In Russian (later)
Türkic-Sumerian Contents
Ogur and Oguz
Türkic languages
Türkic and European Genetic distance
Classification of Türkic languages
Indo-European, Dravidian, and Rigveda
Türkic, Slavic and Iranian
Türkic in English
Türkic in Romance
Alans in Pyrenees
Türkic in Greek
Türkic in Slavic
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
Geographical Development Of European Languages
Grover S. Krantz (1931 – 2002)
Professor of Anthropology at the Washington State University
Geographical Development Of European Languages
American University Studies, Series XI, Anthropology and Sociology, Vol. 26
New York, Peter Lang, 1988
Chapters 6, 7, and 8



Posting Notes

Posting introduction and Table of Contents are on the Title Page.

The posting's notes and explanations, added to the text of the author and not noted specially, are highlighted in blue font, shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes. Page numbers are shown at the end of the page in blue.


A highly civilized society has the potential of spreading its language over the less civilized people under its influence. The most significant and lasting example of this process in European history was the spread of Latin during and after the dominance of the Roman Empire. This was well underway before 100 BC, and was only slowing down by 500 AD.

The echo of the 17th c. concept does not hold water, language is a matter of demography and utility, or the Greeks, Swedes, Italians, and Chinese in USA would have to be declared  less civilized since they adopted English, even though they brought many achievements of civilization to the USA. If anything, the trend is in opposite direction, less educated tend to stay more conservative, and more educated tend to be more universal (or flexible). British royals switched from Dutch to English to run Britain, Habsburgs switched to Spanish, and German royals switched to Russian to rule their mostly illiterate kingdoms.

High civilizations had begun as early as 3000 BC in and around southwestern Asia. Small areas of conquest were soon built out from some of these. Great empires that actually incorporated many diverse nationalities did not appear until much later. The first major example in this sense was the Achaemenid Empire of Persia, dating from 550 BC. One might suspect that the pertinent administrative procedures were only being slowly developed up to this time. The potentiality of great empire building spread westward, and there soon appeared the likelihood of a sea-based power of this sort in the Mediterranean.

Early Greek colonies had spread widely through much of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, but they showed little tendency toward political unity. By 330 BC much of the eastern Mediterranean was included in the Macedonian Empire that was in this area based largely on sea connections. The Macedonian and later Greek empires extended their rule over peoples who were mostly of an equal or higher level of civilization than Greece itself. Accordingly, while Greek became the major language of high-level government, commerce, and culture, it had much less effect on the speech of the majority of real people in the area It was only a matter of time before this political trend would spread to the west and an all-encompassing Mediterranean empire would appear. Greek, Phoenician, Etruscan, and other sources were soon competing to become the focus of this obvious development. One of these "other" sources was Rome.

The Empire (area 3rd c. BC - 4th c. AD)

The geographical extent of the Roman Empire can be described, perhaps even predicted, by a single rule with a handful of logical qualifications. The location of Rome is almost central to the Mediterranean Sea (the Greek city of Messana in northeastern Sicily would be even closer to the center). Roman influence, especially in the form of their control of communication and commerce, was based on sea travel throughout the Mediterranean. Its military power was based on its armies that moved mainly on roads that circumscribed this sea, but they maintained contact with the political center by water-borne communication.

To delineate the Empire a line should first be drawn around the entire margin of the Mediterranean Sea. A second line can then be drawn at a constant 600 km away from this shoreline. This second line is close to the actual border, with just a few exceptions (Fig. 19). Roman power was limited, and their economic interest was low, in the deserts of northern Africa and Arabia. The Empire also did not extend to the 600 km line in the colder climates well beyond the Alps, nor in the higher mountains of eastern Anatolia. The deep soils of the Hungarian Plain were still unusable to farmers, and this grassland area remained in the hands of its native horse and cattle breeders.

Fig. 19. Mediterranean Empire. A heavy line is drawn around the entire Mediterranean coast, and a medium line is drawn 600 km beyond it. This may be compared with the actual outline of the Roman Empire — stippled and bounded by the fine line. The Empire falls short of the 600-km line in deserts, deep soils, and some areas of cold winters. The Empire extends well beyond the 600-km line only in Britain and Egypt where there is ethnic continuity and easy access. Rome, Carthage, and Messana are potential centers, any one of which would have built essentially the same empire.

In areas of ethnic continuity and relative ease of access the Empire stretched beyond the 600-km line. Egypt came under their domination as a single unit. Northern Gaul, Belgium, and Britain were inhabited by much the same Celtic peoples as were in central Gaul. There were no great barriers in this area, and Rome just happened to be located more than 500 km in this direction from the most central location that would have been in Sicily. (A comparable extension into the western German area met with less success because of an even more war-like people with a great hinterland of kinsmen behind them.) The northwestern corner of Iberia was included to round-out the area by just a 200-km extension of the frontier to the Atlantic. A small strip at the eastern end of the Black Sea consisted of fertile lowlands of easy access through this watercourse. Other places around the coast of the Black Sea were at least associated with the Empire.

Language Effects

The subject peoples within this Empire may be divided, for present purposes, into two categories (Fig. 20). Most of the eastern part had a level of civilization equal to or above that of Rome itself. In these areas Roman conquest was mainly a matter of decapitating the state, but leaving its commercial, legal, and other institutions largely intact and managed by local personnel. The Latin language made little headway there beyond the higher social levels.

Fig. 20. Levels of Latin influence. Stippled areas show where civilized infrastructures existed, local Roman control was minimal, and native languages continued. Horizontal lines mark the areas where Romans developed the full infrastructure, for which Latin was the official and lasting language. Blank areas within the Empire remained un-Latinized for various reasons.

Some parts of the east, and most of the west, were of a lower level of socioeconomic integration. Here the Roman authorities introduced a unified system of economic, legal, commercial, military, and governmental institutions. These peoples were also connected by a network of transportation and communication facilities. This entire civilized superstructure was created and managed by Romans down to the local level. This was quite unlike the practice in most of the east where such institutions already existed.

The Latin language was the medium of communication in all of these new organizations throughout half of the territory of the Empire. It became in the best interest of all individuals there to learn to speak Latin for economic gain and social security. This linguistic transformation was certainly not completed by the fall of Rome, but it had progressed so far that the remaining native speakers eventually conformed to the most influential language. Some parts of the western Empire resisted Latinizing. It is well known, for example, that the north-central coast of Spain remained Basque speaking.

The impetus for Latin was the status of lingua franca among diverse populations and members of the community. Mass movement of recruits and subjugated population by Romans brought together people from various linguistic families, who created various areal versions of the “vulgar Latin”. Good examples are Italian, French, Spanish, and Rumanian. Where demographic situation demanded it, lingua franca were based on local languages, those languages escaped the “linguistic transformation”, and retained their original languages: Greek, Arabic, Germanic including English, Hebrew, Slavic, etc.

The Breton peninsula of France remained Celtic speaking, and most closely related to Cornish which was its nearest British neighbor. Celtic is divided into two groups, P-Celtic of Ireland and Scotland, and Q-Celtic of the rest of Britain and Gaul (Lockwood 1969, Baldi 1983). That Breton is closer to Cornish than Cornish is to Goidelic (Ireland) is to be expected; that was the situation in Caesar's time as well. The claim of a more recent intrusion of Breton from Great Britain is too improbable to consider seriously — the historical move between the 5th and 9th Centuries could have been little more than a refugee group of British nobility. Even Lockwood (1972) doubted that a Saxon invasion in the south-east of Britain would have caused an emigration from the south-west corner. He suggested the possibility of at least a small Celtic survival in Brittany throughout Roman times that might have attracted refugees from an Irish intrusion into Britain.

In Britain itself, Wales and Cornwall remained Celtic in spite of some degree of Roman control. Like Brittany, these hilly and infertile areas are not amenable to maintaining Roman villas, and thus were under less social pressure to conform to the "universal" tongue.

Whether the area of England itself was Latinized is largely irrelevant because the later Anglo-Saxon conquest overran whatever speech was most common there at the time. The Rhineland Germans, although part of the Empire, were not well assimilated. Unlike the Gauls, these Germans had a large hinterland of unoccupied peoples of their language group. Beyond the Alps the provinces of Rhaetia and Noricum (roughly Bavaria and Austria) seem to have preserved their language for some time. This was known as Rhaetic, a part of the Indo-European continuum that was geographically and linguistically intermediate between Celtic and Illyrian. These two provinces, plus Pannonia (western Hungary), may have become strongly Latinized in later years, but this was all overridden by other peoples soon thereafter.

Within the Balkans, excepting Greece, there apparently was a three part division. Thracian in Bulgaria may have held out as a "civilized" area, but it soon disappeared from a later cause. Illyrian-turned-Albanian (an approximate relationship) held out for lack of significant penetration of their mountain core by Romans or anybody else. Much of the remainder was Latinized, and even settled, by Romans.

A fourth, and momentous group in Balkans was Altaic, that of Scythians, who lingered there and were included in the Atilla's state; that of Alans, who were collected tribute from the Romans; that of the Huns, who controlled Balkans; that of Bulgars who remained in Pannonia and Balkans after demise of the Hunnic rule; that of the Agathyrsi who coached from Pannonia to Dobruja; that of unidentified Sarmatian horse nomadic tribes that went by exonym Venetics ~ Wends ~  Wendeln = “Wonderers, Nomads” in Germanic in the Po valley. The Türkic presence and vernaculars in Balkans continues to the present. In comparison with the Türkic presence, the influence of the Romans was episodic and marginal.

The Adriatic coast (Dalmatia) was thoroughly Romanized. The area of present Croatia was more accessible and clearly more settled by Romans than was Serbia, hence the foundation of their present division. Slovenia is likely explained by its being part of the Venetic speaking area. This old Venetic area is probably also represented today by the Friulian language immediately to the west within Italy.

The foundation of the present division between Croats and Serbs lays in their origin, Croats were a dynastic tribe of the Kangars that was heading the Bechenek (Bosnyak) Union, and Serbs apparently were a Sarmatian tribe subordinated to the Kangars (they are noted on the Ptolemy map, data of 1st c. AD) who blended or headed subordinated Slavic tribes in Pannonia; their subordinated (in respect to Kangars/Becheneks) status is reflected in their name (Eng. Serf, Lat. Servus ~ “slave”, compare Slav ~ Eng. “Slave”).

Association of Slavs with Venetics ~ Wends ~  Wendeln = “Wonderers, Nomads” in Germanic is no closer than between Greeks (Romans) and Romans (Rome). Apparently, the symbiosis between the horse nomadic Sarmatians (Venetics/Wendeln) and farming proto-Slavs (or Balts) started in the days when the Central and Eastern Europe was one large Sarmatia, as is shown on the maps at the turn of the eras. Statutorily, Slavs were subjects, and Sarmats were masters. Slavs were numerous, Sarmats were numerically few. Because of the numerical superiority, Sarmats in the Sarmat-Slav union could be known as Slavs, like Kangars known as Becheneks in the Kangars Union, and Mongols known as Tatars in the Chingiz Khan campaign.

Friulian is not a language, it is a location of the Friuli region with its own variety of the “Vulgar Latin”. No association neither with Balto-Slavic languages, nor with Altaic Sarmatian language of the Vandals/Wendeln = “Wonderers, Nomads” in Germanic. The Burgund Vandals were identified with the Altaic Bulgars.

Dacia (modern Romania) was somewhat Latinized, and its southern and eastern Transcarpathian foothills were also settled by Romans. This latter area survived the Slavic expansion, and eventually recovered its original territory and more.

The fringe of northern of Africa, outside Egypt, and much of interior Anatolia were no doubt largely Latinized, but these were overrun later by Arabic and Turkish expansions. The Latinization of North African cities is well known, but the language of the rural population at that time is mostly unknown (But is known as having nothing to do with the prior Greek, and later Latin).

The linguistic result of the phenomenon of Rome was the spread of a single language over vast areas of that Empire. Unlike most of the events described here, this was not based on a movement of people, but of cultural prestige that led to voluntary language change. This survives today in the form of modified descendant languages in most of Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Romania, and half of Belgium.

This vast out-flow of one language from a single city may seem to be one of those unique phenomena of the "historical" type. Actually it was a very predictable phenomenon of the time (And remains the same phenomenon in our days. The phenomenon is called “Endangered Languages”. In the 20th c., 100 languages disappeared from the censuses in Russia)

During the last few centuries BC there were several rising city powers in the west-central Mediterranean, and one of them was bound to succeed in forming the inevitable circum-Mediterranean Empire. That it was Rome, and not Carthage, Greek Messana, or an Etruscan city is largely irrelevant. The result would have been roughly the same with any of them, except that a different language would have played the role that Latin did. All told, there is relatively little in this section on Latinizing that is controversial other than its proposed regularity and/or predictability.

Language. Map

The linguistic picture of Europe after Latinizing cannot be fully separated from the next phenomenon of the Slavic expansion. An arbitrary division can be made at about 300 AD by presupposing the Latinizing that was actually completed only much later in some places. This date also just precedes any visible movements of the Slavs and Magyars who were already beginning to expand out of their core areas. (See Fig. 21.)

Western Europe at this time has lost the original Indo- European dialect mesh, and most of the Afro-Asian as well. The greater part is now overlain by Latin and is already beginning to form its own dialect mesh. It is also subdividing according to the distributions of the underlying languages. Germanic covers another large area to the north, from Germany through much of Scandinavia. Germanic and Italic now share a long common boundary, from the Alps to the North Sea, along which other languages are in the process of being digested by these two. Celtic Survives in Brittany and the British Isles, with perhaps some Latin in England itself.

Fig. 21. Language map in 300 AD. Italic languages, almost all derived from Latin, have spread over much of Europe, especially in the west. They replace large areas of Celtic, Afro-Asian, and much of the Indo-European dialect mesh in the south-central part. Other changes are minimal.

The Fig. 21 Language map in 300 AD is completely incompatible with Ptolemy's map of European Sarmatia, which depicts a mesh of diverse ethnicities and languages, most of them non-Indo-European; Ptolemy reflects nothing like an Indo-European mesh in Eastern Europe:
Ptolemy's regional map of European Sarmatia 42°-73°

In eastern Europe the original Indo-European dialect mesh still covers a large area, but it has also lost ground here. Greek no doubt progressed farther up the Balkan Peninsula and formed a distinct language line against Illyrian on the west and Thracian on the east. This fold-back phenomenon had long since engulfed those dialects that formerly were intermediates between Greek and its northern neighbors. Latin was injected into the northern Balkans — as the leading language in Dalmatia-Croatia, and as a lasting phenomenon only along a curving strip around the eastern Carpathians in Romania. Magyar continued as an island of alien speech in the Hungarian Plain. The name "Anatolian” is still used here for all of the Indo-European languages in Asia.

The rest of eastern Europe constituted the remains of the original Indo-European language spread, as yet unaffected by linguistic events elsewhere. Very strong contrasts would have distinguished the speech of different parts of this mesh because of distances and time for dialect development. An eastern version of what still might be called Celtic existed in the Oder River basin and nearby. (Some Germanic may also have penetrated this area.) This was locally separated from Baltic by the ancient dividing line that dates from the initial occupation by farmers. Baltic itself would have coastal and interior halves divided by a similar, but no doubt weaker line. Proto-Slavic is not geographically set apart except for the modest barrier of the Pripet Marshes against interior Baltic. Slavic would grade imperceptibly into the other parts of the remaining Indo-European dialect mesh in all directions from its central location. This continuity would be broken by the next cultural event that goes so far as to replace almost this entire remaining mesh, and more territory as well, with an expansion from that small Slavic area within its center.



At about the same time that Roman power was beginning to wane, a new ethnic movement was getting underway in eastern Europe. This was the expansion of Slavic-speaking peoples that has been back-tracked in time and space, by most authorities, to about 200 AD somewhere in the middle Carpathian region. Unlike the influence of Rome, this event was not based on higher level of civilization, nor on any particular military capacity. Sheer numbers are all that can be found to explain this movement that constituted an irresistible flood for many centuries.

Estimates of population density for most of eastern Europe at 200 AD center on around two per sq km, a figure far lower than in all regions to the south and west. This is largely a consequence of the smaller fraction of the land that is suitable for plowing. This density must be multiplied by about four times in order to create the kind of population pressure that would have enabled the Slavs to overrun most of their neighbors, many of whom had equal or higher levels of civilization. Great increases in population are made possible only by corresponding increases in food production. In the 6000 years that farmers had occupied this area, population density had only doubled from the presumed initial figure of one per sq km. A major change in the agricultural base at this time and place could easily have been postulated even if we did not have any direct knowledge to that f effect. In this case we do know.

Before this time the simple scratch plow, or aratum, was the only type in use. This plow was pulled by a pair of oxen and just cut a furrow in the ground. It could not be used in deep turf or heavy clay soils. The mold-board plow, also called the caruca or simply the heavy plow, was a much more complicated machine. It begins with a vertical knife supported at the front to cut the turf. This is followed by a horizontal plowshare, set well below the ground surface, to which is attached a curved board that lifts the topsoil and turns it over. It has wheels to support its weight and to set the depth at which it plows. This whole apparatus is then pulled through heavy soil by a team of usually eight oxen. Fields mostly changed in shape from squares to long rectangles so that fewer turns had to be made with this cumbersome affair. (See White 1962.)

An obvious place for such a plow to be developed would be near the edge of the Hungarian Plain where the soil could not be tilled with the light plow. In this area there was a meeting of Roman technology with that of immigrant Celtics, as well as that of local forest and steppe peoples. If this innovation was developed along the northeastern margin of Magyar territory, then the subsequent ethnic movements would automatically follow just as recorded.

A little etymology may go a long way to help understand historical interconnections. The English plough/plow and Slavic plugu/plug are derived from Latin plovus/plovum “plow”, according to Pliny (before 70 AD) of Rhaetian, or ultimately of non-IE Etruscan origin. Cognates: Old English plog, ploh, Old Saxon plog, Old Frisian ploch, Middle Low German ploch, Middle Dutch ploech, Dutch ploeg, Old High German pfluog, German Pflug; Old Church Slavonic plugu, Lithuanian plugas. The word refers to wheeled heavy plough known from 5th century AD in Roman northwestern Europe, centuries before the purported invention on the edge of Hungary. This was an obviously a Roman technology.

Another term for plow was Old English sulh “scratch plow, ard”, with Balto-Slavic cognates Lith. shaka, Latv. saka, Slav. sokha “scratch plow, forked branch, forked post”, with source in Balto-Slavic; the Latin cognate is sulcus “furrow”. These terms are for primitive scratch plow.

And another English term for plow was ard, Old Norse arðr, Swedish årder; its Slavic counterpart is oral/oralo, derived from Türkic ara “fang (carnivorous)”; the Germanic word with no IE etymology derives from the Scytho-Sarmatian lexicon. These terms are for primitive scratch plow.

The bottom line: neither Magyars, nor Slavs came up with a mold-board plough; neither Slavs had terms for metalworking, the Slavic terms for iron and pig iron are late borrowings from Türkic, centuries (or millennium) after Türkic people brought metalworking to the  Balto-Slavs: jelezo and chugun respectively. The sokha scratch plow remained the Slavic plow to the 18th c., when metal-tipped plows became available from the metalworks in the annexed Urals.

Most of the soil of Europe, outside of the Mediterranean area, was too heavy for the light plow and remained untilled up to this time. Lighter soils in the upland forests, as well as alluvial river valleys, were abundant enough that farmers were previously able to effectively occupy the whole area, but only at a low population density. When the heavy plow became generally available far more of the land could be tilled — possibly four times as much in most places. This provided the basis for a population explosion that radiated from the source.

Beginning Expansion

The rate of expansion of plow agriculture through the Hungarian Plain itself is a bit difficult to calculate. For the most part, this territory was now being farmed for the first time. Most of the plain was cattle and horse country, but it included some river-valley agriculture, and was surrounded by farmers no more than 100 km from any point within. General farming skills, hired hands, seed, and a planting calendar were easily obtainable, so the advance was probably much faster than the original expansion of simple farming. My suggestion is that a double speed, equal to that of expanding pastoralists, would be applicable here. At this rate 150 years would see this deep-soil farming spread from its source point through about half of the Hungarian Plain. Another 150 years would take it through the rest of the plain to the south­west, and well out into the surrounding forested lands. Magyar expansion in all other directions would be quite different. (See Figs. 22, 23, and 24 for maps of ethnic spreads caused by the mold-board plow.)

Fig. 22. Slavic expansion. This is the first of four maps showing ethnic shifts that followed from the development of the mold-board plow. The original Slavic area is the unbordered circle of cross-hatching around the dark spot that marks the plow's origin. Slavic expansion is shown by groups of parallel lines radiating in three directions for the western, southern, and eastern branches. A small area near the center was lost to expanding Magyars. The date is 800 AD when the western and southern advances have halted, but the eastern is still progressing. Eastern limits at 1000 and 1200 AD are also indicated. The 800 AD line in the west marks the probable position of heavy plow technology among the local, non-Slavic peoples.
Fig. 23. Non-Slavic expansions, Group I. These four languages show changes that resulted from use of the mold-board plow.
Their positions alternate with others (Figs. 22 and 24) to separate their overlapping movements. For each language, lost territory is marked with "defensive" lines perpendicular to the direction of plow advance, retained area is cross-hatched, and gains are lined parallel to the direction of advance. In the north, Baltics lose ground to Slavics, hold Lithuania, and gain Latvia before passing the plow on to the next people. Magyars lose their southern tip and gain much to the west. Albanians lose and gain modest amounts. Turkic loses most of its Balkan holdings (the northeastern border is left vague here) and expands into Anatolia. These Turks first gain, and then lose, the dashed area of Bulgaria. The map is dated at 800 AD, and shows lines of 1000 AD and 1200 AD for the Turks in Anatolia. 
Fig. 24. Non-Slavic expansions, Group II. These four languages show changes that resulted from use of the mold-board plow. Their positions are alternated with others (Figs. 22 and 23) to separate their overlapping movements. Use of the plow spreads in four directions from the origin spot. For each language, lost territory is marked with "defensive" lines perpendicular to the direction of plow advance, retained area is cross-hatched, and gains are lined parallel to the direction of advance. In the west, Germanics lose a wide strip on their east and gain greatly in Bavaria, the Low Countries, and England. Romans lose old Pannonia, Croatia, and Dalmatia, but hold in Italy proper. Greeks lose most of their inland area. Romans in Dacia spread considerably to the east. The map is drawn at maximum expansion of the peoples involved, about 800 AD

Modern Hungarian speech extends about 40 km beyond the plain to the north and north-east (Fig. 23). This suggests that the heavy plow was developed inside Magyar territory, and that the new farmers expanded in these directions as well. Given the novelty of serious farming, and the proximity of the Slavic frontier, the Magyars would not have built up any significant population pressure in this direction. Adoption of the plow by Slavic farmers would have been rapid — they may have devised much of it already.
137, 138

The fact that almost all of the terminology relating to the mold-board plow and its parts is of Slavic origin (is it really? The whole concept rests on Slavic origin of the mold-board plow terminology that the old Pliny ascribed to Rhaetians or ultimately Etruscans before the 70 AD?) forcibly suggests they are its inventors (White 1962:49). This would seem to place the development on the edge of Slavic territory against the Hungarian Plain. But in this case we are hard-pressed to explain the 40-km advance of the Magyar frontier against the Slavs to the north and north-east. Perhaps this represents a later move that is related to the Magyar penetration to the east into Transylvania. One solution, to which I am inclined, would be that a colony of Slavic farmers just inside the Hungarian Plain were the first to assemble this plow. In this way we can account for the Slavic terminology, along with the Magyars being among the first majors users.

Slavic farmers living around the origin place of the heavy plow would have become involved with its use and spread at almost the same time as would the Magyars, no matter what was the exact spot where the invention actually occurred. Their subsequent rate of expansion can be estimated from historical sources to have been about 200 km per century, with no penalties for winter conditions. It was by extrapolation backward from this information that the time and place of the source was pinpointed. This rapid Slavic expansion was mainly over areas that were already under at least some degree of cultivation with the light plow.

The expectable difference between the advance rates inside eastern Hungary and outside it, would automatically lead to some interesting border adjustments. (The Magyar basic advance rate is assumed to be 75 years, plus 25 for 9-hour days, and 50 for -2° winters, for a total of 150 years per 200 km.) Along the northern edge of the plain, the Magyar and Slavic advances to the west may be compared first. After a slight starting delay of about 30 years, the heavy plow in Slavic hands would move 200 km in the same time as would its use by the Magyars. At this point the deep soil along the Magyar path ends, and they too should now expand at 200 km per century. At equal advance rates from here on, Magyars would move westward up the Danube River while Slavs continued through Czechoslovakia.

Along the eastern border of the plain both ethnic groups would likewise be advancing the use of the heavy plow in a southward direction (Figs. 22 and 23). Allowing the same 30-year delay in the Slavic start, Slavs are actually slightly ahead at 200 km. At this point the Magyars are still in their own deep-soil area as novice farmers, while the Slavs are moving the plow faster outside of it. The Slavic lead would be increasing as they turn more westward, paralleling the curved border of the main part of the plain. About 50 years after the 200-km mark, the Slavs would enter the southern extension of the deep-soil area, automatically heading due west by that time, and comfortably ahead of the Magyars. From here on, equal progress by both groups would result in the Slavs taking over this southern part of the plain, and continuing their advance directly to the west. This again conforms to the recent boundary of Magyar vs Slavic speech areas.

A general picture now emerges for the initial stages of the advance of the users of the mold-board plow. At a 300-km radius, a circle can be drawn around the probable point of origin of the plow just inside the northeastern corner of the Hungarian Plain. At this point the Magyars hold 20% of the circumference and almost 30% of the enclosed area, but are open for further expansion only directly to the west. The Slavs hold 80% of the circumference and are open to further expansion in all other directions. In spite of their probable slight delay in starting, the Slavs are so positioned as to be the overwhelmingly dominant force in all subsequent developments (Fig. 22).

The further advance of the heavy plow and its users can now be detailed along a series of paths, beginning with due north and progressing counterclockwise. Maps of its effect on various ethnic groups other than Slavic are found in Figs. 23 and 24. In order to separate the movements of various groups from their neighbors, each map shows just half of them, spaced alternately around the "clock".

The scenario of heavy plow Slavic western expansion is totally devoid of the numerous peoples that populated the whole area of the promulgated expansion. Some elements of the expansion process may be true, while the overall theoretical picture remains chimerical in respect to technology, social order, political reality, populations, and languages.

Even now Slavic languages carry a heavy load of Turkisms shared by most of the Slavic languages, and a good portion of the Baltic languages. The oldest documented Slavic language of the Eastern Slavs carries some ancient 500 Türkic stems that by now have developed into many thousands derivatives. This archaic Türkic lexus is easily distinguished from the later Türkic inclusions. The later (10th-15th cc. AD) loanwords add another 2000 Türkic stems, and allowing a 5000-word Russian lexicon of the 15th c, a third to a half of the Russian dictionary at that time were Turkisms. Since then, with the opening to Europe in the 18th c., the coming of the industrial age, and the universal literacy, the Russian lexicon grew manifold into the modern language, hence the relative portion of the Turkisms was greatly reduced, but still not a single article or a poem can be written without ingrained Turkisms and their home-grown derivatives; the Türkic lexus and Türkic affixes make the Russian a Russian. If Balto-Slavic languages were mamas of the Slavic, the Türkic languages were its papas; they are inseparable within Slavic.

From the 6th c. the  “Slavic” area was continuously populated by the nomadic Avars, who moved in in the 560's and never left. Avars incorporated all previous Türkic populations (primarily the nomadic Huns and various nomadic tribes of the Bulgar circle) and the local nomadic Türkic Akathyrs. Nothing is known of the Slavs in the area between 560's and 630's, but in 630's-660's the area is known as Bulgarian state Duloba (Dulebs of the Slavic annals) aka “Samo state”, a splinter and associate of the N.Pontic Great Bulgaria of Kurbat, with massive presence of Slavs. The slave status of Slavs is documented in the Slavic annals relaying that Avars (Obrs of the Slavic annals) used to harness Slavic women into carts as draft animals. In the period of 660's to 800's  the area accepted masses of Germanic population of the Gothic circle, known under Roman moniker Longobards (Long Beards) and Gets (Getae in Roman sources, also dubbed as Daks/Dacs after the former Roman province Dacia). A part of the Germanic population expanded to the inner Balkans and the Venetia province, their mobility and military propensity indicate nomadic pastoralism of their economies. Toward the end of 700's the nomadic Kangar tribes of Charvat (Croats, Horvats) and Yula (Gula of Hungarian annals) entered the area and settled east and west of Carpathians. All these powerful nomadic settlers leave no room for uncontrolled Slavic encroachment.

Theoretically, the Slavs had a potential to expand form the suggested point with the suggested speed in the suggested directions; practically, that could not have taken place. In Russia, the Slavs remained statutory slaves (serfs, rab/slaves, smerds, krepostnoi) till the emancipation of 1862, with an obligation of streaming payments to buy out their freedom that continued until 1905. In contrast, the Türkic subjects of the Russian empire (Tatars in Russian lingo) were statutorily classed as nobility (dvoryans) independently of their status within their own classification system. The idea of free-wheeling Slavic farmers migrating at their own volition is not viable.

Avaria and Kangar - Besenyo/Bosnyak state at 750-800 AD Krum Bulgaria at 805–898
(Balkans, Pannonia, and Atelcusu = Atelkuzu = Atelkiji

Western Slavs

Slavic expansion to the north (Figs. 22 and 23), as in all other directions, would involve overrunning and incorporating other fanning populations whose speech only gradually diverges from core Slavic as the distance from there increases. The right flank of this northern move may well be the old meeting boundary that dates from the time when the first incoming farmers were divided by the eastern Carpathians. (If so, this line still exists after some 8000 years and today separates the western from the eastern branch of modern Slavic.) The advance to the north would continue and eventually overrun the southern part of what was by then differentiated as Baltic speech. The remaining Baltics would adopt the heavy plow and thereby increase their own population density to the point where the Slavic expansion loses its advantage and stops at 550 AD. The exact location of this line of transfer cannot be predicted, but it could not be beyond the southern border of modern Lithuania, which is the core area of Baltic speech today. The present border of Poland with the USSR is the most probable line.

These Baltics, in turn, would naturally continue this advance to the north and overrun some of their Finnic neighbors in the same manner. Thus Latvia was added as a new area where Baltic speech was overlain on a Finnic base — a linguistic description that is well known. The Baltic advance was similarly stopped at the border of Estonia near 800 AD when these Finnic peoples adopted the plow. They increased their population, took the new technology around through the Leningrad area and into Finland, and eventually up to the northern limit of farming. Just how much movement this caused among the Finnic-speaking populations is not clear. This two-time transfer of the mold-board plow along the east coast of the Baltic Sea suggests that the area had been well populated before this event. At a lower initial density the natives might not have been able to increase their numbers fast enough ever to be able to oppose the intruding plow users.
141, 142, 143

More to the north-west (Figs. 22 and 24) the Slavic advance passed over the North European Plain, unimpeded, to the shore of the Baltic Sea all the way west to the base of the Danish peninsula. They stopped by 700 AD just short of cutting Denmark off from Germany. The eastern part of this new Slavic territory was the old Celtic-related area, and the western part was Germanic.

North German tribes were in motion toward the west during, and no doubt because of, this advance of the Slavic frontier. Saxon colonies that had been settled on poor lands in Britain in 450 AD (or earlier) would have received many over-seas refugees from the east. This led to their rapid conquest of much of Britain in just 50 years between about 550 and 600 AD. Eventually these Germanics also brought in the heavy plow that was ideally suited to just those areas in which they had been initially settled. Their inevitable local population increase, plus continuing immigration, led to the final Anglo-Saxon take­over, and the ethnic assimilation of the Britons, by 800 AD. Not surprisingly this Germanic tide also stopped at Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland, just as the Romans had before them. The mold-board plow was no better suited to effective use of these lands than was the Roman villa system.

At about this same time, Germanic expansion on the continent engulfed western Netherlands, northern Belgium, and a piece of northern France. Again, these were the low areas of heavy soil to which their new plow was so well suited. Interestingly, this is the western half of the area already noted for its non-Celtic and non-Germanic place names. Apparently neither the original farmers nor the Celtic refugees from Germany were able to settle here very densely until this time. The rest of France was too well populated and civilized to become Germanized, though most of it was overrun and controlled by German-speaking minorities for many years to come. The Franks are the best known of these invading tribes.

More directly to the west from the source point, Slavic penetration ran through the length of modern Czechoslovakia, stopping finally at the western Carpathian mountain barrier (Fig. 22). Early along this path the natives of the Slovak area were near-relatives of the Slavs. In Bohemia they encountered the recently arrived Germans, whom they surely outnumbered. These early "Bohemians" who evacuated their homeland are the obvious source of the German intrusion into Bavaria at about 500 AD. (Fig. 24). This was the old Rhaetic province of the upper Danube, whose native speech (whether Rhaetic or Latin) was replaced at this time. The Slavic advance expectably halted here from a combination of the transfer of the heavy plow, denser populations resisting them, and a low mountain barrier.

Magyar Moves

The Magyar advance should have been affected by the fact that most of these people had only recently become serious farmers. Previously their emphasis had been on cattle herding and horse riding. Their later history suggests that they did not ever settle very densely outside of the Hungarian Plain. What ultimately proved to be their firm boundary to the west was only 200 km removed from their original homeland. They apparently did progress another 300 km to occupy the main body of Austria, but gave it up readily to the German reflux a few centuries later (Fig. 23).

Given their equestrian skills and newly augmented population, Magyar armies periodically raised havoc, especially to the west of their extended homeland. Atilla the "Hun" was merely their current leader when the factors for expansion first developed.

The many supposed ethnic changes within Hungary during this and later times could have been no more than changes in the political control of the nation. The historic waves of conquest out of Asia are without any ecological foundation. A few tens of thousands (at most) of invaders will not change the ethnic composition of half a million entrenched peasants without some mechanism that has yet to be specified.

The mechanism is widely known and used in social anthropology. Probably the best analogue is the Spanish colonization of Latin America and British colonization of India, where the ratio of forces in respect to the natives were hundreds/millions. The suggested here demographical estimate of “few tens of thousands (at most)” is pure nonsense, just the field armies of the nomadic migrants numbered (combined) hundreds of thousands, and the nomadic armed forces represented not more than 20% of the entire nomadic populace.

The time factor also plays a major role in the social anthropology, the symbiosis of the nomadic Türkic masses and various local populations only in the written records extends from the 7th c. BC (Cimmerians, Scythians) to the 18th c. AD. The symbiotic interconnection between unequal partners is reflected in the mutual influences encountered in the historical, social, technological, cultural, biological, and linguistic traces. No state of denial may overturn the record of history.

There is one case that can be made for a degree of ethnic change within Hungary. The original development of the mold-board plow would have increased the population in the northeastern corner by a factor of ten times or more, prior to its spread over the rest of the country. An explosion of numbers, power, and prestige would engulf the rest of the country spreading from this spot. Predictably, the dialect of this northeastern corner would have overrun all other dialects. The significance of this is that the Vogul/Ostiak migration must have started out from this very same corner more than 6000 years earlier. This then explains why modern Magyar resembles (only vocally) Vogul/Ostiak more than either of them resembles the other two branches of Uralic. If a different dialect within Hungary had prevailed over the others, then the relation between Hungarian speech and the three outliers would have been different.

This reconstruction presupposes that the differences between the Uralic dialects of 6000 BC were in some ways greater than the amount of contrast that has accumulated since then between Vogul/Ostiak and Magyar. This suggests a slow rate of change in recent millennia, and a two or three times longer period of differentiation among the original dialects in Mesolithic Hungary. These contentions are presently neither supported nor disproven by other data that might pertain to these languages.

Southern Slavs

To the south, Slavic fanners spread over nearly the entire Balkan Peninsula (Fig. 22) . A western branch of them overran the southern part of the Hungarian Plain, and advanced to the Adriatic coast and into the Eastern Alps. In this direction the only human population that was numerous enough to resist this tide was just within Italy itself.

Subdivisions of Slavic in this area probably relate to underlying language differences in the previous population. Slovene in the far northwest, as well as the adjacent Friulian language in Italy, may owe their distinctions from their respective neighbors in both directions to the previous Venetic language. Friulian has also been associated with the old Rhaetic of Bavaria and Austria, which may have been Latinized during Roman times. If Venetic was also Latinized, then it was just a distinct dialect that underlay the area of both Friulian and Slovene. (See Fig. 24.)

Croatian on the inland side of Yugoslavia, as well as Dalmatian on the Adriatic coast, are differentiated from their neighbors by their presumed incorporation of preceding Latin speech. Bosnian Slavic exists on what should still have been Illyrian territory at that time.

The problem of historical reconstruction for Croatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina lays in numerous layers of Türkic admixtures that tended to blur the traces of the original vernaculars, the supra-ethnic nature of the Ottoman state, and the rise of the nation-state concept in the 18th c., which led to inter-ethnic conflicts, sporadic genocide campaigns, and biased scholarly neglect of the unsuitable portions of the history. The linguistic apotheosis of the perverted history was the state-sponsored purge of the dictionaries from the native lexicon, and substitution by politically correct alien lexicon. However, in Bosnia, and Herzegovina the traditions of symbiosis and co-existence were so ingrained that it took a full force of the post-WWII Yugoslavian dictatorship to temporarily impact millennia-old traditions of symbiosis, mutual understanding, and mutual respect.

A central branch of southern Slavs overran most of the Illyrians, leaving only remnants in the mountains of Albania (Fig. 23) . They also pressed on into Greece and overwhelmed most of that country except for some coastal areas and cities (Fig. 24). Limited Slavic penetration of Anatolia is also reported. Displaced (or expanding) Albanians participated in the invasion of Greece (Fig. 23). Both Greeks and Albanians also moved in large numbers by sea to settle in small patches of Sicily and southern Italy, adding to earlier Greek inhabitants, where they remain today. This whole southern flood had reached high tide by the year 800 AD, and then the Hellenizing reflux began immediately to work its way back up the peninsula.

An eastern branch of the southern Slavs swept down the Danube basin to the Black Sea, occupying modern Bulgaria in the process (Fig. 22). This move almost coincided with the Turkic move that is proposed here, also based on the plow, out of steppeland extension along the lower Danube (Fig. 23). These were the Bulgars of history who were the dominant ethnic group there, given their equestrian military force. They would necessarily be numerically inferior to the Slavs who eventually prevailed. The Turkic Bulgars were no doubt in the area first, and they are the ones who introduced the mold-board plow into Anatolia. One need look no further than northern Bulgaria to find the Bulgar homeland that is usually placed far to the north-east in the Pontic Steppes. Their detailed history is discussed shortly.

Slavs were brought to Bulgaria by Asparukh at the end of 600s, see Runciman S. FirstBulgarian Empire. These were the same Slavs that Avars and Bulgars resettled along the Avar-Bulgar border at the end of 500s to serve as border guards, and elsewhere around Kyiv (Bashtu and Shambat at that time) for other utilitarian purposes. These were also the same Slavs that Shambat (Samo of western chroniclers) brought over from Czechia and Slovakia when he retreated back to Kyiv. Asparukh inherited all subjects, including Slavs, that belonged to the Western Wing of the Kurbat's Great Bulgaria.

Independently, and before the Asparukh's social engineering, Avars and Kangars (Kangar tribes Charvat, Yula, and Ertim) brought their Slavs from the Northern Pannonia to the Balkans, replacing the previous Greek and Roman settlers who evacuated from the Balkans in the preceding tumultuous period of unending wars and devastations. In both cases, the migrants probably carried along their household implements. The Danube Bulgaria that Asparukh inherited likely had already contained Slavic farmers relocated during previous centuries. All these migrants, syncretized with their Türkic masters, formed the distinct division of the Southern Slavs.


This eastern branch of the southern Slavs also constituted the right wing of the two-pronged Slavic sweep around the old Roman province of Dacia. They absorbed the remaining Bulgars and moved slightly north along the Black Sea coast.


Most of Dacia, now Romania, was probably in the process of being Latinized for the same reasons as in western Europe. The major part, in the west, was overrun by Slavs by 400 AD. The barrier ring of the eastern Carpathian Mountains would have retarded this advance long enough for the Romans and Turkics on the other side to adopt the heavy plow and begin their own expansions.

The Roman colonies in the foothills extended their arc of occupation from south through east, and naturally overran most of the Turkic people who had bordered them here in the grasslands (Fig. 24). Two small remnant groups of this Turkic population still remain in the area (Fig. 23). The Slavic tide then automatically spread to these Roman colonists from around both sides of the mountains, blocking any further Latin expansion, and absorbing most of the remaining Turkics (Fig. 22). The Slavs had begun their expansion long before; by comparison, these Latins had built up only a small population impetus for their own move. The Latins occupied the mouth of the Danube, but the Slavs closed in from both directions along the Black Sea and almost cut them off from it.

After the Slavic advance ended, the Latins soon re-asserted their ethnic dominance over the original province of Dacia, much like the Greeks did in their own area. A large Slavic component was merged into this new linguistic entity. The only item that remains unexplained here is the Magyar population in Transylvania, near the center of Romania, and some more small colonies between there and Hungary itself.


After the mold-board plow was adopted by the Latins of Transcarpathia they would, in turn, pass it on to their immediate neighbors along the Black Sea coast and lower Danube valley. The breadth of Latin occupation was so little that they could not have augmented their level of population enough to immediately overrun all of these neighbors. These were the Turkic inhabitants of the steppe region of grass and deep soils that extends to here from the Ukraine. This is the westernmost end of the Eurasian grasslands that must have been inhabited by Altaic herdsmen since the earliest Neolithic. Just like the Magyars, these horse-using pastoralists were in close contact with agriculturalists, and had immediate access to their technology and experienced personnel. As with the Magyars, we would expect them also to adopt the heavy plow and increase their population, but not at first with the same intensity as the more agriculturally oriented Slavs.

Looking into binoculars from a wrong end surely misrepresents the picture in front of you. The picture at the right better reflects the reality than the presuppositions piled up for a theoretical foundation. The Türkic nomads were diligent in tending to their property, be it the movable property of human and animal chattel, their mobile homes, or their gardens. In the course of tending, they had to make sure their humans and animals have access to good supplies of food and water, and are securely protected. When they had to move, they did not leave their property behind, if they could help it. The preamble picture depicts a land tiller working under protection of the armed nomads, a true representation of the situation.

The Türkic nomads had as much interest in tilling the turf as planters have interest in picking cotton themselves. In their own way, they had the same conception of the class difference as the Roman and Persian slaveholders, or feudal class. Tilling the dirt was beneath the station that took pride in being warriors and free proprietors. The idea that advanced Latins could pass their dirt-tilling implements as a blessing to freedom-loving armed nomadic masses is a no starter. Only utter desperados beyond poverty level could descend to a shameful occupation that is firmly associated with a status of bondage and subjection. Likely, the former hunters-turned-nomads Magyars acquired not only the technology of horse pastoralism, but also the nomadic mentality of freedom that made them live of their weaponry and not of their plows.

Where the scholarly binoculars showed that sedentary farmers had better access to technology and experienced personnel, the reality was that in the pre-modern world, the mobile steppe nomads not only had access to the numerous peoples across Eurasia totally inaccessible to enclaustred farmers, but had a capacity to spread that learning from one Eurasian corner to the opposite side. That is how the bronze casting reached China, and socket axes went from Mesopotamia to Altai and on to China.

The Wallakhs, and the Dacians, who in the middle of the 19th c. turned into Rumanians, came from two different phyla. Wallakhs retained their pastoral lifestyle well into the 20th c, their main fare was sheep husbandry, they were good with gardening and viticulture, and not much into the grains. The Dacians, former Gets, former Goths, also were more on the nomadic side, although they did have farming traditions, and some of the stipulations applied to the spread of farming may be applicable to them. The post-WWII switch to Soviet-style re-orientation on industrial bread-growing wrecked havoc on the Rumanian peoples, severely impoverishing them. Their traditions are reflected in the genetic composition of the Rumanians. The Romanians' Y-DNA shows Hg I 37.4%, R1b 14.6%, R1a 10.6%, J 9.3%; or 40% local Paleolithic (Hg I), 10% Middle Eastern farmers (Hg J), 15% Celtic and/or Türkic Kurgans (Hg R1b), and 10% Paleolithic pre-Kurgans turned to farming (Hg R1a). The Moldavians' (aka Wallachs) Y-DNA shows Hg I 30.1%, R1a 27.6%, R1b 16.7%, E1b1b 12.8%; or 30% local Paleolithic (Hg I), 27.6% Paleolithic pre-Kurgans turned to farming (Hg R1a), 15% Celtic and/or Türkic Kurgans (Hg R1b), and 10% local Mediterranean Paleolithic (Hg E1b1b).One way or another, the Moldovans relate to their Brahman kins in India marked by the R1a Hg, they also have notable linguistic commonalities with Indo-Iranian migrants who reached South-Center Asia in 1500 BC. Before migrating to Moldova, Wallakhs were close to Illyrian mountains, living in the similar foothills as they found in Moldova. Thus, the Latinization of Wallakhs likely took place in the vicinity of Dalmatia, and is unrelated to the Pruth valley and spread of farming shown on the Fig. 24.,


This strip of grassland runs for about 500 km along the Black Sea coast, extending inland about 150 km in most places. On the lower Danube it runs over 400 km inland, but this projection is less than 100 km wide. In terms of subsequent events this Balkan grassland strip can be subdivided into three major parts — the northern part bordering on the Ukraine, a middle section surrounding the Danube delta, and the southern projection running up the lower Danube.

In the northern part, Latins would expand into the deep soils and make the plow available to the local Turkic natives. Most likely the Turkics failed to adopt it here in northeastern Romania. These people were in only partial contact with farmers, and were contiguous with a large area and population of other pastoralists in the Ukraine. If they ever did begin any deep plowing they were probably soon overrun by the Slavic farmers from the north. The Turkics of this area were absorbed by Latins and Slavs.

The claim about Latins (i.e. Wallakhs) and Slavs is quite dubious, giving credit to where it does not belong. Thrace and Dobruja at the turn of the eras are known to be Scythian territories, with the rise of the Huns the Scythians fell under their suzerainty, and remained there as tribes of the Right Wing (Western Wing), called Köturgur > Kutrigur ~ Cutriguri in Greek rendition, after the fall of the Huns and the rise of Bulgars. After the rise of Avars, the wings were reformulated, and probably the Hunnic Right Wing became the Avar's Left Wing. In the Hungarian time, the same area was populated by local Seklers with ethnonym consisting of Sek + pl. suffix ler, where Sek is the same as in Scyth, Saka, Iskit, etc. Seklers survived unmolested till 1920, when Transylvania was transferred to Rumania, and Seklers were deported to Hungary. Besides Seklers, Rumanian territory retained other Türkic tribes, as evidenced by 15% admixture of Hg R1b.

From the middle section there was no available space into which Turkic horsemen-turned-plowmen could expand. While they would take up farming, they were trapped against the Black Sea by expanding Latins who had most of the advantages. The present Gagauz enclave in eastern Romania is best explained as remnant of this Turkic population.

Along the southern strip these Turkics would naturally adopt the plow from the oncoming Latins. (See Fig. 23 to follow this whole Turkic move.) In this case there was open territory to the south into which they could expand over the local Thracian farmers who did not yet have the heavy plow. These Turkic peoples would have the same combination of horse-based mobility and a new-found farming technique that characterized the Magyars to the north-west. Their rapid, but still relatively sparse, expansion over all of modern Bulgaria and beyond would be the automatic result.

Very shortly behind this Bulgar expansion a dense population of Slavic farmers would naturally spread over the same area, entering from the north-west. They would have the same plow and with more experience in its use, but would be without the use of horses. Given the greater mobility of the Turkics, and the greater numbers of the Slavs, they would more easily mingle than form a boundary between each other. The more horse-oriented group would be militarily, and hence politically, dominant over the other. This, then, is the quite natural origin of the Bulgarian state.

Greek coastal strips and cities (including Constantinople) mostly held their ground against the wave of Albanian, Slavic, and Turkic intruders. As far as the Balkans are concerned, this was about the limit of these movements. But across the straits in Anatolia there occurred an important extension of this historical process.

Turkic horsemen/plowmen would have had first access to cross into Anatolia, and to expand there with the new agricultural techniques. Their major crossing can be put at the Dardanelles, rather than at the Bosporus where Constantinople is located. By this time the Turks (as they may now be correctly called) had advanced 400 km with the use of the mold-board plow, taking maybe 200 years to accomplish this move. With even half this much experience, it might be expected that their agricultural abilities should have improved considerably. If their density of settlement had increased enough they would be able to form an ethnic frontier that could resist further infiltration and incorporation by the advancing Slavs. A stable Turkish frontier ought to form in the southeastern corner of the Balkans. The present Turkish ethnic border is at this appropriate location. This frontier does not pass across southern Bulgaria at a constant 200 km from the Turkic starting line, but includes only the eastern end of that potential zone. This may result from the fact that the Turkic source area on the eastern end was much larger than its projecting western tip. If their migration was primarily southward (as would be natural), the eastern end would have included the greatest numbers of them.

Within Anatolia these Turkish farmers would spread automatically over the entire central area, engulfing the mostly sparse local inhabitants. They would leave only the coastal strips and cities in the hands of the Greeks and other Indo-European nationalities. Except for the strong hold of Greek on the western fringes against the Aegean, these non-Turkish enclaves were eventually absorbed by the new dominant ethnic group.

Farther to the east in Anatolia the major part of the Turkish-speaking frontier today ends along an arc that centers on the Dardanelles, and that would mark their advance line at 1170 AD by the schedule used for this movement. On the south, Turkish stops short of this arc, roughly on the old Semitic frontier at the Syrian border. On the north it extends another 350 km for no obvious reason into what should have been Caucasian territory.

The intrusion of the Seljuk Turks from the east in the 11th Century brought Islam and a higher degree of political organization. This would have been a significant factor in later absorbing the coastal enclaves, but it could hardly account for the major spread of Turkish in the main part of Anatolia. I suspect that extant records of the Seljuks might indicate whether they found linguistic relatives already occupying the area.

The total Turkish advance indicated here is 1300 km from their source area, and it should have taken them almost 700 years to accomplish. Eventually the heavy-plow technology would have passed on to other peoples in eastern Anatolia — Kurds, Armenians, and Caucasians. As long as the plow continued to be useful these people would have made their own geographical adjustments. Such further movements go too far afield to be dealt with here.

A major significance of this Turkish expansion, other than explaining it for its own sake, is that it marks the first physical separation of the Indo-European languages into European and Asian geographical divisions. The dialect mesh had been broken much earlier, allowing the two halves to drift freely from one another. By 500 BC Greek probably had spread far enough to effect a language break between the Balkan and Anatolian dialect. It is even possible that the Hittite Empire or other events had created such a break even earlier. But until this Turkish intrusion, the Indo-European family of languages had occupied a contiguous territory.

Eastern Slavs

The eastern Slavs constitute what ultimately became the largest division of this language group. Their expansion was generally to the north-east, and it nowhere encountered any major groups of densely settled or highly civilized peoples who could seriously impede their progress. (See Figs. 22 and 25.) Their farming was effectively blocked by the 120-day growing season on the north and by the semidesert region on the south. This long eastern advance, overrunning previously farming peoples, appears to have progressed at a regular rate of 200 km per century all the way to its natural limits.

'The dividing line between eastern and western Slavs (now Russia vs Poland) lies approximately at the meeting of the original farmers who had first passed around the two sides of the eastern Carpathians. To the east of this line the Slavs overran remnants of the original Indo-European dialect mesh. These were first the Slavic-related people who lived south of the Pripet Marshes, and who extended considerably to the east. Their area of incorporation is within the modern Ukraine, as is their subsequent area of further extension into the steppes. The basic language for the source of the eastern Slavic expansion is thus identified as proto-Ukranian.

North of these marshes the native people who were being incorporated by the Slavic expansion were the interior Baltics. By 650 AD their original area would have been overrun, and they do not exist today. Its boundaries coincide so nearly with Belorussia that the source of the distinction of this modern language seems to be clearly identified.

The remainder of the eastern Slavic advance was over the Uralic tribes that are here divided into Samoyed (i.e. Nenetses) and Vogul/Ostiak sections. Some Finnics soon got into this area as well. Those Slavs who overran a base of Uralic peoples are known today as Great Russians.

During the first half of its advance to the north-east, the Slavic left flank continued to parallel the Baltic coast at about 200-250 km inland. This flank ran along the ancient dividing line between the paths of the original Finnic and Samoyed (i.e. Nenetses) pastoralists (Uralic groups II and III) . The coastal zone received its heavy plow from the western Slavs and was probably well populated even before this. The inland area was more thinly populated, and the native Uralics here evidently were not able to adopt the plow readily enough to hold their ground at any point.

After the eastern Slavic advance passed the original Indo- European occupation area, a new geographic situation arose that caused two major advancing fronts to intermingle. When the eastern Slavs pass the Gulf of Riga, their left flank turns from north-east to due north as it continues to parallel the coast. In other words, the Great Russian advance fans out somewhat to their own left. This then comes into conflict with the advance along the Finnic path near the coast. (See Fig. 25 for this and further Finnic moves in Russia.)

Fig. 25. Finnic expansion. Changes are shown for Finnics, Caucasians, and Slavics far from the origin of the heavy plow. Finnics lose Latvia and part of western Russia. They moved east ahead of the advancing Slavics, lost much of this new land, but held some enclaves and a large area in the east. They also joined in the plow-based penetration of the Steppes. Caucasians lost ground in the south and advanced a bit northward. Eastern Slavics are shown in heavy outline as of 1600 AD. They are the major source of immigrants into the Pontic Steppes, with dates indicated. In the north a dashed line marks the 120-day growing season; dashes in the center-east show the deep-soil margin; and dashes farther to the south-east mark the desert edge.

As heavy-plow agriculturalists advance into deep-soil locations, some of the local farmers can be expected to retreat in order to avoid being surrounded and incorporated. This kind of retreat is possible only into lands that are not already densely settled. Interior Baltics probaly did just this and moved their frontier 60 km beyond the Dvina River before they were finally overwhelmed. The denser population of Finnic farmers in modern Latvia faced a different situation and had the numbers to do something about it. The western half of this country (Courland) was a cul-de-sac in the north, and its people were probably well aware of this. Accordingly, large numbers of farmers, especially from western Latvia, would be expected to gather all their belongings and shift to the east to avoid being engulfed by Lithuanian plow farmers. This move puts these Finnic farmers directly into the path of advance of the eastern Slavic plow farmers instead.

In the region immediately to the east of Latvia, Slavic farmers were fanning out to their left (due north), and Finnics were spreading directly into them with their own turn to the right (due east). The original natives here were so sparse that the intruding Finnics would be second only to the Slavs in numbers. This is just the condition that is known to have occurred in the Novgorod area in 850 AD at the founding of the first Russian state. The Slavs had the better equipment and would soon have the numbers to dominate the society. The original Finnic farmers who remained would occupy islands of lighter soils, or they would adopt the heavy plow. Many such enclaves exist in this area today. Other Finnic farmers would have moved on to the east, eventually to become the Mordovinians. More on them later.

A similar shift to the east by Finnic farmers would again occur at the Gulf of Finland. This time the refugees pressed into a narrow corridor through the Leningrad area, while some continued to the east to become the Komi. The adoption of the heavy plow by Finnics at the Estonian border would relieve at least the ethnic basis for further pressure, and the spread of the plow would assure Finnic identity in this corridor up to modern times. (The later Russification of Leningrad itself follows automatically from geographical considerations of modern state policy.)

Finns and Slavs would have passed around their respective sides of Lake Ladoga and met again on its northern side. The advance of both groups was halted here by 1100 AD along the 120-day growing season line until more recent times.

The Finnic farmers out of Latvia and Estonia evidently had a continuing history of some interest. Large numbers of them could have avoided being engulfed by the Slavs simply by continuing their move to the east. Even without the heavy plow, their farming skills plus their numbers should have been sufficient for them to pass through the sparsely settled interior of Russia — given sufficient motivation. By moving just 1.6 times as fast as the Slavic frontier, these Finnics could slip to the east and avoid encirclement. This means taking a crop or two, then moving, and repeating this many times without leaving significant numbers behind. This was an actual migration, not a frontier extension which is unable to advance at that speed anyway.

There are still many Finnic enclaves just to the east of Latvia where the first intermingling with Slavs occurred. Beyond this there ia a long gap with none of them for the next 500 km across central Russia. Then Mordovinians are encountered in great numbers. Evidently these Finnic farmers out of Latvia reached and filled-in the last corner of arable land in the east, where it tapered down and pinched out between the growing season to the north and the deep soil to the south. The oncoming Russian advance would have reached them at 950 AD, to judge from the location of the westernmost surviving examples.

The Mordovinians (and related peoples) now occupy only about one-tenth of their "natural" area in this corner. Displacement by Russians would have been abrupt in this first contact with people using the heavy plow, but Finnic speakers have lost ground in recent times as well. It can be seen that the Mordovinians also managed to adopt the mold-board plow, because their area extends about 300 km into the deep-soil region at their eastern extreme. Here they are again dissected by Russian speech, which demonstrates recent absorptions.

Endonym Mordva was used by Jordanes (6th. c.) in the form Mordens, subjects of Gothic king Ermanaric in Getica. The Gorodets culture in the Itil area, dated to around 500 BC, is attributed to Mordvins. The Mordvins also first show up in the annalistic and geographical descriptions under a Türkic exonym Burtas (~ Murtas/Burdas under b/m alteration) meaning Honey Tribe, with burt = apiarian + as = tribe. At the time, honey was the only sweetener used and it also was used as a preservative; the demand was unlimited, and its transportability was limitless. The appellation based on trade was a common form of exonym, it pointed that Mordvins of the 6th-12th cc. AD were predominantly hunter-gatherers farming hollow-tree beehives that requires large territories and low population density. Mordvins were never known for their military significance, their defense was to melt away into forests. The scenario that Mordvins came to the Middle Itil area in the 900s as either ard or heavy plow farmers, and then reverted to hunter-gathering conflicts with the historical records.

Mordovinian distribution shows yet another peculiarity at its extreme eastern end. They do not occupy the very last piece of the cul-de-sac between short seasons and desert; this spot is held by Turkic pastoralists with ethnic connections still farther to the east. Mordovinian occupation ends some 250 km south of the present 120-day growing-season line, while cattlemen occupy much of the potential farmland north of the Mordovinians and up to the crop-growing line. This seeming malpositioning of the two is almost the reverse of what might be expected at first glance. (See Figs. 1 and 25.)

Actually, if one assumes the growing-season line was shifted 250 km to the south after the year 1050 AD, then the Mordovinians would have exactly filled the last existing farming space at the eastern tip. (This suggested lowering of the farming limit may correspond to the deteriorating climate in the North Atlantic at a slightly later date, which terminated the Norse colonies in Greenland.) If the original use of cattle spread across the steppes slightly faster than it did in the forests, then a considerable area of tillable eastern forests could have been held by Altaic cattlemen. This area would later be lost to the Finnic, and then to the Slavic farmers, but only up to the limit of the growing season that was displaced southward at that time.

The idea that horse husbandry “Altaic cattlemen” could lose anything to farming communities is preposterous; for 6 millennia the “Altaic cattlemen” did not have any military competition, from the time of invention of the horse husbandry technology to the invention of the cannon guns. They are known to have created a series of largest states in the world history, ruled innumerable hunting and farming people, and had very few military setbacks in the course of their history. During the period of their dominance, their setbacks could only be brought up by acquiring and using their own superiority against themselves.

Another part of the Finnic retreat was out of Estonia and across Russia to the Komi area. This is mostly to the north of the normal limit of farming, but where oats, barley, and rye are grown today. Here they are pressed up against and between the Samoyeds (i.e. Nenetses) and Vogul/Ostiaks, where they overran some of these peoples and even spilled over the Ural Mountains. They had to abandon much of their usual farming and crops to inhabit this area. The area of occupation follows no obvious pattern except as another effort to avoid Slavic encroachment. Since many Russians have made similar moves into the north, it is best left unexplained except to say that it is a recent, civilized phenomena. (See the north-east corner of Figs. 26, 28, and 25, in that order.)

While the eastern Slavs advanced rapidly across Russia, they also moved into the deep soils of the southern steppe region with the essential aid of the mold-board plow. These Pontic Steppes were then occupied by Turkic pastoralists, with little or no agriculture, who would have harassed the intruding farmers. On the other hand, improved communication and transportation of the time would have meant a much deeper frontier-feeding zone that could provide large numbers of pioneers. To the local ruling nomads, whether Sarmatians, Mongols, or Turks at various times, the ethnic identity of these farmers would make little difference so long as they could tax the wealth that was being created.

The points on irrelevance of the ethnic identity and fiscal nature of the nomadic-farming relations (or any other trade, like mining, beehiving, charcoal production, etc.) are most fundamental. It is a patronage system that spilled into Western Europe in a form of of the Middle Age feudalism. The corollary of the patronage system is symbiosis, interspersion, and biological amalgamation of the Türkic peoples with their host subjects. Understanding of the patronage system largely precludes the aggressive farming expansion promulgated in this work.
157, 158

I have found that political maps of southern Russia do not reflect linguistic groupings of the real people any more than similar maps do in the rest of Europe at that time.

The advance of eastern Slavs into the steppes was certainly faster than the rates used for the first Neolithic farmers in other areas. After mapping the area with several different rates, I found that a base rate of 120 years (four generations instead of five) per 200 km, plus the usual penalties, seemed to fit best with both logical expectations and historical data.

The early advance of the heavy plow out of its source area was at least retarded, and probably stopped, by the barrier of the eastern Carpathians. It had reached the Latins of Dacia on the far side of these mountains by passing around both ends at nearly the same time. From these two ends, the use of the plow would move through Latin territory toward the mouth of the Danube. As already noted, the Latins then spread out into the grasslands where the Turkics were also picking up this new agricultural technology. At the same time Slavic farmers were making parallel sweeps around these mountains, but farther out to each side, well to the south and to the north-east of the Latin speakers.

The Slavs had both temporal priority over, and a deeper frontier-feeding zone than the Latins. At about 500 AD both Latins and Slavs entered the steppes to the south and the north­east of Romania, but the Slavs expectably blocked the slower Latin advance. Both arms of the Slavic advance curved around the Romanian effort, reached the coast of the Black Sea, and came just short of cutting them off at the mouth of the Danube.

The left arm of this sweep, the one to the north-east of Romania, represents the first entry of the Slavs into the great Eurasian grasslands. At their presumed rate of advance, these farmers reached the Black Sea at 700 AD, and Rostov-on-the-Don at 1400 (Fig. 25). Continuing this schedule to the year 1900 would have them only partway into the Kuban and first contacting the Caucasians, and not yet on the far side of the Urals. Since these last events are in fact badly misdated, it is clear that recent centuries have seen a great increase in their rate of advance. Political unification and railroads have made the entire country a feeding zone for the frontier.

Within the steppes a contrast between Ukrainian and Great Russian speech persists. Ukrainian coincides with those pioneers whose last forest contacts were with Slavic-related Indo-Europeans. Russian coincides with those pioneers whose last forest contacts were with Uralics. Until the year 650 AD the only Slavs in the steppes were of the Ukrainian type. After that time all new immigrants, passing from forest to steppe, were Russian. By extending from this division at their point of entry, a line is generated that runs close to the present language frontier. If the Ukrainians are granted a slightly deeper frontier-feeding zone this would serve to spread their advance 15° to their left at the expense of the Russians; then the dividing line is on the actual frontier. Sometime after 1500 AD the political control by Russians mostly blocked the Ukrainian advance at their current line.

Language Map

The year 1100 AD is chosen from a range of possible dates to represent the stable condition as far as most of Europe is concerned (Fig. 26). It is selected mainly because it immediately precedes the German reflux to the east, which is the major item in the next event. It also catches the Slavic move to the east well short of its maximum extent, but that cannot be helped — this move was not completed until even well after the following German action had run its course. In fact, it is continuing even today.

Distributions in southeastern Europe at 1100 AD reflect a rolling back of the Slavic frontier from its maximum extent of about 800 AD. (Compare Figs. 22 and 26.)  Exactly where some of these frontiers had moved by this time had to be estimated.

Fig. 26. Language map in 1100 AD. The Slavic explosion to the west, south, and east is the major feature. Other languages had considerable areas lost and gained from the use of the heavy plow. Pictish is lost (according to historical sources), and Afro-Asian has reinvaded Iberia. Some '•civilized" refluxes occur in Greece, Romania, and the German occupation of Austria. Uralic is the biggest loser of ground. The Caucasian shift is not shown because it happened after 1100 AD. The Anatolian-Semitic boundary is now arbitrarily adjusted to its modern position.

The Magyars of Transylvania (i.e. Seklers, one of the strongest tribes of Eastern Huns), in the middle of Romania, are not indicated because I don’t know how or when that move occurred. Turkish is stopped on its presumed line of 1170 AD without showing its penetration of Caucasian territory that should have occurred later.

The arrival of the Türkic As tribes from the Balkh valley named Balkh-gur (Bulgar) in the Caucasus was recorded in 45 AD. The Türkic tribes of Kayi, Huns, and Masguts/Massagets occupied the western Caspian seaboard from 150 AD. Armenian Bishop Kardost in 520 “produced there a Scripture in the Hunnic language” for the Caucasian Huns. Scythians had a state called Sakasena in the Azerbaijan in the S. Caucasus; before 20 AD, Strabo located Σακασηνη Sakasena between Kura and lake Sevan; horse nomadic tribes bearing Türkic names Guties, Kumans, Suvars are known in Mesopotamia since 23rd c. BC. The Koban culture in the Caucasus was a symbiotic Scythian culture. What 1170 AD has to do with that?

It was the Uralic family that had lost the most ground to the Slavic explosion as of this date, and these losses would continue over the next few centuries. The eastward shift of much of its Finnic part somewhat moderated this loss to the family as a whole. The Altaic family similarly lost much ground to the eastern Slavs, and has continued to do so until modern times. Again, one of its subdivisions made progress elsewhere — here in the form of the Turkish spread over Anatolia.

In real history, Türkic people did not lose their Eastern European territories until starting about 1550, under a military pressure from the incipient Russian state. The Russian military conquests did change the ethnolinguistic situation in the Eastern Europe, especially after 1700s, but that has nothing to do with the expansion of farming.

Many language groups went through a two-step process of losing ground to the Slavs on one side, then after acquiring the mold-board plow, gaining new territory in the other direction. (These are shown in the before and after maps of Figs. 23 and 24.) Clear examples of this process are seen in Germanic, Baltic, Romanian, and Albanian. If one ignores the fact that Magyars participated in the origin of this move, they can also can be seen in terms of lost, held, and gained territory. Some groups lost ground to the Slavs and gained nothing, like Samoyed (i.e. Nenetses), Vogul/Ostiak, Greek, and Latin in the west. In other cases ground was lost to non-Slavics who had acquired the heavy plow.

Two special cases of plow-induced shifts show losses and gains, but without a full middle ground that was held throughout the process. A large gap exists in the Turkic distribution where they had gained new territory with the plow to the south of their homeland, then later lost some of this (Bulgaria) to expansions by denser Slavic populations. The Finnic distributions show an even larger gap between their homeland in the Baltic area and their penetration of the steppes in eastern Russia. Again, it was Slavic farmers who were able to overrun the territory that was occupied only temporarily by the eastern Finnics.

Again, Türkic gains and losses of the territory have nothing to do with plow. The Anatolian Turks started grain agriculture in the Ottoman times, employing supra-ethnic labor from the Balkans and local farming laborers like Greeks. Grain production took off in Turkey only at around 1900s.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this whole episode was the loss of the last remnant of the (erroneously presumed) original Indo-European dialect mesh that had persisted in eastern Europe. At this point all of it is subdivided into new dialect meshes, within recently formed boundaries, that are evolving independently of each other. The (erroneously presumed) previous contact between the European and Asian halves of this family are also now irrevocably separated by the deep interjection of the Turks.

Latin-derived speech remains dominant in the west, though they now should more properly be referred to as Italic (or Romance) because of the many subdivisions that have become separate languages. Italic lost ground directly to Slavic in the western Balkans, and indirectly in northernmost Gaul where Germanics overran that area with the aid of the Slavic plow. The Rhaetic area of Bavaria and Austria, as well as all of England, were Germanized by this time. But it is not clear whether either area should have been classed as truly Latinized before this. I labeled Rhaetic as original and England as Latin in an earlier map (Fig. 21), but this was arbitrary and might even have been correct the other way around.

Latin also lost whatever it may have held in North Africa to the Semites after 675 AD, in an action totally unrelated to the mold-board plow phenomenon. This returned the area to the Afro-Asian language family that had evidently occupied it in the initial Neolithic spread. Semitic Arabs also gained control of most of Iberia and were in the process of Arabicizing the population. Their limit is drawn rather arbitrarily near the middle to include the area that was under their domination for the longest time. They do not appear to have made significant or long-lasting contact with the Basque hold-over from the earlier Afro-Asian incursion.

According to the dated genetic phylogeny, “the Basque hold-over from the earlier Afro-Asian incursion” is in fact the R1b circum-Mediterranean route of Kurgan people from the N.Pontic, a part of the Celtic arrival in Iberia at 2800 BC.

Western Celtic continued in Brittany, Ireland, Cornwall, Wales, and Scotland. The last three of these are at this time separated from each other by the Anglo-Saxon intrusion, but they had already been separated by the Roman occupation of just the same area.

Pictish has disappeared from Scotland by this time, having been replaced by the Celtic speech of Ireland (The agglutinative Bask language leads to a conclusion that original Celtic and Pictish were also agglutinative languages of the same origin). One can visualize the Picts as a small ethnic group, under pressure from the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings, voluntarily merging their cultural identity with the only significant rivals to these Germanic threats.

The Lapps would have lost significant ground to northward-expanding Scandinavians, but the line drawn here is no more than an educated guess.



The last significant step in the development of the linguistic geography of Europe consisted of a number of changes in locations of language boundaries. This did not involve the separating out, or elimination of, any major language. The greater part of this adjustment resulted from the development of a new pattern of farming that stemmed from a particular source area, and which again increased the peasant population base. Another part of this adjustment was the continuing Slavic advance to the east that has not yet run its course. There should be few surprises here, though the economic basis of these movements is rarely noted in most history books.

3-Field System

By 800 AD the Germanic advance to the west on the continent had ended, and language boundaries there had begun to stabilize. The area between the Rhine and Seine Rivers was still in a state of flux, with German dominant in the eastern part and French dominant in the west. Within this area the first indications of a new agricultural revolution were then beginning to appear. This new development is known to Western scholars as the Feudal system.

In practical terms this new procedure was an integration of several important items. Mold-board plows had reached this Frankish area by 800 AD and were part of the complex. The change to the 3-field system of crop rotation is first reported from here at about 800 AD (Gille 1969, Pounds 1973, White 1962). This involves the sequence of fallow, winter crop, spring crop, etc. At any one time there would be a roughly equal division of the fields into these three uses. Compared with the previous 2-field system, grain production increased by 50% on a given area. It also has the advantage of dividing the plowing into two halves at different times of the year, thus distributing the seasonal work load on draft animals.

The horse collar replaced the neck yoke also at about 800 AD. This enabled horses to pull four or five times harder without choking, and thus equaling the pulling power of oxen. Since horses can plow half-again faster, and for a few more hours per day, they now become the major draft animal. Much of the increased grain crop was normally in the form of oats, and horses become more economical even when counting their feed requirements.

A new form of tree-felling axe was introduced in the following century (Duby 1954:363, cited by White 1962:41). This is correlated with a major episode of deforestation throughout Europe that lasted until 1300 AD. By that time virtually all usable agricultural land had been cleared in western Europe, but the process was much slower to the east. These new farm lands alone would have led to at least a doubling of food production.

Beans became a significant part of the food crop at this time (White 1962:76). These are a major source of protein in the human diet and are an effective substitute for much, though not all, of the need for animal protein.

With all of the above factors, overall food production in western Europe increased by at least four times between 800 and 1100 AD. The corresponding increase in human population would also tend to create outward pressure from the major source area of these innovations. The Feudal system of social organization developed during this time and is credited with being a major factor in subsequent human movements. Increased use of horses in agriculture also made them more available to the military. The stirrup, which allows the soldier to swing a sword from horseback without falling off, was introduced to the West in the 8th Century. Thus western Europe greatly augmented its military power, as well as its population, at this general time.

German Reflux

The core of these new developments was mostly in the Frankish area that straddled the French-German language line. Its major weight appears to have been slightly to the French side, as indicated by a modest rolling back of the German-speaking frontier. This ranged from no change at all around Switzerland to as much as 100 km in some places to the north of there. The upper Moselle valley was the largest area lost by the Germans from their earlier holdings (Fig. 27).

For three centuries the Medieval economy was developing at its source and spreading to the east through the German-speaking area. Then between 1100 and 1300 AD the German frontier rolled eastward about 300 km, from the Elbe to well east of the Oder-Nisse line. In central Germany the western Carpathian Mountains were a significant barrier, and they were passed by an average of only 50 km.

After 1300 AD (1330 according to some writers) the eastward move continued in an altered form for at least another century. During this time the German settlers were mainly townspeople — workers in various skilled trades who set up colonies, or added to them, ever farther to the east. Some farmers continued to move, but the advance of the language frontier was mainly in the form of Germanizing the resident Slavic peoples. This second form of eastward Germanic movement automatically followed the easiest channels of transportation and communication, and these emphasized water travel. During the next century the Germanizing wave progressed another 400 km along the Baltic coast into East Prussia, and 200 km up the Oder River into Silesia.
167, 168

Fig. 27. Effects of the Feudal system. The impact of this new economy was most conspicuous in Germany and Iberia. The star marks its general source in "Frankish" lands. German lost some ground to French (lines perpendicular to the Feudal advance) and gained considerably in two stages to the east (lines parallel to the advance). Mixed markings in Austria illustrate the uncertainty about when Germans fully occupied it. Re-Latinizing of Iberia probably began without the Feudal system, but its rapid advance after 1150 AD certainly reflects this influence.

It should be noted that the 200 km German advance downstream along the Danube exactly fits this pattern and distance. History says it was accomplished by 1100 AD, but I suspect this was little more than a military occupation. The real Germanization of Austria was probably accomplished after the year 1100.

The name Bavaria reportedly comes from the Celtic Boii > Baiuvari = “Baia men” > Bavaria. Sounds reasonable enough. In both Bohemia and Bavaria the stem boi means “warriors”, logically it must be a Celtic word. It just happened that Türkic has this word with the same meaning, and it endowed Slavic with that word, and again with the same meaning. That the Slavic inherited this word from Türkic is beyond doubts, it has a huge cluster of derivatives with semantics of aggressive superiority: Voivode, Boyar, voina, voin = Commander, Ruler, war, warrior respectively. It also just happened that these words came into Slavic during Avar rule, after 560, and this Avar social lexicon remained active among Slavs when the Avars lost their power. English also has the same cluster, seemingly mirroring the Slavic lexicon that mirrors the Türkic lexicon: warlord, war, warrior. But English reportedly derived this lexus from Germanic, not the Celtic. The Celtic, and English, and Germanic, and Slavic, all use this non-Indo-European lexus. In the lopsided non-Indo-European etymology, things are contradictory and confusing.

In Türkic, etymology is straightforward: the Türkic cluster is a derivative of the stem boi- (voi-) meaning neck (n.) and “subjugate (v.)”, lit. “to neck, step on somebody's neck, bend somebody's neck”. Slavic borrowed that word also, in the form vyya meaning neck. With agglutinated suffixes, one of the verbal derivatives of the Türkic stem boi-  (voi-) is “to subjugate”, hence a derivative “subjugator”, and the cluster warlord, ruler, war, warrior, military and civil superior, hence the Boyar = lit.  “commanding man” from boi- = suppressor + ar = man. The Türkic path to Germanic and English is apparent, thus is a lexus of the Sarmatians, it was around in the Central Europe since 2nd c. BC. The Celts could bring that Kurgan lexus to Iberia in 2800 BC. And Slavs, as is known, received it from Avars.

And now back to Bavaria. Bavaria happened to be an extension of Avaria, and it did not have to earn its name from the Celts via a tribe of Boii, a tribe of warriors and subjugators, as the quasi-scientific popular etymology is suggesting. A simpler path is directly from the Avars, an Avaria with a prosthetic anlaut b. The Bavarian ruler Agilolfing appeared in the Duchy of Bavaria at about 550, coinciding in time with the victorious arrival of the Avars, and his dynasty ruled Bavaria until 788, accurately coinciding again with the demise of the Avars. That sequence neatly falls into the Germanic advance to Bavaria, and its Germanization from 800 to 1100 AD asserted by G. Krantz.

Interestingly to note, numerous Türkic toponyms in the Eastern and Central Europe were ascribed to the Celts, and respectively the to Celtic attribution  of the tribes Ptolemy located in the vicinity. The most prominent toponymic term is Hatun, a Qeen in Türkic generally, and Hunnic in particular. There are a dozen of places called with Hatun's allophones in the western Eurasia, and another dozen in the eastern Eurasia: Hotyn, Katyn, Hatyn, etc. They all denote the Hotyn's estate (court), which was separate and independent of the Kagan's (King) court. The other prominent toponym is -tun/-dun = Celt. “village, settlement”, which is a noun derivative of the Türkic verb  tun-/dun- = calm down, settle, with Türkic noun derivatives of “barrier” (from troubles, disturbance), shelter, hideaway. A second independent meaning of the Türkic word tun is “first”, and with this meaning the word may be the still undetected word for the King's Court: First (Leading, Headquarter) Place, a counterpart name for the Hatun. The Celtic and Türkic tun likely belongs to the Kurgan lexicon, and thus can't be discriminated between the Celts, Scythians, Sarmats, and Huns, all of them inherited it. The word tun is emphatically non-IE, aside from the Türkic it is shared by the Germanic and Celtic languages, with a spillover to Latin.

A different story is with the Bohemia: since at about 100 AD Tacitus cited Boiohaemum for Bohemia, the  Celtic (or Sarmatian) Boii and hem are in order. We do have hamlet  = “little ham” for a village.

The geographical pattern of this last German advance can be described as consisting of three thrusts, one along each of the three major waterways ((Fig. 27). A 200-km move was made along each river course, and 400 km along the more easily navigated coast. The intervening areas of Bohemia and Polish Posen were only marginally intruded upon.

More advanced outposts also existed, but soon after 1400 AD they failed to continue Germanizing the countryside. Instead, the local people were increasingly adopting enough of the Feudal system and its technology to increase their own productivity and population, and thus to hold their ground against further encroachment.

The first advance of German settlers moved the frontier 300 km in 200 years, or 1.5 km per year. The Germanization process then moved it another 200 to 400 km in 100 years, or an average of 3 km per year — twice as fast. Improvements in the means of transportation and communication would then allow further eastward movement of these agricultural skills at an accelerating rate. The 3-field system is reported in Russia at 1500 AD. This requires another advance of 600 km in that century to reach even the closest Russian frontier by this date. Thus the advance rate was doubled again to become 6 km per year. With no further acceleration these new farming techniques could easily spread over the rest of European Russia in the next three centuries.


The process of Latinizing had earlier overlain a substratum of many languages in Iberia. Three of these in the north are of particular interest here. Celtics had occupied a 200-km square in the north-west, Basques held the 500-km strip across the top center, and Ligurian was in a triangle of just over 200 km to a side in the north-east. Three distinct dialects of Latin emerged — Galician (or Gallegan), Castilian, and Catalonian, in that order. These eventually became distinct languages.

Early in the 8th Century most of Iberia was conquered by Arabs out of North Africa. Their hold was longest (700 years) and strongest toward the south, and was no more than transitory on any part of the 200-km-deep northern fringe.

Christian reconquest from the Moors (The term “Moors” with connotation “brown” and “infidels” is far from flattering term for the Moslems in the rabidly intolerant Christian reconquista, it applied to the majority consisting of local Berbers called Iberians, and minority migrants from North African Arabs, Mali, and Niger. Local and migrant Jews were also termed “Moors” by association with religiously tolerant Iberian Moslems) progressed slowly until about 1150 AD, at which time half the peninsula was under their control (Fig. 27). During the next three and a half centuries their expansion rate was twice as fast. There is no obvious ecological basis for the early part of this Christian expansion, but the later and major part coincides with the German expansion to the east. An obvious presumption would be that the 3-field system, horse collars, stirrups, and the rest of the Feudal economy had taken hold in northern Iberia at this time. This then added greatly to the population and military strength of this northern faction.

The reconquest was completed in 1492. It unrolled from the three northern language areas in a generally southward direction. Although the rest of Iberia had been largely Arabized, the more numerous northerners should have easily imposed their languages as they moved to the south. Political boundaries between the various Christian kingdoms varied almost randomly during this conquest, giving no indication of the linguistic divisions.

It is a natural presumption that military manpower, political administrators, and the many new settlers would all tend to move generally southward from their three northern sources.

The Galician corner would naturally progress straight to the south, paralleling the Atlantic coast, and maintaining an average breadth of 200 km. This advance runs out abruptly at the mouth of the Guadiana River in southern Iberia. Except for its originating corner, this strip becomes modern Portugal.

Genetic composition confirms the Celtic (~ Gallic) origin of the Portuguese: Y-DNA Hg R1b 59%, E1b1b 14%, I 5%, R1a 2.0% . The northern Portuguese are slightly more “Celtic” than the southern Portuguese.

The central and largest section of Castilian is the basis for modern Spanish. Only in this area do we still have a living survival of the original pre-Roman language — Basque. The southward advance of Castilian covered the major part of the peninsula.

Genetic composition confirms the Celtic (~ Gallic) origin of the Spaniards: Y-DNA Hg R1b 66%, E1b1b 10%, I 8%, G 2%, R1a 2%, T 6%. Catalonia has slightly higher Hg I “Northern European Paleolithic” trace than the average Spaniards, an apparent component of the Gothic  composition.

The Catalonian corner would unroll down the eastern side of Iberia, but this coast angles strongly to the south-west. Moving straight south they would pinch out against the coast with almost no progress; paralleling the coast at 200 km they would cut unnaturally into the Castilian area. The obvious compromise is a gradually narrowing coastal strip that reaches slightly more than halfway down the peninsula.

These three languages automatically come to occupy their exact modern portions of Iberia. No historical events need be called upon to account for these distributions.

The analysis fails its main linguistic objective: the linguistic process, a wholesale replacement of the Semitic-Berberic amalgam with Latin-based amalgam as a result of two-step colonization. It is apparent that switch from Celtic, Arabic, and Iberian-Berber to “Indo-European” Spanish was a multi-step process with numerous and diverse lingua franca in between, where only the tip of the process is known. The nearly universal replacement of the pre-Celtic genetics with the Celtic-based genetics demonstrates the violence of the Celtic intrusion: the utterly tiny Celtic migrant minority succeeded in extermination the majority of the prior Y-DNA male haplogroups, and proceeded to procreate their own offsprings from the local females. The effects of the male population replacement process in Iberia parallels that of the nearly concurrent “killing fields” in the central Europe. The resultant female-perpetuated creole languages, augmented by diverse admixtures, became the Celtic languages that reached the literate times. A union of the archaic Afro-Asian Berber and agglutinative archaic Türkic Kurgan languages became a substructure in the development of the “Indo-European” languages in western and central Europe. Refugees from the Kurgan massacres fled from the western and central Europe to the northeastern Europe, and at the dawn of the literate period some ventured for a western reflux, some stayed put, and some crossed the steppe belt and reached Indian subcontinent and Iranian Plateau. The languages of the 3200-2300 BC Corded Ware people by 1000 BC became the “Indo-European” family divided between Europe and South-Central Asia. Conflating the spread of farming with linguistic transformations does nothing but creates a paradigm full of inner inconsistencies and outer conflicts.

Amending the basic concept and repeating steps conceived and developed by G. Krantz for the periods leading to and following the Corded Ware people may create a paradigm more realistic and better in agreement with the factual evidence.

 Other Places

The Feudal farming complex would have entered England as it was being developed, and only shortly after the mold-board plow arrived. The Germanic language frontier in the British Isles should have made some advances corresponding to those on the continent. English did gradually prevail over the local Celtic languages, but for no obvious reason this was both slower and later than the German advance to the east. Celtic resistance may have been stronger than Slavic, and the English pool of resources was smaller than the German. By the year 1500 AD only modest progress had been made. With the rise of the modern industrial age Celtic has faded rapidly.

Scandinavians progressed up their major peninsula with the increasing population pressure from the southern areas. The Feudal farming complex probably was not so much a factor in opening up new lands as was the use of new crops and strains that could tolerate the climate. Again, progress was slow to 1500 AD, but faster with industrialization.

In southeastern Europe the modern language boundaries look like they were reached, for the most part, by the end of the previous stage at 1100 AD. The southern Slavs, Turks, and Romanians had consolidated most of their gains, and the Greeks had pushed their ethnic frontier back up the Balkan Peninsula. Still, there were a few changes of uncertain date that could be postulated for the period of 1100 to 1500 AD.

The Turkish penetration of Caucasian territory is first shown for this time (This is a standing propaganda nonsense perpetuated by Russian and Persian (now dubbed Iranian) states and complacently accepted by many western scholars). Also shown is a Caucasian bulge to the north, as well as an Iranian intrusion.

In eastern Europe the Slavic expansion was continuing throughout this period. Details of this advance up to 1500 AD and beyond appear in the previous section. This Slavic move was basically a continuation of the mold-board plow phenomenon, and the Feudal farming system merely added a new impetus.

 Language Map

At this date of 1500 AD the linguistic map of Europe has reached its modern condition in almost all respects. (See Fig. 28 and compare with Fig. 1.) The central area was already modern by the date of 1330 AD, just before the "Black Death" struck. Only around the periphery have there been any further changes in the last four centuries. And these changes are merely continuations of trends that had already been in operation for some time.

Germanic, Italic, and Slavic languages dominated Europe. The only other Indo-European language groups were Greek, Albanian, Baltic, and Celtic. These last four all occupied relatively small areas in 1500 AD, and Celtic was rapidly retreating. "Anatolian" is used for all Indo-Europeans in Asia.
172, 173

Fig. 28. Language map in 1500 AD. The major changes are re- Latinizing of Iberia, eastward advance of the Germans, and continuing eastward movement of the Slavic frontier in Russia. The last Turkish progress is shown, along with a presumed Caucasian shift to the north. A recent Persian intrusion in the east is not distinguished here from the Anatolian language group. Scandinavian penetration to the north has been increased gradually and arbitrarily in this and other maps.

Germanic, Italic, and Slavic languages dominated Europe. The only other Indo-European language groups were Greek, Albanian, Baltic, and Celtic. These last four all occupied relatively small areas in 1500 AD, and Celtic was rapidly retreating. "Anatolian" is used for all Indo-Europeans in Asia (supposedly because putatively Indo-European languages gestated 10,000 ybp in Anatolia, otherwise they should be called "Corded Ware" or "Baltic").

Of the non-Indo-European families, Uralic was and still is the most impressive in terms of numbers and area. Hungarians, Estonians, and Finns were distinct nationalities, if not modern states. Farther to the north and east, other Uralic speakers were thinly distributed over mostly nonagricultural lands. These were in the process of being Russianized.

There is a minute but important difference between Russianized and Russified, unknown to uninitiated. Only between 1900 and 2000 in Russia according to the official counts were wiped out 100+ languages, and in fact probably 3 times as many. How many languages were wiped out between 1500 and 1900 only God knows. The situation parallels that of, say, the US, with the difference that no American scholar so far claimed an English mesh in the N. America in the pre-Columbus days.

A sober assessment of the history would recognize that in Roman days, the Hunnic and Avar Empires were much larger than the Roman Empire, in the Frankish days Bulgaria and Hungary were much larger than the Frankish Empire, and in the Middle Ages Mongol and Kipchak Empires were larger that any other European counterpart. And all empires were multi-lingual. The largest empires in Europe were dominated by non-Indo-European language groups.

Altaics were the next most impressive, with modest Turkic holdings in the Balkans that expand greatly into Anatolia. Turkic territory in the Pontic Steppes was still considerable in 1500 AD, but was being gradually overrun by Slavic farmers. The final Turkic line there would soon stabilize as good farming land faded into semideserts (Slavic farmers had nothing to do with the alluded violent political redrawing of the map. With the fractionation of the Kipchak Khanate, one of its provinces, the Russian principality or Dukedom, decided to become its successor).

The territory of Caucasian speakers has always been rather small. Turkish and other groups were encroaching on them from the Asian side. On the European side the Caucasians probably held their maximum area as of 1500 AD. In later centuries the Russian advance would reduce them somewhat (Aside from the Scythian dominance of the Caucasus in the Classical time, and Masgut dominance from Antique to Early Middle Age, and Hunnic/Khazar dominance up to 11th c, Ibn Hawkal  in 977 recorded that the Azeri language was a lingua franca in the Caucasus. Up until the Soviet-times culminating with ethnic cleansing in the 1940s, Türkic languages remained lingua franca in the Caucasus).

Basque is the only other non-Indo-European language. Its area of use has probably not been significantly reduced since 1500 AD, but most of its speakers are now also bilingual in either Spanish or French. They are the only members of the presumed Afro-Asian family on the continent (Afro-Asian family is not agglutinative, and Basque is. The "Afro-Asian family" presumed classification is saliently false).

The changes that occur after this time are restricted to the Germanic and Slavic areas. English had not yet replaced Celtic in Cornwall, Scotland, and most of Ireland and Wales. Scandinavians were expanding to the north at the expense of the Lapps, and this has continued up to the present time.

The eastern Slavs — Ukranians and Russians — were still expanding their agricultural holdings with the mold-board plow, and this would continue for some time. Uralics to the north and Altaics to the south were losing ground to this advance. Still further Russian incursions would continue into northern Russia and Siberia in modern times. These  incursions, like those by the English and Scandinavians, gained impetus from modern industrial developments.

 Recept Racial changes

The maps of racial distribution that were developed in an earlier chapter represent the situation after the initial Neolithic occupation and up through as late as 500 BC. Since that time only a few significant changes are indicated. These are summarized as a small item in this chapter, and with the maps in Figs. 29 and 30. These agree well with known distributions of "genetic" and "classical" traits in modern populations.

The first notable racial movement since the Neolithic should have been the expansion of militant horsemen out of the Pontic Steppes in the 5th to 3rd Millennia BC. This action has been recognized in a few metric changes in some skeletal remains from eastern Europe. This "Kurganization" tapers off swiftly to the west and does not reach central Germany at all (Schwidetzky 1980). Skeletal remains from Greece have been studied in detail for evidence of this same phenomenon. Xirotiris (1980) finds there has been no significant immigration into the Aegean area since the early Neolithic. Present evidence suggests there were no population movements in this time and place that seriously affected gene frequencies over large areas.

Scandinavians, with their presumed 27% Anatolian genes, shifted to the south and entered the German river basins where the residents were an average of 42% Anatolian. My calculations suggest that the intruders ultimately constitute 41.5% of the resultant mix, so the shift in Anatolian gene frequency in Germany would be about two-fifths of the way from the local Celtic percentages toward the Swedish. This change is introduced into Germany while maintaining a comparable south-north cline as before. (Compare this area in Figs. 14 and 29.)

The averaged genetics of Scandinavians' Y-DNA Hg is Hg I 30%, R1b 29%, R1a 24%, or 30% “Northern European Paleolithic” (Hg I), 29% circum-Mediterranean Kurgans, i.e. the Celts (Hg R1b), and pre-Kurgan Central Asian migrants to Europe via Balkans (Hg R1a). The female genetics is much more diverse, and much less of the migrant origin, but both are practically unrelated to Anatolia. To a great degree the same applies to the German river basins, with addition of the “European Paleolithic” (Hg G).  Any “presumed Anatolian genes”, and the theories relying on these presumptions, are utter nonsense.

The Celtic diaspora probably had too little effect on their locations of settlement in most cases to call for changes in the map. The Slavic intrusion from the east into German lands was probably about matched by the German reflux in the opposite direction shortly thereafter. The Germanic (Saxon) intrusion into Great Britain would not have greatly affected the map, because the frequencies in both locations were so similar at that time.

Most of Iberia was initially Asiatic/African except for a small mixture with Mesolithic Europeans. Its northeastern corner was strongly European from the beginning, and there was some Celtic intrusion into the north-west and elsewhere. The Feudal spread would add many more Europeans to the northern fringe, but they were still a small minority. The Christian conquest from the north would raise the European genetic component somewhat higher throughout the peninsula (With a mushy definition of the “European genetic component”, anything is European, be it Central Asiatic, Asiatic, or African).

The Slavic expansion increased local populations at the source area, then these moved radially from there to some degree. Beyond a radius of 400 km there should be some significant shifts in Anatolian isogenes (isogenes = same genes). Among settled agriculturalists about half of the people, and their genes, should have been derived from populations about 400 km closer to the source. This means shifting all isogenes at least 200 km radially outward for as far as the mold-board plow spread. Where native populations were thinner, the shift would be greater. I suggest an isogene shift of 400 km for the Baltic-Finnic area, and one of 600 km for the other Uralics. For the Pontic Steppes the farmers’ advance over the herders should have carried their genes at a retention rate of about .81 per 200 km to be consistent with their advance rate. This is all shown in Fig. 29.

Fig. 29. Non-European genes recent distribution. The approximate contributions of Anatolian and African genes in Europe are shown at 10% intervals. This map may be compared with Fig. 14, which gives the distribution at the time of the original Neolithic settlement. These changes are the logical expectations that follow from the population movements indicated throughout this reconstruction. The greatest shift is of Anatolian genes to the north and north-east with the Slavic expansion. Non-European genes back-off in Anatolia and Iberia, and there are also some adjustments in the Germanic area. As with Fig. 14, there is no attempt to include extra Anatolian genes along the Mediterranean that were brought in by later Boat People. The Caucasoid- Mongoloid line is also shifted to the north and east.

Genetically, Haplogroups C and D are Mongoloid, E thru T are Caucasoid; the “Anatolian” genes are Semitic Afro-Asiatic J and Asian G (G1); the G2 in the Middle East is a late arrival (5000 ybp); the actual gene distribution does not resemble that shown on the conceptual map Fig. 29

The racial map of Caucasoids vs Mongoloids, as far as Europe is concerned, is also plotted for recent times by these same procedures. This is figured only for the year 1500 AD to avoid recent Russian expansions which have drastically reduced the Mongoloid element. The problem here is that urban and rural contrasts become great, and cannot effectively be combined in a single map. (Compare Figs. 15 and 30.) Again, this agrees well with modern racial distributions, but this is not entirely surprising because the rates of mixture were at least partly calculated to achieve this result. That the geographic pattern fits is perhaps more significant.

Fig. 30. Caucasoid genes in Asia, recent distribution. The Caucasoid component is given in 10% intervals, beginning with the heavy line of 100% in the we st. This map may be compared with Fig. 15, which gives the distribution at the time owidth=225 height=171tlement. The major contrasts result from Caucasoid intrusions with farming in northern Russia and Scandinavia

These changes, like the earlier map, are based on reconstructed ethnic movements, and are not compared here with actual racial data in detail.

In Russian (later)
Türkic-Sumerian Contents
Ogur and Oguz
Türkic languages
Türkic and European Genetic distance
Classification of Türkic languages
Indo-European, Dravidian, and Rigveda
Türkic, Slavic and Iranian
Türkic in English
Türkic in Romance
Alans in Pyrenees
Türkic in Greek
Türkic in Slavic
Alan Dateline
Avar Dateline
Besenyo Dateline
Bulgar Dateline
Huns Dateline
Karluk Dateline
Khazar Dateline
Kimak Dateline
Kipchak Dateline
Kyrgyz Dateline
Sabir Dateline
Seyanto Dateline
Рейтинг@Mail.ru “” – θδğŋγşāáäēə ï öōüūû“”° Türkic Türkic