Start page

Valentyn Stetsyuk (Lviv, Ukraine)

Personal web site


The Indo-European Tribes.

Knowing about the migration of the Nostratic tribes, we can try to define new settlement spaces of the Indo-European, Turkic, and Finno-Ugric peoples in Eastern Europe. Let's start with the Indo-Europeans.

The abundance of works devoted to the origin of the Indo-Europeans creates good opportunities for an arbitrary combination of different opinions of scientists for sophistic prove all new theories that serve basis for further ethnogenetic exercises that can be clearly seen, for example in one of the papers on the origin of the Slavs (ALEKSAKHA A.G. 2013). As linguists themselves can not cope with the ethnogenesis of the Indo-Europeans, archaeologists are taking for affair and selecting as a basis one of the many assumptions about the origins of the first Indo-European cultures, exclusively on archaeological data confidently present us with a fictional picture of the further cultural development of the Indo-Europeans with a precise indication of their migration routes and places of settlement what has good examples too (ZALIZNIAK L.L. 2016). The state of modern Indo-European linguistics was competently characterized by one of the modern scholars as follows:

Indo-European linguistics has never been so well-documented as it today. Precision of description and argumentation have never so good. One must continue on this path with ever greater precision and adequacy. Openness to new approaches is of great importance (MEIER-BRÜGGER MICHAEL, 2003: 15).

However, despite the fact that the Indo-European linguistics is well documented, they still have no convincing solutions of the problems of Indo-European Utheimat. It seems that the Indo-European studies are given into the hands of bureaucrats who systematize the all worthwhile for attention from their point of view and call to follow in this way further. "Openness to new approaches" is mentioning just for good impression, because used in our studies graphic-analytical method is described for a long time, and studies using it, were inserted in, but no mention of this new approach in above work. If the Indo-European linguistics will continue to remain closed to new ideas, as science it will indefinitely remain a long time in limbo without a solid foundation of historical truth. Such foundation is a territory where occured formation of individual Indo-European languages. Its location can be found using the graphical model of their relationship.

To construct the graphical model of kinship of the Indo-European languages, was compilled a table-dictionary based on the etymological dictionary of J. Pokorny (POKORNY. J., 1949-1959 ). These data were supplemented with words from the etymological dictionaries of other Indo-European languages (FRAENKEL E.,1955-1965, FRISK H., 1970, HÜBSCHMANN HEINRICH., 1972, KLUGE FRIEDRICH, 1989, WALDE A., 1965. In total 2615 phono-semantic sets of the Slavic, Celtic, Baltic, Germanic, Italic, Greek, Indic (Indo-Aryan), Iranian, Tocharian A and B, Hittite-Luwian, Albanian, Thracian, Phrygian languages were placed into the table-dictionary. 489 sets were admitted as mutual words. The words with the matches found in seven from eight of the most represented languages (Germanic, Greek, Baltic, Indic, Italic, Slavic, Celtic, Iranian) were considered as the common Indo-European stock. Calculation of the mutual words in the language pairs gave the results that are presented in table 3.

Language Slav Celt Germ Ital Greek Balt Ind Iran Arm
Slavic 732
Celtic 307 751
Germanic 501 524 1202
Italic 279 368 518 792
Greek 371 416 626 493 1159
Baltic 530 358 652 359 542 1015
Indo-Aryan 235 275 455 335 511 394 865
Iranian 168 195 319 225 346 265 459 616
Armenian 151 177 263 222 321 226 232 222 536

Table 3. Quantity of mutual words in pairs of the Indo-European languages.

The total number of words for each language is given in the diagonal of the table. The number of mutual words for each pair of languages can be found on the intersection of the corresponding column and line.

The data for Tocharian, Hittite-Luwian, Albanian, Thracian, Phrygian are not presented in the table because of the small numbers. The localisation of their sites in the relationship model of Indo-European languages is to be analysed later with the other methods. It should be taken into account that all the data presented here are current and are constantly being corrected while the new terms are found, though these corrections don’t make much influence. The data oscillation of 5-7% does not modify the models at all, the correction results only to the more compact aggregate of points for language sites. The model of the Indo-European language relationships was built in consistence with the above-mentioned method and is presented at the figure 5.

Fig. 5. The graphical model of the Indo-European languages relationships.

One of these two reflexive variants was chosen in order to be able to place the Celtic area on the west, the Iranian site  on the east, and the Baltic area  on the north. The reason for this choice is evident. While trying to place the model on the map of Eastern Europe where rivers can be considered as the borders of habitats, we determined only one suitable variant in the basins of the Upper and Middle Dnieper and its tributaries the Pripyat’ and Desna. The map of the Indo-European space with separate areas for individual languages is presented at the figure 6.

Fig. 6. The map of the Indo-European habitats located according the graphical model of relationships

The Indo-European languages are divided into two general branches which are named the Satem and the Centum. The Hittite-Luwian, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Tocharian languages belong to the Centum-group. The Slavic, Baltic, Indic, Iranian, Armeinan, and Albanian as the offspring of Thracian languages belong to the Satem-group. Excepting Slavic and Baltic, all Centum-languages are located to the west of the Dniepr and all Satem languages are located to the east of the Dniepr. The transformation of the Indo-European palatal stops k’ , g’, and gh’ into spirants s, s’ or affricates took place under the influence of Finno-Ugric languages which had a great set of spirants. The Dnepr was the effective barrier for these influences if we suppose that this transformation in the Slavic and Baltis languages took place later after the speakers of these languages came in the direct contact with Finno-Ugric languages crossing the Dnepr.

The areas of uprising the Tocharian, Albanian, Thracian, Phrygian languages were determined by the comparison of the ideas of many scholars with the Urheimats of other Indo-Europeans received by the graphic-analytical method. As a result of this study the whole Indoeuropean space was defind (see the map below).

Fig. 6. The map of the Indo-European space including Illirian, Tocharian, Thracian, and Phrygian areas.

After made placement of areas of Indo-European languages it is appeared that the Thracian language has no free area at all. Since it is close to Phrygian and Albanian and the successor or Illyrian or Thracian,

then there is no choice but to place the Thracian area where we placed the ancestors of the Albanians, i.e. to consider Albanian as a continuation of Thracian. This area is bordered by the Desna River and its left tributary of Nerussa in the west and north, and in the south and east by the Seym River and its right tributary Svapa.