Sifting for Chorasmian

Finding the Chorasmian glosses in Arabic manuscripts is not easy work. One has to closely examine numerous copies of the same work in order to find out whether some Chorasmian marginalia or short notes are present on a few folios, or not at all. While Yusuf Aǧa 5010, the main source of lexical material, has rather clearly-written glosses throughout, other copies of the Muqaddimat al-Adab have only a few, marginal Chorasmian words. Given just how many copies of that text exist, one doesn’t envy the scholars of previous generations who took it upon themselves to sift through thousands of folios in order to see if a given copy had any Chorasmian or not.

With British Library Add. MS 7429, a partial copy of the Muqaddima, David N. MacKenzie got rather lucky. There are Chorasmian glosses on the very first page, and only on that page, though tucked under and beside the more copious Persian glosses. One does wonder how far MacKenzie searched through the ms. before deciding there was no more Chorasmian to be found. Perhaps in a nod to that medieval scribe who wrote the Chorasmian, MacKenzie helpfully tucked his own announcement of the discovery of the glosses in this ms. and his edition thereof into a page in the middle of one of his reviews of Benzing’s Sprachmaterial (MacKenzie 1971: 524-525 “The Khwarezmian Glossary IV”). It was thus a while till I myself noticed this additional manuscript. A colophon for the section on particles (ḥurūf) dates Add. MS 7429 to Dhu ’l-Qa‘da 760 AH, or Oct. of 1359 CE—a date contemporary with the production of several other Chorasmian manuscripts.

Given that the glosses are so few, and the manuscript has been shared publicly by the BL, it will furnish a nice illustration of how Chorasmian glosses to the Muqaddima actually look. This particular ms. is glossed throughout in Persian and also has a few pages with glosses in what was then called “Eastern Turkish”, that is, Khwarezmian Turkic or early Chagatay.

BL Add. 7429 fol. 1v, first page of the Muqaddimat al-Adab. Chorasmian glosses marked by numbers in green.
Continue reading

The Discovery of Chorasmian

While the early years of the 20th century saw a massive boom in the number of Middle Iranian sources available to the world, the Chorasmian language remained almost unknown to modern scholars. That an Iranian language particular to the region had existed, of course, was no surprise: the polymath al-Biruni cited a few Chorasmian terms in some of his works, and al-Biruni’s works had been the subject of major European scholarly publications since the 1870s. But no Chorasmian sources were discovered at Silk Road sites such as Turfan, for example, which yielded such riches in Sogdian, Parthian, Middle Persian, and Khotanese. So, no actual sources in Chorasmian were known to that first modern generation of specialists in Middle Iranian.

The fact that original Chorasmian texts are now available to scholars, and have been studied since the mid-20th century, is due entirely to the efforts of one person: the Bashkir revolutionary and Turkologist Ahmed Zeki Validi Togan (1890-1970).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B8.jpg
Әхмәтзәки Әхмәтшаһ улы Вәлиди, hero of Chorasmologists
Continue reading

Being “Biruni” in Khwarizm

In the 10th and 11th centuries, a number of authors who wrote in Arabic were aware of the existence of a language particular to the region of Khwarizm. Abu Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī is the most famous and knowledgeable of these authors, of course, being a native speaker of the Chorasmian language. But travellers and scholars such as Ibn Faḍlān and al-Maqdisi reported on this language, and their judgements on the way it sounded to them, but did not record any examples of the language.

Al-Biruni, or should we say, ī anbīcak

‘Abd al-Karīm al-Sam‘ānī (d. 1166), however, seems to have actually known something of the Chorasmian language. Originating from Merv in today’s northwestern Iran, not all that far from Khwarizm, he may have actually heard the language being spoken. In his biographical dictionary known as the Kitāb al-Ansāb (ed. Hyderabad, 1962, Vol. II, p. 353), he reports:

البيروني بفتح الباء الموحدة وسكون الياء آخر الحروف وضم الراء بعدها الواو وفي آخرها النون هذه النسبة الى خارج خوارزم فان بها من يكون من خارج البلد ولا يكون من نفسها يقال له فلان بيروني ست ويقال بلغتهم انبيژك ست والمشهور بهذه النسبة أبو ريحان المنجم البيروني
“al-Bayrūnī (with fatḥ/kasr of the 'b', sukūn of the 'y', ḍamm of the 'r', followed by 'w' and 'n'): This surname (nisba) refers to the outer parts of Khwarizm, for in that country if someone is from outside the town and not from the town itself they say of him fulān bayrūnī-st (فلان بيروني ست), but in their own language they say anbīcak yitti (read: انبيڅك يت). The person most well-known by this surname is the astronomer Abū Rayḥān al-Bayrūnī.”
Continue reading

Chorasmian leftovers in 17th-century Khivaq

The Persian dictionary Burhān-i Qāṭiʿ, compiled by Muḥammad Ḥusayn b. Khalaf al-Tabrīzī in 1062/1651-2 in Ḥaydarābād, mentions the use of two very particular terms in the language of the town of Khivaq in Khwarizm (ed. Muḥammad Muʿīn (Tehran, 1330-5 s./1951-6), Vol. II, 1183, also available here):

سوپ - به ضم اول و سكون ثانى و باى فارسى به زبان خيوق كه يكى از الكاى خوارزم است آب را گويند همچنان كه پكند با باى فارسى و كاف بر وزن سمند نان را و سوپ و پكند آب و نان است
sūp, with ḍamm on the first (letter) and sukūn on the second and a Persian 'b', in the language of Khivaq, which is one of the provinces of Khwarezm, they call “water” so, just as they call “bread” pakand. So sūp o pakand is 'water and bread'.
Continue reading

The Edinburgh manuscript of al-Biruni’s Chronology

The Edinburgh manuscript (Or. ms. 161) of al-Biruni’s Chronology (الاثار الباقية عن القرون الخالية), is not only one of the earliest witnesses of the work, with a date of 1307 CE, but is also probably the most beautiful, bearing numerous illustrations and tables rendered in fine calligraphy. It is now digitized in its entirety and available to view online through the University of Edinburgh’s library. For some lectures concerning the most recent work on the Chronology, particularly by François de Blois, see this page, part of a major UCL project on ancient and medieval calendars. For more on the Edinburgh manuscript itself and the context of its production, see “The Edinburgh Biruni Manuscript: A Mirror of Its Time?” by Robert Hillenbrand.

Al-Biruni, of course, cites a number of terms in Chorasmian, his native tongue, as well as in Sogdian, another Middle Iranian language he was very familiar with. Due to the high quality of the Edinburgh manuscript, the Chorasmian and Sogdian terms are quite clear. Here, I thought it worth showing two folios in particular.

Continue reading