著者

梅村 坦

出版者

東洋文庫

雑誌

東洋学報 = The Toyo Gakuho

巻号頁・発行日

vol.59, no.1・2, pp.01-031(226~256), 1977-10

---

The process of the penetration by the Mongols into the Turfan basin, territory under the control of .the Uighur Iduq-qut, has been studied by several scholars. However, since previously unstudied Uighur documents with Forfeiture Clauses have recently been brought to light (by the author in The Toyo Gakuho, 58-3/4, 1977.) and because certain other indispensable but previously neglected Chinese sources require examination, it seems appropriate to reopen the subject.Each of these nine Uighur documents (doc. I-IX) [see Table (1)] contains many titles. For example, the Blessing Clause of doc. VIII, dated 1280 A. D., mentions a number of official ranks in the following order [see Chart (1)]: uluγ suu—the Mongol Emperor; aqa-ini-oγul-lar—the Emperor’s brothers and Emperor’s sons; bägädlär—begs; ančašï-lar (按察使 An-ch’a-shih and his men)—a kind of official and his entourage dispatched from the Emperor’s court; and šaz-ïn (沙津 Sha-chin, skr. Śāsana) ayγučï—a kind of religious leader. This order is not that decided by political authorities, and therefore seems to indicate that a native of the Turfan basin originally arranged it and published this document by himself.Šaz-ïn ayγučï seems to originally have referred to a native Turfan religious leader. However, according to the Forfeiture Clause of the same document and to an Imperial ordinance issued by Shih-tsu 世祖 in 1276 A. D. which is recorded in the T’ung-chih t’iao-ko 通制条格, the šaz-ïn ayγučï were under the direct control of the Mongol Emperor in the latter half of the 13th century.Some Forfeiture Clauses include other titles not listed in the Blessing Clause of doc. VIII [see Tables (2), (3)]. There are two features common to all the Forfeiture Clauses: the higher ranking officials receive higher forfeits than lower ranking ones, and the total sum of the forfeits is too high to be paid by a person wanting to cancel a contract. Thus, the Forfeiture Clause may have been only a general formulation.It should be noted that the title bäg, which ranks rather high in the Blessing Clause of doc. VIII, ranks low in all the Forfeiture Clauses. Concurrent investigation of many Uighur documents and the Chinese sources leads one to the conclusion that the term bäg had two meanings. The high ranking bäg in the document probably referred to the official bäg, and the appearance of low ranking bägs in the Forfeiture Clauses can be explained by reference to influential persons within the native society.The highest political authority changed hands—from the Uighur Iduq-qut to the Mongol Emperor—at about the middle of the 13th century. The person of the Iduq-qut, however, seems to have continued to be respected as a descendant of the fifth son of Chinggis Khan until the latter half of the 13th century. Doc. VIII is especially interesting in that its Forfeiture Clause includes the title of the Iduq-qut, but its Blessing Clause does not. This fact suggests that the Iduq-qut maintained nominal authority as late as 1280 A. D., but that he had lost any actual power to control the Uighur society.Finally, the author presents a diagram which shows the mutual relations of every official title appearing in the documents [see Chart (3)].