Petroglyphs and tamgas of the Eurasian area as archetypes of Turkic culture and script


Views: 318 / PDF downloads: 284

Authors

  • Nurila Shaimerdinova L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University
  • Talgat Moldabay L.N. Gumilyev Eurasian National University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32523/2664-5157-2023-4-35-51

Keywords:

Eurasian area, petroglyphs, tamgas, archetypes, Turkic culture and script, semantic connection, picture of the world of the ancients, spirituality.

Abstract

The paper is devoted to the problems of the origin and connection of the Turkic culture
and script with the most ancient petroglyphs, tamgas, and logograms. Researchers believe that since
the Paleolithic era, petroglyphs, tamgas, signs have been widely spread on a vast territory of Eurasian
area. In this context, the authors studied and systematized plot drawings, and signs-symbols of
Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Russia (Tyva, Khakassia, Gorny
Altai, Transbaikalia).

The article hypothesizes that the oldest signs could be the basis for the formation of the Turkic script,
and revealing their historical, cultural and semantic connection, classify archetypes into cruciform
( signs and their letter designations by consonants «d» and «z»), religious-cult, temporalcosmological, anthropomorphic, and the signs prototypes of the Turkic nomadic culture (arba,
weapons, wildlife).
Semantic analysis of archetypes is important for the identification of ancient man’s perceptions about
the world around him. The archetypes of nomadic culture reveal the way of life and the worldview of
ancient people.
The paper asserts that the process of historical development of Turkic culture and script for
thousands of years, starting from its origins, can be considered as an autochthonous phenomenon of
the Turkic civilization.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Information about author

Nurila Shaimerdinova, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University

Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor

Talgat Moldabay, L.N. Gumilyev Eurasian National University

PhD, Postdoctoral Researcher

Reference

Amanzholov A.S., 1978. K genezisu tyurkskih run [On the genesis of the Turkic run]. Voprosy yazykoznaniya [Questions of linguistics]. No2. P. 76-87. [in Russian].

Grach A.D., 1957. Petroglify Tuvy, 1 (problema datirovki i interpretacii, etnograficheskie tradicii) [Petroglyphs of Tuva, 1 (problem of dating and interpretation, ethnographic traditions)]. Sb. MAE. Moscow-Leningrad. Issue. XVII. P. 89-146. [in Russian].

Gurevich L.L., 1989. O kruglyh gorodah drevnih irancev [About the round cities of the ancient Iranians]. Zony i etapy urbanizacii. Tez. dokl. reg. konferencii [Zones and stages of urbanization. Abstract. report reg. conferences]. Tashkent: Fan. P. 48–49. [in Russian].

Devlet M.A., 2006. Drevnie zhilishcha narodov Severnoj i Central’noj Azii (po materialam petroglifov) [Ancient dwellings of the peoples of Northern and Central Asia (based on petroglyphs)]. Miroponimanie drevnih i tradicionnyh obshchestv Evrazii. Pamyati V.N. Chernecova [Worldview of ancient and traditional societies of Eurasia. In memory of V.N. Chernetsova]. Moscow: TAUS. P. 212–238. [in Russian].

Devlet M.A., 1982. Petroglify na kocheboj trope [Petroglyphs on the nomadic path]. Moscow: Nauka. 127 p. [in Russian].

Zhodasbekov M., Sartqozhauly K., 2005. Orhon eskertkіshterіnіn tolyq atlasy [Complete atlas of Orkhon monuments]. Astana: Kultegіn. 359 p. [in Kazakh].

Zajbert V.F., 2009. Botajskaya kul’tura [Botai culture]. Almaty: KazAқparat. 576 p. [in Russian].

Kadyrbaev M.K., Mar’yashev A.N., 1977. Naskal’nye izobrazheniya hrebta Karatau [Rock art of the Karatau ridge]. Alma-Ata: Izd-vo AN KazSSR. 230 p. [in Russian].

Klyashtornyj S.G., 1987. Drevnetyurkskaya civilizaciya: diahronicheskie svyazi i sinhronicheskie aspekty [Ancient Turkic civilization: diachronic connections and synchronic aspects]. Sovetskaya tyurkologiya. No3. P. 58-62. [in Russian].

Kubarev V.D., 2003. Naskal’noe iskusskustvo Altaya [Rock art of Altai]. Gorno-Altajsk: AKIN. 124 p. [in Russian].

Kubarev V.D., Ceveendorzh D., 1996. Rannesrednevekovye petroglify Mongol’skogo Altaya [Early medieval petroglyphs of the Mongolian Altai]. Pamyatniki kul’tury drevnih tyurok v Yuzhnoj Sibiri i Central’noj Azii [Cultural monuments of the ancient Turks in Southern Siberia and Central Asia]. Novosibirsk: Izd-vo NGU. P. 157-169. [in Russian].

Kuzyk B.N., Yakovec Yu.V., 2006. Civilizacii: teoriya, istoriya, dialog, budushchee [Civilizations: theory, history, dialogue, future]. Vol.2. Moscow: In-t ekonomicheskih strategij, T. I. Teoriya i istoriya civilizacij. 765 p. [in Russian].

Lerua-Guran A., 1971. Religiya doistorii [Religion of prehistory]. Pervobytnoe iskusstvo [Primitive art]. Novosibirsk. P. 81-90. [in Russian].

Margulan A.H., 1979. Begazy-Dandybaevskaya kul’tura Central’nogo Kazahstana [Begazy-Dandybaevskaya culture of Central Kazakhstan]. Alma-Ata: Nauka. 360 p. [in Russian].

Moldabay T., 2021. Zhazba matіnder negіzіnde kone ujgur alіpbiіnіn qoldanyluyndagy erkeshelіkter [Peculiarities in the use of the ancient Uighur alphabet based on written texts]. Turkic Studies Journal. 4. P. 44-52. [in Kazakh].

Novogrodova E.A., 1984. Mir petroglifov Mongolii [The world of petroglyphs of Mongolia]. Moscow: Nauka. 168 p. [in Russian].

Pansat Zh.M., Mamaeva G.B., Alkaya E., 2023. «Kok Tanіrі», «kok borі», «kok turіk» sozderіnіn mifolingvistikalyq sipaty [“Kok Taniri”, “kok bori”, “kok turik” from mytholinguistic sipats]. Turkic Studies Journal. No3. P. 146-160. [in Kazakh].

Samashov Z., Bazylhan N., Samashov S., 2010. Kone turіk tanbalary [Old Turkish characters]. AO «ABDI Kompani». 168 p. [in Kazakh].

Shaimerdinova N.G., 2014. Drevnetyurkskaya kartina mira v tekstah pis’mennyh pamyatnikov. Uchebnoe posobie [The ancient Turkic picture of the world in the texts of written monuments. Tutorial]. Astana: ENU. 307 p. [in Russian].

Shaimerdinova N.G., Kairzhanov A., Yarygin S., Moldabay T., 2017. Proiskhozhdenie i funkcionirovanie runicheskoj pis’mennosti [Origin and functioning of runic writing]. Astana: Alau Group & Co. 145 p. [in Russian].

Dalkesen N., 2015. Orta asya’dan anadolu’ya türk kültüründe geyik kültü [Deer cult in Turkish culture from Central Asia to Anatolia]. Millî Folklor. No 106. P. 61-69. [in Turkish].

Jacobson E., 1996. The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia: A Study in the Ecology of Belief (Review by: Fujikawa Shigehiko). Asian Folklore Studies. Vol. 55. No. 2. P. 374-377.

Kolot B., 2020. Türk Kültür Tarihinde Boğa-Öküz [Bull-Ox in Turkish Cultural History]. Avrasya Uluslararası Araştırmalar Dergisi. No 8 (22). P. 435-437. [in Turkish].

Richard P.K., 2013. The Symbolical Language of Ancient Art and Mythology. New York: Hard Press Publishing. 453 p.

Downloads

Published

2023-12-29

How to Cite

Shaimerdinova Н., & Moldabay Т. (2023). Petroglyphs and tamgas of the Eurasian area as archetypes of Turkic culture and script. Turkic Studies Journal, 5(4), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.32523/2664-5157-2023-4-35-51

Issue

Section

Medieval History and Steppe Archаeology