Valentyn Stetsyuk, Lviv; Ukraine
Introduction to the Study of Prehistoric Ethnogenic Processes in Eastern Europe and Asia
The Turkic Tribe Bulgar in Eastern Europe.
How it was noted above, archaeological evidences suggest that at the end of the 3rd mill BC, but maybe earlier, the carrier of the traditions of the Pit culture began to penetrate on the right bank of the Dnieper. We associate them with the Turkic tribes of the Bulgars. Contacting with the indigenous population, the newcomers brought own cultural elements to the spread here high developed Tripilla culture. For example, a group of remains of Usatovo, belonging to the Trypilla culture, has clear traces of connections with the Pit culture on the left bank of the Dnieper. Obviously, these remains were left by Bulgarish tribes who originally reached the rivers Siniukha and Ingulets, and then moved to the northwest along the banks of the Dniester. Human skeleton, buried in the back with bent knees, that is in a pose characteristic for carriers of the so-called "kurgan" cultures, which was found near the village of Nezvisko in Ivano-Frankivsk Region, can evidence to this progress of the Turkic tribes. Furthermore, Tripilla clayware, found on different places, was mixed with sand and crushed seashells what is distinguished feature of the Pit culture[1]. The anthropological study of the archaeological sites of North-Western Black Sea Country suggests the process of crossing and mutual assimilation of the Trypillians and tribes of the Pit culture arriving here[2].
Toponymy and tracks of language contacts of Bulgars with Indo-European peoples help us to find the location of their new habitats. The number place names of Bulgarish origin in the Western Ukraine, Poland, and Hungary is so numerous that this topic is placed in a separate chapter, where we refer an interested reader. The data of the language contact of the ancient Bulgars do not look less convincing as toponymy. Such data are examples of lexical correspondences between the Chuvash and the Latin, Greek, Germanic languages. Most of them are given below.
The conclusion about the presence of the Turkic peoples in Eastern Europe in the Bronze Age contrary to many established views of science. The Turkic languages are traditionally included in the Altaic family on the warrant of the typological relationship (affinity) with the Mongolian languages. Moreover, according to M. Erdal, N. Poppe, O. Pritsak and some others believed that "the Bulgar-Chuvash branch is somehow intermediate between the Turkic and Mongolian languages"[3]. Such views are not shared by all scholars, but it is believed that all Turks, including the Bulgars, arrived in Europe from Asia. Considering the Chuvash language in comparative historical perspective, V. Yegorov wrote:
“Far traces of Chuvash first in the vicinity of the Mongolian tribes and then in the upper reaches of the Irtysh and Yenisei rivers - in the vicinity of the Altaic Turks and Central Asian Iranian tribes are good found in the Chuvash language. The Chuvash language has are many Mongolian words, and almost all of them are of ancient origin”[4].
However, such views are not in full accepted. For example, K. Menges believed that the Chuvash language has very little Altaic words[5]. Likewise the above quoted author said in the same paper that the Mongolian words are present in "an insignificant amount"[6]. Once again this confirms how vague and subjective evaluation give the words "many", "little" without quantitative comparison with other related languages. This typical methodological mistake can lead into error even good scholars. Nevertheless, it might seem at first glance that even small amounts of Mongolian words in Chuvash can be enough for the evidence of the contacts between the ancestors of the modern Chuvash and Mongols:
“The Chuvash language has a number of Mongolian words being not found in other Turkic languages. They are above all other pronouns ... The rest of the Chuvash Mongolic matches is in few number, but sufficient to prove the coexistence of the Proto-Chuvash and Mongol peoples in the far past - long before the Mongol invasions”[7].
R. Akhmet'yanov gives in his work except pronouns only six or seven Chuvash words, which have analogues only in the Mongolian language, but that does not mean that they are or always were absent in the other Turkic languages, or never existed in the Old-Turkic language. A similar phenomenon can be observed also in the Tatar and even in the Hungarian language, where there are separate Hungarian-Mongolian vocabulary matches. On this occasion, the well-known Hungarian linguist Z. Gombots wrote: "The fact that in some cases, matches to the Hungarian words can be detected only in Mongolian .., has no really matter, as the ancient Turkic vocabulary is known to us in its entirety"”[8]. On the other hand, some of Chuvash-Mongolian matches absolutely can not be ancient on warrant of the meanings of words ("tin", "shawl"). The borrowings from the Middle-Mongolian language confuse greatly the picture being taken for more ancient loan-words. However, the genetic relationship can only be said by the most common and, therefore, the most ancient words which were in daily circulation still at a primitive level of development of languages. Namely, examples of such common words between the Chuvash and Mongolian languages are absent.
Hungarian linguist A. Rona-Tas, considering in light of the Altaic theory Mongolian matches in the Chuvash, on the example of three dozen of Chuvash borrowings from the Middle-Mongolian language, comes to the conclusion that the source of the borrowing of other words having similar phonology could also be Middli-Mongolian. In his view, the presence of a word even in the three groups of the Altaic languages can not be proof of its Altaic origin. He sees the following reasons which may explain the facts of linguistic community:
· historical contacts;
· areal convergence;
· typological parallels;
· convergence of the units of independent origin;
· a coincidence;
· genetic relatedness.
As you can see the reasons are different and the very existence of matches between the Chuvash and the Mongolian language is not talking about genetic kinship of the Turkic and Mongolian languages[9].
The Chuvash and Mongolian phonology has also correspondences in favor, if not genetic relationship, the old neighborhood of the Bulgars and the Mongols. The most important of them are as follows:
· the consonant r in the Chuvash and the Mongolian languages corresponds in most cases s/z in the other Turkic languages;
· the consonant l in the Chuvash and Mongolian languages corresponds š in most other Turkic languages.
Turkologists divide all Turkic languages into two groups – the group “r/l-languages" and the group “z-languages”. The group r/l consist of only Chuvash as the modern language, but it is assumed that other r/l-languages existed earlier too. The nature of the phonetic correspondence r/l ↔ š/s/z is one of the most mysterious phenomena of the Altaic languages (Turkic, Mongolian, Manchu-Tungus) and remains poorly studied:
“Our knowledge of r/l Turkish is so fragmentary and discontinuous that is better not to attempt to trace its history in detail remarking merely that the difference between r/l Turkish and standard languages was primarily in the pronunciation of certain sounds and probably only to a small extent in matters of word structure, grammar, and vocabulary:what is said below about the general structure of standard Turkish is equally applicable to r/l Turkish ”[10].
This topic is considered in an article about a hypothetical Nostratic sound rz more detailed.
The ancestors of the Bulgars lost the language contact with their linguistic cousins after going to the right bank of the Dnieper. The rest of the Turks stayed together in close proximity for a long time, during which their languages have acquired a lot of common phonetic, lexical and morphological features, unusual Chuvash. After the settlement of Turks on the vast territory from the North Caucasus to the Altai most of them came into contact with peoples of the Altaic language family and made a great influence on them. Together with lexical borrowing could have been accepted also some phonetic features, in particular, the archaic sound rz. Gradually, the bulk of the Turkic languages have been lost some archaic features, but they remained on the periphery of the Turkic world. This also can explain the common features possessed by the Chuvash and Mongolian languages, and that mislead scientists. The Chuvash language preserved archaic Turkic language phenomena, just because for a long time developed without direct contact with the other Turkic, and some of these linguistic phenomena can be transferred by the Turks in the Mongolian languages when they first came into contact with the Mongols. Mongolian language could also save these archaic linguistic phenomena, which can have very different reasons. If the Chuvash language would have many correspondences with the Mongolian, then it had much more similarities with Yakut, undoubtedly akin genetically, but about any particular facts of this similarity is not mentioned anywhere.
It is sometimes considered that, in addition to Bulgar, the Oghur and Avar languages also were language were r-languages[11]. The ethnonyms Oguz, Ogur, and Avar, without a doubt go back to one common source of Iranian awara “vagabond, nomad” (Afg. avāra, etc.) and therefore could not be self-designation. Accordingly, the same people could be called by different names Oguz, Ogur, and Avars in different languages. We associate the modern Gagauz people of z-language with Oghuz. Thus, we became contradiction, which is again solved by the existence of the sound rz, which was changed to z in the language of the Gagauz that are the descendants of Oghuz-Ogur-Avars relatively recently, in the historical period (possibly under the influence of the Kipchak language). In this case, to put in one row the Oghur and Bulgar languages is not warranted.
During the mass crossing of the Bulgars on the right bank of the Dnieper Indo-Europeans still stayed on their old habitats therefore the cultural exchange between the newcomers and local population contributed to the development of linguistic connections. This language contacts of the Bulgars with Indo-Europeans are evidenced by lexical correspondences between the Chuvash language, on the one hand, and individual Indo-European languages, on the other. Herewith, the Italic-Bulgar language connections were chronologically earliest of all, since just Ancient Italics were the first which the Bulgars met on countries of the Dnieper right bank.
We have already mentioned that the Turks were at a higher level of cultural development than the Indo-Europeans what is affirmed by the words of the economic meaning of the Turkic origin in their languages. Cf.:
o Gr αγροσ, Lat ager, Germ Acker “field” – common Turkic ek- (Chuv ak, akăr) “to sow”;
o Gr αλφι “barley”, αλφη “barley meal” – common Turkic arpa “barley”;
o Gr ηθμοσ “sieve” – Chuv atma “fishnet”.
o Gr κορβανοσ "temple treasure-box" – Chuv kărman "basket";
o Gr λισγαριον, λισγοσσ “mattock” – Crim-Tat ülüskär, Kaz lesker “mattock”;
o Gr μηκον “poppy” – Chuv măkăn’ “poppy”;
o Gr παστη “pasta” – Karach, Balk basta “porridge, gruel”;
o Gr χορτοσ “kraal”, Lat hortus “garden”, OG gardon “garden” – Cuv karta “fence”;
o Lat arca “a box” – Chuv arča “a chest”;
o Lat cama “a short board, plank bed, shelf” – Chuv khăma “board”;
o Lat. casa “a house” – Chuv. kasă “a street” which had formerly meaning “settlemen
o Lat cupa “a bucket, barrel” – Tur, Turkm kova, Chag qopa etc “a bucket”;
o Lat ius, iuris “soup” – Chuv jaška – “soup”, juškăň “slime”;
o Lat scopula “a broom” – Chuv šăpăr “a broom”;
o Lat sĕrra “a saw” – Chuv sĕr “to rub, saw”;
o Lat torta “round twined bread” – Chuv tărta “to twine, to nest”. The Latin word has no sure etymology (W.)
You can find Turkish influence in the spiritual realm. Some matches between the Bulgars and Italians are seen in religious issues. Latin abbās "abbot" is considered to be borrowed through Greek from the Aramaic (abbā "father") and is not considered in the etymological dictionary of Latin (Walde A.1965). First, the alleged word was used in prayer in the sense of "my father" (Kluge Friedrich. 1989, 7). However worthy surprise that Latin and Greek words are corresponded with Cuv. apăs "priest," which originated from the ancient Turkic word for the immediate family, including the father (aba/apa). When borrowing from Aramaic and using in prayers word abbās should be used referring to God, not to his servants, and therefore Bulgar source of borrowing should be preferred. More such lexical parallel: Lat. vapor "steam, smoke, fire" - Cuv Vupăr "ghost, spirit" may be included to religious topics too. The word, of course, has a Turkic origin (Turkic bu "steam" and Chuv pyr, which among other senses has also "to come" or par/pǎr "to give, give out"). Surprising is also the similarity of the Greek pandoura "kithara", Latin pandura "three-stringed lute" and a number of Chuvash words of close sense: pănt – imitation of ringing broken string, păntăr-păntăr - imitation of string strum, păntărtat - 1. "to thrum, to give strum sounds" (on stringed instruments), 2. "to crack, rattle" (on drums). As Chuvash words have a more general meaning, evidences that a stringed musical instrument of ancient Italians was borrowed from the Bulgars, but not vice versa. There is spread in Central Asian stringed instrument tanbur and it is assumed that its name has Arabic origin (Ar tanbūr stringed instrument). However Chuv tĕmpĕr "imitation of drum sound" and tĕmpĕrtet "to thunder, boom" compel to doubt of such assumption. Also the people of the Caucasus have musical instruments with names similar Latin pandura, but the source of their loan is difficult to define. The evidence of Turkic cultural influences could be also be loan-words of an abstract sense. For example, the Chuvash word pinĕsh "thousand" has Latin match finis "end, limit". The specific meaning of the Chuvash word that originates from the Turkic biŋ "thousand" suggests that when the Turks have learned counting at least till thousand, Indo-Europeans who have no common words for so many, understood Turkic word as a finite number.