Dėl senųjų baltų teritorijos pietryčių ribos

REVIEWS SECTION 1 SENUJU BALTIC TERRITORIES PIETRYCIUM RIBOS B. B. Prices, bBaaro-upanckuii KoxTakT B. [IuenpoBckoM JieBoGepexbe, «CoBeTckast apxeosiorusi», 1965, Ne 4, p. 52—62. 1962 m. appeared V. Toporovo ir O. Trubačiov monograph,,- Aukstutinés Linguistic analysis of hydronyms of the Padnepr!" received a wide resonance in our country abroad. ir This echo is not limited to the many reviews and annotations, but is much more important. This monograph has become the object of objective considerations and discussions as a stimulating foundation ir that encourages further research and investigation?. ir Today it is too early to guess, all hypotheses raised in the monograph will ar be confirmed by future research, but the most ir important jų (existence of Baltic hydronyms before Seimas pool, Aukštieji The relative chronology of ir Baltic Slavic hydronyms of Transnistria remains undeniable. One of the most ir important new V. Toporovo ir O. The conclusions of Trubachev's monograph were the establishment of the southeastern boundary of the distribution of Baltic hydronyms, the ir confirmation of direct Balto-Iranian linguistic contacts. Ši bold conclusion greatly adjusted M. Fasmer's claim that white ir Iranians have already In the last centuries of the 1st millennium BC, Slavic tribes separated. The material culture that separated the northern Iranians from the southern Balts is commonly referred to by archaeologists as Yuchnovo (name of place of residence) culture. Until recent years Yuchnovo culture was unanimously attributed to B. H. Tonopos, O. H. Tpy6aučės, JIMHIBHCTHUECKHIi auaji3 THADOHHMOB Bepxuero Ilionneniposba, Mocksa, 1962. ? For example, po monographs ‘High Linguistic Analysis of Hydronyms of Transnistria” the authors of at least a few papers on the substrate problem of Baltic place names referred to the aforementioned monograph, cf. ir O. H. Topnees, Bonpocy K nponcxoxXjteHHH o THApOHHMA Mocksa, kn. : Bceecoiosnas kondepenunss no TonoKHMHKe CCCP (Tesucs 10K71afoB H COo6mennū- ), Jlenurpas, 1965, p. 100; A. C. Ctpeix ak, OCHOBHblE IHAPOHHMHYECKHE apeaJibi Cpeaune-noanenposckoro JieBo6epexbssa, ibid. p. 131; B. A. Kyukennu, I'aapounMHYECKHe HCCJIeJĮOBaHHS5S MH HCTOPHKO-reorpauyeckas PeCOHCTPEACH TONOHHMHUeCKOTO Aanamwagra, kn. : III pecny6aukancbka omomactuusa (rigponimiuna) koudepenuis (Tesn), Kuis, 1965, p. 31; B. I. Ilerpos, Baaruka i caaBika B rizpowimii Ykpainm, ibid., p. 115. 239 Glory to God. Perhaps the first to doubt the Slavicness of this culture H. Mora, suspecting that it ji may be Baltic. One of the most famous archaeologists of our country P. Tretyakov considered Yuchnovo culture to be Slavic, later M.) (1963 changed their opinion. However, The ethnicity of the Yuchnov culture was not resolved by this. This problem is solved by an archaeologist using linguistic data, ir especially toponymy V. Sedov in his article “About Balto-Iranian contacts On the Left Bank of the Dnieper". Without going į into the details of the argumentation, it is possible to mention the most important conclusions, which will help linguists interested in Balto-Iranian, Balto-Slavic linguistic relations. First of all, the author claims that The culture of Yuchnovo is undoubtedly Baltic. The author writes: „Detailed comparison of the early Iron Age archaeologicir al toponym map shows the correctness of the conclusion that most of the Iranismes The remains of Scythian tribes..., suggest that a large part of ir the water names are of Baltic origin Seimas pool remained iš tų times when they lived here Yuchnovo Cultural Tribes" (p. 57). Ši conclusion based on careful comparative material culture relics Swimming mo pool analysis, fully confirms V. Toporovo ir O. Trubachev's hypothesis about the existence of direct contacts between Balto-Iranian languages In the Seimas swimming pool. But perhaps the most interesting for linguists will be the date of Balto-Iranian contacts, V. Sedov's article. As is known, this date could not be determined by language alone (linguistic analysis of hydronyms can at best only show a relative chronology of these contacts). V. In Sedov's opinion, Yukhnov culture į Good luck brings white about V—IV pr. a. m. e. The Baltic Movement į It is located on the iš northern, possibly right bank iš of the river. Thus, the contacts of the Balto-Iranian languages had to begin about V— IV a. pr. m. e. V. Sedov, then, be tries to determine how long the Belarusian-Iranian contacts could have lasted. Jo in my opinion, balto-iranian contacts, which began about V— IV a. pr. m. e., which may have lasted for four or five centuries, until the beginning of t. y. our era. We're Iranian. (Scythian) tribes, when the whites came į The northern, iš probably not retreated, were assimilated by the o former alien Balts before the beginning of our era. Iš of what is said here (even if some of these statements are corrected in the future), it is clear that The Seimas pool was certainly a place of direct contact between the Balto-Iranian languages. Be of this, now there is no doubt that Let's spend white — The descendants of the — Yuchnovo culture are a peripheral tų southern baltic group, iš which came there later than the northern už ones and apparently disappeared earlier than the other ones. Dnepro Baltus. Dad V. Sedov article “About Balto-Iranian contacts in the left On the bank of the Dnieper”, the appearance iš of which may have been partly suggested by the above-mentioned V. Toporovo ir O. Conclusion of Trubachev’s monograph about direct linguistic contacts of Belarusian Iranians Seimas pool, in turn, only confirmed the ne conclusion of the analysis tą of archaeological data, but determined the Balticir + 3 V. Sedov has written ir more works related su to the past of the Balts: B. B. What108, Cjnenbt BocTounoGaatuiickoro norpe6ajsuoro o6psa/ta B Kypramax ApeBHeli Pycn, «CoBerckas apxeojorns>, 1961, Ne 2, p. 103—121; B. B. Ce os, Kyprans arBaros, tam, 1964, Ne 4, p. 36—5l1, kt. ir 240 the approximate date of Iranian contacts. From a methodological point of view, this is very important, because toponymics and archaeology, going together, can give very important knowledge about the oldest period of the history of nations. Interesting in this case is this; that toponymics played the role of a scout, in whose footsteps researchers of other fields not only did not make a mistake, but also confirmed the preliminary conclusions of toponymics. A. Vanagas C. Kysnenos, Ouepkn rio Mopo/iorau npacaaBsHckoro si3bika, Mocksa, 1961, 144 p. P. Kuznecovas, a renowned specialist in Slavic languages, in his book examines the issues of the formation of the pre-Slavic noun and verb conjugation systems, touches on some of the development moments of those systems during the Slavic protospeech. The author analyzes linguistic phenomena by linking them to each other. This allows him to quite successfully trace the causes that caused the phenomena under analysis. The formation and development of the Slavic morphological system cannot be understood without the Baltic languages. In P. Kuznetsov- ’s book, the analysis of the data of the Baltic languages occupies a very important place. Of all the Indo-European languages, the Pro-Baltic morphological system is the closest to the Slavic morphological system. For that reason P. Kuznetsov, tą perhaps exaggerating the closeness, uses the term “common Baltic-Slavic language” (o6mecJraBsnoGajiTHicKHĖ si3bIK). Common Baltic-Slavic Language (or pro-speech) has not been reconstructed in phonetics or moriology. The author of the book did not succeed in nė reconstructing it. The ir morphological systems of the Baltic Slavic languages are similar. but ne identical. For example, in noun coding systems there are many endings that P. Kuznetsov does not consider iš them originated from one source: vns. kilm. let. rank-os (when -os out*-as) ir s. sl. Zen-y (when -y P. Kuznetsov kildina iš *-om+-s); vns. J.N. let. Sonu-mi (when -I'm probably iš *-mf; ta; shown as Samogitians -mi') ir s. sl. rabo-mo (when -me iš *-mi); dgs. kilm. let. wilk-ū (when -ų iš *-gn) ir s. sl. rab-o6 (when -» iš *-on, nes *-6n Slavic would be -ą), dgs. in. Lit. vilk-ais (where -ais from *-gis) and s. sl. rab-y (-y from *-6is could not phonetically occur). The flexion differences mentioned here may be very old, inherited from the Indo-European language community. In general, the inflection of nouns in the Baltic and Slavic languages is very similar, but this similarity is not due to common innovations in the Baltic and Slavic languages, but to the fact that the Baltic Slavic languages inherited the ide. ir jį iš of linguistic community. With this in mind, the term "common Baltic-Slavic language" seems unfounded. When reading the book, it is clear that the author intends to find a ne common basis for one ir morphological fact of the Balto-Slavic languages ir phenomenon, although ir different. Antai P. Kuznetsov claims (true, very carefully) that ‘general "K. Bouga, Selected writings, I, Vilnius, 1958, p. 566 (equals).. 16. Grammar of the Lithuanian language 241