<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<head>
   <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=unicode">
   <meta name="Author" content="Vassil Karloukovski">
   <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0">
   <meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
   <title>J. Harmatta - 3.1</title>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Palatino Linotype">
<b><font size="4">Studies in the History and Language of
the Sarmatians</font></b><font size="4">
<br></font><b>J. Harmatta</b> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">III. THE LANGUAGE OF THE SARMATIANS
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><b>1. A History of the Problem</b>
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">After Müllenhoff&#39;s fruitful activity <a href="#1.">[1]</a> it was
Miller's investigations <a href="#2.">[2]</a> that produced a great advance
in the research on the language of the Iranian tribes in South Russia.
The ancient inscriptions of the Pontic region were collected and edited
by Latyshev, <a href="#3.">[3]</a> so that the fairly large number of
names appearing in the inscriptions has become easily accessible to linguists.
Miller had made a thorough study of Ossetian, a language still spoken in
the Caucasus, and on the basis of his expert knowledge of that tongue,
he began to investigate the material of names appearing in the ancient
inscriptions of South Russia. His work was crowned with success: with the
help of Ossetian, he managed to find out the meaning of a considerable
portion of the non-Greek names in the inscriptions. The phonemic form of
the names thus interpreted by Miller shows, in many cases, a phonemic development
parallel with that of Ossetian. These correspondences may be summed up
as follows: </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">1. The initial phoneme <i>p</i>- of the Old Iranian languages has a
corresponding&nbsp; <i>f </i>both in the names figuring in the inscriptions
and in Ossetian: <i>e. g.<img SRC="jh_058a.jpg" height=20 width=52 align=ABSBOTTOM></i>
= Ossetian <i>fidä</i> 'Vater' ~ Avestan <i>pitā</i>;&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_058b.jpg" height=20 width=75 align=ABSBOTTOM>
= Ossetian <i>furt</i> 'Sohn' ~ Avestan </font> <i>
<font face="Palatino Linotype">puϑra</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype">-,
etc. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">2. The Old Iranian initial group of phonemes <i>fri</i>- developed into
<i>li</i>-:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_058c.jpg" height=20 width=81 align=ABSBOTTOM>
= Ossetian <i>limän</i> 'Freund' ~ Old Iranian *<i>friyamanah</i>-. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">3. Old Iranian initial <i>v</i>- has disappeared before<i> i</i>;&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_058d.jpg" height=20 width=92 align=ABSBOTTOM>
= Old Ossetian *<i>insadz-ag</i>, cp. Western Ossetian <i>insäi</i>,
Eastern Ossetian <i>ssäj</i> 'zwanzig' ~ Avestan <i>vīsaiti</i>.
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">4. Old Iranian initial <i>h</i>- has disappeared before <i>a</i>:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_058e.jpg" height=21 width=48 align=ABSBOTTOM>
(in the following word:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_058f.jpg" height=22 width=212 align=ABSBOTTOM>)
= Ossetian <i>avd</i> 'sieben' ~ Avestan <i>hapta</i>-. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">5. Instead of Old Iranian <i>r</i> we find <i>l</i> before <i>i</i>:
see above&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_058c.jpg" height=20 width=81 align=ABSBOTTOM>
and also&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_058g.jpg" height=20 width=107 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
in which&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_058h.jpg" height=19 width=44 align=ABSBOTTOM>
= Ossetian <i>fäl</i>- ~ Avestan <i>pairi</i>. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">6. The Old Iranian initial group of phonemes <i>ary</i>- developed into
<i>ir</i>-:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_058i.jpg" height=20 width=75 align=ABSBOTTOM>
= Ossetian <i>ir</i> 'Ossete', <i>iron</i> 'ossetisch' ~ Avestan <i>airya</i>-.
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">7. In place of the Old Iranian group of phonemes <i>ti</i> we find the
groups <i>ts</i> or <i>dz</i>:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_058j.jpg" height=21 width=94 align=ABSBOTTOM>
= Old Ossetian *<i>insadz</i> ~ Avestan <i>vīsai-ti</i>.
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">8. The Old Iranian group of phonemes -ϑ<i>r</i>-
is replaced by –<i>r</i>ϑ- or -<i>rt</i>-:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_058b.jpg" height=20 width=75 align=ABSBOTTOM>
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<center><table BORDER CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=3 COLS=1 WIDTH="80%" >
<tr>
<td><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>Additional Notes</i> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>To p. 58.</i> In connection with my views regarding the language
of the Sarmatians an argument arose in two essential points: 1. the family-tree
theory, 2. the problem of the Sarmatian dialects and their relation with
Scythian on the one hand and Alanic and Ossetian on the other hand. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">As to the first point I should like to emphasize that rejecting the
family-tree theory I did not call in question the genealogical relationship
of languages. But I insist on the statement that the family-tree theory
presents no suitable model for the real development of languages. This
was, perhaps, overemphasized by me at that time but in view of the remarks
made by V. I. Abaev and I. Gershevitch on this subject, I think even now
that it was necessary. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">My esteemed friend Professor V. I. Abaev regards all Northern Iranian
linguistic materials (including Scythian, Sarmatian, Alan and even Saka
names) as Scythian (<img SRC="oset_jaz.jpg" height=16 width=155 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="folklor.jpg" height=17 width=78 align=ABSBOTTOM>.
I. Moscow—Leningrad 1949. 148). Moreover, he thinks that it is "to force
an open door" if one tries to prove the existence of Sarmatian dialects
on the one hand, but at the same time assuming that all data only reflect
different stages of the same phonemic development leading uniformly to
Ossetian, he actually denies the existence of different Sarmatian dialects
on the other hand. The same opinion was expressed by W. P. Schmidt, BzN
7 (1956) 209 foll., while L. Zgusta wanted to reduce the number of the
dialects reflected by the Iranian names occurring in the Pontic Greek inscriptions
to two and to regard these as two different languages, <i>viz.</i> Scythian
and Sarmatian, instead of various dialects of the Sarmatian (<i>Die 
Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste</i>.
245 foll., Acta Orient. Hung. 4 [1954] 245 foll.). It seems that sometimes
it is not easy to force even an open door. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Hoping that I shall still have the possibility to publish a detailed
analysis of all Scythian, Sarmatian and Alanic linguistic materials, I
would only insist on the following points. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">1. From historical view-point it is impossible to regard all Iranian
tribes and languages of Eastern Europe and even Central Asia as Scythian.
This would mean a return to the linguistic usage of the ancient and mediaeval
historians and geographers who denoted practically all Eastern peoples,
even the Hungarians as Scythians. As I pointed out almost three decades
ago (<i>Quellenstudien zu den Skythika des Herodot</i>. Budapest 1942.),
among the ancient authors it is only Herodotos who clearly differentiated
the Scythians from the other Northern and Eastern peoples on the basis
of the language and customs. It is, therefore, only correct to regard the
tribes denoted by Herodotos as Scythian ones and their historical descendants
as Scythians. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">2. As to the "open door" I would only remark that my humble paper was
the first attempt to prove the existence of different dialects (or languages)
within "Sarmatian". It makes a difference to guess something or to prove
it. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">3. The argumentation that the linguistic differences reflected by the
Iranian names occurring in the Pontic Greek inscriptions only represent
different stages of the same linguistic development leading uniformly to
Ossetian, is a simple sophistry. With similar argumentation one could assume
that Parthian developed into Persian because in comparison to the latter
it preserved an earlier stage of linguistic development in most cases.
The only fact we can establish is the existence of linguistic differences
reflecting various dialects (or languages), while the assertion that all
Sarmatian languages (or dialects) developed uniformly into Ossetian, is
a mere invention without any real basis. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">4. The theory expounded by Zgusta cannot be accepted for the following
reasons: </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">a) Neither did he study the geographical distribution of the linguistic
data thoroughly enough nor did he qualify the names according to the various
Scythian and Sarmatian peoples. One must not operate with such vague concepts
as "Scythian" or "Sarmatian" at that late epoch. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">b) In the 2nd and 3rd centuries A. D., i. e. at the time to which the
bulk of the names is to be dated, we can no more speak of Scythians. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">c) Zgusta did not take into consideration either the interrelation of
the phonemic changes jointly occurring in the same names (cf. my <i>Studies
in the Languages of the Iranian Tribes in South Russia</i>. 55 and here
p. 96 above), or the fact that evidences for different dialects frequently
occur in the one and same Greek city. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">d) He tried to eliminate all linguistic data, <i>e. g.</i> even the
name <i>Alani</i>, which contradict his theory of the existence of only
one Scythian and one Sarmatian languages in the North Pontic region in
the 2nd-4th centuries A. D. This is, of course, inadmissible. For further
details I refer to my forthcoming study mentioned above. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">5. Gershevitch thinks that the dialect differentiation of the Sarmatian
"cannot be assigned to particular areas or tribes" and some of the differencies
"may not be synchronic, but due to diachronic sound-change within one dialect".
Contrary to his assertion Zgusta has proved in any case that at least a
great part of the dialect differencies can be assigned to particular areas.
As to the "diachronic sound-change" I refer to my remarks above. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">6. Gershevitch does not understand against what I was arguing when discussing
the character of the Sarmatian language, because in his opinion nobody
to-day takes the term "family-tree" literally and to speak of the Sarmatian
or Alanic <i>language</i> instead of group of languages, "is merely a convenient
simplification". I do not want to discuss here whether any simplification
— convenient or inconvenient — of the reality can be regarded as correct
or to insist on the question what means to take the family-tree theory
(not term!) literally or not literally. I only refer to the fact that Gershevitch
admits the dialectal differentiation of Proto-Iranian theoretically, at
the same time, however, he adheres to the purely formal linguistic concept
of Proto-Iranian as one can state on the basis of his remarks regarding
Proto-Iranian *<i>puθra</i>-. Thus he
does not realize that these two conceptions are irreconcilable with each
other. Proto-Iranian as a formal linguistic concept means the total of
the common linguistic features which can be deduced by the comparison either
of the Old (sometimes Middle or even Modern) Iranian languages or of Old
Iranian and Old Indian. In this sense Proto-Iranian must, of course, represent
a linguistic unit because precisely the unity of the common features is
the logical postulate of its existence. This Proto-Iranian is, however,
only a linguistic abstraction which can never correspond to reality. Therefore.
I proposed to reinterpret Proto-Iranian and other similar purely linguistic
concepts from the historical point of view and to replace these abstractions
without space and time by the reconstructions of historically definable
languages or linguistic states. This was discussed by me <i>Studies in
the Language of the Iranian Tribes in South Russia</i> 22 foll. at lenght.
Apparently Gershevitch did not understand my argumentation and he confused
the linguistic and historical concepts of Proto-Iranian. That was exactly
against what I was arguing. It is interesting to observe that after all
Gershevitch, BSOAS 17 (1955) 486 joined to the theory according to which
the Alans "were brought from the area of Lake Aral to the Caucasus by a
migratory movement". This conception implies, of course, that the Alans
have nothing to do with the Scythians and the Sarmatians.</font></td>
</tr>
</table></center>

<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="1."></a><b>1.</b> <i>Deutsche Altertumskunde</i>,
III. 101—125. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="2."></a><b>2.</b> His chief works:&nbsp;<img SRC="oset_et.jpg" height=16 width=156 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
I-III.&nbsp;<img SRC="moskva.jpg" height=15 width=62 align=ABSBOTTOM> 1881-7;&nbsp;<img SRC="digorskie_skazanija.jpg" height=17 width=169 align=ABSBOTTOM>,&nbsp;<img SRC="moskva.jpg" height=15 width=62 align=ABSBOTTOM>
1902; <i>Die Sprache der Osseten</i>, Strassburg 1903: <i>Ossetica</i>,&nbsp;<img SRC="moskva.jpg" height=15 width=62 align=ABSBOTTOM>
1904; the Ossetian dictionary published posthumously by Freimann:&nbsp;<img SRC="oset_rus_nem.jpg" height=17 width=225 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="slovar.jpg" height=17 width=67 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
I-III.&nbsp;<img SRC="Leningrad.jpg" height=17 width=89 align=ABSBOTTOM>
1927—34. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="3."></a><b>3.</b> <i>Inscriptiones antiquae orae
septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae</i>, I. II., IV. 1885—1901.
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">58
<br><img SRC="line_up.gif" height=18 width=596> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">= Ossetian <i>furt</i> 'Sohn' ~ Avestan <i>pu</i>ϑ<i>ra</i>-;&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_059a.jpg" height=21 width=70 align=ABSBOTTOM>
in names like&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_059b.jpg" height=22 width=112 align=ABSBOTTOM>
etc. = Ossetian <i>ä</i>χ<i>sart</i> 'Macht'
~ Avestan -χ<i>ša</i>ϑ<i>ra</i>-. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">9. The Old Iranian group of phonemes -χ<i>r</i>-
developed into –<i>r</i>χ-:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_059c.jpg" height=20 width=87 align=ABSBOTTOM>
= Ossetian <i>sur</i>χ 'rot' ~ Avestan <i>su</i>χ<i>ra</i>-. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">10. The numerous names ending in&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_059d.jpg" height=17 width=110 align=ABSBOTTOM>
appearing in the inscriptions, correspond exactly to the present active
participles formed in Ossetian with the ending -<i>äg</i>: <i>e. g.<img SRC="jh_059e.jpg" height=20 width=81 align=ABSBOTTOM></i>
= Ossetian <i>i</i>γ<i>osag</i> &#39;gut hörend, guter 
Hörer&#39;, from the verb γ<i>os-un</i> &#39;hören&#39;;&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_059f.jpg" height=21 width=76 align=ABSBOTTOM>
= Ossetian <i>käsag</i> 'guter Seher' from the verb
<i>käs-un</i>
'sehen, schauen'. (In this case we come up against an obvious error of
Miller's, since the words <i>i</i>γ<i>osag</i>
and <i>käsag</i> contain, not the ending -<i>äg</i> mentioned
alove, but the suffix -<i>ag</i>, -<i>agä</i> which is used to form
adjectives expressing permanent qualities from the present stem. The forms
of names appearing in the inscriptions may, of course, just as well stand
for adjectives formed with the suffix -<i>ag</i> as for participles formed
with the ending -<i>äg</i>). </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">11. The suffix&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_059g.jpg" height=17 width=56 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
found in some of the names in the inscriptions, corresponds exactly to
the suffix -<i>gin</i> which forms adjectives in Ossetian:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_059h.jpg" height=20 width=85 align=ABSBOTTOM>
= Ossetian <i>nom-gin</i> &#39;namhaft, berühmt&#39;. <a href="#4.">[4]</a>
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">On the basis of these correspondences Miller came to the following conclusions:
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">1. The Ossetes belong to the Iranian group of the Indo-European family
of languages. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">2. The ancestor of the Ossetian language was one of those dialects which
had developed in the northern part of the territory once inhabited by the
Iranians, <i>i. e.</i> on the steppes of Central Asia, lying roughly to
the north of the rivers Oxus and Yaxartes. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">3. The separation of this dialect from the common Iranian parent language
had taken place in prehistoric times, before the cultured nations of Iran
— the Medes and Persians — entered the course of their historical existence.
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">4. The ancestors of the Ossetes belonged to those nomadic Iranian peoples
who, for many centuries, were known partly as Sarmatians and partly as
Scythians, and who occupied the steppes stretching along the Pontus and
the Sea of Azov. <a href="#5.">[5]</a> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">From this formulation of Miller's it does not appear clearly whether,
in his opinion, the dialect, which he regards as the ancestor of the Ossetian
language, was the common dialect of the Scythian—Sarmatian tribes, or a
separate Ossetian dialect quite apart from the tongue of the Scythian—Sarmatian
tribes. From Miller's other remarks, about the position of the Ossetian
language, it appears, however, that on the whole he regards the Scythians
and Sarmatians as the ancestors of the Ossetes and that, in his view, the
language of the Pontic Iranians (Scythians and Sarmatians) must be identified
with Old Ossetian, i. e. an earlier stage in the development of the Ossetian
language. <a href="#6.">[6]</a> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">After Miller, it was Vasmer who dealt in some detail with the language
of the Iranian tribes in South Russia, <a href="#7.">[7]</a> in a much
more cautious manner. This caution is especially noticeable when he discusses
the mutual relationship of the available Scythian and Sarmatian names.
Vasmer has attempted to separate, on the basis of the available material
of names, the language of the Scythians, from that of the
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="4."></a><b>4.</b> See&nbsp;<img SRC="miller.jpg" height=17 width=64 align=ABSBOTTOM>,&nbsp;<img SRC="oset_et.jpg" height=16 width=156 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
III. 83, <i>Die Sprache der Osseten</i>, 6 foll. With regard to par. 6
see Vasmer, <i>Die Iranier in Südrußland</i>, 28. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="5."></a><b>5.<img SRC="oset_et.jpg" height=16 width=156 align=ABSBOTTOM></b>,
III, 100 foll, and also 73. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="6."></a><b>6.</b> See e. g.&nbsp;<img SRC="oset_et.jpg" height=16 width=156 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
III, 101:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_059i.jpg" height=15 width=223 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="jh_059j.jpg" height=15 width=119 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="jh_059k.jpg" height=18 width=151 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="jh_059l.jpg" height=17 width=90 align=ABSBOTTOM>;
<i>Die
Sprache der Osseten</i>, 7: „Diese Eigentümlichkeiten der politischen iranischen 
Sprache gestatten uns, in derselben eine Vorstufe der Ossetischen zu sehen, 
welche als ein Nachkomme der ausgestorbenen &#39;Sarmatisclien&#39; gellen kann“. See 
also <i>ibid</i>. 4, 5. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="7."></a><b>7.</b> <i>Untersuchungen über die ältesten 
Wohnsitze der Slaven</i>. I. <i>Die Iranier in Südrußland</i>,
Leipzig 1923, <i>Iranisches aus Südrußland: Streitberg-Festgabe</i>:
367—376, and also <i>RLV</i> XII, 236—251. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">59
<br><img SRC="line_up.gif" height=18 width=596> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Samatians. But he has no doubts, either, as to the close connection
existing between Sarmatian-Alanic, on the one hand, and the Ossetian language,
on the other. <a href="#8.">[8]</a> His formula admits of a wide range
of possibilities. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Vasmer's caution was undoubtedly well-founded since, though it is possible
that ethnically the Ossetes are the descendants of an Iranian tribe in
South Russia, it is hardly likely that a strikingly large number of Iranian
tribes from South Russia, appearing in different places and under different
names in the course of history, could be gathered into a single unit. Neither
is it likely that their language could be regarded as Old Ossetian, <i>i.
e.</i> as an earlier stage of the present Ossetian language. Vasmer's attempt
to separate the language of the Scythians from that of the Sarmatians was
not very favourably received. The negative attitude to Vasmer's theory
found its clearest expression in Lommel's criticism. The latter admits
the possibility of linguistic differences between Scythians and Sarmatians
but, according to his view, these must have been quite insignificant. Against
the differences which, in his opinion, cannot even be demonstrated, Lommel
emphasizes those linguistic peculiarities of Scytho-Sarmatian which closely
connect this latter group of languages with Ossetian and Sogdian. Such
is the use of the -<i>t</i> as the plural suffix in all these languages
(Scythian—Sarmatian—Alanic&nbsp;<img SRC="tai.jpg" height=12 width=33 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
Ossetian -<i>tä</i>, -<i>t’ä</i>, Sogdian -<i>t</i>). In Lommel's
view this way of forming the plural may date from very early times, and
may have spread very long ago over the whole linguistic area of Northern
Iran. Thus in Lommers conception the picture of different Northern Iranian
languages or dialects is replaced by a homogeneous Northern Iranian linguistic
community or linguistic area. <a href="#9.">[9]</a> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">The idea of a Northern Iranian linguistic group that forms the background
of Lommel's arguments took definite shape only after the important archaeological
discoveries in Eastern Turkestan had brought the Sogdian language to light.
It was at this time that, following Andreas' hints, Gauthiot formulated
his theory, according to which Sogdian, Chorasmian, Alanic, and Ossetian,
together with the rest of the related languages, formed a common "Scythian"
group of languages. <a href="#10.">[10]</a> Gauthiot's theory found, on
the whole, general acceptance. One of the most prominent common features
of this "Scythian" group of languages is the formation of the plural with
-t, already referred to above <a href="#11.">[11]</a>; after Tomaschek
<a href="#12.">[12]</a>,
Marquart <a href="#13.">[13]</a>, Lommel, Jacobsohn
<a href="#14.">[14]</a>
and some other scholars it was Kretschmer who recently tried to prove the
existence of this feature, on the basis of a more detailed argumentation
from the Scythian language, with the plea that its presence in Yagnobi,
Sogdian, and Ossetian argued for its extreme antiquity. <a href="#15.">[15]</a>
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">The basis of all these conjectures and arguments is formed, whether
consciously or anconsciously, by the old theory of the family-tree of languages.
According to this theory, the Aryan branch, having become independent of
the primitive Indo-European linguistic community, was only gradually divided
into Indian and Iranian, Iranian in
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="8."></a><b>8.</b> <i>Die Iränier in Südrußland</i>,
28 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="9."></a><b>9.</b> See <i>AfslPh</i> XL (1926),
151 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="10."></a><b>10.</b> <i>Essai de grammaire sogdienne</i>.
Vol. I, Paris 1914—1923, III. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="11."></a><b>11.</b> See Benveniste, <i>Essai
de grammaire sogdienne</i>, Vol. II. Paris 1929. 79. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="12."></a><b>12.</b> <i>SWAW</i> CXVII (1888),
47. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="13."></a><b>13.</b> <i>Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
von Eran</i>, II, Leipzig 1905, 78 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="14."></a><b>14.</b> <i>KZ</i> LIV (1962), 268.
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="15."></a><b>15. </b><i>Glotta</i> XXIV (1936),
42. — The ending&nbsp;<img SRC="tai.jpg" height=12 width=33 align=ABSBOTTOM>
in Scyihian-Sarmatian tribal names was first compared by Miller with the
Ossetian plural sign -<i>tä</i>. Vasmer was the only scholar to reject
this explanation (<i>Iranisches aus Südrußland: Streitberg-Festgabe</i>,
Leipzig 1924, 373 foll.) but his arguments were found unconvincing by all
sholars, including H. W. Bailey (<i>Asica</i>, reprinted from <i>TrPSh</i>
(1945), 25 foll.). Nevertheless, the question requires fresh, more detailed
examination. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">60
<br><img SRC="line_up.gif" height=18 width=596> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">its turn being subdivided later into the Northern (or "Scythian"), Southern,
Western, etc. branches. Anyone imbued with the spirit of this theory would
naturally attribute the common features in different languages to an ancient
unitary linguistic community; the farther he travels back on the road leading
from individual languages, to the original linguistic community, the less
inclined he becomes to assume the existence of linguistic or dialectal
differences in the languages of human communities. This explains why Miller
tried to establish the following line of development: Scythian — Sarmatian
— Alanic — Ossetian, why Lommel thought it unlikely that there were any
tangible dialectal differences within the North Iranian or "Scythian" branch,
why the plural formation with -<i>t</i> was attributed to such an early
date. Seen from the angle of the family-tree theory, the linguistic facts
could be best explained by assuming the former existence of a "Scythian"
branch speaking a uniform language, and developing, through a slow process
of differentiation, into languages like Ossetian and Yagnobi, still spoken
to-day. Starting from the premises of such a theory one naturally could
not assume the existence of any noticeable dialectal differences in the
various groups of Scythian and Sarmatian, since these languages represented
an earlier stage in linguistic development. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">The limitations imposed by the family-tree theory upon research may
be best observed in Vasmer's case. He already noticed that in the material
of names figuring in the inscriptions there are forms bearing witness to
different lines of phonemic development. In some instances, when the forms
were obviously synchronous and differences could not be explained as being
due to temporal succession, he actually thought of these differences concealing
some dialectal variety. In most cases, however, he did not reach this conclusion,
but either disregarded facts testifying to the existence of dialectal differences,
or tried to assign such forms to a later date <a href="#16.">[16]</a>. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">A similar theory also underlies Sköld&#39;s researches into the Ossetian 
loanwords in Hungarian, and the related problem of Ossetian dialects. Sköld 
tried to prove that the Ossetian loan-words in Hungarian derive, not from an 
extinct Alanic or Ossetian dialect, but from Eastern Ossetian which is still a 
living language. In his view the Ossetes and the Alans formed a single people 
who once used to inhabit a large territory. Nevertheless, he thought it 
impossible to assume the existence of other Ossetian dialects at an early date, 
apart from those two which are still spoken. Thus in Sköld&#39;s theory, too, we are 
clearly faced with the idea that we cannot assume a greater linguistic 
differentiation than that prevailing at the moment <a href="#17.">[17]</a>.
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Sköld&#39;s conception is based on the mechanical and forced application of a 
theory: it is best shown by his disregarding the fact that even present-day 
Ossetian has more than two dialects. Already Miller noticed three Ossetian 
dialects (Western, Eastern, and Southern Ossetian) <a href="#18.">[18]</a>.
Recently Abaev's investigations have clearly demonstrated that in the Southern
Ossetian territory alone there are three separate dialects, easily distinguishable
by their phonemic characteristics. <a href="#19.">[19]</a> If Sköld had no 
doubts with regard to the existence of the eastern and western Ossetian dialects 
as early as the age of linguistic connections between Ossetes and Hungarians, he 
naturally could have no reason to doubt the existence of other Ossetian dialects 
in the same period. So he simply paid no attention to the southern Ossetian 
dialect or dialects which contradicted his theory.
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="16."></a><b>16.</b> <i>Iranisches aus Südrußland</i>,
370. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="17."></a><b>17.</b> <i>ZII</i> III (1925), 179
foll., <i>Die ossetischen Lehnwörter im Undarischen</i>. Lund — Leipzig
1925, 66 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="18."></a><b>18.</b> <i>Die Sprache der Osseten</i>,
2. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="19."></a><b>19.&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_061a.jpg" height=17 width=191 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="jh_061b.jpg" height=18 width=270 align=ABSBOTTOM></b>
87 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">61
<br><img SRC="line_up.gif" height=18 width=596> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Thus it is entirely natural that Sköld&#39;s conclusions about the Ossetian 
loan-words in Hungarian, and the relations between Alans and Ossetes in general, 
have been recently thoroughly revised by Abaev. Abaev refuses to view the 
problem of Alanic — Ossetian contacts as a problem of racial and anthropological 
relations, he regards the Alans simply as &quot;forebears&quot;, the Ossetes as 
&quot;descendants&quot;, as Miller had done. In his view, the question of Alans and 
Ossetes is significant only as the &quot;problem of cultural-historical and 
linguistic contacts between two peoples of the Northern Caucasus, one of them 
living at the present time, the other in the Middle Ages.&quot; <a href="#20.">[20]</a>
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Abaev has sought to throw light on the relations between Alans and Ossetes
from several directions. He examines, first of all, the place-names in
the territory inhabited by the Balkars and the Karachay, and discovers
numerous Ossetian elements in them; on the basis of these elements he comes
to the conclusion that the territory was once inhabited by people who spoke
Ossetian, or, more precisely, the western dialect of that language. He
points out, on the other hand, that, according to the testimony of medieval
sources, the Balkar and Karachay territories used to be inhabited by Alans,
and that as a matter of fact, the Karachay are to this day called <i>alani</i>
by the Mingrels. These facts, in Abaev's view, can be explained only by
supposing that historical contacts between Alans and Mingrels must have
existed during the Middle Ages. The inscription of Zelenchuk, found at
a site north of the present Karachay territory, is regarded as being Ossetian
by Abaev who, on this point, follows Miller's view. Abaev also discusses
in detail linguistic contacts between Hungarians and Ossetes. He has no
doubts that there is a <i>stratum</i> in the Hungarian and the Ossetian
vocabulary common to both languages, this leads him to the conclusion that
at a definite historical period there must have been two contiguous linguistic
communities; the descendants of one of these communities are the Hungarians
of to-day, the descendants of one of these communities are the Hungarians
of to-day, the descendants of the other are the present Ossetes. Thus,
taking the historical continuity of Alans and Ossetes as his basis, Abaev
thinks that the people who enriched Hungarian with Ossetian elements, could
only have been the Alans. He tries to illumine the problem of historical
contacts between Alans and Ossetes, also by examining Alanic person's names.
Abaev points out that the Alanic name <i>Ma-ta-rh-sha</i>, known to us
from a Chinese record, has an exact equivalent in the present Ossetian
name <i>Matärsa</i>, while the mane <i>A-da-chi</i> has a corresponding
Alanic form <i>Addac</i> in the fifth century. Finally, Abaev discusses
in detail the interpretation and significance of the Alanic formulae of
salutation preserved in Tzetzes, from the angle of Alanic — Ossetian relations.
He demonstrates that the Alanic words found in Tzetzes show close affinity
to present Digorian (Western Ossetian) forms. Nevertheless, in summing
up the results of his investigations, Abaev expresses his conviction that
"a great many of those peculiarities, which nowadays separate the Ironian
(= Eastern Ossetian) dialect from the Digorian, did not exist at that time
(in the eight century), and the (linguistic) facts established by Tzetzes
reflect, not some specific "Digorian" forms, but the "average" Alanic forms
of that age." <a href="#21.">[21]</a> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Abaev's work has, in many details, greatly contributed to research intended
to clarify relations between Alans and Ossetes. But on the whole, Abaev's
point of view is closely related to Miller's attitude which he had rejected
so sharply, in principle. The fact is that Abaev denies the existence of
the present dialects in medieval Ossetian, <i>i. e.</i> regards Alanic
as a uniform language, and admits the theory of a direct
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<center><table BORDER CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=3 COLS=1 WIDTH="80%" >
<tr>
<td><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>Additional Notes</i> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>To p. 62.</i> On the Ossetian dialects cf. V. I. Abaev:&nbsp;<img SRC="oset_jaz.jpg" height=16 width=155 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="folklor.jpg" height=17 width=78 align=ABSBOTTOM>.
I. 357 foll., G. Akhvlediani:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_104a.jpg" height=19 width=231 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="jh_104b.jpg" height=18 width=192 align=ABSBOTTOM>.
I. 60 foll., M. I. Isaev:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_104c.jpg" height=18 width=167 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="jh_104d.jpg" height=14 width=159>.
Moscow 1966. 5—112 and&nbsp;<img SRC="izv_jinii.jpg" height=18 width=225 align=ABSBOTTOM>
14 (1965) 140 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>To p. 62.</i> The most important works of V. I. Abaev are now joined
in his valuable book&nbsp;<img SRC="oset_jaz.jpg" height=16 width=155 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="folklor.jpg" height=17 width=78 align=ABSBOTTOM>.
I. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>To p. 62.</i> My review of the results and theories of my esteemed
friend Professor V. I. Abaev is very incomplete. The whole richness of
his life-work is now to be found in his&nbsp;<img SRC="oset_jaz.jpg" height=16 width=155 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="folklor.jpg" height=17 width=78 align=ABSBOTTOM>.
I. and&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_105a.jpg" height=18 width=238 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="jh_105b.jpg" height=17 width=70 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="jh_105c.jpg" height=14 width=172 align=ABSBOTTOM>.
I. Moscow—Leningrad 1958.</font></td>
</tr>
</table></center>

<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="20."></a><b>20.</b> <i>Alanica</i>.<img SRC="ian_sssr.jpg" height=15 width=99 align=ABSBOTTOM>
1935,&nbsp;<img SRC="otd_obsh_n.jpg" height=17 width=123 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
881 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="21."></a><b>21.</b> With regard to Abaev's conclusions
see also D. Gerhardt's detailed review, amounting practically to a translation,
in <i>ZDMG</i> XCIII (1939), 33 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">62
<br><img SRC="line_up.gif" height=18 width=596> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Alanic—Ossetian historical continuity: these features of his attitude
are hardly influenced by the circumstance that he does not regard the Alans
simply as the "forebears" of the Ossetes, nor the Ossetes as the "descendants"
of the Alans. Abaev's whole view rests fundamentally on the family-tree
theory, as did that of Miller: in accordance with this basic conviction
Abaev would derive the Ossetian dialects of to-day from a uniform medieval
Alanic language. This view reflects, no doubt, the conviction that if we
reverse the flow of time, we meet with increasingly uniform states of language.
It is enough to give two examples, in order to show to what extent this
conception influences Abaev's work. In analysing the Alanic word χ<i>a</i>ς,
he is only anxious to stress that the word stands nearer to the Digorian
form χ<i>warz</i> than to the Ironian form χ<i>orz</i>.
In Abaev's opinion, it is usually the Digorian dialect that represents
the older phonemic stage; consequently, if the phonemic form of the Alanic
word is closer to the Digorian form, this would prove clearly, on the one
hand, that there is direct historical connection between Alanic and Ossetian,
and, on the other, that the Ironian phonemic form must have been, formerly,
the same. Meanwhile. Abaev fails to notice that it is impossible to deduce
the present Digorian and Ironian forms from Alanic χ<i>a</i>ς
(<img SRC="o_ot.jpg" height=12 width=8>: χ<i>as</i>,
χ<i>aš</i>,
χ<i>az</i>,
etc.), so that this word, instead of lending support to, actually refutes
the theory of direct historical connections between Alans and Ossetes.
Similarly, in connection with the Alanic word χσινα
the only thing Abaev notices is the presence of the final phoneme -<i>a</i>
which appears also in the Digorian form <i>ä</i>χ<i>sinä</i>
(in contrast to Ironian ’χ<i>sin</i>). In this
case both the Digorian and the Ironian forms may be derived, without any
special difficulty, from Alanic χσινα: but the
Hungarian word <i>asszony</i> (Old Hungarian achscin,&nbsp;<img SRC="o_ot.jpg" height=12 width=8>:
<i>a</i>χ<i>sin</i>),
borrowed from Alanic before the tenth century, definitely points to a form,
<i>a</i>χ<i>sin</i>.
It follows from this that, as early as the tenth century, two forms, <i>a</i>χ<i>sin</i>
and χ<i>sina</i>, must have been in living use,
<i>i.
e.</i> the present dialectal differences in Ossetian must have already
existed then. <a href="#22.">[22]</a> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">In contrast to Miller's view, according to whom Alanic-Ossetian was
in direct historical connection with the language of the Scythians and
Sarmatians, Andreas had previously expounded his theory that the Alans
were not Sarmatians, but later immigrants into Southern Russia from their
Eastern Iranian home in Xwārizm.
<a href="#23.">[23]</a>
Andreas' arguments, unfortunately, did not appear in print, so that his
conception had no serious response for a long time. Meanwhile Charpentier,
too, started advocating the theory of the Eastern descent of Alans and
Ossetes, deriving his arguments from historical sources. He conjectured
that the original tribal name of the Alans was <i>as</i>- or <i>os</i>-,
so that the Alans may be regarded as being identical with the&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_063a.jpg" height=19 width=61 align=ABSBOTTOM>
who, according to Strabo, had conquered Bactria, with the <i>Asiani</i>
of Trogus Pompeius, and the <i>Wu-sun</i> of Chinese sources. <a href="#24.">[24]</a>
Charpentier's conclusions would have had, of course, far-reaching linguistic
consequences if only they could have been verified. But the necessary linguistic
material was missing at the time. The eastern linguistic contacts of Alanic—Ossetian
could be tackled, with any hope of success, only after Chorasmian texts
had come to light in considerable quantities, <i>i. e. </i>when it became
possible to form some idea of the language of Xwārizm,
the territory from which Andreas had long ago sought to derive the Alans
and Ossetes.
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<center><table BORDER CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=3 COLS=1 WIDTH="80%" >
<tr>
<td><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>Additional Notes</i> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>To p. 63.</i> Against the confrontation of Alanic χ<i>sina</i>
with Old Hungarian <i>a</i>χ<i>sin</i> Abaev
argues with reference to the momentary, unstable character of the Ossetian
prothetic vowel <i>ä</i>. It must be noted, however, that from the
view-point of Hungarian <i>a</i>χ<i>sin</i>
> <i>asszony</i> the prothetic <i>a</i> in the Alanic prototype of this
loan-word must have been a very stable vowel because otherwise it would
not have prevailed against the force of vowel harmony. Thus my confrontation
of Alanic χ<i>sina</i> with Old Hungarin <i>a</i>χ<i>sin</i>
becomes even more valid.</font></td>
</tr>
</table></center>

<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="22."></a><b>22.</b> Abaev's latest book:&nbsp;<img SRC="oset_jaz.jpg" height=16 width=155 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="folklor.jpg" height=17 width=78 align=ABSBOTTOM>.
T. I.&nbsp;<img SRC="izd_an_sssr.jpg" height=16 width=128 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="m-l.jpg" height=15 width=58 align=ABSBOTTOM>
1949, has so far been inaccessible to me. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="23."></a><b>23.</b> See A. Christensen, <i>Die
Iranier: Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft</i>. III, Abt. I. Teil, III, Bd. 
III. Abschn. 1. Lief. München 1933, 249, note 2. Andreas himself gave a brief 
outline of his position in <i>Verhandl. d. XIII. Intern. Orientalisten-Kongresses</i>.
Leiden 1904. 103. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="24."></a><b>24.</b> <i>ZDMG</i> LXXI (1917),
357 foll. Of the tribes identified by Charpentier we have to exclude, in
any case, the Wu-sun, for historical and geographical reasons; see G. Haloun,
<i>ZDMG</i>
XCI (1937). 252. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">63
<br><img SRC="line_up.gif" height=18 width=596> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">It was Zeki Validi who first succeeded in discovering Chorasmian texts
in any quantity, and who found a passage in Bīrunī
(in the Introduction to the <i>Tah</font><font face="Arial Unicode MS">̣</font><font face="Palatino Linotype">dīd
nihāyāt
al-amākin</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype">) which
seems to be of decisive importance in forming a judgment about the language
of the Alans. According to Validi, the passage in Bīrunī
informs us that the "Alans and&nbsp;Ās
had formerly lived, together with the Pechenegs, around the lower reaches
of the Amu-Darya (the Uzboy), and later, after the river had changed its
course, they migrated to the coast of the Sea of the Khazars"; Birūnī
also tells us that "the language of these Alans is a compound of Chorasmian
and Pecheneg-Turkish". Validi takes this to mean that the Chorasmians spoke
an Iranian language related to Ossetian; he thinks it likely, at the same
time, that the language of these Alans, who had migrated to the land of
the Khazars, must have differed in some measure from the language of the
Caucasian Ossetes. <a href="#25.">[25]</a> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">It was Henning who first subjected to linguistic scrutiny the Chorasmian
texts discovered by Validi; he came to the conclusion that, although the
Chorasmian language shares many important characteristics with Ossetian,
nevertheless, on the whole it is nearer to Sogdian, while it also has a
number of characteristic features found neither in Sogdian nor in Ossetian.
The features shared with Ossetian consist, according to Henning, chiefly
of the phonemic changes <i>š > s</i> and&nbsp;<i>č
> c</i>, though the change from <i>š > s</i> was not entirely completed
in Chorasmian. <a href="#26.">[26]</a> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Thus the scrutiny of Chorasmian texts has for the time being failed
to supply linguistic facts that might be regarded as a decisive proof of
the theory affirming the Chorasmian origin of the Alans. This circumstance
obviously influenced Validi's mind when he came to the conclusion that
the language of the Alans, who had migrated to the land of the Khazars,
must have been somewhat different from that of the Caucasian Ossetes. This
is, naturally, equivalent to admitting that the Chorasmian origin of the
Alans—Ossetes (a conjecture based on considerations of history) cannot
be proved as a linguistic proposition. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">These negative linguistic conclusions, which contradict the evidence
of historical sources, were, naturally, far from reassuring to those advocating
the eastern origin of the Ossetes; hence several new attempts were made
recently to try and prove the close contact of Ossetian with the languages
of North-Eastern Iran or its eastern origin. Among these attempts let us
first consider Freiman's works. He discovered a considerable quantity of
fresh Chorasmian linguistic material, and in elaborating it touched several
times on the question of the relation between Ossetian and Chorasmian.
Freiman's investigations have established that correspondences between
Ossetian and Chorasmian are not restricted to the phonemic changes <i>š
> s</i> and&nbsp;č<i>
> c</i>, pointed out by Henning, but extend to a number of phenomena of
different kinds. Thus Freiman has shown that the phonemic change -<i>ti</i>
> -<i>ci</i> is found both in Ossetian and in Chorasmian: see <i>e. g.</i>
Chorasmian <i>akic</i> '<img SRC="delaet.jpg" ALT="(he) makes" height=16 width=64 align=ABSBOTTOM>'
~ Ossetian <i>känənc</i>
'<img SRC="delajut.jpg" ALT="(they) make" height=14 width=72 align=ABSBOTTOM>';
in some cases the Old Iranian group of phonemes -ϑ<i>r</i>-
has similar corresponding forms in both languages, e. g. Chorasmian <i>arcivak</i>
'third' ~ Ossetian <i>ärtä</i> 'three'; Old Iranian initial <i>h</i>-
has disappeared in many cases both from Ossetian and Chorasmian, e. g.
Chorasmian <i>i</i>β<i>dac</i> 'seventy' ~ Ossetian
<i>ävdai</i>
'seventy' ~ Old Iranian <i>haptāti</i>;
the plural suffix -<i>tä</i> characteristic of Ossetian is found also
in Chorasmian, e. g. <i>niγōsic</i>
'<img SRC="slushateli.jpg" ALT="listeners" height=17 width=101 align=ABSBOTTOM>',
<i>nikanc</i>
'<img SRC="kolja.jpg" ALT="stakes, posts" height=13 width=55 align=ABSBOTTOM>',
<i>sparc</i>
'<img SRC="shchity.jpg" ALT="shields" height=13 width=54 align=ABSBOTTOM>'.
<a href="#27.">[27]</a>
Freiman attributes very great importance to these correspondences when
pronouncing judgment on the
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<center><table BORDER CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=3 COLS=1 WIDTH="80%" >
<tr>
<td><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>Additional Notes</i> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>To p. 64.</i> On the position of the Chorasmian cf. W. B. Henning:
<i>Handbuch
der Orientalistik. I. Abt. IV. Bd. l. Abschn. Iranistik. I. Abschn. Linguistik</i>. 
Leiden—Köln 1958 109 foll. Henning judges about the common features of 
Chorasmian and Ossetian rather negatively. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>To p. 64.</i> As W. B. Henning,<i> The Khwarezmian Language</i>.
Zeki Validi Togan'a Armağan.
Istanbul 1955. 10 has shown, the Chorasmian plural suffix -<i>c</i> goes
back in fact to -<i>k</i>.</font></td>
</tr>
</table></center>

<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="25."></a><b>25.</b> See <i>ZDMG</i> XC (1936),
*26* foll, and also <i>Ibn Fadlān's
Reisebericht</i>, Leipzig 1939, 14, 125 foll., 137. [Add. note: Cf. also
V. Minorsky,&nbsp;<img SRC="hg_t.jpg" height=18 width=16 align=ABSBOTTOM><i>H</font><font face="Arial Unicode MS" size="2">̣</font><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2">udūd
al-‘Ālam</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2">, London
1937, 481.] </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="26."></a><b>26.</b> <i>ZDMG</i> XC (1936), *30*
foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="27."></a><b>27. </b>See&nbsp;<img SRC="aa_frejman.jpg" height=16 width=121 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
CB IV (1947), 157 foll., CB V (1948), 191 foll., CB VI (1949). 63 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">64
<br><img SRC="line_up.gif" height=18 width=596> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">origin and place of the Ossetian language. He states emphatically that
"the transference to the West of our knowledge concerning the linguistic
Middle Ages of Eastern Iran (this is Freiman's description of the discovery
and elaboration of the Chorasmian linguistic material) has made it possible
to lay a firm foundation for those linguistic bridges which connect more
closely the Chorasmian language with the language of the Alan—Ās,
<i>i.
e.</i> with the language of the Ossetes, those emigrants who had their
homes in Xwārizm".
<a href="#28.">[28]</a>
In one instance Freiman makes the attempt to trace back the connections
of the Ossetian and Chorasmian or Saka languages, as far as the fifth century
B. C.: he tries to explain the name <i>Skunxa</i>, the Saka chieftain defeated
by Darius, from the Ossetian verb <i>sk</i>’<i>uänxun</i> '<img SRC="otlichatsja.jpg" ALT="to be different, to be/get distinguished" height=15 width=106 align=ABSBOTTOM>'.
<a href="#29.">[29]</a> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Tolstov has called attention to another interesting proof of the Chorasmian
origin of the Alans—Ossetes. He pointed out that one of the Turkmen tribes
of South-Eastern Turkmenia bears the name <i>Alan</i>, a name which denotes also 
one of the subsidiary tribes of the Salïrs. According to Tolstov, the Turkmen 
tribe Alan differs in a number of ethnographic peculiarities from the 
surrounding Salïrs: one may observe among them, for instance, a strong tendency 
toward tribal endogamy and marriage within the clan; they wear white clothing, 
etc. It is especially noteworthy that a tradition has been preserved among them, 
according to which they migrated to their present habitation from the Mangïshlak 
Peninsula where, they say, there used to be &quot;a large fortress known by the name 
of Alan&quot;. The interesting point is that there exist, in fact, ruins of a 
fortress known as <i>Alan-kala</i>
("Alan fortress") on the north-western borders of Xwārizm, 
between the Sea of Aral and the Mangïshlak Peninsula. So there can be no doubt 
that the tradition of the Alan Turkmen tribe has a historical value, and that we 
may regard this tribe as Turkicized descendants of the Alans who used to live on 
the territory of Xwārizm
and on the plateau of Ust-Urt. <a href="#30.">[30]</a> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">It was Tolstov, again, who pointed out that the name of one of the Chorasmian
rulers appearing on his coins as <i>wr</i>ϑ<i>wm</i>χ,
while in Bīrunī
it figures in the form ’<i>r</i>ϑ<i>mw</i>χ,
bears a close resemblance to the name of <i>Uruzmäg</i>, a well-known
hero in the Nart sagas of the Ossetes. <a href="#31.">[31]</a> This correspondence
— if it can be linguistically verified — supplies another interesting datum
for the historical contacts between Alans—Ossetes and Chorasmians. We may
establish, at all events, that the passage in Bīrunī
and the reading of the Chorasmian coins give two different forms of the
name: 1. <i>war</i>ϑ<i>uma</i>χ
and 2. <i>ar</i>ϑ<i>amu</i>χ.
But the same duality appears also in Ossetian as, beside <i>Uruzmäg</i>,
there also occur the forms <i>Wäräzmäg</i>, <i>Oräzmäg</i>,
and <i>Wərəzmäg</i>.
<a href="#32.">[32]</a>
On the basis of these and the Abadzech form <i>Urzames</i> we may suppose
the existence of an earlier form *<i>Warzəmag</i>
~ *<i>Warzumag</i> which is quite close to the form <i>War</i>ϑ<i>uma</i>χ
of the Chorasmian ruler's name. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">There is no doubt that Freiman's observations and Tolstov's data have
brought forward a lot of important new material to the question of Alanic—Ossetian
history and language. But we must not ignore the fact that, while Freiman's
researches have considerably increased the number of linguistic correspondences
between Ossetian and Chorasmian, they have also revealed more fully that
Chorasmian stands much
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<center><table BORDER CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=3 COLS=1 WIDTH="80%" >
<tr>
<td><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>Additional Notes</i> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>To p. 65.</i> On Chorasmian <i>’r</i>θ<i>mw</i>χ
cf. now V. A. Livshits: Acta Ant. Hung. 16 (1968) 442 who shows that this
name does not occur on the coins. On <i>Uruzmäg</i> cf. V. I. Abaev:&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_104e.jpg" height=19 width=155 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="jh_104f.jpg" height=17 width=123 align=ABSBOTTOM>
10 (1945) 25 foll. (*<i>Varāz-man</i>),&nbsp;<img SRC="oset_jaz.jpg" height=16 width=155 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="folklor.jpg" height=17 width=78 align=ABSBOTTOM>.
I. 92, E. Benveniste: <i>Etudes sur la langue ossète</i>. 129 (*<i>Avarazmaka</i>-).</font></td>
</tr>
</table></center>

<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="28."></a><b>28.</b> See&nbsp;<img SRC="ian_sssr.jpg" height=15 width=99 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="otd_lit_jaz.jpg" height=16 width=143 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
VII (1948), 238 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="29."></a><b>29.</b> <i>Ibid</i> 239.
</font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="30."></a><b>30.</b> See&nbsp;<img SRC="sp_tolstov.jpg" height=16 width=116 align=ABSBOTTOM>,&nbsp;<img SRC="vdi.jpg" height=16 width=40 align=ABSBOTTOM>
1948, I, 197. Similar data with regard to the Alans near the Sea of Aral,
as <i>e. g.</i> Firdusi's
<i>Diž-i Alānān</i>
and the place-name <i>Qïzïl-Alan</i> in the Turkmen steppes,
have been earlier pointed out by Marquart, <i>Über das Volkstum der Komanen</i>, AGGW XIII, Berlin 1914, 106 foll, and by Minorsky,&nbsp;<i>H</i></font><i><font face="Arial Unicode MS" size="2">̣</font></i><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><i>udūd
al-‘Ālam</i>, London
1937, 481. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="31."></a><b>31.</b> See&nbsp;<img SRC="drevnij_khorezm.jpg" height=16 width=136 align=ABSBOTTOM>,&nbsp;<img SRC="moskva.jpg" height=15 width=62 align=ABSBOTTOM>
1948, 189,&nbsp;<img SRC="po_sledam.jpg" height=15 width=85 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="drevnekhorezmijskoj.jpg" height=17 width=165 align=ABSBOTTOM><img SRC="civilizacii.jpg" height=13 width=104 align=ABSBOTTOM>.&nbsp;<img SRC="moskva-leningrad.jpg" height=16 width=164 align=ABSBOTTOM>
1948, 161, foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="32."></a><b>32.</b> See&nbsp;<img SRC="vi_abaev.jpg" height=15 width=98 align=ABSBOTTOM>,&nbsp;<img SRC="jazyk_i_myshlenie.jpg" height=16 width=150 align=ABSBOTTOM>
V (1935), 281. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">65
<br><img SRC="line_up.gif" height=18 width=596> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">closer to Sogdian than to Alanic—Ossetian. For this reason we need not
be surprised that some scholars, <i>e. g.</i> Altheim, continue to regard
the passage in Bīrunī
about the language of the Alans and Chorasmians just as problematical as
before. According to Altheirn, Bīrunī
could certainly not mean that the Chorasmian and Ossetian languages were
especially close to each other with regard to their origin: the meaning
of the passage is that the Alans or&nbsp;Ās
took over certain linguistic peculiarities from the Chorasmians, in whose
neighbourhood they once lived, and that the same applies also to the Pechenegs.
<a href="#33.">[33]</a>
For the rest, Altheim accepts the identity of the present Ossetians with
the medieval&nbsp;Ās
and the ancient&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_063a.jpg" height=19 width=61 align=ABSBOTTOM>
the conquerors of Bactria, <i>i. e.</i> he accepts the thesis of the eastern
origin of the Ossetes. <a href="#34.">[34]</a> His attempt, however, to
interpret the passage in Bīrunī
in the light of late historical contacts between Chorasmians and Ossetes,
instead of assuming an identity of origin or linguistic community between
these two pwoples, must be, therefore, ascribed to a negative estimate
of the linguistic connections between Alanic—Ossetian and Chorasmian. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Parallel with the linguistic research on the relations of Ossetian and
Chorasmian there also emerged several historical combinations which tried
to solve the origin of the Ossetians and the Alans in the direction indicated
by Charpentier. One of these combinations is Vernadsky's. He has renewed
the conjecture about the supposed identity of the Wu-sun and the&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_063a.jpg" height=19 width=61 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
as well as the Asiani, the As, and the Ossetes. He has, moreover, introduced
new elements into this combination by trying to prove that the names <i>Anti</i>,&nbsp;<img SRC="antes.jpg" height=19 width=61 align=ABSBOTTOM>
and <i>Yen-ts’ai</i> belong to the same group of peoples' names. <a href="#35.">[35]</a>
But these combinations of Vernadsky's raise very serious historical and
linguistic difficulties. <a href="#36.">[36]</a> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Maenchen-Helfen also follows in Charpentier's footsteps with regard
to the origin of the Ossetes and the&nbsp;Ās,
<a href="#37.">[37]</a>
but by utilizing the results of recent investigations he is able to set
this problem into a much wider framework. Under the influence of Haloun's
arguments, Maenchen-Helfen rejects the identification of the Wu-sun and
the Asiani, and proposes a new, wider combination in its stead. He tries
to prove that the name&nbsp;Ā<i>rśi</i>
used by the Tokharians about themselves is identical with Pliny's <i>Arsi</i>,
Ptolemy's&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_066b.jpg" height=20 width=72 align=ABSBOTTOM>
as well as with the <i>Aorsi</i> who came to be called Alans later on.
These peoples or peoples' names, to which he adds the <i>al(-l)ārisiya</i>
mentioned in Mas‘ūdī,
are, in his view, identical with&nbsp;Ā<i>s</i>,
the old name of the Ossetes and its different varieties. All these peoples
are, at the same time, Tokharians, <i>i. e.</i> the Yüeh-chih of the Chinese, 
since&nbsp;Ārśi
is the name used by the Tokharians for themselves. In Maenchen-Helfen's
opinion the name <i>Tokhar</i>, itself, is found among the Ossetes in the
tribal name <i>Digor</i>. Maenchen-Helfen, himself, must have felt that
these identifications of peoples and peoples' names raise a host of historical
difficulties. For this reason he tried to render them more probable by
assuming the presence of a number of historical layers. According to his
account, the tribal name of the <i>Yüeh-chih</i> was <i>Togar</i>,
while their ruling group bore the name of <i>Kusha</i> (transcribed as
<i>Yüeh-chih</i>
by the Chinese). This peoples came under the rule of the Sacae who called
themselves&nbsp;Ā<i>rśi</i>
(= Aorsi, Arsi,&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_063a.jpg" height=19 width=61 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
Asiani,&nbsp;Ās,
etc.). The people, formed as the result of this Togar-Ārśi
stratification, was later divided into several groups. One
<br>&nbsp; </font>
<center><table BORDER CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=3 COLS=1 WIDTH="80%" >
<tr>
<td><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>Additional Notes</i> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype"><i>To p. 66. </i>Cf. also F. Altheim:<i> Aus Spätantike und Christentum</i>. 
Tübingen 1951. 59 foll, and <i>Geschichte der Hunnen</i>. I. Berlin
1959. 57 foll.</font></td>
</tr>
</table></center>

<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="33."></a><b>33.</b> F. Altheim, <i>Literatur
und Gesellschaft im ausgehenden Altertum</i>, Halle/Saale 1950, II, 210. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="34."></a><b>34.</b> See <i>Der Hellenismus in
Mittelasien: Saeculum</i> I (1950), 281. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="35."></a><b>35.</b> G. Vernadsky, <i>Ancient
Russia</i>,<sup>3</sup> New Haven 1946, 82 foll., <i>Byzantion</i> XVI
(1942—44), 81 fol. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="36."></a><b>36.</b> See my remarks in <i>RHC</i>
N. S. V (1947), 230 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype" size="2"><a NAME="37."></a><b>37.</b> <i>JAOS</i> LXV(1945), 71
foll. O. Maenchen-Helfen himself refers to Charpentier but he exaggerates
in connecting the identification of&nbsp;Ā<i>rśi-Asiani</i>
with Charpentier (79), since the word&nbsp;Ā<i>rśi</i>
was introduced into the Tokharian controversy only by Sieg <i>SBAW</i>
1918, 560 foll. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">66
<br><img SRC="line_up.gif" height=18 width=596> </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">group migrated towards the West, and became the ancestors of the <i>As-Di<img SRC="i_kd.jpg" height=18 width=8 align=ABSBOTTOM>gūr</i>
among the present Ossetes. Maenchen-Helfen distinguishes, morever, the
Alans from the&nbsp;Ās.
The upshot of these identifications is that, while the Tokharian problem
becomes over-simplified, the formation of the Ossetes turns out to be the
result of a very complex ethnical stratification. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">There is no doubt that, even with the assumption of these historical
strata, Maenchen-Helfen's conclusions contain many elements that are hypothetical
or entirely unsupported. His attempt, however, to explain the formation
of the present Ossetian people as the result of repeated ethnical stratifications,
in contrast to former conjectures deserves close attention, in any case. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">H. W. Bailey&#39;s recent investigations in the study of the origin of Ossetian 
vocabulary have a very important bearing on the contact of Ossetian with the 
Eastern Iranian languages as well as on the eastern origin of the Ossetes. Since 
the studies of Hübschmann (Etymologie und Lautlehre der ossetischen Sprache) and 
Miller, Bailey&#39;s works may be regarded as the most important step forward in the 
study of the origin of the Ossetian vocabulary. Bailey does not connect the 
Wu-sun with the Asiani; he even dismisses the nameĀrśi
which he regards simply as the Tokharian equivalent of the Northwestern
Prākrit form of the
Sanskrit word&nbsp;ā<i>rya</i>-
'beggar monk'. Thus he ultimately identifies the old&nbsp;Ās
and the present Ossetes only with the&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_063a.jpg" height=19 width=61 align=ABSBOTTOM>.
At the same time, he derives the name&nbsp;Ā<i>s</i>,
Ossetian <i>Asi</i> ~ <i>Assi</i> from an earlier form *ā<i>rsya</i>-,
and connects this with the <i>al-(l)ārisiya</i>
found in Mas‘ūdī
as well as with the names <i>Arsi</i> and&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_066b.jpg" height=20 width=72 align=ABSBOTTOM>.
Thus Bailey regards the Ossetes as the descendants of the&nbsp;<img SRC="jh_063a.jpg" height=19 width=61 align=ABSBOTTOM>,
an Eastern Iranian tribe which conquered Bactria: he attempts to support
this view with the results of his study in the field of the Ossetian vocabulary.
He tries to prove the presence in Ossetian of a considerable number of
words, the exact equivalent of which can be demonstrated only in Sogdian
and Saka. In Bailey's view, these correspondences indicate that the ancestors
of the&nbsp;Ās were
in close contact with the Chorasmians, Sogdians, and the forebears of the
Afghans. This symbiosis is put by Bailey to the third century B. C. since
the Iranian names in the Greek inscriptions of South Russia, and the earliest
linguistic remains of the Sogdians, (both types going back to the second
century A. D.) reveal, in Bailey's opinion, clearly defined linguistic
individuality, so that the state of symbiosis must have existed several
centuries before. <a href="#38.">[38] </a>This train of thought shows also
that, during the period of symbiosis of the&nbsp;Ās,
Sogdians, Chorasmians, etc., Bailey assumes the linguistic community of
their respective languages, otherwise he might just as well have assumed
the existence of a state of symbiosis at a later period when these tongues
developed into fully-fledged separate languages. Thus, it would seem that,
ultimately. Bailey sees the relation of these languages to one another
from the angle of the family-tree theory. </font>
<p><font face="Palatino Linotype">Bailey's works have considerably enriched our knowledge concerning the
Eastern Iranian contacts of the Ossetian language, in general, and the
Oss�