etswe Tocharian B ‘mule’ and Eastern East Iranian *
etswe Tocharian B Tocharian contains an archaic stratum of Iranian loanwords, as illustrated by Toch. B tsain, pl. tsainwa ‘weapon’ < PToch. *tsainu OIr. *dzainu- (cf. Av. za¯enuš- ‘baldric’). The shape ← of the Tocharian word is archaic because ) it preserves the OIr. diphthong *ai; ) the plural suffix -wa reflects the original u-stem, which is likewise reflected in Arm. z¯en ‘weapon’, gen. ˘ pl. zinowc ; and ) it shows, as ts, the intermediate stage *dz of the development of PIIr. *Ih > Av. z. To this stratum of loanwords we can add the recently identified Toch. B word etswe ‘mule’ (Peyrot :–). This word is attested in a Tocharian B–Old Uyghur bilingual of which the Old Uyghur part has been published by Maue (:–). The relevant sets are Toch. B etswentsake, rendered with Old Uyghur katırlarka ‘mules’ (dat. pl.), and the following kar´suwa, rendered with Old Uyghur yüdürmi[š] ‘loaded’ (Maue :). As I argued (l.c.), kar´suwa must be a preterite participle, as also shown by the Old Uyghur equivalent, but it is not formed correctly. Therefore, the Toch. B words have to be reseg- mented as etswentsa kekar´suwa. The preterite participle is now correctly formed, and etswentsa has become a regular Toch. B perlative plural of a new noun etswe, which means ‘mule’ on the evidence of the Old Uyghur rendering with katır. But it is not clear to which root kekar´suwa belongs. If it stands for kekar{k}uwa, then it would mean ‘bound’, and the corre- spondence would be etswentsa kekarkuwa ‘bound onto mules’ : katırlarka yüdürmi[š] ‘loaded onto mules’.
∗This research was supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO, project number - -). I am grateful to my fellow editors as well as to Federico Dragoni (Leiden) for valuable comments on an earlier draft. For important advice and information I thank Ablet Semet (Berlin) and William Baxter (Ann Arbor). This uš-stem goes back to an earlier nu-stem, see de Vaan :. A full edition of the bilingual by Georges-Jean Pinault, Jens Wilkens, and myself is in progress. Our collaborative work has shown that a number of my readings and remarks (Peyrot ) have to be revised, but the interpretation of the correspondences under discussion here is not affected. The Old Uyghur word katır [qati-r]is borrowed from Iranian, cf. Sogd. xrtry /xartare/¯ ‘mule’ (Gharib :a, a) < *xarataraka- and Khot. khad.ara- ‘mule’ < *xaratara- (Bailey :b–a). The function of the suffix -tara- here is ‘a kind of’, i.e. ‘a kind of donkey’, cf. Skt. a´svatara- ‘mule’ (i.e. ‘a kind of horse’; EWAia .). Turkish katır was borrowed into Mod.Pers. as qat¯.ar (Doerfer –:.–).
Offprint from Farnah: Indo-Iranian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Sasha Lubotsky. Copyright © Beech Stave Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Tocharian B etswe ‘mule’ and Eastern East Iranian
Toch. B etswe is obviously borrowed from an Old Iranian *atswa- ‘horse’, further seen in e.g. Av. aspa- and Khot. a´s´sa-. At this point, I cannot say why this Iranian word was borrowed despite the fact that Tocharian also inherited the word for ‘horse’ directly from Proto-Indo-European as A yuk,B yakwe ‘horse’. Probably the word was borrowed together with a kind of horse or horse-like animal that was sufficiently different from the “normal” Tocharian horse. If the Old Uyghur rendering katır ‘mule’ is correct, this clearly warrants a borrowing next to the inherited word for ‘horse’, but it is difficult to understand how a mule could have come to be called *atswa- ‘horse’ in the Iranian source dialect. The question has to be left open. Since in the bilingual the “etswe” is used as a beast of burden, one might think of a mule, perhaps an onager, or simply a special kind of horse that was especially suited as a pack animal. In the following, I will use the evidence of etswe to argue that the archaic stratum of Ira- nian loanwords in Tocharian is not from a dialect ancestral to Khotanese, but from another
Iranian dialect possibly spoken to the north or to the east of Tocharian. ´cu˘ The Proto-Indo-Iranian cluster * The newly identified etswe ‘mule’ conforms to the common characteristics of the Old Ira- nian loanwords so far identified in Tocharian and thus belongs to the same stratum as Toch. B tsain ‘weapon’ and other previously identified items (see Schmidt ; Tremblay
b; Isebaert :–). The relevance of etswe lies in the preservation of the cluster tsw, which reflects Proto-Indo-Iranian *´cu˘ . The exact Proto-Iranian outcome of this Proto- Indo-Iranian cluster is debated. The cluster *tsw, which is needed for the Old Iranian source dialect in order to explain the Tocharian form, is sometimes posited for Proto-Iranian as
well (e.g. Schmitt a:), even though it is not directly attested in a single Iranian lan- guage. In Avestan, the reflex of Proto-Indo-Iranian *´cu˘ is sp, e.g. aspa- ‘horse’, as in most other languages; in Old Persian it is s, e.g. asa- ‘horse’; and in Ossetic it is fs, e.g. Dig.
æfsæ ‘mare’ (
and Wakh¯ı the reflexes of the cluster are the palatals ´s´s, ´s, and š, respectively, e.g. Khot. a´s´sa-
˘ ‘horse’, Tumš. bi´sa- ‘all’ ( Khot. bi´s´sa- < PIIr. *u˘ i´cua-), and Wakh¯ı yaš ‘horse’ (Windfuhr ∼
:).
˘ Usually the problem of the palatal reflex of *´cu˘ and its voiced counterpart *Iu in Khotan-
ese, Tumšuqese, and Wakh¯ı is not addressed directly. Scholars focusing on Khotanese recon- struct Proto-Iranian or Proto-Indo-Iranian *´cu˘ (e.g. Emmerick :; Windfuhr : ), while others postulate *tsw, putting the conflicting evidence of Khotanese in brackets (Schmitt a:; Skjærvø :). A clear statement is that of Sims-Williams (:), with which I fully agree: “Since the palatals š, ž can hardly be derived from *tsw and *dz< w, it
is simplest to assume Common Iranian *´cw and *Iw.” ˘
˘ For the sake of clarity I write the nonsyllabic counterpart of *u as *u˘ . In reality, *u and *u were still allophones in
Proto-Indo-Iranian and Common Iranian. Kellens (:) writes *s,*z, but this reconstruction is not˘ very widely accepted. He further argues, “The palatal nature of II *´c < IE *k seems also to have been preserved up to the Common Iranian stage in the case of the cluster *´cr, cf. Khot. ´s´sära- [Se.ra-] ‘good’ (= Avest. sr¯ıra-, OInd. ´sr¯ıla- ‘beautiful’ . . . )” (l.c.; similarly Emmerick and Skjærvø :). I doubt that this is correct. The normal development of PIIr. *´cr in Khotanese is s.s. (Emmerick :) as in s.s.uni-¯ ‘hip’ < *´crauni-, s.s.uva-¯ ‘fame’ ∼ *´crauas- (Av. srauuah-), s.s.is.t.a- ‘held’
Michaël Peyrot
The importance of this line of argument can hardly be underestimated. Since Khotanese ´s´s cannot be a secondary development of an intermediary *tsw < *´cu˘ , the only conclusion can be that Toch. B etswe was not borrowed from a dialect ancestral to Khotanese. Tocharian tsw points to *tsw or *dzw in the source, and nothing else: a palatal sibilant *´s or a palatal affricate *´c would have been represented by Toch. ´s or c [c]ˇ (pace Tremblay a:). Therefore, the Old Iranian stratum cannot be identified as “Old Sakan,” a term used by Tremblay for
the ancestor of Khotanese, Tumšuqese, and Wakh¯ı (Tremblay b:). Instead, it points
to another Old Iranian dialect in which, as in most Iranian dialects, depalatalization of *´cu˘ and *Iu˘ to *tsw and *dzw did take place. In theory, several scenarios are possible. For instance, one could imagine that Khotanese and Tumšuqese are relative newcomers in the Tarim Basin, and that they recently moved east from the Wakhan corridor, where the apparently more closely related Wakh¯ı is spoken until today. Before Khotanese and Tumšuqese arrived, another dialect that better fits the archaic stratum in Tocharian may have been spoken in the Tarim Basin. It is also conceivable that the Tocharians had been in contact with an archaic Iranian dialect before they moved into the Tarim Basin. Finally, when the Tocharians had already settled in the Tarim Basin, there may have been Iranian speaking groups to their north, perhaps also to their east. Obviously, the three options just mentioned are not exhaustive, and other variants could also be considered. In order to narrow down the number of possibilities, I will now first turn to the prehistory of Khotanese.
The prehistory of Khotanese: Linguistics Little is known about the prehistory of Khotanese. Bailey (:) writes, “it is likely that the two languages of Khotan and Tumshuq were spoken by two tribes of the Saka who about BC or earlier settled with a monarchical or oecarchical system in this region of the Taklamakan. From the second century BC there is Chinese information on Khotan: no major invasion is recorded.” This gives us a date ante quem for the arrival of the Khotanese, and it is in accordance with the four legendary “accounts of the foundation of Khotan, all of which associate it with the son and ministers of the emperor A´soka. This would place the foundation of Khotan firmly in the third century BC” (Emmerick :). As Emmerick points out, the evidence of these legendary accounts is weakened by the fact that they are only from the th century and later, thus leaving a gap of a thousand years between the foundation and its earliest account. He is cautious about the date of the arrival of Iranians in Khotan: “Nomadic tribes speaking languages of Iranian origin must have been wander- ing about Central Asia from a very early period, probably from the first half of the second
< *´crišta- (Av. sra¯eš-). On the other hand, PIIr. *´ci˘ develops into Khot. ´s´s/´s, cf. e.g. ´sava-¯ ‘copper, copper-colored’ <
*´ciaua-¯ (Av. siiauua-¯ ). It is more likely that in *´cr¯ıra- dissimilation to *´ci¯ıra-˘ took place (cf. Skt. ´sr¯ıla- ∼ ´sr¯ıra-); with
shortening of *¯ı,*´ci¯ıra-˘ would regularly yield the attested Khot. ´s´sära-. Dissimilation of the *-r- is also assumed by
Emmerick (Emmerick and Skjærvø :) and Skjærvø (:, b), both different in detail.
˘
In view of the development PIIr. *´ci˘ > Khot. ´s´s (see preceding note), I suppose that an intermediate stage was *´ci,
˘ i.e. *´cu˘ > *´ci > ´s´s. If the development of this cluster is interpreted in this way, it more clearly is an innovation, not an archaism, and therefore a strong argument for a Khotanese-Tumšuqese-Wakh¯ı branch.
Tocharian B etswe ‘mule’ and Eastern East Iranian millennium BC, but we do not know when they first began to settle in permanent villages” (:). An important aspect of the prehistory of Khotanese obviously is its exact relationship to Tumšuqese. It is generally accepted that the two languages are closely related, and indeed, a relatively long list of shared features in phonology, morphology, and lexicon can be made in spite of the poor attestation of Tumšuqese (cf. e.g. Bailey :–). In most cases, the languages are very close, as for instance with the examples cited by Emmerick (:), which are, however, especially selected to show their close relationship. Any differences in Emmerick’s examples are due only to different spelling conventions, e.g. Tumš. ´sazda- ‘snake’ Khot. ´s´saysda- /´sazda-/. ∼ Bailey (:; cf. also :–), who calls the two varieties “dialects” that are “clearly of one language,” gives three examples to show that there are “striking differences”: Tumš. rorda- ‘given’ Khot. hud¯ a-; Tumš. ´sowarsana ‘’ Khot. ´s´sudasu¯ ; Tumš. patsasu ‘’ ∼ . ∼ Khot. pamjsasä¯ . If we reconstruct these items for Proto-Tumšuqese-Khotanese, we do ∼ . not seem to get a totally different language, but rather one that is relatively close to both
daughter languages: *hr¯orda- < *fra-brta-˚ ; *´s¯o-dasu vs. *´s¯o-bara(h)-dasana < *-parah-dasa- (Konow :; Emmerick :); *pantsasV-¯ < *panˇcasat-¯ . For the differently formed numeral ‘’, compare the higher numerals of Khotanese, e.g. ´s´suvare-bistä¯ ‘’ < *´s¯o-bara(h)- wist-; Tumšuqese ‘’ may easily be analogical after the higher numerals. Other correspondences can be adduced to argue that the difference between the two lan-
guages is relatively large. In Tumš. mrida- ‘died’ Khot. mud.a- and Tumš. zrida- ‘old’ ˚ ∼ ∼
Khot. ysad¯ .a- syllabic *r seems to have different reflexes, so that one would have to recon- ˚ ˚
struct syllabic *r˚ for their common ancestor, i.e. *mrda- and *zrda-. However, in both cases the Tumšuqese ri could probably be secondary. This is strongly suggested for˘ zrida- be-
cause Khot. ysad¯ .a- < *zarta- seems to correspond perfectly to Av. zar e ta- < *grH-ta- (on
Ved. jurn¯ . á- and j¯ırn. á-, see Lubotsky :–). Another case in point is the verb ‘do’. In ˚
Khotanese, all forms can be derived from a root yan-, ultimately < *krnu-˚ ,*krnau- except ˚
for the preterite participle yäd.a-, yud.a- < *krta- (Emmerick :–). In Tumšuqese, ˚
the verb is ar-, ultimately also < *krnu-˚ ,*krnau- (Maue :). Here the difference be- tween the two languages is due to a special development in Khotanese: “No certain example of *-r.n- > -an- is found in Kh., where the normal treatment would be > -arr-” (Emmerick :). Thus, the present of ‘do’ can be reconstructed as *(y)arn-. Nevertheless, the corre- spondence forces us to reconstruct *rn, which would otherwise not have been obvious from the regular reflex Tumš. rr, Khot. rr < *rn (Konow :). Finally, in Tumš. uzanvara-, usanävara- ‘being’ Khot. uysnora- < *uzana-bara- (Bailey :b) or *uzana-bara-¯ , the ∼ different contractions of *aba require a Proto-Tumšuqese-Khotanese *uzanaβara-: a recon- struction *uzan¯ora- would give us the Khotanese form, but not the Tumšuqese. In light of
He later suggested that the speakers of Proto-Tumšuqese-Khotanese settled “in oases around the Tarim basin some time during the second half of the first millennium ” (Emmerick :), but adduced no arguments in support of this idea. There is no need to reconstruct *fra- for Proto-Tumšuqese-Khotanese since both languages agree in their special treatment of *fr- in this preverb instead of the otherwise regular development *fr- > *br- as in Khot. briya- ‘dear’, Tumš. bri from the OIr. root *fr¯ı- (Konow :). As Federico Dragoni points out to me (p.c.), an intermediate stage of the weakening of k- to y- seems to be preserved by the Old Khotanese spelling g- (e.g. Emmerick :a).
i “peyrot” — 2017/12/25 — 20:34 — page 5 — #5 i i i 4. THE PREHISTORY OF KHOTANESE: HISTORICAL SOURCES
ment in Khotanese: “No certain example of *-r.n- > -an- is found in Kh., where the normal treatment would be > -arr-” (Emmerick 1968:112). Thus, the present of ‘do’ can be reconstructed as *(y)arn-. Nevertheless, the correspondence forces us to recon- struct *rn, which would otherwise not have been obvious from the regular reflex Tumš. rr, Khot. rr < *rn (Konow 1935:789). Finally, in Tumš. uzanvara-, usanävara- ‘being’ ∼ Khot. uysnora- < *uzana-bara- (Bailey 1979:39b) or *uz¯ana-bara-, the different con- tractions of *abaMichaëlrequire Peyrot a Proto-Tumšuqese-Khotanese *uzanaβara-: a reconstruction *uzan¯ora- would give us the Khotanese form, but not the Tumšuqese. In light of this correspondence,this it seems correspondence, that the monophthongisation it seems that the monophthongization of *au < *au,*aβ ofto *au Tumš.< *auo,,*aβ to Tumš. o, Khot. ¯u was an independentKhot. u¯ was process.an independent Consequently, process. Tumš. Consequently,rorda- ‘given’ Tumš.∼ Khot.rorda- h¯ud‘given’a-, Khot. hud¯ a-, . ∼ .
reconstructed abovereconstructed as *hr¯orda- above, is probablyas *hr¯orda- to, is be probably reconstructed to be reconstructed instead as *hraurda- instead as *hraurda- or ˚
or *hraβurda- <**hrahraββurda-rda-˚ .< *hraβrda-. All in all, KonowAll (1935:797) in all, Konow seems ( to be: quite) seems right to with be quite his statement right with “Die his statement,Zeit der “Die Zeit der Trennung kannTrennung nicht allzu kann kurz nicht bemessen allzu kurz werden. bemessen Wir werden. wissen aber Wir wissen nicht, aberwie lang nicht, sie wie lang sie gewe- gewesen ist.” sen ist.”
4 The prehistory of Khotanese: historical sources The prehistory of Khotanese: Historical sources Konow furtherKonow speculates further (1935:801) speculates that ( the: speakers) that the of speakers the language of the language ancestral ancestral to to Khotanese Khotanese andand Tumšuqese Tumšuqese may may be be identified identified with with the the S¯ai Sai¯ 塞 ofof the the Chinese Chinese sources, sources, who in the second who in the secondcentury century BCEmoved moved south south from from Ili, theIli, thesteppe steppe area area north north of the of Tian the Tian Shan mountains and Shan mountainsthe and Taklamakan the Taklamakan desert. desert. According According to him, to this him, would this would account account for the for fact that the more the fact that thearchaic more Tumšuqesearchaic Tumšuqese is found is in found the north, in the while north, the while speakers the speakers of Khotanese of went further Khotanese wentsouth. further The south. Sai¯ wereThe S¯aiwere certainly certainly seen as a Sakaseen astribe a Saka by the tribe Chinese by the historiographers, Chinese and their
historiographers,name and their derives name from derives the word fromsaka the: wordsai¯ sakais: froms¯ai 塞 Earlyis from Middle Early Chinese Middle s e k (Pulleyblank
e e Chinese s k (Pulleyblank:), 1991:273), Middle Chinese Middlesok Chinese(Baxtersok and(Baxter Sagart and Sagart:; o 2014:230;stands hereo for or ,v see
stands here for o.c.e or INSERT). In view WEDGE of the, seegenerally o.c. 13). accepted12 In view identification of the generally of Khotanese accepted and Tumšuqese as identification of“Saka” Khotanese languages and Tumšuqese (on which see as “Saka”further below), languages Konow’s (on which suggestion see further is an obvious option below), Konow’sthat suggestion should be is discussed. an obvious option that should be discussed. The migration ofThe the migration S¯aithat of Konow the Sai¯ refers that Konow to is found refers in to the is foundHanshu in the(theHanshu History(the History of the of the Former HanFormer Dynasty): Han Dynasty “At the): “At time the the time Yüeh-chih the Yüeh-chih [Yuèzh¯ı]had [Yuèzh¯ı] already had already been been defeated by defeated by thethe Hsiung-nu Hsiung-nu [Xi¯ongnú]; [Xiongnú];¯ making making for for the the west west they they attacked attacked the the king king of of the Sai. The king the Sai. The kingof of the the Sai Sai moved moved a considerable a considerable distance distance to the to south the South and the and Yüeh-chih the Yüeh- then occupied his chih [Yuèzh¯ı]thenlands” occupied (Hulsewé his lands.”: (Hulsewé). Thus this 1979:216). passage describes Thus, in the this Yuèzh passage¯ı fleeing it is for the Xiongnú¯ described that theand Yuèzh¯ıfled driving off forthe the Sai¯ Xi¯ongnú towards the and south. drove Since off the the S¯aitowards Sai¯ had been the living south. north of the Tian Since the S¯aihadShan been mountains, living north a logical of the inference Tian Shan is that mountains, they moved a southlogical into inference the Tarim is Basin and later ii “peyrot”“peyrot” — — 2017/12/25 2017/12/25 — — 20:34 20:34 — — page page 6 6 — — #6 #6 ii that they movedbecame south into thespeakers the Tarim of Basin Khotanese and later and Tumšuqese. became the However, speakers of a parallelKhotanese passage is more spe- ii and Tumšuqese.cific However, and mentions a parallel that passage the Sai¯ is moved more specificsouth through and mentions the “Suspended that the Crossing,” S¯ai a passage ii moved south throughthrough the the “Suspended Pamirs: “When Crossing”, the Ta a Yüeh-chihpassage through [Dà Yuèzh the Pamirs:¯ı] turned “When west, defeated and ex- 5.5. THE THE PREHISTORY PREHISTORY OF OF KHOTANESE: KHOTANESE: ARCHAEOLOGY ARCHAEOLOGY the Ta Yüeh-chihpelled [Dà the Yuèzh¯ı]turned king of the Sai, west, the latter defeated moved and south expelled and crossed the king over of the Suspended Sai, Crossing; the latter movedand south the and Ta Yüeh-chih crossed over took the up Suspended residence in Crossing; his lands” and (Hulsewé the Ta Yüeh-chih:). That their route [Dà Yuèzh¯ı]tooksouthledsouth up south residence through through through the the in the his Pamirs Pamirs Pamirs lands.” and and and (Hulsewé past past past the the the 1979:144).Tarim Tarim Tarim Basin Basin Basin That is is is confirmed confirmed confirmed their route by by by led the the the fact fact fact that that some some endedended up up in in Jìb¯ın Jìb¯ın Jìb¯ın 罽罽賓賓‘Kashmir’:‘Kashmir’: “it “it “it was was in in in these these circumstances circumstances that that the the the king king king of of the the the Sai Sai 12In the meaning ‘Saka’, 塞 may be read s¯ai or sè in standard Mandarin; both readings go back to Middle Chinese sok (Williammovedmoved Baxter, south south p.c.). Iand and will established useestablished established only “S¯ai”,which himself himself himself seems as as as master master tomaster be more of of Chi-pinof common Chi-pin Chi-pin [Jìb in [Jìb¯ın].The the[Jìb¯ın].The¯ın]. literature. The Sai SaiSai tribes tribes tribes split split split and andseparatedand separated separated and repeatedly and and repeatedly repeatedly formed formed formed several several several states. states. states. To the To To north-west the the north-west north-west of Shu-lo of of Shu-lo Shu-lo [Shulè],¯ [Sh¯ulè], [Sh¯ulè], states statessuchstates as such such Hsiu-hsün as as Hsiu-hsün Hsiu-hsün [Xiuxún]¯ [Xi¯uxún]and [Xi¯uxún]and5 and Chüan-tu Chüan-tu Chüan-tu [Juandú]¯ [Ju¯andú] [Ju¯andú] are all of are are the all all former of of the the Sai former former race” (HulsewéSai Sai race.” race.” (Hulsewé(Hulsewé:– 1979:140–5). 1979:140–5).). TheThe latter latter passage passage is is especially especially informative. informative. ShSh¯ulè Sh¯ulèulè¯ 疏疏勒勒‘Kashgar’‘Kashgar’‘Kashgar’ is is is used used as as a a a reference reference pointpoint to to locate locate Saka Saka tribes tribes further further further to to to the the the northwest, northwest, northwest, but but but there there there is is is no no no mention mention of of Sakas Sakas in in KashgarKashgar itself. itself. Likewise, Likewise, Likewise, neither neither Tumšuq Tumšuq nor nor Khotan Khotan is is connected connected with with the the S¯ai,although SS¯ai,althoughai,¯ although i bothboth places places were were certainly certainly much much better better known known than than Kashmir, Kashmir, Xi¯uxún Xi¯uxún休休循循oror Ju¯andú Ju¯andú捐捐 i In the meaning ‘Saka’, may be read sai¯ or sè in standard Mandarin; both readings go back to Middle Chinese sok 毒(William毒.. The The Baxter, S¯aiof S¯aiof p.c.). the the I willHanshu Hanshu use only are are “Sai,”¯ therefore therefore which seems definitely definitely to be more not not common to to be be in identified identified the literature. with with the the ancestors ancestors i ofof the the speakers speakers of of Khotanese Khotanese and and Tumšuqese. Tumšuqese. Moreover, Moreover, these these southward southward migrations migrations of of i thethe S¯aiin S¯aiin the the 2nd 2nd century century BCE BCE are are in in any any case case too too late late for for Khotanese, Khotanese, since since no no invasion invasion oror massive massive repopulation repopulation is is recorded recorded for for Khotan Khotan from from the the 2nd 2nd century century onwards onwards (see (see the the quotequote from from Bailey Bailey above). above). Finally,Finally, Bailey Bailey (1958:132) (1958:132) proposes proposes an an etymology etymology for for Ju¯andú Ju¯andú 捐捐毒毒,, one one of of the the Saka Saka
states,states, that that is is daring, daring, but but does does not not seem seem impossible impossible to to me. me. The The Early Early Middle Middle Chinese Chinese e
readingreading of of this this name, name, evidently evidently based based on on a a pronunciation pronunciation variant variant Yuándú, Yuándú, is is jwian-djwian-d e wkwk (Pulleyblank(Pulleyblank 1991:166, 1991:166, 82), 82), Middle Middle Chinese Chinese ywen.dowkywen.dowk (Baxter(Baxter and and Sagart Sagart 2014:249 2014:249
andand the the related related online online database), database), which which is is close close to to what what Morgenstierne Morgenstierne reconstructs reconstructs for for e
IdId e γγ,, YïdgYïdg,, the the tribe tribe name name of of the the Yidgha: Yidgha: * *IndugIndug << **(H)induka-(H)induka- (1938:16).(1938:16). An An obvious obvious problemproblem of of this this etymology etymology is is that that Yidgha Yidgha is is spoken spoken southwest southwest of of Kashgar, Kashgar, not not northwest. northwest. OneOne would would therefore therefore have have to to assume assume that that they they moved moved south south later later on, on, or or that that a a tribe tribe with with thisthis name name split split in in two. two. However, However, in in view view of of the the trajectory trajectory of of the the S¯ai,it S¯ai,it is is conceivable conceivable thatthat some some of of the the Pamir Pamir languages languages (with (with the the exception exception of of at at least least Wakh¯ı)are Wakh¯ı)are remnants remnants ofof this this southward southward migration. migration.
55 The The prehistory prehistory of of Khotanese: Khotanese: archaeology archaeology
IfIf the the S¯aicannot S¯aicannot be be the the ancestors ancestors of of the the speakers speakers of of Khotanese Khotanese and and Tumšuqese, Tumšuqese, the the com- com- monmon origin origin of of these these two two languages languages must must be be sought sought further further back back in in time. time. My My hypothesis hypothesis isis that that the the arrival arrival of of Khotanese Khotanese and and Tumšuqese Tumšuqese in in the the Tarim Tarim Basin Basin is is to to be be dated dated earlier earlier thanthan often often assumed, assumed, and and that that their their predecessors predecessors can can be be identified identified with with an an archaeological archaeological cultureculture termed termed Akètˇal¯a/¯Akètˇal¯a/¯ Aqtala. Aqtala. AccordingAccording to to Debaine-Francfort Debaine-Francfort (2001:66a), (2001:66a), the the Akètˇal¯a/¯Akètˇal¯a/¯ Aqtala Aqtala culture culture dates dates from from aboutabout 1,000 1,000 BCE, BCE, lasting lasting apparently apparently at at least least to to 650–550 650–550 BCE BCE (Debaine-Francfort (Debaine-Francfort 1988:24b). 1988:24b). ItIt is is located located in in the the west west and and south south of of the the Tarim Tarim Basin Basin and and characterised characterised by by grey grey ceram- ceram- icsics and and curved curved stone stone sickles. sickles. The The grey grey ceramics ceramics extend extend to to the the east east from from Kashgar Kashgar (the (the regionregion where where the the site site Akètˇal¯a/¯Akètˇal¯a/¯ Aqtala Aqtala itself itself is is located) located) until until Kuča Kuča in in the the north north (Kuča (Kuča itselfitself being being different, different, belonging belonging to to an an area area with with painted painted ceramics), ceramics), and and from from Kashgar Kashgar to to QiěmòQiěmò / / Čärčän Čärčän in in the the south south (cf. (cf. also also the the map map in in Idriss Idriss and and Debaine-Francfort Debaine-Francfort 2001:14). 2001:14). TheThe sickles sickles are are found found from from Kashgar Kashgar to to Akès¯u/¯Akès¯u/¯ Aqsu Aqsu and and even even Kuča Kuča in in the the north north and and fromfrom Kashgar Kashgar to to Mínf¯eng(Niya) Mínf¯eng(Niya) in in the the south. south. InIn her her 2001 2001 article, article, Debaine-Francfort Debaine-Francfort does does not not discuss discuss possible possible origins origins of of the theAkètˇal¯a¯Akètˇal¯a¯
66
ii ii ii ii ii “peyrot”“peyrot” — — 2017/12/25 2017/12/25 — — 20:34 20:34 — — page page 6 6 — — #6 #6 ii i “peyrot” — 2017/12/25 — 20:34 — page 6 — #6 i ii ii i 5.5. THE THE PREHISTORY PREHISTORYi OF OF KHOTANESE: KHOTANESE: ARCHAEOLOGY ARCHAEOLOGY 5. THE PREHISTORY OF KHOTANESE: ARCHAEOLOGY southsouth through through the the Pamirs Pamirs and and past past the the Tarim Tarim Basin Basin is is confirmed confirmed by by the the fact fact that that some some south through the Pamirs and past the Tarim Basin is confirmed by the fact that someendedended up up in in Jìb¯ın Jìb¯ın 罽罽賓賓 ‘Kashmir’:‘Kashmir’: “it “it was was in in these these circumstances circumstances that that the the king king of of the the Sai Sai ended up in Jìb¯ın 罽賓 ‘Kashmir’: “it was in these circumstances that the king of the Saimovedmoved south south and and established established himself himself as as master master of of Chi-pin Chi-pin [Jìb¯ın].The [Jìb¯ın].The Sai Sai tribes tribes split split moved south and established himself as master of Chi-pin [Jìb¯ın].The Sai tribes splitandand separated separated and and repeatedly repeatedly formed formed several several states. states. To To the the north-west north-west of of Shu-lo Shu-lo [Sh¯ulè], [Sh¯ulè], i “peyrot” — 2017/12/25 — 20:34 — page 7 — #7 i and separated and repeatedly formed several states. To the north-west of Shu-lo [Sh¯ulè],statesstates such such as as Hsiu-hsün Hsiu-hsün [Xi¯uxún]and [Xi¯uxún]and Chüan-tu Chüan-tu [Ju¯andú] [Ju¯andú] are are all all of of the the former former Sai Sai race.” race.” states such as Hsiu-hsün [Xi¯uxún]and Chüan-tu [Ju¯andú] are alli of the former Sai race.”(Hulsewé(Hulsewé 1979:140–5). 1979:140–5). i (Hulsewé 1979:140–5). TheThe latter latter passage passage is is especially especially informative. informative. Sh¯ulè Sh¯ulè疏疏勒勒‘Kashgar’‘Kashgar’ is is used used as as a a reference reference 5. THE PREHISTORY OF KHOTANESE: ARCHAEOLOGY The latter passage is especially informative. Sh¯ulè 疏勒 ‘Kashgar’ is used as a referencepointpoint to to locate locate Saka Saka tribes tribes further further to to theTocharian the northwest, northwest, B etswe but but‘mule’ there there and is is no no Eastern mention mention East of of Iranian Sakas Sakas in in point to locate Saka tribes further to the northwest, but there is no mention of Sakas inKashgarKashgar itself. itself. Likewise, Likewise, neither neither Tumšuq Tumšuq nor nor Khotan Khotan is is connected connected with with the the S¯ai,although S¯ai,although Kashgar itself. Likewise, neither Tumšuq nor Khotan is connected with the S¯ai,althoughbothbothboth places places places were were were certainly certainly certainly much much much better better better known known known than than Kashmir, Kashmir, Xi¯uxúnXi Xi¯uxúnuxún¯ 休休循循 ororor Ju¯andú Ju¯andú Juandú¯ 捐捐 Figure 1: The find sites of grey (marked with “[INSERT CIRCLE G HERE”) and painted both places were certainly much better known than Kashmir, Xi¯uxún 休循 or Ju¯andú 捐毒毒.. The The The S¯aiof S¯aiof Sai¯ of the the the Hanshu Hanshu Hanshu are are are therefore therefore therefore definitely definitely definitely not not not to to to be be be identified identified identified with with with the the the ancestors ancestors ances- ceramics (marked with “INSERT CIRCLE P HERE”), based on the map in Idriss and 毒. The S¯aiof the Hanshu are therefore definitely not to be identified with the ancestorstorsofof of the the the speakers speakers speakers of of of Khotanese Khotanese Khotanese and and and Tumšuqese. Tumšuqese. Tumšuqese. Moreover, Moreover, Moreover, these these these southward southward southward migrations migrations migrations of of Debaine-Francfort (2001:14). Only the names of the most important sites have been of the speakers of Khotanese and Tumšuqese. Moreover, these southward migrationsof ofthethe S¯aiinS S¯aiinai¯ in the the the 2nd 2ndnd century century century BCE BCEare are are in any in in any any case case case too too latetoo late forlate Khotanese, for for Khotanese, Khotanese, since since since no invasion no no invasion invasion or added here. The area of painted ceramics extends east off the map to Y¯ıwúand H¯amì. the S¯aiin the 2nd century BCE are in any case too late for Khotanese, since no invasionmassiveoror massive massive repopulation repopulation repopulation is recorded is is recorded recorded for Khotan for for Khotan Khotan from the from fromnd the the century 2nd 2nd century centuryonwards onwards onwards (see the quote(see (see the the or massive repopulation is recorded for Khotan from the 2nd century onwards (see thefromquotequote Bailey from from above). Bailey Bailey above). above). quote from Bailey above). Finally,Finally,Finally, Bailey Bailey Bailey ( (1958:132) (1958:132):) proposes proposes proposes an etymology an an etymology etymology for Juandú¯ for for Ju¯andú Ju¯andú, one捐捐毒毒 of,, the one one Saka of of the the states, Saka Saka
Finally, Bailey (1958:132) proposes an etymology for Ju¯andú 捐毒, one of the/ Aqtala Sakathatstates,states, culture, is daring, that that but but is is daring,she daring, does points not but but seem out does does impossiblethat not not itsseem seem typical to impossible impossible me. vessels The Earlyto to are me. me. Middle parallel The The Early Early Chinese to finds Middle Middle reading in Chinese Chinese of e e
states, that is daring, but does not seem impossible to me. The Early Middleeastern Chinesethis Kazakhstanreadingreading name, of of evidently this this at Malokrasnojarka, name, name, based evidently evidently on a pronunciation based based Trušnikovo on on a a pronunciation pronunciation andvariant Ust’-Narym, Yuándú, variant variant is alljwian-d of Yuándú, Yuándú, whiche wk belong(Pulleyblank is is jwian-djwian-d wkwk
reading of this name, evidently based on a pronunciation variant Yuándú, is jwian-dto Easterne wk(Pulleyblank(Pulleyblank: Andronovo, ), Middle 1991:166, 1991:166, according Chinese 82), 82), toywen.dowk Middle Kuz’minaMiddle(Baxter Chinese Chinese (2007, andywen.dowkywen.dowk passim). Sagart This(Baxter(Baxter: isand no and and proofthe Sagart Sagart related that 2014:249 2014:249online
¯ e
(Pulleyblank 1991:166, 82), Middle Chinese ywen.dowk (Baxter and Sagart 2014:249the Akètˇal¯a/database),andand the the Aqtala which related related culture is online online close was to database), database), what Iranian Morgenstierne which whichspeaking, is is close close but reconstructs to toit whatis what a serious Morgenstiernefor MorgenstierneId option.γ, Yïdg, Mallorythe reconstructs reconstructs tribe name for for
e e ¯ and the related online database), which is close to what Morgenstierne reconstructsinterprets forofIdId the theγγ Yidgha:,,Akètˇal¯a/YïdgYïdg,, the the *Indug Aqtala tribe tribe< name name culture*(H)induka- of of asthe the evidence Yidgha: Yidgha:(: for *). *IndugIndug IraniansAn obvious<< ** in(H)induka-(H)induka- the problem region(1938:16). with(1938:16). too (2015:29; this etymology An An obvious obvious
Id e γ, Yïdg, the tribe name of the Yidgha: *Indug < *(H)induka- (1938:16). Ancf. obvious alsois Francfort thatproblemproblem Yidgha 2001:228–229).of of this thisis spoken etymology etymology southwest An is is important that that of YidghaYidgha Kashgar, site is is from not spoken spoken northwest. thesouthwest middlesouthwest One of the of of would Kashgar, Kashgar, 1st millennium therefore not not northwest. northwest. have to ¯ 13 problem of this etymology is that Yidgha is spoken southwest of Kashgar, not northwest.BCE linkedassumeOneOne to would would that the theyAkètˇal¯a/ therefore therefore moved have have south Aqtala to to later assume assume culture on, or that that is that Jumbulaq they they a tribe moved moved with Qum south south this nameon later later the split on, on, Keriya inor or two. that that River However, a a tribe tribe with with One would therefore have to assume that they moved south later on, or that a tribe(Debaine-Francfort withinthisthis view name name of the split split and trajectory Idriss in in two. two. of 2001:135; the However, However, Sai,¯ it Francfort, is in in conceivable view view of ofIdriss the the that and trajectory trajectory some Zhang of ofthe of 2001:137). the the Pamir S¯ai,it S¯ai,it languages is is conceivable conceivable (with ¯ this name split in two. However, in view of the trajectory of the S¯ai,it is conceivableEventhe ifthatthat exception the some someAkètˇal¯a/ of of of the theat Aqtala least Pamir Pamir Wakh culture languages languages¯ı) are represents remnants (with (with an the the of early this exception exception southward wave of of of Iranians, at at migration. least least weWakh¯ı)are Wakh¯ı)are cannot be remnants remnants that some of the Pamir languages (with the exception of at least Wakh¯ı)are remnantssure thatofof this this this culture southward southward is ancestral migration. migration. to the later Khotanese and Tumšuqese speaking peoples of this southward migration. as long as no solid link can be established with the kingdoms of the early 1st millennium CE, such55 asThe Karadong The The prehistory prehistory prehistory on the of Keriya Khotanese: of of Khotanese: Khotanese: River (Debaine-Francfort, Archaeology archaeology archaeology Idriss and Wang 1994) or Khotan itself. However, the geographical distribution fits the location of Tumšuqese and 5 The prehistory of Khotanese: archaeology If the Sai¯ cannot be the ancestors of the speakers of Khotanese and Tumšuqese, the common Khotanese very well, and especially the border between the grey ceramics of the Akètˇal¯a¯ originIfIf the the of S¯aicannot S¯aicannot these two be languagesbe the the ancestors ancestors must be of of soughtthe the speakers speakers further of of back Khotanese Khotanese in time. and and My Tumšuqese, Tumšuqese, hypothesis the theis that com- com- / Aqtala culture and the painted ceramics from Kuča onwards to the east coincides If the S¯aicannot be the ancestors of the speakers of Khotanese and Tumšuqese, the com-themonmon arrival origin origin of Khotanese of of these these two two and languages languages Tumšuqese must must in the be be Tarim sought sought Basin further further is to back back be dated in in time. time. earlier My My than hypothesis hypothesis often perfectly with the border between Tumšuqese and Tocharian B. Moreover, such an early mon origin of these two languages must be sought further back in time. My hypothesisassumed,isis that that theand the arrival arrivalthat their of of predecessorsKhotanese Khotanese and and can Tumšuqese Tumšuqese be identified in in with the the Tariman Tarim archaeological Basin Basin is is to to culture be be dated dated termed earlier earlier migration into the Tarim Basin would account for the fact that Khotanese-Tumšuqese, is that the arrival of Khotanese and Tumšuqese in the Tarim Basin is to be dated earlierAkèt¯ thanthanalˇ a/Aqtala.¯ often often assumed, assumed, and and that that their their predecessors predecessors can can be be identified identified with with an an archaeological archaeological
than often assumed, and that their predecessors can be identified with an archaeologicalprobablycultureculture together termed termed with Wakh¯ı,splitAkètˇal¯a/Akètˇal¯a/¯¯ Aqtala. Aqtala. off relatively early from¯ Proto-Iranian in view of the According˘ to Debaine-Francfort (:a), the Akètalˇ a/Aqtala¯ culture dates from about ¯ reflex of PIIr. *ću as Khot. śś (see above). The early date of¯¯ the arrival of this Iranian culture termed Akètˇal¯a/ Aqtala. ,AccordingAccording , lasting to to apparently Debaine-Francfort Debaine-Francfort at least to (2001:66a), (2001:66a),– the the(Debaine-FrancfortAkètˇal¯a/Akètˇal¯a/ Aqtala Aqtala culture culture:b). dates dates It was from from ¯ group in the Tarim Basin does not necessarily mean that the Khotanese-Tumšuqese According to Debaine-Francfort (2001:66a), the Akètˇal¯a/ Aqtala culture dates fromlocatedaboutabout in 1,000 1,000 the west BCE, BCE, and lasting lasting south apparently apparently of the Tarim at at least least Basin to to and 650–550 650–550 is characterized BCE BCE (Debaine-Francfort (Debaine-Francfort by gray ceramics 1988:24b). 1988:24b). and protolanguage would have to be dated around 1000 BCE. I think that such a date is about 1,000 BCE, lasting apparently at least to 650–550 BCE (Debaine-Francfort 1988:24b).curvedItIt is is located stonelocated sickles. in in the the The west west gray and and ceramics south south of of extend the the Tarim Tarim to the Basin Basin east from and and characterised characterised Kashgar (the regionby by grey grey where ceram- ceram- possible in view of the differences between the two languages, but it cannot be excluded It is located in the west and south of the Tarim Basin and characterised by grey ceram-theicsics site and andAkèt¯ curved curvedalˇ a/Aqtala¯ stone stone itself sickles. sickles. is located) The The grey grey until ceramics ceramics Kucaˇ in theextend extend north to to (Ku the thecaˇ east east itself from from being Kashgar Kashgar different, (the (the that the breakup of the protolanguage¯¯ was later, for instance around 500 BCE. At all ics and curved stone sickles. The grey ceramics extend to the east from Kashgar (thebelongingregionregion where where to an the the area site site withAkètˇal¯a/Akètˇal¯a/ painted Aqtalaceramics) Aqtala itself itself and is is from located) located) Kashgar until until to Kuča Kuča Qiemò/ˇ in in the theCärˇ north northcänˇ in (Kuča (Kuča the ¯ events, a date long before 1000 BCE seems unlikely. region where the site Akètˇal¯a/ Aqtala itself is located) until Kuča in the north (Kučasouthitselfitself (cf. being being also different, different, the map belonging belonging in Idriss and to to an an Debaine-Francfort area area with with painted painted ceramics), ceramics),:). The and and sickles from from are Kashgar Kashgar found to to In my view, it is too early for a linguistic interpretation of the Akètˇal¯a/¯ Aqtala itself being different, belonging to an area with painted ceramics), and from Kashgarfrom toQiěmòQiěmò Kashgar / / Čärčän Čärčän to Akès¯ in in theu/Aqsu the¯ south south and (cf. (cf. even also also Ku the thecaˇ map map in the in in Idrissnorth Idriss and and Debaine-Francfortfrom Debaine-Francfort Kashgar to Mínf 2001:14). 2001:14).eng¯ area east of Khotan and the Keriya River. It¯ is¯ now to be expected that this area Qiěmò / Čärčän in the south (cf. also the map in Idriss and Debaine-Francfort 2001:14).(Niya)TheThe insickles sickles the south. are are found found from from Kashgar Kashgar to to Akès¯u/Akès¯u/ Aqsu Aqsu and and even even Kuča Kuča in in the the north north and and ¯ was Iranian speaking before Middle Indian was introduced there, but the details and The sickles are found from Kashgar to Akès¯u/ Aqsu and even Kuča in the north andfromfromIn her Kashgar Kashgar article, to to Mínf¯eng(Niya) Mínf¯eng(Niya) Debaine-Francfort in in the the does south. south. not discuss possible origins of the Akèt¯ alˇ a/¯ consequences of this hypothesis need further study. Nevertheless, we might conceive of ¯¯ from Kashgar to Mínf¯eng(Niya) in the south. AqtalaInIn culture, her her 2001 2001 but article, article, she points Debaine-Francfort Debaine-Francfort out that its typical does does vessels not not discuss discuss are parallel possible possible to origins originsfinds in of of eastern the the Akètˇal¯aAkètˇal¯a Ka- the¯ legendary foundation of Khotan in the time of Aśoka as referring to the arrival of In her 2001 article, Debaine-Francfort does not discuss possible origins of the Akètˇal¯azakhstan at Malokrasnojarka, Trušnikovo, and Ust’-Narym, all of which belong to Eastern Indians in the southern Tarim Basin, possibly speakers66 of G¯andh¯ar¯ı.Their Middle Indian Andronovo according to Kuz’mina ( passim). This is no proof that the Akèt¯ alˇ a/Aqtala¯ 6 dialect evidently became the language of culture and remained so until the middle of culture was Iranian-speaking, but it is a serious option. Mallory interprets the Akèt¯ alˇ a/Aqtala¯ the 1st millennium CE. The arrival of the Indians in the Tarim certainly need not have culture as evidence for Iranians in the region too (:; cf. also Francfort :–). taken place exactly during the reign of Aśoka, but it is possible that it predated the An important site from the middle of the st millennium linked to the Akèt¯ alˇ a/Aqtala¯ introduction of Buddhism, as stated in the accounts of the history of Khotan. ii culture is ˇJumbulaq Qum on the Keriya River (Debaine-Francfort and Idriss a:; ii i Francfort, Idriss, andi Zhang :). ii ii 13In FrenchIn French transcription, transcription, Djoumboulak Djoumboulak Koum. Koum. The The Chinese Chinese name name is is Yuánsh¯a Yuánsha¯ 圓沙. i i 7
i i i i Michaël Peyrot
TheFigure find sites.The The of find findgrey sites sites(marked of of grey gray with (marked (marked “Ⓖ”) withand with painted “Ⓖ)”) and and ceramics painted painted (marked (markedceramics with with (marked “Ⓟ)”), with based “Ⓟ on”), based on theceramics, map in theIdriss based map and on in Debaine theIdriss map and-Francfort in Debaine Idriss and(2001:14).-Francfort Debaine-Francfort (2001:14).Only the names Only ofthe: the .names Only most of theimportant the most important sitesnames have of beensites the addedhave most been importanthere. added The area siteshere. of haveThe painted area been ceramicsof added painted here. extends ceramics The east area extends off of the painted east map off to theYīwú map to Yīwú andceramics Hāmì. and extends Hāmì. east off the map to Y¯ıwú and Hamì.¯
¯ Even ifIn the her Akèt 2001alˇ a/Aqtala¯In article, her 2001 Debaine culture article,- representsFrancfort Debaine does- anFrancfort early not dis wave doescuss of notpossible Iranians, discuss origins possible we cannot of the origins be of the sureĀkètǎlā that this / Aqtala cultureĀkètǎlā culture, was / Aqtala ancestral but culture, she to points the but later outshe Khotanese- thatpoints its outtypical that and vessels Tumšuqese-speakingits typical are vesselsparallel are to findsparallel peoples in to finds in as longeastern as noKazakhstan solideastern link Kazakhstan at can Malokrasno be established at Malokrasnojarka, withTrušnikovoj thearka, kingdoms Tru andšnikovo Ust’ of-Narym theand earlyUst’, all- Narymofst which millennium, all belong of which to belong to ,Eastern such as Andronovo KaradongEastern onAndronovo according the Keriya toaccording Kuz’mina River (Debaine-Francfort, to (Kuz’mina2007, passim (20)07,. This Idriss,passim is no and). proofThis Wang isthat no the proof Ākètǎlā) or that the / Ākètǎlā / KhotanAqtala itself. culture However,Aqtala was culture Iranian the was geographical speaking, Iranian but speaking, distribution it is a serious but it fits is option. a the serious location Mallory option. of interprets Tumšuqese Mallory the interprets andĀkètǎlā the / Ākètǎlā / ¯ KhotaneseAqtala culture veryAqtala well, as evidence culture and especially as for evidence Iranians the borderfor in Iraniansthe betweenregion in toothe the (2015:29region gray too ceramics; cf. (2015:29 also of Francfort the; cf.Akèt also alˇ Francforta/¯ Aqtala2001: culture228–2292001: and).the An228 paintedimportan–229). An ceramicst site importan from from thet site Kumiddle fromcaˇ onwards theof the middle 1st to themillennium of eastthe 1st coincides millennium BCE linked perfectly BCE to the linked to the withĀkètǎlā the border / AqtalaĀkètǎlā between culture / Aqtala Tumšuqese is J ̌ umbulaqculture and is Qum J̌ umbulaq Tocharian13 on the Qum B. Keriya Moreover,13 on Riverthe Keriya such(Debaine anRiver early-Francfort (Debaine migration and-Francfort and intoIdriss the Tarim 2001:135Idriss Basin; Francfort,2001:135 would account; IdrissFrancfort, and for Zhang theIdriss fact and2001:137) that Zhang Khotanese-Tumšuqese,. 2001:137). probably to- gether withEven Wakh if¯ı, the split EvenĀkètǎlā off ifrelatively the / Aqtala Ākètǎlā early culture / Aqtala from represents Proto-Iranian culture anrepresents early in viewwave an ofearlyof theIranians, wave reflex of we of Iranians, PIIr.cannot bewe cannot be
*´cu˘ sureas Khot. that this´s´ssure(see culture that above). this is ancestral Theculture early is to ancestral datethe later of the toKhotanese arrivalthe later of Khotaneseand this Tumšuqese Iranian and group Tumšuqese speaking in the peoples Tarimspeaking as peoples as Basinlong does as notno solidlong necessarily aslink no can solid mean be linkestablished that can the be Khotanese-Tumšuqese established with the kingdoms with the ofkingdoms proto-language the early of 1st the millennium early would 1st have millennium CE, CE, to besuch dated as aroundKaradongsuch as onKaradong the .Keriya I think on theRiv that erKeriya such(Debaine aRiv dateer-Francfort, is(Debaine possible -IdrissFrancfort, in view and of Wang theIdriss di ff1994)anderences Wang or be-Khotan 1994) or Khotan tweenitself. the However, twoitself. languages, the However, geographical but it the cannot geographical distribution be excluded distribution fits thatthe location the fits breakup the of locationTumšuqese of the proto-languageof Tumšuqese and Khotanese and Khotanese wasvery later, well for, instanceandvery especially well around, and theespecially border between.the At border all events, the between grey a dateceramics the long grey of beforeceramics the Ākètǎlā of the / Aqtala Ākètǎlāseems culture / Aqtala culture unlikely.and the paintedand theceramics painted from ceramics Kuča fromonwards Kuča to onwardsthe east coincidesto the east perfectly coincides with perfectly the border with the border ¯ Inbetween my view, Tumšuqesebetween it is too Tumšuqese earlyand Tocharian for a linguistic and BTocharian. Moreover, interpretation B. Moreover,such an of theearly suchAkèt migration analˇ a/Aqtala¯ early into migration area the eastTarim into of the Tarim KhotanBasin and would theBasin Keriyaaccount would River. for account the It fact is to forthat be the expectedKhotanese fact that that -KhotaneseTumšuqes this area-e,Tumšuqes was probably Iranian-speakinge, together probably with beforetogether Wakhī, with Wakhī, Middlesplit Indianoff relativelysplit was off introduced early relatively from there, earlyProto -from butIranian the Proto in details view-Iranian andof thein consequences view reflex of of the PIIr. reflex of * thisću ̯of as hypothesisPIIr. Khot. *ć śśu̯ as(see Khot. śś (see need further study. Nevertheless, we might conceive of the legendary foundation of Khotan in the time of A ´ soka as referring to the arrival of Indians in the southern Tarim Basin, 13 13 possibly In French speakers transcription, In of French Gandh¯ transcription,ar¯ ¯ı.Djoumboulak Their Middle Djoumboulak Koum. Indian The dialect Koum. Chinese evidently The name Chinese becameis Yuánshā name the is圓 language Yuánshā沙. 圓沙. of culture and remained so until the middle of the st millennium . The arrival of Indians in the Tarim certainly need not have taken place exactly during the reign of A´soka, but it
Tocharian B etswe ‘mule’ and Eastern East Iranian is possible that it predated the introduction of Buddhism, as stated in the accounts of the history of Khotan.
Khotanese and Sogdian Another aspect that is relevant to the prehistory of Khotanese is its relationship with Sog- dian. Sims-Williams (a:–) lists a number of common innovations of Sogdian and Khotanese. These mostly concern lexical correspondences, such as Sogd. knθ ‘city’ Khot. ∼ kantha-¯ ; Sogd. r-f ‘disease’ Khot. rraha-¯ ‘pain’; Sogd. nnšky ‘palm of the hand’ Khot. ∼ ∼ nänarra-¯ ; Sogd. δrγw-nk-r-k ‘maleficent’ Khot. d¯ıramggara-¯ ; Sogd. šyr-nk-r-k ‘beneficent’ ∼ . Khot. ´s´säramggara-¯ ; Sogd. fš-m ‘to send’ Khot. hajsem-, < *fra-Jamaya-¯ (Sims-Williams ∼ . ∼ :); Sogd. prtw ‘time’ Khot. bad¯ a- (Sims-Williams :). He further points out ∼ . the similarity between the sg. personal pronoun Sogd. tγw Khot. thu (Tumš. tho), which ∼ according to him both reflect *tuhu or *tuγu < *tuwu < *tuwam (:); the suppletive stems in the demonstrative Sogd. š-/t- Khot. sa-/tta-; and the loss of k in the aka-stems ∼ . and *kar- ‘do’ (Sims-Williams ).
A Khotanese-Sogdian subbranch within Iranian is not compatible with the obviously early change of PIIr. *´cu˘ to Khotanese ´s´s, Tumšuqese ´s, and Wakh¯ı š, where Sogdian has sp instead (Yaghnob¯ı sp), and it is therefore likely that the above Khotanese-Sogdian isoglosses are due to parallel developments. This is compatible, I think, with the fact that the list in- cludes no early sound changes, the loss of k probably being a relatively late development. Nevertheless, it does seem likely that Khotanese and Tumšuqese took part in the develop- ment *ft,*xt > *βt,*γt, virtually the only shared sound change of “East Iranian” (Sims- Williams a:–), even though direct evidence for these changes in Khotanese is lack- ing. The development of *aft to Khot. aud (often od) is likely to have gone through *avt > *awd; here the change of *vt to *wd would have to be a later development than *abu, *au > Khot. u¯, but this seems unproblematic. In addition, it may be noted that intervocalic *t develops into t (however this was exactly pronounced), e.g. OKhot. mata¯ ‘mother’ < *mat¯ a¯, while *ft,*xt yielded d, e.g. Khot. hoda ‘’ < *hafta, which suggests an intermediary *vd,*γd. Similarly, the sequence *axt became ¯ıy, e.g. s¯ıya- ‘learned’ < *saxta- (with *ax or *aγ > ¯ı and ¯ıda > ¯ıya). Probably the development *ft,*xt > *βt,*γt could spread through the early East Iranian dialects because it was in origin just a special phonetic characteristic without phonological consequences that could be reverted (cf. Yaghnob¯ı ft, xt vs. Sogd. βt, γt). If the parallels between Khotanese and Sogdian adduced by Sims-Williams are not due to a genealogical relationship, they must be due to later, but in all probability still quite early, contacts. Perhaps these contacts have to be seen in the light of the parallels between the vessels of the Akèt¯ alˇ a/Aqtala¯ culture and those of the sites in eastern Kazakhstan mentioned above. Obviously, we also have to reckon with shared influence from a third source, as for instance in the case of Sogd. frn ‘glory’ and Khot. pharra-¯ ‘fortune, (high) position’, both probably borrowed from a steppe dialect, i.e. “Scythian” *farnah- (Lubotsky , ).
Cf. also tt¯ıra- ‘bitter’ < *taxra- (Emmerick :) and s¯ıra- ‘content’ < *sagra- (Bailey :a).
Michaël Peyrot
Khotanese and Saka The speakers of Khotanese and Tumšuqese were different from the people called Sai¯ in the Hanshu (see above). Nevertheless, the two languages are widely accepted to be Saka lan- guages. As noted by Emmerick, “The word Saka- is not certainly attested in the Khotanese documents” (Emmerick :; see also Bailey :). The Old Khotanese term for ‘Kho- tan’ and ‘Khotanese’ is hvatana- (Emmerick :). The Tumšuqese term for Tumšuqese was gya´zdi-¯ (Rong ). The first to suggest that Khotanese is a “Saka” language was probably Le Coq, who supposed it “to be, in consequence of geographical and historical considerations, the lost language of the Saka” (:). Nevertheless, Leumann initially termed it “nordarisch” (), and it was only with the seminal paper about the language of the Sakas´ by Lüders () that Khotanese became widely seen as “Saka” (e.g. Konow :). Lüders’ paper contains several layers of argument. He identified the digraph
. The nom. sg. m. of the Saka´ language ends in -i (pp. –).
This feature does not necessarily point to Khotanese, because a nom. sg. in -i is also found in the Sogdian light stems (Sims-Williams b:), and, in fact, the oldest Khotanese nom. sg. is -ä, not -i. This may seem a detail, but since the Saka´ language is older than Old Khotanese, it should be noted. It can also be pointed out that Aramaeo-Iranian may attest a nom. sg. in -i in the word krpty (Sims-Williams a:). The final -y here may simply be the nom. sg. ending instead of being parallel to Old Persian paθi-.
. The gen. sg. m. ends in -¯ı<ει> (pp. –).
Indeed, a gen. sg. m. in -i is found in Khotanese, while the Sogdian light stem gen.-dat. sg. ending is to be read -e, not -¯ı (Sims-Williams b:; pace Lüders :).
. The word d¯ın¯ıka is related to Av. da¯ena-¯ and shows the sound development ai > ¯ı (p. ).
In the Indian tradition, the word begins with ´s- rather than the expected s-. Nevertheless, it must in the end be the same etymon. According to Lüders, Cas.t.ana’s reign was in the second quarter of the nd century . Falk now suggests that Cas.t.ana was the first Saka´ ruler and that his rule began in (:a). This early date is argued for by Maggi () for Zambasta fragment T III S .
Tocharian B etswe ‘mule’ and Eastern East Iranian
The monophthongization of ai to ¯ı is found in Khotanese but is also widespread in other Middle and Modern Iranian languages; cf. for instance Yidgha (Morgenstierne :–).
. The personal names Ad¯ .uthuma and Sod´ .asa¯ , Sud´ .asa, Sud´ .isa have d. (pp. , ).
Intervocalic retroflex t., d. are found in Khotanese, but in Yidgha, for instance, retroflex r. derives from *rt probably through *d. (Morgenstierne :). The occurrence of d. alone cannot prove that Saka´ is a form of Khotanese.
. The first element of the personal name Ysamotika is zama- ‘earth’ and -ot- reflects the suffix -vant-, -vat- (p. ). zama- ‘earth’ is an Iranian word and is also attested in Khot. ysama-´s´sandaa- ‘world’, but evidently not limited to it. In *zamavant-,*zamavat- the sequence -ava- would in Khotanese certainly contract to o, au, but in many other languages as well.
. The meaning of the personal name Us.avadata¯ , Usabhadata¯ , Usabhadata is ‘R. s.abha- dharma’. The first element is a borrowing from Skt. r.s.abha- and the second element is Iranian data-¯ ‘law’ (pp. –).
The element data-¯ is too widespread to be of any significance, while the substitution of us-, us.- for r.s.- is not typical for Khotanese; cf. e.g. irdi ‘miracle; r.ddhi’.
. The first element of Kharaosta could be a Prakritized from of *ks.ara-¯ < *ks.aθra- (p. ).
Khot. ks.ara-¯ ‘power, dominion’ is now attested (Bailey :a), but the interpretation otherwise remains truly uncertain.
. The element hola-, hora- in several names means ‘gift’, Skt. dana-¯ (pp. –).
Indeed, Khot. haura- ‘gift’ shows the development of *fra- to ha- that is typically found in Khotanese, and different even from the reflex in Tumšuqese. Should the hora-, hola- of the inscriptions really be the quivalent of Skt. dana-¯ , then it would point to Khotanese influence.
. The fact that the Kushan title s.ah¯ anu¯ s.ahi¯ ‘king of kings’ does not show the expected Kushan (i.e., Bactrian, cf. þαονανο þαο) morphology could be taken to mean that the northern Ks.atrapas were Kushans, not Sakas. However, s.ah¯ anu¯ s.ahi¯ can be explained as an adaptation of the Kushan title to the morphology of the language of the older Sakas´ (pp. –).
This assumption is far-fetched, but may be necessary even if Saka´ is not identical to Khotan- ese. In the older Bactrian of the Kushans, the ending -i is oblique, not direct. In my view, Lüders’ observations are indeed compatible with the assumption that the Sakas´ spoke a form of Khotanese. However, it is questionable whether the features identified are unique to Khotanese, certainly in view of the fact that the non-Khotanese Sai¯ migrated as far south as Kashmir according to the Hanshu.
Michaël Peyrot
In sum, the evidence that the Saka´ language is Khotanese or an earlier form of it is weak. Many of the features are found in other languages as well, and it is known from other sources that non-Khotanese Iranians found their way to northern India. In any case, the large number of Indic elements in Khotanese is no proof “daß das ‘Nordarisch’ sprechende Volk längere Zeit auf indischem Boden saß” (Lüders :), since there is ample evidence that instead speakers of Middle Indian migrated into the Tarim Basin. Should any of the elements adduced by Lüders really stem from Khotanese, then it would seem much more attractive to me to view them as influences from Khotan in northern India. For instance, in the “Prophecy of the Li country” a joint campaign of Kanishka (reigned – ; Falk ) and the kings of Khotan and Gu-zan to Saketa is mentioned (Emmerick :, b).
The archaic Iranian stratum in Tocharian If the archaic Iranian stratum in Tocharian cannot be identified as an early form of Khotanese or Tumšuqese-Khotanese, despite the fact that this branch seems to have been present in the Tarim Basin since the early st millennium , we have to look elsewhere. We do not have to search far. Not only were the Sai¯ of the Hanshu originally found to the north of the Tocharian-speaking area, other groups are reported to have lived to their east: the Wus¯ un¯ and the Yuèzh¯ı. The Yuèzh¯ı were apparently living in the Héx¯ı corridor, which is east of the Tocharian towns Kucaˇ and Yanqí/Qarašähär.¯ Although the linguistic identity of the Wus¯ un¯ cannot be proved, they may well have been Iranian. This is very likely to be true of the Yuèzh¯ı in any case since they invaded Afghanistan later, and their language is suggested to be a form of Scythian by Sims-Williams (). Even though the Chinese sources about all three peoples refer to a period that is probably far too late for such archaic-looking borrow- ings as etswe ‘mule’, namely only from the nd century onwards, it is clear that there is no need to look for Iranians in the Tarim Basin only. According to Kuz’mina, Andronovo influence in X¯ınjiang¯ is as early as the th–th centuries (:–). Thus from the scenarios mentioned at the end of §, the most likely in my view is that the western Tarim Basin was populated from an early period onwards by Iranian peoples ances- tral to the later speakers of Khotanese and Tumšuqese, while the archaic Iranian stratum in Tocharian derives from an Iranian dialect spoken to the north or east of the Tocharian area. It is impossible to say with which Iranian group the archaic Iranian stratum must be identified exactly. The words are so archaic that they show hardly any dialect features. Nev- ertheless, it can be pointed out that Toch. B waipecce ‘possessions’ from *hwai-paθya- shows a palatalization of *θy to cc that must be attributed to the Iranian source since in Tocharian *ty develops into ts. This palatalization is not found in the Pamir languages or Tumšuqese- Khotanese, and not in the same form in Sogdian either, but it is found in Ossetic and may be an early dialect feature of the steppe Iranian that we could call “Scythian” (Lubotsky :).
Abbreviations EWAia = Manfred Mayrhofer. –. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. vols. Heidelberg: Winter.
Tocharian B etswe ‘mule’ and Eastern East Iranian
References Bailey, Harold W. . “Languages of the Saka.” In Iranistik, Erster Abschnitt: Linguistik, –. Leiden: Brill. ———. . “Saka studies: The ancient kingdom of Khotan.” Iran :–. ———. . Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Baxter, William H. and Laurent Sagart. . Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Debaine-Francfort, Corinne. . “Archéologie du Xinjiang des origines aux Han: Pre- mière partie.” Paléorient :–. ———. . “Xinjiang and Northwestern China around BC., cultural contacts and transmissions.” In Migration und Kulturtransfer: Der Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbruch vom . zum . vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, ed. by Ricardo Eichmann and Hermann Parzinger, –. Bonn: Habelt. Debaine-Francfort, Corinne, and Abduressul Idriss. a. “Djoumboulak Koum, une cité fortifiée.” In Debaine-Francfort and Idriss b, –. ———(ed.). b. Keriya, mémoires d’un fleuve: Archéologie et civilisation des oasis du Takla- makan. Suilly-la-Tour: Findakly. Debaine-Francfort, Corinne, Abdurassul Idriss, and Wang Binghua. . “Agriculture ir- riguée et art bouddhique ancien au cœur du Taklamakan (Karadong, Xinjiang, e–e siècles).” Arts Asiatiques :–. de Vaan, Michiel. . “Die Lautfolge aum¯ im V¯ıdevd¯ ad.”¯ Indoarisch, Indoiranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom . bis . Oktober in Erlangen, ed. by Bernhard Forssman and Robert Plath, –. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Doerfer, Gerhard. –. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. vols. Wies- baden: Steiner. Emmerick, Ronald E. . Tibetan Texts Concerning Khotan. London: Oxford University Press. ———. . Saka Grammatical Studies. London: Oxford University. ———. . The Khotanese S´ura¯ ngamasam˙ adhis¯ utra¯ . London: Oxford University Press. ———. . “Khotanese and Tumshuqese.” In Schmitt b, . − ———. . A Guide to the Literature of Khotan. nd ed. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies. ———. “Khotanese and Tumshuqese.” In The Iranian Languages, ed. by Gernot Wind- fuhr, –. London: Routledge. Emmerick, Ronald E., and Prods Oktor Skjærvø. . Studies in the Vocabulary of Khotanese I. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Falk, Harry. . “Ancient Indian eras – an overview.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute []:–. Francfort, Henri-Paul. . “The cultures with painted ceramics of south Central Asia and their relations with the northeastern steppe zone (late nd–early st millennium BC).” In Migration und Kulturtransfer: Der Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Um- bruch vom . zum . vorchristlichen Jahrtausend, ed. by Ricardo Eichmann and Hermann Parzinger, –. Bonn: Habelt.
Michaël Peyrot
Francfort, Henri-Paul, Abduressul Idriss, and Zhang Yuzhong. . “Des morts dans les sables.” In Debaine-Francfort and Idriss b, –. Gharib, Badr-az-Zaman.¯ . Sogdian Dictionary: Sogdian–Persian–English. Tehran: Far- hangan. Hulsewé, A. F. P. . China in Central Asia. The Early Stage: B.C.–A.D. . Leiden: Brill. Idriss, Abduressul, and Corinne Debaine-Francfort. . “Du Xinjiang . . . ” In Debaine- Francfort and Idriss b, –. Isebaert, Lambert. . “De Indo-Iraanse bestanddelen in de Tocharische woordenschat.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leuven. Kellens, Jean. . “Avestique.” In Schmitt b, –. Konow, Sten. . “Ein neuer Saka-Dialekt.” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse :–. Kuz’mina, Elena E. . The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. Leiden: Brill. ———. . The Prehistory of the Silk Road. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Le Coq, Albert von. . “A short account of origin, journey, and results of the first royal Prussian (second German) expedition to Turfan in Chinese Turkestan.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society :–. Leumann, Ernst. . Zur nordarischen Sprache und Literatur: Vorbemerkungen und vier Auf- sätze mit Glossar. Straßburg: Trübner.
Lubotsky, Alexander M. . “Avestan xvar e nah-: The etymology and concept.” In Sprache und Kultur: Akten der X. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft Innsbruck, ed. by Wolfgang Meid, –. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Inns- bruck. ———. . “Scythian elements in Old Iranian.” In Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, ed. by Nicholas Sims-Williams, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. . “Sanskrit -na- participles and the glottalic theory.” In Verba Docenti: Studies in Historical and Indo-European Linguistics Presented to Jay H. Jasanoff by Students, Colleagues, and Friends, ed. by Alan J. Nussbaum, –. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave. Lüders, Heinrich. . “Die Sakas´ und die ‘nordarische’ Sprache.” Sitzungsberichte der könig- lich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften :–. Maggi, Mauro. . “The manuscript T III S : Its importance for the history of Khotan- ese literature.” In Turfan Revisited: The First Century of Research into the Arts and Cultures of the Silk Road, ed. by Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst, Simone-Christiane Raschmann, Jens Wilkens, Marianne Yaldiz, and Peter Zieme, –. Berlin: Reimer. Mallory, James P. . The Problems of Tocharian Origins: An Archaeological Perspective. Phila- delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Maue, Dieter. . Alttürkische Handschriften. Part : Dokumente in Brahm¯ ¯ı und tibetischer Schrift Teil . Stuttgart: Steiner. ———. . “Tumschukische Miszellen / Miscellanea Tumšucica IV.” Tocharian and Indo- European Studies :–. Morgenstierne, Georg. . Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages. Vol. : Iranian Parmir Lan- guages (Yidgha-Munji, Sanglechi-Ishkashmi and Wakhi). Oslo: Aschehoug.
Tocharian B etswe ‘mule’ and Eastern East Iranian
Peyrot, Michaël. . Review of Maue . Tocharian and Indo-European Studies :–. Pulleyblank, Edwin G. . Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. Vancouver: UBC Press. Rong Xinjiang. . “The name of the so-called ‘Tumshuqese’ language.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute []:–. Schmidt, Klaus T. . “Zu einigen der ältesten iranischen Lehnwörter im Tocharischen.” In Studia Linguistica, Diachronica et Synchronica: Werner Winter sexagenario anno MCMLXXIII gratis animis ab eius collegis, amicis discipulisque oblata, ed. by Ursula Pieper and Gerhard Stickel, –. Berlin: de Gruyter. Schmitt, Rüdiger. a. “Die altiranischen Sprachen im Überblick.” In Schmitt b, –. ———(ed.). b. Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Sims-Williams, Nicholas. . “Chotano-Sogdica.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies :–. ———. a. “Eastern Middle Iranian.” In Schmitt b, –. ———. b. “Sogdian.” In Schmitt b, –. ———. . “Chotano-Sogdica II: Aspects of the development of nominal morphology in Khotanese and Sogdian.” In Proceedings of the First European Conference of Iranian Studies, part : Old and Middle Iranian Studies, ed. by Gherardo Gnoli and Antonio Panaino, –. Rome: Istituto italiano per il medio ed estremo oriente. ———. . “The Iranian languages.” In The Indo-European Languages, ed. by Anna Gia- calone Ramat and Paolo Ramat, –. London: Routledge. ———. . “Ancient Afghanistan and its invaders: Linguistic evidence from the Bactrian documents and inscriptions.” In Indo-Iranian Languages and Peoples, ed. by Nicholas Sims-Williams, –. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. . “Modern East Iranian languages.” In Schmitt b, –. ———. . This Most Excellent Shine of Gold, King of Kings of Sutras: The Khotanese Suvarn. a- bhasottamas¯ utra.¯ Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tremblay, Xavier. a. “Bildeten die iranischen Sprachen ursprünglich eine genetische Familie oder einen Sprachbund innerhalb des indo-iranischen Zweiges?” In Sprachkon- takt und Sprachwandel: Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, .–. September , Halle an der Saale, ed. by Gerhard Meiser and Olav Hackstein, –. Wiesbaden: Reichert. ———. b. “Irano-Tocharica et Tocharo-Iranica.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies :–. Windfuhr, Gernot. . “Dialectology and topics.” In The Iranian Languages, ed. by Ger- not Windfuhr, –. London: Routledge.
Farnah
Indo-Iranian and Indo-European Studies
in Honor of
Sasha Lubotsky
Beech Stave Press Ann Arbor New York • © Beech Stave Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Typeset with LATEX using the Galliard typeface designed by Matthew Carter and Greek Old Face by Ralph Hancock. The typeface on the cover is Yxtobul by Steve Peter.
Photo of Sasha Lubotsky © Capital Photos.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
ISBN ---- (alk. paper)
Printed in the United States of America
Table of Contents
Preface ...... vii Bibliography of Sasha Lubotsky ...... ix Ph.D. Students of Sasha Lubotsky...... xvi List of Contributors ...... xvii
, Vedic Elements in the Pa´supatas¯ utra¯ ...... Peter C. Bisschop , The Case of Tocharian ‘silver’: Inherited or Borrowed? ...... Václav Blažek , The Noncanonical Use of Instrumental Plurals in Young Avestan . . . . Michiel de Vaan , Sogdian Plurals in the Vessantara Jataka¯ ...... Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst , A Middle Iranian Word Denoting an Office-Holder ...... Jost Gippert , The Vedic Perfect Imperative and the Status of Modal Forms Stephanie W. Jamison to Tense-Aspect Stems ...... , Vedisch dhéna-¯ : Bedeutung und Etymologie ...... Michael Janda ff, The Phonology of Tocharian B okso ‘ox’...... Jay H. Jasano , Syncretism in Indo-European: A Natural History ...... Jared Klein , The Origin of the Hittite hi-Conjugation ......
Alwin Kloekhorst ˘ ˚ , Das Demonstrativpronomen ETÁD im Rgveda ...... Werner Knobl , A Comment on the Vocalization of Word-initial Petr Kocharov and Medial Laryngeals in Armenian ...... , The Indo-European k-Aorist ...... Frederik Kortlandt , Lachmann’s Law, Thurneysen’s Law, and a New Explanation Guus Kroonen of the PIE no-Participles ...... , Vedic ahanás¯ - and Its Relatives/Cognates within and outside Leonid Kulikov Indo-Iranian......
v Table of Contents
, The Survival of Laryngeals in Iranian...... Martin Joachim Kümmel , Prosody in Indo-European Corpora ...... Rosemarie Lühr , Armenian Andndayin ¯oj and Vedic Áhi- Budhnyà- Hrach Martirosyan ‘Abyssal Serpent’...... , Iranian Loanwords in Proto-Slavic: A Fresh Look...... Ranko Matasovic´ , Semantics and Etymology of Hittite takš- ......
H. Craig Melchert , PIE *gwh -éu˘ - ‘cow’...... Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead 3 , A Dedicatory Thigh: Greek µηρÒς and µÁρα Once Again ...... Alan J. Nussbaum , Vedisch Vivásvant- und seine avestische Entsprechung ...... Norbert Oettinger , The Development of Interconsonantal Laryngeals in Indo-Iranian Birgit Anette Olsen and Old Avestan za˛θa¯ pta¯ ...... , Tocharian B etswe ‘mule’ and Eastern East Iranian ...... Michaël Peyrot , New Look at Vedic ´sám...... Georges-Jean Pinault , Old Church Slavonic (j)utro, Vedic usár- ‘daybreak, morning’ ...... Tijmen Pronk . , Vedic and Avestan Parallels from Ritual Litanies Velizar Sadovski and Liturgical Practices I ...... , Typological Expectations and Historic Reality: Once Again George Starostin on the Issue of Lexical Cognates between Indo-European and Uralic ...... , Greek πδιλον ‘sandal’ and the Origin of the e-Grade in PIE ‘foot’ . . . . Lucien van Beek , Veneti or Venetes? Observations on a Widespread Indo-European Michael Weiss Tribal Name ......
Index Verborum ......
vi