Tuekta IV (A-88)
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 IV (A-88)
The inscription was situated on a separately standing stone at the foot of a low mountain ridge to the South-East from the village Tuekta. The inscription is on the inner surface of the stone that is facing the earth. In order to read it, it was necessary to lie down on the ground. It was discovered by Myltygaševa, L. P., a participant of the Kazakhstan epigraphic expedition in 2006 alongside Karžaubaj, S. and Kyzlasov, I. L.
This horizontal inscription consists of three lines. The first line is on the upper surface of an edge of the stone, the second and the third lines are on the lower surface of the stone edge. The signs of the first line are very clear. There are 19 signs including 3 word dividers. The second line has been preserved worse. It has 27 signs including 3 word dividers. The third line is under the second one and consists of only 2 signs. According to Kyzlasov, I. L., the third line is a different inscription. We read all the three lines as one inscription.
According to our interpretation, the 2 signs of the third line are a part of the word that began on the second line, but did not fit in (see Picture 9).
In 2009, because of the construction of a road in this area, the stone with this inscription got endangered and, on our demand, was brought to the National Museum of the Republic of Altay.
Our interpretation
Runic transliteration:
Latin transliteration:
1) b2 ŋ2 g2 Ü : y1 l1 m k1 y1 : b2 t2 g2 U r1 y1 n2 :
2) s2 b2 g2 l2 g2 : Ü : I/s2/g2 č l2 n2 m z č n2 k2/y2 r2 r2 Ič/s1 I/Uk r1 g2 Ük m l2 I/A
3) y1 ?
Transcription:
1) b(ä)ŋ(i)gü : y(a)l(ï)m k(a)y(a) : b(i)t(i)g ur(a)y(ï)n
2) s(ä)v(i)gl(i)g : ö : ičl(ä)nm(ä)z (ü)č(ü)n … (ö)gük(ü)m (a)la-
3) y(ï)(n)!
Translation:
1) (This is) an eternal bare rock! Let me make an inscription (on it)!
2-3) Beloved, think! Because (you) could not get pregnant …. I will take a child!
Comments
1. Our interpretation of the lines 2 and 3 is a preliminary one. They are very much destroyed, especially line 2 in the middle part which we could not read.
2. The phrase (y(a)l(ï)m k(a)y(a) is very often met in Old Turkic inscriptions, as well as the expression b(i)t(i)g ur ‘to make (lit.: beat, cut) an inscription’. 3. The sequence of signs I/s2/g2 č l2 n2 m z č n2 could be also interpreted as (ä)š(i)čl(ä)nm(ä)z (ü)č(ü)n ‘in order not to buy a pot.....’, which does not make any sense here although the verb (ä)š(i)čl(ä)n- ‘to buy a pot for cooking’ is frequent in DLT. We prefer the following interpretation of ičl(ä)nm(ä)z (ü)č(ü)n: ‘Because (you) could not get pregnant’ because it goes well with the continuation of the inscription (ö)güküm (a)l(a)y(ï)n ‘let me take a child’. The verb ičlän- ‘to get pregnant’ was not registered in Old Turkic, but exists in Tuvan; ičlig meaning ‘pregnant’ is met in Old Uygur texts.
4. The suffix y1 n2 is a typical affix of the imperative. The use of the palatal sign l2 in a back-vocalic word (a)lay(ï)(n) is not typical for the Tuekta region contrary to other regions where we witness much confusion in the use of the consonants in this respect. We should take into consideration that it could also be a regressive assimilation of l by the y consonant in the affix which, by the way, also contains n2. The latter can be explained by the standardized form of this suffix in Old Turkic Runic, as we also see on the example of further affixes.
4. The orthography of the inscription is very close to the classical Orkhon one. However, there are quite a number of violations of its rules: the last vowel a in the word k(a)y(a) should have been written, as well ö as (ö)gük(ü)m and ü in (ü)č(ü)n.