Tuekta I (A-3)

The village Tuekta, also in the Ongudaj District, has become known as one of centers of Old Turkic Runic only recently.          At present, we know five Old Turkic Runic inscriptions found in the vicinity of the village Tuekta. The inscription Tuekta I on a silver jug was found there in 1935 during the diggings of a kurgan. In 1989, two more inscriptions (Tuekta II and III) were discovered on a rock containing also numerous graffiti of the Old Turkic time. In 2006, close to that rock, another inscription consisting of 3 lines was found on a separately standing rock (Tuekta IV). And, finally, in 2008, the inscription Tuekta V was found on a rock in the vicinity of the kurgan where the silver vessel was situated, also accompanied by graffiti. Thus, at present, the village of Tuekta can be considered one of the most important centers of Old Turkic Runic in Mountainous Altay, along with Bičiktu-Boom, Kalbak-Taš and Möndür-Sokkon.

Tuekta I (A-3)

The inscription is situated on the bottom of a silver jug. It was discovered during the Sayan-Altay Expedition headed by the Kiselev, S. V. and Evtjuxova, L. A. (the State Historical Museum, Moscow); one of the groups was headed by the director of the Oyrot Museum (at present the National Museum of the Republic Altay named after Anoxin, A. V.) Sergeev, S. M. (Kiselev 1936). The vessel was found during the diggings of a burial place in the vicinity of the village Tuekta, in Kurgan 3. Kiselev wrote that in that kurgan there was a skeleton of a man with rests of silk clothes. Left to the head of the man there was a silver jug with a handle, reminding the Kuraj one (see the inscription Kuraj I on the Runic website). The jug is kept in the National Museum of the Republic Altay named after Anoxin (the inventory number 929). The height of the vessel is 9.7 cm, the diameter of its bottom 7.8 cm.

Before the vessel was buried together with its last owner, it was probably possessed by several persons. In the center of the bottom, there are two tamgas, one over the other. On the edge of the bottom there is a Runic inscription and additional cross-formed signs. The inscription consists of 11 signs. The length of the inscription is 5.5 cm. the height of the signs 0.6–0.9 cm. It is not completely clear whether it is one inscription or two. Kiselev, S. V. and Evtjuxova, L. A. consider it to be one inscription, Borovkov supposes that three signs were written later, as a continuation of the original line. Kyzlasov, I. L. considers it to be two different inscriptions. We have read it as one inscription and given it the catalogue number A-3. The first three runes are deeper than the others, but we do not think that this is a proof that it is a separate inscription.

The interpretation of Kiselev, S. V. and Evtjuxova, L. A.[1]

(Kiselev & Evtjuxova 1941: 113)

Transcription: t^űrq ša qum^űš ^aγ ^{y ä}r

Translation:                 Türk Ša silver tribute (present)

The interpretation of Borovkov, A. K. (Borovkov 1963: 192)

Transliteration and transcription:       t^ärⁱl ^aša ^äk umsuγ ^är

Translation: Get ready. Eat. The good hero Umsug.

The interpretation of Kyzlasov, I. L. (Kyzlasov 2000: 85–87)

Tuekta I

Transliteration:           ku(o)ms²(š²)γr²

Transcription:  kümüš aγïr

Translation:     precious silver

Tuekta II

Transliteration:           t²r²l²ŋ

Transcription:  teriliŋ

Translation:     (Tribute) should be paid (by this cup)

Our interpretation

Runic transliteration: 

Latin transliteration: t² r² ŋ²/l² m(?) A k² U m s² g¹ r²

Transcription:                         t(e)r(i)lmä küm(ü)š (a)g(ï)r

Translation:                             The silver that is collected (probably, as a

                                               tribute?) is heavy (pure, precious).

As we see, the different interpretations are due to the different readings of the signs on this vessel. There is also no unity among the interpreters concerning the following question: how many runes are there? This can be explained by the fact that the inscription has not preserved very well. The jug was in use for a long time. There are numerous additional scratches and lines, which makes it difficult to distinguish between them and the runes. The first three runes are very deep and clear. The rest are thin and not so deep. The most problematic is the forth sign which we read as m. However, it differs in form from the second m that appears in the inscription. All this makes our interpretation to be a preliminary one.

     As for the orthography of the inscription, we see that some rules of the classic Runic orthography are violated here: the back vowel U appears in the front-vocalic word küm(ü)š, and the rune r² is used in the word (a)g(ï)r.

     We think that this inscription is not characteristic for the Tuekta region. We do not know the original place of its creation. The rest of the Tuekta inscriptions have a more consistent orthography, very close to the classic one.

---

[1]     We preserve the original transliterations and transcriptions as they appear in the cited publications, but we translate the proposed readings into English. The publications have Russian translations.