Introduction

As would have been true of any other great civilization of the Orient, Mongolia must have had a rich oral tradition in the millennia leading up to the development of a literary language. Recall the ancient preliterate states successively flourishing on the Mongolian plateau referred to by historical sources: the Hsiung-nu (匈奴 Xiōngnú, the Huns), the Hsien-pi (鮮卑 Xiānbēi, 2nd-5th c. AD), the Jou-jan (柔然 Róurán, 6th c. AD), and the House of Toba (拓跋 Tuōbá, 4th-6th c. AD). Any one of these could have had writing, but none has left document or inscription as far as we know. A few Hsien-pi words were recorded in the Chinese chronicles, but this meager attestation permits no generalization about the language at all.1 In the tenth century, the Khitans dominated the steppes, leaving behind a number of inscriptions; basic decipherment of these remnants, however, has occupied scholars for well over a century now.2 The ancient writing

1 K. Shiratori, Über die Sprache des Hiung-nu Stammes und der Tung-hu Stämme, Bulletin de lAcadémie Impériale des Sciences de St. Petersbourg, Sér. 5, 1902, 2. 01-33; P. A. Boodberg, The Language of the To-pa Wei, HJAS 1, 1936, 167-185; G. Schreiber, Das Volk der Hsien-pi zur Han-Zeit, Mon. Ser. XII, 1947, 145-203; L. Bazin, Recherches sur les parlers to-pa (5e siècle après J. C.), TP 39, 1949, 228-329; W. Eberhard, Das Toba-Reich Nordchinas, Leiden, 1949; Sh. Murayama, Die Methode der Entzifferung der Kitan Schrift, JLSJ 17-18, 1951, 47-69; V. S. Starikov, Catalogue of Graphemes of the Kitan Script, XI Pacific Science Congress, Tokyo, 1966, Moscow, 1966, 26 pp. ¯. ÀðóÔÓÓìÓê, Æðååð ÔÞõÞ×ì ýà ÔÓàëÓå ìíóÓà, ʬº 2, 1967, 73-80; idem, ÀÿåûÔÞ åÓêúå ÔÞõ×Þàå ìíóÓà ó ý Øýå ãýØýý, ŠUAM 2, 1969, 15-28; L. Ligeti, Le Tabghatch, un dialecte de la langue Sien-pi, Mongolian Studies, Budapest, 1970, 265-308; G. Doerfer, Zur Sprache der Hunnen, CAJ 17, 1973, 1-50. 2 Feng Chia-sheng, The Chi-tan Script, JAOS LXVIII, 1948, 14-1; J. Tamura, Y. Kobayashi, Tombs and Mural Paintings of Ching-Ling Liao Imperial Mausoleums of XI Century A. D. in Eastern Mongolia, Tokyo, 1953, Vol. I, II; ¹. ». ¿íØæÕ, ¾êæÔâÙãú áÞØÓåûëáæà éÞëûãÙååæëìÞ, SE 1, 1963, 87-98; ®. À. ÁÓëáÞå, ¼éúì ØÙ÷ÞòêæÕáÞ áÞØÓåûëáæà éÞëûãÙååæëìÞ, NAA 1, 1963, 127-147; Ð. ®. ÊÓÕáíåæÕ, ¸ Õæéêæëí æ êÓë÷ÞòêæÕáÙ ãÓâæà áÞØÓåû-õÛíêõÛÙåûëáæà éÞëûãÙååæëìÞ, EV 15, 1963, 149-153; ®. À. ÀìÓêÞáæÕ & º. ®. »ÓØÙâÿÙÕ, ¾êÙØÕÓêÞìÙâûåæÙ ëææÔøÙåÞÙ æ ØÙ÷ÞòêæÕáÙ áÞØÓåûëáæ×æ éÞëûãÓ, ºoëáÕÓ, 1964, 35 ë.; ®. À. ÀìÓêÞáæÕ, ºÓìÙêÞÓâú éæ ØÙ÷ÞòêæÕáÙ áÞØÓåûëáæ×æ éÞëûãÓ, ºæëáÕÓ, 1970; ¯. ÀðóÔÓÓìÓê, ¸ÞØÓåú ýêìåÞà ÔÞõ×Þàå ìíóÓà ãýØýý, Sº 7:17, 1970, 213-216; idem, ¸ Õæéêæëí æ ÕêÙãÙåÞ éæÿÕâÙåÞÿ éÞëûãÙååæëìÞ í åÓêæØæÕ ÇÙåìêÓâûåæà ¬ÝÞÞ, SM 8, 1971, 137-145; Chinggeltei, Liu Fengzhu, Chen Naixiung, Yu Baolin, Xing Fuli, Qìdān xiǎozì yánjiū, Běijīng, 1985, 799 pp. G. Kara, On the Khitan Writing Systems, MS 10, 1986-1987, 19-23; Čenggeltei, Kidan üsüg-ün sudululγan-u šin-e bayidal, ÖMYS 3, 1987, 106-132; Chen Naixiung, Yang Jie, Örgental-a daki Liyoa ulus-un dörbedüger bulašin-ača oldaƒsan Kidan baγ-a üsüg-ün kösiyen bičigesü-yi sudulun tayilburilaqu ni, ÖMYS 1, 1998,

Mongolian Monuments in Uighur-Mongolian Script systems from Mongol territory never spread as a national orthography throughout the populace, but apparently only circulated within literate enclaves. Among the various writing systems adapted by the Mongols for over a millennium, the orthography based on a Sogdian-Uyghurian model was the one that succeeded in becoming the Mongolian national script serving the needs of the written language for centuries. In the eighth and ninth centuries AD, the Uyghurs consolidated their power in a Khanate attaining a high culture, which greatly influenced neighboring peoples—Mongols not excluded. The Uyghurs had borrowed their writing system from the Sogdians, and in turn passed it on to the Mongols, so that we can reasonably project the possible beginnings of Mongolian literacy back to about the ninth or tenth century AD. And while the earliest attestations of this Mongolian script only date back to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the language reflected therein betrays certain archaic linguistic features datable to a period several centuries prior. This is ascertainable by comparing the letter with texts written in sinograms, in the Arabic alphabet, and in hPags-pa script, that reflect the features and peculiarities of Middle Mongolian. We can therefore say that the principle characteristics of the Mongolian language of the ninth and tenth centuries are to a certain extent reflected in the later thirteenth and fourteenth century monuments.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that from its outset written Mongolian had been based on one certain dominant dialect of that period, and that in the long run it would have been enriched in the formative process by a multitude of vernaculars with their own oral traditions, thus establishing itself as a truly common heritage of the Mongolian nation as a whole. Mongolian specialists, however, have reached no definitive conclusion as to the basic dialect for which the script was designed. Vladimirtsov first speculated in 1929 that the Mongols had simply adopted a ready-made literary language from the Naimans and Kereits, long before the time of Chinggis Khan.3 Received opinion now has it, however, that the Naimans were Turkic and the Kereits spoke a different Mongolian variety altogether (Oirat).4 In 1955, Louis Ligeti proposed that written Mongolian had

45-64; Činggeltei, Kidan baγ-a üsüg-ün sudulγan-u bayidal-ača, ÖMYS 4, 1999, 1-14; Chinggeltei, Qìdān xiězì shìdú wèntí /On Deciphering the Khitan Script/, Tokyo, 2002, 1-164 + 1-258. 3 −. Ò. ®âÓØÞãÞêôæÕ, ÀêÓÕåÞìÙâûåÓÿ ×êÓããÓìÞáÓ ãæå×æâûëáæ×æ éÞëûãÙååæ×æ ÿÝúáÓ Þ óÓâóÓëáæ×æ åÓêÙõÞÿ, ®ÕÙØÙåÞÙ Þ ÅæåÙìÞáÓ, ¹ÙåÞå×êÓØ, 1929, 20. 4 −. Ò. ®âÓØÞãÞêôæÕ, Moå×æâûëáÞÙ âÞìÙêÓìíêåúÙ ÿÝúáÞ, ZIV 1, 1931, 6; ». ¾æééÙ, ¯êÓããÓìÞáÓ éÞëûãÙååæ-ãæå×æâûëáæ×æ ÿÝúáÓ, MæëáÕÓ-¹ÙåÞå×êÓØ, 1937, 13; ¯. °. ÀÓåÛÙÙÕ, ÀêÓÕåÞìÙâûåÓÿ ×êÓããÓìÞáÓ ãæå×æâûëáÞó ÿÝúáæÕ, õÓëìû I, ºæëáÕÓ, 1953, 14-15.

2

Introduction begun among the Khitans (契丹 Qìdān, founders of the Liáo 遼 dynasty, 907-1125 AD),5 an argument with considerable backing.6 The powerful Khitans did indeed have close contacts with the Uyghur Khanate, from which the cultural and religious influence was great; so they just might have acquired literacy from the Uyghurs as well.

Yet the question as to which dialect actually formed the basis of written Mongolian has never been satisfactorily answered. Ethnically and linguistically, its speakers should at the very least have been very closely affiliated with the Mongols, but since neither the Naimans ethno-cultural affiliation nor the Khitans language and culture have been convincingly identified, for the time being the argument is moot.

Among the names commonly associated with research on the development of Mongolian literacy are Ramstedt,7 Vladimirtsov,8 Kozin,9 Poppe,10 Sanžeyev,11 and Kara.12 Vladimirtsov in 1921 first divided the history of written Mongolian into three main periods.13 Poppe,14 Doerfer,15 Luvsandendev,16 Orlovskaya,17 and de Rachewiltz18

5 L. Ligeti, Rev.: ¯. °. ÀÓåÛÙÙÕ, ÀêÓÕåÞìÙâûåÓÿ ×êÓããÓìÞáÓ ãæå×æâûëáÞó ÿÝúáæÕ, õ. I, ºæëáÕÓ, 1953, Vja 5, 1955, 135. 6 ¹. ¹. ®ÞáìæêæÕÓ, K Õæéêæëí æ åÓàãÓåëáæà ìÙæêÞÞ éêæÞëóæÛØÙåÞÿ ãæå×æâûëáæ×æ âÞìÙêÓìíêåæ×æ ÿÝúáÓ Þ éÞëûãÙååæëìÞ (XII-XIII ÕÕ.), Uè. Zap., ÀÙê. ®æëì. åÓíá, ®úé. 12, No 305, 1961, 137-144. 7 G. J. Ramstedt, Das Schriftmongolische und die Urgamundart phonetisch verglichen, JSFOu 21:2, 1902, 1-56. 8 −. Ò. ®âÓØÞãÞêôæÕ, ÀêÓÕåÞìÙâûåÓÿ ×êÓããÓìÞáÓ ãæå×æâûëáæ×æ éÞëûãÙååæ×æ ÿÝúáÓ Þ óÓâóÓëáæ×æ åÓêÙõÞÿ, ®ÕÙØÙåÞÙ Þ ÅæåÙìÞáÓ, ¹ÙåÞå×êÓØ, 1929, 437 ëìê. 9 À. ¬. KoÝÞå, ÒÝúá éÙêÕæ×æ éÙêÞæØÓ ÞëìæêÞÞ ãæå×æâûëáæà âÞìÙêÓìíêú, IAN ¼ìØ. æÔø. åÓíá, ºæëáÕÓ-¹ÙåÞå×êÓØ, 1935, 477-500; ¼õÙêá êÓÝÕÞìÞÿ éÞëûãÙååæëìÞ Þ âÞìÙêÓìíêú ãæå×æâûëáÞó åÓêæØæÕ (XIII-XIV ÕÕ.), °ÛÓå×ÓêÞÓØÓ, ºæëáÕÓ-¹ÙåÞå×êÓØ, 1940, 3-58. 10 N. Poppe, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der altmongolischen Schriftsprache, AM 1, 1924, 668-675; Grammar of Written Mongolian [= Porta Linguarum Orientalium NS 1], Wiesbaden, 1954, 195; Bemerkungen zur vorklassischen Schriftsprache, ZS 3, 1969, 105-128. 11 ¯. °. ÀÓåÛÙÙÕ, ÀêÓÕåÞìÙâûåÓÿ ×êÓããÓìÞáÓ ãæå×æâûëáÞó ÿÝúáæÕ, õÓëìû. I, ºæëáÕÓ, 1953, 238 ëìê.; ÀìÓêæéÞëûãÙååúà ãæå×æâûëáÞà ÿÝúá, ºæëáÕÓ, 1964, 89 ëìê. 12 °. Kaêa, ¸åÞ×Þ ãæå×æâûëáÞó áæõÙÕåÞáæÕ (ëÙãû ÕÙáæÕ ãæå×æâûëáæà éÞëûãÙååæëìÞ), ºæëáÕÓ, 1972, 194 + ÁÓÔâÞôú [G. Kara, Books of the Mongolian Nomads, More than Eight Centuries of Writing Mongolian. First English edition translated by John R. Krueger, Indiana University, Bloomington, 2005, VI + 1-331 + Plates I-XXXVIII]. 13 −. Ò. ®âÓØÞãÞêôæÕ, ¼ ìêÚó éÙêÞæØÓó ãæå×æâûëáæ×æ éÞëûãÙååæ×æ ÿÝúáÓ, ºæå×æâûëáÞà ëÔæêåÞá êÓëëáÓÝæÕ ÞÝ Pañèatantra, ¾Ù ìÙê×êÓØ, 1921, 41-52; idem, ÀêÓÕåÞìÙâûåÓÿ ×êÓããÓìÞáÓ ãæå×æâûëáæ×æ éÞëûãÙååæ×æ ÿÝúáÓ Þ óÓâóÓëáæ×æ åÓêÙõÞÿ. ®ÕÙØÙåÞÙ Þ ÅæåÙìÞáÓ, ¹ÙåÞå×êÓØ, 1929, 437 ëìê.

3

Mongolian Monuments in Uighur-Mongolian Script followed this with periodizations of their own. Our viewpoint is that there were two main periods: the Classical and the Preclassical.19

By the term Preclassical Mongolian is meant a time before the fixing of the written language in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The dawn of the thirteenth century marked the beginning of the Mongol Empire (Yeke Mongol Ulus), which included Uyghur steppe tribes possessed of a writing system; and it was the dissemination of this script that gave the Mongolians real literacy.

With the arrival of Buddhism to Mongolia in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, written Mongolian encompassed translations of much religious material, as well as works in philology, philosophy, medicine, and astrology. This stage of the language is characterized by the peculiarities of an evolving literacy. It shows, for instance, inconsistent orthographic practices, restricted vocabulary, lack of semantic clarity or subtlety, and inadequate handling of loanwords; syntax was heavily influenced by source-language sentence structure; and calquing resulted in unnatural collocations. This highly artificial variety of written Mongolian diverged greatly from the spoken colloquial, no doubt, and was frozen in its archaicity while the vulgar tongue continued to evolve. The differentiation of written and spoken forms by the late fourteenth century is evident by comparing Uyghur-script Mongolian with data written in other scripts showing the peculiarities of Middle Mongolian. The Preclassical evidence consists of inscriptions, xylographs (i.e., woodblock engravings), manuscripts, and authorization tablets (páizi), kept in libraries, archives, or museums mostly in Mongolia, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, Iran, Turkey, China, India, and Japan.

14 ». ¾æééÙ, ¯êÓããÓìÞáÓ éÞëûãÙååæ-ãæå×æâûëáæ×æ ÿÝúáÓ, ºæëáÕÓ-¹ÙåÞå×êÓØ, 1937, 196 ëìê. 15 G. Doerfer, Die mongolische Schriftsprache, Handbuch der Orientalistik, 5:2, Leiden/Köln, 1964, 81-95. 16 ¬. ¹íÕëÓåØ ýåØýÕ, ¸ Õæéêæëí æ éÙêÞæØÞÝÓôÞÞ ãæå×æâûëáæ×æ âÞìÙêÓìíêåæ×æ ÿÝúáÓ, SLL 9, 1972, 19-21. 17 º. ». ¼êâæÕëáÓÿ, ¼ éÙêÞæØÞÝÓôÞÞ ÞëìæêÞÞ êÓÝÕÞìÞÿ ãæå×æâûëáæ×æ éÞëûãÙååæ×æ âÞìÙêÓìíêåæ×æ ÿÝúáÓ, Mongolica. ¾ÓãÿìÞ ÓáÓØÙãÞáÓ −æêÞëÓ ÒáæÕâÙÕÞõÓ ®âÓØÞãÞêôæÕÓ (1884-1931), ºæëáÕÓ, 1986, 83-86. 18 Igor de Rachewiltz, Some Reflections on So-Called Written Mongolian, Studia Tibetica et Mongolica [= Indica et Tibetica 34], Swisttal-Odendorf, 1999, 235-246. 19 °. Áçãçêìæ×ææ, Moå×æâ ÔÞõ×Þàå ó ýâ, ÂâÓÓåÔÓÓìÓê, 1983, 1-23; idem, ºæå×æâ ó ýâåÞà ìððóýå óýâÝðàå ðåØ ýë. I. ºæå×æâ ó ýâåÞà ìððó ýå ÓÕÞÓÝðà, 34-51; idem, ºæå×æâ óýâ÷ÞåÛÞâýâÞàå æåæâ, ìððóÞàå ÓëííØÓâííØ, Улаанбаатар, 2002, 290-322.

4

Introduction

Stele and wall inscriptions. Over a dozen Preclassical stelæ date back to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Some can be found in museums in Saint-Petersburg and Ulaanbaatar, but most are kept in Inner Mongolia and in Gānsù and Yúnnán provinces in the PRC. The shortest inscriptions have only around a dozen words, while the longest is over 1,500 words. Apart from that evidence, there are cave wall inscriptions: nearly thirty from Dūnhuáng 敦煌 in Gānsù Province, and well over fifty from Arîai in the Ikh Juu banner of Inner Mongolia. These wall writings are reverently regarded as the sacred monuments of the Preclassical Mongolian script.

Manuscripts and Xylographs. Preclassical materials also include over a hundred manuscripts and wood engravings on topics ranging from religious teachings to lyrical chants to edicts and decrees to letters and memoranda. These are now preserved in the museums and libraries of Ulaanbaatar, Běijīng, Tokyo, Kyoto, Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Berlin, Mainz, Marburg, Paris, London, the Vatican, Budapest, Teheran, Istanbul, and elsewhere. These monuments vary in length from texts of a few lines to major documents with hundreds of verses.

A Páizi and seal. Messengers of the khans were issued gold- and silver-plated authorization tablets (páizi 牌子 or Gerege), engraved with Preclassical Mongolian dicta. These, plus a Preclassical seal, are kept in museums in the Vatican, Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Beijing, and Rome.

Studies of Preclassical Mongolian (a brief overview). Modern study of Preclassical Mongolian monuments was well underway in the first half of the nineteenth century. It began with the investigation of the stele erected in honor of Chinggis Khan’s nephew Yisüngge c.1225, and Abdullas páizi found in Russia.20 In the twentieth century, many more monuments have been discovered, stimulating ever greater research efforts. The following is a list of the principal researchers into the Preclassical period. The Il-khans letters: Kljukin, 21 Kotwicz, 22 Haenisch, 23 and Mostaert & Cleaves. 24 The

20 °. −ÓåÝÓêæÕ, ¼ÔùÿëåÙåÞÙ ãæå×æâûëáæà åÓØéÞëÞ åÓ éÓãÿìåÞáÙ áåÿÝÿ ¶ëíåáÙ, éâÙãÿååÞáÓ ÉÞå×Þë-óÓåÓ, ´ÓéÞëáÞ ¿íëëáæ×æ ÓêóÙæâæ×ÞõÙëáæ×æ æÔøÙëÕÓ, ì. III, 1851, 268-292; idem, ¿ÓÝùÿëåÙåÞÙ æØåæà ãæå×æâûëáæà åÓØéÞëÞ åÓ ëÙêÙÔêÿåæà ØæøÙõáÙ, åÓàØÙååæà Õ ±áÓìÙêÞåæëâÓÕëáæà ×íÔÙêåÞÞ, Õ ÞãÙåÞ ÔÓêæåÓ ¬. òæå-ÊìÞ×âÞô, Bulletin de la classe historico-philologique de lAcademie de Sciences, tome V:9, 1878; ¶. ¬. ¸â þáÞå, °êÙÕåÙà÷Óÿ ãæå×æâûëáÓÿ åÓØéÞëû åÓ ÆÓêóÞêÓëáæã (“ÉÞå×ÞëæÕæã”) áÓãåÙ, ÁêíØú °ÓâûåÙÕæëìæõåæ×æ ×æëíØÓêëìÕÙååæ×æ íåÞÕÙêëÞìÙìÓ, ÀÙê. 6, No 5, ®âÓØÞÕæëìæá, 1927. 21 ¶. ¬. ¸â þ áÞå, O õÙã éÞëÓâ Þâû-óÓå ¬ê×íå ÅÞâÞééí ¸êÓëÞÕæãí Õ 1289 ×. (¸ êÓÝÔæêí ØêÙÕåÙà÷Þó éÓãÿìåÞáæÕ ãæå×æâûëáæà éÞëûãÙååæëìÞ), ¯æëíØÓêëìÕÙååúà

5

Mongolian Monuments in Uighur-Mongolian Script

Subhāsitaratnanidhi: Ligeti.25 The Twelve Deeds of Buddha: Ligeti26 and Poppe.27 The Sino-Mongolian inscriptions of the fourteenth century: Cleaves28 and Kara.29 The Hsiao-ching (小經 Xiǎojīng): Luvsanbaldan,30 Ligeti,31 Cleaves,32 and de Rachewiltz.33

°ÓâûåÙÕæëìæõåúà ÂåÞÕÙêëÞìÙì, ®æëìæõåúà ÅÓáíâûìÙì, ®âÓØÞÕæëìæá, 1925, 8 + 45 ëìê. ¾Þëûãæ ÂâûØÝ ýàìí Þâû-óÓåÓ á ÅÞâÞééí ¸êÓëÞÕæãí, ÐØíÓêØí I-ãí Þ éêæõÞã áêÙëìæåæëôÓã, ÁêíØú ¯æëíØÓêëìÕÙååæ×æ °ÓâûåÙÕæëìæõåæ×æ ÂåÞÕÙêëÞìÙìÓ, ÀÙê. 6, No 2, ®âÓØÞÕæëìæá, 1926, 1-40. 22 W. Kotwicz, Quelques mots encore sur les lettres des il-khans de Perse retrouvées par Abel Rémusat, CO 10, 1936, 1-22 // RO 16, 1950, 405-427; En marge des lettres des il-khans de Perse retrouvées par Abel-Rémusat, CO 4, Wilno, 1933, 1-48 // RO 16, 1953, 369-404. 23 E. Haenisch, Zu den Briefen der mongolischen Il-khane Argun und Ölîeitü an den König Philipp den Schönen von Frankreich (1289 und 1305), Or. 2, 1949, 216-235. 24 A. Mostaert & F. W. Cleaves, Trois documents mongols des Archives Secrètes Vaticanes, HJAS 15, 1952, pp.420-506; Les lettres de 1289 et 1305 des ilkhan Arƒun et Ölîeitü à Philippe le Bel [= Scripta Mongolica Monograph Series 1], Harvard Yenching Institute, Cambridge Mass. 1962, 104 pp. 25 L. Ligeti, Le Subhāsitaratnanidhi mongol, Un document du moyen mongol, Partie Ire. Le manuscript tibéto-mongol en reproduction phototypique avec une introduction. {= Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica VI}, Budapest, 1948, XIII + 124 pp.; Les Fragments du Subhāsitaratnanidhi mongol en écriture hP’ags-pa. Le mongol préclassique et le moyen mongol, AOH 17, 1964, 239-292; Trésor des sentences. Subhāsitaratnanidhi de Saskya pandita. Traduction de Sonom gara {= Monumenta Linguae Mongolicae Collecta IV}, Budapest, 1973, 146 pp. 26 L. Ligeti, A propos de la version des “Douzes Actes du Bouddha, AOH 20, 1967, 59-73; Les douze actes du Bouddha. Arban qoyar îokiyangƒui üiles de Chos-kyi od-zer, Traduction de Šes-rab sen-ge [= Monumenta Linguae Mongolicae Collecta V], Budapest, 1974, 184 pp. 27 N. Poppe, The Twelve Deeds of Buddha. A Mongolian Version of the Lalitavistara. Mongolian Text, Notes and English Translation [= AF 23], Wiesbaden, 1967, 173 pp. 28 F. W. Cleaves, The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1362 in Memory of Prince Hindu, HJAS 12, 1949, 1-133; The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1335 in Memory of Chang Ying-îüi, HJAS 13, 1950, 1-131; The Sino-Mongolian Edict of 1453 in the Topkapi Sarayi Müzesi, HJAS 13, 1950, 431-446; The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1338 in Memory of Îigüntei, HJAS 14, 1951, 1-104; The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1346, HJAS 15, 1952, 1-123; The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1240, HJAS 23, 1961, 62-75; The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1348, HJAS 27, 1967, 76-102. 29 G. Kara, L’inscription mongole dAruγ, prince de Yun-nan (1340), AOH 17, 1964, 145-173. 30 Æ. ¹íÕëÓåÔÓâØÓå, ¬õâÓâì åæãúå ìíóÓà, SM 3:12, 1961, I-IV + 149 + Tables. 31 L. Ligeti, À Propos de la traduction mongole préclassique du Hsiao-King, AOH 38, 1984, pp. 303-349. 32 F. W. Cleaves, The First Chapter of an Early Mongolian Version of the Hsiao-ching, AOH 36, 1982, 69-88; The Second Chapter of an Early Mongolian Version of the Hsiao-ching, Documenta Barborum. Festschrift für W. Heissig zum 70 Geburtstag, Wiesbaden, 1983, 272-281; The Third Chapter of an Early Mongolian Version of the Hsiao-ching, MS 14, 1991, 117-143; The Fourth Chapter of an Early Mongolian Version of the Hsiao-ching, MS 15,

6

Introduction

The Mongolian monuments of the Turfan collection: Haenisch,34 Cleaves,35 Franke,36 Poppe,37 Altangerel & Tserensodnom,38 Tserensodnom,39 Tserensodnom & Taube,40

1992, 137-150; The Fifth Chapter of an Early Mongolian Version of the Hsiao-ching, MS 16, 1993, 19-40; The Sixth Chapter of an Early Mongolian Version of the Hsiao-ching, MS 17, 1994, 1-20; The Eighteenth Chapter of an Early Mongolian Version of the Hsiao-ching, HJAS 45, 1985, 225-254. 33 Igor de Rachewiltz, The Preclassical Mongolian Version of the Hsiao-ching, ZS 16, 1982, 7-109; More about the Preclassical Version of the Hsiao-ching, ZS 19, 1986, 27-37; The Missing First Page of the Preclassical Mongolian Version of the Hsiao-ching: A Tentative reconstruction, East Asian History, 27, 2004, 51-55. 34 E. Haenisch, Mongolica der Berliner Turfan Sammlung. I. Ein buddhistisches Druckfragment vom Jahre 1312, ADAW Nr. 3, 1953, Berlin,1954, 22 S + 24 Tafeln; Mongolica der Berliner Turfan Sammlung. II. Mongolische Texte der Berliner Turfan-Sammlung in Faksimile, ADAW Nr. 1, 1959, Berlin, 1959, 1-59 + 50 Tafeln. 35 F. W. Cleaves, The Bodistw-a èari-a awatar-un tayilbur of 1312 by Èosgi Odsir, HJAS 17, 1954, 1-129. 36 H. Franke, Zur Datierung der mongolischen Schreiben aus Turfan, Or.15, 1962, 399-410; Mittelmongolische Kalendarfragmente aus Turfan, SBAW 2, München, 1964, 1-45; A Mongol (Yüan) Calendar Fragment from Turfan, Cina 8, 1964, 32-34; Bruchstücke einer buddhistischen Schrift über die Sündenfolgen aus den mongolischen Turfan-Fragmenten, SSECA 1968, 37-44; Ein weiteres mongolisches Reisebegleitschreiben aus Čaγatai (14. Jh.), ZS 2, 1968, 7-14; Zwei mongolische Textfragmente aus Zentralasien, Mongolian Studies edited by L. Ligeti, Budapest, 1970, 137-142; Ein mongolisches Brieffragment aus Turfan, ZS 5, 1971, 17-26; Ein mongolisches Freibrief-Fragment aus dem Turfan-Funden (TM 92), Folia Rara (Festschrift Wolfgang Voigt), Wiesbaden, 1976 [= Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland], Supplementband 19), Wiesbaden, 1976, 29-33; Additional Remarks on the Mongolian Turfan Fragment TM 92, Canada-Mongolia Review 3, No 1, 1977, 33-39; Kleine Nachlese zu der mongolischen Mahākālā-Hymne aus Turfan, ZS 15, 1981, 11-26. 37 N. Poppe, Eine mongolische Fassung der Alexandersage, ZDMG 107, 1957, S. 105-129; Ein mongolisches Gedicht aus den Turfan-Funden, CAJ 5, 1959, S. 257-294. 38 É. ¬âìÓå×ý êýâ - °. Ç ýêýåëæØåæã, TíêòÓåú ôí×âííâ×úå TM 38, SM 5, 1966, 113-122; TíêòÓåú ôí×âííâ×úå TM 8, T II T662, SM 6:18, 1967, 38-42; TíêòÓåú ôí×âííâ×úå T II D159, SM 6, 1968, 127-135. 39 °. Ç ýêýåëæØåæã, OÔ æØåæã ëìÞóæìÕæêÙåÞà ÞÝ TíêòÓåëáæ×æ ëÔæêåÞáÓ, °æáâÓØú ãæå×æâûëáæà ØÙâÙ×ÓôÞà åÓ XXVI áæå×êÙëëÙ ÕæëìæáæÕÙØæÕ, ÂâÓå-−Óìæê, 1963; TíêòÓåú ôí×âííâ×úå TM 40, SM 5, 1965, 147-170; TíêòÓåú ôí×âííâ×úå 2-ê Ø ýÕìýê Ø ýó TM (5), T130, SM 7:3, 1969, 39-49; Sur un texte mongol extrait du recueil de Turfan, EM 2, 1971, 1-31; TíêòÓåú ôí×âííâ×úå T II 607 (±êççâÞàå óÓÓå ó ýãýýó ëíØêúå ÷Þå ýýê æâØëæå ìÓëÓêóÓà) SM 3:11, 1975, 222-226; Ein mongolisches Gedicht-fragment über die Prajñā-paramitā aus der Berliner Turfan-Sammlung, AoF 8, 1981, 333-335; ¾ÓãÿìåÞáÞ ìíêòÓåëáæà áæââÙáôÞÞ. ¸åÞ×Ó ºæå×æâÞÞ [= ¬âûãÓåÓó −ÞÔâÞæòÞâÓ], Õúé. 24, MoëáÕÓ, 1988, 253-259; K Õæéêæëí ØÙ÷ÞòêæÕáÞ éÓãÿìåÞáÓ ãæå×æâûëáæà éÞëûãÙååæëìÞ T III

7

Mongolian Monuments in Uighur-Mongolian Script

Kara,41 and Weiers.42 The Dūnhuáng and Arîai cave inscriptions: Has-erdene,43 Danzan, Burenbat & Batjargal,44 Garudi,45 Batjargal,46 and Ohno Akira (Yang Haiying).47

M 240 ÞÝ ÁíêòÓåëáæà áæââÙáôÞÞ Oâæå Ââëúå ãæå×æâõ ýêØýãìåÞà III Þó óíêÓâ, ÂâÓÓåÔÓÓìÓê, 1979. 40 D. Cerensodnom & M. Taube, Die Mongolica der Berliner Turfansammlung. [= Berliner Turfan-Texte XVI], Berlin, 1993, 230 S. + Tafel I-LVII. 41 G. Kara, Un fragment mongol de Tourfan, AOH 24, 1971, 165-171; Weitere mittelmongolische Brüchstücke aus der Berliner Turfansammlung, AoF 6, 1979, 181-203. 42 M. Weiers, Zum Textfragment TM 40 aus der Berliner Turfan-Sammlung, ZDMG 117, 1967, 329-352; Mongolische Reisebegleitschreiben aus Čaγatai, ZS 1, 1967, 7-54. 43 Has-Erdeni, Garudi, Liang Weiying, Decipherment of Mongolian Inscription of Tölegtegüs in Uighur Mongol Script written in Dunhuang Mogaoku in Yuan Dynasty, DYa [= Dunhuang Research] 3, 1987, 43-48 (in Chinese); Has-Erdeni, Garudi, Bayanbaƒatur, Deciphering the Inscription in Huihe and Mongol Languages on the Southern Wall of Corridor in Cave 61, Mogaoku, DYa [= Dunhuang Research] 1, 1989, 30-34, 150 (in Chinese); Arîai uliyasun aƒui-yin 19 düger aƒui daki B20 duƒar nomertu uyiƒurîin mongƒol üsüg-ün bièigesü-yi ungsiƒsan ni, ÖMYS 3, 1990; Qas-Erdeni, ¯arudi, Danzan, Bürinbatu, Batuîirƒal, Arîai-yin aƒui-yin mongƒol bièigesü-yin sudulul [= Dumdadu ulus-un mongƒol sudulul-un kömürge], Liyoning, 1997, 1-5 + 1-7 + 1-54 + 1-36. 44 Danîan, Bürinbatu, Na. Batuîirƒal, Arîai-yin aƒula-yin 26 duƒar aƒui daki 33, 34 nomertu bièigesü-yin tuƒdam sinîilege, MKUJ 2, 1990; Arîai aƒula-yin 26 duƒar aƒui daki 25, 26 nomertu îalbaril silüg-ün sinîilege, ÖMBYS 2, 1990; Arîai aƒui-yin uyiƒurîin mongƒol bièigesü deki “šanîumm-a” îerge ƒurban dhar-a eke-yin maƒtaƒal-un tuqai, ÖMYS 3, 1990; Arîai-yin aƒula-yin aƒui-yin uyiƒurîin mongƒol bièigesü deki qorin nigen Dhar-a eke-yin îalbaril silüg-ün tuqai, MKUJ 3, 1990; Arîai-yin aƒula-yin aƒui-yin uyiƒurîin mongƒol bièigesü deki “Altan tuƒul, “Vèir ökin-ü köbegün îerge qoyar arqad-un îalbaril silüg-ün sudulƒ-a, MKUJ 4, 1990; Ordus-un Arîai-yin aƒui-yin bièigesü deki arban îirƒuƒan yeke arqad-un îalbaril-un urilƒ-a silüg-ün tuqai, ÖMHŠU 6, 1990; Arîai-yin aƒula-yin aƒui-yin bièigesün deki “Dörben Maqaraîa-yin îalbaril silüg”-ün tuqai sinîilge, MKB 6, 1990. 45 S. Garudi, Arîai aƒui-yin uyiƒurîin mongƒol bièigesün-ü tuqai tanilèaƒulƒ-a, MKB 3, 1990; Arîai aƒui-yin 19 düger aƒui-yin baraƒun qanan daki C 10 bièigesü-yi ungšiƒsan ni, Mongƒol Sudulul, 3, 1990. 46 Batujirghal, Yang Haiying, Arjai Grotto. The Rise and Fall of a Buddhist Memorial for Chinggis Khan, Fukyosha Publishing Inc. Tokyo, 2005, 223 pp. (in Chinese) 47 Ohno Akira (Yang Haiying) Historical-Anthropological Studies on Mongolian Manusripts Discovered from the Arjai Caves, Ordos, Inner Mongolia, Shizuoka University, 2005, 190 pp. (in Japanese)

8