr, Tur yağmur “rain”. Lat ius, iuris 1. “low, justice” - Chuv jărăs “sraight”, Tur yasa “low, regulations”, Karach džoruq “low” a.o. Lat ius, iuris 2. “soup” - Chuv jaška - “soup”, juškăň “slime”. Lat lama “swamp” - Chuv lăm “moisture”. Lat laurus “laurel” (Rom laur “thorn-apple”) - Chuv lăbăr “thistle”. Lat mactare, macto “to glorify”, “to sacrifice” - common Türkic (Türkm magtamak, Chuv muxta Karach, Balk maxtarğa, Uzb maqtamoq “praise”, Yak maxtan “thank” etc). Lat mel “honey” – Türkic ba:l “honey” is presented in Gagauz, Turkish, Kazakh, Uzbek, Kyrgyz and other languages. Sir Gerard Clauson writes: “It is generally agreed that (this word – V.S.) is a very loan-word from some Indo-European language, dating from a period when m was so inacceptable as an initial that it was replaced by b… The closest IE parallel is Latin mel; the Sanskrit form is madhu”. Sanskrit form belongs to the other IE root *medhu (s. Pokorny). Greek µελι “honey” is more suited and there are similar words in Germanic, Celtic and Armeinian languages. In this case, it is not easy to determine the origin of this root. Lat ordo “row”, “order”, “army”, “detachment” - common Türkic (Türkm, Kaz orda, Chuv urta Tur ordu etc “army”). Lat pasta “pasta” – Karach, Balk basta “porridge, gruel” Lat pudis “louse” - common Türkic bit “louse” (Chuv pyjta, rest bit/pit). Lat quattuar “four” - Chuv tăvattă “four” (the other Turkic tört /dört “four”). Lat Roma - Chuv uram, Karach, Balk oram “street”. Lat saliva “saliva” - common Türkic (Chuv sěleke, Türkm selki, Tat silegej etc “saliva”). Lat sarda, sardina “kind of fish” - Chuv çărtan “pike (fish)”. Lat scopula “broom” - Chuv šăpăr “broom”. Lat sollicitare “shake” - common Türkic (Chuv sille, Türkm selkildemek, Tur silkmek etc “shake”). Lat taberna “public-house” - Chuv tăvar "salt", Ukr, Rus tovar “goods” and “cattle”, Arm tavar “sheep”, “flock”, Kum tuuar “flock”, Tur tavar “property”, “cattle”, Balk, Cr-Tat tu’ar “cattle” etc. The salt was the main export product for Old Bulgarians therefore it became sense “goods” (Stetsyuk Valentyn, 1998, 57). Many Iranian languages have the words tabar-tebertevir “axe”, but Finno-Ugrian words of this root have sense “textile” (Saam tavjar, Mar tuvyr, Chant tŕgar). All these things are objects of barter and trade, that is to say goods. Latin word *taber of unknown sense is vanished, but the derivate of it taberna stayed which origin is usually deduced from trabs “beam” what is unconvincing. Lat (Sabinian) teba “hill” - common Türkic (Chuv tüpe, Tur tepe, Kaz töbe etc “moutain, top”). Lat torta “round brad” - Chuv tărta “to twine, to nest”. Lat torus “elevation” - Chuv tără “top”. Compare with Eng tor “stony top”. Lat usus “use” - Chuv usă “use”. Eng use belongs here too or it is a Latin loan word? Lat vacca “cow” - Chuv văkăr “bull”. Lat virga “twig, rod” without conformities in other IE languages – Xak, Uyg berge “whip”. Sir Gerard Clauson writes: “berge – a whip an old word ending in –ge/ It is suggested.., that it is a loan-word from Latin virga ‘a rod, a stock’ obtained through Middle Persian but there does not seen to be any tace of the word in Persian, and the theory is importable.”

42. Lat vulgus “folk”, “herd”, “crowd”, Lat vulgaris “habitual, customary” - Chuv pulkkă “herd”, “flight, flock”, Bulgar - the old name one of the Türkic tribes, ancestors of the Chuvash. Hirher Germ Volk, Eng folk, Celtic ethnonym Volcae. This word has Indoeuropean origin and was loaned by Bulgars from the Germanic and came to Italics through Bulgars. Otherwise the Latin word might to have the form pulkus. Thou the most deal of Turkic tribes crossed the Don and spread in steppes of the Fore Caucasus. Here we have to turn to the reason why Indo-Europeans, Finno-Ugric, and Turkic tribes did not stay on the Fore Caucasus during their migration from Transcaucasia. Russian scholar Sergei Starostin suggested that Sino-Tibetan and Caucasian languages have a single common ancestor and joined them in one monophyletic group of Sino-Caucasian languages. His hypothesis did not find wide support in the learned wordl but the facts of the similarity between Chinese and Caucasian languages demands some explanation. We can try to do this. The Fore Caucasus has quite good life-condition but neither Indo-Europeans, nor Finno-Ugric, or Turkic clans did not stay here when they came hither from Transcaucasia. A reason for this can be the locality was already occupied by other numerous people. It known that the Maykop culture of Early Bronze Age existed on the Fore and Northern Caucasus in the second half of 3rd mill BC. Perhaps the creators of this culture were indigenous people populated this locality since the neolith having the language akin to Dagestan languages. Let us take a conditional name Maykopians for them. When the Turks came to the Fore Caucasus, a deal of Maycopians could retreat across the Volga to the unpopulated steppes of Kazakhstan. Instead of them some Turkic tribes (among them Kypchaks, Seljuqs, Oghuz, Turkmens) settled here but other tribes followed Maykopians along Kazakhstan steppes. The Turks an Maykopians moved eastward simultaneously and their way can be traced by Andronovo and Zamanbaba cultures created by the people of European appearance from the West as it is proved by archaeologists. After arriving to the forest zone east of the steppes near Altai, the Turkic tribes came into contact with the indigenous population. Belonging to the Mongolian anthropological type, the local inhabitants subsisted on fishing, hunting, and food-gathering. Their system of oral communication was not yet very developed. While adapting to the more advanced economy of new settlers, indigenous groups borrowed many terms and features being common for the Turkic languages. In this way, the Turkic and Mongolian languages came to acquire some formal similarities which deceive to-day linguists as if Altaic and Turkic language families have the same genetic origin. Meanwhile, commingling between the two populations led to these Turkic peoples’ acquisition of Mongolian physical traits. Later, with the beginning of the Mongolian expansion in the 13th century, the reverse process of borrowing from Mongolian to Turkic languages started quite naturally. Mongolian loan words in Turkic hid the question about relation the Mongolian and Turkic languages still more. Sir Gerard Clauson noted that “the existence of this massive volume of Mongolian intruders seems somehow to have escaped notice, or, if noticed, to have been regarded by those who accept Altaic theory as evidence of a common “Altaic” heritage in both language groups”25. On the other hand, arriving to Jungar Alatau, Maykopians entered to the territory of modernday China through Jungar Gateway. They brought here tribe organisation to aborigines and introduced bronze casting, cattle breeding, and farming. This was a heavy push to organisation of the first China state in the 18th century BC. The language of Maykopians had a large influence on the local dialects therefore Sino-Tibetan languages became some mutual features with North-Caucasian ones. One can conjecture that the Turkic tribes of Kypchaks (ancestors of modern-day Kumyks, Balkars, and Karachais) stayed on the Northern Caucasus always till to-day. The Kumyks populate now the western shore of Caspian Sea, but the Karachais and Balkars were forced from the NorthCaucasian steppes to mountain ravines by Circassian tribes originating in the Western Caucasus. The Turkic tribes of Seljuks, Oghuz, Turkmens, and Karluks settled in the Western Kazakhstan and Middle Asia somewhere to the southwest of Caspian Sea. Arab historian Ahmad ibn Fadlan noted in his account about the travel as a member of an embassy of the Baghdad Caliph to the king of the VolgaBulgars that Oghuz populated the region of the Western Kazakhstan.


CLAUSON GERARD. (2002): Studies in Turkic and Mongolic Linguistics. London-New York: XI. 11

© Valentyn Stetsyuk


Related Interests