Ogur and Oguz
Scythian Ethnic Affiliation
Scythians and their descendents
Indo-European, Dravidian, and Rigveda
V.I.Abaev Scythian-Iranian theory
Classification of Türkic languages
Research on Prehistoric Ethnogenetic Processes in Eastern Europe
The following chapter of V. Stetsyuk book, "Research of Prehistoric Ethnogenetic Processes in Eastern Europe", shows that most of the lexicon reputed to be of the Scythian attribution cannot even remotely be explained from the Persian language, but the Chuvash correspondences can be found quite easily. The ethnic name "Chuvash" is a distorted Russified form for the people known from antiquity as "Suvars, Subars, Suars, Sabirs, Savirs, Sabaroi, Subartuans, Aksuvars" and other variations. Chuvashes/Suvars were prominent members of the Hunno-Bulgarian state, and some of their clans reached the position of Kan/Kagan. The ethnic Suvars were component members of the confederation along with other Türkic members, Bulgars/Khazars, and Esegs. V. Stetsyuk connects the archeology of the autochthonous Chernolis, Jabotyn (Zhabotyn of the author), Lipetsk, Cherepyn-Lahodiv group, and Bilohrudov archeological cultures, characterized by Scythian ethnic markers, with the Cimmerian-Scythian-Bulgarian ethnic groups, and traces their early development into the historical times.
The presented translation is by the author, with minor spelling corrections.
Chapter 5. Scythian time
Chapter V. Scythian time
Scythian times, one of the most mysterious periods in the history of Eastern Europe, attracted attention of many historians. The question of ethnic affiliation of the Scythians is a key one in ethnogenetic studies. It has been already considered previously (Stetsyuk V.M., 1999), however in the course of this discourse it is necessary to revisit it in much better detail.
Considering the genesis of the Scythian culture, scholars have been divided into supporters of its aboriginal and Asian origin. Thus it means that this culture has experienced certain local influences even at its Asian sources, and Scythian ethnos grows out mixtures both local the Black Sea population and tribes which came from the east (Archeology of Ukrainian SSR, V 2, 1986, 14). In this approach, it seems at first glance that supporters of the Asian traits in the Scythian culture have more arguments. According to the archeological data, the latest Pre-Scythian complex of remains of the Novocherkassk group differs from the Scythian culture most radically. The change of culture has mechanical character, and it corresponds to the evidence of historians (Herodotus, Diodorus of Sicily) about the arrival of Scythians to the Black Sea Coast and the withdrawal of most of Cimmerians from the steppes to Fore Asia (Ib, 50). The recognized experts assert:
The Culture of Scythian type cannot be removed from the Cimmerian genetically. It may be the unique probable that occurrence and spreading of the Scythian culture is connected with a new migratory wave of Iranian nomads who have brought with new form of the Scythian material culture and the Scythian "animal style " (Iljinskaja V.A., Terenozhkin A.I., 1983, 10).
The motives of the certain similarity of the findings of the Scythian culture with remains of cultures of the Central Asia have played a significant role in formation of the sight about the Asian sources of the Scythian cultures. Specifically, study of the Tuva barrow Arzhan, scholars have found that the samples of material culture of this barrow can be related to the Scythian type, for they are made in the spirit of the Scythian animal style. As these artifacts are attributed to the 9-8 centuries B.C. and they preceded the Scythian culture in the Black Sea Coast chronologically, the assumption of it origination in the Central Asia seem to be true. Also other examples of the Siberian elements in the Pre-Scythian cultures are being given for the benefit of the Asian origin of the Scythians, and all these facts also give the reason for doubt about the possible development of the Scythian culture on a local basis (Terenozhkin A.I.,1961, 204). However, the stylistic similarity of the findings of the barrow Arzhan and the artifacts from the Scythian barrows is remote enough, and other Siberian elements in the Pre-Scythian culture are very inexpressive, therefore the opinion about the Asian sources of the Scythian culture is not proved and recognized definitively (Archeology Ukrainian ÑÑÐ, Vol 2, 1986, 13). On the contrary, there are facts which contradict the idea about the Asian origin of Scythians and their cultures. While the change of cultures in the steppe had mechanical character, in the Ukrainian Forest-steppe, especially, in a zone of the spreading of the Chernolis culture, one can observe the certain cultural continuity from Pre-Scythian till Scythian time. B.O. Rybakov paid attention to this phenomenon and asserted that all Forest-steppe agricultural cultures of the Scythian time originate from local agricultural culture of previous Cimmerian time and coincide with the area of the Chornolis culture. He describes this area in his work how as it is shown on Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Spread area of the Chornolis cultureAs Iljinskaja and Terenozhkin have established, the transition to the Scythian period has taken place here during the evolution of the Zhabotyn culture approximately in the middle of 7-th B.C. Thus, that fact is very important that findings of the Early-Scytian time are excavated in the right-bank forest-steppe up to the upper Dniester land. Due to the regular annual researches of the Lvov archeologists under L.Krushelnitska’s management, numerous settlements and burial grounds of the Late-bronze and the Late-iron time are discovered on the middle and upper Dniester land and in the Vorcarpathian. Among them are such remains which evidently show the gradual transition from the Chornolis to the Scythian culture, for example, the complex in the village of Neporotovo on the river Dniester in Chernovtsy Region:
“In the area 6000 sq. m were excavated four settlements (Neporotovo I, II, III, IV), numerous separate remains and the remains of a burial ground. The findings and also the layers of the objects overlaping each other, enabled allocation of three chronological horizons: the upper –the Early-Scythian, the transitive - from the Pre-Scythian to the Scythian, and the lower which is synchronous with the Chornolis culture"(L.1993-1, 7).
The finds of the Early-Scythian time are revealed also in the Lvov Region - near to the village of Krushelnitsa in Skole Area and near the town of Dobromil on the river San (Krushelnitska L.1993-2, 226, 236). Scythian influences reach considerably further:
"The presence of the artifacts of Scythian type in the Central Europe (the authentic and made on Scythian samples) has allowed researchers to draw a conclusion that this territory was under influence of Scythian culture. The biggest concentration of finds of the Scythian type is observed in Transylvania and Hungary "(Popovich And.1993, 250-251).
The Ukrainian archeologists as a whole recognize that the cultural continuity from the Pre-Scythian to the Scythian time is observed in the Ukrainian Forest-steppe first of all in the area of the spreading of the Chornolis culture and the finds of the Zhabotyn type which are considered as its continuation (Archeology of Ukrainian SSR, V 2, 1986, 50). The opinion about the succession of the Scythian culture in the Forest-steppe of the Dnieper Right-bank from local cultures does not cause objections even at supporters of Asian origin of the Scythian culture as a whole:
“A plenty of remains of the pastoral-agricultural population of the Scythian culture, which roots deeply go in local cultures of the Bronze Age, are concentrated in the Forest-steppe of the Right bank to the West from Dnieper” (Iljinskaja V.A., Terenozhkin A.I., 1983, 11).
Thus the following observation is important:
"The Scythian-Siberian barrow burial was spread in the Right-bank Forest-steppe ... Such ceremony, peculiar to early Scythians, has held steady on in the Forest-steppe of Right-bank up to the end of Scythian period " (Iljinskaja V.A., Terenozhkin A.I.,1983, 365).
This and other facts give the grounds to think that the Scythian culture was widespread to the Left bank of the Dnieper from the west, instead of from the east. Iljinskaja and Terenozhkin, supporters of its Asian origins, contradicted themselves when they spoke that in the Left-bank Ukraine the earliest remains of the beginning of the Iron Age are the settlements and the burial places of the second step of the Chornolis culture. Their occurrence has been caused by the consequence of the migration of a part of the population from the Dnieper Right banks at the end of 9-th or in the beginning of 8-th centuries B.C. Later a local version of the Scythian culture has been created on this basis. Other territory of the Left-bank Forest-steppe, on their supervision, has been populated later, at the beginning of the first half of 6-th century AD, and Scythian remains appear here already in a completely generated shape after Scythians have come back from assumed campaigns to For Asia(Iljinskaja V.A., Terenozhkin A.I.,1983, 366).
However, even supporters of the aboriginal theory did not occur that the Scythian culture could develop integrally on the basis of local cultures of the Western Ukraine. The opinion that the Scythian culture was brought here by newcomers whence from steppes dominates among scholars. Penetration of these carriers of the Scythian culture is supposed even till the territory of modern Hungary (Popovich I.1993, 282) and Germany. Scythian golden fish of the sixth century B.C. has been found in province of Brandenburg. This fact gives scholars grounds to say:
“With other objects of treasure, mostly, of gold, it documents the influence, and possibly the invasion, of Scythians, nomadic horsemen from the steppes north of the Black Sea, around 500 B.C.” (Dietrich Sahrhage, Johannes Lundbeck, 1992, 17).
Such opinions look surprising if to pay attention that the eldest remains of the Scythian culture in the village of Lahodiv (near to the city of Lvov) are dated by 5-th B.C., and further the chronological break begins to 1-st century AD when the period of the Lipetsk culture appears (Krushelnytska L.1993-2, 238). By Krushelnytska’s words, one can notice the same situation also "on the countries of the whole the forest-steppe Ukraine "(Ib.). Practically it means that the Late-Scythian culture had no place on these lands, but only the Early-Scythian one. Consequently, it looks illogical that the Scythian penetration in the Fore-Carpathian and further beyond the Carpathian Mountains began before the fullest flower of the Scythian culture in the steppes of the Northern Black Sea Coast.
Herodotus asserted that Scythians, coming from Asia, have superseded Cimmerians from the Black Sea Coast and pursued them even beyond the Caucasus. The area of Cimmerian cultures reaches beyond the Right bank of the Dnieper up to the Danube, therefore it is doubtful that Scythians, having arrived from the east, have superseded Cimmerians in the Transcaucasia. If Cimmerians receded before Scythians, they should escape somewhere beyond the Dnieper and further beyond the Danube, to the Balkans, but not to make the way through Scythians to the Derbent pass and further. In this case, Cimmerians attacks to For Asia should occur through the Balkans. The historical data testify that Cimmerians came in the majority from the Caucasian ridge and only any their part together with Thracians arrived to Asia Minor from Balkan Peninsula. This can take place only when Scythians came from the west, but not from the east.
Solving the question of the ethnic belonging of Scythians, it is necessary to pay attention to the fact of existence in the steppes near the Azov and the Caspian Seas in second half 1-st thousand two big states created by Bulgars and related to them Khazars. Bulgarian tribes have been incorporated in Great Bulgaria by one of the tribe leaders Kubrat into 635 and approximately at the same time Khazarian Khaganat started to develop too. Soon after Kubrats death, intense relations between both states led to disorder of Great Bulgaria. One Bulgarian horde migrated beyond the Danube where its leader khan Asparuh has created a new state - Danube Bulgaria while the second horde was got a part of the Khaganat. To the beginning of 8-th century Khaganat already possessed the large territory including foothills of Dagestan, the steppes about the river Kuban, the Sea of Azov, and a part of the Black Sea Coast, the most part of the Crimea. The young state had to conduct heavy struggle for existence with Arabs and consequently the most part of Bulgars has gradually departed on the north, in the basin of the river Kama where they have formed own state Volga Bulgaria in due course. (Pletneva S.A., 1986, 20-41). As we see, Bulgars should be very numerous people which history is traced on the ways of their migration from the Western Ukraine through the seaboard steppes up to the banks of the Kama. This numerous people which have to stay in the steppes of Ukraine in days of Herodotus therefore could not to be remained without the attention of this Greek historian. Hence, it is necessary to assume that Bulgars, at least, were among those tribes which are mentioned by Herodotus in his "Histories".
We know, that Proto-Bulgars moved to the right bank of the Dnieper from the end of 3-rd mill. B.C. First they have occupied only the steppe, but have promoted also in the forest-steppe strip later. This fact can to be testified by lexical coincidences between German and Chuvash languages (Stetsyuk V.,1998, 85-86). The hypothetical territory of Bulgar’s settlement should be somewhere to the south of the area of ancient Tuetons, that is in the basin of the upper Dniester, the rivers Vereschitsia, Zolota Lypa, Strypa. Bulgars stay in this territory can be proved by numerous toponymics. This theme has been considered in corresponding work more detailed (Stetyuk V., 2002, 13-20). Here it is possible to specify only that one the of congestions of Scythian toponymics is in the territory of the Cherepyn-Lahodiv group of archaeological remains which L. Krushelnytska binds with the Early-Scythian culture. On the whole, the greatest congestion of Bulgarian toponymics has been revealed on territory of the Lvov Region and further to the east up to the river the Hnyla Lypa though it is certified on all territory forest-steppe Rightbank Ukraine where it adjoins to the toponymics of Kurdish type. Thus Bulgarian toponymics lasts as the expressed chain up to Dnieper, passes it in the area of the river Vorskla’s mouth, further goes upwards the Vorskla, and then gradually becomes sparse. Also what is the most surprising, that the general area of Bulgarian and Kurdish toponymics mostly coincides with area the of the Chornolis culture together with the characteristic tongue on the Vorskla (see Fig.3). There is no doubt that exactly on this territory ancient Bulgars and Kurds lived in the close neighbourhood and this can be been displayed confirmed by numerous lexical parallels between Chuvash and Kurdish languages (see the previous chapter). As other ethnic groups were not present at the Rightbank Ukraine at this time, one may believe that creators of the ethnically not identified Chornolis culture could be only Proto-Bulgars and Proto-Kurds. Estimating of the proportional contribution of both ethnoses into this culture is difficult at present, but on all signs it seems to be that the leading role played Proto-Bulgars. Having taken into account the fact and the chronological frameworks of evolution of the Chernolis cultures to the Early-Scythian culture, one may go further to assume that Scythians should be identified with Bulgars and Kurds as creators of Early-Scythian culture in the Ukrainian Forest-steppe down to the Carpathian Mountains and the river San. According to toponimics, the nucleus of the Scythian culture began to arise on the banks of the left tributaries of the Dniester – the rivers Vereschitsia, Hnyla Lypa, Zolota Lypa, Strypa, Seret. Obviously, the well-known Scythian gold was extracted in the basin of these rivers as the numerous toponymics, which can testify former rich deposits of this metal, concentrates here (the Ukrainian root “zoloto” (gold) may be find in the names of the rivers Zolota Lypa, Zolota, the settlements of Zolochev, two villages of Zolochivka, of Zolotniks, of Zoloty Potik, of Ivane-Zolote, of Bilche-Zolote, of Zolota Sloboda).
Let's try to restore the picture of ethnogenetic processes in Ukraine in first half 1-st mill. B.C., proceeding from such assumption. The Chornolis culture, which is the connecting part between the Bilohrudov culture and the culture of Scythian period and has developed on the basis of the Bilohrudov culture, had two steps: the early (approximately 1050 - 900 up to B.C.) and the late (900 - 725 up to B.C.).
As against of the Bilohrudov people, which have peacefully left their settlements, Chornolis tribes should make this under the pressure of southern nomads. It is necessary to pay attention that the Bilohrudov settlements were not fortified, on the contrary, the Chornolis people already build hillforts. Obviously, the peaceful co-existence Thracians with Bulgars and Kurds of previous times was broken since the time of the penetration of some southern Iranian branch in steppe of Right-bank Ukraine. Describing hillforts of the Chornolis people, Terenozhkin specifies:
"In the majority, the Chornolis hillforts existed not for long, the Tiasmin hillfort was destroyed by fire. A lot of the dwellings of the bottom layer on the Subotiv hillfort have stopped the existence also owing to a fire "(Terenozhkin A.I.,1961, 40).
Receding from the Right-bank Cimmerians , the Chernolis people moved beyond the Dniester, and also partly beyond the Dnieper to the river Vorskla where the remains of their culture are present. As the Ukrainian archeologists believe, settling of the basin of the Vorskla by the Chornolis tribes began already, probably, on the early degree of the Chornolis culture at the end of the Bronze Age (Archeology of Ukrainian SSR, V. 2., 1986, 40).
The further moving of the Chornolis people on the Left bank became the beginning of return pressure of Scythians on Cimmerians . Simultaneously Cimmerians were restricted here by Balts from the north, and Proto-Hungarians from the northeast. Under such circumstances, Cimmerian tribes have begun the second phase of Iranian movement in Transcaucasia. However two Iranian groups, namely Proto-Kurds, which were in good relations with Bulgars already long time, and the ancestors of Ossets remained in Eastern Europe. Kurds have left certificate of their stay in the Black Sea Coast in personal names what will be considered farther. The ancestors the Ossets, occupying the most northern area of the whole Iranian territory, obviously, did not participate in the conflict with Bulgars and have not followed a great bulk of Iranians in the Transcaucasia. They have remained somewhere in the steppes beyond Don and had the certain contacts with Bulgars. These contacts are certified by rather numerous common lexicon of the Chuvash and Ossetic languages.
This hypothetical development of the cultural-ethnic processes on territory of the Ukraine can contradict to Asian motives in the Scythian culture and a prospective belonging of Scythian language to the Iranian stock. As to "animal style " in Scythian art, it can be explained by the similar ethnopsychology of Bulgars and the population of the Central Asia as both those, and others were of common, Turkic origin, but some successful technical decisions (as, for example, elements of horse-harnesses) could be distributed by intermediators across all Eurasia according to the similar way of nomadic life. We do not have opportunity for special study of samples of nomadic material culture, but we can research language belonging of Scythians.
However, first of all, it is necessary to recognize that this question is considered at present as solved unequivocally for the benefit of the Iranian language:
"In the literature devoted to study of the rests of Scythian language, the concept about of Iranian language of Scythians dominates unconditionally. Everything, that does not concern to the advanced thesis, beforehand is excluded from the area of Scythian studies" (Petrov V.P., 1968, 12).
Such sight started to be formed since times of the first researches of Scythian language and has been finally confirmed by M.Fasmer’s and V.I.Abaev's researches (Abaev V.I.,1965). More than that, Iranian belonging of Scythian language has been narrowed by efforts Miller and Abayev exclusively to Ossetic language as the successor of the Scythian. K.Neumann’s and G.Nagy's unreasonable attempts to consider Scythian language as of Mongolian origin have only strengthened the positions of supporters of Iranian belonging of Scythians. At such conditions, V.P.Petrov, continuing the creative approach of the professor of Novorussian university A.O.Biletski to the decision of this question, could criticize an archaic technique of researchers only cautiously. According to Petrov, Biletski himself, concerning the glosses of Gessiche, has noticed that “least all they give the facts for the definition of Scythian language as Iranian”(to Petrov V.P., 1968, 24).In quoted here work, Petrov has not expressed precisely his final opinion concerning the language belonging of Scythians, but he has called upon to researches of Scythian language to not be limited only by the Iranian basis and resulted some, rather convincing, coincidences of Scythian and Thracian languages, as an example. For research of the connections between Scythian and Thracian languages, the scholar has set up Scythian-Thracian onomasticon. For each gloss in it, he has presented suggested earlier by others linguists Indo-Iranian (mainly Persian and Ossetic), and also his and Deychev’s Thracian, and sometimes and other coincedences (Petrov V.P., 1968, 118-143). According to Petrov, "it is far from being possible in all cases to tell with confidence, that the given name is just Thracian, and not Iranian", and sometimes it is impossible to share Scythian and Thracian glosses, as the linguistic material of both languages is adjacent, with qualitatively related source study base and connected chronologically (Petrov V.P., 1968, 115-117). In our researches, we used full Petrov’s onomasticon, having tried to find to all, without exception, given glosses new coincidences from Ossetic, Chuvash and Kurdish languages which could confirm or deny our assumptions about the language belonging of Scythians. It has been revealed during this work that the majority of glosses of the onomasticon coincides much better to words of modern Chuvash and Kurdish languages than considered earlier old Indian, Avesian, Persian and even Ossetic words. Certainly, concerning each of separate cases, last word belongs to experts, but numerous Scythian-Chuvash coincidences give the grounds to speak that the identification of Scythians with ancient Bulgars has proved to be true. Besides, rather a big group of Scythian-Kurdish parallels out of the onomasticon, as well earlier presented Kurdish-Chuvash parallels too, can be evidence that Kurds adjoined Bulgars still long time after the most part of Cimmerians has departed in the Transcaucasia. In the onomasticon presented below, resulted by Petrov unsystematic Indian, Avestian, old-Persian coincidences are omitted as such which do not have certificates in any certain language while phoneticly more similar words of Chuvash, Kurdish or other modern Iranian languages can fit better to Scythian names. As the phonetics of ancient Bulgarian language essentially differed from Greek language, the reflexivity the phonemes of Bulgarian names by means of the Greek writing could differ a little in different sources, but as a whole the reflexivity of consonants has enough precise laws. The basic of them are such: Gr.b, p, j correspond to Chuv. p; Gr.g, k correspond to Chuv. k; Gr. d, q, t correspond to Chuv. t; Gr.z correspond to Chuv. ç , sometimes š; Gr.x correspond to Chuv. š . The reflexivity of vowels has unless the certain law in division of the front and back vowels, for example, frequently Greek a corresponds to Chuvash u or ă. The phonetics of Greek, Cimmerian, Ossetic languages are more similar among themselves, therefore the search of Kurdish coincidences does not cause difficulties.
Afg. – Afganian;
Chuv. – Chuvashian;
com. Ir. – common Iranian;
Gr. – Greek;
Ir. - Iranian;
Kurd. – Kirdish;
Let. – Lettish;
Osset. – Ossetian;
Pers. – Persian;
Tal. – Talishian;
Thrac. – Thracian;
Yag. – Yagnobian;
1. Ababos (ababos) - Kurd. ebaboz “thief” which suits for anthroponymic reasons.
2. Abhdamw (abe:damo:) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. upa “bear” + etem“man”.
3. Ablwnakos (ablo:vakos) - Kurd. eble ”fool” + nekes “miserable”. A good junction for anthroponimics.
4. Abranos(abranos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. upran ”be preserved”.
5. Abroagos (abroagos) - Kurd. ebro “eyebrow” + agos “furrow” (can be “wrinkle”); Chuv. upran”be preserved” + aka “tillage”.
6. Abrozeos(abrodzeos)- Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. upran ”be preserved” + çava “cemetery”.
7.Abriskon (abriskon) - Kurd. ebrişîm “silk”, Chuv. upran ”be preserved” +ěšen“be tired”.
8.Aziagos (adziagos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. ača “child” + akăš “swan”.
9. Azos (adzos) - Kurd. aciz ”weak” or aza“free”; Chuv. uçă open”.
10. Aqajoiw (athafoio:) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. ută “small forest”, ”island”, “hayfield” + puy “rich”.
11.Aloutagos(aloutagos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. ală ”hand” +tuka ”tell fortunes”.
12. Amadokoi (amadokoi) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. ama “female” + taka “sheep”.
13. Anaih (avaie:) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. hěne ”to beat, hit” + ie ”bad ghost”.
14. Anaxarsis(avaksarsis) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. hěne ”to beat, hit” + karsak ”hare”.
15. Andanakos(andavakos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv.ant“oat” + năkă ”firm”.
16. Anopthnis (anopte:nis) -Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv.an “width” + ăptă ”kind of fish”.
17. Apjh (apfe) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. hapa ”downy” + pay “rime”.
18. Argamhnos (argame:nos) - Kurd. erqem ”number”; Chuv. arka ”foot of the mountain”+ mănas ”proud”.
19. Argaio (argaio) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. ărkay ”trout”.
20. Argimpatoi (argimpatoi) - Kurd. arqem “number” + feda ”sacrifice” or Chuv. arkan “to break” + păta stick”.
21. Argoda (argoda) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. arka ”foot of the mountain”+ tu “mountain”.
22. Argotou (argoda) - see previous;
23. Argounagos (argounagos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. arkan “to break” + aka “tillage”.
24. Ardabourios (ardabourios) - the names of three different generals. Chuv. urta “army” Chuv. + pura ”to chop”suits to these names very good”.
25. Ardagdakos(ardagdakos) - Osset. ardar “leader”, Kurd. elder “leader” + dek “slyness”; Chuv. artak “delight” + tăkăs “sour”, urtar “to anger”;
26. Ardarakos (ardarakos) – Osset. ardar “leader”, Kurd. elder “leader”, ardû “wood” + req “dry”.
27. Artinoih (artinoie:) - Kurd. herzin, Tal. arzyn, Pers. ärzän “millet”;
28. Artipous- no any coincidences.
29. Asanou (asanou) - com. Ir. oson “light” or osan “iron”; Chuv. ăsan “go away”.
30. Asaros - Osset. a +sær“headless”, Kurd. hesar “fence”.
31. Aspakou (aspakou) - com. Ir. asp(a) “horse” + Osset. kaw “hause” or Kurd. kox “shed” (all together ”stable”).
32. Aspamiqareos(aspamithapeos) - com. Ir. asp(a) “horse”, + Kurd. metha “prais”.
33. Auasios- Kurd. h’awas “sense”, “sensitive”.
34. Aulouzelmis (auloudzelmis) - Kurd. hewil “help”or ewlî “holy” + zelam “man”.
35.Aulou- poris (aulou-poris) - see previous.
36. Ajteimakos (afteimakos) - Osset. ævdæimag; Chuv. ăpta “kind of fish”, Thrac. Aj(f)h-makos.
37. - Bazos (badzos) - com. Ir. bazu “arm”, “wing”; Chuv. puç “head”.
38. - Balos (balos)- Kurd. bel “walley”, bala “top”; Chuv. pulă “fish”.
39. Balwdis (balo:dis) – usually compared with Osset. bælon “pigeon”, but Let. baluodis “pigeon” suits better phoneticly.
40. Bardanou (bardanou) - Kurd. berdan “to let”; Chuv. purtă “axe” + an ”width”.
41. Basta (basta) – Osset., Pers., Afg. etc. bast(a) “to tie, bind” or Kurd. best “walley, steppe”.
42. Bastakas(bastakis) - Osset. bæstag “local”, Kurd. bestek “bed”; Chuv. pustav “woolen cloth”.
43. Benzei (bendzei) - Osset. bindzæ “bee”, Kurd. banz “jump”.
44. Bessa (bessa) - Kurd. beş „part, share“, or bes „sufficent“, or bêş “tribute”, or bêşe “small wood, forest”; Chuv. pěçě „thigh“.
45. Bitou (bitou) - Kurd. beta „vanish“; Chuv. pětev ”body”.
46. Bisths (biste:s) - Kurd. bistî “stalk” or bista “trusty” or bista “lover”.
47. Bolas - Kurd., Pers. etc bolo “top”; Chuv. pulu “gingerbread”.
48.Bor’aspw - com. Ir. bor/bur “yellow, brown” + com. Ir. aspa “horse”;
49. Boulasths (poulaste:) - Chuv. pulaš“to help”.
50. Brad’akou (brad’akou) - no any good coincidences;
51. Olbia Brisais (Olbia Brisais) - Thrac. briza “rye”.
52. Bouzas (boudzas) - Kurd. boz “grey”, bûz “ice”; Chuv. puç “head”.
53. Gaggaiou (gagkaiou) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. kăk“root”, kayu “grass”;
54. G’aganos (gaganos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. kăkan “handle’;
55.G’asteis (gasteis) - Kurd. gestin “to sting”;
56. Gerbhs (gerbos)- Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. kěr (autumn) + pas “hoarfrost, rime”.
57. Germanos (germanos) - com. Ir. garm/germ “warm”;
58. Getomousou (getomousou) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. kata “wood, bush”;
59.Ghros (geros) - Kurd. gewr“gry”;
60.Gokwn (goko:n) - see G’aganos;
61. Gola (gola) - Kurd. gol “dog”, gole “senior herdsman”, Osset. gal “ox, bull”;
62.D’ada (dada) - com. Ir. dada “father”;
63. Dadagos (dadagos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tutăx “rusty“;
64. Ardar-dakos - see Ardagdakos
65.Owarga-dakos (owarga-dakos) - Kurd. warge “place, stand” + deq “plane, smooth”;
66. Dalatos (talatos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tulă “wheet” + tasa “clean”;
67. Dalosakos (dalosakos)- Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tulă “wheet” + săx “to peck”;
68.Damas (damas)- Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tum “clothes”, tăm 1. “clay” , 2. “frost”;
69. Danarazmakos (danaradzmakos) - no any good coincidences;
70.Dandaxarqon (dandaksarthon) - com. Ir. dandon “tooth + Kurd. şert ”agreement”; Chuv. šărt “oath”. The root xarq is fixed in epigraphics in North region of the Black Sea. Kurd. şert ”agreement” and Chuv. šărt “oath” coincides to it good phoneticly. It is interesting that an oath for tooth, words “I give the tooth” and a suitable gesture are present in criminal and even in children world in nowadays. Compare Didumoxarqos.
71. Daou (daou)– Kurd. daw “tail”; Chuv. tav 1. “gratitude”, 2. “dispute”;
72. Dappasis (tappasis) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tup “to find” + pusă “spring”;
73. Deinostrato (deinostrato) - no any good coincidences;
74. Dhlopticou(taloptikhou)- Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tălăp “stature” + tixa “foal”;
75. Diagoras(diagoras)- Kurd. dia “blessing” + gor “grave, tomb”;
76. Didumoxarqos (didumoksarthos) - Kurd. didan “tooth” (com. Ir. dandon) + şert ”agreement”; Chuv. tytăm“control, management” + šărt “oath”. Compare Dandaxarqon.
77. Diza (didza)- Kurd. diz “thief”;
78. Diza-zelmis(didza-dzelmis) - Kurd. diz “thief” + zelam “man’;
79. Dizarou(didzarou) - Kurd. diz “thief” + rûvi “fox”;
80. Dindou (dindou)- ir. din (Kurd. dîn)“faith”; better Chuv. těn “faith” + tav “gratitude”;
81. Douptounou (douptounou)- Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tupa “oath”+ tun “to refuse”;
82. Dokiwn (dokio:n) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tăk“to pour” + yun “blood”(together -Killer);
83. Domhw (dome:o:) - Kurd. dûmayî “remains”;
84. Dorizou (doridzou) - Kurd. dor “circle”; Chuv. tură “god” + çăva “cemetery, Chuv. tări “lark” + çu “summer”;
85. Dosumoxartou (dosumoksartou)- Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tăsă “peace, bit” + měša “mud, silt”;
86.Doulas (doulas) - Kurd. dol “ravine”;.
87. Drobolous (drobolous) - no any good coincidences;
88. Dunatwn (dunato:n) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tyna “heifer” + tăn “mind, reason”;
89.Durpanais (durbanais) - Chuv. tărpa “flue, pipe” + nay “pan-pipe”;.
90. Dwtous (do:tous) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tuta “lip”, tută “replete, sated”, tătăš “frequent”;
91.Eisgoudiou(eisgoudiou) - Kurd. e’yş “joy, spree, fun” + qude “proud”; Chuv. ěç “work” + kut “ass”;
92. Ergino (ergino) - Kurd. erk “job, matter” + îna “faith”; Chuv. er “to tie”+ küme “truck”;
93.Zazous (dzadzous) - Kurd. zaza(n) – Kurdish tribe;
94. Zalzou (dzaldzou) - Kurd. zal “old” + zo “cord; Chuv. çulça “leaf”;.
95. Zantikos (dzantikos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. çul “to burn” + těk “quitly, stilly”;
96. Zeilas (dzeilas) - Kurd. zeyle (zehle) “pester”; Chuv. çěle “to sew”;
97.Zinna (zinna) - Kurd. zîn “saddle” + nav “girdle”; Chuv. çěn ‘to win”;
98. Zoulemhs (dzoulemes) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. çülevěç “lynx”. Almost full phonetic coincidence and specific sense of word;
99. Zourh - com. Ir. zor/zur “force”; Chuv. çyră “light-brown”, çürev “march”;
100. Zourozis (dzoupodzis) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. çăraççè “key, lock”;
101. Zwpura (dzo:pura) -Kurd. zopir “great”; Chuv. çupărla “to embrace”;
102. Zwpurion (dzo:purion) - see previous;
103. Zwrqtinhs (dzo:rthtane:s) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. çărttan “pike (fish)”. Very good coincidence. Even double tt was reflected in Greek transcription;
104.Zwrsanos (dzo:rsanos) - Kurd. zarzan “penetrating”;
105. Kardious (kardious) - Kurd. kerdî “furrow”; Chuv. kěrče ”crease”;
106. Karzeis (kardzeis) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. xurçă “steel”;
107. Karzoazos (kardzoadzos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. xurçă “steel” + uçă “key”;
108. Karsa (karsa) - Kurd. kerş “wood chips, splinters”; Chuv. xyrçă “spine”;
109. Kamasaruhs (kamasarue:s)- Kurd. kam , Osset. and other ir. kom „desipe, wish“; com. Ir. sar “head”; better Chuv. kăm “ashes“ + ără “grey”;
110. Lungion (lungion) -Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. lănk(a) “full” + yun (jun) " or yon(jon) “force, energy”;
111. Lazenos (landzenos) - Kurd. lezandin “to hurry”; Chuv. latchan “falcon”;
112.Ma (ma) - Kurd. max “source”; Chuv. may ”side” or măy “neck”;
113.Mada(mada)- Kurd. made “thind”;
114. Madakon (madakon) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. mătăk “short”;
115. Mazis, Mazas (madzis, madzas) -Kurd. maze “axis” or mazî “splinter”; better Chuv. muchi “uncle”;
116. Maiakou - Pers., Yazg. maya “cattle”or Kurd. mey “reed” + Kurd. kêw “mountain” or ka “fine straw” or Osset. kaw “house”; Chuv. măyăx “moustaches”;
117.Maijarnon(maifarnon) - Iranian coincidences are not found; măy “neck” + pürne “finger”. “A man with thin neck”;
118. Maitwnion -(maito:nion) - com ir. maidan “place, stand’;
119. Maiwsara(maio:sara) - Kurd. mejû “brain” + sar “head” or meya “wine” + sere “old”; Chuv. măya “beads” + sărka “necklace”;
120. Mahs (mae:s) - maybe as Ma;
121. Makagou(makagou) - Kurd. mekok “weft, woof”; Chuv. măka “blunt, dull”;
122.Manis (manis) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. mănaç “proud” or mănă “great”;
123. Masta (masta) - com. Ir. mast “drunk” or “bitter”;
124. Mhqakon (me:thakon) - Kurd. metha “praise” + kon “tent”; Chuv. muxta “to praise” + kun “day”; see Mhtagos too;
125. Mhsakou (me:sakou) - Kurd. maşaq “beloved”;
126. Mhtagos (me:takos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. mětek “knucklebone, dib”;
127. Mokaporeos (mokaporeos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. măka “blunt” + pura “to hew”;
128. Mokkou (mokkou) - Osset. mugæ"”seed”; Chuv. măka ”blunt”;
129. Mostiou (mostion) - com. Ir. mast “drunk” or “bitter”;
130. Moukouagos (moukouagos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. măka “blunt” + aka “ancient plough”;
131. Moukounakurou (moukouvakurou) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. măka “blunt” + văkăr “bull, ox”;
132. Mourdagos(mourdagos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. mărtăk “brittle”;
133. Olgasus(olgasus) - Kurd. olk 1. “province” 2. army”;
134.Ouara(ovara) - Kurd. war ”place”; Chuv. avăr “handle”;
135. Ouarzbalos -(ovardzbalos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. vărç “to war” + pulaš to “be”;
136. Ourzbalakos(ovardzbalakos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. vărç “to war” + pylak ”pleasure”;
137. Ouarazakon(ovaradzakon) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. vărç “to war” + kun “day” or avăr “handle” + çăk “heaviness”;
138. Ouastobalos(ouastobalos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. ăsta (earlier vasta?) ”master” + pyl “honey” (bee-master?);
139. Outajarnhs (utafarne:s) - Chuv. ută ”hay + purnăç ”life”;
140.Orsiomixos “(orsiomodzos) - Kurd. ors ”wedding”, Osset. ors “white”;
141. Pairisadhs(pairisade:s) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. payăr ”private” + sut “to sell”;
142. Palakou (palakou) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. pulă (earlier pulak) “fish” or pulăx “fecundity”;.
143. Panhios (pane:ios) - Kurd. pene ”secret”;
144. Panias (panias) - see previous;
145. Paralos (paralos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. părala “to drill”;
146. Pasarou (pasarou) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. păsara “polecat”;
147. Patasion (patasion)- Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. putaš “float”;
148. Patein (patein) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. păta “nail, stake”;
149. Pateiros - see previous;
150. Patias - see previous;
151. Pistou (pistou) - Kurd. pist ”error, miss”;
152. Pitjarnakou (pitfarnakou) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. pit ”face” + purnăç ”life”;
153. Pleistarcou (pleistarkhou) - no good coincidences. Maybe Thrac. Pleistwros.
154. Pourtaios (pourtauos) - Kurd. purt “hair”; Chuv. purtă “axe”; see Pourqeiou;
155. Pourqakhs (pourthake:s) - Kurd. purt “hair”+ Tal. taka “billy-goat”; Chuv. purtă “axe” + aka “ancient plough”;
156. Pourqeiou (pourtheiou) - Kurd. purt “hair”; Chuv. purtă “axe”; see Pourtaios;
157. Purre - Kurd. pûr “pheasant”;
158. Rhskouporis (re:skouporis) - com. Ir. rişk “louse”, “nit” + Kurd. por “hair”;
159. Roimhtalkas (roume:talkas) - Kurd. rûmet “cheek” + elk “glutton”;
160. Sabada (sabada) - Pers. sabad, Afg. savada, Yag., Yazg. sabat, Kurd. sepet “basket; Chuv. săpat “face”;
161. Sabwdakos (sabo:dakos) - maybe as previous;
162. Sabbion (sabbion) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. săpă “a daughter of master” + puyan “rich man”;
163. Sadalou (sadalou) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sut“to sell” + lav “cart”;
164. Sadaiou (sadaiou) - Osset. sædæ “hundred; better Chuv. sut“to sell” + uyav “holyday” (may be fair?);
165. Sadimanos (sadimanos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sut“to sell” + mănă “great”;
166.Saios(saios) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. suy “to lie” or săy “entertain, banquet”;
167. Saitajarnou(saitafarnou) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sěte “to add” + parne “present”;
168. Sala (sala) - com. Ir. sal/sol “year”; Chuv. sulu “bad magic action”;
169. Sambatiwn (sambatio:n) - no good coincidences. Maybe, gr. *sambatiwn ;
170. Sambiwn (shampaio:n) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. šămpay ”fool” + yun “blood”;
171. Saratou (saratou) - Osset. særd “summer”; Chuv. sără “grey” or sară “yellow + tu “mountain”;
172.Sasan (sasan) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. susăn “to get tired”;
173. Satra-baths (satra-bate:s) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sătră “to rub, chafe” + pătă “”porridge”;
174.Seauagou (seavagou) - Kurd. seav “otter”;
175. Siauakou(siavakou) - see previous;
176. Seitalkus(seitalkus) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sět “milk” + alxas “loud, naughty child”; better Thracian name Sitalces;
177. Sereis (series) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sěre 1. “very” 2. “vainly”;
178. Seuqou (seuthou) - Kurd. sewt “loud”or sewda “mind, reson”;
179.Sirakoi (sirakoi) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sěrěx “feeble”;
180. Siranou (siranou) Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sěren “ancient folk holyday”;
181. Siracou (sirakhou) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sěrěx “feeble”;
182. Sisa(sisa) -Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sis “to feel”;
183. Sisouli (sisuli)- Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sisü “feel”;
184. Skartanos (skartanos) - Osset. skæryn “to drive”; better Chuv. çărttan “pike (fish)”; see too Zwrqtinhs.
185. Basileus Scilouros (basileus skilouros) - Kurd. şilor “plum”;
186.Skozos (skodzos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. šyça “swell”;
187. Smordos (smordos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. samărt “to fatten”;
188. Sparobais (sparobais) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sapăr “meek” + apăs “priest”;
189. Sparojotos(sparofotos) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. sapăr “meek” + pytek“lamb”;
190. Spartokou (spartakou) - Afg. spartak “switch”;
191. Spartokos (spartakos) - see previous;
192. Sturakos (sturakos) - Kurd. stûr, Osset. styr, sutur and other Iranian “great, strong, thick”;
193. Sturanos (sturanos) - see previous;
194. Taroulou (taroulou) - com. Ir. tar/tor “dark” + Kurd. law “child”;
195.Tarsous - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. tărša“butt”;.
196. Tokwn (took:n) - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. takăn “to stumble”;
197. Calais - Iranian coincidences are not found; Chuv. xulă ”switch” or xalay ”bad”.
Analyzing the resulted register of Scythian-Thracian onomasticon, it is possible to see, that 97 glosses can be well explained only by means of the Chuvash lexicon and by 30 extra can have both Chuvash, and Kurdish interpretation. At that, 52 names receive the rather comprehensible for anthroponimics sense having good phonetic coincidence. About 40 names can be explained only on the basis of Kurdish language, but only 9 from them are enough convincing. Two words with the rather characteristic sense can have equally as Bulgarian, and a Kurdish origin. Another 18 words can be explained on the grounds of different Iranian languages and half from them has also comprehensible sense. Five of these words can have the Ossetic roots, two can be Afghani and two more are composed by common Iranian words. As casual concurrences are not excluded, it is possible to speak confidently only about two parts of Scythian generalities – Bulgarian and Kurdish stocks and with the big stretch, one can speak about Alanian (Ossetic) one.
Thus, within 1-st century B.C. Bulgars had occupied gradually the steppe part of the Left-bank Ukraine and entered here in the long and close contact with Proto-Hungarians what can be testified by numerous lexical coincidences of the Chuvash and Hungarian languages, known well to experts. Staying here during several centuries, Bulgars have created the culture of a high level which is known under a name of Scythian. Occupying the steppes of the Ukraine and later of the Northern Caucasus, Bulgars were in touch with the agricultural cultural centers of For Asia and the Balkans and, exchanging with them experience and technologies, could to create, really, the culture on a local basis. In structure of all Scythian generality, Herodotus allocates four separate groups - Scythians - farmers, Scythians - plowmen, Scythians - nomads and imperial Scythians. During historical time we know already two ethnic generalities which we correlate with ancient Bulgars - actually Bulgars and Khazars. Khazars kept the half-agricultural-nomadic economy, and Bulgars were nomads (Pletneva, 1985, 8-21). It is difficult to judge, as far as agricultural tribes can pass from the agriculture to the nomadic economy under influence of an environment therefore the identification of four Scythian tribes with the subsequent Bulgarian people is inconvenient. The question is complicated by that some Bulgarian tribe could always stay in the steppes by the Sea of Azov, on their historical ancestral home, and also in Crimea. This tribe was engaged in the nomadic cattle breeding during many centuries till returning the other Bulgarian people from the Western Ukraine back in the steppe. This population could be identified with Scythians-nomads most soundly.
Kurds should make one of Scythian groups too. According to the deciphered names of the onomasticon, they also were ranked by contemporaries as Scythians though they were less numerous. In spite of the fact that in the onomasticon much less words has Kurdish interpretation than Bulgarian one, nevertheless, some from them well approach for anthroponimics therefore we have no reason to doubt that there were also the ancestors of modern Kurds among Scythians. To track a history of Scythians-Kurds is very difficultly. If we can trust Assyrian sources, any part of Scythians, pursuing left-bank Cimmerians , has reached the Transcaucasia, has based there an empire, and later come back to the Black Sea Coast again. This part of Scythians can be referred to Kurds as according to the sources these Scythians were Iranian speakers. But, if Scythians-Kurds have come back to the Black Sea steppes, when they have got in the Transcaucasia again and further have moved on the places of their modern-day dwelling? Assumptions can be different, but as movement of Kurds in the Transcaucasia has not been fixed during the historical times, it is necessary to think that, at least, any part of Kurds did not come back in the Black Sea Coast, and was settled in adjoining territories of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. At the same time other part of Kurds or has come back in the Black Sea Coast, or at all never left it. In any case this part of Kurds was assimilated among other peoples later. The sudy of the toponymics of Ukraine resulted (Stetsyuk Valentyn, 2002, 26) that the strip of Kurdish settlements lasted along the left bank of the Dniester and disappeared somewhere in the steppes, approximately where Herodotus places the tribe of Alazons, in place where the rivers Thiras (Dniester) and Hypanis (South Bug) come one to other more nearest (Herodotus, IV, 52). The decoding of the ethnonim “Alazons” is inconvenient. One of possible variants can be “mixed people” according to Chuv. ula (in other Turkic languages ala) "motley" and çyn"person". Thes ethnonim could reflect the process of the assimilation of Kurds with Bulgars.
There are also names of the possible Old-Ossetic origin among names of the onomasticon though they are not numerous. As we shall see later, it is few Chuvashian-Ossetic language coincidences too. Obviously, Alans, the ancestors of Ossets, or stayed somewhere on borderland of Scythian world, or were not active enough during the antique times to leave the distinct traces in the ancient annals. Territorially, they could be correlated to imperial Scythians which Herodotus placed on the east of the Scythian world behind the river Herr up to the Tanais (Don), but the weak representation of Ossetic names in the onomasticon contradicts other certificate of Herodotus that imperial Scythians were the most numerous and the most aggressive among Scythians. Most likely, Alans can be connected with Helons, repeatedly mentioned by Herodotus. Similarity of these ethnonims forces us to consider such opportunity too. Earlier we have assumed that the name of the city of Helon is bound with the name of Iranian tribe Gilan (Hilan?), who had their area in the neighbourhood of Budins (Mordovians) in the upper Severski Donets river and the river Oskol. The origin of this name can have Greek roots. We remember that Greecs of the Black Sea Coast moved to this country (Stetsyuk V., 1998, 83). Selfname of Greeks (Hellin - Έλληνας ) also could give the name to town. Helons used alternately or "Scythian", or Hellenic language in Herodotus’ days (Herodotus IV, 108). Considering the Iranian beginning of the city and the ethnos, we can think that "Scythian" language can be supposed to be any Iranian language in this case. As Hilans, as well as other Cimmerians , have already moved to the Transcaucasia, one may assume this was Old-Ossetic language. Thus, ancient Ossets have promoted after other Iranian tribes from their homeland in the basin of the river Sozh to the south and have stopped somewhere in basin of the Severski Donets.
In 4-th book of "Histories" Herodotus mentions tombs of Scythian ancestors which during the pursuit of Scythians in 514 B.C. did not come nearer Darius I to but which they were ready to protect with the weapon in hands. It is difficult to judge Darius’ campaign under inconsistent certificates of Herodotus, but it seems that the route of it passed by the steppe part the Ukraine up to the Budins lands somewhere beyond the river Don and consequently should pass along the possession of prospective imperial Scythians. Darius definitely was not in the western part of Ukraine, but sacred tombs of Scythians could be namely here. There is the ancient Ukrainian city of Terebovla almost in the center of the territory of Scythians-Kurds outlined on the basis of toponymics. This town was even the capital of a separate princedom one time. The choice of Terebovla as the capital could be caused by that the city was considered as the center of more ancient inhabitants of this territory. The name of the city can be explained on Kurdish grounds as “Sacred tombs”, considering the Kurd. tirb“tomb” and ewlî "sacred". We can remember that, according to the phenomenon of “full-sound”, tirb naturally passes in tereb in the Ukrainian language. Thus, it is possible to bind that part of Scythians-Kurds, which could remain on the former settlements in the Western Ukraine, with imperial Scythians. However this is only assumption which has not sufficient bases, therefore the decision of the question on identification of separate parts of Scythian generality, mentioned by Herodotus, it is necessary to postpone till future times.
The conclusion about Turkic origin of the most part of Scythians contradicts many sights which are dominating in the science. They consider as indisputable not only Iranian origin of Scythians, but also that during Scythian times all Turkis in general, and Bulgars in particular, were somewhere in the Central Asia. Considering the Chuvash language in comparative-historical aspect, V.G.Egorov writes:
" Far traces of stay of Chuvashians all over again in the neighbourhood with the Mongolian tribes, and then on the banks of the uppers Irtysh river and the river Yenisei - in the neighbourhood with the Altay Turks and the Central Asian Iranian tribes - are good found in the language of Chuvashians. There are many Mongolian words in the Chuvashian language, and almost all of them are of ancient origin" (V.G.Egorov, 1971, 7).
This typical methodological mistake, the estimation of quantity of the common words in two languages words "a lot", "a little" without quantitative comparison with other related languages, is extremely guileful as it can lead into error even good scholars. Certainly, the common features of Mongolian and Chuvash languages can exist and this has the explanation. Carried out by the graphic-analythical method, the research of Mongolian and Tungus-Manchurian languages according to data of Sergey Starostin, placed in the Internet, have allowed to make the graphic models of their mutual relations and to define the areas of formation of separate languages of these two language groups. The detailed consideration of the received results of researches is beyond this work, but, not going in particulars, it is possible to specify, where these languages were formed exactly on the territory of Far East. The Mongolian languages were generated in the right part of the basin of the river Amur from sources of the river Argun up to the river Ussuri where these rivers and their tributaries, and also the river Sungari with its tributaries, form enough well defined areas which the graphic model of the Mongolian languages is well imposed upon. Tungus-Manchurian languages were formed in the close neighbourhood with this territory but in the basin of the left tributaries of the Amur (the Zeya, the Bureya, the Amgun’ and their tributaries). Sergey Starostin submits on the site also a rich lexical material which concerns to the fund of the Altay languages (Mongolian, Tungus-Manchurian, Korean, Japanese) to which he carries as well Turkic languages. The research of this material by the graphic-analytical method has allowed create the graphic model of these languages too. Considering this model, and also areas of the formation of the Mongolian and Tungus-Manchurian languages, one can find areas of the possible formation of Japanese and Korean languages. Japanese language was evidently being formed in the distinct area which is limited by the coast of the Sea of Japan and by the lower Amur river and the river Ussuri. Korean language was formed in the closed area of Korean peninsula which northern border adjoins to the area of Mongolian languages. Turkic languages fit well to the general model of Altay languages and their place on the circuit is enough precisely defined by the quantity of lexical coincidences with Mongolian, Tungus-manchurian, Korean and Japanese languages on the west remote area of the general territory of languages. This area can be correlated on the geographical map with the Transbaikalia land.
This implies that Turkic tribes of cattlemen, having left steppes near the Sea of Azov and, moving on the east through Kazakhstan and Altai, have reached places of dwelling of people of the Mongolian anthropological type and have come with them in close contact. The local population stood at considerably lower level of development than newcomers and was engaged in hunting, fishing and collecting. Accordingly, the language of this population has been enough scarce and poorly advanced. The onsequence of it was mass penetration of Turkic lexicon and grammatical forms in languages of the nearest neighbours - Mongols and Tungus, and from them in languages of more eastern ethnoses. But return process of penetration of local lexicon in Turkic languages, connected to features of the environment of this new for Turkis territory, had place too. The ancestors of Yakuts, occupird the most eastern area of the historical Turkic homeland, should contact with Altay language speakers most closely first of all. Ancestors of other Old-Turkic tribes (Tuvinians, Kirghizes and Khakasses) came in contact later too. Any part of Turkis has stopped in the steppes of Kazakhstan and on Altai, other part has promoted as well to Central Asia. Conducting a nomadic way of life, Turkic tribes remained long time among themselves in close enough contact and their languages developed in the common channel. Gradually any archaic features of these languages have been lost among a great stock of Turkic languages, but kept on the periphery of the Turkic world. Also this can explain those common features which possess, for example, the Chuvash both Mongolian languages and which mislead scientists. The Chuvash language has preserved in itself archaic Turkic language phenomena just because long time developed without direct contacts to other Turkic world. Any from these language phenomena could be transferred by Turkis to the Mongolian languages when they for the first time have made contact to Mongols. The Mongolian language too could keep these archaic language phenomena, the reasons of that can be different.
One of the puzzles in the Altay languages is the nature of the phonetic coincidence r/l - š/s (z). Which of these sounds was primary – whistling š(s) or sonoruos r(l)remains obscure till now. The majority of scholars believes that r/l were the primary as they have been changed in š/s (z) almost in all Turkic languages (except for Chuvash, Mongolian and Tungus-manchurian). However the further, increasing amount of Altaists come to opinion, that the primary were š/s (z) (Petrov L.P., Egorov N.I.1987, 90), that so-called rotacism is took place. Some language facts can testify in the favour of the rotacism. There is a high stone rock with name Tustan’ near to the city of Drohobych in West Ukraine. Attempts to etymologize this name did not give satisfactory results till now. Just as Tovtry and Voroniaky, the names of mountlands, Tustan can be explained by means of the Chuvash language if the rotacism took place in this language. There is the word taš"stone" tn all modern-day Turkic languages. In the Chuvash language, it has now the form čulin full coincidence with the known for phonetics laws in the Chuvash language: t - č and š - l. During Scythian times the old form tašshould be kept still.Then the second part of a word could be the ancient form of modern-day Chuv. těm“hill”. Hence the word as a whole can mean “a stone hill” that completely represent to the facts. Indoeuropean g(h)ans “goose”, borrowed from Proto-Turkic as *qàz (not *qàr!) in those times when Indo-European and Proto-Turkis were the neighbours on the territory of Eastern Europe, can be explaned by the primary š/s (z). In that case, one doesn’t have to search for a source and a place of this loan somewhere in Middle Asia (Ib, 91). However the opinion about the primacy š/s (z) contradicts to already mentioned before ancient Armenian-Gagausian lexical parallel: Arm. antar"wood" to which coincides Gag.andyz"a grove, a bush". Similar words for the sense of wood in Armenian and Gagausian languages were kept since those times when Proto-Armenians and Oguzes (the ancestors of Gagauzes) occupied the next areas. As the phenomenon of rotacism is not known in the Armenian language it is clearly that the archaic form with the primary rwas kept in it.Thus there are certificates both about the primacy r/l, and about the primacy s/š.This contradiction generates a hypothesis about existence of the special sound sibiliant-vibrant rz / rs in languages of the population of Eastern Europe. This sound could pass in different languages either in r/l or in s/š. That such sound could exist confirms Polish and Czech grammar which provide designation rz and ř for the certain phoneme which has replaced in the Czech and Polish languages Proto-Slavic soft r’. In the Czech language ř corresponds to sounds rž and rš, and Polish rz does to sounds ž and š. As the ancient ancestors of modern-day Czechs occupied the area near to the area of Bulgar (Scythians) replacement of Proto-Slavik r’ on rz could take place under influence of the Bulgarian substratum, and in the similar phenomenon the Polish language has taken place under influence of Czech. Existence of the especial sound similar to r is confirmed also with the Armenian spelling which distinguishes two sounds, r and rr (long). Just the long rr is being used for the spelling of Arm. antarby what is evident that in this case, in language of Proto-Armenians, not usual sonorous r took place but some other sound. This says in favour of the hypothesis of the existing of the sound rz / rs in Turkic language. Turkis, who had moved to Asia, have brought this feature of the phonetics as well there. The ancient ancestors of Mongols and Tungus, having borrowed many Turkic words, articulated this sound from the very beginning as r while Bulgars have simplified the pronunciation of rz / rs to usual r much later. The identical result of replacement of the complex sound in the simpler one gives the grounds to speak now about imaginary Bulgarian-Mongolian connections which actually never had places. We shall still return to the question about the existence of sibiliant-vibrant rz, when we shall consider substrat phenomena in phonetics.
Identifying Bulgars with Scythians, we receive the satisfactory explanation of the non-authorized questions of Scythian mythology on the Chuvash grounds. We shall consider all over again a legend about an origin of Scythians. According to this legend the first person in once deserted country was Targitay, a son of Zeus and the daughter of the god of the river Borisfen (Herodotus,IV, 5). Experts know, that old-Turkic a was reflected as u in the Chuvash language. To the same time old-Turkic g has passed in Chuvashian in v which together with next vowels gives a diphthong, and in our case ă (Rhone - Taš À., 1987, 45-47). Having taken into account this law, Targitaycan be explained as "wedding of gods” according to Chuv. tură"god" and tuy"wedding". This wedding can be related to the known in mythology category of "sacred marriages" of old ancestors (Myths of nations of the world, 1991). Targitay had three sons: Lipoksay (Lipoxais), Arpaksay (Arpaxais)and Kolaksay (Kolaxais). V. I. Àáàåâ believed that the second part of these names is -ksayand removed*} it from Ir.*xayaš"king - lord", and name Kolaksay allowed such ethymology:*Xola-xayaša"Sun-king" (Abaev V.I., 1965, 35). The first part of the restored name raises the doubts by absence of certified Ir. *xola though xor/xur"sun" are present in some Iranian languages. Himself Abaev considered the transition r → l for the Iranian languages uncharacteristic and searched for its explanations (Ib, 36). Other two names usually have been explained as Mountain-king and Depth-king that allows seeing in all names connection with the elements of the universe as the top, middle and bottom worlds (Dudko D.M.,1988, 66). However other opportunity of interpretation of all three names can be given on the grounds of the Chuvash language. First of all, the attention is paid by the Turk.arpa"barley" (Chuv. urpa) and, further, typically Turkic saywhich, as well as ksay, can be the second part of all three names. In that case, these names can be shared into two parts so: Arpak-say, Kolak-sayand Lipok-say. Chuv. săy"dish, course" together with arpaapproaches to name Targitay situationally well as it is clear that wedding is impossible without banquet. Thus, Arpaksaymeans "a food from barley”. The sound k, available in this word, obviously, is based on the similarity of sounding to two other names. According to the sense of the word arpa,kolak and lipokalso should matter such subjects which one can prepare for any food from. Any absolutely exact coincidence to these words was not found in the Chuvash language. However Chuv. kayăk"bird" instead of kolakcan be approached in view of the sense as Chuv. a can correspond old. Turc. o, and Chuv. ă does old Turk. a (Rona - taš À., 1987, 47). The unique objection can be caused by the discrepancy l → y. Old Turk. l was kept in the Chuvash language therefore this transition is not as natural here but basically it is enough widening in other languages. With such assumption, Kolaksaycan be translated as "a dish from bird”. As to name Lipoksay, probably, it is a little deformed by Herodotus or by his informant. Probably, Lipoksayshould sound as Paliksaythen the first part of the name would well coincides to Turk. balyk "fish" (modern-day Chuv. pulă). Hence, on the wedding of gods, three dishes have been sent - a food from bird, barley and fish. The first dish would coincide to Scythian imaginations about "the upper world", the second dish would concern to "the middle world", and the third one does to "the low world". Such personification of the elements of the universe coincides better to the idea because understanding of mountain as "the middle world" is possible to recognize only with the big stretch. The mountain would approach to concept of "the upper world" more likely.
So, using the Chuvash lexicon, one can explain the names of all Scythian gods. The most esteemed by Scythians goddess who coincides chaste Greek Gestia, the goddess of a home, had the name Tabiti which can be explained as "who has given the vow of chastity", meaning Chuv. tupa "oath" and te"to speak". Greek Zeus and Gaia, after Herodotus, coincide Scythian Papay and Api which names can be understood as "grandfather" and "grandmother", that is "primogenitors", according to Chuv.papay"grandfather" and Chuv.epi "midwife". The functions of Greek god Apollo are various but he acts as an arrow-shooter or a destroyer most frequently (Myths of nations of the world, 1991). He can be considered with Oytosir of Scythian mythology, which name is possible to understand as "who calls down trouble” (Chuv. ayta "to call" and šar "trouble"). The name of Scythian goddess Argimpasa which the Greek goddess of fertility Aphrodite is being corresponded with is possible to be explained with the aid of Chuv.armă"wife" or ărmă"swear" and pusă"field". By the certain assumption, it is possible to explain also the name of Scythian god Tagimasad which corresponds to Greek Poseidon, the god of seas and all water elements. In due time Poseidon, trying to ruin Odyssey, has broken his raft therefore Chuv. takana"trough" (it is possible to be earlier "boat" too) and šăt "to hole" can have interest in this case.
Scythian toponymics, mentioned by Herodotus, can receive the explanation by the help of the Chuvash lexicon too. For example, the name of the area Eksampaj between the river Boristhen and the river Hipanis can coincide Chuv. uksăm "wild garlic" and puy "to grow rich". The river Pantikapcan be explained as "mouldy" (Chuv. păntăh"mould" and kap"shape"). Some researchers identify Pantukap with the river Molochna (Milky), the tributary of the lower Dnieper. The ancient and modern-day names of the river can have an identical explanation if the water in the river had (has till now?) whitish painting which gives the grounds to compare its color with milk or with mould. The name of the river Gipakiris can be translated as "chaff" or something similar (Chuv.kipek "peels" and irěš "bran"). The name of the river Gerros can be coincided with Chuv. kěre "ford". By words Herodotus, Gerros follows from Dnieper, flows in the sea and runs in the Hipakiris near to the sea. Obviously, ancient inhabitants of the Azov Sea coast named by the Gerr the waterway which was been made by low currents of the river Samara, the rivers Vovcha, the Mokri Yaly, and the Kalchyk which runs in the river Kalmius near to its mouth. The Kalichik and the Mokri Yaly come so nearer to each other in one place that, else during rather near historical times, the Zaporozhye cossacks drew their boats from the one river in the another by land. This fact was described by Boplan though he has wrongly named the Kalchyk as the river Miuss (Boplan de, Guillaume,1998, 102). Attentively considering a modern topographical map, one can see that the isthmus, which separates the Mokri Yaly from the small tributary of the Kalchyk, has length no more than one kilometer, and even during those far times both rivers could be connected with a channel so that to form a continuous way from the Sea of Azov up to the Dnieper. By the way, Herodotus also writes that slaves have dug through a ditch from Tauria mountains up to the Meathian lake (the Sea of Azov) at the place where this sea has the greatest width. Having accepted for Tauria mountains Donetsk platou, this ditch just would be that channel. If the Gerros was this waterway, the river Hipakiris would be possible to identify with the Kalmiuss but then it appears that the Miuss has not be mentioned by Herodotus at all. Farther, according to his order of the naming of Scythian rivers, the Hipakiris should be to the west of the Gerros, instead of the east as it turns out from our reasoning. Many scholars tried to put in order muddled Herodotus’data but till now this can be made by nobody. Obviously, it is necessary to recognize that they correspond to true only partly. The Greek historian names at last the river Tanais which one has to understand, obviously, the lower current of the Don and the Severski Donets how it already was guessed by many scholars earlier. Probably, Herodotus and his informants knew nothing about the true Don for if they knew, by all means, they would know about the Volga as both rivers converge in these places absolutely close. This interesting fact could not be passed over in silence but Herodotus writes nothing about any powerful waterway which could be corresponded with the Volga to.
Under such circumstances, the establishing both the ethnic belonging and the places of the settlements of single breeding groupings of Scythians is very difficult, let alone other ethnoses, mentioned by Herodotus. Speaking about fantastic Cannibals (Androfages), bald from a birth, one-eyed, and goat-leg people is senselessly. Herodotus writes very much about them while is very reticent about the nearest neighbours of Scythians - Agathyrs, Kallipides, Alazones, Neures, Melanklenes therefore his data in this case are similar to imaginations of those times. Except for the ethnonins "Tissagets", "Issedons", one can gather almost nothing from these imaginations. Obviously, the question is about any Finno-Ugric and Turkic tribes, but assumptions can be the most different. Maybe Herodotus’ people Irces were ancestors of as Ugrians as Turkis, and as any missed tribe. Using scarce Herodotus’data, Nevrs, lived to the north of Scythians-plowmen and already mentioned Alazons, obviously, can be identified with those Balts which occupied the basin of the river Pripyat. Balts of the basin of the Seym and the Desna can be assumed as Melanklens. As if to Budins, they are connected by many scholars with the ancestors of Mordvinians and such assumption has certain grounds as well as Agathirs can be identified with one of Thracian tribes. The connecting of Kallipids with any historical ethnos has no preconditions. Herodotus informed that they are Half-Scythian, Half-Ellins. Maybe it is possible because they spoke in any special dialect of the Greek language, a little clear hereby to Ellins. In that case, Kallipids can be descendants of those Proto-Greeks which have remained on the territory of the Ukraine after their great bulk left for Pellopones.
And, at last, we shall talk about legendary amazons. This name (from Gr. Amazwn) is known us from Herodotus and means aggressive horsewomen. According to the ancient Greek national ethymology, it was cleared asa-mazws "breastless" (mazws- ãð. Poetically "breast") as amazons, as they say in one of the Greek myths, have cut off the right breast themselves for better to shoot with a bow. An explanation is interesting but it doesn’t satisfies scientists. It is possible to give an other explanation, using lexicon of the Chuvash language. This mysterious name is similar to the ethnonim "Alazons" which we already deciphered above suppousing that the second part of the word correspond to Chuv.çyn "person". Having taken into account Chuv.amă“female, mother”, we find the explanation to the word the amazon - “mother of the person (people)”. Herodotus explains an origin of Sauromats from the marriage of amazons with Scythians and writes:
“... And Scythians call amazons Oyorpata, and this name means in Ellinian the murderer of husbands, as oyor is the man in their language, and pata is to kill ” (Herodotus,IV, 110-116).
Thus, Herodotus precisely specifies two Scythian words "oyor" and "pata" and gives their value. In modern Chuvash language ăyăr means "stallion", and patakdoes "stick". The first word could mean as well "male", also therefore and "man". The second word can be a derivative from not fixed Chuv.pata"to beat, kill". Hardly amazons existed actually, but this legend in the certain degree also confirms Bulgarian origin of Scythians.
Ogur and Oguz
Scythian Ethnic Affiliation
Scythians and their descendents
Indo-European, Dravidian, and Rigveda
V.I.Abaev Scythian-Iranian theory
Classification of Türkic languages