Thus, Slavs occupied the territory between the Vistula and the upper Oka, south of the West Dvina (Daugava) at the moment of uprising of a great group of Slavic languages. Some portion of this territory is occupied by the Slavic people till now therefore one may believe that they did not leave it never after settling here. However there are evidences that Balts occupied a great part of this territory before Slavs. Some scholars believe even that the territory of Belarus has been populated by Balts till the middle of the 1st mill AD (ZVERUGO Y.G., 1990: 32). Historical data witness that during the 1st mill BC the steppes of Ukraine were populated in turns by the Cimmerian, Scythian, Sarmatian tribes which Iranian origin is generally recognized. However, in considering ethnogonic processes in Eastern Europe, we will take into account not only such well-established views, but the results of our previous studies. In the absence of more precise methods for the identification of ethnic entities we will be forced to rely more on logic, linking the archaeological data and place names with scant historical data. It is clear that under these conditions, our conclusions can only be hypothetical with an unknown degree of certainty.
Germanic people is associated by us with Třynec culture which eastern part is dated 1700 – 1000 BC. Polish scientists determine its upper limit by the 19th century BC. That is the basin of the Pripyat was populated by the German tribes before the Balts and at length they moved westward, but it's hard to talk about the beginning of this migration. Rather, it extended for several centuries. Anyway, the Germans crossed the Vistula River and drove out the Celts, which lived here before, far across the Oder. The fact that this territory was occupied just by the Celts was confirmed by Celtic place names in Poland.
Occupying the area between the Vistula and the Oder and staying there for a long time, the Germans had developed on the basis of Třynec culture the Lusatian one.The Lusatian culture was considered by some scientists to be the Slavic, but in whole their arguments, supported this hypothesis, were not convincing, and it has been rejected. The criticism of this hypothesis with references to the data of some authoritative archeologists gave W.Manchak (MAŃCZAK WITOLD., 1981) and K. Horalek (HORÁLEK KAREL., 1983: 170). The main arguments of the critics are like that:
The Hypothesis about the Slavic origin of the Lusatian culture is improbable already because doubtless Slavic archeological records prove the level of a culture essentially more archaic, primitive and poor (ibid, 171).
Thus, it appears that apart from the Germans, its creators admit nobody. The boundary of the Lusatian cultures at this time were precisely defined by K.Jażdżevsky:
In the 3rd Bronze Age period (1300-1100 BC) the Lusatian culture emerged in the area which may be described as follow: its northern boundary lines ran along the southern coast of the Baltic from Greifswald to the mouth of the Vistula, its western limit stretched from Greifswald towards the Middle Elbe which is crossed somewhat north of the outlet of the Havel into the Elbe, and farther kept to the western bank of the Elbe and advanced towards the upper course of the river encroaching upon some insignificant portion of the Old March (Altmark), Anhalt, and Saxony. The southern limit was roughly drown by the Upper Elbe (the boundary of Lusation culture somewhat overstepped this limit to the south); it further encircled the enclave of the Lusatian area which advanced farthest southward and reached as far as the basin of the Upper Morave, the Middle Vah and the Upper Nitra. It then turned towards the sources of the Oder and the Vistula until it ultimately – along the course of theUpper Vistula reached the line of the Lower San. The finds of Lusatian culture from that period reach eastward as far as the Vistula which they cross ti the east in the Chlmno lauds and the Masovia of Plock (JAŻDŻEWSKI KONRAD., 1948: 31).
Thus we can conclude that at the end of the 1st millennium BC the majority of Germans have left the basin of the Pripyat and the territory to the east of the Vistula river was already settled by the Slavs. The settlements of the Balts were onward, who gradually expanded their territory in all directions, starting the expansion from the basin of the river Berezina. We can say quite confidently about the settlement of the Balts on the territory of Belarus during Pre-Slavic period. This opinion has been formed by that competent professionals L Niderle, V. Sedov, and others long before. We can argue about the upper chronological limit specified by Ya. Zverugo, but many of the facts, indeed, may confirm this opinion.
While the majority of Germans crossed the Vistula, some of them still leaves on their Urheimat. Among the remaining German population was mainly of the eastern tribes of the Anglo-Saxons. They should be regarded as creators of the Lebediv culture because it was based on the East-Třynec one and its center was "on the area between the Pripyat and Ros" (Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR. Tom 2., 1985: 445). Obviously, it is formed under the influence of that part of the Thracians, who still remained in the area between the Teteriv and Ros’, when their bulk moved in to south-west. However, most sites of this culture were found in the triangle between the Dnieper and Desna, less in the area between the Diet and Sula were, although similar sites sporadically occurred even till the river Horyn (Ibid: 445). Some archaeologists believe the Lebediv culture to be the late variant of the Sosniţsia one, but most likely, the similarity of these two cultures was due to their similar ethnicity – the related tribes of the Anglo-Saxons which settled on the left bank of the Dnieper river by two large waves after a certain period of time, participate in their creation of these two cultures.
The Lebediv culture is intermediate between the East-Třynec and Milograd-Pidhorodets cultures (Ibid: 449). The latter was spread on the former territory of the settlements of Germans, as well as on the Dnieper left bank till the rivers Sula and Seym.
The presence of place names outside the Anglo-Saxon Urheimat but on the territory of the Lebediv culture, being explained by means of English, confirms the migration of the Anglo-Saxons to eastward, on the left bank of the Dnieper. Some part of them went along the Desna northward what is evidenced by the names of the river Vytebet', Resseta, Ivot a.o. That is the interpretation of ambiguous place names in the basins of the Desna and Seym and the Dnieper to the Vorskla by Old English language:
r. Brech, lt. of the Snov, rt. of the Desna – OEbrec“sound, noise”;
c. Bryansk – OE bryne „fire”;
t. Buryn’ in Sumy Region – OE burna “spring, source”;
v. Byrlovka in Drabiv district of Cherkassy Region. – OE byrla„body”;
t. Dykanka in Poltava Region – OE đicce “tick”, anga„thorn, edge”;
the city of Homel in Belorussia – OE humele„bryonia”, hymele "hop, hops";
t. Ichnia in Chernihiv Region – OE eacnian „to add”;
vv. Ivot to the east of the town Novhorod-Siverski and in the north of Bryansk Region in Russia, rivers Ivotka, Ivotok – OE ea "river", wœt "fury";
v. Khvastovichi in south of Kaluga Region in Russia – OE fǽst “strong, fast" and ǽw "law, custom";
r. Kleven', pt. of the Seym – OE cliewen “a clew”;
r. Nerussa, lt. of the Desna – OE neru “nourishment”, usse „our”;
v. Pakul to west of Chernihiv – OE pǽc-an „to deceive”, OE oll„quarrel”;
r. Resseta rt of the Zhizdra, lt of the Oka – OE rǽs "running" (from rǽsan "to race, hurry") or rīsan "to rise" and seađ "spring, source";
t. Romodan in Myrhorod district of Poltava Region – OE rūma „space”, OE dān „humid, humid place”;
t. Romny in Sumy Region – OE romian“to seek, aim”.
t. Senkiv in Poltava district – OE sencan“to dip, sink”.
r. Svessa, lt. of the Ivotka, lt. of the Desna, the town of Svessa in Sumy district – OE swǽs “peculiar, pleasant, beloved”.
r. Sviga, lt, of the Desna – OE swigian “to be silent”.
r. Sev, lt. of the Nerussa, lt. of the Desna – OE seaw “sap, moisture”.
r. Seym, lt. of the Desna – OE seam "side, seam".
r. Smiach, rt. of the Snov, rt. of the Desna – OE smieć“smoke, steam”.
r. Sozh, lt. of the Dnepr – OE socian“to boil”.
t. Sugia on r. Sugia, lt Psel – OE sugga „sparrow”;
r. Ul, lt. of the Sev, lt. of Nerussa, lt. of the Desna – OE ule “owl”.
r. Volfa, lt. of the Seym – OE wulf “wolf”.
r. Vytebet', lt of the Zhyzdra, rt of the Oka – OE wid(e) "wide", bedd "bed, river-bed".
It is significant that the place names of English origin are fixed not only on the territory of the Lebediv culture, which is separated from the Bondarykha one by the Sula, but onward to the river Vorskla. Obviously the Anglo-Saxons drove out the creators of the last whose were obviously Mordvinic tribes however remaining with themined in certain contacts (in detail see the chapter "The Expansion of the Finno-Ugric Peoples"). The river Sula has many different explanations (VASMER M., 1971: 799-800; MENGES K.H. 1979: 131), excepting Mok s'ula, Erz s'ulo "a gut" but OE solu "a pool, puddle, slop" suits best of all.
Anglo-Saxon place names to the north of the Seym practically are not detected what explained the proposed etymology of the river names proposed as "an edge" and maybe "border".
The south and south-eastern boundary of the Anglo-Saxon Urheimat ran along the River Teteriv which separated them from the habitat of the Thracians. The displacing of the Thracians by the Anglo-Saxons is witnessed by place names. The name of the river Irpen’ is explained on the basis of the Old English language most convincing. This river has broad swampy flood-lands, therefore earfenn, composed of OE ear "lake" or "land" and OE fenn "marsh, mud" and translated for the name of the Irpen’ as "muddy lake" or "wetlands", suitable especially good as in ancient times the flood-plain should have been more swamped than now. OE fenn "marsh mud" could be present also in the name of the village Fenevichi near the town of Dymer in the Kiev Region. The village is surrounded by wetlands, so the motivation of the name is well-founded. The city's name Fastov obviously comes from OE. fǽst “strong, sturdy”. OE swiera “neck”, “ravine, gorge" helps to decipher the names of the town of Skvira on the River Skvirka, rt of the Ros’, if k after s is epenthesis, ie inserted sound to give greater expression to the word. In favor of the proposed etymology says the name of the village of Krivosheino formed from Ukrainian words meaning “curved neck” which can be loan transcription of an older name. The village is located on this river bend.
Other examples of place names of Anglo-Saxon origin may be these:
v. Dirdyn not far from the town of Horodyshche in Cherkasy Region. – OE đirda «third»;
v. Hodorkov in Zhytomyr region – OE. hador "cheerful, lively";
v. Kodak south of the town of Vasilkova – OE cot(t)uc "mallow" of unknown origin;
the town of Korsun-Shevchenko – OE corsian “to weave";
t. Korsun of Shevchenko – OE corsian “to weave”;
v. Mircha west of the rown of Dymer in Kiev Region and v. south of the town of Malin in Zhytomyr Region. – OE mearce “borders";
t. of Smela, the district center of Cherkassy Region. – The name of the town can have both Slavic and Anglo-Saxon origin (OE smiellan “to weave");
r. Tal, the right tribute of the Teteriv – OE *tǽl“fast” (ge-tǽl "cheerful, lively") ;
t. Tarashcha, the district center in the Kiev Region – OE đār «here, hhere», ǽsc“an ash";
t. Tetiev, the district center in the Kiev region – OE tǽtan“to please, to caress";
t. Yagotin, the district center of Kiev region. – OE. iegođ "an island."
These place names, as well as the strip of Třynec sites along the right bank of the Dnieper may mark the migration path of another wave of the Anglo-Saxons, which over time could also go to the left bank of the Dnieper being compelled by the Balts whose presence in the south of the Pripyat is confirmed by the Baltic and the Thracian language correspondences and Baltic place names:
The presence of Baltic elements on both sides of the Pripyat looks doubtful only under condition that the Pripyat was a insurmountable border, as it is usually considered in the literature (TOPOROV V.N., TRUBACHEV O.N., 1962: 233).
Examples of Baltic names here might be such: Kekishevka, Kremna, Latashi, Nerch, Tnya, the shade, and others. However, it is likely to assume that Anglo-Saxons were pushed not by the Balts, by the bands of the ancient Kurds, which having left their Urheimat, came down along the Desna till the Dnieper, crossed it and moved westward. This assumption is compelled by the presence of the place names of Kurdish origin in the Kiev and Zhitomir Regions, examples of which may be the names of settlements Avratin, Berdychev, Byshev, Devoshin Kichkiri, Naraevka and others. Since main portion of the Kurdish place names is located even further in the Khmelnytsky and Ternopil Regions, we must assume that only a small part of the Kurds stopped en route to the west, dwelling intermingled with the Balts which migrated here from the left bank of the Pripyat river.
As we have seen, the Urheimat of the Balts was located on the banks of the upper Beresina and the Nemunas. Later the Berezina divided them into two groups of the eastern and western dialects. The eastern dialect was evolved the Lithuanian, Latvian (Latgalian), Selonian, Semigalian, Kuronian that are less conservative than the languages that evolved from the western dialect (Prussian, Yotvingian, and Galindian). At the same time Latvian is less archaic out of all the Baltic languages. Obviously, the speaker of more archaic Lithuanian language remained near the Urheimat of the Balts all the time, as pointed out a known Bulgarian linguist (GEORGIEV Vl., 1958: 247). An external factor of such features of the Baltic languages may be different intensity of the the Baltic-Finnish contacts (MAŽIULIS V., 1973: 28-29). In this connection it may be assumed that the ancestors of the Prussians and Yotvingians moved closer to the shores of the Baltic, where they have become known in historical times and where they are least of all influenced by the East-Finnish languages.
The northern-east and eastern boundaries of Baltic settlings to the moment of the early Iron Age (8-7 ages B.C.) were defined by V.V.Sedov. In his opinion, the boundary ran along the course of the river West Dvina (Daugava) eastward to the upper Lovat’ river and to the sources of the Dnepr, then to the south-east, crossed the river Oka near to mouth of its tributary the Ugra river and further lay along the watershed between the Oka and the Don rivers (SEDOV V.V., 1990-2: 90). Sedov believes that Balts occupied areas from the south-eastern Coast of the Baltic Sea up to the upper Oka and the the middle Dnepr, producing here three groups of clans – western (the tribe of West-Baltic barrows), median (the tribe of the shaded ceramics), and the Dnepr group (the tribe of the Dnepr-Dvina rivers, the upper Oka and theYukhnov culture (Ibid: 90).
Archaeological data are confirmed by the toponymy:
As a whole, the northern and eastern boundaries of the Baltic tribes of early Iron Age in the main coincide with the boundary separating the Baltic and Finno-Ugric toponymies and hydronymies. This boundary ran from the Gulf of Riga to the upper reaches of the Western Dvina and the Volga. Turning further to the south, it is cut off Riverlands of the Moscow-river from the basin the Volga river and the upper reaches of the Oka river, then along the watershed of the Oka and the upper reaches of the Don came to the steppe (TRET'YAKOV P.N., 1982: 54-55).
The tribes of the Dnepr-Dvina culture have started to move from the Smolensk’ Dnepr Riverland to the western part of the Volga-Oka watershed in the next centuries of the 1st mill BC (SEDOV V.V., 1990-2: 92) . This can be confirmed by many facts. B.A.Serebrennikov pays attention to the data of the Kiev chronicle, according to it, one of the ancient Lithuanian tribes, the Galindians, occupied the basin of the river Protva, lt of the Oka. He writes that M.Vasmer drowed the northern-east boundary of the Baltic toponymics to the river Tsna (SEREBRENNIKOV B.A., 1965). Toporov and Trubachev, having studied hydronymic of the upper Dnepr land, came to the conclusion:
The undoubted presence of Balts on the river Seym has been proved to be true… by the whole congestion Baltic hydronomic in quantities not less than two tens in this area (TOPOROV V.N., TRUBACHIOV O.N., 1962: 231).
As examples, these scholars bring such names of rivers: Obesta (Abesta, Obst) Kubr (Kubar, Kubera) Vopka, Morocha, Molch, Vabla, Terepsha, Lepta, Lokot’, Raten, Rat’, Tureyka, Zhelen’, Uspert, Rekhta, Zhadinka, etc. Thus, we can assume that at some time the Balts started to expand their territory step by step occupying the lands of the neighboring Germans and Iranians, but it is possible that in some places, they can coexist in close proximity to the Germans, in particular with the Anglo-Saxons.
The culture of the West-Baltic kurgans, in spite of V. Sedov, was created not by Balts, but by Slavs, who passed from their Urheimat to the left bank of the Neman River and settled the shore of the Baltic Sea from the Vistila till the Venta river. Western Baltic group moving along the Daugave River reached the shores of the Baltic Sea too. Beyond the Venta they were mixed with a part of Slavs. Here the Baltic tribes of the Kuronians left their burial grounds and another tribe of the Skalvians left them on the lower Neman. The area of the Samogitians was between the Dubysa and Jura Rivers, the right tributaries of the Neman, on the northern
In view of the archaeological data, we can be assumed that part of the eastern Baltic, moving from the watershed of the Dnieper and Berezina to the north, crossed the Western Dvina, while another group of them moved eastward, crossing the Dnieper and forcing out the Iranians from basin of the Desna. Those Balts, who moved northward, created the Dnieper-Dvina culture, and later, driving along the Western Dvina River to the north-west, also reached the sea and became the core of the Latvian ethnicity. The Balts, who moved eastward, became creators of the Yukhnov culture and were later assimilated by the Slavs, and perhaps also by the West-Finnish ethnic groups (mainly by Mordvins). The traces of their presence so far to the east can be found in the Permian and Finno-Volga languages (cf. Komi Zyr. yuavny, Udm. yuany "to ask" – Let. jautät “to ask”, Mari kaim "a resident of the nearby" – Let. kaiminš “neighbor”). The Balticisms are prsent also in the Russian dialects in Central Russia (TOPOROV V.N., 1973-2). The Balts, remaining in their Urheimat, are corresponded with the Shaded Ware culture. The Dnieper-Dvina and Shaded Ware cultures are very similar to each other. The only difference is in the forms and proportions of the pottery (ZVERUGO Ya.G., 1990: 32). The Shaded Ware culture existed till the middle of the 1st mill. BC and was spread in Eastern Lithuania and Central Belarus, it belonged to the ancestors of the prsent-day Lithuanians (VOLKAITE-KULIKAUSKIENE R R., 1990: 15).
The connections of the Baltic languages with the languages of the Volga Finns and place names indicate their migration eastward north the stream of the Anglo-Saxons covering it in some places. The Balto-Finnic language communication were studied by B. Serebrennikov, G. Knabe, F. Gordieyev, A. Joki. A lot of the Baltic-Mordvinic and Baltic-Mari lexical correspondences gave in one of his works Khalikov (KHALIKOV A.Kh., 1990: 57). In addition, contacts between some Baltic ethnic group and the Mordvins are confirmed by Mordvinic mythology. For example, the name and image of the Mordvinic Thunderic-god Purgine-paz, the son-in-low of god-demiurge Nishke arose under the influence of Baltic mythology (Lit. Perkúnas, Let. Pérkóns, Pr. *Perkunas). The image of the god of thunder, lightning and rain with the similar name origins in Indo-European mythology, but the importance for our research is the existence of such mythological figure by the Thracians, whose name we know in Greek transcription &PI;ερκων. The names of the gods in other Indo-European peoples of the same origin are somewhat far (Slav. Perun, OInd. Parjanya, Hit. Pirva)(IVANOV V.V., TOPOROV V.N., 1991. MFW. Volume 2, 303-304) Hence, the area of worship of god Perkonu/Perginu covered the Baltic, Thracian (Dacian-Thracian) and Mordvinic ethnic areas which had to be located somewhere in adjacency.
It should also add that the ancient Germans, the area of settlements which have been near the Bulgars, could borrow the image one of their gods from the Bulgars, as the Chuvashes have still now a whole pantheon of gods with the word tură "god" in the second part of their name reminiscent of the name of the German-Scandinavian god Thor. The explanation of the Chuvash word for the name of God as a derivative Turk. teŋgri is doubtful for phonological reasons. The Chuvash god-demiurge Sulti tură or the brownie Hurt-Surt could be reflected in the Scandinavian fire giants Surt, who came from somewhere in the south, who after a battle with local gods burn the whole world. A. Khalikov also compares the Chuvash family spirit named ierekh/irikh with the family spirit of the Latvians (gars/geris). He also cites several Baltic-Chuvash lexical correspondences (Khalikov J. 1990, 57). Thus, the Balts would have to have some contact also with the ancient Bulgars at a time when they inhabited the right bank of the Dnieper.
The Baltic place names are to be met in a different extent almost on the whole mentioned territory and they are scattered even in the Central Russia but it is especially concentrated north of the riber Pripyat. There are several river names and south of it, but the greatest share of the Baltic hydronyms – just in a pool of Berezina , that is just near the Urheimat of the Balts. We hypothesized that some part of the Baltic passed on the right bank of the Pripyat and came into contact with the Thracians, what can explain the known Baltic-Thracian language connections. Special Baltic-Thracian contacts were noted by V. Toporov, Y. Nalepa and other linguists. Applying the method of quantitative evaluation of common lexical correspondences, I. Duridanov investigated the connections of the Thracian and akin to it Dacian languages with the Baltic and Slavic languages. Comparing the results, he concluded as follows:
Baltic, Dacian and Thracian tribes at prehistoric time – around the 3rd mill BC – populated adjacent areas, with the first lived close by the Dacians and Thracians. If the Balts bordered on the other side with the Illyrians, left, in my opinion, the question (DURIDANOV IVAN., 1969: 100).
No special connections the Slavic languages with Thracian and Dacian Bulgarian linguist is not found, except for small amounts of possible common Dacian-Baltic-Slavic and Thracian-Baltic-Slavic lexical correspondences, how he noted in his conclusions, so there is no reason to believe that somewhere near the Daco-Thracian area were located also the settlements of Slavs. A. Desnitsky reaffirms the conclusion of I. Duridanov. Finding the common features of Albanian and Baltic (including the disappearance of the category neuter), she argues that most of these features are absent in the Germanic and Slavic languages (DESNITSKAJA A.V., 1984: 224). The Balts brought with them the Milograd culture that evolved in the Pidhirtsi one in the Ukraine . As a whole, the area occupied by the Milograd culture, covered the area of the East-Třynec culture, but according to L. Pobol these cultures have no genetic relationship (POBOL L.D., 1983: 16.) Obviously, the differences between them are associated with different ethnic background of their creators, and the common elements caused by cultural influences and borrowings.
Thus, some part of the Balts had to move southward, but herewith they had to drive out the Germans and later to dissolve themselves in the Slavic world. This conclusion results that the ancient Turkic (Bulgarish namely) influences of the Slavic languages do not have matches in the modern Baltic languages (MENGES KARL H., 1990), but these effects were to enclose those Baltic dialects whose speakers populated the country south of the Pripyat .
The Archaeological Cultures in the Basins of the Dnieper, Don, and Dniester in the XX – XII Centuries. BC. and paths of the migration of their creatirs
The Thracians, after short vicinity to the Balts began moving to the Balkan Peninsula, which had been already left by the most part of the Phrygians and the ancient Armenians. This migration, which began in the late 2nd and early 1st millennium BC, may have been due to pressure of Balts from the North and nomadic arrivals from the southeast along the right bank of the Dnieper and stretched for several centuries. Opinion about the coming of the Thracians to the Balkans at this time is generally accepted in the scientific world:
The formation of the Thracian ethno-cultural community is referred by most researchers to the beginning of the Early Iron Age. The peoples of the previous period, in particular the creators of the native Noa and Koslodzheni cultures closely associated with the tribes of the northern Black Sea Region, are considered by Romanian scientists to be included in the Thracian community, but being not the Thracians. The sharp change of cultures in 11-12th centuries. BC, which the researchers observed in the Carpathian-Danube region, are a convincing argument in favor of this conclusion, indicating the emergence of new population here. Just this alien population is considered to be the nucleus of the northern Thracians, assimilating local tribes (MELUKOVA A.I. 1979: 14).
Some part of the Thracians stopped in the basin of the Southern Bug on the way to the Balkans and remained there until about the 8th century BC. The reason for this assumption is the accumulation of settlements of the ethnically unidentified Biloğrudiv culture around the town of Uman that existed in the 11 – 12th centuries BC. According to A. Terenozhkin, the basic and most investigated cluster of the sites of this culture is located as almost continuous array by the radius of 40 km around Uman (TERENOZHKIN A.I., 1961: 6). Some of these sites are located on the banks of the Yatran, which name may be of Thracian origin. Total area of the Biloğrudiv tribes is outlined by A.Terenozhkinas follows:
…their settlements can be met before the steppe zone in the south, to the Dnieper River in the east, to the area of the forest and the right-bank tributaries of the Pripyat in the north and to the Dniester in the west (Ibid: 213-214).
A.Terenozhkin, which studied the Bilogrud and the Chornolis cultures in details, believes that the Bilogrudov clans led quiet, peaceful life. This is evidenced by the absence of hillforts and by the topographic peculiarity of the settlements. In his opinion, toward the beginning of the Scythian period, the Bilogrudov tribes abandoned the Uman’ area for the unknown reasons and probably moved to the basin of the Dnester (Ibid: 12). One might conjecture the Bilogrudiv people have left further to the Balkans. Such assumptions can be confirmed by certain cultural influences of the Bilogrudiv culture on the Thracian Halstatt culture in Moldova:
… the burnished earthenware with carved and impressed decoration appears for the first time in the Bilogrudiv and the Chornolis cultures whence it only could to penetrate beyond the Dniester to Moldova, in the Thracian Halstatt culture at the end of the 8th or at the beginning of the 7th centuries BC. Together with eastern ornament, scoops with ledges on the handle, bowls with cylindrical necks and spherical bodies, and even simple vessels of tulip shapes with punctures on the rim and split by a roller, the all typical for the culture of the Ukrainian forest-steppes, were extended in Moldova where can-form vessels were prevalent (Ibid: 216).
At the same time Iranian tribes of Left-side Ukraine began movement to the Central Asia, but these processes will be considered later.