Avar Inscription found on a small bronze disc near Vukovar, Croatia
Source: cogniarchae.com/category/languages-and-scripts/
or cogniarchae.com/2023/08/31/on-the-mysterious-proto-hungarian-inscription-from-vukovar-croatia/
or cogniarchae.com/2023/08/31/on-the-mysterious-proto-hungarian-inscription-from-vukovar-croatia/
The 6.5 cm-in-diameter bronze disc was discovered by metal-detecting enthusiasts near Vukovar, Croatia. An internet blogger interested in the ancient and medieval history of the Balkans bought the disc and donated it to the Vinkovci Municipal Museum, Vinkovci Croatia where it currently resides.
The first attempt at reading the inscription belongs to Géza Varga, A Vukovár környéki rovásírásos fémtükör [The runiform-inscribed metal mirror from Vukovar], Varga Géza (2023) internet publication,
Source: https://www.academia.edu/106502081/A_Vukov%C3%A1r_k%C3%B6rny%C3%A9ki_rov%C3%A1s%C3%ADr%C3%A1sos_f%C3%A9mt%C3%BCk%C3%B6r?uc-sb-sw=110555050 www.academia.edu/106502081/A_Vukov%C3%A1r_k%C3%B6rny%C3%A9ki_rov%C3%A1s%C3%ADr%C3%A1sos_f%C3%A9mt%C3%BCk%C3%B6r?uc-sb-sw=110555050
Géza Varga's internet paper is an attempt to read the Vukovar metal disc inscription using "Hungarian hieroglyphs", from which he claims the Székely rovás (runiform) script is derived. From his blog / internet paper I've clipped the segmented figures which show how he (Mr. Varga) parses the inscription. I, by and large, agree with his parsing at this point (but may change my opinion later on, as I get into this). Of course, I will attempt my own reading using Old Turkic as the base script and language and will proceed from there. Here goes:
Source: https://www.academia.edu/106502081/A_Vukov%C3%A1r_k%C3%B6rny%C3%A9ki_rov%C3%A1s%C3%ADr%C3%A1sos_f%C3%A9mt%C3%BCk%C3%B6r?uc-sb-sw=110555050 www.academia.edu/106502081/A_Vukov%C3%A1r_k%C3%B6rny%C3%A9ki_rov%C3%A1s%C3%ADr%C3%A1sos_f%C3%A9mt%C3%BCk%C3%B6r?uc-sb-sw=110555050
Géza Varga's internet paper is an attempt to read the Vukovar metal disc inscription using "Hungarian hieroglyphs", from which he claims the Székely rovás (runiform) script is derived. From his blog / internet paper I've clipped the segmented figures which show how he (Mr. Varga) parses the inscription. I, by and large, agree with his parsing at this point (but may change my opinion later on, as I get into this). Of course, I will attempt my own reading using Old Turkic as the base script and language and will proceed from there. Here goes:
Figures 3 a-h. Parsing of the inscription. Inscriptions are read right to left (or counter-clockwise when viewed as unsegmented whole). Assigned values are my own (D. Dulin, hungarian rune project). Photos and rovás (runiform) drawings are Mr. Varga's and were clipped from his paper.
Parsed inscriptions are read right to left for each segment (starting at Fig 3a and ending at Fig 3h). The inscription is read counter-clockwise when viewed on the disc (Figures 1 and 2).
The references that I will be using to decipher this runiform-inscribed artifact are,
for the language:
Sir Gerard Clauson (1972) An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish, and Talat Tekin (1968) A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic;
and for the script, my own work:
Dave Dulin (online internet blog) Hungarian Rune Project, hungarianruneproject.weebly.com based on Kyzlasov, I.L., Рунические письменности евразийских степей (1994)(see especially summary table under Old HRP Site -- Summary (scroll down to reach Kyzlasov's summary table) and this link: s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/31Alphabet/KyzlasovIL_En.htm
for the language:
Sir Gerard Clauson (1972) An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish, and Talat Tekin (1968) A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic;
and for the script, my own work:
Dave Dulin (online internet blog) Hungarian Rune Project, hungarianruneproject.weebly.com based on Kyzlasov, I.L., Рунические письменности евразийских степей (1994)(see especially summary table under Old HRP Site -- Summary (scroll down to reach Kyzlasov's summary table) and this link: s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/31Alphabet/KyzlasovIL_En.htm
So, as of 14. March 2024, this is what I have.
Starting with Fig. 3a and proceeding to the end of Fig 3h, or reading counter-clockwise when viewing the disc as a whole (or right to left when viewing the individual segments) (with added punctuation):
Starting with Fig. 3a and proceeding to the end of Fig 3h, or reading counter-clockwise when viewing the disc as a whole (or right to left when viewing the individual segments) (with added punctuation):
Old Turkic: Ök-e-t e! G-(a)-nt s-(a)-Š-i ok G-(a)-nt g-Ök-t-(e)-Š-d =k(e) bh-(a)-d b-(a)-g ok. I-y-(i)-b-(a)-g.
English: Counselors ! [Addressee] //Wild, unbroken ones of the Gant tribe [unmarked indefinite accusative object]// to the Gant tribal union [dative-locative marked object]// [has] bound [finite verb marked with past-tense marker]// the Confederation Tribe [subject]./ Head [or Master, Lord] of the Confederation. [Sender]
Plain English: Counselors ! The Confederation of tribes has bound renegades (=wild, unbroken ones) of the Gant tribe to the Gant tribal union. Head (or Master, Lord) of the Confederation.
Magyarul: Tanácsadók! A törzsek szövetsége a Gant törzs renegátjait (=vad, töretlen) a Gant törzsszövetséghez kötötte. A Konföderáció vezetője (vagy mestere, ura).
Notes.
(1) The language is some 6th or 7th century AD Avar Turkic dialect, I believe z-Turkic, not r-Turkic.
(2) The script is a "curved and mirrored" variant of the Old Turkic script, and probably should be regarded as the "missing link" between the script used by the GÖk Turks in the East and the 8th century AD (late) Pannonian Avar (Nagyszentmiklos) tribes used in the Far West (ie., Carpathian Basin).
(3) The tribal or ethnic name "Gant" may be related to the set of Turkic ethnic tribal names collectively known as "Kenchek" or "Gancak" ("Ganchak") in the literature. (see, for example, arastirmax.com/en/publication/dil-arastirmalari/1/1/kencekler-kencekce/arid/652ebba7-8494-44cd-aff3-e823a3fcbd3b ).
Or, "Gant" may possibly be related to the Ob-Ugrian ethnic name "Khanti" (< *Kanti).
(4) The grammar is old turkic, although some morphological endings have been eroded. For example, the Old Turkic dative-locative case ending "-ka" "-ke" (depending on vowel harmony) has been eroded to simply "-k". This could be due to some related-language contact phenomenon. Or it could be a space-saving convention for inscribing script within limited spaces. Another example would be the past tense ending "-di", which has been eroded to "-d" (eg., Old Turkic ba- 'to tie, bind, fasten' + -di 'past tense marker' > badi '(has) bound, (has) fastened' > *bad or, in this case *bhad or even *fad or *vad.
(5) Old Turkic k-Ök-t-(e)-Š-d-i is a dialect form of k-Ök-l-(e)-Š-d-i 'tribal union' (Clauson 1972: 711 1 k-Ök-l-(e)-Š- ). It is formed by the addition of the deverbal noun formative -di / -dl (depending on vowel harmony) to make the passive noun k-Ök-t-(e)-Š-d-i (Clauson 1972: xlviii). Note the erosion of the final vowel /-i/ in the inscription.
(6) Old Turkic Öge 'counselor' + -t 'plural marker'; Old Turkic /a/, /ä/, or /e/ is an interjection used to address the reader or hearer of a remark or letter (or dispatch) (Clauson 1972: 1 and Tekin 1968:324); Old Turkic bagh 'confederation' (Clauson 1972: 310 1 bagh 'bond, tie, belt; bundle; confederation); Old Turkic ok 'arrow; tribe'; Old Turkic idi > *iyi 'master, lord'; Old Turkic saŠ 'wild, unbroken' usually said of horses; Old Turkic -i '3rd person possessive'
English: Counselors ! [Addressee] //Wild, unbroken ones of the Gant tribe [unmarked indefinite accusative object]// to the Gant tribal union [dative-locative marked object]// [has] bound [finite verb marked with past-tense marker]// the Confederation Tribe [subject]./ Head [or Master, Lord] of the Confederation. [Sender]
Plain English: Counselors ! The Confederation of tribes has bound renegades (=wild, unbroken ones) of the Gant tribe to the Gant tribal union. Head (or Master, Lord) of the Confederation.
Magyarul: Tanácsadók! A törzsek szövetsége a Gant törzs renegátjait (=vad, töretlen) a Gant törzsszövetséghez kötötte. A Konföderáció vezetője (vagy mestere, ura).
Notes.
(1) The language is some 6th or 7th century AD Avar Turkic dialect, I believe z-Turkic, not r-Turkic.
(2) The script is a "curved and mirrored" variant of the Old Turkic script, and probably should be regarded as the "missing link" between the script used by the GÖk Turks in the East and the 8th century AD (late) Pannonian Avar (Nagyszentmiklos) tribes used in the Far West (ie., Carpathian Basin).
(3) The tribal or ethnic name "Gant" may be related to the set of Turkic ethnic tribal names collectively known as "Kenchek" or "Gancak" ("Ganchak") in the literature. (see, for example, arastirmax.com/en/publication/dil-arastirmalari/1/1/kencekler-kencekce/arid/652ebba7-8494-44cd-aff3-e823a3fcbd3b ).
Or, "Gant" may possibly be related to the Ob-Ugrian ethnic name "Khanti" (< *Kanti).
(4) The grammar is old turkic, although some morphological endings have been eroded. For example, the Old Turkic dative-locative case ending "-ka" "-ke" (depending on vowel harmony) has been eroded to simply "-k". This could be due to some related-language contact phenomenon. Or it could be a space-saving convention for inscribing script within limited spaces. Another example would be the past tense ending "-di", which has been eroded to "-d" (eg., Old Turkic ba- 'to tie, bind, fasten' + -di 'past tense marker' > badi '(has) bound, (has) fastened' > *bad or, in this case *bhad or even *fad or *vad.
(5) Old Turkic k-Ök-t-(e)-Š-d-i is a dialect form of k-Ök-l-(e)-Š-d-i 'tribal union' (Clauson 1972: 711 1 k-Ök-l-(e)-Š- ). It is formed by the addition of the deverbal noun formative -di / -dl (depending on vowel harmony) to make the passive noun k-Ök-t-(e)-Š-d-i (Clauson 1972: xlviii). Note the erosion of the final vowel /-i/ in the inscription.
(6) Old Turkic Öge 'counselor' + -t 'plural marker'; Old Turkic /a/, /ä/, or /e/ is an interjection used to address the reader or hearer of a remark or letter (or dispatch) (Clauson 1972: 1 and Tekin 1968:324); Old Turkic bagh 'confederation' (Clauson 1972: 310 1 bagh 'bond, tie, belt; bundle; confederation); Old Turkic ok 'arrow; tribe'; Old Turkic idi > *iyi 'master, lord'; Old Turkic saŠ 'wild, unbroken' usually said of horses; Old Turkic -i '3rd person possessive'
That's all I've got so far. I'll try to refine or improve on this initial interpretation sometime in the future.
--- Dave Dulin. 14 March 2024.
--- Dave Dulin. 14 March 2024.
Notes (continued).
(7) Regarding the plural -t marker Erdal writes: "In the Orkhon and Imperial Uygur inscriptions, the Common Turkic +lAr competes with the suffixes +(U)t, +(A)n, and +s. +(U)t . . . appears e.g. in tarkat, sängüt and tegit, the plurals of the titles tarkan, sängün and tegin." (Erdal, A Grammar of Old Turkic, 2004: 158). So, it seems, Öge 'counselor' Öget 'counselors'.
(7) Regarding the plural -t marker Erdal writes: "In the Orkhon and Imperial Uygur inscriptions, the Common Turkic +lAr competes with the suffixes +(U)t, +(A)n, and +s. +(U)t . . . appears e.g. in tarkat, sängüt and tegit, the plurals of the titles tarkan, sängün and tegin." (Erdal, A Grammar of Old Turkic, 2004: 158). So, it seems, Öge 'counselor' Öget 'counselors'.
The Mikulčice bow bone plate Runic Inscription
Runic letters on a late 8th century bone bow end piece from Mikulcice, Czech Republic. Source: Csaba Antal, A Mikulčice-i íjvégcsont rovásfeliratának feloldási kísérlete, internet paper, 2023; who credited the above drawing to: Vladimir Tishin, The Mikulčice Runiform Inscription (Zbraně a Múzy: nápis na zlomku konstrukce reflexního luku z Mikulčic), 2018
This short inscription is read from right to left. The runic letters carved on the bone bow end piece are, in my opinion, [s] [u] [kÜ] [y] in a far western Old Turkic runic writing system, probably by a Pannonian Avar Turkic speaker. The inscription on the bone plate can be read (right to left): (A)-s-u-(k) kÜ-y, ie., Asuk-kÜy 'Asuk burns or Asuk shines', (magyarul: Aszuk-kÜy 'Aszuk éget"), which presumably is the name of the bow's owner. Asuk is an Old Turkic personal name attested in the Orkhon monument inscriptions (Tekin 1968: 304, asuq 'personal name'). Old Turkic kÜy comes from Old Turkic kÜñ 'burns' (intransitive) (Clauson 1972: 726). -- D. Dulin, Hungarian Rune Project, 10 April 2024.
Added note: Because OTurkic suq 'anger, rage' is also a possible reading of the first two graphemes, we may interpret the whole of the inscription as S-u-(k) kÜ-y 'anger burns'. This most likely is the name of the bow.
Added note: Because OTurkic suq 'anger, rage' is also a possible reading of the first two graphemes, we may interpret the whole of the inscription as S-u-(k) kÜ-y 'anger burns'. This most likely is the name of the bow.
SE 11 Turan 3, A South Siberian Turkic Runiform Inscription of the Turan Mountains.
For an attempted reading of the SE 11 Turan 3 inscription based on my cumulative thoughts on the subject, please scroll down to the bottom of the study.
Along the upper reaches of the Greater Yenisei river about 25 miles north of Kyzyl and 15 to 20 miles east of the city of Turan, Russia, lies a valley. The valley climbs westwards above the Greater Yenisei into the Turan Mountains of the Western Sayan range. In 1977 the Russian archaeologist, V. F. Kapelko, discovered a Turkic runic inscription carved into a narrow, chest-high slab of stone planted into the ground on the southeast corner of a stockade surrounding an old iron age kurgan overlooking this valley.
The inscription consists of 15 Orkhon-Yenisei-like letter-signs inscribed vertically beneath a cross-shaped symbol. A description of the find as well as a clearly drawn sketch of the inscription was published by I. L. Kyzlasov in 1988 ("New runic writings of Southern Siberia" Archaeology of Mountain Altai [Russian], Gorno-Altaisk, 1988) and again by the same author in his Ancient Turkic Runic Writing of Eurasia [Russian]. There are no published readings of the inscription and as far as I am aware it remains undeciphered.
Kyzlasov's sketch of SE 11 Turan 3 shows the relative size and spacing of the cross-shaped symbol and runic inscription on the stone slab (Figures 1 - 3):
The inscription consists of 15 Orkhon-Yenisei-like letter-signs inscribed vertically beneath a cross-shaped symbol. A description of the find as well as a clearly drawn sketch of the inscription was published by I. L. Kyzlasov in 1988 ("New runic writings of Southern Siberia" Archaeology of Mountain Altai [Russian], Gorno-Altaisk, 1988) and again by the same author in his Ancient Turkic Runic Writing of Eurasia [Russian]. There are no published readings of the inscription and as far as I am aware it remains undeciphered.
Kyzlasov's sketch of SE 11 Turan 3 shows the relative size and spacing of the cross-shaped symbol and runic inscription on the stone slab (Figures 1 - 3):
The find is remarkable for a number of reasons not least of which is the apparent association of a Magi or shaman's symbol -- the cross-potent inscribed into the upper section of SE 11 Turan 3 -- with a runic inscription made up of letter-signs which are strongly reminiscent of the letter-signs used to inscribe artifacts of the Kiskundorozsma-Nagyszentmiklós-Szarvas script set discovered 2300 miles to the west in the Carpathian Basin (modern day southeastern Hungary and northwestern Romania). The possible relationship of a runiform-inscribed artifact found near the upper reaches of the Greater Yenisei River in south Siberia and runiform-inscribed artifacts associated with the late 6th - early 9th century Avar occupation of the Carpathian Basin would be remarkable, given the scanty and sometimes conflicting historical accounts of the migration pathways and ultimate origins of the European Avars.
Comparison of the SE 11 Turan 3 runic inscription to selected Kiskundorozsma-Nagyszentmiklós-Szarvas inscriptions.
A side-by-side comparison of SE 11 Turan 3 to the inscriptions of the Szarvas bone needle case (sides II and III), Nagyszentmiklós gold vessel no. 9, and the recently discovered (Szeged-)Kiskundorozsma bone bow grip illustrates the resemblance in letter-signs (Figures 4 - 8):
A side-by-side comparison of SE 11 Turan 3 to the inscriptions of the Szarvas bone needle case (sides II and III), Nagyszentmiklós gold vessel no. 9, and the recently discovered (Szeged-)Kiskundorozsma bone bow grip illustrates the resemblance in letter-signs (Figures 4 - 8):
A comparison of SE 11 Turan 3 letter-signs to those of the Kiskundorozsma-Nagyszentmiklós-Szarvas script set is summarized below (Figures 9-1 through 9-7):
Figures 9-1 through 9-7: Comparison of the SE 11 Turan 3 letter-signs (top) to the corresponding Kiskundorozsma-Nagyszentmiklós-Szarvas runiform letter-signs (bottom).
Comparison of the SE 11 Turan 3 letter-signs to Orkhon-Yenisei Turkic runiform letter-signs.
Figures 10-1 through 10-8: Comparison of the SE 11 Turan 3 letter-signs (top) to the corresponding Orkhon-Yenisei Turkic runiform letter-signs (bottom).
The Cross-Shaped Symbol of SE 11 Turan 3.
The presence of a cross-potent symbol inscribed into the narrow upper section of SE 11 Turan 3 should have engendered at least the occasional mention in the relevant literature, but apparently it hasn't. According to Victor Mair the cross-potent symbol was used in the West by European magicians during the Middle Ages and in the East as the ancient Chinese bronzeware script symbol for "Wu" ('magician, shaman, wizard, witch') during the Zhou dynasty period (ca. 1046 BC - 256 BC).
A mollusk shell carved into the shape of an obviously western male head with turban dated to ca. 780 BC was found in China. The artifact, a hairpiece end from the Zhou dynasty era, is remarkable for the fact that a "Wu" cross-potent symbol was carved into the top of the figure's turban (Figure 11).
The presence of a cross-potent symbol inscribed into the narrow upper section of SE 11 Turan 3 should have engendered at least the occasional mention in the relevant literature, but apparently it hasn't. According to Victor Mair the cross-potent symbol was used in the West by European magicians during the Middle Ages and in the East as the ancient Chinese bronzeware script symbol for "Wu" ('magician, shaman, wizard, witch') during the Zhou dynasty period (ca. 1046 BC - 256 BC).
A mollusk shell carved into the shape of an obviously western male head with turban dated to ca. 780 BC was found in China. The artifact, a hairpiece end from the Zhou dynasty era, is remarkable for the fact that a "Wu" cross-potent symbol was carved into the top of the figure's turban (Figure 11).
Let's Get Started . . .
I think to get started we should post the inscription one more time followed by a plausible transliteration. The inscriber has already made our lives a little easier by parsing the inscription with Orkhon-Yenisei word-separators.
Transliteration 1 (reading right to left): _ - n1 : _ - _ - RQT - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - RQT - RQT : č - RQT , where _ = unknown for now, and RQT = r1/ q/ or t2 (still to be determined).
I think it very reasonable to assume that the first two letter-signs of the second word (from the right) are sibilants after Tekin (1968) and Vasilyev (1983). So a slightly more developed transliteration would look like this:
Transliteration 2 (reading right to left): _ - n1 : š - aš - RQT - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - RQT - RQT : č - RQT
An observation at this point: the third word from the right (s2 - n1 - l2) is either a mixed back + front compound word (s2 is oftentimes used as a "neutral s" in Orkhon-Yenisei inscriptions) or n1 is being used for both n1 and n2, that is n1 > "neutral n".
Other observations: There are no overtly marked vowels in this inscription. Which means that there are no grammar-bearing word-final vowels. It also means that there are no rounded vowels -- marked or unmarked -- in this inscription. Very interesting!
I think it very reasonable to assume that the first two letter-signs of the second word (from the right) are sibilants after Tekin (1968) and Vasilyev (1983). So a slightly more developed transliteration would look like this:
Transliteration 2 (reading right to left): _ - n1 : š - aš - RQT - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - RQT - RQT : č - RQT
An observation at this point: the third word from the right (s2 - n1 - l2) is either a mixed back + front compound word (s2 is oftentimes used as a "neutral s" in Orkhon-Yenisei inscriptions) or n1 is being used for both n1 and n2, that is n1 > "neutral n".
Other observations: There are no overtly marked vowels in this inscription. Which means that there are no grammar-bearing word-final vowels. It also means that there are no rounded vowels -- marked or unmarked -- in this inscription. Very interesting!
Some Ideas . . .
The suffix at the end of the second word (from the right), - m(a/e)n, is well known in Old Turkic. It is either the pronominal men 'I' used at the end of some verb forms or the adjectival formative -m(a/e)n 'resembling [=looks like, English "-ish" ], mostly attested in some color names: aqman 'whitish', kögmen 'bluish' (Clauson 1972: xlii; Tekin 1968: 106).
In the first case a construction b-(e)-n : š-aš-(V)-R m-e-n : 'I šašur' (šaš- < saš- < sač- 'to scatter, sprinkle' or saš- 'to be astonished, startled, perplexed') is possible, but not especially favored since according to Orkhon-Yenisei orthographic rules, the first rounded vowel of a word (in this case, the "u" in the second syllable) almost always is marked (= written out, expressed graphically). If the form of this verb were *sašar 'scatter, sprinkle' / 'be astonished, be startled', then of course, we would have to keep it as a possible reading.
In the second case -man would be the denominative noun ending of some proper name -- most likely some personal name: š-aš-RQT-man as in
b-(e)-n : š-aš-RQT-m(a)n ' I (am) SašRQT-man' or 'I, SašRQT-man' an apposition. We are, after all, dealing with a "graffiti'-like inscription, where the inscriber's name usually appears somewhere in the inscription.
One final interpretation is the possibility that the ending -m(V)n represents the Old Turkic accusative of the first person possessive. Should this be the case the first part of the inscription would read: b-(e)-n : š-aš-(a/I)-RQT-m-I-n, the gloss of which would be: 'I šaš(a/I)-RQT-[my]-[def. acc. ending] ' , or rendered in a slightly simpler form: 'I [something] my šašaRQT'.
Purists will reject the idea of a "neutral n" letter-sign innovation. So perhaps a more acceptable idea for our purist friends would be the explanation that the inscriber has mistakenly written n1 for the intended (or maybe not?) letter-sign, n2.
The suffix at the end of the second word (from the right), - m(a/e)n, is well known in Old Turkic. It is either the pronominal men 'I' used at the end of some verb forms or the adjectival formative -m(a/e)n 'resembling [=looks like, English "-ish" ], mostly attested in some color names: aqman 'whitish', kögmen 'bluish' (Clauson 1972: xlii; Tekin 1968: 106).
In the first case a construction b-(e)-n : š-aš-(V)-R m-e-n : 'I šašur' (šaš- < saš- < sač- 'to scatter, sprinkle' or saš- 'to be astonished, startled, perplexed') is possible, but not especially favored since according to Orkhon-Yenisei orthographic rules, the first rounded vowel of a word (in this case, the "u" in the second syllable) almost always is marked (= written out, expressed graphically). If the form of this verb were *sašar 'scatter, sprinkle' / 'be astonished, be startled', then of course, we would have to keep it as a possible reading.
In the second case -man would be the denominative noun ending of some proper name -- most likely some personal name: š-aš-RQT-man as in
b-(e)-n : š-aš-RQT-m(a)n ' I (am) SašRQT-man' or 'I, SašRQT-man' an apposition. We are, after all, dealing with a "graffiti'-like inscription, where the inscriber's name usually appears somewhere in the inscription.
One final interpretation is the possibility that the ending -m(V)n represents the Old Turkic accusative of the first person possessive. Should this be the case the first part of the inscription would read: b-(e)-n : š-aš-(a/I)-RQT-m-I-n, the gloss of which would be: 'I šaš(a/I)-RQT-[my]-[def. acc. ending] ' , or rendered in a slightly simpler form: 'I [something] my šašaRQT'.
Purists will reject the idea of a "neutral n" letter-sign innovation. So perhaps a more acceptable idea for our purist friends would be the explanation that the inscriber has mistakenly written n1 for the intended (or maybe not?) letter-sign, n2.
A Preliminary Reading . . .
Consider the Old Turkic verb stems išen- 'to trust, believe in, rely on' (Clauson 1972: 264) and alqa- 'to praise, to bless' (Clauson 1972: 138), each of which (virtually) agree with the phonetic values assigned to words three and four (reading from the right):
(i)-s2-(e)-n-(i)-l2 : (a)-l1-q-(a)-q 'trustworthy' : 'praised, blessed [= "approved"]'
The endings " -l" and "-q" are deverbal noun formatives and convert verb stems išen- and alqa- into adjectives (compare Inal 'trustworthy (as a title and personal name)' < *Ina- 'to trust, rely on' Clauson 1972: 184 and Clauson 1972: xliv).
Applying this interpretation to the assumed "graffiti" interpretation of the inscription made above obtains the following reading (right to left):
B-(e)-n : š-(a)-š-(I)-q-m-(a)-n : (i)-s2-(e)-n-(i)-l2 : (a)-l1-q-(a)-q . . .
Ben : SašIqman : isenil : alqaq . . . 'I (am) SašIqman, a trustworthy (and) approved [lit. praised, blessed] . . . '
(Note: s < š/ V__ V, V = + front)
The final word, reading right to left and assuming a "graffiti" interpretation of the inscription, would either be (a)č(a)r ačar < Middle Persian ayar 'helper, friend' (Clauson 1972: 953 yar 'helper, friend'); or Sogdian (a)č(a)r[e] a:ča:re: 'teacher' < Sanskrit a:ca:rya 'a spiritual guide or teacher; knowing or teaching the a:ca:ra or rules' (B. Gharib, Sogdian Dictionary 1995: 2; Monier-Williams, Sanskrit Dictionary 1992 [1899] : 131). Sogdian ačare 'teacher' is not likely, as the Old Turkic attested form ačarI always includes the word-final vowel .
Consider the Old Turkic verb stems išen- 'to trust, believe in, rely on' (Clauson 1972: 264) and alqa- 'to praise, to bless' (Clauson 1972: 138), each of which (virtually) agree with the phonetic values assigned to words three and four (reading from the right):
(i)-s2-(e)-n-(i)-l2 : (a)-l1-q-(a)-q 'trustworthy' : 'praised, blessed [= "approved"]'
The endings " -l" and "-q" are deverbal noun formatives and convert verb stems išen- and alqa- into adjectives (compare Inal 'trustworthy (as a title and personal name)' < *Ina- 'to trust, rely on' Clauson 1972: 184 and Clauson 1972: xliv).
Applying this interpretation to the assumed "graffiti" interpretation of the inscription made above obtains the following reading (right to left):
B-(e)-n : š-(a)-š-(I)-q-m-(a)-n : (i)-s2-(e)-n-(i)-l2 : (a)-l1-q-(a)-q . . .
Ben : SašIqman : isenil : alqaq . . . 'I (am) SašIqman, a trustworthy (and) approved [lit. praised, blessed] . . . '
(Note: s < š/ V__ V, V = + front)
The final word, reading right to left and assuming a "graffiti" interpretation of the inscription, would either be (a)č(a)r ačar < Middle Persian ayar 'helper, friend' (Clauson 1972: 953 yar 'helper, friend'); or Sogdian (a)č(a)r[e] a:ča:re: 'teacher' < Sanskrit a:ca:rya 'a spiritual guide or teacher; knowing or teaching the a:ca:ra or rules' (B. Gharib, Sogdian Dictionary 1995: 2; Monier-Williams, Sanskrit Dictionary 1992 [1899] : 131). Sogdian ačare 'teacher' is not likely, as the Old Turkic attested form ačarI always includes the word-final vowel .
Reading 1. Ben : šašIqman : isenil : alqaq : ačar[I] 'I (am) SašIqman, (a) trustworthy (and) approved teacher.'
or possibly Reading 1.1 Ben : šašIq men : isenil : alqaq : ačar[I] 'I am SašIq, (a) trustworthy (and) approved teacher.' [n1 substituted for n2 for whatever reason].
Clauson 1972: 264 išen- 'to trust, believe in, rely on'; HRP *išen-il 'trusted, trustworthy'
Clauson 1972: 138 alqa:- 'to praise, to bless'; HRP *alqa:-q 'approved, confirmed'
[Compare with: Clauson 1972: 103 ögütmiš 'praiseworthy, provoking the praise (of others)' < ögüt- 'causative form of ö:g- 'to praise'; Clauson 1972: 104 ögdil- 'to be praised'; Clauson 1972: 138 alqat- 'causative form of alqa:-, alqatmIš 'praiseworthy; blessed'; alqal - 'to be blessed']
Garib 1995 : 2 [Sogdian] a:ča:re: 'teacher'; Erdal 2004: 358 Old Turkic ačarIlar 'teachers', elsewhere including Erdal 2004 ačarI 'teacher'
or possibly Reading 1.1 Ben : šašIq men : isenil : alqaq : ačar[I] 'I am SašIq, (a) trustworthy (and) approved teacher.' [n1 substituted for n2 for whatever reason].
Clauson 1972: 264 išen- 'to trust, believe in, rely on'; HRP *išen-il 'trusted, trustworthy'
Clauson 1972: 138 alqa:- 'to praise, to bless'; HRP *alqa:-q 'approved, confirmed'
[Compare with: Clauson 1972: 103 ögütmiš 'praiseworthy, provoking the praise (of others)' < ögüt- 'causative form of ö:g- 'to praise'; Clauson 1972: 104 ögdil- 'to be praised'; Clauson 1972: 138 alqat- 'causative form of alqa:-, alqatmIš 'praiseworthy; blessed'; alqal - 'to be blessed']
Garib 1995 : 2 [Sogdian] a:ča:re: 'teacher'; Erdal 2004: 358 Old Turkic ačarIlar 'teachers', elsewhere including Erdal 2004 ačarI 'teacher'
Accommodating the Purists . . .
But let's assume that the purists are right: maybe the SE 11 Turan 3 script, like the Orkhon-Yenisei script, did have separate letter-signs n1 and n2 which were used exclusively in back (=velar) contexts (n1) and front (=palatal) contexts (n2) without exception. Even though only n1 is attested in this inscription, it may turn out that other SE x Turan inscriptions exist where n2 or both n1 and n2 together appear. After all, both l1 and l2 appear in SE 11 Turan 3 just like in the Orkhon-Yenisei script; so why not n1 and n2?
Transliteration 2. _ - n1 : š - aš - RQT - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - RQT - RQT : č - RQT
Since the word-(string) s2-n1-l2 is somewhat of a mystery in that it contains mixed front and back vocalic letter-signs, let's try to figure out words one and two first. (Of course it may turn out that l2 is not what it seems to be, but we'll hold off on that possibility for now).
It turns out (according to Erdal 2004) that in certain Turkic dialects (such as Khakas) the -mn pronominal suffix is treated like a clitic and as such follows the usual Turkic rules of vowel harmony, so:
_-(a)-n1 : š-aš-(V)-r1-m-(I)-n1 => (a)ban : šaša/IrmIn 'I scatter/ sprinkle a "(a)ban"
or 'I scatter/sprinkle using a "(a)ba"
or 'I scatter/sprinkle together with (the) (A)ba';
or 'scattering/ sprinkling a "(a)ban"
'scattering/ sprinkling using a "(a)ba"
or => (A)ban : šaša/IrmIn 'I, Aban, am astonished . . .'
'I, Aban, scatter/sprinkle . . .'
(lit. 'I, Aban, the one who is astonished, startled, perplexed;
I, Aban, the one who scatters/ sprinkles . . .)
Clauson 1972: 856 ša:š- (< *sa:š- )'to be astonished, startled, perplexed'
Clauson 1972: 794 sač- 'to scatter, to sprinkle'
Gharib 1995: 370 Sogdian ša:š- 'to scatter, to disperse'
I deliberately chose the first RQT = r1 so that šaša/Ir would conform to known Old Turkic verbal forms (in this case present indicative or present participle in -r): šaša/IqmIn is not a possible verbal form; and šaš-t2mIn is not likely since t1 is assumed to exist in this scenario, and -tImIn is not a proper form of the Old Turkic first person sg past preterite (properly = -tIm/ -dIm).
[Of course, a reading of šaša/IRQT-mIn as a noun phrase is still a possibility: (a)ban : šaša/IRQT-(1st pers. poss.)-(def. acc). 'An "(a)ban [and] my šaša/IRQT . . . ' or '(A)ban [=subject] : my "šaša/IRQT" [=object] . . . ' but we'll come back to this later.]
But let's assume that the purists are right: maybe the SE 11 Turan 3 script, like the Orkhon-Yenisei script, did have separate letter-signs n1 and n2 which were used exclusively in back (=velar) contexts (n1) and front (=palatal) contexts (n2) without exception. Even though only n1 is attested in this inscription, it may turn out that other SE x Turan inscriptions exist where n2 or both n1 and n2 together appear. After all, both l1 and l2 appear in SE 11 Turan 3 just like in the Orkhon-Yenisei script; so why not n1 and n2?
Transliteration 2. _ - n1 : š - aš - RQT - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - RQT - RQT : č - RQT
Since the word-(string) s2-n1-l2 is somewhat of a mystery in that it contains mixed front and back vocalic letter-signs, let's try to figure out words one and two first. (Of course it may turn out that l2 is not what it seems to be, but we'll hold off on that possibility for now).
It turns out (according to Erdal 2004) that in certain Turkic dialects (such as Khakas) the -mn pronominal suffix is treated like a clitic and as such follows the usual Turkic rules of vowel harmony, so:
_-(a)-n1 : š-aš-(V)-r1-m-(I)-n1 => (a)ban : šaša/IrmIn 'I scatter/ sprinkle a "(a)ban"
or 'I scatter/sprinkle using a "(a)ba"
or 'I scatter/sprinkle together with (the) (A)ba';
or 'scattering/ sprinkling a "(a)ban"
'scattering/ sprinkling using a "(a)ba"
or => (A)ban : šaša/IrmIn 'I, Aban, am astonished . . .'
'I, Aban, scatter/sprinkle . . .'
(lit. 'I, Aban, the one who is astonished, startled, perplexed;
I, Aban, the one who scatters/ sprinkles . . .)
Clauson 1972: 856 ša:š- (< *sa:š- )'to be astonished, startled, perplexed'
Clauson 1972: 794 sač- 'to scatter, to sprinkle'
Gharib 1995: 370 Sogdian ša:š- 'to scatter, to disperse'
I deliberately chose the first RQT = r1 so that šaša/Ir would conform to known Old Turkic verbal forms (in this case present indicative or present participle in -r): šaša/IqmIn is not a possible verbal form; and šaš-t2mIn is not likely since t1 is assumed to exist in this scenario, and -tImIn is not a proper form of the Old Turkic first person sg past preterite (properly = -tIm/ -dIm).
[Of course, a reading of šaša/IRQT-mIn as a noun phrase is still a possibility: (a)ban : šaša/IRQT-(1st pers. poss.)-(def. acc). 'An "(a)ban [and] my šaša/IRQT . . . ' or '(A)ban [=subject] : my "šaša/IRQT" [=object] . . . ' but we'll come back to this later.]
The Realm of Asin or Ašin?
The third string of letter-signs (from the right), s2-n1-l2, must either be a mixed front-back vocalic compound noun of some sort or a simple two-word noun phrase (attribute + head). The letter-sign l2 "el" represents only one of two nouns in Old Turkic: el 'realm' or very rarely according to Clauson, el, an abbreviation for elig 'hand, forearm'. We'll assume Old Turkic el 'realm' as it is, by far, the prevalent form.
The possibility that s2-n1 is somehow connected to Asin, Ashina, the founding dynasty of the Kök-Türk Khaganate, has caught my attention, and I think is definitely worth pursuing, especially since there really aren't any other Old Turkic nouns or adjectives that fit this letter-sign string. (For a discussion on the use of s2 in back vocalic contexts see Tekin 1968: 39; for a discussion on the use of s2 for š see Tekin 1968: 93-98).
Notice how the proposed noun phrase/ proper name has no suffixed case ending: (A)s(i)n (e)l or (A)s(I)n (e)l 'Asin realm' and thus could possibly be the subject, or one of the subjects of this inscription. However according to Erdal, as long as it was clear from the sentence Old Turkic really only had to mark nouns/ noun phrases involved in motion towards or from a point (Erdal 2004: 360). The indefinite accusative is also unmarked in Old Turkic but doesn't come into play here: all proper names by definition are definite. We should retain this as a possibility however, in case it turns out that s2-n1-l2 is a common noun/ noun phrase.
Also notice that the next string of letter-signs, word-string four (reading from right to left), presumably l1-r1-r1 according to this scenario, would have to be the or one of the predicates, in this case, the present indicative or present participle in -r of the verb stem (a)l(a)r- 'X'. (a)l(a)r-, by the way, is the only Old Turkic verb stem that fits l1-r1.
Clauson 1972: 150 alar- 'to become dappled or variegated, to change colour' < Old Turkic a:la: 'parti-coloured, dappled, mottled, spotted, blotchy'. Attested extended meanings for alar- relate to fruit changing colors; a man's body that becomes leprous; and eyes that become dazzled. Clauson doesn't mention any attested metaphorical usages for alar-, but does mention a couple for a:la:, namely 'hypocritical, treacharous'.
The third string of letter-signs (from the right), s2-n1-l2, must either be a mixed front-back vocalic compound noun of some sort or a simple two-word noun phrase (attribute + head). The letter-sign l2 "el" represents only one of two nouns in Old Turkic: el 'realm' or very rarely according to Clauson, el, an abbreviation for elig 'hand, forearm'. We'll assume Old Turkic el 'realm' as it is, by far, the prevalent form.
The possibility that s2-n1 is somehow connected to Asin, Ashina, the founding dynasty of the Kök-Türk Khaganate, has caught my attention, and I think is definitely worth pursuing, especially since there really aren't any other Old Turkic nouns or adjectives that fit this letter-sign string. (For a discussion on the use of s2 in back vocalic contexts see Tekin 1968: 39; for a discussion on the use of s2 for š see Tekin 1968: 93-98).
Notice how the proposed noun phrase/ proper name has no suffixed case ending: (A)s(i)n (e)l or (A)s(I)n (e)l 'Asin realm' and thus could possibly be the subject, or one of the subjects of this inscription. However according to Erdal, as long as it was clear from the sentence Old Turkic really only had to mark nouns/ noun phrases involved in motion towards or from a point (Erdal 2004: 360). The indefinite accusative is also unmarked in Old Turkic but doesn't come into play here: all proper names by definition are definite. We should retain this as a possibility however, in case it turns out that s2-n1-l2 is a common noun/ noun phrase.
Also notice that the next string of letter-signs, word-string four (reading from right to left), presumably l1-r1-r1 according to this scenario, would have to be the or one of the predicates, in this case, the present indicative or present participle in -r of the verb stem (a)l(a)r- 'X'. (a)l(a)r-, by the way, is the only Old Turkic verb stem that fits l1-r1.
Clauson 1972: 150 alar- 'to become dappled or variegated, to change colour' < Old Turkic a:la: 'parti-coloured, dappled, mottled, spotted, blotchy'. Attested extended meanings for alar- relate to fruit changing colors; a man's body that becomes leprous; and eyes that become dazzled. Clauson doesn't mention any attested metaphorical usages for alar-, but does mention a couple for a:la:, namely 'hypocritical, treacharous'.
Reading 2.0 Aban : šašIr-mIn : AsIn el : alarar : Ačaq 'Aban. I am astonished (startled, perplexed). The AsIn realm is becoming/ becomes "blotchy" . Ačaq.
This is, of course, a nonsense reading (and therefore unacceptable). One could make it a little less unacceptable by creating metaphorical readings for alar- ("Aban. I am startled/ perplexed. The AsIn realm [= people] is becoming/ becomes treacharous. Ačaq.") but I don't think you could get away with it --- at least I wouldn't accept such a reading without a precedent to support it. We'll post it here anyway just in case someone, someday should come across an attested reading of Old Turkic *alar- 'to become treacharous':
Reading 2.1 Aban : šašIr-mIn : AsIn el : alarar : Ačaq. 'Aban. I am startled. The AsIn people are becoming/ become treacharous. Ačaq.'
(The vocative is unmarked in Old Turkic so we're fine. Apparently Old Turkic used the unmarked nominative case ending to address people (see Erdal 2004: 361) ).
This is, of course, a nonsense reading (and therefore unacceptable). One could make it a little less unacceptable by creating metaphorical readings for alar- ("Aban. I am startled/ perplexed. The AsIn realm [= people] is becoming/ becomes treacharous. Ačaq.") but I don't think you could get away with it --- at least I wouldn't accept such a reading without a precedent to support it. We'll post it here anyway just in case someone, someday should come across an attested reading of Old Turkic *alar- 'to become treacharous':
Reading 2.1 Aban : šašIr-mIn : AsIn el : alarar : Ačaq. 'Aban. I am startled. The AsIn people are becoming/ become treacharous. Ačaq.'
(The vocative is unmarked in Old Turkic so we're fine. Apparently Old Turkic used the unmarked nominative case ending to address people (see Erdal 2004: 361) ).
Still more ideas . . .
Transliteration 2. _ - n1 : š - aš - RQT - m - n1 : s2 - n1 -l2 : l1 - RQT - RQT : č - RQT
Possible transcription : Aban : šašaqam-In : (a)sIn el : "alqIq" : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are opening/ open the tomb-realm [or the Asin realm] wide, broad (used here as => * "length and breadth" [ *alqIq for alqIGh]' (definite accusative case ending would be unmarked here) ). Old Turkic ačar 'is opening/ opens' but metaphorically 'is conquering/ conquers' (=> * 'is clearing out')'. All topped off with a shaman's cross-potent symbol carved into the upper section of SE 11 Turan 3.
Clauson 1972 : 832 sIn 'tomb'
Clauson 1972 : 137 alqIGh 'wide, broad'; HRP => *alqIq 'end-to-end, the ends or extremes of something, length and breadth of something, the defined space of something'
Clauson 1972: 18 ač- 'to open'; Tekin 1968: 299 ač- 'to open, to clear up'
Clauson 1972 : 625 qa:m 'sorcerer, soothsayer, magician'
"šaša" < Buddist Sanskrit śaśa 'rabbit'; or < Old Turkic sa:š, ša:š 'wild, unbroken' (Clauson 1972 : 856)
Old Turkic is an SOV language which means the normal word order is subject-object-verb. This word order can be changed should the speaker/ writer wish to emphasize different parts of the sentence (the more emphasized parts moving towards the front, the most emphasized part going to the very front, just like in Hungarian). However, according to Erdal 2004, present indicative verbs (ie., those verbs characterized by their "-r/ -r-" endings) almost always are placed last in an Old Turkic sentence. The following readings of SE 11 Turan 3 fit these syntactic observations (word order = SOV, especially for present indicative "-r/ -r-" verbs).
Reading 2.2 Aban : šašaqam-In : sIn el : alqIq : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are opening/ open wide [lit. *"the length and breadth of"] the "tomb-realm".' [definite accusative unmarked].
Reading 2.3 Aban : šašaqam-In : (a)sIn el : alqIq : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are opening/ open wide [lit. * "the length and breadth of "] the "(a)sIn/ san" realm.' [definite accusative unmarked]
Note: In modern KIrghIz alqaq ["alKaK"] means 'zone'.
Realm of Souls?
I am not completely satisfied with s2 - n1 - l2 = either 'tomb-realm' or '(a)sIn-realm'. Something like "spirit- or soul- realm" would be a much better fit here but Old Turkic öz, üz 'spirit'; özön 'innermost; pith; inner core'; üzüt 'soul' make this an etymological long-shot. Middle Persian ušta:n 'soul' seems more likely but again this would be an etymological long-shot. I don't think one of the local people-group names, Usun/ Wusun (a component of the KIrghIz people) , possibly ~ Old Turkic usun [HRP: üsün?] 'waters, peoples, crowd' works here because of the rounded vowels and the orthographic rule requiring the first rounded vowel in a word to be written out, "marked", in "plene" writing.
Modern KIrghIz has žan 'soul' < early New Persian jan [pronounced like eng. John] < Middle Persian gyan 'soul'. There may have been an intermediary form *šan 'soul' [reminiscent of the word-initial sound correspondence between english John and irish Sean = Shawn]. If this were true (read: "supported by evidence and agreed upon") then we would have:
Reading 2.4 Aban : šašaqam-In : šan el : alqaq : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are opening/ open wide [lit. * "the length and breadth of"] the "soul-realm" '[definite accusative unmarked].
Transliteration 2. _ - n1 : š - aš - RQT - m - n1 : s2 - n1 -l2 : l1 - RQT - RQT : č - RQT
Possible transcription : Aban : šašaqam-In : (a)sIn el : "alqIq" : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are opening/ open the tomb-realm [or the Asin realm] wide, broad (used here as => * "length and breadth" [ *alqIq for alqIGh]' (definite accusative case ending would be unmarked here) ). Old Turkic ačar 'is opening/ opens' but metaphorically 'is conquering/ conquers' (=> * 'is clearing out')'. All topped off with a shaman's cross-potent symbol carved into the upper section of SE 11 Turan 3.
Clauson 1972 : 832 sIn 'tomb'
Clauson 1972 : 137 alqIGh 'wide, broad'; HRP => *alqIq 'end-to-end, the ends or extremes of something, length and breadth of something, the defined space of something'
Clauson 1972: 18 ač- 'to open'; Tekin 1968: 299 ač- 'to open, to clear up'
Clauson 1972 : 625 qa:m 'sorcerer, soothsayer, magician'
"šaša" < Buddist Sanskrit śaśa 'rabbit'; or < Old Turkic sa:š, ša:š 'wild, unbroken' (Clauson 1972 : 856)
Old Turkic is an SOV language which means the normal word order is subject-object-verb. This word order can be changed should the speaker/ writer wish to emphasize different parts of the sentence (the more emphasized parts moving towards the front, the most emphasized part going to the very front, just like in Hungarian). However, according to Erdal 2004, present indicative verbs (ie., those verbs characterized by their "-r/ -r-" endings) almost always are placed last in an Old Turkic sentence. The following readings of SE 11 Turan 3 fit these syntactic observations (word order = SOV, especially for present indicative "-r/ -r-" verbs).
Reading 2.2 Aban : šašaqam-In : sIn el : alqIq : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are opening/ open wide [lit. *"the length and breadth of"] the "tomb-realm".' [definite accusative unmarked].
Reading 2.3 Aban : šašaqam-In : (a)sIn el : alqIq : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are opening/ open wide [lit. * "the length and breadth of "] the "(a)sIn/ san" realm.' [definite accusative unmarked]
Note: In modern KIrghIz alqaq ["alKaK"] means 'zone'.
Realm of Souls?
I am not completely satisfied with s2 - n1 - l2 = either 'tomb-realm' or '(a)sIn-realm'. Something like "spirit- or soul- realm" would be a much better fit here but Old Turkic öz, üz 'spirit'; özön 'innermost; pith; inner core'; üzüt 'soul' make this an etymological long-shot. Middle Persian ušta:n 'soul' seems more likely but again this would be an etymological long-shot. I don't think one of the local people-group names, Usun/ Wusun (a component of the KIrghIz people) , possibly ~ Old Turkic usun [HRP: üsün?] 'waters, peoples, crowd' works here because of the rounded vowels and the orthographic rule requiring the first rounded vowel in a word to be written out, "marked", in "plene" writing.
Modern KIrghIz has žan 'soul' < early New Persian jan [pronounced like eng. John] < Middle Persian gyan 'soul'. There may have been an intermediary form *šan 'soul' [reminiscent of the word-initial sound correspondence between english John and irish Sean = Shawn]. If this were true (read: "supported by evidence and agreed upon") then we would have:
Reading 2.4 Aban : šašaqam-In : šan el : alqaq : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are opening/ open wide [lit. * "the length and breadth of"] the "soul-realm" '[definite accusative unmarked].
*šan 'soul' could have been spelled "san", given a s-/ š- dialect admixture existing among the KIrghIz/ Yenisei KIrghIz (= Khakas)/ Western Oguz-Turks in the Western Sayan at this time (8th - 9th century AD), or possibly due to some non-turkic substratal influence.
There is one other possibility. Besides sIn 'tomb', Old Turkic had a word sIn 'human body; stature, external appearance [eg., of a body]; => statue, especially one on a grave' (Clauson 1972: 832). I wonder if we have here an example of the last meaning, namely sIn 'statue (of a deceased person) on a grave'. I know the official name for these statues was balbal, especially those statues of a conquered enemy. To the ancient Turkic peoples these statues weren't simply memorials -- they actually were the physical manifestation of the dead person. These statues are thought to have originally been placed on top of the burial mound or in lines leading to the burial mound, but nowadays are found mostly lying next to the mounds or scattered around the mounds of modern archaeological kurgan sites. So to Reading 2.4, we can add Readings 2.5 and 2.6:
Reading 2.5 Aban : šašaqam-In : sIn el : alqaq : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are opening/ open wide [lit. *the length and breadth of] the "realm of the statued dead" '. [definite accusative unmarked]
or Reading 2.6 Aban : šašaqam-In : sIn el : alqaq : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are discovering the realm of the statued dead [lit. *the length and breadth of].' [definite accusative unmarked]
Compare: Modern KIrghIz ač- 'to open, to discover'.
There is one other possibility. Besides sIn 'tomb', Old Turkic had a word sIn 'human body; stature, external appearance [eg., of a body]; => statue, especially one on a grave' (Clauson 1972: 832). I wonder if we have here an example of the last meaning, namely sIn 'statue (of a deceased person) on a grave'. I know the official name for these statues was balbal, especially those statues of a conquered enemy. To the ancient Turkic peoples these statues weren't simply memorials -- they actually were the physical manifestation of the dead person. These statues are thought to have originally been placed on top of the burial mound or in lines leading to the burial mound, but nowadays are found mostly lying next to the mounds or scattered around the mounds of modern archaeological kurgan sites. So to Reading 2.4, we can add Readings 2.5 and 2.6:
Reading 2.5 Aban : šašaqam-In : sIn el : alqaq : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are opening/ open wide [lit. *the length and breadth of] the "realm of the statued dead" '. [definite accusative unmarked]
or Reading 2.6 Aban : šašaqam-In : sIn el : alqaq : ačar 'Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are discovering the realm of the statued dead [lit. *the length and breadth of].' [definite accusative unmarked]
Compare: Modern KIrghIz ač- 'to open, to discover'.
Quick Note: For those of you who connect dots, so far we have: Ancient iron age burial mound, magician or shaman's cross with Orkhon-Yenisei-like runic inscription inscribed on one of the menhir stones surrounding said ancient burial mound, historical KIrghIz/ Yenisei KIrghIz territory, mountain river valley above the uppermost reaches of the Greater Yenisei in the Western Sayan.
Bring on the Matrices and Siege Ladders.
Maybe there is a way to narrow down the possibilities or at least to define them. Consider the following transliteration template(s):
Transliteration 2. _- n1 : š - aš - RQT - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - RQT - RQT : č - RQT
Six sub-transliterations can be derived from Transliteration 2 by assigning individual values to RQT:
Transliteration 2a. _ - n1 : š - aš - q - m - n1 : s2 - n1- l2 : l1 - q - q : č - r1
Transliteration 2b. _ - n1 : š - aš - q - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - q - q : č - t2
Transliteration 2c. _ - n1 : š - aš - r1 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - r1 - r1 : č - q
Transliteration 2d. _- n1 : š - aš - r1 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - r1 - r1 : č - t2
Transliteration 2e. _- n1 : š - aš - t2 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 -t2 - t2 : č - q
Transliteration 2f. _- n1 : š - aš - t2 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - t2 - t2 : č - r1
Remember the Old Turkic orthographic rules: Word-ending vowels must be written out (= "marked" or in "plene" writing); first rounded vowel of a word must also be marked. Since there doesn't appear to be any marked word-ending vowels or marked rounded vowels we have to assume that there aren't any word-ending vowels or rounded vowels in this inscription.
Maybe there is a way to narrow down the possibilities or at least to define them. Consider the following transliteration template(s):
Transliteration 2. _- n1 : š - aš - RQT - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - RQT - RQT : č - RQT
Six sub-transliterations can be derived from Transliteration 2 by assigning individual values to RQT:
Transliteration 2a. _ - n1 : š - aš - q - m - n1 : s2 - n1- l2 : l1 - q - q : č - r1
Transliteration 2b. _ - n1 : š - aš - q - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - q - q : č - t2
Transliteration 2c. _ - n1 : š - aš - r1 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - r1 - r1 : č - q
Transliteration 2d. _- n1 : š - aš - r1 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - r1 - r1 : č - t2
Transliteration 2e. _- n1 : š - aš - t2 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 -t2 - t2 : č - q
Transliteration 2f. _- n1 : š - aš - t2 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - t2 - t2 : č - r1
Remember the Old Turkic orthographic rules: Word-ending vowels must be written out (= "marked" or in "plene" writing); first rounded vowel of a word must also be marked. Since there doesn't appear to be any marked word-ending vowels or marked rounded vowels we have to assume that there aren't any word-ending vowels or rounded vowels in this inscription.
Transliterations 2e - 2f: No chance.
Let's take the last two transliterations first. Transliterations 2e and 2f are written out with the first RQT (reading the inscription right to left) = the letter-sign t2. The shape of this hypothetical t2 letter-sign, a sort of backwards N on a slant, probably comes closest to the "standard" Orkhon-Yenisei t2, among the three (r1/ q/ t2). Problems arise immediately, however, in the second word (reading right to left) since this front or palatal letter-sign finds itself surrounded by back vocalic letter-signs: š-aš-t2-m-n1. Furthermore, while one could invent nominal readings for the fourth string of mixed letter-signs l1-t2-t2 , such as hypothetical Old Turkic ***al it-et 'scarlet dog flesh' or perhaps ***al tI:t 'scarlet larch- or mulberry-tree', even assuming an I ~ i alternation, there really aren't any natural readings. So right away we can eliminate transliterations 2e and 2f from consideration.
Let's take the last two transliterations first. Transliterations 2e and 2f are written out with the first RQT (reading the inscription right to left) = the letter-sign t2. The shape of this hypothetical t2 letter-sign, a sort of backwards N on a slant, probably comes closest to the "standard" Orkhon-Yenisei t2, among the three (r1/ q/ t2). Problems arise immediately, however, in the second word (reading right to left) since this front or palatal letter-sign finds itself surrounded by back vocalic letter-signs: š-aš-t2-m-n1. Furthermore, while one could invent nominal readings for the fourth string of mixed letter-signs l1-t2-t2 , such as hypothetical Old Turkic ***al it-et 'scarlet dog flesh' or perhaps ***al tI:t 'scarlet larch- or mulberry-tree', even assuming an I ~ i alternation, there really aren't any natural readings. So right away we can eliminate transliterations 2e and 2f from consideration.
Three or four-letter word ending in n1 . . .
We haven't discussed the first word "_-n1" or why I prefer a reading "(A)b(a)n", presumably a personal name. Simply put, "_-n" as a personal (or geographic) name is the default reading. As a default reading the interpretation of its unknown letter-signs isn't critical to the overall interpretation of the inscription. We don't need to spend a lot of time trying to decide the values or even the number of letters of the "understood" reading. The actual meaning really wouldn't matter for a first go round at the overall interpretation of the inscription.
I have chosen "_" = "b1" after I. L. Kyzlasov (1994) but you may have a different opinion. And that's OK. It would not be OK, if "_-n1" were not a proper noun, but instead something else. Then the meaning could and would affect the interpretation of the rest of the inscription. As a precaution I did a little reading through Clauson 1972, Tekin 1968 and Erdal 2004. There is precious little to go on in Old Turkic either as a proper noun (phrase) or a common noun (phrase). We can exclude "_" = any of the "known" letter-signs in this inscription (assuming of course that the letter-signs are derived from an Orkhon-Yenisei script). So "_" = č, q, l1, m, n1, r1, s, and š are excluded from consideration. It may be stretching it a bit but I believe y1 and Gh are also excluded because they appear together with the unknown letter-sign in question ("_") in other upper Yenisei inscriptions written with these same letter-sign variants (eg., y1 appears with "_" in SE 8; Gh appears with "_" in SE 1.)
As for "_" = a back, unrounded vowel (/a/ or /I/), no Old Turkic words exist for "_-n1". So "_" is probably not a vowel. It is maddening that I can't rule out "_" = t1, but I am going to do it anyway, mainly because there is no conceivable way to derive the shape of "_" from any of the known variants of t1. (Should I come across any I will revise my opinion at some future date). Really, the only thing we are left with is the back vocalic labial b1 and possibly the glide w or voiced fricative v (or its bilabial variant). I will keep "_" = s1 as a possibility for now, just because some of the variants do look as though they could be related by shape.
Given the above, we have the following Old Turkic candidates for "_-n1" :
Nouns or Adjectives
ban 'a wooden tablet' (Clauson 1972: 346, chinese loanword)
ban '10000, ten thousand' (Clauson 1972: 346, also a chinese loanword) [compare: mandarin wan 'ten thousand']
san 'number' (Clauson 1972: 831)
Verbs (as the bare stem which acts as the Old Turkic second person singular
imperative)
ban 'Dip! (something - accusative) in a liquid, etc. (dative)' (Clauson 1972: 348)
abIn 'Hide yourself!' (Clauson 1972: 12)
avIn 'Enjoy yourself!' (Clauson 1972: 12)
san 'Count yourself/ Be counted!' (Clauson 1972: 833)
"Aba-n" 'together with the ancestor(s)' might work, assuming the overall meaning of the sentence supported such a reading.
For now, however, I think we had better stay with "_-n1" = '(A)ban", a personal name, just in order to simplify things. "Aban" as a personal name is credible especially considering Middle Persian A:ba:n 'water divinities; name of the eighth month, name of the 10th day of any month'. And just in case this has any relevance at all: "An" is attested as a chinese personal name from the Northern Chou era (6th century AD). It is short for Anxi 'Western Gansu outpost, any outpost in the West, Bukara, etc.'
We haven't discussed the first word "_-n1" or why I prefer a reading "(A)b(a)n", presumably a personal name. Simply put, "_-n" as a personal (or geographic) name is the default reading. As a default reading the interpretation of its unknown letter-signs isn't critical to the overall interpretation of the inscription. We don't need to spend a lot of time trying to decide the values or even the number of letters of the "understood" reading. The actual meaning really wouldn't matter for a first go round at the overall interpretation of the inscription.
I have chosen "_" = "b1" after I. L. Kyzlasov (1994) but you may have a different opinion. And that's OK. It would not be OK, if "_-n1" were not a proper noun, but instead something else. Then the meaning could and would affect the interpretation of the rest of the inscription. As a precaution I did a little reading through Clauson 1972, Tekin 1968 and Erdal 2004. There is precious little to go on in Old Turkic either as a proper noun (phrase) or a common noun (phrase). We can exclude "_" = any of the "known" letter-signs in this inscription (assuming of course that the letter-signs are derived from an Orkhon-Yenisei script). So "_" = č, q, l1, m, n1, r1, s, and š are excluded from consideration. It may be stretching it a bit but I believe y1 and Gh are also excluded because they appear together with the unknown letter-sign in question ("_") in other upper Yenisei inscriptions written with these same letter-sign variants (eg., y1 appears with "_" in SE 8; Gh appears with "_" in SE 1.)
As for "_" = a back, unrounded vowel (/a/ or /I/), no Old Turkic words exist for "_-n1". So "_" is probably not a vowel. It is maddening that I can't rule out "_" = t1, but I am going to do it anyway, mainly because there is no conceivable way to derive the shape of "_" from any of the known variants of t1. (Should I come across any I will revise my opinion at some future date). Really, the only thing we are left with is the back vocalic labial b1 and possibly the glide w or voiced fricative v (or its bilabial variant). I will keep "_" = s1 as a possibility for now, just because some of the variants do look as though they could be related by shape.
Given the above, we have the following Old Turkic candidates for "_-n1" :
Nouns or Adjectives
ban 'a wooden tablet' (Clauson 1972: 346, chinese loanword)
ban '10000, ten thousand' (Clauson 1972: 346, also a chinese loanword) [compare: mandarin wan 'ten thousand']
san 'number' (Clauson 1972: 831)
Verbs (as the bare stem which acts as the Old Turkic second person singular
imperative)
ban 'Dip! (something - accusative) in a liquid, etc. (dative)' (Clauson 1972: 348)
abIn 'Hide yourself!' (Clauson 1972: 12)
avIn 'Enjoy yourself!' (Clauson 1972: 12)
san 'Count yourself/ Be counted!' (Clauson 1972: 833)
"Aba-n" 'together with the ancestor(s)' might work, assuming the overall meaning of the sentence supported such a reading.
For now, however, I think we had better stay with "_-n1" = '(A)ban", a personal name, just in order to simplify things. "Aban" as a personal name is credible especially considering Middle Persian A:ba:n 'water divinities; name of the eighth month, name of the 10th day of any month'. And just in case this has any relevance at all: "An" is attested as a chinese personal name from the Northern Chou era (6th century AD). It is short for Anxi 'Western Gansu outpost, any outpost in the West, Bukara, etc.'
[Waiting in the wings: Transliteration X (something more along the lines of Vasilyev 1983's interpretation of the uncertain RQT letter-signs):
Transliteration X. _- n1 : š - aš - a - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2/ ng : l1 - a - a : č - ü
Transcription X. _-n1 : šašaman : ( ) : (a)la-a : (e)čü ! ]
Transliteration X. _- n1 : š - aš - a - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2/ ng : l1 - a - a : č - ü
Transcription X. _-n1 : šašaman : ( ) : (a)la-a : (e)čü ! ]
Transliterations 2c - 2d.
Transliteration 2c. _ - n1 : š - aš - r1 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - r1 - r1 : č - q
Transliteration 2d. _- n1 : š - aš - r1 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - r1 - r1 : č - t2
Possible transcription: (A)ban : šašIr-mIn : (A)sIn el : (a)l(a)r(I)r : (a)č(I)q/ č(i)t
Reading 2.7 Aban : šašIr-mIn : AsIn el : alarIr : čIq / čaq / čit 'I, Aban, sprinkle (the) AsIn realm. (The) čIq / čaq/ čit are becoming leprous/ treacharous/ *diverse/ impure [lit. "blotchy/ motley"].
-mIn 'I' = Altaic regional dialect, eg. Khakas clitic form of Turkic men 'I" (Erdal 2004: 193).
*AsIn = an ethnic tribal name perhaps ancestrally related to the usun/ wusun described by chinese historians as living in modern-day Gansu Province, China in the 2nd century BC before being forced to migrate to the Ili valley in modern-day Kyrgyzstan)
The verb "to sprinkle" would be understood in the Judeo-Christian religious sense, ie. "to cleanse of iniquity". Aban 'zoroastrian collective plural name of the Water Divinities', but here used as a personal name.
(HRP: The case for a sound change /-č-/ > /-š-/ would still need to be made given the Old Turkic form of the verb stem is sač-, and not šaš-, see Clauson 1972: 794).
šaš- 'scatter, disperse' as a Sogdian loanword? (Gharib 1995: 370 Sogdian ša:š- 'to scatter, to disperse')According to Clauson Old Kyrgyz of Tuva retained initial b- preceeding a nasal consonant, eg. ben 'I' while the Türgesh of Khakassia regressively assimilated initial b- > m-, eg., men 'I' in the same environment (Clauson 2002 [1962] Studies in Turkic and Mongolic Linguistics, pp. 41-42, available online in pdf format). As a consequence the possible reading of -m-n1 as clitic -mIn 'I' (Erdal 2004: 193) would be of Türgesh origin and not of Old Kyrgyz origin.
Reading 2.8 Aban : šašIr-mIn : AsIn el : alarIr : čIq / čaq / čit 'I, Aban, scatter/ disperse (the) AsIn people. (The) čIq / čaq/ čit are becoming leprous/ treacharous [lit. "blotchy/ motley"].
ding 2.7 Aban : šašIr-mIn : AsIn el : alarIr : čIq / čaq / čit 'I, Aban, sprinkle (the) AsIn realm. (The) čIq / čaq/ čit are becoming leprous/ treacharous/ *diverse/ impure [lit. "blotchy/ motley"].Reading 2.7 Aban : šašIr-mIn : AsIn el : alarIr : čIq / čaq / čit 'I, Aban, sprinkle (the) AsIn realm. (The) čIq / čaq/ čit are becoming leprous/ treacharous/ *diverse/ impure [lit. "blotchy/ motley"].
Transliteration 2c. _ - n1 : š - aš - r1 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - r1 - r1 : č - q
Transliteration 2d. _- n1 : š - aš - r1 - m - n1 : s2 - n1 - l2 : l1 - r1 - r1 : č - t2
Possible transcription: (A)ban : šašIr-mIn : (A)sIn el : (a)l(a)r(I)r : (a)č(I)q/ č(i)t
Reading 2.7 Aban : šašIr-mIn : AsIn el : alarIr : čIq / čaq / čit 'I, Aban, sprinkle (the) AsIn realm. (The) čIq / čaq/ čit are becoming leprous/ treacharous/ *diverse/ impure [lit. "blotchy/ motley"].
-mIn 'I' = Altaic regional dialect, eg. Khakas clitic form of Turkic men 'I" (Erdal 2004: 193).
*AsIn = an ethnic tribal name perhaps ancestrally related to the usun/ wusun described by chinese historians as living in modern-day Gansu Province, China in the 2nd century BC before being forced to migrate to the Ili valley in modern-day Kyrgyzstan)
The verb "to sprinkle" would be understood in the Judeo-Christian religious sense, ie. "to cleanse of iniquity". Aban 'zoroastrian collective plural name of the Water Divinities', but here used as a personal name.
(HRP: The case for a sound change /-č-/ > /-š-/ would still need to be made given the Old Turkic form of the verb stem is sač-, and not šaš-, see Clauson 1972: 794).
šaš- 'scatter, disperse' as a Sogdian loanword? (Gharib 1995: 370 Sogdian ša:š- 'to scatter, to disperse')According to Clauson Old Kyrgyz of Tuva retained initial b- preceeding a nasal consonant, eg. ben 'I' while the Türgesh of Khakassia regressively assimilated initial b- > m-, eg., men 'I' in the same environment (Clauson 2002 [1962] Studies in Turkic and Mongolic Linguistics, pp. 41-42, available online in pdf format). As a consequence the possible reading of -m-n1 as clitic -mIn 'I' (Erdal 2004: 193) would be of Türgesh origin and not of Old Kyrgyz origin.
Reading 2.8 Aban : šašIr-mIn : AsIn el : alarIr : čIq / čaq / čit 'I, Aban, scatter/ disperse (the) AsIn people. (The) čIq / čaq/ čit are becoming leprous/ treacharous [lit. "blotchy/ motley"].
ding 2.7 Aban : šašIr-mIn : AsIn el : alarIr : čIq / čaq / čit 'I, Aban, sprinkle (the) AsIn realm. (The) čIq / čaq/ čit are becoming leprous/ treacharous/ *diverse/ impure [lit. "blotchy/ motley"].Reading 2.7 Aban : šašIr-mIn : AsIn el : alarIr : čIq / čaq / čit 'I, Aban, sprinkle (the) AsIn realm. (The) čIq / čaq/ čit are becoming leprous/ treacharous/ *diverse/ impure [lit. "blotchy/ motley"].
Transliterations 2a - 2b.
Transliteration 2a. _ - n1 : š - aš - q - m - n1 : s2 - n1- l2 : l1 - q - q : č - r1
Possible transcription : (A)b(a)n : šaš(a) q(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : (a)lq(I)q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 2.9 Aban, together with Shaman šaša, are (the ones who are) discovering ("opening up") the AsIn realm from one end to the other (used here as => * "length and breadth" [ *alqIq for alqIGh]' (definite accusative case ending would be unmarked here) ). Old Turkic ačar 'is opening/ opens' > 'is discovering, discovers'. All topped off with a shaman's cross-potent symbol carved into the upper section of the vertical slab of stone containing SE 11 Turan 3.
Note: Tekin 1968: 137 -in (the idea of companionship with someone): qaGhanIm-in sü elt-dimiz 'I, together with my kagan, went on campaigns'. HRP: Yenisei Turkic, by analogy to Orkhon -miš-/ Yenisei -mIš- in the hearsay past tense suffix, would probably have used -In 'together with someone' for Orkhon '-in' in a back vowel context.
Alternate transcription: (A)b(a)n : šaš q(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : (a)lq(I)q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 2.10 Aban, together with a/ the Wild Shaman, are clearing out ("opening up") the AsIn realm from one end to the other.
saš/ šaš 'wild' (Clauson 1972: 856)
ačar 'is opening'; Tekin's interpretation of this verb in the Orkhon inscriptions: 'open; clear up/ [out]' (Tekin 1968: 299); Clauson 1972: 18 ač- 'to open' (Transitive) with metaphorical extensions, [eg.] süngügin ačdImIz 'we opened [a way] with our lances'; kara bulItIGh yél ačar 'the wind clears away the black clouds'
*AsIn = perhaps ancestrally related to the ancient usun / wusun 'ethnic tribal name' (see note below)
*alqIq < alqIGh (Clauson 1972 : 137 alqIGh 'wide, broad'); modern Kyrgyz alqaq 'zone'
Note for *AsIn relation to chinese Usun/ Wusun:
"Sinologist Victor H. Mair compared Wusun with Sanskrit aśvin and Lithuanian ašva, both meaning 'mare'. The name would thus mean 'the horse people.' . . . Christopher I. Beckwith makes a similiar analysis to Mair, reconstructing Chinese term Wusun to the Old Chinese *âswin, which he compares to the Old Indic aśvin 'the horsemen,' the name of the Rigvedic twin equestrian gods." (from the Wikipedia edited monograph on "Wusun").
Alternate transcription: (A)b(I)n : šašq(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : (a)lq(I)q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 2.11 Hide yourself! (The) šašqamIn is/are clearing out the AsIn realm from end to end!
abIn 'Hide yourself!' (Clauson 1972: 12)
Possible Transliteration 2b seems unlikely as it doesn't contain any obvious verb forms.
Vasil'ev 1983 provides more confirmation that Transliteration 2a (final, left-most letter-sign, = r1) is preferred over Transliteration 2b (final, left-most letter-sign = t2). The following mirrored pair, listed as one of several variants for r1 in Vasil'ev 1983, comes closest to matching the final, left-most letter-sign of SE11 Turan 3:
Still not happy: Reconsideration of (a)l-q-(a/I)-q.
I have suggested that the fourth word-string from the right, l-q-q, should be interpreted as some derivation of Old Turkic alqIGh 'wide, broad', (I suggested alqIGh > alqIq/ alqaq 'length and breadth') compare modern Kyrgyz alqaq 'zone'. This isn't necessarily correct, or even the best solution.
So far we have a template "___: together with___: (the) AsIn realm/ people: l-q-q : (are) opening up / discovering/ clearing away" (X together with Y are "opening up" (=discovering/ clearing away) the AsIn realm/ people l-q-q.) Given such a template, how shold we interpret l-q-q? Or do we need to change the template? But first things first, especially since I believe the template is fairly well justified/ justifiable.
l-q-q = *alqIq 'wide,broad' < Old Turkic alqIGh 'wide, broad', compare modern Kyrgyz alqaq 'zone' (< Old TAurkic alqIgh 'wide'?) Unfortunately, instead of some sort of adverb (eg. qop 'all, entirely, completely') or adverbial form (eg. *alqIGh+dI 'widely'); or even some sort of adverbial complement (eg., "by its length and breadth"), we are left with *alqIq 'wide, broad', an adjective. While this works in (American) English ("to open [something] wide[ly]" or "to clear [something] out system-wide"), we can't make an analogous argument here without evidence from one of the relevant languages, although of course, dialectically it may have been possible.
So we are left with modern Kyrgyz alqaq 'zone' which may be derived from an Old Turkic adjective alqIGh 'wide'. Supposedly the development of Old Turkic alqIGh 'wide, broad' to modern Kyrgyz alqaq 'zone' would have proceeded through an intermediate *alqIq 'width' > 'the width of a certain specified area or object' > modern Kyrgyz alqaq 'zone'.
The inscription would read in Old Turkic (right to left): (A)b(a)n : šaš q(a)m-In : (A)s(I)n el : (a)lq(a/I)q : (a)č(a)r.
And the interpretation of the inscription would be something alone the lines of:
"(A)ban, together with Shaman šaš are opening up (= clearing away) the AsIn realm/ people alqa/Iq." [with the meaning of alqa/Iq to be determined].
l-q-q as an early mongol loan?
In 1239 AD the medieval written mongolian form corresponding to the last year of the central and east asian 12-year animal calendar cycle was Qaqa 'hog' and the Year of the Hog (= Year of the Pig) was written Qaqa-yIl 'Year of the Hog' (V. Minorsky 1952: 221-238, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and Afterican Studies. University of London, available on-line).
Unfortunately, the earliest Old Turkic expression for "pig" in the 12-year animal calendar cycle was non-Turkic, non-mongol laGhzI:n 'pig, swine; the earliest name for this animal in the 12-year animal cycle (Clauson 1972: 764 Türkü 8th century laGhzI:n yIl 'in the Pig year'). It was replaced by turkic tonguz 'pig, swine' by the 11th century.
Furthermore, the first element of a hypothetical compound noun (al-Qaqa 'scarlet hog'), Old Turkic al 'scarlet' would not have been used as one of the Five Colors of the ancient east asian system that associates each of five colors (kök/yašIl 'blue/green', aq/ ürüng 'white', qIzIl 'red', qara 'black', and sarIGh 'yellow') to the five divisions of space (east, west, south, north, center) and to each of the five fundamental elements of the universe (in the chinese ordering: wood, metal, fire, water, earth, respectively.) (A. von Gabain, 1962: 112-113, AOH (15) "Vom Sinn Symbolischer Farbenbezeichnung").
Thus, Old Turkic al 'scarlet' would not have been used for the color half of any given name of year in the central and east asian sexagenary 12-animal calendar system using the color-animal naming scheme : Old Turkic *kIzIl-laGhzI:n yIl 'red pig year' and not *al-laGhzI:n yIl. Al laGhzI:n or still better al tonguz 'scarlet pig' would have been understood as some mutant-colored swine characterized by orange-colored hair or skin.
In 1239 AD the medieval written mongolian form corresponding to the last year of the central and east asian 12-year animal calendar cycle was Qaqa 'hog' and the Year of the Hog (= Year of the Pig) was written Qaqa-yIl 'Year of the Hog' (V. Minorsky 1952: 221-238, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and Afterican Studies. University of London, available on-line).
Unfortunately, the earliest Old Turkic expression for "pig" in the 12-year animal calendar cycle was non-Turkic, non-mongol laGhzI:n 'pig, swine; the earliest name for this animal in the 12-year animal cycle (Clauson 1972: 764 Türkü 8th century laGhzI:n yIl 'in the Pig year'). It was replaced by turkic tonguz 'pig, swine' by the 11th century.
Furthermore, the first element of a hypothetical compound noun (al-Qaqa 'scarlet hog'), Old Turkic al 'scarlet' would not have been used as one of the Five Colors of the ancient east asian system that associates each of five colors (kök/yašIl 'blue/green', aq/ ürüng 'white', qIzIl 'red', qara 'black', and sarIGh 'yellow') to the five divisions of space (east, west, south, north, center) and to each of the five fundamental elements of the universe (in the chinese ordering: wood, metal, fire, water, earth, respectively.) (A. von Gabain, 1962: 112-113, AOH (15) "Vom Sinn Symbolischer Farbenbezeichnung").
Thus, Old Turkic al 'scarlet' would not have been used for the color half of any given name of year in the central and east asian sexagenary 12-animal calendar system using the color-animal naming scheme : Old Turkic *kIzIl-laGhzI:n yIl 'red pig year' and not *al-laGhzI:n yIl. Al laGhzI:n or still better al tonguz 'scarlet pig' would have been understood as some mutant-colored swine characterized by orange-colored hair or skin.
l-q-q: Scarlet- (Red-haired) Qaq [people] ?
Given the above (and the lack of grammar associated with the string l-q-q ), is it possible that this is an apposition: Old Turkic al Qaq 'the scarlet-[haired] "Qaq" [people]' , where "Qaq" is a hypothetical ethnic tribal name? The inscription would read "(A)ban, together with Shaman šaš, are clearing away the AsIn realm (or people), the scarlet-[haired] Qaq." Unfortunately the expression would more likely have been written: kIzIl sačll Qaq or al sačlI Qaq 'red-haired *Qaq' and not ***al Qaq.
Old Turkic al 'scarlet [color of chinese ink], chestnut-color [of a horse]' (Clauson 1972: 120)
Middle Mongolian gakhai, khagai, qaqai /Xaxai/, qaqa 'hog' [Regardless of how mongolian qaqa 'hog' was pronounced, the same letter-sign <q> would have been used for both /q/ and /X = kh/, see discussion in Clauson 1972: 611 under XaGhan 'kaGhan'.]
*Qaq 'ethnic tribal name'?
Given the above (and the lack of grammar associated with the string l-q-q ), is it possible that this is an apposition: Old Turkic al Qaq 'the scarlet-[haired] "Qaq" [people]' , where "Qaq" is a hypothetical ethnic tribal name? The inscription would read "(A)ban, together with Shaman šaš, are clearing away the AsIn realm (or people), the scarlet-[haired] Qaq." Unfortunately the expression would more likely have been written: kIzIl sačll Qaq or al sačlI Qaq 'red-haired *Qaq' and not ***al Qaq.
Old Turkic al 'scarlet [color of chinese ink], chestnut-color [of a horse]' (Clauson 1972: 120)
Middle Mongolian gakhai, khagai, qaqai /Xaxai/, qaqa 'hog' [Regardless of how mongolian qaqa 'hog' was pronounced, the same letter-sign <q> would have been used for both /q/ and /X = kh/, see discussion in Clauson 1972: 611 under XaGhan 'kaGhan'.]
*Qaq 'ethnic tribal name'?
l-q-q: a couple more unlikely ideas . . . and one intriguing one
There is an alternation in some Old Turkic words beginning with #yI- / #yi- ~ #I- /# i- and followed by -l-, -s-, -š-, -nč-, or -t- . I only bring it up because one could come up with incomplete and/or unattested hypothetical word phrases that would fit the string l-q-q.
Clauson 1972: 925/ 123 yIllIq ~ IllIq 'the period of a year' (< yIl ~ Il 'year').
Clauson 1972: 925/ 137 1 yIlqI ~ IlqI 'lasting for so many years'
Clauson 1972: 925 2 yIlqI 'herd(s) of cattle or horses'
Clauson 1972: 86 [under aGhu:luGh 'poisonous'] . . . akuluGh [sic] yIlqI-ta 'from a poisonous animal (reincarnation [buddist reading])'
The corresponding incomplete and/or unattested nominal formations would be:
IllIq-q[a] 'for a period of a year' (-qa = Dative case ending)
* IlqI-q < IlqI-Gh '(the ~ their) herd(s) of cattle or horses; animal(s)' [* -q < -Gh = Accusative case ending]
Finally, we have the following from the Orkhon inscriptions, Kül Tegin North 5: (Tekin 1968: 270) " . . . we fought against the Ediz at Quš-AlGhaq" where "Quš-AlGhaq"[transliteration: q-U-š-l1-Gh-q] is a geographical name. Old Turkic quš means 'bird' (alternatively: Old Turkic qoš 'a pair'). Some have "QusalGhuq" as the transcription of this geophraphical name. The interpretation of Old Turkic alGhaq/ alGhuq (< alGh- or alq- 'come or bring to an end, finish, complete') remains an open question.
"q-U-š-l1-Gh-q" would have implications for our string l-q-q should qus-alGhuq be the correct parsing and the stand alone noun alGhaq/ alGhuq have variants closer to modern Kyrgyz alqaq 'zone', eg., alGhIq, alGhaq, alqIq, alqaq possibly 'an area or place brought to a specific end for a specific purpose (ie., something brought to completion, something brought to an endpoint) or, if "wide, width, expansion" is the base concept, then possibly 'something characterized by broadening such as an areal expanse, range (= vast, open grazing area of land), stretch of land, etc.'.
Transcription : (A)b(a)n : š-aš q(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : (I)l(I)q-q[a] : (a)č(a)r
Reading 2.12 Aban, together with šašqam, are clearing out the AsIn realm for a period of a year.
Transcription : (A)b(a)n : š-aš q(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : (I)lq-(I)q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 2.13 Aban, together with šašqam, are clearing out the AsIn realm herds (of cattle or horses).
Transcription : (A)b(a)n : š-aš q(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : (a)lq(a)q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 2.14 Aban, together with šašqam, "open" ("are opening up/ are clearing off/ away/ out") the AsIn realm "alGhaq/ alqaq" (= reserve, expanse, zone?).
Reading 2.14 is unlikely since any hypothetical compound noun *el-alqaq 'realm-zone; people-zone (reservation?)' would not have been split in half by a word-separator:
asIn : elalqaq : and not asIn el : alqaq : . Also, Old Turkic "preserve, reserve" is more likely reflected in Old Turkic korIGh 'an enclosed, fenced area' > 'private reserve or preserve' (Clauson 1972: 652).
Time for a Template Change.
Sometimes it helps to go back and challenge prior assumptions -- especially assumptions made about the assigned values of certain (key) letter-signs. After all one of the chief constraints for any decipherment is the "correct" reading of each of the letter-sign(s). For us this means taking a second look at the assignment of the presumed letter-sign "l2" found in the middle of the inscription.
It turns out that Altaic runic letter-signs "l2" and "ng(2?)" can look very much alike. Altaic letter-sign "l2" is often written in the form of a straight, full-standing Latin lower-case letter "y", while Altaic and classical Orkhon-Yenisei ng (2?) is usually written as a vertical stave with a straight branch projecting to the left -- sometimes reaching the height of the vertical stave, and sometimes not. (The classical Orkhon-Yenisei form of the l2 letter-sign is shaped like the Latin capital letter "Y". Western Old Turkic runic scripts also had an ng(1?) variant that was shaped like a diamond -- sometimes with a dot in the middle, sometimes not.)
Since this is a key letter-sign (I have taken it up to now to read in Old Turkic (e)l 'realm, people') changing its assignment from "l2" to "ng(2?)" will significantly change any interpretation of the inscription. Old Turkic -ng is morphologically significant as it marks the 2nd person plural imperative case, the 2nd person singular possesive case, and the genitive case. We will consider only this final use of -ng -- as the genitive case ending -- since a 2nd person plural imperative or 2nd person singular possesive reading really wouldn't fit any reasonable interpretation for this type of inscription.
The genitive in Old Turkic may be used [is almost always used] to express possession. The genitive case ending -ng marks the possesser; the possessed noun/ nominative [= the head] usually takes a possessive suffix [-i/ -I ], but sometimes it doesn't (Erdal in Johanson and Csató 2006[1998]: 149).
This leads to the following transcription:
Transcription : (A)b(a)n : š-aš q(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n(I)ng : l-q-q : (a)č(a)r
where the string l-q-q is left undefined for now.
Reading 3.1 Aban, together with šašqam ["wild shaman"], are clearing out/ away (the) AsIn's l-q-q [herds?]. [HRP: (y)IlqI 'herds of cattle or horses'?; -q < -Gh (devoiced accusative case ending)?]
I am not impressed with this reading, especially if l-q-q = herds. However, should l-q-q = zone, expanse, range etc., there might be a way forward (Aban, together with šašqam, open (are opening/ are clearing out/ off/ away) (the) AsIn's zone/ range/ expanse).
Instead of AsIn 'ethnic (or personal) name', what about sIn 'tomb' as in:
Transcription : (A)b(a)n : š-aš q(a)m-(I)n : s(I)n(I)ng : (a)lq(a/I)q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 3.2 Aban, together with šašqam, are opening up/ clearing out the tomb's alq(a/I)q.
Clauson 1972 : 832 sI:n 'tomb'
Clauson 1972: 18 ač- 'to open, etc.; Tekin 1968: 299 ač- 'to open, to clear up [clear out, away, off]'
(Is this šašqaman tomb's l-q-q? I don't think so. That, in proper Old Turkic, would have been written: šašq(a)m(a)n : s(I)nIng : l-q-q, with the suffixed -I- in plene writing (ie., marked, written). There's that and a couple of other issues. Disregarding the fact that Clauson's sI:n 'tomb' is not widely attested; we have the unfortunate circumstance wherein the inscribed stele is standing next to a kurgan as in Tatar (Kypchak) kurgan 'mound' and not next to a proper mausoleum-like sI:n 'tomb'.)
Added note: Old Turkic words ang 'understanding, intelligence' / eng 1. 'adjectival prefix forming quasi-superlatives'; 2. 'cheek, complexion'; 3. 'wild game' (for more common av 'wild game') don't seem to fit semantically.
On the other hand, acceptance of Old Turkic eng 3. 'wild game' (Mong. ang 'wild game') (Clauson 1972: 167) would lead to the following transcription and reading:
Transcription : (A)b(a)n : š-ašq(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n (e)ng : (a)lq(a/I)q : (a)č(a)r
Transcription : (A)b(a)n : š-aš q(a)m-(I)n : s(I)n(I)ng : l-q-q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 3.3 Aban, together with šašqam, are opening/ clearing out/ away/ off (the) AsIn game alq(a/I)q.
Setting alq(a/I)q = zone, expanse, range gives:
Reading 3.4 Aban, together with šašqam, are opening/ clearing out/ away/ off (the) AsIn game zone (expanse, range etc.).
Clauson 1972: 167 eng 'wild game' (Mongol. ang 'wild game')
Assumed sound change by regressive assimilation: -q(X)q < -Gh(X)q.
Why Aban or šašqam would want to immortalize this act in stone is beyond me but you might think it amusing.
The main problem I see with this interpretation is with the parsing. It seems to me that, if the inscriber had intended "(wild)game-zone" or something like it, why did he parse the phrase asIn eng : alqaq instead of the much more coherent "asIn : eng alqaq" (compare the Orkhon geographical name : Q(u)s(a)lGh(u/a)q : 'Bird-AlGh(u/a)q').
So, based on how the inscription is parsed, the word-(string) s-n1-ng (or s-n1 l2) would have to be an adjective and not part of the noun or (geographical?) name "alq(a/I)q", possibly some type of geographical feature.
Circling back to the Old Turkic genitive case ending -ng, however, one could come up with the following transcription and reading:
Transcription : (A)b(a)n : š-aš q(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n(I)ng : (a)lq(a/I)q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 3.5 Aban, together with šašqam, are opening/ clearing out/ away/ off AsIn's Alq(a/I)q.
alq(a/I)q < alGh(a/I/u)q = 1. range (a vast, open habitat or grazing area)?
2. broad, wide section of some geological formation,
like a broad section of a river valley or mountain dell or
dale (but not 'ford, pass' compare: Orkhon Turkic kečig
'ford, pass' (e for a-umlaut); and not 'plain' compare:
Orkhon Turkic yazdI 'plain'; and not parts of a valley:
Károly and Rentzsch 2015 who interpret the words quy
and öz as two different parts of a valley: a secluded,
protected part and a central, open one, respectively) .
Clauson 1972: 137 alqIGh 'wide, broad'
Modern Kyrgyz: alqaq 'zone'
Orkhon Turkic (K.T. North 5): Quš-alGh(u/a/I)q 'geographical name' (Tekin 1968: 270)
But once again, why Aban or šašqam would want to immortalize in stone what is basically a text message is beyond me. Some metaphorical extension of ač- 'to open up' > 'to conquer' can't be right in this simple context either: ačar 'are conquering'?? Conquer is one of those monumental verbs that works much better in the past tense (contrast the strong statement "A. and S. have conquered, conquered the XYZ land(s)/ people" with not so strong "A. and S. are conquering, conquer the XYZ land(s)/ people").
Here is some more information from Clauson 1972 which may be helpful:
Clauson 1972: 18-19 1 ač- 'to open; to untie (a knot); to clear (the sky); with metaphorical extentions 'to disclose, explain, to reveal; to conquer (a city);
Kashgari (XI century): kara : bulItIGh yel ačar urunč bile : el ačar
'the wind clears away the black clouds, with a bribe one opens the door of the kingdom' [lit. black : clouds-Acc. wind clears away, a bribe with : the realm (kingdom) (one) opens]; KIpčak XIII, XIV centuries: 'to reveal, to pour out, to cross a river, etc.; to cause to be conquered'.
Transcription : (A)b(a)n : š-aš q(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n(I)ng : (a)lq(a/I)q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 3.6 Aban, together with šašqam, are crossing AsIn's Alq(a/I)q.
But compare Orkhon Turkic keč- 'to ford, to pass, to cross over' (e = a-umlaut).(a/I)q : (a)č(a)r
Of course one could develop unmarked pronominal subject readings such as:
Transcription : (A)b(a)n : š-aš q(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n(I)ng : (a)lq(a/I)q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 3.7 With (an) "ab(a)" and "wild shaman", (they/ he) are/ is opening/ clearing away AsIn's Alq(a/I)q.
but why go there. And besides. I don't think the unmarked pronominal subject even makes sense for this type of inscription.
Time for (another) Template Change.
The careful reader will notice that I haven't brought up Transliteration X since suggesting it quite a while back. It's time to bring it up. Tranliteration X, as you'll recall, was suggested by the similarity between one of Vasilyev 1983's variants for
/ö, ü/ and the final, left-most letter-sign of the inscription (reading right to left), namely the "N-shaped" letter-sign previously taken as /r1/.
Transliteration X. _- n1 : š-aš-a-m-n1 : s2-n1-l2/ ng : l1-a-a : č-ü
"a" in Transliteration X is not likely based on at least two constraints: Old (and modern) Turkic languages don't permit adjacent vowels (ie., they don't have diphthongs) and Turkic runic writing marks only the first of two identical but adjacent consonants or vowels. So things like "a-a" are completely out of the question.
We can re-write Transliteration X as Transliteration 4, but substituting RQ (= r1/q) for "a" (and not RQT since we have rejected the possibility of a t2 front consonant in these back vowel environments), and taking unknown "_" as /b/ (this interpretation is based on I. L. Kyzlasov's work, where it is assigned the value of /b1/).
Transliteration 4. b-n1 : š-aš-RQ-m-n1 : s2-n1-l2/ng : l1-RQ-RQ : č-ü
We'll start with RQ = /q/, then try RQ = /r1/.
Transcription: (a)B(a)n : šašq(a)m(a)n : (a)s(I)n-l2/ng : l-q-q : (e)čü
Reading 4.1 "(a)Ban" "šašqaman" (is) AsIn's (or AsIn el) l-q-q ancestor.
Clauson 1972: 20 ečü 'ancestor' [ečüler 'ancestors']
Transcription: (a)B(a)n : šašq(a)m(a)n : (a)s(I)n-l2/ng : (a)lq(a)q : (e)čü
Reading 4.2 "(a)Ban" "šašqaman" (is) AsIn's (or the AsIn realm) *priestly ancestor.
Clauson 1972: 138 alqa- 'to praise' + -q (= verbal noun formative, deverbative noun/adjective)
--> HRP: *alqaq 'priestly, sacerdotal'
Proposed context: The name of some deceased, religious ancestor of (the) AsIn, most likely buried nearby, is recorded; the inscription may have been written contemporaneous with the burial.
Clauson 1972: 5 1 apa/ aba 'ancestor, forefather'
2 apa / aba 'bear' (metaphorically speaking)
Tekin 1968 (Orkhon Turkic) ab 'hunt, chase' (a noun)
(HRP Fantasy Reading X: "With help from Aba šašqam the AsIn people are 'opening' (= clearing out) the Alqaq (= geographical place name)." Aba šašqam would be the name or title of a chief shaman-guide or the spirit or spirit-double of a revered master-shaman ancestor) ).
(HRP Defective Readings:
(1) "I (am) šašqaman, the AsIn's (or AsIn realm['s]) *priestly ancestor." (if the inscription refers to a recently deceased and intered person);
(2) "I (am) šašqaman, the one who "opens" AsIn's (or the AsIn realm['s]) Alqaq." (if the inscription refers to a then living person). (*alqaq < alGhaq 'geographical name')
Defective because the script would be incapable of distinquishing between b(e)n 'I'
and (a)b(a)-n, (A)b(a)n, b(a)n etc. )
Transcription: (a)B(a)n : šaš(a/I)rm(a/I)n : s(I)n-ng : alarIr : (e)čü
Reading 4.3 "(a)B(a)n" "šaš(a/I)rm(a/I)n" (is) (the) body's becoming leprous ancestor (ie. the ancestor, whose body is becoming leprous).
Clauson 1972: 832 sIn 'human body'
Clauson 1972: 150 alar- 'to become dappled, variegated; to change color; to
become leprous' (intransitive)
HRP: RQ = r1 doesn't really work, does it?
Evidence supporting the l2 reading over the -ng reading.
In order to disambiguate the identity of any ambiguous letter-sign in an inscription one really needs the help of a separate inscription containing both possible candidates. For the ambiguous letter-sign
In order to disambiguate the identity of any ambiguous letter-sign in an inscription one really needs the help of a separate inscription containing both possible candidates. For the ambiguous letter-sign
we have such an inscription, namely Bichitu-Boom II/2 from the Altai Republic, Russia. (For an excellent write-up and summary of Bichitu-Boom II/2 please see: http://www.altay.uni-frankfurt.de/ENGLISH/RUNIKA_ENG.HTM)
This inscription is unambiguously transliterated as (reading right to left):
k-i-š-i (:) U-Gh l2-ng (:) g
(The most recent reading of this inscription [Tybykova, Nevskaya, and Erdal, 2012: 56] is summarized in Irina Nevskaya "Some Orthographic Features of Altai Runic Inscriptions" in Nevskaya and Erdal (eds.) 2015 : 106).
So the tenth from right letter-sign in the SE 11 Turan 3 inscription should be read as "l2" and not as "ng". Everybody got that?
What exactly is an "Alqaq ~ AlGhaq" anyway?
Besides "geographical name" we don't know exactly. "Bird-AlGhaq" (assuming that this is the correct interpretation of the Orkhon inscription K.T. North 5 kUš-alGhaq 'geographical name') suggests an area rich in water resources, given the attraction to lakes and rivers of massed migratory flocks of birds. Here is lonelyplanet's description of the Darkhad Depression in Mongolia, a sacred space:
Introducing Darkhad Depression About 50km west of Khövsgöl Nuur, behind a wall of mountains, sits a harsh, mystical landscape of prairie, forest and 300-odd lakes scattered over a wide plain called the Darkhad Depression. The depression is roughly the same size as Khövsgöl Nuur and was also originally formed as a glacial lake.
The difficulty in reaching the region ensures the unique Tsaatan people, who are among the inhabitants of the valleys, are still able to continue their traditional lifestyle. The area is also one of Mongolia’s strongest centres of shamanism – the genuine kind, not the let's-pose-for-the-tourists kind.
This is one of the best-watered regions in Mongolia and the lakes are full of white carp and trout. Salmon and huge taimen can also be found here.
Read more: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mongolia/northern-mongolia/darkhad-depression#ixzz3i3QEvsuE
One could also just as well randomly pick any one of Don Croner's "smaller" spaces that appear in his travelblogs of an ex-pat's life in Mongolia (doncronerblog.com):
Besides "geographical name" we don't know exactly. "Bird-AlGhaq" (assuming that this is the correct interpretation of the Orkhon inscription K.T. North 5 kUš-alGhaq 'geographical name') suggests an area rich in water resources, given the attraction to lakes and rivers of massed migratory flocks of birds. Here is lonelyplanet's description of the Darkhad Depression in Mongolia, a sacred space:
Introducing Darkhad Depression About 50km west of Khövsgöl Nuur, behind a wall of mountains, sits a harsh, mystical landscape of prairie, forest and 300-odd lakes scattered over a wide plain called the Darkhad Depression. The depression is roughly the same size as Khövsgöl Nuur and was also originally formed as a glacial lake.
The difficulty in reaching the region ensures the unique Tsaatan people, who are among the inhabitants of the valleys, are still able to continue their traditional lifestyle. The area is also one of Mongolia’s strongest centres of shamanism – the genuine kind, not the let's-pose-for-the-tourists kind.
This is one of the best-watered regions in Mongolia and the lakes are full of white carp and trout. Salmon and huge taimen can also be found here.
Read more: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mongolia/northern-mongolia/darkhad-depression#ixzz3i3QEvsuE
One could also just as well randomly pick any one of Don Croner's "smaller" spaces that appear in his travelblogs of an ex-pat's life in Mongolia (doncronerblog.com):
Aba šašqam and the Fantasy Readings . . .
Transcription : (A)b(a)-n : šaš q(a)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : (A)lq(a/I)q : (a)č(a)r
Gloss: Aba-INSTR : šaš qam-INSTR : AsIn realm/ people : Alqaq [geog. name] : ač- open [conquer, discover, etc.]-aorist 3.PERS SG/ PLUR null ending
Reading 4.4 With help from (= By means of) "Aba šaš-qam" the AsIn people conquer (lit. "open, clear out") the Alqaq (< AlGhaq 'geographical name').
Reading 4.5 Together with "Aba šaš-qam" the AsIn people conquer (lit. "open, clear out") the Alqaq (<AlGhaq 'geographical name').
Reading 4.6 In the name of "Aba šaš-qam" the AsIn people conquer or discover or take possession of (lit. "open") the Alqaq (< AlGhaq 'geographical name').
Orkhon Turkic uses the formula Tengri yarlIq(q)aduq üčün 'By the grace of Heaven' to introduce phrases like Reading 4.4 (e for a-umlaut) and not the instrumental case (see Tekin 1968, inscriptions K.T. East 15, B.K. North 9, Ton. II.West 5 etc.). Moreover, the postposition üčün 'for, because of, on account of, for the sake of' would more likely have been used for Reading 4.6 ("Aba šašqam üčün . . .") and not the instrumental case. So readings 4.4 and 4.6 seem unlikely. Reading 4.5 is possible but weak.
It is possible that "Aba šašqam" is the name of some geographical formation (a river, a mountain pass etc) which would make the reading grammatically feasible (the instrumental case is used to express "by way of, via", as in "By way of the Great šašqam [River]" for example), but again we would be left with another weak reading. [Kem is the local Turkic name of the Yenisei River, by the way].
Transcription : (A)b(a)-n : šaš (a)q(I)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : (A)lq(a)q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 4.7 (The) "Aban" by means of (a) flash flood(s)/ surprise attack(s)/ lightning raid(s) [lit. "wild current, flash flood"] conquers [lit. "opens, clears out"] the Alqaq (< AlGhaq) of the AsIn realm.
Clauson 1972: 87 aqIm 'a single act of flowing' > survives in some modern Turkic languages as 'stream, current'; < aq- 'to flow' + deverb. nom. -m 'forms nouns resulting from a single act of the base verb' [HRP: perhaps confused with:]
Clauson 1972: 87 aqIn 'stream, current' > metaphorically 'a marauding raid'
Clauson 1972: 18 ač- 'to open' > metaphorically 'to clear out/ away/ off; to conquer' + aorist -r suffix forms present tense finite verbs (3rd sing./plural = null ending)
Tekin 1968 K.T. North 5 qUš-AlGhaq 'geographical name'
Clauson 1972: 856 saš, šaš 'wild, unbroken' [HRP: 'startling'?]
If the literal interpretation of Old Turkic aqIm ("sudden torrent of water", ie. American English = "flash flood") is the correct interpretation, then the natural subject would be "Aban" perhaps middle persian "Water Spirits".
Transcription : (A)b(I)n : šaš (a)q(I)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : (A)lq(a)q : (a)č(a)r
Reading 4.8 Hide yourself! The AsIn realm/people are clearing out the "Alqaq" using flash floods/ surprise attacks/ lightning raids!
Of course the obvious shortcoming of Reading 4.8 is the extent to which it relies on a performance error of the inscriber (aqim 'flash current' for intended aqin 'stream, current' > 'raid'). It also doesn't explain the cross-potent "magician's" tamga which appears next to the inscription.
Transcription : (A)b(a)-n : šaš (a)q(I)m-(I)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : (A)lq(a)q : (a)č(a)
Circling Back One More Time (just to make sure we're on the right track).
I'm not satisfied that we have exhausted all possible outcomes for the reversed-N letter-sign shown above. So far we have spent a good deal of effort exploring possible readings of SE 11 Turan 3 where the value of this letter-sign was set as <q>. We have also looked at several outcomes where the value of this letter-sign was set as r1 (Transliterations 2c and 2d; Readings 2.7, 2.8, and 4.3) but I think we can and should explore this possibility further.
A comparison of the shape of this letter-sign with traditional Orkhon-Yenesei runiforms suggested that it most closely matched <q>, <r1>, and <t2>. We have rejected <t2> since the letter-strings in which it appears (second and fourth strings from the right) both contain letter-signs corresponding to back-vowel runiforms in the the traditional script(s) (namely, <n1>and <aš> in the second string and <l1> in the fourth string). The possibility that this letter-sign = <q> was examined in depth above; we now move on to the possibility that this letter-sign = <r1>.
A comparison of the shape of this letter-sign with traditional Orkhon-Yenesei runiforms suggested that it most closely matched <q>, <r1>, and <t2>. We have rejected <t2> since the letter-strings in which it appears (second and fourth strings from the right) both contain letter-signs corresponding to back-vowel runiforms in the the traditional script(s) (namely, <n1>and <aš> in the second string and <l1> in the fourth string). The possibility that this letter-sign = <q> was examined in depth above; we now move on to the possibility that this letter-sign = <r1>.
Transliteration 5. b1-n1 : š-aš-r1-m-n1 : s-n1 l2 : l1-r1-r1 : č-q/ t2/ ü
Transcription: (A)b(a)n : šaš(a/I)r-m(a)n : (a)s(a/I)n (e)l : (a)l-(a)r-(a/I)r : (a/e)č-q/t2/ü
The letter-string coming at the end of the inscription, č-q/ t2/ ü, is probably a noun but there doesn't seem to be much to choose from in the Old Turkic literature. O.T. ačIGh 'a gift, a gift from a ruler' (HRP > *ačIq); ačuq 'open (opened), clear (sky), frank, friendly, obvious, manifest; čIt 'fence, stockade' are unlikely due to phonetic and/or semantic reasons. The imperative of the O.T. verb stem čIq- 'to go out, to come out' (čIq 'Come out!) also seems unlikely.
We shouldn't dismiss von Gabain's -čaq 'adjectival suffix' (see Peter Golden's 2014 paper "QIpčaq", which discusses his views on etymologies of this important turkic ethnonym, in https://www.academia.edu/7731443/Q%C4%B1p%C4%8Daq ), even though there is clearly a word-separator separating it from the preceding word-string. Thus, (A)l r1-r1 : -č(a)q 'the Al (a)r-(a)r ones'.
I'm going to go with O.T. ečü 'ancestor'. It fits the letter-string. And besides there just isn't that much else to work with.
Transcription: (A)b(a)n : šaš(a/I)rm(a)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : l-r1-r1 : (e)čü
Clauson 1972: 20 ečü 'ancestor'
Clauson 1972: 88 aGhIr 'laudatory' (also compare aGhar 'heavy, important'); Tekin 1968 IGhar 'important, precious, dear, beloved'.
Assuming a sound change: Gh > 0/ V_V, V= back vowel, we can obtain:
Old Turkic aGhIr/ aGhar/ IGhar > *ar 'important, laudatory, precious'; compare modern Kyrghyz ardaq 'honor, respect, esteem'.
Partial Reading: . . . (A)s(I)n (e)l : (a)l (a)r(a)r : (e)čü
'. . . the AsIn realm : al r1-r1 : ancestor'
šašarman
This may or may not be relevant but Tashkent (Taškent) [Uzbekistan] in Central Asia was known as Chach (= čač) in the early middle ages. Sometime after the early 8th century Islamic conquest of the region it became known as Shash (= šaš) according to Arabic pronunciation.
This also may or may not be relevant: Clauson 1972: 232 armaGhan 'a gift, especially a gift brought back from a journey'. HRP --> *arman 'a gift, especially a gift brought back from a journey' (assuming the sound change Gh > 0/ V __ V, V = back vowel).
Should both suggestions made above prove relevant the word-string š-aš-(a)rm(a)n could then be interpreted as a personal name:
*šaš-arman < šaš + armaGhan 'gift brought back from čač/ šaš [= Tashkent, city or region].
Proposed partial reading: b1-n1 : š-aš-(a)rm(a)n : (A)s(I)n (e)l : (a)l r1-r1 : (e)čü
'b1-n1 šaš-arman, Al r1-r1 ancestor of the AšIn realm'
possibly: 'Lord šaš-arman, Al r1-r1 ancestor of the AšIn realm'
Something to think about:
New Persian (NP) ban 'prince, lord, chief'; Middle Persian (MP) -ban '-keeper, -guardian' ie., baGhban 'gardener'; MP banug 'lady' (> early New Persian (eNP) 'banu' 'lady'), so possibly MP *ban 'lord' ?
If so, then b1-n1 šaš-arman = Ban šaš-arman 'Lord šaš-arman'