Author Archives: Sur Han

世界蒙古学重大发现|公元7世纪的蒙古语石碑(01)|附原研究论文

公元7世纪的蒙古语石碑|附原英文研究论文|草稿公布于2017年8月匈牙利学术会议上

     近期在蒙古国图拉河旁的慧苏图鲁盖(Hüis Tolgoi)山发现了疑似七世纪的蒙古语石碑。经法国社会科学高等学院(EHESS)的蒙古学家Mehmet Ölmez, Étienne de la Vaissière, Dieter Maue, Alexander Vovin等专家的初步破解研究,宣布为使用婆罗米文(Brāhmī)刻写的蒙古语石碑,是属首次发现。

     之前学术界普遍认为在公元五到七世纪,蒙古族主要生活在蒙古高原东部和东北地区,但是这个考古发现证明了那个时代的蒙古高原中西部地带蒙古族也广泛繁衍生息。

     所以这碑文是一个划时代性的重大发现。蒙古国考古学会称“这是往后五十年内蒙古学领域的最伟大的发现”。

       该碑文的刻写时代比成吉思汗石碑还要早600年,如发现和对其甄别鉴定无误,蒙古文的历史还可推前了600年。

这个重大的发现,可能重新改写蒙古民族史、蒙古文字史和中国北方民族史。

附原文:

Presented August 31, 2017 at 60th PIAC, Székesfehérvár, HUNGARY

 

©Alexander Vovin, 2017

 

INTERPRETATION OF THE HÜIS TOLGOI INSCRIPTION

 

(Draft version)

 

Alexander VOVIN

EHESS/CRLAO, Paris

 

I am going to present below a tentative reading and interpretation of the Hüis Tolgoi inscription (hereafter HT inscription). This work would not be possible without the pioneering work by Dieter Maue on the decipherment of its writing system, which was also greatly added by the efforts of the team of specialists in 3-D photography that accompanied us on our 2014 expedition to Mongolia.

Although at this stage it is not possible to provide a complete reading and interpretation of the HT inscription, slightly going ahead it seems beyond reasonable doubt that it is in some form of Mongolic. It also appears that the language of the inscription, although it can be conditionally termed as a variety of Para-Mongolic, is much closer to the mainstream Mongolic languages, such as Middle Mongolian and modern extant Mongolic languages than to Serbi-Khitan,[1] although there are some features that the language of the HT inscription shares with the latter. It is necessary to note that the HT inscription is monolingual, which certainly opens the gates for the guess-work and speculations, some of which certainly will be corrected by the following generations of scholars.

As was already mentioned by my colleagues, the HT inscription (or inscriptions?) consists of two stones, one preserved in the basement of the National Archeological Institute, and the other placed near the entrance to the building. Certain circumstances prevented us from reading and photographing the text on it.

 

LINE 2-1[2]

Transliteration:

bı̣tị̄-ña̤r  kagan  digîn šị̄ñı̣-n  bodi-satva to̤ro̤-x

 

Tentative transcription:

biti[g]-ńar qaɣan  digin  šińe-n  bodi-satva  törö-k

 

Morphemic analysis:

inscription-PLUR qaɣan  tegin  new-GEN  Bodhi-sattva  be.born-NOM.FUT

 

Notes

  1. bı̣tị̄, kagan, digîn, and bodi-satva seem to be for the most part unproblematic, but they also provide no information on the genetic affiliation of the language.
  2. -ńar is probably the Mongolic plural marker -nAr, but there is a functional problem with this interpretation. In MM it is always used with either kinship terms of with deities. Khitan plural marker -ńər[3] ~ -ńəń is also used for nouns denting humans (Shimunek 2017: 264). Thus, in both Mongolic and Khitan these suffixes are limited in usage, being reserved only for animate nouns. However, crosslinguistically the functional changes in plural markers are not unknown. Thus, for example, WOJ -ra originally used to be a neutral plural marker, used both with animate and inanimate nouns, but virtually acquired pejorative usage with animate nouns in Middle (Classical) Japanese (Vovin 2005: 93). In the similar fashion, WOJ plural marker -tati for animate nouns gradually became highly restricted honorific plural marker in MJ (Vovin 2005: 100). The plural marker ndömö was restricted to animate nouns designating people in WOJ (Vovin 2005: 98), but in MJ its descendant form -domo is used with both animate and animate nouns (Vovin 2003: 41).
  3. šińe-n ‘new’ is the second word that is highly diagnostic, clearly pointing to the Mongolic direction. Brāhmī <ı̣> probably stands for [i] or [ı], as noted by Maue, so in this case it is probably safe to transcribe <ı̣> as [i], although [e] cannot be completely ruled out. Even if the form is to be read šini, cf. EMM šini 失你 ‘new’ (MNT §265), although the majority of attestations indicate šine, cf. šine ꡚꡞꡋꡦ (Qub IV: 43), WMM šine ﺷﯿﻨﻪ (Mu 334). Cf. Khitan *šɛn (Langjun 7: 6), thus phonetically HT form is closer to mainstream Mongolic. The final -n is likely to be a genitive.

As far as I can tell, there are no clear-cut cases of the adnominal usage of genitive in MM. Thus, e.g.:

 

Tümet irgen-ü oki-t

Tümet people-GEN girl-PLUR (MNT §241)

 

can be interpreted as ‘girls who are Tümet persons’ or ‘girls of Tümet people’. Meanwhile, in Khitan, as noted by Shimunek, a genitive case marker can be used as an adnominal marker, albeit this function is restricted to the cases when it is preceded by a numeral (2017: 260), e.g.

 

    

tau-un    u.ur

five-GEN  division

the Five Divisions (lit.: divisions that are five) (Yelü Xiang-wen 7: 15-16)

 

  1. Bodhi-sattva is either a given name of the Turkic qaɣan from the First Khanate, or Buddhist Bodhi-Sattva could also be meant here, as the text may be a historical, but with the religious overtones.
  2. to̤ro̤-x is likely to be Mongolic törö-kü ‘to be born’, nomen futuri, but not the transcription of the tribal name Türük (later Türk). Both törö-k[ü] ‘will be born’ and türüg ‘Türük’ appear more than once in the HT inscription, the former on lines 2-1, 2-8, and 2-9, and the latter on lines 2-5 and 2-10 in their specific contexts. What is even more important, is the fact that they have not only different vocalism, but also the difference between -x for törö-k[ü], and -g for Türüg. Both these discrepancies cannot be explained as a simple free variation.
  3. There are three typically Mongolic morphological markers on this line: plural -ńAr, nomen futuri -x < *kü, and genitive -n after vowel stems.

 

LINE 2-2

Transliteration:

kagan bṳd-a̤  kagan-u ruka-x ruka-ju  xị̄rı̣  añakay

 

Tentative transcription:

qaɣan buda  qaɣan-u  uqa-qu  uqa-ǰu  kera  Ańaqay

 

Morphemic analysis:

qaɣan Buddha  qaɣan-GEN  realize-NOM.FUT  realize-CONV  country  Ańaqay

 

Notes

  1. Unless Bud-a is simply ‘Buddha’, which is the simplest solution, the only other possible explanation I can think about is Khitan bud  ‘external clan’ (Yelü Jue 31: 55), (Hsiao Hui-lian.Can 2: 1), (Yelü Pusuli 7: 18).[4] But this leaves final -a stranded: it is unlikely to be a MM dative-locative case suffix -A. There are no other fitting attestations either in MM or Pre-Classical WM texts to the best of my knowledge. Buda qaɣan is reminiscent of OT bur-qan ‘lord Buddha’.
  2. Maue suggested that ruka- may reflect either uruqa or uqa. The first one is improbable, as only EMM uruqa ‘relatives, descendants’ (MNT §11, §23, §24 etc.), a likely loanword from Turkic, comes to mind, and it neither fits the context, nor does agree with apparently verbal nature of the stem. EMM verb uqa- ‘to realize, to know’ (MNT §18, §78, etc.) fits much better. No Khitan cognates.
  3. xị̄rı̣ is probably a borrowing from Tumshuquese χšera ‘country’, as Maue has suggested. In this meaning it could fit here and also on line 2-6 below. Less probably it can be equated here (but not on line 2-6) with EMM kere- ‘to fight’ (MNT §194), which is unrelated to WM kira- ~ kiru- ‘to cut’, and there are no attested Khitan cognates.[5]
  4. Ańaqay is a name of the last Ruan-ruan qaɣan, who refused to give his daughter as a wife to Turkic Bumin qaɣan in 546 AD.
  5. The most important is that this line is full of typical Mongolic morphology: MM idiosyncratic genitive -u after stems in -n as in qaɣan-u ‘qaɣan-GEN’, nomen futuri -qu, converbum imperfecti -ǰU, and possibly dative-locative -A, if the alternative proposed etymology for bud-a is correct. Once again we can see that the language of the HT inscription is much closer to mainstream Mongolic than to Khitan: a) there is no Khitan genitive -u, as the Khitan words with final -n take -en instead (Shimunek 2017: 253), and the Khitan word qa ~ qa.ɣa ‘qaɣan’ takes the genitive in -an: qa.ɣa-an (Kane 2009: 132); Khitan has converbum imperfecti corresponding to MM -ǰU, and no nomen futuri in -qu ~ -kü or dative-locative case suffix -A.

 

LINE 2-3

Transliteration:

[…]ị̄ tị̄-n  ja̤-x  bo̤dı̣  bigiy  ña̤r  ba̤yı̣  do̤lṳ  ja̤jṳ hügbü  +?

 

Tentative transcription:

[.?.]-ı te-n  ǰa-qu  bod-ı  beg-ey-ńar  bayyı-Ø  dolu  ǰa-ǰu  (h)ügbü  +?

 

Morphemic analysis:

[title]-ACC say-CONV  promise-NOM.FUT  tribe-ACC  beg-?-PLUR  be/stand-IMP  seven  promise-CONV  ?  ?

 

Notes

  1. Ańakay is supposed to have a title, and since he cannot be equated with the Ruan-ruan qaɣan Anagui as demonstrated by Étienne de la Vaissière, it is natural to suppose that unreadable beginning of the line 2-3 corresponds to this title, but not to qaɣan.
  2. te- ‘to say’ (quotational verb) was borrowed from OT tė- ‘id.’ into Khitan (Vovin 2013: 622-623. Although there is no similar evidence for mainstream Mongolic, it is possible that the language of the HT inscription acquired the same loan.
  3. ǰa- ‘to promise’ is probably a cognate to EMM and WMM ǰa’a- (HYYY 17b.2), (MNT §82, §84, etc.), (Mu 199)~ EMM ǰi’a- (MNT §121, §145, etc.) ‘to report, to promise’.
  4. bod must be a loan from OT bod ‘tribe’, unless the direction of loan was opposite, cf. OT bodun ‘population, subjects’, apparently with a Mongolic plural -n.
  5. beg might be yet another OT loan (OT beg ‘bek’, ultimately from EMC pæk 伯 ‘elder’), but the -ey segment is unaccounted for. The vocalism is also problematic, since bigiy in HT seems to indicate [i], but there is at least one other case of e > i raising: *šine > šińi ‘new’ in line 2-1.
  6. dolu must be a cognate to MM dolu’an ‘seven’, without the numerical suffix *-pan (> -’an in intervocalic position). Cf. Khitan dalʊ ‘id.’ with a different vocalism.
  7. hügbü is an interesting case. The language of the HT inscription has both p- and b-, so unlike MM, h- or h cannot be a reflex of proto-Mongolic *p-. I suspect that it either denotes initial g- or Ɂ-. However, there are no apparent MM cognates. The last word on this line is unreadable.
  8. As in the previous two lines, there is plenty of Mongolic morphology in line 2-3: accusative (cf. MM accusative -i), converbum modale -n, nomen futuri -qu, plural suffix -ńAr (this time following an animate noun), and converbum imperfecti -ǰu. The last three has been already discussed above. As for the first two, note that there are no accusative or -i and converbum modale -n in Khitan.

 

LINE 2-4

Transliteration:

b[ı̣]tị̄ jị̄lo̤-na̤r  kra-nya-gu-ñ  tṳwa̤  pṳro̤-r  cı̣cị̄-ra̤  pügtîg  ña̤la̤n

 

Tentative transcription:

b[i]tī[g] jīlo-nar  q[a]ra-n[V]ya-ɣuń  tuwa  pṳro̤-r  čiči-rä  pügtîg  ńele-n

 

Morphemic analysis:

inscription stone-PLUR  look-?-NML  tribal.name  ?-NML  stab-CONV  ?  join-CONV

 

Notes:

  1. jị̄lo must be related to MM čila’un ‘stone’ (with possible voicing of č- in an intervocalic position), and -nar is a plural suffix. Note that this time we have n-, not ń-, possibly under influence of the final -n of the preceding word that itself elided (however, cf. also qato-ńar ‘qaɣan’s wives’ < qatun-ńar in line 2-5). Note that the usage of the plural confirms that there were more than one stone in the inscription.
  2. Some remaining individual items on this line can be probably understood, but there is no coherent reading. kra-nya looks very ‘un-Altaic’, but on the basis of dro in the line 2-6 that is likely to stand for doro ‘law’, we can suspect the formation of secondary clusters due to the elision of the vowels in the first syllables here as well. I tentatively interpret this as q[a]ra- ‘to look’, cf. MM qara- ‘to look’ (MNT §5, §63, §77, §183), (Mu 292) + -n[V]ya-, obscure morphological marker without any obvious parallels in MM or Pre-Classical WM + ɣuń, a deverbal nominalizer cf. MM -’Un (Godziński 1985: 53) and WM -ɣun ~ -gün (Poppe 1964: 46), which forms nouns designating qualities or abstract nouns. An alternative, but much more inferior explanation: q[a]ra n[o]ya ‘black (i.e., civilian, not military) officials’. Cf. MM qara ‘black’ (MNT §21, §25, etc.), (Mu 227), (IM 444) and noyan ‘official, lord’ (MNT §8, §51, etc.), (Mu 115), (IM 443). ɣuń is difficult to explain. It certainly cannot be MM -wun or WM -ɣun, a deverbal nominalizer, because we have no verb preceding it. Since there is no in the language of the HT inscription, it could potentially be a loan from EMC kuŋ 公 ‘prince, duke’.
  3. tṳwa̤ occurs three times in the HT inscription: on the lines 2-4, 2-7, and 2-9. It is not clear what it can be, and the problem is further complicated by the fact that -w- occurs only in this word. The comparison with the tribal name Tabɣač ~ Taɣbač should be discarded for phonological reasons. May be EMM to’a ‘number’ (MNT §229, §265, §278), (HYYY 22b.2), (KMQB I: 9b.2), but note that in other cases MM -’- ~ WM -ɣ- is reflected as -ɣ- in the language of the HT inscription. WMM tü’ü- ‘to gather’ (Mu 159) is more problematic for phonological and syntactical reasons. Maue suggested tribal name Dūbō ~ Dūbò (都波 ~ 都播EMC tuo pwâ ~ tuo pwâC). Since the language of the HT inscription does not exhibit -p-, he is probably right.
  4. pṳro̤-r is obscure. -r can be a Mongolic deverbal nominalizer -r, as in WMM amu-r ‘peace, patience’ (Mu 102) < MM amu- ‘to rest’ (MNT §145, §201, etc.), (Mu 102), (IM 432), but the root is opaque.
  5. Maue suggested Mongolian čiči- ‘to stab’ + -rA, converbum finale. The form čiči- appears to be Post-Pre-Classical, as it is not attested in MM or Pre-Classical WM. Cf. EMM seči- ‘to stab’ (MNT §127). Converbum finale -rA is well attested in both MM (Godziński 1985: 146) and pre-Classical WM (Poppe 1964: 98). Therefore, provisionally I accept Maue’s proposal.
  6. pügtîg is obscure. I do not have any possible etymologies for it.
  7. ńa̤la̤-n could potentially be EMM neyile- or WMM neile- ‘to join’, followed by the converbum finale -n.
  8. There is some Mongolic morphology in this line as well: plural suffix -nar, converbum modale -n, converbum finale -rA, and possibly a nominalizer -r. The first two has been already discussed above. As for the converbum finale -rA and nominalizer -r, I do not think they is attested in Khitan.

 

LINE 2-5

Transliteration:

[+] k[a]ga[n-u? + ]  kato-ña̤r  dügî-d  nị̄rı̣  kagan  türǖg  kagan

 

 

Tentative transcription:

[+] q[a]ɣa[n-u? + ]  qato-ńar  düge-d  nị̄rı̣  qaɣan  türük  qaɣan

 

Morphemic analysis:

[?] qaɣan-GEN  [?]  qatun-PLUR  younger.brother-PLUR  Niri  qaɣan  türk  qaɣan

 

Notes:

  1. The first akṣara is unreadable.
  2. In spite of the poor preservation, the next word must be qaɣan-u ‘qaɣan-GEN’. It is possible that the next akṣara indicated just -n, forming therefore, an alternative genitive in -un after qaɣan, see more on this in the notes to line 2-9.
  3. qato- can be equated with EMM qatu (MNT §54, §55) and MM qatun (MNT §64, §104, etc.), (IM 444), (Mu 203) ‘qaɣan’s wife, lady, noble woman’. -ńar is a plural suffix already seen above.
  4. düge-d is ‘younger brothers’, metathesized form of MM de’ü ‘younger brother’ (MNT §18, §46, etc.), (Mu 151), followed by a plural suffix -d.
  5. Niri qaɣan of the Western Turkic Khaganate (r. 579-603/604) is a grandson of Bumin qaɣan.
  6. The rest of the line is quite straightforward: türǖg kagan is, of course, türük qaɣan ‘Turkic qaɣan’.
  7. We again see typically Mongolic morphology in this line: besides the genitive case suffix -u (or may be -un) and plural suffix -ńar (used this time after an animate noun), we also encounter for the first time Mongolic plural suffix -d.

 

LINE 2-6

Transliteration:

ruc dro̤ ta̤ya̤-jṳ  xīṛı̣ härgin  bar-go[l]  pa̤lxị̄r [+]xa̤cı̣ hîgbîj

 

Tentative transcription:

uč d[ö]rö tayaju  kera erkin  bar-ɣo[l]  pa̤lxị̄r [+]xa̤cı̣ hîgbî-j

 

Morphemic analysis:

? law  worship-CONV  country  title/people  take-NML  ?  ?  ?-PST

 

Notes:

  1. is not clear. A reduction from EMM učir ‘chance, reason, cause’ (KMQB I: 21a.2, 21b.1, 25b.4, 26a.3, 28a.3) does not seem very probable. Even less probable would be a connection with WMM ūča ‘back’ (Mu 96, 154, 371), (Ist 71), uča (L 1255).
  2. dörö is ‘law, rule, principle’. Cf. EMM töre (MNT §208), törö (MNT §216). For the discrepancy between HT d- and EMM t- cf. also HT digin vs. tegin on line 2-1 as well as Manchu doro ‘id.’, Jurchen doron ‘imperial seal’, borrowed from Mongolic with initial d-, not t-.
  3. taya- probably can be explained as EMM tayi- ‘to worship’ (MNT §189). -ju is converbum contemporale that we have already seen several times.
  4. For härgin Maue suggested OT erkin ~ irkin ‘title’ (p.c.), discussed by Clauson (1972: 225) and in other sources. It might be further etymologically connected to OT erk ‘authority, free-will, independence’ (Clauson 1972: 22). This may indicate a further connection with EMM erkin (sing.) ~ erkid (plur.) ‘important, excellent, masterly’ (de Rachewiltz 2004.1: 415), attested in MNT §105, §109, §153, etc., but not used as a title in Mongolic. It is not inconceivable, on the other hand, that we have here MM irgen [irgən] ‘people’ (with a metathesis of vocalism) (MNT §5, §8, §11, etc.), (HYYY 14b.1), (Mu 119, 123, 136, etc.). Both explanations have their pluses and minuses. Maue’s theory does not involve metathesis, but leaves -g- instead of -k- unexplained. Also, in the HT inscription titles have consistent plural marking when the plurality is meant. May be only one erkin is meant here, it is difficult to say, even if the next word is explained as ‘taker, collector’ (see below). Vovin’s explanation has a metathesis, but does not create problem with the consonant -g-. Also, irgen is never marked with plural.
  5. bar-go[l] is probably a cognate of MM bari- ‘to take, to collect’ (MNT §19, §25, etc.), (Mu 199, 103, etc.) + MM -’Ul (Godziński 1985: 53-54), Pre-Classical WM -ɣul ~ -gül, a deverbal nominalizer designating occupations. Alternatively, this form can be interpreted as bari- + a cognate of MM -’Ul (Godziński 1985: 53-54), Pre-Classical WM -ɣul ~ -gül, a causative suffix, followed by a zero-marked imperative. Étienne de la Vaissière believes that it might be Barkul, the place of Niri’s defeat.
  6. The rest of this line is opaque, although ǰ in hîgbî-j can probably be equated with MM past tense in *-ǰi found in distant past ǰU’U(y) and its feminine form ǰi’ay (Godziński 1985: 131-132).
  7. Again we have some clearly Mongolic morphology here: ǰu, –ǰ and -gol.

 

LINE 2-7

Transliteration:

tüg-jü ruka-ba-r-ña̤r  kagan  xa̤nı̣  jṳla̤-ba̤  tṳn-ṳ  tüg-nyä  tṳwa̤

 

Tentative transcription:

tüg-jü uqa-ba-r-ńar  qaɣan  qan-ı ǰula-ba tün-ü  tüg-n[V]yä  tuwa

 

Morphemic analysis:

be.enough-CONV realize-PST-NML-PLUR  qaɣan  regnal.year-ACC  shine(?)-PST that-GEN  be.enough-?  tribal.name

 

Notes:

  1. tüg- can be compared either with EMM tüge- ‘be enough’ (§92, §187) (cf. the similar elision of the second syllable vowel reflected by MM bari- : HT bar- on the previous line) or with MM tüge’e- ‘to give out, to distribute’ (MNT §213, §232), (Mu 358), possibly a derivative of tüge-. Converb -ǰU has previously appeared on lines 2-2, 2-3, and 2-6.
  2. uqa- ‘to realize, to know’ was discussed previously in conjunction with line 02. -bA is MM past tense suffix that appears twice on line 2-7. -r could be a nominalizer previously mentioned in the note 4 to line 2-4, although there might be a problem with this interpretation, since MM form in -bA is a final verbal form (Godziński 1985: 128-129), which has no adnominal function. But since the language of the HT inscription is not MM, I am going to propose this explanation, especially that adnominal forms in East Asia and Central Asia tend to acquire easily final predication function. Note also that Khitan past tense suffix -bəń[6] can be used in the adnominal function (Shimunek 2017: 271). -ńar is plural suffix, which we have already seen on more than one occasion. Thus, uqa-ba-r-ńar is ‘realizations’ or ‘those who realized’.
  3. qaɣan does not require any comments and xa̤n- according to Maue is a ‘regnal year’ < Tumshuquese xšana- ‘Zyklusjahr’ + accusative ı. Alternatively, it may be just qan ‘khan’ (Maue, p. c.).
  4. ǰula- can be possibly connected with MM ǰula ‘light, candle, torch’ (HYYY 10b.4), (HS 10.20), (Mu 169, 210, 325, 336), (IM 439), (Ist 39) (< WOT *ǰula, cf. EOT yula ‘light, torch’),[7] which is a nominal root, but it is possible to suspect conversion here, so I tentatively interpret it as ǰula- ‘to shine’. Cf. MM to’o ~ to’a ‘number’ à to’o- ‘to count’.
  5. As for tün-ü, tün- must be cognate to EMM te’ün– (MNT §12, §116, etc.) ~ WMM tǖn- (Mu 94, 97, etc.) is the oblique stem of tere ‘that’. , is, of course, a genitive form after stems in -n (see the note 5 to line 2-2).
  6. -n[V]yä is a piece of morphology for which currently I have no explanation. The last word on this line is the enigmatic tṳwa̤ (see note 3 to line 2-4).
  7. As before, we see a number of typically Mongolic morphological markers: converb contemporale ǰU, past tense suffix -bA, nominalizer -r, plural suffix -ńar, and genitive suffix -U after -n stems.

 

LINE 2-8

Transliteration:

[+]xa̤[] tṳ[]  to[go?]-gun pügtig-ci  śị̄ñı̣-n bodi-satva  to̤ro̤-x  kagan

 

Tentative transcription:

[ir]ge[n] tṳ[]  to[ɣo]-ɣun pügtig-či šińi-n  bodi-satva  törö-k  qaɣan

 

Morphemic analysis:

people ?  count-NML  ?-NA  new-GEN Bodhi-sattva  be.born-NOM.FUT  qaɣan

 

Notes:

  1. The first two words on this line are unreadable, but the first one might be irgen ‘people’, judging from the context, if Maue’s identification of tṳwa̤ as tribal name Tupa is correct.
  2. to[ɣo]- can be compared with EMM to’o- ‘to count’ (MNT §161), WMM tō- (Mu 115). -ɣun must be cognate to MM deverbal nominalizer -’Un (Godziński 1985: 53), and Pre-Classical WM -ɣun ~ -gün (Poppe 1964: 46), which forms nouns designating qualities or abstract nouns.
  3. Enigmatic pügtig previously appeared on line 2-4 as pügtîg. Here it is probably followed by nomen actoris suffix -či. The only information it provides us is that pügtîg ~ pügtig must be a noun.
  4. The rest of this line is identical to the second part of line 2-1 and the first word of line 2-2.
  5. Again we see several typically Mongolic morphological markers: nominalizer -ɣun, genitive case marker -n after vowel stems, possibly nomen futuri -k[ü], and nomen actoris -či (which is, of course, a common Turco-Mongolic marker, but it remains unclear who borrowed it from whom).[8]

 

LINE 2-9

Transliteration:

[+]l[][+]  []ı̣yṳ  ruc bitîhî-ñ   [ + + ] g[×-+] tṳwa̤ pa̤r  kagan to̤ro̤-x  kagan-un

 

Tentative transcription:

[+]l[][+]  []ı̣-yU uč bitig-iń  [ + + ] g[×-+] tṳwa̤ par  qaɣan rö-k  qaɣan-un

 

Morphemic analysis:

? ?-PRES  ?  inscription-GEN ?  ?  tribal.name  person  qaɣan be.born-NOM.FUT  qaɣan-GEN

 

Notes:

  1. This line is poorly preserved. The first, second, fifth, and sixth words are unreadable, although -yU in the second word could be a suffix of deductive present MM -yU (Godziński 1985: 127), WM -yU (Poppe 1964: 92).
  2. On enigmatic see note 1 to line 2-6.
  3. bitig-iń is a genitive form of bitig ‘inscription’, which previously appeared as biti[g] on lines 2-1 and 2-4.
  4. On the enigmatic tṳwa̤ see note 3 to line 2-4. This word also appears on line 2-7.
  5. par is likely a cognate of EMM hara ‘person’ (MNT §246) ~ haran (MNT §39, §91, §100, etc.) ‘person’, ‘persons’, ‘population’ and WMM haran ‘id.’ (Mu 198), (Ist 31), (IM 431). Alternatively, it could be par ‘ten’ ‘cf. MM har-ban and Khitan par. Note that like in Khitan, and unlike in MM numerals in HT are not followed by the suffix -ban~ -’an < *-pan, cf. HT dolu ‘seven’ on line three
  6. qaɣan does not require commentary and törö-k has been treated above in the note 5 to line 2-1. It also appears on line 2-8.
  7. The language of the HT inscription has alternative genitive -un for qaɣan: qaɣan-un, which is probably a result of secondary paradigmatic reanalysis, although it also could be a metathesis of a form similar to EMM alternative genitive qaɣan-nu (MNT §1, §48, §51, etc.).
  8. Again several clearly Mongolic morphological markers are present: genitives -un and -iń, deductive present -yU, and possibly nomen futuri -k[ü].

 

LINE 2-10

Transliteration:

pa̤da̤-   n<ị̄>rı̣  kagan  türüg  [ka]ga[n]  []ị̄jı̣-n rubī-j  ja̤lo̤ba̤-j  darka-d  ja̤y bı̣

 

Tentative transcription:

pada- Niri  qaɣan  türüg  [qa]ɣa[n]  [k/g]īǰi-n ubī-ǰ ǰalo-ba-ǰ  darqa-d  ǰay bi

 

Morphemic analysis:

be.cut-(?) Niri  qaɣan  türk  qaɣan  approach/follow-CONV  ?-PST  direct-PST-PST  free.man-PLUR  happy  be

 

Notes:

  1. There is a lacuna after pada-. There is WM ada- ‘to be stubbed, to be cut’, but as far as I can tell the word is not attested most importantly either in MM (therefore, we cannot confirm the presence, or the absence of an initial h- < *p-) or in WM prior to seventeenth century. Therefore, this identification remains dubious.
  2. We have already met Turkic qaɣan Niri in line 2-5, so Niri qaɣan türüg [qa]ɣa[n] does not require any commentary.
  3. []īǰi-n looks like a verbal form ending in converbum modale -n, but establishing the identity of the root might be difficult, although MM [g]iǰi- ‘to follow’ (MNT §253), [k]iǰi- ‘to approach’ (MNT §195) seem to be the only candidates.
  4. The root ubī- does not have any parallels, but on distant past ǰ see the note 6 to the line 2-6.
  5. ǰalo-ba-ǰ may consist of the root ǰalo- (cf. WM ǰalu- ‘to direct’, ‘to make straight’[9]), past tense -bA, and distant past -ǰi.
  6. darqa-d is a plural form of darka-n ‘free man, official’.
  7. ǰa̤y looks like a cognate to EMM ǰaya’an ‘happy, blessed’ (MNT §66, §194, §248), where -’an is likely to be a suffix.
  8. bi is a cognate to MM büi ‘to exist’ (MNT §18, §35, §44, etc.), (Mu 105, 110, 139, etc.).
  9. There are several typically Mongolic morphological markers on this line as well: converbum modale -n, distant past , past -bA, and plural suffix -d.

 

LINE 2-11

Transliteration:

[   ]run bitig  [+]säg   pag [ +? +? ] j[] [ +? +? ] darka-n  b[]   tı̣ ba̤  ka

 

Tentative transcription:

[e’]ün bitig  [+]säg  pag  [ +? +? ]  ǰ[] [ +? +? ]  darqa-n  b[i]ti-be  qa

 

Morphemic analysis:

this inscription  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  official-SING  write-PST  ?

 

Notes:

  1. The last line is in a very poor state of preservation, but it looks like a signature of a scribe.
  2. I substitute e’ for the first lacuna. The resulting form is e’ün-, an equivalent to EMM oblique stem e’ün- of the demonstrative pronoun ere ‘this’. Likely, this is a reduction of e’ün-ü, a genitive form of ere.
  3. bitig is ‘inscription’, see also lines 2-1, 2-4, and 2-9
  4. darqa-n is singular form of darqa- ‘official, free man’ that we have already seen as plural darqa-d on line 2-10.
  5. biti-be is the past tense form of biti- ‘to write’. The rest of the line is undecipherable at the present moment.
  6. Only two Mongolic morphological markers appear on this line: singular -n and past tense suffix -bA.

 

TENTATIVE PARTIAL TRANSLATION

1-3. qaɣan [and] prince [of] the inscriptions.[10] When qaɣan, who will be [re]born as a new Bodhisattva, knows lord Buddha knowledge, and promises to the country’s Ańaqay [title], begs, stand for the tribe, and promising seven [times] … 4. Looking at the inscription stones, Tupa [people], … in order to stab … joining … 5. … qaɣan’s wives [and] younger brothers, [and] Niri qaɣan, qaɣan [of] Türks 6. worshiped the Law, and country’s erkins and collectors … 7. is enough and there were enough of those who realized that qaɣan’s regnal years were shining. Tupa 8. people … counting … qaɣan who will be [re]born as a new Bodhisattva 9-10. … of the inscription … Tupa persons being cut from the qaɣan who will be [re]born as a qaɣan, [they] followed Niri qaɣan, qaɣan of Türks and … [He] directed [them]. Free men were happy. 11. Official … wrote this inscription …

 

COMPARATIVE CHART OF HÜIS TOLGOI AND MONGOLIC/KHITAN MORPHOLOGY

marker Hüis Tolgoi MM Pre-Classical WM Khitan
genitive after -n stems -U ~ -Un -U ~ -nU -U -en
genitive after consonantal stems -Un ~ -iń -Un -Un -un, -en,
genitive after vowel stems -n -n -n -n, -on, -un
accusative -ı ~ -i -i ~ -yi -i ~ -yi
plural suffix -ńAr -nAr -nAr -ńer ~ -ńeń
plural suffix -d -d -d -d
singular suffix -n -n -n
nomen actoris -či -či -či
converbum modale -n -n -n
converbum contemporale -ǰU -ǰU -ǰU -ǰ ~ -č
converbum finale -rA -rA -rA
nomen futuri -x -qu ~ -kü -qu ~ -kü
past -bA -bA(i) -bA(i) -beń
distant past *-ǰi -ǰuqui ~ -ǰüküi
deductive present -yU -yU -yU
nominalizer -ɣuń ~ -ɣun -’Un -ɣun ~ -gün
nominalizer -r -r -r
nominalizer -ɣol -’Ul -ɣul ~ -gül
functionally unclear verbal suffix -n[V]yA-

 

I believe that the chart above clearly demonstrates that the language of the HT inscription shows much more features common with mainstream Mongolic than with Khitan. This also makes sense geographically, since the HT inscription comes from the territory much more to the North than the home territories of Serbi and Khitan were.

Certainly, we have sufficient lexical difference between the language of HT and the first monuments in MM. But this also should come as no surprise, given the fact that more than half of a millennium separates these texts, as well as the hard-core reality (sorely missed by Nostraticists and other long-rangers) that the lexicon represents the most unstable part of any language.

 

SOME NOTES ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE NON-SOGDIAN PART OF THE BUGUT INCRIPTION

I totally agree with Maue that in spite being a bilingual text, this is a much harder nut to crack than the HT inscription. Although it is written in the same Brāhmī script, I see no similarities or no commonalities with the language of HT inscription, except may be for a converb contemporale -ǰU, but one similarity proves nothing. The inscription is also much shorter than the Sogdian text, so it is not a Rosetta stone by any standards. I would not be as pessimistic as Maue to call the decipherment completely hopeless. I largely suspect that the language of the non-Sogdian part of the inscription might be Ruan-ruan but I would not attempt its decipherment before I finish digging out bits and pieces of this enigmatic language from the OT sources and acquiring a good working knowledge of Sogdian that I currently do not have. The latter necessity is due to the fact that any readings of the Sogdian part of the inscription provide solely the translation, but not the morphemic analysis, which is the crucial helping part in the decipherment of any unknown bilingual portion.

 

CONCLUSION

I trust that the most innovative and revolutionary linguistic part of our presentation is that the first ‘Altaic’-type language attested in the steppe by a continuous text is not OT, but Mongolic. Apart from the fact that it now places Mongolic as a textually attested language in the late sixth or early seventh century and makes it a contender among ‘Altaic’-type languages with Korean that has the first continuous text attributed to 594 or 596 AD. For the sake of the comparison, the first Old Japanese text is dated only by 697 AD, and the first OT text by 713 AD. Tungusic Jurchen texts are not attested before the twelfth century.

This discovery can also potentially reverse, at least in some cases, the traditional point of view that the directionality of borrowing was always from Turkic to Mongolic, as some of them will have now more certain Mongolic origin.

Finally, it appears that the same language as in the HT inscription appears in the same script, and more importantly in the same language in much shorter Keregentas inscriptions from Eastern Kazakhstan. What polity or what tribe/nation might have possibly spoken this language is the question that should be answered by historians.

 

 

Abbreviations of languages and grammatical terms

CONV                            Converb

EMC                              Early Middle Chinese

EMM                             Eastern Middle Mongolian

EOT                               Eastern Old Turkic

GEN                              Genitive

IMP                               Imperative

NA                                 Nomen actoris

OT                                 Old Turkic

PLUR                             Plural

PRES                             Present

SING                             Singular

WMM                            Western Middle Mongolian

WOT                              Western Old Turkic

 

References

Primary sources

Khitan

Hsiao Hui-lian.Can       Inscription on the canopy of Hsiao Hui-lian muzhi ming, 1080 AD

Langjun                       Langjun inscription, 1134 AD

Yelü Jue                       Yelü Jue muzhi ming inscription, 1071 AD

Yelü Pusuli                  Yelü Pusuli muzhi beiming inscription, 1105 AD

Yelü Xiang-wen           Yelü Xiangwen muzhi inscription, 1091 AD

 

Middle Mongolian

HS                               The edict of Hai-shan, 1305 AD

HYYY                         Hua-yi yi-yu, 1389 AD

IM                               Ibn Muhannā vocabulary, 14th c. AD

Ist                                Istanbul vocabulary, 14th or 15th century AD

KMQB                         Kitad Mongɣol Qarilčaɣan-u Bičig (Sino-Mongolian Documents), 14th c.

L                                 Leiden vocabulary, 1343 AD

MNT                           Mongɣol niuča tobča’an, ca. 1240 AD

Mu                              Mukaddimat ‘al-‘Adab, 14th century AD

Qub IV[11]                      Fourth edict of Qubilai qaɣan, 1280 AD

 

Secondary sources

Clauson, sir Gerald 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Godziński, Stanisław 1985. Język Średniomongolski. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Kane, Daniel 2009. The Kitan Language and Script. Leiden & Boston: Brill.

Poppe, Nicholas 1957. The Mongolian Documents in ḥP‘ags-pa Script. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Poppe, Nicholas 1964. Grammar of Written Mongolian. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.

de Rachewiltz, Igor 2004-2013. The Secret History of Mongols. Translated with a Historical and Philological Commentary. Vols. 1 & 2 (2004), vol. 3 (2013). Leiden & Boston: Brill.

Róna-Tas, András & Árpád Berta 2011. West Old Turkic. Turkic Loanwords in Hungarian. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Shimunek, Andrew 2017. Languages of Ancient South Mongolia and North China. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Tumurtogoo, D. 2006. Mongolian Monuments in Uighur-Mongolian Script (XIII-XVI Centuries). Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Tumurtogoo, D. 2010. Mongolian Monuments in ’Phags-pa Script. Taipei: Academia Sinica.

Vovin, Alexander 2003. A Reference Grammar of Classical Japanese Prose. London: Routledge/Curzon.

Vovin, Alexander 2005. A Descriptive and Comparative Grammar of Western Old Japanese. Part 1: Phonology, Script, Lexicon, and Nominals. Folkestone: Global Oriental.

Vovin, Alexander 2013. ‘Old Turkic Loanwords in the Khitan Language’. In: Yalım Kaya Bitigi. Festschrift for Prof. Osman Sertkaya. Ed. by Hatice Șirin User and Bülent Gül, pp. 621-25.

Wu, Yingzhe & Juha Janhunen 2010. New Materials on the Khitan Small Script. Folkestone: Global Oriental.

[1] There was an unprecedented growth of Khitan studies in the West alone, with three significant monographs published in the recent years: Kane 2009, Wu & Janhunen 2010, and Shimunek 2017.

[2] The first number indicates the number of the stone, and the second the number of a line on it.

[3] Note that the onset ń- of this suffix is closer to Khitan, while the vocalism is identical with Mongolic.

[4] Shimunek glosses this word as ‘external clans’ (2017: 265), but the plural would probably work only if Khitan -d - is here a plural suffix.

[5] Shimunek’s hypothesis that there must be one based on various look-alikes in the neighboring languages (2017: 406-407) is, of course, nothing but a fantasy, unsubstantiated by evidence.

[6] Kane reconstructs -bo.ń ~ -b.uń ~ -bun (2009: 147).

[7] Possibly from Turkic *yul- ‘to catch fire, to be ignited, be kindled’ (Róna-Tas & Berta 2011: 409).

[8] Since the HT inscription is more than one century older than the earliest OT texts, it is likely that the directionality of borrowing might have been Mongolic à Turkic, and not the vice versa.

[9] Not attested in Pre-Classical WM (Tumurtogoo 2006) or in MM.

[10] This is likely to be a carry-over from the first stone.

[11] Numeration is given according to the edition by Tumurtogoo 2010, not Poppe’s edition of 1957, because many more documents in ’Phags-pa were discovered after Poppe’s edition.

文章出处(来源):   德力英蒙研究 微博
分类目录: 教学科研 总浏览:660

内蒙古蒙古语移动互联网推广服务项目通过专家验收

9月5日,内蒙古自治区民族事务委员会组织专家组对中国联通网络通信有限公司内蒙古分公司承担蒙古语移动互联网推广服务项目进行验收。专家组经听取项目承担单位的项目建设情况汇报、项目成果演示、项目监理情况汇报、问询答疑和集体讨论,一致认为该项目完成了建设任务和考核指标,同意该项目通过验收。该项目建设采用了蒙古语移动定制终端操作系统及多项蒙古文应用软件,符合蒙古文书写习惯,在试点盟市推广蒙古语移动行业定制终端4000部,推广蒙古语应用软件8000户。整合共享信息资源,引导信息化便民惠民,促进了蒙古语信息服务“最后一公里”的落地和服务工作。

文章出处(来源):   自治区民族事务委员会
分类目录: 教学科研 总浏览:270

首发《托忒蒙古文文献―故事汇集》

原标题:乌鲁木齐首发《托忒蒙古文文献―故事汇集》等4本书

人民网乌鲁木齐6月18日电(记者胡仁巴)17日,《托忒蒙古文文献――故事汇集》等4本书首发仪式暨托忒蒙古文文献学术研讨会在乌鲁木齐成功召开。

“加强少数民族古籍工作,是贯彻落实中央关于深化文化体制改革、加强中华文化遗产保护、推动社会主义文化发展繁荣的必然要求,对于加强民族团结,维护祖国统一具有重要意义。”在此次研讨会上,新疆维吾尔自治区民委(宗教局)党组成员、副主任、副局长党金华介绍说,截至目前,自治区古籍办为摸清新疆少数民族古籍资源的家底,先后在全疆各地进行调查摸底。已收藏一万多册(件)古籍。其中有回鹘文、龟兹文、波罗米文、阿拉伯文、波斯文、察合台文、维吾尔文、哈萨克文、托忒蒙古文、胡都木蒙古文、柯尔克孜文、满文、锡伯文、乌孜别克文、塔塔尔文、藏文等16种文字。其中,特别是蒙古―达斡尔族古籍搜集、整理、出版工作时逢改革开放,得到有序发展。30多年来,掌握了700多册(件)古籍线索,抢救搜集384多册(件)。

“目前,国内学术界对蒙古文字档案文献遗产的研究尚属起始阶段,而档案遗产保护抢救的实践工作也急需理论知识体系进行指导。”自治区档案馆副研究员其买在发言中说,包括托忒蒙古文、胡都木蒙古文的新疆卫拉特蒙古文档案文献遗产,是新疆蒙古族社会各个方面的详实反映。尤其是托忒蒙古文档案文献是国内唯一幸存的托忒蒙古文第一手珍贵资料,对于研究清代以来新疆蒙古族文学、艺术、宗教、哲学、医药、语言文字、书法等发展变化具有极高文献价值。

其买认为,新疆蒙古文档案文献遗产的抢救是一个重要的社会现实问题,在新疆各蒙古族集中居住地区,蒙古文档案文化遗产除部分为档案馆、博物馆和图书馆等文化机构所收藏外,尚有大量档案遗产散存民间。受历史、自然和人为因素影响,加之保护条件有限,许多蒙古文档案文献遗产损毁、流失现象极为严重。蒙古文档案文献遗产问题的研究除梳理其内涵外延、档案特点、类型构成和发掘价值外,还将涉及到档案材料征集、载体保护、资源建设与信息开发等诸多方面,这对提供蒙古文档案遗产保护的实践方法,建立区域性蒙古文档案遗产保护模式,更好地抢救与发掘利用这一珍贵的民族历史文化遗产有重大的现实意义。

据悉,当日在乌鲁木齐成功首发的《托忒蒙古文文献――故事汇集》等4本书均是由新疆少数民族古籍搜集整理出版规划领导小组办公室“蒙古―达斡尔古籍业务小组”副组长道・嘎力敦通过30多年来对蒙古文文献搜集整理注释出版的部分古籍,先后在新疆人民出版社出版。

来自自治区文联、自治区民委(宗教局)、新疆人民出版社、自治区民族语言文字工作委员会、自治区档案馆、新疆卫拉特蒙古研究学会、《语言与翻译》(蒙文)杂志、《启明星》杂志社、新疆大学西北少数民族研究中心《江格尔》研究室、新疆职业大学、新疆师范大学、博尔塔拉蒙古自治州蒙医院、和布克赛尔蒙古自治县史志办、和布克赛尔蒙古自治县蒙医院等各单位40余位专家学者参加研讨会。其中,13位学者在研讨会上进行主题发言。

期间,自治区文联研究员贾木查以《论整理<江格尔>的原则和方法》,新疆大学西北少数民族研究中心《江格尔》研究室教授策・巴图以《托忒蒙文、卫拉特方言词典概要》,新疆少数民族古籍搜集整理出版规划领导小组办公室“蒙古―达斡尔古籍业务小组”副组长道・嘎力敦以《对阿尔泰地区古籍搜集概况》,新疆卫拉特蒙古研究学会会长、新疆师范大学文学院副教授巴・巴图巴雅尔以《有关卫拉特<格斯尔>的一份托忒文书信》等论文题目,与参会的学者们围绕卫拉特蒙古历史文献研究、托忒蒙古文档案研究、蒙古文文献搜集整理、蒙古文医学文献搜集整理以及搜集整理蒙古族英雄史诗《江格尔》、《格斯尔》的相关学术问题,进行了广泛深入探讨交流。

《托忒蒙古文文献――故事汇集》等4本书暨托忒蒙古文文献学术研讨会由新疆维吾尔自治区民委(宗教局)古籍办主办,新疆维吾尔自治区卫拉特蒙古研究学会协办。

奥云蒙古文OCR系统投入使用

新华网呼和浩特9月6日电(白玲迪 苏力雅) 5日,从内蒙古大学计算机学院蒙古文信息处理重点实验室了解到,该实验室自主研发的新型蒙古文印刷体识别系统(奥云蒙古文OCR系统)9月3日正式投入使用。

奥云蒙古文OCR系统基于蒙古文大数据使用最先进的深度学习技术和云服务框架,目前是国内首个支持多种蒙古文字体、且识别正确率和整体功能达到实用水平的WEB系统。

据内蒙古大学计算机学院副教授飞龙介绍,目前奥云蒙古文OCR系统可识别蒙古文白体、黑体、标题体、新闻体和哈旺体出版的图书、报纸、网络图像和PDF文件,识别结果可导出为双层蒙古文PDF书籍、文本文件和word文件。

该系统的应用可以加快各领域蒙古文文档的数字化速度,提高蒙古文文档的利用水平。

分享:

责任编辑:李倩

文章出处(来源):   新华网
分类目录: 教学科研 总浏览:118

创作最长的蒙古文 书法册页《固始汗》

本报讯 (记者 花木嵯) 近日,由上海大世界基尼斯总部确认,我省书法家永阿创作的最长蒙古文书法册页(累计)——《固始汗》,全部册页展开长度为1330米,获得大世界基尼斯之最证书。

永阿是我省海西蒙古族藏族自治州民族书法家,现担任内蒙古蒙古文书法家协会理事,青海省书法家协会会员、民族书法专委会副主任等社会职务。他的书法作品选入《蒙古文书法全集》等10余部书法精选集。2014年9月起,永阿以毛笔书写青海蒙古族著名作家巴音先生著作《固始汗》长篇历史小说,至2016年10月完成。整部作品字数15万,专用安徽泾县制定宣纸67.7㎝×43㎝规格纸张共3027张,共写28套册页,每套册页108页。装裱成册版面规格为75㎝×44㎝,全部册页展开长度1330米,竖高3.41米,重588.5公斤。目前,永阿的部分作品已由内蒙古秘史博物馆、内蒙古蒙古文书法博物馆、青海省美术馆收藏。

为何蒙古帝国建立之后才有真正意义上的的世界历史?

核心提示:(东西方)两种历史文化都是从自身所处的区域来看世界,两大文明各自认为自己的区域才值得被称为世界,且这两种不同的历史模式也无法兼容。然而十三世纪横跨欧亚的蒙古帝国出现,使得这两大历史文化透过“草原之道”结合在一起,为世界史的出现搭设了舞台。

 

冈田英弘《世界史的诞生》  资料图

本文摘自:澎湃新闻网,作者:蔡伟杰,原题:蒙古帝国是如何“发明”世界史的

在史学界,冈田英弘(OkadaHidehiro)以其东洋史与蒙古学研究蜚声学界。现为日本东京外国语大学亚非语言文化研究所名誉教授与东洋文库专任研究员。他因参与神田信夫与松村润等人主持的《满文老档》译注工作,而以二十六岁青年学者之姿荣获日本学士院奖,是仅次于日本文化勋章的荣誉。然而在中国他被引介的作品多半是与满学与蒙古学相关的学术论文,其数量与其专著相比实为九牛一毛。

去年4月23日,王岐山同志在中南海会见美籍日裔政治哲学家弗朗西斯·福山一行人时,特地提及他对冈田英弘历史著作的欣赏。不久后,坊间的报刊杂志开始刊登关于冈田英弘的介绍文章,其中以哥伦比亚大学东亚系博士生孔令伟为“澎湃新闻”撰写的“王岐山说的冈田英弘是谁?”一文为代表。不少出版社也开始着手译介其作品。而本书《世界史的诞生:蒙古帝国的文明意义》可以算是这波风潮下的首部成果。广大的中国读者群也得以一窥这位日本史家对于世界史的另类思考与观点。

东西方两种历史观

本书的日文原名为“世界史の诞生─モンゴルの発展と伝统”。日文初版于1992年发行,1999年再版。最早于2013年由台湾的广场出版社首先发行繁体中文版《世界史的诞生:蒙古的发展与传统》,由陈心慧翻译,而校订新版则转由八旗文化于2016年发行。而本书的简体中文版则据繁体中文版为底本,并经中央民族大学讲师袁剑审校后,由北京出版社于2016年发行。与正体中文版相较,简体中文版删略了部分内容与所有地图,但基本上保持了原书风貌。虽然从现今的角度来看,本书内容已略嫌陈旧,但仍可从中一窥冈田史学之大略。

作者主张由于蒙古帝国的出现而使世界史变得可能。因为在古代文明中,书写历史是作为一种文化出现的。而最早拥有历史文化的仅有两种文明:即西方的地中海文明与东方的中国文明。其余的文明原本缺乏历史文化,但后来受到前述两大文明影响而产生书写历史的文化。而东西方的历史文化观则分别以源自西方地中海文明的希罗多德《历史》,和源于东方中国文明的司马迁《史记》两书为代表。

地中海型历史观以希罗多德的《历史》为代表。该书研究的对象并非希腊世界,而是横跨亚非的波斯帝国,所描述的是尚未统一的弱小希腊如何战胜亚洲强国波斯的故事。而这种希腊系文化的历史叙事与另一支后来透过基督教进入罗马帝国之犹太系历史文化(以《圣经·启示录》为代表)中的善恶对决世界观相重合的结果,确立了地中海文明以“善良欧洲战胜邪恶亚洲为历史宿命”为代表的对决历史观,以变化为主题。后世的西欧人身为受到基督教影响的罗马帝国后裔,其历史观则在希腊系与犹太系两种文化之间摆荡。

而中国型历史观则以司马迁的《史记》为代表。该书记载的是中国帝制的历史,讨论的是皇权的起源与转移的过程。而皇权之所以转移,是天命转移的结果。而天命传承的顺序被称为正统。而天命的正统万一出现了变化,皇帝的权力将无法维持。因此中国型的历史观选择忽略现实世界的变化。而在这种以正统递嬗为主轴的历史观下写出的历史,基本上是一种停滞不变的历史。其历史舞台主要局限于中国内地,无法将中央欧亚地区的历史反映出来,例如《元史》仅是蒙古帝国中元朝部分的正史。

蒙古帝国成立后才有真正的世界史?

第六章为全书重心所在。作者主张前述两种历史文化都是从自身所处的区域来看世界,两大文明各自认为自己的区域才值得被称为世界,且这两种不同的历史模式也无法兼容。然而十三世纪横跨欧亚的蒙古帝国出现,使得这两大历史文化透过“草原之道”结合在一起,为世界史的出现搭设了舞台。本书作者主张,由于蒙古帝国统合了欧亚大陆,并重新划分其政治边界,因此可以说后来的中国、俄国与土耳其等民族国家的出现也是蒙古帝国统治下的遗产。他更进一步认为资本主义经济其实首先诞生于华北,在蒙古帝国统治下经由欧亚草原传入地中海世界与西欧,加上海上贸易发达,因而揭开了现代的序幕。而且蒙古帝国独占了欧亚的陆路贸易,以至于处在外围的日本与西欧被迫转向海路贸易,遂开启了海洋帝国的时代。

作者认为在蒙古帝国治下,整个世界可以被视为整体,牵一发而动全身。因此可以说蒙古帝国成立之前的时代是世界史以前的时代,十三世纪后才出现了真正的世界史。其中又以十四世纪初期供职于伊利汗国合赞汗廷的拉施特(Rashidal-Din,本书译为拉希德丁)所编著的《史集》为代表。该书从蒙古人及其他游牧部族的历史写起,然后述说了蒙古大汗的历史以及蒙古以外各国人民的历史,包括自《旧约圣经》中的亚当以降的先知、穆罕默德及其继承者的阿拉伯帝国、波斯、赛尔柱、花剌子模、中国、法兰克(包括罗马皇帝与教皇)及印度等地的历史,规模远超过以往的历史著作(194-196页)。

虽然哈佛大学中国与内亚史教授傅礼初(JosephFletcher)认为在十六世纪以前不可能有所谓早期现代(1500-1800年)的全球整体史(integrativehistory),因为直到十五世纪末,美洲新大陆的文明仍旧与亚、非、欧洲隔绝,而且学界对该地区的早期历史仍旧缺乏了解。其论点确实也有理有据。不过如果我们将冈田英弘的论点做些修正,称《史集》这部以成吉思汗黄金氏族为中心的欧亚史,在规模上堪称最接近现代意义的前现代世界史作品,也许争议会更小,且能更适切地描述其意义。

当时在蒙古治世(PaxMongolica)下,这种欧亚世界一体的想象不仅反映在史学的时间概念上,也反映在制图学的地理概念中。日本京都大学东洋史与蒙古史教授杉山正明(SugiyamaMasaaki)在《颠覆世界史的蒙古》一书中就曾经比较过当时分别成于欧亚大陆两端的两幅世界地图:一是由犹太人亚伯拉罕·克列斯克(AbrahamCresques)绘制,现庋藏于法国国家图书馆的《加泰罗尼亚地图》(CatalanAtlas,也译为《卡塔兰地图》),成图时间约为元朝失去对中原控制不久后的1375年。另一幅图则是朝鲜王朝绘制于1402年的《混一疆理历代国都之图》。前者由八张长幅图组成,西起大西洋、不列颠岛,经北非、中东与印度,东达中国。里面的许多地名明显受到《马可·波罗行纪》的影响。而后者应当是以元代流传的《声教广被图》和《混一疆理图》两种底图绘成,图中记载的诸多行政区名称为元代称呼。该图东起日本、朝鲜半岛与中国,并包括阿拉伯半岛在内的欧亚大陆与非洲,西至欧洲边际。这两幅世界地图对距离本文化越远之地区的记载粗略程度不一,但呈现出欧亚一体的意识和视野则是它们的共同特征。如同《混一疆理历代国都之图》中的“混一”所表示的,蒙元不仅终结了中国史上三个半世纪宋辽金南北分治的局面,而且也是华夷的混一,其范围约相当于当时的欧亚世界。

作者认为明朝是蒙古的继承者,理由是明朝实行带有元朝色彩的军户制与封建制等(166-167页),而这些确实都有蒙古统治的成分在内。但是到了明代中叶,虽然封建制仍旧存在,军户制却已日益废弛,并逐渐改为募兵制。关于明朝继承元朝制度的问题,学界也有了更为细致的理解。在西方中国史学界,近年来风行的宋元明转折论就强调元朝在这段时期中的关键角色。而在中国学界,南开大学教授李治安近来则提出两个南北朝的理论,即第一个南北朝与后来的宋辽夏金第二个南北朝,而唐宋变革则是两个南北朝之间的过渡时期。而在中国历史与制度发展上,也存在着南朝与北朝两条发展方向。元明之间的继承关系在这个理论中,则可以视为由辽夏金元朝代表的军户制、户役法与封建制等北朝传统在明初被继承,但明中叶以后如募兵制、一条鞭法与民营纳税等近似中唐两宋为代表的南朝制度逐渐复苏。因此后来形成南北两种体制并行的情况。这种分析其实要比作者冈田英弘仅以明初的情况下结论要来得更加全面,也更能描述即便明承元绪,但其后来的发展轨迹却是逐渐偏离元朝传统的情况。

定居民族与游牧民族之间的关系

作者对地中海型与中国型历史的诠释作了过度概括,故出现将两者本质化而无法互通的情形。但就笔者看来,地中海型与中国型历史中其实也有互通之处,即都强调定居民族与游牧民族之间的关系。例如希罗多德的《历史》中,确实存在如作者所言希腊与波斯两大定居文明间的对抗,但是作者忽略了该书的另一个主题,即定居波斯文明与游牧斯基泰(Scythian)文明之间的和战。至于作者所谓停滞的中国式史观,从本书着重分析的《史记》来看,北方游牧匈奴民族与南方定居汉朝的对抗也是一个重要主题,而且这种对抗是出自于两种文化间不可化约的差异。如同宾夕法尼亚大学教授金鹏程(PaulR.Goldin)在《在古典中国里作为哲学问题的草原游牧民族》(SteppeNomadsasaPhilosophicalProbleminClassicalChina)一文中所提到的,古典中国哲学中原先认为所有人类的本质相同,只是存在文化习俗上的差异,但这种差异在圣贤的教化下是可以被改变的。但到了《史记·匈奴列传》,司马迁所记载之中行说与汉朝使节间的对话,正表明了汉文化习惯不见得适合所有人(如匈奴),并承认即便是教化亦有其界限。

反观其他受蒙古帝国影响下编纂的史书,也并非都如《史集》一般具有广阔的世界视野。以据信出于蒙古史家之手的《蒙古秘史》为例,其内容也是详于蒙古本部与黄金氏族的历史,而在述及其他定居文明时,也同样存在着记载粗疏与年代不清的情形。因此《史集》的出现,其实某种程度上算是一种特例。

也就是说,地中海型、中国型以及后来的蒙古型(或中央欧亚型)这三种历史观之间的差异可能并不像作者所说的如此水火不容,而定居民族与游牧民族之间的关系则是三者之间共有的主题。因此我们在思考前现代欧亚世界史的写作模式时,如果能从定居民族与游牧民族之间的关系出发,那么前述的这三种历史模式其实都能作为吾人撰写前现代世界史的思想资源。

另外在第七章“从东洋史与西洋史到世界史”中,作者对日本史学界历史分期的反思也值得我们思考。冈田英弘认为传统日本史学界的日本史、东洋史与西洋史三大分支,由于缺乏共同的分期标准,因此无法从中为新的世界史发展出一个适当的研究架构。例如内藤湖南的唐宋变革论中将皇帝专制视为中国走向“近世”(即近代)的指标之一,但是在西方,专制主义主要的发展仅仅限于法国,并不能作为整个西方的发展代表,因此并不是一个很好的指标。这个批评也促使我们重新思考中国史与世界史分期的分期问题,而本书主张以蒙古帝国成立为世界史分期的标准也值得纳入考虑。

简言之,笔者同意本书主张以蒙古帝国成立为分期的中央欧亚视角有潜力成为未来世界史学界的典范,但这并不需要以贬抑其他文明的史观为代价。反之,吾人实可以从这些不同的史观中持续汲取养分,以便创造出更具解释力的世界史典范。

最后针对本书存有疑义与校订未尽之处作一补充,书中正文第1页,将阔阔出视为铁木真的堂兄弟,是因为阔阔出之父蒙力克曾对铁木真有恩,故铁木真尊称他为“蒙力克父亲”,但实际上铁木真与阔阔出应无真正的血亲关系。第72页,回鹘汗国的“吉尔吉斯人”,历史上称其为“黠戛斯”。第161页,“伊儿汗国”为旧译名,现多译为“伊利汗国”。第199页,《蒙古源流》一书偶误作《蒙古流源》。同页“布儿罕合。勒敦山”中之句号为手民之误,应去之。第215页,“满州语”应作“满洲语”。

文章出处(来源):   澎湃新闻网 作者:蔡伟杰
分类目录: 书评 总浏览:199

我国蒙古族母语文学五年来的成就与展望

    作者:陈岗龙
        五年来,随着中国作协“少数民族文学发展工程”的全面实施,藏族、维吾尔族、哈萨克族、蒙古族、朝鲜族、彝族、壮族等各民族的母语文学创作迎来了非常好的发展契机。

  “这些培训班把主要目标和任务放在提高作家的政治思想认识上,鼓励作家们写出歌唱主旋律的、有思想高度的优秀作品。特别是一些作家经过培训后对蒙古族文学的定位有了明确的认识,更深刻地认识到蒙古族文学是中国多民族文学大家庭中的重要组成部分,母语文学作家不仅要有民族身份认同,更应该有国家认同、有家国情怀。”

五年来,随着中国作协“少数民族文学发展工程”的全面实施,藏族、维吾尔族、哈萨克族、蒙古族、朝鲜族、彝族、壮族等各民族的母语文学创作迎来了非常好的发展契机。就我所了解的蒙古族母语文学来说,无论从创作的数量、创作体裁的结构性变化,还是作品的思想性艺术性的提升、创作主题的丰富升华等方面,都取得了可喜的成绩。

当今世界是一个信息爆炸的时代,文学的创作和传播也不再拘泥于传统纸媒,不限于文学刊物和图书,蒙古族母语文学也不例外。过去,蒙古族母语文学主要见于各种蒙古文报刊和蒙古文图书。而如今,网络已经和纸媒平分秋色,甚至已经显示出超过传统纸媒的新趋势。据满全教授团队的统计,2016年各种网络媒体发表蒙古文文学作品15819篇(首),已经占据全年蒙古族母语文学作品数量的81%。由此可见,网络媒体已经成为发表蒙古族母语文学的强势平台,也反映了蒙古族母语文学搭上信息技术的高速列车,进入新的发展阶段。在2016年,21种蒙古文刊物、10种蒙古文报纸和网络媒体共计发表文学作品19497篇(首),其中诗歌13015首,散文2714篇,短篇小说971篇,中篇小说237篇,报告文学464篇,儿童文学1259篇,长篇小说9部。以上只是2016年一年的大略数据,五年来蒙古族母语文学创作的数量逐年增长,但是我们对比五年来的数据以后发现,每年母语文学创作的体裁结构却基本保持着比较稳定的结构。那就是,诗人群体是蒙古族母语文学创作的主力军,蒙古族是名副其实的“诗歌的民族”,诗歌、散文和小说创作是蒙古族母语文学最活跃的三种体裁,相比之下报告文学、戏剧和长篇小说的创作则需要更加努力。这种体裁结构实际上是蒙古族母语文学创作的主流趋势,也显示了蒙古族母语文学发展中的一些不可忽视的问题,譬如近年来报告文学的创作一度进入低谷,儿童文学创作长期被忽略等。但是,这五年来内蒙古作协、内蒙古民族青少年杂志社等有关单位也注意到了蒙古族母语文学中存在的不平衡发展问题,开始重视并采取相关措施,收到了显著效果。

内蒙古民族青少年杂志社于2013年、2014年、2016年举办了三次蒙古语儿童文学作家培训班,培训了180多名作家,并举办了两届“花蕾杯”儿童小说大赛,出版了《花蕾杯获奖儿童小说选》等图书,受到了蒙古族母语小读者的普遍欢迎。经过五年多的努力,内蒙古已经初步形成了一定规模的儿童文学母语作家队伍,涌现了扎·哈达、斯琴高娃、莫·浩斯巴雅尔等一批年轻的儿童文学作家,而且他们的作品已经开始展示蒙古族母语儿童文学良好的发展前景。内蒙古民族青少年杂志社针对近年来蒙古族母语文学创作中报告文学缺席的现实,于2013年和2015年举办了蒙古语报告文学作家培训班,培训了120多位作家,并且于2016年举行了全区报告文学比赛,参赛的报告文学作品在思想主题和创作手法上都有了显著的提高,从方方面面写出了五年来内蒙古经济文化和社会建设等方面的成就,传递了正能量,用母语讲述了内蒙古人的中国梦。

从这些变化来看,五年来蒙古族母语文学创作取得了不俗的成绩。更难能可贵的是,这些作品在主题思想、艺术特色等方面有了明显的提升。

蒙古族母语作家队伍在思想认识方面的提高和深化,具体体现在他们写出的文学作品之中。五年来,内蒙古作协、《花的原野》杂志社、内蒙古民族青少年杂志社和各盟市文联、作协在内蒙古各地举办了多次作家培训班,我也有幸被邀请去授课,并与作家朋友们进行了广泛交流。据我的观察,这些培训班把主要目标和任务放在提高作家的政治思想认识上,鼓励作家们写出歌唱主旋律的、有思想高度的优秀作品。特别是一些作家经过培训后对蒙古族文学的定位有了明确的认识,更深刻地认识到蒙古族文学是中国多民族文学大家庭中的重要组成部分,母语文学作家不仅要有民族身份认同,更应该有国家认同、有家国情怀。由此可见,思想认识的提升,比写作手法的训练更为重要。蒙古族是跨境民族,除了国内蒙古族,还有蒙古国和卡尔梅克、布里亚特都有蒙古语创作的文学。我们的培训和学习就是要青年作家们意识到,中国的蒙古族作家向蒙古国作家学习的同时不应该忘记向国内各民族作家学习,不应该忘记蒙古族的文学是中国多民族文学的重要组成部分。

五年来,蒙古族母语文学在老中青三代作家的共同努力下取得了丰硕的成果,也展现出新的特征。其中,最明显的一点是蒙古族母语作家的创作中充分体现了文化自信,而且在创作思想和主题上更加注重思想高度和文化深度,母语作家们讲的故事不仅仅是“故事”,更是思想,更是文化。而且,在一些青年作家的创作中,这种文化自觉已经成为笔耕不缀的主要动力。譬如,内蒙古正蓝旗青年女作家乌尼日其其格已经发表了十多篇专门写马文化的中短篇小说,用生动的故事从不同的角度写活了蒙古族的马文化,而这种马文化正是在现实生活中日益消失的游牧文明的精粹。乌尼日其其格在写骏马的故事,实际上这些小说背后都是她对日益消失和远去的民族传统文化的忧虑,以及如何挽救和寻回传统文化的努力。我相信这类小说被翻译成其他语言之后会引起国内外读者的兴趣。还有一些作家的小说,在草原和城市的文化空间自由驰骋,把人类和动物的故事编织得天衣无缝,在扣人心弦的故事背后投射出的是对人类共同命运的关注。从这些作品中,我们读到的不仅仅是蒙古族母语作家对自己单一民族的命运的关心,更是读到了蒙古族母语作家对包括自己的民族在内的全人类共同命运的关心。这些都不同程度地反映了蒙古族母语文学创作的思想高度。

互联网在缩短世界的距离,也在缩短蒙古族母语作家和世界之间的距离。我在阅读五年来蒙古族母语文学作品的过程中发现不少优秀的作品都出自于那些在基层工作和生活的青年作家之手。我思考之后观察到了一个现象,那就是基层作家是没有远离自己民族文化根基的作家,他们的文学创作完全来自于他们自己最熟悉的生活和文化,与生活在大城市离开草原已久的作家相比,他们身边还有源源不断的创作源泉,同时因为互联网和信息高速公路,他们时刻与世界保持着零距离,时刻与古今中外的作家作品保持着直接对话和深度阅读。当今,互联网已经把草原上的母语作家和世界的命运连接起来,与世界保持同步的作家不离草原一步就能写出具有世界高度的作品已经不再是奢望。

但是,最后必须提一下蒙古族母语文学的翻译问题。母语文学是蒙古族文学的主体和主流,但是母语文学的阅读群主要局限于蒙古语读者。母语文学走向全国,走向世界,必须借助文学翻译这个桥梁。高质量的文学翻译是连接蒙古族母语文学和中国多民族文学乃至全人类文学的惟一的桥梁。五年来,蒙古族母语文学的创作已经创造了一个绚丽多彩的世界。但是如果没有文学翻译,除了蒙古语读者,还有更多的热爱蒙古族文学的读者将永远无法看到这个绚丽多彩的母语文学的世界。

(编辑:王怡婷)

文章出处(来源):   文艺报
分类目录: 现代文学 总浏览:176

内蒙古举办首届蒙古语戏剧节

9月12日,由内蒙古文化厅、内蒙古文联、锡林郭勒盟委宣传部主办的内蒙古首届蒙古语戏剧节在锡林浩特市开幕。

戏剧节为期6天,将举办14场展演,剧目包括来自全区各盟市的《黑缎子坎肩》《神舟阿木古郎》等10部优秀蒙古剧,《真情传递》《多彩的家园》等17部优秀蒙古语小戏小品,展示了丰富的蒙古语戏剧文化。据组委会介绍,本届戏剧节期间还将举办蒙古剧创作研讨会和“一剧一评”专家指导活动等,以期将蒙古语戏剧节逐步打造成具有独特审美的艺术节品牌,为繁荣内蒙古蒙古语戏剧事业贡献力量。

驻内蒙古记者阿勒得尔图

文章出处(来源):   中国文化传媒网
分类目录: 文化娱乐 总浏览:70

古代蒙古族法治思想及对现代法治之启示

作者:内蒙古自治区巴彦淖尔市中级人民法院 康民德

我国是一个统一的多民族国家,各民族在长期的历史发展进程中,创造出各具特色的文化,伴随着各民族历史长河中社会、生活等内容的嬗变,逐渐形成吸收其他民族风俗、习惯在其间的本民族法律文化形态,并具体实践运用到本民族事务的政治需求和社会管理中。

蒙古族法律作为中华法系的重要组成部分,在漫长的历史变迁中创造出来的丰富而灿烂的法律文化,经与中原汉地法律相互渗透融合,成就了独有的法律文化形态,其间闪烁着别样光芒的法治思想,为中华法系增添了新的因子。古代蒙古法治思想同时蕴涵了具有极高现实价值的法治实践,对于现代法治也具有一定的启示意义。

  蒙古民族历史发展及其习惯法内容特征

拉施特的《史集》中记载,蒙古民族的先人在额儿古涅昆繁衍生息了大约400年时间,先后形成了70多个分支,因为人口繁多,所占地域狭小,于公元8世纪部落群体走出山谷,迁往蒙古高原。大约经历一个多世纪,蒙古各部落的生产生活方式再度发生变迁,由原始的狩猎经济过渡到放牧经济。由于生活习性、环境等方面的改变,形成了与群体相类似的生产生活习惯与日常行为规范,逐渐形成了本民族内部的风俗习惯和规范体系。

又据《蒙古秘史》记载,13世纪前蒙古部落已经具备了国家的基本雏形,“约孙”制度则是古老的习惯法律制度。作为一种习惯行为规范,被蒙古部落全体成员认可与遵循,“约孙”在历史典籍中并没有被完整记录,甚至可以说是凌乱分散的,但通过今天自各种载体中片段的记录,可以很清晰地看到它的内容几乎包容了政治、经济、生产生活、军事等诸多方面,有氏族首领忽里勒台选举制、汗位继承世袭制、氏族血亲复仇制、生产围猎制度等等。蒙古族习惯法中还有赖以生存的自然环境的保护,如禁止在生长有草木的地方挖坑、倒开水、倒灰,严禁乱采滥伐,为保证草场及土壤肥沃,一年四季根据不同情况繁殖牲畜,分片放牧。蒙古民族的习惯法产生于游牧生产活动中,水源、草场等自然资源对于蒙古民族的游牧生产生活具有重要的意义,也由此充分体现出蒙古民族对自然的敬畏之情。正是基于蒙古民族习惯特性,“约孙”的内容中还带有浓厚的宗教色彩,诸如对“长生天”的敬仰、祖先祭祀、生活禁忌等等,与此同时,对于部落成员的婚姻、继承等事项,规定了氏族婚姻族外婚制、家庭主要财产幼子继承制等内容都有明确的表达。

蒙古氏族部落在更早些时候是由个体家庭所组成,古代的生产力低下,生态环境也是极度恶劣,蒙古氏族部落的区域气候严寒且部落间经常发生战争,导致为求生存与发展,有血亲关系的部落之间必须联合起来,形成联盟之势方能抵御战乱及以更大的力量维护发展自己的领地。对内而言,也需要一定的规范管理,以有效处理涉及氏族部落内部的生产生活事宜,判断是非曲直,“约孙”由此产生,并成为氏族部落内部的习惯法,运用到生产生活等各层面的管理中。

古代蒙古民族习惯法从其指导思想上而言,具有浓郁的宗教色彩,今天可以用现代科学理论解释的自然灾难,对于蒙古先民来说只能用唯心主义观点来理解,认为是上天神灵的惩罚。蒙古民族在早期信奉古老的萨满教,民众因惧怕而心生敬畏,氏族部落首领也期望可借助宗教信仰的强大力量在管理实践中得到坚实的执行力。

古代蒙古习惯法讲求实效制裁,内容以惩治奸、盗为主,凡奸情者多处以死刑,凡盗窃牲畜及各类生产生活工具等,对身体部位切除制裁,以此严厉惩处扰乱生产、生活正常秩序者。古代蒙古氏族内部不允许通婚,血缘讲究纯正,还有收继婚习俗,如兄弟亡故,可纳兄嫂或弟媳。出发点更多为延续家族力量。“逐草而居”是古代蒙古民族的基本生产生活方式,蒙古作为游牧民族,对于大自然有很强的依赖性,因直接面对草场、牲畜、水流等,对于大自然也是充满无尽的崇拜和保护之情。蒙古先民十分珍惜爱护马匹,严禁鞭打马匹,休战时期马匹散放于草原,严禁破坏草牧场行为,并特定围猎季节,以保证自然生态的和谐。

  蒙古帝国时期法律制定及其法治思想

1206年,成吉思汗统一蒙古各部,建立蒙古帝国,并结合社会、生活形成了蒙古帝国时期的成文法律——《大札撒》。该部成文法律的诸多条文实质都是延续了以往蒙古氏族部落时期习惯法内容。以今天的眼光来看,成吉思汗对于依法治理军队、民众、社会生产生活等方面的见识与见解也是不俗的。拉施特在著作《史集》中记载成吉思汗的思想:“凡是一个民族,子不遵父教,弟不聆兄言,夫不信妻贞,妻不顺夫意,公不赞儿媳,儿媳不敬公公,长不护幼,幼不受长训,地位尊者信用奴仆而疏远外人,富者不济民,轻视约孙和雅撒(札撒的突厥语意),不通情达理,以致成为国家之敌,此类人等将遮住他们营地上的太阳,也就是说,他们终将遭到抢劫,他们的马匹和马群得不到安宁。”蒙古语中“札撒”有号令、军法之意,成吉思汗建立蒙古帝国前颁布札撒的初衷目的在于整治军队,明确任务,严肃军纪。根据《蒙古秘史》记载,蒙古帝国建立伊始,成吉思汗赐失吉忽秃忽作国家的断事官,并对其工作任务做出具体明确的规定,其所承担的正是司法管理惩戒、科断全国盗贼诈伪以及百姓财物平衡断定之事。成吉思汗所颁布的《大札撒》是随着蒙古政治、军事斗争的发展变化,经历延续旧有的“约孙”制度,结合实践不断完善补充最终成形。

波斯编年史学者志费尼在其《世界征服者史》一书中写道:“全能真主使成吉思汗才智出众,使他思想之敏捷、权力之无限为世上诸王之冠;史书虽在记载古代伟大的库撒和的实施,以及法老、恺撒的法令律文,成吉思汗却是凭自己的脑子创造出来,既没有劳神去查阅文献,也没有费力去遵循传统……依据自己的想法他给每个场合制定一条法令,给每个情况制定一条律文,而对每种罪行,他也制定一条刑法。”这就是成吉思汗特有并独有、闪烁着法治光芒的思想理念。《大札撒》的内容更多是对原有蒙古社会习惯法的进一步确认,但《大札撒》又是主张严刑与重赏并举的,严刑出于对政治统治的维护,社会秩序的稳定顾虑,并在原有部落矛盾、民族矛盾、阶级矛盾异常尖锐的时代背景下而为之;重赏则根据蒙古帝国继续的军事扩张,需广招贤才,兼容并蓄,并引领将士模范遵守札撒,勇猛作战等现实需求。《大札撒》涉及“经济法”部分有“禁民人徒手汲水,汲水时必须用某种器具。禁洗濯、洗破穿着的衣服”,其中隐意有对古老迷信的禁忌,也包含蒙古民族敬重水源的原始朴素情感。“禁草生而钁地。禁遗火而燎原”是继承了蒙古先民游牧业经济的古老传统,依靠法律来保护草场,保护生态链的野生动物,注重草原的生态平衡。

  蒙元时期法律制度及其法治思想

公元1271年,忽必烈统一中国建立起蒙元王朝。忽必烈一改以往蒙古帝国最高统治者大汗号令天下的专制统治,施行政教并行的国家政治体制,简除繁苛定新律,颁布了《至元新格》,内容包括公规、选格、治民、理财、赋役、课程、仓库、造作、防盗、察狱等十事。忽必烈统治时期的大元王朝,更注重笼络民心,减少了宋朝严酷的刑律,前朝有近一半的罪名数量被删除,从233条减少为135条。即使对保留下来的罪名,忽必烈汗也很少允许使用死刑。他在位三十四年,有四个年份没有死刑记录。死刑数量最高的年份是1283年,共278例。最低的是1263年,仅7例。在忽必烈三十多年的统治中,共有不到2500名罪犯被处死,每年的死刑数量大大少于现代的许多国家。元朝的诉讼裁判制度采预防发生方阵,要求诸如婚姻纠纷中媒人、田宅财产争执中牙人、讼师作以周旋劝解,《元典章》中记载:“诸民讼之繁,婚、田为重。其各处官司,凡媒人各使通晓不应成婚之例;牙人使知买卖田宅违法之例;写词状人使知应告不应告之例;乃取管不违甘结文状,以塞起讼之源。”

至北元时期,蒙古封建统治者陆续颁行了《图们汗法典》《阿拉坦汗法典》、《喀尔喀七旗法典》《卫拉特法典》等法典律令。这一时期,所信仰宗教发生了变迁,传统的萨满教日渐式微,阿拉坦汗派遣使臣入藏地,诏请三世王索南嘉措赴蒙地,并按索南嘉措劝说,戒除了食血肉及为死者杀生祭祀诸恶业。《阿拉坦汗法典》中进一步强化了对于野生动物的保护,不允许偷猎野驴、野猪、黄羊、雄鹿等动物,同样严禁在草原放火破坏草场。这一时期,为了繁荣人口,从立法上重视并保护妇女、儿童的权益,对损及妇女尤其是孕妇身体的行为给予严厉惩处,同时鼓励并帮助贫困家庭子女完婚,以利于蒙古族的繁衍生息。加强了对儿童的教育普及,《敦罗布喇什补则》中明确规定如果孩童到一定年龄不懂蒙古文,将给予处罚。《卫拉特法典》中还制定了有关子女、儿媳要尊敬父母的条款,如有违反则处置以罚畜及鞭刑。《喀尔喀法典》中对不尊重父母和师长者处罚更重,不仅有罚畜和鞭刑,而且还要服相应劳役。由此,在蒙古社会中大力倡导社会公德,认为家庭首先是社会稳定的重要基础,以尊重父母、师长进而波及其他社会群体人员,保证社会整体秩序的和谐稳定。

  古代蒙古法治思想的内涵价值及对现代法治的启示意义

蒙古民族根植于草原,游牧文明的基调确定了这一民族的根本生存规则。在8世纪至12世纪中期近400年的历史发展进程中,蒙古民族习惯法成为人们遵守的基本规范,从其形态而言,在氏族部落的特有背景下,依靠氏族部落内部血缘维系同时,更源于民众对于道德理念的认知和自我约束。古老的宗教信仰、对大自然的唯心主义认识,蒙古民族先民认为天地生灵浑然一体,自然界中有着潜在的公理不容违背。12世纪末成吉思汗的铁蹄纵横欧亚大陆,运用严刑与重赏的辩证法治思维奠定成就了他的霸业。《大札撒》从军事法、经济法、刑民商法等多角度对被统治的对象进行深入细致的行为规范,也标志着蒙古帝国实施的“以法治国”思想的发端。

依法治世的端倪。法治是人类文明的重要成果,是现代社会的一个基本框架,大到一个国家的政体,小至一个公民的言行,都不能逾越法治的框架。当前我国正在开展的法治国家、法治政府、法治社会建设实质是一体的,从“法治”内涵的隐义来讲,它不仅是一种治国的方略,更是一种社会调控的方式和手段。

古代蒙古法律的形成、产生于游牧民族的社会生活,具有公开性和普适性。从习惯法至成文法历经口口相传、约定俗成,直至成为一个民族的行为规范体系。维护政权统治的整体划一,建立完备的行政管理体制异常重要,成吉思汗颁行《大札撒》时清醒地意识到,以往的氏族社会组织体系存在着松散性弊端,不能够适应军队战斗疾速移动需求,严格军事化的重要意义得以凸显。以往的氏族部落自由组合分散状态对于帝国建设同样留有隐患,建立稳定的户籍制度对于保障国民赋税缴纳、国力充盈具有长远的历史意义。成吉思汗对于父子兄弟、夫妻公媳、长幼尊富关系的论述中也透露出他对于以法治理国家重要性的认识,社会体系中各类主体的有序运行才能够保证国家秩序的和谐稳定。在行军中论功行赏、赏罚严明,有战功者得到丰厚赏赐,对违背军法者即便其为“黄金家族”成员一样会一视同仁受到惩处。尊重一切宗教,不厚此薄彼,一律平等视之,也在一定程度上体现出蒙古民族兼容并蓄的博大情怀。

民生价值的体现。古代蒙古法治思想中始终贯穿着“民本民生”这一主线,无论是从涉关伦理道德的习惯法中“不得说谎”、“食而噎着,属于贪婪,立罚”,父慈子孝等,还是生活细节及日常琐事的“禁徒手汲水”、“牲畜伤害事”、“债务事”等,直至对社会弱势妇女保护的“揪女人头发,罚”、“殴打女人使堕胎,罚”,乃至扩展到对更广泛妇女权益的保障及儿童培养教育等。对于和蒙古民族有着密切联系,并赖以生存的生产、生存草牧场环境保护方面所制定的法律条款,表达出蒙古先民朴素的草原生态发展理念及传统环保理念,对于现代社会自然环境的重视与保护,科学可持续发展而不是一味索取也具有深刻的教育意义。

刑罚宽严的掌控。古代蒙古早期法律有其严苛的一面,甚至相当残忍,诸如在成吉思汗《大札撒》中的法条:“有意制造谎言,施行妖术,秘密侦查他人行为,介入相争者,且相对于一方援助另一方者,处死刑。”“未经拘禁者允许,向被拘禁者提供衣服和食物者,处死刑。”这有其特殊时代背景因素,蒙古帝国建立初期,原有氏族部落间矛盾以及各民族之间矛盾,直至帝国内部各阶级之间的矛盾都很尖锐,出于维护政治统治和社会整体秩序,也就需要相对严苛的法律整肃国家、整顿社会。元朝建立后,随着疆域的进一步扩大,与蒙民族之外其他民族日渐加强联系,社会生产生活及其他各领域沟通对接,体现在法律制度方面出现碰撞交融之势,法律思想与文化也相互吸收、借鉴,元律实行宽刑慎法制度,《元史》中记载:“世祖即位,问以治天下之大经、养民之良法,秉忠采祖宗旧典,参以古制之宜于今者,条列以闻。”元代刑法所采慎刑态度在继承蒙古民族对人之生命高度重视的法治思想基础上,也融合了汉民族儒家用刑宽缓的理念,也是一种历史的进步。后世蒙古统治者对于严刑酷法的适用也是极少的,古代蒙古法律刑罚原则更多采实物赔偿主义,甚少实刑处罚。特别在阿拉坦汗迎请索南嘉措入蒙地后,古代蒙古刑罚观面目再新,对于死刑的适用,《阿拉坦汗法典》中只有一条,《喀尔喀七旗法典》仅列八条,《卫拉特法典》中为三条,更多刑事案件以罚牲畜刑处置。

贝卡利亚认为,刑罚的目的不在于惩罚本身,而是要发挥其预防与警示作用。古代蒙古法治思想与今天法治倡导的以教育为主、惩治为辅具有异曲同工之处。在创建和谐社会过程中,预防和减少犯罪,并不是片面以粗暴的严刑酷法来惩罚犯罪,而是应深入分析各类犯罪的引发缘由、社会影响及后果等因素综合考量,进而区别对待,促使犯罪人更快、更好地回归社会。

冲突消弭的多元化。在诉讼法层面上,古代蒙古法治思想中最值得一提的是《元典章》中关于纠纷预防及化解方式,类同于当代多元化纠纷解决机制的建构,其间司法实践中的运用和作用发挥具有充分的合法性与合理性,今天,伴随着民族地区特有的草牧场纠纷日益增多现实,在更加复杂甚至多元的规则和秩序中,面对着日益纷繁的纠纷争执,很多传统的蒙古民族习惯性规则在一些场合中依然会扮演重要角色,发挥其特有作用,实质上也就在现代法治中凸显出了积极的价值和意义。

文章出处(来源):   人民法院报 
分类目录: 习惯法律 总浏览:168

中国民族语文翻译局召开2017年度蒙古语文翻译专家审定会

为进一步贯彻落实国家民委《关于进一步做好民族语文翻译工作的指导意见》,做好新词术语标准化、规范化建设,推动民族语文翻译工作科学发展,8月16日至19日,中国民族语文翻译局召开2017年度蒙古语文翻译专家审定会。

会议审定近年来收集整理的汉蒙对照新词术语400余条。与会专家就翻译工作中存在的问题进行广泛讨论,并对新词术语的规范统一工作和蒙古语文翻译事业健康发展提出意见和建议。

会议要求,与会专家学者要始终保持对术语规范化工作复杂性、严谨性和专业性的高度认识,严格把握审定原则,加强协作、集思广益,努力成为推进国家战略实施的民族语文专业力量,共同推动新词术语工作科学发展,共同推动新时期民族语文翻译工作行稳致远。

文章出处(来源):   内蒙古自治区民委
分类目录: 会议交流 总浏览:1,183