Alternative Linguiatics - The First Great Migration

The First Great Migration

After elucidation of general questions of movement of Indo-European peoples in Eastern Europe at the turn of the 3rd-2nd mill BC we can further examine this process. One reason for the relocation of the Indo-Europeans was their relative over-population. Fishing as a basis for management provided stable and reliable nutrition source of the population, which was gradually increased, and consequently certain demographic stress began to feel in the whole Indo-European territory. In addition, since the beginning of sub-boreal period (about 2500 BC) cooling was noted in many temperate areas of Europe . Under such circumstances desire of Indo-European populations to find new places was natural. At this time the Turks, the creators of the Pit-culture began to settle in the vast expanses of Eurasia looking for pasture-grounds. Disc-wheels founded in the tombs evidence using by the Turks wheeled transport. The first wagons were too heavy-handed, as the wheel rotated with the same speed, being firmly planted on the axis which turned together with the wheels. They could well move in a straight road but often broke at windings. Nevertheless, even such a transport facilitated migration over long distances. During this movement different versions of the Corded Ware culture, based on the pit culture and influenced by local characteristics, begin to develop How migration of Indo-European and Turkic tribes were connected, is hard to say. Their reasons were different, but the directions of movement were almost the opposite, so the relocation should not be simultaneous.

The reasons and directions of the first migrations of Turkic tribes were considered in the section "Ethnicity of the Neolithic and Eneolithic cultures of Eastern Europe" and "Turks as carriers of the Corded Ware culture in Central -Eastern Europe". Eurasia was settled by Turks in multiple streams bypassing settlements of Indo-European and Finno-Ugric peoples (see map at right).

West stream which consisted predominantly by Bulgars crossing the lower Dnieper moved westward, leaving after themselves their settlements in the Right-Bank Ukraine and Eastern Poland. For lack of sufficient pasture in a wooded area, the migrants had to keep moving on. Thus populating the territory of Germany and the Baltic states, after a while the Turks were moving also to South Scandinavia through the Jutland Peninsula and Finland. The Bulgars, who had not moved along with the majority of Turks in the west, and stayed among Trypillians settlements, began to seize land for pasture from peaceful farmers, what obviously injured an economic basis of Trypillan culture and resulted its decline.

A small part of the Turks moving along the banks of the Desna River reached the space between the Volga and the Oka and populated it partially forcing out and partially assimilating previous population. Here they created Fatyanovo culture as one of the variants of Corded Ware culture. Another embodiment of this culture so called Balanovskaya and close to Fatyanovo one was established by that part of the Turks, who crossing the Don River, moved along the right bank of the Volga River to the mouth of the Oka. The bulk of the Turks in search of new pastures crossed the Volga and moved to steppes of Kazakhstan, and one portion of them moved to the Northern Caucasus, displacing the population of the Maykopian culture, which should also move to the left bank of the Volga and move further to the east (see map at right). The further history of Maykopians is considered as a hypothesis in the section "Maykopian enigma".

Many researchers believe that the genetic roots of Tripolian culture are hidden in the cultures of the Balkans, the lower Danube and the Carpathian Basin, but not in the Neolithic of the Bug-Dniester basin; its ethnicity is considered to be unknown (ZBENOVYCH V.G., 1989: 172; Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR. Tom 1. Pervobytnaya arkheologiya, 1985, K: 202-203). We hypothesized that the Trypillians could be Semites, it is quite possible, if their ancestors came to the Balkans from Asia Minor. There are some vague connection of the Balkan and Asia Minor cultures. If the Trypillians, indeed, were Semites, then traces of their influence in the Turkic language have to be left, because they were neighbors of the Turks. The Dnepr could not be an insurmountable obstacle, especially in the winter, so the primitive trade and cultural exchanges between the Turks and Trypillians might take place. Let us look first the traces of Typillian influences in the area of trade, ie among the words that mean "commodity", "payment" and of that kind. A large nest of words having different options based on the root tavar was already been considered in the section “The Language Contacts between Indo-Europeans, Turks, and Finno-Ugrians in Eastern Europe”. Similar words were found in the Hebrew: toar "a product", davar "a word", "a thing", "something". Analogous Trypillian word could accept the sense "goods" in the exchange process. Another hypothetical Tripoli word *kemel could mean "payment, indemnity" (Hebrew gemel "to pay back"). The similar word kěměl is present in the Chuvash language and means "silver". In full compliance with the phonology, it corresponds to the word kümüš of the same sense in other Turkic languages. Of course, the silver could fulfill the function of money at those ancient times, and change of the sense of the word occurred from the fact that the trading parties do without an interpreter and, therefore the same object could become different senses. That was just a payment for somebody was silver for another. Further searches yielded enough material, which gives reason to consider seriously the Semitic origin of the Trypillians. This is detailed in the section "Hypotheses".

Apparently , Trypillians had no tribal leaders, the rules of life were formed by the priesthood in general confessing cult of fertility, which was reflected in the image of women- mothers, as it is evidenced by found statuettes with accentuated feminine forms. Previously, even view of the matriarchal society organization of the Trypillains was dominant, and this could explain a mysterious disappearance of Trypillian culture. The dominant position of women in society came into conflict with the role of men played greater role in the household due their physical superiority. Perhaps this internal crisis eased getting dominant position in these lands for warlike nomads from the east without much exertion. Anyway, at that time Trypillian culture finally fell into decline, but the Trypillian heritage left traces in subsequent cultures of this region, so we can assume that a large part of the population remained in their native places. This is quite likely because they riders could not recklessly exterminate peaceful dwellers. Obviously, they confined themselves plundering the local population and destructing their settlements(BRIUSOV A.Ya., 1952)

Along with the cult of the mothers, the Trypillians had the cult of the bull as masculinity, and both cults were somehow intertwined(ZBENOVYCH V.G., 1989: 165). The cult of masculinity had been brought in Trypillian society by Indo-Europeans which social structure was patriarchal. However, the Indo-Europeans in search of free land hade to move in the direction of the Balkans as the steppes were dominated by Bulgars. It is likely that they used moving by waterways. At that time the Dnieper cataracts were covered with water, and do not interfere with boating, as Herodotus did not report on the rapids (the fact of more deep rivers in Europe at ancient times is not denied by geographers). Having acquired experience in building boats, travelers could continue moving along the shores of the Black Sea. At the same time some groups of Turks moved on land towards the Balkans too. As Kuzmina pointed out, gradual infiltration Pit tribes from the steppe zone to the area of the ancient agricultural cultures in Moldova, Romania, Hungary occurred in the III century BC (KUZ'MINA E.E., 1986: 186). For a time the newcomers had to stay in the Balkans, even in the Northern Black Sea region, as throughout III mill BC Peloponnese was settled by tribes, obviously, related to Asia Minor. In any case, the ancient Greek place names reveal features unusual Indo-European languages.

Pelloponnes was settled by Greeks in several waves. The first wave, known in history under the name of the Achaeans, rushed to the peninsula around 1900 BC. Conquerors ruined settlement of previous inhabitants, which were called by them Pelasgians, Carians or Leleges. The dark memories of the mysterious Pelasgians tribe were survived at Greeks to the classical time . This invasion gave start of the Middle Greek epoch, which is a fusion of local cultural traditions with the new Indo-European elements. This era continued for three centuries, and Mycenaean period (1600 – 1050 BC) occurred at the end of cultural synthesis. In the XIV-XIII centuries BC Achaeans began their expansion in Asia Minor, Egypt, Sicily and the south of the Apennine Peninsula. Egyptian sources connected with this expansion the invasion of "Sea Peoples". The attack of the Greeks against Troy happened by this time too. Shortly after the end of the Trojan War, about 1200 BC according to archaeological data, the Greek mainland was suffered of some destructive phenomena that is connected with a new invasion of the Greek tribes Dorians, more primitive relatives of the Achaeans, also come from the north

All this movement of Indo-European tribes southward could continue for several centuries, because the Phrygians and Armenians were joined in the general process of relocation later. The fact that the Phrygians the penetrated in Asia Minor via Balkans was confirmed in Greek legends. The Phrygians and mysterious Mushki came to the shores of the Sea of Marmara about the same time with the Dorians (BARTONÉK ANTONÍN. 1976: 60-65). These Mushki could be a tribe allied to Phrygians, or one of their tribes, it could also be another name of Phrygians, but that the Mushki moved to the headwaters of the Tigris later and settled there, suggesting that these were the ancestors of modern Armenians. However, Tumanyan, referring to the Hittite and Assyrian- Babylonian sources, claims that the ancestors of the Armenians together with the "sea peoples" have appeared in the valley Chalis in the middle of the II millennium BC (TUMANIAN E.G. 1971). Their nearness to the Phrygians was already discussed above. Since the Phrygians and Proto-Armenians appeared in Asia Minor in the middle (or end) II millennium BC, up to that time (not counting the time of the relocation), they had to settle right bank of the Dnieper, as they remained for some time in the Indo-European language space, south of the Thracians.

The Tocharians remained on their Urheimat for some time, as this is evidenced by some linguistic data. The Indo-Aryans were moving in the direction of Central Asia, crossing the rivers Volga and Ural. It seems they did not have any lasting settlement in Eastern Europe, as the linguistic evidence for this are absent. In addition, the split of the Indo-Aryan languages in two branches have been occurred outside Europe, although, obviously, outside of India (ZOGRAF G.A., 1982: 112). Such a division could have a place somewhere at the first long stop, probably in Central Asia. Linguistic analysis shows that the creation of the Rig Veda took place not later than the 2nd mill BC, therefore, the movement of the Indo-Aryans from Central Asia or Northern Iran occurred before that time (LAL B.B., 1978: 47). On the other hand, the presence of Indo-Aryans in Iran could be reflected by the special "Western Indo-Iranian language", noted near Iran and presented by the relatively small number of names of men and gods:

The left areas of the Indo-Aryans, the Thracians (Proto-Albanians), Phrygians and Armenians were occupied by the Iranians. The Balts occupied the Tocharian area after they the departed away. As already mentioned, the Thracians settled on the right bank of the Dnieper, stayed here during some time and then moved to the Balkans. The Celts, perhaps under pressure of the Germans began moving to the west, where they were the creators of Central European cultures of Urnfield group (1300-750 BC), the north-eastern boundary of which seem to pass along the Neman, which beyond Slavic land lay. Germans have spread into the area of the Celts, occupied Greek area and southern areas of the Italics and Illyrians. During these migrations Slavs also expanded their territory to the Baltic Sea, moving on the right bank of the Neman and thus established a direct language contact with the Celts. The study of the Slavic-Celtic language relation were carried for a long time by A. Shakhmatov locating the Slavic Urheimat of the Slavs in the Baltic somewhere not far from the Celts. A part of linguists, among whom were such authorities as M. Vasmer and K. Buga, very critical regarded his claims about the special closeness of the Celts and Slavs (MARTYNOV V.V., 1983) but later Shakhmatov’s opinion was listened more carefully:

V. Sedov, also noted that a number of authentic Celtic-Slavic lexical similarities were pointed out by J. Pokorny and H. Pedersen showed some grammatical parallels between Old Irish and Slavic languages. T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov gave the examples of Celtic loanwords in Slavic: *sluga, *braga, *ljutь, *gunja, *dQgъ, *tĕsto (GAMKRELIDZE T.V., IVANOV V.V. 1984). The result of Celtic-Slavic contacts in phonetics was nasalization of vowels in Slavic languages, which developed in line with the whole process of monophthongization of Slavc diphthongs *en, *em, *on, *om and so at the tendency of increasing sonority in syllable structure, which led to the law of the rule of open syllable (VINOGRADOV V.A., 1982: 303; KHABURGAYEV G.A., 1986: 94). As nasal vowels already existed in the Celtic, under its influence the monophthongization in this case went in the direction of the nasalization of diphthongs in closed syllables. This effect may be explained by dwelling the Celts and Slavs in the same phonetic area. According to S. Bernstein, T. Lehr-Splavinsky tried to explain the origin of the Masurian dialect by the Celtic influence. S. Bernstein himself also believed that "the Celtic influence on the Proto-Slavic language was deeper than it seemed so far" (BERNTSTEIN S.B., 1961: 95).

Now turn again to Maykopians. Since the end of the 3rd cen BC clearly two major ethnic communities reveal in Mongolia. One of them was represented by the Mongloid, the other was Caucasians (NOVGORODOVA E.A., 1981: 214). The last can be connected with Maykopian tribes which moved ahead of the Turks in the direction to the Altai. Here they became the creators of the Afanasiev culture of the Bronze Age. Experts attribute its creation to the wave of the Late-Pit and Catacomb population coming from the Ural far eastward (KUZ'MINA E.E. 1986: 186). This culture existed since the middle of the 3rd till, the beginning of the 2nd mill BC on a large area, which included, besides the Altai, also Mongolia and Xinjiang. We can assume that a part of the Maykopians through the Dzungarian Gates entered the territory of Xinjiang, where they met people of Mongoloid type, standing on the lower level of cultural development. The newcomers brought tribal organization, technology of bronze, animal husbandry, and agriculture. Obviously, the arrival of the Maykopians to China impacted creation of the Shang State in the 18th cen BC. Mingling with the autochthonous and becoming Mongoloid features, the Maykopians also learned the language of numerous community but by helping it a big impact. The traces of the influence of the Maykopian language are visible now in the Sino-Tibetan languages, and this influence was so significant that suggests the genetic relationship between the North Caucasian and Sino-Tibetan languages. More information on this topic is considered as a hypothesis in the "Maykopian Enigma"

Turkic tribes that have crossed the Volga behind Maykop, began to settle on the territory of modern Kazakhstan and further to the east, following the order formed by location of the settlement sites on the Urheimat. Yakuts, occupying the extreme eastern area, so moved as the first in the direction of Lake Baikal and north of Lake Balkhash. Subsequently, they went up the Lena to places of their present habitat. Following them came the ancestors of Tuva people, which we conventionally call Tuba. They reached the headwaters of the Yenisei and are livin there now. Ancestors of their modern neighbors in the Altai Mountains were the such neighbors on the Urheimat. Khakasses, Kamasins, Shorts, Chulym Tatars are residing norther of them now. They all speak closely related languages derived from a patern language, which we conventionally call Khakas, which area occupied the northern part of Turkish territory on the Urheimat. Obviously, they have moved as more northerly flow, and behind them moved their southern neighbors Kirghiz. Certain time they had to occupy neighboring territories in Siberia, but later the Kyrgyz moved to Central Asia, where they are living now. In order of priority, the common ancestors of modern Kazakhs and Nogai moved after the Kyrgyz. The Kazakhs gradually colonized the large area from the Lower Volga to the Altai Mountains and the Nogai have recently returned to Europe. The last of the Turks, who crossed the Volga, moved ancestors of modern Uzbeks and Uighurs, which we call generalized Qarluqs (see map below).

It also draws attention to the fact that "at the Andronov time the population of Baraba steppe was differed by exceptional heterogeneity" (Ibid: 204). All this testifies to the great migration eastward of the people of Caucasoid appearance which we associate with the ancient Turks. During the subsequent cross-breeding as a result of co-existence together an uniform anthropological type was arisen with obvious Mongoloid features of many ethnic groups, either kept their Turkic (Yakuts, Tuva, Khakas, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, etc.), or Mongolian language. It is largely misleading scientists, but many Turkish people do not have clear Mongoloid features, which are being felt at the slightest cross-breeding. The people having no Mongoloid features are follows: Turks, Azeris, Turkmens, Kumyks, Karachays, Balkars, Gagauz. The languages of these nations began to form in the western part of the of Turkic terrirory between the rivers Seversky Donets and Dnieper. A linguistic ancestors of the Yakuts, Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, Khakas, Tuvans lived then between the Donets and Don. Just they moved eastward. In principle, the Chuvash and Kazan Tatars, too, should not have Mongoloid features, but they come them at the cross-breeding with the Finno-Ugrian having Laponoid features, or after the arrival of the Mongols in Eastern Europe. The mixture of the Chuvash and Tatars with Mongols could not happen on a large scale, however their Mongoloid features are quite noticeable. This once again shows how difficult it is to leave them. If ever the ancestors of modern Turks lived in the Altai, their appearance about clearly shows this. Thus, we can confidently say that not only the Chuvash and Tatars, but also the Turkmen, Kipchaks, Oghuz, ancestors of the Turks and the Azerbaijanis have always been either in Eastern Europe, or not gone far from the Caspian Sea. We can assume that the Kipchaks lived in Caucasus, as evidenced by toponyms (Beshtau, for example). Later, the Balkars and Karachays were driven by the Kabardins and Circassians in the mountain areas, but the Kumyks remained living on the plains. Anything definite about the migrations of the ancestors of the Bashkirs, Uzbeks and other people's is hard to say because their Mongoloid element is expressed enough clear. What places and at what were been settled by these people, remains to be seen.