Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy 1443813257 9781443813259 - Compress
Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy 1443813257 9781443813259 - Compress
By
Peter A. Dimitrov
Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy, by Peter A. Dimitrov
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
Chapter One................................................................................................. 3
The Thracian Inscriptions
Chapter Four.............................................................................................. 37
The Greek Inscriptions
Bibliography............................................................................................ 149
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Fig. 2-1. and Fig.2-2. Coins of the Thracian Tribe of the Derroni
Fig. 3-1. The Silver Mug from the Bashova Mogila at Duvanlij
Fig. 3-2. Silver Phiale from the Rogozen Treasure, Inv. No. 22329
Fig. 3-3. Silver Phiale from the Mogilanskata Mogila Tumulus, Inv. No. B-68
Definitions
1
See Fol, 2000, 65-66.
2
For a thorough investigation based on direct documents see Hodot, 1990.
xiv Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy
3
See K. Vlahov 1963, in an attempt to add up new entries to Detschew’s
handbook, and also I. I. Russu’s (1964) review.
4
W. Tomaschek, Die alten Thraker, Sitzungsberichte d. Akad. Wien, Bd. 128
(1893): I. Uebersicht der Stämme; Bd. 130 (1893): II. Sprachreste, 1. Glossen aller
Art und Götternamen, Bd. 131 (1894): 2. Personnenamen und Ortsnamen.
5
For an interpretation of the method see Hodot 1990, 12: the literary tradition on
Lesbian is “un témoignage médiatisé”.
Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy xv
6
For the opportunities to follow the changes and the development of the Thracian
language see also Fol 2000, 66.
xvi Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy
7
We shall refer to these and many other examples in Chapter Five.
Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy xvii
8
Beekes 1995, 23; 331.
9
Archibald 1998, 3: “Modern political divisions, geographical and ideological,
have almost to the present day conspired to prolong the isolation.”
10
Tsetskhladze 2006, 26-27: “books …link ancient and modern colonization and
‘colonialism’(s)”; Owen 2000, 139: “Greek colonization of Thasos, and indeed of
Thrace, is currently written from a wholly Hellenocentric and text-based
perspective, behind which lies an unspoken and pervasive comparison with
Western European colonolialism”. See more opinions in detail in Tsetskhladze
2006, 23-83. To this effct, see also Owen 2005, 5-7 etc.
11
See the comprehensive account of Mihailov 1991, 591-618, as well as Fol 2000.
12
Mihailov 2007, 9-42 [Homère comme source historique des états thraces].
13
Frg 79a D(iehl): κἀν Σαλμυδ[ησσ]ῶι γυμνὸν εὐφρονέστ[ατα
Θρήϊκες ἀκρό[κ]ομοι; Frg. 51 D(iehl): “ἄνδρας . . . ωλεῦντας αὐλὸν καὶ λύρην
ἀνήγαγεν ἐς Θάσον κυσὶ Θρέϊξιν δῶρ᾽ ἔχων ἀκήρατον χρυσόν, οἰκείωι δὲ κέρδει
ξύν᾽ ἐποίησαν κακά... ”; see also Homer, B 536-8, where he mentions the Abantes
in possession of Euboia with Halkis, Erethria, and Histiaia.
14
See frg.77 (Diehl, E. Anth. Lyr. Greac., I, Lepzig, 1936).
15
Archibald 1998, 3, using modern geopolitical terms, stresses on the importance
of the Balkan Peninsula whose “regions were closely linked to the eastern
Mediterranean through the periodic movement of people and through networks of
friendship, alliance, and exchange”.
16
Fol 2000, 63: newcomers appear at that time and it is not only the Varna
necropolis that is a direct record of them but archaeological finds from other sites,
as well.
xviii Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy
17
Fol 2000, 63: “These are located in the lands to the south of the Carpathians, on
the Haemus Mountain and the Rhodopes, as well as in Hellas itself.”
18
Mihailov 19912, 591.
19
“In the period reaching the end of the 4th century BC, these relations led to
recorded translations”: Fol 2000, 67.
20
Archibald 1998, passim; Marazov 1998, passim; Fol 2000, 67.
21
Velkov and Fol 1978, 46-52.
Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy xix
22
Archibald 1998, 32-34; Georgieva 2001, 84.
23
Fol 2000, 63.
24
Burkert 2004, 2: “Classical”… does not connote isolation.”
25
See Burkert 2004, 3 and Dornseiff 19592, 30.
26
Burkert 2004, 5: “There were contacts and interactions on all sides”.
27
Burkert 2004, 5.
28
Venedikov 1987.
xx Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy
29
Venedikov 1987, 97-98 sees a similarity with Eleusinian mysteries” kykeon, a
potion, that is known ever since Homer’s Od. 10. 290, 316.
30
Venedikov 1987, 60-62, 79-84; Sherratt and Taylor 1989, 121, fig. 4.
31
Matsas 1995, 242.
32
Fol and Schmitt 2000, 56-62.
33
Alexandrov 2005, 47-49: Six fragments of imported Mycenaean pottery were
found comparable to that from Mycenaean centres and dated to the early/middle
Late Helladic IIIB.
34
In the vicinity of Razlog (southwestern Bulgaria), seven slabs and fragments of
at least ten more were found. See recently S. Ganeva’s article with bibliography of
earlier accounts: Ganeva 2005, 147-51.
35
Chichikova 1972, 1977, who started publishing Early Iron Age archaeological
materials (mainly pottery), was the first establishing Iron Age chronology for
Thrace; 1990; Stoyanov 1997, 82 published the newly excavated site of
Sboryanovo; Archibald 1998, 26-47 discusses chronological problems; see also
Georgieva 2001, 83-94 and Gotsev 1994, 43-68. Gergova 1989, 231-40 pointed
out to some specific traits of burial rites traced down in the transitional period
through Late Bronze Age.
36
Stoyanov 1998, 164.
Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy xxi
Colonization
Because of its huge cultural impact, the Greek colonization waives of
various “comings” of Greek settlers, merchants, etc. into the lands
surrounding the sea, we have a enormous source of information indirectly
or more straightforwardly leading to the early presence of the Thracians
and their practices.
In terms of “earliest possible”, we need to better understand why we
should abandon the model of violent conquest and subsequent
“asymmetrical power relationships”39. There seems to be unanimity
among scholars40 that in those remote times, the Thracians were not just
passive observers of the ‘coming of the Hellenes’ up north; they were
partners in creating a new environment for socio-cultural and economic
development in the Aegean. It is very true, that the earliest literary sources
in Greek poetry about the inhabitants known ever since as the Thracians
were not exactly positive.41
Contacts between Greeks and Thracians were not necessarily on a
hostile note for the entire period of their early interactions. The verse of
Archilochos42 is to be interpreted in the light of modern scholars’
37
Sams 1994, 21 and 1995, 1147. See also: Vassileva 2005, 227-34 with
bibliography.
38
Sams 1995, 1147-59, 1994, 21; 176.
39
Owen 2005, 6: “the assumption that asymmetrical power relationship, drawn
along ethnic lines, existed in all ‘colonized’ areas from the Late Geometric and
Archaic periods onwards is one which still pervades much of the literature”; and
Owen 2005, 18.
40
See Tsetskhladze 1999 and 2006.
41
See Vassileva 2005, 227-34 with bibliography.
42
Frg 79a D(iehl): κἀν Σαλμυδ[ησσ]ῶι γυμνὸν εὐφρονέστ[ατα
Θρήϊκες ἀκρό[κ]ομοι; Frg. 51 D(iehl): “ἄνδρας . . . ωλεῦντας αὐλὸν καὶ λύρην
ἀνήγαγεν ἐς Θάσον κυσὶ Θρέϊξιν δῶρ᾽ ἔχων ἀκήρατον χρυσόν, οἰκείωι δὲ κέρδει
ξύν᾽ ἐποίησαν κακά... ”;
xxii Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy
43
Here see Tsetskhladze 1999, and 2006; Owen 2005.
44
Tsetskhladze and De Angelis 1994.
45
See n.42 above. Owen 2005, 19: The author is of the opinion that a fragment of
an inscription where Archilochos called the Thracians “dogs” was not correctly
restored (after a 1930s scholar), and that it has no justification; it has rather a
modern sounding.
46
Dimitrov 2006a.
47
Hypsipyle is not recorded in inscriptions. It is the name “of the one woman who
dwelled the high gate” judging on the meaning of the name in Greek.
Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy xxiii
48
Detschew’s Die thrakischen Sprachreste is a good example of the diversity of
facts that at times do not help to solve the problem. Doing away with some of them
is and always will be a problem of methodology in approaching the material.
49
See Dimitrov and Penchev 1984.
50
See Bodel 2001, 2, 10-15.
51
See to that effect among many other problems the one outlined by Archibald
(1999, 431): “Archaeology can be expected to play a far more significant role in
the interpretation of religious behavior, not simply because written sources are
meager but because it provides evidence which no ancient writer was capable of
giving.” And further on, p. 435, “our problem is how to define what was distinctive
about the religious behavior of Thrace and how mutual interactions with other
traditions affected this distinctiveness.”
xxiv Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy
52
See for example Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, Corsten 1990 and 2007, Gaertner
2001, etc.
Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy xxv
53
Inscribing or carving letters on metalwork betrays an Iranian parallel as
evidenced in Thrace and Persia. See to this effect Vassileva 1992-1993 and
Zournatsi 2000.
54
It should be noted here that on several occasions occurrences found in Greece,
Anatolia, and elsewhere around Thrace proper, were used as parallels to Thracian
forms.
xxvi Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy
phonological rule, for rules may change under certain conditions just like
the language changes are made functional within a system.
The method itself does not automatically guarantee results. 55 A number
of procedures might have been lost due to impossible reconstructions
within the Thracian language, e.g. lack of sufficient cases or insecure
readings.
In the categories of Thracian sounds, the interrelationships between
various classes56 have been proposed and later perceived as theoretical
entities that may change according to “sound laws” 57, an equivalence that
should be the same for e.g. Ezbenis and Asbenoi. In their analysis, the
fluctuation e/a is to be referred to the way these “sounds” were
pronounced (closed or open pronunciation); the shift of s>z is a later
development58, or a feature that is not marked by any specific conditions 59,
or the shift was conditioned according to its word-initial or intervocalic
position60. It is true that the intervocalic S normally changes to Z between
vowels, however in our example we observe the same opposition between
/s/ and /z/. If we take its chronology into consideration, S and Z are
synchronic (as they appear in our Evidence) and therefore this opposition
is irrelevant in regard to their morphophonemic involvement. There is a
piece missing in this easy-to-solve puzzle. And it is namely that we are not
dealing with sounds but rather with those ”unreal sounds” or
abstractions.61
The underlying PIE */w/ and its treatment in Thracian through the
Greek beta conditioned the shift. A plausible reason could be the word
initial varying between /a/ and /e/.62 Hence, the above-mentioned classes
may be distinguished for subclasses, called allophones,63 which can be
analyzed for distinctive features; sonority is the one in our case. This very
feature is crucial to the understanding of the phenomenon, for this “sound
55
Beekes 1995, 103.
56
See Lehmann 1993, 8 for a brief but succinct presentation of the phonological
theory.
57
See Dečev 1960; Georgiev 1983; Duridanov 1985.
58
Duridanov 1985, 108.
59
Dečev 1960, 162-63: “Es folgt daraus, dass im Thrakischen das ide. s teilweise
unverändert bleibt, teilweise zu z wird”.
60
Georgiev 1983, 1173-74: “Ide. s ist im Thrakischen erhalten geblieben…. Im
Anlaut vor Vokal und intervocalisch wird s oft zu z (wie im Deutschen)”.
61
Lehmann 1993, 12: “besides the perceived, articulated sounds, classes were
proposed that were labeled ‘phonemes’. . . The classes… are abstractions”.
62
See Dimitrov 1994.
63
Lehmann 1993.
Thracian Language and Greek and Thracian Epigraphy xxvii
change” that we identify as a principle has long been explained, and leads
us to believe that generally one specific trait per se is involved.64
No doubt, sounds cannot be phonemes for they belong to a different
category. Their functional analysis is also called phonetics.65 Only on the
surface could one register the phonetic units, as they belong to the
physiology of the articulation.
We now arrive at the subsequent conclusion: first, there is no /z/ in
Thracian as a continuant of PIE */z/ as the latter simply does not exist.
Second, /z/ in synchrony is just an allophone, a variant of the phoneme
/s/66. Third, there may be another condition involved, e. g. assimilation e-e.
Fourth, only the phonemic analysis with the appropriate distribution of the
phonemes can lead us through establishing the etymology of this Thracian
etymon of e/asba from PIE * h1ek’w-o-s. Fifth, this conclusion would not
be possible, if we were to disregard the information from our direct source
and the method of the phonological (phonemic) analysis. 67
With those considerations in mind, I welcome you to Part One.
64
Lehmann 1993, 78; Lehmann 1952, 3.
65
So Anttila 1989, 207-8: “Phonetics in this framework was called functional, and
an enormous amount of work has been directed toward the principles and
procedures for arriving at this level. These principles are generally known as
phonemic analysis, and the functional phonetic surface units as phonemes.”
66
So Bonfante 1937, 127-29: In his critic of Jacobsohn’s (Festschrift Kretschmer
1926, 72 ff.) he examines a large group of words contrasting them against their
correspondent cognates in other Indo-European languages to finally make valuable
observations on the phonological and phonetic development in Thracian. Among
other, he pointed out to the way Thracian sounds were represented through Greek
script.
67
There is no mention of Asbenoi in Detschew, for this essential item was
unknown to the literary tradition.
PART I:
THE EVIDENCE
CHAPTER ONE
The Inscription
1. The tombstone-shaped sandstone stele consists of two parts. The
large piece measures 148x68x7-11.5 cm. A tractor broke off the two
smaller pieces during agricultural activities in the fields of the nearby
1
The inscription is dated to the 6th century BC (Archeological Museum of Sofia,
Inv. No. 6558).
2
See Woudhuizen 2000-2001 for an extensive list of almost all publications to
present.
3
Brixhe and Panayotou 1994. (This publication for some reason is unknown to F.
Woudhuizen) While they are not providing any interpretation of this particular
inscription, they are of the opinion that the previous publications on the inscription
failed to produce reliable facts and decisive evidence to solve the many problems
arising from the very nature of the find.
4
Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 187.
5
See e.g. Georgiev 1966; Schmitt-Brandt 1967; Woudhuizen 2000-2001;
Ancillotti 1986; Schmid 1987; Theodossiev 1997, for approaches which Brixhe
referred to as “inteprétation parfois délirante” or “étymologies plus “acrobatiques”
(Brixhe and Panayotou, 187, 193).
4 The Thracian Inscriptions
Archeology-related considerations
1. The inscription was found in grave No. 1 in the center of tumulus
No. 1.6 The description of the grave construction and the grave offerings
match the archaeological situation described by Filov for the Kukova and
Bashova tumuli in Duvanlij.7
2. The four burial mounds,8 situated at a distance from one another,
seem not to belong to one and the same necropolis.9 One or more slabs
placed across or along the long side, covered the tombs.10
3. Dremsizova-Nelchinova is of the opinion that the two graves belong
to members of the Thracian aristocracy, as the offerings found in situ
6
Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1972, 207-208: The construction of the tomb was made
in the following way: a rectangular pit, one meter deep was dug into hardpan, lined
up with flat pieces of sandstone, partly cracked. Cremated bones covered with a
clay bowl were found in the middle of the tomb. There were also 45 fragments of
scale armor, parts of spears, a bronze clasp broken into three pieces, several iron
rings from a harness, and most importantly, a handle of a black-figured lekythos
and amphorae handles and body sherds.
7
Duvanlij is a 5th century BC Thracian tumular necropolis: Filow 1934, 62 and
187.
8
Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1972, 217.
9
The first two tumuli were part of the necropolis of the settlement, now in the
place called Ungi, five-six hundred meters away from it. The tombs found in three
of the tumuli (no tombs in the second tumulus) are of the same kind: rectangular
tombs oriented north-south, dug out in the rock 0.8-1 m deep, with walls reveted
with sandstone slabs. Analogous tombs can be seen elsewhere in the villages of
Kuylevcha, Ravna, Yankovo, and in the districts of Lovech and Teteven. The
Kyolmen tombs stand out with their more elaborate construction. The burials were
performed either through cremation (tumuli 1, 2 or 4) or through resting the bodies
in the ground (inhumation).
10
In grave No. 1 a middle-aged man was buried (two of his teeth were found in the
tomb) together with his armor and some weapons. Grave No. 2 (from that same
tumulus No. 1) belonged to a woman judging by the ornaments (a gold button and
a lekythos). An assumption is made that this is the beloved one, buried together
with her dead husband, a well-known rite of the Getae. See Dremsizova-
Nelchinova 1972, 218.
6 The Thracian Inscriptions
(precious and imported rare objects of art and luxury were placed within)
indicate. The dates of the grave offerings range between the 5th and 3rd
century BC. However, the burial in tumulus No. 2, being the oldest, is
dated to the end of the 6th century BC. Based on this fact, she assumed
that the existence of a necropolis from as early as the 6th century BC
accounts for the use of the inscribed stone.11
4. The rock bearing the inscription is a gray-yellowish sandstone that is
composed of thin, easily separable layers. Totev is of a slightly different
opinion in describing the grave. At least four stones were used to cover the
grave.12 The longer side of the inscribed rock (being 148 cm long and 68-
74 cm in width by either ends) falls short by at least 50 cm, and therefore
could not have served as a cover slab.
5. There is sufficient archaeological evidence produced by Totev,13 and
Dremsizova-Nelchinova,14 that the stele in question was found face down
on the top of the tomb. Most recent publications follow Dremsizova-
Nelchinova’s opinion that the inscribed stone had been worked on and
then re-used.15
11
Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1972, 218-28, see especially the French summary: 228-
29.
12
Totev 1965, 10: the grave measures 1.94 x 1.84 x 1.18 x 1.07 m, 1 m deep. The
slabs were placed across over the longer sides, thus oriented east to west, while the
grave itself was north-south oriented.
13
Totev 1965, 9-11.
14
Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1972, 207-29.
15
Dremsizova-Nelchinova 1972, 228.
The Thracian Inscriptions 7
16
Woudhuizen 2000-2001, passim.
17
Schmitt-Brandt 1967; Georgiev 1966; 1983, 1161-63.
18
Tsetskhladze 2002, 86-87, in his comments about the spread of the Greek among
the “local elites” is relying not on facts, but on interpretations. The alleged ars/art
as “common prefix in Thracian names” simply does not exist. There are two
epithets applied to Thracian deities that contain ars- or art- in compound names.
However, they are not prefixes. (See Chapter Four and Chapter Six.The
Components). Besides, his assumption that the Ionians influenced the Thracians, is
based on contradictory evidence: the inscription from Kyolmen is not in Greek, is
dated in the 6th BC, and was written with characters that do not seem to be
necessarily of Ionian origin.
19
Dimitrov 1995, 23-25.
8 The Thracian Inscriptions
20
See Cook 1987, 9-10.
21
Beševliev 1965a; Woudhuizen 2000-2001; Ancillotti 1986.
22
See Tod 1985, 253-54 where in a 332 BC inscription from Eresus the sign is
frequently used for H or N.
The Thracian Inscriptions 9
23
See Pokorny 19943, 756.
24
Beševliev 1965a; Schmitt-Brandt 1967 and Georgiev 1966. Completely different
reading in Woudhuizen 2000-2001, 294.
25
Theodossiev 1997, 223: his “contribution” consists in repeating statements
y made by
already y others or just
j offering firsthand reversed readings, e. g.
for , etc. See also his reports on Thracian inscriptions,
composed in the same fashion with many mistakes and incorrect statements in
Teodosiev 1991.
10 The Thracian Inscriptions
26
Consider the inscriptions from Rogozen, as well as other inscriptions written on
metalwork in formulaic Greek, which gives us ground to say that the genuine
Thracian inscriptions follow the same pattern. See Mihailov 1987.
27
See Pokorny 1994, 283 and Haas, 75 with more reference.
The Thracian Inscriptions 11
28
, son of Seuthes III and Berenike, IGBulg. III 1731 and Elvers
1994, end of 4th BC and , IGBulg. 538 from Glava
Panega, 2nd BC (?).
29
( ) for (compare Homeric ). As the genuine form has
full-fledged shape with open syllables, so the syncopated form should be altered
where possible. Liquids allow for that phenomenon to occur, while sibilants do not
or at least show a different attitude and hence, no s-endings in a possibly
nominative case form.
30
See Aristophanes’ Birds 1615:
and 1628: .
12 The Thracian Inscriptions
Conclusions
1) There are suggestions that the stele is a tombstone of a fallen soldier
(dynast?) rather than a dedicatory inscription. The other two parts of the
inscription speak in favor of that idea.
2) Based on the archaeological evidence, the existence of a necropolis
from as early as the 6th century BC accounts for the use of the inscribed
stone.
3) The size of the stele points to the fact that it could not have served
as a cover slab.
4) There is sufficient archaeological evidence produced by Totev, and
Dremsizova-Nelchinova, that the stele in question was found face down on
the top of the tomb. Most recent publications follow Dremsizova-
Nelchinova’s opinion that the inscribed stone had been worked with and
then re-used.
31
Georgiev 1983, 1161-62; Beševliev 1965a, 321.
The Thracian Inscriptions 13
32
See Fol 2002, 326.
33
See Detschew 566 for a full account on the find, as well as on various opinions
expressed by nineteen other scholars.
14 The Thracian Inscriptions
34
Filow 1934. The author considered –e as a genitive ending.
The Thracian Inscriptions 15
35
See Chapter Four, s. v.
36
Beekes 1995, 202-203, 205: “that, the (just named)”. See also Watkins 2000, 81
and Pokorny 19943, 978. Cf. Avestan aeśa “this”.
37
See Dimitrov 2003.
38
See Pokorny 19943, 326-327.
39
Watkins 2000, 90; Pokorny 19943, 1060.
16 The Thracian Inscriptions
40
Beekes 1995, 249 on the formation of participles: The participle was formed
with –ent, Skt. adánt “eating”, yant “going” (* H1i-ent-), Thracian dome-ant-i
“obeying”.
41
Filow 1934, 130.
The Thracian Inscriptions 17
for the other letters, due to the worn-out parts of the ring, I am not able to
give any reasonable sequence.
Detschew 291 proposed a different reading: he reads MEZHNΛI and
considers it a genitive from MEZHNΛIΣ. Georgiev, followed by
Duridanov, adopted a different way of interpreting it.42
V. Bilingual text
In a number of Greek inscriptions there are names that to my mind are
written in Thracian. I will interpret one of those bilingual texts here.
, on a monumental tomb in Smjadovo,
district of Shumen, northeast Bulgaria is a recent discovery (2000) after a
rescue excavation a burial mound No 47, west of a Thracian settlement, 4th
- 3rd century BC. Ed. pr. in Gicheva, R. and Rabadhziev, K. (2002, 550-
42
Georgiev 1983, 1160-61; Duridanov 1975, 90-91.
43
Filow 1934, 63.
44
Georgiev 1983.
45
Katičić 1976.
18 The Thracian Inscriptions
557). In this case, we will divide the first word in three, GONI MA
SHZH. This looks like a banal example of a funerary inscription in the
accusative case. The editors of the inscription suggested a thoroughly
unacceptable interpretation. We will follow and apply our method of
internal reconstruction. First, I will argue the very structure of this whole
line, as it appears on the tomb. As we have already made it clear, the
Thracian /s/ between vowels changes to /z/. Therefore, one should expect
the sigma to be a Z. And this is our first argument that the sequence starts
from S on yielding a separate word . Then, we feel that we should
have two other separate words out of , where MA is easily
identifiable as possessive-pronominal stem from *ma- “my, mine”.46 As
for we see a dative ending –i (already evidenced in many
examples, e.g. , , etc.) from IE *gwn-i “woman,
wife”. Following this logic of interpretation, we can get back to the Greek
translation “Seuthes’ wife” and follow up on the developments in .
We already know that there is no theta in Thracian and that the Greeks
perceived the Thracian /t/ from IE */th/ as theta. The phoneme /t/ in its
turn was subjected to assibilation and hence the result /z/, e.g.
from *Di-, the dative form of the IE word for “light”. The development so
far takes us to Seout, Seth, Sez because the diphthong existed in the Greek
version of that royal name. But in fact, the original Thracian etymon was
Sese. We are not sure about the nominative ending in Thracian and we
prefer to consider that /s/ was not used as such. A good parallel is seen in
Sese47 in an inscription from Germania Superior: Sese Lenulae f.
D[a]nsala mil. ex coh. [IIII?] Thracum, etc.
46
Bader 1986, 115.
47
CIL 13, 7049, see Detschew 434.
48
See Guerassimova-Tomova 1989, 131-40, for a full account on the history of the
problem with the inscription. Note that the title of her article in the original
publication is in quotation marks and according to it “la formation rupestre près de
Sitovo n’est pas une inscription.”
49
She considers the inscription genuine and dates it between the 3rd and the 1st
centuries BC: Bayun and Orel 1991, 147-48.
The Thracian Inscriptions 19
grounds for the inclusion of the text in the Phrygian inscriptions.50 During
my visit to that place on a steep slope of the Rhodope mountain, on what
seems to be a rock-cut façade of a monument, I saw clear lines of an
inscription. However, after examining the script, I came to the conclusion
that this could not be a Thracian inscription.
50
Orel 1997, Th-01, 352-356.
CHAPTER TWO
1. #1 ( ), ca. 500-480 BC
2. #7-16 , 475-465 BC, from the Velikovo Treasure
Fig.2-1 Fig.2-2
Coins of the Thracian tribe of the Derroni
1
The list has been compiled according to Yurukova 1992.
22 Legends from Coins
both types of coins were in circulation in the Upper Nestos course, one
might assume that those were the territories of the Oreskioi; their mint was
not far from Thasos in the region of Paggaios.
5. #17,18 ΜΟΣΣΗΩ, (i.e. “(belongs) to Mosses”), 475-465 BC,
Detschew 325 quoting Head 19113, 200 gives and ΜΟΣΣΗΣ
(Mωσσεω and Moσσεω); cf. also Detschew 325
and IGBulg. III 1473.
6. #19 GETA BAΣIΛEY HΔΩΝΕΩΝ, 476-465 BC, see Yurukova
(1992, 25) for details. She claims that the coin and its legend are
absolutely authentic and the only sources about this Thracian king.
7. #22-30 , 445-435 BC. This is a coin of the first
Thracian king of the Bisaltae, who had minted coins in the area between
the lower Struma and lower Vardar.
8. #31-37 , last decade of the 5th century
BC, a type silenos/kantharos coin, see Yurukova (1992, 43-45).2
9. #38 and #39, #40-1, 40-2 ,
last quarter of the 4th century BC to 350 BC, Yurukova (1992, 47-48).3
10. #41,42,43 MHTOKO beginning of 4th BC.4
11. #44-1,44-2, 45-48 ( ) 387-383 BC.
12. #49-57 KOTY 382-359 BC.
13. #58-65 AMATOKO, i. e. Amotokos II.
14. #66, 67 351-350-347 BC, Teres II.
15. #68, 69 ( ) 356-352; the pi is shaped as gama;
minted near Thasos.
16. #70-72 ( ), i.e. ‘belongs to Kersobleptes’, 359-346
BC.5
17. #73-74 , 340-316 BC.
18. #75-105 ΣΕΥΘΟΥ, 320/315-316 BC.
19. #106 [ΒΑ]ΣΙΛΕΩΣ / [Σ]ΠΑΡΤΟΚΟΥ 281-279/277 BC.
20. #107-111 ΣΚΟΣΤΟΚΟΥ, 277-260 BC; 108, 109 - ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ
ΛΥΣΙΜΑΧΟY ΣΚΟΣΤΟΚΟΥ.
21. #112 ΡΟΙΓΟΥ, first half of 3rd BC.
2
See also Dimitrov K. 1999.
3
Dimitrov K. 1999, 175-180, claiming that these belong not to Seuthes I, but to
Seuthes II.
4
Cf. the last reference on MHTOKO in Dimitrov K. 1999 with chronology;
Schoenert-Geiss 1985; 1987, 27, 51-52; Yurukova 1992, 53-56, 62.
5
The reading belongs to Yurukova. I think that the correct one should be with an e
after Kers-E-bleptes.
Legends from Coins 23
Pre-Roman Times
Fig. 3-1. The silver mug from the Bashova Mogila at Duvanlij
1
Archibald 1998, 148, n. 65, Domaradzka, addendum to Domaradzki 1993, 57, n.
7. The inscription is said to be dated in the 6th BC. The script would then be one of
the oldest in the Thracian inland and comparable to that in the Kyolmen
inscription. Is that really the case? Non vidi.
26 Evidence from Metal Vessels
Inscriptions en pointillé
a. , on a silver phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22327. G. Mihailov
preferred this reading for a reading with - at the end. Although there is a
sign resembling that of a upsilon, the rest of the finds show a consistent
use of - and not a single instance of a - ending.
b. , on a silver-gilt phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22304.
c. Two instances of , on two silver phialae,
Inv. No. NIM 22342 and 22346. Argiske/Ergiske should be localized in
the lower Hebros valley and its name is related to the name of the small
river Erginos, a tributary of the Hebros River, cf. Mihailov (1987, 1, 9).
d. . On a silver phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22343.
For its localization, see above.
e. . On a silver phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22331. For
Apros (later Roman colony Apri), localized near the Propontis, see
Theopomp. FGrH 115, F 160 in St. Byz. 107. 5, Ptol. 3. 11. 7, Strabo, 7.
frg. 55, Plin. NH 4. 47, cf. Detschew 20.
f. . On a silver phiale, Inv. No. NIM 22330.
g. , on two silver phialae, Inv. Nos. NIM 22328 and
22340. Cf. No. 22 below.
h. on a silver phiale, Inv. No.
NIM 22329.
2
Mihailov 1987.
3
Concerning the date of the inscriptions: Mihailov 1987, 1, 10.
Evidence from Metal Vessels 27
The damaged rim of the vessel does not allow for a secure reading of
the delta in Disloias. According to G. Mihailov it is dubious, and he
considered an initial (lambda) a possible variant. I think that the
Thracian material offers every supporting evidence of phonological point
of view to interpret this character as a delta rather than a lambda. (For
further considerations to that effect see in the second part of this book
dealing with the phonological theory of the Thracian material)
Fig. 3-2. Silver phiale from the Rogozen treasure, Inv. No. 22329
Graffiti
n. seems to be added 5 cm aside to the left of, on a silver phiale,
Inv. No. NIM 22345. (see above under No. 10). These letters have been
carved (not dotted) by someone else.
o. was incised at the bottom of a phiale from the treasure of
Rogozen Inv. No. NIM . 22340. Cf. g. above.
p. A longer inscription beginning with , then or
(?) vacat vacat …, on the bottom of a silver jug,
Inv. No. NIM 22418. G. Mihailov is not certain about the reading. The
sequences do not yield to any known name or word.
q. On the same vessel that bears (see above b.) there is
also . G. Mihailov gave no explanation. Some suggested this to
be the Greek adverb for “indeed”. However, this seems not to be the case.
We will reconsider it later, in connection of the formulaic language of
other inscriptions, e.g. on a phiale from Duvanlij, district of Plovdiv
(ancient Philippolis) a short inscription reads , on a gold ring
from Ezerovo inscribed with Greek letters in the Thracian language
another one reads , etc.
The following inscriptions on metal vessels (4. - 7.) belong to the first
group A, made en pointillé.
4
The two differently spelled forms did not go unnoticed. Badian 1983, 55 and n.
13. and Archibald 1998, 232 made note of it. The latter attributes the first to
epigraphic texts and the second to literary ones.
5
Two silver-gilt phialae, a silver mug and a silver rhyton from the Bashova Mogila
at Duvanlij: Filow 1934, 63, no. 2, 65, no. 3, 67, no. 4.
Evidence from Metal Vessels 29
6
Mihailov 1987.
Evidence from Metal Vessels 31
The reading is based on autopsy. The signs of the letters were incised
with a tool. Several observations are to be made about the possible
reading:
(1) Whoever incised the signs on the bottom of the phiale is not to be
compared with his Greek counterparts as regards the form of the letters,
and the way the short text had been edited;
(2) Letters such as the “dzeta”, the hesitation in the orientation of
“delta”, the “sigma” at the end;
Besides, when deciding on the final reading, there are other
considerations, such as the historical and cultural traditions of the
inscriptions found in Bulgaria. This phiale is, in the first place, not to be
isolated from the rest of the inventory of Thracian phialae, as the artistic
form and the contents of the short texts show.
7
Dimitrov 1995, 23-25.
32 Evidence from Metal Vessels
A gold ring
, Filow 1934,105, on a gold ring with an image of a
horseman, found in a 5th century BC burial. According to the practice in
Thrace (see the inscribed phialae from Rogozen and elsewhere), this is a
genitive case-form, translated as “belongs to Skythodokos”. This is a
perfectly good Thracian name with a second element –dokos/-tokos
(Detschew, 145, 462-463; Dečev 1960, 158-76; Beševliev 1965b, 13-14;
1-57; Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 190, 198). J. Boardman, in his work on
8
Nominative for Genitive: Meisterhans 1900, 203:” In Rechenschaftsablagen tritt
hauefig fuer einem Genetiv, Dativ, Akkusativ oder praepositionalen Kasus in
freierer Weise des Nominativ ein: bei Appositionen: CIA II. 809, c, 170 (325 v.
Chr.); Hodot 1990, 116, n. 168 Nominatif employé pour le génitif?; 122 (n. 205)
Mayser 1935-1970, 193 lines 4, 6, 25; 206.
Evidence from Metal Vessels 33
9
Kitov 2005a, 90; 2005c, 49, fig. 20, 51, fig. 22; 52
34 Evidence from Metal Vessels
1
On the phonological variants , , etc., see Chapter Five.
38 The Greek Inscriptions
from Rogozen, Inv. No. NIM 22330. For Apros (later Roman colony
Apri), localized near the Propontis, see Theopompos FGrH 115, F 160 in
St. Byz. 107. 5, Ptol. 3. 11. 7, Strabo, 7. frg. 55, Plin. NH 4. 47; cf.
Detschew 20 (Cf. Chapter Three).
, IGBulg. I, 281 bis, as a second name of a wife of a
Thracian. Not in Detschew. The variant occurs in I, 77 as a
priest’s name.
, a town, from an inscription found in Dionysopolis, now
Dobrich, northeast Bulgaria, IGBulg. I, 13, line 6. According to Mihailov
(see also Detschew 121) the name seems to be in its original
form, as there are many forms in - from – , the word in
Thracian for “(market) town” besides ; around 48 BC.
, in two instances off , on two silver
phialae, Inv. No. NIM 22342 and 22346. Argiske/Ergiske should be
localized in the lower Hebros valley and its name is related to the name of
the small river Erginos, a tributary of the Hebros River, cf. Mihailov 1987,
1, 9. See . Not in Detschew.
, IGBulg. III, 1206 from Batkun, district of Philippopolis.
Ethnicon: . Mihailov quotes an inscription from
CIL 6, 2799 line 27 “M. Aur. M. f. Fl. Diza vico Ardileno” (from
Philippopolis), which makes the ethnicon certain.
, in Manov 2008, 126, 2nd - 3rd AD, from the museum of
Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew. Two short notes. There is a redundant
phoneme variant rendered through beta as opposed to - ou. Therefore, we
could make the assumption that the second component of this composite
name is perhaps - from *poris, *por.
, IGBulg. IV 2074 from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD.
, [ , an epithet of the Thracian Heros,
IGBulg. III, 1599 from Augusta Traiana, 1st - 3rd AD. Here belongs
* , the name of the place where this local god was worshiped. From
the name of the river ?
, IGBulg. IV, 2003, epithet of Hera from Dolni Lozen,
district of Sofia.
, vel – , IGBulg. V, 5011 line 9. 1st century BC - 1st century
AD. Place-name from Moesia inferior.
, IGBulg. III 1588 from
Karanovo but brought there from Augusta Traiana, see comments by
Mihailov: , an epithet to Zeus Sebazios, 202 AD.
40 The Greek Inscriptions
century AD; IV 2074 from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2079 from
Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD: - or ; IV 1947 from
The Greek Inscriptions 43
2
See also Duridanov (1976, 53). Perhaps our best supporting evidence comes from
the Thracian inscription from Kyolmen, see above Chapter One, as well as
Dimitrov 2003, 351.
3
Robert, L. 1959, 230, n. 1.
44 The Greek Inscriptions
, IGBulg. II 761.
IGBulg. II 524.
, IGBulg. IV 2173 from Caristorum, 2nd - 3rd century AD.
, IGBulg. III 1690 c 40, 202 AD: its inhabitants
.
, IGBulg. III 1690 c 40, 202 AD: the inhabitants of
and III 1690 c 92, 202 AD.
, IGBulg. III 1438, 3rd century AD.
vel , IGBulg. IV 2077, from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd
century AD.
, IGBulg. II 714, an epithet of the Thracian Heros, 3rd
century AD.
vel , IGBulg. IV 2077, from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd
century AD.
, epithet of Heros, IGBulg. II 706,707 from
Paskalevets, district of Tirnovo, central Bulgaria.
, in Manov 2008, 126-7, 2nd – 3rd century AD, from the
town museum of Blagoevgrad. Not in Detschew.
, in Manov 2008, 131, 3rd century AD, a male name
from Sandanski, southwest Bulgaria (see also Angelov 2003, 142). Not in
Detschew.
, IGBulg. I 48 line 7, 238 AD; II 566 from Glava Panega; II
590, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 1934,
from Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD; V 5836, 2nd - 3rd century AD;
1953, from Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV 2078,
, from Pautalia, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Mihailov
considers this name to be either Thracian or Roman (Latin).
, IGBulg. I 51c 9, cf. II 542, 566, I 48, 133, 3rd century AD
(the latter not in Detschew). See also , i. e. “Bessus
for himself” in Marazov et al. 1996, no. 45; Kabakchieva 2000, no. 57. It
is hard to say whether Bessus is Thracian or Roman. End of third century
AD. See also G. Mihailov’s comment (Mihailov 1977, 346).
, IGBulg. IV 2350, from Novo Lyaski, on the Nestos
river, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew.
, IGBulg. I 440, 5th - 4th century BC. Not in Detschew.
The Greek Inscriptions 45
4
See Dimitrov P. 2005, 61.
46 The Greek Inscriptions
5
See Dimitrov 2007a.
48 The Greek Inscriptions
6
See also Masson 1988, 10.
7
Sarafov 1972, 115-20; 1974, 135-38; see Mihailov 1980, 13-18 for an opinion
different from that expressed by T. Sarafov.
The Greek Inscriptions 49
8
Dimitrov P. 2006, 247-251. I was able to inspect this votive plate together with
two other fragments in the spring of 2006 thanks to the courtesy of Ms. Lidia
Staykova-Alexandrova and Mr. Andrey Tonev, curators at the Regional Museum
of History in Kyustendil.
The Greek Inscriptions 53
5288, 2nd - 3rd century AD. The form is not in Detschew, but see
,Detschew 114.
, IGBulg. III 1690 c 54,
202 AD.
IGBulg. III 1690 c 13, 202 AD.
, IGBulg. III 1690 d
30, 202 AD.
, IGBulg. III 1690 d 63, 202 AD;
, III 1690 d 50, 202 AD.
in (?) , from Saladinvo near
Pazardjik, Gočeva 1989, 113-15; the author did not date the inscription;
the sanctuary being known to us by other inscriptions, we could date this
inscription to the 3rd century AD. See SEG 41, 1991, 200 at 608. The
second name should be a genitive , from . Not in
Detschew.
, IGBulg. III 1412, 3rd century AD.
, IGBulg. II 768, from Eski Djumaya, now Targovishte, 3rd
century AD. See also Derzelaj.
, IGBulg. III 1108, 3rd century AD, a dedicant to the Thracian
Heros .
-, IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD.
, an epithet of Apollo, from ancient Karasura, Böttger –
Halloff 1991, 481-88, 3rd century AD. The editors have made mention of
the only name that comes closer, namely the place name (near
Edessa, Steph. Byz. 222, 4) and its inhabitants with a
typical suffix - although “insgesamt aber als Parallele wenig
überzeugt”, see also Detschew 122. Mihailov, relying on a photograph,
misread this epithet, see IGBulg. V 5591. See also SEG 41, 590. Not in
Detschew.
a female name, IGBulg. IV 2292,
from Laskarevo.
(sic) , IGBulg. V 5329, 3rd
century AD (?), v. . Not in Detschew.
, IGBulg. IV 2288, 165 AD.
, IGBulg. III 947, 3rd century AD.
9
See Galabov 1964, passim.
The Greek Inscriptions 57
, IGBulg. IV 2292,
from Laskarevo.
, IGBulg. IV 1938, a personal name, after the 2nd century AD:
.
, IGBulg V 5918, 1st - 3rd century AD.
Not in Detschew.
, IGBulg. III 947, 3rd century AD;
III 1348, , 3rd century AD;
, III 1204, there is a spelling mistake in
Detschew 134: ; III 1452, , 3rd century
AD.
, IGBulg. III 1626, 1st - 3rd century
AD.
, IGBulg II 761, ? , a dedicator to
the Thracian Horseman from a .
, IGBulg IV 2214 line 12 from Dolistovo, southwest
Bulgaria, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Mihailov is hesitating between Greek
( ) and Thracian, adducing the examples from III 1004 and 1616; see
Detschew 141 “ ”.
,IGBulg. III 1283.
, IGBulg. IV 2291 from
Laskarevo, 2nd - 3rd century AD; Not in Detschew.
, IGBulg. IV 2231 from Kocherinovo, 2nd - 3rd century AD;
Mihailov considers – to be .
, IGBulg. V 5294, 2nd - 3rd
century AD.
, IGBulg. III 1514, 3rd century AD; Detschew 249
.
, IGBulg. IV 2321 from Zlatolist, southwest Bulgaria,
125 AD.
, a female name, IGBulg. IV 2119 from Gorna Sekirna,
district of Breznik (near Serdica), 2nd - 3rd century AD; IV
2321 from Zlatolist, southwest Bulgaria, 125 AD.
, a female
name, in Manov 2008, 136, 2nd - 3rd AD, found near Sandanski. Not in
Detschew.
58 The Greek Inscriptions
etc.,
Corsten 1990, 178-180. The inscription is dated to the 2nd century AD.
The Greek Inscriptions 59
10
On these developments see also Dečev 1960, 152-55.
The Greek Inscriptions 63
examples from III 1004 and 1616. See also Detschew 141
“ ”, which is a wrong reading.
, IGBul. I 50, b line19, 4th - 3rd century BC; II 796,
; II 843 ;
III 1073, 3rd century AD; III 1190
3rd century AD; III 1197, 1371; , III 1398, III 1520;
III 1690 column b line 21, 202 AD; IV 2014
from Gurmazovo near Serdica, 2nd - 3rd century AD;
(dative), V 5282, 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5309,
in both V 5577, 5578, found together in Augusta Traiana, first
half of the 1st century AD; V 5592, first half of the 1st century AD,
V 5634, 1st - 3rd century AD.
IGBulg. V 5011, 1st century BC – 1st
century AD; see also in the catalog of the names found on
phialae supra and a parallel from Gorgipia on the Black Sea
coast.
, a female name from Bithynia, on a tomb stele found in
Hamzabey Köy near Inegöl. The inscription has been published by
Corsten 1990, 264.
, IGBulg. III 1616c, Dubious whether Greek or Thracian. 3rd
century AD. Compare in III 1006.
IGBulg. IV 2286 159 AD.
* where the were, IGBulg. V 5589. Not in
Detschew.
, IGBulg. V 5589, near Augusta Traiana, inhabitants of
* . Not in Detschew.
, III 1690 d 17, 202 AD.
IGBulg. III 1404 3rd century AD;
Detschew 142 “richtiger ( )”, however the ending is - as
Mihailov put it;11 V 5858.
from Kresna, southwest Bulgaria (now in a private
collection), Ivanov 2004, 83-86.
, , III 1690 d 20, 202 AD.
11
Mihailov 1943, 99-101.
64 The Greek Inscriptions
12
For the formation of personal names in Thracian see Georgiev 1983, 1155;
Dimitrov 1994; Boïadjiev 2000, 145- 50; e. g. Dadaleme vs. Kotyos on metal
vessels. See the above-mentioned instances , and , etc.,
from Chapter Three (Mihailov, 1987, 5-19); Brixhe 1994, 186, n. 33.
13
Dečev 1960, 161; Georgiev 1983, 1156, 1167.
The Greek Inscriptions 65
14
Gerasimova-Tomova 1980, 69, no. 97; 115, no. 97.
15
SEG 30, 1980, 769.
The Greek Inscriptions 67
16
For a different opinion see Boyadzhiev 2002a.
68 The Greek Inscriptions
17
Dimitrov 2003.
70 The Greek Inscriptions
this name and Ez/sbenis, the latter derived from an etymon for “horse” in
Thracian.
IGBulg. IV 2103. The reading is dubious. Not in
Detschew.
, IGBulg. III 1690 b
62, quod vide infra. Not in Detschew.
, IGBulg. III 1517 line 39, 3rd century AD; III 1302
rd
, 3 century AD; III 1342 3rd
century AD; III 1690 b 55, 202 AD; and I
378, 19 AD, , son of
Rhoimetalkes II, who was a strategos; , I 77 from the
ancient Odessos, present-day Varna on the Black Sea coast, a name of a
priest, see also ; I 281 bis, as a second name of a wife of a
Thracian, 2 -3 century AD; IV 2069, 1st –3rd century AD (?); IV 2031;
nd rd
18
Dimitrov P. 2006, 247-251. I was able to inspect this votive plate together with
two other fragments in the spring of 2006, thanks to the courtesy of Ms. Lidia
Staykova-Alexandrova and Mr. Andrey Tonev, curators at the Regional Museum
of History in Kyustendil.
The Greek Inscriptions 75
in
n IGBulg. III 1457, 3rd century AD; III
rd
1458 , 3 AD; III 1459; III 1460, III 1461, an
epithet of Apollo (Heros), 3rd AD.
IGBulg. III 1235, 3rd century AD.
IGBulg. II 506, wrongly in Detschew 178 ; see also
in that same inscription. , II 506 from Kunino,
northeast Bulgaria. Detschew 178: . , V 5067.
, IGBulg. IV 2175, after L. Robert (Revue de philologie ‘Les
inscriptions grecques de Bulgarie’, 33, 1959, 180, n. 5). Detschew 178
; see also Dimitrov 2007a for a full account on and
similia.
, IGBulg. IV 2048 from Krasno selo, a town of Sofia.
Not in Detschew.
IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew.
76 The Greek Inscriptions
19
Tsontchev 1941.
20
Tsontchev 1941, 12.
The Greek Inscriptions 79
/ we could posit
See above.
IGBulg. V 5634, 1st - 3rd century
AD. Mihailov interpreted the latter as accusative plural feminine.
, passim.
the two places were not the same, one being in Haemimontos, and the
other in Nicopolis ad Nestum. For various speculations on its etymology
see IGBulg. IV 2338, commentary. Not in Detschew (p. 238
).
IGBulg. V 5329, from
Dobroplodno, northeast Bulgaria. Not in Detschew.
, a place-name of a mansio, Lat. Cillae, IGBulg. III 1519, 3rd
century AD.
, an inhabitant of , see above, IGBulg. III 1520, 3rd
century AD.
, IGBulg. I 354quater, an epithet of Asklepios, 1st century
AD. (?). Not in Detschew. See also Mihailov’s comments in V 5127 (=I
354quater): “Ex BIAB (i. e. Bulletin of the Bulgarian Institute of
Archaeology) deprompserunt Ann. Ép. 1965, 133; J. et L. Robert Bull. Ép.
1965, 256 (ubi falso et ) et 1972, 298 (ubi recte
), (SEG 24, 1969, 906).”
, an epithet
p of a local god, IGBulg. III 1774, 3rd century
AD. Not in Detschew.
, the name of a tribe (phyle), from the Ancient Theatre
in Philoppopolis; IGBulg. V 5412; cf. SEG 34, 1984, 712.
, an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. III 919, and 1002, from
ancient Philippopolis, 3rd century AD.
an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. III 917, 921, 998, 3rd
AD; V 5435, which belongs to the inscriptions series of III 917-928, from
ancient Philippopolis.
a spurious epithet of Apollo, accepted by Detschew
239. However see the lemma at IGBulg. IV 1929 from Serdica, probably a
completely different reading must be supplied.
an epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. III 918, 3rd century AD,
from the territory of ancient Philippopolis.
, IGBulg. III 1312, 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew.
, IGBulg. II 510, 3rd century AD Found in the sanctuary of
Asclepios at Glava Panega. I. I. Russu, Dacia 11-12, 1945-47, 262, n. 8
considered it an error of the engraver for (cf. J. et L. Robert
(Bull. Épigr. 1950, 22, n. 49). on stone. See also Dimitrova 2002,
217. Mihailov hesitated whether the name is Thracian or Latin. Not in
Detschew.
The Greek Inscriptions 85
21
For more details and bibliography see Mihailov 1980b, 15.
The Greek Inscriptions 87
22
I am thankful to Mrs. D. Agre, Institute of Archaeology, Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences, for allowing me to examine the plate. A joint publication with all the
details is forthcoming.
88 The Greek Inscriptions
23
Detschew 1976, 506; Zgusta 1964, 1558-5.
The Greek Inscriptions 91
IGBulg. III
st rd
1621, 1 - 3 century AD. Detschew 274
from Saladinvo near Pazardjik k Gočeva 1989,
113-15; the author did not date the inscription; the sanctuary being known
to us by other inscriptions, we could date this inscription to the 3rd century
AD. Not in Detschew.
IGBulg. III 1326 from Malo konare, near Pazardjik.
Mihailov considers it Asian or Thracian. Not in Detschew.
IGBulg. II 868, 2nd - 3rd century AD See Detschew 274
due to confusion in reading the inscription.
, IGBulg. III 947, near Philippolis, 3rd
century AD. Not in Detschew.
daugther of wife off IGBulg. I 27 bis,
from Dionysopolis, 3rd century BC (?). Compare the second element -
in and . Not in Detschew.
(?) , IGBulg. IV 2026, the reading is not sure.
Not in Detschew.
IGBulg. I 51bis, 2nd - 3rd century y AD, probably from a
Bithynian Thracian origin. Not in Detschew.
epithet of Asklepios IGBulg. V 5699 = IV 2029, V 5700 -
5715, 5705; all from the sanctaury of Asklepios Limenos at
Slivniza near Sofia, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in Detschew.
(?) is just a possibility as Mihailov put it (see
under , IGBulg. III 1385), epithet of the Heros 3rd century
92 The Greek Inscriptions
IGBulg. II 754.
IGBulg. III, 1736, 1st - 3rd century
AD.
IGBulg. II 846; III
1106 3rd centuryAD; III 1516, 3rd century AD;
III 1583, 1st-3rd centuryAD; III 1593, 1st-3rd
century AD; ? III 1626, 1st - 3rd century AD;
? 1626, 1st - 3rd century AD;
(accusative) IGBulg. III 1633, 3rd century AD;
III 1690 b 66 from Pizos;
III 1690 column b line 27, 202 AD; III
1690 b 52; , IGBulg. III 1690 b 52, 202 AD;
IGBulg. III 1690 b 64, 202 AD;
IGBulg. III 1690 b 65, 202 AD; III 1690 c 35
; III 1690 c 32, 202
AD; III 1690 d 40, 202 AD; , IGBulg.
III 1690 c 44, 202 AD; III 1690 c 50, 202 AD;
III 1690 c 51, 202 AD;
III 1690 d 38, 202 AD;
III 1690 d 40, 202 AD and d 45;
III 1690 c 63, 202 AD;
III 1690 d 59, 202 AD; III 1690 e 15;
1736, 1st - 3rd century AD;
III, 1741, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1773, 1st –3rd
centuryAD; III 1806, 1st - 3rd century
AD; , V 5300, 2nd - 3rd century AD;
V 5343, from Marcianopolis, 2nd - 3rd
century AD; V 5611; V 5394bis, 1st - 3rd century AD; V 5821, 2nd - 3rd
century AD.
IGBulg. III 1354, 3rd century AD.
IGBulg. V 5628, 1st-3rd century AD.
( ), IGBulg. IV 1922, 2nd - 3rd century AD, on
a column inscribed with names (a sacred catalog?); IV 2196
(?); II 543, from Glava Panega, 2nd - 3rd
century AD; III 1690 d 34, 202
AD.
96 The Greek Inscriptions
in
100 The Greek Inscriptions
24
Dimitrov 2003, 351. In a number of inscriptions the E-ending indicates a
genitive form, e. g. on four silver phialae from Duvanlij and
in the Kyolmen inscription, our earliest examples. In the case of
Kerso-bleptes vs. Kersebleptes the genitive ending morpheme shows the variation
o/e. In many cases, in compound names the Greek genitive ending morpheme -ou
appears. Judging on the chronology of this Greek ending one should expect -o to
p
be used in inscriptions from the 5th century BC and before, whilst -ou from the 4th
century BC on.
The Greek Inscriptions 105
century AD; III 1039; III 1132, 3rd century AD; III 1318
3rd century AD; V 5276, 2nd - 3rd century AD;; V 5394; V 5830, 2nd - 3rd
century AD; (cf. No. 29 from Chapter Two).
IGBulg. III 1293, 3rd century AD.
Not in Detschew.
IGBulg. III 1115, 1st - 2nd AD; IV 2015,
nd st
2 - 1 centuryy BC; (dat. ), IV 2112, 1st - 3rd
century AD.
IGBulg. III 1132, an epithet of Hygia and Telesphor,
3rd century AD. Not in Detschew.
IGBulg. III 1690 b
37, 202 AD.
IGBulg. III 1350, 3rd century AD.
IGBulg. I 378, a military district, 19 AD; II 743.
, IGBulg. II 516.
IGBulg. I 7 ter, 2nd century BC; I 42 line 10, 3rd - 2nd
century BC.
, IGBulg. III 1794, a place name, end of 4th century BC.
IGBulg. I 154, 2nd - 1st BC, a female name.
in a dedicatory inscription from Kabyle.
The dedication is to the Thracian Heros. Velkov 1991, 26 dated it to the 3rd
AD. He wrote but supposed that the epithet could be
( ). Such abbreviations are not known from inscriptions found in
Bulgaria, and we think the correct reading is as we gave it here. Velkov’s
reading was accepted in the publication in SEG 42:651.
The epithet appears for the first time here. Not in Detschew.
It should be mentioned that Detschew 425 listed Sassa (CIL 3, 14355.
15), a female person of Dacian origin and Saza (CIL 3, 14406a: Aurelius
Saza), unsecure reading.
It seems to me that there is no connection between Sases, etc. and the
Thracian form Seusa (see below) of the name of the Thracian king
Seuthes.
, IGBulg. III 1430, 3rd century AD.
, son of Seuthes III and Berenike, IGBulg. III 1731and Elvers
(1994), end of 4th century BC. Cf. Chapter Three. Not in Detschew.
IGBulg. V 5635= IV1777, 2nd - 3rd century AD. Not in
Detschew.
, IGBulg. III 1516, 3rd century AD.
an epithet of the Thracian Heros, IGBulg. III
1654, , III 1655, 3rd century AD (or later). See .
vel , III 1690 d 23, 202 AD. Not in
Detschew.
IGBulg. III, 1588
from Karanovo but brought there from Augusta Traiana, see comments by
Mihailov: , an epithet to Zeus Sebazios, 202 AD. Not in
Detschew.
IGBulg. IV 2286, 159 AD. See
above.
IGBulg. III 1690 b 59, 202 AD, which
Detschew 437 thinks should be corrected to ; Mihailov,
however says that on the stone it is written .
108 The Greek Inscriptions
25
For an account on that archaeological site see above in Introduction, Stoyanov
(1997).
110 The Greek Inscriptions
26
See Mihailov 1943, 65 and Schwyzer 1934-1970, 204, 210).
114 The Greek Inscriptions
st rd
2022, 1 -3 century AD; IV 2112 ; IV 2133; IV 2214
st rd
1 - 3 century AD, IV 2074
; IV 2234 .
-, an epithet of the Heros, III 1879, 1st - 3rd century AD.
IGBulg. I 291, epithet of the Heros, 2nd century BC. (?)
Not in Detschew.
IGBulg. V 5462, 2nd - 3rd century
AD. Not in Detschew.
vel - IGBulg.
rd rd
III 1341 3 century AD; III 1317, 3 AD; III 1667, , 1st - 3rd
century AD.
IGBulg. V 5304. Not in Detschew.
, whose son is , IGBulg. IV 2331, 144 AD, in
an uncertain place on the middle course of the Strymon River; whose
wife’s name was , q. v. at Mihailov: “loco incerto in
valle Strymonis medii’ IGBulg. IV 2331…’6. …. littera , quae mutila
est, non tamen certa est, ?”. Cf. Detschew 79, 95.
, epithet of Apollo, IGBulg. g V 5617, 5618, 5619, 5620,
5621, 2nd century BC( ?). Not in Detschew.
( ) ( ), IGBulg. III 1355, 3rd century
AD.
, IGBulg. IV 2331, 144 AD from an uncertain place on the
middle course of the Strymon River; his father’s name was
and his mother was , q. v. at Mihailov: “loco incerto in
valle Strymonis medii”; IGBulg. IV 23316: “littera , quae mutila est, non
116 The Greek Inscriptions
tamen certa est, ?”. Cf. Detschew 79, 95. See also the genitive
formTeretos below.
IGBulg. II 507; II 564, from Glava Panega, 2nd - 3rd century
AD; , II 844; III 1111, 3rd century AD;
IGBulg. III 1210, 2nd - 3rd century AD; III 1517,
3rd century AD; III 1593, 1st - 3rd century AD; III
1593, 1st - 3rd century AD; III 1595, 1st - 3rd century AD; ,
III 1690 c 41, 202 AD; III 1690 c 46, 202 AD; IV 2274, 150
AD; , III 1690c 61, 202 AD;
III 1690 d 52, 202 AD; III 1690 d 54, 202 AD;
[ III 1627, 1st - 3rd century AD, from Karasura. Böttger
and Halloff (1991, 478-81) claim a different reading based on their having
re-discovered the fragment that was first published by Dechev (1934, 76-
77, No. 9, Abb. 66). On the delineatio, provided by Dechev and used by
Mihailov in III 1627 it is clear that the vertical hasta next to P in the
restored [ could only be part of H or I, the latter not yielding to a
plausible reading. Böttger and Halloff’s suggestion for
orr is not convincing. Therefore, despite the difficulties,
is preferable. , son of Seuthes III and Berenike, III 1731and
th
Elvers (1994), end of 4 century BC; IV 2053; IV 2149; , 1st - 3rd
century AD; , 150 AD; IV 2291 , 1st - 3rd
st rd
century AD; 2330,1 - 3 century AD; IV 2338 IV 2338,
end of the 1st century AD, 144 AD V 5560=1572, 5505-
66, 5624, 5796, 2nd - 3rd century AD; 5829, 5667, 5638bis.
, a dedicant to Asklepios, on a votive plate, not far
from Pautalia, present day town of Kuystendil, southwest Bulgaria, 3rd
century AD.27 Cf. Chapter Two and Chapter Three. a recent
discovery on a gold signet-ring found in the Dalakova tumulus north of
Topolchane, district of Sliven. Dimitrov 2008a, 26-32. The inscribed text
reads: ( in the genitive case). The ring is dated to the
4th century BC (Not in Detschew).
IGBulg. III 1418, an epithet of Hera 3rd century AD.
27
Dimitrov P. 2006, 247-251. I was able to inspect this votive plate together with
two other fragments in the spring of 2006, thanks to the courtesy of Ms. Lidia
Staykova-Alexandrova and Mr. Andrey Tonev, curators at the Regional Museum
of History in Kyustendil.
The Greek Inscriptions 117
AD.
, IGBulg. II 737, 2nd - 3rd century
AD.
an epithet of the Thracian
Heros in n
(sic!), from Royak, district of Varna Gočeva (1989, 113-
115); the author did not date the inscription; judging by the forms we
could date this inscription to the 3rd century AD. The author having not
supplied photographs of any of the inscriptions discussed in her
publication, we can only guess if both forms should
be accompanied by iota subscript (sic), as it is obvious that both words are
in the dative case (another (sic) is to accompany for the
substituted for ), or not. She rejected the first element of the epithet to
be related to on the ground of Detschew’s 515 comment28. It
should be mentioned that Detschew, l. c., has in fact included this name in
his Thracian corpus as such; his comments about it are that it could be
compared with the Phrygian , which is doubtful to be the same
28
Gočeva (1989, 115): “Wir könen es wohl kaum mit vergleichen, das
Detschew für phrygish hält”.
118 The Greek Inscriptions
name because of the geminated ‘t’. There are numerous examples of forms
of names alternating an omicron with an omega; it is well known that
vowel quantity in Thracian, rendered by the means of the Greek letters, is
hard to be evidenced ever from the 5th century BC on. So, most probably
the first element of this compound epithet is .
INTRODUCTION: PHONOLOGY
This journey into the realm of the Thracians has been devoted to a
study of the variative linguistic sign aiming to determine the system of
those structures that could be made visible on the surface of mostlly
onomastic material.
This undertaking may also help us apply the methods used in other
linguistic studies and solve problems of considerable quantity, magnitude
and complexity.
As stated in the introductory notes, the method is that of defining and
describing layers and clusters from synchrony to diachrony.1
I an not certain if Labov is right when he says that he was able to
obtain the most in systematic detail from changes taking place in the
Germanic and Romance branch of I.-E. However, I have been facing a
linguistic reality, which may present changes that could complete his
evidence as far as sound change is concerned. For the Thracian has been
the subject of many publications, out of which the number of articles is not
decisively overwhelming compared to that of major publications or books.
Brixhe and Panayotou,2 who recently have made a valuable comment
looking over events, material, and publications, and who have severely
criticized the lack of consistency among scholars concerned with Thracian,
are of the opinion that Thracian was subjected to too many influences
which accounts for the complexity of the linguistic problems themselves. 3
And indeed, Thracian variations seen through those “crosscutting
influences”4 may appear even harder to study. Principles were sought for
in many studies, but none were able to present a uniform image of what
Thracian was. Nor were Brixhe and Panayotou able to point to a right
direction to follow. Because of the fact that the Thracians did not develop
a script of their own, their skepticism led them to asking the question who
1
See Labov 1994, 600, following the general strategy of using the present to
explain the past.
2
Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 179-203.
3
Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 185.
4
Labov 1994, 600.
122 Chapter Five
the Thracians really were. Therefore, were there any Thracians? If their
skepticism is justified, the fact that linguists are dealing primarily with
glosses and onomastic material should discourage everyone. 5
Under what conditions were the remnants of the Thracian language
shaped differently in one case or another, remains to be seen. Clearly
defined cases, which account for the real situation, will lead to a new
description of the facts. Dečev6 attempted one after Tomaschek,7 then
Georgiev,8 Russu,9 and Duridanov.10 We will use facts and data discussed
there. We will be concerned not that much with matching their
interpretations, but rather making our observations of sound change and
word shape of Thracian visible.
We don’t know for sure what the value of all Greek letters was in
rendering Thracian, but we should establish the guidelines, working
hypotheses, based on the notion that Greek easily assimilates words of
non-Greek origin.
In dividing the material under study, we should say a few words about
conclusions made after comparing the temporal layers.
The Ezerovo ring and the Kyolmen stele together with some coins give
the following:
No sign was used to denote orr . The evidence from the rest
of the inscriptions corroborates this. The several examples in Detschew’s
Die Thrakischen Sprachreste cannot persuade anybody that they are of
Thracian origin.11 Nor would names like , where the composed
character psi has a different value, e.g. that in , which would
make perfect sense.12
If one compares the frequency of signs used in the inscriptions dated to
the 6th and 5th centuries BC, the following will be found.
5
Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 190 is certainly wrong to put just the “noms
propres”, i.e. personal names.
6
Dečev 1960.
7
Tomaschek 1980.
8
Georgiev 1983.
9
Russu 1967.
10
Duridanov 1985.
11
Only a few of those will be found in this file there, e.g. , an ethnikon,
where the y stands for another combination in the genuine name of this Thracian
tribe (why not or ?). The are mentioned in
Herodotus (7. 122). See also Detschew 444-46 for further evidence on this name.
The - ending is also dubious, since from the few inscriptions in Thracian we
have at hand there are no such Thracian endings.
12
See Detschew 39 s.v. and the lemma for this name in this book.
Introduction: Phonology 123
13
Brugmann 1904, 28-30: The “Indogermanist hat es demnach zu erster Linie mit
den ältesten geschichtlichen Perioden der Einzelsprachen zu thun. In erster Linie,
nicht ausschliesslich. Denn bei der trümmerhaften und die Sprache ihrer Lautung
nach nur in rohen Umrissen zeichnenden schriftlichen Überlieferung alter
Sprachen muss oft in später Zeit Auftretendes zur Erläuterung des zeitlich
Zurückliegenden herangezogen werden…”
14
Lehmann 1993, 137.
15
Compare (sic!) in LGPN, where the earliest mentions are from Thasos
and Eretria on the island of Euboia in the 3rd century BC.
124 Chapter Five
, etc.
From the list it could be concluded that - coincides with the variant
Zi- ( ) creating a confusion because of the widely spread name for
Zeus in Thracian. Thus, , , etc. are the most common.
A similar conclusion can be drawn about Greek.17
Another interesting example is <* Bī-sal-ēt-ēn-os, a
non-syncopated form of , a Thracian tribe from the lower
Strymon River. According to Stephanus of Byzantium (170. 16) their town
16
Cf. a Lakonian name (Dubois 2000, 45). In an excellent presentation
of hippo- “horse” in Greek names, the author is puzzled by that name finding it
“not easy: rather than translating it as “expert in horses”, it would be attractive to
compare the Vedic compound aśvavid-, “who finds and supplies horses” …” etc. I
will agree with Mr. Dubois as to that part in his statement that it is not easy to
incorporate this particular name in the list. For it belongs to the Thracian list and is
once again an excellent example of how the Greek language processed foreign
names. I shall continue with this particularly instructive case and point to a Greek
parallel in LGPN (sic!) and which is its Greek counterpart.
17
, , , cf. LGPN.
Introduction: Phonology 125
18
Tomaschek, I 58.
19
See also Detschew 70-71.
20
See Beekes 1995, 72-79.
21
Szémereny 1996, 27-28.
22
Georgiev 1983, 1153-54.
23
Georgiev, 1163, 1167: “sold aus ghlto, ‘Gold’”
24
Georgiev, 1173, 1174.
126 Chapter Five
called “vartop” (= ‘whirlpool’), where the soil is humid and giving in. Cf.
Old Bulgarian ВЪРТЪПЪ, “garden”, or “cave”, or “whirlpool”, where the
cult of Asklepios Limenos was worshipped.
The extended oi-grade is redueced to -i- and suffixed with -m- and
e/anus (for the latter see above Beekes, 75). The comparison with the two
genuine Greek words with the same meaning is very informative. It
allowed for us to make an observation about the structure and the word
formation in Thracian. Besides, it gives the opportunity to translate this
epithet: it goes Asklepios “of the Humid (=Clay) Places”.
25
cf. glei, Pokorny 19943, 362.
26
See LPGN.
27
Watkins 2000, 80: (s)lei.
28
Watkins 2000, 47, lei, “to flow”.
29
No trace of phonological developments to deal with laryngeals were found in the
reconstructions of: Dečev 1960; Georgiev 1983; Katićič 1976, on the Thracian.
See however Duridanov 1987b and c.
Introduction: Phonology 127
same root, that are found in different morphological categories, shows the
rôle it played in differentiating the structure of the root in PIE.30
The labiovelars were single phonemes as a result of the interaction of a
velar and a labial sound in the form of [w]. Originally Latin supplied the
fact that before the group qu in verse a syllable normally contains a short
vowel.31 Therefore, k+w, etc. was not what the labiovelars represented but
kw, a single phoneme.32 On the other hand, it has been generally assumed
that the “satem” languages i.e. Thracian, Sanskrit, Avestan, etc., lost their
labiovelars in their complete merge with velars. 33
Looking at some Thracian examples such as the word for “horse”, the
word for “four”, and the word for “far”, reveals the following developments.
PIE*h¹ek’w-o-34 is in Thracian*esb- or esp- in Esbenis, Ezbenis, Bet-
espios, Out-aspios. There is a tradition35 in deriving Esbenis, <* esw
because of the assibiliation of k. Consequently,*w changes to /b/ and the
unstable /w/ in its turn changes to /p/. While*w through /b/ has, in the
beginning of the Roman period (1st - 3rd AD), started to be spelled ou, /p/
appears here as an allophone of /b/ from* /w/. This form appears also as
asb- in the name of a little town, whose kometai (inhabitants) are called
Asbenoi. This last inscription was found in south-central Bulgaria near
three small villages called Koynare, Malo Koynare, etc., in Bulgarian,
meaning “Horse” or “of those dealing with (or in) horses” or “breeders of
horses”.
In Thracian, the group Sb- in Anlaut is unstable and changes to Zb- or
to Sou- (all graphemic variants). It seems that the preceding vowel through
its fluctuation a/e makes for the confirmation of /sb/ /sp/. One plausible
explanation would be to derive it from PIE*h¹ek’ w-o-s and posit h=a/e. In
principle, Thracian might well have prothetic vowels from PIE laryngeals,
but in the case of*h¹ek’ w-o-s, as well as in Argiske, Ergiske, etc.,
<*h2erg’- ‘white, bright, silver’ suggests that the e/a alternation might be
due to something within Thracian itself. 36 The appearance of a- in Asbenoi
beside e- in Esbenis is more difficult.
30
See Melchert 1987; Rasmussen 1999; Oettinger 2001.
31
Szémerenyi 1996, 67: “which cannot therefore represent a consonant group”.
32
Opinions are divided. See Szémerenyi 1996, 67, n. 1 for detailed bibliography.
33
Szemerenyi 1996, 66-67: “The infinitive of OCS женон (IE*gwhen-) is гънати,
in which ъ can be explained only as a reflex of the labial element of the IE
labiovelar. These instances, few as they are, are sufficient to refute the thesis that
labiovelars had never existed in the satem languages.”
34
Watkins 2000, 23.
35
Dečev 1960, Georgiev 1983.
36
Dimitrov 1994.
128 Chapter Five
37
Dimitrov 2007a.
38
Watkins 2000, 45.
39
Cf. the place name Chertigrad < Chetri-grad “Four-town” in Bulgarian, possibly
a Bulgarian “translation” in its turn of the Greek version of in
misunderstanding of the component in Thracian (= “town” in
Greek).
40
Cf. Watkins 2000, 19:*dheu-, and Pokorny 19943, 261.
41
Cf. Georgiev 1983.
42
Watkins 2000, 34.
43
I agree here with Georgiev 1983, 1173.
CHAPTER SIX
THE COMPONENTS
1
See Georgiev 1983, 1151-78.
2
In this part because of the nature of the material under study we deal with
phonemes and morphemes. The compound nouns contain the core of the Thracian
phonemic distribution. This is the testimony of the genuine “Thracian sound” that
ultimately comes to persuade us that the combination of the phonemes and their
distribution represent the Thracian language to the best of our knowledge with the
mediation of the Greek lettering and language logic.
3
Morpurgo Davis 2000, 18.
4
See Thracian Numerals under “Ten”.
5
Cf. Vottero 1985 and Morpurgo Davies,18.
130 Chapter Six
6
Masson 1966, 253 sq. calls such names “noms irrationels”. Cf. Morpurgo Davies
2000, with extended bibliography.
7
Morpurgo Davies 2000.
8
The author is trying to present an exhaustive list without withdrawing important
items. However, it is conceivable that this has been done within reasonable limits.
9
I think that here belongs the “edited” form Autoptistai.
The Components 131
10
See Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 190 according to whom the “flottement” d/t is
due to the influence of Greek -dokos on the authenthic Thracian -tokos.
The Components 133
11
For a new reading of IGBulg. IV 2289, see Bojadzhiev 2002a.
12
See Boyadzhiev 2002b.
The Components 135
13
Here it seems to me that the expressive gemination is due to a graphemic variant
of the genuine Thracian*/s/, which in intervocalic position turns to /z/.
14
Because of the word-formation of Thracian names, we can assume that this
name is a composite one, where its components are * in ,
on the one hand, and , on the other.
The Components 137
THRACIAN NUMERALS1
“Two”
“Three”
The word for “three” in Thracian seems to be a first component in the
following compounds:
1
For a different approach see Polomé 1986, 185-9.
2
Pokorny 19943, 229.
3
For a different opinion see Dečev 1960, 149 ff., Georgiev 1983, 1172-73 and
1183, Duridanov 1987c, 57-64.
4
See also Detschew 522 at Triballi.
5
See Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, 198-99, in their severe comment on the
Lautverschiebung: “En vérité, cette hypothèse est, avec l’évolution supposée de*o
en*a et les migrations tribales ou ethniques, l’un des outils les plus évidents de la
140 Chapter Seven
LETED and LED from the 6th century BC Kyolmen inscription as third
person singular ending.
“Four”
In the case with “four” from IE * kwet(w)r-, the non-suffixed zero-
grade6 finds its continuation in the Thracian language in the personal
names ,7 since PIE *kw gives
k unlike the other satem languages8 (as Thracian which is considered a
satem language ), i.e. Avestan aśva “horse”, Skt. çatvaras “four” etc.
From the examples in Detschew 243, not attested in the inscriptions
from Bulgaria, we observe the usual assibilation of /t/ to /d/ as in e.g.
. This also the case with the
name of the phyle in Philippopolis and the variants
, and hence , an epithet of
the Thracian Horseman. All these examples date to the Roman period, 1 st -
3rd century AD and are attested in inscriptions from Philippopolis. The
cluster –nd- comes from the original –tr- after /t/ was assimilated to /d/
(with a Greek treatment as e.g. the epenthetic -n- before –g-) owing to the
fact that Thracian in that region was subjected to strong Hellenization ever
since the 4th century BC or earlier.
“Five”
From IE *penkwe,9 assimilated to kwenkwe in Celtic and Italic, we have
ginka as the etymon for “five” in Thracian, e.g.
, most probably meaning
“fifth”, Greek “fifth”. Compare Greek Lat. quinque
“five”, quintus “fifth” and Old Irish cōic “five”.
“Ten”
10
Watkins 2000, 15; Pokorny 19943, 191.
11
Mihailov in IGBulg. IV 2231 from Kocherinovo thinks that –kentos is in fact -
kenthos, which is a possibility. However, why not Di-kenthos? Again, De- for Di-
is not impossible, but one would normally expect an example with Dē- in the list.
12
Most recently see Fol 2002, 269-72 with the references to his previous works.
CHAPTER EIGHT
Analogy
Analogy is a process that plays an important rôle in shaping the
Thracian material. This kind of language change consists of developments,
which could be interpreted differently. 1 Sound change is deemed regular
and causes irregularity, while analogy is irregular and operates in conflict
cases. This interference among others in language practice impinges
sequences, pre-determines chronological boundaries and takes part in
transformations of morphological character. Analogy works on already
existing models.2
Analogy reconciles inexplicable variations. For example, from PIE
*deiwos in Thracian there are
For - we assume
<*Dū-s-, the same in ( ) from Dū- suffixed with -nt-,
d: later changed to Z, and thence many forms with Z, see The Evidence.
We have therefore two developments from PIE dei-w-o-s: 1) dī-w-os
and 2) dīs.
In some examples, - was preserved and was still productive in
producing Dios from Dīw-os after *w has been weakened in intervocalic
position disappeared.
From IE to Thracian:
, etc.
The two isolated - and - yield in Gen. (from Dei-s-os > dīs),
Dative Di (from dei-w-i → dī), Acc. (e.g. ).
1
Sturtevant 19684, 94; Anttila 1989, 94.
2
Szémereny 1996, 27: When it occurs, purely phonetic developments in
accordance with the sound laws are for the most part suppressed and obscured, e.g.
ē/ānos in Thracian: Galabov 1964, 1-64.
144 Chapter Eight
Conclusions
The aim of this study was to produce new and reliable results using a
new method. Having concentrated on phonological changes visible
through various cases, an attempt was made to describe developments and
work with synchronic facts. Linguistic change and reconstruction filled
much of the texture of the investigation. Taking into consideration the
complexity of the material, I adopted an approach to suit both the
presentation of new material and the use of synchronic linguistics. The
cultural and historical information of the updated material complemented
the efforts to achieve a proper description of the changes in the
phonological sequences. Since this study was undertaken in continuation
of Tomaschek’s ethnological outlook on the Thracians and their language,
reaching proper understanding of Thracian variations served as a
consolidation of the belief that the method of synchronic and diachronic
analysis is hopeful enough to provoke new studies in the future.
In concluding my work, it is important to reiterate my ultimate goal,
which is to give new material but also to contrast it with the cultural and
historical background. Thus, the strict and hopefully rigorous way of
considering only the direct evidence is justified in utilizing data from
inscriptions found in Bulgaria enhanced with some extraterritorial ones.
The opening of this chapter with the topic of analogy is a means to
conclude this study of so many irregularities and to describe properly what
has been achieved so far. I also chose to exemplify the models circulating
in Thracian for the last time showing a pattern of language development
that to my mind is informative and that worked slowly within and through
the adoption and use of the Greek alphabet.
This leads us toward a group of interrelated conclusions:
(1) The Thracian language was ‘made’ regular from the 6 th
BC on.
(2) The difference between the genuine Thracian texts and
the material derived from onomastics make us think of a major
break-up that occurred around the end of the 6th – 5th century BC.
Judging on the script of the Kyolmen inscription and that of the
Ezerovo ring one cannot help drawing the conclusion that they
were executed using two distinctive scripts (alphabets). Whilst
the first could be seen as identical in many ways with the one
used in the Old Phrygian, the latter is Greek.
(3) The cultural and historical character of the study helped
reach a conclusion that the stele of Kyolmen is a tombstone of a
fallen soldier (paradynast?) rather than a dedicatory inscription as
Analogy and Conclusion 145
1690 b 59, 202 AD, which Detschew 437 thinks should be corrected to
and Mihailov is in favor of what he saw was written on the
stone, namely , we have the intermediate variant of Sese in the
first component of this compound (from the bilingual inscription
Gonimaseze) before it got changed under Greek influence to Seuthes.
Therefore, the development was from Sete to Sethe to Sese to Seze. This
documents the history of the development of the Thracian language which
was made possible through the evidence of inscriptions only. An
interesting fact about comparing Greek with Latin evidence are the forms
Sethe and Sese, almost synchronic, the first being dated in 202 AD and the
latter around 300 AD.
In Part Two several conclusions were drawn.
In Chapter Five, the immediate conclusion is that once the
phonological system is established through all extant examples one could
undertake a next step to use the compound components to start reading and
understanding the Thracian language.
There is a substantial amount of skepticism stemming from
unsystematic efforts to crack on understanding Thracian. However, now
within the limits of its elements being determined, the whole body of the
language unfolds and becomes visible.
The system of the vowels reveals the following.
PIE *a (with all pros and cons) yielded an /a/ alternating with /e/ under
certain conditions: (1) in word-initial before d/, /r/ as well as before /p/ and
/s/ (2) in word-final of first compound components after /s/, /t/, coinciding
with an /e/ that appears to be an ending in e.g. DADALEME, EBAROZE,
ROLISTENE, etc., probably a Genitive sg. one. Whether a/e was a remote
reflex of a laryngeal is still a surmise.
Beside the fluctuation a/e, there is a stable /a/ throughout the entire
period in the evidence.
PIE */e/ is represented through /e/, but also through /e:/ due to the fact
that we do not have any knowledge the vowel quatity.
It goes the same way about PIE */o/.
PIE */i/ is perhaps a phoneme that does not appear in word-initial
position except for Istros and Istrianos. The phoneme /i/ also represents
PIE */oi/. PIE *loi-mo in from lim(o)-enos.
PIE */u/ is represented by /u/. So is PIE */eu/ in e.g. *meudh-,
Thracian Mutorgenos.
The PIE */s/ is also represented by a spirant through Thracian /s/, and
its allophone /z/.
The Consonants:
PIE *p,*t,*k are p,t,k in Thracian.
Analogy and Conclusion 147
Abbreviations
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. (Berlin/
New York)
Bull. Ep. Bulletin Epigraphique
CIA Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum (Berlin)
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
Dečev Detschew, D. 19762. Die thrakischen Sprachreste
(Wien).
EB Etudes Balkaniques (Sofia).
FGrH Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker
GPN Hornblower, S and Matthews, E. (eds. ) 2000: Greek
Personal Names. Their Value as Evidence (Proceedings
of the British Academy 104) (Oxford).
GSUFF Godishnik na Sofiyskiya Universitet. Filologo-filosofski
fakultet.
HS Historische Sprachforschung (= KZ)
IAI Izvestiya na Arkheologicheskiya institut
IBAI Izvestiya na Bulgarskiya Arheologicheski institut
(Sofia).
IBAD Izvestiya na Bulgarskoto arheologichesko druzhestvo
(Sofia).
IG Inscriptiones Graecae
IGBulg Mihailov, G. 19702-1997: Inscriptiones Graecae in
Bulgaria Repertae. Vol. 1-5 (Sofia).
IGDOP Dubois, L. 1996 : Inscriptions grecques dialectales
d’Olbia du Pont (Genève).
INMV Izvestiya na Narodniya muzei Varna
IPE Latyshev, V. 1885-1901: Inscriptiones antiquae orae
septentrionalis Ponti Euxini Graecae et Latinae. 1-4
(Petropoli).
JIES Journal of Indo-European Studies (Boston)
KBN Struvve, V. V. 1965: Korpus bosporskikh nadpisey
(Moscow/Leningrad).
150 Bibliography