After the clarifications have been made about the migration process of the speakers of the Nostratic languages, we will try to determine the new places of settlements of Indo-Europeans, Turks, and Finno-Ugrians in Eastern Europe. Let's start with the Indo-Europeans.
The abundance of works devoted to the origin of Indo-Europeans creates good opportunities for an arbitrary combination of the opinions of different scientists for the derivation of new theories with sophistic inferences that serve as the basis for further ethnogenetic exercises, which is clearly seen, for example, in one of the works on the origin of the Slavs (ALEKSAKHA A.G. 2013). Since linguists themselves cannot cope with the ethnogenesis of Indo-Europeans, archaeologists get down to business and, choosing as a basis one of the many assumptions about the origins of the first Indo-European cultures, then, solely using archeological data, without a shadow of a doubt, "reconstruct" a picture of the further cultural development of Indo-Europeans with an accurate indication of their path migrations and places of settlement, of which there are also good examples (ZALIZNIAK L.L. 2016). With the "knowledge of the matter" the state of modern Indo-European studies is characterized by one of the modern pundits as follows:
Indo-European linguistics has never been so well-documented as it today. The precision of description and argumentation have never so good. One must continue on this path and examine our linguistic past with ever greater precision and adequacy. Openness to new approaches is of great importance (MEIER-BRÜGGER MICHAEL, 2003: 15).
However, despite the fact that Indo-European linguistics is well documented, they still have no convincing solutions to the problems of Indo-European Urheimat. It seems that the Indo-European studies are given into the hands of bureaucrats who systematize the all worthwhile for attention from their point of view and call to follow in this way further. "Openness to new approaches" is mentioning just for good impression, because used in our studies graphic-analytical method is described for a long time, and studies using it, were inserted in Academia.edu, but no mention of this new approach in above work. If Indo-European studies continue to remain closed to fresh ideas, then it, as a science, will remain in limbo for an indefinitely long time without a solid foundation of historical truth. This foundation is the space on which the formation of individual Indo-European languages took place.
To construct the graphical model of the kinship of the Indo-European languages, was compiled a table-dictionary based on the etymological dictionary of J. Pokorny (POKORNY. J., 1949-1959 ). These data were supplemented with words from the etymological dictionaries of other Indo-European languages (FRAENKEL E.,1955-1965, FRISK H., 1970, HÜBSCHMANN HEINRICH., 1972, KLUGE FRIEDRICH, 1989, WALDE A., 1965. In total 2615 phono-semantic sets of the Slavic, Celtic, Baltic, Germanic, Italic, Greek, Indic (Indo-Aryan), Iranian, Tocharian A and B, Hittite-Luwian, Albanian, Thracian, Phrygian languages were placed into the table-dictionary. 489 sets were admitted as mutual words. The words with the matches found in seven from eight of the most represented languages (Germanic, Greek, Baltic, Indic, Italic, Slavic, Celtic, Iranian) were considered as the common Indo-European stock. Calculation of the mutual words in the language pairs gave the results that are presented in table 3.
Table 3. Quantity of mutual words in pairs of the Indo-European languages.
The total number of words for each language is given in the diagonal of the table. The number of mutual words for each pair of languages can be found on the intersection of the corresponding column and line.
The data for Tocharian, Hittite-Luwian, Albanian, Thracian, and Phrygian are not presented in the table because of the small numbers. The localization of their sites in the relationship model of Indo-European languages is to be analyzed later with the other methods. It should be taken into account that all the data presented here are current and are constantly being corrected while the new terms are found, though these corrections don’t make much influence. The data oscillation of 5-7% does not modify the models at all, the correction results only in the more compact aggregate of points for language sites. The model of the Indo-European language relationships was built in consistence with the above-mentioned method and is presented in Figure 5.
Fig. 5. The graphical model of the Indo-European languages relationships.
One of these two reflexive variants was chosen in order to be able to place the Celtic area on the west, the Iranian site on the east, and the Baltic area on the north. The reason for this choice is evident. While trying to place the model on the map of Eastern Europe where rivers can be considered as the borders of habitats, we determined only one suitable variant in the basins of the Upper and Middle Dnieper and its tributaries the Pripyat’ and Desna. The map of the Indo-European space with separate areas for individual languages is presented in figure 6.
Fig. 6. The map of the Indo-European habitats located according the graphical model of relationships
We see that the Greek language, which is in the center of the diagram, began to form in the area between the lower Pripyat, Dnieper, and Berezina rivers. To the west of it, beyond the Sluch River (lt of the Pripyat) between the Neman, Narev, and Yaselda rivers, the Proto-Germanic language was formed. Further to the Bug or even to the Vistula was the area of the ancient Celts.
The Proto-Slavs dwelled north of the Germanic people on the right bank of the Neman River along the banks of the small rivers Merkis and Viliya. To the east from them to the Berezina River were the lands of the Balts. The Indo-Aryans inhabited the Sozh basin between the Dnieper and the Iput' River, and further in the area between the upper Desna and the upper Oka with the northern border along the Ugra River, the Irano-Aryans dwelled. In the Avesta), it is indicated that the Vakhvi-Datia River flowed in the ancestral home of the Iranians. It has long been associated with the ancient Oxus River, but the analysis of archaeological material and written sources gives grounds to identify Vakhvi-Datia with the Amu Darya River (KHOJAEVA N.D. 2013: 114-120). On the other hand, rivers containing the component wahvi "blessed, kind" in their names may be located in different parts of the territory inhabited by Iranian tribes at different times (A. STEBLINE-KAMENSKY I.M. 1999: 6.) In this case, the Vakhvi-Datia can be associated with the Oka River on the eastern border of the Iranian ancestral homeland that we have defined.
The Indo-European languages are divided into two general branches which are named the Satem and the Centum. The Hittite-Luwian, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Greek, Tocharian languages belong to the Centum-group. The Slavic, Baltic, Indic, Iranian, Armenian, and Albanian as the offspring of Thracian languages belong to the Satem-group. Excepting Slavic and Baltic, all Centum-languages are located to the west of the Dniepr, and all Satem languages are located to the east of the Dniepr. The transformation of the Indo-European palatal stops k’ , g’, and gh’ into spirants s, s’ or affricates took place under the influence of Finno-Ugric languages which had a great set of spirants. The Dnepr was the effective barrier for these influences if we suppose that this transformation in the Slavic and Baltiс languages took place later after the speakers of these languages came in direct contact with Finno-Ugric languages crossing the Dnepr.
The areas of the uprising the Tocharian, Albanian, Thracian, Phrygian languages were determined by the comparison of the ideas of many scholars with the Urheimats of other Indo-Europeans received by the graphic-analytical method. As a result of this study, the whole Indoeuropean space was defined (see the map below).
Fig. 6. The map of the Indo-European space including Illyrian, Tocharian, Thracian, and Phrygian areas.
After made placement of areas of Indo-European languages it is appeared that the Thracian language has no free area at all. Since it is close to Phrygian and Albanian and the successor of Illyrian or Thracian,
then there is no choice but to place the Thracian area where we placed the ancestors of the Albanians, i.e. to consider Albanian as a continuation of Thracian. This area is bordered by the Desna River and its left tributary of the Nerussa in the west and north, and in the south and east by the Seym River and its right tributary Svapa.
On the above map of settlements of the ancient Indo-Europeans, there are "empty" areas, which were tied to the now "dead" Indo-European languages (Tocharian, Phrygian, Thracian, Illyrian) by other methods. Thus, we received a continuous space in the basin of the Upper and Middle Dnieper as the second Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans. A careful examination of this space gives grounds to distinguish another small area on it between the Dnieper and the Ugra River, the left tributary of the Oka. It can be assumed that the formation of the Dardic proto-language took place here, giving rise to daughter languages equally close to both Iranian and Indo-Aryan (see on the map). If this assumption is correct, then there should be traces of linguistic contacts between the Dardic and Vepsian languages, since their areas were adjacent.
Since the Indo-Aryan and Irano-Aryan proto-languages were formed in two distinct areas, there is no way to talk about the existence of a special Indo-Iranian linguistic community of the Aryans. This erroneous idea gives rise to many questions that will not be answered if we do not recognize the results we obtained using the graphic-analytical method. Until now, there are theories of the autochthonity of the Aryans in the modern places of residence of their descendants and, accordingly, there are variants of the migration paths of their ancestors, despite the fact that their ancestral homeland seems to be conjectural. Attempts by individual linguists to convince supporters of the idea of the Indo-Iranian community and the autochthonists using examples of the differences between Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages do not bring results, despite the fact that there are many of them and the number of such examples is growing, as works of recent years show(WITZEL MICHAEL. 2012).