A Partial Decipherment of the Unknown Kushan Script*

Several dozen inscriptions in an unknown writing system have been discovered area stretching geographically from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to southern Afghanistan. Most can be dated the period 2nd century BCE 3rd CE, yet all attempts at decipherment so far unsuccessful. The recent discovery of previously near Almosi gorge, Tajikistan, however, allows for a renewed attempt decipherment. Drawing upon catalogue characters distributional analysis, we report two identical sequences newly found Dašt-i Nāwur trilingual. Based on parallel texts Bactrian, suggest read name Kushan emperor Vema Takhtu these sequences, accompanied by title ‘king kings’ several epithets. This deduction probable phonetic values 15 different consonantal signs four vocalic diacritics inference that record Middle Iranian language. Дар минтақае, ки аз Қазоқистону Ӯзбекистон ва Тоҷикистон то ҷануби Афғонистон тӯл мекашад, даҳҳо навиштаҷот бо як навъ хатти номаълум кашф карда шудаанд. Аксари ин катибаҳо мансуб ба асри II пеш милод III мелодӣ мебошанд, аммо ҳама кӯшишҳои рамзкушоии он ҳол бебарор буданд. Бо вуҷуди ин, кашфи катибаҳои нав қаблан дар дараи Алмосии Тоҷикистон, имкон фароҳам овард, кӯшиши дубораи рамзкушоӣ анҷом дода шавад. такя феҳристи аломатҳо таҳлили муқоисавӣ, мо ду пайдарпайии якхела катибаи тозакашфи Алмосӣ сезабонаи Дашти Навур гузориш медиҳем. асоси матнҳои мувозӣ забони бохтарӣ пешниҳод мекунем, пайдарпайҳои ҳамсон номи императори Кушонӣ Вема Тахту, ҳамроҳ унвони «шоҳи шоҳон» чанд эпитетҳо хонда Ин дод, маъноҳои эҳтимолии фонетикии ҳарфи мухталифи ҳамсадо 4 диакритикаи вокаликӣ муайян шавад, инчунин хулоса бароварда Эронии Миёнаи сабт шудааст. [Tajik] Since late 1950s, archaeological excavations Central Asia brought light which was dubbed écriture inconnue French (Fussman 1974: 7) neizvestnoe pis’mo Russian (Vertogradova 1982; translated into English as ‘unknown lettering’). inscriptions, range length between fragments or three longer with lines text, modern-day them are clustered territory ancient Bactria, situated Hindu Kush south Hisar Range north. longest inscription, III, is part trilingual mentions its Bactrian section. About 2000 years ago dynasty reigned over large encompassing well northwestern India; ruler who expanded sphere control north-western India (Hou Hanshu 88.2921; Hill 2015: 29). trilingual, early CE (Ball et al. 2019: 346), demonstrates script used administration side more common scripts (Greek language, Kharoṣṭhī Gāndhārī). date chronologically corresponding rise, heyday fall Kushans. Despite claims (mostly focusing earliest instance, so-called ‘Issyk inscription’, e.g. Harmatta 1994: 407–412; Amanžolov 2003: 217–222; Ünal 2019), still considered unreadable present 437). previous suffer non-reproducible readings implausible language proposals not matching known cultural history Asia. new Gorge (Tajikistan), including likely bilingual substitution plausible paves way subsequent determination other phoneme-grapheme correlations system. Our results served least Nāwur. A identified triscriptual provides confirmation some deciphered sound values, indicating our unlikely due circular reasoning coincidence. In what follows, will explain partial means systematic approach inspired decipherments (Egyptian hieroglyphs, Old Persian cuneiform, Linear B), explaining step-by-step methodology employed underlying specific interpretations. Section 2 aims providing reader basic knowledge linguistic historical background follow discussion, whereas 3 focuses presents corpus inscriptions. Sections 5–10 describe actual decipherment, 11 discusses origins script. 12 13 provide final I 14 first check material. concludes discussion outlines wider context implications findings. Ili valley regions Kush, but they appear cluster northern Bactria mountains Āmū Daryā (Oxus) (see Figure 1). antiquity, this heartland Empire. Kushans were origin nomadic people autochthonous Bactria. Driven out their original home grasslands Gansu (Northwestern China) Xiōngnú 匈奴 following major defeat 176 (Posch 1995: 84–88, Falk 51–53), group called Dà Yuèzhī 大月氏 Chinese sources (and ‘Tocharians’ Graeco-Roman authors, see Grenet 2012: migrated valley, then second step via Ferghana (ca. 130 BCE, cf. 59). one five tribes branches (cf. 2006 2014) Yuèzhī, guì-shuāng 貴霜 sources, kuṣāṇa coin legends kušano rose power eventually founded syncretic empire combining Hellenistic, Indian elements extended western Tarim Basin through Afghanistan Yu 2011 2012; note Kuwayama 2022a, 2022b). During height power, Roman, Parthian, Han Empires Eurasian civilisations equal rank. interacted both China (via Silk Road) Rome Kingdom Aksum north-eastern Africa Arabia maritime trade routes). match (or Yuèzhī) find sites hardly coincidence; must write down either native prestigious secondary homelands Rtveladze & Livšic 1985: 36). times, vast Tian Shan (Tien Shan) east, west melting pot cultures languages. dominant languages belonged Indo-Iranian branch Indo-European family. branch, turn, divided distinct sub-branches, viz. Indo-Aryan, Nuristani Iranian. general sense, Indo-Aryan spoken south-east within it, north it; also dominated steppe Hungary Western east. unattested idioms intruding nomads therefore included languages, possibility excluded non-Indo-European may among them. is, only theoretical possibility, there no indication (i.e. textual remains readable systems, data Nebenüberlieferung old layer toponymic data) Yeniseian, Turkic Mongolic predecessor modern isolate Burushaski last centuries CE. available evidence clearly indicates dominance region time. exception Semitic Before Kushans, Achaemenid Empire had it administrative Imperial Aramaic (belonging family) consonants vowels; abjad. post-Achaemenid, pre-Islamic) such Sogdian (spoken mountains), Khwarezmian Aral Sea), Parthian attested derivatives result legacy indirect descendant Gāndhārī, variety literary parts alongside locations. It shares number letter shapes right-to-left direction writing. Structurally, purely script, alphasyllabary Indic type (abugida), each character represents syllable consisting consonant inherent vowel replaced vowels use diacritics. Another alphasyllabary, Brāhmī (Prakrits), earlier Sanskrit. Sanskrit Termez. derivative later Saka Khotanese Tumshuqese, Basin, Tocharian Kuchean B Agnean A, rim. represent separate Indo-European. uncertain, unlike seems little resemblance left-to-right. conquests Alexander Great led collapse established Ancient Greek (an relative languages) prestige alphabetic adopted Bactria,1 beginning period. Plausible hypotheses regard recorded itself should proceed most excludes hypothesis pursued others (2003: 217–222), Ünal’s (2019: 174) ‘ancient pre-Proto-Mongolic’ proposal. Fussman’s (1974: 33–34) initial represented Kamboja, presumably residing time, he connected present-day Ormuri, universally rejected—including Fussman himself 1994)—once turned specimens concentrated (Rtveladze 35–36; Schmitt 187). Bernard (1979: 253–254; 1980: 439) instead conjectured created during rule dialects. According theory, alphabet would later, while older continued private contexts Graeco-Bactrian Other researchers convinced Bernard’s proposal (Rapin 1992: 141; 2011: 133) interpreted counterevidence 1982: 167; 188–189), though principle existence biscriptual monolingual bilingual) inscription inconceivable. contrast researchers, Vertogradova (1982) did believe associated examples same Instead, she claimed 167), 2002: 131) (on this, below) suspected Similar ideas entertained (1994, 133), (1994: 188) (2019). (1976: 166, fn. 14), 407–412), hypothesised might closely related Khotanese, Tumshuqese Wakhi. Though “fanciful” 437 [643], en. 247) proposed 407–412) could reproduced priori candidate, since varieties subgroup probably widespread Asian relevant incompatible idea (advocated 36), entered zone. Considering reports homeland Gansu, possible example, conceivable any case spoke initially, secondarily journey south. association settlement areas thus conclude candidate representative As itself, superficial similarity already observed 23), mixed Aramaic-Kharoṣṭhī 1983: 138; 1994), before settling claim “clearly derived Kharoṣṭhī” (clairement dérivé de la kharoṣṭhī) 133). However, 165, 14) notes, basis has succeeded. direct derivation D’jakonov, Kljaštornyj apud Akišev (1978: 59–60), 253; Xuršudjan (2011). (2019) sought connection Issyk Ai Khanum, after implausibly turning upside down. far-fetched relate later-attested runes Phoenician Messapic letters made (1980: 4) resemblances successful past relied connections rather than about relationships scripts, left script’s consideration initially. Nevertheless, show, reach turn compatible Aramaic, intermediary, except possibly functional structure “Each operation needs planned phases: exhaustive analysis signs, words designed extract every clue spelling system, meaning structure; experimental give inflections postulated language; decisive check, preferably aid virgin material, ensure apparent fantasy, coincidence reasoning.” (Ventris 1953: 200) Daniels 1996, particularly p. 142–143), rests prerequisite working accurate copies containing particular interested in. High-resolution images, perhaps good squeezes ideally autopsy necessary misinterpretations others. If condition met with, if whichever form (images, squeezes, inscriptions; Appendix S2), apparently occur set up S3). next predominant writing, followed (probably estimated, limited inscriptions);2 helps inferring (logographic, logo-syllabary, syllabary, abugida, alphabet, abjad). Once variations ones those written ligatures, depending placement word, etc.) known, carried out. detecting namely stems variable (e.g. A—B—C; A—B—D; A—B—E; A—B—F etc.); tertium comparationis certain likelihood representing derivational inflectional morpheme (like Alice Kober’s famous ‘triplets’ reminiscent of—and fact reflecting—Indo-European patterns inflection (Kober 1946)). time originate indispensable, sooner educated guess attempted. family reflected inferred, specialist respective language(s) historical-comparative linguist (as need make reconstructed vocabulary) enough collate graphemic minimal pairs expected grammatical variation We demonstrate noun phrase below. Ideally, bi- proper names key section like epithets titles (‘king kings’). Due bilingual, Kurgan, Kazakhstan Burial mound tributary River, conventionally 6th according (2012: 3) BCE. IK—inscribed silver bowl (2 lines) grave goods (Akišev 1978: 57–60) (Prs. Āy Ḫānum; Fr. Aï Khanoum) Hellenistic settlement. M2-1—inscribed ingot (1 line) palace treasury, shortly plundering treasury 145 (Bernard 440, figure 3; Rapin 139–142, pl. 66, 104, 112) Khalchayan, (Uzb. Xolchayon; Russ. Xalčajan) royal pavilion. CA No. 5—potsherd complete (incised), – 1st c. (Pugačenkova 1966: 59, 35; 91, 59; 137–138); another roof tile fragment site 49, 27; Nāwur, Trilingual stone Takhtu, ‘15th Gorpiaios, 279’ era 279 = Azes 151 105 CE) 346). inscribed boulder contains blocks text 7): DN I, IV content, V parallel. All weathered difficult photographic documentation limited. 2–3) destroyed local residents Gorge, Three rock (1st CE): Found elevation 2950 m empty artificial enclosure stones burials inside. detailed description S1 Khatynrabat, Rural ~2nd/1st 1968: 31). 4—potsherd sides: 6 incised (1982: 165) ]s̱a ‘gu-pa-yi e-yā[ inside 117), outside stamp impressions separated stroke 137, 116); sides together interpretable preserved too short establish Termez, Tirmiz̠, Uzb. Termiz) Čingiz Tepe Chingiztepa). fortification, abandoned 4th (Leriche Pidaev 2007: 201) Rayon Kolkhozabad (present-day Balx District), KA—six (some damaged) altar limestone, (Solov’jov 133, 357; Museum Rietberg 1989: 69, 38), Posch (1995: 93–94); ‘isolated find’—exact location published, limestone Buddha head region? Solov’jov 356) Jagat Tepe, (Russ. Džagat-Tepe; Jiga Žiga-Tepe, Džiga-Tepe Kruglikova 2004: 479)) Settlement, period—5th (Kruglikova 548). JT—potsherd 1979: 74, 12.1) Kampir Kampirtepa, Kampyr-Tepe) Hellenistic—Kushan fortification. KmT—potsherd citadel moat, full 105, 108, 13) Zar Fortified settlement, 3rd/2nd 5th/6th (Frumkin 1970: 115–116). 6—large vessel, eight (painted), partially faded broken off 138, 113) Koš fortification (lower layer: upper 5th CE). KoT—potsherd characters, drawing 102, 5.3); (1998), re-publication us Surkh Kotal, Surḫ Kōtal) temple, Kanishka (2nd SK 7—ink (3 lines, interspersed Α Β) bloc lateral wall monumental stairway temple (Maricq 1958: 417, IV; 30–31; 137–138) Hoq Cave, Socotra Island, Yemen Cave numerous merchants sailors, mostly origin, (Strauch 342). HC—newly (Graeco-Bactrian script) stalactite fragment, Brāhmī) 202–203), 14. Kalai Kafirnigan, Qalʿa-yi Kāfirnihān; a.k.a. Kafirnigan Tekkuz Tokkuz Tepe; 408) 175) list ‘Kafirnigan Tepe’ ‘Tekkuz sites) Buddhist 7th (Livšic 4). 3—three contiguous potsherds seven 136–137, 114); Livšic’s 86) identification ‘wall (?) inscription’ repeated listed above, few whole seem single coherent recurring kind distinctive diacritic do ground postulating corpus, increasing understanding doubtful removed list. Where of, Khanum differ younger 1976: 14; 166–167; 131), assume diachronic even just conditioned surfaces writers. Čimkurgan (Šahrinav 2—potsherd coarsely animal (Vorob’jova-Desjatovskaja 37, 20, 4; 134, 136); Vorob’jova-Desjatovskaja (1983: 37) added later. me-ga-ta-la 37), 136). easily me parallels Unknown Script. remain unclear, passing Script characters. Khisht (a.k.a. Khoshtepa) integrated without comment map (2002: 132) (but table characters), unpublished Dilbarjin, Dilbarǧīn, Dil’berdžin) map), Degriz mentioned 230), Uzbek Art-Historical Expedition (Uzbekistanskaja iskusstvovedčeskaja ėkspedicija) Sang-i Navišta, ‘inscribed stone’; symbols ‘Tamgas’ (ownership marks) Muxtarov Ranov (1972: 72–74), re-investigated future expedition Karatoma burial ground, 58, fig. 72) ornamentation mistaken Aktas 73) discernible scratch Barat 34–35) Kara Fayaz Merv, Turkmenistan “on ceramic vessel […] (7th—beginning 8th CE?)” again (1985: 34). geographic chronological outlier Livšic, shown strikethrough marginal his personal proofs (1985), kindly Pavel Lurje. reason why discussed (1982, 1995, 2002) Accurate images indispensable serious collected published smaller (Appendix S3); selection given Table 1. result, infer independent certainly less 30, around 25, does logo-syllabic as, Akkadian cuneiform Maya originally reached similar conclusions based data, revised stance (2011: stating currently si