Türkic Scripts - Codex of Inscriptions

Euro Asiatic Subgroup

Kuban Script
(see also Balkarian)

Introduction

Codex of Inscriptions - Kuban

   2. THE KUBAN SCRIPT (К)

K 1. Sedjar

Engraving on the vertical handle of a silver üg. The remains of two lines, a part of the handle (length about 7 sm) lost after finding of the vessel, a part (length about 1 sm) lost later. In the beginning of the first line nowadays is only the first letter (on the sketch of 1884, two and a fragment of the third letter), was separated from the others by a lacuna no more than in 15 (originally 13) signs. On a sketch of 1896 two of these signs are known. Other part of the line contains 17 signs. The preserved initial part of the second line consist of four signs. Height of letters 0,5-0,7 sm (one - 0,3 sm). The text is preceded with an ornamental figure.
Date - 8-10 century.
Found June, 6, 1884 at plowing near village Sedjarskaya (nowadays v. Sediar in Balezinsk district of Udmurtiya) on the right bank of the r. Chepets, the left tributary r. Vyatka (fig. 1,6).
Stored in the State Hermitage.

К1.1-2 - Per Ya.I. Smirnov with verification per the original, 3 - per O.Donner

Publications:
Donner О. Sur Porigine de alphabet turc du Nord de I'Asie. - JSFO. 1896, 14, p. 42, Fig. XIX;
Melioransky P.M. Two silver vessels with Yenisei inscriptions. - ZVORAO. 1902, vol. 14, p. 20-22, table I;
Smirnov Ya.A.I.The eastern silver. SPb., 1909, p. 5, 6, 11, table XCH, №168;
Darkevich V.P. Art metal of the East of 8-13 centuries. М., 1976, p. 9, table 20,5,6;
Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Turkic runic writing of Eurasia, fig. 15,7,2, p. 50-54.

Reading attempts:
Melioransky P.M. Two silver vessels, p. 21,22.

The vessel is damaged by a plough in the place of the find. After delivery to the Archeological Commission (OAC) (1884) a üg and the handle with the inscription were sketched by A.Medvedev, then the find has been transferred to the Hermitage (1894), where it was studied by Ya.I. Smirnov. In 1896г. O.Donner, developing a concept of the origin of the Orkhon-Yenisean script, first published as the example of similar writing a sketch of the Sediyar inscription, made from the photos given to him by V.G. Tizengauzen. Ya.I. Smirnov brought the attention to P.M. Melioransky, who published  in 1902 a sketch of the jug, A. Medvedev's sketch and the photos of the inscription. Quite familiar with the Asian runic writing, the outstanding Türkologist noted the presence in the inscription of the "several signs (or at least variations), hitherto unknown in the Orkhon-Yenisean writing", and, having discussed all the complications, published an attempt of decoding of the text on the basis of the S. Siberian Türkic alphabet. Having compared with it the forms of the Sediyar letters, P.M. Melioransky suggested that they belong to the end of the 8-9 century. This dating has been accepted by I.A. Talitskaya. OAC suggested a later date, 10-11 centuries.

 The vessel was included in the Ya.I. Smirnov atlas under № 168, published the photo of the overall view of the jug and both parts of its handle, and the A. Medvedeva's sketch. The reading of the inscription by P.M. Melioransky was also given . The photo of the vessel, the long part of the handle and the A. Medvedeva's sketch were re-published by V.P. Darkevich in 1976. Based on the dating of the letters by P.M. Melioransky and the analogies in the paintings of the 7-8 centuries he attributed the vessel to the 8th century. In turn, the runic text served V.P. Darkevich as one of the reasons for determination of the place of the manufacturing of the jug: "Judging by the Turkic inscription, it was made in the east of the Central Asia". The story of the inscription's study, its sketch and paleographic definition were published in 1990 by the author of these lines. The epigraphical analogies determine the date of the text as the 8-9 centuries, and the place of its manufacturing is allowed to be considered in the Eastern Europe.
On the published by all researchers images, precisely transmitting the original in the exposition of the State Hermitage, are well distinguishable the 19 preserved signs the of the first and 4 signs of the second line of the inscription. P.M. Melioransky considered that on the not preserved part of the handle could be placed 11-17 signs, and by our calculations could be no more than 13 signs. It is rather important that O.Donner's sketch reproduced two more signs probably placed to the left of the break and later lost, and not noticed by the other researchers. Judging by their place, these signs could also be on the separate fragment which was not contiguous to the right or left part of the first line. We believe also that in the end of the second line P.M. Melioransky accepted on the A. Medvedev's sketch as a "half-letter" the crack in the metal along which has fallen off a small slice of the handle which later did not get to the Hermitage. Anyhow, nowadays we have 25 signs of the Sediyar inscriptions, five of which are the vertically oriented colons.

K 2/1-4. Onoshat

Four isolated inscriptions-graffiti at the bottom of a silver dish.

The inscription K 2/1 is made inside of the engraved circle, and the eight making it signs (height 0,9-0,6, mostly 0,7-0,8 sm) are placed by an arch-wise line with the base of 5 and height 2,7 sm. Reference to letters of the second on the right and extreme at the left (separated from the text by a space of 1 sm) raises the doubts.

The inscription K 2/2 is placed below the previous, consisting of three very thinly marked letters (height 0,5, 0,5 and 0,9 sm). Located in 1,2 sm more to the right of the inscription the zigzag sign does not belong to it, for it is cut rather deeply and precisely (similarly to the text K 2/1).

The inscription K 2/3 is on the external side of the first circle and covers the second carved circle. To the text made by a lighter cutter than the K 2/1 belong, undoubtedly, four letters (height from 0,8 to 0,6, one is 0,4 sm). The short stroke which is more to the right, and an extreme left tracing, apparently, do not belong to the text and are made by another tool.

The inscription K 2/4 is placed above the line K 2/1, 2,5-2,6 sm outside the ring leg of the dish and by the form of a line depends on last. Probably do not belong to the letters the extreme right and left signs (spaced by one sm). The other five, undoubtedly alphabetic, signs are cut out clearly and have height of 0,7-0,8 sm (one is 0,6 sm).

Date 8-9 century.

Found in 1892 together with silver grivnas of the 9th century on a plow land near v. Onoshat in Sepychevsk volost Ohansk district of the Perm province (nowadays Vereshchagin district of the Perm province) in the basin of the river Sepych - the left tributary of the river Lysva (fig. 1,9).
Stored in State Hermitage, cat. № S-22.

It was stored in the Institute of the Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences where nowadays is only one part of it, the "Khumarian - 1".

K 2.1 per Ya.I. Smirnov, 2 - sketch of the author (I.L Kyzlasov)

Publications:
Smirnov Ya.I. Eastern silver, tab. XIII, XCH;
Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Turkic runic writing of Eurasia, fig. 15,3-5, p. 58-60.

Attempts of reading: not published.

In 1909. Ya.I. Smirnov published the Iranian dish № 105 among numerous samples of the eastern silver. On its back were grooved various lines and signs, and also the runic inscriptions were published as a sketch. The dish was repeatedly analyzed as a sample of the artisanship, however its runic tracings did not attract the attention of the epigraphists. Meanwhile the very fact of the existence of the secondary inscription served V.P. Darkevich as the basis for the definition of the upper date of the manufacturing of the dish, not later than the 8th century, for, in the opinion of the researcher, " the latest runic texts from Mongolia and Eastern Turkestan are dated by the middle of the 9th century". A nominal dating of the treasure, by I.A. Talitskaya, 6-9th century. With some hesitation B.I. Marshak dates the dish to the first half of the 8th century. We studied the dish due to B.I. Marshak's assistance. The separate four lines of inscriptions are made by different cutters and actually represent a small series of independent texts K 2/1-4. All other marks, in the extremely good-quality sketch of Ya.I. Smirnov, are made after the inscriptions or not connected to them. In our drawing missing is the zigzag line on the incomplete circle between the inscription 4 and the ring leg of the dish made by the same cutter, as last text

K 3. Khumarian - 1, 4, 5

Parts of one graffiti text on three fragments of the sandstone blocks re-used for the construction of the walls of the fortress. A horizontal line, probably, of 17 signs (between the eighth and the ninth is a break in the stone erased one or two more signs; probably, not all initial letters were preserved). Overall length not less than 95 sm, height of letters - 6-7 sm (some signs are up to 11 sm).
Date - before the second half of the 9th - beginnings of the 10th century.
Found in 1960 during construction work in the Khumarian fortress in the upper flow of the river Kuban, 11 km is above the city Karachaevsk (fig. 1,2).

K 3. Baichorov S.Ya. Ancient Turkic runic monuments, table 135

K 3. Sketch by the author (I.L.Kyzlasov, a segment, shown upside down)

Publications:
Kuznetsov V.A. Inscriptions of the Khumarian fortress. - SA. 1963, N8 1, fig. 1,1,4, 3,2;
Scherbak A.M. Les inscriptions inconnues sur les pterres de Khoumara (au Caucase du Nord) et le probleme de l'alphabet runique des turcs occidentaux. - AOH. 1962, vol. 15, fasc. 1-3, Fig. 1;
Baichorov S.Ya. Ancient Turkic runic monuments, p. 174-178, table 136-139;
Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Turkic runic script of Eurasia, fig. 11, p. 31-33.

Attempts of reading:
Baichorov S.Ya.North Caucasian area of the Ancient Turkic runic writing. Autoreferate of the Ph.D. dissertation. М., 1977, p. 22;
Baichorov S.Ya. The Ancient Turkic runic monuments, p. 178.

Transcription:
Ëgnbeh (= Ëgünbeh) b(е)lüg (=bеlüg) d'og  (e)ni (e)sh oyusht(у)k. Ijden el (о)l
Ttranslation:
Monument of Egünbek, memorial house (lodge) - sanctuary excavated we. (He) will appear before god

K 4. Khumarian - 2, 3

Parts of one graffiti text on two fragments of the sandstone blocks re-used for the construction of the fortification.
Arch-like line of 16 signs. The base of the arch is about 1,5, and the the height about 2 m. The sizes of signs vary from 7-8 to 20 and more sm.
Date - before the second half of the 9th - beginnings of the10th century.
Found in 1960 at the same point.
Was stored in the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences where nowadays it is not found.

K 4. Was stored in the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences where nowadays it is not found.

K 4. Baichorov S.Ya. Ancient Turkic runic monuments, tab. 136, 140

Publications:
Kuznetsov V.A. Inscriptions, fig. 1,2,3;
Minaeva T.M. To the history of the Alans of the Upper Kuban area on the archeologic data. Stavropol, 1971; p. 218 fig. 39,4
Baichorov S.Ya. Ancient Turkic runic monuments, p. 168-174, table 130-135.

Attempts of reading:
Baichorov S.Ya. North Caucasian area, p. 22;
Baichorov S.Ya. The Ancient Turkic runic monuments, with. 174.

Transcription:
Djgut(u)r (e) kdj belüg tiketüki dj(а)l (e)ki kidj oy(u)u (= kidje oiuu) oyd(uk)

Translation:
In dügutur second (i.e. in the second month of year of tur, a mountain goat), in year of completion of monument, two small ornaments engraved (we)

K 5. Khumarian - 6

Graffiti on the sandstone block, re-used for the construction of the fortification. Three horizontal lines: 8, 8 and 7 signs. Their length is accordingly about 43,5 sm and 44-45 sm. Height of signs from 3,5 to 9 sm, mostly 6,5-7,5 sm.
Date - before the second half of the 9th - beginnings of the10th century.
Found in 1962 at the same point.
Stored in the Karachaevo-Circassian museum of study of local lore.

K 5. Stored in the Karachaevo-Circassian museum of study of local lore.

Baichorov S.Ya. Ancient Turkic runic monuments, tab. 144-2.

Baichorov S.Ya. Ancient Turkic runic monuments, tab. 145-2.

Publications:
Kuznetsov V.A. Inscriptions, fig. 2,7;
Scerbak A.M. Les inscriptions, Fig. 3;
Baichorov S.Ya. Inscription of the Khumarian fortress. - ST 1974, № 4, with. 90-92;
Baichorov S.Ya. The Ancient Turkic runic monuments, tab. 144, 145.

Attempts of reading:
Baichorov S.Ya. Inscription of the Khumarian fortress, p. 90, 92;
Baichorov S.Ya. North Caucasian area, p. 22, 23;
Baichorov S.Ya.. The Ancient Turkic runic monuments, p. 183.

Transcription:
1) Djgut(u)r üch(е)m(и)g
2) Mengchur (e)l(i)nche
3) ur bit i ëgig(е)n

Translation:
1) In dügutur third (i.e. in the third month of year of tur, the mountain goat)
2) Mengchur in his state
3) engraved inscriptions gave praise

K 6. Khumarian - 7

Graffiti on sandstone block, re-used for construction of the fortification wall and broken in two. A horizontal line of 10 signs. Overall length about 52 sm, height of letters from 4,3 to 7,5 sm, mostly 5,5 sm.
Date - before the second half of the 9th - beginnings of the10th century.
Found in 1962 at the same point.
Stored in the Karachaevo-Circassian museum of study of local lore.

K 6. Stored  in the Karachaevo-Circassian museum of study of local lore.

K 6. Baichorov S.Ya. Ancient Turkic runic monuments, tab. 142

Publications:
Kuznetsov V.A. Nadpisi, fig. 2,2;
Baichorov S.Ya. Inscription of the Khumarian fortress, p. 92;
Baichorov S.Ya. The Ancient Turkic runic monuments, tabl. 141, 142;
Habichev M.A. The word-formation and etymological analysis of the Karachai etnonyms. - Actual problems of the Karachai-Balkarian and Nogay languages. Stavropol, 1981, p. 39.

Attempts of reading:
Habichev M.A. The word-formation and etymological analysis: p. 39, 40.
Baichorov S.Ya. Inscription of the Khumarian fortress:. p. 93;
Baichorov S.Ya. North Caucasian area, p. 22;
Baichorov S.Ya. The Ancient Turkic runic monuments, p. 181;

Transcription:
Djgut(u)r üch(e)mge minge...

Translation:
By dügutur third (i.e. to the third month of the year of tur, the mountain goat), eternity (i.e. a memorial)...

K 7. Khumarian - 8

Grafitti on sandstone block, re-used for construction of the fortification. Two horizontal lines of eight signs. The dinensions of the monument are unknown.
Date - before the second half of the 9th - beginnings of the10th century.
Found in 1962 at the same point.
It was destroyed before the arrival of the experts. The known in the literature sketch of a student A.D. Besleneev is, probably, an inexact copy of the second and third lines K 5 (table II).

K 7. It is destroyed before arrival of experts

K 7. Baichorov S.Ya.Ancient Turkic runic monuments, table 143

Publications:
Kuznetsov V.A.Nadpisi, fig. 3,1.

Attempts of reading:
Baichorov S.Ya. Inscription of the Khumarian fortress, p. 93;
Baichorov S.Ya. North Caucasian area, p. 22;
Baichorov S.Ya. The Ancient Turkic runic monuments, p. 181.

Transcription:
1).. (e)g(i)nch bengd'(u)r - (e)l(i)nche
2) gu üm ëg(i)g(е)n

Translation:
1).. Second (i.e. in the second month of year...) Bengdür in his state
2) With help this (or signs these) has praised

K 8. Khumarian -10

Graffiti on sandstone block of the fortification. A horizontal line of three signs. The sizes are unknown.
Date - before the second half of the 9th - beginnings of the10th century.
Found at the same point. Time of the find is not known.
The monument is known only from the sketch by S. Belobrov, the inhabitant of the village Sarytüz of the Karachai district.

K 8. The monument is known only from the sketch of the villager S. Belobrov

K 8. Baichorov S.Ya. Ancient Turkic runic monuments, table 149

Publications:
Baichorov S.Ya. North Caucasian area, p. 5, fig. 14;
 Baichorov S.Ya. The Ancient Turkic runic monuments, table 149.

Attempts of reading:
Baichorov S.Ya.Ancient Turkic runic monuments, p. 186.

Transcription:
Dog (?)

Translation:
memorial , funeral " (?).

The Khumarian fortress belongs to the Saltovo-Mayak culture and is dated, per verbal message of S.A. Pletneva, by the second half of the 9th - the beginning of the 10 c. Inscriptions have been cut out on sandstone blocks before the erection of the facings of the fortifications. S.Ya. Baichorov cites the data that stones with inscriptions served as steps of the ladder leading to the citadel that does not prevent him to also specify here, however, on their location in the wall of the fortress. The researcher revealed the new indications of the secondary usage of the written monuments at the construction of the fortifications (partial burn and finishing of the blocks, traces of imbedded iron reinforcements).

The remains of the fortress have drawn attention of the regional specialists in the middle of 19 century, but the inscriptions on the stones have been found only in 1960. Probably, inhabitants knew about them earlier. Judging by the figure published without comments, already in 1960 one plate with an inscription was stored at the local school. In the same year V.A. Kuznetsov surveyed the inscriptions and took them out from the fortress. In 1962 the researcher has studied new finds of plates with texts, and published all inscriptions known to him in 1963. Two inscriptions ("Khumarian - 1" and K 5) with V.A. Kuznetsov's photos have been published in 1962. by A.M. Scherbak. Sketch K 1 was published by A.M. Scherbak in 1971 and republished by J. Nemeth. In 1971. T.M. Minaeva published the observations and a sketch of teacher S.D. Mastepanov from which follows that pieces with inscriptions K 2 and K 3 originally made one plate (size 1 x 0,6 x 0,18 м) and ta single text (K 4). The researcher believed that she was publishing a brand new written monument. Though in the1977 the inscription was identified by S.Ya. Baichorov, in 1983 the mistake has been repeated by H.H. Bidjiev in the publication of the collection for the sketches of the Khumarian texts. He also admitted other errors: on fig. 49 No 5 is reproduced the same plate as No 1 (K 1), but turned around; No 7 ("a casual find of the archeologist U.Ü. Elkanov ") shows merged together (it should be seen from right to left, starting from the bottom line) inscriptions K 6 and K 5.

 . In 1971 G.F. Turchaninov attributed the Khumarian texts to the Iranian speakers (Kosogian), some of their  signs were entered into the comparative - paleographic table, and suggested their phonetic value. In 1974. S.Ya. Baichorov made an attempt of reading the three inscriptions (K 5 - K 7) on the basis of the Ancient Turkic runic alphabets. In 1977 he also read the other monuments, and put in order the inscriptions, the result of which assembled all of them as five fragments of one text. However his study remained unpublished. In 1981 M.A. Habichev offered his understanding of K 6 as a Türkic language inscription. In 1989. S.Ya. Baichorov published description, sketches, a history of the study and, the most valuable, a series of photos of the Khumarian inscriptions, incontestably testifying that the original complete blocks of stone with one text were broken down into isolated fragments. So, one written monument K 3 appeared as stones X 1, X 4 and X 5, was confirmed the view on the unity of the text K 4 consisting of the fragments X 2 and X 3. S.Ya. Baichorov gives some data (without time and conditions of detection) about one more inscription of the Khumarian fortress (K 8) which sketch was published in 1977 without any comments.

Thus, the materials published by the researchers allow us to take into account the six Khumarian inscriptions, two of which (K 7, K 8) are represented by non-professional sketches (table II). In the funds of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Science it was possible to find and study the original X 1 (the beginning of the K 3), that has led to better details of the shape of the inscription. The remaining monuments were studied by the archival and published pictures that to a certain degree was helped by the specifics of the texts, with their large signs cut deeply into the fairly hard sandstone. The monuments received a paleographic definition. The newly received circumstances necessitated a respective alteration of indexes of these and other Kuban texts.

K 9. Mayaki

Graffiti on a burnt surface of a fragment of an amphora. A horizontal line of 17 whole and one partly preserved signs. Overall length of 10,4 sm, height of signs 0,6-0,7 sm (one 0,5 and one 0,9 sm).
Date - 8th - 9th century.
Found in 1976 in the area of a burial ground near ancient village "Mayaki" on the right bank of the river Donets (fig. 1,7) by S.I. Tatarinov and I.V.Kopyl. Found on the surface.
Stored in the State Hermitage, cat. № 2763/1.

 К 9. Маяки

Граффито на обожженной поверхности обломка амфоры. Горизонтальная строка из 17 целых и одного частично сохранившегося знака. Общая длина 10,4 см, высота знаков 0,6-0,7 см (однажды 0,5 и 0,9 см).
Дата - 8-9 в.
Обнаружено в 1976 г. на площади могильника близ селища Маяки на правом берегу р. Донец (рис. 1,7) С.И. Татариновым и И.В. Копылом. Подъемный материал.
Хранится в ГЭ, инв. № 2763/1.

K 9. A sketch of the author (I.L.Kyzlasov)

K 9. Baichorov S.Ya. Ancient Turkic runic monuments, table 122

Publications:
Klyashtorny S.G. Khazarian inscription on an amphora from a fortress Mayaki. - SA. 1979, № 1;
Kyzlasov I.L. Ancient Turkic runic writing of Eurasia, fig. 16,7, p. 54-56.

Attempts of reading:
Klyashtorny S.G. Khazarian inscription;

Transcription:
X arka X irkir ak achyk bor
Translation:
X (units) total; here X (measures) fits. White dry wine

Baichorov S.Ya. Ancient Turkic runic monuments, p. 160, 161.

Transcription:
... En (e)sheche o (e)n...
Translation:
... vessel of house (lodge), this is house (lodge)

Additional comments

Grivnas belong to the 10-th century, and are limited to the Slavic zone. Either dating is questionable, or these were silver ingots are not grivnas. At the time, the Perm area was a major producer of the silver and silver crafts.

This description is a good illustration of the circular logics used in the scientific-like speculations substituting for the actual analysis and testing. The objective of these speculations is, by a substitution of the prescribed dogma for the scientific research,  to prove that it can't be because it couldn't be. Thus, the silver vessel, found in the Eastern European area of the major Türkic silver production and powerful artisan center, shows up in the Iranian Collection, is attributed to the Central Asian manufacture and dated by the Eastern Asian scripts. No wonder the results are funny at best.