Предки тюрков (Прототюрки) The Proto-Turkic Urheimat & Early Migrations of Turkic Peoples: http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/Proto_Turkic_Urheimat.html#21 http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/Proto_Turkic_Urheimat.html#22 http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/Proto_Bulgaro_Turkic_homeland_3.jpg Presently, after the intricate analysis performed between the 1950's and 1990's by many archaeologists, particularly Salnikov (1967), Zdanovich, Matveyev, Kuzmina (1977), Potemkina (1985), etc, "Andronovo" cannot be regarded as a single unity, but rather as a conglomeration of several West Siberian cultures of the 2nd millennium BCE with quite indefinite temporal and geographical limits. Studying an alternative possibility of a more eastern location of the Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic Urheimat outside of the typical Andronovo horizon, we come across the Krotovo, the Samus, the Irmen and the Karasuk cultures. ... The Krotovo culture is basically similar to the core features of Andronovo with some differences characteristic of a more forested ecozone and fewer technological innovations. ... The identification of Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic with the Samus culture is much less likely due to its location in the southern taiga ecozone. ... The common view in the archaeology of West Siberia is that Krotovo-Samus were not connected with Andronovo. We may suppose that they were Samoyedic, which may be better substantiated in the case of Samus. [The Irmen culture] is dated too late for Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic, and by the time of its existence, PBT is supposed to have already split up. On the other hand, it would be much more tempting to associate it with the eastern movement of the early Turkic Proper tribes migrating towards the Altai Mountains and Yenisei. Conclusions: The reconstructed Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic environment seems to be well within the limits set by the archaeological reconstruction of Andronovo. The main core of Andronovo corresponds to the Alakul culture in northern Kazakhstan, ...The location of the Alakul culture overlaps the calculated Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic area situated in the Tobol-Ishim-Irtysh demoregion by more than a half. The period of the Alakul culture (c. 1700-1200 BCE) matches the prediction for Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic Urheimat circa 1800-1000 BCE. ... The spatial and temporal location of the Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic (PBT) area matches the Alakul and, to some extent, the Fedorovo cultures within the Andronovo archaeological horizon. But were they not Indo-Iranians? It has, of course, become commonplace in modern Russia's historiography to associate Andronovians with some sort of "Aryans", usually meaning an extinct branch of Indo-Iranians, see for instance [Otkuda prishli indoarii? Materialnaja kultura andronovskoj obschnosti i proiskhozhdenije indoirantsev.(Where do Indo-Aryans come from? The material culture of the Andronovo horizon and the origins of the Indo-Iranians.), Kuzmina, E.E.; Moscow (1994)], [Yuznyje sosedi finno-ugrov: irantsy ili ischeznuvshaya vetv' arijev ("arii-andronovtsy") (Who were the southern neighbors of Finno-Ugrians: Iranians or an extinct branch or Aryans ("Aryan Andronovians")?), Helimskiy, E.A. // Polytropon, Moscow (1998)]. The word "Aryan" is full of romantic mysticism ... But is this opinion well-grounded? ...the idea of the identification of Andronovo with Indo-Iranians ... was in fact expounded in much detail by Kuzmina in 1994 and in some of her later works. ... if the Andronovians were part of the Iranian culture that practiced progressive forms of agriculture and husbandry, used bronze weapons, and then developed into several technologically and demographically strong cultures, such as Sarmatians or Siberian Scythians that supposedly occupied the whole West Siberia, why did they suddenly become completely extinct? What happened to them? Why don't we find absolutely no linguistic traces of these cultures at the present time (except, of course, for the purported borrowings into Finno-Ugric)? Where are those Siberian Scythians gone? Why couldn't they be preserved, say, in small refugium areas until the historical period when their language could be attested directly? Apparently, there are no easy answers to these questions. Conclusions: The theory of Indo-Iranian origins of Andronovians is poorly founded, and the arguments provided for it raise too many doubts. However, it may still hold a couple of appealing points, with some uncertainty still remaining. In any case, there is no reason to believe the Indo-Iranian hypothesis is in any way more appealing than the current proposal of the Bulgaro-Turkic identification. ... the most western and most ancient parts of the early Andronovo, such as Sintashta-Petrovka, could still belong to the Indo-European stock, whereas the more eastern areas, such as Alakul, Fedorovo and possibly other settlements near the Irtysh could most likely be Bulgaro-Turkic in origin.

• published: 30 Oct 2013
• views: 52