(The notes have been inserted in the corresponding places in the text, V.K.)
To p. 7. During the last two decades an admirable research work was done by Soviet archaeologists who elucidated many problems concerning the history and material culture of the Iranian peoples of Eastern Europe. Much has been done as regards the Cimmerian and Scythian Epoch in Hungary too.
To p. 8. In spite of the old opinion, wide-spread among archaeologists even to-day (adopted also by me in the 1st edition) we cannot presume the immigration of the Scythians into Hungary. A summary of my recent views about the history and material culture of the Cimmerii and Scythians was published in Ant. Tan. 13 (1966) 107 foll.
To p. 9. The problem of the identity of the Sauromatae and Sarmatians
was much discussed by Soviet scholars during the last decades. Regarding
my argumentation expounded in the 1st edition as essentially correct even
to-day, I only refer to the view-point of K. F. Smirnov which seems to
be only right. He writes:
Cf my exposition on p. 9—10.
To p. 10. Following V. Latyschew D. M. Pippidi has dated the Protogenes inscription to the first half of the 3rd century B. C. recently (Epigraphische Beiträge zur Geschichte Histrias in hellenistischer und römischer Zeit. 15). That this dating is impossible and that we can only think of the end of the 3rd or the beginnings of the 2nd century B. C., was convincingly demonstrated by the careful study of T. N. Knipovich (VDI 1966/2. 142—149). The Galatae of the Protogenes inscription may represent the Bastarnae who can be regarded as a Celtic tribe according to the recent investigation by Z. Mády ( Moscow 1967. 179 foll.).
To p. 11. I now prefer the interpretation of the name Saii from Old Iranian *xšaya- and that of Saitapharnes from Old Iranian *xšaita-farnah-. Cf. also p. 94—95, 107.
To p. 16. On Atheas and the Western Scythians cf. T. V. Blavatskaya: VDI 1948/1. 206 foll., B. N., Grakov: Moscow 1954. 9 foll., D. M. Pippidi: Epigraphische Beiträge 61—64, D. B. Shelov: NS 2 (1965) 16 foll., D. P. Kallistov: VDI 1969/1. 124 foll. With his well-known aversion against Scythians Pippidi denies the occupation by Atheas of the Dobrudja, while Kallistov restricts the rule of this Scythian king exactly to this territory. By the way it should be mentioned that neither I myself said (cf. Das Volk der Sadagaren. 25 foll.) nor M. Rostovtzeff (whose argumentation in Iranians and Greeks in South Russia, 86 foll.,
105 foll, was summarized by me loc. cit.) asserted anywhere that Poroina lies in the Dobrudja as Pippidi ascribed to me (Epigraphische Beiträge 62, note 10). Rostovtzeff supposed in my opinion correctly that the territory of the Scythian state in the Dobrudja also included the land north of the Danube. Therefore, he also reckoned (p. 86) the rhyton from Poroina to the archaeological remains of the Scythian state the centre of which was lying in the Dobrudja. Otherwise, it is to be regretted that my remarks putting the rhyton from Poroina in another historical context (cf. Studies on the History of the Sarmatians. 23 and here p. 29 above) escaped the attention of Pippidi.
To p. 19. On the economic crisis of Olbia cf. N. V. Shafranskaya: VDI 1951/3. 9 foll. On the economic ties of the North Pontic Greek cities with the Scythians cf. N. A. Onaiko: VDI 1970/1. 112 foll. On Late Scythian culture along the Lower Dniepr cf. M. I. Vyaz'mitina: SA 1969/4. 62 foll.
To p. 20. The Epikrates inscription was again discussed by D. M. Pippidi: Epigraphische Beiträge 51 foll. He tried to prove that it originates from Histria. Unfortunately, the Apollonios inscription from Olbia offering an exact parallel to the Epikrates inscription (published by Y. I. Levi: VDI 1953/1. 177 foll, and again in 1917—1965. No. 28) escaped his attention. Surely we have to reckon the Epikrates inscription to the epigraphic materials of Olbia in the future too. Otherwise Pippidi correctly recognized that the Epikrates inscription is to be dated to the 3rd century B. C. It may reflect the same critical epoch (middle of the 3rd century B. C.) as the Apollonios inscription mentioned above.
To p. 20. D. M. Pippidi, Epigraphische Beiträge 89 foll, tried to prove with a detailed argumentation that the Aristagoras inscription originates from the second half of the 1st century B. C. He is, of course, right in stating that the inscription is written in the new alphabet appearing on the epigraphic monuments of Histria during the 1st century B. C. The point is, however, that for the scarcity of epigraphic materials originating from the end of the 2nd and the beginnings of the 1st centuries B. C. we cannot exactly determine the date of the introduction of the new alphabet. Surely it was introduced before 80 B. C., but one can think of an even earlier date. Accordingly, the Aristagoras inscription can be dated to the first half or even to the beginnings of the 1st century B. C. (i. e. to that very epoch I supposed) with the same right as to the second half of the 1st century B. C.
To p. 21. On Dacian influence in the territory between Dnieper and Dniester cf. M. I. Vyaz'mitina: . Studien zur Geschichte und Philosophie des Altertums. Budapest 1968. 247 foll.
To p. 24—29. L. Havas, Ant. Tan. 12 (1965) 242 foll, similarly made an attempt to prove the real possibility of the military expedition on land from the Balkans planned by Mithridates VI against the Romans. Curiously, my argumentation published 15 years earlier in the 1st edition, escaped his attention.
To p. 31. foll. On the Yüeh-chih migration cf. F. Altheim: Weltgeschichte Asiens im griechischen Zeitalter. I. Halle/Saale 1947. 51 foll., II. 1948. 88 foll., F. Altheim: Niedergang der Alten Welt. I. Frankfurt/Main. 37 foll.. F. Altheim: Geschichte der Hunnen. I. Berlin 1959. 61 foll., A. K. Narain: The Indo-Greeks. Oxford 1957. 128 foll., V. M. Masson — V. A. Romodin: I. Moscow 1964. 128 foll., B. G. Gafurov — A. M. Belenitskiy: I. Moscow 1964. 341 foll.
To p. 37. N. Fettich, Acta Arch. Hung. 3 (1953) 170 foll, looks for the workshop of the discussed group of phalerae in Olbia and dates it to the time about the middle
of the 1st century B. C. Taking into consideration, however, the situation of Olbia about the middle of the 1st century B. C., we have surely to regard this assumption as unacceptable. We can rather think of Panticapaeum. Nor can the dating to the middle of the 1st century B. C. of this group of phalerae be adopted.
To p. 41. In my paper "Iranier, Germanen und Römer im Mittleren Donaubecken" I pointed out in 1960 that the immigration of the Iazyges possibly took place at an earlier date as it was assumed so far. I quote the relevant passage: "Es wird meistens angenommen, daß die Jazygen zwischen 18 und 20 n. Zw. in die große ungarische Tiefebene eingewandert sind. Diese Auffassung stützt sich einerseits darauf, daß Aquincum in dieser Zeit eine militärische Besatzung und ein Lager erhielt, andrerseits, daß die Jazygen noch zwischen 9 und 17 n. Zw. von Ovid in der Nähe von Tomi erwähnt werden. Es scheint trotzdem nicht unmöglich zu sein, daß die ersten Jazygenscharen im Theißgebiet schon früher erschienen sind. Wir können auf eine Angabe des Eusebios hinweisen, wonach Tiberius im Jahre 7 n. Zw. mit den Dalmatern zusammen auch die Sarmaten zur Anerkennung der römischen Oberhoheit gezwungen hat. Da die militärischen Operationen des Tiberius während des großen pan-nonischen Aufstandes im wesentlichen auf das Gebiet zwischen Save und Dräu beschränkt waren, so ist es sehr wahrscheinlich, daß diese Sarmaten, die damals mit den Dalmatern zusammen von ihm besiegt wurden, schon in der Nähe der pannonischen Stämme, irgendwo in der Theißebene seßhaft waren. So könnte man daran denken, daß die Einwanderung der Jazygen in die ungarische Tiefebene viel früher erfolgt sein könnte, als man bisher angenommen hatte. Durch diese Annahme ließe sich auch diejenige Textstelle bei Lukan leichter verstehen, wonach die Jazygen zu seiner Zeit schon seit einem Jahrhundert in der Nähe von Pannonien gelebt hatten. Man darf sich diese Bewegung der Jazygen kaum als einen einzigen Vorstoß nach dem Nordwesten vorstellen. Wie wir noch sehen werden, lebten diese Tränier auch noch 100 Jahre später in einer ziemlich losen Sippen- und Stammesorganisation. So liegt es nahe daran zu denken, daß ihr Vordringen in kleineren Scharen, Sippen oder Stämmen vor sich gegangen ist. Durch diese Annahme läßt sich auch ihre Erwähnung bei Ovid erklären. Als die ersten Gruppen der Jazygen schon zwischen der Donau und der Theiß seßhaft waren, mögen andere Stämme von ihnen noch in Muntenien und in der Nähe von Tomi gelebt haben."
To p. 43. Cf. additional note to p. 19. (Shafranskaya).
To p. 45. Two problems were mostly discussed during the last two decades: 1. The immigration into Hungary of the various Sarmatian tribes, 2. The ethnical background and chronology of the different Sarmatian find groups. A. Mócsy, Acta Arch. Hung. 4 (1954) 120 foll, and M. Párducz, Acta Arch. Hung. 7 (1956) 174 foll, supposed the immigration of new Sarmatian groups (? Roxolani) at the beginnings of the 2nd Sarmatian Period (about 180), while Á. Salamon, FA 11 (1959) 75 foll, thought of the appearance of new Sarmatian immigrants on the territory of the Kiszombor—Ernőháza find group during the second half of the 3rd century B. C. All these suggestions deserve consideration, even though the archaeological material does not yet permit a definitive solution of the problem.
To p. 46. A. Mócsy, Acta Arch. Hung. 4 (1954) 120, note 51 proposed to regard the pelta-shaped buckles as Roman imports instead of Pontic ones as I supposed. The possibility, of course, cannot be excluded that some of these buckles were imported from Pannonia. We must take, however, into consideration that such buckles were also produced in the North Pontic Greek cities and the specimens found in Eastern Europe cannot be regarded as Roman imports. Moreover, the chalcedonic buckle found at Monor is surely of eastern origin. Accordingly, admitting the possi-
bility of Roman import on the one hand, we must certainly regard at least a part of the pelta-shaped buckles as imported from the Pontic region on the other hand.
To p. 48. On the Alans cf. F. Altheim: Geschichte der Hunnen. I. Berlin 1959. 55 foll., 57—75.
To p. 50. The problem of the cemeteries with barrow graves was often discussed in recent times. At first dating the northern group of the cemeteries with barrow graves to the end of the 2nd and the first half of the 3rd centuries A. D. L. Barkóczi ascribed this group of finds to the Vandals (Intercisa. II. AH XXXVI. Budapest 1957. 509 foll.). Later, in Ant. Tan 6 (1959) 247 and Acta Ant. Hung. 7 (1959) 447 he abandoned this theory. D. Gabler also dated the northern group of the cemeteries with barrow graves at least partly to the same epoch (AÉ 95  232). On the archaeological materials of the 2nd and 3rd Sarmatian Periods cf. M. Párducz: Denkmäler der Sarmatenzeit Ungarns. III. and J. Harmatta: Acta Arch. Hung. 2 (1952) 341 foll. L. Barkóczi suggested to see the Roxolani in the population of the group of Kiszombor—Ernőháza (Ant. Tan. 6  248 foll, and Acta Ant. Hung. 7  448 foll.).
On the basis of these discussions the immigration and tribal stratification of the Sarmatians in Hungary seem to be a more complicated historical phenomenon than it could be recognized before two decades. The immigration of the Roxolani possibly began already during the 2nd century A. D. and besides them we can perhaps reckon also with the settlement in Hungary of the other tribes of the Sarmatian tribal confederacy controlling the Northwestern Pontic region at the Age of Mithridates VI.
To p. 55. On Regalianus and the Roxolani cf. now J. Fitz: Ingenuus et Régalien. Collection Latomus. Vol. LXXXl. Bruxelles–Berchem 1966. 49 foll.
To p. 56. I now reckon the Sarmatian sword found at Szil (County Somogy) to the archaeological remains of the Sarmatian auxiliary troops recruited by Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Cf. also the remarks by M. Párducz: Acta Arch. Hung. 7 (1956) 158, 174.
To p. 56. In my paper "Iranier, Germanen und Römer im Mittleren Donaubecken" I elucidated the problem of the Ardaragantes (this is the correct form of the name!) and Limigantes (including the interpretation of the names) in a detailed manner.
To p. 56. F. Altheim proposed to interpret the name Sadagarii as Turk *sadaqar 'quiver-men' in F. Altheim — H.-W. Haussig: Die Hunnen in Osteuropa. Ein Forschungsbericht. Baden-Baden 1958. 24, note 68. This interpretation neglects the fact that the Sadagarii (or Sadagares) are never denoted as Huns (the passage of Pseudo-Julian definitely speaks against such a presumption). Later Altheim abandoned this explanation and [in] Geschichte der Hunnen. V. Berlin 1962. 27 he compared the name Sadagarii with Avestan satō.kara-, in which, however, the interpretation of the second element is entirely uncertain. L. Zgusta (Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste. Praha 1955. 263) rejected the etymology *sata-gari- proposed by M. Vasmer for two reason: 1. the interpretation neglects the form Sadagi-, 2. -arii is the well-known Late Latin suffix. Unfortunately he did not know my paper Das volk der Sadagaren (Analecta Orientalia Memoriae Alexandri Csoma De Kőrös Dicata. Budapestini 1942—1947. 17 foll.), in which I drew attention to the first evidence for the name in a letter by Pseudo-Julian giving the form Sadagares in Greek. Besides, I also referred to the fact that the identification of the Sadagarii with the Sadagis encounters serious dificulties.
To p. 56. From the view-point of the history of the Late Sarmatians the importance of two results of the archaeological research is still to be stressed here: 1. During the last decades Soviet and Roumanian archaeologists succeeded to discover
the archaeological remains of the Late Sarmatians settled on the territory between the Dniester and the Danube. Their results (cf. E. A. Rikman: SE 1966/I. 68 foll.) permit now to establish the ties between the Sarmatian tribes of the Great Hungarian Plain and those living east of the Carpathians with more certainty than before. 2. The other important result is that recognition that the population of the Chernyakhovo culture can be identified with the Goths (M. I. Artamonov: 1967. 48 foll.). At long last on the basis of this recognition the relations between the Late Sarmatians and the Goths can now be studied by the help of the archaeological finds.
To p. 58. 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.
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.
My esteemed friend Professor V. I. Abaev regards all Northern Iranian linguistic materials (including Scythian, Sarmatian, Alan and even Saka names) as Scythian (. 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, viz. Scythian and Sarmatian, instead of various dialects of the Sarmatian (Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste. 245 foll., Acta Orient. Hung. 4  245 foll.). It seems that sometimes it is not easy to force even an open door.
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.
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 (Quellenstudien zu den Skythika des Herodot. 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.
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.
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.
4. The theory expounded by Zgusta cannot be accepted for the following reasons:
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.
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.
c) Zgusta did not take into consideration either the interrelation of the phonemic changes jointly occurring in the same names (cf. my Studies in the Languages of the Iranian Tribes in South Russia. 55 and here p. 96 above), or the fact that evidences for different dialects frequently occur in the one and same Greek city.
d) He tried to eliminate all linguistic data, e. g. even the name Alani, 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.
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.
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 language 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 *puθra-. 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 Studies in the Language of the Iranian
Tribes in South Russia 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.
To p. 62. On the Ossetian dialects cf. V. I. Abaev: . I. 357 foll., G. Akhvlediani: . I. 60 foll., M. I. Isaev: . Moscow 1966. 5—112 and 14 (1965) 140 foll.
To p. 62. The most important works of V. I. Abaev are now joined in his valuable book . I.
To p. 62. 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 . I. and . I. Moscow—Leningrad 1958.
To p. 63. Against the confrontation of Alanic χsina with Old Hungarian aχsin Abaev argues with reference to the momentary, unstable character of the Ossetian prothetic vowel ä. It must be noted, however, that from the view-point of Hungarian aχsin > asszony the prothetic a 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 χsina with Old Hungarin aχsin becomes even more valid.
To p. 64. On the position of the Chorasmian cf. W. B. Henning: Handbuch der Orientalistik. I. Abt. IV. Bd. l. Abschn. Iranistik. I. Abschn. Linguistik. Leiden—Köln 1958 109 foll. Henning judges about the common features of Chorasmian and Ossetian rather negatively.
To p. 64. As W. B. Henning, The Khwarezmian Language. Zeki Validi Togan'a Armağan. Istanbul 1955. 10 has shown, the Chorasmian plural suffix -c goes back in fact to -k.
To p. 65. On Chorasmian ’rθmwχ cf. now V. A. Livshits: Acta Ant. Hung. 16 (1968) 442 who shows that this name does not occur on the coins. On Uruzmäg cf. V. I. Abaev: 10 (1945) 25 foll. (*Varāz-man), . I. 92, E. Benveniste: Etudes sur la langue ossète. 129 (*Avarazmaka-).
To p. 66. Cf. also F. Altheim: Aus Spätantike und Christentum. Tübingen 1951. 59 foll, and Geschichte der Hunnen. I. Berlin 1959. 57 foll.
To p. 67. During the last two decades H. W. Bailey gave important contributions to the historical analysis of the Ossetian vocabulary in almost everyone of his papers.
To p. 73. It is hardly correct to trace back the names Kustašpi and Kundašpi to Old Iranian *Vištāspa- and *Vindāspa- as Kretschmer and Nyberg did. I now presume the Old Iranian forms *Kuštāspa- and *Kundāspa- as Old Iranian prototypes.
To p. 74. On the Indo-Aryan linguistic elements in the Ancient Near East cf. now M. Mayrhofer: Die Indo-Arier im Alten Vorderasien. Wiesbaden 1966, with almost complete bibliography, A. Kammenhuber: Die Arier im Vorderen Orient. Heidelberg 1968., E. A. Grantovskiy: Moscow 1970.
To p. 75. On the Javian dialect cf. also G. Akhvlediani: . I. 60 foll.
To p. 76. The problem of Ossetian c- < čy- was again treated by E. Benveniste. Études sur la langue ossète. 22 foll, with similar results. He omits, however, to refer to my above analysis.
To p. 77. L. Zgusta, Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste. 263 made the surprising statement that we do not know anything about the ethnical qualification of the Arraei Sarmatae. Does the qualification Sarmatae not say him really anything?
To p. 78. The problem of the name Alani was often discussed in the meantime. At first I would add A. Freiman: RO 3 (1925) 158 foll, (alān < aryaanām — ir < ēr < err < arya-) to my references. Cf. further V. 1. Abaev: . I. 156, 245 foll., F. Altheim: Aus Spätantike und Christentum. 63, 168 und Geschichte der Hunnen. I. 58 foll., L. Zgusta: Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste. 264, I. Gershevitch: BSOAS 17 (1955) 486, V. I. Abaev: . I. 47 foll., 545 foll., H. W. Bailey: TrPhS 1959. 98 foll., G. Akhvlediani: . 211 foll. As to the recent attempts to elucidate the origin of the name Alani, I restrict myself to a few short remarks here.
1. A form *ārya- cannot be evidenced in Iranian languages, accordingly we can only suppose an Old Iranian form *arya- as starting point. Thus the form allon cannot be a genuine development from *aryāna- in Ossetian.
2. Alan is a name which is never applied by the Ossetes to themselves. This fact speaks against the Ossetian origin of this term.
3. The development -ry- > -l-cannot be proved in Ossetian reassuringly, because all reliable instances quoted by Abaev and others only show -ri- > -l-.
4. The Eastern Ossetes use the name ir, iron to denote themselves, consequently this name must be genuine and cannot be regarded as of Caucasian origin. Because the Western Ossetes do not denote themselves with the term irä, this form may be borrowed by them from the Eastern Ossetes.
5. The name asi is used by the Ossetes as the denomination of Balkaria where the place-names prove the former existence of a population speaking an Ossetian dialect.
From all these facts it follows that the problem of the historical relations between Alani, Ās and Ossetes is a very complicated one. I hope to come back to this question.
To p. 79. As a parallel to reflecting the earlier stage of phonemic development, the name (Eltegen, 2nd half of the 1st — 1st half of the 2nd centuries A. D., CIRB No. 931) can be quoted. The assumption of Zgusta (Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste. 64) that might be a clerical error for is a mere invention.
To p. 80. The name is uncertain because it is only restored as by Latyschew (cf. CIRB No. 199).
To p. 81. Zgusta (Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste. 232 foll.) would like to eliminate all instances of the phonemic change -ry- > -l- in Sarmatian. He says: "Es kann sich auch um verschiedene Aussprachen handeln, die in der Schrift den Ausdruck fanden." This is hardly possible. We can reckon with two possibilities: 1. The Sarmatian dialects had only the phoneme /r/. In this case no alternation between r and l was possible. 2. The phoneme /l/ arose
as a result of the phonemic change -ry/ri- > -l-. In this case an alternation between r and l can perhaps be assumed, but it proves already the phonemic change -ry/ri-> -l-. Another instance for -ry- > -l- can be recognized in the name , which can be traced back to an Old Iranian form *čiryakāna-.
To p. 82. Zgusta (Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste. 263 foll.) would like also to cancel the name , but his argumentation is only based on a series of misunderstandings. He calls in doubt the possibility of a transcription αο of the diphthong au. But this was the only possible correct way of transcription because αυ in Greek was already monophthongized. Then he quotes the form Avorsorum from Tacite but such a reading does not exist (cf. also F. Altheim: Geschichte der Hunnen. I. 70, 74 foll, on the different readings of the name in the codices of Tacite). Zgusta questions even the existence of the Ossetian word urs 'white' and he asserts that the Osseto-Russian dictionary by Kasaev does not contain it. On p. 344 foll, of Kasaev's dictionary, however, the word urs together with his numerous compounds can be found. Otherwise I already discussed all these problems in the 1st edition in a detailed manner.
To p. 87. The doubts expressed by W. P. Schmidt (BzN 7  208) in connection with the interpretation of the name are unfounded. He is not even acquainted with Middle Persian asvār (’swb’l) 'horseman, knight'.
To p. 91. Abaev interprets the name as *pars-panak = Ossetian fäjnäg-fars 'whose side is (strong as) a board'. I see no reason to abandon my interpretation. The etymology of Ossetian fäjnäg is unclear (the proposal of Abaev cannot be accepted) and it is doubtful whether it can be presumed in Sarmatian. Beside the interpretation proposed by me previously, the explanation *pars-pānak 'side-guard, body-guard' is also possible (cf. Middle Persian puštg-pān 'body-guard', literally 'back-guard') and perhaps it is even better.
To p. 92. The interpretation of Sangi- in the name Sangibanus by the help of Avestan saha- can hardly be correct. Nor is the attempt of Abaev to identify Sangi- with Ossetian cong 'hand' far better.
To p. 92. On the name cf. L. Zgusta: Die Personennamen griechischer Städte der nördlichen Schwarzmeerküste. 70. I do not regard the separation as convincing. Dividing, however, the text into , we can only restore the form .
Zgusta, op. cit. 269 tries to eliminate the examples for -an- > -on-. In his opinion is grecized on the pattern of etc. This assumption is, however, hardly correct. An Iranian form *mēton(i) could, of course, be transcribed as in Greek, but if the Iranian prototype would have been *mētan(i), surely this would have been grecized on the pattern of , etc. or on that of , etc. Accordingly, the evidence of the name for -an- > -on- remains valid further on.
In the case of the argumentation of Zgusta is hardly comprehensible. He adopts my interpretation < *Syāmaka-, but he refuses to use this name as an evidence for the phonemic development -am- > -om- for that reason that a in the name also developed into ō among other circumstances. Where is a logic here?
To p. 92. The form syōmaχ cannot go back to Old Iranian *syāmaka-, but only to *syāma-aχva- 'evil-minded' (lit. 'dark-minded').
To p. 93. After examining the passage in App. Mithr. 88, it seems to me quite certain that the cannot be identified with the 'a tribe of the Maiotai' in Strabo XL 2, 11. Accordingly, the interpretation of this name from Old Iranian
*agra- does not encounter any difficulty.
To p. 93. The correct interpretation of the name was already found by E. Benveniste: MSL 23 (1927) 133. Cf. also E. Benveniste: Études sur la langue ossète. 64, note 2.
To p. 93. On višta- cf. E. Benveniste: JA 227 (1936) 229, O. Szemerényi: BzN 2 (1951) 165 ff.. H. W. Bailey: JRAS 1953. 101–103, W. Brandenstein—M. Mayrhofer: Handbuch des Altpersischen. Wiesbaden 1964. 154.
To p. 93. Even though the interpretation of the name from Old Iranian *hanaka- is certainly possible, now it seems to me still doubtful. On the other hand I also regard the proposal of Abaev to trace back this name to Old Iranian *χvanaka- unlikely, because Old Iranian *χva- usually appears as Χο- or Χω- in the Iranian names occurring in the Greek inscriptions of the North Pontic region.
To p. 94 foll. Now I regard the following interpretations as correct: < *χšaita-farnah- and < *χšaya-.
Addendum to p. 53. On the invasion of the Goths under Traianus Decius cf. B. Gerov: Die gotische Invasion in Mösien und Thrakien unter Decius im Lichte der Hortfunde. Acta Ant. Philippopolitana, Studia Hist. et Phil. Sofia 1963. 127—146.
Addendum to p. 56. On the date of the settlement of the Sadagarii in Roman territory cf. G. Fehér: UJb 15 (1935) 413 (466 A. D.) and F. Altheim: Attila und die Hunnen. Baden-Baden 1951. 211, note 50 (he rejects the theory of Fehér and supports a dating of the settlement after the battle at the river Nedao in 455 A, D.).
On the problem of the Sadagarii and Sadagis cf. T. Nagy: Budapest
műemlékei (The Public Monuments of
Budapest). Budapest 1962. II. 68 and note 113, L. Várady:
Letzte Jahrhundert Pannoniens 376—476. Budapest 1969. 335 and note 833. T.
Nagy hesitates to identify the Sadagis with the Sadagarii, but in any case he
considers remarkable that both the Sadagarii and the Sadagis were living in the
neighbourhood of the Skiri. Against this view it is to be noted that the Sadagis
never made a common action together with the Skiri and the immediate
neighbourhood of the two tribes is improvable on the one hand, and we have no
evidence for the earlier neighbourhood of the Sadagarii and the Skiri before
their joint settlement in Roman territory on the other hand. L. Várady says:
"Freilich handelt es sich dabei um Varianten desselben Namens." Here we have to
do with an obvious vicious cercle. Since K. Zeuss: Die Deutschen und die
Nuchbarstämme. München 1837. 709 historical research usually supposes that
Sadagis and Sadagarii are one and the same people and on this basis one often
regards Sadagis and Sadagarii as variants of the same name. But as a matter of
fact neither can from historical viewpoint the identity of the two peoples be
proved nor can from linguistic view-point the two names be regarded as variants.
Thus the whole theory is only based on the similarity of the names Sadagis and Sadagarii.
I would still add that I never said that according to the report of Iordanes the
Sadagarii were transplanted in Roman territory before 455 as Várady asserts, but
I supposed that some fractions of peoples, and among others the Sadagarii too,
already immigrated into the Roman Empire earlier than it was reported by
[Back to Index]