The space image below shows ethno-producing areas, defined by the graphic-analytical method, where the proto-languages, attributed to the Nostratic, which of them Pra-Ural is, where arisen. In this section, we will analyze in more detail how the place of formations of the distinst Finno-Ugric languages, that is, the areas of the settlements of their first speakers determined by the grapgical model and verified by other means.
NASA space image of the cradle of humanity with designated areas of formation of the Nostratic languages.
While preparing the table-dictionary for the Finno-Ugric languages lexical material was taken out of the etymological dictionaries of the Finnish (À. HÄKKINEN KAISA. 2007), Komi language (À. LYTKIN V. I., GULAYEV E.S., 1970), Udmurt (A. ALATYREV V.I. 1988) and Hungarian languages (A. ZAICZ GÁBOR, 2006), and bilingual dictionaries of other Finno-Ugric languages. The data of the etymological dictionaries had to be supplemented largely just by these dictionaries because editors of etymological dictionaries do not always give all matches for several Finno-Ugric roots. In some cases, these matches have not yet been found. The built graphical model of Finno-Ugric kinship relations made it possible to carry out targeted searches. For example, in the Finnish etymological dictionary of the Finnish, the word konnti "a bark box for wearing on the back" is connected only with Mansi and Khanty words. However, between the areas of formation of these languages and the Finnish area are also located areas of the Komi and Udmurt languages. Similar words should exist in these languages as well, for otherwise it is impossible to explain the presence of lexical matches between the Finnish and Ob-Ugric languages. Searches brought the expected results: Komi kud and Udm. kudy – both "basket". Such findings make it possible to clarify not only the model of kinship, but also the patterns of the phonology of the Finno-Ugric languages. Another example is from the etymological dictionary of the Hungarian language, where FU root *aŋa- "to open" has mathes only in Hung. old, Fin. avaa- "to open", Mord. anksema "ice hole, wake", Khant. aŋe "to untie (a knot)". In the etymological dictionary of the Finnish language, these data are supplemented with the words Vepsian, Estonian and Mansi languages, but with targeted searches were also found Mar. joŋgy "open place, glade", Komi yukmös, Udm. jukmes "a wake". Such examples are many, though not such expressive. On the other hand, the search for single-root words are often limited in accordance with traditional views on the division of the family of Finno-Ugric languages. As an example, may be reffering of Hung.oldal "side" to Khant. ăŋti and Mansi an't'əl "rib", while the word has the same origin as the Udm. urdes "side" and other similar. Such facts say that editors approached the matter not quite carefully, placing themselves entirely different purpose than to establish the true relationship between the Finno-Ugric languages. Therefore, preparation of the tadble-dictionary was long and laborious work.
Such Finno-Ugric languages as Finnish, Estonian, Veps, Komi, Saami, Udmurt (Votyak), Mari (Cheremis), Mordvinic, Khanty (Ostyak), Hungarian and Mansi (Vogul) were taken for analyses. Later Karelian was added to this list, but its vocabulary showed that this language was developed on the same base as Finnish. We will not consider this topic in details. The compiled table-dictionary of the Finno-Ugric languages has 2144 isoglosses and 202 of them belong to the common language heritage. (As the common words were considered that found at least in ten from eleven Finno-Ugric languages whout Karelian). 123 words were voted as loan-words. Calculation results of mutual words are presented in table 4.
Table 4. Quantity of mutual words in pairs of the Finno-Ugric languages.
The model of relationships for the Finno-Ugric languages was built on these data and is presented in figure 7.
Figure 7. The graphical model of the Finno-Ugric language relationship.
The corresponding territory for this model was found in Eastern Europe within the Volga-Don-Interfluvial area and in the Oka river's basin, where, according to the traditional opinion, the habitats of Finno-Ugric peoples was once situated, although the Finno-Ugric Urheimat is considered to be near the Urals (see the map on the figure 8).
The areas of formation of distinct languages are mainly limited by large rivers. The area of the Finns lies between the Oka and Klyazma Rivers. To the west of them, between the Moscow River and the Oka to the Ugra River, was the area of the Veps, and the Estonians dwelled north of the Finns and the Veps between the Upper Volga, Upper Moskva River and upper Klyazma River. Two rivers with the same name Nerl separated the Estionia area from the area of the Lapps, which was limited from the north and east by the Volga, and from the south by the Lower Klyazma. To the south-east of the Lapps, the Komi language formation area was located; this area in the west was bounded by the Oka River, in the north by the Volga, in the east by the Sura River, and in the south by the Moksha and Alatyr Rivers. The area of the Mansi was between the Volga and Sura Rivers on both banks of the Sviyaga River. The Moksha, Sura and Alatyr Rivers limited a small area of the Khanty, and the Udmurts inhabited the area along both banks of the Vorona River between the Moksha, Tsna, and Khoper Rivers. The Magyar area was almost entirely limited by the Khoper and the Medveditsa Rivers, and the Mari area – by the Don, Voronezh and the low Khoper rivers. Finally, the Mordvins inhabited a quadrilateral, bounded in the west and north of the Oka, in the east by the upper Don, and in the south by the Sosna River.
Fig. 8. The map of Finno-Ugric habitats.
Total Finno-Ugric territory clearly limited by the Volga and Don Rivers, as a powerful water hazards. Only Mordvins moved to the right bank of the upper Don, that is where it is easy to overcome, and came close to the Indo-European settlements. As in the Indo-European area, the whole Finno-Ugric territory, too has "empty" areas. They, at least, two – to the south of the middle Oka and the between the Volga and the Medveditsa. We can assume that a Finno-Ugric tribes, known as the "Meschera" populated the first "empty" area in the neighborhood with Finns, Mordvins, and Cheremis. You can also assume that chronicle tribe Meria had its area between the Bityug and Voronezh Rivers, and then ancestral lands of the Mari would be limited by the Bityug and Khoper River (or vice versa). The assumption of the close linguistic affinity of these ethnic groups and, accordingly, their common Urheimat, based on the similarity of ethnonyms Meria and Marie, which can be considered phonetic variants of the same word. As for other Finno-Ugric tribes, we must assume that they were the remnants of peoples which migrated to new places, and their languages, as well as Karelian, are languages of higher order with respect to the rest of Finno-Ugric. No data to any assumptions for identifying the area between the Volga and the Medveditsa Rivers.
The proposed localization of ancient Finno-Ugric territory can be confirmed by paleobotany, if it can be compared with the geographical distribution of some plants having common Finno-Ugric names. While it is possible to draw for this purpose only the name and the geographical distribution of oak. Almost all the Finno-Ugric languages have its name similar to Slavic: Fin. tammi, Est. tamm, Mar. tum, Erzya tumo, Moksha tuma, Komi typy, Udm. tupu. In the etymological dictionary of the modern Finnish language, the original Finno-Ugric form of the word is defined as *tomo and the possibility of borrowing from the Slavic is not considered despite the similarity to the Slavonic oak name (HÄKKINEN KAISA. 2007: 1268). However, other specialists have a different opinion:
Because the ancestral home of Finno-Ugric peoples was located in the taiga zone, where no oak, this word along with the corresponded realities was learned by Finno-Perm inhabitants only when moving them from the homeland to the territory occupied by Slavs (TKACHENKO O.B. 1990: 26).
The judgment is rather strange because of the Finno-Ugric peoples were not settled on Slavic territory, but on the contrary, the Slavs were necomer to the Finno-Ugric lands, ie Finno-Ugric peoples were familiar with oak before contact with the Slavs and, therefore, must have had for it own name. Now northern border of oak stretches from St. Petersburg to about the latitude of Yekaterinburg, ie passes somewhat north of the Upper Volga and the beyond Urals, oak is really absent.
At left: Quercus robur (oak) distribution. Fig. 74 from the site "Forest library".
Thus oak was grown really on the territory of the Finno-Ugric peoples. On the other hand, as oak is absent in most parts of the Urals, the Finno-Ugric peoples could not have settlements in the Urals and beyond it. If the similarity of the Slavic and Finno-Ugric names of oak needs an explanation, then most likely, the word is a substrate protoform of an Paleo-European language.
Areas of forming Samoyed languages, which include the Nenets, Enets, Nganasan, and Selkup languages, are uncertain. In ancient times, Samoyed languages would be more nimerous (Mator, Karagas, Kot ones else). If the question is about the genetic relationship of the Finno-Ugric languages, at least the initial settlement of their speakers would have to be somewhere near the Finno-Ugric peoples. There are on the map of Eastern Europe free place north of the upper Volga. One would assume that there ethnic groups of Samoyeds were formed on certain geographical area. with distinct borders og the base of populatio of Lappish anthropological type and their language. The Saami language has a layer of substrate vocabulary of unknown origin (NAPOLSKIKH V.V., 1990^ 129).
If the Samoyed languages were formed on the basis of this eastern Palaeo-Europeanlanguage heavily influenced by the Finno-Ugric languages, it is obvious that after settling the Volga-Oka Basin some powerful group of Finno-Ugric people moved beyond the Volga River, mixing with descendants of the Volga-Kama Mesolithic cultures in the basins of the Vyatka and Vetluga Rivers , has had a significant impact on the language of the local people. In addition, the cultural influence of the Finno-Ugric peoples on the local population is reflected in Samoyed mythology. For example, a legend about a flood id present in the Nenets folklore. Later, with the wide dispersal of the Finno-Ugric peoples in the basins of the Kama and Sukhona Ribers formed earlier Samoyed tribes partially were assimilated among the newcomers, and for the most part retreated further north and east of the Urals, to preserve their ethnic identity.
Knowing the habitats of the Nostratic speaking people in Eastern Europe, we can talk more specifically about the connections of Finno-Ugric languages with other Nostratic languages. Linguists and ethnologists unanimously suppose that the contacts between Finnish people and the Indo-Iranian part of the Indo-European community were most active and continual (KHALIKOV A.Kh. 1990.: 53). Iranian-Finno-Ugric linguige connections were studied by many well-known specialists (A. ABAYEV V.I. 1965; ABAYEV V.I. 1981; GEORGIEV Vl. 1958; KORNILOV G.Z. 1973; HARMATTA J., 1981; BLAŽEK VACLAV, 1990; FROMM HANS, 1990; GULYA JANOS, 1990; KOIVULEHTO Jorma, 1990). As a result, a view was formed that the Iranians longer contacted with speakers of ancient Eastern Finnish dialects than with Uric ones. V. Abaev, for example, specifically focused on the correspondeces of the Ossetian language with Hungarian, Udmurt and Komi, and believed that Ossetian has significantly less Baltic Finnish matches than Permian and Ugric ones. Vaclav Blažek searching Finno-Ugric-Aryan lexical parallels also turned more to the Ugric and Permian languages than to the Baltic Finnish. However, no doubt were that the greatest influence of Türkic languages was provided to the Mari, Hungarian and also Udmurt and Mordvinic languages (FEOKTISTOV A.P. 1965, 331-333), and it can be explained rightly by close contacts of the ancient Finno-Ugric peoples with the Turks. The habitats of the speakers of the Indo-European, Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages were situated in such way that (Mari) Cheremis and Magyars, indeed, of all the Finno-Ugric peoples, were the nearest neighbors of the Türks
Staying within the lexical and statistical studies we can quantify connections of the Finno-Ugric languages with individual Indo-European and individual Turkic. On the basis of Etymological table-dictionaries of these three language families, was compiled the summary table of lexical matches between Indo-European, Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages. The whole table has more than 700 matches. Then the suppoed Nostratic fund, to which lexical matches present in all three groups of words were assigned, was withdrown from it. Let us briefly consider the Indo-European and Finno-Ugric matches. Their total number was 208 items, and the Iranian, Greek, Indian, Germanic, and Baltic language had matches at most. When it became clear that Iranian-Finno-Ugric parallels are the most numerous, then an additional search of separate Iranian-Finno-Ugric relations has been made, ie without correspondences in other Indo-European languages. Several dozen of them were found, but some of them comes from more recent times, therefore they were separated into two chronological groups. The criterion for the division was the number of Iranian languages, which had matches to Finno-Ugric words. If the number of language was three or more, it was suggested that the word belongs to the time of the common Iranian language. If the word was found in one or two Iranian languages, then it was referred to the time when common Iranian has been split into separate languages. The words of the first group were also included in the table and the total number of matches increased to 235 (hereinafter supplied exact numbers are really only indicative, since the lexical material is constantly refined, and the table itself is undergoing some changes). Current table lexical correspondences can be found on the Internet.
After that, the number of common words of the Indo-European languages, having the largest number of Finno-Ugric matches, was estimated with individual Finno-Ugric. The results of calculations are shown in Table 6. The second column represents the total number of common words of the each Indo-European language with all the Finno-Ugric. The Finno-Ugric languages are arranged in order of their distance from the Indo-European space, and the Indo-European ones did respectively from the Finno-Ugric. We can see for the Finno-Ugric languages, that the number common words in the language pairs as a whole is decreasing at the removal of their areas. As an example, the name of the daughter in the western Finno-Ugric languages (âåïñ. t’ütar, Erz. òåéòåðü, Est. tütar, Fin. tytür), which corresponds to PIE *dhugheter “a daugher” (Ger. Tochter, Gr. τυγατηρ, OInd. duhitar etc.)
It is naturally that the Iranian languages have most of all matches with Finno-Ugrian words. The Indian language has them much less than Iranian has, and even than Greek, and the difference from the Baltic and Germanic languages is within the statistical error. An explanation of these facts can be such. The Indo-Aryans were amond the first who left their ancestral seats and had no more contact with the Finno-Ugric people, whereas the Iranians were neighbors with them for a long time further. The Greeks in their mass also left their ancestral home, but some of them still remained on the territory of Eastern Ukraine (see. Ancient Greeks in Ukraine), what was resulted in borrowing Greek vocabulary into Mordvinic languages. Later, a Baltic people with, who has moved to the left bank of the Dnieper, had a good contact with Finno-Ugrians, but their language is unknown to us, because they were over time assimilated into the local population, whereas ancestors of the Lithuanians and Latvians had no close contacts with the Finno-Ugric people at that time.
Table 6. The number of common words in the Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages.
Localization of habitats of the speakers of the Nostratic languages can help the study of cultural relations of the population of Eastern Europe during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age. This topic concisely outlined in Section The Language and Cultural Contacts of the Population in Eastern Europe and can be developed further.
It can be fruitful connection of individual Finno-Ugrik habitas with available Finno-Ugric place nameson it, which can even suggest ways of their later migration to their lands at present. You can find many place names of Finno-Ugric origin in Russia, remained here from For-Russian period (GORDEYEV F.I., 1990, 60). Many of them can be decrypted using several languages, but in some ethno-producing areas place names can be decrypted just by using those languages which here were formed. And in some cases chains of names of individual nations mark migration path from their ancestral home to modern-day territory. (See. Map below)
Finno-Ugric place names on ethno-producing areas and migration routes of Finno-Ugric peoples.
The boundaries of total Finno-Ugric territory and boundaries of individual areas are indicated by black lines. At the same time they are the rivers, if they have no interpretation by means of the Finno-Ugric languages. Place-names left by individual Finno-Ugric peoples at times of formation of their primary languages are indicated by different colors. Finnish – blue, Estonian – red, Hungarian – brown, moksha – light-violet, Komi – light-blue, Udmurt – green, etc. Localities designated by starlets, rivers – by lines.
There are on the map names of Bulgarian origin marked by yellow squares, left by creators of Fatyanovo culture, who came from the banks of the Dnieper along the Desna River and upper Oka River. Placement of names shows that the aliens did not mix with the local population for a long time and obviously forced them to migrate in search of new places of settlement.
Prehistoric Finno-Ugric place names are considered more detailed separately (see Section Finno-Ugric Place Names of Ancient Times.)