Commodity Terms in the Languages of Central Eurasia: New Interpretations from Mugh Document A-1*
ALISHER BEGMATOV
TURFANFORSCHUNG, BBAW
COMMODITY TERMS IN THE LANGUAGES OF CENTRAL EURASIA: NEW INTERPRETATIONS FROM MUGH DOCUMENT A-1*
SUMMARY The document A-1 is one of the least understood documents among the Sogdian manuscripts from Mount Mugh. The authors of previous editions of this document have reached the conclusion that the commodities referred to in this document are precious stones. I propose that this interpretation is potentially mistaken. By comparing textile terms, mainly in Central Asian languages, I conclude that the content of this document relates to textile or leather products rather than precious stones. Key words: Central Eurasia; Sogdians; Mount Mugh; textiles; languages and lexicon.
RÉSUMÉ Le document A-1 est l’un des manuscrits sogdiens les moins compréhensibles du Mont Mugh. Les auteurs des éditions précédentes de ce document sont parvenus à la conclusion que les articles qui y sont mentionnés sont des pierres précieuses. Or, cette interprétation nous semble potentiellement erronée. En comparant les termes désignant les textiles, prin- cipalement dans des langues d’Asie centrale, nous concluons que le document concerne des produits textiles ou dérivés du cuir plutôt que des pierres précieuses. Mots-clés : Eurasie centrale ; Sogdiens ; le Mont Mugh ; langues et lexiques. * * *
* I express my gratitude to Professor Yutaka Yoshida for his valuable advice and com- ments. I am also grateful to Professor Franz Grenet, Dr. Pavel Lur’e, Professor Des- mond Durkin-Meisterernst, Dr. Christiane Reck, Dr. Adam Benkato and Nadeem Ahmad for their proof-reading and valuable comments. Naturally, I am responsible for the errors and shortcomings. — This research was supported by a grant from the Mishima Kaiun Memorial Foundation.
7 STUDIA IRANICA 48, 2019, pp. 7-27 8 A. B E G M A T O V StIr 48, 2019
I. INTRODUCTION Exchanges between East and West took place across Eurasia throughout various periods in human history. The period of the so-called “Silk Road” was a notable period of such trans-Eurasian exchange. The Sogdians, centered in their homeland in the Zarafshan valley, are known to have been instrumental long-distance traders along the Silk Road in late antiquity and the early medieval era. Nevertheless, much of the historical information about Sogdian merchants has been obtained from non-Sogdian sources. We still have limited knowledge about the goods the Sogdians produced and traded in their homeland. Additionally, archaeological finds are often limited to non-organic materials, such as ceramics and metal-ware, as organic materials rarely survive (in the burial conditions) in the Central Asian lowlands. The Mount Mugh documents found in modern-day Tajikistan are an exceptional source for understanding the material culture of the Sogdians. These consist of approximately 80 documents (including fragments), written on paper, parchment and sticks. Five of these documents are written in foreign languages - 3 in Chinese, 1 in Arabic, 1 in Old Turkic with Runic letters (Freyman 1934, pp. 12-14). The Chinese documents do not correspond with the remainder of the Mt. Mugh documents, in terms of content and period. They were merely re-used for Sogdian writings on their reverse sides. The Sogdian documents of the Mt. Mugh collection are written in Sogdian cursive script, a derivative of Aramaic, which represents only consonants and certain select vowels. In cursive Sogdian, several letters closely resemble each other, which makes the process of deciphering them extremely difficult. Nevertheless, scholars such as Livshits (1962 and 2008), Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963) successfully deciphered these documents and made them available to a wider scholarly audience. Unfortunately, due to the occasional inconsistency of the Sogdian script and the presence of some unknown Sogdian words, some documents may have been misinterpreted, either partially or wholly. The document A- 1 is among the documents most likely to bear entirely different content than the proposed interpretations. Concretely, previous editions of the Mt. Mugh documents interpreted the names of commodities in the document A-1 as precious stones. However, by comparing the words appearing in this manuscript with words related to textiles in various other languages mainly those of Central Eurasia, I have reached a different interpretation than the ones proposed by Livshits (1962 and 2008) and Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963).
C O M M O D I T Y T E R M S I N L A N G U A G E S O F C E N T R A L E U R A S I A 9
II. MUGH DOCUMENT A-1 A letter written on parchment (11 x 12-13 cm) is one of the numerous documents addressed to framāndār Ot in the Mt. Mugh collection. The sender of the letter is Āpānak who is also attested in the documents A-5 and Nov.1. Fifteen lines on the recto are well preserved, whereas twelve lines on the verso are barely recognizable (see Fig. 1 and 2). The letter bears a list of commodity names that are being sent by Āpānak. Editions and translations of the document are as follows: Livshits 1962, pp. 142-144; Bogolyubov & Smirnova 1963, p. 43 (verso) and pp. 73-74 (recto); Livshits 2008, pp. 161-166 (and its English translation in 2015, pp. 120-124). Furthermore, Bogolyubov (1981, pp. 109-111) attempted to elucidate the etymologies of a few words of this document.
Recto: 1 ʾt βγw xwβw prmʾnδʾr 2 ʾwttw (space) MN xy-pδ βntk 3 ʾʾpʾnk ptškwʾnh ZY γrβ nmʾcyw 4 rty prʾšyw cytcyt δsty 5 cw ʾpšmʾkntyh ʾβšwβnkh cw 6 ʾwz-kwk ʾβšʾwβnkh 18 7 ZY ʾy-wh ʾskwrnkh tβtch ZY 8 ZY ʾδwy δkknh ZY ʾδw ʾxšpcyk 9 ZY ʾy-wh rmʾnykh ptsγty-kh ZY 10 ʾy-wh ʾsprγwmych ptsγtykh 11 ZY ʾy-w tβtʾk ʾpšwn xypδ 12 sptʾk ZY ʾywh βycxšnh ZY 13 ʾy-w twn xypδ sptʾkw ZY ʾδry (continued on the verso) 14 ʾt βγw xwβw prmʾnδʾr 15 ʾwtt (space) MN βntk ʾʾpʾnk
Verso (continuation of the recto): 1 ʾsp.y?-sr ZY 10 […….] 2 ZY ctβʾr wʾry-ʾkh1 ZY (ʾšt?) 3 (..) (rn)kcrm2 ZY ʾyw ʾs..
1 Bogolyubov & Smirnova 1963, p. 73: wʾryʾkch; Livshits 1962, p. 142; Id. 2008, p. 166: wʾry-ʾkʾh; it is perhaps mistakenly written as wʾry-ʾknh or wʾryʾkch as proposed by Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, p. 73). 2 If it is to be read as (rn)kcrm as suggested by Livshits (1962), then perhaps it is an ‘ibex hide’ as proposed by Tafazzoli (1997, pp. 113-114); see also the Mt. Mugh 10 A. B E G M A T O V StIr 48, 2019
4 ……………………………... 5 …… [pts]γty[k]? ………… 6 (ʾ)pšwn (ʾ)δ(w) (.)kʾ(δ?)ʾk(w?)3 ...... 7 (.tm) ZKn .. ʾxc ...... 8 ...... c...... (rty?) 9 ...... (k)w sy-ʾ/cwt?y.... 10 γ.ry ZY ...... 11 ……………………... 12 .wy?
Translation of the recto (newly proposed translation, justified in the notes which follow): Lines, 1-3: To the lord sovereign framāndār Ot from [your] own servant Āpānak, [humble] message and many greetings Lines, 4-6: I sent in the hands of Čītčīt both wool-stuffed ʾβšwβnkh and ʾwzkwk ʾβšʾwβnkh 18 [pieces] each Lines, 7-9: and one sealed ʾskwrnkh and two muslin (headdresses) and two (certain kind of) cloths and one woolen (or felt) ptsγtykh and Lines,10-12: one flowery ptsγtykh and one sealed brocade of Afšun’s own and one βycxšnh and Lines,13-15: one brocade of Ton’s own and three (continued on the verso). To the lord sovereign framāndār Ot, (space) from [your] servant Āpānak
III. COMMENTARY Due to the poor preservation of the verso, it is not possible to offer an interpretation. However, there are two clearly visible words wʾry-ʾkh and (rn)kcrm, which are related to leather or hide. These two words indicate that the commodity names of this document might be related to products of leather or hide, as the text on the verso is presumably the direct continu- ation of its recto.4 The final word of the recto, before the addressee name, is a number ‘three’, the word following this is missing on the recto, there-
document V-3, 11; Dr. Pavel Lur’e considers the interpretation ‘dyed leather’ propo- sed by Livshits (1962) to be equally possible, as some fragments of red leather have been discovered at Hisorak in Tajikistan [personal communication, 23/07/2018]. 3 Lur’e (2010, p. 96, no. 121) proposes to read words as ʾδw k(ʾγδ?)ʾk. cf. Livshits 1962, p. 142: (δk?)kʾnʾk; Livshits 2008, p. 166: (ʾ)δw kʾnʾk or kʾzʾk. 4 Yoshida (2019, pp. 52-53) paying particular attention to the method of writing the addressee and addresser, as well as the sealing of a letter, states that the verso is the direct continuation of the recto in the Mt. Mugh letters. C O M M O D I T Y T E R M S I N L A N G U A G E S O F C E N T R A L E U R A S I A 11 fore making the phrase incomplete. The verso begins with a word, without any kind of conjunction (rty or ZY) before it, which implies that it may not be the beginning of the sentence or phrase. Thus, the number ‘three’ on the recto modifies the word ʾsp[.]y-sr5 on the verso. Consequently, the text on the recto is directly continued on the verso, and the first word of the verso should therefore be a commodity name, presumably related to leather or textile, judging by the other commodity names appeared in the document. If this word to be related to a horse, then it may refer to a textile or leather object used for the head of a horse. The layout of the document A-1 is arranged in the same style as the other sealed letters of Mt. Mugh. However, unlike other sealed letters, the document A-1 does not bear a hole (for sealing). This indicates that the document was never sealed, although it was intended to be sealed. Pos- sibly, the full text on its verso is the reason why the document remained unsealed. The final two lines of the verso would have remained visible even after sealing, which would have spoiled its authenticity. Another possibility is that a piece of parchment with the names of addresser and addressee written on it, may have been prepared in order to wrap the letter and then sealed, similarly to the parchment at the museum of Samarkand that bears only the names of the addresser (Afšun) and addressee (Kartē) (see Kirillova, Grenet & de La Vaissière 2001; Livshits 2008, pp. 144-146). Gender agreement between nouns and adjectives is consistently repre- sented on the recto, only the word ʾwzkwk in the line 6 is an exception. It is also noteworthy that in the present document, articles are rarely employed. Not a single article is employed on the recto, and only one article can be confirmed on the nearly wiped-out verso. The letters y and z are occasion- ally written separately. The letter p before the letter r (in the words prmʾnδʾr and prʾšyw) has a short tail. It is also important to note that the name Ot is placed in the beginning of the lines 2 and 15 of the recto, although there is enough space above lines to write down the name.6
5 Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, p. 43) interpreted this word as ʾspy sʾr ‘to a horse’. But this interpretation is unlikely. It should be read as ʾsp[.]y-sr or nsp[.]y-sr. 6 Dr. Hiroshi Ono has kindly pointed out that the personal name may have intention- ally been placed in the beginning of the line in order to show respect. 12 A. B E G M A T O V StIr 48, 2019
Fig. 1: Mt. Mugh Document A-1 (recto) (© Courtesy of the Institute of Oriental Manu- scripts, Russian Academy of Sciences).
C O M M O D I T Y T E R M S I N L A N G U A G E S O F C E N T R A L E U R A S I A 13
Fig. 2: Mt. Mugh Document A-1 (verso) (© Courtesy of the Institute of Oriental Manu- scripts, Russian Academy of Sciences).
III.1. Personal names –Framāndār Ot Ot is a personal name and Framāndār is his title. Framāndār Ot is one of the most important figures in the Mugh documents. He is an executive official in charge of household of the court of Δēwāštīč, the sovereign of Panč and short-lived king of Sogdiana. Livshits (2008, p. 163) favors to transcribe this name as Awat (see also Lur’e 2010, no. 204). Grenet (forth- coming) argues in favor of Ot being shortened form of Ottegin appeared in 14 A. B E G M A T O V StIr 48, 2019 the marriage contract of the Mt. Mugh collection. The equation of Ot and Ottegin was primarily proposed by Bogolyubov and Smirnova, but rejected by Livshits (see Livshits 1962, p. 219). –Āpānak This person is also attested in other Mugh documents, A5 R16: a person who brings an order, Nov.1 V21: a person who takes leather. –Čītčīt Reading of this personal name is not certain. But it is generally trans- literated as cytcyt by all editions. However, it could also be read as cβtcβt, as the second letter (y or β) from the beginning and the end of the word is not separated from its preceding letters. The same figure is also attested in A-5: R20, as a receiver of four drachmas. –Afšun This figure is the sovereign of Khākhsar or Rōst, an important person in the Mugh documents. The documents V-17 and V-18 in particular show that he played an important role in the stand against the Arab invasions of Sogdiana (see also Livshits 2008, pp. 126-136; Lur’e 2010, no. 121). Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, pp. 73-74) read this word as ʾpγwn and understands as a precious stone ‘brilliant’, but the shape of the third letter is not typical for -γ. Livshits (1962, p. 143) transliterates this word as ʾprwn, but later Livshits (2008, p. 163) accepted the reading ʾpšwn pro- posed by Sims-Williams (apud Grenet 1989, p. 184). In both cases he interprets this word as a personal name. Interpretation of this word as a personal name is plausible, as it is followed by xypδ ‘one’s own’. The word xypδ refers to the subject of the sentence or to an immediately prece- ding pronoun in possessive function (Sims-Williams & Durkin-Meister- ernst 2012, p. 225). Therefore, ʾpšwn is most likely a personal name. It is mentioned on both sides of the letter. –Ton or Tun Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, pp. 73-74) interpreted this word as a Perso-Arabic word tūm ‘pearl’. Livshits (1962, p. 142; 2008, p. 163) inter- prets it as a personal name. This word should also be a personal name, as it is followed by xypδ ‘one’s own’. An identical name is attested in the docu- ments B-1, L7, R22 (Bogolyubov & Smirnova 1963, pp. 44-45) and B-4, 2. C O M M O D I T Y T E R M S I N L A N G U A G E S O F C E N T R A L E U R A S I A 15
7 In the document B-1, L7 Tun receives ʾzyh ‘leather product’, and in B-4, he provides srʾkh8 ‘headdress’ (see also Lur’e 2010, no. 1258).
III.2. Commodity names Three identical commodity terms with the ones on the recto of the docu- ment A-1 are observed in the document B-1. These three terms ptsγtykh, ʾskwrnkh, βycxšnh9 attested in A-1 and B-1 and other commodity terms of A-1 are not observed anywhere in the Sogdian texts, let alone Mt. Mugh documents. As a result, the decipherment of this document has remained uncertain to this day. A familiar word pšm ‘wool’ is attested in the document B-1, in the same place where the words concerned here are observed. In fact, it was Livshits (1962, p. 220) who suggested to read this word as pšm ‘wool’, rather than prm ‘until’ proposed by Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1962). This reading is paleographically convincing. Besides, a commodity name is expected in this position. This was an obvious indication that the words ptsγtykh, ʾskwrnkh, βycxšnh observed along with the word pšm ‘wool’ in B-1, may have been related to the commodity names along the lines of ‘wool’. Generally, the same kind of commodities are listed in the docu- ments of the Mugh collection. However, Livshits (1962, pp. 142-144) did not consider this possibility, and instead was inclined to interpret as pre- cious stones. Later Livshits (2008) adopted the interpretation as precious stones of all commodity names appeared on the recto, several of which were primarily proposed by Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963) and Bogolyu- bov (1981). This was most likely mistaken. The commodity terms of the recto are presumably textile-related. The terms in the fifth, ninth and tenth lines are most likely wool-related.
7 Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, pp. 46-47) identified this word as ‘spear’. Livshits (1962, p. 39) interpreted this word as ‘leather bag’. Lur’e (2010) generally translates this word as ‘water-skin’. 8 This word is interpreted by Livshits (1962, p. 183; Id. 2008, p. 218) and Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, p. 53) as ‘helmet’. However, if it is perhaps formed by adding aka to sr- ‘head’, then literally means ‘of head’. Therefore, it can refer to any kind of headdress. There is, however, a strikingly similar Ossetian word særak, which means ‘soft thin leather, usually produced from the hide of a goat, rarely of sheep or calf’. As stated by Abaev (1979, III, pp. 76-77), the Sogdian word srʾkh may well refer to leather. 9 This word is possibly written as βycxʾšnh in B-1, but not clearly visible. 16 A. B E G M A T O V StIr 48, 2019
III.3. Wool-related terms 1) ʾpšmʾkntyh /ǝp(ǝ)šmāgandī/ ‘wool-stuffed’ (followed by ʾβšwβnkh) [Line 5] Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, p. 43) understood this word as a precious stone name. Livshits (1962, p. 143) read this word as ʾpsmʾkʾtyh and interpreted as ‘decorated’, also noted that it may have possibly related to the Buddhist word ʾpsmʾk ‘chowry’. Later Livshits (2008, p. 163) transliterated ʾpšmʾkʾtyh or ʾpšmʾkntyh and accepted the interpretation ‘malachite’ proposed by Bogolyubov (1981, p. 109) who compares this word with Georgian p’aršamang-i, p’aršavang-i ‘pea- cock’, a borrowing from Western Iranian, Old Iranian *frašmaka-. The same author demonstrates the following words as a comparison to sup- port his hypothesis: Arabic and Persian ṭāwusī ‘pertaining to a peacock > malachite’, Chinese kongque shi ‘peacock stone - malachite’. However, as mentioned by MacKenzie (1976, p. 60), it appears much closer to the Persian word pašmāgand ‘wool-stuffed (saddle-cloth)’ (see also Steingass 1897, p. 253). This Persian word is attested in Middle Persian, namely in the Bundahishn. It is explained as ‘a thing that is made of silk, placed between the back of a pack-animal and a load’ (see Justi 1868, p. 100). This word was presumably borrowed into Sogdian from Middle Persian. ʾpšmʾkntyh is followed by an unknown word ʾβšwβnkh, discussed below. 2) ʾβšʾwβnkh/ʾβšwβnkh ‘cushion or blanket ?’ [Lines 5-6] Livshits (1962, p. 143) suggested to read this word as ʾβš(ʾ)wβʾkh (or ʾβš(ʾ)wβnkh) and to possibly relate it to *abi-sumb- ‘to drill or bore’. Based on this assumption, he stated that the content of this document may relate to precious stones. As other possible readings of this word, Livshits suggests ʾβγ(ʾ)wβʾkh, ʾβγ(ʾ)wβnkh. However, this reading is graphically less likely. Bogolyubov and Smirnova (1963, p. 74) proposed to interpret this as ʾβšwβnkh ‘drilled’ from *ami-sumb-na, similarly to Livshits (1962, p. 143), or ʾyšpyʾkh ‘from jasper’ by adding the suffix yʾkh to the word ʾyšph ‘jasper’. However, the latter interpretation is graphically unlikely. Bogolyubov (1981, p. 113), on the other hand, sug- gested to interpret it as ʾβšʾwβʾkh/ʾβšwβ'kh ‘decoration’ from *abi- šauba-ka-. Livshits (2008) accepts this interpretation. The interpretations proposed by the previous authors do not seem to be reasonable. As its preceding word ʾpšm'kntyh is most likely a Middle Persian loanword literally meaning ‘wool-stuffed’, it should perhaps refer to a cushion, quilt or blanket. C O M M O D I T Y T E R M S I N L A N G U A G E S O F C E N T R A L E U R A S I A 17
This word may as well refer to a saddle-cloth, as the preceding Middle Persian word specifically refers to a saddle-cloth made of silk (see Justi 1868, p. 100). The reading of this word remains uncertain. As already mentioned in the previous editions, other readings are possible. 3) ʾwzkwk (followed by ʾβšʾwβnkh) [Line 6] The interpretation of this word as ‘glass’, a loanword from Semitic languages was offered by Bogolyubov (1981, pp. 109-110), later fol- lowed by Livshits (2008, pp. 163-164) and Lur’e (2008, p. 43)10. cf. Akk. zakukutu, Heb. zekūkīt, Aram., Syr. zegūgīta, Mand. zgavīṭā, Arab. zuǰāǰ ‘glass’; However, it does not necessarily fit the Sogdian ʾwz-kwk, which has an initial vowel. It is not a usual prothetic ʾ- (aleph), which is frequently observed in Sogdian texts. Thus, this word may not be a glass. It is perhaps related rather to textile products, as the other words attested in this document are most likely related to textile commodities. As it precedes the word ʾβšʾwβnkh, in the same way ʾpšmʾkntyh ‘wool- stuffed’ does, it may therefore be similar item to ʾpšmʾkntyh. Or it may refer to certain feature of ʾβšʾwβnkh, such as its ornament, style, etc. 4) rmʾnykh /rmānīka/ ‘a certain type of felt or woolen blanket’ [Line 9] Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, p. 74) referred to a possible relation to an Arabic word rummānī ‘ruby’ which is derived from rummān ‘pomegranate’. According to Bogolyubov (1981, p. 110), this word was the first clue for the authors to identify the commodity names as pre- cious stones. Livshits (2008, p. 165) accepts this interpretation and Lur’e (2008) also cautiously quotes it. rmʾnykh is followed by ptsγtykh, an unknown word, which follows ʾsprγwmych in line 10. In other words, ptsγtykh is modified by the words rmʾnykh and ʾsprγwmych. As discussed below, ʾsprγwmych is an adjective presumably referring to the ornament of ptsγtykh. rmʾnykh on the other hand, is likely referring to its kind. rmʾnykh is strikingly similar to the Tibetan word 'a-rmo-ni-ka, (and its graphical variants 'ar-mo-nig, 'ar-mo-li-ga, etc) ‘long carpet, blan- ket’, which Bailey (1979, p. 32) considers as being possibly borrowed from an Iranian language. This word corresponds to Skr. pāṇḍu- 11 kambala - ‘white woolen covering or blanket’ (see Monier-Williams
10 It is important to note that Lur’e (2008, p. 43) is skeptical about the interpretation of this document as precious stones and states the following regarding it: “As the whole, the contents of this document still remain unclear, and there is no direct indication that precious stones were meant”. 11 See also pāṇḍu-kambala-śilā-talaṃ in Sakaki (1916, no. 7127). 18 A. B E G M A T O V StIr 48, 2019
1899, p. 616). pāṇḍu-kambala-śilā- is a seat of Śakra (). The Khotanese equivalent of this word is ījījā- (cf. Wakhi ižin ‘carpet’, ijīn, yijīn ‘felt cloth’). Judging from the Sanskrit and its translations in other languages, it is referring to a certain carpet that is white12 and thick13 (see Bailey 1979, p. 32). A scrap of white thick felt has been unearthed from Mt. Mugh (see Bentovich 1958, p. 383). This piece of thick felt may potentially be the rmʾnykh type of felt. Bailey (1979, p. 32) proposes the Iranian original forms of this word as *armānika- or *armaunika-. From the Tibetan word and its supposed original Iranian forms, the pronunciation of the Sogdian word rmʾnykh can possibly be assumed as /ǝrmānīka/. The word 'a-rmo-ni-ka might have been borrowed to Tibetan from Sogdian. In fact, a few Sogdian sources indicate that the Sogdians were actively involved in business in the Tibetan region as well. The rock inscriptions from Ladakh (Northern India) and recently discovered Sogdian documents from Khotan are an important source to understand the relationship between the Tibetans and Sogdians. Accor- ding to Sims-Williams, the Ladakh rock inscriptions possibly belong to the 9th century CE. This manifests the presence of the Sogdians in the regions of Tibet: “In the 210, we (were?) sent (we, namely) Caitra the Samarkandian together with the monk Nōsh-farn (as) messenger(s) to the Tibetan Qaghan” (Sims-Williams 1993, p. 155). Therefore, the borrowing of the Sogdian word rmʾnykh into Tibetan would have been possible. 5) ptsγtykh /patsaγtīka/ ‘rug?’ [Lines 9-10] As it is quite likely that rmʾnykh is implying to ‘a white thick felt’ kind of ptsγtykh, this word should thus have a broader meaning. I assu- me that here it is referring to general terms, such as ‘rug’ or ‘carpet’. As Livshits (2008, p. 165) has suggested, this word may perhaps be an adjective formed from ptsγt- past participle of ptsʾc-, which means
12 In Pāli and Japanese it is rendered as ‘yellow carpet’. It may thus be not pure white, but rather pale white. Dr. Adam Catt has kindly informed me that in some Pāli texts it is mentioned to have been produced in Gandhāra and its color here appears to have been crimson (Jātaka, VI, p. 500). 13 In Sinhalese and Pāli, it is described as ‘if you sit down, you will sink into it…’. From this expression, I dare say, it is something thick and soft. It is also noteworthy that Hye Ch’o, a Buddist monk from Silla who travelled to India in the first half of the 8th century states that in Khatlon (Khuttalān), a region not far from Mt. Mugh, a special kind of felt was produced (Kuwayama & Inaba 1998, p. 43). I thank Professor Minoru Inaba for pointing this out to me. C O M M O D I T Y T E R M S I N L A N G U A G E S O F C E N T R A L E U R A S I A 19
‘formed, arranged’. But such a base can refer to a wide range of com- modities. In this document it should presumably be related to textiles. The same word, as mentioned above, is also attested in B-1, along with a well-known word pšm ‘wool’. The word pšm is also attested in the Buddhist Sogdian texts, namely in the manuscripts So 10200 (8) and So 10302 of the Turfan collection (see Yoshida 2007; Reck 2016, p. 51). It is noteworthy that an Ossetian word fædtsæg’dæn (or fædzæg’dæn?) ‘a bow-like wool beater stick’ is similar to the word ptsγtykh (Fig. 3) (see Kaloyev 1973, p. 37). It is nevertheless difficult to decide whether the two words are related. Especially, the Sogdian word ptsγtykh is quite obscure, although its etymology is seemingly simple. The two words, however, share ‘wool-related’ in common. Possibly, the Ossetian word fædtsæg’dæn may have undertaken a semantical nar- rowing. It may have referred to a broader meaning, such as the commo- dity name or the process of production. There is another Ossetian term nɨmætnæmæn ‘felt-beater’, which is similar to fædtsæg’dæn in terms of its function (Fig. 4) (see Kaloyev 1973, p. 38). nɨmæt ‘felt’ is a widely shared word in Iranian languages. It is also important to note that a bow-like stick similar to the Osse- tian fædtsæg’dæn ‘bow-like wool beater’ is widespread across Central Eurasia.
Fig. 3: Fædtsæg’dæn, a bow-like wool beater of Ossetia (after Kaloyev 1973, p. 64).
Fig. 4: Nɨmætnæmæn, a felt beater of Ossetia (after Kaloyev 1973, p. 65). 20 A. B E G M A T O V StIr 48, 2019
6) ʾsprγwmych / ǝspǝrγum(m)īča/ ‘flowery’ [Line 10] The previous editions agreed on the interpretations of ‘emerald’ (see Bogolyubov 1981, pp. 115-116; Livshits 2008, p. 165). However a word for emerald is attested as mrγt (cf. Skt. marakata-) in Manichaean Sogdian (Sims-Williams & Durkin-Meisterernst 2012, p. 114). The inter- pretation of this word as emerald is thus unlikely. ʾsprγwmych14 is an adjective formed by adding the suffix -mych to ʾsprγwm ‘flower’. The word ‘flower’ is attested in Manichaean and Buddhist texts as ʾsprγmy or sprγmy. It is presumably an ornament of ptsγtykh ‘rug?’.
III.4. Cotton and other textile-related terms 1) δkknh /δakkina/ or /δakkana?/ ‘muslin, gauze or tulle (head-wear)’ [Line 8] An interpretation of this word as an Arabic word dqnʾ ‘amber’ (from Syriac) was proposed by Bogolyubov (1981, pp. 109-11) and followed by Livshits (2008, p. 164). Lur’e (2008, p. 43) also cautiously quotes it. However, there is a word, dakana15 in the Uzbek and Uyghur langu- ages, which refers to a headdress made of doka or daka ‘white gauze or muslin’. This word closely resembles the Sogdian commodity term δkknh. In fact, daka ‘gauze, muslin or tulle’ is prevalent in modern lan- guages of Central Asia, namely those Iranian and Turkic: cf. Uzb. daka, doka ‘gauze’; Uyg. daka ‘gauze’; Kaz. däke; Kirg. daki ‘white muslin’ ,ډاگه) Yudakhin 1985, p. 181); Taj. doka ‘gauze’; Psht. ḍāgá, ḍāká) ’muslin’ (Aslanov 1985, p. 425); Yagh. dṓka16 ‘gauze, tulle‘ (ډاکه (Novák 2010, p. 33). This widespread word specifically refers to a fine cloth with many small holes made of cotton. Three white tulle head- dresses made of cotton have actually been excavated from Mt. Mugh (Fig. 5). If the Sogdian word δkknh is actually a cognate of Uzbek and Uyghur dakana, then one would be allowed to imagine that this head- dress may refer to the tulle headdresses unearthed from Mt. Mugh.
14 ʾsprγwmy
22 A. B E G M A T O V StIr 48, 2019
A synonym of the word dakana in Uzbek is lokki or lakki. It is, how- ever, only used in the mountainous regions of Uzbekistan. In Bukhara, Samarkand and Tashkent peshonabog' (or peshonaband) is used instead of lokki or lakki (Asomiddinova 1981, p. 30, 96). The words dakana and lokki or lakki may possibly be cognates. Lokki or lakki is perhaps equi- valent of doka, daka or daki ‘muslin’. As a result of semantical narrowing, it may only refer to a headdress.17 The difference between the two synonyms is their initial consonants d- and l-. According to Lur’e & Yakubovich (2017), the Sogdian langu- age did not possess a phoneme [l]. The Bactrian language, on the other hand, had the phoneme [l]. The Turkic and Iranian languages of Central Asia representing this word with the initial consonant d-, may have thus borrowed it from Sogdian. And some dialects spoken in the mountain- ous areas of Uzbekistan, representing this word with the initial conso- nant with l-, may have borrowed this word from another Eastern Iranian language, presumably from Bactrian. 2) ʾxšpcyk /ǝxšǝpčīk/ ‘a kind of cloth or garment’ [Line 8] Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, p. 74) proposed ‘agate’ as the inter- pretation of this word, assuming a semantic development similar to the Persian word shabe which means ‘of night’ with the secondary meaning of ‘agate’. This interpretation was followed by Bogolyubov (1981, p. 110) and also by Livshits (2008, p. 165); This word literally means ‘nocturnal’, and it can be referred to a wide range of notions that are related to night or possibly darkness, such as dinner, party (cf. Rus. vecherinka), night-wages, etc. In our case, as other words of this manuscript are presumably related to textile-ware, I assume that ʾxšpcyk is also a kind of cloth or clothe. Several textile-related examples that are associated with the word -nocturnal, night‘ (شبانه) night’ can be observed in Persian. Cf. shabāna‘ lit. night-moisture) a very fine species of شبنم) clothes, etc.’, shab-nam ;.night-covering, i.e. quilts, blankets, etc‘ (شب پوش) muslin, shab-posh a woman’s veil’ (Steingass 1897, pp. 730-732). In Bukhara, one of the traditional head-wears was called as shab-po’sh (or shappo’sh) (see Asomiddinova 1981, p. 33). And in Samarkand, one of the traditional headdresses was recorded by Sukhareva (1982, p. 74) as shab-kulokh ‘night-cap’.
17 It may also have a broader meaning in some eastern Iranian languages. The forms lokkina or lakkina, similarly to the Sogdiana δakkina may also have existed. C O M M O D I T Y T E R M S I N L A N G U A G E S O F C E N T R A L E U R A S I A 23
3) βycxšnh ‘a kind of cloth?’ [Line 12] Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, p. 73) read it as Rβcxšnh and inter- preted it as a precious stone. Tafazzoli (1997, p. 115) followed this reading and gave further explanations. However, this reading is graphi- cally unlikely. Livshits (1962, p. 142 and Id. 2008, p. 163) reads this word as βycxšʾh without giving a gloss. However, before the letter -h, aleph is usually not written. Yakubovich (2017) interprets this word as a personal name. But it is most likely a commodity name, as it is agreeing in gender with the preceding number ‘one’. Besides, the same word may be attested in B-1, in the same place where pšm, ptsγtykh and ʾskwrnkh are observed. This possibly supports the assumption that this word is related to a textile commodity.
III.5. Sealed commodities The words tβtch, tβtʾk ‘seal-past participle’ have been misinterpreted by the previous authors. The interpretation of this word as ‘a seal’ is unlikely, as it is a verb. The word for ‘a seal’ as observed in Manichaean and Chris- tian Sogdian texts is tʾpy or tʾpʾk, but not tβtch or tβtʾk. Thus, the interpre- tation of this word as ‘a seal’ should be disregarded. And this word should be understood as ‘sealed’. Another possible interpretation is taffeta ‘fine silk cloth’ as mentioned by Livshits (1962, p. 143).18 But this word has not been yet attested in Sogdian. Besides, the words in question are behaving as a verb, in terms of morphology. Therefore, the interpretation of taffeta seems less likely. 1) tβtch /taftča/ ‘seal-pp. f.’ [Line 7] Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, p. 74) interpreted this word as ‘shining, bright’ from the verb tʾp ‘to shine’. Livshits (2008, p. 164) interpreted it as ‘seal’. Both interpretations are unlikely. It is a feminine form of past participle of the verb ‘to seal’. It is preceded by ʾskwrnkh, possibly related to a textile commodity as discussed below.
18 Dr. Pavel Lur’e and an anonymous reviewer consider the interpretation as taffeta quite valid and note that it can be interpreted as the past participle form of the verb ‘to weave’. Although the verb tβt- has not been attested with the definition ‘to weave’, there is still an argument in favor of this interpretation. The past participle form of the verb ‘to weave’ is attested as wβtʾk in P-2, 371 (see Benveniste 1940, pp. 20, 174). If tβt- has the meaning ‘to weave’ in Sogdian, it may then imply to a certain kind of weaving, different from wβt-. It would then be possible to understand that ʾskwrnkh and sptʾk/sptʾkw are woven with a particular technique. 24 A. B E G M A T O V StIr 48, 2019
2) ʾskwrnkh ‘a kind of cloth?’ [Line 7] Livshits (1962, p. 143; Id. 2008, p. 164) compared this word with the Avestan word skarǝnā-‘round’ (cf. Bartholomae 1961, p. 1587). This Avestan word is, indeed, similar to ʾskwrnkh. But it is perhaps a com- modity name related to textile, as it is observed in the document B-1, in the same place where pšm 'wool', ptsγtykh ‘rug?’, βycxšnh are attested. As mentioned above, it may have been an expensive kind of cloth, as it is presumably sealed, but not ‘ruby’ as proposed by Bogolyubov (1981, pp. 114-115). In B-1, this word follows wyzy/βcyh, an unknown commodity name. Bogolyubov (1981, p. 112) interprets it as ‘decoration’, but does not really provide certain evidence. Lur’e (2010, no. 329) proposes to pos- sibly interpret this word as wyzβch ‘banner-pole’. However, unless we have clear indication, we cannot be sure what kind of commodity this is. If the commodity name ʾskwrnkh is a cognate of the Avestan skarǝnā- ‘round’, then it may possibly be named based on its ‘round’ ornament. Although this is just speculation, it may refer to the well- known Sogdian ‘roundel’ textiles. Some textiles with roundel ornaments were also unearthed form Mt. Mugh. 3) tβtʾk /taftē/ ‘seal-pp. m.’ [Line 11] As mentioned above, this word was interpreted as ‘shining, bright’ by Bogolyubov and Smirnova (1963, p. 74) and ‘a seal’ by Livshits (2008, p. 164). Yakubovich (2017) also interprets tβtʾk (incorrectly transliterated as tβtʾy) as ‘a seal’. However, this should mean simply ‘sealed’, a masculine form of past participle. 4) sptʾk/sptʾkw /saptē/ or /saptāk/ ‘brocade?’ [Lines 12-13] Livshits (2008, p. 165) interprets it as ‘complete’, and Bogolyubov & Smirnova (1963, p. 74) as the infinitive or past participle of the verb sumb- ‘to bore’. However, the adjective xypδ is usually followed by a noun. The same word is attested as a noun in Manichaean Sogdian texts in the meaning ‘ball of thread’ (Sundermann 1997, p. 110; see also Sims-Williams & Durkin-Meisterernst 2012, p. 177). Professor Yoshida has kindly shared with me his opinion that this word may refer to a brocade, as in the context in which it appears, various colors of fire come out of a small piece.19 It is one of the two sealed commodities, which indeed indicates that it is expensive kind of cloth.
19 Personnal communication, June 2018. C O M M O D I T Y T E R M S I N L A N G U A G E S O F C E N T R A L E U R A S I A 25
IV. Conclusion Previous editions of the Mugh document A-1 proposed to interpret the commodities mentioned in the document as precious stones. However, as a result of comparing the commodity names with the textile related words in languages, predominantly those of Central Asia, I have reached an entirely different conclusion, namely that the document A-1 is most likely about textile products. In this revised interpretation, there are no words relating to precious stones in this document. Some of the textiles observed in the document A-1 may have been important products which involved in trans-Eurasian trade across. That the names of such textile words appear in lexicons of other Central Eurasian languages (such as Iranian, Turkic and Tibetan) is testament to their impor- tance and reinforces the idea that they are textiles rather than precious stones.
Alisher BEGMATOV Turfanforschung, The Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities Germany
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES
Abaev 1979 Abaev, V., Istoriko-etimologicheskiy slovar’ osetinskogo yazÿka, vol. III, Leningrad, 1979. Aslanov 1985 Aslanov, M., Pushtu-russkiy slovar’, Moskva, 1985. Asomiddinova 1981 Asomiddinova, M., Kiyim-kechak nomlari, Toshkent, 1981. Bailey 1979 Bailey, W. H., Dictionary of Khotan Saka, Cambridge, 1979. Bartholomae 1961 Bartholomae, Ch., Altiranisches Woerterbuch, Berlin, 1961. Begmatov, Madvaliev, Mahkamov et al. 2006 Begmatov, E.; Madvaliev, N.; Mahkamov, T.; Mirzaev, T.; To’khliev, N.; Umarov, E.; Khudoyberganova, D.; Hojiev, A.; (Madvaliev, A. tahriri ostida), O’zbek Tilining Izohli Lug’ati, T. I. Toshkent, 2006. Bentovich 1956 Bentovich, I., “Pletenÿe izdelia iz raskopok na gore Mug,” Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta Istorii Material’noy Kulturÿ, vÿp. 61 (1956), pp. 65-69. Bentovich 1958 Bentovich, I., “Nakhodki na gore Mug,” Trudÿ Tadzhikskoy Arkheologi- cheskoy Ekspedicii, vol. III: 1951-1953 gg. (Materialÿ i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR, No 66), 1958, pp. 358-383. 26 A. B E G M A T O V StIr 48, 2019
Bi Bo & Sims-Williams 2015 Bi Bo; Sims-Williams, N., “Sogdian Documents from Khotan, II: Letters and Miscellaneous Fragments,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 135/2 (2015), pp. 261-282. Bogolyubov 1981 Bogolyubov, M., Sogdiyskie etimologii. Trudÿ po iranskomu yazÿko- znaniu: izbrannoe, ed. Chunakova, O., Moskva, 2012, pp. 110-123. Bogolyubov & Smirnova 1962 Bogolyubov, M.; Smirnova, O., “Dokument B-1,” Vestnik Leningrad- skogo Universiteta 14, Seria istorii, yazÿka i literaturÿ, 3 (1962), pp. 121-128. Bogolyubov & Smirnova 1963 Bogolyubov, M.; Smirnova, O., Sogdiyskie dokumentÿ s gorÿ Mug, III: Khozïaïstvennye dokumentÿ, Moskva, 1963. Freyman 1934 Freyman, A., “Nakhodka sogdiyskikh rukopisey i pamyatnikov material’noy kul’turÿ v Tadjikistane (predvaritel’noe soobshcheniya),” Sogdiyskiy Sbornik (Leningrad 1934), pp. 18-32. Grenet 1989 Grenet, F., “Les « Huns » dans les documents sogdiens du mont Mugh,” (with additional notes by N. Sims-Williams), in C.-H. de Fouchécour & Ph. Gignoux (edd.), Etudes irano-aryennes offertes à Gilbert Lazard, Paris-Louvain, 1989, pp. 165-184 [Cahiers de Studia Iranica, 7]. Grenet (forthcoming) Grenet, F., “Le contrat de mariage sogdien du Mont Mugh (Mugh Nov. 3- 4): quelques nouvelles hypothèses,” in S. Badalkhan et al. (edd.), Iranian Studies in Honour of Adriano V. Rossi, Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l'Oriente vol. 87 [forthcoming] Kuwayama & M. Inaba (edd.) 1998. Huichao's Wang Wu-Tianzhuguo Zhuan, Records of Travels in Five Indic Regions, Kyoto-Tokyo, 1998. (In Japanese) Jātaka VI Fausbøll, V., ed., Jātaka with its Commentaries, 7 vols., London: Pali Text Society, 1877-1883, vol. VI. Justi 1868 Justi, F., Der Bundehesh, Leipzig, 1868 (reprint: New York, 1976). Kaloyev 1973 Kaloyev, B., Material’naya kul’tura i prikladnoe iskusstvo osetin. Al’bom, Moskva, 1973. Kirillova, Grenet & de La Vaissière 2001 Kirillova, O. ; Grenet, F. ; de La Vaissière, E., “Novÿy dokument s gory Mug?”, Istoria material’noy kul’tury Uzbekistana, 32 (Samarkand, 2001), pp. 248-250. Livshits 1962 Livshits, V., Sogdiyskie dokumentÿ s gorÿ Mug. II : Yuridicheskie doku- mentÿ i pis’ma, Moskva, 1962. Livshits 2008 Livshits, V., Sogdiyskaya épigrafika Sredney Azii i Semirech’ya, Saint- Petersburg, 2008. Lur’e 2008 Lur’e, P., “Khamir and other Arabic Words in Sogdian Texts,” in E. de La Vaissière (ed.), Islamisation de l’Asie centrale, Paris, 2008, pp. 29- 57 [Cahiers de Studia Iranica, 39]. Lur’e 2010 Lur’e, P., Personal Names in Sogdian, Vienna, 2010. C O M M O D I T Y T E R M S I N L A N G U A G E S O F C E N T R A L E U R A S I A 27
Lur’e & Yakubovich 2017 Lur’e, P.; Yakubovich, I., “The Myth of Sogdian Lambdacism,” in [Team Turfanforschung, edd.], Zur lichten Heimat: Studien zu Mani- chäismus, Iranistik und Zentralasienkunde im Gedenken an Werner Sundermann, Wiesbaden, 2017, pp. 319-341 [Iranica, 25]. MacKenzie 1976 MacKenzie, D. N., The Buddhist Sogdian Texts of the British Library, Leiden, 1976. Monier-Williams 1899 Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Oxford, 1899 (enlarged and improved edition) [reprint: New Delhi, 2006]. Novák 2010 Novák, L., Jaghnóbsko-Český Slovník, Praha, 2010. Reck 2003 Reck, C., “Die Beschreibung der Daeena in einem soghdischen manichaeischen Text,” in C. G. Cereti et al. (edd.), Religious themes and texts of pre-lslamic Iran and Central Asia. Studies in honour of Professor Gherardo Gnoli, Wiesbaden, 2003, pp. 323-338. Reck 2016 Reck, C., Mitteliranische Handschriften. Teil 2: Berliner Turfanfrag- mente Buddhistischen Inhalts in Soghdischer Schrift, Wiesbaden, 2016. Sakaki R. (ed. 1916). Hon’yaku Myōgi Daishū (Mahāvyutpatti): Bon-Zo-Kan-Wa yon'yaku taiko, Kyoto Teikoku Daigaku Bunka Daigaku sosho, dai 3. (In Japanese) Sims-Williams 1993 Sims-Williams, N., “The Sogdian Inscriptions of Ladakh,” in K. Jettmar (ed.) in collaboration with D. Koenig and M. Bemmann, Antiquites of Northern Pakistan. Reports and Studies, vol. II, Mainz, 1993, pp. 151- 163. Sims-Williams & Durkin-Meisterernst 2012 Sims-Williams, N.; Durkin-Meisterernst, D., Dictionary of Manichaean Sogdian and Bactrian, vol. III,2: Texts from Central Asia and China (Texts in Sogdian and Bactrian), Turnhout, 2012. Steingass 1892 Steingass, F., A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, London, 1892 [51963]. Sundermann 1997 Sundermann, W., Der Sermon von der Seele, Turnhout, 1997 [Berliner Turfantexte XIX]. Tafazzoli 1997 Tafazzoli, A., “Two Sogdian Words of the Mug Documents,” Studia Iranica 26/1 (1997), pp. 113-115. Yakubovich 2017 Yakubovich, I., “Review on Sogdian Epigraphy of Central Asia and Semirech’e by Livshits V. A. (Ed.), Sims-Williams N. (Tr.), Stableford T.,” Indo-Iranian Journal 60 (2017), pp. 413-426. Yoshida 2007 Yoshida, Y., “Torufangaku kenkyūjoshozou no sogudogobutten to „bosatsu“ wo imisuru sogudogogoi no keishiki no raigen ni tsuite: Kudara Kougi sensei no sogudogobuttenkenkyū wo shinonde,” Bukkyogaku-Kenkyu/The Studies in Buddhism 62/63 (2007), pp. 46-87. Yoshida 2019 Yoshida, Y., Three Manichaean Sogdian Letters Unearthed in Bäzäklik, Turfan, Kyoto, 2019. Yudakhin 1985 Yudakhin, K., Kirgizsko-russkiy slovar’, vol. I, Moskva, 1985.