• Nem Talált Eredményt

*>Ah 328 STUDIES IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE IRANIAN TRIBES IN SOUTH RUSSIA

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Ossza meg "*>Ah 328 STUDIES IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE IRANIAN TRIBES IN SOUTH RUSSIA"

Copied!
62
0
0

Teljes szövegt

(1)

M A G Y A R - G Ö R ÖG T A N U L M Á N Y O k O Y I T P O E A A H N I K A I M E A E T Á I AIE Y0 YNOMENAI

SZ ER KESZ TI Y n o

M O R A V C S I K G Y U L A I O Y A I O Y M O R A V C S I K

*>Ah 328

STUDIES IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE IRANIAN TRIBES

IN SOUTH RUSSIA

BY

J OHN HARMATTA

M TA K

0 0 0 0 3 2558! 3

BUDAPEST, 1952

EÖTVÖS L O R Á N D T U D O M Á N Y E G Y E T E M I G Ö R Ö G F I L O L Ó G I A I I N T É Z E T I I A N E n i S T H M I A K O N I N S T I T O Y T O N EA AH NI KH X <I>IAOAOriAX

(2)

130S71

Reprinted from „A cta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum H ungaricae”

1 (19. 50-52) 261- 314.

A k ia d á s é r t fe le lő s : M oravcsik G y u la .

5 2 -7 3 7 3 . — E g y e te m i N y o m d a , B u d a p e s t — (F e le lő s : J a n k a G y u la ig a z g a tó ).

(3)

I

PROBLEMS AND TASKS

A fter M iillenhoff’s fruitful a c tiv ity 1 it was M iller’s in v estig atio n s2 th a t pro d u ced a g re a t a d v an ce in-, th e research on th e language o f th e Ira n ia n trib e s in South R ussia. T he an cien t inscriptions o f th e P ontic region w ere collected a n d ed ite d by L a ty sh e v ,3 so th a t th e fairly large n u m b er o f nam es a p p earin g in th e inscriptions has becom e easily accessible to linguists. Miller h ad m ade a tho ro u g h s tu d y o f O ssetian, a language still spoken in th e C au­

casus, a n d on th e basis o f his e x p e rt know ledge of th a t tongue, he began to in v estig ate th e m aterial o f nam es ap p earin g in th e an cien t inscriptions o f S o u th R ussia. H is w ork was crow ned w ith success: w ith th e help o f O ssetian, he m anaged to fin d o u t th e m eaning of a considerable portion of th e non- G reek nam es in th e inscriptions. T he phonem ic form of th e nam es th u s in te r­

p re te d by M iller shows, in m an y cases, a phonem ic d ev elopm ent parallel w ith th a t o f O ssetian. These correspondences m ay be sum m ed up as follows:

1. T he in itial p- phonem e o f th e Old Ira n ia n languages has a correspon­

ding / b o th in th e nam es figuring in th e inscriptions an d in Ossetian: e. g.

<t>íöac; = O ssetian fidä ’V a te r’ ~ A vestan p itä ; (boúpTots = O ssetian fart

’S ohn’ '—' A vestan púdra-, etc.

2. T he Old Ira n ia n initial fri- group o f phonem es developed in to U-:

Aeipavo«; = O ssetian lim än ’F re u n d ’ ~ A vestan *friyamanali-.

3. Old Ira n ia n initial v- has disap p eared before i: ’Ivoúíafo^ — Old O ssetian *insadz-ag, cp. W estern O ssetian insäi, E a ste rn O ssetian ssäj

’zw anzig’ ~ A v estan visaiti.

4. Old Ira n ia n in itial h- has disap p eared before a: ‘Aßb- (in th e following word: ’Apödßbu < *’Aßb-dp5a) = O ssetian avd ’sieben ’ ~ A vestan hapta-.

1 Deutsche A ltertum skunde, I I I . 101 — 125.

2 H is c h ief works: OceTiiHCKiie ano/tbi, I —II I. MocKBa 1881 — 7; JpiropcKim CKa3aH>ifl, MocKBa 1902; D ie Sprache der Osseten, Strassburg 1903: Ossetica, MocKBa 1904; th e O ssetian d ictio n a ry pu blished p ostu m ou sly by Freim ann: OceTHHCKO-pyccKO- HeMeuKim c.nOBapb, I —I I I . JleHUHrpag 1927 — 34.

3 In scription es antiquae orae septen trion alis P o n ti Euxini graecae et latinae, I, I I , IV , 1 8 8 5 - 1 9 0 1 .

(4)

130871

Reprinted from „A cta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum H an g a/ 7 ( m o - 6 2 ) 261- 314.

A k ia d á sért fe le lő s : M oravcsik G y u la .

•">2-7373. — E g y e te m i N y o m d a , B u d a p e st — (F e le lő s : .la n k a G y u la ig a z g a tó ).

(5)

I

PROBLEMS AND TASKS

A fter M iillenhoff’s fru itfu l a c tiv ity 1 it v a s M iller’s in v estig atio n s2 th a t p roduced a g reat ad v an ce in-, th e research on th e language o f th e Ira n ia n trib es in South R ussia. T he an cien t inscriptions o f th e P ontic region w ere collected a n d e d ite d bv L a ty sh e v ,3 so th a t th e fairly large n u m b er o f nam es ap p earin g in th e inscriptions has becom e easily accessible to linguists. Miller h ad m ade a tho ro u g h stu d y o f O ssetian, a language still spoken in th e C au­

casus, a n d on th e basis o f his e x p e rt know ledge of th a t tongue, he began to in v e stig ate th e m aterial o f nam es ap p earin g in th e an cien t inscriptions o f South R ussia. H is w ork was crow ned w ith success: w ith th e help o f O ssetian, he m anaged to fin d o u t th e m eaning of a considerable portion of th e non- G reek nam es in th e inscriptions. T he phonem ic form o f th e nam es th u s in te r­

p re te d by M iller shows, in m an y cases, a phonem ic dev elo p m en t parallel w ith th a t of O ssetian. T hese correspondences m ay be sum m ed up as follows:

1. T he initial p- phonem e o f th e Old Ira n ia n languages has a correspon­

ding / b o th in th e nam es figuring in th e inscriptions an d in Ossetian: e. g.

Oibaq = O ssetian fidä ’V a te r’ ~ A vestan p ita ; (foOpiaq = O ssetian furt

’S ohn’ ~ A vestan pufira-, etc.

2. T he Old Ira n ia n initial fri- group o f phonem es developed into U-:

Aeiuavo^ = O ssetian lim än ’F re u n d ’ ~ A v estan *friyamanah-.

3. Old Ira n ia n in itial v- has d isap p eared before i: ’lvad£crfo<; = Old O ssetian *insadz-ag, cp. W estern O ssetian insäi, E a ste rn O ssetian ssäj

’zw anzig’ A vestan visaiti.

4. Old Ira n ia n initial h- has d isap p eared before a: ’Aßb- (in th e following word: ’Apbdßbu < *’Aßb-dpba) = O ssetian avd ’sieb en ’ ~ A vestan hapta-.

1 Deutsche A ltertum skunde, I I I . 101 — 125.

2 H is c h ief works: OceTimcKiie 3Tioflbi, I —I I I . MocKBa 1881 — 7; AnropcKMH CKa3aHMfl, MocKBa 1902; D ie Sprache der Osseten. Strassburg 1903; Ossetica, MocKBa 1904; th e O ssetian d ictio n a ry pu blished p ostu m ou sly by Freim ann: OceTHHCKO-pyccKO- neMeuKHH c.nOBapb, I —I I I . JleHnm'paa 1927 — 34.

3 In scription es antiquae orae septentrional is P o n ti E u x in i graecae et la tin a t, I, I I , IV , 1 8 8 5 - 1 9 0 1 .

(6)

4

5. In ste a d of Old Ira n ia n r we fin d l before i: see al ove Aeigavoi; and also OaXöápavo«;, in w hich (pa\- — O ssetian fái- ~ A vestan pairi.

6. T he Old Ira n ia n in itial ary- group o f phonem es developed in to ir-:

’HpaKáq = O ssetian ir ’O ssete’, iron ’ossetisch’ ~ A vestan airya-.

7. In place o f th e Old Ira n ia n group o f phonem es ti we fin d th e groups ts or dz: 'IvcrdEa'foq = Old O ssetian *insadz >—-A vestan visai-ti.

8. T he Old Ira n ia n group of phonem es -dr- is replaced by -rd- or -rt-:

d>oúpiaq = O ssetian furt ’Sohn’ .—- A v estan p ú d ra -; -2ap9o<; in nam es like KmvúEaphoc; etc. = O ssetian äysart ’M acht’ ~ A vestan ysadra

9. T he Old Ira n ia n -yr- group of phonem es developed in to -ry-: Xopxaxcx;

= O ssetian m iry ’r o t’ ~ A v estan suyra-.

10. The num erous nam es ending in -axoq, -utoc; ap p earin g in th e in scrip ­ tions, correspond e x actly to th e p resen t activ e participles form ed in O ssetian w ith th e ending -äg: e. g. TwcruKOc; = O ssetian iyosag ’g u t hörend, g u te r H ö re r’, from th e v erb jo s-u n ’h ö ren ’; KdctaYO^ = O ssetian Icäsag ’g u te r S eh er’ from th e v e rb Jcäs-un ’Sehen, sch au en ’. (In th is case we come up against an obvious e rro r o f M iller’s, since th e w ords iyosag an d Icäsag co n tain , not th e ending -äg m en tio n ed a ' ove, b u t th e suffix -ag, -agä which is used to form ad jectiv es expressing p e rm a n e n t qualities from th e p re se n t stem . The form s o f nam es ap p earin g in th e inscriptions m ay, o f course, ju st as well stan d for ad jectiv es form ed w ith th e suffix -ag as for participles form ed w ith th e ending -äg).

11. T he suffix -envoy, found in som e of th e nam es in th e inscriptions, corresponds e x actly to th e suffix -gin which form s ad jectiv es in O ssetian:

NúgTr|vo£ = O ssetian nom -gin ’n am h aft, b e rü h m t'.4

On th e basis o f th e se correspondences M iller cam e to th e following conclusions: 1. T he Ossetes l elong to th e Ira n ia n group of th e In d o -E u ro p ean fam ily of languages. 2. The an cesto r of th e O ssetian language w as one of those dialects which h ad eleveloped in th e n o rth e rn p a rt of th e te rrito ry once in h a tite d by th e Iran ian s, i. e. on th e step p es o f C entral Asia, lying roughly to th e n o rth of th e rivers Oxus a n d Y ax artes. 3. The sep aratio n of th is dialect from th e com m on Ira n ia n p a re n t language h ad ta k e n place in prehistoric tim es, before th e cu ltu red n atio n s of Ira n — th e M edes an d P ersian s — e n te re d th e course of th e ir historical existence. 4. The ancestors of th e Ossetes belonged to th o se nom adic Ira n ia n peoples who, for m an y centuries, w ere know n p a rtly as S arm atian s a n d p a rtly as S cythians, an d who occupied th e step p es stre tc h in g along th e P o n tu s a n d th e Sea of A zov.5

4 See M muiep, OceTHHCKiie OTioflbi, II I . 83, D ie Sprache der Osseten, 6 foil. W ith regard to par. 6 see V asm er. D ie Ira n ier in Sü dru sslan d, 28.

5 OceTHHCKire ano^bi, II I , 100 foil, and also 73.

(7)

5 F ro m th is form ulation of M iller’s it does n o t a p p e a r clearly w h eth er, in his opinion, th e dialect, w hich he regards as th e ancesto r o f th e Ossetian language, was th e com m on d ialect o f th e S cy th ian -S arm atian tribes, or a sep a ra te O ssetian dialect q u ite a p a rt from th e tongue of th e Scythian-Sarm a- tia n tribes. F rom M iller’s o th e r rem ark s, a b o u t th e position of th e Ossetian language, it ap p ears, how ever, th a t on th e whole he reg ard s th e Scythians a n d S arm atian s as th e ancestors of th e Ossetes a n d th a t, in his view, th e language o f th e P o n tic Ira n ia n s (Scythians an d S arm atians) m ust 1 e id e n ti­

fied w ith Old O ssetian, i. e. an earlier stage in th e dev elo p m en t of th e O ssetian language6 7 8.

A fter Miller, it was V asm er who d ealt in some d etail w ith th e language o f th e Ira n ia n trib e s in S outh R ussia,7 in a m uch m ore cautions m anner.

T his caution is especially noticeable w hen he discusses th e m u tu a l rela tio n ­ ship o f th e available S cythian a n d S arm atian nam es. V asrner has a tte m p te d to se p a ra te , on th e basis o f th e available m aterial of nam es, th e language o f th e Scythians, from th a t o f th e S arm atian s. B u t he has no doubts, eith er, as to th e close connection existing betw een S arm atian-A lanic, on th e one h an d , a n d th e O ssetian language, on th e o th e r.8 H is form ula a d m its o f a wide ran g e o f possibilities.

V a s n e r ’s caution was u n d o u b ted ly w ell-founded since, th o u g h it is possible th a t eth n ically th e O ssetes are th e d escendants o f an Ira n ia n trib e in South R ussia, it is h a rd lj-lik ely th a t a strik in g ly large n u m b er of Iran ian trib es from South R ussia, ap p earin g in different places a n d u n d er different nam es in th e course o f history, could be g a th e re d in to a single u n it. N eith er is it likely th a t th e ir language could be reg ard ed as Old O ssetian, i. e. as an earlier stag e o f th e p resen t O ssetian language. V asm er’s a tte m p t to se p a ra te th e language o f th e S cythians from th a t o f th e S arm atian s was n o t v ery fav o u rab ly received. The n eg ativ e a ttitu d e to Y asm er’s th e o ry found its clearest ex p res­

sion in L om m el’s criticism . T he la tte r a d m its th e possibility of linguistic d if­

ferences betw een Scythians a n d S arm atian s b u t. according to his viewr, th ese m ust have been q uite insignificant. A gainst th e differences which, in his opinion, can n o t ev en be d e m o n strated , Löm m el em phasizes those linguistic peculiarities of S cytho-S arm atian which closely connect th is la tte r group of languages w ith O ssetian a n d Sogdian. Such is th e use of th e -t as th e plural suffix in all th ese languages (S cythian-Sarm atian-A lanic -t u i, O ssetian -ta, -t’ä, Sogdian

6 See e. g. OceTHHCKue stioah, H I , 101: . . . nyrb KOTopbi.w cneflORaJUi npeat'H oceTim (cap.MaTO-CKii(J)CKiiH iuieMeHa) . . D ie Sprache, der Osseten, 7: „ D iese E igen tü m ­ lich k eiten dei’ p o litisch en iran isch en Sprache g e sta tte n uns. in demselben ein e V orstufe d er O ssetischen zu sehen, w elch e als ein N achk om m e der ausgestorb en en ’Sarm atisch en ’ g elten k a n n “ . See also ib id . 4, 5.

7 Untersuchungen über die ältesten W ohnsitze der Slaven. I. D ie Ira n ier in S ü d ­ ru sslan d, Leijxzig 1923, Iranisches a u s Sü dru sslan d: Streitberg-Festgabe, 367 — 376, and also F L V X I I . 2 3 6 - 2 5 1 .

8 D ie Ira n ier in Südrusshind, 28 toll.

(8)

6

-t). In L om m el’s view th is w ay o f form ing th e plural m ay d a te from v ery early tim es, a n d m ay have sp read v ery long ago over th e whole linguistic area o f N o rth e rn Iran . T hus in L om m el’s conception th e p ictu re of different N o rth ern Ira n ia n languages or dialects is replaced b y a hom ogeneous N o rth ern Ira n ia n linguistic co m m unity or linguistic a re a .9

T he idea of a N o rth e rn Ira n ia n linguistic group th a t form s th e b ack ­ ground of L om m el’s arg u m en ts took d efin ite shape only a fte r th e im p o rta n t archaeological discoveries in E a ste rn T u rk e sta n had brought th e Sogdian language to light. I t w as a t th is tim e th a t, following A n d reas’ hints, G authiot form ulated his th eo ry , according to w hich Sogdian, C horasnhan, Alanic, an d O ssetian, to g e th e r w ith th e rest o f th e re la te d languages, form ed a common ,,S c y th ia n “ group o f languages.10 G a u th io t’s th e o ry found, on th e whole, general acceptance. One o f th e m ost p ro m in en t com m on featu res o f th is ,.S c y th ia n “ group of languages is th e form ation of th e plural -with -t, already7 referred to al o v e11: a fte r T om aschek12, M a rq u a rt13, Löm m el, Jaco b so h n 14 a n d som e o th e r scholars it was K retsch m er who re cen tly trie d to prove th e existence of th is fe a tu re , on th e 1 asis of a m ore d etailed arg u m e n ta tio n from th e S cythian language, w ith th e plea th a t its presence in Y a g n o ti, Sogdian, a n d O ssetian arg u ed for its e x trem e a n tiq u ity .15

The basis of all th e se conjectures and arg u m en ts is form ed, w h eth er consciously or unconsciously, by th e old th eo ry of th e fam ily-tree o f languages.

A ccording to th is theory7, th e A ryan branch, having becom e in d e p e n d e n t of th e p rim itiv e In d o -E u ro p ean linguistic com m unity, was only g radually divided into In d ia n a n d Ira n ia n . Ira n ia n in its tu r n being su b d iv id ed la te r in to th e N o rth e rn (or S c y th ia n “ ), Southern. W estern, etc. branches. A nyone im bued w ith th e spirit of th is th e o ry would n a tu ra lly a ttrib u te th e com m on featu res in different languages to an ancient u n ita ry linguistic com m unity;

th e fa rth e r he tra v e ls back on th e ro ad leading from individual languages, to th e original linguistic com m unity, th e less inclined he teco m es to assum e th e existence of linguistic or dialectal differences in th e languages of hum an com m unities. This explains w hy M iller trie d to establish th e following line of developm ent: S cythian-S arn atian-A lanic-O ssetian, w hy Löm m el th o u g h t it unlikely th a t th e re w ere a n y tangible dialectal differences w ithin th e N o rth

9 See A is lP h X L (1926), 1.51 foil.

10 E ssai de gram m aire sogdienne. Y ol. I, P aris 1914— 1923. II I.

11 See B e m e n is t e. E ss a i de aram m aire sogdienne. Y ol. II. Paris 1929. 79.

12 S i r r i i r C X Y II (1888), 47.

13 U ntersuchungen zu r Geschichte von E ran , II. L eip zig 1905. 78 foil.

14 K Z L IY (1926). 268.

la Glotta X X I Y (1936). 42. — T he -rat endin g in S cy th ia n -S a rm a tia n trib al nam es w as first com pared b y Miller w ith th e O ssetian plural sign -to. Yasm er w as th e o n ly scholar to reject th is ex p la n a tio n (Iranisches au s S ü d ru ssla n d : Streitberg-F estgabe, L eipzig 1924. 373 foil.) but his argum ents w ere found u n co n v in cin g b y all sholars. in c lu ­ din g H . \ \ . B ailey (A sica . rep rinted from T rP h S (1945), 25 foil.). N ev erth eless, t h e qu estion requires fresh, m ore d eta iled e x a m in a tio n .

(9)

Ira n ia n or „S c y th ia n “ branch, w hy th e plural form ation w ith -1 was a ttrib u te d to such a n early d a te . Seen from th e angle o f th e fam ily-tree th eo ry , th e linguistic facts could be b est explained by assum ing th e form er existence o f a „ S cy th ian “ b ran ch speaking a uniform language, a n d developing, th ro u g h a slow process o f d ifferen tiatio n , into languages like O ssetian a n d Y a g n o li, still spoken to-day. S ta rtin g from th e prem ises of such a th e o ry one n a tu rally could n o t assum e th e existence o f a n y noticeable dialectal differences in th e various groups o f S cythian a n d S arm atian , since th ese languages rep resen ted a n earlier stag e in linguistic developm ent.

T he lim itatio n s im posed by th e fam ily-tree th e o ry upon research m ay be best observed in V asm er’s case. H e alread y n o ticed th a t in th e m aterial o f nam es figuring in th e inscriptions th e re are form s te a rin g w itness to dif­

feren t lines of phonem ic developm ent. In som e instances, w hen th e form s were obviously synchronous a n d differences could n o t be explained as being due to te m p o ral succession, he actu ally th o u g h t of th e se differences concealing som e dialectal v a riety . In m ost cases, how ever, he did reach th is conclusion, b u t e ith e r disregarded facts testify in g to th e existence o f d ialectal differences, o r trie d to assign such form s to a la te r d a te 16.

A sim ilar th e o ry also underlies Sköld’s researches into th e O ssetian loan­

w ords in H u ngarian, an d th e re la te d problem o f O ssetian dialects. Sköld trie d to prove th a t th e O ssetian loan-w ords in H u n g arian derive, n o t from a n e x tin c t Alanic or O ssetian dialect, b u t from E a ste rn O ssetian which is still a living language. In his view th e Ossetes a n d th e A lans form ed a single people who once used to in h a b it a large te rrito ry . N evertheless, he th o u g h t it im possible to assum e th e existence o f o th er O ssetian dialects a t an early d a te , a p a rt from th o se tw o which are still spoken. T hus in Sköld’s th eo ry , too, we a re clearly faced w ith th e idea th a t we cannot assum e a g re a te r lin­

guistic differen tiatio n th a n th a t prevailing a t th e m o m en t17.

S köld’s conception is based on th e m echanical a n d forced application o f a th eo ry : it is b est show n by his disregarding th e fact th a t even present-day O ssetian has m ore th a n tw o dialects. A lready M iller noticed th re e Ossetian dialects (W estern, E a ste rn , a n d Southern O ssetian)18. R ecen tly A b aev ’s inv estig atio n s hav e clearly d em o n strated th a t in th e S outhern Ossetian t e r ­ rito ry alone th e re are th re e se p a ra te dialects, easily distinguishable by th e ir phonem ic ch aracteristics.19 I f Sköld h a d no do u b ts w ith re g ard to th e existence o f th e ea ste rn a n d w estern O ssetian dialects as earty as th e age of linguistic

■connections betw een Ossetes an d H ungarians, he n a tu ra lly could have no

16 Iranisches a u s Sü dru sslan d, 370.

17 Z I I I I I (1925), 179 foil., D ie ossetischen Lehnwörter im U ngarischen, Lurul- L eip zig 1925, 66 foil.

18 D ie Sprache der Osseten, 2.

19 O fl3bii<e KOKHbix oceTHH. fl3UKH CeB. KaBKa3a h JJarecT ana. 87 foil.

3-3

(10)

8

reason to doubt th e existence of o th er O ssetian dialects in th e sam e period.

So he sim ply p aid no a tte n tio n to th e sou th ern O ssetian dialect or dialects which c o n trad icted his th e o ry .

T hus it is e n tire ly n a tu ra l th a t Sköld’s conclusions a b o u t th e O ssetian loan-w ords in H u n g arian , a n d th e relatio n s betw een A lans a n d O ssetes in general, have been re cen tly thoroughly revised b}r A baev. A baev refuses to view th e problem o f A lanic-O ssetian contacts as a problem o f racial an d anthropological relatio n s, he reg ard s th e A lans sim ply as „ fo reb ears“ , th e O ssetes as ,,d e sc en d an ts“ , as M iller h a d done. In his view , th e question o f A lans a n d O ssetes is significant only as th e „problem o f cultural-historical and linguistic co n tacts betw een tw o peoples of th e N o rth ern Caucasus, one o f th e m living a t th e p re se n t tim e, th e o th e r in th e M iddle A ges.“ 20

A baev has sought to th ro w light on th e relatio n s betw een A1 ans and Ossetes from several directions. H e exam ines, first o f all, th e place-nam es in th e te rrito ry in h a b ite d by th e B alkars a n d th e K a ia c h a y , a n d discovers num erous O ssetian elem ents in th em ; on th e basis o f th ese elem ents he com es to th e conclusion th a t th e te rrito ry was once in h a b ite d by people who spoke O ssetian, or, m ore precisely, th e w estern dialect o f th a t language. H e points o u t, on th e o th e r hand, th a t, according to th e te stim o n y of m edieval sources, th e B alk ar a n d K a ra c h a y te rrito ries used to be in h ab ited by A lans, a n d th a t as a m a tte r of fact, th e K a ra c h a y are to th is d ay called alani by th e Mingrels.

These facts, in A baev’s view, can be explained only by supposing th a t historical contacts betw een A lans a n d M ingrels m ust h av e ex isted during th e Middle Ages. T he inscription o f Z elenchuk, found a t a site n o rth of th e present K a ra c h a y te rrito ry , is reg ard ed as being O ssetian b}~ A1 aev who, on th is point, follows M iller’s view. A baev also discusses in d etail linguistic contacts betw een H un g arian s a n d Ossetes. H e has no do u b ts th a t th e re is a stratum in th e H u n g arian an d th e O ssetian vocab u lary com m on to b oth languages, th is leads him to th e conclusion t h a t a t a d efin ite historical period th e re m ust have been tw o contiguous linguistic com m unities; th e d escendants of one of th ese com m unities are th e H u n g arian s o f to -d ay , th e d escendants o f th e o th e r are th e p resen t Ossetes. Thus, ta k in g th e historical co n tin u ity of A lans a n d Ossetes as his basis, A baev th in k s th a t th e people who enriched H ungarian w ith O ssetian elem ents, could only h av e been th e Alans. H e tries to illum ine th e problem of historical contacts betw een A lans an d Ossetes, a ’so by exam ining Alanic persons’ nam es. A baev points o u t th a t th e A lanic nam e M a-ia-rh-sha, know n to us from a Chinese record, has an ex act eq u iv a’en t in th e present O ssetian nam e M atärsa, while th e n am e A-da-chi has a corresponding A lanic form Addac in th e fifth cen tu ry . Finally, A baev discusses in d e tail th e in te r­

p re ta tio n a n d significance of th e A lanic form ulae o f salu tatio n p reserv ed 20 A la n tra . HAH CCCP 1935, Ü T fl. oöiy. nayK, 881 foil.

(11)

iii Tzetzes, from th e angle of A lanic-O ssetian relations. H e d em o n strates th a t th e A lanic words found in Tzetzes show close a ffin ity to p resen t Djgorian (W estern O ssetian) form s. N evertheless, in sum m ing up th e resu lts of his investigations, A baev expresses his conviction th a t ,,a g re a t ir á n y of th o se peculiarities, w hich now adays se p a ra te th e Iró n ián (— E a ste rn O ssetian) d ia 'e c t from th e D igorian, did n o t exist a t th a t tim e (in th e eighth century), a n d th e (linguistic) facts estab lish ed by Tzetzes refiect, n o t som e specific

„D ig o rian “ form s, b u t th e , .av erag e“ A 'anic form s of th a t a g e .“ 21

A b aev ’s w ork has, in m any details, g re a tly co n trib u ted to research in te n d e d to clarify relations betw een A lans a n d Ossetes. B u t on th e whole, A b aev ’s* p o in t of view is closely re la te d to M iller’s a ttitu d e which he had rejected so sh arp ly , in principle. The fact is th a t A la e v denies th e existence of th e p resen t dialects in m edieval O ssetian, i. e. he regards A lanic as a u n i­

form language, a n d ad m its th e th e o ry of a d irect A lanic-O ssetian historical co n tin u ity : th e se fe a tu re s of his a ttitu d e are h ard ly influenced by th e circum ­ stan ce th a t he does n o t reg ard th e A lans sim ply as th e ,.forebears“ of th e O ssetes, no r th e Ossetes as th e ,.d escen d an ts“ of th e Alans. A b aev ’s w hole view re sts fu n d am en tally on th e fam ily -tree th e o ry , as did th a t o f Miller:

in accordance w ith th is basic conviction A baev would derive th e O ssetian dialects o f to -d ay from a uniform m edieval A lanic language. This view reflects, no d o u b t, th e conviction t h a t if we reverse th e flow o f tim e, we m eet w ith increasingly uniform s ta te s o f language. I t is enough to give tw o exam ples, in o rd er to show to w hat e x te n t th is conception influences A b aev ’s work.

In analysing th e Alanic w ord \a<;, he is only an x io u s to stress th a t th e word sta n d s n ea re r to th e D igorian form ywarz th a n to th e Iró n ián form /orz.

In A b aev ’s opinion, it is usually th e D igorian dialect th a t re p resen ts th e older phonem ic stage; consequently, if th e phonem ic form of th e Alanic w ord is closer to th e D igorian form , th is would prove clearly, on th e one hand, t h a t th e re is d irect historical connection betw een A lanic a n d O ssetian, and, on th e o th er, th a t th e Iró n iá n phonem ic form m ust have been, form erly, th e sam e. M eanwhile, A b aev fails to notice th a t it is im possible to deduce th e p resen t D igorian a n d Iró n ián form s from A lanic yaq (o: /a s , /a s , yaz, etc.), so th a t th is w ord, in ste a d of lending su p p o rt to , actu ally refu tes th e th e o ry o f d irect historical connections*betw een Alans a n d Ossetes. Sim ilarly, in con­

nection w ith th e Alanic w ord xchva th e only th in g A baev notices is th e presence o f th e final -a phonem e w hich ap p ears also in th e Digorian form ä /s in ä (in -contrast to Iró n iá n ’ysin). In th is case b o th th e D igorian a n d th e Iró n iá n form s m ay be d erived, w ith o u t a n y special difficulty, from Alanic xtfiva:

b u t th e H u n g arian w ord asszony (Old H u n g arian achscin, a: a /s in ), borrow ed

21 W ith regard to A b a ev ’s con clu sion s see also D . G erhardt’s d eta iled r ev iew , a m o u n tin g p ra ctica lly to a tra n sla tio n , in Z D M G XC'III (1939), 33 foil.

:s-i t

(12)

10

from Alanic before th e te n th ce n tu ry , d e fin itely points to a form , a ysin . I t follows from th is th a t, as early as th e te n th cen tu ry , tw o form s, a /s in an d /s in a , m u st have been in living use, i. e. th e p resen t dialectal differences in O ssetian m ust have alre a d y ex isted th e n . T hese exam ples show clearly th a t A b a e v ’s conclusions should be su b jected a t m an y points to a thorough re v isio n .22

In c o n tra st to M iller’s view , according to whom A lanic-O ssetian was in d irect historical connection w ith th e language of th e S cythians an d Sarm a- tia n s, A ndreas h ad previously ex p o u n d ed his th e o ry t h a t th e Alans w ere n o t S arm atian s, b u t la te r im m ig ran ts in to S outhern R ussia from th e ir E a ste rn Ira n ia n hom e in X w ärizm .23 A n d reas’ arg u m en ts, u n fo rtu n a te ly , did not a p p e a r in p rin t, so th a t his conception h a d no serious response for a long tim e . M eanwhile C h arp en tier, too, s ta rte d ad v o catin g th e th e o ry o f th e E a ste rn d escen t o f A lans a n d O ssetes, deriving his arg u m en ts from historical sources.

H e conjectu red th a t th e original trib a l nam e o f th e A lans was as- or os-, so th a t th e A lans m ay be re g ard ed as being id en tical w ith th e ’'Aoioi who, according to S trabo, h ad conquered B actria, w ith th e A sia n i o f Trogus P o m p eiu s, a n d th e W u-sun o f Chinese sources.24 C h a rp e n tie r’s conclusions w ould have h ad, o f course, fat-reach in g linguistic consequences if only th e y -could h av e been verified. B u t th e necessary linguistic m aterial was m issing a t th e tim e. T he e a ste rn linguistic co n tacts o f A lanic-O ssetian could be tack led , w ith a n y hope o f succes, only a fte r C horasm ian te x ts h ad com e to light in considerable q u a n titie s, i. e. w hen it becam e possible to form som e id ea o f th e language o f X w ärizm , th e te rrito ry from w hich A ndreas h ad long ago so u g h t to d eriv e th e A lans a n d Ossetes.

I t w as Zeki Validi who first succeeded in discovering C horasm ian te x ts in a n y q u a n tity , a n d who fou n d a passage in B iru n i (in th e In tro d u c tio n to th e tahdld nihäyät al-amakiri) w hich seem s to be of decisive im p o rtan ce in form ing a ju d g m e n t a b o u t th e language of th e A lans. A ccording to V alidi, th e passage in B iru n i inform s us th a t th e ,,A lans or Ä s „ h a d form erly lived, to g e th e r w ith th e Pechenegs, a ro u n d th e low er reaches o f th e A m u-darya {the U zboj’), a n d la te r, a fte r th e riv e r had changed its course, th e y m igrated

22 A b aev p roves to b e an ad h eren t o f th e fam ily-tree th eo ry ev en in h is la test book:

OceTHHCKHH H3biK H ^oabKnop. T. I. H3fl. AH CCCP M. — JI. 1949, w h ich h a s so far b een in accessib le to m e. Cp. in a n y case HAH CCCP V I I I (1949), 507: ,,B stoh KHHre B. H. Aöaeß, nonnocTbio OTCTynaa ot yCTanoBOK CBoero ymiTejm, H3JiaraeT MCTopmo oceTHHCKOro H3biKa M TpaKTyeT CKHijDCKyio npoÖJieMy c otkpobchho ,,npaH3bi-

KOBblX“ n03HUHÜ“ .

23 See A . Christensen, D ie Ir a n ie r : H andbuch der A ltertu m sw issen sch aft. I l l , A b t.

I . T eil, I I I B d . I I I . A b schn . 1. L ief. M ünchen 1933. 249. n ote 2. A n dreas h im self ga v e a b n e f ou tlin e o f h is p o sitio n in V erhandl. d . X I I I . In tern . O rien talistzn -K on gresses.

L eid en 1904, 103.

24 Z D M G L X X I (1917), 357 foil. O f th e n a tio n s id e n tifie d b y C harpentier w e h a v e to exclu d e, in a n v ease, th e W u-sun , for h istorical a n d geograp hical reasons; see G . H alóim , Z D M G X C I (1937), 252.

(13)

to th e coast o f th e Sea o f th e K h a z a rs“ ; B írü n i also tells us th a t „ th e language o f th e se A lans is a com pound o f C horasm ian a n d P ech en eg -T u rk ish “ . Validi ta k e s th is to m ean th a t th e C horasm ians spoke an Ira n ia n language re la te d to Ossetian; he th in k s it likely, a t th e sam e tim e, th a t th e language o f th e se Alans, who h ad m ig rated to th e land of th e K h azars, m u st have differed in som e m easure from th e language of th e Caucasian O ssetes.25

I t was H en n in g who f irs t su b jected to linguistic scru tin y th e C horasm ian te x ts discovered by Validi; he cam e to th e conclusion th a t, alth o u g h th e C horasm ian language shares m an y im p o rta n t characteristics w ith O ssetian, nevertheless, on th e whole it is n e a re r to Sogdian, while it also has a n u m b e r o f ch aracteristic fe a tu res found n e ith e r in Sogdian n o r in O ssetian. T he fe a tu re s sh a re d w ith O ssetian consist, according to H enning, chiefty of th e p h o n etic changes s > s a n d c > c, th o u g h th e change from § > s w as n o t e n tire ly com pleted in C horasm ian.26

T hus th e sc ru tin y o f C horasm ian te x ts has for th e tim e being failed to su p p ly linguistic facts th a t m ight be re g ard ed as a decisive p roof o f th e th e o ry a ffirm in g th e C horasm ian origin o f th e Alans. This circum stance obviously influenced V alidi’s m ind w hen he cam e to th e conclusion th a t th e language o f th e A lans, who had m ig rated to th e lan d of th e K h azars, m u st hav e been som ew hat different from th a t of th e C aucasian Ossetes. This is, n a tu ra lly , e q u iv alen t to a d m ittin g th a t th e C horasm ian origin o f th e A lans-O ssetes (a co n jectu re ta s e d on considerations of history) can n o t be p ro v ed as a lin ­ guistic proposition.

T hese n eg ativ e linguistic conclusions, w hich co n trad ict th e ev id en ce o f historical sources, w ere, n a tu ra lly , far from reassuring to th o se ad v o catin g th e e a ste rn origin of th e Ossetes; hence several new a tte m p ts w ere m ade re c e n tly to tr y a n d prove th e close contact of O ssetian w ith th e languages o f N o rth -E a ste rn Ira n or its eastern origin. A m ong th e se a tte m p ts let us first consider F re im a n ’s works. H e discovered a considerable q u a n tity o f fresh C horasm ian linguistic m aterial, a n d in e la t o ratin g it to u ch ed several tim es on th e question o f th e relatio n te tw e e n O ssetian a n d C horasm ian.

F re im a n ’s inv estig atio n s have estab lish ed th a t correspondences betw een O ssetian a n d C horasm ian are n o t re stric te d to th e phonetic changes s > s a n d c > c, p o in te d o u t by H enning, b u t e x te n d to a n u m b er o f phen o m en a o f d ifferen t kinds. T hus F reim an has show n th a t th e p honetic change -ti > -ci is found b o th in O ssetian a n d in C horasm ian: see e. g. C horasm ian akic

‘,(e,iaeT ^ O ssetian kändnc ’^e.iaroT1; in some cases th e Old Ira n ia n -Or- group o f phonem es has sim ilar corresponding form s in b oth languages, e. g.

C horasm ian arclvak T h ird ’ ~ O ssetian ärtä ’th re e ’; Old Ira n ia n in itial h- 25 See Z D M G XC (1936), *26* foil, and also Ihn F u d lln ’s Reisebericht, L eip zig 1939, 14. 125 foil.. 137.

26 Z D M G XC (1936), *30* foil.

11

(14)

has d isap p eared in m any cases b o th from O ssetian a n d C'horasmian, e. g.

C horasm ian ißdac 'se v e n ty ' ~ O ssetian ävdai 'se v e n ty ' -— Old Ira n ia n haptäti ; th e plural suffix -tä ch aracteristic o f O ssetian is found also in Chorasm ian, e. g. niyösic CAymaTeAii', nikanc 'koala', sjxirc 'uijitli'.27 F re im a n a ttrib u te s v ery gi’eat im p o rtan ce to th ese correspondences w hen pronouncing ju d g m en t on th e origin a n d p 'ace of th e O ssetian language. H e sta te s em p hatically th a t „ th e tran sferen ce to th e W est of ou r know ledge concerning th e linguistic M iddle Ages of E a ste rn Ir a n (this is F re im a n ’s description of th e discovery a n d elab o ratio n of th e C horasm ian linguistic m aterial) has m ade it possible to la y a firm fo u n d atio n for th o se linguistic bridges w hich connect m ore closely th e C horasm ian language w ith th e language of th e Alan-As, i. e. w ith th e language o f th e Ossetes, th o se em ig ran ts who h a d th e ir hom es in X w ärizm “ .28 In one in stan ce F re im a n m akes th e a tte m p t to tra c e back th e connections of th e O ssetian a n d C horasm ian or Saka languages, as fa r as th e fifth c e n tu ry B. C.: he trie s to explain th e nam e S ku n xa , th e Saka chieftain d e fe a te d b y D arius, from th e O ssetian v e rb sk’u ä n xu n OT.iuqaTLCA .29

Tolstov lias called a tte n tio n to a n o th e r in terestin g p roof of th e C horasm ian origin of th e A lans-O ssetes. H e p o in ted out th a t one of th e T u rk m en trib es o f S o u th -E astern T u rkm enia bears th e n am e A la n , a nam e w hich denotes also one o f th e su b sid iary trib es of th e Salyrs. According to Tolstov, th e Alan T u rk m en trib e differs in a n u m b er o f ethn o g rap h ic peculiarities from th e su rro u n d in g Salyrs: one m ay observe am ong th e m , for in stan ce, a stro n g tendencjr to w a rd trib a l endogam y a n d m arriage w ithin th e clan; th e y w ear w hite clothing, etc. I t is especially n o te w o rth y th a t a tra d itio n has been p re ­ serv ed am ong th e m , according to w hich th e y m ig rated to th e ir p resen t h a b ita tio n from th e M angyslak P eninsula w here, th e y say, th e re used to be ,,a large fortress know n by th e nam e o f A lan “ . T he in terestin g point is th a t th e re exist, in fact, ru in s o f a fortress know n as A lan-kala (..Alan fo rtre ss“ ) on th e n o rth -w estern borders o f X w ärizm , betw een th e Sea o f A ral a n d th e M angyslak Peninsula. So th e re can be not do u b t th a t th e tra d itio n o f th e A lan T u rk m en trib e has a historical value, a n d th a t we m ay re g ard th is trib e as T urkicized d escen d an ts of th e A lans who used to live on th e te rrito ry o f X w ärizm a n d on th e p la te a u o f U st-U rt.30

I t was T olstov, again, who p o in ted o u t th a t th e n am e o f one of th e C horasm ian ru lers ap p earin g on his coins as wr&wm%, while in B ira n i it fig u res

27 See A . A . <t>peií*iaH, CB IV (1947), 157 foil.. CB V (1948). 191 foil.. CB V I (1949).

63 foil.

28 See H A H CCCT Ota. .h it. ii H3biKa, V I I (1948). 238 foil.

29 Ib id . 239.

30 See C. n . To.ictob, B ^ H 1948, I. 197. Sim ilar d a ta w ith regard to th e A lan s near th e Sea o f Aral, as e. g. Firdusi’s D iz -i Alarum and th e p lace-n am e Q izil-A la n in th e Turkm en stepp es, h a v e b een earlier p o in ted out b v M arquart, Über d as Volkstum d er K om anen: A G G W X I I I , B erlin 1914. 106 foil, an d b v M inorsky, HudUd a l- ‘Akim, -London 1937, 481.

(15)

13 in th e form ’rdm w %, bears a close resem b 'an ce to th e nam e o f Uruzmäg, a w ell-known hero in th e N art-sagas o f th e O ssetes.31 This correspondence

— if it can be linguistically verified — supplies an o th er in terestin g d atu m for th e historical co n tacts b etw een A lans-O ssetes a n d Chorasm ians. We m ay establish, a t all events, th a t th e passage in B ironi a n d th e read in g of th e C horasm ian coins give tw o different form s of th e nam e: 1. war d u m a / a n d 2. ardam u/ . B u t th e sam e d u a lity ap p ears also in O ssetian as, beside Uruzmäg, th e re also occur th e form s Wäräzmäg, Oräzmäg, a n d Wdrdzmäg.32 On th e basis o f th ese a n d th e A badzech form Urzames we m ay suppose th e ex isten ce o f a n earlier form *Warz?mag ~ *W arzumag w hich is q u ite close to th e W ar dum a x form of th e C horasm ian ru le r’s nam e.

T here is no d o u b t th a t F re im a n ’s observations an d T olstov’s d a ta have b rought fo rw ard a lot of im p o rta n t new m aterial to th e question of Alanic- O ssetian h isto ry a n d language. B u t we m ust n o t ignore th e fact th a t, while F re im a n ’s researches hav e considerably increased th e n u m b er of linguistic

■correspondences betw een O ssetian a n d C horasm ian, th e y hav e also revealed m ore fully th a t C horasm ian sta n d s m uch closer to Sogdian th a n to Alanic- O ssetian. F o r th is reason we need n o t be surprised th a t some scholars, e. g.

A lt heim , continue to re g ard th e passage in B írüní ab o u t th e language of th e A lans a n d C horasm ians ju s t as problem atical as before. According to A ltheim , B iruni could certain ly n o t m ean th a t th e C horasm ian and O ssetian languages w ere especially close to each o th e r w ith reg ard to th e ir origin: th e m eaning o f th e passage is th a t th e A lans or As took over certain linguistic peculiarities from th e Chorasm ians, in whose neighbourhood th e y once lived, an d th a t th e sam e applies also to th e P echenegs.33 F o r th e re st, A ltheim accepts th e id e n tity o f th e p resen t O ssetians w ith th e m edieval As an d th e an cien t ’'Aoioi th e conquerors of B actria, i. e. he accepts th e th esis of th e eastern origin o f th e O ssetes34. H is a tte m p t, how ever, to in te rp re t th e passage in Bírom in th e light o f la te historical co n tacts betw een C horasm ians an d Ossetes, in stead o f assum ing an id e n tity o f origin or linguistic com m unity betw een th e se tw o peoples, m ust t e , th erefo re, ascribed to a n eg ativ e estim ate of th e linguistic connections betw een A lanic-O ssetian a n d Chorasm ian.

P arallel w ith th e linguistic research on th e relatio n s o f O ssetian and C horasm ian th e re also em erged several historical com binations w hich tried to solve th e origin of th e O ssetians an d th e A]ans in th e direction indicated by C harpentier. One of th e se com binations is V ernadsky’s. H e has renew ed th e conjecture a b o u t th e supposed id e n tity of th e W u-sun and th e ’'Aatoi,

31 See JtpeBHHfi Xope3M. Mockbb 1948, 189, n o coeflav flp:Bnexopc3MHficKOfi UHBHJiH3aunH. MocKBa-JIenHHrpaA 1948, 161, foil.

32 See B. H. A 6aeo, yi3biK n Mbiumemie V (1935), 281.

33 F . A lth eim , L itera tu r und Gesellschaft im ausgehenden A ltertum . H a lle/S a a le 19 5 0 , I I , 210.

31 See D er H ellenism us in M ittelasien : Saeculum I (1950), 281.

(16)

14

as well as th e Asian!, th e As, a n d th e Ossetes. H e has, m oreover, in tro d u ced new elem ents in to th is com bination b y try in g to prove th a t th e n am es A n ti,

’'Avreg, a n d Y en-ts’ai belong to th e sam e group o f peoples' n am es.35 B u t th ese com binations o f V ern ad sk y ’s raise v ery serious historical a n d linguistic difficulties.36

M aenchen-H elfen also follows in C h arp en tier’s footsteps w ith reg ard to th e origin of th e O ssetians a n d th e A s,37 b u t by utilizing th e resu lts o f

"ecent in vestigations he is ab le to set th is problem in to a m uch w ider fra m e ­ work. U n d er th e influence o f H alo u n ’s arg u m en ts, M aenchen-H elfen rejects the identification o f th e W u-sun a n d th e Asiani, a n d proposes a new', w ider com bination in its stead . H e trie s to pro v e th a t th e n am e A r ii used by th e T okharians a b o u t them selves is identical w ith P lin y ’s A ) si, P to le m y ’s ’Apáim;

as well as w ith th e A orsi who cam e to be called A1 ans la te r on. T hese peoples or peoples’ nam es, to w hich he ad d s th e a l-(l)a r is iy i m en tio n ed in M as'ndi, are, in his view', id en tical w ith A s, th e old n am e o f th e O ssetes a n d its different varieties. All th e se peoples a re , a t th e sam e tim e, T o k h arian s, i. e.

th e Y üeh-chih of th e Chinese, since A r ii is th e nam e used b y th e T okharians for them selves. I n M aenchen-H elfen’s opinion th e nam e Tokhar, itself, is found am ong th e O ssetes in th e t r i l al nam e Digor. M aenchen-H elfen. him self, m ust hav e felt th a t th ese id en tificatio n s of peoples an d peoples’ n am es raise a host o f historical difficulties. F o r th is reason he trie d to re n d e r th e m m ore probable by assum ing th e presence of a n u m t er o f historical layers. A ccording to his account, th e t r i t a l n am e of th e Yüeh-chih was Togar, w'hile th e ir ruling group bore th e n am e of K u sh a (tran scrib ed as Yüeh-chih b y th e Chinese).

This people cam e u n d er th e rule th e Sacae who called them selv es A rsi ( = Aorsi, Arsi, ’'Aoioi, Asiani, As, etc.). The people, form ed as th e re su lt of th is Togar- Arsi stratificatio n , was la te r divided in to several groups. One group m igrated tow ards th e W est, a n d becam e th e ancestors o f th e A s-D lgür am ong th e p resen t Ossetes. M aenchen-H elfen distinguishes, m oreover, th e A lans from th e As.

The upsh o t o f th e se id en tificatio n s is th a t, while th e T okharian problem 1 ecomes over-sim plified, th e form ation of th e Ossetes tu rn s o u t to be th e resu lt o f a v e ry com plex ethnical stra tific a tio n .

T here is no d o u b t th a t, even w ith th e assum ption c f th e se historical s tra ta , M asnchen-H elfen’s conclusions co n tain m an y elem ents th a t are h y p o ­ th e tic a l or e n tire ly u n su p p o rted . H is a tte m p t, how ever, to explain th e fo rm a ­ tion o f th e p resen t O ssetian people as th e re su lt o f re p e a te d ethnical s tra tifi- 35 G. V ern adsky, A n cien t R u s s ia ,3 X ew H a v en 1946, 82 folk, B yza n tio n X V I ( 1 9 4 2 - 4 4 ) , 81 foil. ‘

36 See ray rem arks in R H C X . S. V (1947), 230 foil.

37 J A O S L X V (1945), 71 foil. M aen ch en -H elfen h im se lf refe s to C harpentier but he exaggerates in con n ectin g th e id en tifica tio n o f A rs i-A s ia n i w ith Charpen1 ier (79), since th e wo"d Äréi w as in trod u ced in to th e T okh arian co n tro v ersy o n ly b v Sieg;

S B A W 1918. 560 foil.

(17)

■cations, in c o n tra st to form er conjectures based on th e fam ily-tree th eo ry , deserves close a tte n tio n , in a n y case.

H. W. B ailey ’s re c e n t in v estig atio n s in th e stu d y of th e origin of O ssetian v o cabulary have a v e ry im p o rta n t te a rin g on th e co n tact o f O ssetian w ith th e E a ste rn Ira n ia n languages as well as on th e eastern origin of th e Ossetes.

Since th e stu d ies o f H übschm ann (E tym ologie un d L au tleh re d e r ossetischen Sprache) a n d Miller, B ailey ’s works m ay be reg ard ed as th e m ost im p o rtan t ste p forw ard in th e s tu d y o f th e origin o f th e O ssetian vocabulary. B ailey does n o t connect th e W u-sun w ith th e Asiani; he even dism isses th e nam e Arsi which he reg ard s sim ply as th e T o k h arian eq u iv alen t o f th e n o rth ­ w estern P ra k rit form o f th e S an sk rit w ord dry a- ’beggar m onk’. T hus he u ltim a te ly id en tifies th e old Äs a n d th e p resen t Ossetes only w ith th e ’'A aioi A t th e sam e tim e, he derives th e r a m e Äs, O ssetian A si ~ As m from an earlier form *ürsya-, a n d connects th is w ith th e ol-(l)arisiya found in M as'udi as well as w ith th e nam es Arsian d ’Apam<;. Thus B ailey regards th e Ossetes as th e d escen d an ts o f th e "Acnoi, an E a ste rn Iran ian t r i t e which conquered B actria; he a tte m p ts to su p p o rt th is view w ith th e resu lts o f his s tu d y in th e field o f th e O ssetian vocabu’ary. H e trie s to prove th e presence in O ssetian o f a considerable n u m b er o f words, th e e x act eq u iv alen t o f w hich can t e d em o n stra te d only in Sogdian and Saka. In B ailey ’s view, th ese corresponden­

ces in d icate th a t th e ancestors of th e As were in close contact w ith th e Choras- m ians, Sogdians, a n d th e fo re le a rs of th e Afghans. This sym biosis is p u t by B ailey to th e th ird c e n tu ry B. C. since th e Ira n ia n ra m e s in th e Greek inscriptions of South R ussia, an d th e earliest linguistic rem ain s of th e Sogdians, (both ty p e s going back to th e second ce n tu ry A. D ,) reveal, in B ailey’s opinion, clearly d efined linguistic in d iv id u ality , so th a t th e s ta te of sym biosis m ust have ex isted several cen tu ries before.38 This tra in of th o u g h t shows also th a t, d u rin g th e period o f sym biosis of th e As, Sogdians, Chorasm ians, etc., Bailey assum es th e linguistic com m unity o f th e ir resp ectiv e languages, otherw ise he m ight ju s t as well hav e assum ed th e existence of a s ta te of sym biosis a t a la te r period w hen th ese tongues developed into fully-fledged sep arate la n ­ guages. Thus, it would seem th a t, u ltim ately , B ailey sees th e relatio n of these languages to one a n o th e r from th e angle o f th e fam ily-tree th eo ry .

B ailey ’s w orks h av e considerably enriched our knowledge concerning th e E a ste rn Ira n ia n co n tacts of th e O ssetian language, in general, an d th e O ssetian vocabulary, in p a rticu lar. B u t while stressing this, we cannot fail to re m a rk th a t his conclusions cannot, in all respects, be reg ard ed as final, e ith e r from th e historical or th e linguistic p o in t of view. F irs t of all, th e re is no need w h atev er to assum e linguistic u n ity , for a period, w hen peoples .speaking d ifferen t languages are living to g eth er. We have seen above th a t

38 See H . W . B a ile e , TPhS1945, 1 foil., TPhS1946, 202 foil., TPhS1947, 142 foil., 150 foil., BSOAS X I I I ( 1 9 4 9 - 5 0 ) , 135.

(18)

I 6

th e .45 a n d th e C horasm ians were living to g e th e r as la te as th e te n th c e n tu ry A D. — y e t th e re is no question o f a linguistic u n ity betw een O ssetian an d Chorasm ian. So th e re is no in e v itab ility , eith er, in B ailey’s deduction, acco rd ­ ing to w hich O ssetian m u st have been living to g e th e r or a t least hav e been in co n tact w ith th e o th e r languages of E a ste rn Ira n ab o u t th e th ird c e n tu ry B C. F rom th e m ethodological angle, too, B ailey’s procedure o f try in g to d eterm in e th e relatio n o f O ssetian to th e E a ste rn Ira n ia n languages, on th e basis of vocabulary, is open to objection, especially if we have to count in O ssetian w ith a com plex E a ste rn Ira n ia n stratificatio n . T hus it is clear th a t th e problem s raised a n d discussed by B ailey are still w aiting to be e x a ­ m ined from a n u m b er o f d ifferen t angles.

A fter th is su rv ey o f re c e n t research on th e position of th e O ssetian lan g u ­ age. we see clearly th o se m ajo r groups o f problem s w hich it is neces­

sary to solve if we wish to a tta in a certain degree o f ce rtitu d e w ith regard to th e E a ste rn Ira n ia n connections o f O ssetian, or th e problem o f th e N o rth Ira n ia n group o f languages as a whole. These groups o f problem s m ay be sum m ed up as follows:

1. T he relation of O ssetian to th e a n c ie n t Ira n ia n languages of South Russia. T he clarification o f th is problem is indispensable if we w an t to see clearly th e relatio n of Ossetes, A lans, S arm atian s, an d Scythians

2. W ith in th e above group of problem s th e question of plu ral form ation w ith -Tea req u ires a sep a ra te ex am in atio n since it has alw ays been a pivotal question in research a n d th e available m aterial is considerable. In th e eyes o f th e m a jo rity o f scholars th is m eth o d o f form ing th e plural is one o f th e decisive proofs for th e close connection of Scythian-Sarm atian-A lanic-O ssetian on th e one hand, a n d of th e E a ste rn Ira n ia n languages, on th e other. The question, how ever, is w h eth er th is plural suffix really ex isted in Scythian, an d w h eth er one is ju stifie d in regarding th is m orphological p ecu liarity o f th e language as a dialectological criterion.

3. I t is ab so lu tely necessary to clarify th e m utual relatio n s o f AJanic a n d O ssetian. T his w ork req u ires, o f course, a thorough re-exam ination a n d re-v alu atio n o f th e linguistic rem ain s of th e Alans.

4. T he solution o f th e sam e problem also req u ires th e re-exam ination and re-valuation o f th e A lanic loanw ords in H u n g arian . As we hav e seen above, A baev ascribed a v e ry im p o rta n t role to th e se loan-w ords in clearing up th e relatio n of Alanic a n d O ssetian. T heir te stim o n y was reg ard ed as decisive by Sköld, too, in th e question o f O ssetian dialects.

5. The relatio n o f O ssetian to th e E a ste rn Ira n ia n languages. T he disco­

very of th e C horasm ian te x ts, th e resu lts o f historical research, as well as th e works o f H enning, F reim an , a n d B ailey on th e su b ject, hav e m ade th e clarification of th is problem one o f th e m ost pressing ta sk s of O ssetian linguists..

(19)

17 6. The s tra tific a tio n o f th e Ira n ia n elem ents in th e O ssetian vocabulary.

T his question was ra ise d by th e possibility th a t th e O ssetian jjeople w ere form ed by v arious Ira n ia n trib e s being superim posed, one upon th e other.

T he existence o f such a possibility was clearly d em o n strated by M aenchen- H elfen ’s resu lts, even if th e la tte r re q u ire su b sta n tia l corrections in m an y respects. M oreover, if we h av e to count w ith d ifferen t ethnical s tra ta in th e case o f th e O ssetian people, th is m u st find a reflection in th e ir vocab u lary , too. T hus, th is question is one of th e m ost exciting ta sk s of fu tu re research.

Of th ese groups of problem s, we are going to discuss in th is essay th e relatio n s o f th e a n cien t Ira n ia n languages of Southern R ussia to one a n o th e r, a n d to O ssetian.

(20)

II

PROTO-IRANIAN AND OSSETIAN

I f we wish to clarify th e problem s connected w ith th e language of th e S a rm a tia n trib e s o f S outhern R ussia a n d its re latio n to O ssetian, we have to bear in m ind, firs t o f all, tw o considerations. We h av e seen above th a t, in judging th is question, th e g re a t m a jo rity o f scholars, e. g. Miller, V asm er, Löm m el, K retsch m er, Sköld, a n d A baev, s ta r te d from th e th e o ry of th e fam ily- tre e of languages. This m anifested itse lf chiefly in th e fact th a t, th e earlier th e stag e of language th e y exam ined, th e less inclined th e y becam e (often flying in th e face o f p ractically p alpable linguistic facts) to assum e even a slight degree of linguistic differentiation. The resu lt was th a t th e y reg ard ed th e language of th e S cythians a n d S arm atian s as uniform , a n d considered even th e p re se n t O ssetian dialectal d ifferen tiatio n to be an en tire ly new developm ent. Since th e fam ily -tree th e o ry has th u s exercised a decisive influence on research concerned w ith O ssetian an d th e language o f th e Ira n ia n trib e s of South R u ssia we have to raise th e question w h e th e r it is rig h t to accept th is th e o ry as a basis of our investigations. In ord er to answ er it, we will exam ine th e ap p licatio n of th e fam ily -tree th e o ry in som e exam ples ta k e n from linguistic history.

One o f th e chief aim s o f co m p arativ e linguistics, based on th e fam ily- tre e th e o ry , was to tr y a n d reco n stru c t th e hom ogeneous linguistic s ta tu s o r p a re n t language from w hich la te r dialects a n d languages were to develop- Says E d g ar S tu rte v a n t in „A n in tro d u c tio n to linguistic science“ , 154: „C om ­ p a ra tiv e g ram m ar re c o n stru cts ce rta in fe a tu re s of th e language spoken by th e original, u n se p a ra te d com m unity, on th e basis of corresponding fe a tu res o f th e d escendent languages.“ I n o rd er to a tta in th is objective, scholars used to com pare th e different languages belonging to th e sam e group or fam ily o f languages, n oting th e ir id en tical fe a tu re s a n d reg ard in g th e se as ch arac­

te ristic o f th e an cien t, hom ogeneous linguistic sta tu s. T hus in reco n stru ctin g th e P ro to -Ira n ia n linguistic condition which, in its tu rn , was p receded b y

(21)

19 th e A ryan linguistic condition, B artholoraae utilized those correspondences existing betw een Old P ersian an d th e language of th e A vesta as well as those ex istin g betw een th e language o f th e A vesta a n d som e m odern Ira n ia n la n ­ guage, chiefly M odern P ersian 39. B u t th e ad eq u acy of th is m ethod is very questionable. Follow ing a critical h in t b}7 J . Schm idt, K re tsc h m e r has pointed o u t long ago th a t certain linguistic phenom ena, th ough p resen t in all se p a ra te larg u ag es, m ust not, in ev ery case, be regarded as ch a­

racteristic o f th e fu n d am en tal language, while conversely, it is som etim es only one language th a t preserves an cien t linguistic tr a its .40 B u t it is n o t only th e linguistics m ethods of th e fam ily-tree th e o ry th a t have aroused grave doubts: its historical assum ptions, too, have proved u ntenable. T here is no d o u b t th a t one cannot assum e th e existence of populous societies possessing a u n ita ry organization and speaking a hom ogeneous language in th e early periods o f h isto ry 41 — though th is assum ption is im plicit in th e fam ily-tree th eo ry . T here is an increasing body o f evidence, derived especially from archeological research, which shows th a t th e idea of hom ogeneous linguistic com m unities, and of corresponding hom ogeneous peoples, has to be dropped e n tire ly .42 B u t even if we refrain from discussing th e whole problem o f th e

:i) G run driss der iranischen P h ilologie, I, 1. Strassburg 1 8 9 5 - 1901, 3.

10 E in leitu n g in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, G öttin gen 1895, 7 foil.

R ecen t criticism o f th e fam ily-tree th eory is co n ta in ed in Illop —MeMO/jauOB, Beegemre b H3biKOBeAenne, MocicBa 1945, 185 foil., HecmmKaa HAH CCCP OJ1H- V I I (1948), 241 foil., and in B onfante: L anguage X X 1 1 I (1947), 350 w here he exp ou n d s th e n eo ­ linguist p osition w ith regard to th e fam ily-tree th eo ry . R ecen t pronou ncem ents in favou r o f th e fam ily-tree th e o r y are b y S tu rtev a n t: L anguage X X I I I (1947), 376 foil, and Lane: Language X X V (1949), 333 foil.

41 See A lth eim ’s tellin g rem arks in Ita lie n und Rom , A m sterd am -L eip zig 1941, 152 foil, and L itera tu r und Gesellschalt im ausgehenden A ltertum . II , H a lle/S a a le 1950, 113 foil.

42 See P á rét, W aG V I II (1942), 53 foil., K ühn, I P E K X V ( 1 9 4 1 - 4 2 ) , 256 foil.

E sp ecially ch aracteristic is P ittio n i’s sta te m en t in E rasm u s I I (1949), 296: ,,D ie arch äo­

logische F orsch ung de" le tz te n Jahre h a t un s eben zum U m lern en gezw ungen. N o ch vor kurzer Zeit der M einung verfallen, dass die ein zelnen indogerm anischen V ölker w ie Zw eige gleich zeitig aus d em S tam m e spriessen, w ob ei die W urzeln d ieses S tam m es im n ord d eu tsch -sk an d in avisch en R au m gelegen sein sollen, lernen wir nu n im m er d e u t­

licher, d ass n ich t die F ilia tio n un s das W erden der ind ogerm anischen E inzelvölker ersch liesst, son dern nur die A gg lu tin a tio n oder die Su bstrattheorie, also die T atsach e, dass v o n den w ich tig en oberpaläolitischen K u ltu ren aufw ärts Schicht a u f S ch ich t gelegt wird, w ob ei d iese über w eite Streck en h in gem ein sam en Sch ich ten V erw and schaften u n d B ezieh u n gen erzeugen, die in ihrer A bfolge G leich zeitiges un d A u feinan derfolgendes verb in d en un d d a m it ein m ehr als kom p liziertes B ild einer K ultur- un d V ölkeren tfaltu ng erw eisen “ . — R e ce n tly , ev en th e m ost d ev o u t ad h eren ts o f th e fam ily-tree th eory h a v e sta rted a d m ittin g th a t th e parent langu age or fu n d am en tal language could n ot h a v e b een hom ogeneous. See e. g. S tu rte v a n t’s follow in g words: ,,W e m u st ad m it th e e x isten ce o f dialectic d ifferences w ith in P roto-In d o-E u rop ean . A t present w e can n ot do v ery m uch ab ou t such features; bu t it is im portant to recognize th eir e x is te n c e “ . (An In trod u ction to L ingu istic S cien ce3, N e w H a v en 1948, 167.) This m eans, o f course, givin g up th e id e g o f th e parent langu age and th e a ttem p ts a t its reconstruction; so S tu rtev a n t h a sten s to add: ,,In th eory, a t lea st, a period o f d ia lectic d ifferen tiation preceded th e final sep a ­ ra tio n o f th e In d o-E u rop ean languages from th e parent s to c k “ . Thus he su cceed s in fin d in g a form ula com bining th e idea o f a parent langu age w ith d ialectal d ifferen tiation . B u t t h e o n ly con crete basis o f th e w hole th eo ry is the actu al ex isten ce o f d ia lecta l d ifferen tia tio n .

Hivatkozások

KAPCSOLÓDÓ DOKUMENTUMOK

Однако, как выясняется, ни один из них не может быть подходящей парой для Зинаиды, так как ни один из них не исключителен и не поэтичен, и

В центре внимания настоящей статьи стоят лирические циклы Ласло Кирая и Андраша Ференца Ковача, имеющие отдаленную связь с поэтической игрой Иштвана Бака,

В пользу такого объяснения говорит и факт, что большин- ство древних славизмов венгерского языка – это не диалектизмы, а слова об- щевенгерского

И вот, убивая и грабя все, что ни попадалось им на глаза, и оставляя за собой всеобщее опустошение, упомянутые тартары (более того – выходцы из Тартара) пришли

Но если предположим, что в усвоении христианства Новгород отстал от других центров все-таки не слишком на много, то нужно будет

Колхоз как раз получал две новые машины ЗИС-150, которые отдали Кузьме и Ва- силию, но Василий на своем ЗИС-е проработал недолго: у него что- то началось с

он еще сообщал отцу: «Что касается до моего сочинения, то необходимо его издать, так как оно будет основой всех моих дальнейших занятий, и я ничего не могу

руками Феофан писал, ногами неустанно стоял (конечно, и ходил, но скорее всего не садился отдыхать, пока не закончит работу), языком разговаривал с