The Language and Cultural Contacts of the Population in Eastern Europe

The topic of cultural and linguistic contacts between speakers of languages of different language families is popular among linguists and archaeologists. The main goal of their research is the spatial and temporal localization of the ancestral homelands of the speakers of the proto-languages, whose daughter languages form language families, as well as the determination of the ethnicity of archaeological cultures. Common linguistic elements in the languages of different families will help to represent the relative location of their ancestral homelands, but their geographical localization requires additional information. Without this information, linguists make their assumptions about the location of one of the ancestral homelands using linguistic material, and archaeologists accept one of the assumptions, adapting the results of their research to it. Further, linguists, guided by linguistic material, locate the ancestral homelands of other proto-languages as neighboring ones. However, assumptions can be very different and linguists have not yet come to a common opinion on them, which entails heated controversy. This was well demonstrated by the Symposium “Contacts between the speakers of Indo-European and Uralic languages in the Neolithic, Eneolithic and Bronze Age (7000-1000 BC) in the light of linguistic and archaeological data”, which took place in Tvärminne (Finland) in 1999. A review of this symposium was made by one of its participants, part of which was published (NAPOLSKIKH V.V. 2015). Acquaintance with the review convinces that it is impossible to localize the ancestral homelands of the speakers of proto-languages only by linguistic methods using archaeological data unless additional information is used.

In particular, such additional information is graphical models of the relationship of languages of one family, based on lexico-statistical data. Models of language relatedness are constructed using graphic-analytical method and spatial correspondences are found for them on a map. This method was used to identify the ancestral homelands of the Nostratic languages in Western Asia, and then the territories in which the Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Finno-Ugric, and Proto-Turkic languages disintegrated into daughter languages [STETSYUK VALENTYN. 1998: 31, 53]. (see map in Fig. 1)

Fig.1. The Resettlement of the Indo-European, Turkic, and Finno-Ugric tribes in Eastern Europe.

Legend: Nostratic peoples: A-A – Abkhazo-Adyge, Dag – Dagestabians, Dr – Dravidians, Kar – Kartvelians, I-E – Indo-Europeans, NC – the speakers of North Caucasian language, S/H – Semits-Hamits, Trk – Türks, Ur – Uralians.
Indo-European peoples: Arm – Armenians, Balt – Balts, Gr – Greeks, Germ – Germanic, Illyrians, Ind – Indo-Aryans, Ir – Iranians, Ital – Italics, Celt – Celtic, Slav – Slavs, Toch – Tocharians, Thrac – Thracians, Phrig Phrygians.
Finno-Ugric peoples: Est – Estonians, Fin -Finns, Hung -Hungarians, Khant – Khanty, Lap – Sami, Mans – Mansi, Mord – Mordvinians, Udm – Udmurts.
Turkic peoples: Alt – South Altaians, Bulg – Bulgars, Yak – Yakuts, Khak – Khahasians, Tat – Tatars, Trkm -Turkmens.

The further narration aims to confirm the results obtained using the graphic-analytical method. The proximity of the areas of speakers of languages of different language families prompts between which languages one can look for traces of their cultural and linguistic contacts. Searching for such traces can also provide a topic for other purely linguistic studies, and sometimes explain phenomena that seem “obscure.”

For some long-existing and widespread words in the languages ​​of the population of Eastern Europe, it is not easy to find an explanation for their origin and determine the ways of dissemination. Judging by the content of etymological dictionaries, there are quite a few such words, they are usually designated as "wandering". Some words of similar meaning and form are so common that it is impossible to reconstruct their history by phonological analysis alone. For the most part, these include those that denote specific objects or actions that are often used or occurring in the daily lives of people. These are, for example, the words for soap, drinks, materials, etc. A lot has been written about them, but some do not enjoy special attention, although they are no less enigmatic. These include, among others, words that are consonant with the Latin rūmigāre meaning "ruminate", which comes from rūmen "throat, esophagus". Latin words have a correspondence in OInd. romanthah "chewing" (WALDE A., HOFMANN J.B. 1965). In the Finno-Ugric languages, Veps. märehttä, Est. mäletseda, Karel. märehtie, Fin. märehtiä, Komi römidztyny, Udm. žomystyny have the same meaning. Experts believe they all have a common origin, but the diversity of their forms does not find historical argumentation. Therefore there is no confidence in the reconstruction of the original Finno-Ugric root: *märз or *rämз (HÄKKINEN KAISA, 2007: 759). Kaisa Häkkinen, the author of the etymological dictionary of the modern Finnish language for some reason did not introduce in this cluster Erzya and Moksha words r'amigams "ruminate". The similarity of the Mordovian words and the Ukrainian remigaty makes it possible to assume that the Finno-Ugrians borrowed the Ukrainian word through Mordovian, but it was borrowed from Romanian in historical times and therefore could not be widely spoken in the now very remote Finno-Ugric languages. The fact that the Romanian word comes from the Latin no doubt (MELNYCHUK O.S. (Ed). 2006, 140). Finno-Ugric words could not be borrowed from Old Indian due to the large phonetic difference. It is possible to assume that part of the Indo-Aryans in the process of migration remained in Eastern Europe and had contacts with Mordovia and some Iranian tribes already after the disintegration of the proto-Iranian language because similar words are only found in certain Iranian languages (Bal. romast, цakhш. rǝmǝtk). To solve such riddles, you need to know the habitat of the carriers of "wandering" words in antiquity. In our case, the topic of cultural and linguistic contacts are limited to Europe.

Before the arrival of the Slavs, Eastern Europe for three millennia was inhabited by various Indo-European, Finno-Ugric, Turkic, North Caucasian, and even Semitic tribes, which not only clashed with each other, but also had trade relations and, as a result, exchanged technological experience, cultural achievements, and even worldview ideas (see the map in Fig.2). However, the use of the graph-analytical method is painstaking work, only a few months may be required to compile the necessary tables of vocabulary matches. A venerable scientist will not undertake such work, it is much easier to add a new assumption based on existing knowledge and intuition and then defend it in discussions.

Fig. 2. Ethno-cultural map of Eastern Europe for the period from the 5th to the 2nd millennium BC

The interaction between people of Eastern Europe was reflected in the languages of these peoples and this helps to restore the civilization process that took place here:

It is well-known that loanwords are a significant source of information about the cultural relationships among the people on the stage of history. When we turn to prehistory, loanwords and other “borrowed” elements increase in importance as evidence of the prehistory of a people and its contacts with other peoples. Such linguistic data are often the best available evidence, even when it can be correlated with archaeological pieces of evidence. For some areas and periods, it is the only source of information. For this reason, it demands and deserves to be approached in a systematic fashion (ANDERSEN HENNING. 2001: 1).

When borrowing from one language to another, besides phonetic transformations, semantic transformations of borrowed words very often occur and the meanings of the words can vary from close to antonymic. Sometimes the transformation of meaning is unexpected, but logical, which can be shown by such an example. We concluded that the creators of the Tripillian culture were some Semitic tribes. The Trypillians were farmers, while the Turks were cattle breeders. The nature of the interaction of agricultural and steppe cultures in the field of ideology is one of the most difficult issues. Opinions on this matter were opposite, but now the following point of view has taken shape:

… it was the inhabitants of the steppe and forest-steppe zones of Eastern Europe who found themselves under a certain ideological influence of agricultural cultural traditions (MANZURA I.V. 2013: 155).

The ideological influence also covers economic issues in its breadth. From the language of Trypillians, many words of agricultural terminology could be borrowed by neighboring Türks and Indo-Europeans. Given the agricultural nature of the Trypillian culture, one can assume that the Trypolians had words like Hebrew דוחן (dokhan), Ar. الدخن (aldakhn) “millet” and Hebr. דגן (dagan) "grain, cereal", borrowed by the Türks in barter trade with the expansion of their semantic field. In modern Turkic languages, such words have adopted the meaning "grain", "seed, seed", "kin", or "tribe". (Chuv. tăkhăm, Tur. tohum, Karach., Balk. tuqum, tuuğan, Kaz tuğan, Tat. tuganlyk, Turkm. dogan, tokhum, Gag. toom, Kurg. tukum a. o.). The words of this semantic field are difficult to separate from the native Türkic ones originating from the ancient Turkic. doγ-/toγ- "to be born", but the possibility of such a connection is not considered in the etymological dictionary of the Turkic language in the article "DOǦ" (SEVORTIAN E.V. 1980: 245-247). The common Türkic arpa "barley" could also be borrowed from the Trypillians, taking into account the Hebrew. בָּר (bar) “cereals”, since the origin of this word has no satisfactory explanation. Good correspondence for it gr. ἄλφι "barley" is assumed to be random in the specified dictionary (SEVORTIAN E.V. 1974: 176-177), however, the origin of the Greek word from the Türkic is allowed by other linguists (FRISK H. 1960. V. I: 81). In some Turkic languages, the words yrash/arysh are used for the name of rye. Obviously, they are believed to be borrowed from Russian, but Russian rozh' itself, like similar words in other Indo-European languages, does not have a reliable etymology. Sound similarity for it in Gr. ὄρυζα "rice" is also considered to be random (KLUGE FRIEDRICH. 1989: 603), but the possibility of connection of these words with the Hebr. אוֹרֶז (orez) and ar. أرز (arz) “rice” is not considered. However, this cannot be ruled out.

Understanding grain as a commodity led to rethinking the word's meaning and changing its phonetic transformation in other languages. In this direction, the original Türk. doğan could become the name of other goods such as salt, livestock, etc., cf. Chech. däkhni «property, livestock», Kab. dyžyn "silver". It is possible that in the Turkic languages some of these words after the metathesis took the form *tanag/täng and got the meaning "money" (cf. Chuv. tenkĕ "silver coin", Kaz. teŋge"coin, money", etc.).

Bullions of metal, especially the most readily available silver and copper, gradually took on the function of money, and in this function were to get their name. The Trypillians might have had the word *kemel, corresponding to Hebr. gemel “to repay” with which can be connected Chuv. kěmel "silver". The ancestors of the Chuvashes, the ancient Bulgars, were the closest neighbors of the Trypillians and had to have trade relations with them. When using silver as the equivalent of paying for any commodity, the Bulgars rethought the corresponding Tripolian word *kemel as the name of the metal. In other Turkic languages, silver is called by kümüš or by others similar to it, which originated from kümüĺ (for more details on this phonological transformation, see About the Nature of the Rhotacism and Zetacism in the Altaic languages). The Chuvash language has preserved the most ancient features of the Pra-Türkic language, therefore, the transformation of the Trypillian word into modern Türkic ones has a logical foundation. However, modern Türkologists believe that the name of silver in the Pra-Türkic language is borrowed from ancient Chinese, restoring OChin. *kəmliw as consisting of OChin. kəm "metal" and r(h)ēw "bright silver" (DYBO A.V. 2007: 67). Doubtful construction and phonetic correspondence were selected from an unshakable prejudice about the Altai ancestral home of the Turks.

The Türkic name of copper baqyr (Chuv. pǎxǎr ) was formed according to the same scheme, but there is complete confusion among Türkologists about its origin (see SEVORTIAN E.V. 1976: 45-47). This name, as well as the name of cattle, has a common root in the Trypillian language, in which the existence of the word *vakar “bull” or “cow” supposed [Ar. بقرة (bakara) "cow", Hebrew. בָּקָר (bakar) “cattle”]. If the original word underwent a semantic transformation for the name copper, then the originating from it PT *ögüz retained its original meaning. In the Chuvash language, it has a form close to the Semitic words văkăr "bull". The transformation into ögüz occurred according to the same law as the transformation of kěmel into kümüš. Türkologists did not notice such a possibility and are looking for another explanation for the origin of the Türkic word (SEVORTIAN E.V. 1976: 521-523).

Defined by using the graphic-analytical method habitats of native speakers of certain languages ​​allow purposefully compare binary language correspondences between Indo-European and Finno-Ugric, Indo-European and Turkic, and between the Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages. The map below shows that some of the areas of speakers of different language families are nearby. The study of the relationships between the languages ​​of these areas can provide especially relevant material for studying the cultural ties of the population of Eastern Europe. This refers to the Iranian-Vepsian and Iranian-Mordvinic, Mari-Turkic, Hungarian-Turkic, Armenian-Turkic, and, particularly, the Armenian-Oguz (Gagauz) correspondences (see on the map in Fig.3). The material obtained as a result of this work was presented in the form of Summary table of lexical correspondences , which, thanks to its clarity, facilitates the establishment of ways of spreading cultural and technological innovations.

Fig. 3. The habitats of the first speakers of the distinct Indo-European, Finno-Ugric, and Turkic languages

In this narrative, with rare exceptions, the goal is not to etymologize correspondences and establish a language as the source of borrowing.

This could be the next research step by narrow specialists. The search for correspondences did not exclude the possibility that long-standing linguistic connections could be distorted by later borrowings and intrusions, for example, in the case of Germanic and Finno-Baltic languages.

As can be seen from the location of the Veps area on the common Finno-Ugric space, the data of the Veps language are important for characterizing the Iranian-Finno-Ugric language relations, and Veps has many correspondences to Iranian words, and only a small part of them is shown in the table below. In prehistoric times, undeveloped ethnic identity did not interfere with contact between multilingual tribes. New words spread at the same speed in all directions from the place of their origin, if there was a real need for them. Therefore, those ancient borrowings are subject to the same distribution law as the words of closely related languages, although they cannot be considered isoglosses in the full sense of the word because of the phonetic features of the languages ​​of different groups. Nevertheless, it is more correct to speak not about borrowing, but about the foreign language origin of individual words. Later times, with the growth of ethnic self-awareness and the greater divergence of languages ​​in their development, additional barriers already arose on the path of spreading new words.

At the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, when the Indo-Aryans, Phrygians, Thracians, and Armenians left their ancestral areas, they were occupied by Iranian tribes, settling a large space in which the Proto-Iranian language was divided into distinct dialects into ethnic-forming regions (see map below).

Fig. 4. Settlement space of the Iranic tribes in the II millennium BC.

On the map, the boundaries of the ethno-forming areas are marked with red and blue dots. The blue dots also mark the border between the "western" and "eastern" Iranian languages.

The location of the Baluchi language area adjacent to the Veps area should have resulted in the greatest number of common linguistic elements between the Baluchi and Vepsian languages, however, due to the lack of a large dictionary of the Baloch language, it is impossible to be convinced of this. Nevertheless, the lexical matches found can be convincing. For example, the Vepsian word naine "daughter-in-law" corresponds well to Bel. na'ānē "daughter" with janaine "woman". It is clear that under the dual-clan organization of primitive society when men had to marry women from a different clan, the same woman was a daughter for the Baluchi parents and a daughter-in-law for her husband's family. Thus, not only the lexical match but such evidence of typical marriage unions confirms the proximity of the Veps and the Baluch. It is possible that Bal. pērok "grandfather" corresponds to Veps. per’eh "family".

K. Häkkinen believes that Fin. paksu, Est. and Veps. paks "fat, thick" are Iranian loan-words, but he gives as a match only Bal. baz "thick, dense" (HÄKKINEN KAISA. 2007: 860). Of the other Iranian, a similar word is found only in Ossetian – bæz "fat, thick". The ancestors of the Ossetians and Baluchi populated the adjacent habitats. There is still not enough lexical material from the Baluchi language, but a comparative analysis of the Vepsian language with other Iranian languages ​​was carried out. As a result of this analysis, it turned out that the largest number of mutual words with Veps are present in Kurdish – 76, Ossetian has 65 mutual words with Veps, Persian – 62, Talyshi – 61 words, Gilaki – 56, Pashto – 45 common words. It can be seen on the map that the areas of the Kurdish and Ossetian languages ​​are the closest, except for the Baluchi area, to the area of ​​the Vepsian language, and the language contact between the people of these areas should also be quite close.

Table 1 shows examples of Vepsian-Kurdish lexical matches, for some of which there are also correspondences in other languages:

Table 1. Veps-Iranian lexical correspondences

Veps and other F-U langiages	Iranian languages
azrag "spear for fish"	Os. arc, Kurd. erş – "spear", Tal. ox "arrow"
čirkištada "to drop"	Kurd. çerk "drop"
čokaita "to stick"	Kurd. çeqandin "to stick", Tal. čəgətəq "to prick"
čopak "deft"	Pashto, Gil. čabuk, Pers. čabok – swift.
hered "fast"	Kurd. xerez "speed"
heńktä, Fin. hengittää, Est. hingake "to breathe"	Kurd. henase "breathe"
hobdä – "to powder"	Kurd. heweng, Tal. həwəng, Gil. hawang, Pasto. hawanga "mortar"
hirnaita, Fin. hirnua, Est. hirnuma "to neigh"	Kurd. hîrîn "neighing"
ijastus "joy"	Kurd. e'ys "joy"
izo "cute", Fin. ihana, Est. ihana "wonderful, beautiful";	Kurd. e'zim "beautiful"
kanz – fasmily, kund "community"	Numerous Iranian kand-kant-gund – "village", "town"
kezr "wheel"	gerd – the root in many words of Iranian having the sense "to turn", "neck" a.o.
kötkšta "to slaughter"	Kurd. kotek, Pers. kotäk, Gil. kutək "hit"
kurn "gutter, chute"	Kurd. cirnî "trough"
l’öda "to hit"	Taj. latma "hit", Shug. lat "to strike", Kurd. lîdan "to hit"
opak "fearful"	Gil. bеk, Kurd. bak, Taj. bok "fear"
pirpitada "to shake"	Kurd. pirtîn "trembling"
rusked "red", Est ruske, Fin ruskea "brown"	Pers. räxš, Tal. rəš, Yaghn. raxš a.o. "red"
hämär "dusk", Fin. hämärä "twilight"	Kurd. semer "dark"
t’üukta "to drop"	Kurd. tika, Gil. tikkə "drop"
toh’ "birch bark"	Kurd. tûz, Pers. tus, Taj. tús "birch"

The correspondence of Finnish, Karelian and Ludic hämähäkki, Veps hämähouk, Estonian ämblik, Votic hämö, Livonian ämriki "spider" – Kurdish hebhebok "spider" is enigmatic. Borrowing from Kurdish or another Iranian language into Vepsian could not be, for this word in Kurdish is isolated and associated with Ar. hebbāk "weaver" (TSABOLOV R.L. 2001, 449). Finnish linguists did not notice this connection and considered the origin of the Baltic-Finnish words as "dark" (HÄKKINEN KAISA. 2007: 237). Based on phonology, the word for naming a spider was formed from two roots ham and bōk of an unknown language which could be Slavic or Germanic. Given the semantics and phonetics, for consideration, you can use Slav. pauk "spider" that can be associated with Ger Bauch "belly" (Gmc būk). This Germanic root can be connected with Slav. puzo "paunch" (KLUGE FRIEDRICH. 1989: 64). In the structure of the spider's body, the abdomen is clearly expressed, which must have a definition in the name of this arthropod. A suitable word is found in the Middle High German language hem "evil, crafty", then the name of the spider could be understood as "evil belly". There is no such word in German, but it could exist in one of the extinct Germanic languages, for example, in Gothic. How the Germanic word got to the Arabs is anyone's guess. In addition to these correspondences, there are several dozen words common to Kurdish, Vepsian, and three or more Iranian languages.

Iranian-Mordvinic linguistic connections are known better than the Iranian-Veps ones, although they are usually considered within the framework of the relations of the Finno-Ugric languages with Indo-Iranian, and sometimes even appear only Indo-Mordvinic or Indo-Hungarian parallels without Iranian matches. It makes an impression of the same position of the Indian and Iranian languages according to Finno-Ugric. This approach reflects that modern linguists are in thrall to old ideas and conclusions, formed in the 19th century based on the first general research and unsubstantiated concepts when it was considering self-evident the existence of the Indo-Iranian community. Here is a typical example of such a review: "Contact and even ethnic mixing of the Indo-Iranians with the Finno-Ugrians continued in the forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe during the whole time" (HARMATTA J., 1981, 79). However, when considering the Indian-Finno-Ugric and Iranian-Finno-Ugric language relations separately, the presence of a match between, for example, the Mordvinic and the Indian words, the like match has to be found in Iranian too. This is understandable since the area of the Iranian language was closer to the Mordvinic Urheimat than the area of the Indo-Aryans.

The areas of the Kurdish and Talysh languages border the area of the Mordvinic language. Accordingly, of all Iranian languages, except Ossetian, the Talysh and Kurdish languages have the greatest number of common words with Moksha and Erzya languages ​​- 62 each. Ossetian, has 67 such words, but some come from later language contacts between Mordvinic and Ossetian ancestors in the Scythian time. It should be noted, on occasion, that the numerical data presented here on the connections of individual pairs of languages ​​do not exhaust their present number and are used only before comparison, being taken from the same representative sample of family. By increasing the sample size we receive new data that should maintain its ratio. The examples of separate connections between the Talysh and Mordvinic languages are below:

Talishi-Mordvinic matches:

Tal. arə "to like" – Mok. yor-ams "to want";

Tal. vəšy "hunger" – Mok. vacha, Erz. vacho "hungry";

Tal. kandy "bee" – Mok.kendi "wasp";

Tal. küm "to cover" – Mok. komach-ams "to cover";

Tal. kandul "hollow" – Erz. kundo "hollow";

Tal. latə "wedge" – Erz. lacho "wedge";

Tal. mejl "to want" - Mok. m'al' "wish";

Tal. se "to take" – Mok s'avoms, Erz/ saems "to take";

Tal. tiši "sprout" - Mok. tishe "grass";

Tal. tyk. "finish" – Mok. t'uk "finish"

Tal. vədə "a child" – Mok. eyde "a child".

Among the possible Kurdish-Mordvinic separate ties, the following examples can be given:

Kurd leyi "stream" – Mok. l'ay, Erz. ley "river",

Kurd çêl "cow" – Mok. skal "heifer", Erz. skal "cow",

Kurd sutin "to rub" – Mok. s'uder'-ams "to smooth, stroke",

Kurd ceh "barley" – Mok. chuzh, Erz. shuzh "barley".

One can consider also such little-known Iranian-Mordvinic correspondences:

Mok., Erz. kev "stone" – Kurd. çew "sand, gravel";

Mok. patsia "wing" – Pers. bazu "hand, arm", Os. bazyr "wing", Pashto bâzu "hand, arm”, Kurd. bazik "wing";

Mok. kichkor, Erz. kichkere"wry, curved" – Tal., Gil. kəj, Pers. käj, Yagn. kaja "wry, curved";

Mok., Erz. pench "spoon" – Kurd penc "hand", Tal penjə "paw", Pashto panja "paw";

Mok., Erz. pona "wool, hair" – Yazg. pon "feather", Shugn. pum "down";

Erzia torkhtav "turbidmuddy" – Gil. tarik, Pashto tаrik, Tal. toik "dark".

Calculations of lexical matches of individual Finno-Ugric languages ​​with common Turkic lexical fund gave the following results: Mari – 55 ones, Hungarian – 41, Udmurt – 32, Mordvinic – 29, Khanty – 22, Komi – 21, Estonian – 21, Finland – 17 Veps – 14, Mansi – 14. In addition, Mari and Hungarian languages have many isolated lexical matches with some Turkic languages, they are present in the Mordvinic and Udmurt languages too. Most of them were borrowed from the Tatars, Chuvash, and other Turkic languages in later and even relatively recent historical times. It makes no sense to give examples of numerous Finno-Ugric-Turkic correspondences since often it is almost impossible to separate ancient and later borrowings. However, the possible mutual correspondences of the Hungarian and the Yakut language can not be explained by later borrowings, since in historical times the ancestors of the Hungarians and the Yakuts had no contact with each other. More than that – following now-existing notions of ethnogenesis of the Magyars and Yakuts – they never could contact at all. If the ancestors of the Hungarians and the Yakuts, indeed, as shown on the map, inhabited neighboring habitats, some traces of mutual contacts should have been left in their languages and they can be found. Separate Hungarian-Yakut matches without correspondences in other languages can be convincing. An interesting match according to A. Rona Tas is given by M. Erdal – the Hungarian expression "horse of color sar" corresponds to Yak. ās in the same sense (the initial s disappears sometimes in the Yakut language and s ˂ r) and he emphasizes the geographical remoteness of these languages (ERDAL MARSEL, 2005, 130). Other examples are as follows: Hung. örök "eternal" – Yak. örgö dieri "long", Hung. hiúz "lynx" corresponds well Yak. üüs "lynx". The last Hungarian word is noted in the Etymological dictionary (ZAICZ GÁBOR. 2006) as "Ismeretlen eredetű" which is of unknown origin, but there are other Hungarian-Yakut matches: Hung. homok "sand" – Yak. qumax "the same", Hung. hattyú – Yak. kütän "heron". The last word meaning "swan" is present in the Uzbek, Kyrgyz, Kazakh, and in the sense of "heron" in the Khanty and Mansi languages. Areas of all these languages are very close to each other. Of course, other Hungarian-Yakut matches can be found too.

For a long time, some linguists attributed the Hungarian language to Turkic, because they have many common features. The proximity of the Finno-Ugric and Turkic spaces is confirmed by the known common Turkic-Finno-Ugric grammatical features such as, for example, vowel harmony, lack of genders, expression of possessive by personal endings, adverbial relations by postpositions instead of prepositions, etc.

The number of Indo-European-Türkic matches in the Armenian, Greek, Germanic, Baltic, Indian, and Iranian languages is about the same and counts two or three dozen words. Türkic words in Slavic languages are of later origin (MENGES KARL H., 1990: 117). The Armenian language has more than two dozen isolated matches to Türkic roots. Some parts of them might have been borrowed in historical times from the Turkish and Azerbaijani languages, but are which show very old borrowing by their sound structure. At first, it is Arm. antař "forest", which exactly corresponds to Gag. andyz "grove of bushes". The issue of mutual crossings of r and s, z in Türkic languages, known as the phenomenon of the rhotacism-zetacism, is very complicated (see. The Hypothesis about the Nature of the Rhotacism and Zetacism in the Altaic languages), we will consider it later, but these phenomena have already occurred in prehistoric times. Hr. Acharyan in his etymological dictionary, without considering the possibility of the Turkic origin of the Armenian word, supposed that it derived from the Indo-European root der-, meaning "a tree", and gives to it a parallel in Sanskrit – vanatara (ACHARRJAN HR. 1971). However, the question of the origin of the word, in this case, is not important, important for us is the presence of the Armenian-Gagauz parallel. Other Türkic languages also have words andyz but of different senses (e.g. Balk., Bashk., Kum. andyz "the plant Carlina"). The similarity of the senses of the Armenian and Gagauz words may indicate the ancient Armenian-Gagauz (Oghuz) contacts when the ancient speakers of these languages populated neighboring habitats on the left bank of the Dnieper. The boundary between them runs either on the Psel or the Sula River. The boundary between the steppe and forest-steppe goes along the Psel River, so perhaps this river separated the cattle-breeding nomadic Oghuz from the hunting tribes of the ancient Armenians. Those ancient contacts are also confirmed by the isolated pairs of Arm gjul "village" – Gag küü "village" and Arm gor "lamb" originated which from the Türk. gozy/kuzy "lamb", as well as some other matches.

Another interesting match undoubtedly binds the Türkic, Finno-Ugric, and Indo-European spaces. The Armenian language has the word kamur, Greek has γαφυρα, the Mari language has kuwari, which all have the same meaning "bridge, dam" and all they originated from the ancient Türkic word *kobur which now exists in all Türkic languages (except, perhaps, Khakas) and has the forms köpür, küper, kövür (Chuv kěper, Karach., Bulk. köpür, Tat. küper, etc.) Borrowing this word namely from Old Turkic is attested not only by its widespread use in the Turkic languages but also by the fact that, in addition to the bridge, the Turks had common words for the names of other hydraulic structures and floating means: gemi "boat", kürek "paddle". The rivers in the Turkic region are relatively small, so it was easier for the Turks to use them for various purposes than their neighbors, and they began to do this before them, as shown by the examples given. Sir Gerard Clauson suggests originating the Turkic words for the bridge from the root köp- “foam, boil,” which is not convincing at all. Similar words are found in Indo-European languages and have the meaning “goat” (Lat. caper, Celt. caer, gabor, etc). Both Turkic and Indo-European words contain the Nostratic root (with the meaning “goat”), in the Turkic languages, the word received a semantic transformation to the meaning “bridge”, with which it was borrowed into Armenian and Greek. Later, words appeared in some Germanic languages with a meaning close to the meaning of “bridge”, but they were already borrowed from the Latin (Dt. keper, Ger. Käpfer, etc).

These examples fit well within the scope of the ancients, so far unexplained Armenian-Türkic relations, which about, for example, H. Birnbaum said, referring to the observation of Baudouin de Courtenay:

The Armenian language is ranked among the Aryan-European branch of languages, and, indeed, in many of its aspects, it belongs to them. However, at the same time, in some particulars of its aspects and in general in some basic features, it must be placed next to languages, if not Turkic-Tatar or Ural-Altaic, then at least with languages very close to these latter. So, for example, in declination, the reflection in the Armenian language of the external, physical, spatial world occurs mostly in the Turkic way (Cases Locativus, Ablativus, Instrumentalis), the reflection of social relations is a continuation of Aryan-European forms (Genetivus, Dativus, Accusativus) (BIRNBAUM H. 1993:13.)

Turkic influences are noticeable not only in the Armenian language but in Italic and even Greek too. The area of the Italic language was located near the Turkic one on the right bank of the Dnieper, so Latin words of unknown origin may have correspondences in the Turkic languages. The Greek language could be subject to Turkic linguistic influences through Armenian, as an intermediary between them. In addition to vocabulary, Armenian has correspondences to Turkic in morphology. Greek suffixes of oncoming and remove (-de and -θen) perform the same function as Türkic postpositions -da, -de and -dan, -den applied for the formation of Locative answering the question where? where from?

The vocabulary matches of Indo-European and Turkic languages are considered more fully in the section Traces of Contacts between the Türks and Indo-Europeans in Vocabularies

In general, compared to the Indo-European and Finno-Ugric languages, among the Turkic words, we find a significantly larger number of words with meanings that testify to a higher level of culture and social relations of the Turks. Very little material evidence of Turkic culture has been preserved due to the ephemerality of the raw materials used – felt, leather, wood. and fur, but the peculiarities of the Turkic languages allow us to give a proper assessment of Turkic culture. In particular, the existence of a developed farming and especially cattle-breading at Türks is evidenced by such common Türkic words: ajgyr "a stallion", akja "money" (the primary meaning, apparently, "cost", "price"), alma "apple", altyn "gold", arpa "barley", at "a horse", bajtal "a mare ", balta "an ax", beg "lord", boz "an awl", bosaga "threshold", bög "dam", buga "a bull", buzagy "a calf", geči "a goat", gemi "a boat", dary "millet", demir "iron", ejer "a saddle", inek "a cow", it "a dog", jaby "a horse", jaj "a bow", jal "a mane", jelin "udder “, jigit "rider", jorga "amble", kazan "a pot ", kamčy "a whip", kiš "to neigh", kömür "coal", köpür "a bridge", kul "a slave", kürek "an oar", mal "cattle", öj "home", teker "wheel", tojnak "a hoof ", ujan "bridle", üzenni "stirrup ", etc. Perhaps some part of these words, but very little, has been spread to all Türks in later times, but the vast majority of words having similar meaning in Indo-European and Finno-Ugric are spread in no more than two or three languages. The explanation for this may be the geographical features of the Türkic areas provided not only more favourable conditions for development of agriculture and livestock, but also opportunities for closer contacts with the ancient agricultural cultures of the South Caucasus and Asia Minor.

Learning from their agriculture, Türks shared obtained experience further to the northwest and northeast. This is evidenced by some of the lexical data, as the spread of cultivated plants is mainly accompanied by borrowing their names. Thus, Gr. αλφι, Alb el'p "barley" originated from Türkic arpa "barley." Sir Gerard Clawson suggests that the Türkic word can be borrowed from the Indo-European. (CLAUSON GERARD, Sir. 1972). This view is connected with the idea of the Altaic Urheimat of Türks and that they allegedly could not engage in agriculture before the Indo-Europeans. The word arpa as the name of barley is common in Türkic languages and was also borrowed by some Finno-Ugric people (Hung. árpa “barley", Mari. ärva "chaff"). This word is present in only two Indo-European languages, Greek and Albanian. Finno-Ugric neighbours of Türks have borrowed from them, together with millet, and its name: common Türk. dary "millet" – Hung. dara "grits", Mari. tar "millet". But the Türkic word itself comes from Georg keri "barley" (Abkh. a-k'ar). In addition to barley, north-eastern neighbours of the Türks borrowed from them oats and onion. Common Türkic sulu/sula/suly "oats" (from the Georg svili "rye") have matches in Mari. šülö "oats", Mord. suro "millet", Khanty sola "oats". Türkic sogan/sugan "onion" has such matches: Hung. hagyma, Udm. sugon, Mari. šogan, Komi sugon "onion". These loan-words are undisputable, but to assume that the time of borrowing refers to the appearance of the Türks in Europe only in historical time means to recognize the cultural backwardness of the Finno-Ugrians who allegedly did not know agriculture until the end of the first millennium AD.

Indo-European and Finno-Ugric horse names are borrowed in different forms from the Turkic languages, which use two names derived from the OT. at and jaby. The last etymon is represented in different languages as Turkm. Tur. dial., jaby, Uzb. dial. ja:by "work horse", KKal. jaby, Kaz. žaby "non-pedigree horse", Az. jaby, Kum. jabu "wretched nag", etc.) The etymology of this word is not clear (A. LEVITSKAYA L.S. (Ed.) 1989: 48-49), but it can be assumed that it comes from Trc. jaby "wild", which is close to "non-pedigree". J. Pokorny saw the origin of Indo-European names of horses in PIE *ekuos. However, irregular correspondences to this root (Latin equu, Lit ašwa, Ir asp, Toch. yakwe) say about the possibility of borrowing this etymon from any non-Indo-European language (KULLANDA S.V. 2010: 81)

Taking into account Gr. ιπποσ, Arm. ձի [ji(p)], Celtic ebol (all "horse"), one can reasonably assert that these names of the horse, as well as Lat. juba "mane", directly borrowed from some Turkic. On the other hand, the presence of sibilants or guttural sounds in the roots of words for the name of a horse in the other IE languages is forced to admit the possibility of different ways of penetration of the Türkic stems of all these words into the Indo-European environment. In the Finno-Ugric languages, ​​there are also names for the horse that go back to the Turkic jaby, but the ways of their penetration are also different. Fin. hepo (diminutive of it hevonen), Est. hobu, hobune, Veps., Karel. hebo were borrowed through the Greek (ιπποσ), Mari choma and Komi chan', both "foal", were borrowed from some Turkic directly.

The intertribal exchange trading existed already at that time (see more detailed Sketch on the Development of Merchandise in Eastern Europe at Prehistoric Times ). This is no surprise as the Tasmanians and Australians, retaining a primitive-communal way of life longer than other peoples, had exchange trade (CHEBOKSAROV N.N., CHEBOKSAROVA I.A. 1985: 20). M. Tovkaylo wrote in his dissertation:

… the location of Late Neolithic settlements may indicate also a possible means of local communities to control natural crossings, therefore, over ways of moving and intertribal exchange, which gave them certain advantages in social development and the opportunity to expand their influence (TOVKAYLO M.T. 1998: 14)

Without a doubt, the first product of metabolism was table salt, since its deposits were not found everywhere, and in the Neolithic, with the growing role of plant foods in the human diet, the need for it increased sharply. Other items of exchange included livestock, dried and salted fish, tools, and handicrafts, among other things. This is evidenced by the existence in the Turkic languages of Western areas and the languages of neighboring peoples of words with different meanings, which can only unite the common meaning of “goods, objects of exchange”. This word is just tovar “a product” that has in the Armenian language a form tavar meaning "sheep", "flock of sheep". The Türkic languages have such forms: Kum tuuar "flock of seep", Tur tavar "property", "cattle", Balk., Kr-Tat. tu'ar "the same", Chuv tăvar "salt", tavăr "to return the debt", "revenge", "answer", etc. Chuvash words are very significant. The Chuvash ancestors, that is the Bulgars settled area close to the Gulf of Siwash, where long existed salt business. Thus, salt was for the Bulgars the main item of export and therefore obtained meaning "commodity". The second Chuvash word stays semantically and phonetically a bit distant. But in principle, at first, it could mean "to pay back", or "to offset" which is semantically close to the "price" that could evolve from the meaning of "product exchange". Many Iranian languages have a word tabar/teber/tevir "an ax", and the Finno-Ugric words of this root have a meaning of "textile" (Saam tavyar, Mari tuvyr, Khanty tagar). They all had the same origin as the instruments of labor, as products have been traded. The Slavic tur “aurochs”, Lat taurus, and Gr. τυροσ, "ox" have been referred here though competent professionals (Vasmer, Walde and Hofmann, Menges) of these relationships hold back. At last, Ger teuer, Eng. dear, Dt. duur) can be referred to here too.

Türkic cultural influences were expanded mainly in the Finno-Ugric areas, and wider on the left bank of the Dnieper. In addition to agriculture terminology, the Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans took from the Türks the names of some household items, weapons: common Türkic balta (old form survived into the Chuv purta) "an ax" have such matches: Hung bárd "an ax" (balta is late loan-word), Komi, Udm purt "a knife", O-Ind. parasu, Toch peret (Osset färät "an ax" is probably taken from Tocharish), Yazg parus "an ax", Gr. παλτον "a spear, the dart", Lat barda "an ax", bardicium "a spear, hatchet", Ger Barte "hatchet", O-Sax barda. Common Türkic damar "sinew" was transformed into other languages in words meaning "string", "an arrow" "a spear", etc: O.Ind tomara "a spear, dart”, Khanty tamar "a blunt arrow" (for a squirrel, so as not to spoil the pelt), Veps tomar "an arrow", Osseti tomar "to direct" (from "an arrow" – V. ABAYEV), maybe Gr. τομοσ "acute"; common Türkic čana (also Georg čana) "sledge", čanah "jaw" have such matches: Saami soann, Est saan, Mansi sun, Hung szán, Osset dzonyg "sled", Arm սահնակ sahnak. K. Menges asserted the last word was common to the whole northern part of the Nostratic area (MENGES K.H. 1979: 205). Türkic loan-words on agriculture in Indo-European are very rare and in the livestock industry almost none at all. However, the Finno-Ugric languages have loan-words more concerned with agriculture than livestock. For example, one can say only about Türk. ökuz/öguz/öküz (a proto-form *ökör) presented in Hung. ökör. We can draw two conclusions from these facts. First, before moving to Eastern Europe, the Indo-Europeans, Türkic, and Finno-Ugric peoples were already really familiar with the basic types of domestic animals, and, secondly, the Indo-Europeans, in contrast to the Finno-Ugric peoples, have yet another source of cultural influences except for Türkic area.

The possibility of the existence of such a source is said, for example, the Indo-European and Türkic names of an apple as the fruit of the cultivated plants, which have reason to compare. The common Türkic alma "an apple" was borrowed in the Hungarian language in the same form, it takes the form ulma in Udmurt, and umar’ does in Mordvinic. In other Finno-Ugric languages, the names of apple and apple trees have different roots. In the same way, there is no common name for them in the Indo-European languages. The closest to these words is the proto-form *abel (from it Ger. Apfel, Rus. yabloko, Lith. abuolis, Latin place name Abella, Celt. avallo, aval). The Greeks called the apple μηλον (melon) and the apple tree μηλεα (melea, in Albanian apple is mollе, in Latin malus "apple tree", and the Hittite name is šamalu. Maybe Skt. ambla "sour" can be referred here too. T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov derive the proto-form of Indo-European names for apple as amlu and do not exclude their relationship with Trc alma (GAMKRELIDZE T.V., IVANOV V.V. 1984: 639).

It is believed that the closest to Eastern Europe apace of ​​the initial dissemination of the apple tree is located in the Caucasus and Western Asia, therefore it is strange that the undoubtedly common name of the apple is present only in the Turkic languages. After all, apple trees did not grow in the ancestral home of the Nostratic peoples at that time, and the area of ​​their dissemination was limited to the territory of Iran. Therefore, it is very likely that the name apple and apple tree was borrowed from the Turkic and Indo-European languages ​​at the time when this fruit was brought to Eastern Europe by later newcomers from Asia Minor or the Caucasus, who were already engaged in the cultivation of fruit plants. At the same time, in both the Turkic and Indo-European languages, the name of the apple tree and the apple was borrowed from a common source, i.e. from a language whose speakers lived somewhere near the habitats of the Turks and Indo-Europeans (the Udmurt, Mari and Hungarian words are borrowed from the Turkic, and Mordovian – from the unknown Indo-European). The only place equally close to these two habitats is the Right Bank of the Dnieper, the territory of dissemination in the 5th – 3rd millennium BC. Trypillian culture. Assuming the Semitic origin of the Trypillians, one can search ​​for a word similar to the Indo-European and Turkic names for apple and apple tree in the Semitic languages. This word ثمرة samara is found in the Arabic language meaning "fruit". Then, if you take into account the Hittite šamalu, the common proto-form for Indo-European and Türkic words could be *hamal, close to the Arabic word, and the Trypillians could also have a similar name, which Indo-Europeans and Türks borrowed together with fruit from them. This issue is discussed separately in the section "Semitic Tribes in Eastern Europe at Prehistoric Time".

There is one more fact testifying to the borrowing of the Indo-European name for apple from the Türkic. Old-Ind amlá "sour" under the condition of metathesis has a good match in Türkic alma "apple" if you take into account the taste of the apple. The Indo-Aryans did not have direct contact with the Türks, but a similar word existed in other Indo-European languages, it took on other forms and a slightly different meaning: Lat. amārus "bitter", Gmc. *ampra "spicy, bitter, immature" (OE ampre "sorrel", Sw., Nor. amper "bitter, sharp ", Germ. Ampfer" sorrel"), Alb. εmbl'ε "sweet".

As we see, the known Russian ethnologist L.N. Gumilyov was right in noting the high cultural level of the Turkic Kaganate, he assumed the "ancient traditions and deep roots" of the steppe cultures. At the same time, more than material culture, he was amazed by the complex forms of life and social institutions of the Turks (el "community", majorat, the hierarchy of ranks, military discipline, diplomacy, etc) together with "a well-developed worldview opposed to the ideological systems of neighboring countries" [GUMILEV L.N. 2003: 7]. Nevertheless, we must recognize that in the conditions of the steppe the Turks could not lay a socio-economic base under a solid state, similar to those that the neighboring nations had at various times – the Chinese, Iranians, Arabs, Slavs. All their state formations did not differ in durability and were destroyed due to internal contradictions, often by the personal character of their leaders.

The formation of the culture of the Turks was influenced by the western neighbors of the Trypillians, while they borrowed little from their northern neighbors. Probably, the Indo-Europeans were the first in Eastern Europe to fatten domestic pigs, which might be indicated by the names of two Indo-European names of pig: *sûs and *porќos. One of them was borrowed by Türks: Chuv sysna, Kaz. šoška, Khak soskha, Kyrg čočko and Finno-Ugric peoples did the second one: Fin. porsas, Udm. pars, Komi pors, Mansi purys all meaning "a pig". In the nomadic way of life, the Turks could not breed pigs that were not suitable for migrations, but the Turks knew this animal and got to know it from Indo-Europeans. The Turkic languages have words of another root for naming name a pig: Turkm., Kirg. doŋuz. Gag., Tur. domuz, Kum. tonguz a.o. This word is absent in the peripheral Turkic languages – Chuvash, Tuva, and Yakut. The carriers of these languages were the first to leave their ancestral home, while the rest of the Turks remained in their places and, perhaps, began to breed pigs following the example of Indo-Europeans. The origin of the word remains unclear. There is an assumption that it is based on toŋ "large, strong " (SEVORTIAN E.V. 1980, 268). When meeting a domesticated pig from Indo-Europeans, the Turks could borrow an Indo-European word for it, for example, a similar dunč' (դունչ) "mug".

There is in the Vepsian language the word l'evaš "a little pie with filling" and in Finnish leivos "cake". These words are very similar in form and meaning to the word lavaš "pita, pitta bread" spread in the Caucasus and Central Asia. The Ossetians have lawyz "a fritter" and lawasi "pita". V. Abaev considered these words borrowed from some Turkic (А. ABAYEV V.I., 1959-1989). However, it is noted in the Etymological Dictionary of Turkic Languages that the word has no recognized etymology (А. SEVORTIAN E.V. 2003, 5). Other Iranian languages have similar words too (Kurd. lewaş "pita", Afg. ravaš "bread", Pers. lävaš "pita" etc. There is reason to believe that Iranian, Veps, and Finnish words have a Germanic origin. Ger. Laib "loaf", Eng. loaf, Sw. (Dial.) lev, Got. hlaifs originate from GMC. *hlaibas. Derivatives without of initial h could be developed from this form in other languages – Ir. *laibas → lavaš → Veps. l'evaš. The Germanic word is associated with the Greek κλιβανοσ “stove” (KLUGE FRIEDRICH, SEEBOLD ELMAR. 1989: 425). Consequently, when the Greeks remained in Ukraine, they already knew how to bake bread, and the Germans, along with the appropriate word, borrowed this skill from them. This word spread further throughout the region along with the technology of baking bread. Lit. klaips, Rus. “khleb” and other Slavic words refer to this root. Without a doubt, the Slavs borrowed the word for bread from the Goths, along with many others, even in those ancient times, but not when the Goths settled in the Black Sea region.

The Iranian-Germanc vocabulary has also other common words. For example, the name of sour cream, butter (Ger. Rahm, OMG. rjúmi, OE ream , Avest. raogna, Afg. rogan, Yagn. rugin, Kurd. rûn, Tal. rüən "butter"), the name of a window (Ger. Fenster, OE fenester), considered to be borrowed from Latin (fenestra), but similar words are present in the Iranian and Albanian languages (Kurd. pencere, Pers. pänj'äre, Alb. penxhere "window").

Of course, not only words to refer to any distinct items spread throughout the all certain space but also for the designation of a broader concept. For example, Eng turf, Sw. torva "peat" have matches in Alb. turbi "peat", Pers. turb "peat", Afg. tarma "swamp". V. Abayev put in this line also Osset. tärf "lowland", Lit. tаrpas "interval" and added Thrak. tarpo (parhaps from Tarpo-dizos) "swamp" and Toch. tarpo "swamp". Perhaps the Slavic * tarva "grass" also comes from here (M. Vasmer takes it out of * truti "to use", "to waste", which are a little further semantically). The word in forms tart/turt/turš "sour", and "bitter" are present in this space. Here are some examples from different languages: Alb. tarthё, Eng. tart, Pers. torš, Kurd. tirş, Tal. təlx, Let. sùrs, Osset. tyrty (barberries) etc. You can also trace the development of semantics and spreading an old substrate IE root lard/lurd, presented in Lat. lаrdum "fat", Arm. ljard "liver", Gr. larinos "fat, greacs". Eng. lard is considered to be loan-word from Latin, although it can be an Italic substrate word, as the Anglo-Saxons populated the same area after the Italics. Further, the semantics of the word meaning "fat" has developed in the direction of "dirty". This sense has Sw lort "mud". From Germanic areas, the word with this sense spread eastward into Iranian areas (Pers. lert "sediment", Tal. lyrt "mud"). A list of such parallels can be continued, even though many of conformity may remain enigmatic.

Germanic languages had a word *gabūr "a dweller, master", which is kept in Ger. Nachbar, Eng. neighbour originated from *næhwa-gabūr literally "a nearest dweller" (А. KLUGE FRIEDRICH, 1989). A group of Iranian words was borrowed from Germanic: j’awar/ j’ewar "a neighbour", from which Mord. shabra "the same" was loaned. Of course, it is an errant word coming by complex ways in many languages: Rus. shabior "a neighbour", "a friend", Bel. siabr "a friend", "a brother" and other similar word in the Ukrainian, Slovenian, and Serbian languages. There is also a group of ethnonyms like Sabirs, Savirs, Suvars, Serbs, and Severians.These ethnonyms are found in different forms outside Europe, in particular, in the Khanti language, so it is possible that the ancient toponym Siberia can also be included here. On the other hand, in the Germanic languages, there were words of the root sebjö "kin", "clan", "relatives" (OE sibb, Ger. Sippe, Goth sibja). Most likely, cotamination of two Germanic roots occurred in different languages.

* * *

There is no doubt that the cultural ties of the population of Eastern Europe were not limited to the socio-economic sphere, and the exchange of achievements in artistic and creative activities had to exist. This is a topic for specialists, but linguistics can give certain material. For example, the origin of the name of a musical instrument bandura is associated with the Lat pandura and Gr. πανδουρα "cittern" and its source are looked for in Lydia. (VASMER MAX. 1964. Volume 1, p. 120). It was not found, as the roots of words are in the language of the ancient Bulgars, as it is evidenced by Chuv. păntăr-păntăr – imitation of strum, the strum of strings, păntărtat – 1. "to strum", produce strumming sounds (of a stringed instrument), 2. "to pop", "to rattle" (on drums) and like. What Chuvash words have a more common sense, means that the stringed musical instrument was borrowed by the Indo-Europeans (Greeks and /or Italians) from the Bulgars, and not vice versa. The peoples of the Caucasus have names for musical instruments like the Latin word pandura, but the source of the borrowing, just as words of bandura, is difficult to define. Musical instruments with a similar name – Fr. tambourin (long drum), Tat. dumbra "balalaika", Cr.Tat. dambura "guitar", Tur. tambura "guitar", Kazakh. dombra (a type of balalaika), Mong. dombura are used by many Asian and European peoples. It is believed that their names have Arab origin (Ar. tanbūr "stringed musical instrument"). However Chuv. tĕmpĕr-tĕmpĕr "imitation drumbeat", tĕmpĕrtet "to rattle" (of drum) cast doubt on this, since the similarity of words păntăr and tĕmpĕr speaks to their common Türkic origin.

As you can see, even in those ancient times, people in addition to the security concerns of their existence needed to be fun, but they played not only music but also games, one of which was the ball game. The antiquity of this subject for the game shows the spread of the same name for a broad area in the time when the Iranians were still living in close contact with the Germanic tribes. The word top/tob meaning "a ball" can be found in many Iranian and Turkic languages, it is also present in the Moksha, Ersa, Mari, Albanian languages, and probably even in the other languages ​​of the region (in Udmurt töb "skein"). The meaning of this word in the German and Chuvash languages can explain to us even the manufacturing technology of balls. OMG. toppr means "topknot", German Zopf of the same root – "female braid", the Chuvash language has tăpka "bundle, clump" . Consequently, balls were made from hair, and wool, and sewed round by skin.

The topic of cultural contacts can be explored widely if we purposefully look for correspondence to obscure words without a specific etymology in the languages of peoples whose speakers in ancient times lived nearby. The associations found can characterize the psychology and development of thinking at that time. As an example, we can cite how the meaning “equal” can develop in the semantic field “size”, which occurs for words based on gr. ἴσος “equal” of unclear origin (FRISK H. 1960-1972: B. I, 737). In the etymological dictionary of the Finnish language, Fin. iso “big”, which corresponds only to the Votic iso in the same sense, these words are linked to the Fin. isä “father” (HÄKKINEN KAISA. 2007: 265). In Moksha otsyu “big”, Mari izy “small”, Sami isse “little” and Est. osa “part” is not paid attention to, despite their phonetic proximity. Moreover, no attention is paid to Veps. izo "cute", the meaning of which may have developed from the original "small". Upon reflection, one can understand that they are all united by the category “size”, which could be present in the process of intertribal trade exchange. Undoubtedly, similar “discoveries” may arise in further research.