The Turkic runic inscriptions: the problems of dating and interpretation difficulties
https://doi.org/10.53315/2782-3377-2023-3-4-9-21
Abstract
It is officially believed that the ancient Turkic script, called runic for its resemblance to the Scandinavian runes, existed in the period from the VI century AD to the X century AD, after which it ceased to be used, and it was practically forgotten. The Runic script of the Turks is not a common Turkic script, since its area of distribution is limited to the Minusinsk basin, the upper reaches of the Yenisei, Altai, the upper reaches of the Orkhon River and the Tola River in Mongolia. It is also represented by Turfan manuscripts and a few monuments in the Talas River valley and in Ferghana. These monuments are not precisely dated in time, the interpretation of many of them is very difficult, and in many cases we are not dealing with full-fledged translations, but, often, with the translator’s own interpretation of the text. The good preservation of many monuments indicates their relatively late origin. Most likely, these monuments belong to the XV–XVI centuries. As for the largest group of monuments — the Yenisei and Altai, they belong to the period of existence of the tribal formation of the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khongorai of the XVI–XVII centuries, which ceased to exist in 1703, when its population was mostly forcibly resettled to Dzungaria by its ruler Tsevan-Rabdan
About the Author
K. A. Kotkoff
Center for the Studies of the Far East
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kirill Anatolyevich Kotkoff, The Head of the Center
St.-Petersburg
References
1. Bazylqan, N. (2010). Drevneturkskie pismennye pamiatniki v Mongolii: problemy nauchnoi katalogizatsii i museefikatsii. Uralo-Altaiskie issledovania. 2(3). [Bazylqan N. The ancient Turkic monuments in Mongolia ^– some problems of catalogization and museefication. The Ural-Altaic Studies journal. 2(3)] (in Russian).
2. Brockhaus and Efron’s Encyclopedic Dictionary (1901). Turko-Tatars. 34. St. Petersburg.
3. Butanaev, V.Y. Hudiakov, Y.S. (2000). Istoriya yeniseiskih kyrgyzov. Abakan: HGU im. N.F. Katanova [Butanaev V.Y. Hudiakov Y.S. (2000). The history of the Yenisei Kyrgyz. Abakan: The Katanov’s Khakas State University] (in Russian).
4. Butanaev, V.Yа. (2015). Novye pamiatniki runicheskoi pismennosti v Khongoraye (Khakassia). Severo-vostochny gumanitarnyi vestnik. 4(13) [Butanaev V.Y. (2015). The new monuments of the Kyrgyz runic writing in Khongorai (Khakassia). The North-Eastern Humanitarian Studies journal. 4(13)] (in Russian).
5. Galdi, L. (1987). Hungarian-Russian dictionary. Moscow: Russian language.
6. Kliashtorny, S.G. (1987). Deviataya runicheskaya nadpis c Uybata. Sovietskaya Turkologia. 1. 33-36 [Kliashtorny, S.G. The Ninth runic inscription from Uybat. The Soviet turkology. 1. 33-36] (in Russian).
7. Kliashtorny, S.G. (2010). Runicheskiye pamiatniki Uigurskogo kaganata i istoriya evraziiskih stepei. SPb: Peterburgskoye vostokovedenie [Kliashtorny, S.G. (2010). The runic monuments of the Uighur Kaganate and the history of the Eurasian steppes. Saint-Petersburg: Oriental Studies] (in Russian).
8. Kotkoff, K.A. Lokalizatsiya niekotoryh etnonimov, a takzhe geograficheskih nazvaniy antichnosti i srednih vekov [Kotkoff, K.A. The localization of some ethnic names and place names of antiquity and medieval ages] URL: https://new.chronologia.org/volume17/kotkov_ethnonyms.php (in Russian).
9. Kyzlasov, I.L. (2021). Runicheskiye pismena Sibiri. Abakan, Khakasskoye knizhnoye izdatelstvo [Kyzlasov, I.L. (2021). The runic writings of Siberia. Abakan: The Khakass publishing house] (in Russian).
10. Okladnikov, A.P. (1981). Otkrytie Sibiri. Moskva: Molodaya Gvardia [Okladnikov, A.P. (1981). The discovery of Siberia. Moscow: Molodaya Gvardia] (in Russian).
11. Thomsen, V. (1894). Deciphering the Orkhon and Yenisei inscriptions [Translated from French: “Déchiffrement des inscriptions de l’orkhon et de l’iénisséi. Notice préliminaire par Vilh. Thomsen”]. Notes of the Eastern Branch of the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society. VIII. St. Petersburg: type. Imp. Academy of Sciences. 323-337
Review
For citations:
Kotkoff K.A. The Turkic runic inscriptions: the problems of dating and interpretation difficulties. Nomadic civilization: historical research. 2023;3(4):9-21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.53315/2782-3377-2023-3-4-9-21
Views:
758
Email this article 