The second edition of the "History of the Tajik people", volume I " The most ancient and ancient history "(Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan, A. Donish Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography. Edited by Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan B. A. Litvinsky and Corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan V. A. Ranov. Dushanbe, 1998). The book was published at the request of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Tajikistan in the Islamic Republic of Iran under the supervision of Dr. Aliasgar Sheardust. SURUSH Publishing House. Radio and Television Publishing House of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This capital work is undoubtedly a major achievement of science. It will still be appreciated in detailed reviews and reviews. In this brief note, I would like to draw attention to the following. Editing and preparation of this book for publication took place in the following areas:

page 238

difficult conditions. Many authors (including the author of these lines) did not have the opportunity to get acquainted with the latest editorial revision of the text at all. Hence the completely unavoidable typos, errors, and misrepresentations under such circumstances.

In this connection, I would like to mention in particular chapter XI " Written monuments in the Iranian languages of the peoples of Central Asia (before the eighth century AD) "(pp. 492-523, 704-713). This chapter was started by the outstanding Iranist A. L. Khromov, who left prematurely, and I had to finish it. My additions in the chapter text should be highlighted in square brackets. Unfortunately, in this edition, these brackets (within chapter IX) are placed quite arbitrarily. I actually own the following parts of the chapter: 1) section "Monuments of the Parthian language" - the entire text, from the words "In this section..." to the words " ... see below. - I. P.] "(pp. 515-517); 2) section "Written monuments in the Bactrian language": parts of the text from the words " Yu. Inscription on the pedestal... "to the words" ... in India. - I. P.] "(pp. 519-520) and from the words" [By now..." up to the words "... it is impossible to say. - I. P.] "(p. 520-here it is correct); 3) the section "Monuments of unknown writing" - all, from the words " About monuments..." before the words "... ancient traditions. - I. P.] " (pp. 521-523). Accordingly, I also have the notes of this chapter related to the parts indicated here (pp. 704-713).

The noted inaccuracies led, for example, to the fact that my "Central Iranian" hypothesis was attributed to A. L. Khromov, the essence of which boils down to the following: the agricultural oases of Central Asia and Eastern Iran - the country of the Arians of the ancient tradition - in the VII-II centuries BC (and, apparently, earlier) - were inhabited by a separate ethnic community, It occupied an intermediate position between Western and eastern Iranians and spoke ancient Iranian languages, which included both Avestan dialects. This hypothesis was presented by me, in particular, on the pages of the journal " Bulletin of Ancient History "(1996. N 3. pp. 21-23). However, A. L. Khromov definitely held a different point of view on these issues, which was generally accepted in his time, as can be clearly seen at least in the parts of the same chapter XI that belong to him (cf., for example, p. 499). I think that Albert Leonidovich would hardly have been satisfied with such a "development" of his views attributed to him.

16. VIII. 1999

Permanent link to this publication: