Studia Manichaica

IV, Internationaler Kongre£ zum Manichaismus, Berlin, 14.-18. Juli 1997

Herausgegeben von Ronald E. Emmerick, Werner Sundermann und Peter Zieme

Akademie Verlag

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Studia Manichaica / IV. Internationaler KongreB zum Manichaismus, Berlin, 14.-18. Juli 1997. Hrsg. von Ronald E. Emmerick ... - Berlin: Akad. Verl., 2000 (Berichte und Abhandlungen / Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften : Sonderband ; 4)

ISBN 3-05-003330-4

© Akademie Verlag GmbH, Berlin 2000 Der Akademie Verlag ist ein Unternehmen der R. Oldenbourg-Gruppe.

Das eingesetzte Papier ist alterungsbestandig nach DIN/ISO 9706.

AIle Rechte, insbesondere die der Ubersetzung in andere Sprachen, vorbehalten. Kein Teil dieses Buches darf ohne schriftliche Genehmigung des Verlages in irgendeiner Form - durch Photokopie, Mikroverfilmung oder irgendein anderes Verfahren - reproduziert oder in eine von Maschinen, insbesondere von Datenverarbeitungsmaschinen, verwendbare Sprache iibertragen oder iibersetzt werden.

Druckvorlage: Claudius Naumann Druck und Bindung: Druckhaus "Thomas Miintzer", Bad Langensalza

Printed in the Federal Republic of Germany

Inhal tsverzeichnis

Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . IX

Allgemeine Abkiirzungen . XI

Kurt Rudolph Berlin als Zentrum manichaischer Studien seit 2 50 Jahren. Worte des Prasidenten der lAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Jason David BeDuhn Eucharist or Yasna? .

Walter Beltz Zur religiosen Tiefenstruktur des mittelasiatischen oder ostlichen Manichaismus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fran�ois de Blois The Manichaean Daily Prayers

Giovanni Casadio Abenteuer des Dualismus auf der SeidenstraBe.

Larry Clark The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism .

J. Kevin Coyle The Idea of the 'Good' in Manichaeism . . . . . .

Fran�ois Decret La doctrine centrale du spiritalis salvator dans les sources manicheennes africaines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Serena Demaria Some Remarks on the Sea Giant in the Coptic Kephalaia .

Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst Erfand Mani die manichaische Schrift? . . . . . . . . . . .

Erich Feldmann Der Begriff der Augustinischen "ratio" im existentiellen Vollzug

37

49

5 5

1 24

1 54

1 61

innerhalb und auBerhalb des manichaischen Mythos . . . . . . . 17 9

Johan Ferreira A Comparison of the Clothing Metaphor in the Hymn of the Pearl and the Chinese Manichaean Hymnscroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

Maj ella Franzmann Jesus in the Manichaean Writings-Work in Progress . 220

VI Inhaltsverzeichnis

lain Gardner "He has gone to the monastery . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Badri Gharib New Light on Two Words in the Sogdian Version of the "Light Paradise or the Realm of Light" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 8

Zsuzsanna Gulacsi Rules of Page Arrangement in Manichaean Illuminated Book Fragments 270

Manfred Hutter Manichaeism in Iran in the Fourth Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308

Julia Iwersen Zur Frage manichaischer Einfliisse in zwei Nag Hammadi-Texten (NHC II, 5 und VII, I ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 8

Ralph Kauz Der "Mo-ni-gong" (J*Jb 'g) - ein zweite.r erhaltener manichaischer Tempel in Fujian? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 4

Alexandr L. Khosroyev Zu einer astronomischen Realie in den Kephalaia .

Hans-Joachim Klimkeit Das Weiterleben manichaischer Erzahlstoffe im Islam. . . . . . . . . . . 366

Sergej G. Klyashtornyj Manichaean Monasteries in the Land of Arghu 374

Samuel N. C. Lieu A New Figurative Representation of Mani?

Paul van Lindt Studies on the Manichaean Myth . . . . . .

Enrico Morano A Survey of the Extant Parthian Crucifixion Hymns . . . . . . . . . . 398

Moriyasu Takao On the Uighur exsapt ay and the Spreading of Manichaeism into South China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430

Wolf B . Oerter Zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Manichaismus in Bohmen . . . . . . . . . . 44 1

Johannes van Oort Mani and Manichaeism in Augustine's De haeresibus . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 1

Inhaltsverzeichnis VII

Antonio Panaino Manichaean Concepts in the Pahlavi Commentary of Mah Nyayisn, par. 4? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Siegfried G. Richter Ein manichaischer Sonnenhymnus . . . . . . . 48 1

Klaus Rohrborn Zum manichaischen EinfluB im alttiirkischen Buddhismus . . . . . . . . 494

Hans-Martin Schenke Randbemerkungen eines AuBenseiters zum Manichaismus .

Rijk Schipper Manichaeans in Spain .

Hanns-Peter Schmidt Vom awestischen Damon Azi zur manichaischen Az, der Mutter aller Damonen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 7

Madeleine Scopello Hegemonius, les Acta Archelai et l'histoire de la controverse anti-manicheenne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 8

Giulia Sfameni Gasparro Addas-Adimantus unus ex discipulis Manichaei: for the History of Manichaeism in the West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546

Nicholas Sims-Williams Aurentes . . . . . . . . .

Eugenia Smagina Die apokalyptische Vorlage in der manichaischen Kosmologie . . . . . . 564

Christel Stahl Derdekeas in the Paraphrase of Shem, NHC VII,! and the Manichaean Figure of Jesus, Two Interesting Parallels . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72

Michael Stausberg Pierre Bayle ( 1647-1 706) und die Erfindung des europaischen Neomanichaismus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 2

Gotthard Strohmaier Ai-BIron! (973-1048 ) tiber Mani und Manichaer . 59 1

Guy G. Stroumsa Isaac de Beausobre Revisited: The Birth of Manichaean Studies . . . . . 601

Alois van Tongerloo Manichaeus Medicus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 3

VIII Inhaltsverzeichnis

Jiirgen Tubach Mani, der bibliophile Religionsstifter . . . . . . 6 2 2

Dieter Weber Zur grammatisch-semantischen Bestimmung einiger Lemmata des sogdischen Lexikons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 9

Gregor Wurst Bemerkungen zum Glaubensbekenntnis des Faustus von Mileve (Augustinus, Contra Faustum 20,2) . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . 648

Johannes van Oort Wiirdigung Isaac de Beausobres ( 16 59-17 3 8 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5 8

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism

Larry Clark, Bloomington

In the middle of the eighth century, the Manichaean church beyond Central Asia consisted only of scattered communities stretching through the Tarim ba­sin and into northern China. The conversion of the Uygur ruler referred to as Biigii Khan (759-779) dramatically changed the fortunes of this religion by placing it under the protection of the powerful Uygur steppe empire of Inner Asia (744-84° )' Although the details of this event remain obscure, we must as­sume that soon after his conversion Biigii Khan promulgated his new faith as the state religion, and at the same time gave his blessing to a massive missionary effort that propagated Manichaeism among the peoples of his realm. With this, Manichaeism entered one of its most promising phases as a world religion and for the next 2 50 years, it continued to be associated with Uygur rulers until the end of the tenth century when they began to transfer their sponsorship to Bud­dhism, after which Manichaeism started to fade away.

Prior to its introduction among the Uygurs, Manichaeism held a minor stat­ure among the religions east of the Pamirs . In flight from the Arab conquest of Transoxania in the seventh century, Manichaeans, most if not all of whom were Sogdians, began settling in cities south of the Tienshan mountains . From there, groups of these eastern Manichaeans established themselves within the Sogdian settlements in Ch'ang-an and Lo-yang, the capitals of the T'ang dynasty of China, where they produced the classics of Chinese Manichaeism in the eighth century. The association between Manichaeism and Sogdians became so con­spicuous that a Chinese edict of 732 exempted Sogdians from a ban on practice of the religion because it was regarded as their national religion. By the mid­eighth century, the Central Asian refugees and missionaries had established a viable eastern branch of the Manichaean church within the "Land of the Four Togri" which incorporated the centers from Kucha and Karashahr to Kocho and Beshbalik,l and the spiritual jurisdiction of the Teacher (moiak) in Kocho

1 As the region which at the end of the seventh century first afforded Manichaeism refuge in the east, the "Land of the Four Togri" resonated through Manichaean texts, including: the Sog­dian inscription at Karabalgasun, line 19 ctfl'r twyr'k "(Land of) the Four Togri" (Hansen 1930, 20; Henning 1938,550); the Middle Persian hymn MIK III 8259 Mry Wh[mJn Xwrxsyd hmwc'g [yJ hwr's 'n p 'ygw[sJ n'mgyn s 'r '[r 'yJ ch 'r twyryst'[nJ "Mar Vahman Khvarkhshed, Teacher of the eastern diocese, renown leader of the Land of the Four Togri" (Henning 1938, 551; d. Sunder­mann 1984, 301); the Middle Persian benediction T II D 135, recto, i, 19 ch{ 'r twyryst 'nJ "(Land of the) Four (Togri)" (Muller 1912, 208-9); and the Uygur colophon MIK III 198 (T II D 171), verso 3-4 Mr Wxmn Xy'ryzd tort togndakt ulug mozak "Mar Vahman Hiyaryazd, the master Teacher in the (Land of the) Four Togri" (Le Coq 19II, 27; Henning 1938, 551-2). It is problematic whether the same country could be referred to by the phrase tort Kusan "(Land of) the Four

Larry Clark

evidently extended over all of the Sogdian Manichaean communities in the cit­ies by the Tienshan mountains and in the Chinese capitals.

By the beginning of the ninth century, eastern Manichaeism became the most vigorous center of what was left of world Manichaeism because it enjoyed the protection of the Uygurs, the dominant power in East Asia until 840. Their steppe empire was established by Kol Bag Bilga Khagan (744-747) on the Mon­golian plateau after an alliance of tribes brought down the Second Turk Empire (692-742). The reign of his son, EI Etmish Bilga Khagan (748-75 8) , w�s marked by the consolidation and western expansion of the empire. The third ruler of the Uygur realm held an elaborate title, but could be referred to by the royal ep­ithet Biigii Khan (759-779).2 This name contains a word bugu that may have meant something like "mystic" or "wizard" in the older period and, in any case,

Ku cha", which appears in the affirmation text U 72-U 73 (TM 276), line 14; cf. B ang/Gabain 1929, 414. Henning thou ght that the "Land of the Fou r Togri" lay between B eshbalik and Kucha, but cou ld not inclu de Ku cha (1938, 560). However, the circu mstance that Manichaean texts in the Tokharian langu age of Ku cha also exist in the B erlin Tu rfan collection make it most probable that Ku cha was regarded by the Manichaeans as one of the fou r centers of this country.

2 Thu s he is called in the affirmation text U 72-U 73 (TM 276), lines 33, 52,62 Ta!JTi Elig Bugu Xan "The Div ine King B iigii Khan", line 80 Bugu Xan (B angl Gabain 1929, 4II-ZZ); in the frag­ment U 3 I ( TM 159), recto I Bug[u XanJ (Le Coq 1922,36, Nr. 17); and in the Sogdian text of the Karabalgasu n inscription, line I3pwkw y'y 'n (Chav anneslPelliot 1913, 187-8, n. I; Hansen 1930, 18). Chinese sou rces also refer to him by the personal names /-ti-chien and Mou-yu Xagan , the

former possibly a childhood name of u ncertain identity (Hamilton 1955, 139; Kljashtornyj 1985, 14 5) and the latter a royal epithet representing B iigii Khagan (Chav annes/Pelliot 19 I 3, 187-8, n. I; Hamilton 1955> 139). In the Chinese v ersion of the Karabalgasu n inscription, his title is Kun Ta!JTita Kut Bulmts El Tutmti Alp Kulug Bilga Xagan "The Cou rageou s and Renown Wise Khagan Who Receiv ed Charisma from the Su n God and Who Maintained the Realm" (Hamilton 1990,25-6, who read Baga Xagan "Div ine Khagan" in place of Bilga Xagan "Wise Khagan"). In 762, the T' ang court, following the Chinese conceit of "appointing" steppe ru lers, cited this ruler's title as Ta!}Ti El Tutmti Alp Kulug Ying-i Chien-kung Bilga Xagan "The Div ine, Cou rageou s, Re­nown, Ying-i Chien-kung ['Brav e, Righteous, Virtu ous'] Wi, se Khagan Who Maintained the Realm" (Hamilton 1955, 139); for the v ariant appointment names, see MacKerras 1973, 192. B e­cau se of their differing components, it remains u ncertain whether the abov e title of B iigii Khan may be identified with titles fou nd in sev eral Iranian and Tu rkic texts, T II D 135, recto, i, 13-17 Ulug Elig, TiirfYita Kut Bulmts A.rdiimin El Tutmti Alp Kutlug Kulug Bilga Uygur Xar/an, Zahag i Mani "The Great King, the Cou rageou s, B lessed, Renown and Wise Uygur Khagan Who Re­ceiv ed Charisma from God and Who Maintained the Realm with Manly Valor, the Child of Mani" (Miiller 1912,208-9; identifie d as B iigii Khan by Hamilton 1955, 139, Kljashtornyj 1985> 146, Zieme 1992, 326); PC 3049, lines 8' -1 I' Kun Tar/rita Kut Bulmti A.rdamin El Tutmts Alp Kutlug Ulug Bilga Uygur, Tar/ri Uygur Xan "The Cou rageou s, B lessed, Great, Wise and Div ine Uygur Khan Who Receiv ed Charisma from the Su n God and Who Maintained the Realm with Manly Valor" (Hamilton 1986,42-43, Nr. 5; identified as B iigii Khan by Hamilton, bu t dou bted by Zieme 1992, 324); and TM 301, lines 3-5 Ay Ta!JTita Kut Bulmt{S 0 0 oj Alpm A.rdamin El Tu[tmts o 0 .j Ulug Bilga T [a!JTi Uygur XanJ (Le Coq 1922, 43, Nr. 28; identified as K61 B ilga Khagan [I007-hoI9] by Zieme 1992, 325-6 with the restorationAy Tii!}Titii Kut Bulmt{S Kut OrnanmtiJ Alpm A.rdamin El Tu[tmts Alp ArslanJ Ulug Bilga T[ar/ri Uygur XanJ "The Cou rageou s Lion and Great, Wise and Div ine Uygu r Khan Who Receiv ed Charisma from the Moon God, Who is Im­bu ed with Charisma, and Who M aintained the Realm }V ith Manly Cou rage and Valor").

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism

surely reflected the spiritual predilections of this individual. 3 When Sogdian clergymen converted Biigii Khan to Manichaeism, they also secured his sup­port for the propagation of the religion among the peoples of the steppe as well as in areas under Uygur hegemony.

The adoption of Manichaeism by elements of the Uygur leadership at the same time increased the influence of Sogdian clerics, advisers and financiers in ruling circles. In 779, resentment of their power and prestige culminated in a palace coup in which the anti-Manichaean and anti-Sogdian faction, led by Biigii Khan's first cousin Tun Bilga Tarkhan, who served as chief minister and head of the inner officials, killed the Khan and some 2,000 others, including two of his sons, his closest advisers, numerous Sogdians and probably Manichaean priests in the Khan's retinue. Tun Bilga Tarkhan became the next ruler under the title Alp Kutlug Bilga Khagan (780-789), only to be murdered by his son Talas (789-790), who reigned as Kiiliig Bilga Khagan. When Talas was poisoned by the junior queen, his younger brother seized the throne. However, state minis­ters quickly moved to kill this usurper and installed the sixteen-year old young­est son of Tal as entitled Kutlug Bilga Khaganl A-ch'o (790-79 5 ), which ended a decade of instability in the Uygur realm.4 Under unclear circumstances follow­ing the death of Kutlug Bilga Khagan, the Uygur leadership elevated his minis­ter Kutlug to the throne under the title Alp Kutlug Ulug Bilga Khagan/Huai­hsin (79 5-808), which transferred power from the Yaglakar charismatic clan of the Uygur tribe to the leading clan of the Adiz tribe, both of whom were mem­bers of the "Nine Oguz" tribal confederation.5 Of equal importance was the re­turn of Manichaeism to some level of state tolerance or even sponsorship, a sta­tus underscored by their renewed status at the Uygur court and by the presence

3 The word occu rs as bugu "sage", bugUlug "wise", bugun- "to recognize, to perceiv e", and bugus "wisdom" in Uygu r literatu re, bu t also in Divan Lugat at-Turk 546 bugu "wise man", 2 1 6 bugu bilga "intelligent", 577 bilga bugu "learned" (Dankoff 1982-85> I, 324; II, 269, 305). Many of the occu rrences of bugu su pport Clau son's su ggestion that the word connoted " mysteriou s spiri­tu al power" (1972, 324). The root v owel was -u- instead of -0-, if forms like bugu in the Codex Cumanicus and buyu in modern Tu rkish are taken as a gu ide; see Clark 1982, 202. In his discu s­sion of this word, Choi 1992 proposed that the root 'fbog- [better 'fbug-J was borrowed from An­cient Chinese puk "to div ine by tortoise shell, to div ine, to think".

4 For the history of these ev ents, see MacKerras 1973, 10,36-7,87-9,98-102, 105; Hamilton 1955,139-40; Ecsedy 1964, 98-9, n. 17; Kljashtornyj 1985, 147.

5 According to the r ang dynastic chronicle, A-ch'o died withou t an heir (Abe 1954, 440; MacKerras 1973, 107). Althou gh this wou ld not hav e prev ented the Yaglakar nobles from shifting su ccession to a collateral branch rather than lose power to an ou tside clan, it appears that a clan of the A diz tribe took adv antage of this circu mstance in order to seize power. Nonetheless, Chinese sou rces su ggest that Alp Ku tlu g Ulu g B ilga Khagan was carefu l not to u su rp the charismatic tradi­tion and instead remov ed the sons and grandsons of the Yaglakar ru ler prior to A-ch'o to liv e as hostages at the r ang cou rt (MacKerras 1973, 109; Yoshida 1990, II8), and scions of the A diz also shored u p their claims to legitimacy by marrying their dau ghters to Yaglakar princes (Hamilton 199°,24).

86 Larry Clark

of Manichaeans in the Uygur embassy to the T'ang court in 807.6 From the reign of Alp Bilga Khagan/Pao-i (808-8 2 1 ), Manichaeism maintained this sta­tus, possibly with a few interruptions, until the reign of Kol Bilga Khagan (?J 0 I 9-?J 03 I ) in the later Tienshan realm of the Uygurs. Thus, despite periodic turns in its fortunes, Manichaeism's longevity in the East owed a great deal to the conversion of its first Uygur adherent, Biigii Khan.

This paper sifts through a variety of sources regarding the chronology and nature of Biigii Khan's conversion to Manichaeism, his promulgation of the re­ligion to official status, and the propagation of this faith among the Uygurs. The universally accepted date of 76213 for his conversion was formulated by Chavannes and Pelliot in 19 1 I-I 3 on the basis of the Chinese text of the Kara­balgasun inscription and the annals of the T' ang dynasty. However, a neglected Turkic text (U I I I a) compels a re-examination of their case, since it contains a date for the propagation of Manichaeism among the Uygurs that with little chance of error can be interpreted as 76 I. Although that date appears to conflict with the sequence of events dated to the year 763 by the Karabalgasun inscrip­tion and T'ang annals, this paper attempts to reconcile the conflict by arguing that Biigii Khan's initial conversion occurred prior to his becoming Khan, pos­sibly in the year 75 5/6 while heading a military operation in the central Tienshan-Tarim region; that his faith wavered in the following years, although he permitted propagation of Manichaeism within the Uygur domains in the year 76 1 ; that he affirmed his faith after returning with Manichaean clerics from China in 763 ; and that he made an official promulgation of the religion at that time, which opened the way for meaningful proselytization in the steppe.

The Accepted Conversion Date of 762/3

We do not know a lot about the history of Manichaeism among the Uygurs, but one thing we think we know with certainty is the date of the conversion of Biigii Khan. Every publication that touches on eastern Manichaeism or on the history of the Uygurs places that event in the winter months of the years 762-76 3 , usually citing one or the other year.7 This traditionally accepted date, however, is not a fact stated in any source. Rather, it is the product of an argu­ment based on circumstantial evidence that was formulated in 1 9 1 1-1 3 by the French sinologists Edouard Chavannes and Paul Pelliot in their seminal publi­cation of sources on the history of Manichaeism in China. Its gist is that Biigii

6 See MacKerras 1973 , 109 , 168 , n. 232. The same year (807 ) saw T'ang concessions to other Uygur demands regarding Manichaeism; cf. ChavanneslPelliot 1913 , 275-9; Lieu 1992, 236 .

7 For example, Chavannes/Pelliot 1913 , 199; Puech 1949 ,9; MacKerras 1973 ,9; Klimkeit 1982, 21; Lieu 1992, 234 .

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism

Khan led an Uygur army into China in 76 2/3 to quell the " An Lu-shan Rebel­lion" against the T'ang dynasty and, while in the eastern capital of Lo-yang, was converted to Manichaeism by Sogdian clergymen resident in that city.

Karabalgasun Inscription

Chinese dynastic histories, encyclopedias, and literary works are silent about the introduction of Manichaeism among the Uygurs . However, Manichaeism is touched on in a Chinese text that actually stems from the Uygur realm itself. This text was found on an inscribed stone retrieved from the ruins of their im­perial capital of Ordubalik at a site called Karabalgasun in the Orkhon river val­ley of the Khangay mountains in Mongolia. The stone formed part of a burial complex of a ninth century Uygur ruler who, in all likelihood, was Alp Bilga Khagan (808-8 2 1 ),8 and was inscribed with texts in three languages : Turkic, of which only fragmentary bits and pieces survive; Sogdian, of which substantial although damaged sections survive; and Chinese, which constitutes the best preserved of the three.9

A key element in the formulation of Chavannes and Pelliot consists of the sections in the first part of the Chinese text of the Karabalgasun inscription that are relevant to Manichaeism. These sections begin by recounting the history of the preceding Second Turk Empire (692-742) and the restoration of the rightful Uygur-Oguz hegemony on the steppe in 744, and briefly touch on the deeds of the first two rulers . The text then dwells upon the ruler it refers to as [KunJ Tar;rita Kut BuZmzs EZ Tutmzs Alp Kulug BiZga Xagan, that is, Biigii Khan. The context of this section is the action taken by Biigii Khan in regard to the so-called "An Lu-shan Rebellion" which was instigated in 75 5 by An Lu-shan, a son of Turkic and Sogdian parents, and continued after his death by his son An Ch'ing­hsii, and by one of his generals Shih Ssu-ming and the latter's son Shih Ch' ao-i10:

( 6-10) Since now [he had put to flight emperor Hsiian -tsung of the great T' ang dy­nasty,] Shih Ssu-ming's [son Shih Ch'ao-i] with rich gifts and sweet words re­quested an army [from the Uygurs] in order to annihilate the house of T'angwith united strength. The Khagan was outraged by his ingratitude and that he would

, surreptitiously obtain such a holy thing [as rule]. He himself thus [assembled] his entire army and went to the aid of the emperor's forces, and with united strength he put him [i.e., Shih Ch' ao-i] to flight, and recaptured the capital of Lo-yang. The

8 See Chavannes/Pelliot 1913 , 179 , 199 , 282; H amilton 1955 , 141; MacKerras 1973 , 184-7 . 9 For the Turkic portion, see Radloff 1894 ,291-7; for the Chinese text, see Schlegel 1896 and

Chavannes/Pelliot 1913 , 177-99 , and Hamilton 1990 for interim notes on a new edition; for the Sogdian text, see Hansen 1930 , and Yoshida 1990 for interim notes on a new edition.

10 An excellent brief account of this "rebellion" may be found in Pulleyblank 1976 , 41-7; for An Lu-shan's parentage, see Beckwith 1987 , 142, n. 212.

8 8 Larry Clark

emperor [declared a union with the Uygurs and that henceforth] they would be brother states and eternally [related kingdoms] . The Khagan thereupon moved his camp to the eastern capital [i.e . , Lo-yang] .

There he saw that the practices [were depraved and his people] were unruly,l1 so he took away four Elects, among them Jui-hsi, and brought them to his king­dom. They developed and exalted the two sacrifices and penetrated profoundly the three times. Moreover, the master of the law was marvelously learned in the doctrine of the Light and understood perfectly the seven works. His abilities were greater than the sea mountain; his eloquence was like a cascade. That is why he was able to initiate the Uygurs into the true religion [ . . . ] (and) established the precept and accomplished great accumulations of merit, truly great virtue.

Then the military governors (totok), the district magistrates (Cigsi), the internal and external counselors and the [ . . . ] said: "Now we repent of our former faults and we desire to serve the true religion. " An edict [of Biigii Khan] announced the following proclamation: "This religion is subtle and marvelous; it is difficult to re­ceive and observe. Twice and thrice [I have studied it] with sincerity. In the past I have been ignorant and called the demons 'Buddha'. Now I have comprehended the truth and I can no longer serve [these false gods] . " (passage omitted)

The king of the religion (fa-wang), having been apprized that [the Uygurs] had accepted the true religion, strongly praised their respectful [ . . . ] (and) sent the Elect brothers and sisters to enter into the kingdom in order to spread and exalt [the reli­gion] there. Then the throng of disciples of the Teacher (moiak) traversed the land in all directions from east to west, and came and went, preaching the religion.

On one hand, the Chinese text at Karabalgasun provides valuable evidence re­garding Manichaeism and the Uygurs. It identifies the Uygur ruler Biigii Khan as a self-professed Manichaean, places him in China and specifically in the city of Lo-yang, states that this ruler took Manichaean Elects from China to the steppe, records his adoption and promulgation of the faith, and elaborates on the introduction of missionaries who propagated the religion in the northern steppe. On the other hand, it does not specify that Biigii Khan was converted in Lo-yang and even states that he previously had studied the religion over a long period, or "twice and thrice" . As importantly, the text does not contain a date for his actual conversion. Nonetheless, the association of this description with the campaign against Shih Ch'ao-i provided Chavannes and Pelliot with a basis for arguing that date.

T' ang Dynastic Annals

According to T'ang dynastic annals,12 in September 76 2, Tai-tsung (76 2-779) sent an ambassador named Ch'ing-t'an to Biigii Khan to announce his investi-

1 1 The preceding passages are translated from Schlegel's German version (1896 , I28-9 ), while the following passages are translated from Chavannes/Pelliot's French version (1913 ,190-6 ) .

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism

ture as the new T'ang emperor and to plead for Uygur military intervention to reinstall the T'ang dynastic family which had been driven from its capitals and for all practical purposes no longer ruled. Even before that ambassador could reach the Uygurs, however, Shih Ch'ao-i had persuaded Biigii Khan that the disintegrated T'ang empire was his for the taking, with the consequence that the Uygur ruler had set out for China in August 76 2 . Biigii Khan received Ch'ing-t'an at his encampment by the Ordos curve of the Yellow river and treated him with contempt, prompting the ambassador to dispatch a message that an Uygur force of 1 00,000 men was poised to invade. Tai-tsung hurriedly sent a second ambassador named Yao Tzu-ang to greet the Uygurs, and this man made a careful counting of the Uygur force, revealing that it consisted of 4,000 warriors, 1 0,000 children, old people and wives, 40,000 war horses, and a great number of cattle and sheep . 1 3 Thus, far from leading an expeditionary force whose goal was to rescue T' ang, Biigii Khan, together with his senior wife Bilga Khatun, truly rode at the head of an occupation army. As it transpired, the queen's father P'u-ku Huai-en, a member of the Bukut tribe of the Oguz confederation to which the Uygurs belonged, at that time served as leader of the dwindled military force of the T'ang, and it was he who met with Biigii Khan in mid-October and convinced him to abandon his original goal. Uygur military strength then turned on the rebels and drove them from both capitals by the end of November 762 . Together with Oguz troops in T'ang service, Uygur detachments pursued the rebels westward for months and in early 76 3 returned with the head of Shih Ch'ao-i as proof that the rebellion was crushed. Meanwhile, Biigii Khan had encamped at Ho-pei just across the YeHow river from the eastern capital of Lo-yang. For three months, December through Feb­ruary, he gave his troops free rein to enter Lo-yang and to plunder the city and surrounding district, always with the full compliance and participation of T'ang units. 14 Biigii Khan's force departed from China in late March or early April 76 3 .

Chavannes and Pelliot connected this campaign with the details provided in the Chinese text of the Karabalgasun inscription and inferred that since Biigii Khan was in China during the period from November 76 2 until March or April 76 3 , some of that time encamped near Lo-yang, the ruler there contacted

12 This accou nt of events is based on MacKerras 1973 ,23-26 ,68-77; d. Hamilton 1955 , 5-6 , 139-40; Peterson 1979 ,483-4 .

13 MacKerras 1973,70-1 . 14 Uygu r actions su ch as the following produ ced bitter memories for the Chinese: "The men

and women were frightened of them and they all went u p into the two towers of the Sheng-shan and Po-rna Temples in order to escape from them. The Uighu rs wantonly set fire to and bu rned the two towers . The inju red and dead nu mbered 10 ,000 "; "Everybody was redu ced to u sing paper for clothing, and there w ere even some who u sed the Classics for clothes"; see MacKerras 1973 , 76; Pu lleyblank 1976 , 46 . Following the collapse of the Uygu r steppe empire in 840 , T ang wreaked bloody vengeance u pon the Uygu rs and Manichaeans in China; see Chavannes/Pelliot 1913 ,295-303; Drompp 1986 ,48-9 ,237-48; Lieu 1980 ,75 ,1992,237-9 .

Larry Clark

Manichaean Elects who converted him. Consequently, the ruler took four of those Elects back to his steppe capital, where he issued an edict promulgating Manichaeism as the state religion, an act that opened the steppe to propagation of the doctrine. That is sound historical scholarship by two of the greatest au­thorities on Inner Asia in the early Middle Ages, and it is not surprising that their reasoning has been accepted universally.

Evidence for a Conversion Date Earlier Than 762/3

As a preliminary framework for our understanding of the conversion process which resulted in the adoption of Manichaeism by elements of the Uygur lead­ership, we may view this process as comprising three successive components, essentially those documented in the Chinese inscription at Karabalgasun: the conversion of Biigii Khan, his promulgation of Manichaeism as state religion, and the subsequent propagation of the faith in the steppe. From this perspec­tive, a modest and hitherto neglected Turkic Manichaean text (U I I I a) recov­ered from the ruins of Kocho shakes the foundations of Chavannes and Pelliot's argument. With a high degree of probability, U I I I a assigns the propa­gation of Manichaeism among the Uygurs to the year 761 , while an Iranian Manichaean text (M r) also appears to support a missionary effort in that year. According to the preliminary framework, then, conversion and promulgation had to occur prior to this date. Moreover, it is unimaginable that Sogdian clergy and missionaries would have ventured into the distant steppe and preached the true religion without the blessing of the Uygur ruler Biigii Khan, and that he would have granted his approval of this enterprise unless he already had adopted and approved the practice of Manichaeism prior to 76 I. In support of this conclusion, a Chinese source (Li Te-yii's memorial) suggests the existence of Manichaean activities among the Uygurs from the mid-750S.

However, this simple scheme of conversion-promulgation-propagation is complicated by the actual course of events that comprised the conversion pro­cess. As we shall see, this process included a phase in which Biigii Khan re­lapsed from his initial conviction, but subsequently affirmed his faith. This phase is documented in a Turkic Manichaean text (U 72-U 73), but also in the Chinese text of the Karabalgasun inscription. Resolution of these seemingly conflicting sources will be attempted following an examination of the evidence.

Manuscript U rIIa (T II D 1 80)

The manuscript fragments UrI I a-b, which bear the signature T II D 1 8 o, be­long to a codex book written in Manichaean script of large format with two

The Conversion o f Biigii Khan to Manichaeism

ruled columns of writing per page (H: 2 3 .2 cm, W: 22 cm). 1 5 Although the two fragments dearly belong to the same manuscript and probably to the same page, a clear textual connection cannot be established between the large frag­ment (U I I I a) and the little scrap (U I I I b). The sequence of the two sides of U I I I a also cannot be determined with certainty. However, the presence of the original upper and outer edges of the folio page, as well as the long edge of the fold of the original bifolio which has a slightly rounded corner on the inner margin, suggests that recto could be the side with the long edge of the fold of the original bifolio on the right. No clue survives regarding the sequence of sides of U II I b. It is glassed at the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften as though it belongs to the left column of recto, but if so then its four black lines would have had to come from the eight lines (six of which are missing) below the three red lines in Parthian.

The folio U I I I a derives from a manuscript book to which one and possibly other pieces of the Berlin Turfan collection belonged. One of these was a ser­mon on the effects of greed and anger which includes several Parthian passages and bore the signature T II D 1 78 b. In their edition of T II DI78 b and a line from U I I I a (T II D 1 80), W. Bang and A. von Gabain made it very clear that the two pages belonged together, but unfortunately T II D 1 78 b has disap­peared from the Berlin collection. 1 6 Thus, the pieces which survive or are known to have survived from this book are the following:

A. a portion of an ecclesiastical text in Uygur from this book (U I I I a: edited below);

B . a piece in Uygur that probably belongs to the same page as "A" (U I I I b);1 7

C. a portion of a sermon dealing with greed and anger in Uygur (T II D 1 78 b : lost) ; 1 8

D. an unidentified page in Iranian (T II D 1 78 a: 10st) . 1 9

15 B ecau se the connected piece T I I D 178 b (see below) contained 21 lines in three of its fou r colu mns, and 22 lines in the fou rth, we cou ld su rmise that U I I I a- b originally had 21 lines and that the page size was approximately 3 I e m (H) by 22 cm (W).

16 The reason for the different nu mbers (D 178 and D ISO ) cannot be fathomed at this remove from the expeditions. Moreover, T II D I78 a- b (and consequ ently T II D 180 ) came fro m a different manuscript than other Turkic pieces of the Berlin Turfan collectio n with the signatu re T II D 178 (hymns edited by Le Coq 19 I9 , 12-13 , 1922,29-30; Xu astuanift "e" edited by Le Coq 1910 ,8-13 ,22-26; Zieme 1966 , 351 ), which belong to a book with Iranian pieces carrying the same signatu re in the series 6220 s-6260 s (B oyce 1960 , I20-12 I) .

17 U I I I b, recto( ?) II I'C/ . . . ,2 I yy : mi. , ., 3 bwls'r . . . ,4 , , " verso( ?) I . . .lk/ . , ,,2 . , .lk/ 'wrw/, 3 ' , .I�'y yw, 4 . , . Recognizable words and endings of this piece are r3 bolsar "if it be" , V2 oru[nJ "place" , 3 [. , ,Jgay yo[ngayJ "he will . . , and he will go."

18 Edited by B ang/Gabain 1929 ,422-429 , 19 Cited by B ang/Gabain 1929 , 422; d. B oyce 1960 , 121 . An u npu blished piece U I55 [a- b]

(withou t signatu re) [fig. 3-4 ] has a similar paper qu ality and large du ctus as U I I I a- b, but lacks

Larry Clark

U I I I a Transliteration (fig. 1-2)

Recto(?), right

I typ yrly�'tyy : : 2 m'nyng 'mtyy 3 frnybr'n bwIxwlw� 4 'wydwm kwynwm 5 y'xwty : (R) pydr pydr 6 (R) m'/h'g frznd'n2 O 7 i:i'ng [9J 8 , wqs[9J 9 l'ryn [9J

1 0 q' 'dk[9J I I bwlm[9J 1 2 mwx:[9] 1 3 'wI[lo] 14 nY[IIJ 1 5

Verso(?), right

I b'stynkyy yrwq 2 y'llk '/xwlltyyn 3 [5]m[4Jk/g 4 [ 6]'sr[5J

Recto(?), left

I y'r'tyx kylyngllr 2 typ 'yky yllmy 3 mwz[Io] 4 [6] typ [4J

Verso(?), left

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 0 I I 1 2 1 3 I 4 1 5

'wIwy b'sl'y "dyy yyInyng 'ykyntyy yylynt' nwmyy dyny y'dyl myst' : t'vx'C' 'ylyntyn . y'n' [I I]' h [I I ]�WZ [II JC' (R) [9J'ndrz (R) [9]gnw'g (R) [IOJWJg [I 2Jy

conclusive indications of belonging to the same book: U I 5 5 [a], recto( ?) I . . .I' g/ . . . , 2 . , .fp/, , " verso( ?) I . , .InC' ty/ . . . , 2 . . . ; U I5 5 [b], recto(?) I . . . ' rdy . . . ,2 . . .ltyy . k'jwrm/, .. , 3 . . .l1' ryg 'w/ . . ·,4" " verso(?) I , . .I'tyy . . ,k!.,., 2 . • , yyrq'h ml" " 3 , . .ltyl "/y/, ." 4, . . The individual words and endings which may be recognized suggest a sermon: U I 5 5 [ a] v I bJnca te[p J "saying thus"; U 15 5 [b] n ardi "was", 2 [yarltkaJtt. kaliirm[anj"he deigned (to say) , I will come , . , ," V I [yarltkJatt "he deigned (to say)", 2 yerka "to the land", 3 ar[diJ "was" ,

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism

Recto(?), right

I tep yarhkatl : : 2 manilJ amtl 3 farm bran bolguluk 4 odiim kiiniim 5 yagutl : pydr pydr 6 m'[n]h'g frznd'n 7 kalJ [kaIJ] . . . 8 oxs[a-] . . . 9 -lann . . .

1 0 -ka adg[ii] . . . II bolma-. . . 1 2 mwx[SJ21 . . . 1 3 01 ... 14 -nl . . . 15

Verso(?), right

I bastmkI yaruk 2 . . . -tm 3 4

U I I I a Transcription

Recto(?), left

I yarattg kllllJ [la Jr 2 tep eki y[ egir ]mi 3 moz[ak] . . . 4 . . . tep . . .

Verso(?), left

I ulug baslag 2 athg YllmlJ 3 ekinti Yllmta 4 nom1 dini yadtl-5 mlsta : tavgac 6 elintin . yana 7 8 9

1 0 'ndrz II Ignw'g 1 2 [m]wJg 1 3 14 15

93

20 The reading and interpretation of what remains of the Parthian lines in red (R) here and on verso( ?) are due to Professor Werner Sundermann, whose help with this and other Iranian ques­tions I gratefully acknowledge.

21 Parthian mwx[s] "salvation", according to Professor Sundermann.

94 Larry Clark

U I I I a Translation

(Recto[?], right) [Mani] deigned to say "My time and my day for achiev­ingparinirvarza now draws near. " [Parthian:} The children who are like the Father (of Greatness) .22 [Uygur translation:) [The children who] are like the Father (of Greatness). [ . . . ] to [ . . . ] not to be [ . . . ] salvation [ . . . ] that [ . . . ] the [ . . . ] (Recto(?), left) [ . . . ] "Be of moral character", he said. "The twelve Teachers [ . . . ] " , he said [ . . . ]

(Verso(?), right) The first light [ . . . ] from the [ . . . ] (Verso(?), left) When his doctrine and religion were propagated in the second year of the year named "Great Beginning", [ . . . ] from China again [or: returning from China] [ . . . ] [Parthian:} [ . . . ] commandment [ . . . ] Teacher [ . . . ] [Uygur translation:} [ . . . ]

Due to its highly fragmentary state, it is impossible to identify the purpose or genre of this piece, although recto(?) refers to Mani's passion and the church hi­erarchy, and verso(?) to Manichaeism in the East, giving the whole the character of an abbreviated, local history of the church. In any case, verso(?) contains the all-important phrase ulug bas lag atlzg yzlnz1) ekinti yzlz "second year of the year named 'Great Beginning"', which expresses a date using a Chinese nien hao or period name. That this date refers to a moment in the propagation of Mani­chaeism in the East is confirmed by use of the verb yadzl- "to be spread, dissem­inated, published abroad, propagated" in the phrase nomz dini yadzlmzsta "when his [i.e . , Mani's] doctrine and religion were propagated" in the year in question.23 Otherwise, the passage does not contain any clear indication of where or among whom the religion was propagated. The words tabgac elintin yana [. . . J belong to the main clause of the sentence whose dependent clause ends in yadzlmzsta, and could be translated either as "from the Chinese realm again [ . . . ]" or as "returning from the Chinese realm [ . . . ] " , the latter more sug­gestive than the former. In either case, even speculation cannot restore the ac­tion that transpired in the remainder of this sentence.

The problem, then, is the correlation of the Turkic phrase ulug baslag "Great Beginning" with a known Chinese period name, a priori, one belonging to a ruler of the T'ang dynasty. To date, Turkologists have proposed only a single identifica­tion of this nien hao, namely, the shang yuan "Superior Origin" period, where shang refers to "upper, superior" and yuan to "(cosmic) origin, beginning", both

22 The reason for the duplication in the Parthian pydr pydr and Turkic kat} kat} "Father Father" is unknown.

23 Bang and von Gabain translated "verbreitet hatte" (1929 , 425 ), while Clauson translated somewhat loosely "since the (Man.) doctrine and religion were preached" (1972, 890 ) .

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism 95

terms frequent in Chinese period names. Bang and von Gabain, first editors of the passage, identified Turkic ulug baslag as an imperfect translation of Chinese shang yuan "Upper Beginning" ("oberer Anfang"), a period name for the years 674--676 of the emperor Kao-tsung (649-683 ), and suggested that Turkic ustunki bas lag would have been a preferable translation.24 Rachmati departed from their interpre­tation only in the point that the shang yuan period translated by ulug bas lag be­longed to the reign of Su-tsung (756-762), whose second year was 761 .25 Bazin agreed with Rachmati and wrote that ulug bas lag

"est une traduction turque assez libre du chinois Chang-yuan 'Origine Supe­rieure', devise de regne de l'Empereur Tang Sou-tsong de 760 a 761. L'annee en question est done la 2e annee chang-yuan, qui, ayant ete ecourtee par la decision ephemere de l'Empereur de commencer I, annee suivante pres du Solstice d'Hiver, a dure du 10 jevrier 761 au Ier decembre 761. "26

Thus, scholars concurred in the identification of Turkic ulug baslag with Chi­nese shang yuan, and the majority concluded that this nien hao belonged to the Tang emperor Su-tsung, whose second shang yuan year was 76 1. Although a few Turkologists noted the discrepancy,27 they did not seek to resolve the obvi­ous contradiction between the propagation of Manichaeism among the Uygurs in 76 1 , as entailed by this identification, and the assumed conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism in 762/3 , as argued by Chavannes and Pelliot.28 In view of its relevance to this issue, the elements of this nien hao date in U III a merit further examination.

There are no serious obstacles to the identification of ulug baslag with shang yuan. Turkic ulug may refer to "superior, high" in position, and even to "a su­perior, a master, a noble" (in the same way as English "superior" and "a supe­rior"). These meanings are found in the Tonyukuk inscription, line 56 ozum kart boltum, ulug boltum "I have become an elder, I have become a noble", line 5 yati yuz kisig uduzugma ulugz sad arti "the noble who led the 700 people was a Shad;"29 in the Manichaean text T II D 1 73 a2, verso 1 7 otukantaki nom ulugz "the master of the doctrine in the Otiikan;"30 and in the Divan Lugat at-Turk

24 Bang/Gabain 1929 ,426 (with a printing error of 664-676 for 674-676 ) . Their identification was accepted by Maenchen-Helfen 195 1 ,323 .

25 Rachmati 1937 , 54; also accepted by von Gabain 1955 , 194 , 1964 , 190; Clark 1982, 159 . 26 Bazin 199 1 , 246 . 27 For example, von Gabain 1955 , 194 ("Die Differenz urn ein Jahr bleibt allerdings ein Pro­

blem."); Clark 1982, 159. 28 Bazin thought that the date 76 1 referred to an initial propagation in China which was followed

several years later by the great success of converting Biigii Khan to Manichaeism ( 199 1 , 246 ). How­ever, all sources agree that the propagation of Manichaeism in China itself occurred many decades ear­lier, so that if this date is 76 1 it cannot refer to that propagation, but only to the one among the Uygurs .

29 Aalto 1958 , 3 1 ,47 . 30 Le Coq 19 I I , 12 ("Prince of the Law"); d. Clauson 1972,777 ("chief exponent of the doc­

trine( ?)"); Moriyasu 198 1 , 197-8 ("Master of the Doctrine"); Bazin 199 1 ,247 ("the Superior of the

Larry Clark

1 5 2 ulug ta!lri agtrladz "God Most High honored him", 1 63 manig kurum ulug

"my rank is high", 1 8 5 ulug birla kartsttm "I fought with a great hero [i.e . a su­perior one or a master] . "3 1 The nuance of "upper, higher, superior" may be sensed in all these occurrences, such that the equivalency of ulug and shang i s not strained nor in any way improbable.

Turkic baslag certainly corresponds well to Chinese yuan " (cosmic) origin, beginning", as is shown by an Uygur calendar fragment T Il D 522, line I sagun tegma bas baslag icinda "in the (period of) 'Upper Origin' called shang yuan", which is equivalent to the year 1 368 .32 Although this text strengthens the trans­lation of yuan by baslag, at the same time it offers bas "head, chief" in place of ulug for shang, and therefore appears to weaken the latter correlation. How­ever, the Chinese dating device in T II D 522 is not a nien haa, but instead desig­nates the first 60-year component of a 1 80-year cycle, which was divided into "upper", "middle" and "lower" components, so that bas is to be understood as "first" or "upper" in relation to the other two components and not as the con­cept expressed by ulug in the nien haa. The decisive argument in favor of this identification is that shang yuan is the only viable equivalent for ulug bas lag among all the period names used by T'ang emperors .33

Although the equivalency of ulug bas lag and shang yuan may be regarded as firm, the same cannot be said for the correlation of the shang yuan period cited in U I I I a, for the simple reason that this nien haa was used by two different T'ang emperors : Kao-tsung (649-68 3 ) whose second shang yuan year was 675 ( r February 675-20 January 676), and Su-tsung (756-762) whose second shang yuan year was 761 ( 1 0 February 761-1 December 76 1 ) .

In considering the first possibility (675 ), i t should be recognized that expres­sion of a date by means of a Chinese regnal device in U I I 1 a is odd in itself, since nowhere else in the earliest Turkic writings is there a date using such a de-

Doctrine"). In his lecture at the Berlin conference ("On the Uighur cxsapt ay and the Spreading of Manichaeism into South China"), Professor Moriyasu also argued convincingly that the religious master named Hu-lu who f led to Fukien to escape religious persecution in 84 1-846 represents Turkic ulug "great", that is, "(religious) master"; d. Pelliot 1923 ,205; Lieu 1992,264 ,280 .

31 Dankoff 1982-85> I, 246 , 259 , 283 . 32 Rachmati 1937 ,9 ,54 ,84 (remarks of W. Eberhard); d. Clauson 1972,38 1 (where shang kuan

is a printing error for shang yuan ). The date is taken up again in Bazin 199 1 , 324-329 . 33 If the "normal" Chinese correspondence for Turkic ulug is taken to be t'ai "grand" or ta

"great", then the following nien hao are relevant: t'ai chi "Grand Ultimate" of Jui-tsung (7 1 2; no second year); ta Ii "Great Succession (in time)" of Tai-tsung (766-779 ) and Te-tsung (779; no sec­ond year); ta chung "Great Centrality" of Hsiian-tsung (847-859 ); and ta shun "Great Compli­ance" of Chao-tsung (890-892) . The following T' ang period names contain the element yuan: k' ai yuan" Opening Origin" of Hsiian-tsung (7 1 3-74 1 ); ch'ien yuan" Creativity's Origin" of Su-tsung (758-760 ); hsing yuan "Arisen Origin" of Te-tsung (783/4; no second year); and chen yuan "Steadfast Origin" of Te-tsung (785-805 ). I wish to record my gratitude to Professor Robert Eno of Indiana University for working through these possibilities with me. For T'ang dynasty nien hao , see Twitchett (ed.) 1979 , xviii-xix; Kroll 1987 ,99- 100 .

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism 97

vice. This circumstance alone leads one to suspect that the author of the piece was a Sogdian Manichaean who possessed more than a passing familiarity with the Chinese calendar, and more importantly that he might have used a Chinese source for the date of this event. These inferences suggest by themselves that the propagation referred to in U I I I a was in China rather than among the Uygurs in the steppe, an event otherwise recorded only in the Chinese text of the Karabalgasun inscription.

The " mainstream" tradition regarding the introduction of Manichaeism into China dates that event to the year 694, when a "Persian" !u-to-tan (Sogdian 'ft'8'n = avtadan "Bishop") named Mihr Ormuzd appeared at the court of Em­press Wu (684-704) and presented to her a copy of the "Scripture of Two Prin­ciples" .3 4 Subsequent to this first contact, Chinese sources record that in the year 7 19 King Tesh of Tokharistan sent a mu-che (Sogdian mwz"k' = moiak "Teacher") who was versed in astronomy as an envoy to the court of the T'ang emperor Hsiian- tsung (71 2-756), a mission that was accompanied by a request to build a Manichaean temple.35 In the coming years, Sogdian Manichaeans en­joyed some success in proselytizing among the Chinese populace, as seen by the imperial request for a summary of Manichaeism in 731 (the "Compen­dium") and by the imperial edict banning the practice of the religion except by Sogdians in 732 .36 If the mainstream tradition is correct, then the year 675 can­not be considered as an alternative for the date expressed in U I I I a.

However, there is a "sidestream" tradition that would attribute the first ap­pearance of Manichaeism in China to the reign of Kao-tsung (649-683). This tradition stems from the Manichaeans in southern China and appears in the Min-shu, a description of Fukien province written by the Ming scholar Ho Ch'iao-yiian (alive 1586). According to this tradition, Lao-tzu had traveled to the West where, in AD 208, he was reincarnated as Mani who united in his teach­ings the Buddhist and Taoist doctrines:

He propagated [his religion] in the countries of the Arabs, the Roman Empire, Tokharestan, and Persia. In the year Ping-ssu of the T'ai-shih period of emperor Wu of the Chin (AD 266) he died in Persia. He entrusted his doctrine to a chief mu-che (moiak). The mu-che in the reign of Kao-tsung of T' ang (649-683) propa­gated his religion in the Middle Kingdom. Then, in the time of Wu Tse-t'ien (684-704) an eminent disciple of the mu-che, the Ju-to-tan Mi-wu-mo-ssu (avtadan Mihr Ormuzd) came in turn to the court. (passage omitted) In the period K'ai-yiian (713-741) a Ta-yiin-kuang-ming-ssu (Temple of the Light of the Great Clouds) was established for the worship [of ManiJ.37

34 Chavannes/Pelliot 1913 ,150-1; Henning 1936 , I I, 13; Bryder 1985 , I; Lieu 1992,230. 35 Chavannes/Pelliot 1913 , 151-3; Henning 1936 , 13; Bryder 1985 , 2; Lieu 1992,229-30. 36 Chavannes/Pelliot 1913 , 154-5; Henning 1936 , 13; Haloun/Henning 1952, 188; Bryder 1985 ,

4 , 42-4; Lieu 1992, 23 I. 37 Translation of Lieu 1980 , 87; see Pelliot 1923 , 203-4; Lieu 1992, 230 ,1997 ,296-7.

Larry Clark

If this account is correct, then the year in which the moiak propagated Mani's religion during the reign of Kao-tsung could be identified with the date in U I I 1 a as the year 675, which was the second shang yuan year of that emperor. Pelliot, who first brought this text to light, was convinced that Ho Ch'iao-yiian had recorded a confused tradition in which the moiak sent by King Tesh of Tokharistan to the court of Hsiian-tsung in 719 had been transposed to the court of Kao-tsung, since no other Chinese text recorded an embassy to the earlier emperor.38 Maenchen-Helfen, on the other hand, considered the ac­count unimpeachable on the grounds that it alone preserved the name Mihr Ormuzd for the !u-to-tan (avtadan) who came to the court of the Empress Wu in 694, and concluded that U I I I a confirmed a date of 675 for the earlier mis­sion to Kao-tsung.39

An important consideration in support of Pelliot's sense that the earlier mis­sion is spurious is that the dates for the birth (208) and death (266) of Mani which are found in Ho Ch'iao-yiian's account are seriously in error, indicating that the southern tradition recorded by this scholar adopted this chronological flaw from Tang period sources.40 If so, then the southern tradition surely also had access to writings that documented both the 694 mission of the avtadan and the 7 19 mission of the moiak to Tang courts, an assumption supported by the fact that the name of the avtadan Mihr Ormuzd is a detail which could have derived only from more or less contemporary writings. Yet, Ho Ch'iao-yiian mentioned the 694 mission of this avtadan, skipped over the 719 mission of the moiak to Hsiian-tsung, and then nonetheless cited the building of a Mani­chaean temple which that mission had requested. Viewed from this perspective, it certainly appears that Ho Ch'iao-yiian or his sources lifted the 719 mission of the moiak from its historical context and transposed it to an earlier period for reasons that we cannot reconstruct but whose origins might be sought in the mixture of Taoist, Buddhist and Manichaean traditions in China.41

In summary, a Manichaean mission to China prior to the appearance of the Bishop Mihr Ormuzd at the court of Empress Wu in 694 cannot be established with any measure of reliability.42 Consequently, identification of the second shang yuan year recorded in U I I I a with the year 675 of the emperor Kao-

38 Pelliot 1923 , 203 , n. 5 . 3 9 Maenchen-Helfen 19 51 ,322-323 . This scholar's argument can be turned o n its tail simply by

noting that either Ho Ch'iao-yiian himself or the sources used by him neglected to mention the embassy of 719 , thereby impeaching the accuracy of the Min-shu .

40 Pelliot 1923 , 207-8 . The same false dates are cited in the "Compendium", for which see Haloun/Henning 19 52, 197-8 .

41 For the "Taocisation" of Mani in China, see Pelliot 1903; Chavannes/Pelliot 1913 , 120-6; Bryder 198 5,21- 5; Lieu 1977 ,410-16 ,198 5,413-14 ,1992,257-61 .

42 This conclusion does not exclude an earlier knowledge of Manichaeism in China. Liu Ts'un-yan (1976 ) considered indirect evidence, primarily from a fifth century Taoist source, for this possibility, but his arguments were severely criticized by Fukui 1981; cf. Lieu 198 5 , 4 I I-13 .

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism 99

tsung also is a risky enterprise, one supported only by the possibility itself and by the fact that U I I I a contains a nien haa date, implying familiarity with T'ang Chinese historical sources.

On the face of it, identification of the date in U I I I a with the year 76 I of the emperor Su-tsung also is supported only by circumstantial evidence. First, re­gardless of who was literate enough to read it, U I I I a is a Turkic text and there­fore intended for a Turkic-speaking audience. Uygurs would not have been much interested in the propagation of Manichaeism in China - after all, their limited interests in that nation had not moved far beyond the economic and po­litical spheres. Also, apart from a few hagiographical pieces, the Turkic Mani­chaean corpus lacks the genre of church history per se. The Uygurs, on the other hand, were very much absorbed by their own history and by the history of peoples of the steppe, as is shown by earlier inscriptions in Runic script (see below), by U I (with a capsule history of the Turks and Uygurs), by U 72-U 73 (affirmation of Biigii Khan), and by the Karabalgasun inscription which, even in its Chinese version, reviews the history of the Turks and Uygurs .43

Based on this understanding, it would not be unreasonable to conclude, at least for the sake of argument, that U I I I a documents a propagation of Mani­chaeism in the East in the year 761 , and that this propagation could have oc­curred only among the Uygurs of the steppe, and certainly not in China or in the Tarim basin, where Manichaeism had penetrated much earlier.

Manuscript M I (Mabrniimag)

Whether or not the book from which U I I 1 a derives was part of an initial prop­agation in 761 , we should keep in mind that undertaking a steppe mission would have requit:ed the preparation of manuals and service books, and that such books could have been compiled and translated only by the clergy in the Tienshan centers of eastern Manichaeism, especially in Kocho where nearly all of the Manichaean literature was found. That task, of course, would have fallen to the Sogdians bilingual in Turkic,44 great numbers of whom were in the ser­vice of the Uygurs and could travel easily through their commercial network between the steppe and the Tienshan-Tarim region.

Viewed in this light, another Manichaean book tends to confirm the idea that a major missionary effort was initiated in the year 761 . This work is the famous Mabrniimag or "Hymn-Book", which probably was the eastern counterpart to

43 See Clark 1997 , 100-3 . 44 The book to which U 1 I I a- b and the lost T II D 178 b belonged bears witness to a Sogdian

hand; for example, the Sogdian orthography of kr'gk "necessary" instead of the expected Uygur krg'k - k 'rg'k (T II D 178 b, lines 2 5 , 38 ) .

rCOLC) 11AD() (XJ LL E(3 E L 18� C�C1 L(JFU\DO

1 00 Larry Clark

the western "Psalm-Book" in Coptic. Only the colophon and the index to the hundreds of hymns in the book survive. In this colophon, the scribe prays for the health and protection of the Uygur ruler Alp Bilga Khagan (808-82 1 ), and of the entire family and body of officials of the Uygur steppe realm. The b ene­diction continues for the lords and Manichaean communities of Beshbalik, Kocho and other localities in the Tienshan-Tarim region, which had been in­corporated into the Uygur domain as early as 7 54-75 6 (see below). Then, the scribe recounts the history of the compilation:

( 1 60-I 97) In the year 546 after the birth of the Light-Apostle, (that is) now in the year [blank space] after he ascended in the fullness of strength, and in the year 162 after the ascension of Mar Shad Ormizd, the wise, was it that this Hymn-Book, which is full of living words and lovely songs, was begun.

The scribe who began to write it at the command of the spiritual leader was not able to write it to the end. (passage omitted) Unfinished, it remained lying and pre­served many long years in its place in the Manistan of Ark [i .e . , KarashahrJ .

Thereupon, I, Yazdamad the Preacher, when I saw this Hymn-Book thus unfinished, uselessly lying there, have again commanded my child, the beloved, my son, the precious Nikhwarig Roshan, to finish it.45

This colophon provides three dates, one of which is left blank, but two of which permit us to date the original compilation precisely. The first date refers to the beginning of the book 546 years after the birth of Mani in 2 1 6, and the third date refers to the beginning of the book 1 62 years after the death of Mar Shad Ormizd in 600. Although simple math appears to produce a date of 762, we should bear in mind that the year 546 must be interpreted as the year equiva­lent to the year falling between 54 5 to 546 and the year 1 62 to that between 1 6 1 to 1 62 .46 Thus, the compilation of the Mabrnamag was initiated in 761 in a Manistan in Karashahr, set aside for a number of years, and taken up again until its completion during the reign of Alp Bilga Khagan, the same ruler for whom the Karabalgasun inscription was erected.

The fact that the date in U 1 I I a and the date for the undertaking of M I are the same may be viewed as no more than a coincidence, or as a reflection of an important propagation effort undertaken in 76 I . Since propagation among the Uygurs required a vigorous translation project, the compilation of an Iranian hymn-book would have been especially appropriate as a foundation for that proj ect. That this compilation was abandoned for as many as fifty years could be due to several factors, including the difficulty of such an undertaking, uncer­tain conditions surrounding the introduction of Manichaeism among the Oguz

45 See Miiller 191 3 , 15-r6. For the date of completion of this book, see Henning 19 3 8, 566 ; Hamilton 1955 , 1 41 ; MacKerras 197 3 , 16 8, n. 2 J 2; Moriyasu 19 81 , 19 8.

46 l owe this insight to Dr. Jason BeDuhn.

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism 10 1

tribes in the steppe, the wavering commitment of Biigii Khan to the faith (see below), or the persecution of this faith by his successors.

Li Te-yii's Memorial

Although Chinese sources are silent about the introduction of Manichaeism among the Uygurs, at least one source implants a suspicion that Uygurs prac­tised this religion prior to the probable propagation date of 761 . In a memorial to the T'ang court concerning policy toward the Uygurs in 842, a frontier official named Li Te-yii wrote the following:

The Manichaean religion was forbidden in China prior to the t 'ien pao reign pe­riod [742-756] . After that, subsequent emperors allowed it to be propagated be­cause of the Uygurs' devout faith, and it was ordered that the religion be taught in all the several garrisons of Chiang[-hsi] and Huai[-nan] .47

To be sure, the general nature of this statement could be interpreted as referring to a period after 762/3 , but then it must be asked why Li Te-yii cited the t 'ien pao reign period of Hsiian-tsung (71 2-756) and not a period of one of his suc­cessors Su-tsung (756-762) or Tai-tsung (762-769). After all, the 73 2 decree banning practice of Manichaeism was in effect until the reign of Tai-tsung, who yielded to Uygur pressure to authorize the construction of Manichaean tem­ples for the Uygurs in the two T'ang capitals in 768 .48 If taken at his word, Li Te-yii establishes that at least some Uygurs or some peoples within the Uygur realm began to practice Manichaeism toward the end of the t 'ien pao reign of Hsiian-tsung, that is, in the mid-750S.

Manuscript U 72-U 73 (TM 276a-b)

As stated above, several sources suggest that Biigii Khan's conversion was not a smooth affair, and that following his initial conversion he drifted away from the faith, evidently to Buddhism, and subsequently was re-indoctrinated by Mani­chaean Elects . The Chinese text of the Karabalgasun inscription refers to his worship of "the Buddha" as well as to his attempts to study Manichaeism "twice and thrice", which took place prior to his promulgation of the faith. A Turkic document of considerable fame confirms this sequence of events.

The manuscript U 72-U 73 (TM 276a-b) comprises two large folios written in Sogdian-Uygur script whose text must have begun and ended on other folios

47 Drompp 1986 , 120 , 187; cf. Chavannes/Pelliot 191 3,29 3-5; Lieu 1992,237-8 . 48 ChavanneslPelliot 191 3 , 261-3; MacKerras 197 3 ,42- 3; Lieu 1992,235.

I 02 Larry Clark

of a book. Its editors Bang and von Gabain surmised that the text represents a Turkic translation of a letter written by an eye-witness to events connected with the conversion of Biigii Khan.49 Moreover, they inferred that "the Uygur Khagan decided to convert only after a severe inner conflict, or rather that he relapsed after a first conversion, committed some sort of (anti-Manichaean?) 'deed', which was regarded as a great sin by the Elect (lines 8-9, 3 1-3 2 , 4 5-46) and that he then repented" .50

Bang and von Gabain's interpretation of the contents of this letter retains its validity in the all-important respect that it documents Biigii Khan's relapse from an initial support of Manichaeism and, following an agonizing struggle with Elects for dominion over his soul, his affirmation and promulgation of the faith. As a means of understanding the events described in this document, sev­eral key passages will be cited, beginning with the speech of the Elects who warn of the disastrous results for Sogdian clerics and merchants should he not affirm his faith:

(8-27) Ta!Jrim siz torusuzun odsuzka kantu [ozu!Juz] yazmsar siz . otru kamag eli!Jiz bulgang[ay] bo kamag Turk bodun ta!Jrika y[azuk?] ktltab bol[gay]lar . kaiiuta dmdarlang [bulsar] basmgay olu[r]gaylar : yema bo t[ort bulu!Jtakt?] dmdarlar kim [Ta]vgac yerinta a[zu yema (6+ letters)] Tort Kusanta kiru kuz il[garu bergaru alku]ka ulug ada tymc basmc bolgay ka[iiuta] mgosaklang sartlang bulsar alkum olurgay bir tirig tdmagaylar : yema bo sizi!J eli!Jizta sizi!J y[arlzg]m ulug adgu ktlmclar ktlmts bolur yema [4+ letters]u [Tar]xan kalginca sizi!J eli!Jizta ktlmts [boltt ye]ma Ta!Jrim birok kantu ozu!Juz ketarsar(?) [siz] adgu toru adgu ktlmc alku ktlgay yema [(5+ letters) T]arxan bo montag turlug kzz ada [zymc basmc?] amg ktlmc kdmts bolgay sizi!J [eli!Jiz artagay ta!Jri ye]ringaru bargu yolu!Juz [antt]n o!Ji bolgay : yema bo savtg aytg antra ken] ta!Jri moiak asidgay na taplamagay y[ema sav]magay :

"0, Majesty [i.e . , Biigii Khan], if you yourself lawlessly sin against the Time­less One [i .e . , Zurvan], then your whole realm will be in turmoil. This whole

49 Bang and von Gabain thought that the original letter was written in either Sogdian or Chi­nese (1929 , 411 ), although the latter is a priori implausible. Asmussen argued that the unique use of Sogdian yw'n "sin" instead of Turkic yazuk in line 51 is a clear proof of the Sogdian origin of the document (1965 , 147 ), a judgment with which I agree.

50 Bang/von Gabain 1929 ,412; see Klimkeit 1982,22. Their interpretation apparently was rein­forced by their reading of lines 84-85 as ikilayii yangirti' tngri o(?)!//// iiz-a amranti· kirtgiinti-lar "For the second time and anew they loved God with .. . and believed in him"; see Bang/von Gabain 1929 ,418-19; Klimkeit 1982,23; Lieu 1992,235 . An improved reading of this passage removes it from such consideration: lines 79-85 01 odiin [kaltt} Biigu Xan ta!Jrikiin bo yarhg yarltkatukta [otrii} ukus kuvrag kara bodun ta!Jri eligka yukunu [otu}ntilar yemii ayklrttlar . yema bizi!}a [dmdarlar}ka yukuntilar savinc otuntilar . kamag [10+ letters} ogruncu boltt : ekilayu ya!}trtt Ta!Jri .. . O[tukii}n iizii amrantt kertgiintilar : "Then, when the devout Biigii Khan had issued this decree, the massive gath­ering and the common people ventured to bow to the divine king. And they applauded him. And they bowed and they expressed their love for us, [the Elects). All [ . . . ) became rejoiceful. Twice and anew they bestowed their love and faith upon Tangri and the [Otiikan)."

The Conversion of Bugu Khan to Manichaeism 1 0 3

Turk people will become [sinners ?] against God. Wherever they find the Elects, they will oppress and kill them. And these Elects [in the four direc­tions ?] who are west, north, east and south of China [ or even] of the land of the [ . . . ] Four Kusan, there will be great danger and oppression for [all of them] . Wherever they find Auditors or merchants, they will kill them all. They will not leave one alive. Or, by your decree, great good deeds could be done in this realm of yours. And [they were] done in your realm until [ . . . ]u Tarkhan came. However, Majesty, if you yourself remove( ?) him, then all good laws and good deeds will be done. Otherwise, [ . . . J Tarkhan will create so many kinds of scarcity, danger, [oppression?] and evil deeds, and your [realm will go bad] . Your path leading to the land of [God] will lead else­where. And, after that, the divine Teacher will hear these reports and will not be pleased at all, and he will not [love you] ."51

Although the text is damaged just in those spots that concern the figure of the "Tarkhan",52 it nonetheless leaves two strong impressions: the first that the Elects held Biigu Khan responsible for the danger posed by that Tarkhan and evidently sought his removal; and the second that they had placed their trust in Biigii Khan's faith and protection prior to the coming of that Tarkhan. The sec­ond impression is reinforced in a later passage when, following two days and nights of argument with the Elects, Biigii Khan became overwhelmed with fear for the fate of his soul and came to the Elects to beg for absolution (krmswxn) of his sins :

( 37-39) [uzun odtaJbaru sizni am[gJat[tiJm aea suvsamakm [kattglanttmJ mea sakmttm . bo montag kattglanmakm [(5+ letters) kattJglanttm siz meni yarltkagay nomka tutgay dmdar ktlgay siz .

"I have caused you pain for [a long time] . [I have struggled] with being hun­gry and thirsty. 1 have thought thus: 'I have struggled with this much strug­gling and [ . . . ] You will command me, you will hold me to the doctrine, you will make me an Elect."'53

51 Bang/von Gabain 1929 , 414-19 . It is a pleasure to thank my longtime friend Dr. Peter Zieme, who generously placed at my disposal his own reading ofU 72- U 73 , and thereby permitted me to make a number of important corrections and restorations to the text offered by Bang and von Gabain.

52 Lieu speculated that this "Tarkhan" could have been the same Tun Bilga Tarkhan who over­threw Biigti Khan and installed himself as ruler in 779 (1992, 235 , with printing error of 799 for 779 ) . However, the fragmentary line 19 shows [. . . Ju [tarJxan indicating a name ending in -u/u (there does not seem to be sufficient space for the tail of -p instead of -u , i .e. [. . . alJp [tarJxan) . In addition, it should be recalled that there were several Tarkhans within the realm, and that Biigti Khagan himself had been called Bilga Kutlug Tarkhan prior to his enthronement in 759 (see the discussion of the Terkh inscription below).

53 Bang/von Gabain 1929 ,416-17 . The words read by these scholars as lines 37 aca suvsamaka and 39 kattglanmaka , that is, with crasis of the dative +ka , should be read as aca suvsamak(t)n and

1 04 Larry Clark

This passage also testifies that Biigii Khan had entered into close contact with Manichaean Elects prior ([uzun odtiijbiiru "since/for [a long timer') to the events recorded in U 72-U 73 . Following this affirmation of his faith, the realm's officials and throngs of people accompanied the Khan on his ride from the Sogdian Elect's residence, where the three-day interrogation had occurred, to the gate of the royal residence in the steppe capital of the Uygurs. At this point, the document presents a transcript of a decree (yarlzg) promulgating Manichaeism as state religion:

(66-79) ol odun ta!Jri elig [toykaj kirip didimin basz!Ja urtz kantu al [tonmj kadip altunlug orgin uza olurtt : yema [ok bagkja kara bodunka adgu yarltg yarltkatt mea [tep tetij amtt sizlar yema kamag uzaki yaruk [ta!Jrilari?jn ayu!Jftz amtt?j artokrak dmdarlar [(2 0+ letters) manji!J kO!JU!umun amzrtgurup meni yana sizi!Ja tutuz[urlarj yema man kaltim ornuma olurtum [sizli:irkaj yarltkayur man dmdarlar sizlarka rna sozli:ijsar yema ozut astgz!Ja tavratsar siz[larka dinjka tavratsar otlasar sizlar olar savm[ea ojtinea yon!Jlar yema amranmak biligin [dmdarhjg agzrla!J aya!J tapz!J :

Then the divine king entered [the royal residence] and placed the diadem on his head. He put on the scarlet [robe] and sat upon the gilded throne. And then he issued a good decree to the [lords] and common people. (This decree) [said] the following: "Now you also call upon( ?) all the [Gods ?] of Light on high! [Now?], the Elects, [ . . . ] and having calmed my heart considerably, en­trust me to you again. And so I have come. I have taken my seat (on the throne). I command [you] : [Whatever] the Elects [preach] to you, whether they urge you to (work for) the benefit of the soul, or whether they urge and advise you to (work for) [the religion] , you will act according to their in­struction and advice. And honor, respect and serve the [Elects] with a loving disposition. "54

The manuscript U 72-U 73 clearly establishes the sequence of a previous con­version of Biigii Khan, a relapse and affirmation of faith, and a subsequent pro­mulgation of Manichaeism as state religion, presumably followed by its propa­gation. It remains to examine how this sequence fits together with our preliminary framework and with the data in the Karabalgasun inscription.

Karabalgasun Inscription Revisited

Nothing stated in the Chinese text of the Karabalgasun inscription or in other Chinese sources prevents accepting the date 761 as the initial propagation of

kattglanmak(t)n , that is, with the clipped spelling of the instrumental +m. Not only does the full form of the dative appear in line 89 ktlmakka , but the clipped spelling of the instrumental also ap­pears in the "Wind God" fragment, line 8 ilgunmak(i)n (Bang/von Gabain 19 28 , 249 )'

54 Bang/von Gabain I9 29 , 4 I6-I9 .

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeisrn

Manichaeism among the Uygurs, or of placing the initial conversion of Biigii Khan in or prior to that year. First of all, the relevant passages in this inscription neither state nor imply that the Uygur ruler was converted during his stay in Lo-yang in 762/3 . Instead, the Chinese text says that he was troubled by condi­tions in that city and removed four Manichaean Elects, perhaps for their own protection. From this passage alone we could infer that he already had some close connection to Manichaeism, or else he would not have acted on their be­half. Second, that text stops just short of stating that Biigii Khan had previously converted through the words: "This religion is subtle and marvelous; it is difficult to receive and observe. Twice and thrice [I have studied it] with sincer­ity. In the past I have been ignorant and called the demons 'Buddha' . Now I have comprehended the truth and I can no longer serve [these false gods] . " The reference here to previous studies of Manichaeism also implies conversion prior to 762/3 . Thus, these passages, which have been regarded as evidence for conversion at the time of Biigii Khan's stay in Lo-yang in 762/3 , actually should be understood as evidence for his earlier conversion.

Nonetheless, the Chinese version of the Karabalgasun inscription asserts that, subsequent to his removal to the steppe capital in 763, the "master of the law" named Jui-hsi and fellow clerics proselytized successfully to the point that Biigii Khan repented of his previous wavering and issued a decree promulgating Mani­chaeism as state religion, following which a major missionary activity occurred. In essential respects, this account accords with that in U 72-U 73 which also docu­ments relapse, followed by affirmation and a promulgation of the faith. One means of reconciling these and other sources is to accept them all at face value, and thereby to reconstruct the following understanding of the conversion process. Biigii Khan initially was converted to Manichaeism probably some years before 761 , perhaps in the mid-750s (Li Te-yii), but became disenchanted with its exacting demands on Elects and gravitated toward Buddhism (Karabalgasun, U 72-U 73), with the result that the church and its clergy evidently suffered at the hands of Uygur officials following his accession to the Uygur throne in 759 (U 72-U 73) . Nonetheless, he felt sufficient sympathy with Manichaeism to give official permis­sion for its propagation or practice within Uygur domains in 76 I (U I I I a, M I).

While in Lo-yang in 762/3 (Karabalgasun, T'ang annals), he contacted Manichaean clergymen again and took them back to his capital (Karabalgasun). There, in 763 , these clergymen succeeded in bringing Biigii Khan back to the faith by means of threats that his soul would never be freed from the cycle of births and rebirths in various forms, an unimaginable condition in the context of Biigii Khan's culture, so that he affirmed and officially promulgated Manichaeism as state religion (U 72-U 73 , Karabalgasun). The missionary activity that followed was a concerted effort aimed at proselytization in the steppe itself (Karabalgasun), rather than a reflection of the earlier permission to propagate within the realm (U I I I a).

A second means of reconciling the sources consists of viewing the se­quence conversion-relapse-affirmation-promulgation as occurring prior to 761

1 06 Larry Clark

and propagation itself in 761 , and of regarding that part of this sequence (re­lapse-affirmation-promulgation-propagation) recorded in the Chinese text of Karabalgasun as a conflation with the events of 762/3 which possessed far greater relevance to the Chinese. Certainly nothing we know about the vagaries of Chinese sources argues against this second possibility, but conflation is an ad hoc explanation and therefore less plausible than the first explanation considered.

Taken as a whole, acceptance of the date 76 I in the manuscript U I I I a, along with corroborative evidence from MI , Li Te-yii's memorial, U 72-U 73 , and even the Karabalgasun inscription itself, compel us to set aside the traditional date of 762/3 for the initial conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism, and with it our previous assumption that this occurred in Lo-yang. However, the argu­ments based on these sources cannot take us far unless we can show that there was a historical opportunity for the conversion of the Uygur ruler prior to the year 76 I . As we shall see, Uygur sources provide evidence that the future Biigii Khan enjoyed such an opportunity due to his participation in an Uygur cam­paign in the central Tienshan-Tarim region in 754-756.55

The Possible Conversion Date of 75 5/6

In 742, the Uygurs allied with the more dominant Basmil and Karluk peoples to bring down the Second Turk Empire (692-742), following which they turned on their allies and drove their forces westward into the Jungar basin by 744. Af­ter years of instability due to continued battles with their former allies as well as to succession struggles, the Uygurs under El Etmish Bilga Khagan (748-758 ) gained firm control o f the steppe, along with adjoining territories to the East and North, and could devote their attention to the West. There, Beshba­liklPei-t'ing was the gateway city on the northern circuit of the trade route through the Jungar basin north of the Tienshan by which caravans traveled in and out of Central Asia and Tun-huang, as well as a terminal for the south Sibe­rian trade. 56 Steppe empires had devoted their resources to capturing this city and other points along this trade circuit for centuries,57 and of course the

55 Strictly speaking, another opportunity could have occurred in 757 when an Uygur army un­der the leadership of heir-apparent Kutlug Bilga Yabgu took the field against Ch'ing-hsii, son of An Lu-shan. Combined Uygur and T'ang forces routed Ch'ing-hsii and secured the eastern capi­tal at Lo-yang in December of that year, upon which the Uygur troops plundered Lo-yang; see MacKerras 1973 , 17-23 , 54-6 I; Kljashtornyj I985 , 144. Whether the future Biigii Khan took part in these operations and, if so, whether he entered Lo-yang during the three days of pillaging and, if so, whether he contacted Manichaean Elects amid the chaos, are unknowns.

56 Ecsedy 1964 , 93 , n. 5; Matsuda I981 , 25 · 57 Matsuda 1981 , 5-9 , 19-2 I .

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism

Uygurs also realized the critical importance of this city to the economic health of their empire . In 754, El Etmish Bilga Khagan mounted a campaign in the Jungar basin which also happened to be the center of the Basmils and Karluks. This campaign succeeded in several respects, including the incorporation of at least the area around Beshbalik into the Uygur empire until 789 when Tibetans, with Karluk and other allies, attacked the city and forced its people and Uygur garrison to surrender in 790. After several unsuccessful attempts, the Uygurs succeeded in regaining control of the city in 792, and continued to hold it until the end of their empire in 840, when it became one of the destinations of the Uygurs and other Oguz peoples migrating out of the Mongolian plateau.58

Our only source of information on the 754-756 western campaign consists of several Turkic inscriptions in Runic script that were erected around the tra­ditional Uygur pastures in the Selenga river valley of the Mongolian plateau and that document the early period of the steppe empire.59 References to this campaign occur in two of the three inscriptions which were erected in honor or memory of EI Etmish Bilga Khagan (748-75 8) . The largest of these is the "Shine-usu inscription", carved on a stone found at El Etmish Bilga Khagan's burial complex located by Shine-usu lake south of the Selenga river in the west­ern Khangay mountains of the Mongolia plateau. Since it presents a retrospec­tive of this ruler's accomplishments in the first person, it may be characterized as the memorial erected for EI Etmish Bilga Khagan, probably in the first year of Biigii Khan's reign (7 59-779).

A second and severely damaged inscribed stone was found without archaeo­logical context in the western Khangay mountains at the headwaters of the Tes river which flows into Ubsa-nur lake. One passage of the "Tes Inscription" states that "EI Etmish Khan" has died and that the latter's son, "the Yabgu" , has taken the throne.6o Providing that "El Etmish Khan" and EI Etmish Bilga Khagan are one and the same person, this "Yabgu" had to be his oldest son Kutlug Bilga Yabgu who commanded the Uygur troops at Lo-yang in 757.61

58 For the Uygur-Tibetan struggle for contr91 of Beshbalik in 789-792, see Ecsedy 1964; Mori­yasu 1981; Takeuchi 1986 .

59 Editions of the three inscriptions were made by Ramstedt 1913 and Kljashtornyj 1982,1985 , and notes have been added by Bazin 1981-82, 1982, Kljashtornyj 1988 , Roux 1982 and Tekin 1982, 1989 .

60 Tes, West 5-6 [E]l Etmis Xamm yast tagip ucdt . oglt yabgum xagan boltt . [. . . o]lurtt . ogh Tardus yabgu Talis cad olurtt . Xamm el tutm{ts] "My EI Etmish Khan expired and (his soul) flew away. His son, my Yabgu, became Khagan. [ . . . J reigned. His sons reigned as Yabgu of the Tardush and Shad of the Tolish. My Khan [ . . . J who held the realm."

6 1 T'ang dynastic annals identify Kutlug Bilga Yabgu as " eldest son" and Biigii Khan as "youn­ger son" of EI Etmish Bilga Khagan (MacKerras 1973 , 66 , 69 ), although a later report mistakes Kutlug Bilga Yabgu as "uncle of Mou-yii [Biigii]" (MacKerras 1973 , 95 ) . Line East 7 of the Shine-usu inscription identifies the two sons according to their position in the realm: eki ogltma yabgu sad at bertim, Tardus Talis bodunka bertim "I gave my two sons the titles Yabgu and Shad. I gave them to the Tardush and Tolish peoples" (Ramstedt 19 I 3 , 21 ); also d. Tes, West 6 og/t

108 Larry Clark

However, Chinese sources state that the T'ang court learned of EI Etmish Bilga Khagan's death in Summer of 759 and that his oldest son, the "Yeh-hu (yabgu), the heir apparent, had died before this, following a crime he had committed. "62 Since the Uygur source takes precedence over the Chinese, the Tes inscription documents that, following the death of EI Etmish Bilga Khagan, the oldest son Kutlug Bilga Yabgu briefly held the throne in 75 8 or 759, and that the oldest son was assassinated with or without the participation of Biigii Khan who came to power in 759 . The T'ang annals essentially conflated the three events on the basis of typically delayed reports .63 On this reading, then, the Tes inscription ought to have been erected in 75 8 or 759, shortly before the accession of Biigii Khan.

A third inscribed stone was found in the valley of the Terkh river which flows into the Terkh-Tsagan lake in the northwestern Khangay mountains. The "Terkh inscription" was made on a stone that was found sticking out of the ground without archeological context, but it does not appear to have formed part of a burial complex and thus was not a memorial. The fact that its narrative frequently proceeds in the voice of EI Etmish Bilga Khagan's younger son Bilga Kutlug Tarkhan (the future Biigii Khan), who places his name before that of the oldest son and heir-apparent Kutlug Bilga Yabgu (line North 3 ), suggests that this inscription may have been intended to propagandize Bilga Kutlug Tarkhan's qualifications for rule. Since its author refers to the western cam­paign (ended in 756?) and to EI Etmish Bilga Khagan as though he was still alive (died in 7 5 8), the inscription may be dated to the years 756-75 8 , and conceiv­ably to 75 7 or 75 8 , when the oldest son Kutlug Bilga Yabgu was campaigning in China or possibly fallen from favor (see below).64 None of the three inscrip­tions refers to Manichaeism.65

Tardus yabgu TaliS cad olurtt "His sons reigned as Yabgu of the Tardush and Shad of the Tolish" (Kljashtornyj I985 , I52-3 ). Line North 3 of the Terkh inscription identifies them as follows: Tar;rim Xamm ogl� Bilga Tarxan Kutlug Bilga Yabgu "The sons of His Majesty, My Khan, (are) Bilga Tarkhan and Kutlug Bilga Yabgu". In these inscriptions, the name of the future Biigii Khan consistently contains the title tarxan "Tarkhan", with the exception of Tes, line West 6 , and Terkh, line North 4 , where the form cad "Shad" appears (with c- in cad probably reflecting the di­alect of the mason in whose language s- did not exist).

62 MacKerras I973 , 66 , 69; cf. Kljashtornyj I985 , I45. 63 The confusion of T'ang annals in regard to the reigns of the first two Uygur rulers is

well-documented; cf. MacKerras I973 , I36 , n68. 64 Tekin ( I982, 45 ) argued that the Terkh inscription is the monument erected by El Etmish

Bilga Khagan in 752 and referred to in Shine-usu, lines East 8- I 0 tabJsgan yd besinc ayka tegi [2 0 + runes}. lulu yz/}ka ... G[tukan ortu}smta [S}ur/uz Baf[kan}ta �duk bas kidinta Yabaf Tukus baltir­inta anta yayladJm. orgin anta yaratJtd�m. at anta tokltd�m. b�r/ yZ/l�k tuman kunlik bitigimin balgumin anta yas� taska yaratttd�m "In the fifth month of the Hare year [=751 ] [ . . . ]. [In the Dragon year =752], I spent summer pasture there, in the middle of the [ . . . ] Otiikan, west of the sacred source at Siingiiz Bashkan, at the junction of the Yabash and Tukush rivers. There I had the throne created. There I had a stockade driven into the ground. There I had my inscription and sign carved on a smooth stone (to last) for a thousand years and ten thousand days"; cf. Ramstedt I9 I3 ,

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism

The Shine-usu Inscription

The major thrust of the Uygurs' western campaign is mentioned in lines West 1-3 of the Shine-usu inscription, which reflect battles waged by El Etmish Bilga Khagan against the Basmils and the Karluks:

(WI-3) [55+ runes] [Kar]/uk tirigi barz Tiirgiska [kalti?]yana tiiSip onuncay [eki?] ya'(pka bar[dtm (10+ runes)]a temisi ii[c Karluk ? (100+ runes)] tiiSdim anta [1-2 runes]kgaru Basmtl Karluk y[ok boltt] kon ytlka [(7+ runes) yay]ladtm

All of the surviving Karluks [came to submit?] to the Turgish. Withdrawing, I left on the [second?] day of the tenth month. Those who said [ . . . ] the Three [Karluk tribes ?] [ . . . J I withdrew [ . . . J. From then to [ . . . ] , the Basmils and the Karluks [ceased to exist] [ . . . ]. In the Sheep year, I spent [summer pasture] in [ . . . ] .66

Even in its severely damaged state, this passage contains references to battles between the Uygurs and the Basmils and Karluks that ended in a major Uygur victory. At that time, the Basmils inhabited the environs of Beshbalik in the eastern Tienshan, as they had since the seventh century,67 while the Karluks were settled west of the Basmils and south of the Altay, bordering on the terri­tory of the Yagma people.68 As a result of their defeat, a large number of the Karluks moved out of the Jungar basin into the areas of Suyab and Talas within the territory of the Turgish centered in the Semirechye region around Lake Balkash, and in the following years overthrew the Turgish.69 Since a Sheep year

22-3 , and the corrections made by Kljashtornyj 1982,339-40 . In support of his idea, Tekin cited an exactly parallel passage in the Terkh inscription, lines West 2-3; see the reading of Kljashtornyj 1982,341-4 . However, that Terkh passage refers to one of several inscriptions (another is cited in line West 1 ) erected by El Etmish Bilga Khagan in the years before his death, but certainly not to the Terkh inscription itself. In addition, Terkh preserves a stated date (line West 1 : Serpent year =

753 ) and an event (lines North 5-6 : western campaign of 754-756 - see below) that are later than 752 and therefore render Tekin's hypothesis untenable.

65 There may be hints of a Manichaean terminology in the use of the term Ta1Jrim "My Divine (One)" = "His Majesty" in Terkh, lines North 1 ,3 , and of yaruk "light" in Shine-usu, line East 1 . These terms otherwise occur only in Manichaean texts of this period (see Clauson 1972,524 ,962), although that may be an accident of the surviving record of early Turkic.

66 Ramstedt 1913 , 3 2-3 . 67 Chavannes 1903 ,28 , n4 , 29 , n3 , 305; Minorsky 1970 , 272; Shimazaki 1974 , 109 . 68 See Minorsky 197 °,286-7; Ecsedy 1980 ,26-9; Czegledy 1973 , 264-6 . 69 The Hsin T 'ang-shu contains two contradictory reports, one dating the Karluk conquest of

Suyab and Talas to the period after 756-75 8 , and a second dating it to the period after 766-780; cf. Ecsedy 1964 ,96 n. 13 , 1980 ,29 , The earlier date is supported by the Shine-usu inscription, and by the fact that Chinese sources often dated events outside of the heartland of China to the time that news of these events reached the court, not to mention that T' ang had grave troubles of its own in these years and consequently paid even less attention to distant events. Beckwith argued that the Karluks had become the dominant military power in the Semirechye by 75 I, as they were the de­cisive factor in the battle of Talas (1987 , 126 , n. 114 ) . Even so, the Shine-usu inscription establishes

II O Larry Clark

corresponds only to the year 7 5 5 /6 ( 1 6 February 75 5-4 February 7 56) within the reign of El Etmish Bilga Khagan, the Shine-usu inscription establishes that his destruction of the Basmils and Karluks occurred during a western campaign whose initial phase took place in 754 or early 7 5 5 , and that the westward migra­tion of the Karluks to Turgish country occurred in the years immediately fol­lowing this date.

The Terkh Inscription

Although their laconic character leaves many questions unanswered, lines North 5-6 of the Terkh inscription provide an account of another military op­eration that arguably formed a second goal of the western campaign of 754-75 6.

(N 5-6) bunt yarat(t)tg(g)a Bilga Kutlug Tarxan Sa!lun bunca bodumg attn yoltn Yagma Lum Cisi eki yorttdt. Kutlug Bilga Sa!lun Urusu Kutlug Tarxan Sa!lun ol eki yor yarltkadt. Bayarku Tardus Bilga Tarxan Kutlug Yagma Tabgac Sogdak bast Bilga Sa!lun Ozti O!l Erkin f70+ runes]

He [i .e . , El Etmish Bilga Khagan] had the one who created this (stone), Gen­eral Bilga Kutlug Tarkhan, march (against ?) so many peoples with fame and glory, (including) both the Yagmas and the Lum Chishi. He [i.e . , El Etmish Bilga Khagan] ordered General Kutlug Bilga and General Urushu Kutlug Tarkhan, these two, to march. Bilga Tarkhan and Kutlug [ ?defeated] the lead­ers of the Yagmas, the Chinese and the Sogdians, (namely) General Bilga, Prince Ozil, and Lord [ . . va

Problems of discourse and grammar abound in the reading of this passage, not least of which is the identification of the subjects and objects of the first two sentences. Because the inscription presents the deeds and commands of El

that El Etmish Bilga Khagan's decisive victory, at least over those Karluks in the lungar basin, oc­curred in 754 /5 .

70 Nearly all of the runes of the first fragment and most of those of the second fragment of this stone are illegible in the photographs which accompany Kljashtornyj's 1982 publication. My reading of the legible runes in the third fragment (passages at the end of North 5-6 ) matches that of this scholar, who translated the whole passage as follows: "He who made this (monument), Bilga Qudu-tarqan-sitJiin, (has defeated) so many peoples with glory. He sent two (people against) the Yayma and Lum-cisi. To Quduy Bilga-saIJiin and Urusu Quduy-tarqan-saIJiin, these two (persons) he ordered: Go! The Tardus Bilga-tarqan and Quduy (both from the people) Bayarqu, the heads of the Yayma, the Chinese, and the Sogdians, Bilga-saIJiin, OzlI OIJ-erkin . . . " ( 1988 ,277; d. 1982,345 ) . Although my translation differs in many respects from his, the central fact of the future Biigii Khan's presence in the Tienshan-Tarim region is not affected. For a totally different interpretation of essentially the same reading of the runes (except yarattgma instead of Kljashtornyj's yarattga ), see Tekin 1982,48 , 52,60- 1 .

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism III

Etmish Bilga Khagan, I assume that he is the subject of the verb yorzt-dz "he caused (someone) to march" in the first sentence, and that bum yarat-(t)zg-(g)a " (to) the one who created this [stone]" , with General Bilga Kutlug Tarkhan in apposition, is its obj ect. In the same way, El Etmish Bilga Khagan must be the subj ect of the honorific verb yarltka-dz "he ordered" in the second sentence, and the names of the two generals must be its object.

The identities of the generals in this passage may be established with refer­ence to Terkh, line North 3 TaIJrim Xamm oglt Bilga Tarxan Kutlug Bilga Yabgu "The sons of His Majesty, My Khan, (are) Bilga Tarkhan and Kutlug Bilga Yabgu" , where Bilga Tarxan is an abbreviation of the BiZga Kutlug Tarxan SalJun of line North 5 , who is the author or "creator" of this inscription. There can be no question that in line North 3 Bilga Tarkhan placed his name before that of Kutlug Bilga Yabgu who, as the oldest son of El Etmish Bilga Khagan, was the true heir to the throne, either as a form of self-promotion or as a reflection of Kutlug Bilga Yabgu's demotion (see above). In either case, Bilga Tarkhan, the other son of El Etmish Bilga Khagan in line North 3, may be identified as the future Biigii Khan. In lines North 5-6, he is called both BiZga Kutlug Tarxan SalJun and Bilga Tarxan, whereas his older brother is called Kutlug BiZga SalJun and simply Kutlug, each time without the high title yabgu.

According to the above interpretation of this difficult passage, the Uygur ruler El Etmish Bilga Khagan ordered his younger son (Bilga Tarkhan = Gen­eral Bilga Kutlug Tarkhan = the future Biigii Khan) and his older son (General Kutlug Bilga = Kutlug = the heir-apparent Kutlug Bilga Yabgu), along with General Urushu Kutlug Tarkhan, to conduct a campaign against three people: (I ) General Bilga, leader of the Yagmas; (2) Prince (oIJ = Chinese wang) Ozil,71 leader of the Chinese and prefect (CiJi = Chinese tzu-shih) of Lum; and (3 ) Lord . . . (erkin . . . ), leader of the Sogdians.

As Sergej Klj ashtornyj has demonstrated, the geographical co-location of these three peoples can only apply to the central Tienshan region between the Jungar and Tarim basins .72 The Yagmas, formerly one of the Nine Oguz peo­ples, were settled in the central and western Tienshan in the region of Kucha and Karashahr and at this time bordered on the Karluk tribes.l3

The words Lum CiJi include an Uygur rendering of Chinese tz 'u shih "pre­feet", indicating that the word Lum was the name of the prefecture headed by this officiaF4 Because the text mentions first the Yagma and Lum tz 'u-shih, and

71 Despite the title, this man's name is not Chinese. However, non-Chinese commanders and troops abounded in the An-hsi and Pei-t'ing districts at this time; d. Pulleyblank 1955 ,95 , 1976 , 40 , and footnote 83 below.

72 Kljashtornyj 1988 . 73 Minorsky 1970 , 277-81; Czegledy 1973 ,263-4; Kljashtornyj 1988 ,277-8 . 74 Kljashtornyj 1988 , 278-9 . The Chinese rank tz 'u-shih "prefect" was held by governors of

prefectures (chou) under T'ang provincial administration; see MacKerras 1972, 196; Wechsler

1 1 2 Larry Clark

then in correspondence the leaders of the Yagmas, Chinese and Sogdians, it is probable that Ozil wang, the leader of the Chinese, was this same Lum tz 'u­shih, who had the responsibility of administering and protecting both T'ang commercial interests and local Chinese communities in the Lum region. Kljash­tornyj proposed that the word Lum designated the name of the local T okharian dynasty of Karashahr, and it is true that two Karashahr kings had the names Lung T'u-ch 'i-chih (reigning 632 , 644) and Lung Lan-t 'u (d. 7 1 9), where the first element Lung might be equivalent to Lum.75 A more plausible identifica­tion of Lum is with the element Lun in the name of a military post called Lun-ch 'uan located between Karashahr and Kucha,76 and of a sub-prefecture of Pei-t'inglBeshbalik called Lun-t 'ai located on the east side of what is now U rumchi - indeed, even that modern name appears to continue its older desig­nation (Urum < Lum) .77 Provisionally, then, the word Lum was the local, pos­sibly Tokharian name of an adminstrative unit that included the central Tienshan area around Urumchi and probably also the area around Karashahr up to Kucha located across the pass through the Tienshan in the Tarim basin.

Given the location of the first two leaders, the leader referred to as Erkin [. . . J " Lord [ . . . J" of the Sogdians,78 therefore, tentatively could be identified as head of the local Sogdian communities in the northern Tarim cities, including Karashahr and possibly those of Kocho to the east of Karashahr.79

While the location of this campaign in which the future Biigii Khan took part is assured, the question of its date remains unsettled. Since the Terkh in­scription contains a prior date of 75 3 (line West I) and mentions Kutlug Bilga Yabgu, the heir-apparent who led the Uygur troops into China in 757, the Uygur expedition in the Tienshan-Tarim region can be dated between 7 5 3 and 757. It is extremely unlikely that the Uygurs would have mounted two major western expeditions against peoples in the Tienshan peoples separated by only a year, that is, one campaign led by EI Etmish Bilga Khagan against the Basmils

1979 ,174; Twitchett 1979 , 351-353; Kroll 1987 , 102. In Khotanese Saka, the Chinese term was written tct�f ; cf. Vorob'eva-Desjatovskaja 1992, 54.

75 Chavannes 1903 , I I I , 113; cf. Kljashtornyj 1988 ,278-9. 76 Chavannes 1903 ,7 ,272. This site should be the same as that called Lun-t'ai in the Han pe­

riod, which was located at later Biigiir between Karashahr and Kucha; cf. Chavannes 19 °3 ,345; Minorsky 1970 , 274 ·

77 Chavannes 1903 , 12,68 note, I I4 , 272; Hamilton 1955 , 14; Minorsky 197 °,265 , n. I; Shima­zaki 1974 , 100.

78 Neither the meaning nor the origin of the title Erkin - Irkin is known, but it appears to have designated a lower-ranking chief of peoples, including Sogdians, primarily of the Tienshan­Semirechye region; cf. Pelliot 1929 , 226-9; Bombaci 1970 , 20-1 , 44-6 , 52-4 , 57-8 , 62; Clauson 1972,225.

79 It should not escape notice that the region that encompassed Beshbalik, Karashahr and Kocho, and probably Kucha, coincides with the "Land of the Four Togri" whose Manichaean communities fell under the jurisdiction of the Teacher in Kocho and whose name was cited in the Sogdian version of the Karabalgasun inscription (see footnote I above) .

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism 1 1 3

and Karluks in 754/5 , and a second one led by his sons Bilga Kutlug Tarkhan and Kutlug Bilga Yabgu against the Yagma people and cities in the Tarim basin either in 7 5 3/4 or in 75617. The expedition in the central Tienshan-Tarim basin, then, must have been a subsidiary operation of the western campaign which be­gan in 754/5 . Moreover, this operation in the central Tienshan must have oc­curred in 75 5/6, that is, after El Etmish Bilga Khagan subjugated the Basmils and cleared the Karluks from the Jungar basin before returning to summer pas­ture in 75 5 . Only the removal of this threat in the eastern Tienshan would have made it possible for his two sons to campaign farther in the central Tienshan and Tarim basin.

As pointed out above, a western campaign was a normal undertaking of steppe empires, whose control of trade through the Jungar basin was vital to their survival. Although scholars previously have suspected that this region, in­cluding Beshbalik/Pei-t'ing, had become part of the Uygur empire prior to the brief Tibetan occupation of Beshbalik in 789-792 , they could not support their suspicions on the basis of Chinese sources.80 To be sure, there are clues in the form of coincidences in these sources . One coincidence is that the Chinese mili­tary governor and several generals of the garrisons in An-hsi and Pei-t'ing re­turned in 7 5 5 to take command of T'ang units defending the approaches to Ch'ang-an against An Lu-shan's troops.8 1 A second coincidence concerns a provincial administrative change in regard to the An-hsi district that comprised Kocho, Karashahr and Kucha. In 756, the name An-hsi was changed to Chen­hsi-tu-hu-fu, and the district was subordinated to the Lung-yu district until its restoration in 780.82 Both of these developments may have reflected the new political situation in the region, which now was incorporated in the Uygur realm after its armies fought and undoubtedly defeated local T' ang garrisons in 754-756.83

80 For example, Abe 1954 ,439 ("Bishbalik, although nominally under T'ang rule, was appar­ently under the actual control of the Uighurs [after 747 ]"); Minorsky 1970 , 272 ("toward the mid­dle of the eighth century the Uighurs already had Bishbaliq under their sway"); Ecsedy 1964 , 86 (" on the north-west frontiers, in the region of Pei-t'ing, Uigurs took a firm stand since the middle of the eighth century"), 95 , n. I I ("in that time the Uigurs were at home both in Pei-t'ing and in the region of Pei-t'ing, not only as China's allies but as the effective possessors of this territory"); Hamilton 1986 : xv ("under the reign of the second Uygur khagan Kutlug (747-759 ) of the dy­nasty stemming from the Yaglakar clan, the Uygurs extended their dominion toward the south­west over the former territory of the Basmils in the environs of Beshbalik (Pei-t'ing) and over the former territory of the Karluks in the environs of the Irtish and the Tarbagatay mountains be­tween the Altay and the Tienshan").

81 For Ch' eng Ch'ien-li, military governor of Pei-t'ing after 753 , and the generals Kao Hsien­chih and Feng Ch'ang-ch'ing, in charge of An-hsi, see Pulleyblank 1955 , 155 , n. 6; des Rotours 1962,127 , n. 1 ,194-5 , n. 4 ,196-7 , n. 4; Twitchett 1979 ,455.

82 Ecsedy 1964 ,93 , n. 6; Kljashtornyj 1988 ,279. 83 Twitchett thought that An-hsi was overrun by Tibetans while T'ang troops were elsewhere

preoccupied with An Lu-shan (1979 , 444 , 457; cf. Ecsedy 1964 , 89 ,94-5 0 n. 8 ). However, Tibetan

1 14 Larry Clark

The broader ramification of this campaign was that, with the loss of its north­western outposts and a major source of revenue, the military and financial crisis of the T' ang government, seriously in j eopardy since the debacle at Talas in 75 I ,

weakened even further. This, combined with the establishment of Uygur impe­rial power over the northwest, may have served as the true catalyst of the " An Lu-shan rebellion", whose causes nearly always are examined solely in terms of internal Chinese politics rather than in their proper international context. 84

A narrower but nonetheless significant consequence of this campaign was that it brought the future Biigii Khan into an area where he could have had the opportunity to contact Sogdian Manichaean clergymen and to begin his spiri­tual struggle with their religion. To be sure, the Uygur inscriptions only place him in the proximity of Kocho, headquarters of the eastern church, but not in Kocho itself. Further exploration of this possibility would require an examina­tion of the famous passage in the Uygur text U I (T II D 1 73 ), leaf l V I , lines 1-7: [gap] Tar;rikan Uygur Pwxwx Xan Kocogaru kalipan koym ytlka uc magiitak olurmak ucun mozakka ker;ati "The devout Uygur Pwxwx Khan came to Kocho and, in the Sheep year, met with the Teacher for the purpose of installing three Bishops. " If the Pwxwx X 'n of this text could be identified with Biigii Xan (Pwykw X 'n), then the Sheep year in question would be the same Sheep year cited in the Shine-usu inscription which correlates to 75 5/6 ( 1 6 February 75 5-4 February 7 56) and, by itself, would lend credence to the conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism during the western campaign of 7 54-756.85 How­ever, since its proposal by Abe Takeo, another theory has begun to claim the field, namely, that the word Pwxwx represents Bokuk, presumed to be the given name of the Uygur ruler Alp Kutlug Ulug Bilga KhaganiHuai-hsin (79 5-808), so that the Sheep year in question would correlate to 803/4 (27 Janu­ary 803-14 February 804).86 As evidence cited in support of this theory ranges from numismatics to sources written in a variety of languages, a fair hearing would overstep the confines of this paper.

advances from 75 5 to 763 were confined to diplomatic relations with Pamir states and to the grad­ual conquest of the Lung-yu district; see Beckwith 1987 , 145-6 .

84 The Chinese bias in scholarship on this "rebellion" essentially mirrors the sources them­selves; for example, the detailed biography entitled An Lu-shan Shih-chi by Yao Ju-neng men­tions the Uygurs only twice, once to cite their victory over the Kitan in 753 , and a second time to state, and no more, that Uygur troops departed Lo-yang in December 757 (des Rotours 196 .1, I.25 ,30 0) .

85 Due to their divergent spellings, Le Coq's initial identification of the two names (19 I.2, 149 ), although accepted by a few scholars (Bang/von Gabain 1929 ,413 ; Clark 198 .1, 159 , n. 31 ), was held suspect by most (Chavannes/Pelliot 1913 , 196-7 , n . 1; Henning 1936 , 15-16 , n . .a; Sundermann 1984 ,301 ) .

86 See Abe 1954 ,440- .1; Moriyasu 1981 , 198 ; Geng/Hamilton 1981 , 3 H Hamilton 1986 , XV; Thierry 1997 .

The Conversion of Btigii Khan to Manichaeism 1 1 5

Even when the potentially decisive witness of U 1 is set in abeyance, the Uygur inscriptions provide sufficient testimony to establish that the future Biigii Khan was in the central Tienshan-Tarim basin region in the year 75 5/6. His role as commander of an Uygur expeditionary force in this region may have brought him into first contact with Manichaean clerics, possibly in Karashahr and not necessarily in Kocho, a contact that might have resulted in his initial conversion to this religion. Whether or not Biigii Khan's conversion occurred prior to his becoming Khan, or whether it occurred in the distant Tienshan-Tarim region or closer to home, he issued an official permission for the practice of Manichaeism throughout his realm after he was enthroned in 759, an act that was memorialized by the Manichaean church as the propagation of 761 . Even so, his attachment to this religion did not translate into firm sponsorship or protection until an affirmation of faith was wrested from his adventurous spirit by Manichaean cler­ics brought back to the steppe from China in 763 .

Although the preceding reconstruction of the conversion process at times has relied upon reasoned choices made between alternative interpretations and upon obscure passages of sources, it has the advantage of integrating these sources and, in a revised form, even the findings of Chavannes and Pelliot. Fu­ture research surely will produce further modifications before · a secure under­standing of Biigii Khan's conversion to Manichaeism can be gained.87

Aalto 1958

Abe 1954

Asmussen 1 96 5

Bang/von Gabain 1928

Bang/von Gabain 1929

Abbreviations

P. Aalto, "Materia1ien zu den altttirkischen Inschriften der Mongo1ei, gesammelt von G. J. Ramstedt, J. G. Grano und Pentti Aalto", ]SFOu 60, Nr. 7. Abe Takeo, "Where was the Capital of the West Uighurs ?", Silver Jubilee Volume of the Zinbun-Kagaku-Kenkyusyo Kyoto University, Kyoto 1954, 435-50. J. P. Asmussen, XUastvanift. Studies in Manichaeism, Co­penhagen 1 96 5 . W Bang/A. von Gabain, "Ein uigurisches Fragment tiber den manichiiischen Windgott", UJb 8, 248-56. W Bang/A. von Gabain, "Tiirkische Turfan-Texte, II . Manichaica", SPAW 1929, 4 1 1-30. L. Bazin, "Pour une nouvelle hypothese sur l' origine des khazars", MY 7-8, 193-203. L. Bazin, "Notes de toponymie turque ancienne", AOH 36, 57-60.

87 I would like to take this opportunity to credit Professors Marcel Erdal and James Hamilton whose comments on my paper at the Berlin conference motivated me to probe deeper into the problems raised by the date in U I I I a.

I I 6

Bazin 1 99 1

BeDuhn 1996

Boyce 1960

Chavannes 1 903

Chavannes/Pelliot 1 9 1 I-I 3

Choi 1992

Clark 1997

Clauson 1972

Czegledy 1973

Drompp 1986

Ecsedy 1980

Larry Clark

L. Bazin, Les systemes chronologiques dans le monde turc ancien, Budapest 199 1 . C . 1 . Beckwith, The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Struggle for Great Power Among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs and Chinese During the Early Middle Ages, Princeton 1987. J. BeDuhn, "The Manichaean Sacred Meal", Turfan, Khotan und Dunhuang. Vortrage der Tagung "Annemarie v. Gabain und die Turfanforschung", veranstaltet von der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin (9.-12 . 12. 1994), ed. by R.E. EmmerickIW Sun­dermann/1 . Warnke/P. Zieme, Berlin 1996, 1-1 5 . M . Boyce, A Catalogue of the Iranian Manuscripts in Manichaean Script in the German Turfan Collection, Berlin 1 960. P. Bryder, The Chinese Transformation of Manichaeism. A Study of Chinese Manichaean Terminology, Tryck 198 5 . E . Chavannes, Documents sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) Occi­dentaux, St. Petersburg 1 903 . E. Chavannes/P. Pelliot ( 1 9 1 1-1 3 ) "Un traite manicheen retrouve en Chine, traduit et annote", I, jA 1 9 I I , 499-61 7; II, jA 1 9 1 3 , 99-394. Choi Han-Woo, "On the Turkic Shamanic Word bogu", Altaic Religious Beliefs and Practices. Proceedings of the J]rd Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Budapest, june 24-29, 1990, ed. by G. Beth­lenfalvy, Budapest 1 992, 8 3-7. L. Clark, "The Manichean Turkic Pothi-Book", AoF 9, 145-2 1 8 . L . Clark, "The Turkic Manichaean Literature", Emerging from Darkness. Studies in the Recovery of Manichaean Sources, ed. by P. Mirecki/J. BeDuhn, Leiden 1997, 89-14 1 . G . Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre­Thirteenth-Century Turkish, Oxford 1972. K. Czegledy, "Gardizi on the History of Central Asia (746-780 A.D.)", AOH 27, 2 5 7-67. R. Dankoff (in collaboration with J . Kelly), Mapmud al-Kasyari. Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Diwan Luyat at-Turk), I-III, Cambridge 1982-8 5 (Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 7). M. Drompp, The Writings of Li Te-yu as Sources for the History of Tang-Inner Asian Relations, 1986 [Ph.D. Dissertation, Indiana University] . H. Ecsedy, "Uigurs and Tibetans in Pei-t'ing (79°-79 1 A.D.)", AOH 1 7, 8 3-1°4. H. Ecsedy, "A Contribution to the History of Karluks in the T'ang Period", AOH 34, 23-37.

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism 1 1 7

Fukui 198 1

Gabain 19 5 5

Geng/Hamilton 198 1

Haloun/Henning 19 5 2

Hamilton 19 5 5

Hamilton 1986

Hamilton 1990

Hansen 1930

Henning 1936

Henning 1938

Klimkeit 1982

Klyashtornyj 1982

Klyashtornyj 198 5

Kljashtornyj 1 9 8 8

Le Coq 1 9 10

Fukui Fumimasa-Bunga, "On the Methodology Used by Prof. Liu Ts'un-yan in His Monograph Entitled 'Traces of Zoroastrian and Manichaean Activities in Pre-T'ang China"', Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 39, 71-8 3 . A . von Gabain, "Alttiirkische Datierungsformen", UA]b 27, 19 1-203 . A. von Gabain, "Alttiirkische Schreibkultur und Drucke­rei", Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, II, ed. by L. Bazin et al. , Wiesbaden 1964, I 7 1-9 I . Geng ShiminlJ. Hamilton, "L'lnscription ouigoure d e la stele commemorative des Iduq Qut de Qo,<o", Turcica 1 3 , 1 0-54· G. Haloun/W B. Henning, "The Compendium of the Doctrines and Styles of the Teaching of Mani, the Buddha of Light", AM, New Series 3, 1 84-2 1 2 . J. Hamilton, Les ouighours a l'epoque des cinq dynasties d'apd:s les documents chinois, Paris 1 9 5 5 . J . Hamilton, Manuscrits ouigours du IXe_Xe siecle de Touen-houang, I-II, Paris 1986. J. Hamilton, "L'inscription trilingue de Qara Balgasun d'apres les estampages de Bouillane de Lacoste", Docu­ments et Archives Provenant de l'Asie Centrale. Actes du Colloque franco-japonais, Kyoto, 4-8 Octobre 1988, ed. by Haneda Akira, Kyoto 1 990, 1 2 5-3 3 . O. Hansen, "Zur soghdischen Inschrift auf dem drei­sprachigen Denkmal von Karabalgasun", ]SFOu 44. 3 , 1-39· W B. Henning, "Neue Materialien zur Geschichte des Manichaismus", ZDMG 9°, 1-1 8 . W B. Henning, "Argi and the 'Tokharians"', BSOS 9 , 54 5-7 I . H.-J. Klimkeit, "Manichaean Kingship: Gnosis at Home in the World", Numen 29, 1 7-32 . S . G. Klyashtornyj , "The Terkhin Inscription", A OH 36, 3 3 5-66. S. G. Klyashtornyj , "The Tes Inscription of the Uighur Bogii Qaghan", AOH 39, 1 3 7-56. S. G. Kljashtornyj , "East Turkestan and the Kagans of Orduballq. The Interpretation of the Fourteenth Line of the Terkh Inscription", AOH 42, 277-80. P. W. Kroll, "Basic Data on Reign-Dates and Local Government", Tang Studies 5 , 9 5-104. A. von Le Coq, Chuastuanift, ein Siindenbekenntnis der manichaischen Auditores. Gefunden in Turfan (Chine­sisch-Turkistan), Berlin 19 1 1 (APAW 19 10, phil. -hist. Klasse, Anhang 4, Abh. 4) .

l I S

Le Coq 1 9 I I

Le Coq 1 9 1 2

Le Coq 1 9 19

Le Coq 1922

Lieu 1 977

Lieu 1992

Lieu 1997

Liu Ts'un-yan 1976

MacKerras 1973

Maenchen-Helfen 19 5 1

Matsuda 198 1

Minorsky 1 970

Larry Clark

A. von Le Coq, Turkische Manichaica aus Chotscho, I, Berlin 1 9 I I (APAW 19 I I , phi1.-hist. Klasse, Nr. 6). A. von Le Coq, "Ein manichaisches Buch-Fragment aus Chotscho", Festschrift Vilhelm Thomsen zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres an 25. ]anuar I9I2 , Leipzig 1 9 1 2, 14 5-54. A. von Le Coq, Turkische Manichaica aus Chotscho, II, Berlin 19 19 (APAW 19 19, phi1.-hist. Klasse, Nr. 3 ) . A. von Le Coq, Turkische Manichaica aus Chotscho, III, Nebst einem christlichen Bruchstuck aus Bulayi"q, Berlin 1 922 (APAW 1922, phi1.-hist. Klasse, Nr. 2) . S. N. C. Lieu, "A Lapsed Chinese Manichaean's Corre­spondence with a Confucian Official in the Late Sung Dynasty ( 1 265) : A Study of the Ch 'ung-shou-kung Chi by Huang Chen", Bulletin of the John Rylands Uni­versity Library of Manchester 59, 397-42 5 . S . N. C . Lieu, "Nestorians and Manichaeans on the South China Coast" , Vigiliae Christiannae 3 4, 7 1-8 8 . S . N . C . Lieu, "New Light o n Manichaeism i n China", Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, Leiden (Acta Iranica 2 5 ), 401-19. S. N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, Tiibingen 1992 [second edition] . S. N. C. Lieu, "Manichaean Art and Texts from the Silk Road", Studies in Silk Road Coins and Culture. Papers in Honour of Professor Ikuo Hirayama on His 65th Birth­day, ed. by Tanabe Katsumi/J. Cribb/H. Wang, Kama­kura 1997, 261-3 12 . Liu Ts'un-yan, "Traces of Zoroastrian and Manichaean Activities in Pre-T'ang China", Liu Ts'un-yan, Selected Papers from the Hall of Harmonious Wind, Leiden 1976, 3-5 5 , C. MacKerras, The Uighur Empire According to the T'ang Dynastic Histories. A Study in Sino- Uighur Re­lations, 744-840, Columbia, SC 1 973 [second edition] . O. Maenchen-Helfen, "Manichaeans in Siberia", Semitic and Oriental Studies. A Volume Presented to William Popper on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, October 29, I949, ed. by W ]. Fischel, Berkeley/Los Angeles 19 5 1 (University of California Publications in Semitic Philology I I ), 3 I I-26. Matsuda Hisao, "The T'ien-shan Range in Asian History", Acta Asiatica 4 1 , 1-28 . V F. Minorsky, I:I udiid al- 'Alam. 'The Regions of the World'. A Persian Geography, 372 A.H. -982 A.D. , London 1970 (Gibb Memorial Series, New Series I I , Second revised edition).

Moriyasu 198 1

Muller 1 9 1 2

Muller 1 9 1 3

Pelliot 1903

Pelliot 1923

Pelliot 1929

Peterson 1979

Puech 1949

Pulleyblank 1 9 5 5

Pulleyblank 1 976

Rachmati 19 37

Radloff 1 894

Ramstedt 1 9 1 3

Rotours 1 962

Shimazaki 1974

The Conversion of Bugii Khan to Manichaeism 1 19

Moriyasu Takao, "Qui des Ouigours ou des Tibetains ont gagne en 789-792 a BeS-baliq ?", fA 269, 193-20 5 . F. W K. Muller, "Der Hofstaat eines Uiguren-Konigs" , Festschrift Vilhelm Thomsen zur Vollendung des sieb­zigsten Lebensjahres am 25. Januar 1912 , Leipzig 1 9 1 2, 207- 1 3 . F. W K. Muller, Ein Doppelblatt aus einem manichaischen Hymnenbuch (Mabrnamag), Berlin 1 9 1 3 , (APAW 1 9 1 2, Nr· 5) · P. Pelliot, "Le Mo-ni et Ie Houa-hou-king", BEFEO 3 , 3 1 8-27. P. Pelliot, "Les traditions manicheennes au Foukien", T'oung Pao 22, 193-208 . P. Pelliot, "Neuf notes sur des questions d' Asie Centrale", T'oung Pao 26, 201-66. C. A. Peterson, "Court and Province in Mid- and Late T'ang", The Cambridge History of China, III. Sui and T'ang China, 589-906, Part I, ed. by D. C. Twitchett, Cambridge 1 979, 464-560. H.-C. Puech, Le Manicheisme. Son fondateur-sa doctrine, Paris 1949 . E. G. Pulleyblank, The Background of the Rebellion of An Lu-shan, Oxford 1 9 5 5 . E . G . Pulleyblank, "The An Lu-shan Rebellion and the Origins of Chronic Militarism in Late T'ang China", Essays on T'ang Society. The Interplay of Social, Political and Economic Forces, ed. by ]. C. Perry/B . L. Smith, Lei­den 1 976, 3 3-60. G. R. Rachmati, Turkische Turfan-Texte VII, Berlin 1937 (APAW 1936, Nr. 1 2) . W Radloff, Die altturkischen Inschriften der M ongolei, /. Die Denkmaler von Koscho-Zaidam, Sankt Petersburg 1 894. G. ]. Ramstedt, Zwei uigurische Runeninschriften in der Nord-Mongolei, fSFOu 30, Nr. 3 . R. des Rotours, Histoire de Ngan Lou-chan (Ngan Lou-chan Che Tsi), Paris 1 962. ]. P. Roux, "Les Inscriptions de Bugut et de Tariyat sur la religion des Turcs", Studia Turcologica. Memoriae Alexii Bombaci dicata, Napoli 1982 (Istituto Universitario Orientale 19), 4 5 1-6 1 . G . Schlegel, Die chinesische Inschrift auf dem uiguri­schen Denkmal in Kara Balgassun, Helsingfors 1 896 (MSFOu 9)· Shimazaki Akira, "On Pei-t'ing (Bisbaliq) and K'ohan Fu-t'u-ch'eng", Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 32, 99-1 14 .

1 20

Takeuchi 1986

Thierry 1997

Twitchett 1 979

Twitchett (ed.) 1979

Vorob'eva-Desjatovskaja 1 992

Wechsler 1979

Yoshida 1990

Zieme 1 966

Zieme 1 992

Larry Clark

W. Sundermann, "Probleme der Interpretation mam­chaisch-soghdischer Briefe", From Hecataeus to AI­Ijuwarizmi, ed. by J. Harmatta, Budapest 1 984, 289-3 1 6. Takeuchi Tsuguhito, "The Tibetans and Uighurs in Pei­t'ing, An-hsi (Kucha), and Hsi-chou (790-860 A.D.)" , Bulletin of Kinki University 1 7, 5 1-68 . T. Tekin, "The Tariat (Terkhin) Inscription", A OH 3 7, 43-68 . T. Tekin, "Nine Notes on the Tes Inscription", Erdem. Ataturk Kultur Merkezi Dergisi 5> 379-87. F. Thierry, "Les monnaies de Boquq qaghan des Oui:­ghours (79 5-808 )", 1 997 [unpublished paper] . D. C. Twitchett, "Hsiian-tsung (Reign 7 1 2- 56)", The Cambridge History of China, III. Sui and T'ang China, 5 89-906, Part I, ed. by D. C. Twitchett, Cambridge 1 979, 3 3 3-463 . The Cambridge History of China, III. Sui and T'ang China, 5 89-906, Part I, ed. by D. C. Twitchett, Cam­bridge 1 979. M. 1. Vorob'eva-Desjatovskaja, "Chotano-saki", Vos­tocnyj Turkestan v drevnosti i rannem srednevekov 'e. Etnos, jazyki, religii, ed. by B. A. Litvinskij , Moscow 1 992, 32-76. H.J. Wechsler, "The Founding of the T'ang Dynasty: Kao-tsu (reign 6 1 8-26)" , The Cambridge History of China, III. Sui and T'ang China, 5 89-906, Part I, ed. by D. C. Twitchett, Cambridge 1 979, 1 5 0-87. Yoshida Y., "Some New Readings of the Sogdian Version of the Karabalgasun Inscription", Documents et Ar­chives Provenant de l'Asie Centrale. Actes du Colloque franco-japonais, Kyoto, 4-8 Octobre 1988, ed. by Haneda Akira, Kyoto 1990, I I 7-23 . P. Zieme, "Beitrage zur Erforschung des XVastvanift" , Mitteilungen des Instituts fur Orientforschung 1 2, 3 5 1-78 . P. Zieme, "Manichaische Kolophone und Konige", Studia Manichaica, II. Internationaler Kongrefl zum Manichais­mus, ed. by G. Wief�nerlH.-J. Klimkeit, Wiesbaden 1 992, 3 19-27.

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism 1 2 1

Fig. r : U r I I a-b, recto( ?) .

1 22 Larry Clark

Fig. 2: U I I I a- b, verso(?}.

The Conversion of Biigii Khan to Manichaeism 1 2 3

Fig. 3 : U 1 5 P-b, recto( ?).

Fig. 4: U 1 5 5 a-b, verso(?) .