DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.36954#0194
in many cases be improved by direct examination of the stones
themselves. Moreover, since the same names often recur, the new
material often solves problems in the reading of the published
inscriptions. However, a considerable part of the total corpus
must be regarded as wholly or partly illegible.
The additional material is of the same type as that described and
published by HUMBACH. Almost all the inscriptions are very
short, generally consisting of a personal name, often with the ad-
dition of a patronymic. A typical example is ZR 72?2yj3?2^
RRK "Nanefarn the son of Nanevandak" (105-10 = Nr. 84; also
55-3). This "ideal" formula may be abbreviated by the omission
of either or both of the words ZR "the" and RRV "son" as in
the following examples: RwyRw ZR 727?yj3?2^ (106-1); 72^4^4
RyRrpy RRZ (31-85 = Nr. 75; cf. 7272 ZR Rypcpy RRZ,
36-3 3) fTiymryc (34-70; cf. ZXwy^rycBRy,
31-57 = Nr. 59a, and ^zyr'^ )3y'77272j372tA ZRjy my??2ryc RRT7V
"Varzirak (and) Avyamanvandak the sons of Maymarghch",
31-63 = Nr. 65c). In at least one case the name of the grand-
father is added after that of the father: ZR 7727267y72y(?)
5yfyuw^(?) 72py$s "Rodhakthe (son of) Manthrene(?), grandson
of Shetghonak(?)" (36-67 = Nr. 87b). In view of the frequent
omission of BR K "son", one may presumably reckon with the omis-
sion of 72py/3(bz,) "grandson" in an inscription such as
ZR "Wakhush-dhvar the (son of) Wakhush-
vandak, (grandson of) Nafansak" (36-86). Here there is other
evidence to indicate that Nafansak is a personal name, cf. 72*p'72s^
ZR BR[Z] 727*y##[(?) (8-2 = Nr. 63b). HUMBACH's
attractive suggestion that the final element in certain inscriptions
may be a clan-name or an indication of the author's place of
origin is unfortunately difficult to prove, since such words are
not uncommonly employed as personal names. Thus,
4 The correct spelling of 7777 4s 4 (so written also in 17-16) or 727? 4f 4 (so also
in 32-1) is uncertain. At least 36-33 makes it clear that Rypcpy is a single
word, solving an apparent problem to which HUMBACH (1980: 202) has
drawn attention: "Auffallend ist der Gebrauch von &y inx4s4%ypcp^y
BRK".
5 Or possibly in agreement with the form of this word found else-
where in Sogdian (cf. GERSHEVITCH, 1985: 265 and 277 n. 5).
132
themselves. Moreover, since the same names often recur, the new
material often solves problems in the reading of the published
inscriptions. However, a considerable part of the total corpus
must be regarded as wholly or partly illegible.
The additional material is of the same type as that described and
published by HUMBACH. Almost all the inscriptions are very
short, generally consisting of a personal name, often with the ad-
dition of a patronymic. A typical example is ZR 72?2yj3?2^
RRK "Nanefarn the son of Nanevandak" (105-10 = Nr. 84; also
55-3). This "ideal" formula may be abbreviated by the omission
of either or both of the words ZR "the" and RRV "son" as in
the following examples: RwyRw ZR 727?yj3?2^ (106-1); 72^4^4
RyRrpy RRZ (31-85 = Nr. 75; cf. 7272 ZR Rypcpy RRZ,
36-3 3) fTiymryc (34-70; cf. ZXwy^rycBRy,
31-57 = Nr. 59a, and ^zyr'^ )3y'77272j372tA ZRjy my??2ryc RRT7V
"Varzirak (and) Avyamanvandak the sons of Maymarghch",
31-63 = Nr. 65c). In at least one case the name of the grand-
father is added after that of the father: ZR 7727267y72y(?)
5yfyuw^(?) 72py$s "Rodhakthe (son of) Manthrene(?), grandson
of Shetghonak(?)" (36-67 = Nr. 87b). In view of the frequent
omission of BR K "son", one may presumably reckon with the omis-
sion of 72py/3(bz,) "grandson" in an inscription such as
ZR "Wakhush-dhvar the (son of) Wakhush-
vandak, (grandson of) Nafansak" (36-86). Here there is other
evidence to indicate that Nafansak is a personal name, cf. 72*p'72s^
ZR BR[Z] 727*y##[(?) (8-2 = Nr. 63b). HUMBACH's
attractive suggestion that the final element in certain inscriptions
may be a clan-name or an indication of the author's place of
origin is unfortunately difficult to prove, since such words are
not uncommonly employed as personal names. Thus,
4 The correct spelling of 7777 4s 4 (so written also in 17-16) or 727? 4f 4 (so also
in 32-1) is uncertain. At least 36-33 makes it clear that Rypcpy is a single
word, solving an apparent problem to which HUMBACH (1980: 202) has
drawn attention: "Auffallend ist der Gebrauch von &y inx4s4%ypcp^y
BRK".
5 Or possibly in agreement with the form of this word found else-
where in Sogdian (cf. GERSHEVITCH, 1985: 265 and 277 n. 5).
132