STUDIEN ZUR SPRACHE, GESC川CHTE UND KULTUR DER TURKVOLKER

Band21

Irina Nevskaya / Marce‖≡rdal (eds.)

Interpreting the Turkic Runiform Sources

and the Position of the Altai Corpus

E3日

KLAUS SCHWARZ VERLAG�"BERLIN

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication

in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data

are available in the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de

Produced in cooperation with the Institute of Empirical Linguistics, Turcology,

Goethe University Frankfurt/Main, the Institute for Turcology, Freie Universitat Berlin

and the State University of Gorno-Altajsk.

www. klaus-sch warz-verlag. com

All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised

in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now

known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,

or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission

in writing from the publishers.

2015 by Klaus Schwarz Verlag GmbH

First Edition

Producer: J2P Berlin

Printed in Hungary

ISBN　978-3-87997-41 7-7

■

Tab一e of Contents

Irina Nevskaya and Marcel Erdal

Introduction

Gleb V. Kubarev

Vladimir Dmitrievic Kubarev:

Biographical Sketch (14.08. 1946-08.05.2011)

Vladimir D. Kubarev

Studying the Runic Inscriptions and Petroglyphs

ofKalbak-Tash (Republic Altai)

Ryzbek Alimov

Some Advancements to the Decipherment of the Sign a

in Tien Shan Turkic Runic Inscriptions

Marcel Erdal

Did the Old Turkic Writing System have Syllabic Characters?.　　　…　42

Toshio Hayashi

Illig Qayan orlllik Qayan?A Small Inscription on a RoofTile　　　　　　46

Gleb V. Kubarev

A Runic Inscription on a Silver Vessel from the Bratsk Reservoir.　　　　　55

Hropb JI. Kbi3JiacoB

Penuzuo3Haa. npupo∂a enuce由CKOU TIUCb〟euHocmu

(nepeoe npuonuMeuue)

Evgenij P. Matockin

Drawings and Runic Inscriptions of the Altai Republic

Dmitrij M. Nasilov

About Certain Grammatical Forms ofRunic Inscriptions

Irina Nevskaya

Some Orthographic Features ofAltai Runic Inscriptions

Fanuza S. Nurieva

Old Turkic Runic Monuments of the Volga Area

Mehmet Olmez

Some Specific Features of the Language of Siberian Runic Inscriptions　　122

Takashi ()sawa

The Problem and Cultural Background o/Runic Mirror Scripts

of Old Turkic Epitaphs

Volker Rybatzki and Hu Hong

The Irq Bitig, the Book of Divination.

New Discoveries Concerning its Structure and Content　　　　　　149

Oleg A. Sosedko

Development of an Electronic Database ofAltai Runic Inscriptions　　　174

Larisa N. Tybykova

Characteristic Features of the Old Turkic Epitaphs of Mountainous Altai　180

Larisa N. Tybykova and Alexandra T. Tybykova

Documentation and Research on Old Turkic Runic Inscriptions

of the Altai Mountains

Fahima M. Xisamova

Participle Forms in Orkhon-Yenisei Texts and in the Tatar Language　　　201

Abdurishid Yakup

Lacuna filling'in Old Turkic Runiform Inscriptions

and Old Uyghur Texts

Peter Zieme

Eine Runeninschrift aus Kumtura

‖ig Qayan or Illik Qayan?

A Small Inscription on a Roof Tile

Toshio Hayashi

Soka University, Tokyo, Japan

The Tsetsuuh and Bugut sites

In 1999, our Japanese-Mongolian joint archaeological expedition surveyed

hereksurs and deer stones at the Ulaan-Uushig site, near the city Moron,

Hovsgol ajmag. On the way back to Ulaanbaatar, we dropped at the site on

the eastern bank of the river Deed Tsetsiiiih, a tributary of the river Ider, the

upper reach of the river Selenge‥ N48036'40.6〝, E98059′41.4〝.

This site was firstly surveyed by S. G. Klja菖tornyj and S. Har主aubaj in

1976 and then excavated by V. E. Vojtov and G. Menes [Klja蓋tornyj 1977: 588;

1984: 511-512; Vojtov 1996: 22]. They call this site lder". However, the Ider is

a long river, along which there are many archaeological sites. The site we

mean is located in the valley of the river Deed Tsetsiiiih, a tributary of the

river Ider. Consequently, it is better to name this "Tsetsiiuh" site, which has

been adopted by A. Ocir and D. Erdenebaatar, our colleagues [Ocir & Erdene-

baatar 2001]. At this site, we found a runiform inscription on a roof tile.

First of all I will illustrate this site, based on V. E. Vojtov's description

and my observation. This site is composed of a long row of balbal-stones, an

outer ditch and an inner earthwork.

The outer ditch is shallow and has a rectangdar form: approximately

70 x 50 m. The inner earthwork is too low to distinguish from the inside plat-

form: 50 x 25 m. The earthwork was probably formed by the soil dug out

1 Archaeological term for `stone mound surrounded by square or round stone enclos-

ure. The word comes from Mongolian hirgis-hiiiir `Kirgis tomb'. A Russian scholar

of the 19th century spelled it xepeKcyp, which has been spread in archaeological lit-

erature. There are many v∬iations of such mounds. They are distributed in Central

and Western Mongolia, Tuva, Altai and the Tian-Shan mountains.

2　This inscription has already been published by A. Oeir and D. Erdenebaatar, as well

as me [Ochir & Erdenebaatar 2001; Hayashi 2005】.

46

d

　

ュ

.

ノ

　

n

e

hq.ほ　で　<U tZ)　'′　　　m

>-._i lに

Illic Qafan or lllik QAfAN? A Small Inscription on a Roof Tile

Fig.l: A Row of210 balbals (L: 308 m), Tsetsuuh site

from the ditch. The eastern earthwork has a break for the entrance, which

opens to ESE.

On the western part of the platform there is a low stone heap: 15 m in

diameter, on the centre of which is a hollow dug by robbers. S. G. Kljash-

tornyj guesses that under the stone heap there must be a cremation of a royal

family, but this hypothesis has not yet been proven because of the incomple-

tion of excavation [Kljashtornyj 1984: 511].

Fig. 2: The stone tortoise basement for a stele without a head. Both its formand its size are the same as those of the Bugut tortoise.

The hole is a little bigger than that for the Bugut tortoise

47

Toshio Hayas川

In the centre there lies a stone tortoise of red granite whose head was

lost. The head'faces the south, but it is unknown whether the tortoise is

situated in situ or not. Its length is 105 cm, its width is 90 cm in the lower

part and its height is 45 cm. This is the basement for a stele which is now

lost. A local elderly person said that a stele had been there several decades

before. A mortise for a stele is 40 x 23 cm and the depth is 25 cm.

In the excavated area there were found a `bundle'of three logs, one of

which was burnt to the base. V. E. Vojtov thinks that these logs must have

been columns for a roofofa shrine [Vojtov 1996: 105]. The presence ofa roof

can be testified by thousands of roof tile fragments which can be seen in the

middle layer of sections. But anyhow the form of the shrine cannot be judged

because of the narrow excavated area.

From the inside of the shrine", balbal-stones line up in a double row to

the earthwork. From the outside of the ditch, balbal-stones line up in a

single row with a length of308 m [Vojtov 1996: 29】･

The abovementioned structure of the Tsetsuiih site closely resembles the

Bugut site in every element‥ N47-49'12･3"; EIOri6'56.1"･ The Bugut memorial

was built for Tatpar-Qayan by Niwar (or Ⅰ蓋bara)-Qayan (r. 581-587) of the

First Tuque qayanate. This site is composed of a long row of balbal-stones, an

outer earthwork and an inner ditch. The outer earthwork is very low and has

a rectangular form: approximately 59 x 30 m. The inner platform has a recト

angdar form: 36 x 22 m. The structure of the outer ear払work and the inner

ditch is a reversal of the Tsetsiiiih site. But anyhow the Bugut is a little smal-

ler than the Tsetsi三血h. The south-eastern earthwork has a break for the en-

trance, which opens to the SE.

On the western part of the platform, there is a square stone heap: 7.5 x 7.5 m,

on the centre of which there is a hollow dug by robbers. S. G. Klja蓋tornyj guess-

es that under the stone heap there must be a cremation of a qayan [Klja孟tornyj

1984: 511]. In the eastern side of the stone heap, 8 wooden poles were found,

which must have supported a tiled roof. Dor主sren thought that this hut must

have been a bower without walls. V. E. Vojtov thinks that a roofed corridor

must have extended towards the east from the bower [Vojtov 1996: 105].

3　Now210piecesarele氏･

4　S. G. ]蓋tornyj andV. A. Liv菖its transcribed ''Taspar" [1972]. In 1996, however,

Yoshida Y. and Moriyasu T. made a rubbing of the Bugut inscription using Japanese

technics, and concluded to read ``Tatpar", followed by V. Rybatzki [Yoshida & Moriy-

asu 1999: 123; Rybatzki 2000: 216].

48

ILUC <JA｢AN OR ILLIK Qa｢AN?A SMALI Inscription on a Roof Tile

The stele which is now kept in a museum might have stood in the center

of that bower. The length of the tortoise is 124 cm, the width is 93 cm in the

lower part and the height is 48 cm. A mortise for a stele is 36 x 17 cm, and

the depth cannot be measured, because the stele's tenon is inserted in the

mortise and fixed with cement.

On the front side of the stele and on its both flanks, a Sogdian inscription

is inscribed･ Ouりapanese-Mongolian Inscription Expedition 【Bichees】 made

a rubbing of払e inscription. Based on the new rubbing, Yoshida Y. pointed

out several mistakes of the former translation of the Sogdian inscription and

published a new translation [Yoshida & Moriyasu 1999]. On the back side of

the stele, a Brahmi inscription is inscribed, but unfortunately we cannot read

it at all because of its being worn away.

Fig. 3 a+b: The Bugut stele with a Sogdian inscription on the stone tortoise.

Japanese-Mongolian expedition is making a rubbing of the inscription

On the upper part of the stele, a pair of dragon heads is sculptured: one

of the heads is lost now. S. G. Klja蓋tornyj considers the dragons to be wolves

and finds a baby's body under a wolfs belly [Klja菖tornyj & Liv蓋its 1972‥ 71].

But we could not丘nd a baby's body.

49

Toshio Hayashi

Among the wooden poles of the `corridor', there are 5 stones血at are

standing, and in the break for the entrance that are 3 stones that are lying.

These are considered to be balbal-stones, although they are located inside the

mausoleum. From the outside of the earthwork, balbal-stones line up in a

single row with a length of approximately 300 m.

Based on these analogies, V. E. Vojtov considers that the Tsetsiはh site

was constructed during the First Tuque qayanate for some qayan. I agree

with him. But he does not mention for what qayan the "shrine" was con-

structed･ I will investigate血is problem.

A runiform inscription on the roof tile

A short distance away from the "shrine" of the Tsetsiiiih site, there is a pile

of roof tile fragments which had been piled up by excavators. Roof tiles are

very important material for archaeologists to investigate the date, used tech-

niques and so on. Most of them are fragments of flat roof tiles, and some are

fragments of hemi-cylindrical ones. Among those, we have found a roof tile

fragment on which a runiform inscription is engraved.

Fig. 4: In 1999, Japanese archaeologists were surveying fragments of roof tiles

which had been piled up by excavators

5　V. E. Vojtov counted 258 [Vojtov 1996: 29], butwe counted 276.

50

ILLIG QA｢AN OR lllik QAfAN? A Small Inscription on a Roof Tile

The fragment is 7 x 6 cm; it is 1.5 cm thick. The surface with the inscrip-

tion is slightly convex･ The right and the lower end are original. Conse-

quently, the inscription is engraved on the front surface of the right lower

corner of that flat roof tile. We can read four letters: i, 1, 1, k from right to left,

but other engravings are not clear. We searched all the fragments but could

not find any other fragment with an inscription except this one.

･1､.- -

Fig. 5: A copy of the Runiform inscription on the square roof tile

51

Tos川o Hayash】

We can understand at a glance that the letters were engraved a洗er bak-

ing the tile. However, it seems that the engraving is not a recent work. When

I visited Moscow in 2003, I met V. E. Vojtov and asked him about that roof

tile fragment with a runiform inscription. He answered he did not know it. It

can be neither a fake nor a recent graffiti.

Now we face a big problem. Most Turkologists believe that the Orhon

runiform script was used first during the Second Tuque qayanate, and that

the Sogdian script and language were used officially during the First Tuque

qayanate. Why was that runiform inscription found in the site of the First

Tuque qayanate? How can we resolve this discrepancy?

I suggest one possibility that some qayan of the Second Tuque qayanate

might have ordered to restore the shrines for the qayans of the First Tuque

qayanate and the names of them might have been engraved on some tiles. I

remember the third qayan Bilge who planned to restore也e Buddhist and

Taoist temples. However, he abandoned his plans, having agreed to Tony-)

uquq s arguments. According to Tonyuquq, such religions form peaceful and

weak minds which are unnecessary for equestrian nomads [Jiu Tangshu, p.

5174]. But Tonyuquq might have accepted the restoration of ancestors'

shrines if Bilge had proposed that.

Next, I will examine the cases of engraving on roof tiles in China. Ac-

cording to a study on governmental roof tiles from Northern Dynasties until

the Tang era (5 -mid 8th centuries), the name of a person, the making year or

the dedication of the inscription of tiles were engraved before baking a tile.

Since the eve of relocating the capital of the Northern Wei to Luoyang (AD

493), the name of a chief of making tiles was engraved by paddle or stamp-

ed by seal on the corner of the convex surface of the flat roof tile. During

the Eastern Wei, Northern Qi, Sui, and the beginning of the Tang era, the

name had been stamped. However, during the Xuanzong's era (712-756), the

making year or the dedication of the inscription had been stamped [Mukai

2004].

Our runiform inscription was engraved on the same position as the

Chinese roof tiles, although after baking. The period of the Second Tuque

qayanate is almost in parallel w血Xuanzong's era. The reign of Bilge qayan)

(716-734) coincides with Xuanzong's era. So, the content of our inscription

must have been the making year or the dedication of the hscription. As i-1-L

k cannot be interpreted as a year, it may suggest the dedication, i.e. the name

of qayan for whom the shrine" was restored.

52

蝣

　

　

　

i

-

H

M

-

H

　

　

4

-

"

n　.I -　e　托

0)　<u I-I-rt　'"cJ

一..､山汀

bD qj　<u

e

e

皿,ト　ー

Ilug (Japan or Illik QAfAN? A Small Inscription on a Roof Tile

`Having a state'or `ruler'?

During the First Tuque qayanate, there were two qayans who had a title of

"Yili伊利in Chinese sources. The first is the founder, "YilT'-Qayan accord-ing to the Zhoushu (Chronicle of Zhou Dynasty). The second is Ⅰ菖bara-Qayan

who called h血self "Yili julu she mohe shiboluo" qayan伊利倶塵設莫何始波羅可汗in his sovereign letter to the Sui emperor according to the Suishu

(Chronicle of Sui Dynasty).

The word "Yili" has usually been read "illig" and interpreted having a

state" [Tekin 1968: 335] or having a realm" [Clauson 1972: 141]. On the oth-

er hand, O. Pritsak reads it "★ilik (< ★山g<☆il+lig) and translates `king, ruler'

[1985: 206].

Contr∬y to O. Pritsak's view, V. Rybatzki proclaims that `king'does not

seem to fit the context in the title ofNiwar [2000: 207]. He has a strong feel-

ing that "yili" transcribes a different word than el (il)" or elig (iligj', al-

though he cannot give any suggestion yet･ So he provisionally translates Ni-

war's title "Kiiliig Sad Baya I菖bara Qayan, who has a land" [Rybatzki 2000‥

208]. But even he himselfputs　蓋ad" and "qayan" side by side. If so, it is not

unnatural to put one more similar word, `ruler', which gives a juxtaposition

of three titles, "Ruler, Kiiliig Sad, Baya I紬ara Qayan."

In another letter to the Sui court, I蓋bara Qayan called himself "従天生大

突灰天下賢聖天子伊利倶虚設莫何始波羅可汗." Following V. Ry-batzki, this must be interpreted, The Great Turks Son of Heaven who was

born from Heaven and wise and sacred in the world, Kiilug Sad Baya I菖bara

Qayan, who has a land." But if one considers "Yili" to mean `ruler', this can

be interpreted as a haughtier juxtaposition of four titles, "The world wise and

sacred Son of Heaven of Great Turk who was born from the Heaven, the

Ruler, Kiiliig Sad, Baya Ⅰ菖bara Qayan." Which is more natural?

I do not know any usage of the word illik" during the Old Turkic period.

But now I wo血d like to suggest the possibility that "Yili" in the Chinese

sources was the Chinese transcription of Turkic Illik and that the word illik

was used in the meaning `ruler'.

If the Tsetsii也h "shrine" was constructed for "Yiir-Qayan, which "Yili"-

Qayan was enshrined there? If he had been指bara Qayan, the inscription

would have been engraved `瀧bara" or "Niwar". Given that the Tsetsiiuh site

is a little bigger than the Bugut site, the founder Yili"-Qayan might be more

appropriate.

53

TOsHIO HAYASHI

Bibliography

Clauson, G. (1972) : An Etymological Dictionary ofPre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hayashi T. (2005): Runic inscription on a roof tile found in Mongolia. XIV- Turk Tarih

Kongresi. Kongreye sunulan bildiriler HI: 577-584.

K堰tornyj, S. G. (1977):宜pigraficeskie raboty v Mongolii". Arxeologiceskie otkrytija

1976 g. Moscow: Nauka", 588-589.

Klja孟tornyj, S. G. (1 984): ``sovetsko-Mongol'skaja ekspedicij a. Arxeologiceskie

otkrytija 1984 g. Moscow: Nauka", 511-512.

Kljashtornyj, S. G. & Liv蓋ic, V. A. (1972): The Sogdian Inscription of Bugut Revised.

Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae XXVI(l): 69-102.

Moriyasu T. & Ochir, A., ed. (1999): Provisional Report of Researches on Historical Sites

and Inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998. Osaka: The Society of Central

Eurasian Studies.

Mukai Y. (2004): The development of roof tile production during the Northern

Dynasties in China, [in Japanese] Shirin 87 (5): 1-40.

Ochir, AリErdenebaatar, D. (2001)‥ ``Tsetsi泊hiin bichees". Studia Archeologica Instituti

Historiae Academiae Scientiarum Mongoli XIX(IO): 88-90.

Pritsak, O. (1985): Old Turkic Names in the Chinese Sources". Journal of the Turkish

Studies 9: 205-211.

Rybatzki, V. (2000): ``Titles of Turk and Uigur Rulers in the Old Turkic Inscriptions".

Central Asiatic Journal 44 (2): 205-292.

Tekin, T. (1968): A Grammar of Orhon Turkic. Bloomington: Indiana University.

Vojtov, V. E. (1996): Drevnetjurkskij panteon i model'mirozdanija v kul tovo-

pominal nyx pamjatnikax Mongolii VI-Vl打vv. Moscow: Gosudarstvennyj muzej

Vostoka.

Yoshida Y. & Moriyasu T. (1999): ``Bugut Inscription". In Moriyasu, Ochir 1999,

122-125.

54