Discussion about the “Central Asian Phrygians” and archaeological data
https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5164-2023-5-168-181
Abstract
Aim. In recent years there has been a wide discussion about the relict language of Burushaski, the reason for which was the hypothesis of I. Čašule. The author of the hypothesis defines Burushaski as an Indo-European, ancient Balkan language, highly probably Phrygian or related to it, although its contacts with the North Caucasian and Yenisei languages are not denied. Leaving the subject under discussion to the linguists, this paper draws attention must be drawn to the problem of the origin of the repeatedly mentioned anonymous Central Asian donor language and, in addition, cites the data of the genetic study of the Cimmerians, as well as the carriers of the Karasuk and Okunevo cultures.
Methodology. Archaeological materials from Central Asia can give an idea of the most complex historical movements of peoples and their cultural contacts. In particular, attention is paid to a peculiar cultural-historical community that spread from the southern Mongolian steppe belt to the province of Gansu, the Tarim basin and further southwest to the Central Asian interfluves inclusively.
Results. Archaeological and linguistic studies show that Burushaski may bear signs of contact with an anonymous language, possibly the hypothetical Temematic language identified by G. Holzer or, more precisely, one of the representatives of related languages that constituted in ancient times a certain primordial language group and once spread over a vast territory from South Siberia to the Himalayas, from the Yenisei to the Danube.
Research implications. The results of the study are relevant to the consideration of a range of issues related to the processes of ethnogenesis in Central Asia.
About the Author
L. M. Sverchkov
Institute of Art Studies, Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan
Leonid M. Sverchkov – Cand. Sci. (History), Senior Researcher
prospect Mustakillik 2, Tashkent 100029
References
1. Vertogradova V. V. Indiyskaya epigrafika iz Kara-tepe v Starom Termeze (problemy deshifrovki i interpretatsii) [Indian epigraphy from Kara-Tepe in Old Termez (problems of decipherment and interpretation)]. Moscow, Vostochnaya literature Publ., 1995. 159 p.
2. Gamkrelidze T. V., Ivanov V. V. [On the problem of the ancestral homeland of speakers of related dialects and methods of establishing it (regarding the articles of I. M. Dyakonov in VDI, 1982, no. 3–4)]. In: Vestnik drevney istorii [Bulletin of ancient history], 1984, no. 2, pp. 107–122.
3. Dybo A. V. Lingvisticheskiye kontakty rannikh tyurkov: leksicheskiy fond: pratyurkskiy period [Linguistic contacts of the early Turks: lexical fund: the Proto-Turkic period]. Moscow, Vostochnaya literatura RAN Publ., 2007. 226 p.
4. Dyakonov I. M. [About the ancestral home of speakers of Indo-European dialects. II]. In: Vestnik drevney istorii [Bulletin of ancient history], 1982, no. 4, pp. 11–25.
5. Nikolaeva N. A. [On the initial history of the Cimmerians]. In: Etnokulturnoye razvitiye Blizhnego Vostoka v IV–I tysyacheletiyakh do n. e. [Ethnocultural development of the Middle East in the 4th–1st millennia BC]. Moscow, IV RAS Publ., 2017, pp. 80–88.
6. P’iankov I. V. [The Jung and the Di, the Arimaspoi and the Amazons (on the Far Eastern impulse in the history of the Euro-asian steppes within the late 2nd–1st millennia B.C.)]. In: Zapiski Vostochnogo otdeleniya Rossiyskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva. Novaya seriya. T. II [Notes of the Eastern Branch of the Russian Archaeological Society. New episode. T. II]. St. Petersburg, Petersburg Oriental Studies, 2006, pp. 215–238.
7. Sarianidi V. I. [Material culture of Southern Turkmenistan during the Early Bronze Age]. In: Pervobytnyy Turkmenistan [Primitive Turkmenistan]. Ashgabat, Ylym Publ., 1976, pp. 82–111.
8. Sverchkov L. M. Tokhary: drevniye indoyevropeytsy v Tsentralnoy Azii [Tochars: ancient Indo-Europeans in Central Asia]. Tashkent, SMI-ASIA Publ., 2011. 240 p.
9. Sverchkov L. M. [On the issue of the origin and spread of the catacomb burial method]. In: Alyokshin V. A., ed. Kultury stepnoy Yevrazii i ikh vzaimodeystviye s drevnimi tsivilizatsiyami. Kn. 2 [Cultures of steppe Eurasia and their interaction with ancient civilizations. Book 2]. St. Petersburg, Periferiya Publ., 2012, pp. 287–293.
10. Sverchkov L. M. Kurganzol – krepost Aleksandra na yuge Uzbekistana [Kurganzol – Alexander’s fortress in the south of Uzbekistan]. Tashkent, SMI-ASIA Publ., 2013. 188 p.
11. Sverchkov L. M., Wu Sin, Boroffka N. [The ancient settlement of Kizyltepa (VI–IV centuries BC): new data]. In: Bukharin M. D., ed. Scripta antiqua. Voprosy drevney istorii, filologii i materialnoy kultury. Almanakh. T. 3 [Scripta antiqua. Questions of ancient history, philology and material culture. Almanac. Vol. 3]. Moscow, Sobranie Publ., 2013, pp. 31–74.
12. Sverchkov L. M., Boroffka N. [Period of Yaz-II: stages and chronology]. In: Zapiski Vostochnogo otdeleniya Rossiyskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva. Novaya seriya. T. III [Notes of the Eastern Branch of the Russian Archaeological Society. New episode. Vol. III]. St. Petersburg, Contrast Publ., 2015, pp. 567–582.
13. Sverchkov L. M., Wu Sin [The Temple of Fire V–IV B.C. Kyzyltepa]. In: Bukharin M. D., ed. Scripta antiqua. Voprosy drevney istorii, filologii i materialnoy kultury. Almanakh. T. 8 [Scripta antique: Questions of ancient history, philology and material culture. Almanac. Vol. 8]. Moscow, Sobranie Publ., 2019, pp. 96–128.
14. Tolstov S. P. [Ancient Khorezm. Experience in historical and archaeological research]. Moscow, Izd-vo MGU Publ., 1948. 352 p.
15. Tosi M. [Seistan in the Bronze Age – excavations in Shahri-Sokhta]. In: Sovetskaya arkheologiya [Soviet Archeology], 1971, no. 3, pp. 15–30.
16. Chlenova N. L. Khronologiya pamyatnikov karasukskoy epokhi [Chronology of monuments of the Karasuk era]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1972. 248 p.
17. Alfieri L. Is Burushaski an Indo-European Language? On a Series of Recent Publications by Professor Ilija Čašule. In: Journal of Indo-European Studies, 2020, no. 48.1–2, pp. 1–22.
18. Allentoft M. E., et al. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. In: Nature, 2015, vol. 522, pp. 167–183.
19. Biscione R. Dynamics of an early South Asian urbanization: First Period of Shahr-i Sokhta and its connections with Southern Turkmenia. In: South Asian Archaeology. Papers from the First International Conference of South Asian Archaeologists held in the University of Cambridge. London, 1973. Р. 105–118.
20. Burrow T. Tokharian Elements in the Kharosthi Documents from Chinese Turkestan. In: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1935, vol. 67, iss. 4, pp. 667–675.
21. Carling G. Appendix to Mair. Proto-Tocharian, Common Tocharian, and Tocharian – on the value of linguistic connections in a reconstructed language. In: Journal of Indo-European, 2005, no. 50, pp. 47–70.
22. Hauptmann A., Rehren T., Schmitt-Strecker S. Early Bronze Age copper metallurgy at Shahr-I Sokhta (Iran), reconsidered. In: Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 16. Man and Mining – Menhsch und Bergbau. Studies in honour of Gerd Weisgerber on occasion of his 65th birthday. Bochum, 2003, pp. 197–213.
23. Tosi M., Piperno M. The Graveyard of Šahr-e Sūxteh (A presentation of the 1972 and 1973 campaigns). In: Proceedings of the III rd Annual Symposium on Archaeological Research in Iran. Tehran: Iranian Centre for Archaeological Research, 1975, pp. 121–141.
24. Unterländer M., et al. Ancestry and demography and descendants of Iron Age nomads of the Eurasian Steppe. In: Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14615
25. Yoshida Y. On the Origin of the Sogdian Surname Zhaowu and Related Problems. In: Journal Asiatique 291, 2003, no. 1–2, pp. 35–67.
Review
Views:
93
Email this article 