DOCSLIB.ORG

An Overview of Tocharian Studies Over the Past Thirty Years

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Overview of Tocharian Studies Over the Past Thirty Years Chapter 9 Beyond Deciphering: An Overview of Tocharian Studies over the Past Thirty Years Xu Wenkan It was in 1892 that the existence of the so-called “Tocharian language,” a branch of the Indo-European language family, came to be known in the West for the first time. In that same year, from the collection of Petrovsky, a Russian consul general to Kashgar, a facsimile manuscript in an unknown language was published in Zapiski Vostochnago Otdyleniya Imperatorkago Russkago Archeologicheskago Obshchestva 7 by the Russian scholar S. F. Oldenburg. The unknown manuscript was written in North Indian Brahmi script. The follow- ing year, the English scholar A. F. R. Hoernle transcribed and identified several Sanskrit words in the manuscript.1 From the end of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth, expeditions from Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, Sweden, and other countries carried out archaeological explorations in Xinjiang, Gansu, and other places in northwest China, uncovering numerous ancient manuscripts in many languag- es (mainly discovered in Xinjiang and Dunhuang, Gansu). The most astonishing findings were manuscripts in previously unknown Indo-European languages;2 this started a wave of interest in these manuscripts among European schol- ars. In 1900, the German scholar Ernst Leumann published an article entitled “Über eine von den unbekannten Literatursprachen Mittelasiens” in Mémories de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, VIIIe série IV/8. He included in his article the abovementioned facsimile, as well as another fac- simile drawn from the Russian collection. Leumann’s transcription was fairly accurate; he identified several Sanskrit words, and his research demonstrated that the manuscript was a fragment of a translation of a Buddhist sūtra. The Indo-European language investigated by Hoernle and Leumann had previously been unknown, so they referred to it as Unbekannte Sprache I, “Unknown Language I,” and later called it Kaschgarische, “Kashgari,” though both names have since fallen out of use. 1 Hoernle 1893: 1–40. 2 He Changqun 1932/2003: 54–97. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004362253_010 Beyond Deciphering 129 The German Turcologist F. W. K. Müller and the Sanskritologist Emil Sieg played the most important role in continuing the research. In 1907, Müller published a short article entitled “Beitrag zur genaueren Bestimmung der un- bekannten Sprachen Mittelasiens” in SBAW 958–960. His identification was based on the colophon of the Uyghur version of Maitreyasamiti (Maitrisimit nom bitig); he called the language Tocharisch, “Tocharian.” Other scholars, for example the Estonian Baron Alexander von Staël-Holstein and the Norwegian S. Konow, argued that the name Tocharian should be applied to the Khotan-Saka language of the Eastern Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family. The next year, 1908, Sieg and another scholar named Wilhelm Siegling published a famous article called “Tokharische,”3 in which agreement was expressed on the name put forward by Müller. Especially important is that these two scholars put forth proof that Tocharian comprises an indepen- dent branch of the Indo-European language family, divided into two dialects: Tocharian A and Tocharian B, and that though this language was spoken in the East, it had characteristics of Western Indo-European languages, particularly Italian and Celtic. For example, this language preserved the postulated palatal characteristics of hard palatal sounds, such as *k, *ĝ, *ĝh (Tocharian A känte, Tocharian B kante are similar to Greek hekaton and Latin centum). This marked the emergence of Tocharology, with 2008 its 100th anniversary. The discovery and decipherment of Tocharian was one of the seminal events in twentieth-century Indo-European historical comparative linguistics. Its significance is comparable to that of the uncovering and decipherment of Hittite and other Anatolian languages. Tocharian and Hittite have some com- mon features; for example, in both languages, “r” is a marker of the passive mood. Generally speaking, the study of Hittite and the Anatolian languages is more mature than the study of Tocharian. Because the prior achievements of Assyriology had laid a foundation, the study of Hittite received greater atten- tion from linguists studying the Indo-European languages. Tocharian studies were only able to reach this level of maturity after great labor was expended. However, after 1908, substantial progress was seen in research on Tocharian as is evident from publications. In 1921, Sieg and Siegling published Tocharische Sprachreste, a work that includes numerous facsimiles from the Tocharian A fragments preserved in the Berlin collection. In 1931, in cooperation with Indo-Europeanist William Schulz, they published Tocharische Grammatik (Tocharian Grammar), a work more than five hundred pages in length. Still, the publication of the Tocharian B fragments was postponed until Tocharische Spracheste and SpracheB were finally published in 1949 and 1953, respectively. 3 Sieg and Siegling 1908: 915–932..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ancient Iranian Nomads in Western Central Asia
    ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 ANCIENT IRANIAN NOMADS IN. 1 ANCIENT IRANIAN NOMADS IN WESTERN CENTRAL ASIA* A. Abetekov and H. Yusupov Contents Literary sources on the ancient Iranian nomads of Central Asia ............ 25 Society and economy of the Iranian nomads of Central Asia .............. 26 Culture of the Iranian nomads of Central Asia ..................... 29 The territory of Central Asia, which consists of vast expanses of steppe-land, desert and semi-desert with fine seasonal pastures, was destined by nature for the development of nomadic cattle-breeding. Between the seventh and third centuries b.c. it was inhabited by a large number of tribes, called Scythians by the Greeks, and Sakas by the Persians. The history of the Central Asian nomads is inseparable from that of the nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppe zone. Their political and economic life was closely linked, and their material culture had much in common. It should also be noted that, despite their distinctive qualities, the nomadic tribes were closely connected with the agricultural population of Central Asia. In fact, the history and movements of these nomadic tribes and the settled population cannot be considered in isolation; each had its impact on the other, and this interdependence must be properly understood. * See Map 1. 24 ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 Literary sources on the ancient Iranian. Literary sources on the ancient Iranian nomads of Central Asia The term ‘Tura’¯ 1 is the name by which the Central Asian nomadic tribes were in one of the earliest parts of the Avesta. The Turas¯ are portrayed as enemies of the sedentary Iranians and described, in Yašt XVII (prayer to the goddess Aši), 55–6, as possessing fleet-footed horses.2 As early as 641 or 640 b.c.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20Th Century and Beyond
    The Impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20th Century and Beyond The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Jasanoff, Jay. 2017. The Impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the 20th Century and Beyond. In Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics, edited by Jared Klein, Brian Joseph, and Matthias Fritz, 31-53. Munich: Walter de Gruyter. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41291502 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA 18. The Impact of Hittite and Tocharian ■■■ 35 18. The Impact of Hittite and Tocharian: Rethinking Indo-European in the Twentieth Century and Beyond 1. Two epoch-making discoveries 4. Syntactic impact 2. Phonological impact 5. Implications for subgrouping 3. Morphological impact 6. References 1. Two epoch-making discoveries The ink was scarcely dry on the last volume of Brugmann’s Grundriß (1916, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, pt. 3), so to speak, when an unexpected discovery in a peripheral area of Assyriol- ogy portended the end of the scholarly consensus that Brugmann had done so much to create. Hrozný, whose Sprache der Hethiter appeared in 1917, was not primarily an Indo-Europeanist, but, like any trained philologist of the time, he could see that the cuneiform language he had deciphered, with such features as an animate nom.
    [Show full text]
  • Greek-Anatolian Language Contact and the Settlement of Pamphylia
    CHRISTINA SKELTON Greek-Anatolian Language Contact and the Settlement of Pamphylia The Ancient Greek dialect of Pamphylia shows extensive influence from the nearby Anatolian languages. Evidence from the linguistics of Greek and Anatolian, sociolinguistics, and the histor- ical and archaeological record suggest that this influence is due to Anatolian speakers learning Greek as a second language as adults in such large numbers that aspects of their L2 Greek became fixed as a part of the main Pamphylian dialect. For this linguistic development to occur and persist, Pamphylia must initially have been settled by a small number of Greeks, and remained isolated from the broader Greek-speaking community while prevailing cultural atti- tudes favored a combined Greek-Anatolian culture. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The Greek-speaking world of the Archaic and Classical periods (ca. ninth through third centuries BC) was covered by a patchwork of different dialects of Ancient Greek, some of them quite different from the Attic and Ionic familiar to Classicists. Even among these varied dialects, the dialect of Pamphylia, located on the southern coast of Asia Minor, stands out as something unusual. For example, consider the following section from the famous Pamphylian inscription from Sillyon: συ Διϝι̣ α̣ ̣ και hιιαροισι Μανεˉ[ς .]υαν̣ hελε ΣελυW[ι]ιυ̣ ς̣ ̣ [..? hι†ια[ρ]α ϝιλ̣ σιι̣ ọς ̣ υπαρ και ανιιας̣ οσα περ(̣ ι)ι[στα]τυ ̣ Wοικ[. .] The author would like to thank Sally Thomason, Craig Melchert, Leonard Neidorf and the anonymous reviewer for their valuable input, as well as Greg Nagy and everyone at the Center for Hellenic Studies for allowing me to use their library and for their wonderful hospitality during the early stages of pre- paring this manuscript.
    [Show full text]
  • THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY — the LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE by Brian D
    THE INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY — THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE by Brian D. Joseph, The Ohio State University 0. Introduction A stunning result of linguistic research in the 19th century was the recognition that some languages show correspondences of form that cannot be due to chance convergences, to borrowing among the languages involved, or to universal characteristics of human language, and that such correspondences therefore can only be the result of the languages in question having sprung from a common source language in the past. Such languages are said to be “related” (more specifically, “genetically related”, though “genetic” here does not have any connection to the term referring to a biological genetic relationship) and to belong to a “language family”. It can therefore be convenient to model such linguistic genetic relationships via a “family tree”, showing the genealogy of the languages claimed to be related. For example, in the model below, all the languages B through I in the tree are related as members of the same family; if they were not related, they would not all descend from the same original language A. In such a schema, A is the “proto-language”, the starting point for the family, and B, C, and D are “offspring” (often referred to as “daughter languages”); B, C, and D are thus “siblings” (often referred to as “sister languages”), and each represents a separate “branch” of the family tree. B and C, in turn, are starting points for other offspring languages, E, F, and G, and H and I, respectively. Thus B stands in the same relationship to E, F, and G as A does to B, C, and D.
    [Show full text]
  • M. Witzel (2003) Sintashta, BMAC and the Indo-Iranians. a Query. [Excerpt
    M. Witzel (2003) Sintashta, BMAC and the Indo-Iranians. A query. [excerpt from: Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Exchange in Prehistoric Western Central Asia] (to appear in : Sino-Platonic Papers 129) Transhumance, Trickling in, Immigration of Steppe Peoples There is no need to underline that the establishment of a BMAC substrate belt has grave implications for the theory of the immigration of speakers of Indo-Iranian languages into Greater Iran and then into the Panjab. By and large, the body of words taken over into the Indo-Iranian languages in the BMAC area, necessarily by bilingualism, closes the linguistic gap between the Urals and the languages of Greater Iran and India. Uralic and Yeneseian were situated, as many IIr. loan words indicate, to the north of the steppe/taiga boundary of the (Proto-)IIr. speaking territories (§2.1.1). The individual IIr. languages are firmly attested in Greater Iran (Avestan, O.Persian, Median) as well as in the northwestern Indian subcontinent (Rgvedic, Middle Vedic). These materials, mentioned above (§2.1.) and some more materials relating to religion (Witzel forthc. b) indicate an early habitat of Proto- IIr. in the steppes south of the Russian/Siberian taiga belt. The most obvious linguistic proofs of this location are the FU words corresponding to IIr. Arya "self-designation of the IIr. tribes": Pre-Saami *orja > oarji "southwest" (Koivulehto 2001: 248), ārjel "Southerner", and Finnish orja, Votyak var, Syry. ver "slave" (Rédei 1986: 54). In other words, the IIr. speaking area may have included the S. Ural "country of towns" (Petrovka, Sintashta, Arkhaim) dated at c.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER SEVENTEEN History of the German Language 1 Indo
    CHAPTER SEVENTEEN History of the German Language 1 Indo-European and Germanic Background Indo-European Background It has already been mentioned in this course that German and English are related languages. Two languages can be related to each other in much the same way that two people can be related to each other. If two people share a common ancestor, say their mother or their great-grandfather, then they are genetically related. Similarly, German and English are genetically related because they share a common ancestor, a language which was spoken in what is now northern Germany sometime before the Angles and the Saxons migrated to England. We do not have written records of this language, unfortunately, but we have a good idea of what it must have looked and sounded like. We have arrived at our conclusions as to what it looked and sounded like by comparing the sounds of words and morphemes in earlier written stages of English and German (and Dutch) and in modern-day English and German dialects. As a result of the comparisons we are able to reconstruct what the original language, called a proto-language, must have been like. This particular proto-language is usually referred to as Proto-West Germanic. The method of reconstruction based on comparison is called the comparative method. If faced with two languages the comparative method can tell us one of three things: 1) the two languages are related in that both are descended from a common ancestor, e.g. German and English, 2) the two are related in that one is the ancestor of the other, e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Proto-Iranians of Afghanistan As Initiators of Sakta Tantrism: on the Scythian/Saka Affiliation of the Dasas, Nuristanis and Magadhans
    Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXVII, 2002 PRE-PROTO-IRANIANS OF AFGHANISTAN AS INITIATORS OF SAKTA TANTRISM: ON THE SCYTHIAN/SAKA AFFILIATION OF THE DASAS, NURISTANIS AND MAGADHANS BY Asko PARPOLA (Helsinki) 1. Introduction 1.1 Preliminary notice Professor C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky is a scholar striving at integrated understanding of wide-ranging historical processes, extending from Mesopotamia and Elam to Central Asia and the Indus Valley (cf. Lamberg- Karlovsky 1985; 1996) and even further, to the Altai. The present study has similar ambitions and deals with much the same area, although the approach is from the opposite direction, north to south. I am grateful to Dan Potts for the opportunity to present the paper in Karl's Festschrift. It extends and complements another recent essay of mine, ‘From the dialects of Old Indo-Aryan to Proto-Indo-Aryan and Proto-Iranian', to appear in a volume in the memory of Sir Harold Bailey (Parpola in press a). To com- pensate for that wider framework which otherwise would be missing here, the main conclusions are summarized (with some further elaboration) below in section 1.2. Some fundamental ideas elaborated here were presented for the first time in 1988 in a paper entitled ‘The coming of the Aryans to Iran and India and the cultural and ethnic identity of the Dasas’ (Parpola 1988). Briefly stated, I suggested that the fortresses of the inimical Dasas raided by ¤gvedic Aryans in the Indo-Iranian borderlands have an archaeological counterpart in the Bronze Age ‘temple-fort’ of Dashly-3 in northern Afghanistan, and that those fortresses were the venue of the autumnal festival of the protoform of Durga, the feline-escorted Hindu goddess of war and victory, who appears to be of ancient Near Eastern origin.
    [Show full text]
  • Proto-Indo-European Roots of the Vedic Aryans
    3 (2016) Miscellaneous 1: A-V Proto-Indo-European Roots of the Vedic Aryans TRAVIS D. WEBSTER Center for Traditional Vedanta, USA © 2016 Ruhr-Universität Bochum Entangled Religions 3 (2016) ISSN 2363-6696 http://dx.doi.org/10.13154/er.v3.2016.A–V Proto-Indo-European Roots of the Vedic Aryans Proto-Indo-European Roots of the Vedic Aryans TRAVIS D. WEBSTER Center for Traditional Vedanta ABSTRACT Recent archaeological evidence and the comparative method of Indo-European historical linguistics now make it possible to reconstruct the Aryan migrations into India, two separate diffusions of which merge with elements of Harappan religion in Asko Parpola’s The Roots of Hinduism: The Early Aryans and the Indus Civilization (NY: Oxford University Press, 2015). This review of Parpola’s work emphasizes the acculturation of Rigvedic and Atharvavedic traditions as represented in the depiction of Vedic rites and worship of Indra and the Aśvins (Nāsatya). After identifying archaeological cultures prior to the breakup of Proto-Indo-European linguistic unity and demarcating the two branches of the Proto-Aryan community, the role of the Vrātyas leads back to mutual encounters with the Iranian Dāsas. KEY WORDS Asko Parpola; Aryan migrations; Vedic religion; Hinduism Introduction Despite the triumph of the world-religions paradigm from the late nineteenth century onwards, the fact remains that Indologists require more precise taxonomic nomenclature to make sense of their data. Although the Vedas are widely portrayed as the ‘Hindu scriptures’ and are indeed upheld as the sole arbiter of scriptural authority among Brahmins, for instance, the Vedic hymns actually play a very minor role in contemporary Indian religion.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Anatolian Languages and Language Communities in the Colony Period : a Luwian-Hattian Symbiosis and the Independent Hittites*
    1333-08_Dercksen_07crc 05-06-2008 14:52 Pagina 137 CENTRAL ANATOLIAN LANGUAGES AND LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES IN THE COLONY PERIOD : A LUWIAN-HATTIAN SYMBIOSIS AND THE INDEPENDENT HITTITES* Petra M. Goedegebuure (Chicago) 1. Introduction and preliminary remarks This paper is the result of the seemingly innocent question “Would you like to say something on the languages and peoples of Anatolia during the Old Assyrian Period”. Seemingly innocent, because to gain some insight on the early second millennium Central Anatolian population groups and their languages, we ideally would need to discuss the relationship of language with the complex notion of ethnicity.1 Ethnicity is a subjective construction which can only be detected with certainty if the ethnic group has left information behind on their sense of group identity, or if there is some kind of ascription by others. With only the Assyrian merchant documents at hand with their near complete lack of references to the indigenous peoples or ethnic groups and languages of Anatolia, the question of whom the Assyrians encountered is difficult to answer. The correlation between language and ethnicity, though important, is not necessarily a strong one: different ethnic groups may share the same language, or a single ethnic group may be multilingual. Even if we have information on the languages spoken in a certain area, we clearly run into serious difficulties if we try to reconstruct ethnicity solely based on language, the more so in proto-historical times such as the early second millennium BCE in Anatolia. To avoid these difficulties I will only refer to population groups as language communities, without any initial claims about the ethnicity of these communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Indo-European Languages and Branches
    Indo-European languages and branches Language Relations One of the first hurdles anyone encounters in studying a foreign language is learning a new vocabulary. Faced with a list of words in a foreign language, we instinctively scan it to see how many of the words may be like those of our own language.We can provide a practical example by surveying a list of very common words in English and their equivalents in Dutch, Czech, and Spanish. A glance at the table suggests that some words are more similar to their English counterparts than others and that for an English speaker the easiest or at least most similar vocabulary will certainly be that of Dutch. The similarities here are so great that with the exception of the words for ‘dog’ (Dutch hond which compares easily with English ‘hound’) and ‘pig’ (where Dutch zwijn is the equivalent of English ‘swine’), there would be a nearly irresistible temptation for an English speaker to see Dutch as a bizarrely misspelled variety of English (a Dutch reader will no doubt choose to reverse the insult). When our myopic English speaker turns to the list of Czech words, he discovers to his pleasant surprise that he knows more Czech than he thought. The Czech words bratr, sestra,and syn are near hits of their English equivalents. Finally, he might be struck at how different the vocabulary of Spanish is (except for madre) although a few useful correspondences could be devised from the list, e.g. English pork and Spanish puerco. The exercise that we have just performed must have occurred millions of times in European history as people encountered their neighbours’ languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Transfer of Morphemes and Grammatical Structure in Ancient Anatolia
    CHAPTER FIFTEEN TRANSFER OF MORPHEMES AND GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE IN ANCIENT ANATOLIA Folke Josephson Recent research has successfully developed historical sociolinguistics in the study of Anatolian and has stressed the importance of Hittite-Luvian bilingualism. Case endings and nominal suffixes were brought into Hit- tite in Luvian loan words. Adoption of Hurrian morphemes by IE Anato- lian was insignificant in spite of intensive Hurrian—Luvian bilingualism. Structural traits that have been believed to be of Hattic and Hurrian ori- gin and developmental tendencies leading to unusual syntactic traits of Indo-European Anatolian should be seen as developments of inherited Indo-European structures. Anatolian split ergativity can be explained internally. The historical development of the functional scope of local/ directional enclitic particles is also an internal phenomenon. Later com- mon trends in the historical development of Anatolian like the loss of several sentence introductory connective particles and local/directional particles imply a reversal of common trends that led to the establishment of earlier functions of these elements. Structural dissimilarities account for the lack of transfer of morphemes and grammatical elements from Hurrian and Hattic, but Hattic may have been influenced by IE Anatolian structures. 1 Introduction In an article on ancient Anatolia as a linguistic area and areal diffusion as a challenge to the comparative method (Watkins 2001), Calvert Watkins was concerned with diffusional convergence in phonology and morpho- syntax and emphasized that the Anatolian subgroup of Indo-European had close contacts with Hattic and the Hurrian of Mitanni and ancient contacts with Semitic Sumero-Akkadian. On the subject of three syntactic isoglosses of Indo-European Anatolian, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • As William Makepeace Thackeray (1811–63) Would Have Said
    CONCLUSIONS Everything has its end, so does this book. “Our play is played out,” as William Makepeace Thackeray (1811–63) would have said. Our peculiar journey in space and time to the sources of Indo-European cultures and languages is also over. It is left only to draw important conclusions. The world of Indo-European cultures and languages is really huge, diverse, and marvelous. The history of the ancient Indo-Europeans and the peoples with whom they communicated in prehistory in many aspects is still shrouded in mystery. We know for sure that the Indo-Europeans were not autochthones neither in Europe nor in India. Although the word Europe is originally a prominent concept of Greek civilisation, basically used in a large number of modern languages, its etymology (as well as that of Asia) is of unknown ultimate provenance, which also speaks in favour of the later appearance of the Indo-Europeans on this continent. We also know that other civilisations flourished before them, but the origins of these civilisations or the specific circumstances of the invasion of Indo-Europeans tribes there – all this is the subject of much speculation impossible to verify. According to the Kurgan hypothesis that seems the most likely, the tribes who spoke Proto-Indo-European dialects originally occupied the territory that stretched between the Pontic steppe (the region of modern southern Russia and eastern Ukraine) and the Ural Mountains, and between the upper reaches of the Volga and the foothills of the Caucasus. Approximately during the 5th and 4th millennia BC, they split into various parts and began their movements in three main directions: to the east into Central Asia and later farther, to the south through the Caucasus into Asia Minor, and to the west into Europe.
    [Show full text]