Volga – the First River of Europe

52 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI VÁCLAV BLAŽEK Masaryk University Fields of research: Indo-European studies, especially Slavic, Baltic, Celtic, Anatolian, Tocharian, Indo-Iranian languages; Fenno-Ugric; Afro-Asiatic; etymology; genetic classification; mathematic models in historical linguistics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35321/all81-03 VOLGA – THE FIRST RIVER OF EUROPE Volga – pirmoji Europos upė Чтобы не было раздора Между вольными людьми, Волга, Волга, мать родная, На, красавицу возьми! “So that peace may reign for ever In this band so free and brave, Volga, Volga, Mother Volga, Make this lovely girl a grave!ˮ Дмитрий Николаевич Садовников1 in 1883 ANNOTATION The present study summarizes all designations of the Volga River and when it is possible, in wider context of primary texts, arranged in Appendix. The second task is a survey and discussion of existing etymologies. The third goal consists in offer of new solutions, if those existing are not convincing enough. Finally, some general conclusions are formulated. KEYWORDS: River, Volga, hydronym, etymology. 1 Available at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenka_Razin> [accessed 01.11.2019]. Straipsniai / Articles 53 Volga – the First River of Europe ANOTACIJA Šis tyrimas apibendrina visus Volgos upės įvardijimus kiek įmanoma platesniame straipsnio priede pateiktų pirminių tekstų kontekste. Antrasis tyrimo tikslas – ištirti ir aptarti esamas etimologijas, trečiasis – pasiūlyti naujus sprendimus, jeigu esami nėra pakankamai įtikinami. Straipsnio pabaigoje pateikiamos bendrosios išvados. ESMINIAI ŽODŽIAI: upė, Volga, vandenvardis, etimologija. With its 3,534 km of length (before the system of dam lakes it was 3,693 km) and basin 1,380,000 km2 the Volga River is the biggest watercourse in Europe, the westernmost big river of Eurasia and the biggest endorheic river in the world. For such long rivers it is typical that they bear several names in various languages. The following seven hydronyms, arranged in alphabetic order, will be analyzed in detail in both etymological perspective and from the point of view of semantic motivation. 1. Ἀράξης 1.0. Herodotus [1.201–202] (c. 450 BCE) mentioned Ἀράξης as a river comparable with or even bigger than the Ister, i.e. the Danube. This Araxes needed to flow through 40 streams, but only one of them emptied into the Caspian Sea. In its delta there would have been islands of the size of Lesbos (1,630 km2). This description can only be applicable to the Volga (originally 3,693 km; basin 1,380,000 km2; discharge 8,060 m3/s in Astraxań; the delta of the Volga consists of c. 500 channels2 on the area of 27,224 km2) and not to the river Ἀράξης, known in Modern Armenian as Araks, Turkish, Persian, Kurdic Aras, Azerbaijani Araz (1,072 km; 102,000 km2; discharge 285 m3/s by the mouth into the Kura), rising near Erzurum City in East Turkey in the same area as the source 2 Available at: <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/5650/volga-river-delta> [accessed 01.11.2019]. VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 54 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI of the Euphrates3. This Araks was described as swift, but narrow4, in contrary to the description of Herodotus. 1.1. “Swift streamˮ can be a convincing motivation for designation of this shorter and faster river rising on slopes of mountains with an altitude over 3,000 m, traditionally explained with help of Armenian arag, erag “quick, swift, fastˮ (cf. Tomaschek 1895, c. 404), which itself is of Iranian origin, cf. Parthian (Turfan) rg “quick, swiftˮ, Avestan raγu- “leicht beweglich, flinkˮ (Olsen 1999: 868; Bailey 1979: 359). The initial vowel represents a typical Armenian prothesis before the borrowings in r-5. Let us add that in classical Armenian sources the river was called Erask‘, while Old Georgian had Raḵšī6, still without the initial vowel. 1.2. If Herodotus really described the Volga as Ἀράξης, the ‘swift’-etymology is not applicable, since the altitude of the Volga’s source is only 228 m and with regard to the length of the stream, originally almost 3,700 km, the speed of the stream is extremely slow. In this case it would be thinkable to explain the river-name as Iranian *a-raxsa- “harmlessˮ, cf. Young Avestan acc.sg. (-stem?) 3 This was known already to Pompey in 68 BCE according to the witness of Plutarch in his curriculum of Pompey [33.1]: Πομπήϊος δὲ εἰς Ἀρμενίαν ἐνέβαλε τοῦ νέου Τιγράνου καλοῦντος αὐτόν ἤδη γὰρ ἀφειστήκει τοῦ πατρός, καὶ συνήντησε τῷ Πομπηΐῳ περὶ τὸν Ἀράξην ποταμόν, ὃς ἀνίσχει μὲν ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν τῷ Εὐφράτῃ τόπων, ἀποτρεπόμενος δὲ πρὸς τὰς ἀνατολὰς εἰς τὸ Κάσπιον ἐμβάλλει πέλαγος, “Pompey then invaded Armenia on the invitation of young Tigranes, who was now in revolt from his father, and who met Pompey near the river Araxes, which takes its rise in the same regions as the Euphrates, but turns towards the east and empties into the Caspian Seaˮ (Plutarch 1917: Pompey. – Plutarch’s Lives, with an English Translation by Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press – London: Heinemann, 1917). Available at: <http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0007.tlg045.perseus-grc1:33.1> [accessed 01.11.2019]; <http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0007.tlg045.perseus-eng1:33.1> [accessed 01.11.2019]. 4 Cf. Virgil: Aeneid 8.728: pontem indignatus Araxes “the Araxes, angry at having been bridgedˮ. See also the lemma Araxes in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. II, Fasc. 3 (1986), pp. 268–271, by W. B. Fisher (& C. E. Bosworth). Available at: <http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/araxes-river> [accessed 01.11.2019]. 5 Cf. Armenian aroyr “brassˮ < Iranian *rauδa-, cf. Manichaean Middle Persian rwy, Zoroastrian Middle Persian lwd “copper, brassˮ; Armenian erang “colorˮ vs. Manichaean Middle Persian rng; Sanskrit raga- “color, dyeˮ; Armenian erak “veinˮ vs. Zoroastrian Middle Persian rk’ id. etc. (Olsen 1999: 869, 879). 6 W. B. Fisher, C. E. Bosworth. Available at: <http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/araxes-river> [accessed 01.11.2019]. Straipsniai / Articles 55 Volga – the First River of Europe raxsąm “harmˮ [Vištsp Yašt 2.127; translation of James Darmstetter8]. A similar semantic motivation was used e.g. for the Pacific Ocean. 1.3.1. Among hydronyms names which are motivated by colors are relatively frequent. A promising candidate could be Iranian *raxša- “dark-coloredˮ > Khotanese rrṣa “dark-coloredˮ, Sogdian rγš “bay horseˮ, Persian raxš “mixed red and white, between black and fuscˮ > Wakhi rakš “grey, brownˮ (Steblin-Kamenskij 1999: 292), Kurdic aš “black, darkˮ (Bailey 1979: 362; Cabolov 2010: 194). The open question is interpretation of the initial vowel. The easiest solution would be the negative *a-, i.e. *a-raxša- = “non-darkˮ. But it would be rather strange that any word denoting a light color was not directly used instead. On the other hand, at least the middle stream of the Volga has been called “black ˮ (see below). 1.3.2. Another possibility is the compound *ha-raxša- “all darkˮ, cf. Avestan ha- “togetherˮ, Khotanese ha “allˮ (ESIJ 3: 345–353; Bailey 1979: 438). 1.3.3. The third possibility is the compound *h-raxša- “dark mouthˮ, cf. Avestan h-, Khotanese ha- “mouthˮ (Bartholomae 1904: 345, 351, 357; Bailey 1979: 29–30; ESIJ 1: 303–304). The hypothetical meaning “dark mouthˮ would perhaps reflect the fact that in the delta of Volga there are oil deposits9. 1.3.4. In principle, it is also possible to admit that Herodotus combined two quasi-homonymous hydronyms, one with initial vowel, representing the ‘Armenian prothesis’ (Araks/Ars/Araz; in past Erask‘, but Old Georgian Raḵšī) and the second without it (*Raxsaor *Raxša-; perhaps Volga). The result was a levelling leading to the form *Araxšawith the analogous initial a-. 2. *As(a)tEl > Ἀστὴλ/Ἀσατήλ ~ Ἀττίλας ~ Ἄτελ ~ Tίλ ~ Ätil 2.0.1. Byzantine sources (in chronological order; see Moravcsik 1958: 78–79): Ἀττίλας ... river by Zemarchus, c. 570 (mediated by Menander Protector) Tίλ ... river by Theophylactus Simocatta, Historiae, written c. 630 about the end of the 6th cent. Ἄτελ ... river by Theophanes Homologetes (†818), Chronicle (AD 284–813; about c. 680) 7 Available at: <http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/iran/airan/avesta/avest.htm> [accessed 01.11.2019]. 8 Available at: <http://www.avesta.org/fragment/vytsbe.htm> [accessed 01.11.2019]. 9 Available at: <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/5650/volga-river-delta> [accessed 01.11.2019]. VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 56 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Ἀστὴλ ... river and fortress in Khazaria in Byzantine geographic notices from the 8th cent. Ἀσατήλ ... episcopate in Khazaria according to one Parisian manuscript (c. 800?) Ἀτὴλ ... river by Constantine Porphyrogenitus (first half of the 10th cent. about the 9th cent.) Ἀτελκούζου ... place, where Pechenegs lived in the time of Constantine (ibid.) Ἐτὲλ καὶ Κουζοῦ ... place formerly inhabited by Turks (= Hungarians), later by Pechenegs (ibid). 2.0.2. Armenian sources (Pritsak 1956: 407): Et‘il in Geography of Pseudo-Mowsēs Chorenac‘i in a copy of Anania Širakac‘i (c. AD 700). At‘l by Gregor of Akanc‘ (†1333). 2.0.3. Sources written in the Hebrew script (Gaster 1899: 67, § 34.14): Htl {התל} in Yosippon (c. AD 900). 2.0.4. Sources written in the Arabic script (Marquart 1929: 96; Pritsak 1954: 407–408): ʔitil by Ibn Rusta (c. 903) and al-Muqaddas (996) tl & ʔtl by Ibn Falān (922) ʔtl by al-Bal (†934) ʔitil by Iar (mid of the 10th cent.) and Idrs (1157) ʔtil by Ibn Ḥawqāl (977/8) Ätil by Mamūd Kašghar (c. 1070) and Marwaz (1120) ʔatal by Abū Ḥāmid al-Andalus al-Ġarnā (1080–1170) Itil by Yāqūt (†1229) tīl by uwain (†1283) ʕdīl in Šaarat al-atrk (c. 1457) ʕadl by al-Ifahān (c. 1509) ʕadal or ʕadil in Derbend-nāmeh etc. 2.0.5. Records of the European travellers from the 13th cent.: Frater Richard Ethyl; Rubruk Etilia, Ethilia, Edilia; Marco Polo Edilia; Benedictus Polonus Ethyl (Gombocz 1917: 183; Pritsak 1956: 409). 2.0.6. The hydronym is attested in the Turkic languages from the 11th cent. (Mamūd Kašghar) and in the Mongolic languages from the 13th cent. (Secret history of Mongols): Karakhanid Etil ‘river name, perhaps Volga’ [Mamūd Kašghar, 11th cent.; Legend about Oghuz-Qaghan from the 13th cent.] (DTS 187), Chaghatay Ätil, Ädil ‘Volga’, Ak-Ädil ‘Kama’, lit. ‘White Ädil’, Kazakh & Nogai Edil, Teleut Ädäl, Bashkir Idəl ‘Volga’, Kazan Tatar Izəl, Idəl ‘Volga’, Kara Idəl ‘Volga’ = Straipsniai / Articles 57 Volga – the First River of Europe ‘Black Idəl’ vs. Ak Idəl ‘Kama’10 = ‘White Idəl’, Chuvash ADl ‘Volga’, Šurə- ADl ‘Kama’, lit. ‘White ADl’ (Gombocz 1917: 183; Radlov I: 842, 857, 1509; Räsänen 1969: 52). Later occasionally in the appellative role: Chaghatay ädil “river, streamˮ, dim. ädil-ča & ädil-čik “rivuletˮ, Kazan Tatar idəl “big riverˮ (> Mansi eètl “water of seaˮ) vs. idəl-čäk “rivuletˮ (Pritsak 1956: 415). Middle Mongol Idil ‘Volga River’ [Secret History of Mongols, §§ 262, 270], Eǯil ‘city destroyed by the Mongols’ [Secret History of Mongols, § 274], Kalmyk Idžl (mörn) ‘Volga (river)’ (Ramstedt 1935: 205). The following etymologies or etymological comments have been (or could be) proposed: 2.1. Klaproth (1826) differentiated Ἀττίλας ‘Volga’ (p. 117) and Tίλ ‘Kama’ (p. 274), ascribing the meaning “blackˮ to the latter one (p. 268). Arising from his conception of a relation between the ancient Avars and modern Avars from Daghestan, he compared the hydronym with Andi dir, but the term “blackˮ should be b-ečedir in Andi, besides Karata b-ečeiro-b, Hunzib cədilu, Bezhta codolo etc. (Klimov & Xalilov 2003: 354; according to NCED 556 Andi -dir is a derivational suffix). Concerning the attribute “blackˮ, cf. Pritsak (1956: 411), referring to Theophylactus Simocatta´s Historiae [258.9]: (written c. 630 about the end of the 6th cent.), where ἔνθα ὁ Tίλ διαρρεῖ ποταμός, ὃν Mέλανα Toύρκοις ἀποκαλεῖν <ἔθος> “wo der Til-Fluss hindurch-fliesst, den die Türken ‘den Schwarzen’ <zu>nennen<pflegenˮ (see Haussig 1953: 283, 287), and further the frequent Turkic designation of the Volga as “blackˮ, Qara Idil or Qara Itil. Pritsak (1956: 411) interpreted it as “bigˮ, like the name Qara Mören for Huang Ho by Rašd ad-Dn (†1318). 2.2. Haussig (1953: 426) reconstructed the form Ἀστήλ as *As-Til = *‘river of Ἄσιοι’, where the form Tίλ was recorded by Theophylactus Simocatta (already Abel-Rémusat 1820, 320 identified in Tίλ the Volga River). But Haussig was not able to offer any witness that Tίλ represented the appellative meaning ‘river’ vel sim. not only in Turkic. 2.3. Pritsak (1956: 404–419; 1982: 444) analyzed both the personal and river name Ἀττίλας and the river name Ἀστήλ as a hypothetical Old Bulgarian compound, consisting of the components *as “great, oldˮ and *til “seaˮ, i.e. “oceanic = universal {ruler}ˮ (cf. the Mongol title Dalaj-in Qa’an, with its Turkic translation Talui-nuŋ Xanï – see Pelliot 1923: 24–25: ‘le khan océanique’; Pritsak 10 Alternatively, the Kama was called Čölmen-Idəl in Kazan Tatar, i.e. “the river of wastelandˮ, similarly Chuvash čolma and Old Bulgarian Čōlmn-Itil (Tomaschek 1889: 33) vs. Old Turkish čöl, Kazakh šöl etc. “steppe, wastelandˮ (Räsänen 1969: 117). VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 58 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI 1956: 417), with evidence in the following Turkic forms: Chuvash as-l “gross, vornehmˮ11, Chaghatay äs-li “great, strongˮ, Old Uyghur, Middle Turkic äski “oldˮ etc. (Räsänen 1969: 50), and Old Turkic talūy “seaˮ, Old Uyghur taluj “seaˮ or “lakeˮ, Sary-Uyghur talej, tali, taľi “lake, sea, oceanˮ etc. (Räsänen 1969: 130; Clauson 1972: 502). The term could be of Chinese origin, if it represented an adaptation of the Chinese river-name 大漯 dà(i)lěi12 < Late Middle Chinese *tɦa(j)ˋlyj´ < Early Middle Chinese *da’lwi’ or *dajhlwi’ (Hirth 1895: 18). But it is questionable that this Chinese borrowing could have been transformed into the component Tίλ already in the 6th cent. More probable is another idea of Pritsak that Tίλ corresponded to the Chuvash hydronym TilŹɛ (> Russian Teľča), where the last syllable reflected the Turkic diminutive suffix *-ča/*-če, Pritsak (1956: 410–412) identified the same root in the rather enigmatic river-name Qara Tīl from the basin of the Syr-Darya by Nizām ad-Dn (†1404), alternatively called Qara Tal by ‘Anonymous author of Iskander’ from 1414. Another Qara Tal emptied into Balkhash Lake according to udūd al-ʕlam. The real appellative use of the root *til-/*tïlwas found by Pritsak (1956: 413) only in Tungusic: Evenki tilkan “floodˮ, Even tïlqa, Ulchi čïlčan, Nanai čïlqã id., besides the verb in Evenki tilka-, Even tlqъn-, Ulcha člčan-, Nanai člqa- “to overflow, splatterˮ (Cincius 1977: 180–181). In EDAL it is compared with Turkic *d(i)(ɨ)- “to overflowˮ > Old Uyghur, Karakhanid taš-, Turkmen dš-, Kirghiz, Tatar tašɨ-, Yakut tahɨjetc., id., besides Oirat tašqɨn “floodˮ (Räsänen 1969: 466; Clauson 1972: 559; ESTJ 3: 169–170), and Mongolic *čilga- / *čalgi- “to overflowˮ > Written Mongolian čilga-, čalgi-, Khalkha calgi-, Ordos čalgi-, Buryat salgi-, šalšagana-, šald. The Chuvash hydronym Tiland its Central Asiatic counterparts Tīl / Tal can be connected with Turkic *d(i)(ɨ)- “to overflowˮ. In this case the hydronym Ἀστήλ is analyzable as the Old Bulgarian compound *as-tia “super-overflowingˮ or “{river bringing} big floodsˮ. Note: It is necessary to mention that Eugene Helimski (2000, 2004; plus Evgenij Xelimskij 2000, 2003) tried to present arguments about a Tungusic component in language(s) of the Avar Kaganat. It is natural to add the Tungusic candidate for the first component *asof the hydronym Ἀστήλ etc. It could be 11 Pritsak (1956: 414) tried to identify the component *äsin the Hunnic name Ἐσκάμ = *äs-kam “great priestˮ, and in the name of the Khazarian majordomus, called ʔstarḫn (Ṭabar), i.e. ‘great tarxan’, or rsarḫn (Yaʕqūb), with the first Arabic component raʔs “head; top; leaderˮ, i.e. *“over-tarxanˮ. He added, the same etymology could be ascribed to the city-name Astraxań, although it was known only from the 14th cent. 12 大 dà, dài “big, great, large, wide, deepˮ < Late Middle Chinese *tɦaˋ, *tɦajˋ < Early Middle Chinese *da’, *dajh & 漯 lěi ‘river name’ < Late Middle Chinese *lyj´ < Early Middle Chinese *lwi’ (Pulleyblank 1991: 69, 185). Straipsniai / Articles 59 Volga – the First River of Europe the Tungusic root *as- “very; manyˮ > Udihe asahi “veryˮ, Ulča asr id., Nanai asō, asor “not veryˮ, Manchu asi, asuru “very; many, much, frequentlyˮ (Cincius 1975: 54–55). The compound *as(V)til would mean *“{river bringing} very {big} floodsˮ, i.e. almost the same as the Old Bulgarian interpretation. 2.4. Axmetjanov (2001: 76) derived the forms of the type Karakhanid Etil from *ertil, perhaps via *ettil, and proposed the same origin as for the hydronym Irtyš; which should be derived according to him from the verb attested in Old Uyghur, Cumanic, Shor ert-, Khakas, Chuvash irt-, Yakut irdē- “to passˮ (Räsänen 1969: 46). 2.5. Taking in account the record Ἀστήλ, there is an alternative Turkic solution, based on the hypothetic compound *ast13-(h)l14 “lower dampnessˮ, which could be ascribed to the delta of the Volga River. 2.6. Alternatively, the form Ἀστήλ allows us to think about an early Hungarian compound, consisting of Old Hungarian (AD 1055) azaa, azah “Fluß, Bachˮ (UEW 3) ~ ‘fehe rea’, Modern Hungarian (dial.) aszó “Wasserriß, zeitweiliger Wasserlauf; Trockentalˮ (EWU I: 54), “Tal, Niederung; ein Tal, in dem in Regenperioden und zur Zeit der Frühjahrschneeschmelze ein kleiner Bach fließt, das aber sonst trocken istˮ (UEW 3); and Hungarian tele (first 1372), teli, dial. telle ‘voll, gefüllt’, tel- ‘voll werden, sich füllen’, teljes, arch. teles ‘ganz, vollständig, total, komplett; voll’, tölt- ‘(Flüssigkeit) schütten, gießen, (Getränke) einschenken; füllen, anfüllen’ (EWU II: 1497–1500; UEW 518: together with Mansi TJ täwl, P taγlə and Khanty Vj. O tel ‘voll’ are derivable from FU *tälkɜ or *täwδe). The hypothetic compound asz(a)tele could designate ‘valley full {of water}’ or ‘river full {of water}’. Note 1: Constantine Porphyrogenitus had also recorded the compound Ἀτελκούζου [§ 38.30], explained as places, in which the nation of Pechenegs lived in his time. Further it appeared in the syntagm Ἐτὲλ {ποταμὸς} καὶ15 13 Turkmen, Crimea-Tatar, Crimea-Karaim, Karakalpak, Uyghur ast, Uzbek åst, Kirghiz, Tatar as(t), Bashkir aş(t)/aθ(t) “belowˮ (Sevortjan 1974: 195–196); cf. Karakhanid (11th cent.) astïn “under, beneathˮ, (13th cent.) astïndakï “situated belowˮ, Chaghatay ast(ï) “beneathˮ, Cumanic astïnda “beneathˮ etc. (Clauson 1972: 242). 14 Proto-Turkic *(h)l > Old Turkic (Manichaean), Old Uyghur (Buddhist) (both 8th cent.) l “moistˮ (about land), Karakhanid öl [Mamūd Kašghari; Qutadɣu Bilig] “moist, wetˮ, Middle Turkic öl (Sanglax) id., (Pavet de Courteille) “marshˮ, Chaghatay (15th cent.) öl “moistˮ, also used for darya “seaˮ, Turkish öl “moist, wetˮ, Osman öl “poolˮ, Turkmen l, dial. hl “moist, wetˮ, Khalaj hēl, hēl, Kirghiz öl, Karakalpak höl, Uzbek hl id., Uyghur höl “damp, moistˮ, Khakassian öl “moist, wetˮ, Shor ǖl, Oyrat ül, Tuva, Tofalar öl, Yakut üöl “moist, wetˮ, Chuvash vilǝ id. (Räsänen 1969: 371; Clauson 1972: 124; Sevortjan 1974: 524–525). 15 Marquart (1903: 33, fn. 3) explained the conjunction as a mistake of a copist, who thought that Kουζού was an alternative name for Ἐτὲλ. VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 60 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Kουζού [§ 40.24], which was explained more explicitly as “the place in which the Turks (= Hungarians) used formerly to be is called after the name of the river that runs through it, Etel and Kouzou, and in it the Pechenegs live nowˮ (translated by Jenkins). Menges (1944–1945: 259) thought that this term designated either another river or it became an appellative. Following Zeuss (1837: 751), Markwart (1903: 33) speculated that the word Kουζού was an equivalent of Greek μεσοποταμία, identifying in Kουζού Hungarian köze (3 sg. possess. of köz “center, middleˮ), which was also used in Hungarian names of districts, e.g. Szamos-köz, Mura-köze, Rába-köze. Hungarian köz is derivable from Fenno-Ugric *kütɜ (UEW 163; EWU II, 827) ~ *küti “middleˮ (Sammallahti 1988: 544). Note 2: Müllenhoff (1906: 75) proposed that the hydronym Δάϊξ [Ptolemy 6.14.2,4,5], Δαΐχ [Zemarchus], Γεήχ [Constantine Porphyrogenitus 37.2], later Jajík, cf. Chuvash Jεjək, Kazakh Ǯajyk, from 1775 called the Ural River (Vasmer IV: 551–552), might be of Uralic origin, connecting it with Uralic *joke “riverˮ (UEW 99) ~ *jukå (Sammallahti 1988: 537), although usually the Turkic etymology has been assumed (cf. Menges 1944–1945: 260, who compared Turkish jaj-yk “expanded, openˮ, part. perf. pass. of jaj- “to expandˮ, Tuva čat-, Middle Turkic [MK] jaδ-, Old Uyghur jad-, but Altai ďajyq “floodˮ, Tuva čajyq “deluge, downpourˮ are semantically closer to the river-naming and cannot be derived from Common Turkic *jd-, but only from *jj-, continuing in Tuva čaj- “to swing, pumpˮ, Altai ďaj- “to overflow, inundate, spread (on a river) ˮ – see ESTJ 1989: 76–77). 3. JUL 3.0. Mari: KB Jl, B Jul, U Ju·l-ßüt Wolga (Wichmann 1953: 54, #264); East Jul (Paasonen 1948: 29). 3.1. Paasonen (1926: 38) connected the hydronym with Khanty of Konda iətpɜ “spring, sourceˮ, iətpo·ŋ “die Mündung eines aus einer Quelle fliessenden Bachesˮ, Yugan iəLpə “kleiner reissender Bach, Giessbachˮ. The final syllable was explained by Toivonen (1933: 382–383). 3.2. Markwart (1929: 96) speculated about adaptation of this Mari hydronym from its Chuvash equivalent ADl via *Ajəl. But such a development has no analogy in Chuvash loans in Mari. 3.3. Most probable seems to be the solution of Sinor (1964: 1–8), seeking origin of Mari Jul ‘Volga’ in Turkic *jul “stream, brook, fountainˮ > Old Uyghur yuul “mountain brook, springˮ, Karakhanid jūl, jul “brookˮ, Oirat, Salar jul, Straipsniai / Articles 67 Volga – the First River of Europe with its mouth in the south neighborhood of Warszawa (67 km long). These hydronyms are transparently derivable from Common Slavic *Vьlga “dampness, moistnessˮ (Vasmer I: 336–337). It is necessary to add the direct Baltic cognates, which can also etymologize the hydronym Volga, namely Latvian valgs m., valga f. “feuchtˮ, vilgt, ogstu, ogu “feucht werdenˮ (ME IV: 454, 587), Lithuanian vìlgti, vílgstu, vílgau “anfeuchtenˮ etc. (Pokorny 1959: 1145–1146: *uelg-). There are also alternative etymological attempts: 7.2. Tomaschek (1889: 32) and Rozwadowski (1913: 49; 1948: 227–230) tried to explain the hydronym from Fenno-Volgaic *walkeδa “whiteˮ21, but Vasmer (I: 336–337) rejected it as phonologically impossible. It is right concerning *walkeδa “whiteˮ and its continuants, but there are also other forms, which are not derived by the suffix *-δa, especially Mari wolγem “ich leuchte, glänze (Feuer, Wasser, Gold, Glas)ˮ. Its 3rd person sg. wolγa “it is lightˮ looks like a good candidate with regard to the fact, that the biggest tributary of the Volga, Kama, is called “whiteˮ, namely Chaghatay Ätil, Ädil ‘Volga’, Ak-Ädil ‘Kama’, lit. ‘White Ädil’, Kazan Tatar Izəl, Idəl ‘Volga; big river’, Kara Idəl ‘Volga’ = ‘Black Idəl’ vs. Ak Idəl ‘Kama’ = ‘White Idəl’, Chuvash ADl ‘Volga’, Šurə-ADl ‘Kama’, lit. ‘White ADl’ (Gombocz 1917: 183; Radloff I: 842, 857, 1509; Räsänen 1969: 52). Tomaschek (1889: 32) still mentioned the Lake Volgo (61 km2), the lowest of four natural lakes which the Volga flows through. 7.3. According to oral witness of Roman Jakobson, his former countryman Nikolaj Sergeevič Trubeckoj proposed a Baltic etymology of the hydronym Volga during his lectures in Vienna in the 1930´s. According to him the etymology of Volga was as follows: in primitive eastern Slavic, unrounded front vowels changed into rounded back vowels before a tauto-syllabic l, so that jilga must have changed to julga; the initial j was lost before rounded vowels in eastern Slavic, and the initial u acquired an obligatory prothetic v. Thus the form vulga arose, and short u changed in the 12th–13th centuries into o. So through a long series of changes Jilga became Volga. Cited according to Gimbutas 1963a: 69; 1963b: 33, 205. See also Toporov 1980: 40. Among the Baltic hydronyms there are really such names which are formed from the Baltic adj. “longˮ continuing in Lithuanian ìlgas, Latvian ilgs id., besides Prussian adv. ilga “for long timeˮ, 21 Fenno-Volgaic *walkeδa > Finnish valkea “weiß; leuchtend, hell; Feuer, leuchtende Flamme, Licht des Feuers; Blitzˮ, Ludic vaлged, Estonian valge “weiß, hell, blond; Weißes, Lichˮ, Livonian vlda (SKES: 1619–1621); Saami N viel‘gâd “white; light, paleˮ, Kildin vīlkeδ, Nö vielkeδ id.; Mordovian Erzya valdo, Moksha vald “hell, lichtˮ; Mari (J) walɣǝδǝ, (U B) wolɣǝδo “klar, hell; Helle, Klarheitˮ. Further cf. Mari wolγem “ich leuchte, glänze (Feuer, Wasser, Gold, Glas)ˮ; Hungarian világ “Licht; Welt; Leuteˮ, (arch.) “Menschheit, Lebenˮ, indicating Fenno-Ugric *walkɜ “white, light; to shineˮ (UEW: 554–555; Bereczky 2013: 315–316). Sammalahti (1988: 551) reconstructed Fenno-Ugric *wɨlki- “lightˮ, besides Fenno-Permic *velkita. VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 68 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI e.g. in Lithuania rivers Ìlga, Ìlgė, Ilgės, Ilgups etc., and lakes Ìlgai, Ilgis, Ilgs, Ìlgažeris, Ìlgežeris etc. (Vanagas 1981: 129); Latvian rivers Ìlga upe, Ilgupe, and lakes Ìldza-zrs, Ildzes-ezers etc.; Prussian lakes Ilgayn, Ilgen See, Ilgolwen etc. (Toporov 1980: 39). The longest ‘Long River’ is Chinese 長江 Cháng Jing, with length 6,379 km and basin 1,808,500 km2, called ‘Long’ from the period of Six Dynasties (220–589 CE). The present name 揚子 Yángzǐ originally was used for the lowest stream of the river22. 7.4. Still less probable is the attempt of Mikkola (1929: 127–128) to identify a source in Proto-Mari *Jylɣ23, really attested as West Mari Jǝl, East Mari Jul ‘Volga’ (see below). For an explanation of difference in the anlaut Mikkola (1929: 127) mentioned the Old Russian transcription Omov(ъ)ža, Omovyža of the Estonian river-name Emajgi. The existence of Old Russian *Vъlga should be demonstrated by the Udmurt folklore loan Bulga ‘Volga’ (Mikkola 1929: 128). Vasmer (I: 337) added that the hypothetic Proto-Mari *Jylɣ would have been borrowed from such Turkic languages as Baraba Tatar, Bashkir jylɣa “river, brookˮ, Kazakh, Nogai ǯylɣa “rivulet, riverˮ (Räsänen 1969: 200: borrowed from Mongol ǯylɣa “bed of river, brook, slopeˮ – see Ramstedt 1935: 109). 7.5. A quite new solution may be offered on the basis of Hungarian völgy “valley, vale, daleˮ (1211); (obsolete) “Mark, Kern eines Geschwürsˮ, cf. the Old Hungarian place-names: Furizuelgi (1211), Welg (1220), Sasweolgy (1256), Weulgzad (1338), Worrewlabvelgu (1342) etc. (EWU 1653). Related are ObUgric *wγəľ > PKhanty *wγɜľ > Khanty Trj. wɣǝл “ein Zufluß des Obˮ, O χaľ, Kaz. wχaл “Zufluss; Woguleˮ, wχaл-jχa ‘Вогулка (rivulet)’; PMansi *wľ > Mansi (LM) vuo “Flußkrümmungˮ, (KU KM P LO) wō, (So.) w “Flußstreckeˮ (Honti 1982: 193, #677); Komi (S) vo, vo-ju “ein kleiner Flußˮ, (Vō) ve ‘ein rechter Nebenfluß der oberen Vyčegda’; Nenets (Nj.) wäej in jaχaw wäej “längere gerade Strecke des Flusses zwischen zwei Krümmungen; плсоˮ < Uralic *waδkɜ “small river; river bend or portion of river between two bendsˮ (UEW: 550–551). 7.6. For completness Tocharian B walke (indeclinable) adj. “long (of time) ˮ, adv. “for a long timeˮ should be added as a hypothetical source too. The semantic motivation is the same as in Lithuanian Ìlga f. “longˮ (cf. § 7.3). The synchronic shape stands also very close to the form Volga. The traditional projection back to *ulH2go-, perhaps derived from the verb *uel- “to turnˮ (Adams 2013: 631–632), is also applicable to Volga. But the etymological analysis *ui-dlH1gho- (see Blažek 2015: 62), if correct, probably would exclude this solution. 22 Available at:<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze> [accessed 01.11.2019]. 23 The loss of ɣ after the fall of the final vowel is regular, cf. Mari KB jal “footˮ vs. Mordovian Moksha jalga “on footˮ, Finnish jalka “footˮ (Mikkola 1929: 127; UEW: 88–89). Straipsniai / Articles 69 Volga – the First River of Europe 8. SUMMARY hydronym Slavic Baltic Iranian Tocharian Mordovian Mari Hungarian Turkic Ἀράξης *araxsaharmless (cf. Tatar Kara Idəl Volga) *haraxšaall dark *hraxšadark mouth *As(a)tEl asz(V)tele valley full {of water} *astia with big floods *ast(h)l lower dampness Jul *jul stream Tatar jul road Λύκος *laukas treeless terrain luk bend Rav(o) *rah- dampness > Avestan Raŋh- rava river <*rava / *raγa / *raŋa VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 70 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI hydronym Slavic Baltic Iranian Tocharian Mordovian Mari Hungarian Turkic Ὄαρος Avestan vairisea, sea bay Pahlavi var lake B war water B -wär stream *uarubroad Volga *vьlga dampness Latvian valga f. wet B walke long wolγa is light völgy valley Bashkir jylɣa river ìlga long f. Straipsniai / Articles 71 Volga – the First River of Europe 9. CONCLUSION 9.1. The preceding table (§ 8) summarizes all more or less probable solutions, although they are often mutually exclusive. Evaluating their semantic motivations, they can be divided into two sets. The first group consists of the fully ‘hydronymical’ names motivated by meanings connected with “waterˮ, namely “waterˮ itself, further “riverˮ, “(river-)valleyˮ, “streamˮ, “floodˮ, “dampnessˮ, “lakeˮ, “seaˮ. The second group includes the terms characterizing the river stream or shores, here namely “broadˮ, “longˮ, “bentˮ, “treelessˮ, “harmlessˮ, “white/lightˮ, “black/darkˮ. It is apparent that the first semantic group is directly connected with water and should be preferred. In the case of several etymological candidates the semantic motivation, which is repeated in different designations, seems more promising than isolated explanations. So, Old Russian Volga < Common Slavic *vьlga “dampnessˮ corresponds to Iranian, perhaps Scythian, *rah-, whose meaning “moisture, dampness, humidityˮ is reconstructed according to Vedic [RV] ras-, which is the feminine to the masculine rása- “the sap or juice of plants, juice of fruit, any liquid or fluid, moisture, humidity, essence, marrowˮ. The third counterpart could be identified in the hypothetical Turkic compound *ast-(h)l “lower dampnessˮ. It would be possible to imagine that it described the Volga delta. It is tempting to conclude that the Slavic and maybe Turkic hydronyms represent calques on their Iranian predecessor. 9.2. Chronologically first seem to be the mythical river-names Ras, known already from the Rgveda composed probably between 1500–1100 BCE, and its Young Avestan counterpart Raŋh, from the beginning of the 1st mill. BCE. Mordovian Rav or Ravo can reflect both *raŋa and *raγa. The first case preserves the specific Avestan-like development of the sequence *h, the latter case probably represents the form *Rah, reconstructible for several Old and Early Middle Iranian dialects, namely Scythian, Sarmatian and Sakan with regard to their geographic distribution. Ptolemy´s Ῥᾶ and Pseudo-Agathemeros´ Ῥᾶς are still close to *Rah in the 2nd and 3rd cent. CE respectively. In the mid of the 5th cent. BCE Herodotus recorded three various river-names, which may perhaps belong to the Volga: Ὄαρος, Ἀράξης, Λύκος. The Ὄαρος is etymologizable on the basis of Young Avestan vairi- “sea, sea bayˮ and Pahlavi var “lakeˮ. This solution indicates a river emptying into a big water reservoir. In competition with the no less attractive Tocharian etymology (B war “waterˮ, -wär “streamˮ), the Iranian origin should be preferred with regard to the Ptolemy´s hydronym Οὐαρδάνης, probably designating the Kuban River emptying into the Azov Sea/Maeotis, which is analyzable explicitly as *uar(V)-dnu- “river emptying in a sea/lakeˮ, where the second component is Iranian *dnu- “riverˮ > Young Avestan dnu- “river, streamˮ, Ossetic don “river, waterˮ, without any known VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 72 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Tocharian counterpart. The river Ἀράξης was described by Herodotus as a stream divided into 40 arms before its mouth into the Caspian Sea. This description is applicable only to a really big delta. If the delta of the Volga was meant, at least three Iranian interpretations are thinkable, namely *a-raxsa- “harmlessˮ with respect to its quiet stream or *ha-raxša- “all darkˮ, with variant *h-raxša- “dark mouthˮ with regard to the black mud in the delta (cf. also Kazan Tatar Kara Idəl). The third Herodotus´ hydronym, probably belonging to the Volga, Λύκος, looks like a Greek transcription of Proto-Mari *luk “bendˮ, which can designate the bend of the Volga from the east to the south by the mouth of the biggest tributary, the Kama River. This solution seems more convincing than the alternative Baltic designation *laukas “treeless terrainˮ, which would have designated the wasteland around the Kama River, described by Herodotus. Although such an interpretation is quite legitimate, it is not generally typical for semantic motivations of hydronyms. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE Ptolemy and Pseudo-Agathemeros recorded the Volga-names Ῥᾶ and Ῥᾶς respectively, which represent continuations of Iranian *Rah, discussed above. From the 6th cent. CE the new name of the Volga is known, which is reconstructible as *As(a)tEl. There are at least three alternative etymologies. Old Bulgarian *as-tia “with big floodsˮ can be supported by the fact that e.g. the Astraxań and Volgograd regions are more or less regularly flooded once every 5 years24. A weakness of this solution consists in the fact that there is no appellative continuant in Chuvash, only the hydronym TilŹɛ (see § 2.3). The hypothetical compound *ast-(h)l “lower dampnessˮ should probably be ascribed directly to some mainstream Turkic dialect, since none of components continue in Chuvash. The third etymological attempt presents the hydronym as a predecessor of the hypothetical Hungarian compound asz(V)-tele “river valley full {of water}ˮ. It should not be any surprise to take into account the possibility of a Hungarian etymology as well. The trajectory of migration of ancestors of the Hungarians very probably followed the stream of the Kama and further the Volga from their confluence to the basin of the Don, which brought them to the Pontus and along its shores further to the Danube basin (cf. Blažek 2013: 181). The etymology implies the presence of ancestors of the Hungarians in the basin of the lower Volga before c. 570 CE, when Zemarchus crossed the river and recorded its name as Ἀττίλας. This interpretation may be reinforced by one of alternative etymologies for the hydronym Volga proper, namely Hungarian völgy “valleyˮ. The Vоlga itself was first mentioned in the Russian Primary Chronicle dated AD 964. Its Slavic protoform *vьlga “dampnessˮ seems safe; corresponding hydronyms are known from basins of the Dnieper and Vistula. But Volga may be an 24 Available at: <https://www.climatechangepost.com/russia/river-floods/> [accessed 01.11.2019]. Straipsniai / Articles 73 Volga – the First River of Europe East Slavic adaptation of the Baltic name of the type Latvian valga f. “wetˮ too. The close semantic motivation is proposed for the Vedic mythical river Ras, and its Avestan counterpart Raŋh, which have been connected with the Iranian / Indo-Iranian homeland and identified with the Volga. The hypothetical Turkic compound *ast-(h)l “lower dampnessˮ would express the same characteristics. But there are several alternative etymologies based on languages spoken along the Volga earlier than the time the first Slavs reached the river (perhaps c. 600 CE with regard to the glottochronological dating the disintegration of Common Slavic to the 6th cent.), namely Baltic (Latvian valga f. “wetˮ; less probable is Lithuanian ìlga f. “longˮ with respect to the difficult explanation of Slavic v-); Mari wolγa “is lightˮ; Hungarian völgy “valleyˮ; Tocharian walke “longˮ. Bashkir jylɣa “riverˮ can be directly excluded as a late Mongolic loan. Although the Mari, Hungarian and Tocharian interpretations are not compatible, they could have been applied to the same river in various times. It is possible to imagine that an older designation was replaced by a new one on the principle of quasi-homonymy, independently of semantic difference. An illustrative example may be found e.g. in the Old Russian hydronym Erelь, translated in the Russian Primary Chronicle as Уголъ “angleˮ, in agreement with its Turkic etymology (Osman äjri “schief, krummˮ, äjrilä “sich biegenˮ), but by today it has been modified to Oreľ, i.e. “eagleˮ (see § 4.3). From the last three alternatives the Tocharian one had separated as first. According to the glottochronological analyses separation of the Tocharian branch from the Indo-European mainstream (the Anatolian branch was already separated in the 5th mill. BCE) is dated to 3,810 BCE and 3,900 BCE by Sergej Starostin and Georgij Starostin respectively (see Blažek & Schwarz 2017: 203–204), while disintegration of the Fenno-Ugric protolanguage is dated only to 2,350 BCE by Blažek (2012: 34; 2016b: 89), to 2,180 BCE by S. Starostin (see Blažek 2012: 32), and to 2,160 BCE by G. Starostin (2015: 569); on average 2,230 BCE. The separation of the Mari and Permic branches is dated to 1,370 BCE by S. Starostin and to 1,200 BCE by Blažek (see Blažek 2012: 32, 34; 2016: 89) and the separation of Hungarian from Ob-Ugric is dated to 1,340 BCE by S. Starostin and to 1,480 BCE by Blažek (see Blažek 2012: 32, 34). This means that the Tocharian branch was separated c. 1,5 millennium before disintegration of the Fenno-Ugric unity and c. 2,5 millennia before separations of the Mari and Hungarian. The Tocharians were the easternmost Indo-European branch in the 1st mill. CE. They probably occupied the easternmost position in the Indo-European homeland too. If the North Pontic localization of the Indo-European homeland, at least after separation of the Anatolian branch, is accepted, the Volga could represent the eastern borderline of the Indo-European dialect continuum, first crossed just by the ancestors of the Tocharians, perhaps in the first half of the 4th mill. VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 74 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI BCE. In such a case, it would seem natural that the designation of such a mighty river, important for orientation, transfer and fishing, was kept for a long time, and when new populations inhabited its shores, they preferred to use quasi-homonymous names, although their meanings were reinterpreted. Besides the longest chain represented by Tocharian B walke “longˮ25 → Hungarian völgy “river valleyˮ → Mari wolγa “is whiteˮ → Latvian valga “wetˮ → Old Russian Volga *“dampnessˮ, there is also the series consisting of Tocharian B war “waterˮ, -wär “streamˮ → Avestan vairi- “sea, sea bayˮ, Pahlavi var “lakeˮ → Chuvash var “valley, flume, ravine, gorge; inside, center, middle, bellyˮ, or Young Avestan Raŋh or ‘Scythian’ *Rah → Mordovian Erzya Rav, Ravo ‘Volga’, Moksha rava “riverˮ, Rav ‘Volga’. This hypothesis implies a continuity of populations in spite of periods of massive migrations, probably in the form of relic settlements along important rivers mediating the original hydronyms. Thanks to this mechanism, names of many important rivers were preserved, although languages on their banks changed. Naturally, besides old names also new ones are introduced. In the case of the Volga the youngest example of this type is probably Mari Jul, adopted from some Turkic source of the type Old Uyghur yuul “mountain brook, springˮ. 10. APPENDIX: TEXT FRAGMENTS The Russian Primary Chronicle Laurentian redaction [6472 (964)] Кнѧзю Ст҃ославу възрастъшю . и възмужавшю . нача вои совкуплѧти . многи и храбръı и легъко ходѧ . аки пардусъ . воинъı многи творѧше ходѧ. возъ по собѣ не возѧше . ни котьла ни мѧсъ варѧ . но потонку изрѣзавъ . конину ли . звѣрину ли . или говѧдину . на оуглех испекъ ӕдѧху. ни шатра имѧше . но подъкладъ пославъ. и сѣдло в головахъ . такоже и прочии вои єго вси бѧх. [и] посъıлаше къ странамъ гл҃ѧ . хочю на въı ити . и иде на Ѡку рѣку и на Волгу . и налѣзе Вѧтичи . и реч Вѧтичемъ . кому дань даєте . ѡни же рѣша Козаромъ по щьлѧгу . и ѿ рала даємъ. Available at: <http://litopys.org.ua/lavrlet/lavr03.htm> [accessed 01.11.2019]. 25 If Tocharian B walke was really derived from *ui-dlH1gho-, it should be abandoned from candidates for protoform of the Volga. In this case the oldest member of this chain copying the stream of the Volga would be Mari. The chain should look as follows: Hungarian völgy ← Mari wolγa → Latvian valga → Old Russian Volga. Straipsniai / Articles 75 Volga – the First River of Europe Hypatian redaction [6472 (964)] Кнѧзю Ст҃ославу възрастьшю . и възмужавшю . нача воӕ съвокуплѧти . многы и храбры . бѣ бо и самъ хоробръ и легокъ . ходѧ акы пардусъ . воины многы творѧше . возъ бо по себѣ не возѧше . ни котла ни мѧсъ варѧ . но по тонку изрѣзавъ . конину . или звѣрину . или говѧдину на оугълехъ испекь ӕдѧшє . ни шатра имѧше . но подъкладъ постилаше . а сѣдло въ головах . тако же и прочии вои єг вси бѧху . и посылашє къ странам . гл҃ѧ хочю на вы ити . и иде на Ѡку рѣку . и на Волгу . и налѣзе Вѧтичи . и реч имъ кому дань даєте . ѡни же ркоша Козаром . по щелѧгу ѿ рала даєм Available at: <http://litopys.org.ua/ipatlet/ipat03.htm> [accessed 01.11.2019]. English translation of the Laurentian redaction 6472 (964). “When Prince Svyatoslav had grown up and matured, he began to collect a numerous and valiant army. Stepping light as a leopard, he undertook many campaigns. Upon his expeditions he carried with him neither wagons nor kettles, and boiled no meat, but cut off small strips of horseflesh, game, or beef, and ate it after roasting it on the coals. Nor did he have a tent, but he spread out a horse-blanket under him, and set his saddle under his head; (65) and all his retinue did likewise. He sent messengers to the other lands announcing his intention to attack them. He went to the Oka and the Volga, and on coming in contact with the Vyatichians, he inquired of them to whom they paid tribute. They made answer that they paid a silver-piece per ploughshare to the Khazars.ˮ The Russian Primary Chronicle: Laurentian Text, Translated and edited by Samuel Hazzard Cross & Olgerd P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Medieval Academy of America, No. 60, 1953. Available at:<http://www.mgh-bibliothek.de/dokumente/a/a011458.pdf> [accessed 01.11.2019]. Witness of Greek authors Herodotus 1.201–202: 201. ὡς δὲ τῷ Κύρῳ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἔθνος κατέργαστο, ἐπεθύμησε Μασσαγέτας ὑπ᾽ ἑωυτῷ ποιήσασθαι. τὸ δὲ ἔθνος τοῦτο καὶ μέγα λέγεται εἶναι καὶ ἄλκιμον, οἰκημένον δὲ πρὸς ἠῶ τε καὶ ἡλίου ἀνατολάς, πέρην τοῦ Ἀράξεω ποταμοῦ, ἀντίον δὲ Ἰσσηδόνων ἀνδρῶν. εἰσὶ δὲ οἵτινες καὶ Σκυθικὸν λέγουσι τοῦτο τὸ ἔθνος εἶναι. Available at: <http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0016.tlg001. perseus-grc1:1.201.1> “When Cyrus had conquered this nation, too, he wanted to subject the Massagetae. These are said to be a great and powerful people dwelling towards the VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 76 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI east and the sunrise, beyond the Araxes and opposite the Issedones; and some say that they are a Scythian people.ˮ Available at: <http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0016.tlg001. perseus-eng1:1.201.1> 202. ὁ δὲ Ἀράξης λέγεται καὶ μέζων καὶ ἐλάσσων εἶναι τοῦ Ἴστρου: νήσους δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ Λέσβῳ μεγάθεα παραπλησίας συχνάς φασι εἶναι, ἐν δὲ αὐτῇσι ἀνθρώπους οἳ σιτέονται μὲν ῥίζας τὸ θέρος ὀρύσσοντες παντοίας: καρποὺς δὲ ἀπὸ δενδρέων ἐξευρημένους σφι ἐς φορβὴν κατατίθεσθαι ὡραίους, καὶ τούτους σιτέεσθαι τὴν χειμερινήν. ὁ δὲ Ἀράξης λέγεται καὶ μέζων καὶ ἐλάσσων εἶναι τοῦ Ἴστρου: νήσους δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ Λέσβῳ μεγάθεα παραπλησίας συχνάς φασι εἶναι, ἐν δὲ αὐτῇσι ἀνθρώπους οἳ σιτέονται μὲν ῥίζας τὸ θέρος ὀρύσσοντες παντοίας: καρποὺς δὲ ἀπὸ δενδρέων ἐξευρημένους σφι ἐς φορβὴν κατατίθεσθαι ὡραίους, καὶ τούτους σιτέεσθαι τὴν χειμερινήν. ἄλλα δέ σφι ἐξευρῆσθαι δένδρεα καρποὺς τοιούσδε τινὰς φέροντα, τοὺς ἐπείτε ἂν ἐς τὠυτὸ συνέλθωσι κατὰ εἴλας καὶ πῦρ ἀνακαύσωνται κύκλῳ περιιζομένους ἐπιβάλλειν ἐπὶ τὸ πῦρ, ὀσφραινομένους δὲ καταγιζομένου τοῦ καρποῦ τοῦ ἐπιβαλλομένου μεθύσκεσθαι τῇ ὀσμῇ κατά περ Ἕλληνας τῷ οἴνῳ πλεῦνος δὲ ἐπιβαλλομένου τοῦ καρποῦ μᾶλλον μεθύσκεσθαι, ἐς ὃ ἐς ὄρχησίν τε ἀνίστασθαι καὶ ἐς ἀοιδὴν ἀπικνέεσθαι. τούτων μὲν αὕτη λέγεται δίαιτᾳ εἶναι. ὁ δὲ Ἀράξης ποταμὸς ῥέει μὲν ἐκ Ματιηνῶν, ὅθεν περ ὁ Γύνδης τὸν ἐς τὰς διώρυχας τὰς ἑξήκοντά τε καὶ τριηκοσίας διέλαβε ὁ Κῦρος, στόμασι δὲ ἐξερεύγεται τεσσεράκοντα, τῶν τὰ πάντα πλὴν ἑνὸς ἐς ἕλεά τε καὶ τενάγεα ἐκδιδοῖ: ἐν τοῖσι ἀνθρώπους κατοικῆσθαι λέγουσι ἰχθῦς ὠμοὺς σιτεομένους, ἐσθῆτι δὲ νομίζοντας χρᾶσθαι φωκέων δέρμασι. τὸ δὲ ἓν τῶν στομάτων τοῦ Ἀράξεω ῥέει διὰ καθαροῦ ἐς τὴν Κασπίην θάλασσαν. Available at: <http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0016.tlg001.perseus-grc1:1.202> [accessed 01.11.2019]. The Araxes is said by some to be greater and by some to be less than the Ister. It is reported that there are many islands in it as big as Lesbos, and men on them who in summer live on roots of all kinds that they dig up, and in winter on fruit that they have got from trees when it was ripe and stored for food; and they know (it is said) of trees bearing a fruit whose effect is this: gathering in groups and kindling a fire, the people sit around it and throw the fruit into the flames; then the fumes of it as it burns make them drunk as the Greeks are with wine, and more and more drunk as more fruit is thrown on the fire, until at last they rise up to dance and even sing. Such is said to be their way of life. The Araxes flows from the country of the Matieni (as does the Gyndes, which Cyrus divided into the three hundred and sixty channels) and empties itself through forty Straipsniai / Articles 83 Volga – the First River of Europe Ja: “Those with which you swelled the Rasā (River) with a gush of water, with which you helped the horseless chariot to victory, with which Triśoka drove up ruddy cows for himself – with those forms of help come here, o Aśvins.ˮ Gr: “Wherewith ye made Rasā swell full with water-floods, and urged to victory the car without a horse; Wherewith Triśoka drove forth his recovered cows,—Come hither unto us, O Aśvins, with those aids.ˮ Ge: “Durch die ihr die Rasa mit Wassers Flut angeschwellt habt, mit denen ihr den Wagen ohne Roß zum Sieg verhalft, durch die Trisoka die Kühe heraustrieb, mit diesen Hilfen kommt doch ja her, ihr Asvin!ˮ IV.43.6. síndʰu ha vm rasáyā siñcat áśvn gʰr ! váya aruṣsa pári gman tát ū sú vm ajirám ceti ynam yéna pátī bʰávatʰa sūryy Ja: “The Sindhu River sprinkles your horses with the Rasā; your ruddy birds avoid the glowing heat. Your speedy vehicle has just appeared, with which you two become the masters [/husbands] of Sūryā.ˮ Gr: “Let Sindhu with his wave bedew your horses: in fiery glow have the red birds come hither. Observed of all was that your rapid going, whereby ye were the Lords of Sūrya’s Daughter.ˮ Ge: “Sindhu mit der Rasa benetzte eure Pferde; die rötlichen Vogelrosse entgingen den Gluten. Diese eure schnelle Fahrt machte fein Aufsehen, durch die ihr die Gatten der Surya werdet.ˮ V.41.15 padé-pade me jarim ní dʰyi várūtrī v śakr y pyúbʰi ca síṣaktu mātā mahī rasā na smát sūríbʰi rjuhást rjuváni Ja: “Step after step old age has been secured for me, either (by her) who is the able Shielding Goddess or by the protectors. Let the mother, the great Rasā, accompany us along with our patrons, she with hands outstretched, with winnings outstretched.ˮ Gr: “Duly to each one hath my laud been offered. Strong be Varūtr with her powers to succour. May the great Mother Rasā here befriend us, straight-handed, with the princes, striving forward.ˮ Ge: “Auf Schritt und Tritt sei mir das Alter sichergestellt, sei es durch die mächtige Varutri und durch die Schutzgeister. Es sollen uns samt den Lohnherren die große Mutter Rasa zur Seite stehen, die eine redliche Hand hat, die redlichen Gewinn bringt.ˮ VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 84 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI V.53.9. m va rasā ánitabʰ kúbʰ krúmu m va síndʰu ní rīramat m va pári stʰt saráyu purīṣíī asmé ít sumnám astu va Ja: “Let not the Rasā {River}, the Anitabhā, the Kubhā, the Krumu, let not the Sindhu bring you to a halt. Let not the overflowing Sarayu hem you around. On us alone let your favour be.ˮ Gr: “So let not Rasā, Krumu, or Anitabha, Kubha, or Sindhu hold you back. Let not the watery Sarayti obstruct your way. With us be all the bliss ye give.ˮ Ge: “Nicht soll euch die Rasa, Anitabha, Kubha, Krumu, nicht euch die Sindhu aufhalten, noch euch die quellenreiche Sarayu im Wege stehen. Bei uns soll eure Huld sein.ˮ VIII.72.13.  suté siñcata śríyam ródasyo abʰiśríyam rasā dadʰīta vrṣabʰám Ja: “Into the pressed soma pour glory {= milk}, the full glory of the two world-halves. The Rasā (River {= water} should receive the bull.ˮ Ge: “Gießet die Herrlichkeit in den ausgepreßten Saft, die beiden Welten überstrahlt! Den Bullen soll die Rasa annehmen!ˮ IX.41.6. pári a śarmayánty dʰray soma viśváta | sára rasā iva viṣápam Ja: “O Soma, flow for us in, protecting stream all around on all sides, like {the heavenly river} Rasā, along the upper surface {of the filter}.ˮ Gr: “On every side, O Soma, flow round us with thy protecting stream, As Rasā flows around the world.ˮ Ge: “Fließe für uns in schützendem Strome, o Soma, ringsum wie die Rasa um die Erderhöhung!ˮ X.75.6 trṣmay pratʰamám ytave sajū susártv rasáyā śvety ty tvám sindʰo kúbʰay gomatīm krúmum mehatnv sarátʰam ybʰi īyase Ja: “To travel first joined with the Trāmā, {then} with the Susartū, the Rasā, and this Śvetyā, you, o Sindhu, {come} with the Kubhā to the Gomat, with the Mehatnū to the Krumu, on the same chariot {with all these}, with which you go speeding.ˮ Straipsniai / Articles 85 Volga – the First River of Europe Gr: “First with Trāma thou art eager to flow forth, with Rasā, and Susartū, and with Śvetyā here, With Kubhā; and with these, Sindhu and Mehatnū, thou seekest in thy course Krumu and Gomat.ˮ Ge: “Zuerst mit der Tristama zum Laufe vereint, mit Susartu, Rasa, mit dieser Svetya kommst du, Sindhu, mit der Kubha zur Gomati, mit der Mehatnu zur Krumu, mit denen du auf gleichem Wagen dahineilst.ˮ X.108.1–2 kím icʰántī sarám prá idám na dūré hí ádʰv jáguri parcaí k asméhiti k páritakmy sīt katʰám rasy atara páyṃsi índrasya dūtī iṣit carmi mahá icʰántī paaya nidʰīn va atiṣkáda bʰiyás tát na vat tátʰ rasy ataram páyṃsi Ja: [Paṇi] “Seeking what has Saramā arrived here, for far is the road, swallowing up (the traveler) in the distance? What is your mission to us? What was the final turn (bringing you here)? How did you cross the waters of the Rasā?ˮ [Saramā] “Sent as the messenger of Indra I travel, seeking your great hidden treasuries, Paṇis. With a fear of leaping across – that helped us! – in that way I crossed the waters of the Rasā.ˮ Gr: “What wish of Saramā hath brought her hither? The path leads far away to distant places. What charge hast thou for us? Where turns thy journey? How hast thou made thy way o’er Rasā’s waters.ˮ “I come appointed messenger of Indra, seeking your ample stores of wealth, O Paṇis. This hath preserved me from the fear of crossing: thus have I made my way o’er Rasā’s waters.ˮ Ge: “Mit welchem Ansuchen ist Sarama hierher gekommen? Der Weg so weit in die Ferne ist ja aufreibend. Was bedeutet die Sendung zu uns? Welches war der entscheidende Wendepunkt? Wie kamst du über die Fluten der Rasa?ˮ “Als Indra´s Botin komme ich abgesandt, eure großen Schätze suchend, ihr Pani´s. Aus Furcht vor dem Überspringen half sie uns dabei. So kam ich durch die Fluten der Rasa.ˮ X.121.4. yásya imé himávanta mahitv yásya samudrám rasáyā sahá hú yásya im pradíśa yásya bhū kásmai devya havíṣ vidʰema Ja: “Whose are these snow-covered mountains (= the Himalayas) in their greatness; whose is the sea together with the world-stream, they say; whose are these directions, whose (their) two arms (= the zenith and nadir?) – Who is the god to whom we should do homage with our oblation?ˮ VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 86 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Gr: “His, through his might, are these snow-covered mountains, and men call sea and Rasā his possession: His arms are these, his are these heavenly regions. What God shall we adore with our oblation?ˮ Ge: “Durch dessen Macht jene Schneeberge sind, durch dessen Macht, wie sie sagen, der Ozean samt der Rasa ist, durch dessen Macht diese Himmelsgegenden dessen beide Arme sie sind. - Wer ist der Gott, dem wir mit Opfer dienen sollen?ˮ Available at: <http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/ind/aind/ved/rv/mt/ rv.htm> Translations: Ja = Jamison & Brereton 2013; Gr = Grifith 1889[1987]; Ge = Geldner 1951. Note: The abbreviations without special explanations, namely the parts of Avesta or dialects of the Uralic languages, follow standardly the abbreviations used in the quoted sources. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aalto Pentti 1976[79]: Kara-kala, le poisson. – Études Finno-Ougriennes 13, 29–38. Abaev Vasilij I. 1949: Osetinskij jazyk i foľklor I. Moskva–Leningrad: Izdateľstvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Abaev Vasilij I. 1958–1973–1978–1989–1995: Istoriko-ėtimologičeskij slovaŕ ossetinskogo jazyka I–V. (Moskva)–Leningrad: Izdateľstvo Akademii nauk SSSR. Abel-Rémusat M. 1820: Recherchers sur les langues tartares, ou Mémoires sur différens points de la grammaire et de la littérature des Mandchos, des Mongols, des Ouigours et des Tibétains. Paris: Imprimérie Royale. Adams Douglas Q. 2013: A Dictionary of Tocharian B (Revised and Greatly Enlarged) 1–2. Amsterdam–New York: Rodopi. Aufrecht Theodor 1955: Die Hymnen des Rigveda. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Axmetjanov R. G. (Әхмəтьянов Р. Г.) 2001: Татар теленең кыскача тарихиэтимологик сүзлеге. Казан: Тат. кит. Нəшр Bailey Harold W. 1979: Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge: University Press. Bartholomae Christian 1890: Review of Schrader 1890. – Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie 7, 1105–1110. Straipsniai / Articles 87 Volga – the First River of Europe Bartholomae Christian 1904: Altiranisches Wörterbuch. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bereczki Gábor 1992: Grundzüge der Tscheremissischen Sprachgeschichte II. Szeged: Studia uralo-altaica, 34. Bereczki Gábor 2013: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Tscheremissischen (Mari). Der einheimische Wortschatz, Nach dem Tode des Verfassers herausgegeben von Klára Agyagási und Eberhard Winkler. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Blažek Václav 2012: Was there a Volgaic unity within Finno-Ugric? – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 61, 29–91. Blažek Václav 2013: Northern Europe and Russia: Uralic migrations. – The Encyclopedia of Global Human Migration I, ed. by Immanuel Ness & Peter Bellwood. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 178–183. Blažek Václav 2015: A Long Way to “Far”: Tocharian A lo, B lau and A lok, B lauke adv. “(a)far (off); away” in perspective of the Indo-European etymon “long”. – Journal of Indo-European Studies 43(1–2), 57–80. Blažek Václav 2016a: Hydronymia Rgvedica. – Linguistica Brunensia 64(2), 7–54. Blažek Václav 2016b: On the classification of the Samoyedic languages. – Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 63, 79–125. Blažek Václav & Schwarz Michal 2017: Early Indo-Europeans in Central Asia and China. Cultural relations as reflected in language. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Neue Folge, Band 13. Böhtling Otto 1851: Die Sprache der Jakuten, Theil 2: Jakutisch-deutsches Wörterbuch. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bongard-Levin G. M. & Grantovskij E. A. 1983: Ot Skifii do Indii. Moskva: Mysľ. Cabolov Ruslan L. 2001–2010: Ėtimologičeskij slovaŕ kurdskogo jazyka I–II. Moskva: Vostočnaja literatura. Cincius Vera I. (ed.) 1975–1977: Sravniteľnyj slovaŕ tunguso-mańčžurskix jazykov I–II. Leningrad: Nauka. Clauson sir Gerard 1972: An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Collinder Björn 1960: Comparative Grammar of the Uralic Languages. Stockholm: Almkvist & Wiksell. Constantine Porphyrogenitus 1967: De administrando imperio, ed. by Gyula Moravcsik, translated by R. J. H. Jenkins. Dumbarton: Center for Byzantine Studies. VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 88 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Cf. Available at: <https://epdf.pub/de-administrando-imperio.html> [accessed 01.11.2019]. Eilers Wilhelm & Mayrhofer Mannfred 1960: Namenkundliche Zeugnisse der indischen Wanderung? Eine Nachprüfung. – Sprache 6, 107–134. ERS – Érzjansko-russkij slovaŕ, ed. by M. N. Koljadenkov & N. F. Cyganov. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe izdateľstvo inostrannyx i nacionaľnyx slovarej, 1949. ESIJ – Ėtimologičeskij slovaŕ iranskix jazykov I–IV, by V. S. Rastorgueva (I–III) & Dž. I. Ėdeľman (I–IV). Moskva: Vostočnaja literatura, 2000–2011. ESTJ – Ėtimologičeskij slovaŕ tjurkskix jazykov 1 (glasnye), 2 (B), 3 (V, G, D) by Ė. V. Sevortjan. Moskva: Nauka, 1974, 1978, 1980; 4 (Ǯ, Ž, J) by Ė. V. Sevortjan & L. S. Levitskaja. Moskva: Nauka, 1989; 5 (K, Q). Moskva: Jazyki russkoj kuľtury, 1997 & 6 (K) by L. S. Levitskaja, A. V. Dybo, V. I. Rassadin. Moskva: Indrik, 2000; 7 (L, M, N, P, S) by L. S. Levitskaja, G. F. Blagova, A. V. Dybo, D. M. Nasilov. Moskva: Institut jazykoznanija RAN, 2003. EWAI – Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen I–III, by Mannfred Mayrhofer. Heidelberg: Winter, 1986f. EWU – Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen I–II, ed. by Loránd Benk. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1994. Gaster M. 1899: The Chronicles of Jerameel, or the Hebrew Bible Historiale. London: Royal Asiatic Society. Geldner Karl Friedrich 1951: Der Rig-Veda aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche übersetzt (3 vols.). London and Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Available at: <http://www.sanskritweb.net/rigveda/rigveda.pdf> [accessed 01.11.2019]. Gimbutas Marija 1963a: Ancient Baltic Lands. – International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics 6, 65–102. Gimbutas Marija 1963b: The Balts. London: Hudson & Thames. Gombocz Zoltán 1917: A magyar shaza és a nemzeti hagyomány. – Nyelvtudományi Közlemények 45, 129–194. Griffith Ralph T. H. 1884[2002]: Hymns of the Atharvaveda I–II. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Griffith Ralph T. H. 1889[1987]: Hymns of the Rgveda I–II. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. Haussig J. 1953: Theophylakts Exkurs über die skythischen Völker. – Byzantion 23, 275–462. Straipsniai / Articles 89 Volga – the First River of Europe Helimski Eugene 2000: On probable Tungus-Manchurian origin of the Buyla inscription from Nagy-Szentmiklós. – Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 5, 43–56. Helimski Eugene 2004: Die Sprache(n) der Awaren: Die mandschu-tungusische Alternative. – Proceedings of the First International Conference on Manchu-Tungus Studies (Bonn, VIII–IX, 2000), Vol. 2: Trends in Tungusic and Siberian Linguistics, ed. C. Näher. Wiesbaden (Tunguso–Sibirica 9), 59–72. Herrmann Albert 1937: Oaros. – Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, neue bearbeitung von Georg Wissowa und Wilhelm Kroll, 34. Halbband. Stuttgart: Druckenmüller, cc. 1680–1681. Hirth Friedrich 1895: Nachworte zur Inschrift des Tonjukuk. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Ost-Türken im 7. und 8. Jahrhundert nach chinesischen Quellen. – Die Alttürkische Inschriften der Mongolei von Wilhelm Radloff. St. Petersburg: Académie imperiale des sciences, 1–140. Honko Lauri et al. 1993: The Great Bear. A Thematic Anthology of Oral Poetry in the Finno-Ugrian Languages. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Honti László 1982: Geschichte des obugrischen Vokalismus der erste Silbe. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Horn Paul 1893: Grundriss der neupersischen Etymologie. Strassburg: Trübner. Humbach Helmut, in collaboration with Josef Elfenbein & Prods O. Skjær vø 1991: The Gāthās of Zarathushtra and the Other Old Avestan Texts. Heidelberg: Winter. Jacobsohn Hermann 1922: Arier und Ugrofinnen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Jamison Stephanie & Brereton Joel P. 2014: The Rigveda. The Earliest Religious Poetry of India Vol. I–III. Oxford: University Press. Joki Aulis J. 1973: Uralier und Indogermanen. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seura (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 151). Keresztes László 1986: Geschichte des mordwinischen Konsonantismus. II: Etymologisches Belegmaterial. Szeged: Studia uralo-altaica, 26. KESK – Kratkij ėtimologičeskij slovaŕ komi jazyka, by Vasilij I. Litkin & Evgenij I. Guljaev. Moskva: Nauka, 1970. KEWA – Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch I–IV, by Mannfred Mayrhofer. Heidelberg: Winter, 1956f. Kiepert Heinrich 1878: Lehrbuch der alten Geographie. Berlin: Reimer. VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 90 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Klaproth Julius 1826: Tableaux historiques de l´Asie, depuis la monarchie de Cyrus jusqu´a nos jours; accompagnés de recherches historiques et ethnographiques sur cette partie du monde. Paris: Schubart. Klimov Georgij A. & Xalilov Magžig Š. 2003: Slovaŕ kavkazskix jazykov. Sopostavlenie osnovnoj leksiki. Moskva: Vostočnaja literatura, RAN. Korenchy Éva 1972: Iranische Lehnwörter in den obugrischen Sprachen. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Krahe Hans 1964: Unsere ältesten Flussnamen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kretschmer Paul 1927: Weiteres zur Urgeschichte der Inder. – Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen 55, 75–103. Kuhn Ernst 1887: Miszellen. – Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 28, 214–216. de Lagarde Paul 1866: Gesammelte Abhandlungen. Leipzig: Brockhaus. de Lagarde Paul 1868: Beitraege zur baktrische Lexikographie. Leipzig: Teubner. Lehtiranta Juhani 1989: Yhteissamelainen sanasto. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilainen Seura (Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 200). Lewy Ernst 1937: Merja und Tscheremissen. – Ungarische Jahrbücher 16, 79–81. Available at: <http://real-j.mtak.hu/7008/1/MTA_UngarischeJahrbucher_16.pdf> [accessed 01.11.2019]. Lytkin Vasilij I. & Guljaev Evgenij S. 1970: Kratkij ėtimologičeskij slovaŕ komi jazyka. Moskva: Nauka. Macdonell A. A. 1971: Vedic Mythology. Delhi–Varanasi: Indological Book House. Markwart Josef 1929: Kulturund sprachgeschichtliche Analekten. – Ungarische Jahrbücher 9, 68–103. Available at: <http://real-j.mtak.hu/7008/1/MTA_UngarischeJahrbucher_9.pdf> [accessed 01.11.2019]. Marquart Josef 1903: Studien zur Geschichte des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts (ca. 840– 940). Leipzig: Dietrich. ME – Mühlenbach K. & Endzelin J. 1929–1932: Lettisch-deutsches Wörterbuch IV. Band. Riga: Herausgegeben vom lettischen Kulturfonds. Menander 1985: The history of Menander the Guardsman. Introductory essay, text, translation, and historiographical notes R.C. Blockley. Liverpool: Cairns. Menges Karl H. 1944–1945: Etymological notes on some Päčänäg names. – Byzantion 17, 256–280. Straipsniai / Articles 91 Volga – the First River of Europe Mikkola J. J. 1929: Der name Wolga. – Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 20, 125–128. Available at: <http://fennougrica.kansalliskirjasto.fi/handle/10024/92995> [accessed 01.11.2019]. Montgomery James E. 2000: Ibn Falān and the Rūsiyyah. – Journal of Arabic & Islamic Studies 3, 1–25. Available at:<http://www.unm.edu/~doug/montgomery.ibnfadlan.2000.pdf> [accessed 01.11.2019]. Moravcsik Gyulya 1958: Byzantinoturcica II: Sprachreste der Türkvölker in den byzantinischen Quellen2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Morgenstierne Georg 1974: Etymological Vocabulary of the Shughni Group. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Müllenhoff Karl 1906: Die Nordund Ostnachbaren der Germanen. – Deutsche Altertumskunde II, 1–416. Munkácsi Bernát 1910: Review of Arische Urzeit von Hermann Brunnhofer (Bern: Francke 1910). – Keleti Szemle 11, 150–158. Munkácsi Bernát & Kálmán Béla, ed., 1986: Wogulisches Wörterbuch. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. MW – Monier-Williams Sir Monier 1899 (reprint 1993): A Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. NCED – A Northern Caucasian Etymological Dictionary, Sergei L. Nikolayev & Sergei A. Starostin. Moscow: Asterisk Publishers, 1994. Nobbe C. F. A. 1966: Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia. Hildesheim: Olms. Nyberg Henrik S. 1974: A Manual of Pahlavi Vol. II. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Olsen Birgit A. 1999: The Noun in Biblical Armenian Origin and Word-Formation – with special emphasis on the Indo-European heritage. Berlin–New York: de Gruyter Mouton (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 119). Paasonen Heikki (Henrik) 1897: Indogermán eredetű-e a Volga folyónak legrégibb ismeretes mordvin neve? – Nyelvdudományi Közlemények 27, 121–123. Paasonen Heikki 1926: Ostjakisches Wörterbuch (nach den Dialekten an der Konda unda am Jugan), ed. Kai Donner. Helsingfors: Société Finno-Ougrienne (Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae II). Paasonen Heikki 1948: Ost-Tscheremissisches Wörterbuch, ed. P. Siro. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura (Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae XI). Pelliot Paul 1923: Les Mongols et la papauté. – Revue de l´Orient chrétien 23, 3–30. VÁCLAV BLAŽEK 92 Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LXXXI Pokorny Julius 1959: Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern–München: Francke. Pritsak Omeljan 1954: Ein hunnisches Wort. – Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 104(1), 124–135. Pritsak Omeljan 1956: Der Titel Attila. – Festschrift für Max Vasmer, ed. by Margarete Woltner & Herbert Bräuer. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 404–419. Pritsak Omeljan 1982: The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan. – Harvard Ukrainian Studies VI(4), 428–476. Ptolemäus 1990: Cosmographia. Das Weltbild der Antike. Stuttgart: Parkland. Ptolemaeus Claudius 1998: Geography, book 6: Middle East, Central and North Asia, China, eds. Humbach Helmut & Ziegler Susanne. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Ptolemy Claudius 1932 (repr. 1991): The Geography by Claudius Ptolemy, translated and edited by Edward Luther Stevenson. New York: The New York Public Library. Available at: <http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/reference/ptolemy/index.htm> [accessed 01.11.2019]; <http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/Ptol/ptol6toc. html> [accessed 01.11.2019]. Radloff Wilhelm (Radlov Vasilij V.) 1893: Versuch eines Wörterbuches der Türk-Dialecte 1. Band. St. Pétersbourg: Commissionaires de l´Académie Impériale des Sciences. Ramstedt Gustav J. 1935: Kalmückisches Wörterbuch. Helsinki: Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae, 111. Räsänen Martti 1969: Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuchs der Türksprachen. Helsinki: Lexica Societatis Fenno-Ugricae, XVII.1. Rédei Károly 1986: Zu den indogermanisch-uralischen Sprachkontakten. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Sitzungsberichte, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Bd. 468). Rozwadowski Jan 1913: Kilka uwag do przedhistorycznych stosunków wschodniej Europy i praojczyzny indoeuropejskiej na podstawie nazw wód. – Rocznik slawistyczny 6, 39–73. Rozwadowski Jan 1948: Studia nad nazwami wód słowiańskich. Kraków: Polska Akademia umiejętności (Prace onomastyczne Nr. 1). Sammallahti Pekka 2001: The Indo-European Loanwords in Saami. – Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: linguistic and Archaeological Considerations, eds.