V.Stetsyuk's personal site logo
Mail to site
Print version
News (RSS)
Nostratic Languages.… / Ethnicity of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures of Eastern Europe

Ethnicity of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures of Eastern Europe


Sequel of the theme The First Neolithic Tribes in Eastern Europe


At the present time it is considered that "an archaeological culture is not necessarily connected with an ethnos (although it can be in some situations)" (KLEYN L.S. 1993: 44). Such situations exist and they are those when the area of distribution of an archaeological culture largely corresponds to the territory of the settlement of related ethnic groups, determined by the graphic-analytical method or resulted from the results obtained with its help.

Since the 6th millennium BC. the territory of Eastern Europe has being populated by agricultural communities of Anatolia and the Caucasus moving through the Balkans and the North Caucasus. They brought the Neolithic cultures in the Ukraine, the first of which occurred in the southern and south-western regions of the country – on the Dniester, the Southern Bug Rivers, in the lower reaches of the Dnieper, in the Crimea and the Carpathians. In particular the aliens created the Bug-Dniester culture on the basis of the final phase of the local Mesolithic Kukrek culture. It certainly had connections with more advanced synchronous cultures of South-Eastern Europe. The creators of this culture were people of still unclear ethnicity. Somewhat later tribes speaking languages of the Nostratic macrofamily moved from the Caucasian and this certainty allows us to speak about the ethnicity of many different cultures.


Left: Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures correlated with the settlements of Nostratic language speakers in Eastern Europe



We are sure that the linguistics using archaeological data can give conclusive results about habitats of speakers studied languages. In this connection, we can try to link the areas of the Türkic, the Finno-Ugric and Indo-European tribes to certain archaeological cultures.

The interposition of the areas of distribution of cultures suggests that the Indo-Europeans came the first to the lower reaches of the Don, from where all Neolithic cultures were spread. The Finno-Ugrians folloewd them, and then those and others were pushed aside to the north and northwest by the Türks. The first Neolithic culture on the Left Bank of Ukraine in the 5th millennium BC. was the Sursk-Dnieper culture, which was formed on the basis of the Mesolithic and more Eastern culture (came perhaps from the region of the Azov Sea region). Having existed for 1–1.5 thousand years, it seemed to dissolve in later cultures.

The first Neolithic culture on the Left Bank of Ukraine in the 5th millennium BC. was the Sursk-Dnieper culture, which was formed on the basis of the Mesolithic and more Eastern culture (came perhaps from the region of the Azov Sea region). Having existed for 1–1.5 thousand years, it seemed to dissolve in later cultures. [Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR. 1985: 139]. Ethnicity of the creators of this culture is difficult to determine. Probably, these were some North Caucasian tribes, which were oppressed by Indo-Europeans during their movement to the Dnieper. Retreating under pressure of the Turks in the area of the middle Dnieper, the Indo-Europeans could not pass the Seversky Donets basin. So we can associate with them the Dnieper-Donets culture, one of the block of Combed-stroke-ornamented ware cultures. It appeared on the Left Bank Ukraine in the Donets River valleys after the Sursk-Dnieper culture in 5th mill. BC. In time, the tribes of the Dnieper-Donets culture moved further northward and northwestward. According D. Telegin, they raised up along the rivers Dnieper, Sozh, Pripyat and almost reached their upper streams [TElEGIN D.Ya. 1968: 62]. The population of this culture stayed in the Southern Ukraine about a thousand years until the middle of the 4th mill BC. But in northern Ukraine and Belarus, this culture disappears only in the middle-end of the 3rd mill BC after 2 – 2.5 thousand years of the existence [FORMOZOV A.A. 1977: 189]. However, according to experts, the cultures of the comb-stroke ware participated in the formation of the Třynec culture that existed in the basin of the Pripyat and the surrounding areas [TElEGIN D.Ya. 1990-2: 94].

On the whole, the area of distribution of this culture, according to Telegin, "covers the valley of the Dnieper (from the town of Rogachev to the coast of the Kakhovka Sea), Eastern Volyn, the middle and lower currents of the Pripyat, Sozh, Desna, Vorskla, Psel, and Sula river, as well as the middle course of the Seversky Donets" [TElEGIN D.Ya. 1968: 9]. The same block of CSWC includes sites on the Neman and Narva River with the western border along the Vistula River. The population of this “Vistula-Dnieper block” was very numerous, engaged in hunting and fishing, only starting to move to the production forms of the economy [TElEGIN D.Ya. 1990: 92]. Some linguists analysing the Indo-European language confirm these data archaeology. In particular, H. Hirt and J. Pokorny believed that Indo-European agricultural terminology is very scarce and inconclusive, and belongs to a later layer of the vocabulary, while common words for calling dogs, cattle, pigs and sheep give reason to think about the development livestock. [HIRT HERMAN, 1940: 10; POKORNY JULIUS, 1936: 387]. However, other experts say also about the development of agriculture [MEYER ERNST. 1968: 258]. Nevertheless Türkic borrowing in Indo-European languages, which were discussed in the section "The Language and Cultural Contacts…", speak in favor of that the agriculture of Indo-Europeans was in its infancy. Livestock should have been known for them on their Urheimat in the Caucasus, but its development was hindered by natural conditions in the forest zone in Eastern Europe.




On the map, purple dots mark localities with Bulgarish origin of the name, which may correspond to the times of CWC or close to them. Maroon – the later, of Scythian period.
Asterisks mark known single or group sites of CWC. Browns show the area of Indo-Europeans, and green is the territory of the spread Fatyanovo and Balanovo cultures.
Hydronyms of Bulgarish origin are indicated by turquoise dots.


The space of the Dnieper-Donets culture coincides with settlement areas of the Indo-Europeans, but its identification with Indo-Europeans, except vocabulary of productive forms of management, is as if contradicted by anthropological facts. As the Indo-Europeans came to Eastern Europe from the Southern Caucasus, they obviously had to belong to the anthropological type of Asia Minor. However the people of the Dnieper-Donets culture had complexes of all the of Caucasian race. In particular, D. Telegin indicated that the people of this culture belonged to a later Cro-Magnon type, that is they were aborigines of the southern part of Eastern Europe:


The carriers of Dnieper-Donets culture belonged to a group of later Cro-Magnons which had large and massive skull, predominated dolichocrania, significant height of the cranium, large or very large ortho-mezognatum face, low orbits, sloping forehead, and well developed eyebrows bows… Nearest analogy to the population of the Dnieper-Donets culture in Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe should be looked for among carriers of cultures of over northern forest and forest-steppe areas. For a number of taxonomic characters closest to them are Ertebelle culture, further several tribes of Oleny Ostrov burials and Pit-Comb Ware culture of the Volga-Oka basin and Neolithic cultures of the Urals [TELEGIN D.Ya. 1968: 186, 188].


T.S. Konduktorova does not agree with him. According to her, skeletons of people of the Dnieper-Donets culture are more massive than Late Palaeolithic ones, so a change of the population should be on the area of its spreading. She believes that the creators of the Dnieper-Donets culture were very similar to the Mesolithic people of the Maghreb, although their relocation to the territory of Ukraine was very doubtful [KONDUKTOROVA T.S. 1973: 45-48]. Whatever it was, but the people of the Dnieper-Donets culture were not clean later Cro-Magnons, and already had some traces of cross-breeding. I. Hokhman believes that a cross-breeding of a local Palaeo-European type with its other variabt took place, which as if penetrated to southwardly from the northern provinces in the Neolithic (HOCHMAN I.I. 1966: 189). The latter is hard to admit when the general movement of the Neolithic communities was from south to north. Most likely, mentioned cross-breeding could occur somewhat earlier, during the Mesolithic period, when Late Cro-Magnons tribes started gradually penetrating from the northern Dnieper basin down the river southward, where they met with the natives of Mesolithic era [TELEGIN D. Ya., 1968: 231]. This movement was stopped by the arrival of the Neolithic Indo-Europeans and their anthropological impurity complicated the process of cross-breeding of the local population. All this anthropological problems does not matter in this case. The main thing for us is that the carriers of the Dnieper-Donets culture did not belong to Asia Minor anthropological type to which they would have to belong.

This contradiction may be resolved so. Not numerous Indo-European tribe, reaching eastern Ukraine, met here local population of Proto-European anthropological type, spread from Ukraine, the Lower Don basin up to the Baltic and the middle reaches of the Oka River. Indo-Europeans brought with them not only the Neolithic type of economy, but also good tribal organization, allowing them to become the head on more primitive and fragmented local tribal communities. Ability of of Indo-European to lead small unorganized ethnic groups was noted by many researchers. Here, for example, that A. Meillet wrote: "The ancient Indo-European tribes were differed by sense of social organization, energy, and initiative of their leadership" [MEILLET ANTOIN. 1954]. Obviously, they were not conservative and had sober look at life using achievements of their neighbors or predecessors. V. Leman pointed out that "Indo-European society, where, apparently, a very strong spirit of individualism was present, at the same time, it was susceptible to external influences" [LEMAN V.P. 1991: 23]. These conclusions come from a study of internal linguistic forms, which are closely connected with the spirit of the language and match certain psychological qualities of its speakers which were the most important for the Indo-Europeans noted by J. Pokorny so:


Much more important is the inner language form, which is closely connected with the spirit of the language. So enough of the fact that Indo-European languages are almost the only ones that contain the purely abstract verb “to be” and the subjective energetic verb of action and even express feelings in a manner of action (“I hear”, not “it sounds to me”), for in order to find evidence of a sharply characteristic linguistic stem… It is clear from linguistic and cultural similarities that it was a society organized strictly in the patriarchal extended family of fatherly law; the world of the gods was similarly conceived, for in it only the male gods, led by the supreme god of heaven, the god-father, stand out in particular; mother earth merely plays a passive role [POKORNY JULIUS. 1954: 376]


To some extent, the patriarchal organization of the Indo-European society is contradicted by the fact that all Indo-European languages use feminine for the name of the earth, indicating the worship of Mother-Earth what is characteristic agricultural peoples [NEHRING ALFONS, 1968: 402]. However, the Indo-Europeans were not farmers at the time of division of their languages and, obviously, this form of the name of the earth inherited from their ancestral home still in the Caucasus, where they could practice agriculture in primitive form.

It is also possible that the Indo-Europeans brought with them from the Caucasus particular type of weapon in the form of maces, known from two burial-places. Maces as weapons and a symbol of power were distributed in the early civilizations of the North-west Asia, where they first penetrated to the tribes of the Caucasus, and then to the carriers of the Dnieper-Donets culture, which were the first in Europe who had maces with pommels [TELEGIN D.Ya. 1968: 151]. Maces had a different shape, but made quite carefully, their surface was grinded, holes were made by cylindrical boring [Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR., 1985, 159].

So, having headed local tribes and imposed them their more perfect language, the Indo-Europeans gradually disappeared themselves among people of Proto-European type, but their mentality and outlook continued to exist for a few more millennia.

A numerous groups of Pit-Comb Ware cultures existed simultaneously with the Dnieper-Donets Culture in the basin of the Volga and the Oka River. Some clans of these cultures entered the valleys of the Seym, Desna, Psel, Sula, and Donets Rivers and reached the region of modern suburbs of the cities of Voronezh and Tambov. The Pit-Comb Ware Cultures were the descendants of local Mesolithic cultures but pottery manufacture was brought there from the outside, probably from south:


If we assume that here infiltrated individuals who acted as carriers of the new, they apparently came from the south, not from the west (from Scandinavia) and the east (Siberia) [MEYNANDER K.F. 1974:26]


The expression "individuals" is not to be taken literally. They, obviously, were separate groups of ancient Finno-Ugric peoples. Location of group of Pit-Comb Ware culture was this: the Lyalovo – on both banks of the Klyaz'ma River at the mouth of the Scherna River, the Belevo – on both banks of the Oka River from the mouth of the Istra River to the mouth of the Oster River, the Ryazan – on the left bank of the Oka River to the mouth of the Moksha River, Volosovo – on both banks of the Oka River to Klyaz'ma to the mouth of the Klaz'ma River, the Tula – on banks of Upa and Oster Rivers, the Balakhna – near the city of Balakhna [BRIUSOV A.Ya. 1952: 89]. As we can see, areas of some cultures are located on both banks of rivers, while a river was to be boundary betwenn language areas. This contradiction should be still allowed, but a possible solution may be so. Borders along rivers are enough obstacles to language contact, but they do not prevent the spread of new tools or technologies, since it does not require frequent contacts. It is suffice if one or two meetings a year between representatives of different linguistic communities in order to exchange items of own production or borrow something new in the industrial sector. But be so as that was, in accordance with the above-defined map of Finno-Ugric area, creators of comb-cultures had to be Finno-Ugric people.

Right-Bank Ukraine in cultural terms was higher than more eastern and northern parts of East Europe. The Chalcolithic period begins here earlier than in other regions being brought from the territory of the Romanian Moldova [ZALIZNIAK L.L. (Ed). 2005: 106]. "Ethnicity of the Trypillian culture" as a debatable issue, is considered separately. Here we only note that the early Trypillian culture in Ukraine was brought by people from Romania, the creators of the Prekukuteni culture (see map below).

It is equally difficult to determine the ethnicity of carriers of the Corded Ware culture (CWC), also known as Battle axes culture. The overwhelming majority of scientists believe that they were the tribes of ancient Indo-Europeans, who very quickly spread to the vast territory from Jutland to the Volga River and from Scandinavia to the foothills of the Alps and the Carpathians from the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC. It is assumed that their spreading can be explained only by the use of horse transport. As a basis of these cultures, at least, Ukrainian and Russian archaeologists have mostly considered Old Pit, Seredniy Stiğ (Sredniy Stog in Russian), and Tripollian cultures [Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR. 1985, 374]. The area of ​​distribution of the first two was mainly in the steppe part of Left-Bank Ukraine, and the Trypillians occupied the Right Side. The economic structure and ethnicity of the population on both sides of the Dnieper were different. According to the results of research using the graphic-analytic method in the interfluve areas of the Dnieper and the Don, that is, in the area of ​​the Old Pit, Seredniy Stiğ cultures, there were settlements of ancient Turks. The ethnicity of the Trypillians is still unexplained. The Turks mainly engaged in animal husbandry and in some communities of the 3rd millennium BC. horse breeding dominated. The Trypillians were more engaged in farming than livestock-breeding, and large and small horned cattle and pigs prevailed in their herd, but the horse, although it was known, was not very common [ZBENOVYCH V.G. 1989. 1989: 152; KUZMINA E.E. 1986: 181]. Already, therefore, Tripolis cannot be taken into account when deciding on the ethnicity of the "cordians". Their origin is a separate topic, which will be discussed further; here we will make sure that the Türks were the creators of the Old Pit, Seredniy Stiğ cultures and also we will try to find out if they were also the creators of the CWC.

As to the latter, its creators were not Indo-Europeans, and it seems to be generally accepted, although their ethnicity is still in question. In addition, the herd of theTrypillians was dominated by large and small cattle and pigs. Horse, although was known, was not very common [ZBENOVYCH V.G. 1989. 1989: 152; KUZMINA E.E. 1986: 181]. As we know, horse breeding was one of the most important sectors of the economy to east of the low Dnieper River and dominated at some communities of the III millennium BC. Thus, the Trypillians can not be taken into account when deciding on ethnicity of creators of CWC. Their origin is a separate topic, but here we consider the question of ethnicity of the carriers of Seredniy Stiğ and Pit cultures and supposed connection of these cultures with CWC.

Sites of Seredniy Stiğ culture (SSC) were at furst discovered during excavation in the locality of Seredniy Stiğ (“Middle Rick”) on the island of Khortytsia near the city of Zaporizhia in 1927. Studies of following years have shown that this Copper-age (Chalcolithic) culture existed since the middle of the 5th till the middle of the 4th mill BC and had three local variants in the catchment of the rivers Dnieper, S. Donets, and Don. [Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR., 1985: 305]. The author of a monograph on SSC D. Telegin believed its origin obscure, but was confident that its creators were Indo-Iranians [TELEGIN D.Ya. 1973: 144-146] however, according results of our study, space of the spread of SSC was inhabited by Turkic tribes at the time. Corded ornament and battle hammers, which later evolved into hatchets, first appeared among sites of SSC, so D. Telegin connected the spread of CWC by resettlement of the carriers of SSC [TELEGIN D.Ya. 1968: 123]. That CWC was brought to Europe from the Pontic steppes is generally recognized. Since Old Pit culture genetically traced to SSC, then their creators most likely were related also ethnically. At the same time, attention should be paid to the fact that the territory of the Turkic settlements practically coincides with the territories of the SSC distribution:


There are currently about 100 known sites of Seredniy Stiğ culture, which area of distribution occupies steppe between the Dnieper and Don Rivers, as well as the southern part of the Forest-steppe of Left-Bank Ukraine, the lower and middle Don region [Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR. 1985: 305].


Tribes of SSC ware in vicinity with the population of the Dnieper-Donets culture in the Middle Dnieper area and they continued to displace them further northward. The border ran along the line of Cherkasy – Poltava – Zmiyiv – Kupyansk. The carriers of SSC engaged in cattle breeding, farming, hunting, fishing and gathering. 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. 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 locality [TElEGIN D.Ya., 1973: 78-80]. Special distinction of SSC was sharp-bottom ware with high brim made of clay dough with admixture of crushed shells.The same impurity in pottery of Pit culture confirms its genetic origins from SSC. Such feature of fanufacturing pottery was not observed in other cultures what allows to trace the migration of carriers of these cultures. The economy of SSC population, as already noted above, had livestock, mainly horse-breeding, character. By the number of bones found during the excavation of some sites, it can be seen that there where more than 50% horses in domestic herd. It was mainly used for riding as evidenced by findings of horned cheek-pieces. Grazing large herds would be impossible without riding shepherds [Ibid, 143].

The extensive development of horse breeding among Türks is confirmed by linguistic data – among the common Türkic words, there are two words for the horse, in addition, separately for the mare and stallion. There are also common word for the rider, saddle, reins, stirrups, whip, mane, hooves, amble, colour of hair. Thus, the horse industry is represented in common Türkic vocabulary most of all forms of farming. Wild horse was common in Pontic steppes during Herodotus' time, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that it was tamed by SSC people what D. Telegin noted directly (Ibid, 137). However, some scholars dispute this assertion. Alexander Häusler tries to prove in one of his works that the horse was not domesticated in the steppes of the Ukraine, and was only hunted by local population. At the same time he finds arguments that the horse was domesticated in Central Europe. However, the preconditions of his position lies in firm belief that the Indo-Europeans in any case could not be nomads, while supporters of horse domestication by native SSC are convinced that they had to be Indo-Europeans (HÄUSLER ALEXANDER, 2002: 35-44). Attention is drawn to the fact that traditional cultures of the Indo-Europeans did not show clear traces of the cult of the horse, while the Türks have a common worship of the god of heaven closely related to the image of "Heavenly Horse".

These facts give all grounds to bind SSC with the Türks, which Urheimat is confidently determined in Altai by the majority of scientists but not all and not everywhere. It goes without saying that the views of the Altai cradle of Türks can be readily challenged by scholars of Türkic world (KARATAY OSMAN. 2003-1; KARATAY OAMAN. 2003-2; LAYPANOV K.T., MIZIEV B.V. 2010; MIZIEV I.M. 2010.), however there are in Europe supporters of the European ancestral homeland of the Türks. An Italian philologist concludes after linguistic analysis that horse had to be domesticated by ancient Türks and therefore seriously considered then as craetors of SSC and Pit culture:


The most productive hypothesis is to consider both cultures – Serediy Stiğ and Pit cultures – as Türkic, what leads to the conclusion that the first who domesticated the horse, were Türks and they enter horse breeding to neighboring nations (ALINEI MARIO, 2003: 18).


In Turkic languages there are two words naming horses – at and jaby which are somewhat different in semantics. The second word is used primarily to designate mongrel, unblooded, weak horses and, obviously, it is more ancient, but its etymology is not clear (LEVITSKAYA L.S. 1989: 49). It can be assumed that it originated from OT. jaba "wild", what could indicate taming horses namely by the Türks.

Chronological framework of the existence of SSC were determined by Ukrainian archeology since the beginning of the second half of the IV mill. BC until the end of the first quarter of the III mill. BC. In this case it does not fit into a popular, despite a thorough critique of specialists (e.g. HÄUSLER ALEXANDER, 2002: 8-11), "Kurgan theory" developed by M. Gimbutas. The theory is developed on the basis of studying the same type of kurgans, which were common at different times in the vast territory of Europe and Asia, which also includes the SSC as the second stage of this culture of kurgan burials. According to Gimbutas' theory, about 2400-2200 years BC nomadic tribes invided in Pontic steppes from behind the Volga River. They brought a burial ritual of sprinkled by ocher dead men in a crouched position on the back. This ritual supposedly was assimilated by local population, as it appears here at the end of SSC time (GIMBUTAS MARIA, 1963: 551). M. Gimbutas claimed that aliens were Indo-Europeans, who at the end of the III mill. BC spread over a vast territory of Europe from Jutland to the Volga River and from Scandinavia to the foothills of the Alps and the Balkans. Traces of this invasion are signed by widely known CCW and its rapid spread was explained by using horse transport. Since at historical times, most of Europe was inhabited by Indo-Europeans, the assumption of the Indo-European affiliation of this culture seems logical. However many facts are inconsistent to "Kurgan theory".

Firstly, pottery of SSC with cord ornament was the oldest in Europe because it appeared in Pontic steppes at the end of IV mill. BC and can not be linked to arrival of any newcomers here from whatsoever (TELEGIN D. Ya. 1973: 154)). Secondly, the identification of the Indo-Europeans with CWC people arises from an assumption that in the III mill. BC Indo-Europeans had to populate in Pontic steppes. But, as it was already noted, this was absolutely not the case – at this time living area of the Indo-Europeans was in the forest and forest-steppe zone of middle and upper Basin of the Dnieper River and its tributaries, while just the Türks settled Pontic steppes. Third, there are no evidences that any of the Indo-Europeans were the people of riders in the historical period. On the contrary, sometimes it was even emphasized that the horse did not play a large role at them, and that their foot soldiers were the main force (LEO, the DEACON 1988: 70, FEIST SIGMUND, 1924: 99 et al.). Cornelius Tacitus noted that horses of Germans "are neither beauty nor agility, and strength of their troops is more in infantry" (CORNELIS TACITUS, 1993: 6). It's hard to believe that the Indo-Europeans, having developed horse breeding left it for no apparent reason in the future. This apparent contradiction led some linguists to seek out the arguments in favor of the Germans still had people of horsemen (SCHMIDT WILHELM, 1949: 314; NECKEL GUSTAV, 1968: 168), but these arguments are totally unconvincing.

Scholars first certainly took CWC people for Indo-Europeans, and then carefully sought out corresponding horse lexicon in the Indo-European languages to prove they were horsemen. However, it was too scanty in comparison with the vocabulary of peoples which undoubtely have long been engaged in horse breeding. Fourth, all common Indo-European vocabulary of producing economy is significantly poorer of Türkic one, while SSC people was actively engaged in farming and animal husbandry. Of course, some evidence of employment in agriculture and animal husbandry are available in the Indo-European languages, but appropriate vocabulary is too small to draw far-reaching conclusions, as can be seen in some German linguists of past (SCHULZ WALTER, 1938; MEYER ERNST, 1948, etc.) If desired, you can find other arguments against the "Kurgan theory" and at the same time many facts speak in favor of Türkic ethnicity of the creators of CWC.

"Kurgan theory" is based primarily on archeological data, linguistic data in support are far-fatched, so its popularity can be explained only by the dominant Eurocentric views among experts. For us, the most important thing is that the carriers of the SSC are well identified with the Turks, and we will continue to assume that the population between the Dnieper and Don from the Sea of Azov in the south to the forest-steppe border in the north was Turkic. According to anthropological features, they were Caucasians with with distinct dolichocrania [TELEGIN D.Ya. 1973: 123]. A number of Ukrainian scientists believe that Pit culture was developed on the base of SSC and occupied the same space but very much spread to the neighboring territories. In the east thier sites reached to the regions of Orenburg and the Emba River. The southern border of their spreading goes along the Terek River, along the whole coast of the Azov Sea. In the north it poes along Forest-steppe zone and arrived to the Samara bow on the Volga River, riverheads of the Don River, and Kiev. Its western border believed to lie within the Bug-Dniester-Interfluvial area (Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR., 1985: 337) but some portion of carriers of Pit culture penetrated to Moldova, Romania, Hungary (KUZMINA E.E. 1986: 186).

Ancient Pit cultural-historical region (PCHR) was the first union of tribes of Eastern Europe in the Early Bronze Age connected by integrity of populated territory, dominance of common genetic component in the creation of material and spiritual culture (pottery forms, their ornamentation, funeral rites), a unifed level of socio-economic development, proximity of religious beliefs and systems of social relations (SHAPOSHNIKOVA O.G., FOMENKO V.N., DOVZHENKO N.V. 1986: 5).


In 1973, a stone idol was found in the village of Kernosivka in Novomoskovsk district of Dnepropetrovsk Êegion, which dates back to the end of the III – beginning of the II millennium BC. Images on the idol give a certain idea of ​​the material and spiritual culture of the population of the Black Sea steppes of that time.


At left: The idol of Kernosivka. Historical Museum named after Dmitro Yavornytsky. Photo from the site Ukrainian antiquities


In addition to the hunting scene, three axes of various types are depicted on the central part of the idol. Above the girdle of the idol, the pattern resembles a turtle. In the lower part of the idol there is a phallus, and below it are two horses.

On the left side of the idol there is an ornament, and under it there are two people who seem to dance. Still lower is the figure of a bull. On the back there is the Tree of life. In addition, there are images of tools of a blacksmith or metallurgist.

It is believed that just PCHR "marked the first stage of the global development of steppes, spread there producing types of economies, the production of mobile forms of animal husbandry" (MASSON V.M., MERPERT N.Ya. 1982: 326). It is also important conclusion about the patrilineal structure of Old Pit society made on the basis of researching sex and age structure of burial complexes (KHLOBYSTINA M.D. 1988: 31). Pit culture had three stages of its development and finished its existing with the start of the Bronze Age. According to radiocarbon alaysis, the late stage of Pit culture is dated back to XXV – XIX century. BC (Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR. Tom 1. Pervobytnaya arkheologiya. 1985: 139).

Obviously, certain characteristic features of the Pit culture, such as, for example, burial beneath barrows, evolved in the process of cultural development of the Türks and were distributed from the Southern Urals to the lower reaches of the Danube, south-eastern Romania and northeastern Bulgaria (CHERNYKH E.N., ORLOVSKAYA L.B. 2004: 84). The first burial kurgans appearred only in the late period of SSC but the custom to make mounds over graves was widespread already at Pit culture people, although the burial device remained the same. However, maded radiocarbon analysis of Old-Pit complexes gave results that are contrary to the generally accepted ideas about the nature and direction of expansion of Pit culture people:


… the most ancient complexes represent a very high proportion especially among peripheral territorial groups (ibid: 94).


These results contradict not only the long-held beliefs of experts, but also common sense. It is unlikely that the same custom was arisen in Kalmykia-Don and the Danube-Dniester groups of sites, remote to each from other for a thousand kilometers, and then began to spread to the center of the area of Pit culture. Obviously, there was some kind of mistake in the methodology of research. In such circumstances, one should refrain from adopting chronology obtained in these studies, at least until such time as will be given a convincing explanation for it.

Pit people dug the graves in the ground and covered them with stone slabs or logs, reeds, tree bark, walls and bottom of the grave were cobered with branches. Dead man was laid on his back with legs bent at the knees, his face was showered with ocher and next a stone knife, an ax, a ceramic bowl with food were placed. Judging by some of the more richly decorated graves, tribal nobility have been already formed at Pit culture people. This, in particular, is shown by an unusually large mound found in the village of Vasilevka in Novotroitsk district of the Kherson Region. There was in the grave under the mound next to the dead man a flint scepter, which could be both a sign of power, and religious symbols [KUBYSHEV A.I., NECHITAYLO A.L. 1977: 116-117]. Women's jewelry such as pendants, rings, earrings were widespread among the sites of Pit culture. If such decorations were common in everyday life, they had to be called by some words. These words should be shared if not among all, then at least among a part of the Türkic languages, taking into account the close proximity of their speakers in that old days. Almost all Türkic languages have one word syrga for calling earrings which was borrowed in the Russian language much later. On the contrary, not only the Indo-European but also Slavic languages have no ancient common words for women's jewelry. They have appeared after the Indo-Europeans moved from their homeland to new habitats. This fact and extremely widespread Türkic words meaning "ax", discussed in the section The Language and Cultural Contacts of the Population in Eastern Europe, may also indicate the Türkic origins of CWC.

Compared with SSC period, some changes occured in the economic life. Though livestock continued to be the main form of management, it has undergone structural changes. Hunting has not played a major role in life of Pit culture people. Number of domestic animals bones in the finds is much greater than the number of wild animal bones. The first place in home herd of the Dnieper country population took bull, then goat and sheep while horse was on third place. Horses dominated in the settlements in the open steppe, as it was in the days of SSC. However, the decisive factor in the development of the steppe was the development of sheep-breeding. Unpretentious to food, giving abundant offspring, holding out long migrations on dry steppes, sheep was domesticated in southern and eastern Caspian region and gradually its breeding was extended to the North Caucasus, a region of the Maikop culture. Close cultural ties of people of Pit and Maykop cultures are attested by archaeological finds, and the contact area is defined as the broad steppe belt up to the Kuban and Terek Rivers (MASSON V.M., MERPERT N.Ya. 1982: 327-329). No doubt that such close contacts between the population of Fore-Caucasian and Pontic steppes existed for a long time. The culture of sheep-breeding was just borrowed by the Türks from the Maikopians among other useful novelties. Due to the wide fodder base, sheep begins to occupy a leading position in the herd of the Türks, initially in the eastern part of SSC, and later sheep-breeding becomes their main branch of livestock everywhere. The fact that sheep-breeding was developed at the Türks rather late, at least, after the separating the individual Türkic languages from the patern language, is evidenced by the lack of a common name for sheep in the modern Türkic languages.

The development of cattle-breeding, an increase in livestock numbers have necessitated the development of new pastures. The satisfaction of this need was facilitated by the appearance of wheeled vehicles, which allowed distant migrations with property, women and children. The gradual growth of the population, especially at a late stage of development of the Yamna culture, forced its bearers to press their peace-loving neighbors on the right bank of the Dnieper in the forest-steppe and even in the forest zones where they moved along the river valleys (Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR., 1985: 350).


The penetration of the Turks on the right bank of the Dnieper can be seen by archaeological finds, for example, in the group Usatovo site not far from the city of Odessa. On one important and characteristic feature – funeral rites – they are definitely connected with the Old Pit tradition (MASSON V.M., MERPERT N.Ya., 1982: 329). Another feature of Seredni Stih and Pit culture – an admixture of sand and crushed shells – takes place in Trypillian wares along the Syniukh and Ingulets Rivers (ibid, 211 ). Further movement of the Turks along the Dniester River is evidenced by the skeleton of a man found near the village of Nezvisko in Ivano-Frankivsk Region. He was buried on the back with bent knees, ie, in a pose typical for greators of so-called "Kurgan" cultures. The appearance of this man of Persian anthropological type, shown at left, is definitely different from the Mediterranean type that was typical for Trypillian people.


Migration of Türks has been assisted by climate change that has occurred in Subboreal being characterized by maximum aridity during the whole period of the Holocene. Large areas of Central and South-Eastern Europe have become in continuous steppe at this period, convenient for the development by nomadic population (SULIMIRSI TADEUSZ, 1933: 135; KHOTINSKIY N.A. 1977: 60)

Massive infiltration of the Pit tribes into the Right-Bank Ukraine has led to the establishment of wider and closer language contacts of the Turks and Indo-Europeans. Traces of Contacts of the Türks and Indo-Europeans in Vocabularies are presented apart. These contacts began well before the development of the sheep-breeding at Turks. The Indo-Europeans borrowed from the Turks the name of horse, but Indo-European names for sheep have not Turkic origin. The theme of the presence of Turks in Western Ukraine is considered more detailed in the section "Discussion" and their further advance into Europe in the section "Türks as Carriers of the Corded Ware Culture in Central-Eastern Europe". It is logical to assume that the migration on the right bank of the Dnieper was made in the first place by those Turkic tribes that settled western areas on the Turkic Urheimat, ie the Bulgars, Oguz, Seljuks and the ancestors of the modern Turkmen. However, most likely, they were mostly Bulgars, distant ancestors of the modern Chuvash. The Chuvash language has not some features that are common to other Turkic languages. For example, plural of nouns in the Chuvash language is formed by adding the suffix – sem, while in other Turkic languages by the suffix lar/ler or tar/ter. Obviously, the majority of Turks still remained some time into the the Dnieper and Don interfluvial area, and just at this time common language features waere spread among them. Traces of their stay in the wide spaces of Europe in prehistoric times, the Bulgars left in place names.

On the large space of the European continent, several variants of CWC are known: the Vistula-Neman, of Rzucewo, East-Baltic cultures in the Baltic lands and Western Belorussia [LOZE I.A. 1990: 97], Great-Polish-Mazovian, of Strzyżów, and of Mierzanowice cultures north of the Carpathians, but all carriers of these cultures were quickly assimilated by different peoples [SEDOV, 1990: 82]. According to V. Gordon Childe, there were in Central and Northern Europe Single Grave culture of Jutland, the Swedish-Finnish culture, and the Saxon-Thuringian as "classical CWC" and he also emphasized that that CWC people were not farmers (CHILDE GORDON. 1952: 209). Thus, we have no serious grounds to contradict the assumption that the carriers of the CWC were ancient Caucasoid Turks.

CWC sites are absent on the most part of Belarus. The only exceptions are several sites of the Middle Decline version of the CWC along the banks of the Dnieper. In general, the distribution of CWC is correlated with the area of ​​distribution of place names of Bulgarish origin found in Europe by deciphering the names of settlements by means of the Chuvash language (see the map below). In the north of Belarus there are several place names of possible Bulgarish origin, but the CWC sites are absent. Perhaps they have not yet been discovered. The Polissya group of CWC sites has been identified, but has not yet been studied. There are also known random finds of bronze knives, Celts, pottery covered with strokes [ZAGORYLSIY E.V. 2001: 19]. On the whole, you can think that the "corded people" bypassed the territory of the settlements of Indo-Europeans by the side. The only attempt to invade was their advance up the Dnieper.




Distribution of CWC sites and Bulgarish place names

On the map, the CWC sites are marked with blue asterisks, and the Bulgarian toponyms of the supposed Bronze Age are marked with burgundy dots. The red dots indicate the Bulgarish toponyms of indefinite time in the territory without CWC sites.
Yellow dots indicate place names of supposed Tripillian origin.
The territory of the settlements of the Indo-Europeans is tinted in brown, the border of the territory of the settlements of the Finno-Ugric peoples is indicated by the green line. The territory of Fatyanovo and Balanovo cultures is tinted in green.


The Turks moved not only east- and westward, but also to the north, where they do not find what were looking for, and their economy based on livestock, began to decline new environmental conditions, and they had to change the form of management. Of course, they followd example of their neighbors, the indigenous population of the forest zone – the Indo-Europeans and Finno-Ugric peoples, although they themselves gave a lot, in particular, the use of horses, the number of which, no doubt, in the forest zone has decreased, but they have found use.


The concentration of horse names of Turkic origin in the Finno-Ugric languages on the west of the Finno-Ugric space gives grounds to suppose settlement of Turkic newcomers in this region among the Finno-Ugric peoples and they could leave their cultural traces. An example of such enclave archaeological culture can be Fatyanovo and Balanovo culture that existed in the basins of the Oka and the Moskva Rivers since the beginning of the third to the middle of the second mill. BC. Above mapped data of the sites of Fatyanovo culture were taken from the work of one of the Russian archaeologists (KRENKE N.A. 2014). The basis of economy of Fatyanov people was livestock, but they were also engaged in hunting and fishing. In the middle of the II millennium BC., this culture disappeared in the new cultures of this region, which native were Finno-Ugric peoples. Although some scholars believe that the Fatyanov people had the Baltic origin (MEYNANDER K.F. 1974, 26), Ukrainian archaeologists argue that the Fatyanov people moved to the Volga basin along the banks of the Desna River, where a variant of CWC, the Middle Dnieper culture existeed:


I. Artemenko's research of cemeteries in the Desna basin and D. Krainov's allocation earliest sites in the Moscow-Klyazma group suggest that this culture has developed as a result of moving a part of population of the Middle Dnieper culture to this territory at the beginnibg of its middle stages – in the end of the 3rd – beginning of the 2nd mill. BC (Arkheologiya Ukrainskoy SSR. Tom 1. Pervobytnaya arkheologiya. 1985: 375).


The penetration of a part of the population of the Middle Dnieper culture into the Oka basin is confirmed by the toponymy of Bulgar origin. Approximately from Kiev to Moscow along the banks of the Desna, Seym, and Oka rivers there is a chain of Bulgarian place names, but there is no exact data on CCW sitess on this way. Since the Fatyanovo culture appears at about the same time as the Middle Dnieper one, it can be assumed that at least some of the Turks to the shores of the Oka were moving dry through Voronezh. This can be indicated by a vaguely expressed chain of place names of alleged Turkic origin: Boldyrevo, Shelaevo, Samarino, Boldyrevka, Voronezh, Karachun, Cherkasy, Muratovo. However, they are best deciphered with the help of the Chuvash language, so they in the eastern part of the Turkic territory can belong to the Scythian time, because the Bulgara could not be in the Bronze Age. Nevertheless, the presence of the Bulgars in the places of distribution of the Fatian culture is confirmed by the Bulgarian borrowings in the Finno-Ugric languages. The Baltic-Finnish languages have words with the meaning "hill, summit, height" (Fin. kukkula, Est. kukal and other), and in the Carpathians there is a peak Kukal. For the explanation of these names is well suited Chuv. kukăl' "pie". It is not known what form of pies were baked by the ancient Bulgars, but the semantic correspondence of the Baltic-Finnish words and the name of the mountain in the Carpathians indicate a common source of borrowing. In the Chuvash language there is a word măkăl' as a common name for various kinds of bulges on the body. They have matches in Khant. möγǝl, Mansi mygyl, Hung. mell "bossom". Fin. mukula and Est mugul "tuber" have the same origin. Veps. parz' "log" corresponds Chuv. părăs "beam". Similar words in a similar sense are present in other Baltic-Finnish languages. Other Chuvash-Finnish lexical correspondences should be found.

Close to Fatyanovo culture was Balanovî culture that existed from the beginning to the end of II mill. BC and "being component of the north-eastern part of the community of culturs of battle-axes" (BADER O.N., KHALIKOV A.Kh, 1976: 41). Most likely, its creators were Turks, have moved to the mouth of the Sura River along the right bank of the Volga. Allocating in a system of Circumpontic metallurgical province Balanovo-Fatyanovo hearth, E.N. Chernykh connects its origin to the movement ethnic groups from the Balkan-Carpathian region in the Volga, which brought their cultural and technological tradition (CHERNYKH E.N., 1976: 39). Thus, no doubt that these migrants came from the Northern Black Sea coast, where cultural ties with the Balkans have been traditionally close, including metallurgy. It is believed that the carriers of Balanovo culture greatly influenced the development of economy and society of the local population, as well as the Fatyanovo People, dissolved among the Finno-Ugric peoples in the Middle Volga (MEYNANDER K.F. 1974: 26). If the Balanovo as Fatyanovo people were ethnic Turks, we can safely assume that just they were the ancestors of the modern Volga Tatars. In this case, the Volga Tatars, too, never had to leave the borders of Europe. :

According to V. Isayenko, carriers of Middle Dnieper culture moved almost to all the Dnieper region, especially in its left bank, and for a long time coexisted with the local Neolithic population, and their merging occured only at the end of the II mill. BC (ISAYENKO V.F. 1976: 11). V. Isayenko believes that CWC people were the second wave of Indo-European population, but then it is not clear why these two groups of Indo-Europeans could not mutually assimilated so long . Only by assuming that between CWC people and Indo-Europeans was a language barrier, we can understand why the local Indo-European Neolithic population for a long time does not mix with Turkic newcomers.


Right Bank Ukraine culturally stood above the more eastern and northern parts of Eastern Europe. The Chalcolithic (Aeneolithic) period begins here earlier than in other regions. [ZALIZNIAK L.L. (Ed.) 2005: 106.] the ethnicity of the Trypillians as a debatable question is considered in more detail as a hypothesis separately, but here it is presented as a perspective.

The question about the origin and the ethnical belonging of famous Trypilla (Tripolje) culture is dark up to this time although the concept of its autochthonous origin generally prevailed among its researchers for a long time. This Chalcolithic (Eneolithic) culture existed on the area of Right-bank Ukraine and Moldova during V-III mill. B.C. and left numerous archaeological sites with a rich archaeological material, which allows us to recreate the look of Trypillians.


Left: The map of the migrations of the creators of Prekukuteni – Early Tripoli culture on the territory of Ukraine
The original of the map [ZALIZNIAK L.L. (Ed). 2005: 108. Fig. 1] was colored by the author].


Legend: I – the settlements of formative phase, II – the settlements of the type Larga-Jijia – Floreşti – Bernashivka, III – settlements between the Dniester and Bug Rivers and on Bug, IV – the first stage of migration, V – the second stage of the migration.
Settlements: 1. Sfântu Gheorghe; 2 – Eresteghin; 3 – Bancu; 4- Borlești; 5 – Traian; 6 – Izvoare; 7 – Ghigoiești -Trudești; 8 – Iași; 9 – Larga-Jijia; 10 – Vlădeni; 11 – Țigănași; 12 – Chetriș; 13 – Stolniceni; 14 – Fundurii; 15 – Bernashivka; 16 – Florești; 17 – Rogojeni; 18 – Haivoron; 19 – Sabatynivka; 20 – Vishnopil; 21 – Kostyantinivka; 22 – Oleksandrivka (according v.G. Zbenovich).


Culture Trypilla-Cucuteni existed on the territory of the Right-Bank Ukraine and Moldova in the VI-III millennium BC and left behind numerous archaeological sites with a rich craniological material, which allows to reproduce the appearance of the Trypillians.


At left: Appearance of the Population of the Trypilla Culture.
A Trypillian woman and man Mediterranean anthropological type from the Vykhvatyntsi tomb. The burial place 35 and 19.
Reconstruction of M. M. Gerasimov on found craniums. (From the book "The Eneolithicum of the USSR").


Considering the contacts between Indo-European and Türkic languages we supposed that a mediator in these contacts could be the language of the population of Trypilla culture, occupying an area adjacent to the settlements of the Turks and Indo-Europeans but standing on a higher level of development than these (STETSYUK VALENTYN, 1998, 59). According to many experts, just as our research, the Trypillians were not Indo-Europeans, nor the Turks, and at the same time their ancestors came from Asia Minor (see the section "The First Neolithic Tribes in Eastern Europe "), so the assumption was made possible linguistic identity Trypillians to the Afro-Asiatic family.

In a situation when the ancient Bulgars could have contact with the Tripoli population, the assumption about Semitic origin of the Trypillians could be confirmed by the presence of the Semitic-Hamitic roots in the Chuvash language. In addition to the Turks, some Indo-European tribes also lived side by side with the Trypillians, what could also be reflected in their language. Purposefully conducted searches for lexical correspondences between the Semitic languges, on the one hand, and Indo-European and Turkic, on the other, gave some material in order to speak more confidently of the Semitic origin of Trypillian culture.

Thus, when attempt to find in the Chuvash language possible Semitic loan-words, kept matches in Arabic and in ancient Hebrew, drew attention to the presence of these same roots in the Indo-European languages. In particular, there is reason to talk about the cultural and linguistic correspondences between Semites and Germans:


Ancient Germania shows a number of striking similarities to the old Semitic world in language and culture.

Words such as Proto-Germanic *fulka "division of an army", *sibjo “extended family”, *aþal-l/aþili “noble (noun/adjective)”, *maguz/*magaþ(i)z “boy/girl”, which only occur in Germanic or at best in some neighboring languages and posses no generally accepted Indo-European derivation, have intriguing Semitic etymologies (VENNEMANN DOOR THEO, gen. NIERFELD, 2012, vıı-vııı)


Let us consider these words

1. Theo Vennemann compares Old Germanic *fulka (Eng folk, Ger. Volk and also Eng. ploug, Germ. Pflug a.o.) with Hebr plC, a family of related roots including plg, all meaning "to divide, separate" (VENNEMANN THEO, 2005, 27). The Semitic root has good matches in Chuvash: pülĕkh "a distributor" (Chuvash ancient deity) and pulkkǎ "flock", "crowd"

2. Old Germanic *sibjō (Goth sibja, OE sibb, Ger Sippe "family", "kin", "clan" have a match in Chuv syp “generation”, sypă “knee” (as "generation" too)

3. Old Germanic *magaþi (Goth magaþ-s, OE mæged, Ger Magd "young woman", "girl" – cf. Chuv “măkka “endearment, usually to children”.

4. Old Germanic *aþal-l/aþili (OE æđel “noble”, Ger Adel "nobility") – cf. Chuv “atalan “to develop, grow”.

Thus, Semitic loan-words in the Chuvash language gaining weight when they have matches not only in Arabic and/or in Hebrew, but also in modern European languages. The search for such matches was done and by the way a few words was found in the Ukrainian, Hungarian and Romanian languages without proper etymology and having no matches in Chuvash, but they can be associated with the Semitic words. They were taken to consideration too. In such way, a list of hypothetical Trypillian words was put. Of course, some parallel can look more or less doubtful but chance words can be thrown out always. It is better to consider a doubtful fact as to lose an interesting matter.


Tryp *afuna “pea, berry” [Hebr אֲפוּנָה (afuna) “pea”] – Rom afîna “bilberries”, Ukr dial. afyny “bilberries”, Lat aveva “oat”, Tur, Uygur evin “seed”.

Tryp *arb “barley” [Hebr בָּר (bar) “corn”)] – Chuv urpa, common Turkic arpa “barley”, Alb. elb “barley” (Thrak *alb “barley”), Gr. αλφι “barley”.

Tryp *areh “spider” [Hebr ארוג (arug) “woven”, אֶרֶג (areg) “fabric, cloth”] – Chuv erešmen “spider”, Gr αραχνη “spider”, Lat araneus “spider”.

Tryp *aruz “rye” [Hebr אוֹרֶז (orez) “rice”, Ar. ruz “rice”] – Chuv. yraš, Kaz. arys and other similar Turkic “rye”, Rus. rož' and other similar Slavic "rye", Lit. rugys “rye”, OE. ryge, Ger. Roggen “rye”.

Tryp *bajer “spring, source” [Hebr בְּאֵר (beer) “spring, pit”] – Ukr bayura “pool, slop”.

Tryp *ban “child, fruit” [Ar ibn, Hebr בֵּן (ben) “son, child”] – Cuv (Dial.) pan “apple tree”, Lat pomum “fruit”, Eng bean, Ger Bohne.

Tryp *burg “cylinder, tower” [Ar burj’ “tower”, Hebr בֹּרֶג (borag) “a screw, bolt”] – Gr πυργοσ “tower”, Lat burgus “castle, tower”, Chuv purak “bast, bast-basket (cylindrical)”, Karach buruu “fence”, Germanic *burg (German Burg “castle”).

Tryp *daba “nature” [Hebr טֶבַע (teba) “nature, character”, Ar tabi'a „nature”] – good matches are present in Lith daba "nature, kind, manner", Lat dāba "nature", to them Slav. words doba meaning "time, age" (Blr "character, face"), Chuv. tapă "youth festival at summer beginning"; similar words in the Iranian languages meaning "nature" are perhaps borrowed from Arabic.

Tryp *fahar “white” [Hebr פַּחַר (fahar) “white clay”, בָּהִיר (bahir) "white", Ar. faxar „pottery, porcelain”] – Hung feher “white”.

Tryp *farah “to fly” [Hebr. פֶּרַח (farah) “to flutter, fly about”, Ar. "to scattar"] – Chuv părakh “to throw”.

Tryp *gaz “goose” [Ar vaz, Hebr אַוָזָה (avaza) “goose”] – Tur, Turk gaz, Chuv hur , other Turkic “goose”.

Tryp *hason “to have profit” [Hebr. חָסֵן (khasen) “to keep, save, economize” Ar xasin “fertile”] – Chuv xasine “treasure”, Hung haszon “profit”, Ukr xosen “use, profit”.

Tryp *hom “father-in-law” [Hebr חָם (xham) “father-in-law”] – Chuv hun’ “father-in-law”.

Tryp *hota “to seek in marriage” [Ar xatan, Hebr חוֹתֵן (khoten) “father-in-law”] – Chuv xăta “father of son-, daughter-in-law”.

Tryp *huša “hut” (àð. huša “hut”)- Chuv xüšĕ “hut, cabin, light house” – Ger Haus, Eng house.

Tryp *kart “village” [Phoen kirjat, Hebr קֶרֶת (keret) “town, city”] – Chuv karta “palisade”, Germanic *garda, gardon (Got gards “house”, Old Eng geard “yard”, German Garten “garden”). Similar words are present in Slavic, Celtic, Greek, Latin, and in other Indo-European languages, but consonantism of these words contradicts to the rules of Indo-European languages, therefore one can think that this word has been borrowed from some other language.

Tryp. *kemel “reward” [Hebr. גְמוּל (gemul) “reward”, Ar. kamal “aqually as”] – Chuv. kěměl “silver”, silver is called in other Turkic languages called kümüš in full compliance with the phonology of these languages. More detailed about change of the meaning in the section Sketch on the Development of Merchandise in Eastern Europe at Prehistoric Times.

Tryp *keser “carrot” [Ar j’azar, Hebr גֶזֶר (gezer) “carrot”]. This word was borrowed only by Western Türkic tribes which had more close contacts with Trypillians: Chuv, Tat kišer, Turkm kešer “carrot”.

Tryp *parsa “beam” [Ar farsiya “board”, farsat “bed”] – Chuv părăs “beam”.

Tryp *peruti “fur, fell” [Hebr. פַּרוָתִי (peruti) “fur, fell”] – Chuv. pětrě “leathern sack”, Gmc. *fodra “fur, fell” (Ger. Futter “fur, fell”).

Tryp *sabon “soap” [Ar sabun, Herb סַבּוֹן (sabon) "soap"] – Chuv. supăn, Lat sapo, sapōne, Eng soap, Ger Seife a.o. – all “soap”.

Tryp *seret “strip, strap” [Ar šarit, סֶרֶט (seret) "ribbon, strip, belt"] – Chuv serete “plank”, Kurd sirat “way”, Rom., Ukr “Seret” (names of several rivers in Ukraine and Romania).

Tryp *tahal “spleen” [Ar taal, Hebr טְחוֹל (tehol) "spleen"] – Chuv, Tat and other talak, Yak taal, Khak tölön, tileen, “spleen”. The oldest Türkic form is presented in Yakut language.

Tryp *taham “taste” [Hebr טַעַם (taam) “taste”, Ar ta’am “taste”] – Chuv těhěm “taste”.

Tryp *tora “unwritten law, customary” [Hebr תּוֹרָה‎ (tora) “law”] – Chuv türe “judge”, Tat türä “law”, “judge”, Tur töre “customs” etc.

Tryp *vaita “cabin, house” [Ar bajt, Hebr בַּיִת (bait) “house”] – Chuv vite “cow-house”, Lat *baita “cabin, house”. Restored Latin word is present in some nowaday Italian dialects (MEYER-LÜBKE, 1992: 70).

Tryp *vokor “bull” or “cow” [Ar bakara “cow”, Hebr בָּקָר (bakar) “cattle”] – Chuv văkăr, Tur öküz, Tat ögüz etc “bull”, Lat vacca “cow”. Ukr dial. vakar “herdsman of cattle” – out of Romanian.

Tryp *xarta "a piece of textile" [Ar qartas "a paper, leaf", Hebr. חָרוֹת (kharut) "cutting"] – Chuv khărta "patch, clout", Gr χαρτησ, Lat carta "a paper, leaf".

Tryp *zivit “resin” [Hebr זֶפֶת (zefet) “tar, pitch, resin”, Ar zift, Syr zifta “resin”] – Arm jivt “resin”, Ukr zhyvyts’a and other similar Slavic words “galipot”, Ger. Saft "sap", Gift “poison”.


Semitic origin of the Trypillians can be confirmed by explanation of "dark" place names of Right-Bank Ukraine by means of Hebrew. As settlements of Trypillians numbered several thousand inhabitants, at least some of them must have to exist for a long time and keep their original names. If it will be found a sufficient number of names interpreted on Hebrew, it would show not only Trypillians Semitic origin, but also mean that given by them names existed at least six thousand years.


At right: Place names of possible Semitic origin on the area of Trypillian culture.


To decipher the name of the village of Bakota now flooded by waters of the Dniester reservoir, Hebr. בִּקתָה (bikta, bekata) "hut, shack, shanty, shed" suits well.

Maybe Herb. בַּר (bar) "son, boy" and שֵׁד (shed) 1. "demon, devil", 2. "imp" is hidden in the name of the town of Bershad of Vinnytsia Region. It is unlikely that the devil could present in the name of the settlement, but the combination of "imp-boy" if very possible.

Deciphering the similar name of the Romanian city of Bârlad is more complicated. It is difficult to find an acceptable pair to the second part of the word that can be associated with Hebr. לָעַד (lada) "forever, eternally" despite the fact that the choice is great. Hebr. בִּירָה (bira) "sout" suits best by meaning.

The name of the village of Dokhno and flowing here the Dokhna River well corresponds Hebr. דוֹחַן (dokhan) "millet" according agricultural economy of Trypillians. The name of the grain, which was a commodity in the barter trade, could give names to other commodities in some languages, such as cattle and the like – Chech. daükhny "property, cattle" (aü – a front vowel).

Convincing explanation of the origin of the name of the capital of Moldova Chisinau is absent. Phonetically and situational Hebr קָשֶׁה (kashe) "hard, harsh, tough" and עַנָב (anav) "grape"

A large Trypillian settlement was found on the bank of the Dniester River in the Chernivtsi Region on the outskirts of the village Moshanets. The name of the village can have Semitic origin: cf. Hebr. מוֹשָׁבָה (moshava) "colony, settlement, village, dominion".

The settlement of the early Trypillian culture is also located in the outskirts of the village of Sabatinovka in Blagovischensk district of Kirovograd Region. The name is well understood with the help of Heb. שׁבּת (shabat) "saturday".

At that time, as linguists are not engaged in the matter of ethnicity of the Trypillians, the question of its autochthonity is now finally resolved by archaeologists:


… It can be argued that the old autochthonous concept of searching "local" components of Trypillian culture has exhausted its potential and needs to stay in the historiography of the twentieth century. Now we believe that the territory of Ukraine, which was held by Trypillian culture in the Copper Age, was a part of the ecumene of agricultural civilizations of ancient Europe (BURDO N.B. 2003: 15).


If linguists will agree with the opinion of archaeologists, anyway, they did not find any linguistic clue for the enigma about ethnicity of the Trypillians, antil they will agree to the fact that the ancient homeland of Turks was in Europe.

Establishing the ethnicity of prehistoric aheological cultures has not only scientific but also political significance. Common Eurocentric perceptions are one of the causes of modern international tensions. On the contrary, the establishment of a large role for other peoples in the development of human civilization can serve to mitigate the international climate.




   

Please this page? Help us to develop this site!

© 1978 – 2019 V.Stetsyuk

Reprinting of articles from site are encouraged while
reference (hyperlink) to my site is provided

Site powered by

Load count : 8333

Modified : 13.04.2019

If you look up the type error
on this page, please select it
by mouse and press Ctrl+Enter.