GENESIS OF THE TÜRKIC RUNIC ALPHABET

Posted: 13-Oct-2009 at 09:22

Source : http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=27831

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"), o

q, 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,
kü, 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 Silver cup inscription
r. Irtysh valley kurgan, ca. 400-500 BC 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 Greek-Türkic rock inscription "AG BAPAM"-"MY NOBLE
1080" ANSESTOR"
r. Ili valley ca. 770 AD 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

Table 3. Genetic links of Türkic runes. Note 46.

Abbrevia
tions in
Table 3
"Genetic
links of
Türkic
runes":

Aram. -
Aramaic
alphabet
(branch
of
Phoenicia
n
Semitic),
Greek -
eastern
branch of
ancient
Greek
alphabet,
Ven. -
Venet
alphabet
(version
of
Etruscan)
,
Greek. -
ancient
Greek
alphabet,
W.Greek -
western
branch of
the
ancient
Greek
alphabet,
Kar. -
Karian
alphabet,
Lid. -
Lidian
alphabet,
Lic. -
Lician
alphabet,
Mes. -
Messap
alphabet,
Pit. -
Picen
alphabet,
Ret. -
Retian
alphabet
(a version
of
Etruscan)
,
Sid. -
Sidian
alphabet,
Phoen. -
Phoenicia
n
(N.Semiti
c)
alphabet,
Etr. -
 Etruscan
alphabet,
S.Sem. -
S.Semitic
alphabets
.

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

References for Chapter 10

300

1. Tychsen O.N. Schreiben an Pallas 19 Febr. 1786 über alte unbekannte Steinschrift in Sibirien,
" Neue nordliche Beitrage ", vol. V, SPb., 1793, pp. 237-245;
Spassky G.I. Notes about Siberian antiquities. Ancient Siberian inscriptions, "Siberian bulletin ",
SPb., 1818, p. 13-14;
Vostokov A. About similarity of the tracings found in Siberia on stones, to those found in Germany.
" The Siberian bulletin ", SPb., 1824, ch. I, p. 1-8 (translation and comment of the review by
G.Rommel from " Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen ", № 204, 1823 - " De antiquis quisbusdam
sculpturis et inscriptionibus in Sibiria repertis ", Petropoli, 1822);
Klaproth J. Memoires relatifs a V Asie. (Sur quelques antiquites de la Siberie). Paris, 1824, p. 159;
Priests N. About runic letters in Minusinsk territory. " News of Siberian department of Russian
geographical society ", vol. 5, № 2, Irkutsk, 1874, p. 53-55; Donner О. Inscriptions en caracteres
de Flenissei. Systeme d'ecriture. Langue. - " Inscriptions de Orkhon recueillies par fexpedition
Finnoise, 1890 et publiees par la Societe Finno-Ougrienne ", Helsingfors, 1892, pp. XL-XLIV
(XXXIX-XLIX).

2. Yadrintsev H.M. Report of expedition to Orkhon in 1889 on behalf of the Eastern - Siberian
Department of the Imperial Geographical society (a geographical diary). - Collection of works of
Orkhon expedition, I, SPB., 1892, p. 106.
 3 Thomsen W. Deciphering of Orkhon and Yenisei inscriptions. "Notes of Eastern branch of
Russian Archeological Society " (ZVO Russian Archeological Society), vol. VIII, issue III - IV, SPb.,
1894, p. 332 (V.R.Rozen translation from French, Thomsen W. Dechiffrement des inscriptions de
Orkhon et de Yenissei. Notice preliminaire, Extrai du "Bulletin de Akademie R. des Sciences et des
Lettres de Danemark, 1893, N 3, Copenhague, 1894).

4 Schifner A. Über verschiedene sibirische Eigentums-Zeichen, "Melanges russe ", vol.. IV,
1858, p. 2.

5 Thomsen W. Deciphering of Orkhon and Yenisei inscriptions, p. 337; "To talk definitely about
the origin of our alphabet would be premature. I shall allow myself to only address the similarity of
some letters with the letters signs of the (Semito-) Pehlevi alphabet"; Tomsen W. Inscriptions de
Orkhon dechiffrees. " Memoires de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne " (MSFOu), V, Helsingfors, 1894-
1896, pp. 49-50; Tomsen W. V alphabet runiforme Turc. Samlede Afhandlinger, III Bind,
Kobenhavn, 1922, pp. 73-77.
300

6 Klyashtorny S.G. Ancient Türkic runic monuments as a source on a history of Central Asia. М.,
1964, p. 49.

7 Donner O. Sur Toriğine de Palphabet turc du nord de G Asie, "Journal de la Societe Finno-
Ougrienne" (JSFOu), XIV, 1, Helsingfors, 1896, pp. 17, 21, 70.

8 Jensen H. Die Schrift in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, 2. neubearbeitete und erweiterte

Auflage, Berlin 1958, pp. 343-344, Abb. 343.

9 Altheim F. Geschichte der Hunnen, Bd. 1, Kapitel 11 (" Hunnische und alttürkische Runen "),
Berlin, 1959, pp. 284-286, 437.

10 Here we agree with S.G.Kljashtorny, compare Klyashtorny S.G. Ancient Türkic runic
monuments as a source on a history of Central Asia, p. 46.

11 Aristov N. Ethnic structure of Kirghiz - cossacks of the Big Horde and Karakirgizes from
genealogical legends and existing clan divisions and clan tamgas, and also history and beginning of
anthropological research. "Live olde", issue III - IV, SPB., 1894, p. 419-420; Aristov N. Notes
about ethnic structure of Türkic tribes and nations, and their number. "Live olde", issue III - IV,
SPb., 1896, p. 418, 420.

12 Mallitsky N. Link of Türkic tamgas with Orkhon letters. " Records of Türkestani circle of
archeology fans ", year III, Tashkent, 1897-1898, p. 43-47.

13 Sokolov A. From stone to press. "Culture and writing of the East", Baku, 1928, II, p. 116,
118.

14 Batmanov I.A. and Kunaa A.Ch. Monuments of Ancient Türkic writing in Tuva, issue I. Kyzyl,
1963, p. 8.

15 Tomsen W. L'alphabet runiforme Turc, pp. 78 - 79.

16 Polivanov E.D. Ideographic motive in formation of the Orkhon alphabet. A reprint from
"Bulletin of the Central Asian state university" (Tashkent), № 9, 1925, p. 177-179. "Alphabetical

etymologies ( oq, aj) demonstrate that these letters were created only in the Turkish society,
relying upon the Turkish language of the script... ", - wrote in the same place E.D.Polivanov.

17 Emre A. С. Eski türk yazisinin menşegi. Istanbul, 1938, s. 19, 48, 50-52.

18 Clauson G. The origin of the Türkish "runic" alphabet. " Acta örientalia " (Havniae), XXXII,
1970, pp. 55, 59-60.
 19 Critical analysis of these hypotheses see: Amanjolov A.S. Materials and research for history
of the Ancient Türkic writing. Author's abstract of the Doctor Dissertation. Alma-Ata, 1975, p. 54-
57.
301

20 Livshits V.A. Origin of Ancient Türkic runic writing. SPb. "Ethnic, historical and cultural links
of Türkic peoples of the USSR. Theses of reports and messages. All-Union Türkological conference,
27 - 29 September, 1976 ", Alma-Ata, 1976, p. 64.

21 Ibid, p. 68-69 (table).

22 Amanjolov A.S. Once more about Irtysh runic inscription, "Bulletin of Kazakh SSR Academy
of Sciences", 1967, 9 (269), p. 66-70;
Amanjolov A.S. Runic-like inscription from Saka burial near Alma-Ata, "Bulletin of Kazakh SSR
Academy of Sciences", 1971, 12 (320), p. 64-66;
Amanjolov A.S. Türkic runic graphics, Ch. III (exponents - Irtysh, Ili and Syr-Darya inscriptions).
Alma-Ata, 1985, p. 5-16, 31-39.

23 Amanjolov A.S. An "Ancient Greek " inscription from Alma-Ata region, "Oriental Archive"
(Praha), 1967, 35/1, pp. 89-94;
Amanzhо1оv A. S. Forefather goat or ancient Türkic inscription in early Greek alphabet, "Oriental
Archive" (Praha), 1974, 42/1, pp. 33-36.

24 Main provisions of this principally new development of the subject were published, see:
Amanjolov A.S. History of the Türkic runic alphabet. Coll. "Kazaktsh men edebiet" ["Kazakh
language and literature"], issue 5, Alma-Ata, 1974, p. 98-100;
Amanjolov A.S. Problem of origin of the Türkic runic alphabet. Coll. " The cossack tsh men
эдебиет1 " ["Kazakh language and literature "], issue 8, Alma-Ata, 1976, p. 59-71;
Amanjolov A.S. Genesis of Türkic runes. "Questions of linguistics", 1978, № 2, p. 76 - 87.

25 Malov S.E. Monuments of Ancient Türkic writing in Mongolia and Kirghizia. M. - L., 1959, p.
63, 74-75.

26 Neike1 H. J. Altertumer aus dem Tale des Talaş in Türkestan. "Travaux ethnographiques de
la Societe Finno-Ougrienne", VII, Helsinki, 1918, II: 1 and II: 14.

27 Vinnik D.N., Kojemyako P. N. Monuments of Ancient Türkic writing of Ayrtam-Oy valley. Coll.
"New epigraphic finds in Kirghizia (1961)", Frunze, 1962, p. 9-10.

28 Convincing critics of such statements which contradict obvious facts, see: Batmanov I.A.
Dating of Yenisei monuments of the Ancient Türkic writing, "Scientific notes of Tuva NIIYALI ", X,
Kyzyl, 1963, p. 294.

29 Кормушин I.V. Basic concepts of Türkic runic paleography, "Soviet Türkology", 1975, 2, p.
38, 45, 47.

30 Ibid, p. 45.

31 This subject is covered with more detail in Chapter I of this monograph, partly in former
publications, see: Amanjolov A.S. Graphics of Talass, Yenisei and Orkhon inscriptions, Coll. "Kazak
tili men aedebieti", 3, Alma-Ata, 1973, p. 16-26;
Amanjolov A.S. Interpretation of some runic characters, "Scientific notes of Tuva NIIYALI", XVI,
Kyzyl, 1973, p. 163-168;
Amanjolov A.S. Türkic runic graphics (methodical development). Alma-Ata, 1980 [P. I].
302

32 Mалов С. E. Monuments of the Ancient Türkic writing of Mongolia and Kirgizia. M. - L., 1959,
p. 74.
 33 Ginzburg V.V. Anthropological characteristic of the Kazakhstan population during Bronze
Epoch. Works IIAE Academy of Sciences KazSSR, vol. I, Alma-Ata, 1956, p. 159, 170-171;
Ginzburg V.V. Anthropology materials of ancient population of southeast Kazakhstan. - Works IIAE
Academy of Sciences KazSSR, vol. 7, Alma-Ata, 1959, p. 269;
Ismagulov O. Anthropological characteristics of Jeti-Su Usuns. - Works IIAE Academy of Sciences
KazSSR, vol. 16, Alma-Ata, 1962, p. 176, 187, 190-192;
Ismagulov O. Kazakhstan population from an Bronze Epoch to modernity (paleoanthropological
research). Alma-Ata, 1970, p. 4, 10, 19, 37-38.

34 Bernshtam A.N. Most ancient Türkic elements in ethnogenesis of Central Asia. "Soviet
Ethnography" (collection of articles), VI - VII, M. - L., 1947, p. 148.

35 Ibid, p. 148-149, etc.

36 Marx К. and Engels F. Selected letters. M., I947, p. 73.

37 Gumilev L.N. Hunnu. Middle Asia during ancient times. M, 1960, p. 39-40.

38 Hirth F. Nachworte zur Inschrift des Tonjukuk. In: Radloff W. Diealttiirkischen Inschriften der
Mongolei. Zweite Folge. SPb., 1899, S. 49.

39 Shiratori К. Über die Wu-sun Stamm in Zentralasien. " Keleti Szemle " (Budapest), 1902, 2-
3, pp. 103-140.

40 Aristov N.A. Notes about ethnic structure of Türkic tribes and nations and their number, p.
17.

41 Zuev Ü. I. Question of language of ancient Usuns. "Bulletin of Academy of Sciences KazSSR

", No 5 (146), 1957, p. 73.

42 Gryaznov M.P. Connections of Southern Siberia nomads with Central Asia and Near East in
1st millennium BC "Materials of Second meeting of archeologists and ethnographers of Central
Asia". M. - L., 1959, p. 142;
Rudenko S.I. Art of Altai and Near East (Middle of the 1st millennium BC). М., 1961, p. 64;
Mannay-ool M. X. New materials of Scythian time in Tuva (Materials of archeological research
TNIIYALI), issue IX, Kyzyl, 1964, p. 278-284.

43 Comparison material, besides Türkological material, was from the following studies of
general and specific nature:
Shampolion J.-F. Egyptian hieroglyphic alphabet. Translation, edition and comments by
I.G.Livshits. Publ. USSR Academy of Sciences, 1950;
Wiedemann F. Begining of historical Greek writing. Research in the field of most ancient Greek
alphabet. Leipzig, 1908 (1910);
Thompson E. M. An Introduction to Greek and Latin Palaeography. Oxford, 1912;
Driver G. R. Semitic Writing from Pictograph to Alphabet. London, 1948;
Gelb L. J. Study of Writing. Foundation of Grammatology. London, 1952;
Diringer D. Alphabet. Key to the History of Mankind. London, 1953;
Diringer D. Writing. London, 1962;
Moorhouse A. С. The Triumph of the Alphabet. A History of Writing. New York, 1953;
Friedrich J. Entzifferung verschollener Schriften und Sprachen, Berlin, 1954;
Jensen Н. Die Schrift in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, 2. neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage,
Berlin, 1958;
Cohen M. La grande invention de reeriture et son evolution. Paris, 1958;
Shifman I.S. Phoenician language. М., 1963;
Istrin V.A. Emergence and development of writing. М., 1965 (2nd revised edition);
Shevoroshkin V.V. Research in decoding of Karian inscriptions. М., 1965;
Makaev E.A. Language of the most ancient runic inscriptions. The linguistic and historical
philological analysis. М., 1965;
Friedrich J. Geschichte der Schrift. Unter besonderer Berücksichtung ilırer geistigen Entwickltmg.
Heidelberg, 1966;
Földes-Papp К. Vom Felsbild zurn Alphabet. Die geschichte der Schrift von ihren frühesten
Vorstufen bis zur modernen lateinischen Schreibshrift. Stuttgart, 1966;
Bauer Г. M. Language of S.Arabian writing. М., 1966;
Shevoroshkin V.V. Lidian language. М., 1967;
Shevoroshkin V. V. Zur Entstehımg und Entwicklung der kleinasiatischen Buchstabenschriften.
"Kadmos" (Berlin), Bd. VII, 2, 1968, pp. 150-173.
303

44 Margulan A.H. Begazy-Dandyb Culture of Central Kazakhstan. Alma-Ata, 1979, p. 21.

45 Ramstedt С. J. The relation of the Altaic languages to other language groups. Extrait du "
Journal de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne ", LIII, Helsinki, 1947, p. 23: "In my view equally good
reasons could be found for attempting to link together the Altaic and Indo-European languages";
Emre A. C. Le probleme de la parente des langues turques et indo-europeennes. Ankara, 1960;
(A.J. Emre addressed up to 40 cases of most ancient Indoeuropean-Türkic lexical concordances);
Dulzon A.P. Hypothesis about remote relationship of the Uralo-Altai languages with Indo-European.
Coll. "Origin of Siberia natives and their languages" (Materials of interuniversity conference 11 - 13
May, 1969), Tomsk, 1969, p. 108 - 110;
Petrov K.I. Genetical relationship of the Altai and Indo-European languages.
Ibid, p. 110 - 112.

46 Abbreviations in Table 3 "Genetical links of Türkic runes": see Table 3

304

47 Ryasyanen M. Materials for historical phonetics of Türkic languages, М., 1955, p. 24 - 25;
Baskakov N.A. Türkic languages (General and typological characteristics), "Languages of the USSR
peoples", II - Türkic languages, М., 1966, p. 17;
Doerfer G. Bemerkungen zur Methodik der turkischen Lautlehre, " Orientalistische Literaturzeitung
", (Berlin), LXVI, 7/8,1971, p. 335.

Existence of proto-Türkic initial consonant of type *h (*k) is definitely confirmed by the Khalage
material, see: Derfer, Research status of Khalage group of languages. Questions of linguistics,
1972, № 1, and other works.

Also compare:
ancient-Türkic ara "interval, middle" and Chuvash. khusha "gap between objects",
ancient-Türkic egri "1) curved, uneven, bent; 2) indirect: false, lying, wrong; 3) curvature", and
Chuvash. kuker " 1) curved, bent, crooked; 2) dishonest, dishonestly; 3) curvature, bend, corner,
turn, bow",
ancient-Türkic inč "1) rest; quiet; 2) quietly ", and Chuvash. kanač "rest, calmness, breather,
convenience" (formed from verb kan- "to rest, resting"),
ancient-Türkic ačïγ "1) sour, bitter; 2) indirect. bitter, insulting; 3) noun, indirect bitterness,
bitter", and Chuvash. kacha "term for anything very spicy, bitter",
ancient-Türkic aşuq "ankle joint, anklebone" and Khakass. khazykh "knucklebone, anklebone",
ancient-Türkic üηür " 1) emptiness, empty space; 2) hollow".
305