On the Question of the Time and Conditions of the Origin of the Nart Epic, Zurab Anchabadze

Address at the All-Union Scientific Conference of Nart Scholars, Sukhum, November 1963.

Originally from a personal archive. Published in: Z. V. Anchabadze, Selected Works, Volume II (Sukhum, 2011), pp. 247-269.

Translated by AbkhazWorld

The present report is dedicated to one of the most important and contentious issues in the study of the Nart epic: the question of the time and conditions of its origin. Addressing this problem requires answers to the questions of where, that is, in which geographical region; when, in which chronological period; in which specific historical setting (in this case, I refer to a certain stage in the development of the primitive communal formation); and, finally, in which ethnic milieu the Nart epic originated.

But before proceeding to the presentation of materials directly related to the topic of my report, allow me to make a few preliminary remarks.

Dear A.A. Petrosyan, mentioning yesterday the reports by U.B. Dalgat and myself, noted that they are dedicated to contentious issues of the Nart epic. (Incidentally, U.B. Dalgat's report is indeed titled as such). In this connection, allow me to note that if anyone should have critical remarks concerning our reports (and they certainly may), I, for one, have no fundamental disagreements with U.B. Dalgat on questions of the Nart epic. I was very satisfied when, after listening to her interesting and substantial report, I found that a whole series of points I wished to share with you had been addressed in her report, and in much the same form as I had intended to do myself. That is my first remark.

The second remark, which I consider necessary to make before my esteemed colleagues in folklore studies, is that, although my own specialisation does not directly relate to folklore, I have nevertheless decided to present my paper, since I believe that as a historian I might perhaps be of some use in researching certain details of a historical epic which reflects a specific stage in the development of the society that created it.

My third preliminary remark is as follows: Twenty years ago, in Tbilisi, I had the opportunity to hear a report by our most eminent Nart scholar, the highly respected Vasily Ivanovich Abaev. The report was dedicated to problems of the origin and development of the Nart epic. In this report, Professor V.I. Abaev, touching upon the Abkhaz Nart tales, stated that they were not native to the Abkhaz people and were prevalent amongst the Abkhaz only in a fragmentary form. This led him to conclude that the Nart tales found amongst the Abkhaz were borrowed by them from other peoples.

Some time later, V.I. Abaev came to Abkhazia on a research trip to study a number of questions that interested him, amongst which one of the main ones was the question of the Nart epic. Even before the publication of his article dedicated to the results of his Abkhaz expedition, I had the pleasure of a personal conversation with him, in which he informed me that his previous opinion—that the Nart epic had limited prevalence amongst the Abkhaz—had not been confirmed; he was now convinced that the Nart epic was widely spread amongst the Abkhaz people, and therefore deserved special attention and study.

In his address at the first Nart conference in the city of Ordzhonikidze, V.I. Abaev then raised the question of the originality and distinctiveness of the Abkhaz Nart epic and suggested that, alongside the known centres of the formation and development of the Nart epic—the Ossetian and Adyghe—it might be necessary to recognise a third centre: the Abkhaz. And I was very glad when yesterday, in his report, he stated that there indeed existed three centres of the Nart epic: the Ossetian, the Adyghe, and the Abkhaz. This progression in the development of V.I. Abaev's views confirms that in the Abkhaz tales we have a variant of the Nart epic which fully allows us to utilise it in addressing the most pressing questions of Nart studies.

I would also like to touch upon the evolution in the views of the esteemed E.M. Meletinsky. In his previous statements regarding the Nart epic and, in particular, concerning the ethnic milieu in which it arose, E.M. Meletinsky held the view that this epic was borrowed from Scythian-Alan-Sarmatian tribes. He suggested, for example, that the Kabardians, since they occupied territory previously inhabited by Ossetians, could have borrowed this epic precisely from the Ossetians. As for the Abkhaz epic, E.M. Meletinsky considered that it held no independent significance and was an adjunct to the Adyghe Nart tales.

However, listening to E.M. Meletinsky's report yesterday, I had the pleasure of noting that he, too, has changed his point of view. Just like V.I. Abaev, he now recognises the independent, original significance of the Abkhaz Nart epic, believes that one cannot speak of any single people as the creator of the epic, and posits that the Nart epic is the creation of the ancestors of a whole series of peoples living in the territory of the Central and Northwestern Caucasus, namely: the Ossetians, Kabardians, Cherkess, Adyghe, Abkhaz, Ingush, Chechens, and some others.

I consider it entirely justified to make use of this position and to utilise the Abkhaz variant of the Nart epic as an important aid in posing and resolving a number of fundamental questions in Nart studies.

I shall now move directly to the topic of my report.

What, then, are the current conceptions regarding the questions posed at the beginning of this report?

Some researchers believe that the Nart epic arose mainly in the territory of the North Caucasus, but others allow for the possibility of including some regions to the north of the Caucasus within the geographical area of its formation. A third group of authors expands this area even further, incorporating the territory of Western Transcaucasia. I have the relevant excerpts and quotations to hand, but in order not to overburden the report, I will not dwell on this specifically. I will only note that, on the question of the geographical area of the Nart epic's distribution, there is currently no unified point of view.

The second question—a more important one—is the question of the stage of socio-economic development that is primarily reflected in the epic. As some researchers of the Nart epic, and first and foremost V.I. Abaev, rightly note, this epic, like analogous epics of other peoples, is multi-stadial and multi-layered; that is, it reflects a series of stages in the socio-economic history of the people who created it.

Yet, at the same time, there must have been one specific stage of historical development to which the appearance of the epic's core should be attributed. On this question, too, disagreements exist. Some authors believe (or believed) that the main core of the Nart epic arose in the era of matriarchy. The chief argument they employ is, naturally, the figure of Sataney-Shataney. In this figure, they see the primary, initial stage of the epic's origin and date it to the era of matriarchy. This point of view was held by K.D. Kulov in his work Matriarchy in Ossetia, published in 1935.

A similar tendency was manifested in the works of several other researchers. For example, E.M. Meletinsky, in his book The Origin of the Heroic Epic, speaks of the "matriarchal community of the Narts". Sh.D. Inal-ipa also wrote (in the book The Abkhaz) that "Nart society is organised into a maternal clan" (although elsewhere he attributes the origin of the epic to the era of patriarchy).

The second point of view amounts to dating the epic's origin to the era of early patriarchy. This view is now held by the aforementioned K.D. Kulov, who has renounced his previous dating of the epic to the period of matriarchy. As a result, the dating of the main core of the epic has been moved up by entire millennia.

However, the overwhelming majority of Nart epic researchers, in our view, correctly attribute the epic's origin to the late patriarchal era and chronologically date it to the first half of the 1st millennium BCE. It is well known that the period of late patriarchy saw an intensive process of disintegration of the primitive communal system.

As for the question of the ethnic milieu in which the Nart epic took shape, here too certain disagreements exist.

In former times, when the Ossetian Nart tales were well known, the Adyghe ones to a lesser extent, and the Abkhaz ones not at all, a viewpoint was advanced according to which the creator of the Nart epic was the Ossetian people, in the person of their ancestors, primarily the Alans. This viewpoint was persistently promoted by V.I. Abaev. He was supported by some historians (B.V. Skitsky, L.P. Semenov, et al.), who attempted to substantiate this position with historical material.

At the same time, another viewpoint was advanced, cautiously but also persistently, according to which the Nart epic was not an Alan but an Adyghe epic. However, progress in the field of Nart studies has allowed us to overcome these narrow viewpoints, and today the majority of researchers adhere to the view that, overall, the Nart epic is a multinational epic (within the confines of the North Caucasus and partially Transcaucasia). It is true that amongst some peoples it exists in a complete form, whilst amongst others it is less richly represented; but such contemporary peoples of the Caucasus as the Ossetians, Adyghe, Kabardians, Cherkess, and Abkhaz are the indigenous bearers of this epic. This position is one of the most important conclusions made at the first Nart conference in Ordzhonikidze.

Nevertheless, the question of the origin of the initial core of the Nart epic remains unresolved. V.I. Abaev still maintains that the creators of the main core of the epic are Scythian-Sarmatian elements. He promotes this viewpoint, for instance, in the preface to the book Narty [The Narts], published in Moscow in 1957. What opinion Vasily Ivanovich holds on this question now, he may perhaps state in his own report.

In other words, concerning the question of the ethnic milieu that created the initial core of the epic, V.I. Abaev and a number of other authors continue to put forward the Scythian-Sarmatian-Alan milieu, which appeared in the North Caucasus no earlier than the 7th century BCE from Central and Inner Asia. Therefore, the question is effectively posed as one of the Nart epic being introduced by Iranian-speaking elements who immigrated to the Caucasus, and then being borrowed by the indigenous population of the Caucasus—the ancestors of the Adyghes, Abkhaz, and others—from the Scythian-Sarmatian newcomers.

However, recently, individual specialists (not only folklorists, but also ethnographers, historians, archaeologists, etc.) have been speaking out more boldly, insisting that the ethnic milieu which created the epic was local, indigenous, Caucasian, and pre-Alan.

Although attempts to provide a correct solution to the question of the origin of the main core of the Nart tales have so far been made only in a general form—in articles, reviews, or reports—we are nonetheless obliged to note these works. First and foremost, I would like to recall the outstanding scholar, a leading specialist in the ethnography of the Caucasian peoples, G.F. Chursin. As early as 1931, he published a brief annotation of his interesting report on the "Abkhaz-Ossetian Japhetic World," in which he emphasised that the peoples of the Central and Northwestern Caucasus are distinguished by a unity of culture. One of the important positions he put forward was the question of the common roots of the Nart epic for these peoples.

This was the first correct formulation of the question, and it is characteristic that it was advanced not only as a result of studying the Nart epic, but also on the basis of a deep knowledge of the ethnography of the Caucasian peoples.

Next, I want to note a short review by B.A. Gardanov, published in 1947, on one of V.I. Abaev's works. This review raises a number of important questions about the origin and ethnic milieu of the Nart epic. In particular, B.A. Gardanov emphasises the pan-Caucasian origin of the Nart epic.

More recently, E.I. Krupnov has spoken on this question; in his work The Ancient History of the North Caucasus, polemicising with E.M. Meletinsky and V.I. Abaev, he demonstrates that the Nart epic took shape in a Caucasian milieu prior to the Alan era.

The positions I intend to develop in my report are not something new and original. In the main, I adhere to the views of authors such as B.A. Gardanov. But I will attempt to provide additional substantiation for these positions, drawing on material from the Abkhaz Nart tales.

Taking into account that our session is attended not only by specialists but also by a wider audience, I would like to note that the publications of the Nart epic that we have at our disposal today are insufficient, both in terms of the volume of their content and the form of their presentation, to provide grounds for definitive conclusions. Let us take, for example, the Abkhaz publication The Adventures of the Nart Sasrykva and His 99 Brothers—this is a splendid translation, in prose by G.D. Gulia and in verse by S.I. Lipkin, that indefatigable translator of folk poetry not only of the Abkhaz but of other Caucasian peoples as well. Nevertheless, I believe that from a scientific point of view—and I think the specialists present here will agree with me—we cannot utilise these translations in the same way as we might, for instance, the publication made by Sh.D. Inal-ipa in 1949.

This remark applies even more so to the collection of the South Ossetian variant of the Nart tales, published in Moscow by V. Abaev and V. Koloev, where for the convenience of readers the prose tales are fully rendered in verse. For the reader, verse is of course easier to perceive, but in scholarly work it is more difficult to operate with such material. The Kabardian publication is also not entirely successful in this regard.

In this respect, it seems to me that the best publication, the one closest to the original and reflecting its specificity, is the North Ossetian one (1948 and 1949), which provides an exact translation of all the main tales in the form they exist amongst the people, predominantly in prose and in certain cases in the form of blank verse.

This is all we have at our disposal, not counting individual cycles of the epic (Ossetian and Kabardian) that were published earlier. So, we still lack sufficient materials that are sound from the point of view of scholarly significance, and therefore the advancement of particular theses on the basis of scientifically published material is a matter for the future. The interests of the further development of Nart studies urgently require the scientific publication of the variants and versions of all epic cycles current amongst the various peoples of the Caucasus.

I now turn specifically to the question of the time and historical conditions of the origin of the Nart epic.

U.B. Dalgat and some other speakers have already touched upon this question here. But it seems to me that the time has come to speak of this not in general terms, citing particular, more or less characteristic details of the epic, but for specialists (folklorists, historians, ethnographers, linguists, etc.) to join forces and resolve this problem in a monographic fashion. For me personally, as a historian, there is no doubt that in the Nart epic we are dealing predominantly with the late stage of the patriarchal system, a stage where all the basic features of patriarchal society—both base and superstructural—are still present, but where clear signs of its socio-economic disintegration are also making themselves felt.

Amongst these signs, the most important are the rudiments of private property, the accumulation of wealth by individual Nart clans, and the political system of "military democracy." Let us take, for example, the "popular assemblies" of the Narts (the Great Khasa, Nykhas). In all the main variants of the epic—Abkhaz, Adyghe, and Ossetian—these are typical popular assemblies of the late patriarchal era, i.e., assemblies of adult male warriors, to which neither women nor children are admitted. At the same time, at this "popular" assembly, the first word always belongs to the elder and well-born Narts, whilst the main mass of ordinary Narts is effectively relegated to the background.

Another institution associated with the system of military democracy is the council of elders, called the Lesser Khasa in the Adyghe variant of the epic. It plays a decisive role in the daily life of the Narts.

In this connection, I also want to dwell on the Abkhaz Nart tales. Specialists note that in them, matriarchal features are manifested more vividly and prominently than in other national variants of the Nart epic; nevertheless, Abkhaz Nart society too, despite being headed by a woman (Sataney-Guasha), lives under conditions of a typical patriarchal system.

Take, for instance, the motif of blood feud. In his early work dedicated to the Abkhaz Nart tales, Sh.D. Inal-ipa wrote that blood feud is completely alien to the Abkhaz Nart epic. But at that time he had little material, and it later became clear that this motif is not alien to the Abkhaz epic. Blood feud may be weakly reflected in the epic, but in the tale of Sharuan this motif manifests itself very vividly.

Inal-ipa: But that particular tale is later.

Anchabadze: The tale is later, but it does not fall outside the framework of the epic's main core. Now you write that in the Abkhaz tales the motif of blood feud is "almost" absent, whereas before you wrote it was "completely" absent. Undoubtedly, further collection of material will provide us with additional information on this question. But if this motif (blood feud) is weakly reflected in the Abkhaz variant, this once again indicates that this epic represents a lower stage of late patriarchal society than do the Ossetian and Adyghe tales, where we have a high stage of late patriarchy, for which blood feud is a typical phenomenon.

Let us take another episode: the birth of Sasrykva. According to the Abkhaz variant of the epic, the sons of Sataney-Guasha, headed by the eldest son Sit, pose the question bluntly to their mother—where did the child come from? ("let not the family of the Narts know disgrace"), demanding an explanation for Sasrykva's appearance and doubting that their father—a feeble old man (and in other variants the father is entirely absent)—had any role in it. Is this situation matriarchal? Of course not. Such an attitude towards the mother is possible only under conditions of a late patriarchal society.

This is also confirmed by the presence of patrilocal marital settlements amongst the Abkhaz Narts; with the exception of Sasrykva, all Narts, after marriage, bring their wives to their own home. Even Sataney-Guasha herself, by origin, belongs not to the Nart clan but to the clan of the Aelkhvys, and she lives amongst the Narts on a patrilocal basis.

One could point to a whole series of other features (systematic military campaigns, the leading role of men in the economy, etc.) which provide grounds for asserting that the stage of social development of the Abkhaz Narts does not, in principle, differ from the level of development of the Adyghe or even the Ossetian Narts.

+ Characteristics of the ‘Shepherd’ Image in the Abkhaz Nart Sagas, by Vladislav Ardzinba

+ Abkhazian Cult of Thunder and Lightning and its North Caucasian Parallels, by Viacheslav Chirikba

+ Aetiological Remarks And Legends In The Context Of Abkhazian Nart Epic

At the same time, E.M. Meletinsky and Sh.D. Inal-ipa are quite right that the Abkhaz Nart tales are more archaic than the Adyghe or Ossetian ones. One can adduce many examples confirming this circumstance. Let us point, first and foremost, to the figure of Sataney-Guasha, which, as is known, is always brought to the fore when characterising matriarchal survivals in Nart society. If we compare the Abkhaz Sataney-Guasha with the Adyghe Satana and the Ossetian Shatana, we will see that the first has preserved significantly more matriarchal features. The Abkhaz Sataney is truly the mother and leader of the Nart community. All the Narts are her sons. Let us recall the situation of Sasrykva's conception. Sataney went to the river bank and on the opposite shore saw a shepherd who pleased her. She ordered him to swim across to her, and he attempted to obey her unquestioningly. The same scene is characterised by essential differences in the Adyghe variant of the epic. The Adyghe Satana also stands on the river bank, and on the opposite side is a shepherd. But they seem to swap roles: it is not Satana who shows initiative, but the shepherd. It is he who seeks her love, whilst she submits to him, behaving like a woman under patriarchal conditions. In the Ossetian tales, Shatana has the most remote relation to the appearance of Sosruko. In one case, his parent is Uryzmag—Shatana's husband. He caresses a stone in a cave, and Shatana then extracts from this stone the son of her husband, i.e., she acts merely as a midwife. In another case, the father of Sosruko is Khamyts, and Shatana has no relation whatsoever to his birth. Thus, the Abkhaz Shatana is more the mother of Sasrykva and the other Narts than is the Adyghe or Ossetian one.

Let us take the scene of Sasrykva's acceptance into Nart society. When the Abkhaz Narts, doubting Sasrykva's Nart origin, demanded that his mother explain where he came from, Sataney-Guasha authoritatively replied that Sasrykva was a true Nart and ordered her sons to accept him into their midst. We find a different situation in the Adyghe tales. First of all, the appearance of Sosruko provoked indignation amongst the Nart women. Everyone fell upon Satana—where, they cried, did she get a child, since she has no husband—they even called her a wanton woman. Such a situation is, of course, alien to matriarchal living conditions. And when she decided to introduce her beloved son into the circle of the Narts, setting off for the khasa, she dressed and adorned herself to please the Nart elders. But they gave her a sharp rebuff when she asked for Sosruko to be admitted to the khasa. In response to Satana's request, one of the Narts answers her:

"We respect our Mothers, But to the Khasa, heroes Are not summoned at women's request..."

The Narts refuse Satana her request—and she is forced to leave with nothing.

As for the Ossetian variant of the epic, there is absolutely no such situation (of Shatana requesting that Sosruko be accepted amongst the Narts); here, Sozurko-Soslan is a Nart from the very beginning, as the son of Uryzmag or Khamyts, and nothing is even asked of Shatana in this matter.

Furthermore, I will cite a very characteristic passage from the Ossetian epic:

"The elder amongst the Narts is the old man Uryzmag, Their mistress is the wise Shatana..."

Here we have one of the confirmations of what U.B. Dalgat spoke about in her report: Shatana is the typical matron of a large patriarchal family; it is not for nothing that she calls her husband (Uryzmag) "the master of my head." This does not preclude Shatana from being a wise woman, and the Narts, including her husband, often turn to her for advice. Certainly, Shatana too has preserved matriarchal features, but the Abkhaz Sataney appears in a particularly vivid matriarchal guise.

The greater archaism of the Abkhaz variant of the epic in comparison with the Ossetian and even the Adyghe is also striking when one becomes acquainted with other heroes of the epic. In this case, I have in mind Batradz and Tsvitsv. They are undoubtedly doubles—this is confirmed by a whole series of points connected with their birth, upbringing, and place in Nart society. But if we analyse even just the situation of the hero's birth, we will see that Tsvitsv has more matriarchal features than Batradz or Patarez. In the latter case, the mother, angered at her husband, casts out the foetus and, making an incision in Batradz's back, inserts the foetus there. Then, effectively, the father gives birth to the son, and the mother has no relation whatsoever to his upbringing.

We see a different situation in the birth and upbringing of Tsvitsv. Here, despite the mother being angry with her husband, she does not abandon her son and always protects him. She gives him a magic cap and a sword, with the help of which Tsvitsv performs his feats.

I could multiply such analogous examples considerably, but those cited are sufficient to draw a firm conclusion about the more archaic character of the Abkhaz Nart tales compared to those currently current amongst the Adyghes and Ossetians. This conclusion, drawn by my esteemed predecessors, is undoubtedly correct. At the same time, I consider it necessary to once again emphasise that, overall, despite the stronger matriarchal survivals, Abkhaz Nart society is just as late patriarchal as the Adyghe and Ossetian, i.e., here too we see reflections of the disintegration of the primitive communal system and the presence of a fully formed institution of military democracy.

The second question concerns the place and time of the origin of the main core of the Nart epic.

It is not by chance that I have dwelt in such detail on the question of the greater archaism of the Abkhaz (and also Adyghe) Nart tales. This circumstance allows us to form the firm conviction that the Nart epic could not have arisen beyond the confines of the Caucasus and been brought here by the Iranian-speaking ancestors of the Ossetians.

Certainly, these latter must also have had an analogous epic, for an epic of this kind always arises amongst patriarchal tribes in the "heroic" period of their history. The ancient Alan epic, it seems, became incorporated, in some part, into the Nart epic alongside the tales inherited from the aboriginal substrate people, and subsequently coalesced into the Ossetian variant of the Nart epic. The main area of the Nart epic's formation is the Central and Northwestern Caucasus, not excluding the territory of Western Georgia. It is precisely in this area, at the turn of the 2nd–1st millennia BCE, that very close interconnections amongst the local population are attested for that time.

E.M. Meletinsky spoke of this here yesterday, citing Krupnov and other authors. E.I. Krupnov believes that the three cultures current at that time in this territory—the Koban, the Kuban, and the Colchian—are most closely related to one another and, taken together, differ substantially from, for example, the Eastern Caucasian culture.

The period of existence of the named cultures coincides precisely with the time of the intensive disintegration of the primitive communal system amongst the tribes inhabiting the indicated territory. This is precisely the period that is most reflected in the Nart epic.

As archaeological materials show, the inhabitants of these three cultural areas had the closest connections of various kinds: economic, cultural, and undoubtedly political. It was precisely in this period that the most favourable conditions existed for the formation of a common epic amongst the ancestors of the present-day Adyghes and Ossetians.

It should be noted that the territory of Abkhazia is generally included by archaeologists within the area of the Colchian culture, but at the same time it is distinguished by specific features, allowing it to be placed in a special position within the system of that culture. Georgian archaeologists believe that a highly original, distinctive variant of the Colchian culture existed in Abkhazia. One feature of this distinctiveness was that, culturally, Abkhazia was much more closely connected with the neighbouring North Caucasian cultures in the first half of the 1st millennium BCE than were other areas of the Colchian culture's distribution. Consequently, in that period the population of Abkhazia was especially connected with the North Caucasus, with whose inhabitants it had not only close cultural ties but also ethnic kinship, possibly closer than is the case today, as contemporary researchers not without reason assert.

The question of the formation of the main core of the Nart epic can be resolved, in my conviction, only within the aspect of the considerations and facts outlined above. E.M. Meletinsky rightly noted yesterday that one should not delve too deeply into this question and reduce the epic's origin to any single people, as some specialists have proposed.

In which chronological period did the main core of the Nart epic take shape? In answering this question, we must note the possibility of dating with absolute precision that stage of socio-economic development of the peoples of the Central and Western Caucasus, during which the initial core of the Nart tales most likely took shape.

The most important moment in this question is the degree and scale of the spread of iron metallurgy in Nart society. Many researchers have noted the fact that in the Nart epic we find a wide distribution of iron, and, consequently, the epic reflects that period in the history of the Caucasian peoples when the Iron Age was establishing itself in the territory which is the area of this epic's distribution.

The question of the stages of development of the Iron Age in the territory of Western Transcaucasia has been well elaborated by Georgian Soviet archaeologists (research by R. Abramishvili, I. Gdzelishvili, et al.). And since the North Caucasus in its historical development followed closely on the heels of Transcaucasia, we can fully apply the periodisation of the Early Iron Age established for Georgia to the history of iron mastery in the North Caucasus.

The beginning of the Iron Age is considered to be that period when the continuous development of iron metallurgy begins. This becomes possible only when a method is invented for obtaining sponge iron in open hearths from iron ore mined from deposits, and a method for manufacturing steel weaponry from it.

The era of the wide mastery of iron in the territory of Georgia is chronologically subdivided into three stages: the first is dated to the end of the 2nd millennium – 9th century BCE. At this stage, iron implements often replicate the forms of the preceding bronze artefacts.

The second stage belongs to the 8th – first half of the 7th centuries BCE. At this stage the quality of iron items improves significantly, and the replication of bronze prototypes occurs more rarely.

The third stage is dated to the 8th–6th centuries BCE. At this stage iron finally and completely displaces bronze from use. In the 6th century BCE, the complete mastery of iron occurs in Georgia.

The metallurgy of iron in the Caucasus, and in particular in Abkhazia, has deep local roots, as is evidenced first and foremost by the reproduction in iron of a number of bronze implements from the preceding time. A.L. Lukin writes on this matter: "The continuity of metallurgical production traditions of Stage III (Late Colchian), evident in the early iron items of Abkhazia, testifies to the autochthonous mastery of iron by the masters of the local communities, the bearers of the named traditions, which were developed continuously over a long preceding period."

In the 8th–7th centuries BCE, iron items came into wide use in Abkhazia.

Unfortunately, our archaeologists have thus far not utilised the Nart epic in that part where it brilliantly reflects all three stages of iron production on the territory of our ancestors. In this regard, a remarkable picture has been preserved in the Adyghe variant of the Nart tales. It is here that we clearly have all three stages present: Dabeche. The same can be said regarding the domestication of the horse. If in the Adyghe-Ossetian variants of the epic the horse is already widely spread amongst the Narts and its domestication is not mentioned, in the Abkhaz tales this latter circumstance received vivid reflection. Indeed, one of Sasrykva's merits lies in the fact that he tamed the horse and gave it to the people, whereas before this only individual Narts had horses.

Consequently, here too we observe the same picture: the Abkhaz Nart tales reflect the concluding stage of the primitive communal system, the same as in the Nart epic as a whole, but a more archaic stage of it, which chronologically belongs to the early period of the dating indicated above.

In conclusion, I would like to dwell on a very important circumstance, in my opinion, which has already been noted in passing. This is the question of the undoubted participation of the Scythian-Sarmatian-Alan ethnic element in the creation of the Nart epic, an element which in its time exerted great influence on the development of the ancient population of the North Caucasus. When one becomes acquainted with the Ossetian Nart tales, one encounters there a whole series of features which are alien to the Abkhaz-Adyghe tales. For example, in the Ossetian variant of the epic one encounters names of such countries and peoples about which researchers cannot say anything definite. Nothing of the sort exists in the Abkhaz-Adyghe variants; in this respect they are more concrete. Then, in the Ossetian epic, one's attention is drawn to such a fact as the marriage of Uaryzmag to his sister Shatana. True, the Narts are surprised by this fact, but they quickly reconcile themselves to it. Nothing of the sort can be found in the Abkhaz-Adyghe tales: here all the marital relations of the Narts are built on the principle of exogamy. Endogamy, as is known, was characteristic of the Iranian tribes.

In the Ossetian epic we also encounter a whole series of characteristic heroes who are absent in the Adyghe and Abkhaz variants of the epic (Uryzmag, Akhsar, Akhsartag, etc.). True, in the Adyghe variant we encounter Uazyrmes, but this is clearly a double of Uaryzmag, borrowed from the Ossetians and occupying a peripheral place in the Adyghe epic.

Finally, one can also note such a circumstance as the stronger patriarchal features of the Ossetian epic in comparison with the Abkhaz-Adyghe variants. This, it seems to me, must be a reflection of the Alan patriarchal way of life. Under conditions of lengthy and distant campaigns, the Alan pastoral tribes must have developed strong patriarchal traditions and living conditions.

Now, regarding the figure of Shatana (Satana). The etymology of this name has not yet been established. The majority of researchers, including V.I. Abaev, believe that the name entered the epic from the local Caucasian substrate. But does this mean that the Alan milieu wholly borrowed this figure from the local substrate which it assimilated? Hardly. One must suppose that in the Alan heroic epic there was its own Shatana. In this connection, I would like to draw attention to the figure of the old woman Uorsar from the Adyghe Nart tales. This name, I have been told, is of Iranian origin: in Ossetian it means "white head." It is characteristic that, despite the enormous role occupied by Satana in the Adyghe epic, the old woman Uorsar is mentioned several times as the wisest woman amongst the Narts. In some tales she figures, as is known, at the beginning of the matriarchal era. Perhaps the figure of Uorsar is precisely the Alan Shatana, borrowed in its time by the ancestors of the Adyghes and preserved in their epic, but having disappeared from the Ossetian one. However, in the Ossetian tales too we encounter a number of women who rival Shatana.

And in conclusion, one more circumstance—this is the question of the so-called Khatiag language, which some heroes of the Ossetian variant of the epic speak. There is no analogous phenomenon in the Abkhaz-Adyghe tales—here no one speaks any mysterious language. Amongst the Ossetian heroes, knowledge of it is limited to a very narrow circle of persons—in particular, Shatana and Batradz, i.e., heroes who most likely penetrated into the Ossetian epic from the local substrate. Shatana and Batradz resort to the Khatiag language when they need to convey some secret message. The only method by which one can open the chest containing the weapons of the ancestors is also for Shatana to address it in the Khatiag language.

1. Britaev, in his notes to the Ossetian edition of the Nart tales (1949), suggests that in the Khatiag speech we have, possibly, the Hittite language. But perhaps this is the language of that local ethnic substrate which was subsequently assimilated by the incoming Alans. This language most likely belonged to the Ibero-Caucasian group, which, in the opinion of many specialists, was related to the Proto-Hittite languages. Be that as it may, the question of the Khatiag language in the Ossetian variant of the epic, in my opinion, deserves the close attention of researchers in the aspect of clarifying the local (substrate) roots in the Ossetian variant of the Nart epic.

Thus, a historical analysis of the Nart epic and a comparative study of its national variants (within the framework of existing publications) in connection with the history of the Caucasian peoples who are its bearers allows us, in our view, to draw the following conclusions:

1. The geographical area of the Nart epic's formation is the central and western part of the North Caucasus, as well as the northwestern part of Transcaucasia (Abkhazia and, possibly, some regions to the south of it). The areas featuring in the epic that are located outside the Caucasus (the Don region, the Volga region, etc.), as well as the "unknown" peoples, bear witness, on the one hand, to the geographical conceptions and external connections of the epic's creators, but mainly, it would seem, reflect the earlier area of distribution of the Iranian-speaking ancestors of the creators of the Nart tales (this is especially evident, naturally, in the Ossetian variant of the epic). Within the territory of the outlined area, at the turn of the 2nd–1st millennia BCE, three closely related archaeological cultures were current: the Koban, the Kuban, and the Colchian.
2. The specific historical setting in which the initial framework of the Nart epic was created represents the concluding stage of the primitive communal system—the period of late patriarchy and military democracy. First and foremost, this is still a typical patriarchal-clan system with all its basic and superstructural attributes. At the same time, clear signs of its socio-economic disintegration are present. Patriarchal elements are especially vividly reflected in the Ossetian variant of the epic, to a lesser degree in the Adyghe variant, and still less in the Abkhaz Nart tales. A comparative analysis of the central figures of the epic (Sataney-Shatana, Sasrykva-Sosruko-Sozyrko-Soslan, Aynardzhi-Tlepsh-Kurdalagon, Tsvitsv-Patraz-Batraz-Batradz, Uryzmag-Uazyrmes) leads to the conclusion that the most archaic features characterise the heroes of the Abkhaz variant of the epic, and the least archaic characterise the Ossetian epic heroes. The heroes of the Adyghe tales occupy a middle place in this regard. Correspondingly, the survivals of matriarchy are preserved to a greater degree in the Abkhaz epic and least of all in the Ossetian.

The reason for this phenomenon should be considered the circumstance that amongst the Abkhaz, class relations developed significantly earlier (under the conditions of the Colchian Kingdom, under the influence of ancient Greek poleis, etc.) than amongst the ancestors of the Adyghes or Ossetians. Therefore, the development of the Abkhaz variant of the Nart epic was "arrested" significantly earlier than that of the peoples of the North Caucasus.

1. The most acceptable date for the origin (more precisely, the formation) of the main core of the Nart epic is the first half of the 1st millennium BCE, and especially its second quarter (mid-8th – 6th centuries BCE). It is precisely in this era that all the socio-economic phenomena predominantly reflected in the epic took shape in the history of the epic's bearer peoples (the preservation of the leading role of pastoralism and hunting alongside a certain significance of agriculture, the establishment of iron metallurgy, the birth and development of the rudiments of private property and property differentiation, the transformation of war into a "regular function of popular life," the establishment in connection with this of the system of "military democracy," etc.).
2. The Nart epic, one must suppose, has two main ethnic primary sources: a) the Abkhaz-Adyghe-"Koban" (by the "Koban" ethnos is implied the aboriginal tribes of the central Ciscaucasia, related to the Abkhaz-Adyghes, who created the Koban culture of the Late Bronze Age and were subsequently assimilated by incoming Iranian-speaking elements) and b) the Scythian-Sarmatian-Alan.

The dual origin of the Nart epic is especially clearly manifested in its Ossetian variant, where the ethnic layers of both the "Iranian" source (Uarkhag and his sons, Uryzmag, Syrdon, etc.) and the "substrate" source (Sozyrko-Soslan, Batradz, etc.) are clearly discernible. The figure of Sataney-Shatana, the most archaic in the Nart epic, is, it seems, common to both primary sources (regardless of the origin of the proper name, which evidently arose on local soil). The Scythian-Sarmatian-Alan epic undoubtedly had its own Shatana, whose figure largely merged with the local Sataney, whilst preserving its specific features.

Consequently, the ethnic milieu in which the Nart epic arose is, first and foremost, the ancestors of the present-day Abkhaz-Abaza, Adyghes, and Ossetians (both in the person of the Sarmatian-Alans and the local ethnic substrate assimilated by them), as well as the Iranian- and Caucasian-speaking ancestors of the Karachay-Balkars and, apparently, the ancestors of the Vainakhs (the question of the Dagestani "ancestors" remains open).

1. The historical basis for the common origin and inter-ethnic character of the Nart epic consists of the concrete living conditions of the inhabitants of the aforementioned part of the Caucasian territory in the first half of the 1st millennium BCE, as well as in subsequent times: transhumant pastoralism, the domestication of the horse, the spread of metal production technology (bronze and especially iron), the relatively rapid growth of inter-tribal cultural-economic and political ties, external invasions, ethnic intermixture—in other words, the entire complex of diverse historical interrelationships that connected the peoples of the North Caucasus and the Western Caucasus over the course of many centuries.

Concluding Remarks

Comrades! I would like to begin my concluding remarks with an Indian parable. It tells of several blind men walking together who came across an elephant standing across the road. The first blind man took hold of the tail, felt it, and said: "A rope." The second took hold of a leg and objected: "No, it is a tree," and the third poked the elephant in the body and said: "No, it is a wall." But in reality, it was an elephant, and one needed to be sighted to be convinced of this.

This parable reminded me of the presentations of some comrades: they cited individual features characteristic of matriarchy and from this drew the conclusion that the Nart epic in its entirety arose in that era.

Vasily Ivanovich justly said that the Nart epic is multi-layered, multi-stadial; a series of various epochs is reflected in it. But if we abstract from the particulars and identify its main features, we will be convinced that this epic was created in the era of late patriarchy—the entire totality of socio-economic, cultural, and other phenomena gives us only this picture. Naturally, we can argue about the details, but we must not pose the question that the epic is a product of the matriarchal era. I think we must finally abandon this point of view. That is one point.

The second point concerns the evolution in the views of the esteemed V.I. Abaev. If I said that he always seeks the Alan core of the epic, then today he correctly said that we will not search for it, but will simply say that this core arose in a specific territory where the ancestors of the Abkhaz, Adyghes, and Ossetians lived. (Applause)

A third remark is addressed to E.M. Meletinsky. In his report at the Ordzhonikidze conference, it is stated quite clearly that the Kabardians, having moved onto territory that belonged to the Alans, could have adopted the Nart epic from them. I considered such a position incorrect.

In the book The Origin of the Heroic Epic, where a large chapter is dedicated to the Nart epic, E.M. Meletinsky also repeats some positions from his previous works, in particular, the position on the Sarmatians and Alans as the ethnic milieu in which the Nart epic arose, and on early patriarchy as the socio-economic base of the Nart epic's origin. I expressed satisfaction that in his report at this conference he said nothing about this, but, on the contrary, stated that the epic arose in a broader ethnic milieu. I noted changes in E.M. Meletinsky's views in a more correct direction—in contrast to the incorrect positions expressed in his previous works.

Some of our colleagues, folklorists—and this applies to E.M. Meletinsky as well—underestimate the necessity of a deeper and more thorough study of the people who created the epic, and of historical problems relating to this period in general. Then, such assertions would not arise as the one that matriarchy coexists with military democracy. That is the same as saying that a slave-owning base coexists with a bourgeois political system.