Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:14:35.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Bactrian Inscription

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

W. B. Henning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The long-awaited Greek-letter inscription discovered, on 6 May 1957, by the Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan in the course of their excavations at ‘Surkh-Kotal’, the ancient Bagolango, has now been made public by M. André Maricq under the title of ‘La grande inscription de Kaniṣka et l'étéo-tokharien, l'ancienne langue de la Bactriane’, JA, CCXLVI, 4, 1958, 345–440. It is wonderfully well-preserved and, once one gets accustomed to the somewhat barbaric forms of certain letters, offers not the slightest difficulty to the reading. The difficulties lie elsewhere: this is the first substantial, and at the same time readable, document of the Iranian language once spoken in Bactria and, appropriately to a text in an unknown language, is slow in yielding its meaning to the scholar, who inevitably has to be guided partly by often contradictory internal evidence, partly by uncertain comparisons with related languages. All those devoted to Central Asian history and languages will be grateful to M. Maricq for his painstaking work and for his unselfishness in publishing this superb monument before being able to submit more than a partial interpretation.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , February 1960 , pp. 47 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 cf. BSOAS, XVIII, 2, 1956, 366 sq.Google Scholar

2 This issue of the Journal Asiatique reached London on 16 10 1959.Google Scholar

3 An intruding language (even if it was also an Iranian one by origin) would not fall so neatly in position.

1 It is to be regretted that M. Maricq has not supplied a summary of the contents.

2 As far as I see, M. Maricq has not alluded in his article to these interesting monograms, which are personal or family devices of the kind called tamγa by some scholars (in Western Iran, where they were exceedingly common in Sassanian times, they were known as nīšān).

3 i.e. regnal year; the ordinary word for ‘year’ may occur in Fragment G of the inscription pariétale: σαρλ [o], see Curiel, , JA, COXLII, 2, 1954, 191Google Scholar (the last letter is unfortunately in doubt; it might be σαρδ[o]).

1 An unconvincing explanation of κιδο has been given by M. Maricq, 357 sq. Note that the Bactrian equivalent of Sogd. k'δy would be *καλο, and that Khot. käḍe contains -ḍ- from -rt-. It may be better to regard κεδο as a relative adverb, different from κιδο.

2 It has been inferred from Khot. malysaka- = gṛhapati, but a -ka- suffix does not usually involve so great a change in meaning.

3 Not recognized by M. Maricq.

4 Perh. = εὺεργ⋯της; no connexion with Sogd. šyr- etc. seems possible.

1 Therefore αλ βαργο 18 should be a single word, αλβαργο, perhaps belonging to OPers. *hadabāra-, MPers. hdb'l-, Pers. yār ‘helper’ (rather than a relative of Sogd. δβ'r, Oss. lävar ‘present(s)’).

2 The uncompounded preposition hardly reflects also apa and api, as M. Maricq supposes.

3 Not recognized by M. Maricq.

4 καλδο (regarded as a nomi by M. Maricq) is a conjunction, from OIr. kadā + δο as in σιδο, κιδο, κεδο, and ταδο ‘so, then’; cf. Sogd. kδwty, and, for ταδο, Sogd. twty (if its first part belongs to the demonstrative stem ta-; cf. Gershevitch, , Gramm., p. 307).Google Scholar

5 Instead of an appellative adjective, this could be a patronymic, ‘son of Φρειχοαδηο’.

6 cf. Sogd. frysṯr, Gershevitch, Gramm., § 1297; Parth. fry(h)stwm.

7 Second part of the compound probably OIr. upačāra (Aram, 'wpšr, Pers. afzār).

8 From hada ‘with’ + the noun attested by Parth. 'xšd.

9 A similar list of epithets connected by the iota in the first line of the Palamedes inscription (Curiel, , JA, CCXLII, 2, 1954, 194Google Scholar; cf. BSOAS, XVIII, 2, 1956, 367Google Scholar). Two of them end in -βιδο from -pati; the second should probably be read ζηνοβιδο (rather than σηνοβιδο) = Parth. zynpty (Pahl. zynpt) in the Great Inscription of Shapur (Parth. line 24).

1 Probably borrowed from the neighbours.

2 ‘Who secures the borders (Av. karan-)’. At a brief talk I had with Dr. Gershevitch I learned that he had found the same explanation of καραλραγγο, and that we were in agreement also on several other points concerning the interpretation of the inscription.

3 cf. Sogd. 'wswγṯm'n'ky’ (abstr.); M. Maricq oddly ‘du chanvre (?) fut brûlé’.

4 From imada; cf. Sogd. mδy.

5 One does not see why M. Maricq declines to regard this form as a plural.

6 So, if the derivation proposed by M. Maricq is correct; a different meaning, ‘mindful’ (from mar- ‘remember’), seems not impossible.

7 Lit. ‘unanimous’, from Av. *aēvōmanah- (cf. Av. hamō.manah-, Skt. ekamanas-, Pers. yakmaniš, etc.); aiṷa developed difierently from aiṷaka (ιωγο), cf. e.g. MPers. ‘yw and yk; ειιο- perhaps = äiṷ-.

8 þαονανο þαο, on the other hand, does not occur in the inscription (a remarkable fact).

9 It does here actually agree in meaning with αὺτοκρ⋯τωρ = imperator, as demanded by Meillet's etymology.

10 χοαδηο also on Hephthalite coins, e.g. apud Junker, , Sb.PAW, 1930, 644Google Scholar, top of page, end of obverse (βαγο χοαδηο).

1 Or *μι at the least, if κιρδομι in the Palamedes inscription (Curiel, , JA, CCXLII, 2, 1954, 194Google Scholar; cf. BSOAS, XVIII, 2, 1956, 367Google Scholar) is correctly formed ace. to the rules of the ‘passive construction’ and not due to confusion with the intransitive past (with *μι from ahmi).

2 Thus probably in line 9 (βαργανο pl.).

3 This is the least likely of all possible meanings.

4 M. Maricq is presumably right in regarding Οανινδο as an epithet of Kaniṣka; he may have chosen it in imitation of Seleucus Nicator.

5 The customary translation of βαγο, Sogd. βγy, MPers. bgy, etc., as ‘god’ even when preceding a man's name is grossly misleading. Every gentleman was entitled to it as a prefix, though hardly regarded as a divinity.

6 The ‘passive construction’ is observed throughout the inscription.

7 So is Νοκονζοκο in line 7, as the subject of an intransitive verb. The forms in lines 22–23 were felt to be agents of the preceding transitive verbs, but the following καραλραγγε owing to its remoteness was allowed the ending of the direct case; ΚοζγαÞκι πονρο is ‘K.'s son’, not a compound proper. ΚανηÞκι on the coins should therefore be regarded as a genitive (as it was assumed to be e.g. by Whitehead, , Cat. Panjab Mus., 1, 187).Google Scholar With regard to the inflexion of these proper names M. Maricq takes the opposite view.

1 = ασιδο.

2 If μαÞτο 20/21 means ‘broken’ (as related languages may induce one to suppose), such an assumption cannot be maintained. M. Maricq's explanation of νοβιχτο, which I accept, affords some support. See also below p. 55, n. 7.

3 Against Av. hušata-.

4 Those correctly explained by M. Maricq are omitted.

5 Another possible case of this kind is ποροοατο 20, if from *parwa(r)št ‘nursed, looked after’, cf. Parth. prwrz-, Sogd. prwyj-.

1 From the same base οαοτινδο 5 = ‘they were led’ (Parth. w'st hynd). M. Maricq, comparing (uz) wašta, needlessly assumes a change of št into st; similarly in the case of φρεισταρο, where his derivation (*fryšt(a)-) is not clear.

2 One does not see how M. Maricq arrived at the meaning ‘here’.

3 M. Maricq gives the correct Old Ir. form, but a wrong meaning.

4 Presumably; but it might be ‘Tyche’ there = Φαρο, Φαρο, on coins (it depends on the meaning of ανομοοαδο; the relative clause κιδο … βαργανο probably expresses a pious wish for the king).

5 M. Maricq has recognized that this is a form of a present stem, but, since the meaning of μα escaped him, could not define it closely enough and referred it to the wrong base, Av. gav-.

6 Apodosis beginning with ταδο; the protasis opened with οδο καλδο; correspondingly in the sentence to be discussed next, οδο καλδανο … ταδανο.

7 cf. MPers. (Man.) d', Pers. tā.

8 Based on 3rd pl. indic, pres, (which presumably ended in -ονδο), cf. the generalized Parthian optative in -yndy(y).

9 βοοηιο 15 = βοṷē is another opt. 3rd sing. = Sogd. βwy, wβyy, MPers. bwyy.

10 One might make bold to emend φροχοαÞ- into φροχοαρ-, if a suitable base xwar- were known; perhaps Khwar. xwarδ- ‘flee’ (see my ‘Mitteliranisch’, p. 113) is a derivative of it.

1 See above, p. 49.

2 Perhaps = MPers. or Parth. ‘štyrg (itself of unknown meaning), Sogdica, pp. 31 sq., 35.Google Scholar

3 See above, p. 50, n. 1.

4 Above, p. 54.

5 Above, p. 49.

6 Above, p. 53, n. 5.

7 Perhaps = Pers. xirman ‘halo, threshing-floor’; hence possibly ‘the great forecourt’, if μαÞτοshould reflect OIr. masita- (cf. above p. 53, n. 2).

8 I have had the advantage of being acquainted with a document written in a closely related language, which Dr. M. Boyce and I are preparing for publication. It would not have been proper to anticipate our joint results; and had I done so, I should have betrayed the trust the owners of the document have reposed in me. It affords a little help in determining pronominal forms, such as σιδο, κιδο, ταδο,ταδηιο, οτηιο, but otherwise is itself in need of elucidation.