Valentyn Stetsyuk
The Survey of the Methods and Results of the Study
The graphic-analytical method allows to research the origin and the development of languages in prehistoric times by the means of the available lexical material collected in many different dictionaries. The essence of this method consists in quantitative estimation and geometrical interpretation of common characteristics in cognate languages. The greater cognation of languages is usually connected with the greater amount of common language units, from which common words suit for statistical calculation above all. In the basis of the method lies supposition about inverse proportionalitybetween the amount of common words in pair of languages and the distance between natural areas, where these languages began to form. As a matter of fact, the more near to each other dwelled the speakers of two cognate languages at the time of their formation, the more common words are had in these languages. Clearly, one means words which could be used in prehistoric times but not words which were arising up during the cultural advance of a people later. The determination of such old words is not simple task, but different methods can be found for this aim. So, choosing necessary words from all languages of the explored language family, we proceed with our work. At first, one must select a common word stock which can describe a linguistic association but doesn’t speak about the extent of relationship between languages of this association. Thus, the common word stock must be excluded from the calculation. The rest of words can consist of sound- and meaning-correspondences of two or more languages, but we will count the amount of such correspondences in pairs regardless of their presence in other languages. After such calculation in all possible pairs of languages, the graphic model of cognation can be constructed. The graph haves to reflect the location of natural areas of each language on the common territory of the dispersal of the whole linguistic family. Each area is corresponded to the complex of knots of gained graph. These complexes are formed by the ends of ribs (segments) having the lengths which are inversely proportional to the number of sound- and meaning-correspondences in pairs of languages. The number of the ribs is equal to the number of possible pairs of languages, and the number of knots in each accumulation is one unit less than the amount of languages. The construction of a graph is simple and needs only elementary knowledge of geometry.
On the next step, we have to find a suitableplace for the gained graph. The suitable territory should consist of areas with more or less distinct natural boundary-lines such as rivers or mountain ranges. Natural barriers complicate contact between the populations of such areas and, accordingly, exchange with new arisen words that results to the split of a primary language. The more distant one from other are situated areas, the more difference arises between the languages of their inhabitants. There are not many places on the earth’s surface with accumulation of natural areas which we will name ethno-forming areas therefore the searching for them is not complicated. There are many who think that whichever graphical model can be placed wherever, but this is a fallacy. How two nets, formed out of triangles and squares, cannot be superposed, it is similarly impossible to superpose a graphic model with an incongruous place on a map. Thus, the fact of correct placing the graph on a map is to be eloquent in itself.
As the result of the fulfilled studies, such general picture of the forming and development of languages follows farther. Few separate primitive ancestral languages appeared in some human civilization seats. Then they were subjected to complex processes of splitting. At first, some cognate languages of lower level arise from one ancestral language. The same process of forming new languages of higher level will begin, if the speakers of these new languages will occupy new large territory, separated by geographical borders to natural areas. Such process can be repeated once more or twice, even on the same natural areas, if the former population goes away. Otherwise, some languages, which speakers remained constantly on a small territory, could not be split anymore. Thus, the longer certain association of people stays on the same place, the more original features can be obtained by their language. Hereupon, the family of genetically congener languages can have more or less common features.
It is assumed, that one of primitive ancestral languages was so called Proto-Nostratic, splitted to six (or more?) separate Nostratic parent languages, which developed to the Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic, Proto-Semitic-Hamitic, Proto-Dravidian, Proto-Kartvelian, and Proto-Turkic languages later. The constructed graphic model of six languages of the Nostratic macro-family allowed to determinate the natural areas of their arising. They located in East Anatolia and Transcaucasia round and near three lakes - Van, Sevan and Urmiya (Rezaye). The Biblical mountain Ararat lies in the center of this territory. Some north, in the valleys of the Caucasian mountains were formed the Caucasian languages (the Abhazo-Adyghe, the Nakh, the Dagestani and so on). Maybe, the migration of speakers of some North-Caucasian language to Central Asia resulted that the China-Tibetan languages have similar features to the Caucasians.
Obviously, toward the end of the 6th mill B.C. the most deal of the Nostratic population were settling apart on new territories. The Kartvelies, the ancestors of modern Georgians and, possibly, small rests of other people remained on the old Urheimat. The Proto-Semitic-Hamitics and Proto-Dravidians stepped southward, and speakers of the Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Turkic languages moved by turn through the Derbent passage-way to the North Caucasus, and further settled gradually the East-European plain north of the Black Sea. They didn’t stay on the North Causasus as some unknown people, speaking some North-Caucasian language, already occupied this territory. In due course the Indo-European, Uralic and Turkic people were absorbed by the autochthons but engrafting them their more developed languages. The constructed graphic models of languages for each of these three families allowed establish the territories of settlements of their speakers and natural areas of forming the languages of higher level. The whole territory of Eastern Europe from the Vistula to Ural is separated by the river net to score or two ethno-forming natural areas enough distinctly. So, the Indo-Europeans were settled in the basin of the Middle and Upper Dnepr on areas formed by its tributaries and the tributaries of the Prip'yat and Desna. Here the Indo-European dialects where formed, from which such languages developed in the course of time: Greek, Italic, Germanic, Slavonic, Baltic, Tocharian, Celtic, Illirian, Hitto-Luwian, Thracian, Phrygian, Armenian, Iranian, and Indian. The greater deal of the Uralic language speakers did not reach to Ural and were settled in the basin of the Volga. Such primary Finno-Ugric languages were formed on the natural areas of its right-bank part: Finnish, Estonian, Veps, Lappish (Saami), Mordvin, Mari (Cheremis), Hungarian, Udmurt, Komi, Hanty (Ostiak), Mansi (Vogul), and also two or three languages have been vanished later. That deal of the Uralians, which crossed the Volga and moved northward, had already no contacts with the other relatives, therefore their languages developed independently and gave beginning for the Samoyed languages. Turkic people populated territory between the Low Dnepr and the Don and here the common Turkic language also resulted the process of splitting. The territories of the Indo-Europeans, Finno-Ugers and Turks are correlated with certain archaeological cultures. For example, Turkic territory may be connected with the Culture of Corded Ware. One must note that Turks stood at more high cultural level at that time than the Indo-Europeans and Finno-Ugers, as they ran productive economy more actively occupying cattle breeding and farming. Accordingly, the Indo-Europeans and Finno-Ugers borrowed a lot of words of cultural and social meaning from the Turks.
At the beginning of the 2nd mill B.C. the Turkic peoples in the majority left their Urheimat, gradually settling apart on the territory from Carpathians to Altai. Those Turkic tribes which reached Altai entered into the contact with the local speakers of the Mongolian and Tungus-Manchurian languages. More rife and developed Turkic languages influenced considerably on the languages of aboriginals occupied mainly with hunting and fishing, that is they stood on enough lower level of cultural advance. Hereupon the Mongolian, Tungus-Manchurian languages, and also genetically related to them Japanese and Korean have the certain amount of common features with the Turkic languages. This is the ground for associating all them in one so called the Altai language family, although the Turkic languages, as we have seen, do not belong to it genetically. The family name "Altai" is groundless too because the Mongolian and Tungus-Manchurian languages were formed in the basin of the river Amur, the Korean language on the Korean peninsula did, and Japanese arose in Primorje (the area between the rivers Amur and Ussuri, and the Sea of Japan). There was the second cradle of human civilization. By the way, the Chinese did not belong to this civilization because the seat of their culture was somewhere in Central China. Beside this, the Chinese language was influenced by the language of other migrants from East Europe, maybe, the creators of Maycop culture on the North Caucasus.
When the most deal of Turkic people already left territory between the Dnepr and the Don, Indo-European tribes came in motion too. The Hettites, Illirians and Greeks moved to Balkans, the Italics (ancestors of the Romans, Oscans, and Umbrians) finally settled on the Apennin-peninsula. As the second wave, the Phrygians, Ancient Armenians and Thracians (ancestors of modern-day Albanians) moved to Balkans, and the Ancient Indians together with the Tocharians reached Middle Asia, and then moved up to the Hindustan. The Slavs, which Urheimat was in the very north of the Indo-European territory, moved westward but stopped on the eastern banks of the Vistula, just as their southern neighbours Celts went into Central Europe onward. As a rule, no one population left completely the native places but its rests were often assimilated by more numerous newcomers, although the language of the autochtons could have some influence on their languages. Such language influences of the substratum on ethno-forming areas accelerate substantially the splitting of the common parent language of the newcomers. So, when the Germanic, Baltic, and Iranian tribes occupied areas left by other Indo-Europeans, they interfused with the previous population there. The Germanic people occupied the natural areas of the Celts, Illirians, Greeks, Italics and their parent Germanic language splitted enough quickly into five dialects, which later developed to the Gothic, present-day English, German, Dutch, Frisish, and North Germanic (Swedish, Norwegian, Danish) languages. The split of the Iranian and Baltic languages proceeded simultaneously with the Germanic one.
Those Turkic peoples which moved to the right bank of the Dnepr (they were Ancient Bulgars, ancestors of Hazarians and modern-day Chuvashians) slowly moved up north-westward and in course of time entered into the contact with the Germanic peoples which populated the basin of the Prip'yat’. Bulgars settled in closer neighborhood with the ancestors of the present-day Germans, what is definitly testified by numerous lexical correspondences between the Chuvashian and German languages. This fact is quite good support for the results of our research, but additional argument to them are numerous place names that the Bulgars and Old Germans left on the territory of West Ukraine which were kept to our times.
At this time, by the beginning of the 1st mill. B.C., all Iranian tribes remained in East Europe on the territory between the Dnepr and the Don. Some later a great deal of them went along the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea in the direction to Middle Asia. Those Iranians which remained in the Pontic steppes were known in history as Cimmerians. They made predatory raids to Asia Minor through Caucasus, until Scythians forced them out, populating the whole territory from the river Dnestr to the Don. The Scythians came here not from the east, as it is accepted generally, but from the west. They were the same Bulgars which began reverse motion eastward from West Ukraine and crossed the Dnepr to its left bank. The movement of the Scythians eastwards looks more logical, if they forced out the Cimmerians to the Caucasus and, besides this can be proved by archaeology and linguistics. Most Scythian names which remained in historical sources in amount more as 200 units are well decrypted by means of the Chuvashian language, however some names of this list have Iranian correspondences, more precisely Kurdish. Besides, a few tens toponyms of Right-bank Ukraine, which are not decrypted by the Slavic or the Chuvashian, can be understood by means of Kurdish language. Obviously, the ancestors of present-day Kurds which Urheimat was on the former area of Thracians, in course of time, similarly as well as Thracians made this earlier, got down along the Desna to the Dnepr and crossed it to the right bank. Here some time they lived in neighborhood with Bulgars, what can be confirmed by the Chuvashian-Kurdish lexical correspondences. Thus, some deal of the Scythians must have also Iranian origin, but not they all as it is considered generally.
The Finno-Ugric peoples remained aside from the ways of great migrations but they moved gradually northward in the turn determined by the location of their natural areas on the Urheimat. For example, Saami (Laps, Laplands), which occupied the extreme northern area of common Finno-Ugric territory, were the first in the moving northward and they are most northern Finno-Ugric people at present. The ancestors of Mansi had their Urheimat on the extreme north-eastern and Mansi occupy the same position on whole Finno-Ugric territory at present. The same can be said about other Finno-Ugers, except for the Magyars. Their Urheimat between the rivers Khoper and Medveditsa lay alongside with the ways of great migrations of peoples therefore the fate of history brought them to Central Europe. As most deal of Finno-Ugers was kept out of the long wandering, no Finno-Ugric people had possibility to populate wide empty territories therefore Finno-Ugric languages are not split so deeply as the Indo-Europeans ones. Some of them kept their integrity others were divided only into the two or three dialects or very similar languages.
Eventually, we talk about the Slavs. The Slavs, which populated enough compact territory during long time, kept the unity of their language longer as other Indo-European peoples. Even after the splitting of the Proto-Slavic, new Slavic languages appeared as more similar to each other as, for example, Germanic languages which have arisen considerably earlier. The splitting of Slavic languages occurred by the beginning of the 1st mill AD, when the Slavs have occupied the whole previous Indo-European territory. They formed the stratum on Baltic autochthons which had replaced here Germanic and Iranian tribes and already had the separate languages. The different Baltic substratum had hastened the division of Slavic languages, therefore the age of each of them can be considered about eighteen centuries.
To the whole version of the Alternative Linguistics
