Mongolian Golden Kanjur Fragments in the Collection of the IOM, RAS

Abstract

The collection of the IOM, RAS contains a number of odd folios from the Mongolian Kanjur, the history of whose entry into the collection is unknown. The text is written in golden ink on blue paper. Handwriting and orthography are characteristic of the first half of the 17th c. Appearance and ductus reveal a striking similarity to the Golden Kanjur of Ligdan Khan kept in Hohhot. In the article the folios from IOM, RAS are compared with the Golden Kanjur. An attempt to trace back the history of these manuscript fragments leads to the conclusion that they could be among the first Mongolian manuscripts brought to St. Petersburg at the time of Peter the Great.

 

 

Full Text

Kirill Alekseev, Anna Turanskaya, Natalia Yampolskaya Mongolian Golden Kanjur Fragments in the Collection of the IOM, RAS* Abstract: The collection of the IOM, RAS contains a number of odd folios from the Mongolian Kanjur, the history of whose entry into the collection is unknown. The text is written in golden ink on blue paper. Handwriting and orthography are characteristic of the first half of the 17th c. Appearance and ductus reveal a striking similarity to the Golden Kanjur of Ligdan Khan kept in Hohhot. In the article the folios from IOM, RAS are compared with the Golden Kanjur. An attempt to trace back the history of these manuscript fragments leads to the conclusion that they could be among the first Mongolian manuscripts brought to St. Petersburg at the time of Peter the Great. Key words: Ablai Keyid, Kanjur, “golden” manuscripts, codicology, manuscript collection of IOM, RAS The study of the genesis of the Kanjur (Mong. Ganjur), the Mongolian translation of the Word of Buddha (Skr. buddhavacana), is one of the key problems of modern Mongolian studies. Despite long-established interest in the problem, our vision of Buddhist canonical literature in Mongolia is far from complete, and new data in this field of study necessitate not so much a correction as a reconsideration of the whole picture.1 The process of the Mongols’ reception of the buddhavacana started as early as the 13th-14th cc. under the Yuan dynasty.2 After the fall of the dynasty in 1368, translation activities among the Mongols declined for almost two centuries, recommencing with renewed vigour under Altan Khan (1508- © Kirill Alekseev, Associate Professor, St. Pеtersburg State University © Anna Turanskaya, Assistant, St. Petersburg State University © Natalia Yampolskaya, Junior Researcher, IOM, RAS * The authors acknowledge Saint-Petersburg State University for a research grant 2.38.311.2014. 1 On the latest research in this field see: ALEKSEEV 2013; ALEKSEEV, TURANSKAYA 2013; GCCA; YAMPOLSKAYA 2013. 2 On the translation of Buddhist works into Mongolian under the Yuan dynasty see, for ex-ample, COYIJI, 2003. 1582). According to his biography, the “Jewel Translucent Sūtra” (Mong. Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur), written sometime after 1607, and the colophon of the Daśasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, translated into Mongolian by Siregetü Güsi Corji (late 16th - early 17th cc.),[135] the work of compiling the entire Kanjur was completed under Altan's grandson Namudai Secen Khan (1586-1607).[136] Unfortunately, not a single folio of this redaction has survived to the present day. The next manuscript edition of the Kanjur was produced under Ligdan Khan (r. 1592-1634) in the years 1628-29. Today it is well established that Ligdan Khan’s redaction committee made extensive use of the earlier translations, changing their colophons in favour of their patron.[137] The final product of this translation and editorial work was a special manuscript written in gold on a blue background. Subsequently it was named the ‘Altan’, i.e. ‘Golden’, Kanjur. In modern Mongolian studies it has been taken for granted that the Golden Kanjur was written in a single copy. However, the Mongolian historiographical tradition does not comment on the exact number of ‘golden’ copies. Thus, for example, the Mongolian chronicle called the “Thousand Spoke Golden Wheel” (Mong. Altan kürdün mingγan kegesütü)[138] states that “…the Kanjur was translated into Mongolian and written in gold”.[139] Another Mongolian work, the “Golden Rosary” (Mong. Altan erike), reports: “It is marvellous that having written golden and silver letters that are like the Sun and the Moon on the sky of paper that is like blue turquoise they illuminated the darkness of ignorance of the sentient beings”.[140] Later on this collection became the basis for yet another edition of the Mongolian Kanjur - this time in blockprint - produced under the auspices of the Qing dynasty’s Emperor Kangxi (1654-1722) in 1718-20 in Beijing (MK).9 The Manuscript of the Golden Kanjur Kept in Hohhot Twenty volumes, including fragments, of the Golgen Kanjur are in the library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia (AK). The history, contents and colophon of this manuscript collection have been described in detail elsewhere.10 For this study it is important to give the basic data on the codicology, paleography and orthography of the Golden Kanjur. The Golden Kanjur consists of pothi format volumes; the size of the folios is 72×24.9 cm. The paper is multilayer Chinese: the inner layer is soft, white paper, while the upper layers (thinner and denser) have been painted blue. The text was written using a reed pen (calamus) with gold inside the blackened glossy interior of a frame (57.5×15.5 cm) outlined with a golden double line. Some minor inscriptions and graphic elements are written with silver. On the middle axis of each folio (excluding the first folios of the volumes) two double circles are drawn symbolizing the holes for the cords that used to bind some Indian palm-leaf manuscripts.11 On the left side of the frame on the recto sides of the folios there is a ‘rail’ enclosing a marginal title denoting the section of the collection, the number of the volume marked with a Tibetan letter, and pagination in Mongolian. On the bulk of the folios hundreds in the pagination are indicated by small crosses: so, for example, the ved in Copenhagen (CK; on this volume see: HEISSIG 1957; KOLLMAR-PAULENZ 2002, 162- 165), the 113 volume collection kept in the St. Petersburg State University Library (PK; see KAS’IANENKO 1993); the bulk of the 70-volume collection preserved in the National Library of Mongolia as the Kanjur (UBK); 109 volumes kept in the Institute for Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies of the Siberian Branch of the RAS (UUK); the Kanjur preserved in the Library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia (HHK1). 9 The circumstances surrounding the creation of both Ligdan Khan’s and Kangxi’s edi-tions have been repeatedly described in the literature on Mongolian studies. See, for example, KAS’IANENKO 1993, 18-13; HEISSIG 1957; 1962; TUYAΓ-A, 2008, 278-297; USPENSKY 1997, 113-114. The catalogue of the Kangxi’s edition see in LIGETI 1942. The full text of the blockprint Kanjur was edited by Lokesh Chandra (MK), at present a new edition of the Kangxi’s collection is being published in China under the guidance of Prof. Altanorgil. 10 ALEKSEEV, TURANSKAYA 2013. 11 ALEKSEEV, TURANSKAYA 2013, 760-761. number of page 346 will be written as ‘+++docin jirγuγan’.[141][142] The first folios of the volumes are luxuriously decorated with illustrations of Buddhist deities accompanied by captions and praying formulas.[143] Although the 20 extant volumes of the Golden Kanjur demonstrate a variety of different handwriting styles, from calligraphic (especially on the first and the last folios of the volumes) to at times quite mediocre, all of them belong to the same ductus characteristic of the late 16th - early 17th cc. The initial ‘teeth’ do not have crowns, there are no diacritical marks for ‘n’ and ‘γ’ in front of the vowels, the texts do not make any distinction between the initial ‘j’ and ‘y’, nor between ‘c’ and ‘j’ in the middle position. The medial ‘t’ and ‘d’ are sharpened and the lower element of the letter is not connected with the vertical axis. Besides they are often written in front of the vowels as a ‘loop’ with a ‘tooth’ (e.g. ). Final ‘a’, ‘e’ and ‘n’ are written in the form of a horizontal ‘tail’ that is turned down, as well as the long hanging ‘tails’ at the beginning or the ends of texts or when a scribe needs to fill in some excess space. The final ‘s’ is a short horizontal ‘tail’. The orkicas have ‘snake’s tongues’. The ‘sticks’ are almost of the same length as the ‘teeth’ and differ from the latter only in their shape and the angle of their inclination. To this, a minimal use of the Galik alphabet must be added.[144] The orthography of the manuscript also contains peculiarities characteristic of the late 16th and early 17th cc.: - suffixes are often joined to words (Mong. cilegeri, sönögegcide, terigüber, basabar, aciban) - preclassic use of ‘t’ and ‘d’ in suffixes (Mong. tala-tur, oron-teki, ulus- daγan, gerel-den) - words can be written separately (Mong. es-e, ter-e, erdeni-sün) - archaic spelling of such words as bodisung, linqua, etc. - combination of ‘q’, ‘γ’ and ‘i’ (Mong. qiruka, hayag γiruu-a) - characteristic use of ‘i’ at the beginning of Sanskrit and Tibetan words (e.g. irjudci for Tib. rgyud kyi, irgalbo for Tib. rgyal po, irgalmsan for Tib. rgyal mtshan, injan-a for Skt. jñāna). “Golden” Folios in European Collections Several folios of Mongolian manuscripts written in gold on blue paper can be found in European collections. Two folios of this sort were published and described by Walther Heissig in his 1979 article titled “Die erste mongolische Handschrift in Deutschland”.[145] One of them is kept at the Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, Saxony, together with a folio of a Tibetan manuscript and a document that casts light on its history.[146] The other folio is kept in the Swedish town of Linköping. It has been established that both folios were found in Siberia and came into the possession of their European owners in the early 1720s. The Wolfenbüttel folio was delivered to St. Petersburg from the ruined temple of Ablai Keyid on the river Irtysh. It came into possession of A.E. Stambke, the envoy of the Duke of Holstein at the court of Peter the Great, in 1723-24, and later became part of the collection of the German scholar J.F. Reimmann. [147] The Linköping folio was brought to Sweden by the military officer Johan Gustaf Renat, who was sent to Siberia after the Battle of Poltava and spent 18 years (1716-1734) among the Dzhungar people.[148] Both folios are identical to the Golden Kanjur in appearance, ductus and style of handwriting.[149] The“Golden” Folios at the IOM, RAS Odd folios and fragments (twelve complete folios and nine fragments) of the Mongolian Kanjur,[150] the codicology, paleography and orthography of which are strikingly similar to those of the Golden Kanjur from Hohhot and the folios published by W. Heissig, are kept in the collection of IOM, RAS under the pressmark K37 (IOMAK). The size of the pothi format folios is about 63.7×22.8 (51×14.3) cm, 27- 30 lines in the frame.[151] Like the manuscripts described above, these Kanjur folios are written on multilayer Chinese paper: the inner layer is thinner and denser than in the Golden Kanjur in Hohhot, the upper layers are painted blue. The text was written using a reed pen (calamus) with gold inside the blackened glossy interior of a frame outlined with a golden double line. On the middle axis of both sides of each folio two double circles are drawn with gold. On the left side of the frame on the recto sides of the folios there is a ‘rail’ enclosing the same markers as in the Golden Kanjur. Pagination is on the recto sides of the folios. On some folios, hundreds in the pagination are indicated with small crosses. Most likely due to the limited amount of text, the handwriting seems to be more uniform than in the Golden Kanjur, but beyond all doubt it belongs to the same ductus. Absolutely all the peculiarities of the ductus of the Golden Kanjur listed above are characteristic of the folios kept in IOM. The text on the ‘golden’ folios displays the same orthographical characteristics as the text of the Golden Kanjur, such as preclassic use of ‘t’ and ‘d’ in suffixes (Mong. oγtarγui-tur, vcir-a-tur, etc.); separate writing of some words (Mong. ter-e); archaic spelling of such words as bodisung, maqasung etc.; combination of ‘q’, ‘γ’ and ‘i’ (Mong. qimusun, qi vcir); characteristic use of ‘i’ at the beginning of Sanskrit and Tibetan words (Mong. irjudci, irgalmsan, injan-a). There is only one exception: we could not find any instances of suffixes being joined with words (possibly due to the limited amount of text material). The folios belong to the Dandir-a, Yüm, Olangki and Vinai sections of the Mongolian Kanjur. Due to the absence of markers of works or chapters, the bulk of the fragments could not be identified. The exceptions are the fragments on folios 276 and 335 from the ka volume of the Dandir-a section. F. 276a carries the end of the eighth work from the ka volume of Dandir-a section[152] and the beginning of the ninth.[153] To show correlation of the texts in AK, IOMAK and PK we collate the concluding title and the colophon of the eighth work (Table 3), as well as the Sanskrit, Tibetan and Mongolian titles of the ninth work (Table 4). Table 3 AK, Dandir-a, ka IOMAK, Dandir-a, ka PK, Dandir-a, ka [341b] qamuγ burqadluγ-a tegsi barilduγci d*ag’ini yilvi jirγalang-un degedü kemegdekü: nigen tümen naiman mingγatu-aca qamuγ onol-un qaγan nayan doloduγar tegüsbei:: : :: enedkegün ubadii samiriti injan-a k’irti büged orciγulbai:: öglige-yin ejen kemebesü töbedün ubadii jalaγu aldarsiγsan neretü nayiraγulju nomlaγad orosiγulbai:: [276a] qamuγ burqadluγ-a tegsi barilduγci d'agini yilvi jirγalangun degedü kemegdekü: nigen tümen naiman mingγatu-aca qamuγ onol-un qaγan nayan doloduγar tegüsbei:: : :: enedkeg-ün ubadiy-a simiriti inyan-a kirti büged orciγulbai: öglige-yin ejen kemebesü töbed-ün ubadiy-a jalaγu aldarsiγsan neretü nayiraγulju nomlaγad orosiγulbai:: : :: [73a] qamuγ burqadluγ-a tegsi barilduγci d*agini yelvi jirγalangun degedü kemegdekü: nigen tümen naiman mingγ-a-tu-aca qamuγ nom-un qaγan nayan doloduγar tegüsbei:: : :: enedkeg-ün ubadini smiriti inyan-a kiirti büged orciγulbai:: öglige-yin ejen kemebesü töbed-ün ubadini jalaγu aldarsiγsan neretü nayiraγulju nomlaγad orosiγulbai:: : :: As can be seen from the textological collation, variant readings in this fragment are associated primarily with the rendering of foreign words. An interesting difference between the texts is the translation of the Tibetan expression “the king of all [types of] conceptual comprehension” (Tib. rtog pa thams cad kyi rgyal po).[154] Here Tib. rtog pa is accurately and uniformly translated in both ‘golden’ copies (Mong. onol), while in PK there seems to be a error on the part of the scribe, who by force of habit wrote “the king of all teachings” (Mong. qamuγ nom-un qaγan), an expression that occurs abundantly in the texts of the Kanjur. Table 4 AK, Dandir-a, ka, 342a IOMAK, Dandir-a, ka, 276a PK, Dandir-a, ka, 73a qi vcir-a dandir-a raja nam-a:: qi vcir-a dandir-a raja nam-a:: hi baj’ar d”and’r-a ra-a c’a na-a m-a: cii dorji se's by'au-a irjudci irgalbo: cii dorji se's by'au-a irjudci irgalbo: g’ye’ rdo’ rje: z’e’s by’au-a rgyud’ gyi rgyalpo’-i: qi vcir-a neretü dandiras-un qaγan: qi vcir-a neretü dandiras-un qaγan: hi vcir neretü d”andirasun qaγan: As the textological collation demonstrates, the title of the work in three languages is absolutely identical in AK and IOMAK. Both manuscripts render Skt. hevajra as qi vcir-a, with the preclassic use of the ‘q’ and ‘i’ combination as well as the use of the same variant as in the Mongolian title vcir-a for Sanskr. vajra. Besides that, in the Sanskrit title in both manuscripts the long vowels are not marked. In the transcription of the Tibetan title Tib. kye’i[155] is rendered as cii, and ‘i’ is added to the transcriptions of Tib. rgyud kyi and rgyal po.26 PK demonstrates more accuracy in rendering the Sanskrit and Tibetan titles. It reproduces the long vowels of the Sanskrit title and uses more Galik letters to render Sanskrit and Tibetan words. On the whole AK and IOMAK demonstrate a more archaic manner of rendering Sanskrit and Tibetan words. The texts are absolutely identical, which suggests that the manuscripts are closely related. However, we do not have sufficient material to draw final conclusions about the relationship between the three manuscripts. On f. 335a there is the marker of the seventh chapter of the work: degedü tabun rasiyan γaruγsan vcir neretü samadi dolodaγar bölög bolai. This chapter is the part of the tenth work in the volume ka of the Dandir-a section.[156] The History of the Golden Folios in the IOM, RAS It is not known how these manuscript folios appeared in the Institute’s funds. The pressmark K37 was given to them in 1937, when the folios became part of the Mongolica Nova collection. This collection was formed between 1925 and 1937[157] and, besides the manuscripts and xylographs that arrived at the Institute during that period, it included some materials from the old funds, among which were the manuscript folios in question.[158] Apart from the record in the inventory book dated 1937, no references have been found that could cast light on the history of these folios. It is possible that before 1937 they were never catalogued or inventoried. There are reasons to believe that the odd ‘golden’ folios of the Mongolian Kanjur were among the first Mongolian and Tibetan manuscripts that were found at the ruins of Ablai Keyid and brought to St. Petersburg in the early 1720s by order of Peter the Great.[159] The manuscripts from Ablai Keyid are considered to have been the basis of the Mongolian collection of the Asiatic Museum, although so far it has not been established which particular manuscripts in the IOM’s collection these were.[160] Some of them probably became part of the first collection of the Asiatic Museum: in the catalogue compiled in 1891, under the title of Section I “Books and manuscripts according to the 1789 catalogue by Jährig”, it is stated that some of the manuscripts listed there were donated by Johann Jährig himself, while others had already been kept at the Oriental Department of the Library of the Academy of Sciences.[161] Johann Jährig (1747-1795) was the first scholar in St. Petersburg to master the Mongolian language and was thus able to assess the value of the manuscripts held at the Academy. On examining these Mongolian manuscripts, Jährig referred to them as ‘torn-out folios’ (Germ. ausgerissene Blätter) that were worth preserving only because they had already been preserved.[162] This important detail suggests that many of the Mongolian and Tibetan manuscripts brought to St. Petersburg in the early 1720s were not only damaged, but were in fact random fragments. Another valuable mention of the manuscripts found at the ruins of Ablai Keyid comes from Peter Simon Pallas, who travelled around adjacent territories in the early 1770s. The naturalist himself did not visit the site of the monastery, but his assistant put together a detailed description of the place, published in the 1773 book Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des Russischen Reiches. According to this description, among the ruins one could still find remnants of the manuscripts that had earlier been scattered in large numbers at the abandoned monastery. Some of the manuscripts were written in black on white paper, others - in silver and gold on glossed black and blue paper. The ones that Pallas’s assistant brought to him were so damaged that they crumbled to dust under his fingers, and yet the silver and golden letters could still be seen.[163] From this description it emerges that even fifty years after Ivan Likharev’s visit to the ruins of Ablai Keyid it was still possible to find manuscript folios written in silver on black and in gold on blue paper - folios that could possibly come from the same volumes as the 21 ff. in the Mongolica Nova collection, the two folios from the Herzog August Bibliothek, and the one taken to Sweden by the artillery officer J.G. Renat. In 1779 Johann Bacmeister described the collection of the Academy in the following way: “Our library is rich in Tangut and Mongolian manuscripts. Some of them with golden, others with silver, and others with black letters. A part of these manuscripts was brought in 1720 from Siberia, where they were found at Ablai-keyid on the Irtysh…”[164] Not only does this description establish the presence of such manuscripts in St. Petersburg in the 18th c., it also complements Pallas’s evidence concerning their appearance and indicates to their possible place of origin. All these scattered facts help to reconstruct piece by piece the history of the manuscript folios under the pressmark K37. The design of the pages and the ductus, bearing unquestionable resemblance to the Golden Kanjur of Hohhot, show that the manuscript was written in South Mongolia in the first decades of the 17th c. The codicological similarity to the folios from Wolfenbüttel and Linköping is no less evident, revealing possible connections with Ablai Keyid. The assumption that these folios were once found at the ruins of a monastery is supported by their poor state, as well as by the fact that they come from different volumes of such a large collection of texts as the Kanjur. If they were in fact brought to St. Petersburg in the 1720s, their unsatisfactory condition could possibly be a good enough reason for Jährig not to include them in his collection. Thus the folios could have ended up being stored in the funds of the Academy of Sciences for two hundred years before they were finally listed as part of the collection Mongolica Nova in 1937. Conclusion A striking similarity between the ‘golden’ folios from IOM, RAS, the library of the Herzog August Bibliothek, Linköping and the Golden Kanjur from Huhhot indicates that most probably these manuscripts were written at the same time, as part of one and the same ‘project’. As at the moment we do not have any reason to doubt that the ‘golden’ manuscript collection kept in Hohhot is the Golden Kanjur of Ligdan Khan,[165] we can assume that the other manuscript fragments were also written in 1629 after the translation and editing of the Mongolian Kanjur had been completed. At present it is not clear how some of these manuscripts came to be at Ablai Keyid. The possibility to solve this riddle lies in further study of the ‘golden’ fragments on blue paper preserved in European collections.[166] For now, having given free rein to our imagination, we can only conjecture that because, under pressure from the Manchu, Ligdan Khan retreated to Kökenuur, where he died in 1634, and then in 1636-1637 that area was taken by the Khoshud under Güüsi Khan,[167] some part of the holy books of the last all-Mongolian khan may have come into the Khoshud’s hands as trophies, as repeatedly happened in Mongolian history. The Catalogue of the ‘Golden’ Folios in the IOM, RAS Given below is the catalogue of the folios of the manuscript Kanjur kept in the IOM, RAS. The folios are listed according to the order of sections and folios in the Kanjur. The folios that have not been identified are given in the end of the list. The description of each folio includes: the section marker, the volume number, the folio number (including its Mongolian spelling), the sizes of the folio and the frame, the number of lines on both sides of the folio, the beginning and concluding lines of the folio. For the fragments without part of the text only the length of the folio and the beginning and concluding lines are indicated.[168] 1. Dandir-a, ka, 164/194? (jaγun jiran/yiren dörben?), 63.7×22.9 (51×14.3) cm, 28 and 29 lines (a/1) ilekü singekü boluγad jici basa ene kemebesü tegüncilen ür-e-i (2) teyin büged ariγun bolγayu: tere metü qoyar γurban naiman-iyar (3) ilekü-i singgegülkü boluγad jici basa singeküi ene kemebesü degedü (4) bida-nuγud-iiyar: ese singgebesü ele amitan-tur kejiy-e naiman (5) söni boltala kürdün-ü odoqui sayitur boluyu: ... ...(b/25) mingγan toγatan nebtelküi jaγun-iyar qubilγaγ(26)san jaγun kiged költi: nebteleküi-yi kejiyede ber medejü: (27) öbere öbere edür qonoγ- un caγ-tur idegdekü boluγad (28) caγan kiji qubi-aca ecüs-tür isgince- yin[169] qubi bolai: (29) sayin keyid kiged γajar-un ger küiten kei-lüge qalaγun-aca 2. Dandir-a, ka, 276 (qoyar jaγun dalan jirγuγan), 63.6×22.8 (51.7×14.3) cm, 27 and 28 lines (a/1) qoyin-a kümün-i nomoγadqaqui caγ-tur: tedeger-i ber yambar (2) degedü jirγalang-tu bolγaqui-yin tulada: tere metü yeke (3) ayalγutu öcijü bür-ün: köbegün-lüge nigen-e qamuγ burqad: (4) yeke vcir satu-a-yi nomlaγsan-i ilete maγtabai:: qamuγ (5) burqad-luγ-a tegsi barilduγci d'agini yilvi jirγalang-un (6) degedü kemegdekü: nigen tümen naiman mingγatu-aca qamuγ onol-un (7) qaγan nayan doloduγar tegüsbei:: : :: … …(b/25) vcir-a garbi ocir-un: (26) ai ilaju tegüs nögcigsen-e: vcir-tu bey-etür kedün (27) sudal amui: ilaju tegüs nögcigsen jarliγ bolur-un: sudal (28) kemebesü γucin qoyar bülüge: γucin qoyar bodi sedkil 3. Dandir-a, ka, 335 (γurban jaγun γucin tabun), 63.8×23.3 (51.4×14.5) cm, 28 and 28 lines (a/1) bilig baramid-un belge bilig: egüni vcir-tu ***[170] (2) kemen ügüleyü: qamuγ nom-ud-un oron: tegüncilen iregsen (3) ayusi: burqan vcir-tu-yin büged: arγ-a bilig kiged-i (4) kölgelegsed:: qotala γurban yirtincüs-ün delekei kiged delekei(5)-yin door-a oγtarγui-tur: cisun kiged sukir-a-bar (6) dügürügsen bey-e: ijaγur-tan-u erketü egüni nomlar-un: … …(b/24) vcir-tu urilγan-u ilγal-iyar: kelen-ü vcir kkir ügei: (25) moq-a vcira-yi sayitur barilduγuluγsan-iyar: nidün-ü (26) medeküi-yi arilγaγdaqui:: diyan-a vcir-a-yi sedkigsen(27)-iyer: daγun-u qaγalγ-a-yi sedküki bolai: qabari mad(28)sary-a vcir-iyar: jirγuγan amitan-i yeke vcir-iyar:: 4. Yüm, ka, 56 (tabin jirγuγan), the end of the folio is torn off, the length is 44 cm (a/1) ilete tuγulju burqan boluγ-a inaru: qamuγ ilaju tegüs (2) nögcigsed-ün ülü anggijiraqu boluyu: saradudi-yin köbegün: (3) mergen arγ-a ügegü bodisung maqasung-nar nigedüger diyan-tur (4) tegsi aγuluyu: ...(b/19) ücügüken ber ügei-yin törölki-tür ber (20) tegsi orolduyu: sedkiküi ügei: sedkiküi ügei busu-yin töröl(21)ki-tür ber tegsi oroldu-γad tedeger mergen arγ-a-tu(22)-yin tula ... ...-yin ba tegsi orolduqu-yin keber-... 5. Yüm, ka, 62/92? (jiran/yiren qoyar?), 63.5×23.4 (51.7×14.6) cm, 29 and 29 lines (a/1) idegen umtaγan-i olγaγulqui ba: ebeciten-ü ebecin-i anaγaqui (2) ba: iregü-tü <qarangγui> γau-tur aγsad bügüde-yi bi ridi qubilγan(3)-iyar<iyan> ba bi kücün-iyer-iyen ali taγalaγsabar bolγasuγai (4) kemen taγalaγcid bodisung maqasung-nar bilig baramid -tur (5) suralcaγdaqui: ... ...(b/25) ölüsügsen ba: umtaγasuγsad-a (26) idegen umtaγan-i olγaγulqui ba: ebeciten-ü ebecin-i anaγaqui (27) ba: eregü-tü qarangγui γau aγsad bügüdeyi ridi qubilγan (28)-iyar-iyan ba: bi kücün-iyer-iyen ali taγalaγsabar bolsuγai: (28) kemen taγalaγcid ber bilig baramid-tur suralcaγdaqui: ker kijü (29) qamuγ arban jüg-deki nijeged büri-yin g'angga mören-ü qumaki-yin 6. Yüm, ka, 153 (+ tabin γurban), 63.5×22.8 (51.3×15.8) cm, 29 and 30 lines (a/1) -γulumui: üiledküi ba qoγosun-a ülü barilduγulumui: qoγosun (2) ba üiledküy-e ülü barilduγulumui: medeküi ba qoγosun-a ülü (3) barilduγulumui: <qoγosun ba> medeküi ba {qoγosun-a} ülü barilduγulumui: ... ...(b/26) duran-u medekü-yin ijaγur ba qoγoson-a (27) ülü barilduγulumui: qoγosun ba duran-u medekü-yin (28) ijaγur-a ülü barilduγulumui: *** *** *** (29) kemebesü saradudi-yin köbegün ene metü *** *** qoγosun (30) bisilγal kemebesü: degedü bisilγal buyu: saradudi-yin 7. Yüm, ka, 240 (++ döcin), 63.5×22.8 (51.3×15.8) cm, 29 and 30 lines (a/1) burqan jarliγ bolur-un: subuti tegün-i yaγun kemen sedki(2)mü: üiledkü-yi bodisung buyu kemen sedkimü-üü: öci(3)rün: ilaju tegüs nögcigsen burqan teyimü busu buyu: (4) ilaju tegüs nögcigsen burqan jarliγ bolurun: ...(b/26) duran-u medekü-yin ijaγur ba qoγosun-a (27) ülü barilduγulumui: qoγosun ba duran-u medekü-yin (28) ijaγur-a ülü barilduγulumui: *** *** *** (29) kemebesü saradudi-yin köbegün ene metü *** *** qoγosun (30) bisilγal kemebesü: degedü bisilγal buyu: saradudi-yin 8. Yüm, ka, 278 (++ dalan naiman), край листа оборван (52×14.6) cm, 29 and 30 lines (a/1) kemekü ner-e anu bodisung bolqu qamiγ-a bui: duran-u tegüncilen (2) kü cinar busu busud anu bodisung bolqu ber qamiγ-a bui: ... ...(b/28) ilaju tegüs nögcigsen <burqan?> bodisung oγoγ-a(29)ta ügei büged: ülü sedkigdeküi ele bügesü: tegün-tür öngge(30)-yin ijaγur-un tegüncilen kü cinar kemekü ner-e anu bodisung bolqu: 42 9. Yüm, ka? , 348 (+++ döcin naiman), the end of the folio with the part of the text is torn off, the length is 39 cm (a/1) daγan ese üjegdebei: ilaju tegüs nögcigsen burqan tere metü (2) nadur yeke asaraqu ene nemeküi ba: daki baγuraqui anu ese (3) sedkigdeged üneker daγan ese üjegdebesü ele: bodisung (4) kemen ken-i nereyidümü: ... ...(b/10) ilaju tegüs nögcigsen burqan edür öngge (11) ügei-yin dörben tegsi orolduqun-u nemeküi ba daki baγuraqui anu ese sedkigdebei: üneker daγan ese (12) üjegdebei: ilaju tegüs nögcigsen burqan tere metü nadur (13) ...ügeiyin tegsi orolduqun-u nemeküi ba: taki (14) ...anu ese sedkigdeged: üneker daγan ese üjegde(15) ...-disung kemen ken-i nereyidümü: ilaju tegüs nögcigsen (16) ...tegsi urbaduqun-u tere (17) ...adistid (18) ...büged 10. Yüm, ka, 353 (+++ tabin γurban), 63.4×23.2 (51.8×15) cm, 30 and 31 lines (a/1) buyu: qoγosun büged duran bolai: öngge öngge ber (2) qoγosun boluγsan büged: öngge-yin qoγosun anu ali (3) bügesü: tere ber öngge busu: öngge-ece öber-e (4) qoγosun ügei: öngge büged qoγosun buyu: ... ...(b/25) cikin-ü quraγad <kürelceküi> cikin-ü (26) quraγad kürelceküi ber qoγosun boluγsan büged: cikin-ü (27) quraγad kürelceküi qoγosun anu ali bügesü: tere ber (28) cikin-ü quraγad kürelceküi busu cikin-ü quraγad kürelceküi(29)-ece öber-e qoγosun ügei cikin-ü quraγad kürelceküi (30) büged qoγosun buyu: qoγosun büged cikin-u quraγad 11. Olangki, ka, 68/98? (jiran/yiren naiman?), the end of the folio with the part of the text is torn off, the length is 34.5 cm (a/1) töröged: gerel egüles-iyer qamuγ jüg bügüde-yi (2) dügürgeged: bodi modun-u aγsan tngri-yin ayimaγ: (3) burqan-i nasuda üjeged takil üiledümüi:: eldeb (4) küjin-ü tuγ badaraγci mani erdeni: küji gerel utuqui (5) küji nasuda γaruγad: dalai metü nököd bügüde-te (6) sayin ünür tügemel: tere metü modun-u qaγan jüg(7)-tür üjesküleng-tü bolai: ... 42 The marker of the volume is not clear. ...(b/12) dalai metü sansar-tur bodi yabudal-iyar yabuqui (13) caγ-taγan: bisirel-ün mandal irüger oγoγata aril(13) ...oron kiged oron busu kücün bügüde sedkil-tür (14) ...sayibar oduγsan-i kücün bügüde maγad (15) ...qutuγ dalai metü... 12. Olangki, ka, 211 (qoyar jaγun arban nigen), the end of the folio with the part of the text is torn off, the length is 46.3 cm (a/1) daγan kiciyegci kemegdeyü: degedü nidün kemegdeyü: jüg-i (2) geyigülügci kemegdeyü: ai ilaγuγsad-un köbegüd-e: tere metü (3) tedeger terigüten büriküi tegüsügsen yirtincü-yin ulus-tur (4) qutuγ-tanu ünennügüd-ün ner-e inu <döcin> jaγun mingγan költi toγatan (5) buyu: … ...(b/19) ai ilaγuγsad-un (20) köbegüd-e: ken jobalang-i qamuγ-a törögülügci (21) qutuγ-tan-u ünen kemegdekü tegün-tür tuγuluγsan arilγaγci (22) yirtincü-yin ulus-tur taciyangγui kemegdeyü: ügüleküi 13. Vinay-a, ka, 216 (++arban jirγuγan), 63.6×23 (51×14.2) cm, 28 and 29 lines (a/1) aγsad dötüger ba: irejü saγuγad jokistu bolbasu: (2) teden-i eyin kemen sedkigdeküi: ked ber ese iregsen ayaγ(3)-qa tegimlig bui bolai kemen ülü sedkiged: nom-i sedkiküi(4)-lüge jokistay-a sedkigci tedeger jalbarin öcijü: … …(b/26) tede nököd ese bosuγad: ayaγ-qa tegimlig (27) oduγsan tegün-ü qoyina <genedte> iregsed saca ayaγ-qa tegimlig (28) saca qamtu irebesü: tedeger-ün mandal-tur uriju? bür(29)-ün: tejigen arilγaqui üiledüged: anggida anggida tonilγaγci 14. Vinay, ka, 284 (++ nayan dörben), 63.5×22.8 (48.7×14.3) cm, 26 and 27 lines (a/1) vinai busu-tur vinai kemen: vinai-tur vinai busu kemen üjügülkü (2) bolbasu tere metü ügülegci-tür tokiyalduγuluγad ünen-iyer (3) tokiyalduγulju adqaγ negeküi üileddeküi: ...(b/22) ecüs (23)-tür kürtele busu kedber ecüs-ün tula bügesü nögöge ber busu (24) ba: ecüs kürtele busu ba: kedber sür üiledügsen bügesü (25) edür üiledügsen-ü tula busu ba: kedber edür üiledügsen (26) bügesü söni üiledügsen busu: kedber mör tügürigsen-tür (27) üiledügsen bügesü mör-tür üiledügsen busu: 15. Vinay-a, ka, 449 (++++ döcin yisün), 64×23.1 (51.3×13.7) cm, 28 and 29 lines (a/1) nom-luγ-a adalis-iyar qariγulun cidamui: kemen sedkibesü ele (2) terenuγud ba ülü ügülen: biraman-u köbegün yekerkemsig(3)-tü ene sitügen-tür adali nom-luγ-a adali-bar qariγula(4)γultuγai biraman-nuγud-ta ker ba eyin kemen sedkijü: ... ...(b/25) tendece γar-taγan vcir-un jibqulang badaraγsan (26) *** qamuγ-a sayitur badaraγci-tur nigen γal-un oci (27) bolγaγad badarabai: biraman-u köbegün yekerkemsig-tü terigün(28)-degen baraγad ker be biraman-u köbegün yekerkemsig-tü-tür (29) ilaju tegüs nögcigsen γurban-da boltala asaγ-un ügülegsen 16. ? (margin. of the section is not clear, adii?), ka, 89 (nayan yisün), 64×23.2 (51.3×14.5) cm, 29 and 30 lines (a/1) tedeger kemebesü ene metü nom-i abqui-yin tulada amin bey-e-yi (2) ber oγoγata tebcijü bür-ün: ene sudur-tur oroqu boluyu: (3) tegün-tür qoyitu caγ inu alimad amitan bal ene metü nom-i (4) sonosqui-yin tulada kiciyegci tedeger ber: cuqaγ bolbasu (5) ele: üsüg-tür jiruqui: ungsiqui: jegüküi: amabar uriqui (6) busud-tur delgerenggüy-e üjügülküi kiged-i-taki yaγun (7) ügületele: alimad ene nom-un jüil-i nemegülüged: ... ...(b/22) tegüncilen iregsen kemebesü yambar-iyar jobalang-un (23) udq-a-yi üjügülügci tegüncilen kü: aljiyas-un udq-a (24) kiged: taciyangγui-aca angijiraγsan-u udq-a-yi üjügülbei: (25) tegüncilen iregsen kemebesü yambar nirvan boluγsan inu (26) amurliγsan bolai kemen üjügülügci tegüncilen kü: qamuγ coγ(27)cas-i maγad tebciküi udq-a-yi üjügülüged: möngke busu (28) jobalang: bi ügei: nirvan kiged-ün qaγalγ-a-aca: (29) oγoγata ariluγsan nomun qaγalγ-a-yi ber üjügülüyü: (30) kijaγar ügei jokiyaγci-a: tegüncilen iregsed 17. ?, the beginning of the folio with the part of the text is torn off, the length is 42.1 cm (a)... üileddeküi... () duradqaγdaqui: jorin... () -da nom-un qurim-i üiledüküi lam-a burqan... () ber bayasqaγdaqui: lam-a-tur-iyan ***-i öggün öciged: () tegünü qoyina qamuγ ciγuluγsad-tur bolai: ... ...(b) lam-a-yin següder () qatun kiged qutuγ-un debisger kiged oron-i: ali ba () yeke mungqaγ-ud alqubasu ele: tere narin büged kirγaqui () bariγci buyu: sayitur abisig ögdegsen ali tere 18. ?, the beginning of the folio with the part of the text is torn off, the length is 40.8 cm (a) kiciyenggüi baramid-iyar masida arbijimu: () diyan baramid-iyar masida arbijimu: bilig () baramid-iyar masida arbijimui: bodisung gem ügegüy-e () üneker oroqu boluyu: …(b) ilaju tegüs nögcigsen burqan jarliγ bolur-un: subuti () tegün-i yaγun kemen sedkimü: öngge ügei nigen-i () bodisung buyu: kemen sedkimü-üü: öcir-ün () ilaju tegüs nögcigsen burqan teyin busu buyu: ilaju tegüs nögcigsen burqan jarliγ bolur-un: subuti tegün-i yaγun kemen sedkimü: 19. ?, the beginning of the folio with the part of the text is torn off, the length is 54 cm (a)... kei orosiqui:() ügei: moqor... ... …idlaγdaqui (=adistidlaγdaqui) ügei: () buyu: tere... -u tula kemebesü: tere nere anu ügei () büged: tegüber tere nere anu orosiqui ügei: moqordaqui () ügei: adistidlaγdaqui ügei bolai:: … …(b) üneker daγan () ese üjegdebei: ilaju tegüs nögcigsen burqan tere metü () nadur boda ügei qoγosun-u... ba: daki baγuraqui anu ese sedkigdeged üneker daγan ese üjegdebesü ele: 20. ?, the beginning of the folio with the part of the text is torn off, the length is 56.7 cm (a) -sung maqasung ilaju tegüs nögcigsen ()... -ruγsan üneker tuγuluγsan γasalang ()... coγ-tu kemegdekü burqan-a eyin kemen öcibei: ilaju tegüs () nögcigsen burqan bi ber tere sablokadatu yirtincü-yin oron()-taki ilaju tegüs nögcigsen tegüncilen iregsen dayini daruγsan () üneker toγoluγsan tere saky'amuni burqan-i üjer-e ba: () tegün-tür mörgüjü ergün kündüler-e ba: tendeki tedeger () bodisung maqasung-nar ber olangki anu jalaγu büged: ... ...(b) tende tegüncilen iregsen dayini daruγsan üneker tuγu()luγsan saky'amuni burqan kemegdekü saγun amiduraγulun tedkü aju: () tere bodisung maqasung-nar-tur bilig-ün cinadu kürügsen-i 21. ?. the beginning of the folio with the part of the text is torn off, the length is 39 cm (a) burqan öngge ügei yin... () nereber orosiqui ügei... () ...<-laγdaqui buyu: tere yaγun-u tula kemebesü ...-dekü ber tere nere anu orosiqui ügei...> -laγdaqui ügei bolai:: ilaju tegüs nögcigsen burqan... () burqan-i daγan duradqui-yin nemeküi ba: taki... ese () sedkigdebei: ... ...(b) tere yaγun-u tula kemebesü: tere nere anu ügei () büged: tegüber tere nere anu orosiqui ügei: moqordaqui () ügei: adistidlaγdaqui ügei bolai:: ilaju tegüs Abbreviations IMNR: Istoriia Mongolskoi Narodnoi Respubliki AK: Altan (Golden) Kanjur CK: Volume of the manuscript Kanjur. Copenhagen GCCA: Ganjur Colophons in Comparative Analysis HHK1: Manuscript Kanjur. Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia, PRC IOMAK: Fragments of the Golden Kanjur, IOM, RAS MK: Mongolian Kanjur PK: Manuscript Kanjur. St. Petersburg State University Library Q: bKa’ ‘gyur pe cin par ma UBK: Manuscript Kanjur. National Library of Mongolia UUK: Manuscript Kanjur Institute for Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies of the Siberian Branch of the RAS ZAS: Zentralasiatische Studien References ALEKSEEV Kirill and TURANSKAYA Anna 2013: “An overview of the Altan Kanjur kept at the Library of the Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia”. Asiatische Studien / Études Asiatiques LXVII(3), (Bern), 755-782. ALEKSEEV K.V. 2013: Escho raz o kataloge Gandzhura pod nazvaniem “Solnechnyi svet” [Once Again on the Catalogue of the Kanjur called ‘Sunlight]. In: The XXVII International Conference on Historiography and Source Studies of Asia and Africa: Local Heritage and Global Perspective. “Traditionalism” and “revolutionism” in the East. 24-26 April, 2013. Abstracts, St. Petersburg, 192-193. ALEKSEEV Kirill and TURANSKAYA Anna and YAMPOLSKAYA Natalia 2014: “The First Mongolian Manuscript in Germany Reconsidered”. Written Monuments of the Orient 1 (St. Petersburg), 66-76. ALTANORGIL 1982: Köke qota-yin süme keyed [Temples of Hohhot]. Kökeqota. ATWOOD, Christopher P. 2004: Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. NY: Facts on File, Inc. BACMEISTER, Johann 1796: “Über die mongolischen Bücher der hiesigen akademischen Bibliothek”. Journal von Russland, Jahrgang 3, Bd. 2 (St.-Petersburg), 122-150. BAREJA-STARZYNSKA, Agata 2006: Sziregetü Güüsri Čzordźi. Czikula Kereglegczi. Zasady Buddyzmu. Mongolski Traktat z XVI w. Waszawa: Widawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawkiego. BIRA Sh. 1978: Mongol’skaia istoriografiia XIII-XVII vv. [Mongolian historiography of the 13-17th cc.]. Moscow. bKa’ ‘gyur pe cin par ma. Woodblock print preserved at Harvard-Yenching Library, Harvard College Library. Digitally published and distributed by Digital Preservation Society. Tokyo, 1910. COYIJI 1985: “Siregetü Güüši Corji-yin tuqai nököbürilen ügülekü kedün jüil” [Some additions to the biography of Siregetü Güüši Corji]. Studia Historica Mongolica. Menggushi yanjiu. Mongγol teüke sudulul 1, 153-160. COYIJI 1988: “Randbemerkungen über Siregetü Güüsi Corji von Kökeqota”. ZAS 21, 140-151. COYIJI 2003: Mongγol-un burqan-u šasin-u teüke: Yuvan ulus-un üy-e (1271-1368) [The History of Mongolian Buddhism under the Yuan (1271-1368)]. Kökeqota: Öbör mongγol- un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. DHARM-A 1987: Altan kürdün mingγan kegesütü [Thousand spoke golden wheel]. Kökeqota: Öbör Mongγol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. ELVERSKOG, Johan 2003: The Jewel Translucent Sūtra. Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century. Leiden-Boston: Brill. Ganjur Colophons in Comparative Analysis. <http://www.mongolganjur.com/?p=17> (last visit 1 April 2014). HEISSIG, Walther 1957: “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Mongolischen Kandjur-Redaktion der Ligdan Khan-Zeit (1628-1629)”. Studia Altaica. Festschrift für Nikolaus Poppe zum 60. Geburtstag am 8. August 1957. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 71-87. HEISSIG, Walther 1962: “Beiträge zur Übersetzungsgeschichte des mongolischen buddhistischen Kanons”. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse, Dritte Folge, Nr. 50. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. HEISSIG, Walther 1979: “Die erste mongolische Handschrift in Deutschland”. ZAS 13, 191- 214. HEISSIG, Walther 1998: “Some Remarks on the Question of the First Translation of the Mongolian Kandjur”. In: Essays on Mongol Studies. Festschrift for the 70th Birthday of Academician Sh. Bira. Ulaanbaatar, 155-160. Istoriia Mongolskoi Narodnoi Respubliki [The history of Mongolian people’s republic] 1983: 3rd ed. Moscow: Nauka. KARA, Gyorgy 1983: “Zur Liste der mongolischen Übersetzungen von Siregetü Güüši”. In: Documenta Barbarorum. Festschrift für Walther Heissig zum 70. Geburstag. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 210-217. KAS’IANENKO Z.K. 1993: Katalog peterburgskogo rukopisnogo “Gandhura”. Sostavlenie, vvedenie, transliteratsiia i ukazateli Z.K. Kas’ianenko [Catalogue of the St. Petersburg manuscript Kanjur. Compilation, introduction, transliteration and indices by Z.K. Kas’ianenko]. Moscow: Nauka (Pamiatniki Pis’miennosti Vostoka [Written monuments of the Oriental scripts series] CII, Bibliotheca Buddhica XXXIX). KNIAZHETSKAIA Ye.A. 1989: “Novye svedeniia ob ekspeditsii I.M. Likhareva (1719-1720) [New Data on I.M. Likharev’s Expedition (1719-1720)]”. Strany i narody Vostoka [Countries and Peoples of the East] XXVI. Sredniaia i Tsentralnaia Aziia (Geografiia, etnografiia, istoriia) [Middle and Central Asia (Geography, Ethnography, History)], book 3. Moscow: Nauka, 10-35. KOLLMAR-PAULENZ, Karénina 2002: “The Transmission of the Mongolian Kanjur: A Preliminary Report”. Ed. by Helmut Eimer and David Germano. In: The Many Canons of Tibetan Buddhism. Leiden: Brill, 151-176. LIGETI, Lajos 1942: Catalogue du Kanjur Mongol Imprimé, vol. I. Budapest: Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica, III. Manuscript Kanjur Institute for Mongolian, Buddhist and Tibetan Studies of the Siberian Branch of the RAS. 109 vols. Manuscript Kanjur, Academy of Social Sciences of Inner Mongolia, no pressmark, 113 vols. Manuscript Kanjur, The Oriental Department of St. Petersburg State University Library, no pressmark, 113 vols. Manuscript Kanjur. National Library of Mongolia. 70 vols. Mongolian Kanjur. 108 Vols. Ed. by Lokesh Chandra. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1973-1979. NA-TA 1989: Altan erike [Golden rosary]. Kökeqota: Öbör Mongγol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. PALLAS, Peter Simon 1773: Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des Russischen Reiches. Zweiter Theil, zweites Buch. St. Petersburg: Izdatiel’stvo Akadiemii Nauk. PUCHKOVSKHIJ L.S. 1954: “Sobranie mongol’skikh rukopisei i ksilografov Instituta vostokovedeniia akademii nauk SSSR [Collection of Mongolian manuscripts and blockprints of the Institute of oriental studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences]”. Uchenye zapiski Instituta vostokovedeniia [Proceedings of the Institute of Oriental Studies], vol. IX. Moscow- Leningrad: Izdatiel’stvo Akadiemii Nauk SSSR. SAZYKIN A.G. 1988: Katalog mongol’skikh rukopisei i ksilografov Instituta vostokovedeniia Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk [Catalogue of Mongolian manuscripts and xylographs from the Institute of oriental studies, Russian Academy of Sciences], vol. I. Moscow: Nauka. SAZYKIN A.G. 2001: Katalog mongol’skikh rukopisei i ksilografov Instituta vostokovedeniia Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk [Catalogue of Mongolian manuscripts and xylographs from the Institute of oriental studies, Russian Academy of Sciences], vol. II. Moscow: Vostochnaia literatura RAN. SCHERRER-SCHAUB, Cristina Anna 1999: “Towards a Methodology for the Study of Old Tibetan Manuscripts: Dunhuang and Tabo”. Ed. by C.A. Scherrer-Schaub and E. Steinkellner. In: Tabo Studies II: Manuscripts, Texts, Inscriptions and the Arts. Rome: Is.I.A.O, 3- 36. SCHERRER-SCHAUB, Cristina Anna and BONANI, George 2002: “Establishing a Typology of the Old Tibetan Manuscripts: a Multidisciplinary Approach”. Ed. by S.L. Whitfield. Dunhuang Manuscript Forgeries. London: The British Library, 184-215. Spisok mongol’skim i kalmykskim knigam i rukopisiam, khraniaschimsia v Aziatskom muzee Akademii nauk, po khronologicheskomu postuplieniiu ikh v sostav biblioteki Aziatskogo muzeia. Mart 1891 [The List of Mongolian and Kalmyk Books and Manuscripts preserved in the Asiatic Museum of the Academy of Sciences According to their Chronological Acquisition to the Library. March, 1891]. Archive of Orientalists IOM, RAS, Razr. 1, Inv. 3, unit 61. TSERENSODNOM D. 1997: Mongolyn burkhan shashny uran zokhiol [Mongolian Buddhist literature]. Ulaanbaatar. TUYAΓ-A Ü. 2008: Mongγol-un erten-ü nom bičig-ün teüke [History of the ancient Mongolian manuscripts]. Kökeqota: Öbör mongγol-un arad-un keblel-ün qoriy-a. USPENSKY V.L. 1997: “The Tibetan Equivalents to the Titles of the Texts in the St. Petersburg Manuscript of Mongolian Kanjur: A Reconstructed Catalogue”. Ed. by Helmut Eimer. In: Transmission of the Tibetan Canon. Papers Presented at a Panel of the 7th Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Graz 1995. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 113-176. VLADIMIRTSOV B.Ya. 1927: “Nadpisi na skalakh halkhaskogo Tsoktu-tajdzhi. Stat’ia vtoraia [The inscriptions on the rocks of Tsoktu-taiji of Khalkha. Article 2]”. Izvestiia Akademii Nauk SSSR [Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of USSR], 215-240. VLADIMIRTSOV B.Ia. 2003: “Mongol’skii sbornik rasskazov iz Pañcatantra” [Mongolian collection of stories from Pañcatantra]. In: Vladimirtsov B.Ia. Raboty po litierature mongol’skikh narodov [Works on the literature of Mongolian peoples]. Moscow: Vostochnaia literaura RAN, 77-202. WALRAVENS, Hartmut 1997: “Die erste Mongolische Handschrift in Deutschland. Eine Nachbemerkung”. ZAS 27, 93-98. YAMPOLSKAYA, Natalia 2013: Canonicity in Translation. Eight Mongolian Versions of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sutra. Dissertation submitted at the Faculty of Huma- nities at the University of Bern to obtain the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, vols. I-II.