RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN SCHWEBUNGS-DIAPHONIE: INTERDISCIPLINARY SEARCH KEY

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN SCHWEBUNGS-DIAPHONIE: INTERDISCIPLINARY SEARCH KEY DAIVA VYČINIEN Abstract: The second, multi-voice phenomena of Lithuanian and Balkan nations unite features not typical of other nations’ vocal traditions. They concern not only the sharp second sounds, but also their mounting ‘rough’ singing, with the voices ‘striking’ to sound ‘like bells’. In this folkloric ‘school’ listening, seeking harmony and singer ‘specialisation’ are very important. The apparent musical and paramusical similarities shared by Lithuanian and Balkan singing traditions are discussed in this paper, referring to the obtained results and gained insights from other scientific fields such as linguistics, archaeology, history, mythology and genetics. Several hypotheses related to ethnogenetic and territorial relations of the Balkan and Lithuanian second multi-part singing are put forward. Keywords: sutartinės, second interval, diaphony, Schwebungs-Diaphonie, Balkan, Balts, Balcano-Balto-Slavica. Lithuanian polyphonic songs sutartinės have been localized in the Northeastern part of Lithuania (Figure 1). There are three main categories of sutartin s depending on the number of performers and style of performance: dvejinės ‘twosomes’ (counterpoint), trejinės ‘threesomes’ (strict canon, Examples 1, 2), and keturinės ‘foursomes’ (antiphonal counterpoint). Sutartin s are distinguished for the richness of their imitative refrains: tūto, titity, lingo, etc. (Example 2). At the same time multi-part singing concerns not only interaction of different melodies, but also two different sets of lyrics interlaced in performing sutartin s: the main text and the refrain (or interjected onomatopoeic words; Figure 2). One main feature is the abundance of sharp dissonant seconds, which greatly pleased the old performers. Sutartin s are not only chanted, but also performed on various instruments: daudytės ‘long wooden trumpets’, skudučiai ‘multi-pipe whistles’ and a five-string kanklės ‘zither’. The instrumental music was solely men’s activity. From older times sutartin s were mostly sung and danced by (two, three, or four) women1. Sutartin s correspond to the ‘criteria’ for common, archaic, second interval, multi-part music not only in terms of their abundance of second concordance and narrow melodic range, but also in terms of the musical aesthetic that 1 From the end of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth, the spread of sutartin s underwent some essential changes and the stylistics of a locale’s multi-voice singing altered. In north eastern Lithuania homophony replaced the second polyphony of sutartin s. 120 Daiva Vyčinien covers large territories. Gerald Florian Messner and Rudolf Marija Brandl, who researched second interval multi-part songs as widely spread phenomena, used the special term die Schwebungs-Diaphonie ‘the beat-diaphony’, thus defining its psycho-acoustic fundament that is universal to the human ear (Messner 1980; Brandl 1989). Figure 1: Area of the sutartinės (Račiūnait -Vyčinien 2000: 45). Figure 2: Kas ti kert. Foursome sung by Lūk nien and Januškevičien , Nemun lio Radviliškis district, Biržai region. Written down by Adolfas Sabaliauskas in 1911 (Slaviūnas 1959 III, nr. 1462). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 121 Hence, on the one hand, Lithuanian sutartin s (undoubtedly – like other nations’ multi-part samples – with their own national quirks), retain the Schwebungs-Diaphonie samples (Ambrazevičius 2005; Račiūnait -Vyčinien 2002a, b, etc., 2003; Kunst 1960, etc.). On the other hand, however, researching the genesis of sutartin s forces us to consider the hypothesis that there are ethno genetic links with other nations – primarily, the possibility of multi-part phenomena shared with the Balkans. Surely there arises the issue related to the phenomenon of universality and locality relationship under investigation, which appears to be extremely complicated in the domain of ethnomusicology. It is possbile to pose various questions here. For instance, to what extent are sutartin s uniquely ‘Lithuanian’, and to what extent are they universal? Why have they been chosen to be compared mainly with the Balkan diaphony, but not with, for example, similar examples of polyphony prevailing in Papua New Guinea or Flores Island? Do only universal (let’s say biological or psychoacoustic) Schwebungs-Diaphonie features relate sutartin s and the Balkan diaphony, or does there exist a territorial or ethnogenetic relationship among them? And eventually, is a consistent historical and genetic research on these two singing traditions feasible, or is only typological comparison possible? It is understandable that similar musical and paramusical features, which have been distinguished by the author as being inherent to Lithuanian and Balkan diaphony, can be found in other traditions. Still, Lithuanian and Balkan archaic multi-part singing are interrelated not by individual features but by a unity of certain characteristics. Furthermore, similar features encompass all the components of the singing process: they are intrinsic not only to musical expression but also to the way of performance, to singers’ terminology, and the like. It is obvious that both traditions embody an archaic musical perception which does not conform to the laws of European music culture. It allows one to assume that the second diaphony we take an interest in can reflect very old times and point to the past close territorial (ethnic) relations of Lithuanian and Balkan nations. So, although Rudolf Brandl criticises this nationalist hypothesis2 of related second interval multi-part phenomena originating from particular ethnic groups (2008: 281), I will turn my attention to the possibility and importance of this hypothesis. This is supported by a number of factors. One of them is the contact between ancient Balkan and Baltic nations, the possibility of which has been confirmed by researchers in many diverse fields. 2 The multi-part origins hypothesis has been posed by (ethno)musicologists of various countries, namely Cvjetko Richtman, Viktor Beliajev, Dragoslav Dević, Vassil Stoin, Nikolaj Kaufman, Doris and Eric Stockmann, and others. 122 Daiva Vyčinien Balcano-Balto-Slavica The researchers from various scientific fields showed interest in Balkan, Slavic, and Baltic relations hundreds of years ago. Jonas Basanavičius was the first in Lithuania to observe and investigate the similarities between Lithuanians and Bulgarians. (Basanavičius 1898, 1921) At present the research on BaltoSlavic (Balkan) relations has gained new impetus. A lot of attention is placed on the Balto-Slavic at the Institute for Slavic Studies (Moscow). Viačeslav Ivanov and Vladimir Toporov often emphasised the importance of Baltic studies in researching various problems of Slavonic studies (linguistics, history, culturology, mythology).3 The book about modelling semiotic systems of the Slavic languages (Ivanov and Toporov 1965) became the foundation for semiotic investigations in the domain of the Balto-Slavic antiquity4 (selection among numerous studies dedicated to this subject: е , в and в 1994; ва в 1981; ва в and в 1965; Toporov 1973a, 1986, 2000, et al). Particular attention is given to comparative studies of Baltic and Slavic languages (Dini 2000, 2007; Groković-Mejcor and Radovanović 2010; Karaliūnas 2004, 2005; Kortland 1989, 2009; Loma 2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Mayer 1993; к к в 2004, 2006; е 1994; Schenker 1985; Stadnik-Holzer and Holzer 2010; Stojić 2006; Toporov 1964, 1975–1989, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1997a, 1997b; Toporov and Trubachev 1962; Vanagas 1966, 1981; Vasilyjeva and Radakovich 2009; Zinkevičius 1984, 2005, 2011, et al.). Referring to linguistic ideas, we can speak about direct and indirect relations that existed between Baltic and old Balkan tribes at that time. Researchers have found many linguistic similarities shared between the Balts and the Thracians, Phrygians, Illyrians, Dacians-Moesians (for instance, Birnbaum 1988; Bonfante 2008; Dini 2000, 2007, 2009; Duridanov 1969; Ivanov 1981; Karaliūnas 2004, 2005; Katičić 1976; Krahe 1963, 1964; Laučiūt 1982, 1988; Loma 2010b; Mayer 1992; Mažulis 1981; Olteanu 2012; к к в 1986; Paliga 2002; Pokorny 1969; Puzinas 1951, 1957; Room 1992; Serafimov 2007; Toporov 1972, 1973a, 1973b, 1977; Wilkes 1992; Zinkevičius 1984). Following research is the basis for further studies of the ethnogenetic relationship. At present there are various hypotheses in archaeology, associated with the origin of the Balts and their relations. Marija Gimbutien ’s theory on the origin of the Balts is now officially adhered to (Gimbutas 1963, 1971, 1994, 3 Recently the research on the Balkano-Baltic mythology is significantly increasing (Beresnevičius 2003, 2004; Ivanov and Toporov 1974; Laurinkien 2008; Lowmiańsky 1979; Mikhailov 1995, 1996, 1998; Razauskas and Civjan 2003; Sudnik and Civjan 1978, 1981; Toporov 1978, 1983, 2000). 4 Since 1981 the annual collection of The Balto-Slavic Research began to be regularly published. It was written by three major publications: The Balto-Slavic Collection (1972), The Balto-Slavic Research (1974), The Balto-Slavic Ethnolinguistic Contacts (1980). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 123 1996; Renfrew 1989; Vyčinas 1994). In the last decades, Algirdas Girininkas’ alternative theory of the origin of the Balts is being evolved (Girininkas 2002, 2005), which belongs to the Paleolithic Continuity Theory that is gaining popularity these days (it is being developed by Italian linguists Mario Alinei, Gabriele Kosta, by German and Belgian prehistorians Alexander Hausler, Marcel Otto, and others). Developing this theory it is mainly referred to the paleogenetic findings of scientific investigations, demonstrating that approximately 80 percent of present Europeans were descendants of old autochthonous Palaeolithic Europe, while archaeological investigations show an incessant continuity of their development. Such theory was confirmed by the latest research in genetics (for instance, Ambrasien and Kučinskas 2003; Bramanti et al. 2009; Kasperavičiūt and Kučinskas 2004; Kasperavičiūt et al. 2004; Skulj 2005, 2007, etc.). So far ethnomusicology has been left aside from the research focused on examining Balto-Slavic, and especially Balto-Balkan ethnocultural and ethnogenetic relations. The importance of comparative research on the Balto-Slavic and Balkans (especially) was highlighted in certain articles by Izaly Zemtsovsky (see for instance 1983, 1987). He regarded Balcano-Balto-Slavica as an indispensible object of enthomusicological investigations (1983). It is however true to say that special ethnomusicological investigations related to the present issue – the relations of Lithuanian sutartin s and the Balkan diaphony have been conducted very rarely. Virtually, sutartin s are concisely mentioned not only by one ethnomusicologist who is researching the examples of European multi-part singing. Others think that sutartin s are unique, having no equivalents (Elscheková 1981: 240; Brambats 1983: 26). Other musicologists still find some similarities related to particular traditions of multivoiced singing. Nikolai Kaufman notes that despite the difference in the number of voices used in their performance, sutartin s are akin to Bulgarian two-voice songs from Shopi (1968: 172–174). In Alice Elscheková’s opinion, it is possible to observe the patterns, being close to sutartin s, of multi-part singing in Bosnia and Herzegovina (both traditions are combined by the second dyads formed as a result of interaction of two separate voice parts; Elscheková 1981: 240) The similarities that Bulgaria, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina shared with sutartin s were examined by the author of the present article (2002a: 250–257 etc.). The insights related to music of the East Slavs and its possible ethnogenetic relations (we will touch upon it further) are of immense significance in investigating Balto-Balkan multi-part singing. In Svetlana Kondratyeva’s opinion, the research on folklore of Southern Russia would be of great value while generally dealing with the issues related to the formation of folklore of both nations – Bulgarian and Russian – and to their ethnogenesis5 (1971: 70). The 5 Referring to similarities of ancient multi-part singing of the South Slavs with multi-part singing of the East Slavs, Serbian ethnomusicologist Dragoslav Dević makes an assumption that 124 Daiva Vyčinien drone songs in the Starodubov region and Bulgaria can represent some relict art common to the present Bryansk region and South-Western Bulgaria (Ibid: 168). Latvian researcher Martiņš Boiko concludes that drone polyphony of the Upper Dnepr represents the legacy of ethnic music of the eastern Baltic tribes in the musical folklore of the Eastern Slavs. (Denisova and Boiko 1990, etc.). These ethnomusicological investigations prove the importance of the Balts’ substratum in the ethnogenesis of the East Slavs. The present article does not seek to expound on all the similarities of Lithuanian and Balkan nations’ ancient songs of multi-part singing or disclose their territorial and ethnogenetic relations (moreover, alongside general features there are local elements of melody, rhythmic, versification, etc., inherent to certain places in different traditions). The article only focuses on the necessity to fully examine the ancient polyphony (diaphony), and the possibilities of ethnomusicologists contributing to general studies of the Balcano-Balto-Slavica ethnocultural area. Territorial distribution and general characteristics of ancient two-part singing in Balkan Ancient two-part singing in the Balkans is manly concentrated in ethnocultural regions of the Dinaric mountain system, of the Shopi (Šopluk) area, and region of the Pindus Mountain. In this study, the focus will be on old singing of Dinaric and Shopi. In a broad sense, the Dinaric two-part singing occupies a large territory that spreads between the Adriatic coast in the west, the Sava and Drina basins in the north and east, and Prokletije Mountain (so-called Albanian Alps) in the south east. Thus it is widely spread in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, southern parts of Croatia, and reaches the northern islands of Dalmatia and Istria (Dević 2002: 33–34; Marušić 2007), but also western, south western, and (partly) central Serbia, Šumadija region (Dević 2002: 35, Jovanović 2002: 105; Petrović and Jovanović 2003: 16).6 Together with flows of migration, crossing the Sava and the Danube, the Dinaric region inhabitants reached a certain part of Vojvodina7 (Dević 2002: 35, 2001; Golemović 1991, 1996, 2011; Ivkov 2004 et al.). the Balkan archaic multi-part singing is grounded by the elements of the ancient Slavs’ multi-part singing (2002: 44). 6 The features of the Dinaric music culture are also found in Southern Serbia (Jovanović and Radić 2009: 164). 7 A distinctive archaic diaphony exists in Gora – a mountain range linking three countries: Serbia, Albania and Macedonia. Gorani or Goranci women and girls have preserved old ritual songs characterized by abundant dyads of both major and minor seconds (Dević 2002: 38, 49; Traerup 1972). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 125 The Shopi archaic singing embraces the central part of the Balkans: partly Eastern Serbia, mostly Western Bulgaria and Northeastern Macedonia. In Serbia the Shopi region occupies the territory from Vardenik Mountain and the Suva Planina to the Stara Planina (Dević 2002: 36, Д чева Де к ва 2011: 7). The Balkan, Dinaric, and Shopi old two-part singing is united by certain genral features: prevailing two-part singing (three types are known: heterophony, heterophony-drone, and drone); limited number of tones in melodic lines (2-5); dominating non-tempered chromaticism or a diatonic scale; and the second interval is of great importance (Dević 2002: 39; Д чева Де к ва 2011: 8). The main characteristic of Dinaric types of two-part singing is the interval of the second between the two voices, particularly in the cadence between the final tone and the major second beneath it, achieved by the voice crossing (Barjaktarević 2008: 181–84; Elscheková 1981: 211; Dević 2001: 127, 2002: 39; Golemović 1990, 1995, 2011; Jovanović 2002: 69; Petrović A. 2011: 122; Petrović R. 1990: 164, 166, 167; Figure 3). Figure 3: Heterophony-bourdon singing from North-West Serbia (Golemović) www.mdw.ac.at/ive/emm/index.php?id=111&L=http%3A%2F%2F www.npk-spb.ru%2Fimages%2Fcircle.gif%3F 126 Daiva Vyčinien In ‘Shop’ type of two-part singing (with the interval of second) the accompanying voice has a distinct function of the drone with the cadence in unison (Abrasheva 1968a, 1968b, Д чева Де к ва 2011: 8; Dević 1990: 453, 1992, 2002: 39; Petrović R. 1989: 138; Radinović 1997; Figure 4). Figure 4: Zažni, zapej, tenka Ruže. Macedonian rye reaping song sung by Rajna Jovanova (vrtačka), Tana Mladenova and Lena Lazereva (bučački), Konče, Radoviško, 1979. Transcribed by Rodna Veličkovska, AIF m. l. 2708 (Veličkovska 2002: 138, nr. 29). Relationship between sutartinės and Balkan two-part singing Clear similarities with Lithuanian sutartin s can be seen in the Balkans and many components that unite various national singing traditions can be distinguished: (1) The second as consonance (Dević 1990: 453; Petrović A. 2000, 2011: 122; Petrović R. 1989: 66–67; Peycheva 2011b; Radinović 1997). (2) Performance similarities: singing in small groups; strict division of parts – singers’ particular ‘roles’. The singer performing the main part of the sutartin s text is called the rinkėja ‘collector’ (she ‘collects’ text, creats it), sakytoja ‘speaker’, and the singer repeating the refrain is called the pritarėja ‘accompanist’ or giedotoja ‘chanter’. In Midwestwern Bulgaria, the singer who knows the song kazhuva, izgovara (speak), and the singer who does not know it only poe (sings; Peycheva 2011a: 265). In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the singer performing the first part is spoken of as he who ‘cuts’, ‘chooses’, ‘collects’ the voice, whereas the two remaining singers ‘led’, ‘followed’, ‘accompanied’. (Rihtman 1970: 99) In western Serbian regions the leading voice can either ‘re- RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 127 cite’, ‘pronounce’, or ‘cut in’ and in the central Šumadia the leading voices ‘lead’, and another voices ‘follow’ (Jovanović 2002: 62). It is also said that the accompaniment ‘chases’, ‘interrupts’ or ‘deepens’ (Dević 2002: 38–39; Golemović 2011). In Bulgarian diaphony the singer of the upper melodic voice is called okachka, izvikuvačka, and the singers of the lower bourdon voice are called vlachachki, pomagachki (Peycheva 2011a: 264; 2011b). It is worth mentioning the terminological and semantic accordance in the use of the same terms in different traditions. Namely, the word ‘a couple’ (Bulg. chift, Russ. para) often concerns participation of more singers or players. In Bulgaria, the antiphonal singing of multi-part songs by two groups of singers is called otpeva (Peycheva 2011a: 286), na otpev, and the two groups are called cheti, tri po tri (Middle West Bulgaria), chiftove, or chingure (Pirin region).8 Lithuanian antiphonal songs keturinės ‘foursomes’ means: (1) singing of the counterpoint sutartin s by four paired singers, where the second pair repeats what the first pair had just sung (Figure 2); and (2) performing pakaitinės ‘alternation’ hymns by four (or more) women as they sing in strictly alternating turns—the first pair (two or sometimes three or four singers) chant the text and the second pair (two to four singers) reply in assent with the refrain (Račiūnait Vyčinien 2011b: 401–4). In Russia, one of the sets of kugikly ‘multi-pipe whistles’ in the tradition of Kursk province, called para always consists of five pipes and in Briansk province of three pipes9. It may be that at one time particular polyphonic songs (music) were performed exactly by four members (two and two, ‘in pairs’). Obviously, that seemed to be an important number. (3) Special importance of listening (singing, playing) together. In Lithuanian tradition of sutartin s the verbs sutarti ‘to attune with another person, to agree or reach accord, to be in harmony’ are widely used in the vernacular to describe the performance of both vocal and instrumental sutartin s. The people of the Dinaric region regarded multipart songs as a collective product: “All the singers were of equal importance for good song delivery” (Petrović A. 2011: 118). In Southwestern Bulgaria (the Pirin region) the coincidence of the voices, the orderly harmonious singing is called glashene, shojdenie.10 The term da se pogaždat (da se sglašat, da ti se udara glaso) means ‘to understand one another, to be well synchronized while singing, to sing harmoniously and in synchrony’ (Peycheva 2011b: 266–8). (4) Prolonged call at the end of ‘calling’ lines of the melody or at the end of the whole piece. The sutartin s (usually the trejinės ‘threesomes’) are finished with a call, or a shout. Usually the voice sounds in an ooh ooh ooh, and less frequently in an ee ee ee (begins in a high voice and glides downward over a line of tones; Figure 5). 8 Peycheva 2008. Velitchkina, Olga (1996). ‘The role of movement in Russian panpipe playing’, in EOL 2: A new generation of ethnomusicologists; www.umbc.edu/eol/2/velitch/velich2.html#6b (access: 20 th August 2012). 10 Peycheva 2008. 9 128 Daiva Vyčinien Figure 5: Du žaliūs berželiai. Forsome sung by Petras Lapien , Mar Jakubonien and Ona Striužien from Biržai in 1935 m., LTR pl. 189a, c (1). Transcribed by Jadvyga Čiurlionyt (Slaviūnas 1959 III, nr. 1233). The technique of ascending fast glissando to a sound approximately one octave higher than the final tone of a song is used mainly in women's ritual songs (wedding and seasonal) and is considered to be one of the archaic features of many Slavic traditions (Zemtsovsky 1974: 153). Similar vocal gestures are found in most archaic layers of traditional music in Slovenia, Bulgaria (provikvane) (Karanlikov 1972: 181; Peycheva 2011b: 301), Serbia (izvikivanje, ikanje, rucanje, vrištanje; Dević 2001: 127; Jovanović 2002: 76; Petrović R. 1989: 140; Zakić 2011a: 78, 2011b), and Macedonia (Gjorgjiev 1985; Figure 6). (5) Similar aesthetics of singing; voices ‘like bells’. People experienced the harmonic major second as a powerful interval which provides great dynamic intensity. In Lithuanian, it is expressed by the terms ‘chopping’ (kapotinė is one of the convertible terms of the sutartinė; from the verb kapoti ‘to chop’), ‘clucking’ (the singers kudakuoja ‘cackle like hens’)11 and ‘hiccup’ (“Four11 The expression ‘kaip vištos kudakuoja’ (‘cackling like hens’) on the one hand reflects the main characteristics of performing sutartinės: quick ‘scampering’ from one pitch to another, accenting separate voices, as well as distinct melodies and texts sounding at the same time (Trijos. Kaip ir vištos ir kudoja [The threesomes. They cackle like the hens.]; written down by Stasys RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 129 somes are not sung, but rather žaksi hiccupped”12; Račiūnait -Vyčinien 2002a: 266–267; 2011a: 196–7, 2011b: 404–6). In Bulgaria some songs are performed to ‘broken’ or ‘chopped-up’ melodies (secheni glasove)13. Singers of the Dinaric culture regard prestrikes as the chief feature of the Ganga genre, calling them as sjecanje and jecanje (Petrović A. 2011: 120–21). Figure 6: Serbian song from Shopluk sung by Mirjana Vukičević-Zakić, village Yarsenovo, 1991 (Dević 2002, Figure 10). Good performance had to create the bell-like sound14 (Brandl 2008: 281; Karanlikov 1972: 181; Peycheva 2011b: 228; Petrović A. 2011: 120–21; Petrović R. 1989: 139; (Račiūnait )-Vyčinien 2002b: 60–61; 2011b: 400, 407 etc.). (6) Close connections between vocal and wind instrument music, with singing dominated by women and instrumental music by men (Dević 1986: 13; Golemović 1990: 20–5; Miljković 1985; Petrović and Jovanović 2003: 21–2). Quite a few researchers had expressed ideas about commonalities between Paliulis in 1936 (Slaviūnas 1958, nr. 233). On the other hand, the twentieth century brought a change is the aesthetic sense. People began poking fun at these singers. ‘When they mocked them for clucking like chickens, then they’d sing as one (i.e. not polyphonically, but in ‘one voice’, in unison – D. R.–V.)’, explained Elzbieta Janavičien -Tam nait , born 1841, written down by Stasys Paliulis in 1936 (Paliulis 1959, nr. 334; Račiūnait -Vyčinien 2011a: 196). 12 Sung by Ieva Kauk nien , age 80. Written down by Juozas Aidulis in 1933 (Račiūnait Vyčinien 2011b: 433). 13 Bulgaria (2010), in Music Encyclopedia; www.operas.com.ar/Music-Encyclopedia/ 12542/Bulgaria-pag.20.htm (access: 15 March 2011). 14 R. Brandl believes that the similar acoustical traits cause the singers to associate the sound with bells (Brandl 1989: 59). 130 Daiva Vyčinien multi-part singing and instrumental music (Bonifačić 1996, Golemović and Vasić 1994, Paliulis 1984, Petrović and Jovanović 2003, Rihtman 1981a, b). In Lithuania the singing of sutartin s is often compared to performing on skudučiai. The syncretism of the Lithuanian multi-part music is shown by the verb tūtuoti ‘to toot’ or ‘to pipe’, ‘to sing sutartin s’; sutūtuoti ‘to have tooted’ – ‘to come to agreement’ (Račiūnait -Vyčinien 2011a: 191; Figure 7). Figure 7: Set of five skudučiai ‘multipart whistles’. Unknown photographer. S la museum of Biržai Lands (Personal archives of Stasys Paliulis). On the origin of Sutartinės and Balkan second two-part singing It has been observed that the entire territory where the sutartin s had disseminated were the lands inhabited by the Sėliai (Selonian) peoples15. In the process of researching the phenomena of Latvian songs, which are related to the sutartin s, Latvian musicologist Martin Boiko observed that they have survived in only a few locales of Latvia, most likely linked with the ancient Sėliai culture (Boiko 1992 a.o.; Figure 8). 15 The Selonians were a tribe of Baltic peoples who lived in Selonia, located in south-eastern Latvia and north-eastern Lithuania, until the fifteenth century. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 131 Figure 8: Baltic tribes and provinces c. A.D. 1200 (Gimbutas 1963: 23, Figure 1). It is true that features common to certain Finno-Ugric (the Estonian Setos16, Mordvins, Votes, Udmurts, and Komi-Permyaks) and Slavic (southern and western Russian and northern Ukrainian) musical traditions exist. Data from linguists (Niemi 1996; Vanagas 1981; Zinkevičius 2005; Toporov and Trubachev 1962; Figure 9) allows us to think that the major third trichord elements in the melodies of the mentioned nations show their genetic kinship with ancient Baltic-Slavic and Baltic-Finnish (in approximately third-second century 16 Ingrid Rüütel thinks that refrain songs, spread throughout the Estonian territory, are remnants of Baltic culture. The archaeological data confirm that the Baltic influences upon the South-Estonian culture increased rapidly in the middle Iron Age (II-IV centuries AD; е 1994: 59–61). 132 Daiva Vyčinien BC; Račiūnait -Vyčinien 2008; Figures 10, 11, 12, 13). Statements supporting this hypothesis suggest that the Baltic territory could have been the place of origin of the major third trichord melodies and the epicentre of their existence; this gives rise to the possibility of concentration of trichords in some parts of Russian and Ukrainian territories, drawing attention to the fact that the multipart traditions in the mentioned territories are characterised by the cohesion of two major thirds (or major third trichords) in a decisive vertical second consonance (Altshuler 2007; Bojarkin 2004; Bojarkin and Gippius 1981; Goldin 1977; Ivanov A. 1993; Pashina 1996; Riuitel 1977, 1994; Savelyeva 1995; Shchurov 1971; Zhulanova 1977; Example 2, Figures 2, 14, 15). Figure 9: Area of the Baltic river names (Gimbutas 1963: 30–31, Figure 2). Figure 10: Shepherd song from North-Eastern Lithuania, in Sabaliauskas, Adolfas (comp.), Lietuvių Dainų ir Giesmių Gaidos [Notes to the Songs and Hymns of Lithuanians], Helsinki, 1916, nr. 436. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 133 Figure 11: Mordvinian instrumental melody called ‘Shepherd song’ recorded and transcribed by A. Väisänen in 1914 (Bojarkin 2006: nr. 52; from Väisänen, A. Mordwinishe Melodien: Phonigraphish aufgenommen und herausgegeben von A. O. Väisänen, Helsinki 1948). Figure 12: Mordvinian wedding song-incantation sung by P. Mineikina, b. 1918. Written down by Nikolaj Bojarkin in 1975 (Bojarkin and Gippius 1981: 122, Figure 44). 134 Daiva Vyčinien Figure 13: The spring song from Suzemka district, Bryansk region: ‘pillars of the seconds’ (Saveljeva 1995: 11). Figure 14: The wedding song from Kharkov district, Ukraine: bitonality of two major thirds (Shchurov 1972: 311, Figure 10). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 135 Figure 15: Fragment of sutartin Tititi tatato sung by Petras Lapien , Mar Jakubonien and Ona Striužien from Biržai in 1935 (Slaviūnas 1958 I: 710, nr. 484a): bitonality of two major thirds. Most Balkan researchers almost unanimously agreed that second multi-part is one of the remaining traits of ancient tribes that used to live in the Balkans (Širola 1930: 220; Dević 1990, 1992, 1996, 2001, 2002). It is however fascinating to learn how many cultures have left their traces in the population of Illyrian, Romanic, and Slavic origins (Janković 1995; Curta 2001, 2008). Several authors (for example, Stoin 1956) connected Croatian two-part singing (either directly or indirectly) with folk singing in the Rodopi Range in Bulgaria. Theories about an Illyrian17 stratum in traditional music by Cvjetko Rihtman (1958: 99) and Thracian-Illyrian stratum by Nikolai Kaufman were developed ( а а 1966: 3–9). The possibility for relations of the Balto-Balkan second diaphony For now, the features common to the second sutartin s and the Balkans remain open to speculation. It is not clear whether there were direct relations between the eastern Balts (from whom the sutartin s probably originated) and ancient Balkan tribes. Balkan second singing arose from the Illyria theory which allows us to search for possible territorial/ethnogenetic connections with Lithuanian sutartin s. The truth is that it has not yet been conclusively established who the forbears to the Illyrians were: “The position of Illyrian remains unclear” (Kortlandt 1989: 134). It is supposed that the western Balts (mostly inhabitants of former Prussia) became Slavs in the Balkan region by moving to the south west between 500 BC and 300 AD (Mažiulis 1981; Toporov 1975–1989). However, it is not clear where the Illyrians, who later moved toward the south, began. In spite of this, language and archaeological data show that in the very distant past the 17 About Slavic–Illyrian conections see: Malevany 1983. 136 Daiva Vyčinien Illyrians used to be neighbours of the Balts18. These connections are reflected in toponimics and hidronimics, and in some suffixes (Karaliūnas 2004, 2005; Paliga 2002: 637, 645, 648; Room 1992; Zinkevičius 2005: 57). In the frame of the ‘Ancient European’ linguistic community (during the end of the 3rd millennium and the start of the 2nd millennium BC), the Illyrian and the Venets might have been neighbours with the forefathers of the Balts and Germans and could have intensively communicated with Italic and Celtic tribes. Research by the archaeologist Voldemaras Šim nas shows that around the fifth-fourth century BC a new, poly-ethnic tribe appeared in Prussia and Western and Central Lithuania. Their culture was close to Gothic and the provinces of the Roman Empire on the Lower Danube (Cit. from Bonfante 2008: 415; also see: Bliujien 2002). Thus, we can hypothesise about certain tribes (of a poly-ethnic tribal group) moving to the modern-day territory of south-western Lithuania and bringing the particular form of singing. But how then can we explain the sutartin s’ (localized in the north-eastern part of Lithuania) similarity to the Balkan second diaphone? This assumption that concerns bringing a particular form of second singing from the Balkans to the Baltic territory (to Prussia and Western Lithuania) in pre-historic times seems unproven. Additionally, it partly refers to an equivocal ‘Pan-Illyrian’ notion of the ancient Illyrians. While explaining the possibility of ethnogenetic relations between sutartin s and Balkan diaphony, other hypotheses are worthy of consideration. In the first instance one should not reject the possibility of Thracian origin, taking into consideration the abundant parallels, observed by philologists, of Dacians, Thracians, and Balts. Kaufman wrote about feasible origin of old Balkan diaphony; to prove this postulate he advanced some arguments stating that multi-part signing is not characteristic of the major part of Bulgaria and is not present in “northern parts (and elsewhere)” of the East Slavs (1968: 12–13). A comprehensive review of north eastern Lithuanian melodies allows me to raise the precondition that it contains ancient Baltic-Finnish and Baltic-Slavic reflections19. There is thus another postulate that second singing developed not in the ancient Balkans, but, most probably, in the Balto-Slavic stratum and widely spread in the Balkans during the epoch of the Migration Period. This postulate would partly coincide with Dević’s insights. He presumes that the Balkan archaic multi-part singing is grouded by the elements of multi-part singing of the early Slavs (2002: 44). Still, an abundant amount of ‘baltisms’ in the South Slavic languages together with some data on onomastics, allows hypothesizing about traces of waves of immigrants and inhabiting mountainous 18 The Illyrian concept of Baltic languages prevailed in the linguistics of the 16th and 17th centuries (Dini 2009). 19 The eastern Balts were in active contact with the Finno-Ugrians, Cimmerians, protoScythians, and early Slavs (Gimbutas 1963: 54–5). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 137 regions in the central part of the Balkan Peninsula, from the early affiliated Baltic and Slavic peoples’ area that roughly coincides with the territory of the Krivichs.20 It has also been noted by Kondratyeva that: “this polyphonic musical culture may well be common to agricultural countries, including the Eastern Slavic and Eastern Baltic Seacoast countries, such as the Lithuanian sutartin s” (1986: 168). Then, can we hypothesise that the second singing spread through the Balkans by early Slavs – who brought it from the Balts? The findings of the author’s research suggest that melodies of a narrow scope with deep second chords are inherent to singing traditions in certain territories – Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, Voronezh, Lipetsk, and Kharkov – belonging to the East Slavs (Russians and Ukrainians). Presumably, they should be an old heritage of the Balts or the result21 of their huge impact in the above-mentioned territories. As we remember, the drone singing in Polesia of Russia and Ukraine is distinguished by sharp chords. The Polesie region is extremely significant in the history of old contacts between Balts and Slavs (Laučiūt 2003). The history of Slavs dwelling in Polesia is in a sense the history of assimilation of prehistoric Baltic tribes living there.22 Here, it is worthwhile mentioning the results of the research conducted by M. Boiko (Denisova and Boiko 1990 etc.). Still, the postulate that the second multi-part singing might have spread into the Balkans with the help of immigrants from the early affiliated Baltic and Slavic peoples’ areas also raises certain doubts. If multi-part singing were really ‘brought’ in the Balkans by the early Slavic peoples, it is presumable that the traces of multi-part singing being close to sutartin s would be striking on the path of these tribes’ migration. Now, we can find the traditions of multi-voice singing that are closest to Lithuanian sutartin s in the Balkans – mostly in the Dinaric and Shopi regions. It urges one to recur the hypothesis about feasible direct relations of the Baltic and ancient Balkan nations. Perhaps, when we look at the archaic nature of the second multi-part, this root should be sought in Old European culture? It is true that it is not possible to answer the question: “What nations can the archaic multi-part singing of the Balts (Lithuanians and Latvians) be associated with?” One should moreover pay attention to the fact that the latter itself is not homogeneous. Lithuanian sutartin s, on the one hand, seem to be closer to the Shopi tradition – here a second has the status of consonance and there pre20 Many scholars (Toporov and Trubachev 1962; Vanagas 1981 et al.) and archaeologists (Juškova, 1996; Sedov 1974; Vaškevičiūt 2007 a. o.) point to the Baltic Krivichi substratum. 21 Linguist Algirdas Vanagas found the Baltic hydronymies in the surroundings of Bryansk, Oriol, Kursk, and Tchernigov (Vanagas 1981). 22 Laučiūt , Jūrat (2009). ‘Poles – ‘Pamišk ’, ‘Palemk ’ ar ‘Didelių pelkių kraštas’? [Polesie: ‘Along the forest’, ‘Along the Valley’ or ‘Land of great swamps’? Summary]’, www.polissya.eu/ 2012/01/polesia-etymology-polesie-toponim.html (access: 20 August 2012). 138 Daiva Vyčinien vails an antiphonic way of singing in pairs (Dević 2002: 39; Kaufman 1963a: 23, 1963b), whereas the drone multi-part singing dominates in the Shopi region (Dević 2002: 39). The drone is a predominant form of Latvian multi-part singing (Brambats 1983); it is true to say that this form is uncongenial to the Lithuanian sutartin s’ tradition (the seconds, however, are not so typical of Latvian drone songs). On the other hand, the relationship of two-voice parts in sutartin s reminds us more of the Dinaric diaphony than the Shopi one: often, the voices are able to intertwine with one another (the melody of the first part is lower than that of the second melody; Petrović R. 1990: 164, 166, 167; Dević 2001: 127; 2002: 39). As mentioned before, it is precisely the intertwining of the voices that is the primary feature attesting to the relatedness of the Lithuanian sutartin s with the diaphony of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Elscheková 1981: 240), and also of western and south-western Serbia and Montenegro (Dević 2001; Petrović R. 1990; Golemović 1995; Marjanović 2011; Figures 16, 17, 18) – it is also inherent to the Lithuanian sutartin s’ tradition (dvejinės). For now, this question remains open. Figure 16: Apynėlis auga. Forsome sung by T. Gimbutyt -Urbonavičien , age 78, Dusetos, Zarasai region. Written down by Jadvyga Čiurlionyt (Slaviūnas 1958 I, nr. 86). RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 139 Figure 17: The crossing of voices in two-part singing from Bosnia and Herzegovina (Elscheková 1981: 211, Figure 12a). Figure 18: ј . Serbian wedding song from Dobroselica, Zlatibor (Jovanović 2002, from Petrović R. 1989, Figure 41). 140 Daiva Vyčinien Undoubtedly, there is no absolute clarity and convincing evidence to such type of reconstructions, and therefore, there can be various interpretations. In the last decade a completely new word in ethnogenetic investigations has been uttered by the geneticists. For instance, it is clear nowadays that animals and people came to the present territory of Lithuania from two directions – the northeast and southwest. Lithuania is generally a contact area of these two directions. Lithuanians are partly characterized by the features inherent to the nations inhabiting Central and Eastern Europe.23 The representatives of the factor IX gene haplotype (the carriers of paleolithic Swiderian and Baltic Magdalenian archaeological cultures) who are regarded to be genetic ancestors of roughly 95 percent of present Lithuanian women must have come to Lithuania from the northern Balkan-Carpathian region and Western Europe, i.e., with the first waves of human migration into Eastern Baltic states after Ice Ages; whereas, genetic ancestors of a big group of Lithuanian men happened to come to or invaded the present territory of Lithuania from the northeast (perhaps from the western foothill region of Northern and Central Ural; Ambrasien and Kučinskas 2003, Bramanti, Thomas, and Haak 2009). A prevalence of ancient mitochondrial (mt) DNA sequences that appeared in Southern Europe during the last maximal glaciation, is found in the present day Lithuanian population and can prove the fact that the influence of inhabitants who came after the postglacial period on the Baltic population is of great significance (Girininkas 2005: 66). The northern Indo-Europeans spread through North Europe during the postglacial period (in Lithuania after 13,000 BP) most likely from those southern territories in Europe, where forests were growing during the period of the last maximal glaciation (southern Carpathians, the Alpine foothills, Balkan and Iberian peninsulas) and conditions favored for living (Ibid.: 68). So, the latest works of geneticists and paleoarchaeologists prove the contacts between the Balkan and present Lithuanian peoples (especially – women) which refer to very old times. They might as well verify possible significantly earlier relations between Balkan diaphone and sutartin s, rejecting the hypothesis related to the spread of second multi-part singing in the Balkans by the Slavic people. Conclusions Beside Balkan diaphone and Lithuanian sutartin s sharing a common interpretation of Schwebungs-Diaphonie, it is possible that they also share ethno genetic links, the potential existence of which can be confirmed by the latest research in several fields (archaeology, linguistic, genetics, and so on). 23 ‘Who are Lithuanians?’, in Atgimimas, 26th November, 2005. Ričardas Čekutis’ discussion with a geneticist professor Vaidutis Kučinskas. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 141 It is obvious that second multi-part singing of Lithuanian (Baltic) and Balkan nations which is interpreted by many researchers as an exceptionally old phenomenon, needs to become a serious object of scientific investigations into Balcano-Balto-Slavica historic and ethnic relationships. It is impossible to resolve here the unusually complex and intricate issue of the supposed genesis of Balkano-Baltic second diaphone. Most of the ideas expressed in this article are new ones. At the moment they are only hypothetical preconditions, requiring more in-depth research. When there is no extensive research, some theories on the genesis of second multi-part singing in the Balkan-Baltic territories are hitherto possible: (1) its spread through the early Slavic tribes during the migration of peoples in the Balkans; and (2) the existence of the pre-Slavic period in the Balkans and in the nearby territories. It is now impossible to unilaterally maintain which of these postulates is more accessible. Both migration and communication processes of peoples are extremely complex. It may furthermore be the case that the Balkan second diaphony reflects both the heritage of pre-Indo-European nations inhabiting that territory and a posterior ‘contribution’ of the Slavic people (the Balts assimilated by the Slavic people). In the meantime, sutartin s’ ethnogenesis should be associated not only with early Balkan relations but also with BaltoFinno-Ugric interaction (it is demonstrated by an archaic tradition of multi-pipewhistles skudučiai whose equivalents are present in traditions of the East Slavs, in the territories of Kursk, Bryansk, Tchernigov, Charkov, Belgorod, Kaluga) and the Komi people. In order to explain the links between Balkan and Lithuanian (Baltic) ethnic music, it will be necessary to draw on the research of specialists from various nations. Selected bibliography Ahmedaja, Ardian, and Haid, Gerlinde (eds.) 2008. European Voices I. Multipart Singing in the Balkans and the Mediterranean. Schriften zur Volksmusik, XXII. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag. Ahmedaja, Ardian (ed.) 2011. European Voices II: Cultural listening and local discourse in multipart singing traditions in Europe. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag. Ambrazevičius, Rytis, 2005. ‘Scale in sutartinės: psychoacoustic viewpoint’, in Astrauskas (ed.), 244–60. Astrauskas, Rimantas (ed.) 2005. Traditional music and research in the Baltic area. New approaches in ethnomusicology. Vilnius: Lithuanian Academy of Music and Theatre. Bajrektarević, Sofija 2008. ‘About multipart singing in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, in Ahmedaja and Haid (eds.), 177–88. Basanavičius, Jonas 1898. Lietuviszkai-trakiszkos studijos [Lithuanian-Thracian studies]. Shenandoah. 142 Daiva Vyčinien а , е к / Birnbaum, Henrik 1988. ‘ ав ка а а: в е е ’, [‘Slavic original homeland: new hypothesis’], 5, c. 35–49. к , а / Boiko, Martin (Mārtiņš) 1992 ‘ е а е в а в ’ [‘Tracks of the Sutartinės in Latvia’], in а е (comp. and ed.), 61–81. к , к а / Bojarkin, Nikolay (comp.) and , E. / Gippius, E. (ed.) 1981. I [Monuments of Mordvian musical folk art I]. а а к: в к ек е а е в . Bonfante, Giuliano 2008. Baltistikos raštai. Scritti Baltistici [Baltic Writings]. Dini, Pietro U. and Stundžia, Bonifacas (comps.) Vilnius [Archivum Lithuanicum 11], 407–18. Bonifačić, Ruža 1996. ‘Tarankanje: A dissapearing music tradition’, in Narodna umjetnost 33/1, 149–70. Bramanti, B., Thomas, M. G., Haak W., and others 2009. ‘Genetic discontinuity between local hunter-gatherers and Central Europe’s first farmers’, Science, 326 (5949): 137–40. Brambats, Karl 1983. ‘The Vocal Drone in the Baltic Countries: Problems of Chronology and Provenance’, Journal of Baltic Studies 14(1): 24–33. Brandl, Rudolf Marija 2008. ‘Neue Überlehungen zur Diaphonie in Südosteuropa’, in Ahmedaja and Haid (eds.), 299–316. Curta, Florin 2008. ‘The making of the Slavs between ethnogenesis, invention, and migration’, in Studia Slavica et Balcanica, 2(4): 155–72. Denisova, Raisa, and Boiko, Mārtiņš / Де ва, а а, к , а 1990. ‘ че к е а ек а к ’ [‘Ethnohistorical aspects of the Latvian drone polyphony’], in , , .Э . Rīga: Zinātne, 82–108. Дев ħ, Д а ав / Dević, Dragoslav 1990. Н Ц ј [Folk music of Crnorečje in the light of ethnogenetic processes], е а . ---------- 2001. ‘Istorijski aspekt arhaičnog folklornog višeglasja balkanskog kulturnog prostora’ [‘Historical aspect of archaic folklore multipart music in Balkan cultural space’], II međunarodni simpozij „Muzika u društvu“– Zbornik radova, Sarajevo, muzikološko društvo FbiH i Muzička akademija, 122–39. е а а а чка к е а а’ ---------- 2002. ‘Д а к к ева е [‘Dinaric and Šop singing in Serbia and metanastasic streams’], in Н 19, е а , 33–56. Dini, Pietro 2009. ‘Baltų kalbotyros apyaušriai. Baltų kalbų paleokomparatyvistin s sampratos kalbotyros istoriografijos kontekste’ [‘At the dawns of the Baltic linguistics. Paleocomparative concepts of the Baltic languages in the context of linguistics historiography’], in Archivum Lithuanicum 11, Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language, 439–62. Duridanov, Ivan 1969. Thrakisch-dakische Studien I. Die Thrakisch- und dakischbaltischen Sprachbeziehungen. Sofia [Linguistique balkanique, XIII, 2]. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 143 Elscheková, Alice (ed.) 1981. Stratigraphische Probleme der Volksmusik in den Karpaten und auf dem Balkan. Bratislava: Veda, Verlag der Slowakischen Akademie der Wissenschaft. Elscheková, Alice 1981. ‘Vergleichende typologische Analysen der vokalen Mehrstimmigkeit in den Karpaten und auf dem Balkan’, in Elscheková (ed.), 159–256. Gimbutas, Marija 1963. The Balts. London: Thames and Hudson. ---------- 1991. The Civilization of the Goddess: the World of Old Europe. San Francisco: Harper. Girininkas, Algirdas 2005. ‘Lietuvos apgyvendinimas – poledynin s imigracijos ar indoeuriopietizacijos padarinys?’ [‘Settling of Lithuania: a result of postglacial immigration or of Indo-europeanization?’], in Lietuvos archeologija 28, pp. 59–68. е в ħ, Д е / Golemović, Dimitrije 1991. ‘Uloga pratećeg glasa u srpskom narodnom dvoglasnom pevanju, na primeru vokalne tradicije zapadne Srbije’ [‘The role of the accompanying voice in Serbian folk two-part singing, on the example of vocal tradition of Western Serbia’], Narodna umjetnost, Posebno izdanje 3, Institut za etnologiju i folkloristiku, Zagreb, pp. 309–17. ---------- 1995. Ц [Montenegrin folk music], е а е а, а. ---------- 2011. ‘ е к ева е а а j ’, in е в ħ / Golemović (ed.), 7–60. ва в, че ав, в, а / Ivanov, Viacheslav and Toporov, Vladimir 1974. ‘ а ка в ве е ав е че к ек кев е к ев е ’ [‘The Baltic mythology in view of comparative historical reconstructions of the Indo-European antiquity’], in Zeitschrift für Slavistik, XIX (2): 144–57. к , а а к в ч (comp. and ed.) 1970. И [From the past of Yougoslavian music]. Moscow: Music Publisher. Janković, Djordje / Ја к в , Ђ е 1995. ‘The Serbs in the Balkans in the light of Archaeological Findings’, in The Serbian Questions in the Balkans. Belgrade: University of Belgrade – Faculty of Geography, 125–46. Ј ва в , Је е а / Jovanović, Јelena 2002. ј јЈ ( Ш ј )– [Traditional wedding songs and customs in Upper Jasenica (in the region of Šumadija – wedding melodic model and its forms] е а : к к . Juškova, Marija 2006. North-Western Russia before its Settling by Slavs (8th Century BC – 8th Century AD)’, in Slavica Helsingiensia 27. Helsinki, p. 141–54. Kasperavičiūt , Dalia, Kučinskas, Vaidutis, and Stoneking, M. 2004. ‘Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA variation in Lithuanians’, in Annals of Human Genetics, 68, pp. 438–52. а а , к а / Kaufman, Nikolaj 1968. â [Bulgarian polyphonic folk songs]. а: а ка к в . 144 Daiva Vyčinien а ева, ве а а / Kondratyeva, Svetlana 1971. ‘ ка а а е в е а а а [On musical parallels in the Russian and South-western Bulgarian songs]’, in . ква: а ка, . 158–170. Karaliūnas, Simas 2004. Baltų praeitis istoriniuose šaltiniuose [The Baltic peoples’ past in historical sources] I. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language. ---------- 2005. Baltų praeitis istoriniuose šaltiniuose [The Baltic peoples’ past in historical sources] II. Vilnius: Institute of the Lithuanian Language and Vytautas the Great University. Kortlandt, Frederik 2009. Baltica & Balto-Slavica (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 16). Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi. Krahe, Hans 1964. ‘Vom Illyrischen zum Alteuropäischen’, in Indogermanische Forschungen 69: 201–12. Laučiūt , Jūrat / а ч е, а е 2003. ‘Vakarų baltų kilm s žodžiai Poles s slavų tarm se [‘The words of the west Balts origin in the dialects of the Polesye Slavs’], in Vakarų baltų kalbos ir kultūros reliktai, IV, Tiltai, Priedas Nr. 14, Klaip da, 21–4. ---------- 2009. ‘Poles – ‘Pamišk ’, ‘Palemk ’ ar ‘Didelių pelkių kraštas?’ [‘Polesie: ‘Along the forest’, ‘Along the Valley’ or ‘Land of great swamps?’ Summary’], www.polissya.eu/2012/01/polesia-etymology-polesie-toponim.html (access: 20/8/2012). Loma, Alexandar 2010. ‘Baltisches Substrat in Serbian? – Flußnamen als Zeugen der Völkerwanderunszeit’, in Elena Stadnik-Holzer, Georg Holzer (Hrsgg.), 79–87. а ева , . / Malevany, A. 1983. ‘ че к е че к е в ав ев’ [‘Ethnical and historical relations of the Slavs and Illyrians’], in 5. Saratov: Saratov State University Publisher, 103–114. Mažiulis, Vytautas 1981. ‘Apie senov s vakarų baltus bei jų santykius su slavais, ilirais ir germanais’ [‘About the West Balts and their rapports with the Slavs, Illyrians and Germanic’], in Iš lietuvių etnogenezės, Vilnius: Science Publisher, 5–11. Marjanović, Zlata 2011. ‘Cultural listening in multipart traditional singing of the Northern and Central Montenegro coast and its hinterland’, in Ahmedaja (ed.), 127–39. Messner, Gerald Florian. 1980. Die Schwebungsdiaphonie in Bistrica: Untersuchungender mehrstimmigen Liedformen eines mittelwestbulgarischen Dorfes. Tutzing: Verlegt bei Hans Schneider [Wiener Veröffentlichungen zur Musikwissenschaft 12]. Wien: Institut für Musikwissenschaft, Universität Wien. Mikhailov, Nikolaj 1998. Baltische und slawische Mythologie. Ausgewählte Artikel, Madrid: ACTAS. Olteanu, Sorin 2012. ‘Categorii de toponime în funcţie de origine şi aşezare Linguae Thraco-Daco-Moesorum’ [‘Linguae Thraco-Daco-Moesorum – Toponyms Section’] in Linguae Thraco-Daco-Moesianae (LTDM) Project. http://soltdm.com/geo/arts/ categs/categs.htm (access: 20 August 2012). к к в, 2006. ‘ а к е к ев е к е ек к ’ [‘The Baltic languages and Indo-European reconstructions’], in XVII, ква, 110–5. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 145 Paliga, Sorin 2002. ‘Archaic place names in Slovenia: Pre-Indo-European, Indo-European (Illyrian, Celtic, Thracian), Early Romance’, in Simpozij Obdobja 20, 637–51. а е, Да а (comp. and ed.) 1992. [Baltic musicological collection] IV. : Muzika [Music] Publisher. Paliulis, Stasys 1984. ‘Daudyčių poveikis sutartinių muzikai’ [‘Influence of daudyt s (long cylindrical wood trumpets) on Sutartin s music]’, in Muzika 4. Vilnius: Muzika Publisher. 65–7. а а, а / Pashina, Olga 1996. ‘ а е а - е е а е а е е в ч ’ [‘The system of calendar songs of the forested villages in east part of the Bryansk region’], in Э . а к - е е , 189–200. Petrović, Ankica 2011. ‘The phenomenon of multipart singing in rural communities’, in Ahmedaja (ed.), 113–26. е в ħ, а а / Petrović, Radmila 1990. ‘Narodna muzika Šumadije (U spomen dr. Valensa Voduška)’ [‘Folk music of Šumadija’], in Traditiones, Zbornik Inštituta za slovensko narodopisje, 19. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti, 163–8. е в ħ, а а Ј ва в , Је е а / Petrović, Radmila and Jovanović, Jelena 2003. ј, , – “Ц ” [Hey, Rudnik, you old mountain – Traditional singing and playing of the “Crnućanka” group], к к , е а а ва , к ва а а, е а . Peycheva, Lozanka 2011a. ‘Lexicon of local terminology on multipart singing in Bulgaria: Shoppe region (Middle-West Bulgaria), in Ahmedaja (ed.), 263–316. ---------- 2011b. ‘Verbal projection for multipart folk singing from Central Western Bulgaria’, in Ahmedaja (ed.), 219–31. ач а е- ч е е, Да ва / Račiūnait -Vyčinien , Daiva 2008. ‘ е е в в в к а в ка а е в е в ке в ав ’ [‘Major third trichord in Lithuanian vocal tradition and its forms of expression in Finno-Ugic and Slavic music’], in Boyarkin N. I (ed.), Ф . Saransk: Publisching House of Mordovia State University, 135–57. ---------- 2002a. Lithuanian polyphonic songs sutartinės. Vilnius: Vaga Publisher. ---------- 2002b. ‘Lithuanian Schwebungsdiaphonie and its South and East European Parallels’, in Bauman, Max Peter (ed.) The World of Music. Traditional music in Baltic countries, 44(3): 55–77. ---------- 2011a. ‘Interaction of voice and instrument in Lithuanian multipart music: insider and outsider viewpoints’, in Ahmedaja (ed.), 185–206. ---------- 2011b. ‘Lexicon of local terminology in Lithuanian multipart singing: sutartinės’, in Ahmedaja (ed.), 389–434. Renfrew, Colin 1989. Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Penguin Books. 146 Daiva Vyčinien а , ве к / Rihtman, Cvjetko 1970. ‘ че к е в ев е е а ка ак ке е е в ’ [‘Polyphonic forms in the oldest folk music practice of Bosnia-Herzegovina’], in к (comp. and ed.), 91–106. е , / Riuitel, Ingrid 1994. ‘ че к е а к а е в к ек е че к е ’ [‘Historical Layers of the Estonian Folk Song in the Context of Ethnic Relations’]. Ars musicae popularis 12. Tallinn: Institute of the Estonian language at the Estonian Academy of Science. аве ева, а / Savelyeva, Nina 1995. [The songs from Suzem’ region]. . 1. а е а е е [Part I: Calendar songs]. ква. Sedov, Valentin / Sedovs, Valentīns / е в, а е 1974. [Long burial mounds of the Krivichi]. ква: а ка. Щ в, че ав / Shchurov, Viacheslav 1971. ‘ е ак е е ’ [‘Features of the polyphonic facture songs of Southern Russia’], in И . . 1. ква: ка, 301–34. в, а / Toporov, Vladimir 1986. ‘Д ев е а ка ка е че ка в а (Д ): в ’ [‘Ancient Balkan neolithic civilization (DBN): general view’], in . е е ва е е а е а к . ква: ав ве е а ка к к ака е а к, 12–5. в, а , and ачев, е / Toporov, Vladimir, and Trubachev, Oleg 1962. [‘Linguistic analysis of river names of the upper Dnieper basin’]. Moscow: Academy of Sciences. Traerup, Birthe 1972. ‘Dvoglasno pevanje u prizrenskoj Gori’ [‘Two-part singing in Prizrenska Gora’] in Rad XVII kongresa SUFJ, Poreč 1970, Zagreb: SUFJ – DFH, 345–9. Vanagas, Aleksandras 1981. Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis žodynas [The etymological dictionary of Lithuanian hydronyms], Vilnius: Science Publisher. Vaškevičiūt , Ilona 2007. ‘Baltai slavų apsuptyje’ [‘The Balts in the surrounding of the Slavs’], in Istorija LXV/65 (Mokslo darbai). Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas, 3–11. е в к , а / Zemtsovsky, Izaly 1983. ‘ а в к ка а а е е (Balcano-Balto-Salvica как е е к а )’ [‘From the Bulgarian-Lithuanian ethnomusical parallels (Balcano-Balto-Salvica as a subject of ethnomusicology)’], in . ква: а ка, 205–23. ------- 1987. ‘ к ве че к в а а - ав к че в ев е к к ек е’ [‘Ethnomusicological view on the BaltoSlavic funeral lamentation in Indo-European context’], in 1985, ква, c. 60–70. Zinkevičius, Zigmas 1984. Lietuvių kalbos istorija I: Lietuvių kalbos kilmė [The history of the Lithuanian language I: The origin of the Lithuanian language]. Vilnius: Science Publisher. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LITHUANIAN AND BALKAN... 147 Web sources Bulgaria (2010), in Music Encyclopedia. www.operas.com.ar/Music-Encyclopedia/12542/ Bulgaria-pag.20.htm (access: 15 March 2011). Peycheva, Lozanka (2008). ‘Bulgaria’, in Lexicon www.mdw.ac.at/ive/emm/index.php?id =125#top (access: 20 August 2012). Velitchkina, Olga (1996). ‘The role of movement in Russian panpipe playing’, in EOL 2: A new generation of ethnomusicologists. www.umbc.edu/eol/2/velitch/velich2.html#6b (access: 20 August 2012). Да ва ч е е Д Ђ SCHWEBUNGS-DIAPHONIE: е е а ва а ва а( . к ва ва а а, а а, а, а е, ае в авк ава евачк а . ве а а чк а а е е е а а е, а е е е е ве а, е ек в к ак а е а а, ача а, а а е ве а, а а ч ек ч е а е ва е ка honie, а, а е к к , а а е в Д е е Schwebungs-Diap) а ка к а а– веве к е чке е а аке а а а а, а ка, е ве а . е а е, а а е е е е е к ве а к е е е а ее е е к ае в а ка к ве ч в а ва а ве е к а а в е в ке, е кe, ке. в а а ва а чк ав а а ч еа авчк е е а ев а а а ка а – . а ва а а а е ке в е а а, а а ва а е Balcano-Balto-Slavica.