Türkic, Slavic and Iranian

O.Suleymenov Az i A (Az and I), Alma-Ata, 1975 (Russ). Part 1 Song of Igor’s Campaign, Chapter Kypchak: The sources of old Slavic military lexicon belong to the epoch of Slavic-Türkic unity. This still unusual term is provable: the sources witness it. And first of all is the vocabulary. A whole row of designations (in the Slavic language - Translator's Note) for the most general concepts of the military craft comes from the ancient Türkic languages. Such as  “voin“ (soldier), “boyarin“ (boyar, highest noble), “polk“ (regiment), “trud“, (labor, in the sense “war“) “, “ohota“ (hunting), “oblava“ (round-up), “chugun“ (pig-iron), “jelezo“ (iron), “bulat“ (sword), “alebarda“ ( halberd), “topor“ (axe), “molot“ (hammer), “sulitsa“ (lance), “rat“ (army), “khorugv“ (banner), “sablya“ (sabre), “kmet“ (?), “kolchan“ (quiver), “tma“ (10-thousand army division), “Ura!“ (Hurrah/Hurray!, Türk “strike!“) , “ayda!“ (go!). These invisible Türkisms, frayed during the centuries, do not stand out in the vocabulary. The linguists only notice the latest, obviously “non-native“ inclusions: saadak (leather bag for bow, quiver), orda (horde), bunchuk (Türkic ensign), karaul (sentry), esaul (lieutenant of ataman - commander), ertaul (?), ataman (commander) , kosh (basket), kuren (pavilion), bogatyr (mighty hero), birüch (bachelor), jalav (flag), snuznik (rider), kolymaga (cart), alpaut (?), surnach (flutist, piper), etc. 1. “halberd“ could be  a Germanic borrowing: 1495, from M.Fr. hallebarde, from M.H.G. halmbarte “broad-axe with handle,“ from halm “handle“ + barte “hatchet,“ from P.Gmc. bardoz beard.“ Alternate etymology traces first element to helm “helmet,“ making the weapon an axe for smashing helmets. Or it could be borrowed into both Germanic and Slavic... 2. A number of the above examples belong to common Slavic lexicon, before the fission of Balto-Slavic into Western, Eastern and Southern dialects, implying their Hunnic, and possible even earlier borrowing from the Ptolemaic tribes such as Agathyrs, Alans, Savars, Gelons etc. 3. A review of the treatment of these “Proto-Slavic“ Türkic words in the authoritative Vasmer's Dictionary is indicative, showing how a tendentious analysis can impoverish this subject to a sanitized version. The European etymologies, like for “bachelor“, are less chauvinistic, but frequently even more parochial.

Türkic borrowings

The population of the areas adjacent to the Slavic settlements influenced the substrate of the Proto-Slavic language. We believe that the steppes of the right-bank Ukraine at the time of the Slavic arrival were occupied by the Scythian descendents Bulgars. The Kurds also were Bulgars' neighbors for some time. The language influences of the Türkic descendants of the Scythians and Cimmerians are visible in the ancient loanwords in the western Slavic languages which so far could not be explained.

A Czech researcher J.Peisker was the first who studied the language links between the Slavs and Türks, and created an original theory of the Slavic-Türkic relations formulated in his work “Die ältesten Beziehungen der Slawen zu Türkotataren und Germanen” (Stutthart, 1905). His views were criticized, in particular, by L.Niederle, because it was believed that the facts notwithstanding, the Slavic-Türkic contacts just could not have happened, if the subject was any “Turanian proximity”. But we know that the contacts of the Western Slavs with the Türkic Scythians have a realistic foundation and explanation.

Certainly, the influences of the Türkic language on the Slavs cover a very long period, and it is difficult to separate them from the later loans, which are widely present in both South Slavic and East Slavic languages. But the presence of the Türkic words in the Western Slavic languages is very revealing. The Türkisms, however, could penetrate the Polish language through the Ukrainian, and the Slovak and Czech through the Hungarian language. For example, Slovak  čakan “mattock, pickaxe“ is of obviously a Türkic word (Chagatay čakan “battle axe“), but Hung. has csakany, and therefore this word cannot be exclusively attributed to the Scythian borrowing. The same also can be said about Slovak, Cz. salaš, Rus. šalaš “hut“ to which there are matches both in the Türkic, and in the Hungarian languages. However, the examples of the Türkisms in the Machek’s etymological dictionary contain many words whose penetration into the Czech and Slovak languages remain “mysterious“ (А. Machek V., 1957) because they could not be retransmitted through the Ukrainian or Hungarian languages.

Let's review some of them, with an eye to the corresponding Chuvash words. Very interesting is, for example, Slovak, Cz. koberec, Pol. kobierzec “carpet“. This word reminds the Rus. kover “carpet”, but it is quite visible that the West Slavic words are not borrowed from Russian. Vasmer believes, that the source of the loan word in Russian can be the Old. Chuv. *kavêr - *kabir (Vasmer M., 1964). It would be conceivable for the Slovak and Czech words to be borrowed even earlier from the Bulgarian, but it would be impossible to confidently state this about the Polish word. There is also another explanation. The Old Chuvashian form restored by Vasmer very closely matches the Eng. cover. Hence, the Slovak word can also be from the Old English (i.e. Germanic, which in turn comes from the Türkic) substratum.

Among the Slavic languages, Slovak has a unique sanka “lower jaw“, which can be of the Chuvashian origin, as there is Chuv. sanka “forehead bone“. The root of this word is the Old. Türk. čana “jaw“, “sledge“, but the extension -k is present only in the Chuvashian and Slovakian languages.

The Slovak loša “horse“, Ukr. loša “foal” are believed to be borrowed from the Türkic languages where there is alaša “horse“ (Turkm., Tat.), but the dropping of the initial a is not clear. A loan of these words from the Chuvashian (Chuv. laša “horse“) eliminates the necessity for an explanation of this drop. Another name for a horse, kobyla, with a copy only in the Latin language (caballus), in Machek’s opinion, also has a Türkic origin. A source of the loan both in Italic, and in Slavic languages can be ancient Bulgarian (i.e. Scythians, to make the term contemporary with the milieu - Translator's Note). As the Türks were engaged in horse breeding from the times immemorial, the Slavic khomut “horse yoke”, as well as the Germ. Kummet with its origin remaining undetermined till present, can also be traced to the Chuvashian (compare Chuv. khomyt). Some researchers believe that the Slovak, Cz. kolmaha, Pol. kolimaga, Ukr. kolimaha, Rus. kolymaga (all with a meaning “cart, wagon”) are the ancient loans from the Mongolian language (Mong. xalimag “high carts - tents”) through a Türkic intermediary (Melnichuk O.S., 1985). For such an assumption the Mongolian word would have to pass through a whole chain of the Türkic languages. It is improbable that in all of them it would have disappeared without a trace. Most likely, the Slavic kolimaga and the Mongolian xalimag can be explained from the Türkic “harnessed horse”, knowing the Chuv. kül “to harness“ and the common for many Türkic languages jabak “horse, foal”. The same Türkic origin can also be traced for the “unclear“ Ukr. kulbaka “saddle“ and similar words in other Slavic languages.

The ancient Türks had an advanced lexicon in the area of hydraulic engineering, construction and sailing. There is a word gat’ “dam” in many Slavic languages, therefore it is possible, that this word is borrowed from the Old Chuvashian, as the Chuv. kat has the same meaning as the Slavic words.

The origin of Slovak, Cz. kahan, Ukr. “ kahanets“ (simple hook with a handle) also was not clear. This word can be compared with the Chuv. kăкan “hook, crook“.

It was believed that Slavic word khija, khijina come from the Germanic *hus “house“ (Vasmer), but at the same time was ignored the Chuv. khüshe, “hut, shed“.

The Slavic word for the book is usually compared with the Hung. könyv, but this word could not be borrowed from the Hungarian language because of the phonetic discrepancy. The Hungarian word, as indicate Vasmer and Machek, descend from the Old Chuv. *koniv - *konig. The Slavic words also derive from thtis word.

The Czech klobouk, Old Slovak klobúk, koblúk, Rus. kolpak and other similar Slavic words with the meaning “pointed hat, cap“ certainly have Türkic origin, but the paths and timing of the loans are different. Czech and Slovak words could come from the Chuvash. It is interesting to compare the Old. Cz. maňas “dandy, sucker” with the Chuv. mănaç “proud“. Machek asserts that the ancient Slovaks borrowed the osoh “profit“ from the Bulgars, but when?

Both Vasmer and Machek, and Brückner consider the Slavic “proso” millet of an “obscure“ origin, probably, even “pre-European“. Perhaps, this word should be compared with the Chuv. părça “peas“? Considering Chuv. yasmăkh “lentil“, the Slavic name for barley (Proto-Slavic jačmy) also can have a Chuvash origin, as well as pirey “wheat grass” (Chuv. pări “spelt“). The names of the millet and wheat are deduced by Vasmer from the Slavic word pkahti “to pound”, which is not convincing. Most likely the Old Slavic. pьšeno is of the same origin as the Chuv. piçen “sow-thistle“. The seeds of this plant could very well be used as food before the spread of the cultured grain crops, and the Slavs could extend its borrowed name from the Chuvash to the millet or wheat. The Slavic names for the cottage cheese (Cz., Slovak tvaroh, etc.) is also considered of a “obscure“ origin. The Hungarian túró is phonetically far, therefore this Hungarian word cannot be a source of loan, but the Chuv. turăkh (fermented baked milk) meets all the requirements.

 Slovak, Cz. čiperný “alive, mobile” was attributed by Machek, without any explanations, to the South Slavic languages. Really, there is a Serb. čeperan 1) “brisk, mobile”, 2) “swagger“. But all these words together with Ukr. čepurnyj „beautiful, groomed up ” have a Türkic origin, compare Chuv. čiper “good“, Tat. čiber “good“.

There are more Slovak and Czech words which could also have a Türkic origin, but there are conflicting opinions about them: tabor, taliga, topor, šator, šuvar, šupa. Karl Menges gives three possible versions of a Türkic origin for the word kovyl “feather grass” (Menges K.G., 1979, 105-106). All three versions are phonetically and semantically far-off (compare 1. Old. Uigur. qomy “to be in movement”, 2. Alt. gomyrgaj “a plant with an empty stalk”, 3. Tur. qavla “to shed bark, leaves”). The Old Bulgarian language as a source of a loan is much closer, for the Chuv. khămăl “stalk, straw” in the form and in the sense is more similar with the word kovyl. This word root is found presently only in one other Türkic language (Tat. kamly). Significantly Menges, following Uhlenbek, Brugmann, Lehmann, and Berneker, allowed a possibility of the comparison for this “obscure“ word with the Gr. kaulos, Lat. caulis “stalk“ and with other Indo-European words (Ib, 107). The ancient Chuvash Türks lived near the ancient Italics, Greeks and Germans for a long time, the old Chuvash protoform can be reconstructed as *kavul, and was mirrored in the Old Russian (i.e. Ukrainian - Translator's Note) as kavyl during early historical times. And another Ukrainian name for a feather grass tyrsa also has a Chuvash origin. A similar word with the same meaning is in the Chuvash language.

Looking through the Vasmer’s Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language the experts, with different degree of confidence, find plenty of Russian and Ukrainian words with matches in the Chuvash language, and they do not exclude a possibility of borrowings from the Chuvash language. Actually, these loans are not from the modern Chuvash language, but from the ancient Bulgarian. For example, Ukr./Rus. braga “home-made beer”, vataga” “band, group”, pirog “pie”, khmel “hop”, etc. have Old Bulgarian origin (Vasmer Max, 1964). Vasmer connects Chuvash word peraga “pulp“ (earlier “half-beer, brew“) with the Old Türkic names for the weak alcoholic drinks boz/buz. It is possible that the technology of its preparation was borrowed not only by the Old Slavs, but also by the Old Germans from the Türks, together with its name. The widely spread names for the hop in the Germanic and Slavic languages can be comfortably derived from the Chuv. khămla “hop“, but these experts hesitate to recognize the acquisition of a loan word from the Chuvash, only because of the presumed geographical reasons, not accepting that the ancestors of the Chuvashes lived in the immediate proximity of the Germans and Slavs. Probably the Germanic name for beer, etymologically “unclear“, should also be deduced from the Chuv. peraga. The “dark” Ukrainian word korčma, which has concurrences in all modern Slavic languages and has no satisfactory etymology, should also be compared. Considering the Old Slav. krъčьma “a strong drink” (Melnichuk O.S., 1989), this word also came from the Bulgarian (Chuv. kărčama “home-made beer“). Ukr. dbaty and other West-Slavic words of this root can be explained by the Chuvash language: Chuv. tăp “accurate“.

In Russian is a word sigat’ “jump“ of an “unclear“ origin. Räsänen suggested a probability of the loan from the Chuv. sik “jump“, but Vasmer objected to it, referring to the Belarus' sihac’. However, this word was as well present in the Mazovian dialect of the Polish language (Brückner Aleksander, 1927), and the widespread in the Ukraine dialectical sihaty is not mandatorily borrowed from the Russian. Hence, this word also could be borrowed from the ancient Bulgars. Vasmer connects the dialectal Rus., Ukr., puga/puha “knout“ with a word pugat’ “frighten”, which originally had the form pužat’. Then, the word could be borrowed from the Old Bulgarian (Chuv. puša “knout“). Such supposition is especially justified because in the Ukrainian is a word pužalno - whip handle.

Vasmer deduces Rus., Ukr. višnja “sour cherry” and other similar Slavic words from Midl.-up.-Ger. wihsel “sour cherry”. The similar words in Türksh (Tatar, Karachay, Uzbek, Kirgiz, Uigur čijə, Turk. cereza, Gr. kerasi - Translator's Note) and Greek make the Midl.-up.-Ger. etymology weak. The Kurd. fişne “sour cherry“ looks closer phonetically, therefore the Slavs could borrow the culture of this fruit tree, together with its name, from the Proto-Kurds. The same could be said about the name of a sweet cherry (Ukr. čerešnja) (other Kurdish name of a cherry - qeresîe).

The Ukr. words khata “hut” (from the Ukrainian, this word spread into other Slavic languages) and irij (the southern country where birds migrate in the autumn, warm lands) were somehow believed to be of the Iranian origin. The first word is difficult to ascertain, as in the German and Finno-Ugric languages are also similar words, but the interesting word irij seems to be not of the Iranian origin, as Vasmer (Vasmer M., 1967) believed, but of the Bulgarian origin. Chuvash language has words ir “morning“ and uj “field, steppe“. In the Greek language there were words ear, hr “spring“. Vasmer deduces the initial form of the Ukrainian word as *vyroj. Hence, the Old Bulgarian *eroj could mean “morning (eastern, southern steppe)“. When the Slavs were still occupying a wooded zone, they could see in the autumn the birds flying somewhere to the south, to the steppe, and could say that they were migrating to “irij“.

A convincing evidence of the ancient Scytho-Bulgarian/Proto-Slavic contacts are phonetic and semantic similarity of the unique among the Türkic languages Chuv. salat “to scatter, throw about“ with the Slovak sálat’ “to radiate, flare“ and Cz. sálat “to flare“. Machek presents these words with their ancient meaning házeti, metati “to throw“.

Probability of Accidental Lexical Concurrence

Click here for more details

We shall calculate the probability of an accidental coincidence for this concrete case of the word sálat. For this purpose we need to investigate the norms of word-formation in the Chuvash language. For analysis of these norms was taken a representative sample of 2,100 Chuvash words. Of them, approximately 210 words begin with the letter s, i.e. the probability that any Chuvashian word would begin with letter s is equal to 210 / 2100 = 1/10. Having accounted for all the words with an initial s, can be estimated a probability that the second letter of a word with initial s will be the letter a. This probability is equal to 1/6. Likewise, can be calculated the probability that the third letter will be l, and the fourth a again. These probabilities are respectively 1/12 and 1/8. Having covered all the words of the type kalax, salax, palax, valax, where the second a is any vowel, and х is any consonant, it is possible to calculate a probability for a similar word to end with t. This probability is equal to 1/10. Multiplying the values of individual probabilities, we find approximate probability of the Chuvash language to have the word salat: 1/10x1/6x1/12x1/8x1/10 = 1/57,600.

Next will be calculated a probability that the word salat would have a meaning close to the meaning of “throw“. The 2,100 Chuvashian words in our list can be divided into groups of words matching certain general semantical criteria. Such division is subjective, as the borders between the semantical fields are always fuzzy to some degree. However, nobody would challenge a concept that dividing all 2,100 words into 100 conditional semantical units would be sufficient to prevent to a sufficiently small degree the semantical field of each unit from overlapping other semantical fields. Then the probability that the Chuvash word salat can accidentally have a meaning close to the meaning “to throw, scatter, to move briskly, or to fly outside, etc.” will be equal, or at least no more than 1/100. Accordingly, the probability that a word, phonetically and semantically similar to the Slovak sálat ’ and Cz. sálat ‘to throw”, would arise by chance in the Chuvash language, would be equal to 1/5,760,000.

If we have few similar “coincidences“, the combined probability of their random concurrence in unrelated languages can be estimated as several tens of zeroes after a decimal. Practically it means that if there is a good phonetic and semantic coincidence of two words, with five and more phonemes,  in unrelated languages, one of them is somehow borrowed, provided that both words have no onomatopoetic character that could induce an independent emergence of the similar words in different languages. For example, the widespread Slavic word duda, dudka “windpipe” has a good match in the Chagat. and Turk. düdük “windpipe“. Miklosich and Berneker considered this Slavic word to be borrowed from Türkic, but Vasmer and Brückner hold that the close sound rendition of these onomatopoetic words is a “mere chance“ (Vasmer M., 1964, V1, 550). Clearly, these doubts about Slavic borrowing this word from the Türkic languages may be reasonable, and therefore the Slavic duda cannot be counted as an unquestioned loan word, even though in a slight sanity check, no other unrelated world language in fact created a name for the windpipe as duda, dudka, düdük etc.

Iranian/Balto-Slavic influences

Summary. The following narrative boils down to the following:
1. Balto-Slavic language had Iranian loanwords
2. The fraction of the Iranian loanwords in Balto-Slavic language is insignificant
3. Balto-Slavic language had Kurdish loanwords
4. The fraction of the Kurdish loanwords in Balto-Slavic language has episodic nature and is insignificant

As the Scythians were considered to be Iranian speakers, it was expected that the traces of the Iranian influence on the Balto-Slavic languages would be profound. As a consequence, all obscure cases of the Slavic etymology sometimes were wholesale attributed to the imaginary Iranian influence. An example of such preconceived research can be the Trubachev's studies. Because the majority of the Iranian lexical loans did not infiltrate the entire Slavic populace, in one of his early works the Moscow scientist tried to connect the Iranian loan words in the Slavic languages to one of the three groups, West-Slavic, East-Slavic and South-Slavic. However, it became visible at once that most of the loan words do not belong solely to any one group, but belong to the Proto-Slavic language itself. The artificial division of the Slavic languages into these three groups correlated poorly with the idea of the descent of some Slavic tribes from the Iranian tribes.

The majority of the (Iranian) etymologies are far-fetched, and the author, apparently, in due course rejected them, as in his latest work (Vasmer M. 1964) he does not refer to them any more. However, the Trubachev’s conclusions about the Iranian loans in the Polish language induced scientists to search for explanations:

“As to the Polish-Iranian connections, they, obviously, grew out of penetrations of the Iranian population into the southern Baltic at the beginning of our era “ (Sedov V.V., 1979, 33)

The attempts to find any traces of the Iranian influences over the West Slavic languages brought to light that the Ukrainian and Kurdish languages have a lot of lexical coincidences, and also parallels in other Slavic languages . Here are some examples. Etymologically unclear Slav. *čeljadь “servants” can come from the Kurd. çelî 1. “child“, 2. “a family, a clan ”. If Eng. child also belong to this root, then a Thracian origin of it can be suspected (Alb. çilimi “child”). The origin of Slav. *rak “cancer” is unclear too. This word can be connected with the Kurd. req 1. “cancer“, 2. “rigid, hard“.

Vasmer noted the coincidence of the Ukr. khmara “cloud” with Finnish word hämärä “dark“, but discards the link between these words “for geographical reasons”. Meanwhile, there is a word xumari “darkness“ in Kurdish language that Kurds could have borrowed in their homeland from their Veps neighbors (Veps. hämär “twilight“), and the Ukrainians borrowed this word from the Kurds. One can also consider these pairs: Ukr. haluz’ “branch“ - the Kurd. helez “brushwood“; Ukr. gedz’ “gadfly“ - Kurd. gez “to bite“; Ukr. jaskravyj “bright“ - the Kurd. aşkere “obvious“; Ukr. tjahar “weight, burden” - Kurd. texar “weight“. In many Slavic and in the Baltic languages there is a whole group of words designating gravel, rubble, stone, which substantially differ phonetically, but the linguists consider these words to be of common though also mysterious origin - Ukr. žvir, Rus. gversta, grestva, Pol. żwir, dziarstwo, Lit. žwiřzdas, Let. zvirgdzi, etc. The Kurd. gevir “boulder“ phonetically and in value is very similar to these words, therefore Kurdish language can be a source of the loan. Kurd. words givir “strong“, givrik “larg“, obviously, are of the same root.

There is the word hančirka “cloth“ in Ukrainian language which, together with Pol. hanczurka is loaned from New-up.-Ger. Handscheure “a cloth for wiping hands” (A. Melnichuk A. С., 1982). But one can also consider the possibility of borrowin such words as Eng. handkechief from the Kurdish language, where is the word ginçiri “rags“, phonetically closest equivalent to the Ukrainian hančirka. A Slavic loan in Kurdish can be the Kurd. selef “source“ which does not have cognates in other Iranian languages. The Slavic words coinciding with Kurdish are: Serb., Slvn. slap “falls“, Cz. slap “river cataract”, Slovak slopat’ “to whip“, Rus. Solpa “cataract on the river Msta”, Solopovka - the name of the river in the Perm region. Proto-Slavic form should be *solpa, hence, the Kurdish loan could take place after the development of the full voicing phenomenon, i.e. approximately in the middle of first millennium AD. The etymologically unclear Slav. struk “pod“ can come from the Kurd. strî “prickle“, and the Kurd. trîşke “thunder-storm“ is somehow connected with Slav. tresk “crackling”.

The presence of the Kurds on the right bank of Dnieper is also evidenced by the lexical parallels between the Kurdish and German languages. Holthausen in the Etymological dictionary of Old English language gives some of them, for example: Old English wic, New-low-Germ. wike, Eng. witch-elm “mountain maple“ - Kurd. viz, but it is only a random observation. A targeted search results in detection of many interesting instances. For example, Old English scielf “top of rock, edge“, Eng. shelf, Old. Ic. skjolf  “eminence“ coincide well with the Kurd. şilf “edge“. The Ukr. ščovb “rock“ is traced to the German words (Vasmer M., 1967), but the Germ. Schilf “reed“ for some reason is ignored. This word also should be cited, for the leaves of a reed are similar to an edge of a blade. Holthausen does not find an explanation for the Old English name of a camomile  ferðing-wyrt. The Kurdish words pûrt “hair“ and wurd “clean“ are suited well for its decoding. The flowers of camomile were always used for washing hair. The common Germanic word west coincides well with the Kurd. weşt “south“. Minor differences in phonetics and semantics testify that the Kurdish word is not a loan of later times. A few more pairs of the English-Kurdish coincidence are: Old Eng. bile “beak“ - Kurd. bel “sticking out“, Eng. chuck “throw“ - the Kurd. çek “ throw “, Old Eng gamen, Eng. game - Kurd. “game“, Old Eng. maffa “egg membrane“ - Kurd. mef “tent“, Old Eng. reo, reowe “coverlet, coat“ - Kurd. rav “cloud“, etc.

Slavic Languages

Balto-Slavic Historical Background

The Balto-Slavic peoples appeared on the world scene late, when other peoples have already created advanced states and cultures, known in the history in their new places of settlements. Such delay was caused by the location of the Balto-Slavic ancestral home on the northwestern edge of the Indo-European territories and by the added migration of Balto-Slavs in the direction of the Baltic Sea and lower Vistula. The closest neighbors of Balto-Slavs in those days were Germanic tribes of the ancient Goths and ancestors of modern Dutch, located to the south-west, Finns to the north, and Türkic to the south. This is proved by the loans from these languages into the Old Slavic language.

The loanwords from Gothic are numerous and well-known, but that the modern Dutch language preserved attestations of their old neighborhood with the Slavs was not properly appreciated. It is possible to note the following of these exhibits. The Slavic word verba “willow” of all the German languages has only a coincidence in the Dutch: werf “willow”. The Slavic words zvon ”ringing” and maly “small” coincide well with the Dutch zwan “ringing” and maal “small”, while in the other German languages similar words are phonetically farther.

Occupying a territory around Mazur bogs, on the Kashub heights and along the coast of the Baltic Sea, far away from the centers of civilization, the Slavs lead a patriarchal life of hunters and fishers. They knew the animal husbandry, but even if agriculture existed, it had very primitive forms. That Slavs did not know many cultural plants is evidenced by the fact that they borrowed their names from the neighbors. Demonstratively, no name of a cereal has a satisfactory etymology in the Balto-Slavic substrate, not to mention any vegetables or fruits.

Occupying for a length of time the peripheral area adjacent to the German, Finnish and Türkic territory, Proto-Slavs were scarcely exposed to the cultural influences of the more civilized world, which as a whole was much to the south from their settlements. This point of view was developed by the scientists who seriously investigated the culture of the Slavs on the basis of historical, archaeological, ethnographic, and linguistic sources, for example, Lubor Niederle. The Czech Slavist came to the conclusion, that “the Slavic culture never achieved a level of the neighbors, could not equal them in richness and was always poorer than the eastern cultures, and also the Roman, Byzantian and even German cultures” (Niederle L., 1956). In accordance with the backwardness of the Slavic material culture, addressed later, the spiritual culture of the ancient Slavs stood at a very low level attested by the customs of killing children and old men, relicts of the phallic cult, promiscuity, polygamy, and polyandry. In Russia, Ukraine and in the Balkans the vestiges of these customs lingered for a long time (Niederle L., 1924, 31, 36, 75-76). Attested by the testimony of their contemporaries, Slavic cannibalism was frequent, though Niederle denies it (Ib, 75-76). A low cultural level of the ancient Slavs is reflected not only in the artifacts of the material culture or customs, but also in the lexical structure of their language.

In the Proto-Slavic language, there were no words for expression of gratitude and concept of a duty. Only when the Slavs moved, their western branch borrowed these words from German. The Ukrainian words diakuvaty and musyty, with similar words in all West Slavic languages, and also in Belarus, have the German origin. The eastern branch of the Slavs has no common words of similar meaning. In the South Slavic and Russian languages, they appear much later, already during the historical times, after the Slavs branched off a large distance. All scientists, probably, agree that the words djakuvaty and musyty have a German origin. Brückner, for example, talking about the German origin of Pol. musić, writes: “Archaic Slavs do not have an own word for duty, they borrowed it (for example, Old. Cz. dyrbjeti from Germ. dürfen)” (А. Brückner Akeksander, 1927, 348).

Carriers of early medieval Slavic culture “were never closely connected with the world of antique civilizations. If their agricultural production, probably, was only slightly more primitive than Chenyakhov's (which is attributed to Goths - Translator's Note), all other branches of economy - metallurgy and metal-working, pottery, processing of a bone, etc. - are marked by by a great primitivism, and were nothing more than elementary in methods of the domestic craft “ (Tretyakov P.N. 1982, 14, 15)

Nevertheless, the territory occupied by the Balto-Slavs, due to its geographical conditions, sufficiently satisfied the vital needs of its people. The abundance of fish-rich lakes solved a problem of regular provisioning with food, especially that the fish products can be preserved with a simple processing. That Balto-Slavs were actively engaged in fishing is confirmed by the common Slavic names for the fish, which frequently have uniquely Balto-Slavic or even Indo-European roots. A sufficient food supply inevitably lead to an increase in the population, and in a due course in search for the new fishing grounds, Balto-Slavs had to expand their settlement territory in the direction to the West, South and South-East.

Balto-Slavic Linguistic Substrate (Prior to 3rd c. AD)

The following synopsis gives a compressed timeline to visualize the admixtures and impacts of other languages on Slavic substrate.

Gothic migration of the 1st c. AD, possible Gothic overlordship, either Gothic borrowings or a continued German/Slavic split. German and Slavic have 150-200 common primary words.

Goths moved to the Northern Black Sea area from the territory of Poland and created there a state documented in the historical sources. At that time the population between Dnieper and Dniestr was very mixed. On the lower Dnieper lived Cimmerian, Scythian, Sarmatian tribes, and the “natives“ from the Black Sea Greek cities. There were also the German tribes of Bastarns, and the Celts who in middle of the 1st century AD destroyed city Olvia. A little bit earlier the Celts had their settlements on the upper Dniestr which is noted by Larissa Krushelnytska who found the Celtic remains near the villages of Bovshev. The Upper Dnestr was settled by the Thracians (Lipetsk culture). Goths, obviously, wedged through and displaced most of the local Scythian-Sarmatian population east and west beyond the Dnieper, but, however, some words of the Kurdish origin in the Ukrainian language can testify that some remains of the steppe inhabitants could merge further north and remain there to the time of the Kyiv Rus (10th c. AD), when they could have a direct contact with the ancient Ukrainians.

Here are some examples of the common Slavic lexicon from those given in one of the works of a Russian scientist F.F. Filin: belka (squirrel), koshka (cat) sobaka (dog), khomyak (hamster), raduga (rainbow), deshevyi (cheap), bagor (gaff), jemchug (pearl), knut (whip), kover (cloth cover), koromyslo (?), krovat (bed), krujevo (knitting), sapog (boot), skamiya (bench), skatert (tablecloth), shelk (silk), vataga (band), pogost (guest-post), devyanosto (ninety), sorok (fourty) etc (Filin F.F., 1962). It is clear that the majority of these words semantically should be classified as belonging to the later period of relatively high level of the Slavic culture, while the features characteristic for the primary separation of the Slavs into Western and Eastern branches look comparatively more archaic. (in the F.F. Filin list at least 6 out of 21, or 28% of this random example are conspicuous Türkic borrowings (highlighted), indicating that Türkic people participated in the ethnogenesis of the Proto-Slavs prior to the 3rd c. AD, and that the Türkic culture raised the primitive Balto-Slavic culture to a higher level - Translator's Note)

West-East Dialectal Division (3rd - 5th c. AD)

3rd - 5th c. AD Historical Synopsis click here

Before splitting into sub-dialects, Proto-Slavic language at first separated into two primary dialects. Enough tell-tale traces of this division can be detected in the lexical and phonetic phenomena of the modern Slavic languages, but these phenomena do not have defined borders between the western and eastern Slavic branches.

Some lexical idiosyncrasies of the Western branch (in the modern Ukrainian spelling) are: dbaty, zhebraty, znevazhaty, rolling, kachka, kokhaty, kryha, matsty, ozdoba, prahnuty, prykryj, rada, ropukha, skyba, skronja, slymak, stodola, strokatyj, tryvaty, trymaty, shaty, shkoda, shturkhaty, etc. These words were mostly borrowed from the German and other languages.

Idiosyncrasies of the Eastern branch of Proto-Slavic language are such words (in Russian spelling): grust’, zhulit’, lukavyj, mel, molnija, pir, sluchaj, smotret’, tjerzat’, udobnyj, uzhinr, etc.

There is further a small group of words which originally belonged to one branch of the Proto-Slavic language, but later permeated one or two languages of other branch (vada, kulik, lytka, khyba, khata, vorot, korpat’, luch). The etymology of these words is problematic, as even some of the above examples can be questioned, and sometimes it is very difficult to stratify the loanwords in the Slavic languages, and without certain degree of subjectivity it cant be performed at present.

The stated primary division of the Slavic peoples can be confirmed by two different forms of several ancient Proto-Slavic words which were listed by Smal-Stotski (Smal-Stotski St., 1927):

Western Proto-Slavic	Eastern Proto-Slavic
*popelъ (Ukr. popil, Pol. popiół, Cz. popel, Slovak popol, Br. popel)	*pepelъ (Rus. pepel, Bulg. pepel, Serb. pepeo)
*sklo (Ukr. sklo, Pol. szkło, Cz., Slovak sklo, Lus., Br. šklo,)	*stьklo (Rus., Bulg. steklo, Serb. staklo, Slvn. steklo)
*pъtakъ (Ukr., Br. ptakh, Pol., ptak, Cz. pták, Slovak vták)	*pъtica (Rus., Bulg., Serb., ptica, Slvn. ptíca)

For the first pair such an assumption is more authentic, despite of the presence of Rus. popel, which could be borrowed from the Ukrainian, but the difference in the form of the second pair obviously arose later, possibly as a result of the Polish influence on the Ukrainian and Belarus languages, because of the present Old. Cz. stklo. These examples can demonstrate the danger of drawing far-reaching conclusions based on  isolated facts, and that the statistical data is always more reliable.

The primary division of Slavic peoples into the western and eastern branches is also confirmed ethnographically. With many ceremonies common for all Slavs, there is a number of wedding customs typical only for Poland, Moravia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the western zone of the Russian north. Among them are a fire at a wedding and ritual jumping over it, enthroning brides to sit on a vat etc. Also, in these territories is played a ritual battering between girls and married women (Gura A.V., 1981, 263). There are also customs typical only for the southern Russians and southern Slavs (Ib, 264).

It is notable that the house-building terminology of the Slavs has nothing in common, except for such general words as “wall“, “stove“ (ochag (stove) is a Türkic loanword apparently dating from pre-4th century AD - Translator's Note), “threshold“, “door“ and “window“. For example, lets compare the Ukranian and Russian terminologies: komin - truba (chimney), dah - krysha (roof), krokva-stropilo (beam), svolok - matitsa (?), pidloga - pol (floor), prizba - zavalinka (porch), drabina - lestnitsa (stair) etc. The Western Slavic languages, including Ukrainian and Byelorussian, have common terminology, while the Russian language remains isolated. On one hand, this confirms the division of the Slavic people into two branches, and on another, it repudiates the existence of an Eastern Slavic language unity even at the time of the advancing housing construction among the Slavs, which should be dated to the time long before the 10th c. Kievan Rus. Ostensibly, this primary division of the Slavic peoples conflicts with the presence of a certain amount of the common lexicon specific only to the Ukrainian, Russian and Belarus languages, but it would be surprising if these languages had no common lexicon, since they have a common historical period of their speakers, yet this commonality applies to a later historical time.

Fragmentation of Western and Eastern Slavic Dialects (5-10th c. AD)

Historical Synopsis click here

The in-depth analysis of the major phonetic development in the Proto-Slavic period that did not involve all Slavic people was carried out by Polish linguist A. Furdal (Furdal Antoni, 1961). He considered that the first dialectal partitioning of the Proto-Slavic language happened after the following changes have evolved :

1. c + ě, i to š | s < i, ь, ę + c (Gothic/German admixture - Translator's Note)
2. sk + ě, i to šč | s'c’ (Gothic/German admixture - Translator's Note)
3. kv, gv + ě, i to cv, zv (Finno-Ugrian admixture - Translator's Note)
4. tl, dl to l | kl, gl (Türkic admixture - Translator's Note)

In accordance with manifestation of these changes, A. Furdal drafted a geographical scheme for the Proto-Slavic territory divided into four linguistic areas.

The first area A (Gothic/German admixture - Translator's Note) - a large territory in the West of the Proto-Slavic territory where the groups kv, gv and tl, dl were retained and the transformation of c and sk into š and šč accordingly came about. This territory, Furdal believed, unequivocally matches the Polish, Czech, Slovak and Lusatian languages. The Polish scientist does not relegate the Ukrainian and Belarus languages to this group, although the Ukrainian and Belarus languages present some evidence of retaining groups kv, gv and transforming c into š (for example Ukr., Br. kvitka, Ukr. dial., Br. šaryj , etc.). Furdal, following other scientists of his time, rationalizes these facts by Polish influences, though he notes that groups kv, gv, present in the dialects of the Russian, cannot be explained by the Polish influence.

For analysis of Germanic influences on Balto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic language, the origin of the Ukr. words bešket, bešketnyk is also interesting, for no Slavic language has their parallels. More than that, they are mainly in the eastern Ukraine. Before assessing the origin of the word bešket we recall typical for the western branch of the Slavic languages word škoda, borrowed from the Germ. *skaþуn with corresponding Schaden in the modern German. This loan took place before the time when the Old Germ. sk began to be pronounced as š in the German language. The Ukr. skyba (Germanic. *skábó(n), German Scheibe) was also borrowed at that time, unlike the Ukr. words šyba, šybka of the same German root which were borrowed through Polish from the German during later times, after the transition of sk into š. The transition of sk into š in German took place in the 5-6 c. AD (Schmidt Wilhelm, 1976, 175), though in the written language s continued in this group of consonants until now. Thus, in ancient loans from the German languages, the Ukrainian šk/sk corresponds to the sch of the modern-day German language. Let us return now to the word bešket. Alexander Potebnya believed, that this word was borrowed from the Germ. Beschiss “cunning, lie”. Vasmer, questioning it, believed that the word was a loan from the middle upper German, where there is beschitten “to deceive“ (Vasmer Max, 1974, V1, 163). A reverse transition of š into sk in a loan into the Ukrainian is improbable, and, besides, the values of the German and Ukrainian words are quite remote. Most likely, the Ukr. bešket is a verbal formation from bešketuvaty, it fits it phonetically, and coincides in value with the Germ. beschädigen “to damage, spoil“ and, thus, it comes from the same German root, as the word škoda.

It is believed that the Ukrainian and Belarus loans of Polish origin come approximately from the 14th c., and the Ukrainian and Belarus words djakuvaty and musyty descend from the Polish dziękować and musić. However, phonetically the Ukr. diakuvaty and a Pol. dziękować obviously differ too much, which could not have happened if this was a late loan. The late loans generally preserve the Polish phonetics. But if the words belong to the preceding common vocabulary, the evolving phonetics is different. The Ukr. djakuvaty is an ideal example of the historical development in the Slavic vocalism, well studied by the scientists. Considering the laws of this development, it is readily visible that the Ukr. djakuvaty descends from the Old Germ. *þanka. The diphthongal composite -an in the borrowed German word, according to the law of an open syllable, which is based on a principle of growing sonority, turned in the Proto-Slavic language into a nasal vowel, which later was transcribed in the Old Slavic alphabet by the letter “jus small”. In Polish it exists until the present as the letter ę. The Old Germanic þ was reflected in the Slavic languages as palatalized d’ (in German, by the way, - as d, and in English - as th identical to Gr. θ). Accordingly, now we have the Polish form dziękować, and the similar Old Ukrainian word had the form *d'ękowatь. It is known that the nasal vowels in the Ukrainian language and in many other Slavic languages disappeared, and “ jus small” merged with ja, and there is a form djakuvaty.

Brückner explained Pol. dziękować as a derivative from Cz. dik, dieka. This loan, in his opinion, took place in the 14th c. To explain the Polish nasal ę, Brückner presumes the existence of the nasal vowels in the Czech language of that time (А. Brückner Akeksander, 1927, 112). However, there are no proofs of the existence of the nasals in the Czech language of that time, and they disappeared in the Eastern Slavic languages, for example, in the middle of the 10th c. (Rusinov N.D., 1977, 61). The processes occurring in the Slavic vocalism under the tendency to growing sonority ended during the disintegration of the Proto-Slavic language unity (Haburgajev G.A., 1986, 85). Thus, the borrowing of the Ukr. djakuvaty and other similar western Slavic words happened approximately in those days when the Slavs dwelled in the former German lands. Obviously, it was a substrate loan from the Balts (i.e. Balto-Slavs), who lived in these lands before Slavs, and who adopted the German word. This allows to explain the fact that the word of this root is absent from the languages of the eastern branch of the Slavic peoples, on the left bank of the Dnieper in fact were no German settlements. For the present, a judgment about the time of the borrowing of the word musyty is impossible, as it has no special phonetic features, but by analogy it is possible to assume that this loan took place at the same time.

Small northern area B (Finno-Ugrian admixture - Translator's Note) - corresponds to the Novgorod and Pskov dialects, for which a transition tl, dl to kl, gl, fragmentary preservation of groups kv, gv, šč and some other features are typical. The obvious explanation of all these facts can be as follows. The preservation of groups kv, gv and tl, dl and transformation of c and sk into š and šč took place in the western branch of the Proto-Slavic language (Gothic/German admixture - Translator's Note), from which later, in addition to the Polish, Czech, Slovak, Lusatian and other West Slavic languages, also were formed the Ukrainian, Belarus languages and Northern Russian dialects. With the migration of the speakers of the Western Slavic/German admixture dialect to the north, their language continued evolving by its own rules, which led to the development of the phonetic features in the modern Northern Russian dialect noted by Furdal. Because the groups kv, gv survived in some Southern Russian dialects, but in a smaller measure than in the Ukrainian and Belarus languages, it becomes obvious that the process of transition of the primary kv, gv into cv, zv started in the east of the Slavic territory under the influence of the Finno-Ugrian languages, and it diminished toward the west. It led to preservation of the groups kv, gv in the Ukrainian and Belarus languages to a greater degree, though it is impossible to disprove the suggestion that the forms cv, zv in these languages could partly spread during later times under the influence of the Russian (i.e Slavo/Finnic - Translator's Note) language. These conclusions are also confirmed by two other phonetic areas in the A.Furdal's scheme.

Transit area C (West-East Slavic transition, i.e Slavo/German to Slavo/Finnic transition - Translator's Note)  - connected by Furdal with the Slovene language, once again confirms that between two primary branches of Proto-Slavic language was no distinct phonetic border, and, on the contrary, along the Dnieper there was a transition belt, the phonetic phenomena of which in different forms impacted the modern Ukrainian, Belarus, Slovene languages and the northern dialect of the Russian.

 A large area D (Türkic admixture - Translator's Note) - in the east of the Slavic territory, characterized by the transition tl, dl → l and by palatalization of kv, gv to cv, zv (palatalized Türkic admixture - Translator's Note), and also by transitions of c to s’ and sk to s'c ’ (Slavo/German substrate - Translator's Note), corresponds to the southern dialect of the Russian language and all South Slavic languages except for Slovene. The attribution by Furdal of the Ukrainian and Belarus languages to this linguistical area is not substantiated, as he recognizes that the transition tl, dl > l has no precise borders, and its presence in different languages can be explained by simplification in the groups of consonants. A dropout of t/d could take place in different places at various times and have the same result everywhere, making it impossible to base any conclusions on it.

Map

(Translator's Note) There are no uniformly accepted maps of of Slavic tribes settlements in the end of the 1st mill. BC -  beginning of the 1st mill. AD.  A number of conflicting theories, each claiming autochthony, are in competition, neither one is free from the politics. The map by V. Stetsyuk  in the Chapter 7 of the book is based on assumptions, each one of which may be justifiably disputed and discarded. For that reason, instead of the map, below is a spatial language relationship chart created by V. Stetsyuk  with a solid analysis of the linguistical relationships.

Fig. 1 The chart of mutual relations of Slavic languages.
(from Chapter 1 of the book)

Kashub - Area along the shore of Baltic Sea between Oder and Vistula rivers

Western Polesie is the territory about 200 000 square kilometers close to the border with Belorussia and Ukirane in the eastern part of the S.Poland's Lublin region, with rivers and lakes covered with forests with forested lakes, bogs (swamps) and peat bogs.

Volynia is a region of W Ukraine around the headstreams of the Pripyat and Western Bug rivers in an area of forests, lakes, and marshlands.

The certifiably Slavic Pragha-Korchak culture is very unsightly, urnish, fibulaeless (modest hand formed dishes, small settlements and burials without identifiable metal goods, and even those are borrowed from their neighbors). And the Przewor and Chernaykhov are first of all grand entombments with weaponry, fibulae, decorations, rich assembly of glazed utensils, and the Roman imports of the 3-4th c., glaringly contrasting with the Slavic Pragha-Korchak culture.

Old Russian It is widely believed that prior to the ca 1st c. AD Slavic was indistinguishable from other Baltic languages. By the 10th c. AD Slavic developed into a separate vernacular with Northern, Southern, and Eastern dialects. No national languages existed at that time, and the use of “Russian, Slovak, Czech“ at that time, though frequently and loosely done, is a misnomer. The first written monuments of the 9-12 centuries are classified as written in a common Old Slavonic language. The Early Ukrainian language of the 9th-12th centuries, which belongs to the Southern dialect, is documented in the written materials, and it was coercively re-defined in the 18th c. as exclusively “Old Russian“ language, to reinforce the made-to order postulate of the common history of these languages. In fact, by the 17th century, Russian and Ukrainian languages were mutually incompehencible.

Since the natural conditions in the Slavic Urheimat in Polesie were unfavorable, the Slavs developed forms of social organization based on cooperation between large families (of a type known as zadruga), social equality, and the democracy described by Procopius, which curtailed any attempts at centralization of economic or political power.

Following Stalin’s policies of fostering a Soviet identity with a Russian cultural makeup, the Slavic ethnogenesis became the major, if not the only, research topic of Soviet archaeology and historiography, gradually turning into a symbol of national identity. Soviet historians and archaeologists imagined an enormous Slavic homeland stretching from the Oka and the Volga rivers to the east, to the Elbe and the Saale rivers to the west, and from the Aegean and Black Seas to the south to the Baltic Sea to the north. A professor of history at the University of Moscow, Boris Rybakov, first suggested that both Spicyn’s “Antian antiquities” and the remains excavated by Khvoika at Chernyakhov should be attributed to the Slavs, an idea enthusiastically embraced after the war by both Russian and Ukrainian archaeologists. They witnessed massive state investments in archaeology and many large-scale horizontal excavations of settlements and cemeteries were carried out by a younger generation of archaeologists. They shifted the emphasis from the Chernyakhov culture to the remains of sixth- and seventh-century settlements in Ukraine, particularly to pottery. Initially just a local variant of Borkovsky´’s Prague type, this pottery became the ceramic archetype of all Slavic cultures. The origins of the early Slavs thus moved from Czechoslovakia to Ukraine. The interpretation favored by Soviet scholars became the norm in all countries in Eastern Europe with Communist-dominated governments under Moscow’s not so gentle sanction.