|
AFGHANISTAN
i. Geography ii. Flora iii. Fauna iv. Ethnography v. Languages vi. Paṧto vii. Parāčī viii. Archeology ix. Pre-Islamic Art x. Political History xi. Administration xii. Literature
i. Geography
Natural regions. Afghanistan is a fan-shaped country extending from the Wāḵān “handle” in the northeast at about 70° east longitude, out through the highlands to the southwest desert border with Iran at about 61° 3l’ east longitude. From north to south the country extends from about 38° 30’ north latitude in the northeast to about 29° 30’ north latitude in the southwest. With a 650,000 sq. km area, Afghanistan is much the same size as California and Nevada and similar in climate and landforms. The country is bordered on the extreme northeast tip of the Wāḵān by the People’s Republic of China, on the north by the Soviet Union, on the west by Iran, and on the south and east by Pakistan. Afghanistan has been divided into a variety of natural regions by different researchers (Humlum 1959, Cressey 1960, and others), but Dupree’s work (1973) is probably the most useful. He recognizes eleven primary zones, which are basically either a part of the Hindu Kush mountain system or of the peripheral plains and deserts. Wāḵān corridor and Pamir knot: This Afghanistan “panhandle” is a long narrow border construct brought into existence by late 19th century political necessity and designed as a buffer zone between Czarist Russia and British India. More than three-quarters of the area is above 3,000 m in altitude, and numerous peaks rise above 6,000 m. Snowfields and glaciers are common in the area. Several wide, flat valleys between the mountains provide limited access and sites for human habitation. Badaḵšān: This high rugged portion of northeastern Afghanistan is characterized by spectacular peaks, gorges, and alpine scenery. The highest peaks are over 6,000 m, but most are around 4,000-5,000 m. Glaciers occur in both the north and south and lakes, mostly of glacial origin, abound. Central mountains: The main axis of the Hindu Kush spreads out in the center of the country in a broad, fan-shaped arrangement from northeast to southwest. Numerous near-parallel valleys also fan outwards from this massif. Two main passes in the central part allow north-south access; the Šebar to the west and the Sālang to the east. The highest peaks range between 4,000 and 5,000 m. Eastern mountains: These mountains are another topographically complex area of high-altitude peaks (about 6,000 m) and large valleys. Four main valley systems occur here: (1) the large, open Kabul valley with its thick, alluvial fill and high, surrounding mountains (Paḡmān range, Sefīd Kūh, and Kūh-e Bābā); (2) the linear Kūhestān-Panǰšīr valley, which bears to the northeast from the open basin of Kūh-e Damān around Čārīkār, north of Kabul; (3) the Ḡōrband valley, which bears to the west from Čārīkār to the Šebar pass, and (4) the Nūrestān valley complex, which consists of five major north-south valleys and about thirty east-west lateral valleys. Many of these valley systems contain thick, late Cenozoic sedimentary valley-fill sequences and are much like those in Nevada or western Montana. The Rīg-e Ravān is an anomalous area of sand dunes south of Čārīkār. Southern mountains and foothills: Many low (about 2,500-3,000 m), northeast-southwest trending mountain ranges occur here. Extensive valley fills and broad alluvial plains extend between the ranges, and ephemeral stream channels are ubiquitous. Some alluvial fans and basins of interior drainage occur, together with a few minor areas of sand dunes. Northern mountains and foothills: This is a broad zone of mountain plateaus and foothills, with some peaks over 3,000 m. The Band-e Torkestān range, the Paropamisus (not to be confused with the ancient Paropamisus), Kūh-e Čangar, and Fīrūzkūh are the chief ranges. The main valleys from west to east are the Morḡāb, Band-e Amīr (Balḵāb), Andarāb-Sayḡān-Sorḵāb system, and the Kondūz group. Turkestan plains: The northern foothills decrease in altitude and pass into stony plains of 300-400 m. Sand drifts and dunes abound; loess deposits (wind-blown dust) and salt pans occur. This dry desertic area is commonly separated by marshy, alluvial terraces from the level floodplain of the Āmū Daryā river, which forms the northern border. Herat-Farāh lowlands: This area is a relatively low-lying complex of broad arid alluvial plains, playa basins, and low hills and mountain ranges. Numerous alluvial fans and dry desert washes occur. The general elevation is about 1,000 m, and the regional slope is to the west and southwest. Helmand valley-Sīstān basin: The Helmand river system, which rises in the central mountains section, passes through the center of this area. It empties into the endorheic Sīstān basin through the Hāmūn-e Helmand system, a series of marshes and connecting lakes. In exceptionally wet years, it empties into the Gowd-e Zereh, which is an ephemeral brackish lake. The area as a whole is an alluvial plain of about 500-600 m altitude and is characterized by surrounding sandy and rocky desert. Western stony deserts: These are waterless, barren, alluvial wastes north of the great arc of the Helmand as it swings from south to north. The Dašt-e Ḵaš and Dašt-e Mārgō deserts are characterized by a desert pavement of stones left where finer sediments were blown away by wind. The altitudes average about 700 m. Southwestern sandy deserts: This area (Rēgestān, Dašt-e Pōḡdar, Dašt-e Arbū) is similar to the above but has many more fixed and mobile sand dunes with some moist, sandy, clay, interdune (pat) areas similar to playas. Much of the sand was probably derived from deflation in the Helmand-Sīstān depression and the western stony desert section. Drainage. Water is the life blood of an arid country such as Afghanistan, and the main sources are the melting glaciers and higher precipitation zones of the mountains. In general the rivers of Afghanistan reflect three major drainage controls: (a) the north and northwestward flow into the Central Asian depressions of the U.S.S.R.; (b) the strong west and southwestward flow, largely structurally controlled, into other basins, particularly the Sīstān depression; and (c) the southeastward flow into the Indus system. Most of the drainage rises in the higher and wetter eastern half of the country. Many of the rivers have steep gradients and run through slender and commonly precipitous valleys in the higher elevations. They carry large silt loads, particularly during peak runoff in the spring and early summer storm-and-melt season, when many disastrous floods occur. About 10 river systems or major subsystems exist (Westfall and Latkovich, 1966, pp. 11-13), although it is difficult to group together many of these arheic and endorheic water courses, which disappear into deserts or swampy areas. Furthermore, nomenclature is as yet not standardized, differing between ethnic and political groups, a fact which makes understanding doubly difficult. Āmū Daryā (Oxus) system: This river of classical fame rises in the high mountain area of the Wāḵān corridor-Pamir knot as the Āb-e Pāmīr and the Āb-e Wāḵān, which flow together to form the Āb-e Panǰa. This river, joining with the Kūkča and Kondūz downstream (together with the Waḵš from the U.S.S.R.), form the main Āmū Daryā. Farther downstream the Tāškorgān (Ḵolm), Balḵāb, Sar-e Pol, and Āb-e Qayṣar-Šīrīn Tagāo are also tributary to the Āmū Daryā during great floods, but most of their water is generally removed for irrigation. After forming the northern border of Afghanistan and the U.S.S.R. for about 1,100 km, the Āmū Daryā ultimately swings away to the north and empties into the Aral Sea. Helmand-Arḡandāb system: The Helmand is about 1,300 km long and drains about 40 percent of Afghanistan’s land are. Classical and modern irrigation works along it and its tributaries attest to its importance in agriculture. The river flows generally southwesterly until it empties into the marshes of the Sīstān basin on the Iranian border, where it is lost to evaporation. Overflow from it and other related rivers, together with the drying up of Pleistocene lakes (Smith 1974), has produced numerous salt flats such as Gowd-e Zereh. Several tributaries join the Helmand, e.g., the Kaǰ Rūd, Terīn, and Rūd-e Mūsā Qaḷʿa; but the Arḡandāb (560 km long) and its tributaries are the most important. The chief among these are the Arḡastān, Dōrī, and Tarnak. Kabul river system: This is the only prime river system in Afghanistan with an outlet to the sea; it flows about 350 km east to join the Indus in Pakistan. The Lōgar and Panǰšīr rivers contribute the bulk of the water in the upper reaches; the Laḡmān and Konaṛ are the most important in the lower part. Harī Rūd system: This river flows about 650 km west through Afghanistan out of the central highlands. It eventually turns north and forms the Afghan-Iranian border before becoming the Iranian-Soviet border and finally passing into the deserts of the U.S.S.R. The Harī Rūd has a single major tributary, the Kāō Rūd (Kowgōn), which it parallels for a considerable distance. Minor systems: The Morḡāb river in the northwest has a fairly large drainage area with several important tributaries. It flows north into the U.S.S.R. The Adraskand and Farāh rivers in the west empty into the marshes of the Sīstān basin, together with the Helmand. Finally, there are a number of tributaries along the southeastern Afghan-Pakistan border which empty into the Indus. Chief among these are the Gumal and Matun. Lakes: Few large lakes exist in Afghanistan because of the general aridity and lack of suitable depressions. Profuse small glacial lakes do occur, however, high in the mountains of the northeast. Sar-e Kōl and Čaqmaqtīn Kōl are two of the large glacial lakes in the Wāḵān corridor-Pamir knot region. Kōl-e Šīva in eastern Badaḵšān is one of the largest in the northeast. In the central mountains the famous five lakes of Band-e Amīr are self-damming in that calcium carbonate is precipitated in the agitated water of the outflow, thus producing a natural rock rim much like that around hot springs. The endorheic Dašt-e Nāwor basin receives water from the surrounding area and exists as a central, mineral-rich lake with surrounding playa flats (Förstner 1973). The Āb-e Īstāda in the southern mountains and foothills between Ḡaznī and Qandahār occurs as a depression into which the ephemeral Ḡaznī river flows. This lake is also much like the Nāwor with mineral-rich water and surrounding playa flats, a reflection of the high evaporation of the area and lack of outflow. At one time this lake flowed to the southwest through the Lora river system and into the Arḡandāb. The numerous marshes, lakes and playas of the Sīstān basin are collectively endorheic and are shrunken remnants of a much larger (65,000 sq. km) Pleistocene lake (Smith 1974). Within the Afghanistan part of the basin, the reed-filled marshes and lakes of the Hāmūn-e Ṣāberī and the Hāmūn-e Pūzak receive much of their water from the Helmand system. During very wet years, the water flows out of these depressions into the Gowd-e Zereh, which is otherwise a playa depression of deflation origin (Smith 1974, p. 50). Kōl-e Namaksār, on the border with Iran west of Herat, is a salt-crusted playa which dries up annually, although old beaches attest to its former greater size (Smith 1973). Numerous other playas occur along the border here; Daḡ-e Namadī (Daḡ-e Tondī) west of Farāh is one of the largest. Several other closed depressions with salt lakes occur on the Turkestan plains in the north (Smith 1973). These are Namaksār Andḵūy (Ḵᵛāǰa Mod) in the west and Namaksār Tāškorgān (Sar-e Namak) in the central part of the plains. Geology. The geology of Afghanistan largely controls the topography. The fan-shaped, central highlands are comprised of old, resistant bedrock; and the younger, soft, and erodable sediments of Cenozoic age (Paleogene, Neogene, Quaternary) wrap around the edges, starting in the northern Turkestan plains, proceeding through the western Herat-Farāh lowlands and the Sīstān basin to the southeastern mountains and foothills. The highest, northeastern part of the country is characterized mainly by Prepaleozoic and Paleozoic metamorphosed sediments and granitic intrusions. About 150 km west of Kabul this group divides into two zones, the widest band of which strikes southwest toward Qandahār with the narrow zone heading towards Herat. To the north, Cretaceous and Paleocene limestones and red sandstones dominate; to the south are older Jurassic to Cretaceous limestones and sandstones. Tertiary (Paleogene, Neogene) sedimentary rocks are especially dominant along the border with Pakistan between Jalālābād and Qandahār. The present topography and geology of this part of Asia can be best understood by reference to the predominant, new theory of plate tectonics. According to it, the Indian subcontinent broke its attachment to Africa about 75 million years ago and moved slowly northeastward across what is now the Indian Ocean. Beginning about 45 million years ago, the leading edge of this plate began to collide with the continental shell that bordered the then southern edge of Asia. The result was a vast folding and fracturing, melting and intrusion of rock, earthquakes, and uplift of the entire Hindu Kush-Pamir-Himalaya mountain chain. The ever-present earthquakes of this unstable region testify to the continuation of this colossal collision (Heuckroth and Karim, 1970). Geologic wealth may be measured not only in terms of minerals but also in terms of deposits capable of producing good soils for agriculture. The vast plains and valley fills along all but the northeastern borders of the country are predominantly composed of Cenozoic alluvium and wind-blown dust (loess) and sand (dunes). Where adequately watered, some of these materials have good agricultural potential. Some, however, contain excess salts and are agriculturally sterile. A few lakes and playas in these areas may be potential sources of valuable evaporites (Smith 1973). Sweetwood (1968) has listed 24 types of actually or potentially important mineral occurrences: asbestos, barite, beryl, celestite, chromite, coal, copper, dolomite, fuller’s earth, gold, iron, lapis lazuli, lead-zinc, limestone, magnesite, manganese, marble, mica, ruby, salt, silica sand, sulfur, talc, and natural gas. Climate. Afghanistan has an extreme continental, arid climate which is characterized by desert, steppe, and highland temperature and precipitation regimes. The climate is also characterized by strong radiation, copious sunshine (more than 3,000 hours annually in many places), low relative humidity, and high evaporation. Temperature: High annual fluctuations amounting to 25°-28° C are dominant, with a sudden transition from summer to winter and vice versa (Fischer 1968, p. 73). The map of January isotherms (Sahab 1974, p. 21) shows temperatures greater than 6° C for the Jalālābād basin and the two other small low-lying areas along the southeast border of the country. The same temperature regime encompasses most of the southwestern part of the country up to about a line connecting Farāh and Qandahār. The Turkestan plains average between 0°-3° C; and elsewhere temperatures decrease regularly with altitude, so that a minimum of less than -15° C is attained in the central high mountain areas, the glacierized northeast, and in the Wāḵān corridor-Pamir knot area. The July isotherms show similar distribution patterns (Sahab 1974, p. 22) with a high of about 35° C or greater in the Sīstān depression in the extreme southwest. The Jalālābād basin, the lowest part of the Turkestan plains along the Āmū Daryā, and most of the southwestern part of the country average between 32°-35° C. Qandahār, Farāh, Herat, and much of the Turkestan plains average between 29°-32° C; and elsewhere temperatures decrease regularly with altitude down to a minimum of less than 10° C. Winds: The general circulation patterns for Afghanistan are (a) a limited southerly monsoonal effect in the southeast which is largely responsible for higher summer precipitation in that area; (b) a persistently northerly effect of the outflow of dry, subsiding, continental air from the high pressure zone of interior Asia; and (c) winter mid-latitude cyclones originating in the Mediterranean basin. During the summer months the strong thermal and pressure differences between the northern plains and southern lowland deserts create the seasonal hot and dusty “wind of 120 days” in the west of the country (Dupree 1973, p. 28). Northwesterly katabatic winds stir up much dust in Kabul during summer (Fischer 1968, p. 74). Precipitation: Afghanistan is mostly arid with an extreme minimum of about 0-5 cm in the Sīstān depression, 5-10 cm in the Wāḵān corridor, and subsidiary minima of 10-20 cm in the Jalālābād basin and the northernmost Turkestan plains. Elsewhere precipitation increases with altitude to maximums of more than 40 cm in the central highlands, the mountains north and south of Jalālābād (which receive the limited monsoonal effects from the Indian Ocean), and the extreme north of Badaḵšān (Sahab 1974, p. 20). The highly variable summer precipitation tends to be convectional everywhere except in the southeast, monsoonal, orographic zones. Winter precipitation tends to be largely cyclonic throughout the country and is also highly variable. Blizzards are common in the highlands. Climate type: The climate of Afghanistan is newly mapped according to a modified Köppen system using the latest available weather statistics (R. Bifaro, personal communication). The dry climates are divided into four subgroups, warm and cold deserts (BWh, BWk) and warm and cold semiarid steppes (BSh, BSk). The warm deserts occur around Jalālābād and in the southwest. The cold deserts occur on the Turkestan plains along the Āmū Daryā and possibly along the higher edge of the warm deserts of the southwest (these could be warm steppes also). The warm steppes definitely occur at slightly higher elevations around the Jalālābād basin. The cold steppes occur as a wide loop around the central highlands, extending from Kabul to Ḡaznī, through Herat, and back around through Mazār-e Šarīf and Kondūz. They probably also occur in the Wāḵān corridor. The humid mesothermal climates (Cs), characterized by relatively warm temperature regimes, occur at isolated stations at higher more humid elevations with a winter precipitation maximum. Several stations in Badaḵšān and one north of Kabul and between Herat and Mazār-e Šarīf report such climate statistics. The humid microthermal D climates of the central highlands are also a reflection of lower temperatures and higher precipitation. They grade progressively upward into even colder and wetter boreal climate (E) zones and ultimately into alpine tundra (Ft) and glacier ice (Fi) zones where appropriate. Soils. Soils in Afghanistan clearly show the impact of centuries of overuse and neglect (Hildreth 1957, p. 9). Descriptions herein are based primarily on the preliminary reconnaissance of Salem and Hole (1969) using classic terminology. Soils of alluvial plains: Because of leaching or precipitation of minerals, most of these soils lack normal horizonation; some may have it as a result of repeated floodplain sediment deposition. Some reflect strong aridity and have altered upper horizons or slight hardpans. These soils occur in lower reaches of most river valleys. Saline, alkalai, and salt marsh soils: These halomorphic soils occur in poorly drained areas where soluble salts of sodium, calcium, and magnesium become concentrated through high evaporation. They are most common in the low-lying Sīstān depression, the Herat-Farāh lowlands, and the Turkestan plains. Desert soils, mostly dunes: Soils in this group have little horizonation and are dominantly sand; they occur in the desert wastes of southwestern Afghanistan and on the Turkestan plains. Desert soils, with few dunes: As used in this classification, these soils tend to be true desert soils with thin or discontinuous organic layers. They commonly have a calcium-rich lower zone which may be a hard-pan. The upper horizons may be deflated away to leave a truncated soil profile consisting of a lag-gravel concentrate. These soils are most common in the Herat-Farāh lowlands between the low-lying halomorphic soils along the Iranian border and the Sierozemic and brown soils further to the east, towards the mountains. This soil group also occurs along the border with Pakistan. Sierozem, brown, and mountain soils with lithosols and regosols: The arid-land sierozems have a thin discontinuous gray or brown upper organic layer developed under desert shrubs and a lower carbonate zone. The brown soils tend to have a brown surface zone developed under grass and a more clay-rich subsoil. The regosols are poorly horizonated, sandy deposits; and the lithosols are thin, discontinuous rocky soils. This group of soils occurs as a loop surrounding the central highlands and open to the northeast. Mountain soils of chestnut, brown forest, and podzolic zones: These soils tend to exist in areas of slightly greater precipitation in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan and possibly in the Paropamisus in the central and western parts. They are transitional between the calcic, arid, and grassland-steppe soils and the soils of the high mountain areas, so they tend to have shrubs and trees and increased leaching of soil materials. The chestnut and brown soils tend to lie between the steppe meadows and the more heavily forested zones, and the scanty precipitation on them restricts organic matter accumulation in the upper horizon. Some may have calcium-rich horizons; others may not, especially as precipitation increases into the podzolic soils. This soil type tends to occur beneath the more heavily watered and forested zones of the higher mountains. They may have a dark, humus-rich layer underlain by a light, leached layer and a lower, clay-rich layer. Soils of high mountain areas: Alpine tundra and meadow soils commonly have a wet, organic-rich, upper layer, which may overlie gray or mottled yellow or brown subsoils, which may be permanently frozen. Peat accumulations can occur. Lithosols are common wherever rock outcrops predominate and soils are thin. Soil horizonation is limited in these situations and is characterized by profuse rock fragments. Bare bedrock, glacial ice, and snowfields are also included in this group for mapping convenience. Vegetation. The existing vegetation maps and texts commonly disagree or use different systems of division (Linchevsky and Prozorovsky 1949; Volk 1954; Fischer 1968; Freitag in Kraus 1972; and Sahab 1974). Volk modified the work of Linchevsky and Prozorovsky and divided Afghanistan into five vegetation-group provinces which are essentially geologic-topographic-climatic regions: (a) The Afghan-Turkestan province in the north is thus characterized by poplars, willows, tamarisk trees, and reeds on valley floors and riverbanks; by meadows of annual grasses and geophytes at slightly higher elevations; and a scrub of grasses, small wormwood (Artemesia) bushes of the sagebrush type, and scattered pistachio trees at high elevations. Saxaul bushes occur on moist sites and salt-tolerant plants grow on the halomorphic soils. (b) The central highland province, with its high dry climate, has a characteristic Eurotia-Artemesia shrub association together with leaf-poor, thorny cushion or mat plants (“hedgehog” steppe or “Igelsteppe”). Dwarf almond (Amygdalus) semi-desert occurs together with various grasses at lower elevations, alpine meadow and tundra vegetation at higher altitudes. In addition tragacanth bushes and a few juniper and birch trees occur. (c) The southern, desert province has a hot dry climate and a variety of arid-and salt-tolerant communities such as wormwood, Calligonum, Haloxylon, Arthraphaxis, and Zygophyllum. In sandy areas saxaul bushes and Aristida occur with salicornian shrubs, tamarisk, and members of the goosefoot family (Chenopodiaceae) near high ground water. Dwarf almond, pistachio, and Prunus trees occur in some places on the contiguous mountains. (d) The central steppe and semi-desert province is transitional between the latter two provinces and is characterized by wormwood communities with a variety of grasses, geophytes, dwarf almond, and sparse pistachio trees. (e) The east and southeast Afghanistan province has the greatest variety of climates, and hence vegetation. In the warm dry lowlands occurs a largely subtropical scrub with various flowering plants and shrubs. The increased precipitation in the mountains produces an evergreen, hard-leafed (Schlerophyllous) mixed wood with various species of birch, juniper, oak, pistachio, almond, ash, olive, walnut, and alder. At higher elevations conifers occur, including pines, cedar, fir, larch, and yew. Bibliography : The physical geography of Afghanistan is not well known, and much of the existing material is unreliable. That which has been published until recently tends to be superficial and commonly does not relate or refer adequately to other published work. The above can only be preliminary; it is largely based upon the following references, which are regarded as the most reliable: E. Stenz, The Climate of Afghanistan, its Aridity, Dryness and Divisions, New York, Polish Institute of Arts and Science in America, 1946. I. A. Linchevsky and A. V. Prozorovsky, “The Basic Principles of the Distribution of the Vegetation in Afghanistan,” Kew Bulletin 2, 1949, pp. 179-214. O. H. Volk, “Klima und Pflanzenverbreitung in Afghanistan,” Vegetatio, Acta Geobotanica 5-6, 1954, pp. 422-33. A. C. Hildreth, Afghan Soils in Relation to Agricultural Production, U.S.A.I.D. file report, 1957. J. Humlum, La géographie de l’Afghanistan, Copenhagen, 1959. G. B. Cressey, Crossroads: Land and Life in Southwest Asia, Chicago, 1960. V. Subramanian, V. Nasirov, and M. L. Salem, Generalized Soil Map of Afghanistan (first soil correlation seminar for south and central Asia, soil map of the world), FAO/UNESCO project, 1962. N. M. Herman, Le climat de l’Afghanistan, Monographies de la Météorologie Nationale no. 52 (Min. des trav. publ.), Paris, 1965. A. O. Westfall and V. J. Latkovich, Surface Water Resources Investigations Plan for Afghanistan (U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Admin. Rept.), Kabul, 1966. L. Fischer, Afghanistan, a Geomedical Monograph (with 10 maps), Berlin, 1968. C. W. Sweetwood, Afghanistan; Important Mineral Occurrences, American Embassy map, Kabul, 1968. M. L. Salem and F. D. Hole, “Soil Geography and Factors of Soil Formation in Afghanistan,” Soil Science 107, 1969, pp. 289-95. L. E. Heuckroth and R. A. Karim, Earthquake History, Seismicity and Tectonics of the Regions of Afghanistan (with numerous maps), Seismological Center, Faculty of Engineering, Kabul University, 1970. W. Kraus, ed., Afghanistan, Tübingen and Basel, 1972. J. Pias, “Sols d’Afghanistan: Pédogenèses anciennes et actuelles,” Revue de géographie physique et de géologie dynamique 14, 1972, pp. 433-42. L. Dupree, Afghanistan, Princeton, 1973, pp. 1-42. U. Förstner, “Petrographische und geochemische Untersuchungen an afghanischen Endseen,” Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Abhandlungen 118, 1973, pp. 268-312. G. I. Smith, Potash and Other Evaporite Resources of Afghanistan (U. S. Geological Survey Project Report, Afghan. Invest.), 1973. A. Sahab, General Atlas of Afghanistan (with numerous maps but without any references to origin), Sahab Geography and Drafting Institute, Tehran, 1974. G. I. Smith, “Quaternary Deposits in Southwestern Afghanistan,” Quaternary Research 4, 1974, pp. 39-52.
(J. F. Shroder, Jr.)
ii. Flora
Ecological conditions. Meteorological records on Afghanistan have been available since the late 1950s. The findings of the meteorological centers have been applied in climatic studies, maps, and tables of precipitation (see bibliog.); and these have shown the importance of precipitation and altitude as conditioning factors for the diversity of Afghanistan’s flora. Precipitation patterns define two main climate and vegetation zones. Ninety-five percent of Afghanistan’s territory belongs to the “Mediterranean” zone; and the greater part of its flora pertains to the greater “Turkestan” and “Iran-Turan” regions (see Šafīq Yūnos 1353 Š./1974). A limited area—about five percent of the country, in the east and southeast—receives the impact of the Indian monsoons and belongs to the sub-tropical zone. Altitude, throughout both zones, may allow for the development of different strata of vegetation. The importance of precipitation is evident. In the southwest, where altitude varies from 300 to 1,000 m above sea level, total annual precipitation does not exceed 100 mm. Hence the area (i.e., Rēgestān and the region south of the Helmand river) is desert. By contrast the northern plains at a similar altitude experience continental weather conditions and receive more than 200 mm of precipitation. The vegetation of this area is comparable to that of Central Asia and the Uralo-Caspian region. In Afghanistan’s mountainous central regions, plains vegetation occurs between 1,200 and 2,400 m altitude, particularly in Kabul province. Above 2,500 m, cool-climate vegetation is observed. In the higher altitudes, where little precipitation is received, only a few forms of Alpine flora occur. Flora. Afghanistan experiences a real winter, and thus much of its small vegetation has an annual life. With the spring rainfall is observed the growth of terophytes (Ranunculaceae, Brassicaceae) and, more especially, geophytes, including such bulbs as Muscari (grape hyacinth, ḡalāḡak), Eremurus (desert candle, sīč, serēš-e kāhī), Tulipa (lāla), Merendera (lālak-e gorg), and Gagea (zardpīāz). This vegetation disappears with the coming of summer and the drying up of the plains. Only the xerophytes, which are generally thorny, resist the dry, warm weather of summer. Afghanistan’s climate is suitable for halophyle vegetation, especially that of the families Chenopodiaceae, Polygonaceae, and Compositae. Afghanistan’s flora (outside of the small subtropical area) belongs generally to the holarctic and floristic group termed “Irano-Turkestanian.” The following are the families of flora chiefly represented in Afghanistan, in order of numerical importance: Of the family of Compositae, more than 400 species are known, including about 100 species of Artemesia (terḵ, kerm-botta, mast-yār; A. absynthium: darawna, afsantīn). The Cousinia (pašmak-ḵār, barḡaš) and Lactuca orientalis Boiss. (oriental lettuce, hūza, sandrān, sandrezd) are also present in significant number. The family Leguminosae is attested with about 350 species. The genus Alhagi (camelthorn, šotor-ḵār) is most numerous; the gum-producing Astragalus (loco, milkvetch, gīč-ḵār, bandī-botta, ǰīrak, būya, anzarūt) and Glycyrrhiza glabra L. (licorice, šīrīnbūya; a significant item in foreign trade) are also represented. In the Cruciferae family about 200 species are found, especially Brassica (cabbage, owrī; mustard, (ḵardel) and Raphanus (radish, mollī), which provide foodstuffs. In the Gramineae family are more than 150 species, including such important cultivated ones as wheat, rice, barley, maize, and sugar cane. Others include the genera Agropyron (wheatgrass, kabal, čem), Poa (bluegrass, ʿalaf), Arundo (giantreed, ney), Cymbopogon (lemongrass, gūrgīāh), and Andropogon (bluestem, ezḵar). In the Labiatae family, more than 160 species are recorded from Afghanistan, e.g., Perovskia (ḵengī, šīn-šōbē), Stachys (betony, pādolā), Phlomis (Jerusalem sage, čalpo), Nepeta (bozbāš) , Salvia (ganda-baḡal, kanowša, malangān), Hyssopus (hyssop, zūfā), Thymus (thyme, kākōtī, pūdīna-ye kōhī), Ziziphora (kākōtī), Mentha (mint, naʿnāʿ, pūdīna), and Origanum (marzanǰūš, azūl). The family Umbelliferae attests about 100 species; most notable is Ferula assafoetida L. (heng, alqōza), an item of export to India. Chenopodiaceae halophyles are common, especially Salsola (Russian thistle, ʿalaf-e šōra), Arthrophytum (sīāhšōrak, ošlān), Halostachys, and Halocaris. Besides the Apiaceae, other short-lived terophytes are found: over forty species of Euphorbiaceae, especially Crozophora tinctoria L. (qaraborāq), which furnishes dyes for the carpet industry; over seventy species of Ranunculaceae; about eighty species of Scrofulariaceae; more than sixty species of Boraginaceae; Rubiaceae; Plantaginaceae; Solanaceae, especially such Hyoscyami as H. muticus L. (bangdēvāna-ye kōhī), H. senecionis Willd. (bang-dāna ye kōhī), H. pusillus L. (bangak-e dēvāna), and also Datura L. (dātūrā). The family Zygophyllaceae is represented mainly by Zygophyllum fabago Boiss. (Syrian bean-caper, qīč) and Peganum harmala L. (espand, sarmal). The Ephedra species attests the Ephedraceae (called hōm in Herat). Bibliography : The methodical study of Afghanistan’s wild plants began with W. Griffith, Itinerary Notes on Plants Collected in the Khasyah and Bootan Mountains 1837-38, in Afghanistan 1839, 1841, Calcutta, 1848. See also his Journals of Travels, Calcutta, 1847. In the wake of the Second Anglo-Afghan War was published J. E. T. Aitchison, “On the Flora of Kuram Valley,” J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 18, 1881, pp. 1-113; 19, 1882, pp. 139-200. There followed a long gap until the major publications of the 1950s: Otto H. Volk, Klima und Pflanzenverbreitung in Afghanistan, Den Haag, 1954. Karl-Heinz Rechinger, Symbolae Afghanicae 1-5, in Det kong. Danske videnskabernes Selskab Biologiske Skrifter 8/1, 1954; 8/2, 1955; 9/3, 1957; 10/3, 1959; 13/4, 1963. Idem, Flora Iranica, Graz, 1965. The results of the Kyoto University Scientific Expedition, 1955, were published in Acta Phylotaxonomica et Geobotanica 16, 1956, pp. 131-42; 17, 1957, no. 1, pp. 14-16, no. 2, pp. 46-51; 1958, no. 3, pp. 73-75, no. 5, pp. 131-42; and in S. Kitamura, Flora of Afghanistan, Results of the Kyoto University Scientific Expedition to the Karakorum and Hindukush, 1955, Kyoto, 1960. Idem, ed., Additional Reports, Kyoto, 1966. On climatic and geographical factors, see: N. M. Hermann, Le climat de l’Afghanistan, Paris, 1965. Hermann, J. Zillhardt, and P. Lalande, Recueil de données des stations météorologiques de l’Afghanistan, Kabul, 1971, and Cartes climatiques de l’Afghanistan, Kabul, 1974. Ḡ. J. ʿAreż, “Geography of Afghanistan,” Kabul Times Annual, Kabul, 1970. Idem, “Eqlīm-e ḥayātī-ye Afḡānestān,” Geographia (Kabul University) 3, 1351 Š./1972. M. Šafīq Yūnos, “Moṭāleʿa-ye bīyū-žīyūḡrāfī-e Māhīpar elā Jalālābād az negāh-e nabātāt,” Afḡān ṭebbī maǰalla 19, 1353 Š./1974.
(M. Šafīq Yūnos)
iii. Fauna
The complex geography of Afghanistan supports a particularly diversified fauna. The Hindu Kush mountains have been a barrier to a westward dispersal of most elements of the Indian fauna realm, and as a result most of the fauna is typically Palearctic. This overlap of two major zoogeographic realms is made even more complex by the occurrence of five major ecological life zones in the country: The central highlands, steppes, southern semi-deserts, monsoon forests, and eastern intramontane basin (Figure 16). Fishes (māhīhā). The Hindu Kush range divides the country’s fish into two assemblages, the trout and carp. Brown trout (Salmo trutta oxiana; ḵālmāhī) present in northern drainages do not occur in streams of the southern slopes. Southern drainages are, however, rich in carp (šīr-māhī) species. Annandale (1920) made extensive ichthyological studies in Sīstān and separated the fish of this dry basin into two geographical divisions. The Cyprinidae, which do not occur in the highlands of Central Asia, represent an element derived from the region lying south and southeast of the Helmand basin, while the Schizothoracinae and Cobitidae are thought to have been carried southward by the Helmand from the Hindu Kush and are probably descended from fish of the ancient and over-extensive Oxus system. Tributaries of the Indus river, which drain the eastern portion of Afghanistan, also contain several fish species. Brown trout (Salmo trutta) and carp (Oreinus sp. and Schizothorax sp.) occur in the colder mountain streams of Nūrestān and the Konar valley, while two species of Cyprinidae occur further downstream. The largest fish in this drainage is the spiny eel (Mastacembelus armatus), which attains a length of 75 cm. Amphibians (ḏū maʿīšatayn) and reptiles (ḵazandagān). The herpetofauna of large parts of the country, especially the central highlands, has not been studied thoroughly, since most of the work done is centered around the Kabul river valley and southern Afghanistan. The fauna of the northern plains shows strong affinities with that of the deserts and steppes of southern USSR, while elements of the Indian fauna are included in the herpetofauna in the south and east. Only one salamander (Batrachuperus musteri) is known from the Paḡmān range and occurs in mountain streams up to 3,000 m. The most common and abundant amphibian is the green toad (Bufo viridis; baqh-e sabz), which is found all over the country. The three species of frogs belong to the Rana genus. They frequently inhabit irrigation streams, although in far smaller numbers than toads. Among the two species of turtles, the land turtle (Testudo horsfieldii, sangpošt) inhabits arid steppes all over the country up to 2,400 m. Trionyx gangeticus, a soft-shelled turtle, is known from the Indus drainage system in eastern Afghanistan. The Agama family, represented by twenty-three species in four genera, is by far the largest group of lizards. The most characteristic of this group is Agama agilis, which is widely dispersed below 2,500 m throughout the country. Caucasian Agama (Agama caucasica) and Badaḵšān Agama (Agama badakhshana), the latter being an endemic form, inhabit montane biotopes up to 3,200 m. Nine species of toad-headed Agamas (Phrynocephalus) are typical representatives of this family in the southern and northwestern semi-deserts. The two species of spiny-tailed lizards (Uromastyx) are herbivorous and live in long tunnels which they dig in stony soil of scree-covered deserts. There are fifteen species of geckos. Alsophylax pipiens, a nocturnal animal, is found frequently lingering near lights on the walls of most houses in Kabul. To the east, the leopard gecko (Eublepharis macularius) occurs near human settlements. Among the Lacertidae the most common genus is Eremias (race runners), representing twelve of the fourteen Lacertid species found in the country. Widely dispersed and abundant are Eremias guttulata watsonana and Eremias velox persica. The small skink, Ablepharus bivittatus lindbergii, which attains a body length of six cm, is commonly found at higher elevations (2,300 to 3,300m). Two species of monitors are known to occur at lower elevations. The desert monitor (Varanus griseus) is found throughout the country; while the Bengal monitor (Varanus bengalensis), an Indian fauna element, is only known from the Kabul river valley. Twenty-seven species of snakes have been recorded from Afghanistan, of which seven are poisonous (five vipers and two cobras). Among the poisonous snakes the most common is the carpet viper (Echis carinatus), which occurs at lower elevations north and south of the Hindu Kush. The cobra Naja naja oxiana occurs in the south and northwest, while the common krait (Bungarus caeruleus) is known only east of Jalālābād. Among the non-poisonous snakes, three species of sandboas (Eryx) occur all over the country. The Colubriadae is the largest snake family with fifteen species distributed in the southern lowlands, the western and northern steppes. A common Eurasian species, the diced snake (Natrix tessellata), reaches the eastern limit of its distribution in Nūrestān and into Chitral. In contrast to most other members of this family which inhabit arid areas, Natrix is found near watercourses, where it lives on fish and amphibians. Another snake restricted to the same habitat, Xenochrophis piscator, is known only from the environs of Jalālābād. Species belonging to the Psammophis, Coluber, and Lytorhynchus genera are other members of this family found in Afghanistan. The distribution of two wormsnakes, Typhlops vermicularis and Leptotyphlops blanfordi, is not well known. Birds (parandagān). Almost 450 species of birds are known, of which nearly half occur in the steppe region. Within this region, more than 100 species of waterfowl and waders pay regular visits to the alkaline lakes of Āb-e Īstāda and Dašt-e Nāwor. The rare Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus, kolang-e sefīd) visits Āb-e Īstāda en route from India to its breeding grounds on the Ob river in the Soviet Union. Many species also breed at these lakes, including shelduck (Tadorna tadorna, ardak-e waḥšī), black-winged stilt (Himantopus himantopus, gaz-e līng), avocet (Recurvirostra avosetta, šamšīrnūl), terns, and gulls. About 20,000 greater flamingo (Phoenicopterus ruber ruseus, ḡāz-e ḥosaynī) breed at the two areas; Dašt-e Nāwor (3,200 m) represents the world’s highest breeding ground of this species. The Hāmūn-e Ṣāberī and Pūzak lakes extending along the Afghan-Iranian border form an extensive habitat for many water birds, which overwinter annually. More than half a million waterfowl and waders have been recorded in these lakes. Coots (Fulica atra, qašqel-e aṣlī) dominate the scene; greylag goose (Anser anser, angir), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos, sabzgardan), wigeon (Anas penelope, nūlābī), pintail (Anas acuta, sīḵdom), shoveler (Anas clypeata, ala-peka), teal (Anas crecca, ardak-e čūča), pochard (Aythya ferina, kalla-sorḵ), and three species of grebes (Podiceps, ḡawṭaʾīhā) are some of the major species encountered. Besides waterfowl, two species of pelicans (qoṭan), grey heron (Ardea cinerea, māhīḵᵛorak-e ḵākī), great white egret (Egretta alba, māhīḵᵛorak-e sefīd), spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia, qāšoqnūl), and cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo, qāz-e sīāh), and hundreds of waders (shanks, plovers, sandpipers, snipes, and gulls) are also prevalent. Of the raptors, eagles, harriers, kestrels and some vultures abound in the lake surround. About 150 species of birds occur in the central mountains. The Sālang pass forms a major flyway during spring and autumn for large numbers of white storks (Ciconia ciconia, laklak-e sefīd), black storks (Ciconia nigra, čīlān), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris, qarakoš), and numerous species of waterfowl and waders, which migrate from their wintering grounds to northern latitudes (Nogge 1973). The chukar (Electoris chukar, kabk), Himalayan snowcock (Tetraogallus himalayensis, kabk-e darī), magpie (Pica pica, ʿakka), hoopoe (Upupa epops, atūtak), raven (Corvus corax, ḡorāb), chough (Phyrrhocorax phyrrhocorax, zāḡ-e aṛča), alpine chough (Phyrrhocorax graculus, zāḡ-e nūlzard), and a number of eagles and buzzards, together with lammergeier (Gypaetus barbatus, karges-e borūtdar), are some of the more characteristic birds encountered in the mountains. Kestrels (Falco tinnunculus, sorḵpoštak) are by far the most abundant raptors of this zone. Many species with Himalayan affinities are found in the Nūrestān and Paktīā forests in eastern Afghanistan. Species such as the Himalayan monal pheasant (Lophophorus impejanus, morḡ-e zarrīn), black-throat jay (Garrulus lanceolatus, balūṭḵᵛorak), white-headed bulbul (Hypsipetes leucocephalus, bolbol-e kalla-sefīd), and Himalayan black drongo (Dicrurus macrocerus, šāhkarā) occur in these forests. The ringed-necked parakeet (Psitacula krameri, ṭūṭī-e ṭawqī) and saltyheaded parakeet (Psitacula himalayana, ṭūṭī-e nūrestānī) are summer visitors. The arid semi-deserts and lowlands harbor few breeding birds. During spring and autumn migrations, the avifauna of this region is enriched by large concentrations of larks and pipits. Tree sparrow (Passer montanus, gonǰešk-e ṣaḥrāʾī), house sparrow (Passer domesticus, gonǰešk-e ḵānagī), and swallow (Hirundo rustica, gāčī-e ḵānagī) are common year round in towns and villages. Mammals (pestāndārān). The rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta, šādī langūr) is the only primate species besides man which occurs in Afghanistan. It is restricted to the Nūrestān and Paktīā forests, where it is found in fairly large numbers. Because of their destructive habits, they are not tolerated by local people near settlements and cultivations; but they are left unharmed in the forests. The country harbors a rich assemblage of carnivores, but unfortunately most populations are experiencing drastic reductions in numbers. The cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus venaticus, tāzī palang), once common in the southern and western steppes, is now apparently extinct due to reduction in its primary prey species, the goitered gazelle (Gazella subgutturosa, gāzāl) and onager (Equus hemiones onager, gūra-ḵar). Likewise, the Caspian tiger (Panthera tigris virgata, babr), once found in the wetlands of Āmū Daryā and the Morḡāb basin, has been exterminated through habitat destruction and intensive hunting. Similarly human predation has depleted the numbers of snow leopard (Uncia uncia, palang-e barfī), which is found in alpine valleys of the Pamir plateau and northern Hindu Kush range. The leopard (Panthera pardus, palang) and lynx (Lynx lynx, sīāhgūš) inhabiting the central highlands have also declined in numbers during recent years. Among the smaller cats, the Pallas’s cat (Felis manul, pešak-e kūhī) and desert cat (Felis lybica, pešak-e daštī), although not endangered, are experiencing intense human predation to supply the expanding fur trade. Wolf (Canis lupus, gorg) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes, rūbāh-e sorḵ) are widely distributed throughout the country in all life zones. They are found at elevations ranging from 300 m in the Sīstān basin up to 4,000 m in the alpine valleys of Badaḵšān. Lack of any substantial records of sand fox (Vulpes ruppelli, rūbāh-e daštī) and Blanford’s fox (Vulpes cana, rūbāh-e ḵākī) suggests that these two desert foxes have become very rare in Afghanistan. The jackal (Canis aureus, šaḡāl), however, has maintained substantial numbers in the steppes and deserts. During summer months, jackals are occasionally also encountered in the mountains. Of the two species of mongoose, the small Indian mongoose (Herpestes auropunctatus, mūšḵormā-ye hendūstānī) is common around Qandahār and in the Harī Rūd and Sīstān basin, while the status of the Indian gray mongoose (Herpestes edwardsi) is uncertain. The bears of Afghanistan are restricted to mountainous and forested zones. The Asiatic black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus, ḵers-e sīāh) inhabits the Laḡmān and Nūrestān forests (Povolny 1966), while the brown bear (Ursus arctos, ḵers-e nasvārī) has apparently been exterminated in this region but still inhabits the Pamir mountains. Eight species of Mustelids occur in Afghanistan. They have an extensive range and are found in varying habitats. Trapping by hunters has caused a decline in the numbers of such species as stone marten (Martes foina, dala-ḵaffak-e zard ṭawq), ermine (Mustela erminea, mūš-e ṭarzī), and weasel (Mustela nivalis, rāsū) in the montane biomes. The common otter (Lutra lutra, sag-e ābī) occurs along watercourses of most rivers, and its range extends into the forested Konar region. The striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena, kaftār) is distributed in the steppes around Qandahār and in parts of the Kabul river valley. The mountains of Afghanistan are the home ranges of five ungulate species. Over 2,500 Marco Polo sheep (Ovis ammon poli, āhū-ye qešqār) seasonally occupy the Pamir region (Petocz 1973). Siberian ibex (Capra ibex sibericus, āhū-ye rang-e pāmīrī) not only occur in the Pamir but also in the Darwāz peninsula and the Zēbak region of eastern Badaḵšān and partially into Nūrestān. Badaḵšān urial (Ovis orientalis, āhū-ye sorḵ) co-inhabit much of the same range as Siberian ibex in southeastern Badaḵšān. The alpine ibex (Capra ibex ibex, āhū-ye rang) is found in large numbers in the Hindu Kush, Paḡmān, and Kūh-e Bābā ranges, while the wild goat (Capra aegagrus, āhū-ye moḡolī) is largely found in the southern Hazāraǰāt mountains. The markhor (Capra falconeri, mārḵᵛor) is one of the most spectacular and least known species among the country’s feral goats. Four sub-species of markhor occur in Nūrestān, Laḡmān, the Paktīā forests, and Kūh-e Ṣāfī region of Kāpīsā and northern Badaḵšān. Local hunting has been a major factor in reducing their numbers in recent years. The Bactrian deer (Cervus elaphus bactrianus, gavazn-e bāḵtarī), once common in the wetlands of the Āmū Daryā, is also endangered because of habitat destruction and hunting pressure. The musk deer (Moschus moschiferus, āhū-ye ḵotan), which occurred in Nūrestān, has not been reported during recent years and may be extinct there. The wild boar (Sus scrofa, ḵūg-e waḥšī) has an extensive ecological range and breeds successfully in swamps and reed beds along major river drainages in many parts of the country. Of the insectivorous mammals, the long-eared hedgehog (Hemiechinus auritus, ḵārpoštak-e gūšderāz) and Afghan hedgehog (Hemiechinus megalotis, ḵārpoštak-e afḡānī) are sparsely distributed in the steppes and semi-deserts, while Brandt’s hedgehog (Paraechinus hypomelas) is only recorded from the Jalālābād valley in eastern Afghanistan. Besides occurring in the lowlands, shrews (Soricidae, mūšhā-ye waḥšī) are also found in mountainous terrain, e.g., the centrally located Sālang and Šebar passes. The cape hare (Lepus capensis, ḵargūš-e ḵākī) is the most common Lagomorph species and has a wide range extending from the western steppes of Herat to the Pamir mountains. The Afghan pika (Ochotona rufescens, pengmūš-afḡānī) occurs in sub-alpine valleys and is scattered from the Sālang pass to the Orūzgān mountains, while the range of large-eared pika (Ochotona macrotis, pengmūš-e gūšderāz) is limited to the valleys of Badaḵšān. The long-tailed marmot’s (Marmota caudata, tabarḡān) range is restricted to alpine valleys above 3,000 m. It occurs in the Pamir, Zēbak, and Darwāz valleys of Badaḵšān and northern Hindu Kush as well as the centrally located mountains around Nāwar. Two arboreal species of squirrels, the giant flying squirrel (Petaurista petaurista, kaftarmūš-e bozorg) and arrow-tailed flying squirrel (Hylopetes fimbriatus, kaftarmūš-e dombārīk), inhabit the Nūrestān and Spīngār forests. During spring and summer, when not hibernating, the ground squirrel (Spermophilus fulvus, senǰāb-e zamīnī) is abundant in the Ḡaznī and Katawāz plains, while the long-clawed squirrel (Spermophilopsis leptodactylus, senǰāb-e bozorg) occurs in clay and loess biotopes of northern Afghanistan. The rapidly expanding populations of smaller rodents, i.e., voles and gerbils (Cricetidae) and rats (Muridae), are posing serious problems to agriculture in the steppes. An expanding agricultural economy, reduction in predator numbers, especially wild cats and foxes, and favorable weather conditions have fostered the increase. Thirty-two species of bats have been identified in Afghanistan (Gaisler et al. 1968). Their preferred habitat is in warmer sections of the country, where they may be found in abandoned ruins and caves of the Sīstān basin and the steppes. To the east, common bats (Myotis and Pipistrellus) have been observed in Lāgmān and the Kabul river valley. Bibliography : N. Annandale, “Aquatic Fauna of Seistan,” Rec. Indian Museum 18, 1920, pp. 150-253. K. Paludan, On the Birds of Afghanistan, Copenhagen, 1959. J. Niethammer, “Die Säugetiere Afghanistans: Insectivora, Rodentia, Lagmorpha,” Science Quarterly (Kabul), 1965, pp. 18-41. J. Gaisler et al., “Faunal and Ecological Review of Mammals Occurring in the Environs of Jalalabad: Chiroptera,” Zool. Listy 17/1, 1968, pp. 41-48. B. Kral, “Notes on the Herpetofauna of Certain Provinces of Afghanistan,” Zool. Listy 18/1, 1969, pp. 55-66. E. Kullmann, “Die Tierwelt Ostafghanistans in ihren geographischen Beziehungen,” Freunde des Kölner Zoo 13/1, 1970, pp. 3-25. A. E. Leviton and S. C. Anderson, “The Amphibians and Reptiles of Afghanistan,” Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences 38, 1970, pp. 163-206. P. Schneider and A. S. Jalal, “Erstnachweis einer Weichschildkröte, Trionyx gangeticus, in Afghanistan,” Bonn. zoologische Beiträge 21/3-4, pp. 269-73. M. Ehsan, “Herpetofaunal Regions of Afghanistan,” Science Quarterly (Kabul) 2/1-2, pp. 20-42. J. Hassinger, “A Survey of the Mammals of Afghanistan,” Fieldiana: Zoology 60, 1973. C. Naumann and J. Niethammer, “Zur Säugetierfauna des Afghanischen Pamir und des Wakhan,” Bonn. zoologische Beiträge 24, 1973, pp. 237-48. G. Niethammer, “Zur Vogelwelt des Afghanischen Pamir und des Darwaz,” ibid., 24, 1973, pp. 270-84. G. Nogge, “Vogeljagd am Hindukush,” Natur und Museum 103, 1973, pp. 276-79. R. G. Petrocz, “Marco Polo Sheep (Ovis ammon poli) of the Afghan Pamir,” mimeo. report, United Nations Development Program, Kabul, 1973. Idem, W. F. Rodenburg, and K. Habibi, “The Birds of Hamune Puzak,” mimeo. report, Kabul, 1976.
(K. Habibi)
iv. Ethnography
In their ethnolinguistic and physical variety the people of Afghanistan are as diverse as their country is in topography (see Figure 17). Basically, however, they may be described as of Muslim religion, speakers of Indo-European languages, and of the Mediterranean sub-stock of the great Caucasoid human stock (see bibliog. under physical anthropology). Most groups north of the Hindu Kush mountains exhibit varying degrees of Mongoloid physical characteristics. Except in rural areas off the main lines of communications, few peoples maintain racial homogeneity. Many groups have practiced intermarriage for centuries; and composite communities exist in broad bands of ethnic gray zones (see the map of ethnic groups). Where long contact has existed between Caucasoid and Mongoloid peoples, particularly in the north among the Fārsī- (or Darī-) speaking Tajik and the Turkic Uzbek, there occur combinations of red or blond hair and blue or mixed-color eyes in association with epicanthic eyefolds and high cheekbones. In the south many darker-skinned Balūč and Brāhūī also have blue-green, or mixed eyes. Blondism occurs with comparatively high frequency among the more remote Nūrestānī; and blue and mixed eyes occur in combination with blond or red hair. The research on the fringes of Nūrestān by the Soviet anthropologist G. Debets indicates a great mixture of “Mediterranean-Indian” types; but more blondism exists in the center of the region. Afghanistan is not a self-contained ethnic unit, nor is its national culture uniform. Few of its ethnic groups are totally indigenous: The number of Paṧtūn who live in Pakistan’s tribal agencies and North-West Frontier Province is almost equal to the number of those who are Afghan citizens. The Tajik, Turkman, Uzbek, and Qirḡiz have their own soviet republics in Central Asia. Most inhabitants of far western Afghanistan (which is geographically and culturally an extension of the Iranian plateau) are Persian-speaking Fārsīwān. And the Balūč in the southwestern corner of Afghanistan extend into western Pakistan and southeast Iran; also several groups of Balūč live in the Turkmen SSR. In the same general area as the Balūč are found the Brāhūī—speakers of a Dravidian language, who are occasionally Australoid in appearance. The Nūrestānī, Kūhestānī, Guǰur, and other small groups of mountaineer sheep— and goat-herders, dairymen, and farmers occupy the rugged mountain zones of eastern Afghanistan and continue into Chitral (Pakistan). The Wāḵī-Pamiri groups likewise extend into the mountains of Pakistan. The Barbarī of eastern Iran probably derive their origin from the Aymāq or Hazāra, the principal peoples of the central mountains of Afghanistan. These groups present many local and ethnolinguistic variations in their forms of Afghan peasant-tribal society. This society may be described generally as patriarchal, patrilineal, and patrilocal, but imbued with many strong matri-aspects. In December, 1979, the armed forces of the USSR invaded Afghanistan; subsequently the patterns described in this section have been altered to some degree. The situation remains unclear as of this writing (July, 1982), and the war continues to escalate. Ethnic groups in Afghanistan. In the following list, the form of religion is, except where noted or as qualified, Hanafite Sunni. Paṧtūn. Language: Paṧtō dialects. They are of the Mediterranean subgroup of the Caucasoid human stock. About 4,800,000 live in Afghanistan as agriculturists, nomads, and semi-nomads. The Tūrī are Shiʿites. Bibliog.: L. Dupree, “The Changing Character of South-central Afghanistan Villages,” Human Organization 14, 1956, pp. 26-29. K. Ferdinand, “Nomad Expansion and Commerce in Central Afghanistan,” Folk 4, 1962, pp. 123-59. Idem, “Nomadism in Afghanistan,” in Viehwirtschaft und Hirtenkultur, ed. L. Föeldes and B. Gunda, Budapest, 1969, pp. 127-60. O. Caroe, The Pathans, London, 1965. H. -J. Wald, Landnutzung und Siedlung der Pashtunen im Becken von Khost, Opladen, 1969. C. Jentsch, Das Nomadentum in Afghanistan (Afghanische Studien 9), Meisenheim, 1973. N. Tapper, “The Advent of Pashtun maldars in North-western Afghanistan,” BSOAS 36, 1973, pp. 55-79. R. Tapper, “Nomadism in Modern Afghanistan,” Afghanistan in the 1970s, ed. L. Dupree and L. Albert, New York, 1974, pp. 126-43. A. Janata, “Ghairatman—Der gute Pashtune,” Afghanistan Journal 2/3, 1975, pp. 83-97. B. Glatzer, Nomaden von Gharjistan, Wiesbaden, 1977. G. Kuhnert, Falknerei in Afghanistan, Bonn, 1980. A. Christensen, “The Pashtuns of Kunar,” Afghanistan Journal 7/3, 1980, pp. 79-92. W. Steul, Paschtunwali, Wiesbaden, 1981. G. Pedersen, “Socio-economic Change among a Group of East Afghan Nomads,” Afghanistan Journal 8, 1981, pp. 115-22. Relevant, though particularly concerned with the Paṧtūn of Pakistan, are: F. Barth, Indus and Swat Kohistan: An Ethnographic Survey, Oslo, 1956. Idem, Political Leadership among the Swat Pathans, London, 1959. For the various Paṧtūn tribes, see also A Dictionary of the Pathan Tribes of the North-West Frontier of India, Calcutta (General Staff, Army HQ India), 1910. Afghanistan: Field Notes of General Staff; India, 2nd ed., Calcutta, 1915. R. Ridgway, Pathans, Calcutta, 1918. C. Davies, The North-West Frontier, 1890-1908, Cambridge, 1932. Afghanistan: British Intelligence Survey, London, 1948. A. Ahmed, Millennium and Charisma Among Pathans, London, 1976. Idem, Social and Economic Changes in the Tribal Areas, Karachi, 1977. L. Dupree, “On two Views of the Swat Pushtun,” Current Anthropology 18, 1977, pp. 514-17. J. Robertson, Notes on the Nomad Tribes in Eastern Afghanistan, Quetta, 1978 (repr. of the 1934 classic). E. Howell, Mizh: A Monograph on the Government’s Relations with the Masud Tribe, Karachi, 1979; foreword by A. Ahmed. A. Ahmed, Pukhtun Economy and Society, London, 1980. F. Barth, Selected Essays: Features of Person and Society in Swat. Collected Essays on Pathans, vol. 2, London, 1981. A. Singer, Guardians of the North-West Frontier: The Pathans, Amsterdam, 1982. See Balland under Tajik. Tajik. Language: Darī; Tajiki dialects. Of the basic Mediterranean sub-stock, they show Mongoloid attributes increasingly from south to north. About 3,500,000 live in northern Afghanistan, primarily as agriculturists. They are concentrated in the northeast, where they usually refer to themselves by the valley or region in which they live. Those living in areas dominated by other ethnic groups refer to themselves simply as “Tajik.” (For the history of the term, see Tajik.) Some are Ismaʿili. Bibliog.: M. Andreev, Po etnografii Afganistana, Tashkent, 1927. Idem, Po etnologii Afganistana, Tashkent, 1932. P. Snoy, “Nuristan und Munğan,” Tribus 14, 1965, pp. 101-49. F. Kussmaul, “Siedlung und Gehöft bei den Tağiken in den Bergländern Afghanistans,” Anthropos 60, 1965, pp. 487-532. Idem, “Badaxšan und seine Tağiken,” Tribus 14, 1965, pp. 711-99. L. Dupree, “Aq Kupruk: A Town in North Afghanistan,” 2 parts, American University Field Staff (AUFS), Fieldstaff Reports 10/9-10, Hanover, N. H., 1966; repr. in Peoples and Cultures of the Middle East, ed. L. Sweet, II, New York, 1970, pp. 344-87. J. Uberoi, “Men, Women and Property in Northern Afghanistan,” India and Contemporary Islam, ed. S. Lokhandwall, Simla, 1971, pp. 388-416. N. Allan, “The Modernization of Rural Afghanistan: A Case Study,” Afghanistan in the 1970s, pp. 113-25. D. Balland, “Vieux sédentaire tadjik, les immigrants Pachtoun dans le sillon de Ghazni (Afghanistan oriental),” Bulletin de l’Association des géographes français 51, 1974, pp. 171-80. Fārsīwān. Language: Darī. Of the basic Mediterranean sub-stock, about 600,000 live near the Afghan-Iranian border or in the districts of Herat, Qandahār, Ḡaznī, and other southern and western towns. The term Fārsīwān also has the regional forms Pārsīwān and Pārsībān. In religion they are Imamite Shiʿite. In the literature they are often mistakenly referred to as Tajik. Bibliog: P. English, “The Pre-industrial City of Herat,” Cities in the Middle East, ed. L. Brown, Princeton, 1973. H. Baghban, The Content and Concept of Humor in Magadi Theater, PhD thesis, Indiana University (University Microfilms 77-10-977). Qizilbāš. Language : Darī. Of the Mediterranean sub-stock, they are scattered throughout Afghanistan and are primarily urban. They are descendants of the military and administrative personnel stationed in Afghanistan by Nāder Shah Afšār (1148-60/1736-47). Many hold important bureaucratic and professional appointments, and they form one of the more literate groups in Afghanistan. They practice Imamite Shiʿism but may also, to avoid discrimination, resort to dissimulation (taqīya). Bibliog.: H. Hahn, Die Stadt Kabul (Afghanistan) und ihr Umland (Bonner Geographische Abhandlungen 34, 35), 1964, 1965. D. Wiebe, “Struktur und Funktion eines Serais in der Altstadt von Kabul,” Schriften der Geographischen Instituts der Universität Kiel 38, 1973, pp. 213-33. L. Dupree, “Further Notes on Taqiyya: Afghanistan,” JAOS 99, 1979, pp. 680-82. Hazāra. Language: Hazāragī dialect of Darī. They are physically Mongoloid, but admixture is common in the ethnic gray zones. The Hazāra number about 1,000,000, primarily highland agriculturalists; many work seasonally in Kabul and other urban centers. Their ancestors may have arrived in Afghanistan from Chinese Turkistan within the period 626-850/1229-1447. In religion they are divided into Imamite Shiʿite, Ismaʿili, and Hanafite Sunni groups. Bibliog.: E. Bacon, Obok (Wenner-Gren Foundation Monograph 25), New York, 1951. Idem, “An Inquiry into the History of the Hazara Mongols of Afghanistan,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 7, 1951, pp. 230-47. K. Ferdinand, Preliminary Notes on Hazara Culture, Copenhagen, 1951. Idem, “Ethnographical Notes on the Chahar Aimaq, Hazara and Moghol,” Acta Orientalia 28, 1964, pp. 175-203. H. Dianous, “Hazaras et Mongols en Afghanistan,” Orient 5, 1961, pp. 71-113. H. Schurmann, The Mongols of Afghanistan, The Hague, 1962. Dupree, “The Green and the Black,” AUFS, Fieldstaff Reports, South Asia Series, 7/7, 1963. R. Canfield, “Hazara Integration into the Afghan Nation,” The Asia Society, Afghanistan Council, Occasional Paper 3, New York, 1972. Idem, “Faction and Conversion in a Plural Society: Religious Alignments in the Hindu Kush,” Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Anthropological Paper 50, Ann Arbor, 1973. Aymāq. Language: Darī dialects, incorporating much Turkic vocabulary. They are Mongoloid in basic physical type, but less notably so in appearance than the Hazāra. Numbering about 500,000, they are agriculturalists and transhumants. They refer to themselves by tribal names (see map) and not by the expression “Čahār Aymāq;” the first of these two terms is used only when people are prompted. Bibliog.: G. Mandersloot and J. Powell, Firozkohi een Afghanistan Reisjournal, Rotterdam, 1971. See also Ferdinand, “Ethnographical Notes,” under Hazāra. Moḡol. Language: Darī, incorporating much Mongol vocabulary; some southern Moḡol speak Paṧtō. They are basically Mongoloid, but occasional Mediterranean admixture occurs. Several thousand are scattered throughout central and north Afghanistan as highland agriculturalists and transhumants. They were originally concentrated in Ḡōr province, their dispersion occurring at least 125 years ago; they may be descended from troops that accompanied Genghis Khan. Bibliog.: A. Mariq, “Arwitsch, un village mongole,” Le minaret du Djam, Paris, 1959, pp. 77-78. S. Homam, “Afghan Moghols,” Afghanistan 33/1-2, 1980, pp. 87-99, 33-39. See also bibliog. under Hazāra. Uzbek. Language: Čaḡatāy (central Turkic) dialects. Basically Mongoloid, these people show much Mediterranean admixture in the ethnic gray zones. About 1,000,000 live in northern Afghanistan, chiefly sedentary farmers or transhumants. They refer to themselves by old tribal names—Harakī, Kamakī, Mangīt, Ming, Šēš Qara, Taymūs. Bibliog.: G. Jarring, On the Distribution of Turk Tribes in Afghanistan: An Attempt at a Preliminary Classification (Lunds Universitets Arsskritt, N.F., avd. 1, bd. 35, no. 4, 1939). P. Centlivers, “Les Uzbeks du Qattaghan,” Afghanistan Journal 2, 1976, pp. 28-36. See also Dupree, “Aq Kupruk,” under Tajik. Turkman. Language: Oḡuz dialects. In physical type they are acquiline Mongoloid; about 400,000 live as semi-sedentary and semi-nomadic farmer-herdsmen in north Afghanistan (concentrated in the northwest). After the failure of the 1920s basmačı resistance to the Bolsheviks in Central Asia, Turkman groups brought with them into Afghanistan the karakul lamb and rug-weaving industries; others had arrived earlier. Major groups include: Tekke, Yomūd, Tariq, Lakai in the Herat region; Tekke and Ersarī in Aqča; Sāroq and Čakra in Andḵūy; Salōr in Maymana and in Marūčak; Ersarī and Mawrī in Dawlatābād. Bibliog.: Jarring, On the Distribution of Turk Tribes. W. Irons, “The Torkoman Nomads,” Natural History 77, 1968, pp. 44-51. Idem, “Variation in Political Stratification among the Yomut Turkmen,” Anthropological Quarterly 44, 1971, pp. 143-56 (both on the Iranian Yomūd, but relevant). E. Franz, “Zur gegenwartigen Verbreitung und Gruppierung der Turkmenen in Afghanistan,” Baessler-Archiv 20, 1972, pp. 191-238. Idem, “Ethnographische Skizzen zur Frage der Turkmenen in Afghanistan,” Orient 4, 1972, pp. 175-84. X. de Planhol, “Sur la frontière turkmène de l’Afghanistan,” Revue géographique de l’Est 13/1-2, 1973, pp. 1-16. A. Stucki, “Unter Turkmenen,” Tages Anzeiger Magazin 44, 1978, pp. 6-13. Qirḡiz. Language: Qıpčaq dialects. Two groups of the Mongoloid Qirḡiz, comprising several thousand transhumants, tend sheep, goats, and yaks in the Little Pamir and Great Pamir. Bibliog.: Jarring, On the Distribution of Turk Tribes. R. Dor, Contribution à l’étude des Kirghiz du Pamir Afghan (Cahiers Turcica 1), Paris, 1975. R. de Grancy and R. Kostka, ed., Grosser Pamir, Graz, 1975. R. Dor and C. Naumann, Die Kirghisen des afghanischen Pamir, Graz, 1978. M. Shahrani, The Kirghiz and Wakhi of Afghanistan, Seattle, 1979. L. Dupree, “The Kirghiz and Wakhi of Afghanistan,” Asian Affairs 11, 1980, pp. 322-25. Brāhūī. Language: Brāhūī (Dravidian); most also speak Paṧtō or Balūčī. A modified Mediterranean sub-stock with moderate Australoid admixture, the Brāhūīs in southwest Afghanistan number about 10,000. They are usually tenant farmers or hired herders for Paṧtūn or Balūč khans. Principal groups include: Aydozī, Lāwarzī, Yāḡīzī, Zirkandī, Maḥmasānī. See the literature on the Brāhūī in Pakistan: D. Bray, The Life-History of a Brahui, London, 1913. N. Swidler, “The Political Context of Brahui Sedentarization,” Ethnology 12, 1973, pp. 299-314. Nūrestānī. Language: Nūrestānī dialects. They are of the Mediterranean sub-stock with about one-third recessive blondism. About 70,000 are settled in eastern Afghanistan. Formerly termed “Kafirs,” they were converted forcibly to Islam in the late 19th century by Amir ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān. (About 2-3,000 Chitrali Kafirs still practice the old religion, according to the unpublished research of P. Parkes.) The Nūrestānīs designate themselves by local geographical names, e.g., Bašgalī, Waygalī, Pārūnī, Aškūn, Wamāʾī. They practice both agriculture (using elaborate terracing on the mountain slopes) and herding of sheep, goats, and cattle. Particularly noticeable in their culture is the proliferation of wood artifacts. Bibliog.: G. S. Robertson, Kafirs of the Hindu Kush, London, 1896, new ed., 1900; repr., Karachi, with foreword by L. Dupree, 1975. A. Scheibe, ed., Deutsche im Hindukusch, Berlin, 1937. P. Snoy, “Nuristan und Mungan,” Tribus 14, 1965, pp. 101-49. S. Jones, An Annotated Bibliography of Nuristan (Kafiristan) and the Kalash Kafirs of Chitral, 2 parts, Copenhagen, 1966-69. Idem, The Political Organization of the Kom Kafirs, Copenhagen, 1967. A. R. Palwal, “History of Former Kafiristan,” Afghanistan 21/3, 1968, pp. 48-66; 21/4, pp. 61-88; 22/1, 1969, pp. 6-27; 22/2, pp. 20-43. L. Dupree, “Nuristan: The Land of Light Seen Darkly,” AUFS Fieldstaff Reports, South Asia Series, 15/6, 1971. K. Jettmar, ed., Cultures of the Hindu Kush, Heidelberg, 1974. Idem, Die Religionen des Hindu Kusch, Stuttgart, 1975; English tr., Warminster, 1980. R. Strand, “The Changing Economy of the Kom Nuristani,” Afghanistan Journal 2, 1975, pp. 123-34. M. Melabar, “A Native Account of the Folk History of the Kalashum,” Afghanistan 30/3, 1977; 30/4, 1978. L. Edelberg and S. Jones, Nuristan, Graz, 1979. B. Kingsley, “The Cap that Survived Alexander,” JAOS 85, 1981, pp. 39-46. Kōhestanī. Language: Dardic (Indo-Aryan) dialects. The term Kōhestanī is applied to the distinct linguistic groups, numbering about 60,000 individuals, on the southern fringe of Nūrestān—e.g., speakers of Pašaī, Gawar-bātī, Sāwaǰī, Daḡnaī, and Kuwār. They are of Mediterranean physical type. Bibliog.: R. L. Keiser, “Social Structure in the Southeastern Hindu Kush: Some Implications for Pashai Ethno-history,” Anthropos 69, 1974, pp. 445-56. Idem, “Genealogical Beliefs and Social Structure among the Sum of Afghanistan,” Afghanistan Council, Asia Society, Occasional Paper 5, 1975. P. Snoy, Bagrot, Eine dardische Talschaft im Karakorum, Graz, 1975. K. Wutt, Pashai, Graz, 1981. Gaḷča (or Mountain Tajik). Language: in addition to Darī, various Pamir (Eastern Iranian) languages: Eškāšmī, Munjī, Ōrmuṛī, Parāčī, Rōšānī, Sanglēčī, Šuḡnī, Wāḵī, Yaḡnōbī. They are of the Mediterranean sub-stock with Mongoloid admixture; several thousand live as farmers, mainly in Badaḵšān and the Wāḵān. In religion some are Hanafite Sunni, others Ismaʿili. Bibliog.: K. Gratzl, ed., Hindukusch, Graz, 1974. See also Shahrani under Qirḡiz, Kussmaul under Tajik, and bibliog. under v. Languages. Balūč. Language: Balūčī. Of the Mediterranean sub-stock with brachycephalic tendencies, about 200,000 live in Afghanistan. They are now semi-sedentary and semi-nomadic, having traditionally been nomads and caravaneers (and slavers until the late 19th century). Some live in the northwest; others travel from Sīstān to Herat in summer and return in winter. Most Afghan Balūč are Roḵšānī; main sub-groups include: Sanǰarānī, Nahūrī, Yamarzay, Sumarzay, Gumša-zay, Sarbandī, Mīāngol, Harūt, Sālārzay. In the Sīstān swamps lives a specialized hunter-fisherman group, the Ṣayyād. Bibliog.: See under Balūč. R. Pehrson and F. Barth, The Social Organization of the Marri Baluch, Chicago, 1966. B. Spooner, “Politics, Kinship and Ecology in Southeast Persia,” Ethnology 7, 1969, pp. 139-52. E. Gafferberg, Perezhitki religioznykh predstavleniĭ u Beludzheĭ, Moscow, 1975. See also Embree under Other. Guǰur. Language: of the Indo-Aryan group; most also speak Paṧtō. Of Mediterranean type, they are cattle-herders and farmers on the eastern fringe of Nūrestān. See Dupree and Strand under Nūrestānī and Rao under Jat. Jat (or Guǰī, called Guǰur in the north). Language: Indo-Aryan; most also speak Darī or Paṧtō. Of Mediterranean type, they form gypsy-like bands of tradesmen, tinkers, musicians, and fortune-tellers. Many claim Arab descent, e.g., the Shaikh Moḥammadī, who are traders only. Other groups include the Čangar, Musalī, and Čalū. Bibliog.: A. Rao, “Note préliminaire sur les Jat d’Afghanistan,” Studia Iranica 8, 1979, pp. 141-49. Idem, “Qui sont les Jat d’Afghanistan?” Afghanistan Journal 8, 1981, pp. 55-64. Arab. Language: Primarily Darī or Paṧtō; some speak an Arabized Persian, and a few speak Arabic. Various small, semi-sedentary villages and semi-nomadic bands claim Arab (Sayyed) descent; their physical types are Mediterranean, Mongoloid, and mixed. Bibliog.: R. Farhadi, “Die Sprachen von Afghanistan,” Zentralasiatische Studien 3, 1969, pp. 409-16. T. Barfield, The Central Asian Arabs of Afghanistan, Austin, 1981. Hindu. Language: Hindi, Panjabi, or Lahndā; they also speak either Darī or Paṧtō. About 20,000 people, basically of north Indian physical type and Hindu in religion, are found mainly in urban centers; they are merchants and moneylenders. Bibliog.: L. Dupree, “The Indian Merchants in Kabul,” AUFS Fieldstaff Reports, South Asia Series 6/3, 1962. Sikh. Language: see under Hindu. About 10,000 are scattered throughout the cities and towns of Afghanistan as merchants and moneylenders. Like the Hindus, they are mostly Afghan citizens and practice their religion without undue interference. Their basic physical type is Mediterranean, with extreme hirsuteness. See Dupree under Hindu. Jew. Language: Hebrew; all speak Darī or Paṧtō or both. Several hundred live in Kabul, Qandahār, and Herat as merchants and moneylenders. Many went to Israel, but most subsequently either returned or emigrated to the United States. Their physical type is Mediterranean. Bibliography : Most writings on Afghan peoples and cultures have been footnotes to M. Elphinstone, An Account of the Kingdom of Caubul and its Dependencies in Persia, Tartary and India. Comprising a View of the Afghaun Nation and a History of the Dooraunee Monarchy, London, 1815. See list of bibliographies in Bibliographie der Afghanistan—Literatur 1945-1967, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1968-69. On films and unpublished research, see L. Dupree, “Anthropology in Afghanistan,” AUFS Fieldstaff Reports, South Asia Series 20/5, 1976. The most complete, continuing bibliography is Biblioteca Afghanica, Liestal, Switzerland. The following periodicals publish many ethnographic articles: Afghanistan (Kabul), Folklore (Kabul), Afghanistan Journal (Graz), Paṣto (Kabul), Journal of Central Asia (Islamabad), Central Asia (Peshawar), Afghan Studies (British Academy). General works, J. Biddulph, Tribes of the Hindu Koosh, Calcutta, 1880. H. Raverty, Notes on Afghanistan and Part of Baluchistan. Geographical, Ethnological and Historical, London, 1888. H. Bellew, An Inquiry into the Ethnography of Afghanistan, London, 1891 (more reliable than Raverty). Another basic source is the six volume Imperial Gazetteer of Afghanistan by the British General Staff, Calcutta, 1908-14. Several volumes have been updated and edited by L. Adamec under the title Historical and Political Gazatteer of Afghanistan: I. Badakhshan and Northeastern Afghanistan, Graz, 1973. II. Farah and Southwestern Afghanistan, Graz, 1973. III. Herat and Northwestern Afghanistan, Graz, 1975. IV. Mazar-i-Sharif and North-Central Afghanistan, Graz, 1979. V. Kandahar and South-Central Afghanistan, Graz, 1980. J. Humlum, La géographie de l’Afghanistan, Copenhagen, 1959. M. Klimburg, Afghanistan, Vienna, 1969. A. Aslanov et al., “Ethnography of Afghanistan: A Russian Study,” Afghanistan: Some New Approaches, ed. G. Grassmuck et al., Ann Arbor, pp. 1-11. W. Kraus, ed., Afghanistan, Tübingen and Basel, 1972. J. Blanc, L’Afghanistan et ces populations, Paris, 1976. A. Embree, ed., Pakistan’s Western Borderlands, New Delhi, 1977. N. H. Dupree, An Historical Guide to Afghanistan, 2nd ed., Kabul, 1977 (containing good ethnographic material). R. and M. Poulton, Rī Jang: Un village tāǰīk dans le nord de l’Afghanistan, Paris, 1979. Les temps modernes, revue mensuelle: Afghanistan, Paris, no. 408-09, 1980. L. Dupree, Afghanistan, 3rd revised ed., Princeton, 1980. C. Rathjens, ed., Neue Forschungen in Afghanistan, Opladen, 1981. Physical anthropology. G. Maranjian, “The Distribution of ABO Blood Types in Afghanistan,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 10, 1958, p. 263. R. Woodd-Walker et al., “The Blood Groups of the Timuri and Related Tribes in Afghanistan,” ibid., 27, 1967, pp. 195-204. H. Hughes, “Finger Dematoglyphics from Nuristan, Afghanistan,” Man 2, 1967, pp. 119-25. G. Debets, Physical Anthropology of Afghanistan, Cambridge, Mass., 1970. Family, village and town; social change. A. Janata, “Verlobung und Hochzeit in Kabul,” Archiv für Völkerkunde 17-18, 1962-63, pp. 59-72. K. Honrich, “Die Einstellung Afghanischer Studenten zum sozialen Wandel,” Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozial-Psychologie 16, 1964, pp. 703-26. E. Friedl, Trager mediater Begabung im Hindukusch und Karakorum (Acta Ethnologica et Linguistica 8), Vienna, 1965. E. Hahn, Die Stadt Kabul (Afghanistan) und ihr Umland (Bonner Geographische Abhandlungen 34-35), 1964, 1965. C. Kieffer, “A propos de la circoncision à Caboul et dans le Logar,” Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers, Wiesbaden, 1967, pp. 191-201. H. Amoss, “Dari-Zul: "Village in transition",” American Historical Anthropology: Essays in Honor of Leslie Spier, Carbondale, 1967. P. Centlivres, Un bazar d’Asie Centrale. Forme et Organisation du bazar de Tâshkurghân (Afghanistan), Wiesbaden, 1972. E. Grötzbach, Kulturgeographische Wandel in Nordost-Afghanistan seit dem 19. Jahrhundert (Afghanische Studien 4), Meisenheim, 1972. C. -J. Charpentier, Bazaar-e-Tashqurghan. Ethnographical Studies in an Afghan Traditional Bazaar, Uppsala, 1972. N. H. Dupree, Kabul: City in Transition (Afghanistan Council, Asia Society, Special Paper 2), New York, 1975. L. Sakata, The Concepts of Music and Musicians in Three Persian-Speaking Areas of Afghanistan, PhD thesis, University of Michigan, 1976 (UM 76-17-09). M. Slobin, Music in the Culture of Northern Afghanistan, Tucson, 1976. B. Sarif, Zur Situation des Frauen in Afghanistan, Frankfurt, 1977. L. Dupree, “USAID and Social Scientists Discuss Afghanistan’s Development Prospects,” AUFS Fieldstaff Reports, South Asia Series 20/2, 1977. E. Knabe, Frauenemanizipation in Afghanistan, Meisenheim, 1977. M. Miran, “Sociolinguistic Factors in Afghanistan,” Afghanistan Journal 4, 1977, pp. 122-27. A. and B. Szabo, Preliminary Notes on the Indigenous Architecture of Afghanistan, Harvard, 1978. P. Hunte, Women and the Development Process in Afghanistan (AID/NE-C-1487), Washington, 1978. J. Anderson and R. Strand, ed., “Ethnic Processes and Intergroup Relations in Contemporary Afghanistan,” Afghanistan Council, Asia Society, Occasional Paper 15, New York, 1978. R. Kraus, Siedlungspolitik und Erfolg dargestellt an Siedlungen in dem Provinzen Hilmend und Baghlan, Afghanistan (Afghanische Studien 12), Meisenheim, 1975. J. Hanifi, “The Central Asian and its Role in Cultural Transformation,” Afghanistan Council, Asia Society, Occasional Paper 6, 1974. L. Dupree, “Settlement and Migration Patterns in Afghanistan,” Modern Asian Studies 9, 1975, pp. 385-400. R. Dor and M. Nicolas, Quand le crible était dans la paille, Paris, 1978. A. Ghani, “Islam and State-Building in a Tribal Society: Afghanistan 1880-1901,” Modern Asian Studies 12, 1978, pp. 269-84. I. McArthur, S. Sayad, and M. Nawin, “Rangeland Livestock Production in Western Afghanistan,” Journal of Arid Environments 2, 1979, pp. 163-79. T. Faegre, Tents-Architecture of the Nomads, 1979. M. Casimer, J. Winter, and B. Glatzer, “Desertification of Arid and Semi-arid Areas,” Remote Sensing Possibilities and Limitations, Cologne, 1979, pp. 11-14. B. Dupaigne, “Le dernier jour des hommes, les hommes et la mort,” Les hommes et la mort, 1979. A. Velter, E. Delloye, and M.-J. Camothe, Les Bazars de Kaboul, Paris, 1979. S. Hallet and R. Semizay, The Traditional Architecture of Afghanistan, New York, 1980. L. Boesen, “Women, Honour, and Love,” Afghanistan Journal 7, 1980, pp. 50-59. R. O’Conner, ed., Managing Health Systems in Developing Areas: Afghanistan, Lexington, Mass., 1980. L. Dupree, “Militant Islam and Traditional Warfare in Islamic South Asia,” AUFS Asia 21, 1980. S. Lajoinie, Conditions de femmes en Afghanistan, Paris, 1980. A. -S. Zadran, “Kinship, Family, and Kinship Terminology,” Afghanistan 33/2, 1980, pp. 45-68. I. Delloye, Des femmes d’Afghanistan, Paris, 1980. N. H. Dupree, “Revolutionary Rhetoric and Afghan Women,” Afghanistan Council, Asia Society, Occasional Paper 23, 1981. W. Azoy, Buzkashi: Game and Power in Afghanistan, Philadelphia, 1982. Other. R. Hackin and A. A. Kohzad, Legendes et coutumes afghans, Paris, 1953. K. Ferdinand, “The Horizontal Windmills of Western Afghanistan,” Folk 5, 1963, pp. 71-89; see also ibid., 8-9, 1966-67, pp. 83-88. M. Demont and P. Centlivres, “Poteries et potiers d’Afghanistan,” Bulletin annuel du Musée et Institut d’Ethnographie de la Ville de Geneve 10, 1967, pp. 23-67. B. Dupaigne, “Aperçus sur quelques techniques afghanes,” Objets et mondes 8, 1968, pp. 41-84. L. Dupree, “Sports and Games in Afghanistan,” AUFS Fieldstaff Reports, South Asia Series 14/1, 1970. F. R. Matson, “Summary: The Archaeological Present: Near Eastern Potters at Work,” AJA 88, 1974, pp. 345-57. N. H. Dupree, “An Interpretation of the Role of the Hoopoe in Afghan Folklore and Magic,” Folklore 85, 1974, pp. 173-93. A. Janata, “Beitrag zur Völkerkunde Afghanistans,” Archiv für Völkerkunde 29, 1975, pp. 7-36. L. Dupree, “Saint Cults in Afghanistan,” AUFS Fieldstaff Reports, South Asia Series 20/1, 1976. M. Centlivres-Demont, Popular Art in Afghanistan, Graz, 1976. H. Einzmann, Religioses Volksbrauchtum in Afghanistan, Wiesbaden, 1977. M. Mills, “Cupid and Psyche in Afghanistan,” Asia Society, Occasional Paper, no. 16, New York, 1978. R. Weekes, ed., Muslim Peoples: A World Ethnographic Survey, Westport, Conn., 1978 (including sections on Aimaq by A. Janata, Baluch by S. Pastner, Brahui by N. Swidler, Hazara by R. Canfield, Kirghiz by V. Mote, and Nuristani, Pushtun, Tajik and Uzbak by L. Dupree). M. Dutreux, La peinture des camions en Afghanistan, Paris, 1978 (Paris I Sorbonne, section arts plastiques; a seminal work; mimeo). L. Dupree, “Functions of Folklore in Afghan Society,” Asian Affairs 66, 1979, pp. 51-61. Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, 3/2, 1979 (entire issue devoted to Afghan ethnography). N. van Oudenhoven, “Common Afghan Street Games and Child Development,” Afghanistan Journal 7, 1980, pp. 126-38. A. Janata, Schmuck in Afghanistan, Graz, 1981.
(L. Dupree)
v. Languages
It would be impossible to summarize here all the specialized research that has been carried out in linguistic and related ethnological fields. With few exceptions, dialectology and ethnology have proceeded independently; any attempt to provide a synthesis would reveal gaps at every stage and disparities that could not be resolved without the help of a vast undertaking such as the forthcoming Atlas linguistique de l’Afghanistane (ALA; ed. G. Redard, Berne). Only a cursory account can be given, a rough sketch delineating the present linguistic situation and the tribes that speak the various languages. Situated at the intersection of three geographically and culturally different worlds—India with its monsoons, Central Asia with its steppes, and the Iranian plateau—Afghanistan has seen a succession of invaders and colonizers of all kinds. Its political history has been a constant battle for independence, its cultural history a struggle to maintain its own personality. States have appeared and disappeared, north, south, and straddling the Hindu Kush, but it has not been possible to confuse them with Central Asia, India or Persia. The Achaemenids (6th-4th cent. B.C.), Alexander and the Greeks (4th cent.), Aśoka and Buddhism (3rd cent.), Kanishka and the Kushans (1st cent. A.D.), the Sasanians (2nd-6th cents.), the Iranian Huns (4th-8th cents.) and the Hendūšāhīs of Kabul (1st-3rd/7th-9th cents.) demarcate pre-Islamic history. The coming of Islam (1st-3rd/7th-9th cents.) was the most important event in Afghan history. Islamic civilization flourished under the Ghaznavids (4th-6th/10th-12th cents.) and the Ghurids (6th-7th/12th-13th cents.), but the Mongol invasion in the 7th/13th century was a catastrophe from which Afghanistan never fully recovered. Nevertheless, the Timurid renaissance made Herat one of the great cities of the Islamic world in the 9th/15th century. In the 10th/16th century Bābor founded the dynasty of the Great Mughals. But the opening of the maritime route to the East Indies plunged the countries bordering the traditional silk route into economic and cultural stagnation. In the 12th/18th century Aḥmad Shah Dorrānī liberated Afghanistan from the influence of Persia and India and gave birth to modern Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s ability to amalgamate rather than assimilate is such that it presents an extraordinary ethnic and linguistic medley. Ethnic diversity results from an agitated past, nomadism—which to this day is a way of life for about one million inhabitants (eight percent of the population)—and the geographic structure of the country. Around Afghanistan’s center of gravity, the Hindu Kush, are located great natural areas opening out on neighboring countries and lacking natural frontiers. The Āmū Daryā in the north, the desert of the west and the south, the mountain ranges in the east, are all passageways over which soldiers, missionaries, and merchants have traveled, while the central mountains are hospitable, having been populated since ancient times. The linguistic situation (Table 7, Table 8). Best represented are the Iranian languages (see I. M. Oranskij, Iranskie jazyki, Moscow, 1963; tr. J. Balu, Les Langues iraniennes, Paris, 1977), followed by Turkish languages of recent import, and Indian languages which are either native (Nūrestānī and Dardic) or imported (New Indian). Most Afghans who are not native Persian speakers are more or less bilingual. The population of Afghanistan can be estimated at 12 million. A. Official languages. Paṧtō (1) promoted to the status of official language by royal decree in 1936, is the native tongue of 50 to 55 percent of Afghans; as a second language it is spoken by less than 10 percent of the population. The Paṧtō-speaking areas are located in the east, the south, and the southwest of the country. Important colonies of nāqelīn (displaced populations) have settled in Bactria. Persian (2) is the language most spoken in Afghanistan. The native tongue of twenty five percent of the population, it is split into numerous dialects. Darī (q.v.) is a term long recommended by Afghan authorities to designate Afghan Persian in contrast to Iranian Persian; a written language common to all educated Afghanis, Darī must not be confused with Kābolī, the dialect of Kabul and surrounding areas that is more or less understood by eighty percent of the non-Persian speaking population and is fast becoming the nation’s koine. Although Paṧtō has enjoyed official favor, it is little propagated among Persian speakers. First, it is difficult to proceed from a less complex (more analytical) language such as Persian to a more complex (more synthetic) language such as Paṧtō; and second, Paṧtō has been poorly taught, despite the efforts of the Ministry of Public Instruction. The tendency is, rather, for Paṧtūns to learn Persian in the course of their movements or during their military service, while the number of Persian-speakers who can express themselves in Paṧtō remains stationary. B. National languages. Since 1980 Balūčī (3), Ōzbēkī (23), Torkmanī (24), Pašaī (16), and Nūrestānī (in fact the Katī or Katˈə dialect, 12) have been officially promoted to the rank of national languages. During the autumn of 1981, each of these had a daily radio broadcast. At the Ministry of Public Education classroom texts for elementary school were being prepared; several such texts had already been printed in Ōzbēkī, Torkmanī, and Balūčī. Several issues of newspapers had also appeared in these languages. C. Local languages. These are languages whose number of speakers, geographical extension, and communication role seem to be such that their existence is not threatened in the near future. They include the languages of the Pamir (4-9, 25) and Nūrestān (13-15, 17), languages firmly linked to ethnic groups of Indian origin who jealously maintain their identity (19-22), Brāhūī (29), and the idioms of various itinerant groups improperly joined together under the name Jat (32). Under this same heading can also be placed the argots and sabirs connected to professional or social groups, of which only two examples have been given (30, 31). D. Residual languages. The sociolinguistic situation of languages in this group seems to condemn them to disappearance in the relatively near future; linguistic contacts have already shaken their original phonological and morphosyntactic structures. They include the language of the southeast, Parāčī (10) and Ōrmuṛī (11), and also Tīrō (18), Uiḡur (26), Moḡolī (27), and Arabic (28). Tīrō has already practically disappeared, and Ōrmuṛī, Moḡolī, and Uiḡur are rapidly becoming extinct. Parāčī still has more than 5,000 speakers, but the increasingly serious difficulties facing mountain agriculture will soon endanger it (Ch. M. Kieffer, Stud. Ir. 6, 1977, pp. 97-125). For the same reason the still-living idioms of the Pamir may perhaps soon regress, especially since bilingualism (clan language along with Persian) is already the general rule throughout the country. The political upheavals that have taken place since 1973 have prompted the authorities to define a linguistic policy: promotion of the five national languages, development of classroom textbooks and radio programs, publication of newspapers, and, in the case of Pašaī and Nūrestānī (Katī), the transcription of languages which until now had never employed writing. The complexity of languages and dialects, an image of the ethnic medley, testifies to the diverse cultural options that have, at various times in history, opposed or amalgamated different peoples, religions, and even states on the soil of present-day Afghanistan. For example, the semantic contrast between the words Skr. devá- “divine, celestial; god” (or daíva- “divine power, destiny”) and Avest. daēva- “demon (after the reform of Zarathushtra)” is reflected today in the remote descendants of these two languages: Aškūn dēi “god,” Waygalī dē “1. god, 2. oath” (< Indian: favorable connotation) on the one hand; Kābolī and Pašaī Lauṛowānī dēw “demon, ogre,” Paṧtō lēwˈə and Pašaī Kačūrī Sālā dēu “wolf” (< Iranian: pejorative connotation) on the other. Another striking example can be found in the different names for the sun that testify to ancient beliefs: Sanglēčī ormózd, Eškāmšī rḗmuz represent the Iranian god Ahura Mazdā; Yidḡa-Munǰī mīˊra/o, like Persian mehr, Ōrmuṛī of Kaniguram meṧr or Waṇecī mīr, evoke the god Mithra; Tirāhī sṹri, Gawar-bātī sūrīˊ, like Kalaša of Rumbūr sṹri, etc., go back to a form sṹriya- linked to the name of the sun god; Pašaī sur probably goes back to sūrī, another name for Kuntī, one of the wives of the sun god; Aškūn sōˊ Waygalī sōi, sȫ, Katī sū, etc., are based on a form saurīˊ- “wife of the sun.” All this shows the importance of linguistic paleontology for this as yet insufficiently known region. Iranian languages (1-11). 1. Paṧtō. (q.v.). An Iranian language of the east, perhaps a Saka dialect, Paṧtō originated in the northern part of the eastern Iranian area and borrowed a great deal from Indo-Aryan. It is spoken in Afghanistan in the regions of Mašreqī, Kābolestān, Wardak, Lōgar, Paktīā (Paktyā), Ḡaznī, the south from Kaṭawāz to Farāh, where it is the majority language, the region of Herat, and Afghan Turkestan, i.e., Bactria, where in the course of the last century important implantations have continued to increase the Paṧtō presence. Paṧtō speakers call their language Paṧtō; only Persian speakers call it Afḡānī or Awḡānī, language of the Afghans. The great koine of the east and the south, Paṧtō is distinct from the other great common language, Persian, by more archaic and complex morphological traits. For example, it has kept the masculine and feminine gender distinction in all nominal forms, together with an inflection of two and sometimes three cases. Declension of the adjective xōžˊ “sweet”:
Paṧtō thus has six different forms where Persian has only one: xᵛoš (ḵᵛoš). Another peculiarity of Paṧtō is the ergative/ possessive/passive construction of transitive verbs in the past:
zə tā wahəm “I strike you,” tə mā wahē “you strike me,” mā tə wahəlē “I struck you,” tā zə wahələm “you struck me” zə — first person pronoun, subject case: “I” tə — second person pronoun sing., subject case: “you” mā — first person pronoun, oblique case: “me” tā — second person pronoun plur., oblique case: “you” -əm — personal marker for the first person singular -ē — personal marker for the second person singular wah- — verbal stem for the present of wahəl “to strike” wahəl- — verbal stem for the past of wahəl “to strike”
The literal sense of the personal pronouns and markers shows that wahəl-, the verbal stem for the past, has a passive meaning: mā tə wahəlē signifies literally “of me you were hit;” tā zə wahələm signifies literally “of you I was hit.” In the conjugation, the third person singular is not morphologically distinct from the third person plural; in contrast, the tense, mode, and aspect system is complex. Because of its structure Paṧtō unquestionably belongs to the Iranian language family, but its vocabulary reveals important borrowings from Indo-Aryan languages at various periods. It belongs to the eastern group of Iranian languages where the initial plosives b-, d-, and g- of the western group are generally replaced by the fricatives w-, δ (Paṧtō l-) and γ- (see Table 9). The Paṧtō dialects are usually divided into “soft” and “hard,” a classification based on the differences in the treatment of ṧ, ž, δ (“soft”) and x, g, j (“hard”). In the table (Table 10 and Table 10 contd.) of Paṧtō tribes and dialects, an intermediate group of Manǰanəy dialects has been introduced, characterized by the realizations ҳ (close to ich-laut), ɣ (a strongly palatalized velar spirant), and ž:
The actual situation is much more complex; the area of the B dialects is also that of many mixtures: ҳ and ɣ, ҳ and g, or x and ɣ, but never ṧ and žˊ (A dialects) or x and g (C dialects). The B dialects constitute a geographically intermediate zone, comprising a numerous and tribally mixed population, clearly separating Mašreqī or Jalālābatī from Maḡrebī or Kandahārī. They are not characterized by a generic pronunciation of the phonemes commonly used to differentiate dialect areas, but present a variety of divergences that are at times important and unquestionably original. While the B dialects present no trace of uniformity, they are characterized by specific phonetic traits and certain peculiarities in grammatical structure. This intermediate zone is probably the result of historical contacts and can not be considered a simple mixture of the other two groups. 2. Persian. The Persian of Afghanistan is generally designated Fārsī by the Tajiks and related ethnic groups, Pārsī by Paṧtō-speakers, and Darī by the government. Dialect divergence is abundant, but not to the extent of preventing mutual comprehension, except for cases of occasional words and idioms that are easily clarified. Since contacts between Iranians and Afghans usually occur among speakers of relatively cultivated dialects, there are no particular problems in their mutual comprehension; the polished speech of both nations is fairly unified. Great difference is observable between local dialects and slang. Moreover there is a distinct cleavage between Iranian and Afghan Persian, on whatever speech level, in vocabulary. This applies not only to technical terms (Kābolī palås: Iran. gāz [ambor] “tongs”) but also to items of daily life (Kābolī maska: Iran. kare “butter;” bura: šakar “sugar”), familial terms (Kābolī dayi: Iran. māmā “midwife;” måmå: dāy “maternal uncle”), and the names of many objects imported from, or originating, abroad (Kābolī nektåi, from English “necktie”: Iran. kerāvāt, from French “cravate”; cf. Tajik galstūḵ, from Russian [and ultimately German “Halstuch”]). Table 11 indicates the chief dialects. In general group A is more conservative than, e.g., the Persian of Tehran. This is noted in the phonology (maʿrūf and maǰhūl vowels), morphology and syntax (archaic uses of -rā and pronoun suffixes), and lexicon (survival of many Arabic words in active use). All have some Ōzbēkī elements. Dialects of the Kabul region may be distinguished generally from those of Afghan Turkestan by the presence of Indian elements in the former group and of Tajik influences in the latter. Group B comprises those dialects which, in one way or another, share features with the dialects of Iranian Khorasan. E.g., one may draw comparisons between the speech of Herat and that of Mašhad. The group has some clear distinctions. On the central route, between Panǰāw and Ōba, when one leaves Garmāw going west and enters Aymāq territory, the local speech is readily distinguished from that of the Hazāras. As far as Garmāw, the present writer noted išpiš “louse,” muṛča “ant,” and čårmaḡz “walnut.” Beyond that point were recorded šubuš, muṛče/muṛčä, and ǰowz among the Aymāq, Fīrūzkōhī, and Taymanī. Similar forms occur up to Herat and Qaḷʿa-ye Now. The urban dialect of Farāh, while distinguishable from the speech of eastern Iran, is clearly affiliated with it; cf. a similar dialect among the Tajik Shiʿites of Qandahār. Group C is chiefly represented by Sīstānī, a dialect straddling the Iranian-Afghan border. (It was designated by A. Ḡ. R. Farhādī by the name “Pahlavānī”.) Its center lies in Nīmrōz province, near the city of Zaranǰ at Kang (lit., “high ground” [emerging from the level of a swamp]). Balūčī influence on this dialect is marked. Group D comprises the forms of Hazāragī spoken in Kāhmard, Bāmīān, Bēsūd, Nāwor, the west of Ḡaznī, Jāḡorī, Mālestān, Orūzgān, Gīzāw, Dāy-Kundī, Panǰāw, Yakāwlang, Šārestān, Laʿl-o-Sarǰangal. Their mutual contrasts are often only minor, and their typology remains to be fully defined. As a group, they are distinguished by such features as retroflex consonants and the presence of Mongol vocabulary items. The vowel system of Afghan Persian differs from that current in Iranian Persian. The distinction between the maʿrūf vowels (the phonemes /i/ and /u/) and the maǰhūl vowels (/é/, /o/) is retained. Some minimal pairs appear in the following words, illustrating the vowel system (the phonetic realizations of the phonemes are in parentheses): The vowel features which establish oppositions are qualitative (timbre) rather than quantitative (length) [Chart 1]. The allophones of /e/ (`ĕ, ĭ) and those of /o/ (`ǒ, ŭ) display the contrast between an urban or cultivated pronunciation (e.g., čelem “waterpipe,” bozorg “great”) and a rural or lax pronunciation (čĭlem or čĭlĭm, bŭzorg or bŭzŭrg). An epenthetic vowel (e, ə) dissociates consonant clusters (e.g., adel or adəl “justice”). In western Afghanistan, especially at Herat and near the frontier with Iran, words ending in -a (e.g., gofta, ḵåna) are closer to the Iranian forms (goftä/-gofte, ḵånä/ḵåne). The consonant system is nearly the same as in current Iranian Persian, with the exception of the contrast between the phonemes /q/ and /ḡ/, which is usually retained (qår “angry”: ḡår “cave;” båqi “remainder”: båḡī “pertaining to a garden”). Certain eastern dialects which have undergone contamination by Paṧtō, and also some forms of Hazāragī, have developed a system of retroflex consonants. The stress accent is less prominent than in Iranian speech but otherwise presents no remarkable characteristics. Various features of morphology are worth noting. (1) A complex system of demonstrative pronouns éni “this”: ónu “that;” ami ““this very”: amu “that very;” énami “this very (thing)”: ónamu “that very (thing),” and the plural forms: ényå : ónwå, amyå : amwå, énamyå : ónamwå. (2) Adverbs of place; of proximity: īǰa, énīǰa, amīǰa, énamīǰa “here, in this very place;” of distance: uǰa, ónuǰa, amuǰa, ónamuǰa “there, in that very place.” Adverbs of direction: isu, énisu, amisu, énamisu “toward here;” ósu, ónosu, amosu, ónamosu “toward there.” To these may be added the comparative suffixes . . . istar “more toward here;” . . . ustar “more toward there.” Adverbs of manner: étó(r), énetó, ametó, énametó “this way;” ótó(r), ónotó, amotó, onamotó “that way.” Adverbs of quantity: éqa, éneqa, ameqa, énameqa “this many;” óqa, ónoqa, amoqa, ónamoqa “that many.” (3) Numerals: du “two;” avda abda “17;” dosad/dosat “200;” yak-(k)am čel “39” (to avoid si-u-nó, homonymous with “complaisant cuckold”). (4) Prepositions: baḵč-e (-t) “for (you);” kat-e (-t) or kati (-t) “with (you).” (5) Postposition fatara “since”: (az) kay fatara “since when, how long?” (6) The enclitic morpheme -é/-e (Persian -ī, the yā-ye waḥdat) has a connotation of restriction, of concrete particularization (somewhat in the manner of an indefinite article): ketåbe méḵåna “he is reading a book”: ketåb mé ḵåḵåna “he reads.” (7) The plural morphemes, which are stressed, are -å and (rarely) -ån: mardå “men;” åqåyån-o ḵånomå “ladies and gentlemen.” (8) Personal pronouns: The third person plural forms are yå (*īnhā) and wå (*ānhā). The first person singular is ma and, for more familiar usage, mti (*man). (9) The personal pronoun suffixes are (1st-3rd pers. sing.): -em(a), -et(a), -eš(a); the suffix-a (*-ra) marks the sentence’s definite object. (10) Verbal endings -om (*-am, 1st sing.), -a (*-ad, 3rd sing.), -én (*-ēd, 2nd plur.), -an (*-and, 3rd plur.). (11) The preterite and the perfect are contrasted; e.g., for the verb raftan “go”:
(12) Dubitative constructions are formed with ḵå(t): ḵåt borom or ḵåt raftom “I may perhaps go;” rafta ḵåt budan “they have perhaps (already) gone.” (13) The durative prefix is mé or mó- in some rural dialects (*mī-): mékonom “I am doing;” mékadom “I was doing.” (14) The progressive periphrasis takes the form: da hål-e kår kadan astom “I am (in the act of) working;” cf. Iranian Persian dāram kār mīkonam. (15) In familiar usage, the suffix -ak is often attached to the verbal ending (e.g., raftomak “I went”). At first glance the syntax of Afghan Persian does not seem to differ considerably from that of Iranian Persian, at least in its main lines. But there are many contrasts in detail. The enclitic morpheme -rā (Kābolī -ra/-a) is used more often in current Afghan speech. Afghan and Iranian usages contrast especially in that, to mark attribution, Afghan Persian uses -rā, while Iranian Persian forms phrases with the preposition be. Special uses of pronominal suffixes are noted: goft-em(-a) “he told me” (= ma-rā goft), goft-et(-a) “he told you” (= to-rā goft); mé-zani-š-a (*mē-zanī-eš-rā) “you are striking him;” mé-zanéš-ā (*mé-zana-eš-rā) “he is striking him.” Cf. the enclitic in constructions of the type: zan-e ḵód-eš-a sar-eš étébår nés “his own wife does not have faith in him” (lit., “for his own wife [zan-e ḵod rā] regarding him faith there is not”); gap-a na-rasidi “you have not understood” (lit., “you have not arrived at the statement” [*gap-rā]). A frequent type of complex sentence in Afghan Persian, with a subordinate clause of time, follows this pattern: padar-em ke åmad, ma maktab raftom “when my father arrived, I went to school” (Kābolī; cf. Iranian Persian: čūn padar-am āmad, man be madrase raftam). 3. Balūčī (q.v.). Though Balūčī does not have the numerical and cultural prestige of Paṧtō or Persian, it is important enough for Radio Kabul to grant it a daily broadcast. Its ancestor is neither Parthian nor Middle Persian but a lost language sharing some features with both. In the genealogical table (Table 8) it has been put with Persian in the Western group because it is strongly marked by borrowings made from Persian since the time of Middle Iranian. The Balūčī claim the name Raḵšānī for their dialect. It is spoken in the area of the lower course of the Helmand, in Bagat and in Mīrābād (above, in Banāder, Safar, etc., and below in Ḵānnešīn and Dēšū, only Paṧtō is spoken), in Kānī-Ḡar, Zīārat-e Bībī, Zīārat-e Šāhemsalī (Šāh-Esmāʿīl) and in the area of Kōh-e Malekdokān concurrently with Brāhūī. Then from Tāḡaz and Ḵᵛāǰa ʿAlī Soflā on, only Balūčī is spoken. This remains true along the course of the Helmand, in Palālak, Landəy, Dahmarda, Rōdbār, Qaḷʿa-ye Pādšāh, Qaḷʿa-ye Mādar-e Pādšāh, Čārborǰak, Qaḷʿa-ye Afżal, Bandar-e Kamālḵān, and Mīrābād; then, going towards the north, in Qaḷʿa-ye Fatḥ, Sabzgazī, Ḵᵛābgāh, Kang-e Dīnmohd, Zaranǰ, Zīārat-e Amīrān Ṣāheb, Kang, Deh-e Dōst Moḥammad, Kurki, Čaḵānsūr, and towards the northeast, in Kadō, Ḵās and Lōḵī. 4-9. Iranian languages of the Pamir. This appellation is used for dialects as different as Šuḡnī, Rōšānī, Eškāšmī, Sanglēčī, Munǰī (qq. v.; cf. Geiger and Kuhn, Grundr. Ir. Phil., 1/2, pp. 288-344). Though not an entirely satisfactory term (cf. the stricter classification of G. Redard, Current Trends in Linguistics VI, pp. 103-6), it is convenient from a geographical point of view: It groups the dialects which dominate the Pamir mountains and “border on Turkish languages on the one side and Indian dialects spoken by the peoples of the Hindu Kush on the other” (Geiger and Kuhn, I/2, p. 290). These dialects form part of the important group known as Northeastern Iranian languages; to them may be added Ossetic (spoken today in the Soviet Caucasus), Yaḡnōbī (the only residue of Sogdian, spoken in a transversal valley of the Zarafšān river southeast of Samarqand), the other Pamir dialects of the “Šuḡnī-Rōšānī group” (Baǰūī, Bartangī, Orōšōrī, Sariqōlī, Ḵūfī; see V. S. Sokolova, Ocherki po fonetike iranskikh yazykov. 2. Osetinskiĭ, yagnobskiĭ i pamirskie yazyki, Moscow, 1953; to these may be added Yazḡulāmī, a closely related dialect, and Wanǰī, today extinct; see G. Morgenstierne, Etymological Vocabulary of the Shughni Group, Wiesbaden, 1974, p. 5), Yidḡa (a variety of Munǰī spoken in Chitral), and Paṧtō. Northeastern Iranian dialects present sui generis characteristics, some of which can be listed here. With respect to historical phonetics, the initial voiced stops b-, d-, g- have generally changed to the corresponding fricatives v- (w-), δ- (then l-), γ- (then ž-). Thus Paṧtō has w-, l- (< δ-), γ-; Eškāšmī and Sanglēčī have v-, γ-, but d-; Šuḡnī and Rōšānī have v-, δ-/d-, ž-/g-: Wāḵī has v-, δ-, γ- and Yidḡa and Munǰī have v-, γ-, but Munǰī has d- while Yidḡa has l- (see Table 9). Northeastern Iranian has the affricates c (ts) and j (dz) which are lacking in the dialects of Western Iranian. Thus to Avestan čaθwārō “four”, Persian čahār, Balūčī čār, correspond Paṧtō calōr, Eškāšmī and Sanglēčī cəfúr, Šuḡnī cav/fṓr Rošānī cavūİœr, Wāḵī cībīˊr, but Munǰī čfūr. Northeastern Iranian is also characterized by certain grammatical features, such as the fact that the noun phrase develops towards the left (in the order: /determiner/-/determined/), while in the Western languages it develops towards the right (in the order: /determined/determiner/): Darī qālīn-e kōtá-ye má(n) “the rug of my room” ≠ Paṧtō zmā də kōṭē γāləy idem, Sanglēčī mič tāt xān “our father’s house,” Šuḡnī mo dād čīd (andir) “(in) my father’s house,” Wāḵī žˊe yaš mad “my horse’s back,” Munǰī wazīr lúγdo/a “the minister’s daughter.” The dialects of the Southeast, Parāčī and Ōrmuṛī, present the same trait. From the historical point of view, little can be added to what has been written by G. Morgenstierne (Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages II. Iranian Pamir Languages, Oslo, 1938). In general, however, the following remarks can be made: (1) There is no linguistic or archeological basis for hypotheses concerning the origin of the populations and the date of their arrival in Šuḡnān, Sanglēč, Wāḵān (Waḵān), and Munǰān. (2) There are no indications concerning possible human settlements in this area during the historical period. (Such research would probably have to follow up that undertaken at Šortūgay by H. P. Francfort and M. -H. Pottier, “Sondage préliminaire sur l’établissement proto-historique harappéen et post-harappéen de Shortugaī,” Arts Asiatiques 34, 1978, pp. 29-79). (3) The Pamir dialects seem to have developed on the spot from Middle Iranian languages of which nothing is known. But philological evidence and linguistic structure would seem to exclude that any of them developed from Bactrian. (4) Present place-names have not yet furnished any indication of populations, perhaps of non-Iranian origin, that might have settled in this area before the arrival of the present inhabitants. (5) To resolve such problems research needs to be developed in three different directions: Much more linguistic material, including all place-names, needs to be collected, compared with existing materials, and analyzed linguistically and historically. A systematic archeological survey of the entire area needs to be conducted. Parallel research must be undertaken in such fields as cultural geography, ethnography, ethnology, economics, technology, sociology, and ethno-botany. The future of the Pamir languages is clearer than their past. No doubt their destiny depends on complex economic, cultural, and political conditions, which will induce the speakers either to keep or to abandon their clan language, but on the whole the die is cast. These languages have no prestige, since they are spoken only by ethnic minority groups that are dependent militarily and economically on others. They are not religious languages; nor are they common languages, since no one learns or teaches them outside the family, the village, or the valley. All the speakers of the Pamir languages also know Persian; it is not without reason that they have long been called “Tajiks of the Pamir” or “Tajiks of the Mountains” (e.g., A. von Schultz, Die Pamirtadschik, Giessen, 1914, and idem, Landeskundliche Forschungen im Pamir, Hamburg, 1916; cf. Ch. M. Kieffer, “Einführung in die Wakhi-Sprache und Glossar,” Grosser Pamir, ed. R. Senarclens de Grancy and R. Kostka, Graz, 1978, p. 350). Their bilingualism will inexorably lead to the death of clan languages. The Pamir languages have been preserved in a remote mountain area that was largely self sufficient. But during the last decades the political and economic situation has changed rapidly and profoundly. The improvement of roads has considerably reduced traveling times. Mass media, particularly Radio Kabul, and civil servants, teachers, and soldiers have carried both Darī and Kābolī, along with a new citified concept of the world and life, into the Pamir homes. School teachers and other civil servants, when not foreign to the area, are trained in Kabul, or at least in Kondūz or Fayżābād. For the most part they exhibit the complexes of the semi-educated along with ignorance, shortsighted greed, and a profound contempt for all local culture. As a consequence of generalized military service, the native population is becoming increasingly mobile, and the exodus of the young is increasing, due to the attraction of well paid jobs in the city. One of the immediate consequences of this dislocation of institutions, customs, and traditional values is the abandoning of clan language, which will cause those who leave their native land to lose their identity in two or three generations. While the economic situation of the low and fertile land is improving, all the mountain areas of Afghanistan are undergoing a process of pauperization that will inevitably and in a short time bring about the rupture of traditional socio-economic balances and upset the status of clan languages. In some areas, such as the Waḵān for example, opium abuse accelerates the disintegration of these societies. 10-11. Southeastern Iranian languages. Ōrmuṛī and Parāčī (qq.v.), both spoken south of the Hindu Kush watershed, can be considered the last representatives of a linguistic group that enjoyed an important expansion before being submerged by Paṧtō and Persian. Today Ōrmuṛī is spoken by fewer than a hundred Ōrmuṛ; in a few fortified qaḷʿa farms in the vicinity of Barakī Barak, in the province of Lōgar, and outside Afghanistan by some one thousand Bərkī or Brakī living among Paṧtō speaking Wazīr and Masʿūd in Kaniguram in Pakistan, a village of southern Waziristan. Parāčī is spoken by ca. 5000 Parāčī in three valleys on the southern slope of the Hindu Kush: Šotol, between Sālang and Panǰšīr, and Ḡočūlān and Pačaḡān, both in the area of Neǰrao (Neǰrāb). Since Ōrmuṛī and Parāčī are related languages, their belonging to the Eastern group of Iranian languages, or the Northwestern as Oranskiĭ and Payne have concluded, must be considered an essential problem. In Les langues du monde (Paris, 1952, p. 34) they are classified less than satisfactorily as dialects of the Pamir area. But G. Morgenstierne had indicated as early as 1926 (Report on a Linguistic Mission to Afghanistan, Oslo, 1926, pp. 14-37) that they form a distinct linguistic group whose essential traits are the following: With respect to phonetics, retention of initial voiced stops g-, d-, and b- as in Western Iranian languages (see Table 3). Development of v > γ/(w): Av. vafra- “snow,” Pers. barf, Paṧtō wāˊwra, Orm. yōˊš/ṧ, Par. γarp. Development of-d > -γ: Orm. drȧy “long,” cf. Sanskrit dīrghá-; Par. maγas “fly,” cf. Pers. magas. Loss of -t- and -d-: Av. mātar- “mother,” Pers. mādar, Paṧtō mōr, Orm. māˊwa, Par. mā. Development of -p- and -b- > -w-: Orm. tṓwa “sun,” cf. Av. tap- “to be warm;” Par. xṓwān “shepherd,” cf. Paṧtō špūn. With respect to the lexicon, the correspondences are just as striking: Orm. g(i)ri “mountain,” Par. gir, ger “stone,” cf. Av. gairi-, Paṧtō γar “mountain;” Orm. gap “stone,” Par. gapār, “hearth” (cf. R. L. Turner, A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages, London, 1966, no. 4023), *gabba-; Orm. undraw- “to sew,” Par. andarf-, idem; Orm. of Kaniguram rō “iron,” Par. ru, idem. With respect to morpho-syntactic structure, there are important divergences, probably because these two languages had separated before the breakdown of the ancient inflection system of Iranian. There are nonetheless convergence points, as for example the causative formation with -aw- in Ōrmuṛī and -ew- in Parāčī. Whatever may be the linguistic problems raised on the one hand by the relationship between Ōrmuṛī and Parāčī, and on the other by ancient relationships between the Northeastern and Southeastern Iranian language groups, it is possible to acknowledge an ancient group of probably Southeastern Iranian languages located south of the Hindu Kush watershed, and represented today only residually by Ōrmuṛī and Parāčī. In ancient times these languages were spoken in much more extensive areas, as is shown by geographical, historical, toponymic, cultural, archeological, and epigraphical considerations (Ch. M. Kieffer, “La fin proche des langues iraniennes résiduelles du sud-est, ōrmuṛī et parāčī, en Afghanistan,” Langage et sociéte′ 10, December 1979, pp. 43-47). The region where Proto-Ōrmuṛī was spoken is perhaps delineated by the Barakestān of Bābor (Bābur-nāma in English, tr. A. S. Beveridge, 2nd ed., London, 1969, p. 220), the place-names ending in -grām, and by the trilingual inscription in stone at Dašt-e Nāwor (G. Fussman, “Documents épigraphiques kouchans,” Bulletin de l’Ēcole française d’Extrême-Orient 61, 1974, p. 34: the inscription DN III could have been made in Proto-Ōrmuṛī). This area would extend beyond Lōgar, to the east of Ḡaznī up to the place called Barakestān, and to the west up to the northwestern tip of Dašt-e Nāwor, while Kaniguram would represent a relatively recent migration. The Parāčī sounding place-names Estūfālō (the last hamlet in the valley of Šotol, situated at an altitude of 2360m) and Estālef (a village situated in Kōhdāman, some 50 km north of Kabul) can both be interpreted to mean “cowparsnip (Heracleum species of the Umbelliferae, Par. estūf) valley (Par. ālō);” they would extend the Parāčī speaking area towards Kabul considerably (Ch. M. Kieffer, “La fin proche,” pp. 45-47). If these hypotheses were to be confirmed, the two residual languages of the southeast would occupy two opposite triangular zones meeting at their summits in the area of Kabul. Parāčī in the north would occupy all of Kōhdāman and present-day Kōhestān up to the linguistic area of the Dardic and Nūrestānī languages. Ōrmuṛī, south of the Kabul river, would extend in the direction of present-day Hazāraǰāt in the west and the Solaymān mountains in the east. It was probably in these locations that the two conquering languages, Paṧtō and Persian, attacked them and finally drove them back to their present territory. Other Southeastern languages may have existed, but they have disappeared without leaving any known trace. The destiny of the Southeastern Iranian languages is even more irremediably fixed than that of the Pamir languages. Changes in the economic and socio-cultural situation have already upset their status to the point where their very existence is questionable. The Ōrmuṛ have forgotten their geographic origin and abandoned the religious traditions of the Rōšanīya of Bāyazīd Anṣārī (see EI2 I, pp. 1121-24), which distinguished them from neighboring ethnic groups and gave their clan language the prerogatives of a secret language. Beaten back by the imperatives of economic and technical development, they will soon have no choice but to join the ranks of the Paṧtūn or the Tajiks who own the land, control the bazaars, and hold the key administrative positions (see Ch. M. Kieffer, Grammaire de l’ōrmuṛī, forthcoming). Since 990/1582, as a result of Islamization, the Parāčī have experienced profound changes in their religious beliefs and ethics (see Ṣifat-nāma-yi Darvīš Muḥammad Ḫān-i Ġāzī. Cronica di una crociata musulmana contro i Kafiri di Laġmān nell’anno 1582, ed. G. Scarcia, Rome, 1965); for a long time these affected their language without really endangering it. However the isolation protecting them from the common languages gradually decreased as the political unification undertaken by Amir ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān (1302-19/1885-1901) progressed. More recently, construction of roads and compulsory military service have dealt a fatal blow. Economic development accomplished the rest; not only did it create new needs, upset the traditional network of market places, and break the balance of prices for agricultural and industrial products, it also permanently destroyed Parāčī self-sufficiency by drawing irreplaceable manual labor to the factories and the towns. Indo-Aryan languages (12-22). Not surprisingly, the eastern edge of the Iranian plateau is marked by ancient and modern contacts with the Indian sub-continent. Languages of the Indo-Aryan family spoken in Afghanistan can be divided into two main groups: Nūrestānī and Dardic, having their home in present Nūrestān, and neo-Indian, spoken by ethnic minorities of Indian origin more recently implanted in the area. The Nūrestānī and Dardic languages have been studied in particular by G. Grierson (Linguistic Survey of India X. Specimens of the Languages of the Eranian Family, 1921; repr. Delhi, 1968), G. Morgenstierne (Norsk tidsskrift for sprogvidenskap 2, 1929; 7, 1934; 12, 1940; 13, 1945; 15, 1949; 16, 1952; 17, 1954; 18, 1958; Acta orientalia 8, 1930; 12, 1934; 18, 1939; Report on a Linguistic Mission to Afghanistan, Oslo, 1926; Report on a Linguistic Mission to North-West India, Oslo, 1932; Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages III. Pashai, 1-3, Oslo, 1967, 1944, 1956; etc.), G. Buddruss (Kanyawali, Proben eines Maiya-Dialektes aus Tangir [Hindukusch], Munich, 1959; Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Pašai-Dialekte, AKM 33/2, Wiesbaden, 1959; Die Sprache von Woṭapūr und Kaṭārqalā, Bonn, 1960; Die Sprache von Sau in Ostafghanistan, Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Dardischen Phalūra, Munich, 1967), and R. F. Strand (“Notes on the Nūristānī and Dardic Languages,” JAOS 93, 1973, pp. 297-305; Strand retains much unedited material). G. Fussman gives the best overview of these languages and a complete survey of the problems they present in his Atlas linguistique des parlers dardes et kafirs (Paris, 1972). The term “Dardic and Kafir languages” is inconvenient (ibid., pp. 11-14), since kāfer (“infidel”) is not appropriate to designate Moslems; it should be replaced by “Nūrestānī” (see R. F. Strand, “Notes,” p. 297). The only “infidels” in this region of Asia are the Kalaš, who do not live in Nūrestān, but in Chitral, and who speak a Dardic language, Kalaša (see G. Morgenstierne, Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages IV. The Kalasha Language, Oslo, 1973). 12-15. The Nūrestānī languages. These four languages, to which it might be appropriate to add Trēgāmī (but not Zamyākī, which is only a form of Waygalī), are all spoken in Nūrestān, inside the borders of present-day Afghanistan. They form a linguistic group that is sometimes considered intermediary between the Iranian and Indo-Aryan groups. Although their vocabulary is largely Indo-Aryan and their phonetic evolution has followed a course similar to that of the Dardic languages, they also present a certain number of non-Indian characteristics, such as the total loss of the aspirate trait in their phonological system and the survival of the ancient Indo-European distinction between palatalized velar and labio-velar stops. Also found are residual archaic traits, such as the survival of the dental -s- after u, and specifically Nūrestānī lexical items, attested neither in Indo-Aryan nor in Iranian (Morgenstierne, Report, 1926, pp. 50-69 and Fussman, Atlas, pp. 12-13). One is therefore justified in postulating the existence of either a third branch of Indo-Iranian, or an ancient, pre-Vedic off-shoot of Indo-Aryan; the Nūrestānī languages of today would constitute a small residual group, rebuilt with the help of Indo-Aryan materials of various periods, but still presenting a few traces of the ancient group (Fussman, Atlas, p.13; Morgenstierne, Irano-Dardica, Wiesbaden, 1973, pp. 327-43). 16-18. The Dardic languages. These three isolated languages of the mountains are clearly Indo-Aryan, but unlike the Indo-Aryan languages of the plains, they have preserved archaic traits in their vocabulary and phonological structure; the latter is characterized by numerous consonant groups and the preservation of three types of voiceless spirants: the dental s, the retroflex ṣ (ṧ) and the palatal š (see Morgenstierne, Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages III/1-3; idem, Report, 1926, pp. 81-93; Fussman, Atlas, p. 12). The most important of these languages with respect to the number of speakers is Pašaī, which was recently given the status of a national language (see G. Buddruss, Beiträge, 1959). Gawar-bātī appears in three varieties: Šumaṣṭī, spoken in an isolated point (Šumaṣṭ) in Pašaī country (G. Morgenstierne, NTS 13, 1945, pp. 239-81), Gřˊangalī, signaled by W. Lentz in 1937 (Deutsche im Hindukusch, p. 273) and studied by G. Buddruss in 1970 (G. Fussman, Atlas, p. 25) and by A. L. Gryunberg (Indiĭskaya i iranskaya filologiya, Moscow, 1971, pp. 329), and Ningalāmī, which now seems to be extinct. The Dardic group also stretches into Pakistan (Chitral, Swat, etc.), where it comprises many dialects. 19-22. The Neo-Indian languages. These testify to the establishment of various Indian ethnic groups at least as early as the Ghaznavid period. Sikh and Hindu temples can be found in Kabul and most of the other cities of eastern Afghanistan. Sikh merchants speak Panǰābī (19), while other Indian minority groups speak Sindhī (20) and Inku (Lahndā, 22). Some Guǰur cattle breeders in Konar speak Goǰrī (Guǰurī, 21; see ALA). Dialects of the Sirāikī (Sindkhī) type, about which relatively little is known, are used by the Vaṛŋgāwālā, the Pikrāǰ, the Šādībāz, and the Jalālī; these peoples along with other groups are given the totally improper label Jat (see 32, below). Turco-Mongolian languages (23-27). Ōzbēkī (23) and Torkmanī (24) are especially used in an area of northern Afghanistan between the Āmū Daryā in the north, Persian speaking Badaḵšān in the east, Kōh-e Bābā and the Paropamisus in the south, and the basin drained by the Morḡāb in the west. Ancient Bactria, the cradle of important Indo-Iranian establishments, of Greco-Bactrian kingdoms, and of the Kushan Empire that gave fame to the Bactrian language, has always been exposed to invasions from Central Asia. The Ōzbēk invasion that has gradually submerged it began in the 10th/16th century, while the Turkmans came especially in the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, fleeing the Russian advance in Central Asia. Today the Afghans call Bactria Turkestan, although the autochthonous bulk of the population is Tajik, i.e. Persian speaking. The most numerous Turkish speakers are the Ōzbēks, whose language belongs to the eastern group, though it has been so deeply influenced by Iranian languages that, e.g., vowel harmony has entirely disappeared (A. von Gabain, Özbekische Grammatik, Leipzig and Vienna, 1945). The Turkmans, chiefly settled in the northwest along the Āmū Daryā and the Soviet border, speak a dialect of the Oḡuz group (see L. Bazin, “Le Turkmène,” in Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta I, Mainz, 1959, pp. 308-17; G. Jarring, On the Distribution of Turk Tribes in Afghanistan, Lund and Leipzig, 1939). Many Turkish speakers, especially Ōzbēks, have migrated, mainly in the direction of large cities like Kabul (see D. Balland, “L’Immigration des ethnies turques à Kabul,” in E. Grötzbach, ed., Aktuelle Probleme der Regionalentwicklung und Stadtgeographie Afghanista n , Meisenheim am Glan, 1976, pp. 210-24). They retain their clan language, despite the inevitable bilingualism (Persian), as long as they live in groups or maintain close contacts (often economic in nature) with parent groups. The women given in marriage to Tajik and especially Paṧtō men only exceptionally transmit their Turkish tongue to their children. 25. Qirḡizī. It is spoken in the Pamir by a Qirḡiz population belonging essentially to two tribes: Teyit and Kesek (see R. Dor, Contributions à l’étude des Kirghiz du Pamir afghan, Paris, 1975). The Qirḡiz occupation of parts of the Pamir, intermittent as early as the 18th century, changed to permanent settlements towards the end of the 19th century. Their dialect is part of the Qipčaq group (G. Hazai, EI2 V, s.v. Ḳipčaḳ); it is marked by contacts with Tajiki and Kābolī Persian (ALA, questionnaire normal, 6.b, collected by R. Dor). 26. Uiḡur. It is still spoken in Kabul by a small minority of “Uighurized” Afghans, repatriated from Chinese Xinjiang in the early 1960s (Balland, “L’Immigration,” p. 212). Since they live in contact with the Ōzbēks of the capital, their dialect is marked by Kābolī Persian and Ōzbēkī (Ch. M. Kieffer, Le parler uighur de Caboul, forthcoming). 27. Moḡolī. In Afghanistan it is a residual language spoken in the area of Herat (Kūndūr, Kārēz-e Mollā, Bedawī, Deh-e Šayḵ, Dū-Rūdī, Samanābād, Naw [Nāb near Ōbē]; M. Weiers, Die Sprache der Moghol der Provinz Herat in Afghanistan, Opladen, 1972). Moḡolī materials have been gathered elsewhere, but these are clearly of lesser importance and have often remained unpublished (ibid., pp. 11-13; ALA questionnaire réduit 200 et questionnaire normal 233; use H. F. Schurmann, The Mongols of Afghanistan, The Hague. 1962, only with caution (cf. K. Ferdinand, Acta Orientalia 28, 1964, pp. 175-203]). The written sources of Afghanistan Moḡolī have been published by W. Heissig (Schriftliche Quellen in Moġolī I. Texte in Faksimile, Opladen, 1974) and M. Weiers (Schriftliche Quellen in Moġolī II. Bearbeitung der Texte, III. Poesie der Mogholen, Opladen, 1975-77). It is not clear why a few Moḡolī speakers have kept their clan language. Sh. Hattori’s hypothesis that it probably served as a secret language is worth retaining (Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics, Presented to Shiro Hattori, ed. R. Jakobson and Sh. Kawamoto, Tokyo, 1970, p. xiii). Moḡolī dialects seem to have been more widely spoken, as is suggested by the existence of many Persian speaking Moḡol groups who have abandoned their clan language but have not forgotten their origins; moreover, the Mongol substratum in Hazāragī Persian is tenacious (G. K. Dulling, The Hazaragi Dialect of Afghan Persian, London, 1973). These Moḡolī dialects were probably quite diversified from the point of view of dialectology and chronology. But today Moḡolī is almost extinct; profoundly disorganized in its vocabulary and its syntax because of its contacts with Persian, it survives mainly as a language of folklore and memories. Other languages. 28. Arabic. The Arabic-speaking Arabs (q.v.) of Afghanistan live in western Bactria to the west of Mazār-e Šarīf in four villages of 50 to 100 houses each: Ḥasanābād, 14 km east of Šeberḡān; Solṭān Areḡ, 12 km east of Āqča; Yaḵdān, 4 km southwest of Dawlatābād-e Balḵ; and Ḵōšḥālābād, 5 km south-southwest of the same village. All the men speak Arabic, Persian, Ōzbēkī, Torkmanī, and sometimes even Paṧtō. Persian is the cultural and religious language of Bactria and has affected the Arabic of the region, as have the Ōzbēkī and Torkmanī of the Turkic-speaking agriculturalists. The women’s speech is less contaminated, as is usual in the case of domestic languages (see Ch. M. Kieffer and R. Kieffer-Vonmoos, “Notes de dialectologie arabe, I. A propos du parler des femmes de Ḥasanābād et de Solṭān Areġ en Bactriane,” Mélanges Maxime Rodinson, forthcoming). From the linguistic point of view, the qəltū Arabic of Bactria, like that of Central Asia described by W. Fischer (“Die Sprache der arabischen Sprachinsel in Uzbekistan,” Der Islam 36, 1961, pp. 232-63) is closest to the dialects of Mesopotamia (Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte, ed. W. Fischer and O. Jastrow, Wiesbaden, 1980, pp. 140-54), but it presents generic peculiarities in its phonetics and morphosyntax, some of which do not belong to the structure of Arabic and indicate important contact phenomena. It is extraordinary that these Arabs of the Qorayš tradition have kept their clan language. In the past they must have had precise reasons for maintaining their Arabic identity, but they are incapable of defining them today. Established in Bactria towards the end of the 8th/14th century, perhaps by Amir Tīmūr himself, they were probably guardians of the Timurid order (Ch. M. Kieffer, “L’arabe et les Arabophones de Bactriane, I. Situation ethnique et linguistique,” Die Welt des Islams 20, 1981, pp. 178-96). These Arabs are unrelated to the many Persian-speaking “Arab” groups. 29. Brāhūī. Dravidian is represented in Afghanistan by the Brāhūī dialect of the Brāhūīkān groups of Afghan Sīstān, mainly along the Helmand. They live practically in symbiosis with the Balūč and claim to belong to the same ethnic group; they have borrowed many lexical items from them. Brāhūī dialectology materials have been collected in Afghanistan by the staff of the ALA (questionnaire normal 222 and questionnaire réduit 221 and 224) and by Ch. M. Kieffer (Plantes et drogues d’Afghanistan, forthcoming). 30. Zargarī and other argots. Argots are used in many bazaars. Forms of Zargarī have been collected by Ch. M. Kieffer in Tāšqorḡān and Fayżābād (forthcoming); in both cases encoding processes are used (e.g., with -zar- and -šel-). Other argots (of butchers, rug merchants, etc.) have never been collected. 31. Lāzemī. Lāzemī is a sabir spoken mainly (but not only) in the Kabul area; merchants, artisans, servants, and generally all those who are in contact with foreigners use it to speak with them. The word itself is formed from the Arabic-Persian expression lāzem (ast) “(it is) necessary,” used loosely to mean “I want, I wish, I need, etc.” Thus barāy šomā lāzem ast “it is necessary that you (buy, bring, take, etc.)” or “You need” is one of the most frequent phrases. Its suffix -ī is the same as that found on the names of most other languages (Fārsī, Parāčī, etc.). A characteristic trait of Lāzemī is its extremely simplified verb conjugation; the second person of the imperative is the only form used: borū “go!”; man borū “I go,” tū borū “you go (sing.),” . . . šomā borū “you go (plur.),” etc.; dīrūz man borū “yesterday I went,” fardā man borū “tomorrow I will go,” etc. Lāzemī materials have been collected by Ch. M. Kieffer in Kabul and elsewhere (forthcoming). Concerning the social status of Lāzemī, see Studia Iranica 6, 1977, p. 112. 32. Various languages are used by itinerant linguistic groups improperly known as Jat (materials have been collected by A. Rao and will be published in collaboration with Ch. M. Kieffer). Some are of Indian type (see above, 19-22), while others are structurally Iranian, though not necessarily of the same status. These include the following: Ādūrgarī is a kind of secret language used by the Persian-speaking Šayḵ-Moḥammadī while engaging in commercial or artisan activities. The name (ādūr- “pedding” + the suffix -gar-ī of nouns of action or trade, cf. zar-gar-ī “trade of the goldsmith”) evokes precisely their major activity as itinerant peddlers (see A. Olesen, “The Sheikh Mohammadi, A Marginalized Trading Community in East Afghanistan,” in The Other Nomads . . , ed. A. Rao, forthcoming). Qazūlagī or Magadī (in the Herat region), also called Ḡorbatī, is the language of the Ḡorbat; A. Rao considers it their native tongue, even though it has features in common with Ādūrgarī, which is a secret language (Les Gorbat d’Afghanistan. Aspects économiques d’un groupe itinérant “Jat”, Paris, 1982). Magatibai is the language of the Jōgī, who move about in the provinces of Balḵ, Jōzǰān, Fāryāb, and Kondūz. Part of its vocabulary is shared by Magadī of the Ḡorbat (see A. Rao, “Note préliminaire sur les Jat d’Afghanistan,” Studia Iranica 8, 1979, p. 144). Similar languages have been mentioned by W. Ivanow as “jargons” of gypsies and “mendicant darwishes”. (Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, N.S., 10, 1914, pp. 439-55; 16, 1920, pp. 281-91 ; 18, 1922, pp. 375-83; 23, 1927, pp. 243-45). Bibliography : See also J. Elfinbein, “Report on a Linguistic Mission to Helmand and Nimruz,” Afghan Studies 2, 1979, pp. 39-44. G. Fussman, “Documents épigraphiques kouchans,” Bulletin de l’Ēcole française d’Extrême-Orient 61, 1974, pp. 1-66, plates I-XXXIII. A. L. Gryunberg, Yazyk kati, Moscow, 1980. H. Humbach, Baktrische Sprachdenkmäler, 2 vols., Wiesbaden, 1966-67. Karta narodov peredneĭ Azii, Moscow, 1960. Ch. M. Kieffer, “Ētudes Parāči,” Studia Iranica 6, 1977, pp. 97-125, 249-81; 7, 1978, pp. 81-107, 269-77; 8, 1979, pp. 67-106, 245-67; 9, 1980, pp. 99-119, 233-49; 10, 1981, pp. 283-306. W. Lentz, Pamir-Dialekte. I. Materialien zur Kenntnis der Schugni-Gruppe, Göttingen, 1933. G. Morgenstierne, Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages: I. Parachi and Ormuri, Oslo, 1929. II. Iranian Pamir Languages (Yidgha-Munji, Sanglechi-Ishkashmi and Wakhi), Oslo, 1938. III. The Pashai Language, 1. Grammar, 2. Texts and Translations, 3. Vocabulary, Oslo, 1967, 1944, 1956. IV. The Kalasha Language, Oslo, 1973 (This last contains a bibliography of Morgenstierne’s numerous works on Afghan linguistics). Idem, Irano-Dardica, Wiesbaden, 1974. Idem, “The Linguistic Stratification of Afghanistan,” Afghan Studies 2, 1979, pp. 23-33. E. Orywal, Die Balūč in Afghanisch-Sīstān. Wirtschaft und soziopolitische Organisation in Nīmrūz, SW-Afghanistan, Berlin, 1982. E. Yarshater, “Iran and Afghanistan,” Current Trends in Linguistics. VI. Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa, ed. T. A. Sebeok, The Hague, 1971, pp. 669-89. On Afghan Persian see D. C. Phillott, Higher Persian Grammar for the Use of the Calcutta University, Showing Differences between Afghan and Modern Persian, Calcutta, 1919. G. A. Grierson, ed., Linguistic Survey of India X. Specimens of Languages of the Eranian Family, Delhi, 1921 (repr. 1969), pp. 452-53 (Dēhwārī), 527-30 (Badaḵšī). D. L. R. Lorimer, The Phonology of the Bakhtiari, Badakhshani, and Madaglashti Dialects of Modern Persian, London, 1922. Morgenstierne, Report, 1926, pp. 7-9. Idem, “Persian Texts from Afghanistan,” Acta Orientalia 6, 1928, pp. 309-28. L. Bonelli, “Appunti fonetici sul volgare persiano di Kabul,” Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 1, 1928-29, pp. 5-14; 2, 1930, pp. 24-26; 4, 1931, pp. 20-33; 8, 1936, pp. 43-53. L. Bogdanov, “Stray Notes on Kābulī Persian,” Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 26, 1930, pp. 1-125. L. N. Dorofeeva, Obraztsy sovremennoĭ afganskoĭ pressy na kabuli, Moscow, 1952. Idem, Putevoditel’ po Afganistanu s kratkim slovarem na kabuli, Moscow, 1952. Idem, Opyt leksiko-grammaticheskoĭ kharakteristiki kabuli, Moscow, 1955. A. Ḡ. R. Farhādī, Le persan parlé en Afghanistan. Grammaire du kâboli, accompagnée d’un recueil de quatrains populaires de la region de Kâbol, Paris, 1955. J. C. Wilson, Jr., An Introduction to Colloquial Kabul Persian, Army Language School, Presidio of Monterey, Calif., 1958. Dorofeeva, O yazyke farsi Afganistana, Moscow, 1959. Idem, Yazyk farsi-kabuli, Moscow, 1960. L. N. Kiseleva and V. I. Mikolaĭchik, Dari-russkiĭ slovar’, 21 000 slov, Moscow, 1978. Afḡānī-nevīs, Loḡāt-e ʿāmīāna-ye fārsī-ye Afḡānestān, Kabul, 1340 Š./1961. Wilson, One Hundred Afghan Persian Proverbs, mimeo., Kabul, 1961. Idem, An Afghan Persian-English Dictionary, ms., Kabul. I. M. Oranskiĭ, Iranskie yazyki, Moscow, 1963, pp. 119-22, ed. A. V. Rossi, Le lingue iraniche, Naples, 1973, pp. 133-36. T. N. Pakhalina, “On the System of Vowel Phonemes in Kabuli-Persian (Some Results of Experimental Investigation),” Papers Presented by the USSR Delegation, XXVIth International Congress of Orientalists [New Delhi, 1964], Moscow, 1964. Idem, “K kharakterstike Kabul’skogo prostorechiya,” Indiĭskaya i Iranskaya Filologiya, Moscow, 1964. E. H. Glassman, Conversational Dari. An Introductory Course in Dari (= Farsi = Persian) as Spoken in Afghanistan (revised edition of “Conversational Kabuli Dari,” with the assistance of M. Taher Porjosh), Kabul (The Language and Orientation Committee, International Afghan Mission, P.O. Box 625), 1970-72. T. Nawata, A Primer of Spoken Kabul Persian, Hiroshima, 1972. G. K. Dulling, The Hazaragi Dialect of Afghan Persian, London, 1973. D. M. Dōst, Da Afḡānestān žəbē aw tokəmuna, Kabul, 1354 Š./1975, pp. 326-50. Farhādī, The Spoken Dari of Afghanistan. A Grammar of Kāboli Dari (Persian), Compared to the Literary Language, mimeo., Kabul, 1975. M. A. Fekrat, Loḡāt-e zabān-e goftārī-e Herāt, Kabul, 1355 Š./1976. Ch. M. Kieffer, Afghanica III. Textes kāboli (in preparation).
(Ch. M. Kieffer)
vi. Paṧtō
A. Geographical distribution. B. Phonemic system. C. Phonetical development. D. Morphology. E. Vocabulary. F. Waṇecī. G. Position of Paṧtō within Iranic. A. Geographical distribution, name, and dialects. (1) Paṧtō (Pa/əҳt’o; for ҳ see below) is an Iranic language spoken in south and southeastern Afghanistan, by recent settlers in northern Afghanistan, in Pakistan (North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan), and on the eastern border of Iran. According to the latest estimates, it is spoken by some eight million people in Afghanistan, six million in Pakistan, and about 50,000 in Iran. Paṧtō is thus the second in importance among the Iranic languages and in Afghanistan the official language, beside Darī. (2) Although the name Afghan has been recorded much earlier than Paṧtō, the latter is undoubtedly the original, native name. The earlier, common derivation from Herodotus’ tribal name Páktues is phonetically untenable. Neither Greek u nor kt could possibly render the sounds of the Iranic name of the 5th century B.C. The ū of Paҳt’ūn (masc. plur. Paxtān’ə) “a member of the Paštūn nation” would at that time have been -a(n)- and xt probably something like *rs(t). The modern “hard” pronunciation of ҳt as xt is restricted to the northeastern dialects and evidently of recent origin, as shown inter alia by the orthography. Indo-Aryan Paṭhān must have been adopted from Paṧtō *Paṧtan-. (3) The most plausible derivation of Paҳt’o, as already suggested by Markwart (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran, Göttingen and Leipzig, 1896-1905, II, p. 177; cf. Morg[enstierne]4, par. 40b), is from *Parsuwā, and of Paҳt’ūn from *Parswāna-, with the basic stem *Parsū-; cf. Skt. (Pāṇini) Parśu- “a (northwestern) warrior tribe.” Tedesco, in a letter, compares Pārsa- (from a vṛddhi from *Pārswa-). We know how certain tribal names can spread over widely separated regions; cf., e.g., Veneti and Saxons (Morg.4,5). (4) Paҳt’o denotes not only the Paštūn language, but also the national code of honor: Paҳtūn haγa na daγ či Paҳto wāyi, lekin haγa či Paҳto ləri “a Paṧtūn is not he who (only) speaks Paṧtō, but he who has Paṧtō. ” This expression symbolizes the strong feeling of Paṧtun national unity—unique among Iranic ethnic groups—in spite of the numerous tribes, subtribes, clans, and continuous inter-tribal fighting. (5) Although there are numerous different dialects, Paṧtō is essentially one language (as regards the one possible exception, Waṇecī, see below, F). Due to overlaps among various isoglosses, it is difficult to establish a satisfactory classification of Paṧtō dialects (but see supra, p. 505). Thus the dialects presenting a further development of common Paṧtō vocalism may belong either to the “soft” or the “hard” group. Nor are the results of palatalization, metathesis, etc., confined to definitive areas. It may therefore be practical to deal with the dialect features in connection with the description of phonemic and morphological development. B. Phonemic system. (6) According to the orthography of “classical” Paṧtō recorded since the 10th/16th century, there were thirty-one consonants, including q, f (only in loan words and largely pronounced as k and p) and ʿayn (only in Arabic words and belonging to a learned type of pronunciation). Arabic ṭ, is pronounced as t, ṯ and ṣ as s, and ḏ, ż, and ẓ as z. Retroflex ṭ, and ḍ are restricted to loanwords from Indo-Aryan, but a large number of these are of ancient date and no more felt as foreign than, e.g., “church,” “cellar,” or “wine” in English. The remaining twenty-six consonants occur in words of genuine Paṧtō origin, i.e., k, g, γ; t, d, n; p, b, m; ṇ; č, ǰ; c, j; s, š, ҳ; z, ž, ğ; r, ṛ, l; y, w, and h (rare in original Paṧtō words). Regarding ҳ and ğ, see below, 21. (7) The vowels are a, i, u, ə (zwarg’ay); ā, ī, ū, ē, and ō. A and ə overlap in some dialects and ī and ū have been abbreviated in most of them. Ē and ō (for standard Paṧtō) will be written e and o, since there is no opposition between long and short e and o (except in the cases where i may be pronounced as short e). Diphthongs are āy, āw, and final -əy. Characteristic of Paṧtō is the role played by mobile stress; cf. below, 39. C. Phonetical development. a. Vowels. (8) Stressed Iranic a normally > o, before a nasal > u (e.g., mor “mother,” nūm “name,” lūna “abscess”). A in many cases > ā (e.g., plār “father,” lās “hand,” < *dasta-, but las “ten”). In many dialects in the mountain regions of Pakistan and adjoining parts of Afghanistan, from Afr(īdī) to Waz(īrī), o changes further into ȯ, ȫ, ɛ (Waz. mō/ɛˊr), and ā to rounded â, å, ō (plâ/å/r). In Afr., etc., lās “ten” fills up the gap left by lâs “hand,” and so on. More or less in the same area we also find, for unknown reasons, ē for a (e.g., špēğ “six,” wrēj “day,” wēr- “to him,” etc.), while ē, e.g., in wlēšt, etc., “span” < Av. vītasti- is common also in other dialects and is due to palatalization. (9) In Waz., etc., ū > ī (e.g., līr “daughter”). No intermediate state ǖ, well known from Persian dialects, has been recorded. This change to ī must have taken place before the loss of phonemic quantity of Paṧtō ī and ū. Note the isolated “Waz.” vocalism in Kāk(aṛī) of Šāhrīg (Bal.) līr, mēr, calēr “four,” etc. (10) In many cases Paṧtō ū and ī are due to lengthening before an original cluster. Thus spīn “white” < *spiθna-, ūҳ “camel” < *ušθra-, g’uta “finger” < *anguštā. But šk has been assimilated (see below, 19) too early to cause lengthening. (11) Iranic ī/ĭ and ᵛū generally > ə, as also in various other Northeastern Iranic languages, and, as a tendency, already in Avestan. Thus, bəl “second,” m’ənay “autumn,” sp’əğa “louse,” ҳ’əj-a “woman” (< *strī-čī + -a), ləm “tail,” m’əğa “rat,” p’ə ča “dung.” But note, e.g., wrīže “rice,” wr’ūja “eyebrow.” Iranic *ṛ > ər (e.g., kəṛ, “made,” məṛ “died,: yəğ “bear”). Iranic ai > e (e.g., lew’ə “wolf,” lew’ar “husband’s brother”) and *au > *ō > wa (e.g., γwağ “ear,” rwaj “day”). But the breaking of *ō has affected also some loanwords from Indo-Aryan: Kwaṭa “Quetta” < kōt; twal “of equal weight,” but in a more recent loan, tol “weight.” (12) Loss of initial or medial short vowels is common. Thus bən “co-wife,” ğdən “millet,” gūta “finger,” zyaṛ “yellow,” γwa “cow,” mlā (Bangaš dialect maly’ā) “waist,” psə “goat” or “sheep.” All Iranic final vowels are dropped, with the exception of -ā (see below, 31, 33). (13) But *-ayah probably resulted in -e in the fem. plur. (cf. 38), transferred from stems in -i as a distinguishing feature of the fem. also to stems in -ā, in ’aspe “mares,” etc. Note that for the monosyllabic dre “three” < *θrayah several dialects from Afr. to Kak. have drēy, etc. Iranic *-iyah and *-uvah result in -’ə, e.g., in trə “paternal uncle” < *p(i)tṛwiyah (but, e.g., bəl “other” < *dwiθya-h, čirg “cock” < *kṛkya-h), and psə “small cattle” (from a collective plural). Iranic *-u/awā > -’o, in Paҳˊt’o fem. (if < *Parsuwā), wurš’o fem. “pasture” < *fra-šyawā (Av. fra-šiyaw- “go forward,” cf. the semantically parallel development of car-), waṛγδo fem., plur. -owe “plain, steppe” (cf. Pahl. gawā [= Pahl. dašt] “plain,” given as the translation of Av. gava- “land, district”). (14) The problems connected with the varying results of umlaut and epenthesis before i/y would need a much more detailed analysis and discussion than can be given here, and must also be viewed in connection with the palatalization of consonants (see below, 18). A few characteristic examples are meṛ’ə “husband (< *martiya-), wle/as/št “span” (Av. vītasti-), wrer’a “brother’s daughter” (but wrār’ə “brother’s son”), mair’a “stepmother,” er’a “ashes,” myāšt, etc., “month” (< *māsti-), l(y)ār fem. “road,” wyāl’ə, etc., “irrigation channel,” zyaṛ “yellow,” bən “co-wife” (Av. hapaθnī-), xpəl “own” (< *hwapaθya-). The only known example of u- epenthesis is ž’āwla “resin, gum” (Skt. jatu-). b. Consonants. (15) Iranic y- is retained, e.g., in yor “husband’s sister,” but may be dropped before i, e.g., in y’ina, dial. ’ina “liver” (< *yaxn-). W is retained, e.g., in w’ala “willow,” wlēšt, etc., “span,” w’ina, dial. (y)ī° “blood.” Paṧtō is the only Iranic language in which w and b- have completely merged. But we also find secondary w-/y-, e.g., in or, dial. w-/y-/hor “fire,” wuč “dry.” W- is dropped before o, e.g., in xor “sister” (but pl. xwainde), calor (but dial. -lw-) “four.” (16) In some southern dialects w and y are “hardened” into b and g before i/y. Thus by’ešta “hair,” bid’ə “asleep,” grəwgi (gr’ewa, dial. grəwye) “collar-bone,” (arw-)ed’əlgi (from -əlē) “were heard.” (17) Paṧtō, like all other Northeastern Iranic languages (a few secondary regressions excepted), opens up Iranic b, d, g, and ǰ into fricatives. Thus wand “dam, dike,” raw- “to suck,” las “ten” (< *’ as in Munǰī), mlā “waist,” γar “mountain,” ṇγwağ- “to hear,” žəy “bow-string,” wa-žn- “to kill.” We find voiced stops only in secondarily initial positions, e.g., gūta “finger,” bən “co-wife,” dā “this (< *[a]ita-). (18) T- and p- remain, as does k, except when secondarily palatalized, e.g., in čāṛ’ə “knife,” čā obl. “who” (< kahya). Iranic č > dental c (cal’or “four”). Intervocalic -p-, -t-, -k-, -č- > b, l, g, j. Thus ob’ə “water,” səl “one hundred” (but loss of -t-, e.g., in wo “wind”), š’əga “sand,” rwaj “day.” But early elision of vowel takes place: špa “night,” -wēšt “-twenty,” škūṇ “porcupine,” stən “needle” (< *sc- < *suč-). X remains, but θ > l in lew’ar “husband’s brother” (several Iranic languages point to *θ-, not *d- ), plan “wide.” F- > xw- in xway “wooden shovel” (Shugh. fay, etc.), but -f- > w in swa “hoof.” c. Clusters. (19) St remains (nāst “sitting”), when not palatalized (myāš/st “month”). Št > t (tun “place,” at’ə “eight;” cf. Wāḵī hat), probably through *ht, before the introduction of ṭ from Indo-Aryan. Cf. šk > h’k’ > č (wuč “dry,” etc.), and sč > c (ac’a “thigh-bone:” Av. asču-, ācaṇ- “to sew together” < *ā-sčar(t)n-, Skt. krṇtat-, crta-). Ft > (w) d (tō[w]d, fem. tawd’a “hot,” ūd’ə, etc., “asleep,” but ow’ə “seven”). Xt > zero (səw-ay “burnt,” tə “went” (if < *taxta-), tər-l’a “uncle’s daughter.” Wrīt “roasted” to Pers. birišta rather than to Bal. brihta, brētka. (20) As generally in modern Northeastern Iranic, -(x) š- has become voiced (e.g., špağ “six,” γwağ “ear,” sağ-kāl “this year” < *saxša-) but xš-, fš- > š- (špa- “night,” šīn “blue,” špūn “shepherd”). (21 ) The transliteration of ṧ and žˊ by ҳ and ğ veils the most obvious if not the most important, division of Paṧtō dialects. In the southwestern “soft” group they remain sibilants, usually retroflex ṧ and žˊ, but merging in some restricted areas with more palatal š and ž. In the “hard” northwestern dialects they merge completely with x and g. But in an intermediate area, mainly Ḡilzay, we find transitional types, or mixings, e.g., š/ṧ/ҳ/xəja “woman,” špaž/žˊ/ɣ/g “six.” (22) Before n, but not before m, there is assimilation of θ, (x) š (for ršn, see below, 24). Thus, spīn “white,” rūṇ “bright,” sūṇ “sniff, snort” (< *sušna-), but melm’ə “guest,” wağm “steam, vapor” (< *waxšma-). Hw > x(w) as generally in Iranic, and *(x)šw- > šp- (špağ “six”). θw > lw (cal[w]or “four,” calweҳt “forty”. But dw- develops differently in war “door,” dwa “two,” bəl “other” (cf. Morg.1, s.v. dwa). (23) Before r initial x- is retained in xriy- “to shave,” while θ-, f- become voiced in dre “three” (*’r could not be tolerated), wr’əğa “flea” (and probably in the prefix war < fra-). Also fr-, -wr- (wāwra “snow”), but complete assimilation of -θ/xr- (or “fire,” sūr “red,” however, with metathesis, trīx, fem. tərx’a “bitter”). Br > wr in wror “brother,” o(w)r’ə “cloud,” and dr- in draγ’al “liar,” drəm’ənd “threshing” (if < *dru-). Gr- apparently in gr’ewa, etc., “collarbone;” but note also γrδəbay “buckle, clasp” (< *grab/p- ?). (24) Iranic rt/d merges into ṛ (kəṛ “made,” zṛə “heart”). Such merging also takes place in Ōrmuṛī, Parāčī, and Sanglēčī. Iranic r(š)n > ṇ (aṇ- “to grind,” zāṇa “crane,” war-γaṇay “rubbing [an infant],” Skt. ghṛṣ- “to rub,” γēṇ “penis”). But ršn + t seems to have been dentalized in tanda “thirst” < *tršnatā (?), kāndi (poetical) “they make” < *kaṇ-ndi < *kṛnantai (?; Morg.3). (25) The most convenient way of listing the development of other clusters containing r and a sibilant is to start from the resulting Paṧtō sound: Pšt. ҳ < *ršt (kҳel “to pull”), *sr (oҳa “tear”), *str (wāҳ “rope”), *štr (ūҳ “camel”). Pšt. ğ < *rž (xoğ “sweat”), *rš (yəğ “bear”), *zr (ğo “by God!” < *zruwā). Pšt. ҳt < *rs(t) (weҳt’ə “hair,” γaҳtel “to twist”). Pšt. ğd < *rz (ğdən “millet,” [w]ūğd “long”) (Morg.4). (26) The palatalization of k, st, and vowels has been mentioned above (see 18, 19, 14). We also find š < sy (m’əšar “elder,” maš’ay “fish,” təš “empty”), epenthesis of y (lyār, dial. for lār “road;” myāšt, etc., “month”), and the various dialect plural forms of mor “mother” and other words denoting female relationships (mainde, m[y]ande, m[y]andye), all probably pointing to an early, preliterary system with suprasegmented palatalization throughout the word (*m’an’d’e). (27) There is a strong tendency toward various kinds of assimilation, dissimilation, and metathesis. Thus mālga “salt” (< *nm-), nwas’ay “grandson” (dial. nm-, lm-), nwar “sun” (nwar, nmar, lmer, etc.), ğmənj “comb” (mangəz; Waz. wžənz). Cf. also (w)šəl “twenty,” (w) lāṛ “went.” Note also the change of r-l to l-r (lār “road,” -lara “to,” lwarən “madder”). (28) These various sound changes have led in many cases to a more or less complete severance of the phonetical connection between related words. Thus plār “father:” trə “paternal uncle,” sxar “father-in-law,” xwāҳe “mother-in-law;” Ḵalīl dial. ul-, pret. wišt “to throw, shoot,” etc. (29) On the subject of phonetical development it is worth noting that in the northeastern dialects most exposed to Indo-Aryan influence, and especially in the Peshawar region, Paṧtō has rid itself of five un-Indo-Aryan phonemes through the change of ҳ > x, ğ > g, c > s, j > z, but ž > ǰ; it has retained only x and z, both of which have also gained a kind of admission into the Northeastern Indo-Aryan languages. D. Morphology. a. Nouns. Gender. (30) The preservation of a final -a (-ə) <-ā has, as also in other Iranic dialects, supported the retention of a separate fem. gender. The category of gender pervades all nominal forms, including the past part. and the verbal forms based upon it, and has also penetrated into the auxiliary 3rd sing. pres. Only the demonstrative nom. sing. haγa “he/she/that” is an exception. Thus, də haγ’ə zoṛ ās məṛ š’əway day/də haγ’e zaṛa ‘aspa mṛa š’əwe da “his/her old horse/mare has died.” Iranic neuter nouns have been transferred to the masculine (pal “footstep, trace,” nūm “name”) or to the feminine (l’ūma “snare,” but also lam’ən “hem” < nt. plur. *dāmani). (31) Many masculine nouns in -a- end in Paṧtō consonants (kor “house,” “family” < kāra-); but γar “mountain” < *gari- (cf. Khot. ggara-). Ancient stems in -u have been treated in various ways, e.g., psə “goats and sheep” < collective plur. *pasuwoh; os’ay “gazelle” < *āsu- + ka-; oҳa fem. “tear” < *asru + ā-. Stems in -n- can be traced e.g., in melm’ə, plur. -ān’ə “guest.” Stems in -r- denoting kinship may either go back to Iranic accusative (plār “father”), or to some oblique case (mor “mother”). (32) Nouns in stressed or unstressed masculine -ay < *-aka- are common. Thus, nwas’ay “grandson,” malg’əray “comrade,” with the corresponding feminine forms in -’əy, -e < *-aki (nwas’əy, malg’əres). (33) Most feminine nouns end in stressed or unstressed -a (rarely ə). Thus, ’aspa “mare,” asp’a “nettle-rash, asthma,” maṇ’a “apple,” γoban’a fem. “cowherd,” xwlə/a “mouth.” Note the types wrer’a “brother’s daughter,” čāṛ’ə “knife,” Waz, etc. gutyē “finger-ring” < *anguštyā- (but all dialects have -a in g’uta, etc. “finger”), y’əwe “plough,” Waz. yəwyē. All of these go back to -(i)yā, but the distribution between original forms in -yā and -iyā is not clear. It is at any rate impossible, with Kuryłowicz (Metrik und Sprachgeschichte, p. 102) to consider all feminines in -’a as having been taken over from such in -’iyā. (34) In contracted monosyllables we find -ā. Thus γwā “cow,” Waz. -o; xwā “side,” Waz. -o; mlā “waist” (= Waz.), Bangaš maly’a; plā “journey” = Waz. (probably < *paθyā; γlā “theft” = Waz. (probably < *gadyā). But note also γla (fem. of γal “thief,” špa “night,” swa “hoof,” ҳna “hip.” It is difficult to explain the relations between such bisyllables in -wā with those in -’o, which have been derived from -a/uwā mentioned above. (35) A restricted, nonproductive group of feminines ending in a consonant go back to *-(č)ī. Thus bən “cowife,” wlešt “span,” ğmənj “comb” (< *fšan-čī), ҳəj-a “woman” (< *strī-čī-), and, in some dialects lyār-a “road.” In təštyā “emptiness” < *-tāti- the t has been retained as if initial, cf. Khot. tuśśātātä and Av. yawē-ča-tāite. Number. (36) No New or Middle Iranic language presents a corresponding variety of plural endings, and only a selection of the historically most important can be given here. (37) Masc. 1. -(y/g)ān (mostly animates): ūҳ’ān “camels,” mullāy’ān “mullahs.” 2. -’ūna: lās’ūna “hands,” zṛ’ūna “hearts,” but also as ’ūna (and as’ān) “horses,” plar’ūna “fathers.” 3. -’ə: špān’ə “shepherds” (špūn, špə), xrə “asses” (xar), spār’ə “horsemen” (spor, etc.); probably also sxər “rocks” < *sxrə (sxar). 4. -ān’a: γobān’ə “cowherds” (γob-’ə/’ūn). 5. -ī: k’əlī “villages” (-ay), saṛ’ī “men” (-’ay), spī(ān) “dogs” (spag). 6. Irregular are, e.g., wr’ūṇa “brothers” (wror), zām’ən “sons” (zoy). Note -a after numerals: dre k’ora “three houses” (probably < *-āh). (38) Fem. 1. -e: w’əne “trees,” maṇ’e “apples,” l’āre “roads,” Pəҳtan’e “Pathan women,” rw’aje “days” (probably < *-ayah transferred from i-stems, in order to distinguish between the plur. of stems in -a- and -ā-). 2. From feminines in -ā, e.g., mlā-we “waists.” 3. (y/g)āne: nyāg’āne “grandmothers,” tror(y)āne (or trainde, trore) “paternal aunts.” 4. Plur. = sing.: rūp’əy “rupee(s),” but animate spəy, spī’āne “she-dogs.” 5. Irregular: l’ūṇa (lūre) “daughters,” mainde, etc. “mothers” (mor), and similarly other terms in -or denoting female kinship. (39) Note the compound mor-plār “parents” (cf. Skt. mātā-pitaraḥ), and also lās (aw) pҳe “hands and feet,” špa aw rwaje “nights and days.” Case. (40) The obl. is frequently identical with the nom. (e.g., lās “hand,” spəy “she-dog”). But the masc. has -’ə (e.g., in γrə “hill,” Pəҳtan’ə “Pashtun”), and masc. -ay has -ī (e.g., saṛ’ī “man,” k’əlī “village” = nt. plur.). The obl. fem. can have -e = nt. plur. (e.g., ’lāre “road,” ’ūҳe “she-camel”). Some nouns have a separate prepositional, in some cases identical with the nom., but like the vocative usually formed by adding -a to the nom. Thus, ’ūҳa masc./fem. “camel,” sp’aya “dog,” Pəҳt’ūna “Pashtun.” (41) Obl. plur., masc. and fem., has -o (from nouns in -ay also -io), thus agreeing, as also in Khot. with the vocative plur. The older literary texts and the more archaic dialects have -o, not -ūno, e.g., in ’aso “horses.” This shows that -ūna cannot be based upon an -ūno, derived from *-ānām, but must rather go back to *-ānhāh (Av. -āŋho), and that -o is probably rather < instrumental *-ābiš, cf. also Khot. instrumental abl. plur. -yau. b. Prepositions and postpositions. (42) The most common prepositions are: da (dial. e) “of” (gen., etc.), la “from,” pa “at, on,” tar “till,” etc. Postpositions are: bānde “on,” cəxa “from,” kҳe “in,” la “towards,” lānde “under,” lara “for,” na “from,” pore “up to,” sara “with,” ta “to.” Combinations of pre- and postpositions are common: pa kor kҳe “in the house,” daγrə na “from the hill,” la ҳəje sara “with the woman.” c. Article. (43) Yaw “one” and haγa “that” may often be translated by Engl. a(n), the. As far as is known, only in some Ḡilzay dialects is abbreviated and unstressed a(γ) on the way to becoming a real article. Thus, a saṛ’ī ta “to the man,” a sp’ay “the dog,” p’a mulk kҳe “in the country.” Cf. Orm. of Lōgar a saṛ’ay “the man,” but ’a saṛay “that man,” probably through Paṧtō influence. d. Adjectives. (44) Comparison is not inflexional, but expressed by tar (ṭolo) “from, than (all).” Some adjectives ending in a vowel are inflexible. Others form fem. in -a, -’əy, or -e. But a group of important adjectives have retained a more archaic inflexion. The pattern is, with minor variations, that of to(w)d “hot,” masc. obl. sing. and nom. plur. tāwd’ə: fem. nom. sing. tawd’a, obl. sing. and nom. pl. -’e, masc./fem. obl. plur. -’o. (45) Dybo (quoted by Morg.7) has proposed that this change may go back to a Vedic accent. This has been denied by Kuryłowicz (Metrik), but his objections do not take into account or quote correctly all relevant Paṧtō facts. e. Numerals. (46) “1” yaw, fem. yəw’a (dial. ew’a). “2” dwa, fem. dwe; d(w)olas “12.” “3” dre (dial. drey, etc.; cf. diphthong in Bal. and Pamir dial.), dyārlas “13,” dərwəšt “23” (< *θri-), derš “30” (Khot. därsä). “4” cal’or (Afr., Waz., etc., -lw-), cwārlas “14,” caler(w)išt “24” (< *caθwāri- ?), calwʾeҳt “40.” “5” pinj’ə (Jaǰi pēṇ°), note final -ə; panj’os “50.” “6” špağ (dial. e), šp’āṛas “16” (cf. *-rd in Oss., etc.), špet’ə “60.” “7” ow’ə (etc.), awy’a “70.” “8” at’ə (dial. [w]otə etc.), aty’ā “80.” “9” nəh, etc., nul/nas “19,” naw’e “90.” “10” las. “20” (w)šəl, but yaw-wišt “21,” etc. Note archaic and Waṇ. ter-cūṛ-pūn-sū “3/4/500” (Morg.2). (47) In some dialects (Khaṭṭak, etc.) a vigesimal system is used (alternatively, with kam “less,” nīm “half,” dəp’āsa “added”: Pinj’e kam dre š’əla/špet’ə = pinj’ə panj’os “55,” dre nīm š’əla = panjos (cf. Danish halv-tre-sinds-tyve “half 3 times 20,” i.e., fifty), cal’or nīm š’əla/las dəp’āsa dre š’əla/awyē, etc. f. Pronouns. (48) Personal: Zə “I” (cf. Munǰī zo/a) < *az’ā (Greek egṓ, etc.?). Gen. j-mā “my,” s-tā “thy” (dial. e-), etc. < *hača, as in some Northwestern Iranic dialects. Mū(n)ğ “we” <*ahmāša- < *-čya (cf. Waṇecī, but Kūkī Ḵēl, Afr. dyū < ? t’āsu/e “you” (< *-saya “likeness, shadow;” cf. dā-se “thus,” Shugh., etc. di/as < *(a)ita-sā; but Waz. tus “you” probably < Indo-Aryan. (49) The demonstratives are: haγa “that,” daγa, dā, day “this.” In archaic and dialectic Paṧtō also hā/oγa “that very, that over there.” Interrogatives: cok “who” (Av. čiš + -ok); obl. čā (Av. kahyā); cə “what;” kūm “which,” rather < *kāma- than *katāma-. Enclitics: me 1st per. sing., de 2nd per. sing., (y)e 3rd per. sing./plur., mū(mo) 1st and 2nd per. plur. Directive pronouns or particles: rā (Afr. ər) 1st per. “to me, hither,” dar (dial. -e-) 2nd per., war (dial. -e-) 3rd per. (cf. Morg.3, s.vv.). g. Verbs. (50) The verbal system is, as in other New Iranic languages, based on the opposition between the present and the past stems. A simplified classification of the types of pres. stems is: 1. Simple stems (wīn- “see,” xwaj- “be moving, creep,” e.g., in mār xwajī “a snake creeps” [habitually]). 2. Intransitives with added -eğ- (Kāk. -āž-) (gora, mār xwajeğī “look, a snake is creeping” [just now]). 3. Denominatives in -eğ- (ǰoṛ-eğ- “get restored”). 4. Causatives with added -aw- (ǰoṛ-aw- “restore”). 5. Double stems (kaw-: subj. kṛ- “do,” wo-: š- “become;” wr-: y’os- “take away;” bi’āy-: b’oz- “lead away;” prew’əz-: pr’ewəz- “fall”). (51) The personal endings are: 1st sing. -əm; 2nd sing. -ī; 1st plur. -u; 2nd plur. -əy (dial. -o, -ast); 3rd per. -ī (cf. the loss of a separate 3rd plur. in Davānī in Fārs; NTS 19, p. 129). The distribution of stress on stem or suffix (e.g., w’īnəm “I see,” but lar’əm “I have”) would need investigation beyond the scope of this article. Only in the auxiliary are 3rd sing. and plur. distinguished: yəm “I am,” ye “thou art,” yū “we are,” yəy (yo, yast) “you are,” day “he is,” da “she is,” dī “they are” (with d- of pronominal origin); also šta “it exists.” Archaic forms are 2nd plur. kānəy (< *kṛna-); 3rd plur. kānde (< *kṛnantai). Imperative has 2nd sing. -a; 2nd plur. -əy. There is a 3rd per. subj. wī, and a 3rd per. opt./cond. wāy-, transferred also to preterites ka haγa rātl-ay “if he had come.” (52) The particle wə denotes the subj., and can be combined with ba, the marker of the fut. (with the past stem of the durative). (53) Many verbs contain separable, lexical prefixes, beside rā, dar, war (e.g., ǰār-, kҳe-, nəna-, prā-, pre-, pore-). The prefixes may be separated from the stem by inserted particles. Thus, pre-ba ye-nə-kawəm “I shall not be cutting it,” pre-ba-de-ğdəm “I shall leave you.” This principle may be extended also to the original prefix ā- (rā-w-a-b(a)-exləm “I shall take it with me”), and even to verbs where ā- belongs to the root, e.g., from ā/ărw- “to hear,” w-ā-ba-e-rwəm “I shall hear it.” Corresponding structures are also to be found in the past tenses (cf. Morg.3, p. 106). (54) The past stem of many verbs is formed, as in other Iranic languages, from the root and the ancient past part.-ta-; e.g., āxist: ’āxl- “take;” āγust: āγund “put on;” wīšt : w’əl- “throw;” kat : k’as- “look at;” bot : boz- “lead away;” xot : x’ež- “rise;” ṇγut : ṇγwağ “listen to;” m(ə)ṛ : mṛ- “die;” γoҳt : γwʾār- “want;” skaҳt : skaṇ- “cut out;” kҳ : k’āğ- “pull;” od : ’ow- “weave;” sw : swaj- “burn;” waž(l) : w’ažn- “kill.” Suppletive pasts are, e.g., līd : w’īn- “see;” rāγl : r’āš “come.” (55) In many verbs (e.g., taṛ’əl “bound”) we find an element -əl (probably < *-ita), which may also be added to past stems already characterized as such by other means. Past stems in -ed- (cf. Pers. -īd-) are common, and not exclusively from presents in -eğ-. (56) The personal endings 1st and 2nd sing. and plur. are the same as in the pres. The common 2nd sing. fem. form is -’əla, with 2nd plur. -’əle; we also find 3rd plur. masc. -’əl (with variants). 3rd sing. masc. can have a shorter form with ā, o < a (taṛ’ə “bound,” xot “rose”), but we also find insertion of l. (57) Perfect and pluperfect are, as in Persian, etc., based on a participle in -*taka- < Paṧtō ’-ay, here, of course, inflected for gender and number. Thus, š’əway/e yəm/wum “I (masc./fem.) have/had become;” 3rd plur š’əw-i/e dī. (58) Many other tenses and moods that cannot be dealt with in detail here are formed with various forms of auxiliaries, the addition of ba and we, or combinations of both. Thus, a perfect conditional ba rased’əlay wu “(then) he would have arrived,” past conditional w’ə ba rased’əm, etc. (59) The structure of past intransitives conforms with that of other New Iranic languages; but in the past transitives the agentive formation has been carried through more strictly than elsewhere. Thus, zə tā wahəm “I strike you,” tə mā wahe “you strike me,” but tā/mā zə/tə wahəl-əm/e “you/I struck me/you,” ҳəja ās/aspa wahī “the woman strikes the horse/mare,” ҳəje ās/aspa wāh’ə/wah’əla “the woman struck the horse/mare.” (60) This use of the agentive tr. past conforms exactly with what we find in adjoining Indo-Aryan languages; it seems likely that the Paṧtō constructions, though based on inherited Iranic tendencies, have been supported and reinforced by the contact with Indo-Aryan. In this connection it is instructive to confront the two Paṧtō texts from Kohat given in the Linguistic Survey of India with the same texts from Kohat Lahndi. There is a nearly complete identity of grammatical forms, prepositions and postpositions, and word order in the two versions, a parallelism which becomes all the more striking if we contrast them with the Linguistic Survey of India specimens from, e.g., Badaḵšī Persian or Balūčī. (61) Verbal nouns. The infinitive is a plur. noun, formed from the past stem -’əl (= past 3rd per. plur. masc.), and with obl. in -o. There are several other verbal nouns, in -’ūn, -’ə, -’əna, etc. E. Vocabulary. (62) Although to a large extent the native elements of the Paṧtō vocabulary are related to the vocabularies of other Iranic languages, a remarkably large number of words is special to Paṧtō. To take a few examples from the names of parts of the body: st’ərga “eye,” xwlə “mouth,” yāҳ “tooth,” ’oğa “shoulder,” pҳa “foot,” p’ūnda “heel” (cf. Morg.1, passim). F. Waṇecī. (63) Except for a few details, Paṧtō dialects can be derived from a prototype not essentially different from the classical 10th/16th century literary language; they do not to any significant extent help us to reconstruct a more archaic form of Paṧtō. There is only one dialect which stands decidedly apart, i.e., Waṇ(ecī) (or Tarīno) spoken in northeast Baluchistan between Harnai and Loralai, and now being more and more influenced by and pushed back by ordinary Paṧtō. Descriptions have been given by Morg.2,6 and by Elfenbein; here it is only possible to draw attention to a few essential points. (64) Phonology. Ir. -d- > -l- as in Paṧtō (mlā “waist,” xwala “sweat”) but -t- > y/0 (sī “one hundred,” šwī < *wšī “twenty,” piyār “father,” left as relicts in Kāk. pyār and plyār). In this respect Waṇ. agrees with Munǰī, but not with Pṧt. Before ž Ir. r is retained (yirž “bear,” tərža “thirsty”). Šk > k (pukē “sheep’s dung,” Pṧt. puča). Ft > w (tōw, fem. taw’a “hot,” Pṧt. to[w]d). Retention of nd in γandəm, Pṧt. γanəm. Lack of palatalization (māst “month,” at’ā “eighty”). Note wžənj “comb” < *fšaṇčī, Pṧt. ğumənj, etc.; sunzən “needle,” Pṧt. stən; brēstəṇ “quilt,” Pṧt. bṛastən. (65) Morphology. Gen. da is rare, and probably borrowed from Pṧt., but there is a predicative gen. -(a) γa. Mōš “we” < *ahmāšša-, without nasalization as in Pṧt. mū(n)ğ, and with *šš < *-čy- not joining -š- > -ğ-. This points to an early separation from Pṧt. There is a demonstrative ay “this (very).” (66) Personal endings: kī “I make,” ke, kə, kū, kō (imper, 2nd sing. ka), and a separate 3rd plur. kīn. Kī ( <*kī ) and kīn from a stem in -aya-, but kə from a stem in -a-, quite the reverse of the situation in Pṧt. Note the extreme economy shown in expressing all personal endings (except the 3rd per. plur.) by means of the available final vowels. The pres. frequently has an infixed -’en- (murš’enī “I rub,” wīnz’enī “I wash,” wrēš’enī “I spin,” etc.). (67) Words not recorded from Pṧt. are e.g. γoz-: γot “drink,” kəž’ə fem. “(big) fish,” mīt “fist,” wūn “naked,” zūng “knee.” (68) Examples of sentences showing the difference from Pṧt. are: Indī waguṛī čī mōš piyār γa caṭ lēždī wī (Pṧt. *pa de kəlī kҳe zmūnğ da plār ḍer γwayī wū) “in this village our father had many bulls;” šamze o xwāržə šwe mī de γōzīn (Pṧt. šlombe aw xwāğə šawdə həm cҳī) “they also drink buttermilk and sweet milk.” Some of Waṇ.’s particularities (e.g. šwī “twenty,” mōš “we,” [a]γa “of;” the pres. endings; retention of rž; loss of -t-) prove that it must have split off from Pṧt. at an early Mid. Iranic stage, considerably before the constitution of a standard Pṧt. They can scarcely have developed after the arrival of the Waṇ. speakers in their present home, which is in no way topographically cut off from the rest of Pṧt. territory. These speakers must rather represent the forerunners of the main Paṧtūn movement towards the east, but when and where they split off is at present impossible to say. G. The position of Paṧtō within Iranic. (69) Paṧtō undoubtedly belongs to the Northeastern Iranic branch. It shares with Munǰī the change of *’ > l, but this tendency extends also to Sogdian. The Waṇ. dialect shares with Munǰī the change of -t- > -y-/0. If we want to assume that this agreement points to some special connection, and not to a secondary, parallel development, we should have to admit that one branch of pre-Paṧtō had already, before the splitting off of Waṇ., retained some special connection with Munǰī, an assumption unsupported by any other facts. Apart from l <*’ the only agreement between Paṧtō and Munǰī appears to be Pṧt. zə; Munǰī zo/a “I.” Note also Pṧt. l but Munǰī ҳ < θ (Pṧt. plan “wide,” cal(w)or “four,” but Munǰī paҳəy, čfūr, Yidḡa čšīr < *čəҳfūr). Paṧtō has dr-, wr- < *θr-, *fr- like Khotanese Saka (see above 23). An isolated, but important, agreement with Sangl. is the remarkable change of *rs/z > Pṧt. ҳt/ğd; Sangl. ṧt/žˊd (obəҳta “juniper;” Sangl. wəṧt; (w)ūğd “long;” vəžÂ¡dük) (see above 25). But we find similar development also in Shugh. ambaҳc, vūɣj. The most plausible explanation seems to be that *rs (with unvoiced r) became *ṧs and, with differentiation *ṧc, and *rz, through *žˊz > žˊj (from which Shugh. ҳc, ɣj). Pṧt. and Sangl. then shared a further differentiation into ṧt, žˊd ( > Pṧt. ҳt, ğd). (70) There appear to be no other special agreements between Paṧtō and any Pamir languages, whether in phonology, morphology, or vocabulary. It is, however, possible that the original home of Paṧtō may have been in Badaḵšān, somewhere between Munǰī and Sangl. and Shugh., with some contact with a Saka dialect akin to Khotanese. But it seems that the Old Iranic ancestor dialect of Paṧtō must have been close to that of the Gathas. (71) It is important to keep in mind the early and profound influence of Indo-Aryan on Paṧtō as well as Paṧtō’s remarkable preservation of many Iranic morphological features, in which respect only Ossetic can compete with or even surpass it. Bibliography : See also M. G. Aslanov, Afgansko-russkiĭ slovar’, Moscow, 1966. H. W. Bellew, A Dictionary of the Pukkhto or Pukshto language . . . , Lahore, 1901. Idem, An Inquiry into the Ethnography of Afghanistan, Woking, 1891. V. A. Dubo, “O refleksakh indoevropeĭskogo udareniya v afganskom,” Aktual’nye voprosy iranistiki i sravnitel’nogo indoevropeĭskogo yazykoznaniya, Institut yazykoznaniya, Moscow, 1970, pp. 10-14. J. Elfenbein, “Laṇḍa, zor wəla’. Waṇecī,” Archiv Orientální 35, Prague, 1967, pp. 563-686. J. Kurylowicz, “L’accent du mot en v.-iranien,” Acta Iranica 4, Liège and Tehran, 1975, pp. 499-507. Idem, Metrik und Sprachgeschichte, Wrocław etc., 1975, pp. 102ff. D. L. R. Lorimer, Syntax of Colloquial Pashto, Oxford, 1915. J. G. Lorimer, Grammar and Vocabulary of Waziri Pashto, Calcutta, 1902. G. Morgenstierne, An Etymological Vocabulary of Pashto, Oslo, 1927 (Morg.1). Idem, “The Waṇetsi Dialect of Pashto,” NTS 4, 1930, pp. 156-75 (Morg.2) = Irano-Dardica, Wiesbaden, 1973, pp. 168-74. Idem, “Archaisms and Innovations in Pashto Morphology,” NTS 12, 1942, pp. 87-114 (Morg.3). Idem, “"Pashto", "Pathan" and the Treatment of r + Sibilant in Pashto,” Acta Orientalia 18, 1940, pp. 138-44 (Morg.4) = Irano-Dardica, pp. 168-74. Idem, “The Development of R + Sibilant in some E. Ir. Languages,” TPS, 1948, pp. 70-80 (Morg.5). Idem, “Additional Notes on Waṇetsi,” Irano-Dardica, pp. 207-23 (Morg.6). Idem, “Traces of Indo-European Accentuation in Pashto,” NTS 27, 1973, pp. 61ff. (Morg.7). H. Penzl, A Grammar of Pashto. A Descriptive Study of the Dialect of Kandahar, Afghanistan, Washington, 1955. Paҳto Qāmūs, 2 vols., Kabul, 1330-33 Š./1951-54. H. G. Raverty, A Dictionary of the Pak’hto, Pas’hto, or the Language of the Afghans, 2nd ed., London, 1860. Idem, A Grammar of the Puk’hto, Pus’hto, or Language of the Afghans . . ., London 1867. D. A. Shafaev, A Short Grammatical Outline of Pashto, Transl. by H. H. Paper, The Hague, 1964. E. T. Trumpp, Grammar of the Paṧtō or Language of the Afghāns, London, 1873.
(G. Morgenstierne)
vii. Parāčī
Geographical distribution. Parāčī is an Iranian language now spoken northeast of Kabul in the Šotol valley, north of Golbahār, and in the Ḡočūlān and Pačaḡān branches of the Neǰrao valley, northeast of Golbahār. The names of the Šotol villages have been given by Farhādī as Sang-e Laḵšān, Māra (“the pasture”), and Deh-e Kalān (G. Morgenstierne, “Istālif and other place-names of Afghanistan,” BSOAS 33, 1970, pp. 350-52). Andreev omits the first, but adds Andorsot (Farhādī: Andrāw-sāt “village between streams”), and in 1924 two of my informants said that they came from Rūydarra at the top of the valley. Benveniste gives 3-400 speakers of Parāčī for Ḡočūlān, the northern branch of Neǰrao, and 1,500 for the southern branch, Pačaḡān, where one Pašaī village in the middle of the valley splits up the Parāčī territory. According to Benveniste, 200 years ago Parāčī was spoken all over Neǰrao. From the uncertain and partly contradictory information given we can only venture to guess that Parāčī is not spoken by more than a few thousand persons (Morg., sec. 5). According to Masson (Morg., sec. 1 ) Parāčī was spoken “in and near Panǰšīr” at the beginning of the 19th century; Andreev (Morg., sec. 4) in 1926 found that it was still spoken in Kuroba (Pašaī -ṛ-) in lower Panǰšīr, but his brief notes on Parāčī have never been published and are not now to be traced. Andreev also states that Parāčī had been brought to the Sālang valley west of Šotol, but had been given up for Persian. In 1967 I found no trace of Parāčī being spoken in lower Panǰšīr, but in 1924 I was told in Šotol that it had been spoken in Panǰšīr (Ferāǰ, Zamōnkȫr, Dȫstomḵēl villages) “till a couple of generations ago,” and in 1970 that it had survived in Kuroba until about 1940. Old inhabitants of Parāčī village, above Paḡmān, west of Kabul, stated in 1975 that Parāčīs living there had left for the north, “towards Nūrestān,” a few generations ago. But opinions varied as to whether they had spoken a language of their own. It is at any rate impossible to tell whether they had been secondary immigrants or represented a real earlier extension towards the south of Parāčī territory. Finally it may be mentioned that Došī, the name of the topographically most striking confluence of the Andarāb and Kondūz rivers, north of the Hindu Kush, can most easily be explained by Parāčī dī-šī “two-forked plough” (cf. Pers. do-šāḵ, also used in toponyms; see Morg.2 add. sec. 6). Šī “horn, branch” (< srū-) is not known to me from any other Iranic language, and it is possible that Došī may point to an earlier expansion of Parāčī. Sources. The earliest reference to Parāčī is given by Bābor in the 10th/16th century (I, p. 224); he includes it among the eleven languages spoken in the neighborhood of Kabul. He is followed later in the same century by the Turkish admiral Sīdī ʿAlī, who mentions the Farāšī tribe as living in the vicinity of Parvān, close to Šotol (Markwart, Ērānšahr, p. 287). The first Europeans to mention Parāčī are Elphinstone and Masson (Morg., sec. 1); but they also use the word “Purauncheh/Perâncheh” to denote a different ethnic group, i.e., Hindu converts to Islam who were spread over a large area from Kabul to the Panjab and lived as (cloth-) merchants. Cf. also Paṧtō pərā(n)ča (Wazīrī dial. parāčī) “cloth-merchant, Hindu convert to Islam,” Panǰšīr parāca “a Muslim caste of pedlars.” We must assume that two similar names have been confused. Grierson, in a note on Bābor, derives the name from prāčī “eastern,” but we might also think of Skt. parācī fem. “outside of, distant,” referring to some remote tribe or ethnic group. In Kabul in 1924 with Bābor as my guide, I succeeded in tracking down Parāčī speaking informants from Šotol (Morg., sec. 3ff.), two of whom were very good, and in having brief interviews with a man from Ḡočūlān, and later in Peshawar, with one from Pačaḡān. In 1962 a team from the Atlas linguistique d’Afghanistan (ALA), to which I belonged, worked in Pačaḡān and Ḡočūlān, and on several occasions up to 1970 (Morg.2, p. 417) I collected some further information on the Šotol dialect. I have also availed myself of the Paҳto Ṭoləna and Sāl-nāma vocabularies. In 1947 Benveniste made notes from Neǰrao and Šotol, which are being edited by Redard. The ALA material will in due course be published, as probably also additional information gathered by Kieffer. We are still in urgent need of a comprehensive study of all varieties of this receding, but interesting language. Traditions. All local traditions seem to agree that Neǰrao is the “original” home of Parāčī, relatively speaking (Morg. sec. 5; Morg.2, add. sec. 5, p. 417). When the tradition claims an immigration from Ḡūr at the time of ʿAlāʾ-al-dīn Ḥosayn Jahānsūz (d. 556/1161), it is probably devoid of any historical value. As we possess no written sources, we must depend entirely on linguistic evidence to determine the position of Parāčī within Iranic. The differences between the various dialects are insignificant and do not enable us to reconstruct a more archaic “Common-Parāčī.” Phonemic system. It would require further investigations to establish with certainty the vocalic system of Parāčī, because vowel phonemes, especially the short, liable to much variation owing to stress and other factors (see Morg., sec. 16); but it seems likely that there are four short vowel phonemes (i, e, a, u), and five or six long ones (ī, ē, ā, ȫ [ō?], ū). The ā is rounded in Šotol, and Šotol ȫ in many cases corresponds to Neǰrao ō (ōˊ?). The consonant phonemes are: q (in loanwords), k, ṭ, t, p, č, g, ḍ, d, b, ǰ, x, γ, m, n, y, w, r, ṛ, l, s, š, z, ž, h. The stops, affricates, nasals and r, l can be combined with h (kh, nh, rh, etc.), but it is probably more correct to consider these combinations to be clusters, not stops. Position within Iranic. From the historical viewpoint most striking phonetical feature of Parāčī is the retention of Iranic g, d, b, ǰ (e.g., gir “stone,” dūč- “to milk,” bāš “rope,” ǰan- “to beat;” cf. Morg., sec. 49, and the Sāl-nāma vocabulary, s.v.). This feature is shared by Ōrmuṛī and separates the relict languages of southeast Iran in a decisive manner from the northeastern ones, which have, apart from a few regressions and other, local, changes, fricative γ-, δ- (l-), v- (ß-), ž-. An important innovation common to Parāčī and Ōrmuṛī is *w- > γ(w). Thus Par. γaf “to weave,” γār- “to rain,” γarp “snow” (Orm. γaf, γōr, γošr). According to Henning (“Mitteliranisch,” p. 86) Zābolī γuzbe “elm” does, “as might be expected,” show relationship (γu- < wi-) with Parāčī and Ōrmuṛī. It also seems possible that the varying forms given of Gundofarr, etc., the well-known ruler of the Kabul region, may resent attempts to render Southeastern Iranic γ-. In Northeastern Iranic only a couple of (loan-?) words in Wāḵī have γ- <*w-; in Khot. there are traces of a similar treatment of *w-. Par. ž- < y- (žȫ “barley,” etc.) recalls Orm. j- (through ǰ-) < y- (ja-i “husband’s brother’s wife,” jāšr “liver”), no similar change of y- is known from Northeastern Iranic. The loss of -t/d-, intervocalically and after n, is shared by Ōrmuṛī and is found in some Western Iranic dialects, but not in Northeastern Iranic. Also *dw > b- (Par. bȫr, Orm. bar “door”) is known from Persian, etc., in Northeastern Iranic only from Wāḵī. Par. š, Orm. ṧr < θr, s(t)r is a not very characteristic common feature, as similar developments are found as well in Western as in Northeastern dialects. The loss, or reduction to y, of intervocalic -š- (Morg., sec. 69) (Par. Orm. gū, Orm. goī “ear”) is the only phonetical change which seems to be more akin to Northeastern ( > ž, ḷ, etc.) than Western Iranic. But also in some Western Iranic dialects we find a voiced ž, e.g., in the world for “ear.” Parāčī differs from Ōrmuṛī in the development of *rt/d (Par. muṛ “died,” zuṛ “heart,” but Orm. mull-uk, zlī), both, however, agreeing, just as Paṧtō, in merging two Iranic groups. Parāčī differs also from Ōrmuṛī in the development of -k- (Par. saγȫn, Orm. skan “cow’s dung”). Such and other differences point to a rather early separation between the two Southeastern Iranic languages. But it does not seem probable that the parallel phonetical developments should be due merely to a secondary contact between the two languages. Phonetical development. For an attempt to give a more complete account of the phonetical development of Parāčī see Morg. secs. 25-74. Here it is possible to mention only a few details not referred to above. 1. Vowels: Stressed Ir. ’a > Šotol ȫ (Neǰrao also ōˊ); ū, ai > ī, but au > ū and ā/ăya > e@; āēwa > ȫ/ō. With umlaut ai > e; āi > ē; aa > a. Ir. ṛ > ur; *wi > γu. 2. Consonants: St > št after i, in Šotol merging with Iranic št (Šotol γušt “twenty,” “finger,” but Neǰrao γušt, γušṭ). F/xt > t, but ršt > ṭ. Fr- > rh- (rhaγām “spring”), but f/xr- > rp/kh (γarp “snow,” surkhȫ “red”). Initial aspirates (or clusters with h) develop through the transposition of a following *h. Thus ghīt “took” < *giht < *gi(r)ft, rhīne “light” < *rūhn- < rauxšna-, phök “cooked” < *pakh(w) < *paxwa-, dhȫṛ “saw” < *duhṛ < *dṛšta-, thān “thirsty” < *ta(r)hn- < taršn. Khör “ass” may be a loan-word from Pašaī, or with secondary kh < x-, as in khan- “to laugh.” But it is perhaps not excluded that in this border dialect initial aspirates could have been retained. Cf. also phī “spade,” menth- “to smear,” mâkhân “our” (see Morg. secs. 58-61). Morphological and lexical relations to Ōrmuṛī. It is not possible to point to any special morphological similarities between Parāčī and Ōrmuṛī, apart from the formation of the infinitive from the past stem + -aka (Par. xuṛȫ, Orm. of Kaniguram xwalak “to eat”). The loss of the distinction of gender in Ōrmuṛī of Lōgar is probably due to Persian influence, and in Parāčī it may be comparatively recent (γan “oak” < *wanā- fem., etc.; cf. Morg., sec. 26). The system of pronominal prefixes, very characteristic of Ōrmuṛī, is no doubt of Paṧtō origin. In contrast Parāčī morphology bears the stamp of ancient and strong contacts with Pašaī, for which see below. The Parāčī vocabulary shows striking affinities with Ōrmuṛī, although the list given by Morg. (sec. 8) has to be reduced. The most remarkable case is the verb Par. tēr-: thȫṛ; Orm. tr-: tatak “to drink” which is quite unique in Iranic. Also Par. gap-āṛ “fireplace”: Orm. gap “stone” looks remarkable, but may be due to some kind of secondary contact. Note also Par. žəmā, Orm. zəmāk “winter,” with *-āka, not known to me from other Iranic languages. But it must be admitted that the number of words shared especially with Northeastern Iranic is larger. Thus: bāš (Orm. bēš) “rope,” Shugh. vāҳ, Paṧtō wāҳ, etc.; dhȫṛ “saw,” Munǰī lišky, γarw- “to boil,” Shugh. warv-, etc.; dȫš “hair,” Sar. δors, etc.; panān “road,” Shugh. pûʷnd, etc.; sūγ “word, affair,” Shugh. sūg “tale;” xāṛa “summer” (< *hu-wāhṛt-), Paṧtō wōṛay, Sar. wug, Sogd. wrtyy “spring.” Nevertheless it is only to be expected that ancient Southeastern Iranic should in many cases agree with its neighbors to the north; even if we are willing to assume the former existence of a separate Southeastern Iranic group, now only represented by the relict languages Parāčī and Ōrmuṛī. We might even be tempted to put forward as a hypothesis, not to be proven, that the third version of the Dašt-e Nāwor inscription, written in a kind of differentiated Kharoṣṭī, could represent an attempt to put into writing a local Southeastern Iranic dialect (cf. Fussman, “Documents épigraphiques kouchans,” Bulletin de l’Ēcole française d’extrême-orient 61, 1974). For many years before the discovery of this inscription one might have wondered why such an attempt should never have been made in eastern Afghanistan, south of the Hindu Kush. Relations to Pašaī. A most important factor for determining the character of Parāčī is the profound influence exerted upon it by its nearest Indo-Aryan neighbor, Pašaī. The loanwords are numerous, and many could be added to the list given by Morg. (sec. 12); if the vocabularies of both languages were more fully known, the number would doubtlessly increase still more. In some cases the borrowing must have taken place at an early date. Thus, Neǰrao γara(-bālō) “bridegroom” might phonetically belong to Iranic war “to choose.” But the semantic development in Iranic of this root does not go in this direction (cf. e.g., Orm. γwar “oath”), while Skt. vara- “suitor” just meets our requirements. A corresponding word has not, till now, been recorded from Pašaī. But it may easily have existed there and have been taken over by Parāčī before the change of w- > γ-. Also Par. γun- “to find” is probably derived not from Av. but from Indo-Aryan vinda- (Pašaī wənd-, etc.). An extended form of the root is Pašaī windaṛ-, wədary- “to search for, find,” from which Par. γudaṛ- “to search for.” A few words seem to show that Parāčī was in early contact with other Dardic-Kafiri languages (Morg., sec. 11). Note especially pâšp (Benveniste) “side, flank,” which must have been borrowed from a Dardic language with šp- < śv-which is not the case in Pašaī—and ultimately go back to Skt. pārśva-. Regarding the Pašaī influence on the development of the Parāčī “aspirates,” see above. All morphological parallels between Parāčī and Pašaī (Morg. sec. 13) do not necessarily belong to the same category; e.g., Parāčī ān “I;” cf. Turfan Pahl. an, Semnānī ā, though its position may have been reinforced by Pašaī ā. In the Pačaḡān Pašaī village, which is wedged between lower and upper Parāčī speaking parts of the valley, ā(n) has been influenced by Parāčī, as also bīn “was,” with -n as in Parāčī. No conclusions can be based upon the similarities of the Parāčī and Pašaī pronominal suffixes, such as 1st per. sing. -m, 1st per. plur. -n, 2nd per. plur. -u, etc. The situation is more complex when we consider Parāčī sī “it exists” (Pačaḡān dial. 3rd per. plur. sen). Phonetically it can be derived from Av. saēte “is lying.” But while in Dardic derivates of Skt. śete commonly acquire the meaning of “(it) exists, is,” no such semantic development is known from Iranic. Parāčī sī may simply have been borrowed from Northwestern Pašaī šī “it is,” with substitution of s for š; or a still existing Parāčī sī < saēte may have been semantically absorbed by Pašaī. The Parāčī present formative -tȫn, plur. -tan (< *-tanā), Neǰrao -ta, etc., is no doubt connected with and borrowed from the functionally identical Northwestern Pašaī -tō: thus Parāčī ǰantȫ, Pašaī hantō, etc. “is killing.” In both languages the present and imperfect tenses are formed by adding the present or the past of the auxiliary, and in both languages the old present is used as an indefinite present or future (“aorist”). Parāčī has a present participle, active or passive, in -’en. As a passive it corresponds exactly in form and meaning with southwestern Pašaī -’en (Par. deh’en čhēn “they were beaten,” Pašaī han’en bitīk “he has been beaten”). As an active, used only in combination with a verb of movement, its function corresponds exactly to northwestern Pašaī -mana (Par. deh’en deh’en . . . “beating and beating [him drive him out of the city!];” xušwaxtī kan’en u khan’eŋāγa “he came, making merry and laughing,” northwestern Pašaī xušālī kamana yēīč “she came, being pleased”). Parāčī of Pačaḡān has a noun of agency in -kālā, which corresponds to and is certainly borrowed from the local Pašaī dialect. It may be added that Parāčī has adopted the northwestern Pašaī causative in -ēŸw-, and also that the formations of the perfect and pluperfect are not so exactly parallel as they are in Persian, Paṧtō, etc., even if they do not differ so completely as they do in Pašaī. Pašaī also possesses various special tense forms, which have no parallels in Parāčī. Pašaī has undoubtedly been the dominant part in the interlingual connection with Parāčī, but unfortunately we know nothing of the relative geographical position of the two languages in ancient time. Reliable traditions about Parāčī only carry us back to Neǰrao as its “homeland,” and any speculations about its earlier history and geographical position would be futile. We can only mention the theoretical possibility that in pre-Islamic times when Pašaī was a language representing a highly developed Indian civilization, it may have expanded towards the northwest, encroaching upon and engulfing Parāčī territory. Of a much more recent date is the influence of local Darī on Parāčī. Besides incorporating a large number of loan-words, Parāčī has also to some extent been influenced by Persian morphology and syntax, adopting the eżāfa construction and modifying its use of the agentive (“pseudo-passive construction”) (Morg., sec. 204; Morg.2, add. p. 420). Morphology. Morg. (and Morg.2, add.) contains a description of Parāčī morphology based upon the admittedly fragmentary material at our disposal. Here it is possible to draw attention only to a few salient and additional traits. The only true cases are the abl. in -ī and the gen. in -ika, with proper names in -ān (Morg., secs. 89-94). The preposition ma denotes a definite object (= Pers. -rā), but is also used in a local and temporal sense. For the other prepositions, mostly of Pers. origin, see Morg.1, sec. 220. The postpositions are -kun “to,” etc., -pen “with,” -tar “in, to from,” -wanȫ “towards” (< Pašaī). The obl. of ān “I” is mun, and the gen. manān. Further: tū “thou,” tȫ, tan; mā “we,” mākhān; wā “you” (< *(y)ušā- cf. Sorḵaī huž, etc.; NTS 19, p. 103), wākhān. The demonstratives denote, as in Persian, only two types of deixis, and are based on ē “this,” ȫ “that,” but with a rather complex system of inflection and enlargements (Morg., secs. 124ff.). The personal inflection of verbs appears from hēm (-im) “I am,” hē, hā, etc., hēman, hēr, hēn. With the 1st per. plur. cf. Sogd. -ʾymn, Ṭāleš -mān, Kermānšāhī -m(ə)n (I. Gershevitch, A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian, sec. 721, with references to Khot. and Khwarazmian). It is difficult to analyze and explain 2nd per. plur. in -ē/ȫr, but an attempt has been made (Morg., sec. 189). The pret. of hēm is hastam. Also the root b- is used, in various forms, as an auxiliary; and par- (pret. čh-) “to go” may also mean “to become,” just as Pašaī par- and Pers. šodan. There are various classes of aorists (ancient presents). Thus ǰan-’em “I beat” (< *ǰan-a-), mer-’em “I die” (<*mṛ-ya-), mēr-’īm “I kill” (< *mār-aya-), and par-’am “I go” (< Pašaī). The past is formed in the usual Iranic way (Morg., sec. 189). Thus dā “gave,” ǰȫ “struck,” buṛ “carried,” bȫst “bound,” etc.; intrans. ’āγēm “I came,” čhīm “I went,” but trans. k’uṛ-um; -um/mun/ān kuṛ, or even -um kuṛ . . . -um “I made.” Bibliography : See also M. S. Andreev, Po etnologii Afghanistana. Dolina Pandzhshir, Tashkent, 1927. Bābor, Bābor-nāma, Eng. tr. J. Leyden and W. Erskine, ed. King, London, 1921. M. Elphinstone, An Account of the Kingdom of Cabaul, new and rev. ed., London, 1842. M. N. Kohzād, “Un coup d’oeuil sur vallée de Nijrau,” Afghanistan, April-May 1954, pp. 61ff. C. Masson, Narrative of Various Journeys in Balochistan, Afghanistan, and the Panjab etc. I, 1826. Morgenstierne, Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages I, Oslo, 1929 (Morg.); 2nd ed., 1973, addenda et corrigenda, pp. 417-28 (Morg.2). Idem, Report on a Linguistic Mission to Afghanistan, Oslo, 1926. Idem, Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages II, 2nd ed., Oslo, 1973, pp. 304-07, with Moḥammad Ṣalāḥ Khan’s text from Pačaḡān, and additional Parāčī words, from Paҳto Ṭoləna. Paҳto Ṭoləna, manuscript vocabulary of Parāčī, copied in Kabul, 1949. Sāl-nāma-ye maǰalla-ye Kābol, 1313/1895-96, pp. 148ff. Unpublished communications on Parāčī from material collected by E. Benveniste (1949), R. Farhādī, and Ch. Kieffer and for the Atlas linguistique d’Afghanistan.
(G. Morgenstierne)
viii. Archeology
The first careful reports on the antiquities of Afghanistan were provided by 19th-century travelers, including the horse dealer W. Moorcroft (with G. Trebeck, Travels in the Himalayan Provinces of Hindustan and the Punjab; in Ladakh and Kashmir; in Peshawar, Kabul, Kunduz, and Bokhara; from 1819 to 1825, 2 vols., London, 1838; ed. H. H. Wilson, London, 1841); the French soldier of fortune at the Sikh court, General A. Court (“Conjectures sur les marches d’Alexander dans la Bactriane,” JA 3rd. ser., 4, 1837, pp. 359-96); A. Burnes (Travels into Bokhara, a Journey from India to Cabool, Tartary, and Persia in 1831-33, 3 vols., 2nd. ed., London, 1835); J. G. Gerard (“Memoir on the Topes and Antiquities of Afghanistan,” JASB 3, 1834, pp. 29); and Munshi Mohan Lal (“A Brief Description of Herat,” JASB 3, 1834, pp. 9-18). Already in 1832 the Hungarian homeopath and gunpowder-maker in the Sikh service, M. Honigberger, cut into Buddhist stupas in search of treasure thought to be included with the reliquaries. These activities were reported by E. Jacquet (“Notice sur les découvertes archéologiques faites par Martin Honigberger dans l’Afghanistan,” JA 3rd ser., 2, 1836, pp. 234-77; 4, 1837, pp. 401-40; 5, 1838, pp. 163-97; 7, 1839, pp. 385-404; see also Honigberger’s Thirty-Five Years in the East, London, 1852). In 1834-37 C. Masson was officially employed by the East India Company to collect antiquities in Afghanistan. His maps and descriptions, particularly of the areas of Jalālābād and Hadda and of Bagrām, were pioneering contributions, although his “excavations” were unscientific (see his Narrative of Various Journeys in Belochistan, Afghanistan, and the Punjab; including a Residence in those Countries from 1826 to 1836, 3 vols., London, 1842; and W. W. Wilson, Ariana Antiqua: A Descriptive Account of the Antiquities and Coins of Afghanistan with a Memoir on the Buildings called Topes by C. Masson, Esq., Calcutta, 1841). Scientific exploration in Afghanistan began after September, 1922, when A. Foucher signed, on behalf of the French government, a diplomatic treaty with Afghanistan. In it was recognized the establishment of the Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan (DAFA). Since 1928 this mission has recorded its investigations in a major publication series, the Mémoires (MDAFA). French research concentrated on pinpointing evidence for the spread of Hellenism, tracing the silk route, and studying the relationship of Gandharan art to the Buddhist art of the Afghan area. Balḵ was probed (1924) for evidence of Hellenism but without results; and work shifted to the major ancient sites of Bāmīān, Bagrām, and Hadda. DAFA returned to Balḵ in 1947 under D. Schlumberger but failed to find any pre-Kushan evidence. In 1949 Schlumberger transferred operations to Laškarī Bāzār in the south, thus beginning DAFA’s first large-scale study of Islamic ruins. J. M. Casal directed its first Bronze Age excavations at Mondīgak in 1951. In 1952 Schlumberger was diverted to Sorḵ Kōtal, north of the Hindu Kush, after roadbuilders had unearthed stone blocks inscribed with a form of Greek script. Excavations at this Kushan temple complex revealed the first concrete evidence for an indigenous Bactrian art and shed new light on the development of Gandharan art. A further notable find occurred in 1963, when a large Corinthian capital was brought to DAFA’s attention. It came from Āy Ḵānom on Afghanistan’s northern boundary, where the Kōkča and Panǰ rivers meet. Excavations there (Schlumberger to 1965, P. Bernard, 1965-80, J. C. Cardin) revealed the easternmost city of Greek culture yet known. It bears, however, many distinctly oriental traits and speaks clearly of strong local rulers with syncretic tastes in architecture, art, and religion. Actual excavations by any country other than France did not occur until after World War II. A brief survey had been made by two Englishmen in 1938 (E. Barger and P. Wright, Excavations in Swat and Explorations in the Oxus Territories of Afghanistan, MASI 64, 1941). In 1947 R. E. Mortimer Wheeler, Director-General of Archaeology in India, made an official three-week tour (see his “Archaeology in Afghanistan,” Antiquity 21/82, 1947, pp. 57-65). Surface collections were made by B. de Cardi in 1950 in Qandahār and Farāh provinces. Finally site excavations began in the winter of 1950-51 during the second expedition of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) directed by W. Fairservis, when Šamšīr Ḡār and Deh Morāsī Ḡonday, 17 miles southwest of Qandahār, were investigated by L. Dupree. This work provided the first Bronze Age data for the territory of Afghanistan. Subsequent American research dealt principally with the prehistoric period. In 1954 C. Coon discovered, in the rock-shelter at Qara Kamar, an Aurignacian Upper Paleolithic blade industry (ca. 32,000 B.C.) and a Mesolithic one (ca. 10,500 B.C.). Dupree (director of the AMNH mission until 1970, thereafter the American Universities Field Staff representative) made an extensive survey in northern Afghanistan in 1959; he followed this with excavations at Āq Koprūk, where findings included a large and fine Upper Paleolithic assemblage (ca. 15,000-10,000 B.C.). Further important finds are noted in the survey section, below. Other Americans investigated in the Sīstān deserts, where results were especially important for the Islamic period: G. Dales led work for the University of Pennsylvania’s University Museum (1968-71); and W. Trousdale explored for the Smithsonian Institution (1971-77). By the early 1950s, the emerging archeological evidence pointed to the importance of the Afghan area in the dissemination of Buddhism to Central Asia and thence eastward. Contributing to this evidence were epigraphical studies of Hephthalite inscriptions. R. N. Frye of Harvard University and R. Ghirshman of DAFA investigated Tang-e Azāo, near Češt in Herat province (Frye, “An Epigraphical Journey in Afghanistan,” Archeology 7/2, 1952, pp. 114-18); while A. D. H. Bivar (then of Oxford University) recorded inscriptions at Orūzgān, north of Qandahār (“The Inscriptions of Uruzgan,” JRAS 1954, pp. 112-18). Buddhological research attracted Japanese archeologists. The Kyoto University Scientific Mission to the Iranian Plateau and the Hindu Kush (S. Mizuno, director) arrived in 1959 to begin surveys and excavations at Lalma and Bāsawal (in the Jalālābād region), Taḵt-e Rostam and Hazār Som (near Aybak), and Dūrman Tapa, Čaqalaq Tapa, and Kondūz. In 1967 the mission was renamed the Kyoto University Archaeological Mission to Central Asia; and T. Higuchi became director. Since then the principal excavation has been at Tapa Sekandar, north of Kabul. This site has shed new light on the Hendūšāhī period (between the decline of Buddhism and the establishment of Islam in Afghanistan). The series of publications which record the Kyoto University findings are referred to in the survey, below. In 1969, the Archaeological Survey of India also entered Afghanistan. Its team, directed by R. Sengupta, has done admirable service in the preservation of the Buddhist monuments at Bāmīān and the shrine of Ḵᵛāǰa Pārsā in Balḵ. The study of Islamic-period sites has especially been pursued by the Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente [IsMEO]. In 1957, following a preliminary survey the year before, G. Tucci and U. Scerrato began excavations at the palace of Sultan Masʿūd III (492-508/1099-1115) in Ḡaznī. The finds from this excavation are on display in a 10th/16th-century mausoleum restored by IsMEO (A. Bruno, 1966); the Italian restoration program also included the mosque of Shah Jahān in Bābor’s Garden, Kabul (1964-66). Moreover, exploratory excavations al the Tapa Sardār mound in Ḡaznī (1959-62) were expanded under M. Taddei and continue to produce important pre-Islamic evidence. IsMEO’s excavations reports, as well as other archeological studies, are published in its journal, East and West. Other important research in the Islamic period has included K. Fischer’s direction of a comprehensive project in Sīstān (1968-73) under the auspices of Bonn University. This has culminated in the publication of Nimruz, Geländbegehungen in Sistan 1955-1973 und die Aufnahme von Dewal-i Khodaydad 1970 (Bonn, I, 1976, II, 1974). Meanwhile the British Academy founded the British Institute of Afghan Studies in 1972 (R. Pinder-Wilson, director, 1976-82). Its first excavations, in the old city at Qandahār, were initiated under D. Whitehouse in 1974; it publishes its reports in Afghan Studies. From the beginnings of systematic archeology in Afghanistan, some Afghan scholars, such as A. A. Kohzad, were closely involved. Although archeology is not regarded as a prestigious career in Afghanistan, some Afghan students have studied the subject in France and Italy. C. Mustamindy, after returning from Italy, opened the first Afghan-directed excavations in 1965 at Tapa Šotor (Hadda). When the Afghan Institute of Archaeology (AIA) was established in 1966, he became its first director-general: he was succeeded from 1973 to 1979 by Z. Tarzi (who received his doctorate in France). As a result of a UNESCO-sponsored conference in Dushanbe in 1968, a Kushan Center was established within the AIA; and in 1970 an international meeting on the coordination of Kushan studies and archaeological research in Central Asia held in Kabul resolved to publish works on the progress of Kushan studies. Several collections of studies (Kushan Culture and History) have since appeared in Kabul. Western-language articles on archeology, by Afghans and others, have appeared since 1946 in the Afghan Historical Society’s quarterly journal, Afghanistan. Persian and Paṧtō articles have appeared in the journal Āryānā since 1942. Besides these initiatives, the joint Afghan/Soviet Archaeological Mission, co-directed by I. Kruglikova (1969 on), has worked north of the Hindu Kush in sites ranging from the Stone Age to the medieval period. Ālten, a series of Achaemenid period mounds northwest of Balḵ, provides new knowledge of the pre-Bactrian period and shows ties with the culture of Āy Ḵānom. The nearby Dašlī mounds form the first large Bronze Age complex to be extensively excavated in northern Afghanistan. Ṭelā Tapa near Šebarḡān and Delbarǰīn Kazān near Dašlī clarify the evolution of a distinctive Central Asian culture out of the Bactrian during the Kushan and Buddhist phase of northwest Afghanistan (for publications, see Kruglikova, ed., Drevnyaya Baktriya I-II, Moscow, 1976-79, and the survey below). Archeological research and restoration inside Afghanistan virtually ceased after the Soviet intervention in 1979. The following survey of major archeological sites is ordered by period of cultural climax. The name of the site is followed by that of the Afghan province (when not evident), then by the mission or institution involved, the field director, and the date of the investigation. Publications referred to are by the director, unless otherwise stated. Short references are used for missions and institutions: AIA – Afghan Institute of Archaeology, Kabul. AMNH – American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York. A/S – Afghan/Soviet Archaeological Mission. ASI – Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi. AUFS – American Universities Field Staff, Hanover, New Hampshire. BIAS – British Institute of Afghan Studies, London and Kabul. DAFA – Delegation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan, Kabul. IsMEO – Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, Rome. SI – Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Lower Paleolithic, ca. 100,000 B.C. Hazār Som; Samangān (IsMEO, S. Puglisi, 1962). Possible “Clactonian” tools were reported (East and West N.S. 14/1-2. 1963). See also Kushan, Islamic. Dašt-e Nāwor; Ḡaznī (AUFS, L. Dupree, 1974). The first tools definitely of this period to be identified in Afghanistan were removed from the surface of terraces east of a shallow, brackish lake. They are mainly of quartzite—large flakes, cores, cleavers, choppers, adzes, “proto-hand-axes,” and pebble tools (Afghanistan Journal 2/3, 1975). See also Middle Paleolithic, Epipaleolithic. Mousterian Middle Paleolithic, ca. 50,000-30,000 B.C. Dara-ye Kūr, Bābā Darvīš; Badaḵšān (AMNH, Dupree, 1966). A rock-shelter was investigated and dated by carbon 14. Findings included approx. 800 lithic tools, debitage, a human temporal bone, animal bones, and fossil clams (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society N.S. 62/4, 1972). See also Neolithic. Ḡār-e Gōsfand Morda, Gorzīvān; Fāryāb (AMNH, Dupree, 1970). A rock-shelter was investigated; possible siliceous limestone Mousterian tools were found (Science 167, 1970). Dašt-e Nāwor (see above). Such definite Bābā Darvīš types as black “flint” Levallois flakes, side scrapers, points, and some possible burins were found. Aurignacian, ca. 30,000 B.C. Qara Kamar, near Aybak; Samangān (University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, C. Coon, 1954). A rock-shelter, the first Paleolithic site excavated in Afghanistan, was dated by carbon 14. Finds included 82 flint implements, animal bones, and mollusks (Seven Caves, New York, 1957). See also Mesolithic. Kuprukian Upper Paleolithic, ca. 18,000-10,000 B.C. Āq Koprūk; Balḵ (AMNH, Dupree, 1962, 1965). Excavations at four localities yielded a sequence from about 18,000 B.C. to the Later Iron Age; carbon 14 dates were obtained for most cultural periods. Upper Paleolithic finds included a sculptured limestone pebble which represents the oldest piece of portable cave art in Asia (Plate XIX/1), incised spatulas, points, and awls made of bone, and a flint toolkit: blades, cores, utilized and retouched side- and end-scrapers, burins, keeled scrapers, points, a micro-industry, and combination tools (“Prehistoric Research in Afghanistan [1959-1966],” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society N.S. 62/4, 1972, pp. 1-84). See Neolithic. Kōkǰār, near Aybak; Samangān (AMNH, Dupree, 1969). A single-occupation, open-air site was investigated. The surface-collected flints closely resembled the industry of Āq Koprūk; they were mainly flake tools precisely struck—microcores and microblades (R. Davis, Afghanistan 22/3-4, 1970). Dara Kalān, near Aybak; Samangān (IsMEO, Puglisi, 1965). Only the carbon 14 dates of the rock-shelter have been published (Radiocarbon 9, 1967). Mesolithic, ca. 10,000 B.C. Qara Kamar (sea above). A rock-shelter was dated by carbon 14. Microlithic implements were found. Between Andḵūy and Āqča on the Āmū Daryā (A/S, A. Vinogradov, 1969, 1975). Surface collections were made from sand dunes, revealing a rich concentration of Mesolithic and Neolithic flint implements; the basic industry was microlithic, with geometrics (Drevnyaya Baktriya II). Epipaleolithic, ca. 7,000-6,500 B.C. Dunes north of Ḵolm; Samangān (DAFA, P. Gouin, 1968). Surface collected flints included characteristic “microburins” (Afghanistan 25/4, 1972). See also Iron Age. Dašt-e Nāwor (see above, Mousterian; Dupree and R. Davis, 1976). A surface scatter of obsidian tools and chipping debris was collected from two sites in the north-central section of the Dašt. These are the first and only obsidian industries found to date (1982) in Afghanistan. A complex stone fortification of undetermined date sits on a hill above one of the obsidian sites (Journal of Field Archaeology 4/2, 1977). Neolithic, ca. 8,000-2,000 B.C. Āq Koprūk (see above, Kuprukian). Ca. 8,000-3,000 B.C.: Non-ceramic Neolithic finds included sickle blades and other flint and bone implements, pecked stone hoes, celts, querns, and pounders, plus two types of pottery: a crude, soft chaff, limestone and crushed sherd tempered ware with flat bases and simple rounded rims, and a better fired pottery with zig-zag incised motifs. See Bronze Age. Gorzīvān; Fāryāb (AMNH, Dupree, 1970). Ca. 6,000 B.C.: Open-air sites on terraces near a cave, Ḡār-e Gōsfand Morda, yielded flint implements. Dara-ye Kūr (see above, Mousterian). Late Mountain, ca. 2,000 B.C.: Flint and bone implements and shell ornaments were found. Pit burials of children were in association with domesticated goats. Ḡārlōlī, near Maymana; Fāryāb (AMNH, Dupree, 1969). The rock-shelter shows a regional Neolithic culture. Findings included distinctive hand-made, painted pottery with whorl and volute motifs which show a variety of profiles. See also Iron Age, Islamic. Bronze Age, ca. 5,000-1,000 B.C. Sīstān and the region of Qandahār (AMNH, W. Fairservis, 1949, 1951). This was the first survey and recording of potential prehistoric sites (Anthropological Papers AMNH 48/1, 1961). Southern Sīstān; Nīmrūz (University of Pennsylvania, G. Dales, 1969, 1971). 3rd-2nd millennium: At Gardan Rēg the survey found pottery, beads, seals, pottery kilns of uncertain date, and a pre-Islamic copper furnace; some stone objects are identical to Tapa Ḥeṣār types ca. 1,800 B.C. (Expedition 12/1, 1969; Afghanistan 24/4, 1972). See also Islamic. Āq Koprūk (see above, Neolithic). Ca. 5,000 B.C.: One fragment of beaten, bossed copper was found along with many flint implements and pottery. See also Kushan. Mondīgak; Qandahār (DAFA, J. M. Casal, 1951-58). Ca. 3,000-1,000 B.C.: The site of a town mound was dated by carbon 14. A “palace” and “temple” were investigated. Findings included a sculptured limestone head, painted goblets, clay humanoid and animal figurines, “mother goddess” figurines, pottery drains, stone and clay dibble weights and spindle whorls, flint microliths, diverse bone and copper implements, bronze mirrors and knives, and necklaces of semi-precious stones. This and the two following sites are the earliest village assemblages yet identified in Afghanistan (MDAFA 17, 1961; Gouin, Arts Asiatiques 19, 1969). Deh Morāsī Ḡonday, Qandahār. (AMNH, Dupree, 1951). Ca. 3,000-1,500 B.C.: This mound of a semi-sedentary village was the first Bronze Age site excavated in Afghanistan. It was dated by carbon 14, its peak period falling ca. 2,500 B.C. Findings included a shrine complex with a “mother goddess” figurine, painted goblet, copper tubing, steatite seal, and domesticated and wild grains embedded in mud-brick (Anthropological Papers AMNH 50/2, 1963; Gouin, see under Mondīgak, above). Saʿīd Qaḷʿa Tapa; Qandahār (AMNH, Fairservis, 1951; J. Shaffer, 1970). Ca. 2,230-2,110 B.C.: Pottery was found when two test pits were sunk in the mound in 1951. The later work, dated by carbon 14, showed single and multi-room mud-brick dwellings and one large (town?) wall. The pottery resembled that of the above two sites. Other finds were steatite seals; bronze points, pins, and handles; ceramic figurines (a female, a bull); lapis beads; fragments of carnelian and quartz beads; meteoric-iron balls; bone points and awls (Prehistoric Baluchistan, Delhi, 1978). See also Kushan. Āb-e Īstāda; Ḡaznī (AUFS, Dupree, 1974). Pottery similar to that of the Gomal (Indus valley) and Qandahār area sites was found through surface collection. Ḵᵛoš Tapa, Follūl; Baḡlān (accidental find, 1966). Ca. 2,300 and 1,350 B.C.: A gold and silver hoard included goblets and bowls (Plate XIX/2) ornamented with raised geometrical and animal designs stylistically similar to Mesopotamian, Iranian, Indus valley, and Central Asian motifs. These were probably trade ware (Dupree, Archaeology 24/1, 1971; M. Tosi and R. Wardak, East and West N.S. 22/1-2, 1972). Šortūgay, near Āy Ḵānom; Toḵār (DAFA, J. P. Francfort, 1975-79). Ca. 2,200-1,600 B.C.: This proto-historic mound complex was an important agricultural settlement. In addition to highly polished and finely retouched flint tools and projectile points, there is evidence of artisan activities, such as bronze and gold work, bracelets, and beads of semi-precious stone, faience, and clay. Sherds and a seal diagnostic of the Harappan civilization suggest that this was also an Harappan trading post (Arts Asiatiques 34, 1978). Dawlatābād, Fāryāb (A/S, C. Mustamindy, V. Sarianidi, 1969). Ca. 2,000 B.C.: In three small mounds, pottery was found—well-fired footed vases and cups of fine clay, analogous with types of Namāzgāh Tapa V (Central Asia) and Dašlī Tapa (Kruglikova in Afghanistan 23/1, 1970). Dašlī Tapa, northwest of Balḵ (A/S, Sarianidi with Mustamindy, 1970-73; with Z. Tarzi, 1973-77). 1,500-900 or 800 B.C.: A series of Bronze Age mounds were given the general designation “Dašlī” (D). D1 contained a fort and adjoining settlements. Buildings were of mud brick and plastered. Finds included sling balls, fine ceramic ware, utilitarian pottery, imported northwest Iranian gray ware, bronze and copper weapons, jewelry, compartmented seals, polished bone, and flint implements. Intrusive (from the end period) goat burials with skeletons surrounded by many vessels occurred within the fort, which had been previously abandoned. Human burials also were found. D3 revealed a circular temple building (150 m in diameter) with an inner wall and nine towers projecting from the outer wall. A residential, artisan, and storage complex adjoined. Next to the temple was a four-cornered palace with round towers, its outer face bearing stepped pilasters. It had massive walls, “T”-shaped corridors, and was surrounded by a moat; it contained furnaces for smelting bronze. Three occupation periods were indicated; carbon 14 dates were 1,500-1,000 B.C. (Afghanistan 24/2-3, 1971 with Kruglikova in Kushan Culture and History II, Kabul, 1971; Sovetskaya arkheologiya 1/4, 1974; Afghanistan Journal 7/4, 1980). Šamšīr Ḡār; Qandahār (AMNH, Dupree, 1950). 2nd millennium B.C.: A cave yielded painted pottery, copper and bronze horse trappings, and bronze, bone, and stone seals with diverse designs, e.g., a winged camel (Anthropological Papers AMNH 46/2, 1958). See also Kushan. Sar o Tar; Nīmrūz (SI, W. Trousdale, 1971-77). A mound site two km from Šahr-e Ḡolḡola, abandoned at the end of the 2nd millennium, was dated with carbon 14. The fortress site yielded painted and plain pottery (final report forthcoming). See also Graeco-Parthian, Islamic. Ṭelā Tapa, Šebarḡān; Jōzǰān (A/S, Mustamindy, Sarianidi, 1969, 1971). Ca. 1,300-500 B.C.: A mound site revealed a three-period farming settlement with fortifications, clay missiles, iron fragments, bronze projectile points, and plain and painted pottery (analogous to Anaw IV types, southern Turkmenistan). Šamšīr Ḡār painted wares predominated in lower levels (1,300-1,000 B.C.). Black polished and gray burnished wares with Iranian parallels occurred in middle levels (1,000-600); while Achaemenid-type wheel-made pottery replaces painted wares in the third stratum (Tillya Tepe, Moscow, 1972). See also Graeco-Parthian. North of Nāyebābād; Samangān (DAFA, Gouin, 1972). 9th-7th century B.C.: Surface collection assembled hand-made painted pottery (Afghanistan 25/4, 1972). Later Iron Age, late 1st millennium B.C. to early centuries A.D. Šahr-e Kohna, Qandahār (BIAS, D. Whitehouse, 1974; A. McNicoll, 1975; S. Helms, 1976). Ca. 1,000-150 B.C.: The city site showed nearly continuous occupation in four periods: (a) Iron Age/Achaemenid, (b) Mauryan/Indo-Greek, (c) Kushan/Sasanian, (d) Islamic. The first is ca. 1,000-500 B.C. with clear links to Mondīgak VI; architectural remains and pottery have been found. The second period is tentatively dated through coins and associated architecture and pottery to 250-150 B.C.; figurines were also found (Afghan Studies 1, 1978; 2, 1981). See also Kushan, Islamic. Achaemenid, 6th to 4th centuries B.C. Ālten Tapa, northwest of Balḵ (A/S, Mustamindy, Sarianidi, 1970). Ca. 522-330 B.C.: A series of Achaemenid period mounds was investigated. A1 was the principal administrative town for the Ālten group. A10 contained a monumental private residence; the house plan is of Achaemenid style, with groups of rooms around a central court with pool. A columned courtyard outside the house to the west is divided in two by a series of rooms. Column bases remain; there is evidence of fire consuming the wooden superstructure and columns. Pottery, figurines, and small stepped altars were found (Afghanistan 24/2-3, 1971). Qotloḡ Tapa, Fārūqābād; Balḵ (A/S, Tarzi, Sarianidi, 1973, 1975). At this mound site a round “temple” was found; two galleries formed by massive walls are pierced with a series of embrasures for light. Two long vaults are on the summit. A five-meter wide dry moat surrounded the structure. Čaman-e Ḥożūrī, Kabul (accidental find, 1930). 6th-4th century B.C.: A hoard of jewelry and Greek and Achaemenid coins was discovered (R. Curiel and D. Schlumberger in MDAFA 14, 1953). North and west of Ḵolm; Samangān (see above, Epipaleolithic; DAFA, Gouin, 1969, 1970). 1,000-330 B.C.: Pottery and artifacts were gathered by surface collection. Ḡārlōlī (see above, Neolithic). A wide range of ceramics was found. See also Islamic. Tapa Sorḵ Dāḡ at Nād-e ʿAlī; Nīmrūz (DAFA, R. Ghirshman, 1936). Ca. 500 B.C.: The first test pit for prehistoric material yielded iron projectile points, stone vases and mortars, a bone button, and gold-inlaid bronze objects (MDAFA 8, 1959). (University of Pennsylvania, Dales, 1968): Achaemenid period remains (5th-4th century) were found on top of an unidentified 1st millennium B.C. occupation (New Excavations at Nad-i Ali [Sorkh Dagh], Berkeley, 1979). Bactrian/Indo-Greek, 4th-2nd century B.C. Āy Ḵānom; Toḵār (DAFA, Schlumberger, 1963-65; P. Bernard, 1965-78). Ca. 4th century to ca. 130 B.C. : The city mound site was carbon 14 dated. It includes a citadel, ramparts, monumental palace and administrative quarters, two temples, villas, the largest palestra yet found in the Greek world, and a theater. A fountain is ornamented with animal and mask spouts. Columns (in the three orders) are of limestone. Findings include marble and fragmentary unbaked clay statuary (Plate XX/1), a gilded silver plaque (Plate XX/2), a throne and figurines of ivory, mosaic floors, clay matrices in high relief, an Indo-Greek and Indian hoard of coins, Greek inscriptions in the necropolis, a list of Delphic precepts, and decorated and plain pottery. The architecture and art show a Bactrian style—a synthesis of Greek and Oriental. The site’s last major building period was ca. 150 B.C.; it was totally abandoned early in the 1st century B.C. (see MDAFA 21, 1973; season reports in the Comptes rendues de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres; Audouin and Bernard in Revue numismatique 6th ser., 15, 1973; Gardin and P. Gentelle in Bulletin de l’Ēcole Française d’Extrême Orient 53, 1976). Alemčī Tapa, Šebarḡān; Jōzǰān (A/S, Mustamindy, Kruglikova, 1969-70). At this city mound site were found human figurines-in Bactrian style, sherds inscribed with Greek script and others with molded relief decoration in Hellenistic style, plates with an ornamental medallion in relief in the center, and a trilobate point of a type associated with the 5th-4th century. See also Kushan (Kruglikova in Afghanistan 33/1, 1970; with Sarianidi in Kushan History and Culture, Kabul, 1971; and in Kratkie Soobscheniya 132, 1972). Tapa Šahīdān, Ḵolm; Samangān (AMNH, C. White, 1970). Early 3rd to mid-2nd century B.C.: A mound site yielded a Bactrian ceramic sequence in a village context; it indicates a significant Greek impact. See also Kushan. Ḵešt Tapa, Qōl-e Zāl; Kondūz (accidental find, 1946). This hoard of 627 Bactrian and Indo-Greek silver coins had been collected in a pot and secreted in a wall (A. D. H. Bivar, The Bactrian Treasure of Qunduz, Bombay, 1955; MDAFA 20, 1965). Mīr Zakay near Gardīz; Paktīā (accidental find, 1947; reported by A. A. Kohzad). 3rd century B.C. to 3rd century A.D. This hoard comprised over 11,000 coins of the Bactrian, Mauryan, Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian, Indo-Parthian, and Kushan periods (Curiel in MDAFA 14, 1953). Mauryan, mid-3rd century B.C. Qandahār and Laḡmān provinces. On the Ashokan inscriptions, see Aśoka, Buddhism. Graeco-Parthian, 2nd century B.C. to 1st century A.D. Ṭela Tapa (see above, Bronze Age; A/S, Tarzi and Sarianidi, 1977-78). 1st century B.C. to 1st century A.D.: Six of seven graves discovered were excavated. Among the more than 20,000 gold pieces recovered were animal figurines, a crown, ring seals, buckles, and other personal ornaments, all of superb artistry. These provide unique evidence for the easternmost Parthian expansion into northern Afghanistan and the rise of the Great Kushans (American Journal of Archaeology 84/2, 1980). Qandahār (accidental find, 1934; studied by Bernard and Dupree, 1971). Two bronze coffins, possibly of Achaemenid style, had later been joined into one large receptacle which was in association with large stone receptacles, a glazed pottery funerary urn filled with human bones, and a decorated funerary urn and dish, the latter of which was reused as a cover (Sāl-nāma-ye Kābol 13, 1312 Š./1934; Bernard and Dupree, forthcoming). Sar o Tar (see above, Bronze Age). Parthian occupations (with diagnostic pottery) were found under the Sasanian level. See also Islamic. Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and late pre-Islamic, 1st to mid-8th century A.D. Bagrām (Kāpīsā); Parvān (DAFA, J. Hackin, 1936-40; Ghirshman, 1941-42; J. Meunié, 1946). 1st-3rd century A.D. (peak): This city, first established in the 2nd century B.C., included fortifications and a bazaar. The mound yielded a treasure (approx. 2,000 pieces, found in 1937 and 1939), including gold jewelry, Chinese lacquers, Indian ivories (Plate XXI), Alexandrian glass, porphyry vessels, Roman bronzes, plaster matrices, coins and seals, stamped and other potteries, figurines, iron weapons, and domestic metal utensils (MDAFA 9, 1939; 12, 1946; 11, 1954; 8, 1959; 19, 1964 ). Alemčī Tapa (see above, Bactrian). Repairs and eventual destruction occurred during the Sasanian period. The city had massive, circular fortifications. Findings included molded terracotta humanoid and animal figurines, painted, stamped, and plain potteries, incised stone plates, drainage pipes, alabaster spindle whorls, limestone column bases, small altars, and coins. Delbarǰīn Kazān, northwest of Balḵ (A/S, Mustamindy and Kruglikova, 1970-73; Z. Tarzi and Kruglikova, 1973-78). 1st-6th century A.D. (peak): The lower levels of this city mound are Achaemenid or Graeco-Bactrian; Hephthalite occupation occurs in the upper ones. The site was heavily fortified, with a citadel inside a central, walled city. A three-period temple and adjoining sanctuary bore fragments of polychrome wall-paintings (4th-5th century). There are similarities in style with Tapa Sardār, Bāmīān, and Central Asian sites. Iconography of Śiva and Pārvatī is attested in the early Kushan period. Two residences of an Achaemenid-type plan lay outside the walls. A Buddhist temple and a vaulted cemetery with Kushan ceramics were also found. Pottery was of diverse design and decoration, and kilns and pottery slag also occur. The coinage found represents all the Great Kushan kings (Kruglikova, Delbarjin 1970-73, Moscow, 1977). Tapa Šahīdān (see above, Bactrian). Occupation is interrupted between the 3rd-2nd century B.C. and the 1st to mid-3rd A.D. After the destruction of the fortified Kushan village occur strata of the mid-3rd to early 6th century. Ceramic techniques of the three periods overlap. Hazār Som (see above, Lower Paleolithic). An urban nucleus contained over 200 multi-room, multi-story cave dwellings and open-air settlements; painted and bas-relief decoration occurs. The peak period was in the 2nd-3rd century, followed by a decline and a 7th-century recovery (Kyoto University, S. Mizuno, 1962). No conclusively Buddhist remains were found (Hazar Sum and Fil-Khana, Kyoto, 1967). See also Islamic. Šahr-e Kohna (see above, Later Iron Age; DAFA, G. Fussman, 1964). 100 B.C.-ca. 700 A.D.: A survey and mapping of the pre-Islamic and Islamic cities was carried out (Arts Asiatiques 13, 1966). (BIAS): An extensive occupation (“Period 3”) was largely abandoned at the end of the Kushano-Sasanian period. Findings in the building and burial remains included humanoid and animal figurines, a bronze spoon, bone objects, a soapstone mould with a winged lion on an elephant standing on a lotus, and Kushano-Sasanian coins. Five pieces of black-gloss pottery found in mud brick of this period have been variously identified as western import ware (Greek, late 4th-early 3rd century B.C.) or eastern (Indian, northern black polished ware, 6th-1st century B.C.). See also Islamic. Šamšīr Ḡār (see above, Bronze Age). Ca. 2nd century A.D.: The cave yielded iron and bronze horse-trappings, Kushan/Parthian pottery, projectile points, Indo-Sasanian and Sasanian seals, beads (clay, serpentine, carnelian), copper earrings, and fragments of glass. See also Islamic. Wardak; Maydān (DAFA, Fussman, 1964, 1967, 1969-72). The ruins include well preserved stupas, monastic establishments, and a large, fortified city (Arts Asiatiques 30, 1974). See also Islamic. Balḵ (DAFA, A. Foucher, 1924-25; Schlumberger, 1946-47). Studies were made at Tōp-e Rostam, a stupa, and Taḵt-e Rostam, a monastery (mid-2nd century A.D.); fifty-nine test pits were sunk (MDAFA 1, 1942; 1/2, 1947). A later sixty-nine test pits helped establish a ceramic sequence from Kushan to early Islamic (MDAFA 15, 1957; 19, 1964). (University of Pennsylvania, R. Young, 1953): A test pit revealed a possibly Kushan wall (2nd century A.D.) under an Islamic one (American Journal of Archaeology 59/4, 1955). Kondūz sites; Kondūz (accidental finds). From fragmentary Buddhist statuary, Hackin theorized in 1937 that Kondūz might have been the home of an indigenous Bactrian art style (MDAFA 8, 1959). Three limestone Buddhist bas-reliefs employ the local Bactrian style (Fischer in Artibus Asiae 21, 1958). Sorḵ Kōtal; Bağlān (DAFA, Schlumberger, 1951-63). Ca. 2nd century: The temple mound included a colonnaded courtyard, two temples (one with fire altar), and a 55 m staircase which revealed an inscription in the Bactrian language. A 25-line inscription was placed at the main entry to the staircase. Findings included coins, fragments of sculpture in unbaked clay, and pottery. The indigenous, Graeco-Iranian style is free of Indian or Buddhist elements. A Buddhist shrine one mile to the east (1954) has decorated pilasters (Proceedings of the British Academy 47, 1961; MDAFA 25, 1983). Čam Qaḷʿa, Baḡlān; Baḡlān (accidental find, 1959). A mound site revealed bas-reliefs with scenes from the Buddha’s life; limestone capitals are ornamented with lion-griffons (MDAFA 19, 1964). Wazīrābād, Pol-e Ḵomrī; Baḡlān (AIA, Mustamindy, 1968). This mound was largely destroyed by bulldozers. Besides building remains, there were found coins, unbaked clay ornaments and horse-trappings, and fragments of a near life-size horse and rider. Pāytāva, near Bagrām; Parvān (DAFA, Hackin, 1924). Ca. 2nd century: A monastery and stupa complex was found, including schist statuary (MDAFA 1/12, 1942, 1947; Monuments et Mémoires 27/1, 1926). Šotorak, near Bagrām; Parvān (DAFA, Meunié, 1937). This monastery and stupa complex was at its peak in the 2nd-4th century but survived into the 7th. Schist bas-reliefs and statuary of high quality were found. Nearby sites investigated were Bāḡ-gay, Qōl-e Nāder with its unique untouched reliquary, and Tapa Kalān with 7th-century clay statuary (MDAFA 10, 1942; 8, 1959). Āb-e Īstāda (see above, Bronze Age). Ca. 150 A.D.: Three large stupa complexes were identified; a surface collection of pottery was carbon 14 dated. Hadda; Nangrahār (DAFA, Foucher, 1923-28; Hackin, 1928; J. Barthoux, 1930, 1933). 2nd-7th century A.D.: Over 1,000 stupas were identified. Stucco statuary in great quantity, limestone and schist bas-reliefs, and wall paintings were found. Large collections now reside in the Musée Guimet, Paris, and the National Museum, Kabul (MDAFA 1/2, 1947; 4, 1933; 6, 1930; 19, 1964 ). Tapa-ye Šotor, Hadda (AIA, Mustamindy, 1965-73; Tarzi, 1973-79). Chapels and decorative votive stupas were excavated, including the “fish porch” and “Heracles-Vajrapāni chapel” (Plate XXII/1) with statuary set against walls decorated in high relief. Various clay statues, bas-reliefs, and wall painting were found, as well as a small bronze Buddha’s head and a clay Buddha with a manuscript embedded in its back. The site was sacked and burned in the 7th century (Afghanistan 21/1, 2, 1968; 22/2, 3-4, 1969; 24/2-3, 1971; 26/4, 1974; Arts Asiatiques 19, 1969; Tarzi, Comptes rendues de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 1976). Lalma, etc., near Hadda (Kyoto University, Mizuno, 1962-65). 2nd-5th century: At Lalma a large complex was investigated, including stupas and two-roomed and barrel-vaulted caves. The main stupa was decorated with relief sculpture. Numerous later stupas (4th-5th century) and votive Buddhas were found. Fīl-ḵāna contained a stupa and cave complex; its unique Indian style vihāra dates to ca. 200 A.D. At Bāsawal are several groups of schist caves, some pillared, extending to a distance of 3.5 km. Buddha figurines date to the 4th-5th century (Hazar Sum and Fil-Khana, Kyoto, 1967; Durman Tepe and Lalma, Kyoto, 1968; Basawal and Jalalabad-Kabul, Kyoto, 1971). Tapa Maranǰān, Kabul; Kabul (DAFA, Hackin, J. Carl, 1933). 3rd-4th century: A monastery complex with two stupas was built in the 3rd century, renovated in the 4th, and fortified in the 5th. Buddhist statuary is set against a painted background in relief (showing the mud and straw technique used later at Fondūkestān, et al.). The stamped pottery with animal, bird, floral, and humanoid motifs is diagnostic. Sasanian coins occurred (MDAFA 14, 1953; 8, 1959). Goldara and Sāk; Lōgar (DAFA, Carl, 1935; Fussman, M. LeBerre, 1963-65. UNESCO, L. Lezine, 1962-64). A 4th century monastery with two stupas (Goldara, 1963-65) and a 5th century fort (Sāk, 1935) were excavated; pottery and statuary were also found. UNESCO carried out preservation work (MDAFA 8, 1959; 22, 1976; Lezine, Afghanistan 17/4, 1962; idem, Artibus Asiae 27/2, 1964). (BIAS, G. K. Rao, 1977): A conservation project was begun at the monastery. Manār-e Čakarī; Kabul (BIAS and ASI, G. K. Rao, 1975). Preservation work was done on this Buddhist pillar at the pass between the Kabul valley and Goldara (Afghan Studies 4, forthcoming). Demīr, Sarā-ye Ḵᵛāǰa, Kōhdāman; Kabul (AIA, Mustamindy, 1967). Two large schist standing Buddhas representing the miracle of Śravāstī were recovered accidentally; excavations revealed ceramics, coins, and building remains (M. Taddei, Gururājamañjarikā, Naples, 1974). Kūh-e Mōrī, Ḵām Zargar; Parvān (AIA, Mustamindy, 1966). Recovered from the monastery and stupa complex were statuary fragments, a one-meter standing Buddha of schist, stone lion-throne bases, and reliquary holders with bas-relief (Afghanistan 20/4, 1968). Saʿīd Qaḷʿa Tapa (see above, Bronze Age; Shaffer and M. Hoffman). After 300 A.D.: Thirty-six burials were studied. Four contained grave goods, including gilded bronze and glass earrings, pottery vessels, an iron knife, stone and glass beads, and a gilded bronze ring set with shell (East and West N.S. 26/1-2, 1976). Bāmīān; Bāmīān (DAFA, Foucher, 1922; A. Godard, 1923; Hackin, 1931, 1933; B. Dagens, 1957). 3rd-7th century A.D. (peak): The two colossal Buddhas and the surrounding monastic caves with polychrome wall-paintings were studied, as well as the side valley of Kakrāk with its 21-foot standing Buddha and caves. Wall paintings (Plate XXIII/1) were removed to the National Museum, Kabul (MDAFA 2, 1928; 3, 1933; 8, 1959; 19, 1964). (ASI, R. Sengupta, 1969-77): Preservation and cleaning was done; the measurement of the smaller colossal Buddha was corrected to 38 m, of the larger to 53 m (Afghanistan 26/3, 1973; R. Kostka, Afghanistan Journal 1/3, 1974). (AIA and DAFA, E. Aram and Fussman, 1972): The right forearm of the smaller Buddha was examined. Evidence of fire was noted, which may account for the later refurbishing of the wall paintings (Fussman, Afghanistan 7/2, 1974; see also Z. Tarzi, L’architecture et le décor rupestre des grottes de Bamiyan, Paris, 1977). See also Islamic. Fōlādī; Bāmīān (IsMEO, Scerrato, 1957; A. Bruno, 1961). Caves and wall-paintings (ca. 5th-6th century) were studied (East and West N.S. 11/2-3, 1960). Kohna Masǰed, opposite Sorḵ Kōtal; Baḡlān (DAFA, Bernard, 1963-65). A small hilltop fort was later than Sorḵ Kōtal but before Islam. Three levels were excavated. Findings included large storage jars, diverse potteries, and a dark gray ceramic rhyton in the form of a horned goat supporting a human head; style and technique compare with those at Fondūkestān from the late 7th century (Comptes rendues de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 1964; Schlumberger in Arts Asiatiques 24, 1971). Šahr-e Bānū, near Ḵolm; Samangān (DAFA, Hackin, 1924, 1939; Carl, 1938). On this mound several villages were superimposed, primarily of the Kushan period. Outlines of a fortress survived. Findings included stamped pottery, clay humanoid and animal figurines, drainage pipes, metal fragments, glass, and coins (MDAFA 8, 1959). Taḵt-e Rostam, Aybak; Samangān (Kyoto University, Mizuno, 1959-60). 4th-5th century A.D.: A Buddhist cave monastery includes high relief stucco decoration and a rock-cut limestone stupa unique in Afghanistan (Haibak and Kashmir-smast, Kyoto, 1962). Čaqalaq Tapa, west of Kondūz (Kyoto University, Mizuno and T. Higuchi, 1964-67). Late 4th-7th century: A fortified village mound underwent burning three times; it was apparently abandoned prior to the Islamic conquest. The Buddhist stupa is late 4th-early 5th century; limestone sculptures and fifteen pillar bases were found, as well as statue fragments, iron and bronze weapons and implements, gold jewelry, stone querns and implements, glass, and coins. The nearby mound of Dūrman Tapa was excavated and an exploratory trench dug at Bālā Ḥeṣār, Kondūz (Durman Tepe and Lalma, Kyoto, 1968; Chaqalaq Tepe, Kyoto, 1970). Āq Koprūk (see above, Bronze Age). 5th-6th century A.D.: Found were ten to eleven human burials with elaborate grave furniture. Ṣeddīqābād, near Bagrām. Parvān (DAFA, Ghirshman, 1943). This site held the first Hephthalite necropolis (ca. 450-565 A.D.) identified in Afghanistan. Findings included ceramic and metal utensils, a ram’s head rhyton, bronze beads and bracelets, and coins (MDAFA 13, 1948). Orūzgān; Orūzgān (reported by A. Bīnavā). Two fragmentary rock inscriptions in the Hephthalite form of Greek script date ca. 500 A.D. (A. D. H. Bivar, Afghanistan 8/4, 1953; JRAS, 1954). Šāḵ Tapa, Kondūz (DAFA, Casal, 1953; LeBerre, 3). Ca. 5th century: About one hundred Hephthalite tumuli were noted on a high plateau. 1953: Two burials were excavated; found were iron trilobate points and blades, bronze artifacts, beads, and a lapis pendant. 1963: Nine human and animal burials were opened; findings included a gold Byzantine coin, ring with semi-precious stone, and a necklace set with lapis (Schlumberger, Comptes rendues de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 1964). Tapa Ḵezāna, Kabul (accidental find, 1930s; studied by M. Taddei). 5th-7th century A.D.: A group of fifty terracotta sculptured heads show stylistic trends from Hellenistic to mature Gupta. They once belonged to a group of monuments above the Kabul river (N. H. Dupree, The National Museum of Afghanistan: An Illustrated Guide, Kabul, 1974). Šahr-e Żaḥḥāk, Bāmīān (DAFA, Bernard, 1964). This fortress was occupied up to 618/1221. Pottery and fragments of manuscript (6th-7th century) were found (P. Zestovki, Afghanistan 3/2, 1948). Fondūkestān, Ḡorband; Parvān (DAFA, Carl, 1936-37). 7th-8th century: An elaborate Buddhist shrine complex contained a monastery, cells, meeting hall, and outbuildings. Elegant clay statuary (Plates XXIII/2, XXIV) was found set against ornate polychrome backgrounds (removed to the National Museum, Kabul). This style was carried into Central Asia (Hackin, Afghanistan 5/2, 1950; MDAFA 8, 1959). Tapa Sardār, Ḡaznī (IsMEO, D. Adamesteau, 1959-60; Puglisi, 1961; Taddei, 1962, 1967 on). Another shrine complex yielded votive stupas and pedestals with molded relief and side chapels retaining the lower halves of monumental seated Buddhas of unbaked clay. Part of a reclining Buddha (originally 15 m) also survived; a figure of the Hindu goddess Durgā Mahiśamardini dates from the site’s last phase. Other finds included polychrome wall-paintings, mosaic flooring, gilded clay Buddhas, and manuscript fragments. The early building period was ca. 3rd century; a peak reached in the 7th-8th, marked by connections with Central Asia, and followed by destruction by fire. At nearby Gūdol-e Āhangarān, there were found miniature stupas and unbaked clay tablets inscribed in Sanskrit (post-Gupta; East and West N.S. 18/1-2, 1968; 20/1-2, 1970; Il Veltro 16/5-6, 1972; South Asian Archaeology, ed. N. Hammond, London, 1973; South Asian Archaeology 1973, ed. J. E. van Lohuizen de Leeuw, Leiden, 1974). Qaḷʿa Āhangarān; Ḡōr (L. Leshnik, 1965). A surface collection from four mounds indicated a single-period Kushano-Sasanian settlement. Five distinct painted ceramic wares were locally made; molded designs are attested, and a few simulate metalwork (Berliner Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 7, 1967). Pol-e Zak, Qaḷʿa Šahrak; Ḡōr (AMNH, Dupree, K. Fischer, 1960). 800 A.D., 1200 A.D.: A sondage gave carbon 14 datings; painted potteries were found. This site attests an isolated survival of pre-Islamic culture. Turki and Hendūšāhī, 7th to 10th century A.D. Ḵayr-ḵāna, Kabul (DAFA, Carl, 1934). A Brahmanic temple contained three sanctuaries and two altars. A late 7th or early 8th century sculptured marble depicts Sūrya in a horse-drawn chariot driven by Dawn; a fragmentary pedestal bore a figure in Sasanian-style dress (MDAFA 7, 1936). (Accidental find, 1980): A second, superb Sūrya torso was unearthed by bulldozers (The Kabul New Times 21 December 1980, 11 March 1982). Tapa Sekandar, near Sarā-ye Ḵᵛāǰa, Kōhdāman, Kabul (Kyoto University, Higuchi, 1970 on). Late 6th to late 9th century: A two-phase secular and religious complex was found (the later phase being 7th-century). A massive shrine contained a Saivite painted marble statue of Umamaheśvara (Plate XXII/2); style and inscription compare with the Ḵayr-ḵāna statue (above). The stamped pottery resembles that of Tapa Maranǰān (above), with animal, bird, floral, and humanoid motifs. A potter’s cylindrical seal was found, as well as terracotta figurines and objects of bronze, iron, stone, ivory, and glass (Kyoto University Archaeological Survey, Kyoto, 1972, 1974, 1976; see also S. Kuwayama, East and West N.S. 26/3-4, 1976). Šakar Dara, Kōhdāman; Kabul (accidental find). A marble statue of Ganeśa is now in the Narsinghdwara temple, Kabul (M. Dhavalikar, East and West N.S. 21/3-4, 1971 ). Gardīz; Paktīā (accidental find). A marble statue of Ganeśa is now in the Dargah Pir Rattan Nath, Kabul; it bears a post-Gupta Sanskrit inscription but has been variously dated (Tucci, East and West 9, 1958; Agrawala, East and West N.S. 18/1-2, 1968). Gardīz; Paktīā. Tagāo; Parvān (accidental finds). 8th-10th century: At Gardīz a head of Śiva and a marble figure of Durgā Mahiśamardini were found; at Tagāo, a head of Durgā and a male torso and lingam. Miscellaneous coins were found (Barrett, Oriental Art 3/2, 1957; Goetz, Arts Asiatiques 4, 1957; Fischer, Arts Asiatiques 10/1, 1964; D. W. Macdowell, Numismatic Chronicle 8, 1968). Šamšīr Ḡār (see above, Kushan). The fifth chamber may have served as a Hindu temple. See also Islamic. Konar valley; Konar (Bonn University, Fischer, 1960). Architectural stone pieces, carved with Hindu motifs, had been reused in a Muslim graveyard (Zentralasiatische Studien, 1969). Islamic, 2nd/8th to 12th/18th century. Sīstān (see also Bronze Age; DAFA, Hackin, 1936). A reconnaissance survey was made (MDAFA 8, 1959; see also Fischer, East and West N.S. 21/1-2, 1971). (Bonn University, Fischer, 1960, 1968-73): A multi-faceted study of settlement patterns included a hydrological survey and identification of ancient irrigation systems, geological studies of the shifting delta region, botanical study on medieval ecological conditions, photogrammetric surveys of mud-brick ruins, architectural studies of pre-Islamic building remains to determine models for medieval construction, and mapping. The period most represented was the early 6th/12th-late 9th/15th century (South Asian Archaeology, 1973; Afghanistan 22/3-4, 1969; 23/4, 1970; 26/3, 1973; 27/1, 1974; Nimruz, Bonn, I, 1976, II, 1974). Southwest Afghanistan (Cambridge University, N. Hammond, 1966). A surface collection from forty-five sites along the left bank of the Helmand was strongly Ghaznavid, with some Kushan and fewer prehistoric pottery pieces; petroglyphs were noted (East and West N.S. 20/4, 1970). Bāmīān (see above, Kushan; DAFA, J. C. Gardin, LeBerre). 1st/7th to mid-7th/13th century: Surface collected ceramics were analyzed (Gardin, Ars Orientalis 2, 1957) and architectural studies done. (IsMEO, G. Scarcia): A legal document of 470/1078 was studied (East and West N.S. 14/1-2, 1963). Ḡārlōlī (see above, Iron Age). Northern variants of early Islamic period pottery were found. Hazār Som (see above, Kushan). 1st/7th to mid-7th/13th century: Forty mounds indicate a major caravan depot; architecture remains and glazed pottery were found. Šamšīr Ḡār (see above, Turki and Hendūšāhī). 8th-12th century: Findings included early Islamic glazed pottery, stamped wares, iron projectile points, horse trappings, beads (glass, glazed and unglazed clay, mother-of pearl, stone), coins, and textile fragments. Sar o Tar (see above, Graeco-Parthian). 4th/10th-9th/15th century: The city mound is accompanied by various others. The Šahr-e Ḡolḡola citadel is within a 15 m. high wall; it has massive fortifications and three moats, and contains a mosque and civil and residential quarters (Plate XXV). It is chiefly Ghaznavid and Timurid (over Parthian and Sasanian levels); late Saffarid coins, ceramics, and glass also were recovered. An environmental survey revealed the great assemblage of 9th/15th-century architecture in the southern Hāmūn region. Dune characteristics were studied, and the canal system mapped in relation to its history (Amiri, Afghanistan 26/2, 1973; Trousdale, The Illustrated London News 2911/263, 1976). Šahr-e Kohna (see above, Kushan). 4th/10th-12th/18th century: A 6th/12th-7th/13th century barrow cemetery on the south side of the city contained pottery similar to that of Laškarī Bāzār (see below) and multicolored glazed and sgraffito ware. The Timurid occupation may have included a ḥammām with conduits, cistern, and central, octagonal pool. Its well contained two bronze ewers, worked bone objects, fine white Chinese porcelain, blue-white glazed Persian ware, ornate glass decanters, local ceramics, and coins—all these ca. 10th/16th-12th/18th century. A separate pit produced numerous, perhaps local, dishes of the late Persian lusterware type (for the barrow cemetery see D. Whitehouse, AIUON 36, 1976; Taddei, South Asian Archaeology 1977, ed. M. Taddei, Naples, 1979). Noh Gonbad, Balḵ (AIA, 1973). Early 3rd/9th century: Cursory preservation work was done on the Samanid mosque, which has fine stucco decoration (Plate XXVI; G. A. Pugachenkova, Afghanistan 21/1, 1968; L. Golombek, Oriental Art 15, 1969). Ḡaznī (see above, Kushan; IsMEO, Scerrato, A. Bombaci, Taddei, 1956 on). 4th/10th-6th/12th century: The buildings (palace, “house of lusters,” two minarets) chiefly represent the period of the Ghaznavids from Masʿūd III to Bahrāmšāh (492-547/1099-1152). Finds included a sculptured marble dado with an epigraphic band, sculptured marbles, ceramics, glazed tiles, bronzes, and a marble statue of Brahma. Various restoration projects were initiated (IsMEO Reports and Memoirs 5, 1966; East and West N.S. 10, 1959; 29, 1979; J. Sourdel-Thomine, Syria 30, 1953). See also below. Laškarī Bāzār, Helmand (DAFA, Schlumberger, 1949-52). The site dates from the period of Sultan Maḥmūd through Ḵᵛārazmšāh renovations (5th/11th-7th/13th century). The first major excavation of the Islamic period revealed three palaces, two mosques, and a bazaar. Findings included ornamental stucco with epigraphy, polychrome wall-paintings with human figures, and glazed polychrome pottery. A meḥrāb from the palace mosque is installed in the National Museum, Kabul (Afghanistan 4/2, 1949; 5/4, 1950; Syria 20, 1952; MDAFA 18, 1963). Bost; Helmand (Governor of Qandahār, A. G. Zia and N. M. Herawi, 1957). An elaborately decorated 5th/11th century arch was restored; the nearby 6th/12th century tomb of Šāhzāda Ḥosayn, with its ornamental brickwork, was studied (D. Hill and O. Grabar, Islamic Architecture and its Decoration, Chicago, 1967; H. Crane, East and West N.S. 29/1-4, 1979). Wardak (see above, Kushan). The site bore an imposing Ghaznavid chateau of the 4th-5th/10th-11th centuries. Emām-e Ḵord, Sar-e Pol; Jozǰān. Ca. 450/1058: A Saljuq period shrine contains elaborate inscriptional decoration in carved stucco (Bivar, BSOAS 29/1, 1966). Dawlatābād; Balḵ. 502/1108-09: Remains of a decorated “minaret” were noted; an inscription names the Saljuq governor Moḥammad b. ʿAlī (Sourdel-Thomine, Syria 30, 1953). Zīārat-e Bābā Ḥātem, west of Balḵ (reported by J. Powell, 1960). Before 550/1155: The mausoleum’s interior is richly decorated in stucco. The geometric and floral designs parallel Noh Gonbad and Laškarī Bāzār; inscriptions and panels are similar to those of the Ghurid portal at Herat (Plate XXVII; M. Chirvani, Arts Asiatiques 17, 1968; D. Sourdel, Ētudes islamiques 39/2, 1971). Danestama, near Tāla; Baḡlān (DAFA, LeBerre, 1960). After 545/1150: A madrasa contains a meḥrāb with panel similar to the one at Laškarī Bāzār. Also studied were ceramics and fragmentary inscriptional material (Ētudes islamiques 38/1, 1970). Šah-e Mašhad; Bādḡīs. 571/1175-76: A madrasa (Plate XXVIII) contains stucco decoration, ornate terracotta mosaic, and fifteen inscriptions. There are stylistic affinities with Dawlatābād and Ḡaznī (M. Casimer and B. Glatzer, East and West N.S. 21/1-2, 1971 ). Češt-e Šarīf, Herat. A fragmentary inscription on two cupolas of a mosque and a madrasa ascribe the buildings to the Ghurid ruler Ḡīāṯ-al-dīn Moḥammad (558-99/1163-1203); they are decorated with raised terracotta mosaic (von Neidermayer and M. Diez, Afghanistan, Leipzig, 1924; MDAFA 16, 1959). (DAFA, LeBerre, 1960): Architectural studies were carried out. Jām; Ḡōr (reported by A. Malikyar and Kohzad, 1943). A 213-foot “minaret” (Plate XXIX) bears an inscription naming Ḡīāṯ-al-dīn Moḥammad. The kufic inscription is done in blue-glazed tile; the structure has elaborate terracotta mosaic decoration. (DAFA, Maricq, LeBerre, 1957, 1960): An inspection and architectural study were carried out (MDAFA 16, 1959; Ch. M. Kieffer, Afghanistan 15/4, 1960; Trousdale, Archaeology 18/2, 1965; Leshnik, Central Asiatic Journal 12/1, 1968). (IsMEO, A. Bruno, 1961): Architectural study was performed. A Jewish cemetery dating A.D. 1149-1215 was discovered; it contained tablets inscribed in Jewish Persian (East and West N.S. 14/3-4, 1963; G. Gnoli, Serie Orientale Roma 30, 1964; Zander, Il Veltro 16, 1972). Masǰed-e Jāmeʿ, Herat (UNESCO, E. Hansen 1964). Ca. 7th/13th-9th/15th century: Timurid tile work was removed from a portal to reveal an inscription naming Ḡīāṯ-al-dīn Moḥammad. Since 1943 work has continued on redecoration with tile simulating the Timurid decoration applied in 903/1498 (F. Salǰūqī, Ḵīābān, Kabul 1343 Š./1964; N. H. Wolfe, Guide to Herat, Kabul, 1966). Citadel, Herat (UNESCO, A. Bruno, 1975 on). Built in its present form in the 7th/13th century and strengthened by the Timurids in the 9th/15th century, this citadel is said to stand on the site of a fortress built by Alexander the Great in the 4th century B.C. The UNESCO restoration project is designed to revive the classical traditions of Herat (The Citadel and Minarets of Herat, UNESCO, 1976). Moṣallā, Herat (Governor of Herat, A. Malikyar, 1942-46). Gardens were planted to protect the two minarets and mausoleum of Queen Gowhar Šād (d. 861/1457) and the four minarets of Sultan Ḥosayn Bāyqarā (d. 911/1506; Salǰūqī, Ḵīābān: Survey of Persian Art; Scheer-Thoss et al., Design and Color in Islamic Architecture, Washington, 1968). (UNESCO, Bruno, 1976 on): Stabilization of the minarets was commenced. Gāzargāh, Herat (AIA, Mustamindy, 1966-73; Tarzi, 1973-78). Restoration and preservation was done at the shrine of Ḵᵛāǰa ʿAbdallāh Anṣārī, which was elaborately redecorated in 831/1428 (Salǰūqī, Gāzargāh, Kabul, 1962; Golombek, The Timurid Shrine at Gazur Gah, Toronto, 1969). Herat region (A/S, Mustamindy, Pugachenkova, 1967, 1969). 9th/15th-10th/16th century shrines and mosques were studied, e.g., Kohsan; Masǰed-e Ḥawż-e Karbās (dated to 845/1441-42 by its inscription), which contains a meḥrāb with mosaic decoration; and the complex at Zīāratgāh, built during the reign of Sultan Ḥosayn Bāyqarā (Afghanistan 21/1, 1968; 23/3, 1970). Mazār-e Šarīf; Balḵ (city of Mazār, 1940s). The 9th/15th century shrine of ʿAlī was redecorated. Zīarāt-e Ḵᵛāǰa Pārsā, Balḵ (ASI, 1974-77). Preservation work was done on this late Timurid shrine (Plate XXX; Pugachenkova, Afghanistan 23/3, 1970). Ḡaznī (see above; IsMEO, Bruno, 1961-66). Restoration was done at the mausoleum of Solṭān ʿAbd-al-Razzāq (ca. 912/1506) and a museum was installed (East and West N.S. 13/2-3, 1962; Zander, Il Veltro l6, 1972). Reinforcement of the 6th/12th century minaret of Bahrāmšāh was begun in 1978, but all restoration work was cancelled in 1979 (East and West N.S. 27/1-4, 1977; 28/1-4, 1978; 29/1-4, 1979). Bāḡ-e Bābor; Kabul (IsMEO, B. C. Bono, 1964-66). Restoration was done on the mosque of Shah Jahān (dated by its inscription to 1056/1646; Zander, Il Veltro 16, 1972; M. Parpagliolo, Kabul: The Bagh-i-Babur, Rome, 1972). Bibliography : See also G. P. Tate, Seistan. A Memoir on the History, Topography, Ruins, and People of the Country, 2 vols., Calcutta, 1910-12. G. A. Pugachenkova, Iskusstvo Afganistana, Moscow, 1963. J. Auboyer, The Art of Afghanistan, Middlesex, 1968. B. Rowland, Zentralasien, Baden-Baden, 1970. Idem, Art in Afghanistan, London, 1971. L. Dupree, Afghanistan, Princeton, 1973. W. Fairservis, The Roots of Ancient India, 2nd ed., New York, 1974. S. Gaulier et al., Buddhism in Afghanistan and Central Asia, 2 vols., Leiden, 1976. N. H. Dupree, An Historical Guide to Afghanistan, Kabul, 1977. D. Brandenburg, Herat, Graz, 1977. H. G. Franz, “Der Buddhistische Stupa in Afghanistan,” Afghanistan Journal 4/4, 1977; 5/1, 1978. F. R. Allchin and N. Hammond, ed., The Archaeology of Afghanistan, London, 1978. W. Ball, ed., Archaeological Gazetteer of Afghanistan, 3 vols., Paris, 1982.
(N. H. Dupree)
ix. Pre-Islamic Art
Small, simple clay statues from the Neolithic period, which may be protective divinities, can be found in all sites from the Middle East to India; in Afghanistan one sees them in such places as Mondīgak (J. M. Casal, Fouilles de Mundigak, Paris, 1961), Nād-e ʿAlī (G. F. Dales, New Excavations at Nad-i-ali (Sorkh Dagh) Afghanistan, Berkeley, 1977), and Deh Morāsī Ḡonday (L. Dupree, “Deh Morasi Gundai: A Chalcolithic Site in South Central Afghanistan,” Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 50/2, 1963); a small stone head (Casal, Fouilles, pl. XLIII, XLIV; J. Auboyer, L’Afghanistan et son art, Prague, 1968, pl. 1) resembling certain Mesopotamian statues suggests the portrait of a noble. Inspired by the Greco-Iranian tradition, the Bactrians and then the Kushans and their successors made the portraiture of sovereigns on coins an important art form and an inexhaustible source of historical data (J. M. Rosenfeld, The Dynastic Arts of the Kushans, Berkeley, 1967, pls. I-XV). Royal portraits can be found carved on the thresholds of stone temples (D. Schlumberger, “Fouilles à Surkh-Kotal,” JA, 1952, p. 443, pl. VI; Auboyer, L’Afghanistan, pl. 41) and painted on the walls of sanctuaries (Z. Tarzi, L’architecture et le décor rupestre des grottes de Bamiyan, Paris, 1977, pl. Al, figs. 9 B14, B15, 10-12). Occidental influence began in the Median period, or in any case, during the conquests of Cyrus and Darius I in the 5th and 6th centuries B.C. Remains from this era found at such sites as Nād-e ʿAlī (Dales, New Excavations), Qandahār (S. V. Helms, “The British Excavations at Old Kandahar: Preliminary Report of the Work of 1977,” Afghan Studies 2, forthcoming), Balḵ (J. C. Gardin, Ceramiques de Bactres, Paris, Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan [MDAFA] 15, 1957), Ṭelā Tapa (V. I. Sarianidi, Raskopki Tillya-tepe v Severnom Afganistane I, Moscow, 1972), Ālten Tapa (V. I. Sarianidi, “Altin-tepe, rovesnika drevneichikh ,” Vokrug Sveta 2, 1968, pp. 46-48), and Dahāna-ye Ḡolāmān (U. Scerrato, “Excavations at Dahan-i-Ghulaman [Seistan-Iran]: First Preliminary Report [1962-1963],” East and West 16, 1966, pp. 9-30) or “Zarin,” the ancient capital of Drangiana, mentioned by Ctesias. The Hellenistic levels of these cities date back to the time of Alexander’s conquest in the 4th century B.C. Alexander’s successors in the east—the Seleucids, Parthians, Greco-Bactrians, and Sasanians—are the true transmitters of Greco-Iranian art in their periods (3rd cent. B.C.-6th century A.D.). Their influence is visible in architecture (plans of cities and fortresses, colonnaded palaces, urban structures, etc.), in sculpture (pseudo-Corinthian pilasters, figured capitals, garland and scroll patterns), and in painting, where the decorative elements of stone grottos owe a great deal to Sasanian art. The nomads of steppes, hellenized Scythian goldsmiths, and artisans from southern Siberia and Ordos also carried traditions and models into Afghanistan. And from the first century A.D. Buddhist monks from the Ganges region in India created an ever-increasing demand for icons and sculptured and painted decoration for their monasteries. An iconography inspired by those of ancient India and Gandhāra lasted until the Islamic era. Ancient Afghan art first came to light through treasures placed from the very beginning in the interior of Buddhist stupas and discovered either accidentally by travelers or unexpectedly by archeologists (C. Masson, “Memoir on the Ancient Coins Found at Beghram, in the Kohistan of Kabul,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 3, 1834, pp. 153-75; 5, 1836, pp. 1-28, 537-47). The treasure of Bagram, dating from the 1st-2nd centuries A.D., was discovered in 1937-39 by J. Hackin and his team from the Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan. It contained glassware, bronze statuettes and vessels, and plaster casts of Hellenistic themes, objects which for the most part came from the Mediterranean world (J. Hackin, Recherches archéologiques à Begram, Paris, MDAFA 9, 1939, pl. IV, XI, XII; VII, XX, XXIV; Auboyer, L’Afghanistan, pl. 14a, b, 15; 10-12; 8, 9). It also contained a wooden piece of furniture decorated with engraved and sculptured ivory plates from central India, where similar plates were recently found (Hackin, Recherches, pl. XXVIII, XXXIX; idem, Nouvelles recherches archéologiques à Begram, Paris, MDAFA 11, 1954, fig. 8ff.; Auboyer, L’Afghanistan, pl. 25, 20). Finally, Chinese lacquer bowls testify to the use of the silk route (Hackin, Nouvelles recherches, fig. 243-49). In the well concealed and untouched tombs of Ṭelā Tapa, the dead are covered with fine fabric sewn with gold bracteates, while their clothing is woven from gold thread and embroidered with pearls. Their swords and daggers are placed in gold sheaths decorated with fantastic animals, and their belts are embellished with figured medallions; their necklaces and pendants portray Greco-Iranian divinities, such as Cybele in the form of the Mistress of the Animals (V. I. Sarianidi, “Trésors d’une nécropole royale en Bactriane,” Archéologia 1979, no. 135, pp. 18-27; p. 21, fig. 4; p. 24, fig. 1, 2; p. 25, fig. 4; p. 23, fig. 3). Such artwork, perhaps made by Scythian or Sakan goldsmiths in the service of nomadic or semi-sedentary princes of Bactria, provided sculptors in Gandhāra, where influences from both Parthian Hellenism and the steppes intermingled, with models for the ornaments of the statues of the Boddhisattvas. Bactria. Ancient Bactria, located in the valley of the Āmū Daryā or Oxus river, formed a single political entity in an area that is today divided. Texts describe it as prosperous and densely populated (A. Foucher, La vieille route de l’Inde de Bactres à Taxila, Paris, MDAFA 1, 1942, I, p. 13ff.), though today the region is desert. Recent investigations have uncovered astonishing urban and cultural sites that have yielded unsuspected examples of architecture and ornamentation. The city of Āy Ḵānom, located in the extreme northeast of Bactria at the junction of the Kōkča and Āmū Daryā rivers, was inhabited from the 4th century B.C. and abandoned around 130 B.C. because of advancing nomads. Not having undergone further habitation, it is nearly intact on the level of its present plan (P. Bernard, Fouilles de Aï-Khanoum, Paris, MDAFA 21, 1973, II, pl. 1). A fortified city at the foot of a citadel, it embraces temples and tombs, a large palace, a gymnasium and palestra, and the only ancient theater discovered this far east; in short, it presents a microcosm of the Hellenistic world. Nevertheless, Āy Ḵānom’s art is marked by numerous oriental details. The decoration, inspired by Greek patterns, reinterprets components to yield original works, as in the pseudo-Corinthian capitals of the colonnades south of the palace’s main courtyard (Bernard, Fouilles, pl. 44; idem, “Aï-Khanoum, ville coloniale grecque,” Les Dossiers de l’Archéologie, Dijon, 1974-75, pp. 99-114, fig. facing p. l04). The stone statues are slightly deformed copies of Greek models, such as the bearded Hermes raised on a square pillar in the gymnasium (Plate XX/1), or an unfinished and therefore locally made statue of a man, whose anatomy has nothing to envy in classical Greek art, or another man wearing a chlamys and petasos. The bronze statues, like that of Heracles crowning himself copied from a Greek coin, are on the whole unskillful (Bernard, “Aï-Khanoum,” pp. 111 right bottom, 113, 110 top). A gilded silver plaque represents Cybele on her chariot pulled by two lions with curiously raised paws (ibid., p. 114; Plate XX/2), another blend of Greek and oriental traditions. In the south of Bactria on one of the first low mountains of the Hindu Kush stands a half-fortress, half-temple known as Sorḵ Kōtal. At the end of a monumental staircase cut into the side of the hill and intercepted by a number of terraces is found the sanctuary of an as yet unknown divinity, decorated by pilasters with pseudo-Corinthian capitals and garlands carried by young boys (D. Schlumberger, L’Orient hellénise′, Paris, 1970, fig. 26, pp. 62-63; JA, 1952, p. 446, pl. VIII, no. 2). On the facade, badly preserved stone statues, royal portraits and the scene of an investiture evoke the realistic and triumphal art of the hellenized Parthians (JA, 1952, p. 443, pl. VI; Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres 1955, p. 66-67, fig. 2, 3). This is undoubtedly the art that was taken to India by the Kushan nomads. One of the statues is considered that of the great Kushan king Kanishka, because of its resemblance to a statue inscribed with his name in the Mathura museum (Auboyer, L’Afghanistan, pl. 41; cf. Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 1955, pp. 66-67). An inscription still under study seems to explain the function of the temple and its approximate date: 2nd century A.D. (A. Maricq in JA, 1958, pp. 345-429, pl. I; Auboyer, L’Afghanistan, pl. 40). In west Bactria to the northeast of the Aqča river stands an ancient rectangular city that was inhabited for nearly eight centuries called Delbarǰīn, with a central fortress, palaces, houses, and numerous temples and chapels decorated with divinities, princely figures, and votaries with offerings (I. T. Kruglikova, Delbarjin, Moscow, 1974; idem and G. A. Pugachenkova, Delbarjin, Moscow, 1977). Unbaked and painted clay is used in modeling or as a base for the paintings. A fresco representing the Aśvins or Dioscuri dates to the Greco-Bactrian period (Kruglikova, Delbarjin, pl. 2, 3). Statues in painted clay are very similar to works discovered at Khalchavan in Uzbekistan and thus date from the Kushan period (ibid., frontispiece). The long lines of donors painted on the walls of several chapels date from a later period, Hephthalite or even Turkic, and evoke similar works found at Panjkent in Tajikistan (A. Yu. Yakubovskiĭ et al., Zhivopis’ drevnogo Piandzhikenta, Moscow, 1954, pl. XXIX) and at Kyzyl in Sinkiang, China (7th-8th centuries; A. Von le Coq, Buddhistische Spätantike in Mittelasian VI, Berlin, 1928, pl. 6). Hadda. When Indian Buddhist monks reached northwest India at the outset of the Christian era, they settled in Gandhāra and also in the region of Jalālābād in Afghanistan. Monasteries proliferated around the present-day village of Hadda and on the cliffs bordering the Kabul river. Resembling the monasteries of Gandhāra in their plans, they are constructed from schist, limestone, or clay, and decorated with painted and modeled clay and, above all, stucco. Scenes of the Buddha, often much grander than his entourage, are composed with great skill, while his supporting cast is portrayed with astonishing realism. The artists were able to reproduce perfectly the facial features of different ethnic groups and the details of various costumes and baroque ornaments: witness a barbarian, a soldier, a princess, a monk with shaved skull, a nomad draped in a cloak (J. Barthoux, Les Fouilles de Hadda, figures et figurines, Paris, MDAFA 6, 1930, pl. 66a, 106a, 44, 60c, 45). Witness also the chapels excavated at Tapa-ye Šotor, where, like a tableau vivant, princes, donors, and gods of primitive Hinduism crowd around the Buddha alone in his meditation (Z. Tarzi, “Hadda, à la lumière des trois dernières campagnes de fouilles de Tapa-i-Shotor (1974-1976),” Comptes-rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres, 1977, pp. 381-410, figs. 5-7). Some of these representations, like the bust of a king-naga (S. and M. Mustamandi, “Nouvelles fouilles à Hadda (1966-1967) par l’Institut afghan d’archéologie,” Arts Asiatiques 19, 1969, pp. 15-36, figs. 15, 16), evoke the art of India; others, such as the Heracles-Vajrapāni (Plate XXII/1) or the Vajrapāni-Alexander (Tarzi, “Hadda,” figs. l0, 16, 17) were undoubtedly copied from ancient coins or small bronze statues from the occident. Today the art of Hadda is usually dated to the 2nd-6th centuries A.D. Kāpīsā. The area of Bagrām, which seems to have been the site of the Kushan capital and is located in the present-day province of Kāpīsā near Kabul, provides examples of pre-Islamic art dating from the arrival of the Kushans in the first century A.D. to the reign of the Hendūšāhīs of Kabul in the 2nd/8th century. At the foot of the mountains south of Kabul stand the monasteries of Ševā-kī and Goldara, whose 4th-5th century stupas are decorated with friezes of semicircular or trilobate arcades (G. Fussman and M. Le Berre, Monuments boddhiques de la région de Kaboul I. Le monastère de Gul dara, Paris, MDAFA 22, 1976; Auboyer, L’Afghanistan, pl. 85-88). The mountain route between the two sites is marked by a column, the Manār-e Čakarī, whose architecture resembles that of Indian columns of the Mauryan period (Auboyer, L’Afghanistan, pl. 89). On the plateau of Bagrām north of Kabul the monasteries of Pāytāva and Šotorak (J. Hackin, L’oeuvre de la DAFA en Afghanistan [1922-1932], Tokyo, 1933, p. 16; J. Meunié, Shotorak, Paris, MDAFA 10, 1942), among others, exhibit statues and reliefs sculpted in schist and painted in vivid colors and gold dating from the 3rd century. The style typifies a local school, while the iconography seems to be specific to the area. The scale of the statue of the central cult figure is considerably larger than that of the other personages; the canon is short and squat, the faces square, and the attitudes schematized (Meunié, Shotorak, pl. X, fig. 36; pl. XIX, fig. 62). Very different is the site of Ḵayr-ḵāna overlooking Kabul, a 7th-8th century temple to an unknown Brahmanic divinity. The white marble and the post-Gupta style recall certain statues of Kashmir. In 1980 an impressive statue of the Indian god Sūrya, probably the assistant to a still undiscovered monumental statue, accidentally came to light (P. Bernard and F. Grenet, “Découverte d’une statue du dieu solaire Surya dans la région de Kaboul,” Studia iranica 10/1, 1981, pp. 129-46, pls. XIII-XVI). This statue is a landmark in the collected evidence for the influence of Indian art during the period. Bāmīān. The rupestral monasteries in the valley of Bāmīān are located at the heart of the Hindu Kush, on the arduous route connecting Kāpīsā and Bactria (A. Godard, Les antiquités bouddhiques de Bamiyan, Paris, MDAFA 2, 1928; J. Hackin and J. Carl, Nouvelles recherches archéologiques à Bamiyan, Paris, MDAFA 3, 1933; Z. Tarzi, L’architecture). Occupied probably by the 3rd century A.D. and certainly up until the 7th or 8th centuries, the sanctuaries are decorated with painted clay reliefs on a painted base. Influences from Sasanian Iran and the later Indian culture of Gandhāra and the post-Gupta period are clearly in evidence. It is highly probable that these symbioses were encouraged by the Kidarites (the later Kushans) or even the Hephthalites, some of whom, according to Chinese pilgrims, were good Buddhists, (Hiuan-Tsang, Si-yu-ki, tr. T. Watters, London, 1904). On a cliff oriented toward the south two monumental niches enclose enormous statues of the Buddha. The interior of the niches was covered entirely by holy figures with multicolored halos and mandorlas (Hackin and Carl, Nouvelles recherches, pl. XXVII, fig. 29; Tarzi, L’architecture, pl. 61, B128). Under the vault protecting the 38 meter Buddha a grand solar god, perhaps Mithra, is dressed in caftan and flowing cloak, as are two rows of donor-kings on the springing of the vault (Godard, Antiquités, pl. XXII; Tarzi, L’architecture, pls. 6, B6; 89, C2). In other niches, frontal boddhisattvas draped in dhotis and loose scarves are sometimes placed under short frontons (Tarzi, L’architecture, pls. 34, B70; 58 B121; 92, C6). The ceilings evoke familiar structures in Central Asia, while the domes imitate Iranian architecture (ibid., pls. 17, B33; 21, B41). The decorations of the neighboring sites of Kakrāk (Plate XXIII/1) and Fōlādī correspond to those of the late Bāmīān period (for Kakrāk: Hackin and Carl, Nouvelles recherches, pp. 39-46; for Fōlādī: U. Scerrato, “A Short Note on some Recently Discovered Buddhist grottoes near Bamiyan, Afghanistan,” East and West 11, 1960, pp. 94-120; B. Dagens, “Monastères rupèstres de la vallée de Foladi,” in MDAFA 19, Paris, 1964, pp. 43-48). A small monastery situated on the route to Bāmīān, Fondūkestān, has yielded exquisite 8th-century statues of painted unbaked clay typifying the symbiosis of multiple influences referred to above (J. Hackin, “Le monastère bouddhique de Fondukistan,” MDAFA 8, Paris, 1959, pp. 49-58). In statues exhibiting a certain realism and great technical suppleness a charming Indian maiden gives her hand to a local prince dressed like a Turk (ibid., figs. 189-194; XXIII/2). Paintings of gracious Buddhas and baroque Boddhisattvas with slightly outlandish aspect and attire help to fill up a rather late pantheon (ibid., esp. figs. 193-94). Another monastery located near Ḡaznī at Tapa Sardār seems to have been used in the 3rd-8th centuries. An Italian mission found material that displays the various influences already cited and allows for subtle comparisons of motifs (M. Taddei, “Tapa Sardar, First Preliminary Report,” East and West 18, 1968, pp. 109-24, fig. 47; idem, “Tapa-Sardar, Second Preliminary Report,” East and West 28, 1978, pp. 33-135, figs. 81, 135). The unbaked clay and stucco and the painted and gilded statues exhibit an iconography that permits a study of the evolution of culture and religious sentiments over a long period and of the slow passage of early Mahayana Buddhism as Brahmanism underwent a revival. Bibliography : Given in the text.
(F. Tissot)
X. Political History
The year 1160/1747 marks the definitive appearance of an Afghan political entity independent of both the Safavid and Mughal empires. In 1121/1709 a Ḡilzay uprising, led by the Hōtakī tribal chief Mīr Ways, had freed all of southern Afghanistan from Safavid control, thus establishing the basis of a state which would extend westwards into the heart of Persia (fall of Isfahan, 1135/1722); but the retaliation led by Nāder Shah Afšār destroyed the new state in a few rapid attacks (fall of Qandahār [Kandahār], 1150/1738; of Kabul, 1151/1738), and the Afghan territory was once again annexed to the Persian empire. Nāder’s policy towards Afghanistan was based on the support he was able to find among the Abdālīs, traditional rivals of the Ḡilzī, who had newly taken over some of the Abdālī territory; thus Aḥmad Khan (b. 1135/1722), a young Abdālī leader of the Sadōzay branch of the Pōpalzay tribe, also allied to the Alīkōzī on his mother’s side, came to be named governor of Māzandarān and then commander of the Paṧtūn contingent of 4,000 men in Nāder’s army. Aḥmad Shah Dorrānī (1160-86/1747-72). (See Table 12.) The political vacuum caused by Nāder Shah’s assassination (11 Jomādā II) 1160/9 June 1747) led to the emergence of several local dynasties. Aḥmad Khan was thus elected king of the Afghans by a ǰerga or tribal council of Paṧtūn chiefs; in October of the same year he was crowned at a location not far from Qandahār, the city that became his capital. By this time the Abdālī confederation had changed its name to Dorrānī in imitation of his royal title, Dorr-e Dorrān (Pearl of Pearls). Primarily with the support of the Paṧtūn tribes, whose members made up the greater part of his army and whose aristocracy formed the hereditary royal officer corps, Aḥmad Shah was able to take advantage of the disintegration of the Persian and Mughal empires and pursue a boldly expansionist policy, thus contributing decisively to the emergence of a pan-Paṧtūn national sentiment. At its height (see Figure 19), his empire extended from the Āmū Daryā (Bactria and Badaḵšān annexed in 1164/1751) to the Oman Sea, and from Khorasan (where Šāhroḵ, grandson of Nāder Shah, became his vassal in 1162/1749) to the Ganges plain (fall of Delhi, 1170/1757). For several decades the Dorrānī empire was the dominating regional power. Its victory over the strong army of the Maratha confederation at Panipat (1174/1761) even played a decisive historical role, by giving the British enough time to consolidate the foothold they had gained in Bengal at the battle of Plassey (1170/1757). But the unity of the empire was fragile. Chronic uprisings in the north and northwest clearly indicated that the submission of the non-Paṧtūn populations was more superficial than real, especially since they were burdened by a deliberately unfavorable fiscal policy. At the same time the rise of Sikh power in the east prevented the Afghans from maintaining their hold on the left bank of the Indus (loss of Lahore, 1179/1765). Tīmūr Shah (1186-1207/1772-93). Centrifugal tendencies intensified after Aḥmad Shah’s death (20 Raǰab 1186/16 October 1772) and the accession of his chosen successor, his younger son Tīmūr, who had been governor of Herat. Although he succeeded in containing the Sikh offensive—Multan, lost in 1186/1772, was recaptured in 1194/1780—he surrendered effective control of Sind and a part of Bactria, which were no longer connected to the Afghan empire except through vague and nominal feudal ties. But it was in the heart of the empire that disintegration threatened most seriously. Lacking his father’s charisma, Tīmūr Shah looked for support less from the Paṧtūn tribes and more from the urbanized and Persianized (Tajik, Qizilbāš) elements, whose influence was increasing in the army and administration; this new policy was exemplified by the transfer of the capital from Qandahār, in Paṧtūn territory, to Kabul (1189/1775). Although he hoped to reinforce a national consensus and consolidate his power, he only succeeded in alienating the Paṧtūn tribal aristocracy without becoming reconciled with the urban classes, who were still under great tax burdens. The Sadōzay monarchy rapidly lost its social base; the death of Tīmūr Shah (7 Šawwāl 1207/18 May 1793) led to a period of anarchy, palace revolutions, and tribalism that was to last nearly half a century. In contrast to what had happened twenty years earlier, no guidelines were known to exist for the succession, which was disputed by the many sons of the dead sovereign (34 sons from 14 different wives have been attributed to him). Each pretender represented a different tribal faction through matrimonial ties. Gradually the empire was transformed into a conglomerate of independent and rival principalities, each centered around a stronghold with unstable boundaries (Kabul, Peshawar, Ḡaznī, Qandahār, Herat). Among these Kabul remained the most prestigious, since its possession conferred the then rather symbolic but envied title “king of the Afghans;” hence the power struggle was waged most ferociously in eastern Afghanistan. Zamān Shah, governor of Kabul at the time of his father’s death, initially succeeded in maintaining his position, but in 1216/1800 he was put to flight by his half brother Maḥmūd, who was supported by the Dorrānī over Zamān because of the latter’s Yūsofzay relations through his mother. Maḥmūd Shah is replaced three years later by one of Zamān’s full brothers, Šoǰāʿ-al-molk, who was in turn supported by the Ḡilzī and the Persianized population of Kabul. Finally Maḥmūd Shah regained his Kabul throne after defeating Shah Šoǰāʿ at Nemla (1224/1809). Dōst Moḥammad (1235-79/1819-63). While the Sadōzay dynasty continued to exhaust itself in fratricidal conflict, the strong Bārakzay tribe of the Dorrānīs consolidated its political role and became a rival of the Pōpalzī. Once the main ally of Zamān Shah, it refused support him after he put to death their chief Pāyanda Khan (1213/1799), who was from the Moḥammadzay branch of their tribe and had been accused, not without reason it seems, of having conspired against the shah. For over ten years the tribe then followed Maḥmūd, whose mother was a Moḥammadzay; during Maḥmūd’s two reigns, Fatḥ Khan, the eldest son of Pāyanda Khan, became his principal consultant. Fatḥ Khan’s assassination in 1233/1818 by the king’s son, Kāmrān, who was jealous of his prerogatives, triggered a national badal (vendetta) between the Moḥammadzī and the Sadōzī and led Dōst Moḥammad, half brother of Fatḥ Khan, to overthrow Maḥmūd Shah (1235/1819), who retreated to Herat. After Maḥmūd’s death (1245/1829), Kāmrān governed western Afghanistan until his assassination in 1258/1842. Although 1235/1819 marks the beginning of the Moḥammadzay dynasty, which, with the exception of a brief period in 1255-59/1839-43, was to reign until 1973, only in 1241/1826 after a bitter struggle with several of his brothers was Dōst Moḥammad, strengthened by a Qizilbāš alliance achieved because of his mother’s origins, able to establish himself firmly in Kabul. The political convulsions of the last years of the 18th century and the first quarter of the 19th century had led to the empire’s dismemberment. A Qajar offensive resulted in the loss of western Khorasan (1209/1795) and a direct threat to Herat, which was besieged in 1249/1833 and in 1253/1837. To the north of the Hindu Kush, various Uzbek principalities entered the orbit of khanate of Bokhara. In the south, the khanate of Kalāt became independent. In the east, the Sikh sovereign, Ranjit Singh, successively took Multan (1233/1818), Kashmir (1235/1819), Dēraǰāt (1236/1821), and Peshawar (1250/1834). The loss of the rich Indian provinces decisively weakened the Afghan empire, since they had supplied it with essential revenues. The reconstitution of the empire and more particularly the recapture of Peshawar, his former winter capital, was to become Dōst Moḥammad’s obsession during his entire reign. In 1252/1836 Dōst Moḥammad officially took the title amīr al-moʾmenīn (commander of the believers), though his predecessors employed the title shah (which was not used again until 1926). At this time he was the leader of a second rate state squeezed between the Hazāraǰāt, the Hindu Kush, and the Solaymān mountains; the Qandahār region was virtually autonomous under a younger branch of the Moḥammadzī, and the Herat region was a Sadōzay principality. His policy aimed at providing a prosperous economic base from which he could reunify the empire. He instituted a regular army on the European model and turned first towards the east, proclaiming a ǰehād against the Sikhs under Ranjit Singh. But the regional geopolitical situation had changed from the previous century; with England and Russia established on Afghanistan’s borders, Dōst Moḥammad’s plans could not leave them indifferent. The English became interested in Afghan affairs in the early years of the 19th century, when they established themselves in the upper valley of the Ganges. As early as 1223-24/1808-09 they had sent Mountstuart Elphinstone to Peshawar to negotiate a defensive treaty with Shah Šoǰāʿ directed against Napoleon’s oriental ambitions. This marked the beginning of uninterrupted direct contact, whether official or officious, between the two countries. The first British resident at the Kabul court, Charles Masson, was accredited in 1250/1835; in 1253/1837 an official mission directed by Alexander Burnes arrived in the capital. Three months later a similar Russian mission, directed by Ivan Vitkevich, also arrived; thus began the Anglo-Russian “great game” in central Asia. For a long time to come, Afghanistan lost all initiative in forging its history and became the object of European imperialism. The English made the first move in the game. Supposing that their Indian interests were directly endangered both by Dōst Moḥammad’s territorial ambitions and by the seemingly effective Russian intrigues at Kabul, they initiated a policy of destabilization with the object of replacing the Afghan king by Shah Šoǰāʿ, their former protégé, who was living in exile at Ludhiana. At first the operation was a complete success. Sikh neutrality was obtained, and a rapidly formed “Army of the Indus” approached Afghanistan by way of Sind and the Bolan pass. Qandahār and Kabul fell without hostilities on 10 Ṣafar 1255/25 April 1839 and 26 Jomādā II/7 August respectively. A short while earlier, Dōst Moḥammad had abandoned his throne to Shah Šoǰāʿ and sought refuge in Bokhara. The Sadōzay dynasty was restored, but it was the English who governed the country, in the person of William Macnaghten, “Envoy and Minister on the part of the Government of India at the Court of Shah Shuja al-mulk.” The invasion rapidly turned into a disaster; guerrillas, at first coordinated more or less by Dōst Moḥammad himself and later, after his surrender (1256/1840) and deportation to Calcutta, by his son Moḥammad Akbar Khan, incessantly harassed the English garrisons and communication lines. Their operations led to the Kabul uprising of Ramażān, 1257/November, 1841 during which A. Burnes, Macnaghten’s assistant, was assassinated, followed a short time later by Macnaghten himself. The British saw their occupation becoming very costly; abandoning Kabul, they kept garrisons only at Jalālābād and Qandahār. Their retreat from Kabul took place in the middle of winter and led to the almost total destruction of an army of 16,000 humiliated and starving soldiers and camp followers. After some hesitation, a punitive expedition was launched. Entering Afghanistan by the Khyber pass, the “army of retribution” under General Pollock marched on Kabul on 18 Šaʿbān 1258/16 September 1842 and was joined there two days later by 6,000 men from Qandahār under General Nott. In the guise of retaliation, the famous covered bazaar of Kabul was destroyed on 9 October. Three days later, the English withdrew from Afghanistan and thus put an end to the first Anglo-Afghan War. Meanwhile, Shah Šoǰāʿ, having lost British protection, was put to death on 23 Ṣafar 1258/5 April 1842. His son Fatḥ Jang declared himself king but finally decided to abdicate and retreat with Pollock’s army. He left on the throne one of his brothers, Šāhpūr, who remained there only as long as it took Dōst Moḥammad to return to the capital (1259/1843). Dōst Moḥammad’s second reign commenced with the same imperatives as his first: to raise the country from ruins before attempting to reconstitute an empire. Renouncing his claims to Peshawar and the rich Indus provinces, which had come under direct English control after the takeover of the Sikh state (1265/1849), the amir sought a British alliance, against the advice of some of his counselors. He finished by obtaining the Peshawar Treaty (1271/1855), which eventually allotted him an annual subsidy. Loyal to his new political line, Dōst Moḥammad made no attempt to take advantage of the difficulties in India caused by the mutiny of 1273-74/1857. Deliberately turning his territorial ambitions in another direction, in a dozen years he succeeded in reconstituting an Afghan state whose boundaries have stayed more or less the same until today. The main stages were the progressive annexation (between 1266/1850 and 1276/1859) of the entire territories between the Hindu Kush and the Āmū Daryā, the reconquest of Qandahār at the death of his half brother, Kōhandel Khan (1272/1855), the annexation of Konar, and finally the recapture of Herat. The last was a difficult task that occupied all the end of his reign, since the city was also coveted by the Persians, who controlled it from 1272/1856 to 1279/1863. At Dōst Moḥammad’s death (21 Ḏu’l-ḥeǰǰa 1279/9 June 1863) Afghanistan existed again, although smaller than in Sadōzay times. But its unity remained as precarious as ever; the Ḡilzī still could not easily accept Dorrānī sovereignty, and control over the central mountain regions and the east was at best intermittent. It was left to Dōst Moḥammad’s successors to consolidate his work. Šēr ʿAlī (1285-96/1868-79). The lack of a stipulated procedure for succession once again caused difficulties. Šēr ʿAlī, who had a Pōpalzay mother, was governor of Herat at the time of his father’s death and the designated crown prince, but he did not succeed in imposing his will on his stepbrothers Moḥammad Afżal and Moḥammad Aʿẓam, whose mother was a Bangaš. At first defeated, they later succeeded in capturing Kabul (1282/1866) and then Qandahār (1283/1867), forcing Šēr ʿAlī to seek refuge in Herat. First Afżal Khan, and after his death (1284/1867) Aʿẓam Khan, became amir of Kabul. Thanks to generous English subsidies, Šēr ʿAlī finally managed to regain the throne in 1285/1868; for ten years he reigned without opposition other than that of his own son, Moḥammad Yaʿqūb, who tried to follow a personal course by finding support among the population of Herat, where he was governor, and the Mohmands, to whom he was related through his mother. Šēr ʿAlī’s ten-year rule brought about decisive changes. For the first time domestic policy, boldly constructive and geared towards the modernization of institutions, took precedence over the demands of foreign policy. The reforms, according to all evidence inspired by Sayyed Jamāl-al-dīn Afḡānī, may seem superficial, and they were not all carried through; but their importance for the development of contemporary Afghanistan should not be underestimated. The basis for a centralized administration was set down in the form of an embryonic ministerial cabinet and a thirteen-member consultative council. The royal family’s monopoly of provincial government functions—a custom that had demonstrated its danger to national unity—was breached. A reform of the fiscal system made cash taxation widespread and put an end to tax-farming. A regular postal service between Kabul and the world was instituted by way of Peshawar. The first public school was opened in the capital and the first Afghan newspaper Šams al-nahār, was published. Several industrial establishments, the first of their kind, were created at Kabul and Herat to meet the needs of the national army. Šēr ʿAlī also engaged in intense diplomatic activity with Afghanistan’s neighbors, though this did not change the fact that all important questions concerning the regional geopolitics continued to be handled directly by the interested great powers, England and Russia. A British mission dealt with the Perso-Afghan territorial dispute in the Sīstān region by marking boundaries that did not satisfy either of the two parties (1288-89/1872). In 1290/1873, an Anglo-Russian accord gave each power a zone of influence in Central Asia, with Afghanistan in the English sphere. But the persistent rivalry between the two imperialist powers condemned any such defined equilibrium to constant instability; while Russia methodically continued its penetration into lower Central Asia (fall of Kokand in 1292/1875), the rise to power of the Tories in London (1874) resulted in the adoption of a foreign policy that was determinedly aggressive (“forward”) and led to a second Anglo-Afghan war. The English wanted to control Afghan politics directly by installing a permanent diplomatic mission at Kabul (since the Treaty of Peshawar, only an Indian Moslem wakīl represented British interests). A request to install this mission was made several times, but the Afghans never granted it because it was not accompanied by an offer for a formal defensive alliance, which they desired to counter the Russian advance in Central Asia. Meanwhile a Moslem agent of the czar was accredited in Kabul in 1875, and three years later General Stoletov arrived without advance notice to negotiate a Russo-Afghan treaty. As a result the British pressed even harder to receive the same treatment, and the amir’s hesitations were interpreted as proof of Russian interference in Afghan affairs. After sending an ultimatum that was left unanswered, the British dispatched three different columns totaling 30,000 men through the Bolān, Paywār, and Khyber passes (Moḥarram, 1296/November, 1878). Only the second met with some resistance. Jalālābād and Qandahār were occupied without fighting, and the capital found itself threatened when Šēr ʿAlī departed, leaving his son Moḥammad Yaʿqūb as regent. The amir went to Bactria where he hoped to receive aid from the Russians, but they had been diplomatically isolated in Europe since the Berlin Congress (1878) and offered nothing. Šēr ʿAlī died a short while later (29 Ṣafar 1296/21 February 1879). As the new amir, Yaʿqūb signed the humiliating Treaty of Gandamak (4 Jomādā II 1296/26 May 1879). In exchange for a guarantee of territorial integrity and an annual subsidy for the amir, Afghanistan lost control of its foreign policy and ceded the strategic districts of Pishin and Sibi at the mouth of the Bolān pass, the lower Kurram valley, and the Afrīdī territory that crosses the Khyber and Michni passes; these were frontier rectifications aimed at establishing the “scientific frontier” of India, a permanent obsession of English policy in Asia in the 19th century. The treaty also required that an English resident be named to Kabul. After the first holder of this post, Sir Louis Cavagnari, was assassinated by mutinous Afghan soldiers forty-seven days after his arrival (16 Ramażān 1296/3 September 1879), on 12 October General Roberts took Kabul, obtained Yaʿqūb’s abdication, and established a military government under his own supervision. During this second occupation of eastern Afghanistan, basic policy differences existed among the British; certain strategists advised the establishment of a British protectorate over Qandahār and the transfer of Herat to Persia, while others favored making the country into a buffer-state between British India and Russian Turkestan. With the return to power of the liberals (1880), the latter solution prevailed. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān (1297-1319/1880-1901). There were two potential candidates to rule Afghanistan in its new role. The first, Sardār ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Khan (b. 1260/1844), was the son of Moḥammad Afżal, the rival of Šēr ʿAlī; he had actively participated in the civil war between his father and uncle before finding refuge in Samarqand, where he lived on a Russian pension for ten years. In February, 1880, he returned to Afghanistan and in a short time was able to gather around himself the government troops stationed in Bactria. The second candidate was one of Šēr ʿAlī’s sons, Sardār Moḥammad Ayyūb Khan, who was at Herat with a powerful and well-equipped army. Despite the fact that the Russians supported ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān, a British offered him the throne, reasoning that he would be more capable of directing a strong buffer-state. On 2 Šaʿbān 1297/22 July 1880, after the ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān had accepted all the clauses of the Gandamak Treaty—although he successfully demanded that the representative of the government of India be once again Sunni Indian and not an Englishman—he was officially declared amir by General Roberts. During this time, Ayyūb Khan with a force of 25,000 men defeated the occupying English army in southern Afghanistan at Maywand (27 July 1880) and besieged Qandahār, but he was soon defeated by Roberts (1 September). In the following months the English evacuated all of Afghanistan except Qandahār, where a garrison was kept until Jomādā I, 1298/April, 1881. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān was an autocrat for whom the unity of the kingdom and the reinforcement of central power went hand in hand, although as a result he was faced with a series of revolts. The most dangerous of these were the successive dynastic claims by two of his cousins, Moḥammad Ayyūb and Moḥammad Esḥāq, the latter like the former the son of an amir (see Table 13) and in charge of an important faction of the Afghan regular army. Moḥammad Ayyūb, whose prestige had increased after the victory of Maywand, was firmly established at Herat and had occupied Qandahār after the departure of the British. In a rapid campaign ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān put a definitive end to his pretensions to the throne (fall of Qandahār, 22 September 1881; of Herat, 2 October). Moḥammad Esḥāq, a popular governor of Afghan Turkestan since the coming to power of ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān, revolted and failed in 1305-06/1888. A second series of revolts originated in the wish of the amir to reduce the fragmentation and autonomy of the tribes, especially by introducing new taxes. Though most of these revolts were rapidly suppressed, the Ḡilzī insurrection lasted until 1304/1887; and the Šinwārīs, who controlled the western access to the Khyber pass, did not give in until 1310/1892. A final series of military expeditions was undertaken in order to annex territories that had remained virtually independent. The Maymana khanate, which had regained its independence in 1296/1879, was reoccupied in 1301/1884. The difficult conquest of the Shiʿite Hazāraǰāt (1309-11/1891-93) and the easier conquest of the pagan Kafiristan (1313-14/1896) were both accompanied by ferocious repression; part of the Hazāra were condemned to exile, while the Kafirs were forced to convert en masse to Sunni Islam. Their country was given the official name of Nūrestān (land of light). At the end of this national unification process, the representatives of “all the tribes” were assembled in Kabul in 1314/1896 to swear loyalty to the amir and give him the title Żīāʾ-al-mella wa’l-dīn. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān’s spectacular success was due largely to the financial subventions and arms given by England in application of the Gandamak Treaty, though this does not in any way detract from his very real political ability. The strengthening of the royal family’s cohesion, the exile or house arrest of influential tribal chiefs, and the promulgation of a rigorous criminal code that instituted a notion of collective responsibility greatly contributed to reinforcing the amir’s authority over the entire country. Finally the massive deployment of Paṧtūn colonists north of the Hindu Kush had a decisive impact, since it led to the uprooting of certain rival tribes (particularly Ḡilzī), the winning over of the new colonists through generous land grants, and the pashtunization of north Afghanistan, where the presence of different ethnic and cultural minorities was favorable to the secessionist tendencies encouraged by czarist propaganda. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān also introduced innovations in the social and economic spheres. Although it is difficult to imagine that the abolition of the levirate (1300/1883) and slavery (1895) had immediate effects, such measures contributed to a change in intellectual climate. Internal exchange benefited from a campaign against highwaymen and an ambitious policy of constructing strategic roads, bridges, and caravanserais. A state monopoly extended meddlesome control over a large part of the country’s internal and external commerce. European industrial technology made a debut when the amir personally recruited English and Indian specialists to construct and direct a whole range of small civil and military industries. English doctors opened the first public clinic in 1895. Yet all of this lacked coherence and remained superficial, since it was concentrated in Kabul, no attention at all was paid to education, and a spirit of isolationism rejected any suggestion of modernizing communications. But the reign’s final accomplishments remain positive. When ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān died in his new summer palace of Bāḡ-e Bālā (19 Jomādā II 1319/3 October 1901), Afghanistan was a strong state with recognized boundaries for the first time in its history. A series of bilateral commissions had successively delimited the borders with Russia in the northwest (1301-03/1884-86) and the northeast (1312-13/1895) and with India in the east (1311-13/1894-96), where the famous Durand Line across the Sulaiman mountains confirmed Afghanistan’s loss of control over the principal routes of access to the Indus valley and created a major Paṧtūn irredentist problem. Ḥabīballāh (1901-19). ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān had chosen his eldest son Ḥabīballāh as his successor in 1895 and kept him in close contact with the exercise of power. Having ascended the throne without opposition—an accomplishment without precedent since 1186/1772—he took the title Serāǰ-al-mella wa’l-dīn and followed policies little different from those of his father. In 1323/1905 he renewed the personal accord which tied the amir of Afghanistan to the British government. He pursued a careful industrial policy with the opening of a wool-weaving industry at Kabul and the construction of the country’s first hydroelectric plant at Jabal al-Serāǰ. And he governed with the same authoritarian methods as his father, a fact that cost him the hostility of a small constitutional party and a series of assassination attempts, the third of which was successful at Kala Gūš (Laḡmān) on 18 Jomādā I 1338/21 February 1919. One of Ḥabīballāh’s first political acts had a large impact: the granting of a general amnesty to all exiles. An elite impressed by foreign culture and exiled by ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān returned and shook the prevailing conservatism of Kabul, turning this city into an active center of intellectual life. The leading role fell to a junior branch of the royal line, the Ṭarzī family, in particular its chief Maḥmūd (see Table 13). A perfect example of Levantine cosmopolitanism—he had lived in Damascus for twenty years—he was a militant nationalist, fervent supporter of modernism, and convinced pan-Islamist; his strong and brilliant personality rapidly attracted a genuine audience. Around him assembled a group of constitutionalist “Young Afghans,” who were anti-British and pro-Turk. They established public education for boys and brought Ottoman doctors and military advisors, a first break in the English monopoly on technological assistance. From 1329/1911 to 1337/1918 the group, animated by Ṭarzī, published in Kabul a semimonthly Persian review called Serāǰ al-aḵbār, which was widely read abroad. They played an important role in the appearance of modernist Islam in Asia at the beginning of the 20th century. A second school of thought was represented by the members of a family from another branch of the Moḥammadzī, the Moṣāḥebān or Yaḥyā Ḵēl, who had returned to Afghanistan from India. They rapidly acquired important positions in the Afghan army’s general staff. Contrary to the Ṭarzī family, they were proponents of a technological orientation in the manner of Anglo-India. Such ideas had already penetrated Afghanistan superficially, and the amir, himself a great devotee of such things as golf, photography, cars, and alcohol, was not insensible to them. A man of weak character, the amir could not decide between these two thoroughly antagonistic schools of thought, in particular concerning the key question of Anglo-Afghan relations. When, despite German pressure, he chose neutrality during World War I, the “Young Afghans” became reconciled with conservative circles, with whom they shared nationalist and anti-British sentiments. This alliance of convenience could not stand the test of the succession crisis that followed Ḥabīballāh’s assassination. At Jalālābād, the winter capital where the court was residing, Naṣrallāh, younger brother of Ḥabīballāh and leader of the conservative and clerical faction, declared himself amir. Simultaneously Amānallāh, one of Ḥabīballāh’s sons and Ṭarzī’s son-in-law, himself close to the “young Afghan” school, also declared himself amir at Kabul, where he had been governor during his father’s absence. He obtained the army’s support and eliminated his rival by publicly accusing him of being involved in the plot against Ḥabīballāh. The Moṣāḥebān seem to have first supported Naṣrallāh; this cost them a short imprisonment before they rallied to Amānallāh. Amānallāh (1919-29). The new amir set out to put the “Young Afghan” program into practice. One of his first gestures was to demand full sovereignty in all matters concerning foreign affairs. Confronted with British hesitations, he called for a ǰehād which came to be known as the third Anglo-Afghan war and resulted in the strengthening of national unity. While the Afghan forces, aided by Wazīrīs and Masʿūds from India, attacked the Thal garrison, the Indian army advanced on Jalālābād and even launched an aerial raid on Kabul. The hostilities lasted a month; the prospect of a new war on the heels of the 1918 armistice did not appeal to the British, and they feared Paṧtūn tribal uprisings along their borders. Hence they were led to sign an armistice and later the Treaty of Rawalpindi (11 Ḏu’l-qaʿda 1337/8 August 1919), which ended their forty year protectorate in Afghanistan. With Ṭarzī as the minister of foreign affairs, the country began to open up to the world and experience profound and brutal changes, evidenced particularly in the mass arrival of foreign diplomats and experts, the opening of French and German schools in Kabul, the sending of Afghan missions to Europe and the Soviet Union, and the signing of several bilateral treaties with Turkey, Persia, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. In June, 1926, Amānallāh symbolically completed this process by abandoning the less important title of amir for the more prestigious one of shah. The second part of the “Young Afghan” program, modernization through a profound transformation of society and the economy, fully occupied the regime for a large part of Amānallāh’s reign. The first Afghan constitution, approved in 1303 Š./1924 by the 1,052 members of the lōya ǰerga (a grand assembly of the country’s leaders), defined the general legal frame for an unprecedented revolution in administrative, judiciary, military, and fiscal affairs. With the aid of French and Turkish experts, more than seventy ordinances (neẓām-nāma) were published over a period of nine years. Symptomatic of the changes, the solar heǰrī calendar officially replaced the lunar calendar in 1301 Š./1922. For the first time in Afghan history encouragement was offered to all private initiatives in economic matters; plots of public land were sold at low prices to strengthen the class of small land-owners, and joint import-export companies were created. Most of these measures had little effect outside of the cities, particularly Kabul, and several came dangerously close to threatening certain forms of tribal autonomy. A new tax on animal breeding was poorly received, and a law establishing identity cards and passports was interpreted as an attempt to restrict free passage across the Durand Line. The latter became the pretext for a violent revolt of the Mangal of Paktīā (1303/1924-25), which in turn led to a marked cooling of the ruling powers’ zeal for reform and a break between the Moṣāḥebān and Amānallāh. Nāder Khan, leader of the former and minister of war from 1919 to 1924, was suspected of being involved in the Mangal revolt, removed from the court, and given an ambassadorial post in Paris; he resigned in 1926 to break free from the policies of the Kabul regime. The pause in reforms lasted only a short time. During a seven-month trip to the Near East and Europe Amānallāh was greatly impressed by Afghanistan’s lag in modernization efforts, especially compared to the achievements of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey and Reżā Shah in Iran. Upon his return he announced a program attacking a whole range of acquired privileges and ancestral customs; it included the suppression of polygamy, the ameliorization of the position of women, a battle against corruption and family patronage, and the secularization of public affairs. But he was not given time to enact his reforms; a minor revolt of the Šinwārī, perhaps manipulated by the British secret service (ʿAqrab, 1307/November, 1928), gave the mollās the opportunity to launch a violent campaign against him. He was accused from all sides of being a usurper, alluding to the manner he ascended the throne, and an enemy of Islam. In a few weeks all of eastern Afghanistan was in revolt and the royal garrisons were defeated one after another. In this atmosphere of civil war, a Tajik adventurer from Kalakān (Kōhdāman), Ḥabīballāh, better known as Bača-ye Saqāo (son of a water carrier), a former soldier who had deserted during the Mangal revolt and escaped through Peshawar, attacked Kabul at the head of a band of Kūhestānīs with vague political-religious objectives combined with the more concrete ambition of pillage and the old anti-Paṧtūn reflex shared by all of Afghanistan’s ethnic minorities. Pushed back a first time in Qaws, 1307 Š./December, 1928, he eventually succeeded in taking the town on 25 Jadī 1307 Š./15 January 1929 and even, on the following day, the royal palace. He immediately proclaimed himself amir with the title Ḥabīballāh Ḵādem-e Dīn-e Rasūlallāh (friend of God, servant of the religion of the Prophet). A double Paṧtūn resistance was almost immediately organized against the Tajik usurper. Amānallāh, who had abdicated on 24 Jadī Š./14 January in favor of his half-brother ʿEnāyatallāh and fled to Qandahār, tried to raise a counter-offensive on Kabul. His appeals to the injured Paṧtūn sense of honor were heeded by the Dorrānī of southern Afghanistan and he was able to start marching towards the capital, although an attack by the Ḡilzī obliged him and his men to turn back at Ḡaznī (30 Ḥamal 1308 Š./19 April 1929). Definitely crushed by this resurgence of the old antagonism between the two main Paṧtūn confederations, the powerless king and his family sought refuge in India before going to Italy, where he lived forgotten until his death in 1339 Š./1960. Nāder Shah (1929-33). Hearing about the events in Afghanistan, Nāder Khan, who was in France with several of his brothers, went to India and from there to Paktīā where, thanks to tribal solidarity, he had no trouble in raising a motley army which he launched towards Kabul. He was forced to retreat several times and it was not until he had received Wazīrī and Masʿūd reinforcements that he captured and sacked the capital (21 Mīzān 1308 Š./13 October 1929). On 24 Mīzān/16 October Nāder was proclaimed king by his troops and on 10 ʿAqrab/1 November, Ḥabīballāh Bača-ye Saqāo was executed along with his principal aides. The only non-Paṧtūn ruler of modern Afghanistan, his reign represents the last major occurrence of tribalism in the country. Nāder Shah’s accession closed the unique parenthesis that Amānallāh’s reign had opened. He reestablished order and restored the national unity, though Kōhdāman and Herat, bastions of Ḥabīballāh’s regime, remained in secession until 1309 Š./1930 and 1310 Š./1931 respectively. Then he began a rapprochement with England while putting an end to liberalization. Most of the previous decade’s reforms were abandoned and a new constitution instituting a bicameral legislature with a strong executive was promulgated (1310 Š./1931). The successors of the “Young Afghans,” who had joined the opposition, were tracked down; a policy of assassination degenerated into a vendetta between the Moṣāḥebān and an opposing clan, the Čarḵī of Lōgar, who were loyal to Amānallāh’s ideals. One of the episodes of this politico-familial badal led to the assassination of the king himself (17 ʿAqrab 1312 Š./8 November 1933). Moḥammad Ẓāher Shah (1933-73). Nāder Shah’s only surviving son, Moḥammad Ẓāher, then nineteen years old, succeeded his father. In reality, the power remained in the hands of two of Nāder’s brothers, Moḥammad Hāšem Khan and Shah Maḥmūd, who held the position of prime minister from 1308-25 Š./1929-46 and 1325-32 Š./1946-53 respectively. With the exception of a short period (1329-31 Š./1950-52), Nāder’s policies were continued, in particular the fight against all demands for liberalism, which was interpreted as a sign of dynastic opposition. In 1332/1953, a new generation came to power: Moḥammad Dāʾūd, cousin and brother-in-law of the king, became prime minister after a bloodless coup d’état. In internal affairs, conservative policies continued, though a campaign for the voluntary discarding of the veil, theatrically launched in 1338 Š./1959, began a slow but irreversible movement toward the liberalization of the feminine condition. In the field of relations with its neighbor states a more significant change took place: In response to a spectacular rapprochement with the Soviet Union, which gained a virtual monopoly on military equipment and training, and most importantly, a substantial penetration into the country’s economy, the existing tensions with Pakistan increased. Ever since the partition of India (1947) Afghanistan had continued to demand a referendum on the political status of “Paṧtūnestān,” i.e., all the Paṧtūn regions situated east of the Durand Line. In 1340 Š./1961 the two countries broke diplomatic relations and closed their borders. A landlocked country, Afghanistan was thrown into an economic impasse, since all its commercial transit had to be reoriented, mostly through the Soviet Union, at an important increase in expense. The necessity for a reconciliation with Pakistan led to the fall of the Dāʾūd regime (13 Ḥūt 1341 Š./3 March 1963) and began a period of personal rule by the king. A constitutional amendment excluding members of the royal family from government positions (1343 Š./1964), followed by a relatively liberal law of the press (1344 Š./1965), seemed to indicate a new phase of liberalism. But the experiment failed because of resistance by the more conservative members of the royal family and the king’s lack of statesmanship and decisiveness. The main result was the emergence of well-structured and more or less radical opposition parties such as the communist People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (Ḥezb-e Demōkrātīk-e Ḵalq-e Afḡānestān), which held its first congress on 11 Jadī 1343 Š./1 January 1965 and underwent a scission in 1967. Popular and student demonstrations, sometimes violent, were organized for the first time in Kabul (for example, 3 ʿAqrab 1344 Š./25 October 1965), but they only resulted in a strengthening of conservative circles. Finally, an alliance between some of the leftist forces and the Dāʾūd hardliners led to a coup d’état on 26 Saraṭān 1352 Š./17 July 1973. Taking advantage of the king’s absence abroad for health reasons, the army put Dāʾūd back in power and a republic was proclaimed with popular enthusiasm, thus ending the longest reign in the history of the Afghan monarchy. Moḥammad Ẓāher’s most positive heritage was in the economic sector: Since 1335 Š./1956 a policy of laissez-faire had resulted in the development of small-scale industries, large commercial and banking enterprises, and a modern road network. These results were mostly indebted to the economic assistance provided by Soviet-American competition. The United States, which had been represented in Afghanistan since 1322 Š./1943, had inherited the role of defending the Western bloc’s geo-strategic interests in the area from England. Dāʾūd (1973-78). The left was rapidly disillusioned by Dāʾūd. After being named president of the republic by a lōya ǰerga (1355/1977), he abandoned his claims to be a defender of liberties and resumed the authoritarianism and conservatism of the royal era: The Liberty of the press was suppressed, clientalism and corruption flourished, and foreign affairs became more and more unbalanced in favor of the West with a growing demand for economic aid from Iran and Arab states. In this context the communist left managed to reunite in 1356 Š./1977; facing the threat of physical elimination, they defended themselves with a bloody coup d’état on 7 Ṯawr 1357 Š./27 April 1978, during which Dāʾūd and his family were killed. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was proclaimed and a revolutionary council was put in place with Nūr Moḥammad Tarakī at its head. A Ḡilzay of rural and provincial background, he was born in 1296 Š./1917 and served as a low-level civil servant, acquiring a certain notoriety for his literary output with its rather lifeless realism. He founded the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan and remained its secretary general. His new government issued a series of revolutionary decrees, such as agricultural reform, the abolition of usury, and the promotion of women; the repeal of the Afghan citizenship of all exiled members of the royal family had a particular symbolic value. A new treaty of friendship was signed with the USSR (14 Qaws 1357 Š./5 December 1978). But internal dissension within the left reappeared, leading to a progressive paralysis of decision making. The elimination of the Paṛčam branch during the summer of 1357 Š./1978, soon followed by the execution of Tarakī in Sonbola, 1358 Š./September, 1979, by his right-hand man, Ḥafīẓallāh Amīn, created an increasingly chaotic situation. To ensure that the changes instituted by the new regime would survive, the Soviet army intervened on 6 Jadī 1358 Š./27 December 1979 by deposing the Amīn government, which had ruled by terror, and installing members of Paṛčam, led by Babrak Kārmal (born 1308 Š./1929). Bibliography : 1. The main Persian sources are listed in Storey, I, pp. 395-407, 1303-05. D. Saidmuradova has recently edited a ms. of Tārīḵ-e Aḥmadšāhī by Maḥmūd Ḥosaynī (Storey, p. 395), Moscow, 1974. For the Ottoman correspondence of Aḥmad Shah, see Ḡ. Jīlānī Jalālī, Nāma-ye aʿlāḥażrat Aḥmad Šāh Bābā be-nām-e aʿlāḥażrat Solṭān Moṣṭafā ṯāleṯ-e ʿoṯmānī, Kabul, 1346 Š./1967. The personal archives of ʿEnāyatallāh Khan, king for a few hours in 1929, have been surveyed by S. Shokhumorov, “Axram-i Xuzur” kak istochnik po istorii Afganistana nachala XX v., Moscow, 1980. See also Fayż Moḥammad, Serāǰ al-tawārīḵ (Storey, p. 406), three parts in two vols., Kabul, 1331-33/1912-14; a fourth part is kept in ms. in the National Archives (Āršīf-e Mellī) of Afghanistan. Concerning the richest English sources, kept in the India Office library, see L. Hall, A Brief Guide to Sources for the Study of Afghanistan in the India Office Records, London, 1981. On libraries in the subcontinent, see the superficial work by idem, “Archival Resources for Afghan History in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Afghan Studies 2, 1979, pp. 75-77. The National Archives of India (New Delhi) are rich in material, and their detailed and complete indexation facilitates consultation. 2. General works. The two best works on the history of Afghanistan are P. M. Sykes, A History of Afghanistan, 2 vols., London, 1940, repr. New Delhi, 1981, and V. M. Masson and V. A. Romodin, Istoriya Afganistana, 2 vols., Moscow, 1964-5. See also M. Ḡ. M. Ḡobār, Afḡānestān dar masīr-e tārīk², Kabul, 1346/1967; the liberal and controversial character of this work, which does not deal with the period after 1929, made it an immediate best seller in Kabul when it was released from confiscation after the revolution of 1978. A chronology of the events from 1747 to 1968 is provided by G. Grassmuck, L. W. Adamec, and F. H. Irwin (eds.), Afghanistan. Some New Approaches, Ann Arbor, 1969, pp. 260-338. This chronology can be supplemented by G. Vercellin, “Afghanistan 1919-1971: cronologia degli avvenimenti,” Oriente Moderno 53, 1973, pp. 382-428, and idem, Afghanistan 1973-1978: dalla Repubblica Presidenziale alla Repubblica Democratica, Venice, 1979, especially pp. 133-48 (chronology stops 30 June 1978). The main actors of Afghan history since the 18th century are listed in L. W. Adamec, Historical and Political Who’s Who of Afghanistan, Graz, 1975; First Supplement, Graz, 1979. The main British and to a lesser extent Indian participants in 19th century events can be found in C. E. Buckland, Dictionary of Indian Biography, London, 1906, repr. Varanasi, 1971. Afghan historiography has been largely dominated by foreign writers often not sufficiently acquainted with the publications of the Afghan historical school; the latter have become the object of a timely examination by J. -H. Grevemeyer, “Bericht über die publizierte afghanische Historiographie,” in C. Rathjens, ed., Neue Forschungen in Afghanistan, Opladen, 1981, pp. 27-37. 3. The 18th century. For the history of Afghanistan at the beginning of the 18th century, the major works of reference are L. Lockhart, The Fall of the Safavi Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia, Cambridge, 1958, and idem, Nader Shah. A Critical Study Based Mainly Upon Contemporary Sources, London, 1938; repr. Lahore, 1976. See also A. R. Bīnawā, Hōtakīhā, Kabul, 1335 Š./1956. Concerning the founder of the Dorrānī dynasty, see G. Singh, Ahmad Shah Durrani, Father of Modern Afghanistan, Bombay, 1959, repr. Quetta, 1977. For his successors, the only notable works are ʿA. Wakīlī Fōfalzāy, Tīmūr Šāh Dorrānī, 2 vols., Kabul, 1346 Š./1967, and idem, Dorrat al-zamān fī tārīḵ-e Šāh Zamān, Kabul, 1337 Š./1958. For the institutional aspects of the Sadōzay empire, see Yu. V. Gankovskiĭ, Imperiya Durrani. Ocherki administrativnoĭ i voennoĭ sistemy, Moscow, 1959; Paṧtō tr., Kabul, 1357 Š./1979. The best historical picture of Afghanistan at the dawn of the 19th century remains that of M. Elphinstone, An account of the Kingdom of Caubul and its Dependencies in Persia, Tartary, and India, London, 1815, repr. Graz, 1969; 3rd ed. with minor corrections, London, 1839, repr. Karachi, 1972. This famous work has been translated into the main European languages as well as Paṧtō (Kabul, 1360 Š./1981). 4. The 19th century. There is no recent synthesis of the especially confused history of the first half of the 19th century. One can refer to S. Q. Reštīā, Afḡānestān dar qarn-e nozdah, Kabul, 3rd edition, 1346 Š./1967, Russian tr., Moscow, 1958. See also contemporary accounts, especially Mohan Lal, Life of Amir Dost Mohammad Khan of Kabul, 2 vols., London, 1846, repr. Karachi, 1978, and J. P. Ferrier, History of the Afghans, London, 1858. The English sources have been exploited by M. E. Yapp, “Disturbances in Eastern Afghanistan, 1839-42,” BSOAS 25, 1962, pp. 499-523. Idem, “Disturbances in Western Afghanistan, 1839-41,” BSOAS 26, 1963, pp. 288-313. Idem, “The Revolutions of 1841-2 in Afghanistan,” BSOAS 27, 1964, pp. 333-81. Historians have turned most of their attention to Afghan relations with Anglo-India. The following cover almost two centuries: B. Varma, English East India Company and the Afghans, 1757-1800, Calcutta, 1968. M. E. Yapp, Strategies of British India: Britain, Iran and Afghanistan, 1798-1850, Oxford, 1980. D. P. Singhal, India and Afghanistan 1876-1907. A Study in Diplomatic Relations, St. Lucia, Queensland, 1963. A. Sareen, India and Afghanistan. British Imperialism vs. Afghan Nationalism 1907-1921, New Delhi, 1981. H. A. S. Jafri, Indo-Afghan Relations (1947-67), New Delhi, 1976. The 1921-47 gap has been filled by the ambitious work of L. W. Adamec, Afghanistan’s Foreign Affairs to the Mid-Twentieth Century. Relations with the USSR, Germany, and Britain, Tucson, 1974. A well-documented but event-oriented and anecdotal work devoted specifically to the three Anglo-Afghan wars is T. A. Heathcote, The Afghan Wars 1839-1919, London, 1980. Of the three successive conflicts, only the first has been analyzed scientifically: J. A. Norris, The First Afghan War 1838-1842, Cambridge, 1967. For accounts of the other two, see the narratives of the English participants themselves, e.g., H. B. Hanna, The Second Afghan War, 1878-1879-1880. Its Causes, its Conduct and its Consequences, 3 vols., Westminster-London, 1899-1910, and G. N. Molesworth, Afghanistan 1919, An Account of Operations in the Third Afghan War, Bombay, 1962. 5. Since 1880. An excellent synthesis of contemporary Afghan history has been written by V. Gregorian, The Emergence of Modern Afghanistan. Politics of Reform and Modernization, 1880-1946, Stanford, 1969 (with a rich multilingual bibliography). A more profound study of the history and significance of ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān’s reign is offered by H. K. Kakar in two complementary works: Afghanistan. A Study |