Nostratic Languages. Ethnogenetic Processes in East Europe and Asia till the Bronze Age. The Urheimat of the Nostratic Languages
https://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/Nostratic.html
New ideas are always perceived with difficulty. And, as always happens, over time, the attitude towards the Nostratic theory changed towards its recognition through the efforts of V. A. Dybo, who from the very beginning defended the idea of Illich-Switych. The main obstacle to the final recognition of the Nostratic theory is the assignment of Turkic languages to the Altai language family. This mistake entails others, such as the Chukchi-Kamchatkan and Eskimo-Aleut languages being classified as Nostratic. In general, the binary connections of languages classified as Nostratic, still remain insufficiently studied. However, even a superficial comparison of the vocabulary of pairs of Nostratic languages belonging to different linguistic families gives reason to take the issue of the existence of Nostratic languages enough seriously. If we talk, for example, about Turkic-Indo-European lexical correspondences, then in many cases, they look very convincing. Indo-European-Finno-Ugric correspondences are no less convincing, but they are often interpreted as borrowings from Indo-European in Finno-Ugric. Sometimes this is done, for example, following other researchers, by Kaisa Häkkinen in the etymological dictionary of modern Finnish (HĀKKINEN KAISA. 2007). To such borrowings, he refers the Finno-Ugric words with the meaning "bark" (Fin. kuori "bark, peel", Veps. kor' "bark", Erzya, Moksha kar' "bast shoe", Khanty hŏr "bark", Mansi kor- "tear bast"), "many, much" (Fin. moni, Est. mõni, Udm. mynda) and some others which have matches in the Indo-European languages. In other cases, Häkkinen refers to similar Indo-European and Finno-Ugric words to some indefinite common language. (for example PIE *aĝ- and PFU. *aja- "drive") or explains by early contacts between the Indo-European and Uralic linguistic communities (for example PIE nomn- and PFU *nime – both "name"). Finnish linguist refers to Nostratic only one word *kala "fish" (Fin. kala, Saam. guolli, Mari kol, Hung. hal a.o.). It is strange that when recognizing the existence of Nostratic languages in general, only one word was assigned to them from all Finno-Hungarian languages while ignoring other examples, some of which are obvious. For example, the similarity of the O.I. uda, Goth. watō, Slav. woda "water" and Fin. vesi, Mari wüt, Mok. ved' "the same" cannot be accidental, but more complex evidence of ancient kinship relations are possible too. One such evidence may be an etymological complex with the meanings of "pine", "fir", "galipot, soft resin", "pitch" (Lat. picea, Alb. pishе, Mok. pichi, Erz. piche "pine-tree", Ger. Fichte "fir-tree", Lat. picis, Gr. πισσα Fin. pihka, Est., Veps. pihk "soft resin", Rus., Ukr. peklo "hell" a.o.). On occasion, the similarity of Mansi and Khanty words to Germanic is explained by borrowing. Such borrowings can be considered possible when there is no definite idea of the location of the dissemination areas of certain languages in prehistoric times.
Fig. 1. The model of relationship of Nostratic languages.
As noted above, the Turkic language is not part of the Altaic language family, therefore the place of the Altaic languages in the scheme actually belongs to the Turkic ones. The presence of an insignificant number of features characteristic only of the Altai languages in the tables of Ilyich-Svitych could not significantly distort the kinship scheme.
The next step was to search for the location of the resulting model on the map where there are areas limited by geographic boundaries. By the time the scheme was received, further habitats of Indo-Europeans, Finno-Ugrians, and Turks had already been localized in Eastern Europe. Having these data, and also taking into account the modern habitats of the speakers of the Afrasian languages (Africa, Western Asia), the Dravidian peoples (the south of the Indian subcontinent), and the speakers of the Kartvelian languages (the territory of Georgia and Lazistan in the northeast of Turkey) and the fact that the resulting scheme was quite compact, the search area could only be Western Asia.
The ancestor of the Uralian peoples inhabited the area around Lake Urmia, and to the west of them behind the Kurdistan ridge around Lake Van lived Semitic-Khamites. To the south of both, on the slopes of the Khakyari mountains and the Kurdistan ridge in the basin of the Tigris, Big, and Small Zab rivers, the ancestors of the Dravids should have sat.
Itt megnézhető google mapsen is bejelölve a nosztratikus nyelvek "őshazája":
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?msa=0&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=35.335293377837814%2C47.69189582789211&spn=5.28676%2C5.262452&t=h&source=embed&mid=1T5cNi195SJm7BLZ7lM2yRzV-lfA&z=6
T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov asserted that IE *reudh "red (metal)" may be borrowed from the Sumerian language, which ihas the word urudu "copper" and Sum. guškiu "gold" associated with Indo-European names of the metal (the closest form of Arm. oski) and on the basis of these two facts, find it possible to speak about the contacts between these languages and the proximity of their habitat dissemination. In connection with this, we may add that the Sumerian guškiu is very similar to the Finno-Ugric names of different metals Lapp. vešš'k "copper", Est. vask "copper", Fin. vaski "iron" Mokhsa us'ke "iron" and others...
Some linguists still deny the existence of the Nostratic language community, but there is quite strong evidence of its existence. One of them could be the name of a daughter in the Finno-Ugric and Indo-European languages (Veps. t'ütar, Erz. teyter', Est. tütar, Fin. tytür, Ger. Tochter, Gr. θυγαθηρ, OInd. duhitar a.o.). Perhaps, they should also involve Hung. tesvér "a sister, brother". Currently, the largest number of units of the Nostratic fund was found in the Turkic and Indo-European languages...
The
c and Samoyed Tribes.
https://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/SettlEastEur/FU.html
The proposed localization of ancient Finno-Ugric territory can be confirmed by paleobotany if it can be compared with the geographical dissemination of some plants having common Finno-Ugric names. While it is possible to draw for this purpose only the name and the geographical dissemination of oak. Almost all the Finno-Ugric languages have a name similar to Slavic: Fin. tammi, Est. tamm, Mar. tum, Erzya tumo, Moksha tuma, Komi typy, Udm. tupu. In the etymological dictionary of the modern Finnish language, the original Finno-Ugric form of the word is defined as *tomo, and the possibility of borrowing from the Slavic is not considered despite the similarity to the Slavonic oak name (HÄKKINEN KAISA. 2007: 1268). However, other specialists have a different opinion: Because the ancestral home of Finno-Ugric peoples was located in the taiga zone, where no oak, this word along with the corresponded realities was learned by Finno-Perm inhabitants only when moving them from the homeland to the territory occupied by Slavs (TKACHENKO O.B. 1990: 26).
The judgment is rather strange because the Finno-Ugric peoples were not settled on Slavic territory, but on the contrary, the Slavs were newcomers to the Finno-Ugric lands, ie Finno-Ugric peoples were familiar with oak before contact with the Slavs and, therefore, must have had for this tree own name. Now northern border of oak stretches from St. Petersburg to about the latitude of Yekaterinburg, ie passes somewhat north of the Upper Volga and the beyond Urals, oak is really absent.
Quercus robur (oak) dissemination. Fig. 74 from the site "Forest library".
Thus oak was grown really on the territory of the Finno-Ugric peoples. On the other hand, as oak is absent in most parts of the Urals, the Finno-Ugric peoples could not have settlements in the Urals and beyond it. If the similarity of the Slavic and Finno-Ugric names of oak needs an explanation, then most likely, the word is a substrate protoform of a Paleo-European language.
Areas of forming Samoyed languages, which include the Nenets, Enets, Nganasan, and Selkup languages, are uncertain. In ancient times, Samoyed languages would be more numerous (Mator, Karagas, Kot ones else). If the question is about the genetic relationship of the Finno-Ugric languages, at least the initial settlement of their speakers would have to be somewhere near the Finno-Ugric peoples. There are on the map of Eastern Europe free place north of the upper Volga. It could be assumed that here, on the basis of the population of the Laponoid anthropological type and its language, ethnic groups of the Samoyedians also formed in certain geographical areas with clear-cut natural boundaries. In the Sami language, according to the testimony of many scientists, a powerful layer of substrate vocabulary (up to one third) of unknown origin has been preserved (FROMM HANS, 1990: 16). It is assumed that this vocabulary is of Samoyed origin, but there is also another view: "the idea of the Samoyed origin of the substratum vocabulary of the Sami language does not stand up to criticism" (NAPOLSKIKH V.V., 1990: 129).
However, according to Meinander, "in the vast territory of North-Eastern Europe from the Urals to the Gulf of Bothnia, from the Arctic Ocean to the Kazan-Riga border, there are no linguistic traces of other languages, except for the Finno-Ugric and Samoyed languages". (MEINANDER C.F. 1974: 19). Under such circumstances, the closest to the truth was, obviously, Simchenko, when he wrote about the common substrate for the Sami and Samoyed languages:
… the substratum elements of the Sámi language, by their nature, cannot be considered direct borrowings from the Samoyed languages. In this case, the identical phenomena of the Samoyed and Lappish languages should be explained by the presence in the composition of these peoples of a single Ural-speaking ancient substrate, which had a linguistic influence on both the Samoyes and the Northern Samoyeds (SIMCHENKO Yu.B. 1975: 167).
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1R0qLzCn4AFjTAFoPwkqiCI-NyfA&femb=1&ll=53.528829853317355%2C42.36230811291533&z=5
Finno-Ugric place names on ethno-producing areas and migration routes.
On the map, the place names left by certain Finno-Ugrian peoples during the formation of their primary languages are denoted by points of different colors in accordance with the languages in which they are interpreted. For the individual languages the following colors are adopted: Finnish – dark blue, Sami – yellow, Estonian – burgundy, Veps – red, Hungarian – green, comi – khaki, Moksha – pale violet, Mari – blue, Khanty – brown. The boundaries of the common Finno-Ugric territory are marked in blue, and the boundaries of individual areas are represented by river lines. The color of the lines is black or corresponds to the color of the language in which the iver name can be explained.
The Language and Cultural Contacts of the Population in Eastern Europe
1. ábra. Az indoeurópai, türk és finnugor törzsek áttelepülése Kelet-Európába .
Jelmagyarázat: Nosztratikus népek: AA – Abházo-Adyge, Dag – Dagestabians, Dr – Dravidians, Kar – Kartvelians, IE – Indo-Europeans, NC – az észak-kaukázusi nyelv beszélői, S/H – Semits-Hamitok, Trk – Türk, Ur – uráliak.
Indoeurópai népek: Arm – örmények, balti – baltok, gr – görögök, germán – germánok, illírek, ind – indoárják, irániak, itál – dőlt, kelta – kelta, szlávok – szlávok, toch – tocharok, trák – trákok, frig frígek.
Finnugor népek: észt – észt, finn finnek, hun – magyar, hanti – hanti, lap – számi, mans – manszi, mord – mordvin, udm – udmurtok.
Török népek: alt – dél-altájok, bulg – bolgárok, jak – jakutok, khak – hahasziak, tat – tatárok, trkm – türkmének.
Nostratic Languages.
Ethnogenetic Processes in East Europe and Asia till the Bronze Age.
https://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling.html
Pechenegs and Magyars
I am presenting this essay with grateful thanks to Volodymyr Bakus for the material support of the research being carried out
https://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Pechenegs.html
Among all the nations that played a big role in the Eastern European events of prehistoric times, the Pechenegs were the only ones not awarded attention in the reviewed here research. In fairness, this omission should be amended at least in the sense of their enigmatic ethnicity. The starting material in searching for the origin of the Pechenegs may be available scanty historical information about their relations with the ancestors of today's Hungarians, whom we call the Magyars, as well as data onomastic data, often used by us in seeking a solution to similar problems.
Judging by the decoding of the names of the Sarmatian Onomasticon, the population of the Northern Black Sea region in the Scythian-Sarmatian time before the beginning of the Hun invasion in 371 AD consisted peoples of Iranian origin, Anglo-Saxons, Bulgars, Adyghes, Magyars, Chechens, some kind of Baltic tribe and a small number of Turks of unclear origin. Chechens and Magyars were supposed to be in approximately the same proportion and make up at least 13% of the total population of Sarmatia. A rather large number of Chechens should not have been left unattended by the then historians and they should have been mentioned in their works under some name. It can be assumed that they should be associated with the Akatziri. This ethnonym can be interpreted with the help of Chech. ākha "revenge" and tsIe "fire" (-r – growth of the base, cf. tsIeran "fiery"). The name of one of the leaders of the Akatsir Kuridakh can be deciphered using Chech. kura "proud" and dakhya "not to be afraid".
The ancestral home of the Hungarians, determined using the graphic-analytical method, was located in the ethno-producing area on the left bank of the Don between its tributaries Khoper and Medveditsa (see section Finno-Ugrians and Samoyed tribes). They should be identified with the Savromatians, who, according to Herodotus, dwelled beyond the Tanais, by which he understood the lower Don River and its left tributary, the Seversky Donets. Who are the Pechenegs and where was their ancestral home, we have to find out.
The historically attested names of the Pechenegs were Gr. πατζινακ, Ar. beƺ'enek, Hung. besenyő. The Hungarian name was to be borrowed from the Bulgarish language (ASHMARIN N.I. 1902). In the Chuvash language, the voiced velar fricative γ developed on the place of the ancient Turkic – k, -g which fell out at the end of the word in later times, as evidenced by the Chuvash loan-word in Hungarian: Hung. borz "badger" from Chuv. *borsuγ, Hung.kút "draw-well" from Chuv. kutuγ (PALLO MARGIT K. 1985, 80). Thus, the Bulgarian name of the Pechenegs could be piçenek and its origin can be associated with Chuv. piçĕn "thistle". One way or another, the Pechenegs, Magyars, and Bulgars were supposed to be neighbors at some time. According to Ahmad ibn Rustah at the beginning of the 10th century the first of the lands of the Magyar was located between the lands of the Pechenegs and Bulgars and one of the outskirts of the Magyar land adjoined the Black Sea (KHVOLSON D.A. 1869: 25).
The ethnicity of ancient peoples is determined by two factors – the anthropological look and language. Historians generally believe that the Pechenegs were Turks, the anthropological prototype of which was supposed to be Mongoloid. If Pechenegs had evident Mongoloid features, their Turkic ethnicity would not cause any doubts. However, doubts arise precisely about their Mongoloid appearance. The fact that in the steppes from the Volga to the Danube in the burials of nomads of X – the first half of the XIII cent. were being found skulls as Mongoloid and Caucasoid type. During this period mainly the Pechenegs and Oguz (Guzes) could nomadize in this area, and thinking over the ethnicity of studied burials, S.A. Pletniova writes:
What kind of physical types belonged to the Pechenegs and what to the Guzes? Obviously, in this case, you can only make a preliminary hypothesis on the forming of the Pecheneg ethnic group beyond the Volga based on the lived and roamed there Sarmatians. As a result, there was formed Caucasoid steppe type with some admixture of Mongoloid. Mongoloid type, probably, was Oguzian, although clearly expressed their Mongoloid feature are not yet quite understandable for researchers, since, apparently, the two ethnic groups were cooked in one ethnoproducing pot (PLETNIOVA S.A., 2003: 128)
In other words, the Pechenegs were originally Mongoloids, but then somehow mysteriously transformed into Caucasians and thus, anthropology does not give us a clear answer to a question about the ethnicity of the Pechenegs. As for the Pecheneg language, because it has not been preserved, it can only be judged by their own names, recorded in the Byzantine, Slavic, and Hungarian chronicles and documents. It is assumed that numerous runic inscriptions on the territories populated ever Pechenegs, were left just by them. However, attempts to decipher them through the Turkic languages were in vain (PRITSAK OMELJAN, 1970: 98). Similarly, the majority of Pecheneg's own names can hardly be correlated with any of the Turkic languages, although the right is stated in the Byzantine sources that the Pechenegs spoke the same language as Cumans (VASILIEVSKY V.G. 1908: 8). This statement means little in the case of the different ethnicity of Pechenegs and Cumans, as communication between people of different nationalities always premises using a single language. And in this case – what is just it? The Cumans are considered to be a people of Turkic origin, but the well-known names of their khans cannot always be interpreted using Turkic languages. Chronicles distinguish several groups of Cumans: Lukomorian, Burcheviches, Chiteeviches, Burnoviches, etc. (RASOVSKIY D.A. 2012). One might think that various peoples of the North Caucasus and the shore of the Sea of Azov were hidden under the common name Cumans, and among them were Chechens, if we take into account the names of such Cuman khans:
Itlar – Chech. itt "ten", lar "trace", lāрa "to caunt".
Kura – Chech. kura "proud, arrogant".
Toglyi – Chech. tolkkha "burry, crouping in speech".
Among the Polovtsian khans, the Magyars also were present:
Oseluk – Hung. oszlik "to divede". Cf. Ostash
Ostash – Hung. osztás "separation". Cf. Oseluk.
Paslyon – Hung. pasló "pleasure".
The presence of the Magyars among the Polovtsy is confirmed by historical documents. The Hungarian king Bela IV, who knew the legends about the ancestral home of the Hungarians somewhere in the east, decided to organize her search with the help of Catholic monks. He sent several expeditions to the East. The most successful among them was held in 1235. Monk Julian, who took part in it, compiled a detailed written report about the search. It is preserved and it is known from it that in the basin of one of the tributaries of the middle Volga, Julian found people who understood the Hungarian speech and preserved the legend about the departure to the west of part of the tribesmen. In 1237, Julian, already an ambassador, was sent to his fellow tribesmen for the second time. However, by that time the Tatar-Mongols had already begun their invasion and he did not get to the Magyars, so their further fate remains unknown.
Thus, the Cumans spoke different languages and the language of communication in different cases could be different. If you put a specific question about the Pecheneg language, then you need to raise additional evidence. For example, it could be judged by place names left by the Pechenegs, but you need to be confident in their Pecheneg belongings. It is clear that such confidence can not be without knowledge of the Pecheneg language. A vicious circle, the output of which can only be found experimentally with an authentic conception of the dispersal of the various peoples in Eurasia at prehistoric times. However, the dominant idea of their spatial dissemination is not valid. In particular, this applies to the Turkic peoples, which include the Pechenegs. Omeljan Pritsak in his work on Pechenegs, their ancestral home placed "between the Aral Sea and the middle course of the Syr Darya River with the center near the city of Tashkent" (PRITSAK OMELIAN, 1970: 98). Why such accuracy remains unclear. L.N. Gumilyov, in his work on the ancient Turks, mentions the Pechenegs only two or three times, placing them randomly, without explanation, in the lower reaches of the Syr Darya River or in the lower reaches of the Volga River (GUMILEV L. N. 2003). Obviously, his ideas are based on data from ibn Fadlan and Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos. The last, in particular, reported that the Pechenegs first lived near the Volga and Yaik Rivers, and their neighbors were Mazara and Uzes. Subsequently, the Uzes uniting with the Khazars expelled Pechenegs from their own country (GOLUBOVSKIY P., 1884: 34).
...
Not only in place names did the Pechenegs and Magyars leave traces of their former settlements. As shown by a study of the code of Ukrainian surnames, quite a lot of them can have Hungarian and Chechen origin. Information on their availability and dissemination throughout the territory of Ukraine is provided by Map of Dissemination of Surnames of Ukraine. Unfortunately, such a map has not been compiled in Russia, so it is not possible to judge how widely the names of Hungarian and Chechen origin are represented in Russia. In Ukraine, among the indigenous population, one can encounter quite a lot of surnames of Hungarian origin. Most of them are in Transcarpathia, but they cannot indicate the presence of Hungarians in Ukraine in ancient times. However, outside Transcarpathia, more than two thousand carriers of the surname Sabadash (Сабадаш) were recorded, while the phonetically correct Hungarian form of Szabados (888 cases) occurs almost exclusively in Transcarpathia. On the contrary, the surname already mentioned Telefanko (Телефанко) is recorded only once in Transcarpathia, while in the Lviv region there are 49 carriers of this surname. Hungarian surname Lakatos Лакатош) evenly disseminated throughout Ukraine – Lviv (16 carriers), Novi Sanzhary district of Poltava Region (21), Putyvl district of Sumy Region (12), Piatykhatky district of Dnipropetrovskyi Region (12), Oleksandria district of Kirovohrad Region (8) and in many other areas, there are a few people with that name. Of the more than eight hundred carriers of the surname Buta (Бута) most of all dwell in Transcarpathia and Bukovina, but also a lot in Western Ukraine – in Lviv (40), Radekhiv district of the Lviv Region (38), less in the eastern regions – in Kyiv (17), Dnipro (7). Of the other Hungarian surnames found far beyond the borders of Transcarpathia (Sumy, Donetsk, Lugansk regions), although in small numbers, one can note the following: Vitash (a total of 56 carriers), Habor (over a hundred), Kochish (35), Sokach (77), Feher (36), Fey (11), Fekete (29), Forkosh (64) and some others.
The Scytho-Sarmatian Problems
https://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Scythian.html
By the early 8th century, the Khazar Khaganate already possessed a large territory that included the foothills of Dagestan, the steppes of the Kuban, Azov, and partly the Black Sea region, most deal of the Crimea. The young state had to wage a hard struggle for existence with the Arabs, and so most of the Bulgars gradually moved north to the river Kama, where they eventually formed their own state of the Volga, or Great Bulgaria (ASHMARIN N.I. 1902, PLETNIOVA S.A. 186: 20-41; RONA-TAS ANDRAS. 2005: 116-117). Obviously, this state included also the local Turkic population descended from the carriers of the Balanov culture, as well as the neighboring Finno-Ugric population. According to Ashmarin, the Bulgars were agricultural people and conducted extensive trade with the surrounding peoples, which should testify to their higher culture.
All this compels us to suppose that the Bulgars had to be very numerous people, whose history can be traced by the way its migration from western Ukraine through the Pontic steppes and onto the banks of the Kama River. Consequently, these great people stayed in the steppes of Ukraine during Herodotus' time and could not remain without the attention of this historian. One could assume that the Bulgars, at least, were among the folks mentioned by Herodotus in his "History". Logic dictates that it is the Bulgars that had to be Scythians. This idea arose as a hypothesis and was previously developed in an article in a little-known journal (STETSYUK V.M. 1999) and did not find support in the scientific world. This topic is discussed in more detail here..
Scythia-Sarmatia according to place names
On the map, the toponyms of Bulgarish origin are marked with a burgundy color, the azure names are of Anglo-Saxon, red – Kurdish, purple – Mordovian, green – Ossetian, dark green – Chechen, orange – Hungarian, black – Greek. The red line marks the border of Scythia of Herodotus.
The violet rhomb denotes the hillfort of Belsky near the village of Kuzemin, which some scientists associate with the ancient city of Gelon.
The red rhomb denotes a Scythian fortification near the village of Chotyniec in Poland.
More toponymic studies are discussed in section
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1WTsfMgX9jWVibhO2a-r-JBdSWog&femb=1&ll=48.819534713047695%2C31.715040249999987&z=5
