Dr. Altai Amanjolov explores initial development of the Türkic alphabet, with a detailed examination of the common ontogenetic elements that bind it with other oldest alphabetic scripts, and of the peculiarities that evolved historically to give it a distinct form and type. Dr. A. Amanjolov exposes a lightweight nature of the engrafted axioms that rested on early and uncertain judgments, but tended to fossilize quickly into preordained scientific schemes.

Translation may have inadvertent errors, especially related to professional terminology.

286

Introduction

The origin of the Türkic runic alphabet, despite the efforts of several generations of Türkologists, still remains problematic.

Guesses about the origin of the Yenisei script suggested before their decoding were only based on visual, external resemblances of the Türkic runes with the Gothic runes (O.G.Tichzen, G.Rommel, N.Popov) or with Greek, Etruscan and Anatolian (G.Spassky, J.Klaprot, O.Donner) letters¹. When N.M.Yadrintsev discovered the Orkhon runic inscriptions, he also saw in them "an Indo-European alphabet, reminding for a long time the Phoenician, Gothic, Greek, etc. letters " ².

However in the 19th century science had not yet accumulated significant proofs for the problem. Therefore, W.Thomsen had a reason to state the following: "It should be firmly remembered that all likewise resemblances, thus, are like an optical illusion. Only when other means allow to determine the meaning of the letters, such comparisons to other alphabets would be of value for the origin of this script" ³.

And the suggestion by A.Shifner⁴ about independent origin of the enigmatic Yenisei script from the tamgas was, in essence, an equation with two unknowns.

The decipherer of the Türkic runic alphabet W.Thomsen⁵ tentatively linked the Orkhon alphabet to the Aramaic, or more precisely to its version, Pehlevi (Perso-Aramaic) alphabet. The hypothesis of W.Thomsen about Aramaic (Aramaic-Pehlevi and Aramaic-Sogdian) as a basis for the Türkic runic alphabet was construed on a rather remote analogies of some (about half) letters of the Orkhon alphabet. We should note that Türkic runes have much more likeness with the ancient Phoenician-Aramaic letters, instead of the Pehlevi and Sogdian. Unfortunately, an uncritical attitude toward the W.Thomsen's hypothesis is observed until now. As an example can serve a not yet confirmed by any facts suggestion by S.G.Klyashtorny⁶ that Türkic runic script was adopted in the 5th century from the Sogdians of the Gansu and Gaochan.

After the W.Thomsen decoding, O.Donner⁷ fairly considered the distinctions between Yenisei and Orkhon characters as a sign of a long development period of the Türkic runic alphabet, but at the same time he asserted without substantiation that the Orkhon-Yenisean script has arisen, at Uigurs, Türks and Kyrgyzes in the 4th century on the basis of the Indo-Bactrian (also called Indo-Scythian, Aryan, Bactrian) "Karoshti" letters, then known from the inscriptions on the rocks and coins (3 century BC - 2 century AD). After investigation it becomes obvious that between Türkic runes and "Karoshti" signs no close resemblance exist⁸.
289

At last, the F.Altheim's⁹ guess that the Ancient Türkic (and "proto-Bulgarian") runes descend from the Armazian Aramaic script that the Türkic-speaking Huns ostensibly adopted in the Caucasus at the turn of the 3 - 4 centuries is also not supported by any concrete facts¹⁰ and observable match of written signs.

In a opposition with the hypothesis of W.Thomsen, a Russian orientalist N.A.Aristov " has anew substantiated the hypothesis of A.Shifner about a local tamga-derived source of the Türkic runes. N.A.Aristov found outward similarity with the Türkic tamgas in 29 out of 38 signs of the Orkhon alphabet. Later this hypothesis found support by N.Mallitsky¹² and A.Sokolov¹³. To the opinion of the origin of the Orkhon-Yenisean script from the "local tamgas and others ideograms" in our time was leaning I.A.Batmanov¹⁴.

As a rule, every clan and tribal tamga between the Türkic-speaking peoples had a name corresponding to the graphic form of a sign (frequently connected with specific objects). For example,
tamga of the Kazakh clan Baltal or is called balta "axe",
tamga of a clan Baganaly or is called bashan "rod with split end",
tamga of the tribe Kongrat is called bosaga "threshold",
tamga of the tribe Kangly is called köseu "fire iron", etc. If it would be possible to establish sometime the initial names, verbal epithets of the ancient tamga signs (graphic logograms), the hypothesis of A.Shifner - N.A.Aristov can receive a better plausibility. The random outward comparisons of Türkic runes with the tamgas and other ancient signs are insufficiently convincing.

W.Thomsen¹⁵ and E.D.Polivanov¹⁶ suggested a possibility of ideographic origin of some of the Türkic runic characters which are not deduced from the Aramaic alphabet. Suggesting Türkic etymologies for runic characters j, ^aj (aj "moon, crescent") (here author's "j" has a phonetic value of "y" in "york"), ^oq, ^uq (oq "arrow") and b, ^üb (eb "dwelling, yurt"), W.Thomsen simultaneously doubted similar etymologies for the runic characters 1, ^ä1 (el "palm of a hand"), r, ^är (er "man, husband"), n, ^än (en -"descend, go down", compare en "bottom, descent"), γ, ^äγ (аγ "trap, snare, fishing tackle"), t, ^at (at "horse") and ş, aş (eşik "door"). So far it is difficult to tell to what degree the Türkic runes in their origin are due to ideograms (or better, to graphic logograms), because their paleography is still investigated insufficiently. Nevertheless, exist sufficient reasons to suggest that some specific runic characters lt, rt and nt directly go back to a pre-alphabetic script.
290

Türkish scientist A.J, Emre¹⁷ embarked to study Türkic runic alphabet as a development of ideographic writing, related to the Sumerian linear writing:
oq, ^oq "arrow" - Sumer. ARROW,
k^ü, köz "eye" - Sumer. EYE,
d, adaq "leg" - Sumer. LEG,
j, ja(j) "bow" - Sumer. BOW,
ş, eşik "door" (Turk. eşik "threshold") - Sumer. CORRAL,
lt ~ ld, alt "bottom" - Sumer. LOWER PART of the BODY (man),
etc.
The outward similarity of some signs belonging to different ideographic (logographic) scripts is usually explained by a similarity of the respective objects, therefore such comparisons are deemed to be insufficiently convincing.

According to a hypothesis of an English researcher J. Closon¹⁸, the Türkic runic alphabet was ostensibly invented in the third quarter of the 6th century under an order of Istemi-Kagan, and was composed as a some kind of secret code from arbitrarily changed Aramaic (Pehlevi, Sogdian) and Greek (Byzantian, Ephtalite) letters. A citation of a fictitious "inventor" testifies to a non-serious attitude of J. Closon to the unresolved problem. In effect, it is an attempt to avoid studying the historical development and natural genetic links of the Türkic runic alphabet, which itself is non-uniform in its local versions.

The genetic links of the Türkic runes still have not received a scientific illumination. W.Thomsen has given precisely a decoding, not an interpretation of the Türkic runic (Orkhon-Yenisean) alphabet, the true origin of which remained unknown. The science has not yet established neither the real age of the Türkic runic script, nor its direct source.

The hypotheses about the origin of the Orkhon-Yenisean script were not supported with really close correspondences of the compared written signs¹⁹.

It only transpired that exist supporters of exogenic origin of the Türkic runic alphabet (W.Thomsen, O.Donner, F.Altheim, J. Closon) and the supporters of endogenic origin of this script (N.A.Aristov, A.J. Emre).
291

As an interpreter of the W.Thomsen hypothesis recently rose a known Iranist V.A.Livshits²⁰, in whose opinion the main source ("raw material for working pra-forms") for the Orkhon alphabet was a relatively late version of the Sogdian cursive writing, corresponding to the ancient Uigur alphabet. V.A.Livshits dedices the Türkic (Orkhon) runes from the letters of new Sogdian letters by means of "reconstruction of graphical prototypes in the process of creation of the runic alphabet" ²¹. So, a Sogdian letters δ (δ, υ, L) by means of three "transformations"

turns into Türkic runic letters d, l, l'. Arming with this method would make it difficult to avoid subjectivity in resolving the question. Anyway, a version about Sogdian base of the Türkic runic characters requires weightier proofs.

A deeper study of the epigraphic finds in the territory of Kazakhstan allows to uncover most ancient monuments of written culture belonging to the remote ancestors of the Türkic-speaking peoples. The existence of alphabetic writing in the culture of early nomadic tribes in the Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan is evidenced, at least, by two runic or rune-like inscriptions from the burials of the 5th - 4th centuries BC²². They are: an inscription on a bone buckle from r. Irtysh valley, and an inscription on a silver cup from r. Ili valley. These inscriptions are apparently made in the Ancient Türkic language, and belong to a fairly early version of the Türkic runes, closely connected to the Mediterranean alphabetic writings of the middle of the 1st millennium BC.

Bone buckle inscription r. Irtysh valley kurgan, ca. 400-500 BC

Silver cup inscription Issyk kurgan, 500 BC (C14 dating here)

In a valley of r. Ili were found two rock inscriptions in ancient Greek alphabet²³. The language attribution of one of them is under doubt, and another is in Türkic. Both inscriptions have been made in the 1st millennium AD (judging by archaic letters, direction from right to left). There is analogy with the Türkic runic alphabet of Talas, Yenisei and Orkhon inscriptions. Paleographically these inscriptions can also be attributed to the middle of the 1st millennium BC, which points to a relative stability of the Türkic runic script. The fascinating historical fate of the ancient Greek alphabet in the Jeti-Su also indirectly testifies to the most ancient tradition of writing in the Türkic-speaking tribes.

Greek rock inscription "ISAG 1080" r. Ili valley ca. 770 AD

Greek-Türkic rock inscription "AG BAPAM"-"MY NOBLE ANSESTOR" Almaty valley, 1st millennium AD

Based on systematic study of the graphics of the Ancient Türkic runic inscriptions, and new results of the Türkic epygraphical studies, now is appearing an opportunity to approach closely to the solution of the problem about the Türkic runes origin (genetic links). From the correct resolution of this key problem in many respects depend the prospects for the development of Türkology²⁴.

The areas of distribution and chronological frameworks of the Türkic runes basically correspond with the Ancient Türkic statehood of the 6th - 10th centuries, though some inscriptions are occasionally found in the kurgans belonging to the epoch of early nomads (rivers Irtysh, Ili, Yaik). In the Central Asia by now were found about three hundred ancient Türkic runic inscriptions. The dynastic Orkhon epitaphs belong to the 8th century, and the Yenisei and Talas inscriptions, as a rule, have no reliable dating. By tradition it is thought that some Yenisei and Talas inscriptions are much older than the Orkhon inscriptions. S.E.Malov believed that Yenisei inscriptions belong to the 5th - 10th (11th) centuries, and Talas inscriptions belong to the 5th - 8th centuries.²⁵ The Talas inscriptions - epitaphs on the boulders, as showed archeological al excavations, already appeared in the 5th century,²⁶ and in any case, long before the10th century.²⁷
292

The viewes of some researchers that the Türkic runic script in Yenisei and Talas appeared late, than in Orkhon, seem to be insufficiently justified²⁸. For example, in the I.V.Kormushin's opinion, without exception all Yenisei monuments are written not earlier than the middle of the 10th - 11th centuries.²⁹ But because the dating graphical features selected by I.V.Kormushin do not correspond to the evolution of the Türkic runic alphabet, and are very vulnerable from purely paleographic side (the monumental script is deduced from the cursive script, even though even in the manuscripts the Türkic runes did not change to the really cursive forms), he had to recognize that these "markers sometimes conflict with each other"³⁰. Some of the Yenisei inscriptions - epitaphs, like the expressions türk qan balbalı "balbal of the Türkic khan" testify (E 32₁₀), ben öltim türgäş el ičintä " I died in Türgesh state" (E 37₃), etc., are made not later then the middle of the 8th century, before the overthrow of the Türkic and Türgesh dynasties. Incidentally, in these monuments is repeatedly used the runic character t, which is I.V.Kormushin's main dating marker of the monuments not older than the middle of the 9th century.

The graphics of the Talas, Yenisei and Orkhon inscriptions testifies that the Türkic runic alphabet, non-uniform in its local versions, has a long history of development, and generally reflects the sound system of the ancient Türkic language³¹.

* * *

Historical perspective

The genesis question of the Türkic runic alphabet, its creation place and time, to be resolved objectively requires a complex analysis of the alphabet paleography, together with history of cultural contacts of the ancient world, together with history of formation of the Türkic ethnic type. S.E.Malov's noted the following: "In questions of chronology we in Türkology still have many established cliches, some of them quite fair for the known time and for the known geographical space. [...] In my classification of the Türkic languages I, as a result of the my studies, set back the emergence of the Türkic languages in the same form as we have them now, two thousand years deeper"³².

In the beginning of the 1st millennium BC, according to archeology, pastoral-agricultural tribes of the Bronze Epoch of the Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan steppes (so-called "Andronov Culture tribes") passed to a more progressive, nomadic cattle tribal. In the 5th - 4th centuries BC the early Asian nomads almost completed a transition to the use of iron. These nomad tribes belonged to the so-called Andronov anthropological type³³, that made a basis for the anthropological type of Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Kirghizes, Altaians, partly Uzbeks, etc. The increase in economical connections and a need to protect their herds and pastures forced a unification of the nomad tribes in military-tribal unions, where developed a process of leveling the tribal distinctions and merging of tribal languages.
293

In the territory of Kazakhstan and Central Asia in the 7th - 4th centuries BC, as testify the ancient Greek historians (Herodotus and others) and Persian cuneiform inscriptions of Darius I, were associations of Scythian- Sakan tribes which had their specific names, territory, ways of life (nomadic, hunting and settled tribes), ethnicity and, probably, languages. "The ethnic problem of Scythians, - posited A.N.Bernshtam, - is not beyond the hypotheses. The dispute about Türkism or Iranism of the Scythians is as old as the Orientalistics itself. The solution for these problems lies in the archeological al materials"³⁴. The application of the term "Scythians" in relation to the autochthons of the Altai and Jeti-Su is in problematic itself (this is not a region of Herodotus "Scythia"), and does not serve at all as a proof of their Irano-linguality. Sometimes the Türkic ethnogenesis is directly linked with nomadic cattle breeding, the Mongolian ethnogenesis is directly linked with the hunting economy, the Iranian ethnogenesis is directly linked with agricultural economy³⁵. Such a simplistic approach is poorly justified, "All eastern tribes, - wrote K.Marx, - can be traced from the very beginning of history a general relationship between the settled part of population and continued nomadism of another part "³⁶.

The Chinese historical chronicles tell that in the 3rd - 1st centuries BC in the territories of the Saka's tribal federations formed nomadic tribal unions of Usuns, Kangüys and Uechjis. In the Central Asia from the end of the 3rd century BC till the 1st century AD was an association of 24 nomadic tribes of Huns (Hunnu, Sünnu). The Türkic-speaking Huns displaced the Uechji and Usun tribes from the east to the west. In the 1st century BC Usuns occupied Tian-Shan and Jeti-Su area. Uechjis, whom L.N.Gumilev³⁷ identifies with the carriers Pazyryk Cultures in Altai, established in the 1st century AD along Cheyhun (Amu Darya) a Kushan (Ku-Sün - Türk. White Hun) state . Kangüy tribes, according to the Chinese sources, in the 2nd century BC - 7th century AD lived in the valleys of the Middle and Lower Seyhun (Syr-Darya).

The Türkic-linguality of the dynastic tribe of the Usun (As-Sün - Türk. As' Hun) union was stated by F.Hirt³⁸, K.Siratori³⁹, N.A.Aristov⁴⁰ and other researchers after analysis of the Chinese transcriptions of the Usun words (kün beg, uluγ, tarqan, etc.). "The presence of Türkic words in the language of ancient Usuns in the 3rd - 1st cc. BC, - noted Yu.A.Zuev, - makes questionable the standard in the Soviet historical literature point of view about so-called "Türkifation" of the local population in Kazakhstan and Central Asia by the Huns (Chinese: Sünnu), beguning in the 1st century BC"⁴¹ (Sünnu is a Türkic dialectal name for Huns, used by Chinese in the 3rd c. BC).

archeological al research allowed to establish that between carriers of the local cultures of Southern Siberia and the Near East in 1st millennium BC existed diverse and deep cultural links⁴². Most evidently it is visible in the applied fine arts of Scythian or Saka tribes.
294

* * *

Paleographic analysis

The paleographic analysis leads to a conclusion about very early date of appearance of the Türkic runic alphabet in Southern Siberia and Jeti-Su, not later then the middle of the 1st millennium BC. This alphabet display a close genetic proximity, firstly with early types of the ancient Greek alphabet (especially with Anatolian and Italic), and secondly with Northern Semitic-Phoenician (including with early Aramaic) and S.Semitic alphabets⁴³. In some measure it agrees with the archeological data about deep cultural ties of the Southern Siberia and Jeti-Su early nomads with the Near East population in the 1st millennium BC.

The Aramaic alphabet as a branch of the Phoenician alphabet has also some similarity with the Türkic runic alphabet, though apparently they both are only in an indirect relationship. The graphic affinity of the Gothic (Common German) and Türkic runic characters, in some instances also supported by coincidence of the sound values, can be explained by their link with the writing system of the ancient Greek or even earlier alphabetic writing.

The rich arsenal of graphic characters of the Türkic runes could be produced only during a long period of development. These alphabetical characters, certainly, were not individually assembled from early Mediterranean alphabets. It is hardly possible to view the early Semitic, ancient Greek, Italic, and Anatolian analogies in this alphabet to be direct loans, because apparently existed an older common source of the alphabetical writing. The Türkic runic alphabet as a whole does not ascend to anyone of the early Mediterranean alphabets known to us, despite the genetic links of some letters.

The Türkic runic alphabet presents a very rich and quite independently developed graphic system. It would be totally erroneous to depict it as a product of a personal creation. The close genetic links of the Türkic runic characters with the early Semitic, ancient Greek, Italic (Etruscan, Picenian, Messapian, Venetian, Retian) and Anatolian (Karian, Lician, Lidian, Sidetian) letters exist because the Türkic runic alphabet underwent a very long period of development, and it apparently ascends directly to the most ancient common source of alphabetic writing. Such a source could be an early logographic or alphabetic script of the 3rd - 2nd millennia BC.

It should be noted that a language, being a main social factor and a major ethnic attribute (the language of the autochthonous population), has to be invariably considered in the studies of the ethnic, historical and cultural communities in the Central Asia. A convinced proponent of the autochthony of the Türkic-speaking population in the Central Asia (based on clearly traced continuity of archeological cultures of the Neolith epoch, Bronze and Early Iron epochs in the territory of Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan) was А. Kh. Margulan⁴⁴. The language contacts in this region are very deep and diverse. The Türks for millennia communicated not only with rest of the Altai language world, but also with the carriers of various Indo-European languages.

It can't be excluded that the problem of the Türkic alphabet in one way or another is linked with the hypothesis about a most ancient genetic commonality of Türkic languages with the Indo-European languages, which is receiving an increasing linguistic evidence⁴⁵, and has atendency to develop into a general question about the origin of the alphabet.
295
296

A comparison of the Ancient Türkic runes with related alphabetical characters of the early Mediterranean alphabetical scripts is shown in Table 3, which can be viewed as a working plan for future studies⁴⁶. In the table the Türkic runic characters (graphemes) are grouped in accordance with the transpiring paleographical and phonological links, which allows to track down the evolution of the Türkic runic alphabet from original few initial signs to the extremely rich and complete graphic system, which reflects a long developmental history of the Ancient Türkic language phonetic system, and at the same time displaying a genetic (material) affinity with the early Mediterranean alphabets.

The characters for vowels in the Türkic runic alphabet, as is known, were polyphonic. The identical signs designated non-labial broad vowel phonemes a and ä, non-labial narrow vowel phonemes ï and i, firm labial phonemes o and u, soft labial phonemes ö and ü. In the most ancient inscription on the Ili vessel discussed above, the labial vowel phonemes were transmitted by the same character i. Hence, initially the characters for firm and soft labial vowels were not differentiated.

The comparative analysis suggests that Türkic runic characters for the vowels ascend to the common prototype , which once was designating an initial slotted consonant of the *h type (probably, a variation of a phoneme *k) in front of different vowels. This initial sound (apparently, it ascends to a common Altaic *p-) (Translator assumes that the author is using Latin letter symbology, and not Greek/Cyrillic, thus *p and not *r) was not found in the language of the ancient Türkic runic inscriptions, but its traces are found in some Türkic languages⁴⁷. A gradual loss of a consonant *h- in the language of tribes that inherited the ancient written tradition, caused emergence and subsequent separation of the sounds for the vowel archephonems A (a, ä), I (ï, i) and U (o, u, ö, ü), possibly under an influence of close characters for consonants k, j, and b. At the same time, Türkic runic characters а, ä, ï, i, ö, ü (from ö, ü comes о, u) reveal a close genetic link with the characters for consonants '(a), j, w in the Semitic alphabets.
297

The letter designations for the firm and soft variations of consonant phonemes in the Türkic runic alphabet, as was already noted, frequently underwent neutralization (except for q and k'). Moreover, the letter designations for firm and soft variations of consonant phonemes are usually also connected genetically. For example, the runic character b developed from b', runic j developed from j', runic n developed n'. Therefore in a historical perspective makes sense to examine the Türkic runic characters for the consonants as graphic symbols for phonemes, irrespective of their sound implementation in a word.

The Türkic runic characters for consonant phonemes can be broken into three internally connected paleographic groups:
1) signs for bilabial plosive consonant phonemes b, p, m;
2) signs for alveolar plosive consonant phonemes d, t, z, s, ş. č, n, l, r, and palatal approximant consonant phoneme j;
3) signs for velar plosive consonant phonemes g, k, η.
The signs on the first group go back to their prototypes b' (~ *р') and m. The affinity of tracings of these prototypes, apparently, is caused by ancient phonetic conformity b (p)~m. The prospective primary source - a graphic logogram bel "fish", compare Tuva bel " taymen (fish)", Khakass. pil "taymen (fish)".

It can't be missed that the Phoenician b represents a later graphic development in comparison with the Yenisei b', Orkhon b' and Talas b'.

Characters of the second group include prototypes d ' (~ *t ') d(~*t), z(~*s), ş, č (compare with signs for ş), n', and also rather archaic signs for l', r', and j'.

Among these characters show up sometimes ancient graphic logograms täηri ( Sumer. diηir) "Sky; God, deity", compare Kazakh. täηir, täηiri "God" or zeηgir "great, high, highest", Karakalpak. diη aspanda "very high, up in the sky" (phonetic transition t~d~z in the beginning of a word); adaq "leg (legs); azuq "food, provisions, nutrient" (image of pasture, foliage), as-aş "meal, food " (image of a grain ear), compare Altaic. aş (ash) "food; wheat (in ears) ", Kirgiz. ash "food; fruits (of wild plants)"; čip, čïbïq "twig, thin flexible branch"; en "bottom, descent"; el "hand, palm of a hand"; er "drill", compare Khakas. ires "screw".
298

The characters of the third group include prototypes g' (~*k'), γ (~ *q) and q (comp. Phoenician h, kh), fairly archaic in form characters for k' (with ö, ü), q (with o, u), q (with ï), and also separate signs for velar nasal phoneme η.

Look like initial the graphic logograms *egeg "file, abrader", compare Tuva egee (ägää), Kazakh. egeu "file, abrader", ege- "to grind with a file"; aγ ""trap, snare, fishing tackle, net"; eη "face, cheeks".

It is important to note that the phonological differentiation in sonority-aphonity of voiced consonants (b~p, d~t, z~s, g~k) in the Türkic runic alphabet is reflected very unusually. As the comparative analysis shows, almost all runic characters for voiceless consonants (p, t, s, k', q) ultimately are derivatives from the runic characters for corresponding sonorous consonants.

For example, the Türkic runic characters p, p ', t ', t (compare t in the fifth rock inscription of Hoyto-Tamir), s', k ' and q have developed respectively from signs for b' (~ *p'), d' (~ *t'), d (~ *t), z (~ *s), g' (~ *k') and γ (~ *q). However, the Orkhon runic characters t appear to be primordial, probably ascending to a graphic logogram taη "dawn".
299

Thus, some prototypes of the Ancient Türkic runes appear to be indigenous and, most likely, developed from initial Türkic pictorial logograms, sympbols for words. The Türkic runic characters for phonetic combinations lt, rt and nt nç have no direct analogies in any of the ancient alphabets. Their prospective prototypes are graphic logograms alt "bottom, lower part", art "upland, mountain; mountain pass", ant~and "swear, oath" (image of skull) or andïγ "rim of a sieve, a strainer". The genetic link of Orkhon sign for ñ (nj) with the Orkhon-Yenisean symbol for nč is confirmed by ancient phonetic correspondence of ñ (nj)~nč.

And finally, the symbols for word separation in Türkic runic inscriptions ( diverse notation for the breaks between words) display greater variety than the corresponding Phoenician, Ancient Greek, Karian and Etruscan scripts.

The paleographic and phonologic links of the Türkic runic characters (graphemes) attest a long evolution of the Türkic runic script in a development process of the Ancient Türkic language, which was generally completed not later than the 4th - 1st millennia BC. Consequently, the Türkic runic alphabet, which history and genetic links are receiving principally new interpretation, can become an extremely important source for historical phonetics of the Türkic languages.

300

 6. S. ENISEI SCRIPT (SE)

SE 1. Sulek 3 ("Kara-Üs, stk. 2")

Graffiti on a rock. A horizontal line of 10 signs. Total length 12 sm, height of signs 2-2,5 and 1,3-1,5 sm.

Date undetermined.

Found by I.R.Aspelin in 1887 among images of Sulek inscriptions on the left bank of r. Pechishche, a left inflow of r. Black Iüs (Khakassk. - Khara Ÿÿs) (Fig. 3,7).

Located in the place of finding.

SE 1. Sketch by the author

.Publications:

Totterman A. Entzifferungsversuch einiger Inschriften auf einer Felsenwand bei Suljek (Ostsibirien.) Helsingfors, 1888

Totterman A. Inscriptions de rie'niasei '. Helsingfors, 1889, N5 XXXII;

Appelgren-Kivalo H. Alt-altaische Kunstdenkmaler. Helsingfora, 1931, Abb. 77, 89;

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 22, 23,7.

Attempts to read:

Totterman A. Entzifferungsversuch einiger Inachriften auf eine/Felaenwand bei Suljek

Totterman A. . Entzifferungsversuch einiger Inschriften auf einer Felswand 1m Kreise Minusinsk. - tifvenigt af Flneka Vetenskaps Societetens Forhandlingar. Helsingfors, 1888, Bd. 31

Totterman A. . Studien Ober die Suljekfelaen-Inschriften. Helsingfors, 1889

Totterman A. . Fiinf Suljekinschriften nach ihren Texten festgesteilt. Helsingfors, 1891

Donner O. Die Felseninschrift bei Suljek. - Ofvenigt... Bd. 31

Radloff W. Die altturkiachen Inachriften der Mongolet. Lfg. 3. St-Pbg., 1895, c. 345

Orkun H.N. Eski turk yazitlan. 3. Istanbul, 1940, c. 193-195 (facsimile: Ankara, 1987, c. 603-605);

Malov S.E. Yenisei writing of Türks. M. - L., 1952, p. 68, 69;

Vasiliev D.D. Corpus of Türkic runic monuments of Yenisei basin. L., 1983, p. 28, 29.

Transcription
Not available
Transliteration
Not available
Translation
Not available

SE 2. Sulek 4 ("Kara-Üs, stk. 3")

Graffiti on a rock. A horizontal line of five letters, length 4,7 sm. Height of signs 1,5-1,7 and 2,9 sm.

Date undetermined.

Found by I.R.Aspelin in 1887 on the same inscription.

 Located in the place of finding.

SE 2. Sketch by the author

Publications:

Totterman A. Inscriptions de rie'niasei '. Helsingfors, 1889, Nо XXXII;

Appelgren-Kivalo H. Alt-altafcche Kunstdenkmaler, Abb. 77

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 22, 23, 2.1

Attempts to read:

Vasiliev D.D. Corpus of Türkic runic monuments of Yenisei basin. L., 1983 p. 29.

SE 3. Sulek 5 ("Kara-Üs, stk. 4")

Graffiti on a rock. A line of 11 signs, length 20,5 sm. Height of letters from 2 to 4 sm.

Damaged by modern vandalism.

Date undetermined.

Found by I.R.Aspelin in 1887 on the same inscription.

 Located in the place of finding.

SE 3. Sketch by the author

 

Publications and attempts to read:

See bibliography to SE 1, and also:

Appelgren-Kivalo H. Alt-altaiche Kunstdenkmaler, Abb. 88;

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 22, 23.2

SE 4. Sulek 6 ("Kara-Üs, stk. 6")

Graffiti on a rock. A horizontal line originally of 25-26 signs. Presently survived four first, in part a fifth, the sixth and, after a significant lacuna, last nine characters. Total length of the text 51 sm, height of signs in the beginning of a line from 4 to 5,8 sm, in the end - from 1 to 3,5 sm.

Date undetermined.

Found by I.R.Aspelin in 1887 on the same inscription.

Located in the place of finding.

Fig. 39. Location of runic inscriptions on surfaces of the Sulek inscription.
Sketch by the author from a reproduction by Kh. Appelgren-Kivalo
(Numbers correspond to the order of the description and index of inscriptions)

SE 4. Sketch by the author

Fig. 40. Sulek inscription
Tracing of line 7 (signs 69-73 of the edition of 1889)
By Kh. Appelgren-Kivalo

Fig. 41. Sulek inscription. Arrangement of inscriptions Sulek 3-6 (SE 1 - SE 4).
Sketch by the author

Fig. 42. Inscription Sulek 3 (SE 1) by X. Alpelgren-Kivalo

Publications and Attempts to read:

See bibliography to SE 1 and SE 3, and also:

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 22, 23.3, 25.2

The first atlas of the runic inscriptions surveyed by the expedition of I.R.Aspelin in 1887-1888,  "Inscriptions de 1'Ienissei", opened with a table showing drawings and writings of the main surface of the Sulek inscription. Seven its inscriptions (73 signs) were also shown separately with a schematic sketch. Archeologists noted that letters were put later than the drawings. The inscriptions of the Written Mountain became one of the first to vex the scientists with its reading. Even before the decoding of the Türkic runic signs   was unsuccessful attempts to read the Sulek inscriptions. Then A.Tëtterman published I.R.Aspelin's sketches, distinct in details from those published later by Kh Appelgren-Kivalo (Tab. XL, XLI).

V.V.Radlov in 1895 suggested an attempt to read, at the same time noting: "These inscriptions are so vague that their decoding is almost impossible. The following Texts are very rude attempts of decoding". The scientist expressed also an opinion about the mutual relation of figures and inscriptions: "I do not believe that the inscriptions are chiseled over the drawings, I think that drawings were made later". Publishing the inscriptions in a runic typographical set, V.V.Radlov also considerably deviated in understanding of separate signs from the Sketches of the Finnish expedition (Tab. XL, XLI). He disregarded trhe 3rd and 7th inscriptions (Fig. 39) where the members of the Finnish expedition were not sure in characters. In the 1931 Kh. Appelgren-Kivalo, publishing I.R.Aspelin's materials, published not only the general image of the inscription showing all of its details, but also good Sketches of the originals of a nuimber of the Sulek inscriptions. In 1940 H.N.Orkun, without knowing about that publication, republished a general view of the inscription and by the Radlov's interpretation of the signs gave a somewhat different reading of the inscriptions. He dropped the unclear seventh line. In 1948, reproducing again the Finnish drawing of the boulder, L.A.Evtühova brought her obsrvations of the composition and relative chronology of images and inscriptions. This topic was reviewed also by S.V.Kiselev. For S.E.Malov. the reading of the Sulek inscriptions, taken, contrary to the drawings of the first finders, as parts of the single text (a Türkologist scientist called it "epitaph on a rock"), caused significant difficulties. The researcher noted a few times unusual combinations of letters. In accordance with the numbers in the S.E.Malov's summary work, the Sulek inscriptions are designated with index B39. Traditionally, as a six-liner, the inscription is shown also in the Sketch in the last by the time of its edition publication of the monument by D.D.Vasiliev, though he stipulated that the inscription, probably, does not present a single text. Reproducing the third line per the Finnish atlas, he, without comments, does not include the signs 69-73 of the publications of the 1889. Offering a transliteration of inscriptions, D.D.Vasiliev corrects a discrepancy in the reproduction of the "line 4" by S.E.Malov.

The study of the monument original in 1985 confirmed the impression arising from the works of researchers who saw the inscriptions themselves. The inscriptions are scattered all over the surface of the rock. They, undoubtedly, are separate and cannot be a single text (Fig. 39). The inscriptions published by the Türkologists as the first and the fifth lines of the monument are made with the Yenisei script (E 39/1-2: Sulek 1 and 2 - Fig. 18; 39,1,2).

In the atlas of 1889  one more line of inscription, the researchers were not sure of the letters' shape (signs 69-73). Judging by the general view of inscription presented there, these signs are located between the two bottom figures of running deer in the first tier of the image (Fig. 39,7). A large image of them published Kh. Appelgren-Kivalo, Fig. 87 (Fig. 40). Probably, taking into account the doubts of the archeologists, in their readings of the Sulek inscriptions, the Türkologists ignored these signs. In 1985 there was no more opportunity to check these tracings, as the bottom side of the rock turned out to be painted over with oil paint. A number of rune-like inscriptions given on the general view of a rock were not published as inscriptions by the Finnish researchers. We surveyed all of them: the lines at the bottom left horseman are nowadays covered by paint (Fig. 39,8); the etchings at the left bottom edge of the surface (Fig. 39,9), probably, are parts not completely distinguishable images; the surface of a rock to the right of the galloping "from the mountain" upper horseman (Fig. 39,10)  no artificial markings at all. Are not the inscriptions also the three groups of tracings, rune-like shown on the copy of the inscriptions by V.F.Kapelko, shown in the Khakass republican museum in Abakan (below line E 39/2 are not runs, but thinly drawn inscription "year 1947"; in the middle tier at the left, under an Ф-shaped figure are parts of drawings (a paw of a leopard and horses); in the bottom tier above the image of an Greek orthodox cross are lines which are not runes.

Sulek inscriptions SE 1-SE 4 received a paleographic evaluation in 1988 and were published as samples of newly found alphabet in 1990.

The top inscription SE 1 is located above the figures of two assailing camels (Fig. 41). The inscription and image of the right camel do not overlap, however the last sign of the text and the back hump of an animal practically touch. The location of the drawing of the camels allows to believe that the letters appeared later and were marked in the free field toward the image, i.e. from right to left. In the editions of Türkologists the inscription is shown as the second line of the "Sulek text" (Fig. 39,5). Our understanding of signs (Tab. XL) a little differs from the one published in the 1889 atlas. Note that the field sketch of 1887 published by Kh. Appelgren-Kivalo, (Fig. 42) does not agree with the drawings in the atlas. It is necessary to also keep in mind the the 1889 atlas table of forms of the runic signs. At the same time precisely based on the features of this field record (shown in 1889 only in the general view of the inscription) were the readings the inscription by V.V.Radlov. As a result, the signs 3-5, 7 and 9 were interpreted as approaching the signs of the Yenisei script, and were rendered with a type-setting typeface. In this form they were reproduced in the H.N.Orkun's works (who read them differently), S.E.Malov (who gave a third alternate of the reading ) and D.D.Vasiliev (different transcription of the fifth sign) (Tab. XL).

Table XL Perception of signs of inscription Sulek 3 (SE 1) by various researchers

Inscription SE 2 is below and to the right from the described inscription (Fig. 39,4, 41). The surface of the stone in this place is disturbed by slight scorching, and there is no complete confidence that the lines are letters. Signs are on free from the figures section of the rock, though 3,5 and 6,5 sm to the left and to the right are angular marks which in our opinion are not letters. In the atlas of 1889 are reflected the researchers' doubts in the perception of the alphabetic signs. Probably, for that reason they were not used in the reading by V.V.Radlov, H.N.Orkun and S.E.Malov ("line 3" is marked by dots). D.D.Vasiliev, guided by the atlas, offers a transliteration of four signs (including one on the right aside from the others) as letters of the Yenisei writing, though in his sketches this inscription is absent.

.Inscription SE 3 is separated from the described inscriptions by a significant horizontal splinter. It is placed above a drawing of another pair of fighting camels (Fig. 39,5, 41). The text and the image overlap. This was noticed by L.A.Evtühova and S.V.Kiselyov who thought the camel pictographs were later. Nowadays the inscription and images suffered from barbarously chiseled autographs, and not all details are equally distinct.

Fig. 43. Inscriptions Sulek 5 and 6 (SE 3, SE 4) by Kh. Appelgren-Kivalo

We believe, however, that the most indicative for the study of the relative chronology is the location of the three last signs of the inscription. They obviously follow the back and hump of the camel. It feels that the previous letters overlap the image of the left camel, the writer did not change the direction of the line. Thus, we come to an opposite from our predecessors conclusion: the inscription was made on the rock after the camels. It evidences that the inscription was written from right to left. Like the authors of the 1889 atlas (Fig. 43), we distinguish in this inscription 11 runic signs. Material differences arise only in inferring of the sixth sign. But the understanding of the signs differ. The members of the Finnish expedition, like all Türkologists studying inscription, linked these letters with the Yenisei letters. Besides, in the atlas, before the first letter of the inscription somehow appeared one more sign (sign 25), absent in the sketches made by the expedition. V.V.Radlov added on the right one more sign, a vertical line ("line 4"). After him, in such amended state, the inscription was taken by H.N.Orkun, and S.E.Malov, and D.D.Vasiliev. Probably, for these non-existent signs were confused the lines of the figure of the archer, representing one of the earliest petrographical periods of the writing, the Tashtyk epoch (1st century BC - 5 century AD; see Fig. 43).

The fourth S.Yenisey inscription (SE 4) of the Writing Mountain is most extensive and is below the third one, under the camels'  image (Fig. 39, 41). Like the figures, it strongly suffered from the modern chiseling. Judging by the materials of the Finnish expedition (Fig. 43), the inscription consisted of one continuous horizontal line. The writer, probably, was placing text under the already existing images of the deer and camels. On the sketch of 1887, a part of letters covers the rear legs of the deer. The inscription was read by the Türkologists as Yenisean ("line 6"). Doing it, V.V.Radlov departed from the forms of signs in the atlas not only in adjusting them to the known alphabet, but also partially changing them. Only in some number of such amendments he followed the field sketches of the 1887 expedition (Tab. XLI, № 1, compare sign 44 of the 1889 atlas). The Radlov's understanding of signs was accepted by H.N.Orkun and S.E.Malov, who offered slightly different transcriptions of the text. If the interpretation of letters by V.V.Radlov was published with means of type-setting runes, D.D.Vasiliev published the sketch that was actually a hand-written rendition of the typographical set. Only some signs were returned to the tracings found by the Finnish expedition (Tab. XLI). From this basis was received the transliteration of the inscription different from the predecessors' transliteration . Nowadays the spoiled inscription does not look any more as a continuous line of text. Clearly visible are the first four letters, the fifth and the sixth can be restored by the surviving parts. The subsequent runes under the figure of the deer did not survive. The sign 17 raises doubts (Tab. XLI), indiscernible is the top corner of the 18th letter. The 19th and 20th signs are confidently visible, four last runes survived completely. This text, rendered later than the images located above it, in a number of places, undoubtedly, included earlier lines not related to the inscription. These are the etchings under a rear leg of the right camel, right from the signs 23-26. If the presence here of the 22nd letter is still probable, the lines shown in a number of sketches as signs 21, are undoubtedly not connected to the text. The writer, probably, skipped here the previously damaged surface. It is impossible to take absolutely confidently the letter and the tracings in front of sign 17. In 1985 it was not possible any more to review the relative chronology of the inscription and the image of the deer. S.V.Kiselyov believed that the figure of the animal was drawn on the rock later than the text.

Table XLI Reading of signs of the Sulek 6 (SE 4) inscription by different researchers

SE 5/1-2. Spindle weight of the Minusinsk museum

Graffiti on narrow (SE 5/1) and, probably, on the wide side (SE 5/2) jasper spindle weight. The inscription 1 consists of 25 signs along the whole length of the rim side. Length of the line 11 sm, height of signs from 0,4 (in the beginning of the text) to 1 sm (in the end). The inscription 2 is separated conditionally by three rune-like tracings.
Date undetermined.
Accidental find in Khakass-Minusinsk depression, of not later than 1896.

Stored in Minusinsk museum, cat. № 9530.

SE 5. Sketch by the author. SE 5/2 - without scale

Publications:

Kiselyov S.V. Writings of Yenisei Kyrgyzes. - KSIIMK 1949, issue 25, Fig. 9,6, 10;

Kiselyov S.V. Ancient history of Southern Siberia. - MIL 1949, 9, Tab. LIII, 15;

Rygdylon E.R. Ancient Türkic runes of Baikal. - EV. 1953, 8, Fig. 3, 4;

Vasiliev D.D. Ancient Türkic epigraphs of Southern Siberia. - TC 1975. M., 1978, photo 4, 5, Fig. 2;

Vasiliev D.D. Corpus of Türkic runic monuments of Yenisei basin. L., 1983, p. 74, 116;

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writings of Eurasia, Fig. 26,1, 1A.

Attempts to read:

Kiselyov S.V. Writings of Yenisei Kyrgyzes. - KSIIMK 1949, issue 25, Fig. 9,6, 10;

Kiselyov S.V. Ancient history of Southern Siberia. - MIL 1949, p. 346, 347;

Kiselyov S.V. Ancient history. 1951, p. 613.

The first information about this monument dates to 1896. Then in the department of chronicles in the 4th volume of  "Archeological news and notes of the Moscow archeological society" appeared the following brief message: "The custodian of the Minusinsk museum, N.M.Martyanov, after 23-years stay in Siberia, this summer visited museums of the European Russia and Caucasus, and was at the Riga Congress (X Archeological Congress, August 1-15, 1896 - I.K.) where, informing in private conversations about many new and interesting information about the Siberian archeology, showed a recently found spindle weight with a runic inscription (and, maybe, also with Chinese signs). It is the first known sample of an everyday subject with Siberian runes. Nowadays Acad. Radlov studies this spindle weight". V.V.Radlov's observations were not published and remained unknown. For a long time the find, stored in the funds of the Minusinsk museum under № 2164 (nowadays - № 9530), did not attract attention.

Spindle weight was again found there in 1940 by the first professional archeologist of the museum, V.P.Levashyova. She gave a drawing and a plasticine imprint of the inscription to S.V.Kiselyov, who in 1949 published a sketch of the text and a photo of the mold. S.V.Kiselyov, developing a transliteration of the inscription, noted, that " its letters are rather original and differ considerably from others from Yenisei". The scientist offered phonetic correlation to a number of original signs, noted their relationship with the graphics of the Talas plank, and of the letter "ladder" with the "Besenyo" script and Hungarian engravings. In the same year S.V.Kiselyov published in the book a photo of a print. S.E.Malov during a visit in the summer of 1948 to the Minusinsk museum saw the spindle weight. E.R.Rygdylon also handed to the researcher prints of the inscription, however the results of the outstanding Türkologist's work with this monument were not published. S.E.Malov only expressed once a hope that gradually the inscription will be deciphered. In 1951 E.R. Rygdylon, considering the S.V.Kiselyov's publication, limited himself to a brief mention of the spindle weight and a remark about unlikeness of some signs on the inscription with the Yenisei alphabet. In 1953 the researcher published a photo of a print of the inscription (probably, a similar print was also handed to S.E.Malov) and its sketch, accompanied with their brief description and a comparative paleographic table. In 1961 A.M.Scherbak, visiting Minusinsk museum, unfortunately, could not find the spindle weight in its funds. The reason, probably, was an absence at that time a professional archeolog, with a good knowledge of the collection, on the staff of the museum. In his 1970 work A.M. Scherbak noted the publications of his predecessors and fairly noted that the signs on the spindle weight "obviously expressed a Yenisei character". In the middle of the 60ies an archeologist N.V.Leontiev started to work again in the Minusinsk museum, and the spindle weight with the inscription became again accessible to the researchers.

In 1978. D.D.Vasiliev, having studied the original,  published a new sketch of the inscription, photo pictures of the toned signs on the lateral surface and the traced photos of the surfaces of the planes spindle weight, noting there rune-like marks. In 1983 these materials, completed with the photo of the traced general view photo of the spindle weight, drawings of its surfaces and one picture of the toned inscription, a brief description of the subject and incomplete bibliography,  were republished. Despite of the differences of the signs of the runic text from the letters of the Yenisei inscriptions, also noted by D.D.Vasiliev, this written monument only by its place of find received an index E 87, which conflicted with the paleographic principle of similar designations. In another work in 1983, the researcher  noted a similarity of the spindle weight signs with the letters of the east European inscriptions. We shall note that D.D.Vasiliev's sketch does not completely agrees with his photo of the toned signs on the inscription (compare: Tab. XLII, № 1, 7, 11а, 12, 13, 21). Besides, the shape of the signs in these photos is different in details also from the editions of 1978 and 1983. The sketches of the inscriptions in publications also differ in the dimensions and, that is more important, forms of some signs (Tab. XLII, № 9, 12-13, 17, 18, 20-22).

 An acquaintance with the original convinces that the fullest and objective information about the inscription on the narrow side of the spindle weight are represented by the mold by V.P.Levashyova published in the works by S.V.Kiselyov. On some published sketches were transferred some later damages to the surface of the text ( Tab. XLII, № la, 12a, 17а, 25а and б). The tracings of 18а are accidental and appeared, probably, before the creation of the inscription. The point 13а is wider and smaller than the similar signs, therefore there is no confidence that it belongs to the text. Thin crossbeam scratches of signs 18 and 22 touching neighboring letters that are not present in other runes cause doubts. The inscription is scratched with wide and deep strokes, it looks like it is cut with a knife. One of the wide sides of the spindle weight is does not have writtengs, on the second are three isolated rune-like figures (SE 5/2). There is no confidence that they are letters. Other lines, noted on this side of a subject by D.D.Vasiliev, definitely are not alphabetical signs. The inscriptions of the spindle weight  were studied paleographically in 1988 and  were published in our summary work in 1990.

Table XLII

Perception of signs on spindle weight in Minusinsk museum (SE 5/1) by different researchers

SE 6. Uybat

Graffiti on a bottom of a silver vessel. A line of four signs, length 0,7 sm. Height of the letters 0,35-0,4 sm.

Date - end of 8th - first half of 9th century.

Found in 1928. by S.A.Teplouhov at excavation of a tomb 19 on Uybat chaatas (r. Beyka, the right inflow of r. Uybat, left inflow of r. Abakan) (Fig. 3,2).

Stored in State Hermitage, cat. № 4899/2.

SY 6.  1 - by A.N.Bernshtam, 2-3 - sketch by the author, 2 - general view of the slashes on the bottom,
3 - initial slashes on bottom

Publications:

Bernshtam A.N. Ancient Türkic script at river Lena. - EV. 1951, 4, Tab. 11,7;

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writings of Eurasia, Fig. 26,3, 4, 4A.

Attempts to read:

Bernshtam A.N. Social and economic system of Orkhon-Yenisean Türks in 6th - 8th centuries. M. - L., 1946, p. 69;

Bernshtam A.N.  Ancient Türkic script at river Lena, p. 85.

The vessel was originally stored in the State museum of ethnography of USSR peoples (Leningrad), and then, by L.R.Kyzlasov's initiative, the S.A.Teplouhov's archeological collections  were transferred to the State Hermitage. The inscription on its bottom, made with deep slashes, but damaged by thr work of restorers,  was found by A.N.Bernshtam, who  published the first version of its reading in 1946. In 1951 the researcher published a sketch of the runic text and its new reading, also done on the basis of the Yenisei alphabet. A.N.Bernshtam believed that in two lines of this inscription a same phrase was repeated twice. In 1983. D.D.Vasiliev, republishing the A.N.Bernshtam's sketch and giving the obsolete information of its storage  place and incorrect date of its find, noted that phonetically "some signs cannot be identified with certainty". Meanwhile the acquaintance with the original reveals obvious conflicts in A.N.Bernshtam's publication.
First, the second line of the text is completely absent and, probably, "arose" due to overlapping of two sketches of the same signs by A.N.Bernshtam. Secondly, as letters can be taken only first three signs of his reproduction. On the bottom of the vessel in addition to the three letters and a stroke cut together with them, are some tracings overlapping each other. The top "layer" has tamga-like signs, the lowermost has twisting and cross figures. The inscription belongs to pre-tamga writings and either is simultaneous with the lowermost "layer", or prior to it. Among the top lines understood by A.N.Bernshtam as a continuation of the inscription, the slanting cross is different in depth from the letters, and the following scratches are even thinner, and probably, unintentional damages of the surface. The initial cross belongs to the late layer of the tamga-like signs. The said allows us to count only four deep signs, though their smallest sizes create certain doubts. The form of the first letter convinces that the inscription is done with S.Yenisey script and  incorrectly received in the literature the index of the Yenisei texts - E 83.

SE 7. Sargol

Graffiti on a fragment of a rock. One slanting line of 17 signs. Overall length about 14 sm, height of letters from 1,2 to 1,7-2 sm.

Date unclear.

Found in 1982 by M.A. Devlet in the gorge connecting valleys Ortaa-Sargol and Mugur-Sargol on the left bank of the r. Yenisei (Fig. 3,3).

Located in the place of find.

SE 7. By M.A.Devlet's sketch

Publications:

Devlet M.A. Petroglyphs of the nomadic path. М., 1982, Tab. 28,7.

Attempts to read:

None published.

Below the inscription in a like manner are grooved figures of three horsemen, to the right of the text is grooved an animal. The right part of the inscription is on the image of another animal, probably a deer. Apparently, the runes were chiseled on the rock after the images, the break in the line of the text shows that the writer avoided the lines of the image. The thirteenth sign (a short stroke), probably, is word separator. Paleographic study of the inscription was in 1988, sketch was reprinted in 1990.

SE 8. Aimyrlyg I

Graffiti on a horn layer of a combat bow. A line of nine letters, length 7,2 sm. Height of letters from 0,9 to 1,4 sm (once - 1,7 sm).

Date - 9-10 century.

Found by A.M. Mandelshtam and B.B.Ovchinnikova in 1971 at excavation of a kurgan 52 in the group 8 of the Ajmyrlyg 1 burial grounds on the left bank of the r. Chaa-Hol, the left inflow of r. Yenisei (Fig. 3,4).

Located in IIMK of the Russian Academy of Sciences (?).

SE 8. By B.B.Ovchinnikova's sketch

Publications:

Vasiliev D.D. Corpus of Türkic runic monuments of Yenisei basin. L., 1983, p. 81;

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 28,2

Attempts to read:

Vasiliev D.D. Corpus of Türkic runic monuments of Yenisei basin. L., 1983, p. 46.

SE 9. Ajmyrlyg II

Graffiti on a horn layer of a combat bow. A line with traces of two letters and one whole letter. Length of line 2,2 sm, height of script 1,3 sm.

Date - 9th-10th century.

Found by A.M.Mandelshtam and B.B.Ovchinnikova in 1971  in the same kurgan as SE 8.

Located in IIMK of the Russian Academy of Science (?).

SE 9. By B.B.Ovchinnikova's sketch

Publications:

Vasiliev D.D. Corpus of Türkic runic monuments of Yenisei basin. L., 1983, p. 81;

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 28,2.

Attempts to read:

None published.

The sketches of the horn laminators with signs by B.B.Ovchinnikova were published by D.D.Vasiliev, who suggested a partial transliteration of the long inscription on the basis of the Yenisei alphabet. The monuments  unjustifiably received an index of the Yenisei texts (E 141 and E 142). The shape of the third sign of the SE 8 can be vcariously interpreted (as № 29 or as № 4 on Tab. XV). A paleographic study of the inscriptions was done in 1988, sketches of them were republished in 1990.

SE 10. Lake 2

Graffiti on a rock. A vertical line of 17 signs, length 18,6 sm. Height of signs from 0,9 to 2,2 sm, on the average - 1,5 sm.

Date undetermined.

Found by V.F.Kapelko in 1977 on the Lake Mountain, on the left bank of the r. Pechishche above lake Sulphatic (Buzun) (Fig. 3,7).

Located in the place of find.

SE 10 Sketches by the author

Publications:

Kyzlasov I.L. New runic writings of Southern Siberia. - Archeology of Mountain Altai. Gorno-Altaisk, 1988, Fig. 1;

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 29.

Attempts to read:

None published.

In 1977 in Khakassia during survey of the Lake Mountain by V.F.Kapelko and E.A.Sevastjanova was found an inscription on the fifth mountaintop from the Sulek inscription (Fig. 3,7). Due to the information provided by the researchers, the author managed to get acquainted with the original. Anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figures are chiseled on the rock outcrop with the inscription. Deeply cut letters are to the left of the figures by the edge of the rock. A blank space in line is explained by intentional skipping of the damaged spot on the rock. The inscription contains 11 types of the S.Enisey letters and ends with a short stroke. A rune № 32, not found anywhere else, links it with the S.Enisey incriptions of the Written Mountain (SE 1-SE  4) (Tab. XV). The inscription was published in 1988,  with V.F.Kapelko's sketch, and in 1990 with the sketch by this author. This is a second written monument from the Lake mountain, the first inscription is written with Yeniseian script (E 138, Fig. 22).

SE 11. Turan 3

Graffiti on the menhir of an early Iron Age kurgan. A vertical line of 19 signs, length 21 sm. Height of letters 1,5-2 sm. A tamga is engraved 20,3 sm above the text.

Date undetermined. (Central Asian "early Iron Age" is dated by early 1st millennium ВС - Tanslator's Note)

Found by in 1977 by V.F.Kapelko in a vale on the Turan mountain on the left bank of the r. Yenisei (Fig. 3,5).

Located in place of find.

SE 11. Sketches by the author

Publications:

Kyzlasov I.L. New runic writings of Southern Siberia. - Archeology of Mountain Altai. Gorno-Altaisk, 1988, Fig. 1;

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 32.

Attempts to read:

None published.

Due to the information received from V.F.Kapelko and with B.N.Pyatkin's assistance,  in 1981 we surveyed the written monument site together with L.R.Kyzlasov. The inscription is south-east side of a corner slab of the kurgan fencing, its height 1,4 m, and width 1 m. The height of the narrow side 1,16 m, width at the base 14 sm, at the inscription - 9 sm. The description, a sketch, and paleographic study of the inscription were published in 1988 and 1990. Also was published a sketch of one more, barely discernable, rune-like inscription Turan 4, which once was chiseled on a slab of another kurgan of the same burial grounds. The sequential numbers of the inscriptions include the rock inscription texts Turan 1 and 2 (E 118).

SE 12. Edegey 2

Graffiti on a stele of a commemorative fencing. A vertical line of 11 signs, length 12,8 sm. Height of letters from 0,9 - 1,2 to 1,5 - 2 sm.

Date - after the middle of the 8th century.

Found by L.R.Kyzlasov in 1978 in Edegey burials (fence 17) at the foot of the Chinge-Dag mountains on the left bank of the r. Edegey - the left tributary of the r. Hemchik (Fig. 3,6).

Located in KhRKM, cat. № 5677/8.

SE 12. Sketches by the author

Nowadays one of the sub-clans of the Argyn clan, splinters of which can be found from Danube to Baykal, but the main body resides in Kazakhstan, still has a similar tamga called "koz" => . S.A. Yatcenco noted this "Alanian" tamga in the Don area Sarmatia ca 50-150 AD, and in the basins of Seyhun/Syr-Darya in the 4th-8th cc. AD, see his Fig 5, No 34, 71, and 114, and Fig.29, No 7 . Either a descendant of the Crimean dweller with a huge family, capable of producing a monumental monument, wandered all the way to Tuva, to be honorably buried at Edegey, or a split in the family a millennia earlier had a member of the clan wander all the way to the Crimea carrying their sarmas (bags) to be called Sarmaty (akin to "bagger")

Publications:

Kyzlasov I.L. New runic writings of Southern Siberia. - Archeology of Mountain Altai. Gorno-Altaisk, 1988, Fig. 2, 3,7;

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 30,7, 2.

Attempts to read:

None published.

SE 13. Edegey 3

Graffiti on a stela of a commemorative fencing. The vertical line divided into three parts by a placed between the letters tamga and a space of 3 sm. Overall length 40 sm. In the three parts are seven, five and ten written signs accordingly, height from 1 to 1,7 sm.

Date - 9-10 century.

Found by L.R.Kyzlasov in 1978 in the same Edegey burial grounds (fence 17).

Located in KhRKM, cat. № 5677/8.

SE 13. Sketches by the author

Publications:

Kyzlasov I.L. New runic writings of Southern Siberia. - Archeology of Mountain Altai. Gorno-Altaisk, 1988, Fig. 10;

Kyzlasov I.L.  Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 33,7, 2.

Attempts to read:

None published.

The Edegey burial grounds consist of eight kurgans of Uük culture (7-3 centuries BC), two stone kurgans, probably medieval, and seventeen commemorative, probably Uük structures partially re-used by the Tugü Türks. In two of them were found stelas with runic inscriptions. Text Edegey 1 is written with Yenisei alphabet with a use of two forms of the S.Yenisey letters (Fig. 5). The second inscription (SE 12) is on the eastern side of a slate stela (1,6 x 0,22 h 0,14 m) in a southern corner of a paired commemorative fence in front of which, in addition,  "were installed Ancient Türkic sculptures and three lines of balbals. The vertical line of the text is a little slanted and consist of scored by thin grooves and in places barely legible signs. The vertical tri-dotting (sign 8), probably, serves as a word separator.

Inscription SE 13 is on the northeastern side of a narrow stela (1,7 x 0,22 x 0,2 m, top is broken off), which used to be in the center of the same commemorative fence. The whole side is covered with a multi-figured image of a chase hunt. The actions, scored by thin and shallow lines, are placed in several tiers. Vertically on the left side of the surface, one line of the runic inscription is separated from the figures by a specially drawn line. The inscription is unique in two aspects. First, among the runes is a tamga, identical to that of the Edegey 1 text (Fig. 5). Below the tamga are seven letters and a wavy line which can be interpreted in a few ways. Above, are two groups of runes: five following the heraldic sign and after an interval of 3 sm are another ten letters. This manner, resulted probably from the text written from left to right, is clearly visible in the top part of the inscription. The runes below tamga, in half of the cases  have a usual turn. Exceptions are the last, the fourth and the fifth signs on the right. The description, a sketch and paleographic study of inscriptions SE 12 and SE 13 were published in 1988 and 1990. In 1987 we excavated the fence.

SE 14. Chinge

Graffiti on a rock. A horizontal line of 22 signs, length 24,5 sm. Height of signs from 1,5 to 4 sm, on the average - 2-2,8 sm.

Date undetermined.

Found by N.V.Leontiev in 1984 near the mouth of the r. Chinge, the right inflow of r. Yenisei (Fig. 3,7).

Located in the place of find.

SE 14. By N.V.Leontiev's sketch

Publications:

Kyzlasov I.L. New runic writings of Southern Siberia. - Archeology of Mountain Altai. Gorno-Altaisk, 1988, Fig. 11;

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 34,1.

Attempts to read:

None published.

On the left bank of the r. Chinge, near its mouth, cliffs overhang the waters of Yenisei. On the top tier, on a small facet of red sandstone (50 x 45 sm), located 5-6 meters from the stone № 145 by M.A.Devlet numbering, are grooved with very thin lines illegible drawings. Above them, along the top edge of the rock, also with thin lines is grooved  one horizontal line of a runic inscription. We published its description and N.V.Leontjev's sketch in 1988 and 1990, together with a paleographic study of the text.

SE 15. Edegey 4

Graffiti on a fragment of a stela. A vertical line consisting of 11 full and 4 partially preserved signs. Total length 15,8 sm, height of letters 2,5-3 sm.

Date undetermined.

Found by I.L.Kyzlasov in 1987 at excavation of the Edegey burial grounds fence 17 on the left bank of the of the same river.

Located in the Archeology Division of the Historical faculty of the Moscow State University.

SE 15. Sketches by the author

Publications:

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 34,2.

Attempts to read:

None published.

SE 16. Edegey 5

Graffiti on two matching fragments of a stela. A vertical line in which are distinct 23 signs, height 1,5-2 sm. Overall length 30 sm.

Date-9th-10th century.

Found by I.L.Kyzlasov in 1987 at excavation of the Edegey burial grounds fence 17.

Located in the Archeology Division of the Historical faculty of the Moscow State University.

SE 16. Sketches by the author

Publications:

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 35.

Attempts to read:

None published.

SE 17. Edegey 6

Graffiti on a stela. A vertical line of three signs, length 3,3 sm. Height of letters 1,6 and 2 sm.

Date undetermined.

Found by I.L.Kyzlasov in 1987 at excavation of the Edegey burial grounds fence 18, adjacent with fence 17.

It was left in the location of the burial grounds at fence 18.

Ю17. Sketches by the author

Publications:

Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Türkic runic writing of Eurasia, Fig. 33,3.

Attempts to read:

None published.

In 1987 we dug out a double fence with monuments Edegey 2 and 3 (SE 12, SE 13). We found three new S.Yenisey inscriptions. The text Edegey 6 (SE 15)  remained on a thin slate slab (28 x 29 x 2,4 sm), laying on the surface in the southern part of the object, probably a fragment of a narrow stela  (with the face of 29 sm), where an inscription  line was drawn lengthways, but at an angle to the long axis of the slab. The slab with inscription Edegey 5 (SE 16)  was found near the previous inscription (SE 15), but under a layer of turf. Probably, it is too a knocked off part of the top of a stela  (63 x 24 x 1,5-2 sm). Its width coincides with the size of the bases of two menhirs initially located at the southern corner of the object and in the center of its southern extension. In the middle of the fragment are chiseled tamga-looking signs and a carved composition, but all of them are made in a different manner and, hence, are asynchronous with the inscription along the edge of the stela, and intentionally separated from the other part of the surface by a groove line. Aparently, the text is written from left to right. For a number of signs is possible to discern that the left stroke was cut before the right, even if was a lateral stroke (runes 10, 13, 19, 20). We happened to find a small second splinter of this stela (12 x 8 sm), containing 8 signs. All letters of the inscription are done with shallow but wide (0,5 mm) grooves and, despite of the worn-out surface, exposed to the elements for a long time, they are distinguished quite clearly. Only four signs (1, 2, 4, 5) are problematic to recognize. The inscription SE 17 has three runic signs, grooved in one line at an angle to the long axis of the massive fragment of the stela  (160 x 26 x 11 sm), which was laying along the eastern wall inside the northern fence, adjacent to the wall containing texts SE 12, SE 13, SE 15, SE 16. Apparently, the runes were engraved in a mirror image. Otherwise the first sign of the script should be recognized  as a letter of the Yenisey alphabet, as in the S.Yenisey script this sign did not come up. The word separator finishing the inscription  is a feature of the S.Yenisey script, unknown for the Yenisei texts. The sketches of the inscriptions SE 15-SE 17 were published in 1990.

SE 18. Karban

Graffiti on a wall of a small grotto. A vertical line of 17 signs. Overall length 20 sm. Height of letters 2,5-3 sm.

Date undetermined.

Found by V.N. Edin and E.P. Matochkin in 1988 near the mouth on the left bank of the rivulet Karban (left inflow of the r. Katun), accross from village Kuüs.

Located in the place of find.

SE 18.1 - By V.N. Edin's sketch, 2 - by E.P. Matochkin's sketch

Publications:

Yelin V.N, Soyonov V.I. New archeological monuments in the zone of planned construction of Katun Hydroelectric Power Station. - Archeological research in Katun. Novosibirsk, 1990, Fig. 16,2;

Klyashtorny S.G., Matochkin E.P. Karban's Runic inscription. - ISOAN. History, philosophy and philology. 1991, № 1, Fig. 1.

Attempts to read:

Klyashtorny S.G., Matochkin E.P. Karban's Runic inscription. - ISOAN. History, philosophy and philology. 1991, № 1.

The inscription is adjacent to images, signs and lines, of not clear intentions and various chronology, it was published in two sketches executed by two researchers, V.N. Edin and E.P. Matochkin. The reproductions supplement each other in respect to the shape of some signs (compare, first of all, the runes 1, 4, 8, 16), although nevertheless it is possible to suggest that the shape of some letters (6, 7, 17) is not rendered completely accurately. Interpreting the inscription, S.G. Klyashtorny used only E.P.Matochkin's sketch which caused difficulties in understanding the letter 16. The inscription is apprized as Orkhon-Yenisean (so-called "Central Asian runic script"), containing two letters from the "Eastern European runes" set, he suggested a version of its reading (not a coherent text) and briefly stated a hypothesis about two stages of the existence of Ancient Türkic runic script, one more ancient, "undeveloped and primitive" in its usage, which  engendered the "Eastern European alphabet" with local variations, and a later, "reformed" и "normative", characteristical for the Asian states. The use, in the Karban inscription, of non-Orkhon-Yenisean letters is viewed by the researcher as a relict usage of the pre-reform script. Meanwhile this inscription, undoubtedly, is written with the S.Yenisey alphabet. Out of its 14 different signs eight find a match in our Tab. XV, including rather specific letters: № 5, 6, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26. The ninth letter (third sign of the inscription) serves as a marker  of the Yenisei inscriptions in Altai (Tab. XXIV, № 40). There is also a letter as a rhomb (Tab. XXIV, № 37 though there it, apparently, represents a variation of the rune б²). This sign, and the tenth letter of the inscription, is among the Upper Yenisean signs in Tuva (Tab. XXVI, № 3, 16; XXXI, № 1, 4).

Thus, in the paleographic sense the investigated graffiti in fact can be apprized as an inscription of mixed graphics (only with a reservation that the complement of the known to us today S.Yenisey alphabet, certainly, is not complete). At the same time it is obvious, that this is not an Orkhon-Yenisean, but a S.Yeniseyan text showing the influence of the local tradition of writing in Altai and Upper Yenisean script.

E.P. Matochkin and the S.G. Klyashtorny are inclined to see next to the examined inscription a second line of text. However sketches offered by them and V.N.Yelin do not allow verification without a study of the original.

LITERATURE