J.Gippert,W.Schulze,Z.Aleksidze,J.P.Mah(eds.),TheCaucasianAlbanianPalimpsests ofMountSinai.Twovolumes:XXIV+530p.Turnhout,Belgium:BrepolsPublishers,2009 reviewbyKevinTuite,UniversitdeMontral/FSUJena Afirebreakingoutinamonasterycontainingoneoftheworldsmostimportant collectionsofancientmanuscriptsishighlyunlikelytobeasourceofgoodnews.Butthe conflagrationthatoccurredon30November1971inoneofthechurchesinSt. CatherinesMonasteryonMt.Sinailed,atleastindirectly,totherediscoveryofanearly medievalCaucasianliterarylanguagethatwashithertoalmostentirelyunknown.While reconstructingthechurch,monksdiscoveredacryptfilledwithmanuscripts.142of thesewereidentifiedasGeorgian,bynolessanauthoritythanIliaII,Patriarchofthe GeorgianOrthodoxChurch.SpecialistsfromtheManuscriptInstituteoftheGeorgian AcademyofSciencesweresenttoSt.CatherinestoinventoryandstudytheOld Georgiantexts.

.ItwasonthelastdayoftheGeorgianteams1994missionthatZaza Aleksidze,directoroftheManuscriptInstituteandahighlyregardedspecialistof ArmenianandGeorgianphilology,noticedthatoneofthemanuscriptpageswasa palimpsest.Atthispoint,asecondserendipitoussideeffectofthe1971firemighthave comeintoplay,intheviewoftheeditors:asaconsequenceofaccidentalheatingand petrifaction(xxi),thevisibilityofthelowertextuallayerwassufficientlyenhancedthat AleksidzecouldrecognizethepossibilitythatthescriptwasneitherGeorgiannor Armenian,butratherthatofthethirdChristiannationoftheSouthCaucasuswhichwas saidtohavepossessedanalphabetofitsown:theAuankorCaucasianAlbanians. ThesocalledCaucasianAlbanians(henceforth,CA)nottobeconfusedwiththe AlbaniansoftheBalkansarementionedintheworksofearlyhistoriansand geographers,andanalphabetattributedtothemappearsinalatemedievalArmenian manuscript,afactfirstrevealedin1937byIliaAbuladze.ThetextualremainsoftheCA language,however,wereextremelysparse:ahandfulofbriefinscriptionsfoundnear Mingechaurin19461953,andlistsoftheCAnamesofthemonthspreservedinseveral ArmenianandGeorgianmanuscripts.Onthebasisofthemonthnames,publishedby Brossetin1832,philologistsformulatedthehypothesisthattheCAlanguagewas especiallyclosetomodernUdi,anEastCaucasianlanguagespokenbyasmallChristian communityofAzerbaijanwhohadlongbelievedthemselvestobethedescendantsofthe CAs.ButanyfurtherprogresswashamperedbythepaucityofCAtexts. Twoyearslater,in1996,AleksidzereturnedtoSinaiandconfirmedtheCAidentityof thelowertextofthemanuscriptSinGeoN55.SignificantprogressinreadingtheSinai palimpsestsbecamepossibleafterhighresolutionultravioletphotographsofthe manuscriptsweremadeinDecember2000byDavitCxadadzeandFatherJustin(the AmericanbornlibrarianofSt.CatherinesMonastery),withthefinancialsupportofthe VolkswagenFoundation.Beginning,laChampollion,withthereadingofpropernames (inthiscase,thetitlesoftheEpistlesofStPaul),theteammembersbeganslowlybut surelyestablishingtheshapesandphoneticvaluesoftheCAletters(leadingtosome significantcorrectionstothelatemedievalalphabetlistmentionedabove),and determiningtheidentityoftheCApalimpsesttexts:alectionaryandaportionofthe GospelofStJohn.Sincethesewerebiblicaltexts,ofcourse,readingandtranslationwas fairlybutnotcompletelystraightforward,andthemodernUdilanguagewasof furtherhelpinidentifyinglexemesandaffixes.

CaucasianAlbanianPalimpsests(Tuite)110816page2 ThefascinatingstoryoftherediscoveryoftheSinaicorpusofCApalimpsest manuscriptsisrecountedinthefirstvolumeoftheworkunderreview,andIwillnot spoilthepleasureforreadersbyretellingithere.Beforegoingfurtherintothecontent oftheCAvolumes,Iwillsayafewwordsaboutitseditors. Itisnoexaggerationtosaythat,ifIwereaskedtoassembleadreamteamtotacklethe Sinaipalimpsests,Icouldcomeupwithnobetterchoicethanthefourscholarswhose namesappearonthetitlepage.BesidesAleksidzehimself,theeditorialteamincludes theArmenologistandhistorianofEarlyChristianityJeanPierreMah;JostGippert,a internationallyrenownedspecialistinIranian,ArmenianandGeorgianlinguistics,as wellasapioneeringfigureintheapplicationofcomputertechnologiestothestudyof languages;andWolfgangSchulze,oneoftheworldsforemostexpertsinthefieldofEast Caucasian(NakhDagestanian)linguistics,particularlyknownforhisworkonthe southernmostgroupofEastCaucasianlanguagesspokeninAzerbaijan,whichcomprises CAsnearestsurvivingkin.AlthoughnoneofthefourisanativespeakerofEnglish,the textonlyrarelybetraysthisfact.Unidiomaticusagesoccurseldom,andalmostnever obscuretheauthorsintendedmeaning. Thepublicationreviewedherecomprisestwolargeformatvolumes(30x44cm).The 24pageintroductiontoVolumeI,writtenbyAleksidzeandMah,beginswithawell documentedsummaryofthehistoryofCAandtheAlbanianChurch(inparticular,the relationofbothtoArmenia),asrepresentedinArmenian,Greek,RomanandGeorgian sources,followedbyapresentationofwhatisknownaboutthehistoryofCAwriting. TheinventionoftheCAscriptisattributedtotheArmenianSt.MesropMashtotsinthe firsthalfofthe5thc.MesropisalsosaidtohaveinventedtheOldGeorgianalphabet,but whereasthatattributionseemsimplausible,acasecanbemadeforacloserelation betweentheCAandArmenianscripts.The52lettersoftheCAalphabetareplaced accordingtotheorderoftheArmenianscript,withthe22additionalcharactersinserted roughlyonebyoneaftereachletterwithanArmenianequivalent,beginningwiththe ninthletter.(TheArmenianscriptwasconstructedsimilarlyfromitsGreekmodel,the additionallettersbeingintercalatedhereandtherewithintheGreeksequence,rather thaninsertedasagroupattheend,asintheGeorgianalphabet).Albanianliteracy probablyflourishedforabriefperiodinthe5th7thcenturies,beforeyieldingto ArmenianastheCApopulationwasabsorbedintotheArmenianApostolicchurch. Aleksidze&MahalsodiscusssomeissuesrelatingtothetextualhistoryoftheCA lectionary.Theyconsideritlikelythatthereadingscontainedinthelectionarywere drawnfromalreadyexistingCAtranslationsofthebooksoftheBible.Intermsofits content,theCAlectionaryseemsbasedupontheJerusalemLectionary,althoughthe placementofthereadingsdoesnotfollowthechurchcalendersequenceofthefeastdays atwhichtheywouldhavebeenread. TheremainingsectionsofVolumeIbearthenamesofGippertandSchulze,thoughnot alwaysinthatsequence.SectionIisadescriptionoftheSinaiPalimpsestsSin.GeoN13 andN55.Thelattermanuscriptwasoriginallypartofthesame10thor11thc.Old Georgiancodexastheformer(acollectionofbiographies,sayingsandsermonsbySt AnthonyandvariousanchoritesandDesertFathers,excerptsofwhicharepresentedin thissection).Thetotallengthofthetwomanuscriptsin332pages,nearlyallofwhich arepalimpsests.242pagescontaintheCAcorpusandmostoftheremainder,84pages, werewritteninArmenian.(TheArmenianlowertextsofSin.GeoN13andN55,

CaucasianAlbanianPalimpsests(Tuite)110816page3 comprisingtheEpistlesandsomebooksoftheOldTestament,arepresentedinVolume IIIofTheCaucasianAlbanianPalimpsestsofMountSinai.Thatvolume,publishedashort whileago,isnotreviewedhere).Onthe242pagescontainingCAtext,112belongtothe GospelofStJohn,and126containreadingsfromtheNewTestament,alongwith excerptsfromtheBookofIsaiahandthePsalms,whichwerepartofalectionary;the contentoftheremainingpagesisuncertain.TheheartofSectionIisanadmirably detaileddescriptionandphilologicalanalysisoftheCAtextsrepresentedonthe palimpsestpages.AmongthetopicsofinteresttospecialistsinCaucasianandearly ChristianhistorydiscussedbyGippertandSchulzearetheuseofabbreviationsofdivine namesandpronominalsintheCAtext(moresimilartotheOldGeorgianpracticethanto theOldArmenian);evidenceofinfluenceandtextualtraditionsasrepresentedinthe vocabulary,structureofthelectionary,andtextualanomalies;andinformationthat couldhelpdatethemanuscripts(e.g.apartiallylegibleworddenotingthedenarion mentionedinJohn6:7,whichcouldbederivedfromthenameoftheillfated7thc. ByzantineemperorMezezius).TheauthorshypothesizethatthattheAlbanianversion pertainstoacertainbranchoftraditionwhichitshares,inthelargestnumberofcases, withtheArmenianBibleand,toalesserextent,withtheolderGeorgiantextredactions andwhichmayhavereliedupon(orbeeninfluencedby)Syriacmodelsinanearlystage (I36). Linguists,especiallythoseworkingonEastCaucasianlanguages,willfindmuchof interestinSectionIIofthefirstvolume,inwhichSchulze(herelistedasfirstauthor)and GippertpresentagrammaticalsketchoftheCAlanguage,accompaniedbydiscussionof thealphabetandthelinguisticclassificationofCAwithintheEastCaucasianlanguage family.ThetwolinguistsreviewtheprecedingscholarshipontheCAalphabet,which primarilyconsistsinattemptstomakesenseofthemedievalalphabetlist,inwhichthe moreorlessaccuratelydrawncharactersareaccompaniedbytheirnamesinArmenian script.Interestingly,someoftheletternamesareaccompaniedbywhatlooklikeaccent marks.Intheopinionoftheeditors,thisisevidencethattheauthoroftheoriginal alphabetlist,onwhichthesurvivingonesarebased,knewenoughofthepronunciation oftheletterstoattempttocompensatefortheinadequacyoftheArmenianscriptto representallofthephonologicaldistinctionsmarkedinCAwriting.Allbutthreeofthe 52lettersareattestedinthecorpus.DrawingupontheevidenceofloanwordsandUdi cognatesforthenativeCAlexemes,Schulze&Gippertestablishthepronunciationof29 letterswithahighdegreeofconfidence.Inquiteafewcasestheirevidencecontradicts theletternamesasgiveninthemanuscript,whichtheyascribetocopyistserrorsinthe latter.Forexample,thenamesofletters#24Odet,ZimandGatarecorrectedto Bet,GimandDat,whichfitsthephonologicalvaluesonewouldexpect.Forthe remaining23letters,thedeterminationofthephoneticvaluesislessstraightforward. Asidefromtwovowels(hypothesizedtobeahighfrontrounded[y]andamidlow roundedback[])andwhatislikelytohavebeenapharyngealocclusive,mostofthe problematiclettersareassociatedwithapicalanddorsalaffricatesandpalatalized alveolars,manyofwhichdonotoccurinArmenianorGeorgian.Numericalvaluesforthe first21lettersareconfirmedbythepalimpsests;with52letters,theCAwouldhavehad afullsetofsymbolsforthe10000s,andthenextseriesasfaras700,000. TheresultingreconstructionofCAphonologywouldbefamiliarinmostrespectsto Caucasianists:triadsofvoiced,voicelessandejectivestopsandaffricates,paired fricatives,andsevenvowels.TheprincipaldifferencesfromtheinventoryofModernUdi

CaucasianAlbanianPalimpsests(Tuite)110816page4 areafullsetofpalatalizeddentalalveolars,andadistinctpharyngealfricative(rather thanthepharyngealizedvowelsofUdi).Atthispoint,Iwilldeclaremydisapprovalof thetransliterationsystemadoptedbytheeditorsforCA,Georgian,andallother Caucasianlanguagescitedinthetwovolumes.Ratherthanusingapostrophestomark ejective(glottalized)obstruents,asisboththeIPAnormandthenotationalstandardfor almostallcommunitiesoflinguistswhoworkonlanguageswithejectives,theeditors chosetoaddsmallsubscriptorsuperscriptdotstothephoneticsymbolsforejectives anduvularfricatives.(Apostrophesareinfactemployed,buttomarkpalatalization,as inthetranscriptionofRussian).Oncethenormforresearchersaffiliatedwith,or influencedby,theIberoCaucasianlinguisticsschoolheadedfordecadesbyArnold Chikobava,presentdayuseofthetinydotsisforthemostpartlimitedtoKartvelologists, andnotevenallofthem.Furthermore,thedotsaredifficulttomakeout,especiallyin thesmallertypesizesusedinthefootnotesandindexes. ThepresentationofCAmorphologyandsyntaxthatfollowsisadmirablydetailed,and corroboratingattestationsfromtheCAcorpusareprovidedinabundance.The palimpsestcorpus,augmentedbySchulzesdeepknowledgeofUdianditsnearest relatives,issufficienttoprovideafairlydetailedportraitoftheCAlanguage,although considerablegapsremain.Itisnotunlikelythatsomeofthereconstructedparadigms suchasthatofthereferentialisingsuffixes(II20),forwhichnearlyallofthefeminine genderformsand8ofthe20casesareunattestedwouldrequirerevisionshouldnew textualdatabeforthcoming. ThenominaldeclensionsystemcloselyresemblesthatofUdi,includingthemarkingof definitedirectobjectswithavariantofthedativecase.OnestrikingdifferencefromUdi, whichlacksgrammaticalgender,istheevidenceofathreewaygenderdistinctioninCA pronominalsandclitics.CAgenderdoesnotformallycontinuetheEastCaucasian categoryofgrammaticalclass.AccordingtoSchulze,itappearstohaveemergedfrom thedeicticpronouns,withtheinheritedproximaldeicticreinterpretedasaneuter genderanaphor,whereasthedistaldeicticwaslinkedtothetwohumangenders,the femininebeingfurtherdistinguishedbyasuffixcognatetoaLezgiandeicticmeaning downthere(II38).FurtherinvestigationoftheCAgendersystemanditspossible sourcesshouldbeofrelevancetodiachronictypology.(Corbett[Gender247,311] mentionsahandfulofinstancesofdeicticpronounsbecominglimitedtousewithnon humanreferents,althoughnonearecloselyparalleltotheCAcase).Theeditorstake noteofthepuzzlingmorphologyofiowarwidows,withwhatappearstobea masculinepluraldemonstrativesuffix(I30).Thisseeminganomalymightindicatethat thetwohumangendersareneutralizedinspecificcontexts,orperhapsbearelicofan intermediatephaseintheemergenceofthegendercategoryfrominheriteddeictic morphemes. AnotherfeatureofCAlikelytodrawtheattentionofspecialistsisthehighlyelaborate systemofclitics.Lengthycliticchainssuchasthefollowing,attachedto(usuallyverbal) hosts,areabundantlyattestedintheCApalimpsests: bisa=yalhanayagenezaxo=en(Luke4:18)
anoint:PAST=PASTFOCUSwhichREF:NEUT:SG:GENbecause:ofRELATIVEme:DAT.IIIhe=ERG

becauseofwhichhehasanointedme(pg.II61)

AsSchulzeandGippertnote,heaviercliticsfollowimmediatelyafterthehost,whereas

CaucasianAlbanianPalimpsests(Tuite)110816page5 lighterones,suchasthesubjectandobjectpronominalsintheaboveexample,are placedfurthertotheright.Inviewofthetheoreticalinterestofrecentworkon cliticizationinModernUdi(Harris2000,2002;Spencer&Luis2005),thediachronic perspectiveaffordedbytheCAcorpuswilldoubtlessbeofsignificancetotypologists andhistoricallinguists. Alsoworthyoftheattentionofhistoricallinguistsaswellashistoriansofthe CaucasusisthediachronicandcladisticanalysisoftheCAlexiconpresentedinthe finalpartofSectionII.TheCAlanguageappearstohaveemergedinanethnicallyand linguisticallydiverseregionwithinwhatisnowAzerbaijan.InadditiontoArmenianand Georgian,IranianlanguageshavelefttheirmarkontheCAlexicon.Perhapsoneofthe mostcuriousCAadaptationsofIranianlexicalmaterialistherootdesignatingtheJews inthepalimpsestsVaarwhichinalllikelihoodwasderivedfromtheIranianword fortrade(TheArmenianandGeorgianwordsfortradercomefromthesamesource, asdoesultimatelytheEnglishwordbazaar).WithregardtothepositionofCAwithin EastCaucasian,SchulzeadducesevidenceofitscloserelationnotonlytoUdi,butalsoto theEastSamursubbranchofLezgian(whichincludesAghul,TabasaranandLezgi proper).AsforUdiitself,whilethebulkofCAUdicognatesareidenticalornearlyso, certainnonsystematicphonologicalcorrespondencesbetweencognatesimplythatCA wasnotadirectancestorofthemodernUdidialects,butratherasortoflinguisticaunt, sistertothedialectordialectsfromwhichtheNizhandArtashenvarietiesofUdi descended.Ofthetwo,theancestoroftheNizhdialectstoodclosertoCA(II78). ThelinguisticsectionofVolumeIconcludeswitharevisitingoftheCAinscriptionsand listofmonthnameswhichwastheentiretyoftheCAtextualcorpusuntilthe discoveryofthepalimpsestsandahistoricalgeographicalandetymological discussionofthreeclustersofethnonymsassociatedwiththeCApopulation. TheremainderofVolumeIandallofVolumeIIaretakenupbytheCApalimpsest corpus,accompaniedbyindexes,aglossaryandnotes.Thecompletecorpusisinfact presentedtwice,onceintheformofasocallededitiominor(inVol.I),andthenafull blowndiplomaticeditioninVol.II,accompaniedbyphotographsofeachpageofthe palimpsests.TheeditiominorconsistsinthetransliteratedCAtextwithafacingEnglish translation;reconstructedmaterialintheCAtextismarkedbybracesandbrackets.The inclusionofthissimplifiedpresentationofthetextisinmanywaysawonderfulidea:It makesiteasyforreaderstofamiliarizethemselveswiththeCAcorpus,withoutthe distractionoftoomuchfinegrainedinformationaboutthemanuscriptsthemselves.It alsomeansthatsuchreaderswillonlyhavetolugonelargeandheavybookaround insteadoftwo,sincetheeditiominorisinthesamevolumeasthehistorical introduction,grammaticalsketchandothercontextualizingmaterials.(Andthevolumes reallyarebig,unlikelytofitinanybriefcasenotsoldinanartsupplystore).Alsoin VolumeI,intheconcludingSectionIV,isaboutascompleteasetofindexesasonecould hopefor:Allpropernamesandwordsoccurringinthepalimpsestsareinventoried, accompaniedbydefinitions;andGreek,ArmenianandGeorgianequivalents.(Inthe interestsofhistoricalaccuracy,Isuppose,theentriesarelistedaccordingtotheCA alphabeticalorder.Mercifullyforthereader,akeytotheCAalphabetsequenceis providedatthefootofeachpage).Alsoincludedareanindexofallinstanceswhere Albanianlettersareemployedasnumbers;andreverseindexespermittingthesearch

CaucasianAlbanianPalimpsests(Tuite)110816page6 forCAlexemesaccordingtotheirtranslationequivalentsinEnglish,Greek,Armenian andGeorgian,andeventheircognatesinUdiandotherEastCaucasianlanguages. Thesecondvolumecontainsphotographsofeachpageofthepalimpsests,proposed reconstructionsofthetext(intransliterationandinAlbanianscript),andparalleltexts inGreek,Armenian,OldGeorgian,Syriacand(whereavailable)ModernUdi.Thevolume isdividedintothreesections,oneeachforthemanuscriptoftheGospelofStJohn(120 pp);thegospelreadingsfromtheLectionarymanuscript(52pp);andtheremaining readings(ActsoftheApostles,Epistles,IsaiahandthePsalms;90pp).Eachsectionis prefacedbydescriptionsofthemanuscriptsandtheircontents.Twofacingpagesofthe volumearedevotedtoeachmanuscriptpage.Thepresentationisbothphilologically informativeandvisuallyappealing.Oneachlefthandpageisablackandwhite photographofthepalimpsestpage,turned90degreesclockwisetoaccordwiththe alignmentoftheCAlowertext.Mostoftheseimagesarefromthesetofultraviolet photographsmadein2000,electronicallymodifiedtoenhancethevisibilityoftheCA text.Afewarefromtheseriesofcolorandmultispectralimagesmadefouryearslater. Allofthephotographswereconsultedintheprocessofreadingthepalimpsests,but onlyonephotographisshownforeachpage.Ontherighthandpageisthe reconstructedCAtextinCAscript.Fivelevelsofconfidenceinthereconstructionare signaledbyacombinationofthedarknessoftheCAcharactersandtheshadingofthe background(thelatterindicatingthephysicalstateofthepalimpsest):thelighterthe letters,orthedarkerthebackground,thelessreliablethereading.Onthebottomhalfof eachpageareseventonineparallelcolumns,presentingtheCAoriginaltotheleft, juxtaposedtoparalleltextsinEnglish,Armenian,twoOldGeorgianeditions,Greek,and Syriac.Thegospeltextsareinadditionaccompaniedbythe1902Uditranslationsbythe Bezhanovbrothers,andtheRussianNT.(Aminorquibble:Thekeytothesystemfor signalingthereliabilityofthereadings,andthesourcesofthejuxtaposedBiblicaltexts, areonlymentionedinVolume1,I3738.Itwouldhavebeenhelpfultoreproducethis informationinVolume2). Toconclude:ThesignificanceofthediscoveryoftheCApalimpsestscannotbe overestimated.InsteadofonlyoneCaucasianlanguagewithasignificanttextualcorpus frompremoderntimes,wenowhavetwo.Notonlyalanguage,butanalphabethas beenrecoveredfromoblivion:TherestorationofthesoundvaluesoftheCAletters proposedinthesevolumeswilldoubtlessstimulatenewresearchonthethirdwriting systemtoemergefromtheChristianizationoftheSouthCaucasusinthe4th5thcenturies. Intheopinionofthisreviewer,thequalityofthescholarshipthatwentintothemaking ofTheCaucasianAlbanianPalimpsestsofMountSinaiisfullycommensuratewiththe immenseimportanceofitssubjectmatter.
References Corbett,Greville.1991.Gender.CambridgeUniversityPress Harris,AliceC.2000.WhereintheWordistheUdiClitic?Language76#3:593616. Harris,AliceC.2002.EndocliticsandtheoriginsofUdimorphosyntax.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.2002. Spencer,Andrew&Luis,Ana.2005.Udiclitics:AGeneralizedParadigmFunctionMorphology approach.InR.Otoguro,G.PopovaandA.Spencer(eds.)ProceedingsoftheYorkEssex MorphologyMeeting2,EssexResearchReportsinLinguistics,3547.