Karakorum - Questions about the city layout

Eva Becker, Berlin Karakorum - Questions about the city layout published by academia.edu, 05/20/2013

1

Karakorum - Questions about the city layout

In memoriam Dovdoin Bayar.

In 2005 at a conference on Mongolia in Mu-nich the German excavator of the hitherto socalled palace of Karakorum was asked why hedid assume a Chinese city layout for Karako-rum and why it was not possible to assume anIslamic urbanism for Karakorum.

Until three years ago it used to be scientificconsensus that the walled area in the south-west corner of the deserted area north to themonastery Erdene Zuu was associated withthe palace of Ogodai Khan. In 1933 DmitrijDemjanovič Bukinič, a Russian archaeologist,based in Taschkent, reported on a Buddhisttemple for that area.

Moreover a palace situated in a city corner israther unlikely in Chinese towns and cities,but it is quite common in the cities and fortres-ses of Central Asia.

When visiting Toprak Kala in Karakalpakstanin 2009 I again was faced with the question re-garding an Islamic influence on Karakorums’scity layout and the description made by theFranscican monk Wilhelm of Rubruk in themid-13th century.

Meanwhile, the Mongolian-German Karako-rum Expedition (MDKE) finalized its work.The German archaeologist drew the conclusi-on that the walled area in the southwest cornerwas not a palace complex of Karakorum is nota palace complex, but a Buddhist temple. Thushe confirming the results of the Bukinič exca-vations in 1933.1 But where is the palace ofOgodai Khan with the legendary Silver tree?This riddle seems to lie under the monasteryErdene Zuu. In the opinion of the excavatortoday’s area of the monastery covers the Im-perial City of medieval Karakorum.

Since the Orkhon expedition in 1891 under W.Radloff’s leadership the deserted area, situa-ted to the north of the monastery Erdene Zuu,is called Karakorum, although in the opinionof the former explorers A.M. Pozdneev, N.M.Jadrincev, A.O. Heikel and H. Leder the wal-led area of the monastery Erdene Zuu repre-

sents the area of ancient Karakorum. D.Bukinič was - in his days - confused by the ir-regular layout of the alleged Karakorum andexpressed doubts that the deserted area wastantamount to Karakorum. I agree with A.M.Pozdneev, N.M. Jadrincev, A.O. Heikel andH. Leder, that the area of the monastery doesindeed correspond with the area of ancient Ka-rakorum. I even would go as far as to say thatonly today’s area of the monastery embodiesthe actual historical Karakorum.

Yet, hardly any excavations have been con-ducted in the monastery. In 2003 the Mongo-lian archaeologist D. Bayar excavated anotherfragment of the Inscription of 1346 under aTsam dance floor in the monastery. How toanswer the question whether Karakorum wasbuilt on the basis of a Chinese city layout orrather a Central Asian layout? The Germanexcavator was apparently right when he divi-ded the whole complex (deserted area and mo-nastery) into a profane city area and animperial area. But there is no archaeologicalevidence for that so far.

To answer this question and possibly also forfuture excavations there is a need for furtherresearch.

In the course of my work on Die altmongoli-sche Hauptstadt Karakorum : Forschungsge-schichte nach historischen Aussagen undarchäologischen Quellen2 I was repeatedlyconfronted with the unresolved relationshipbetween the Uyghur capital Karabalgasun andthe Mongolian capital Karakorum. Whiletrying to analyze the foundation date of Kara-korum I once again came across with theUyghur capital Karabalgasun. Both in the me-dieval texts and in the early reports of the 19th

century, explorers pointed out a connectionbetween these two capitals. However in thecourse of time this has often led to confusion.Originally, this has not been the focus of in-terest of the present paper, but as it developedI had an oppertunity to adjust my point ofview.


2

1. The Inscription of 1346 and the founding date of Karakorum

The Inscription of 1346 reveals that Tsching-gis Khan founded his capital in 1220 in theOrkhon valley, which was then already knownby the Uyghur and the Göktürk great empiresin the history of Asia: „In the fifteenth year[1220] of T’ai-tsu shêng-wu huang-ti [Chine-se characters] (i.e., Činggis Qan), when thecyclical year was in kêng-ch’ên [Chinese cha-racters], he established the capital at Ho-lin[Chinese characters] (Qorum)“.3

To accept 1220 as the year of the capital’sfoundation has caused problems to severalscholars, since in that year Tschinggis Khanwas already on his campaign to Central Asia.

Commonly it is disregarded that Temüdjinwas elected twice as Khan. The first ’kuriltai’appointing him as Khan was held in 1195/96,the second election took place ten years laterin 1206.4 If the the year 1206 is not consideredas the year of his proclamation but instead theyear of his first election, then the relocation ofthe „capital“ into the Orkhon valley occurredalready in 1210. This date fits more logicalinto the historical processes and the conqueststhan the date of 1220, when Tschinggis Khandid not firmly rooted in the Mongolian heart-land.

1.1. The transfer of the Ordu and the influence of the Uyghurs

In 1210 after many years of sieges byTschinggis Khan’s troops the Tangut (Xixia)became tributary to the Mongols. At the sametime the Kotscho-Uyghur attached themselvesto Tschinggis Khan without previous warfare.Also Khitan defectors to the Mongolians areknown already for the period around 1220.Weiers dedicates an entire chapter to these„Foreign Mongols“. He argues that these for-eign ethnic groups helped to manage the ever-expanding empire.5 „Aus einer dieser Quellenerfahren wir, dass die Grundlage für den ad-ministrativen Bereich ein Uigure namens TataTunga, der dem Herrscher der Naiman als Se-kretär gedient hatte, und der dann später unterTschinggis Khan und seinem Nachfolger in

der Finanzverwaltung tätig war, die uiguri-sche Schrift für die Sprache am Onan undKerülen lebenden Mongolen zurechtgemachthabe.“6 The introduction of the Mongolianscript is recorded for the year 1206, at a timewhen Tschinggis Khan campaigned againstthe Tangut. This suggests that the Mongols al-ready contemplated administrative steps forthe empire at a very early date. The fact thatpeople from Uyghur were in service of thesuccessors of Tschinggis Khan is beyonddoubt.7

It can not be clarified whether the transfer ofTschinggis Khan’s ordu from river Onon toriver Orkhon in 1210 was influenced by thepeople of Uyghur as the Uyghur empire withits capital Karabalgasun flourished from 744till 840 in the Orkhon valley or whether thetransfer from the northeast of Mongolia to thecenter of Mongolia was based on military re-flections or whether it was a political decisionto include the empire into the historical con-text of the Uyghur and Göktürk empires.

1.2. The foundation of a capitalWhether the foundation of a capital in its pro-per literal sense took place, depends on the re-spective translation and the interpretation ofthe Inscription of 1346.

Sagaster writes: „Im chinesischen Text steht vielmehr, dass Kai-ser Taizu (Činggis Khan) »Helin [chin. für Qo-rum, d. h. Karakorum] zur Hauptstadt [chin. du],bestimmt hat«. Helin war freilich keine Stadt,sondern nur ein Gebiet, und „du“ heißt nicht nur»Hauptstadt«, sondern auch »Residenz«, nebender es durchaus auch andere Residenzen gebenkonnte. Diese »Stadt« war deshalb nicht not-wendigerweise als Reichshauptstadt gedacht,sondern vielmehr als Residenz für die Aufent-halte Činggis Khans im Gebiet von Helin. DieseDeutung wird durch den Text der mongolischenInschrift bestätigt. Er lautet: »Činggis Khan [...]bestimmte den Platz für seine Aufenthalte inQorum [Karakorum]« (wörtlich: »[...] ließ einein-Qorum-Aufenthaltsstadt ihren Platz haben.“8

The third line of the Mongolian inscription,which is not mentioned by Sagaster, elabora-tes on the contemporary meaning of a cityfoundation at the time of Tschinggis Khan:


3

„1st line: [....]

2nd line: [....] [... ...] im Ging Drachen-Jahr hat erin Qorum eine Stadt, wo man sich aufhaltenwird, festlegen lassen. Danach,

3rd line: nachdem man einen schönen Khanshoferrichtet hatte, gab es von da an, was das allmäh-liche Tempel-Jurten Errichten anlangt, keinenGrund, Höheres aufzubauen und Aufenthalte er-richten zu lassen.“9

However the transfer of the ordu, meaning theruler’s encampment10, does not imply, that acity with solid buildings was founded, „therewas no reason to construct in an upper manner/ anything higher“.

In Pelliot’s opinion:„Chinghiz-khan had already fixed there his mainencampment, and perhaps (emphazised by theauthor) had left there his oγruq., i. e. the campsof his wives and personal servants, while he waswaging war with the Mussulmans in the West.“ 11

Weiers also states:„hiernach12, bringt man die ersten drei Zeilenmit Tschinggis Khan in Verbindung, zuTschinggis Khans Lebzeiten (er starb 1227)nach der Inschrift von Karakorum aus dem Jahr1346 in Karakorum zunächst nur ein Khanshofexistierte, der einer von den insgesamt vierKhanshöfen war, die das Yuanshi „Geschichteder Yuan [Dynastie]“ (fertiggestellt im Sommer1370) dem Tschinggis Khan zuweist. Von einerStadtgründung durch Tschinggis Khan findetsich also weit und breit keine Spur. TschinggisKhan hat die Gründung einer Stadt Karakorumbestenfalls planen lassen, ein Plan, mit dem esdann mit dem Errichten lediglich eines Khans-hofs aber schon sein Bewenden hatte. Die Grün-dung einer Stadt Karakorum durch TschinggisKhan ist einer der vielen Mythen, die sich umdie Person Tschinggis Khans im Laufe der Zeitbis heute herausgebildet haben.“13

Apart from the fact that the Inscription of1346 is a very late testimony which is to beread in the context of the Yuan Dynasty in themid-14th century, these critical text analysisseem to present the most convincing state-ments: Tschinggis Khan moved his ordu intothe Karakorum region in 1210, but he did notfound any fortified city with solid buildings.

2. The foundation of the city in Per-sian, Latin and Chinese sources

„After the Hatim of the Age and the Ruler of theWorld had been established on the throne ofkingship and, his mind set at rest regarding thecampaign against Khitai, had proceeded in tri-

umph to the great ordu of his father, he bestowedhis own place of residence, which was in the re-gion of the Emil, upon his son Güyük, choosingfor his [new] residence and the capital of thekingdom a place in the region of the river Orqonand the Qara-Qorum mountains.“14

This text passage written by Juvaini about thefoundation of Karakorum provides us with theinformation that the constructor of the Mon-golian capital was Ogodai Khan, becauseGüyük is mentioned as the „son of the ruler ofthe world“. However, Ogodai travelled to hisfather’s Great Ordu to choose a place for thecapital.15 It was not Tschinggis Khan who con-structed the capital as suggested by the Ins-cription of 1346. The expression „choosing“once again indicates that Tschinggis Khanmerely moved his ordu to the Karakorum regi-on without building a city, for Ogodai was stillable to select a place for the capital in this re-gion.16

„There had previously been no town or villagein that place except for the remains of a wall cal-led Ordu-Baligh. At the time of his accession astone was found outside the ruins of the fortresson which there was an inscription stating that thefounder of that place was Buqu Khan. (This mat-ter has been described in detail in the chapter onthe land of the Uighur.) The Mongols named itMa’u Baligh, and Qa’an caused a town to bebuilt on it, which they called Ordu-Baligh, thou-gh it is better known as Qara-Qorum.“17

This English translation provided by Boyle isto be supplemented by a German translation.18

„ (2) .......Und (3) in jener Gegend hat es keineStadt und kein Dorf gegeben außer Anzeicheneines Walls, der [dessen Name der] eine[r] ge-wisse[n] „Herrscherlager-(4)Stadt“ gewesen ist.Zur Zeit seiner Thronbesteigung wurde im Au-ßenbezirk der Restspuren einer Festung einStein gefunden, beschrieben und (5) die Nach-richt enthaltend darüber, daß der Ortsgründer je-ner Bûqû Hân gewesen ist. Und zur Erläuterung:Jene Begebenheit ist in der Erwähnung des Lan-des (6) Uîgûr beschrieben. Jenen <Ort> verbin-den sie <die Mongolen??> mit dem NamenMâwû Bâlîg. Und oben darauf befahl er, daß (7)sie Stadtgebäude errichten. Und Ordû Bâlîgmachten sie zum Namen, obwohl bekannt fürdie Stadt <der Name> Qarâqûrum ist.“19

Without reading Juvainis text more criticallyit should be noted that the Mongolian ancientcapital Karakorum bears upon any Uyghurplace and even to Buqu Khan the Uyghur ru-ler. It is much more important, in all likeli-


4

hood, that above the place called Māwū Bālīg,city buildings were set up. This means that be-low the place of the Mongolian ancient capitalthe remains of a settlement of prae-Mongolianrespectively Uyghur times should be found.To answer this question an archaeological in-vestigation is required.

Similarly Rubruk knows of a relationship bet-ween the ancient Mongolian capital and theUyghur capital. This relationship is not dis-cussed here, as his statements have to be sour-ce-critically analysed beforehand.20

Since Juvaini refers to a Mongolian campaignagainst Khitai, the foundation of the Mongoli-an capital may have occurred earliest after1232. In 1230 Ogodai Khan started to conducta campaign against the Jin conquering the nor-thern capital Hezhong in 1231. In the follo-wing year 1232 the Mongolian army besiegedthe southern Jin capital, which was captured in1234.

The German translation of the Yuanshi indica-tes that in 1235 Ogodai Khan „im FrühjahrHo-lin befestigen und den Wan-an-Palast er-richten ließ“21, implying the existence of a city,which was walled by Ogodai Khan when hebuilt the palace. But the Chinese text states:„Qi nian yiwei, cheng Helin, zuo Wan'an-gong“.22 This means literally: „Helin city ma-de“ or „wall of Karakorum“. Here the Chinesetext is ambiguous. Chinese cities are usuallywalled, especially capitals. The original textdoes not allow a conclusion whether the cityor a settlement of yurts previously existed al-ready which could be walled. It is not unlikelythat the author(s) of the Yuanshi wished to ex-press that Ogodai built a new city.23 In case ofthe Mongolian city foundation it also has to beconsider that the Yuanshi is a very late source,written at the end of the 14th century. It reportson a historical event of the early 13th centurywhich was not recorded in its own time. It cannot necessarily be assumed that the site walledby Ogodai was already called „Helin“ at thattime, as reported in the Yuanshi. Using thename „Helin“ in the Yuanshi is a stylistic de-vice. How else should the foundation of Kara-korum be described or expressed?

Both, the translation of the Chinese „du“ andthe translation of „Helin cheng“ point to theimportance of an accurate and precise transla-tion, otherwise misleading subsequent editi-ors.24

The German translation of the Yuanshi con-tradicts the statement of Juvaini, who reportsin the context of the foundation of Karakorumon the ’settlement’25 of various demographicgroups, so that the place became a city withina very short period of time.26 This means thecity was designed on the drawing board, rai-sing the question according on which patternthe city was planned: on a Chinese or anUyghur or a Central Asian layout. Given theearly relationship between the MongolianKhans and the people of Uyghur an Uyghurcity layout is rather likely.

In 1235 the Mongolian conquests of the „WestCountries“ were completed, which invokesthe assumption that a large consulting staffwas recruited from Central Asia to the Mon-golian court as well and having a major influ-ence on the shape of the city.27

3. Characteristics of Karakorum in historical sources

3.1. City, Palace and WallsAs described above the Yuanshi reports thatOgodai constructed the town and built a pala-ce.

Both the Persian Juvaini and the Francsicanmonk Rubruk28 witnessed the existence of apalace in Karakorum. The fact that the palacewas walled is derived from the statement:„above the town a garden was built for Qa’anwith four gates.“29

However, Rubruk explicitly reported thatMöngke Khan „had at Caracarum a great pa-lace, situated next to the city walls, enclosedwithin a high wall like those which enclosemonks’ priories among us.“30 He also pointsout that the palace was irrigated.31 This archi-tectural feature is not mentioned by Juvainibut it can be assumed since irrigation systemsbelonged to the environment of Eastern citiesand palaces in general.


5

The Yuanshi gives no detailed information onthe location of the palace in relation to the ci-ty. Juvaini used the Persian preposition „bar“,literally „above“, „upstairs“, but translated byBoyle with „above“, „at“ or „on“.32 Rubrukdescribes the location of the palace as close tothe city walls (iuxta muros ville). It is not pos-sible to infer whether the walled palace waslocated inside or outside of the city wall fromneither of the two sources. Both texts used theprepositions too vaguely to determine the lo-cation of the palace in relation to the actual ci-ty.

Juvaini reported that the gates of the palacecorrespond with the four gates of the wall.33

Rubruk spoke about three doors for the palacewhich were directed to the south.34 With thisdescription he gave the impression of a three-aisled church to which his European readerswere well acquainted. This description has tobe considered with suspicion in view of theChinese temple and palace architecture. It ismore likely that the doors were designed trino-minally as it is usual in Chinese buildings.Evidence for such a three-partition can befound in the bilingual Inscription of 1346which was erected after the restoration ofMöngke Khan’s pagoda (temple). The Chine-se text states: „They doubly tripled its gatesand encircled it with a continuous wall. It wasbrilliantly new35 and in the Mongolian text:Constructing (lit., „pounding“) an enclosurearound it, they caused it to have gates in threesin double parallel rows.“36

3.2. OutbuildingsAs for the palace area, Juvaini noted housesfor the brothers, the sons and the bodyguard ofthe Khan. For these buildings he reported onan arrangement laterally to the palace and em-phazised painted walls.37

Rubruk describes on other buildings in the pa-lace area and he compared them with longbarns, in which food and treasures were pre-served.38 Unfortunately, Rubruk reported onlyin a very general manner about the existenceof many other buildings.

The descriptions of the outbuildings were cer-tainly highly affected by the intention and per-

ception of the different observers. It isnecessary to read both passages together, toget a proper idea of these outbuildings of thepalace, since there were both residential andstorage structures. This view is confirmed bythe Yuanshi, as it mentions that in 1251Möngke Khan appointed an adminstrator forthe palaces and the treasury of Ho-lin (Kara-korum).39

3.3. The population of KarakorumJuvaini told us that Chinese and Muslims werebrought to Karakorum.40 Rubruk not only con-firmed this statement, but he also complemen-ted it when speaking of two city quarters,which were assigned to each populationgroup.41

Besides this clue on the two quarters for theMuslim and Chinese people, Rubruk reportedalso on the palaces of the clerks at the court:„besides these quarters there are great palaces,which are for the secretaries of the court“.42

Unfortunately, this passage remains ambi-guous, since both „vicos“ and „extra“ mayhave different meanings, so that the text canbe read in four different ways.43 Presently itcan only be stated that the clerks at the courtlived in palaces, which may have been locatedwithin the city as well as outside the city.

It is striking that both authors do not registerMongols among the residents of the city.44 Ru-bruk’s report also leaves the question unans-wered where - for example - the EuropeanChristians dwelled in Karakorum. WillemusBouchier may be mentioned as the most pro-minent inhabitant. He was a gold smith fromParis, who created the famous silver tree-fountain of Karakorum. Rubruk dwelled as aguest in his house.

Since W. Radloff’s Orkhon expedition in1891 the deserted area north of the monasteryErdene Zuu is considered as the ancient Mon-golian capital Karakorum. This is based on theerroneous assumption that the build-in stone-inscriptions of the monastery were found atthe deserted area.45


6

Fig.: 1 Illustration of Karakorum (1891)46

4. The Uyghur capital Karabalgasun

As already noted in this article the medievaltexts refer to a relationship between theUyghur capital Karabalgasun with the ancientMongolian capital Karakorum. In the 19th cen-tury the two cities of Karabalgasun and Kara-korum were frequently confused with eachother. The ruins which are labelled today asKarabalgasun are located about 30 km nor-thwest of the monastery Erdene Zuu on thewest bank of the river Orkhon. Until today theremains of a fortresse’s walls still rise impres-sively on the steppe. To the southeast of thefortress the remains of an ancient settlementare spread. At the edge of this settlement thewell-known trilingual Karabalgasun-inscripti-on was found.

The Uyghur, a Turkic tribal confederationmentioned in Chinese sources already in the4th and 5th century47, founded their first empirewith the capital Karabalgasun 744 in the Ork-hon valley after having successfully conque-red the Göktürk empire.

In 1872 the ruins of Karabalgasun were disco-vered by the Russian embassy staff I. Paderin48

considering them to be the ancient Mongoliancapital Karakorum. The Russian explorer N.M. Jadrincev was 17 years later of the sameopinion49, but he concurrently also referred tothe built-in inscriptions in the buildings of the

monastery Erdene Zuu and stressed at thesame time the need for further research. Theseinscriptions were of great interest to the Fin-nish anthropologist A. Heikel in 189050 andalso to the Orkhon expedition under the lea-dership of W. Radloff in 189151 D. A. Kle-menc, a member of this expedition producedthe most detailed description of the ruins ofKarabalgasun.52 The two-page account in1957 of Karabalgasun by S. V. Kiselev wasbased to a large extent on the description ofKlemenc.53

.

Fig.: 2 Illustration of Karabalgasun (1891)54

Klemenc described the remains of the settle-ment as a network of rectangular streets,which outlined two quarters and further un-structured built-up areas. He mentioned neit-her a relation in dating between the remains ofthe settlement and the inscription found on itsedge nor to the fortress northeast of the settle-ment.55 Klemenc and Radloff disagreed intheir opinions on the function of the fortress.Similarly, the opinion on the fortresse’sfunctions differ in W. Radloff’s own 1st and 2nd

issue of Atlas der Alterthümer der Mongolei,but this shall not be discussed here.56 Excava-tions did not take place because the Orkhonexpedition was in those days exclusively in-terested in the inscriptions. When Bukiničworked in Karabalgasun, he could only con-duct seven prospectings due to lack of manpo-wer and want of money.


7

5. Comparison Karakorum - Karabalgasun

Comparing the drawings by the Orkhon expe-dition of 1891 (figure 1 and figure 2) two par-allels between Karakorum and Karabalgasuncan be recognized provided that the monasteryErdene Zuu embodies the actual area of Kara-korum and that the monastery’s wall was builtupon an older wall57: in both cases a fortressand a settlement of unstructured shape can bedifferentiated.

Already in 2002 the Japanese archaeologistShiraishi58 recognized the remains of walls,both at the north and south wall of the mona-stery which extend to the east. These twowalls are connected by an eastern rampart, itsmiddle section being interrupted.

Fig.: 3 Drawing of the walls of the monastery Erdene Zuu with the remains of older walls.59

Within this eastern area, more structuredremains of walls might be identified in the fu-ture.

Fig.: 4 Illustration of the wall remains east of the monastery Erdene Zuu60

The illustration of the Orkhon expedition of1891 displays also remains of walls east of themonastery Erdene Zuu.

Fig.: 5 Remains of walls recorded by the Orkhon expedition in 1891.


8

Fig.: 6 a) The eastern wall remains of Karakorumb) Segment of Karabalgasun. Aerial photo61

In figure 6 we can see that Karakorum and Ka-rabalgasun have more in common besides afortress with a settlement. Undoubtedly bothfortresses feature the same architectural struc-ture: there is a larger area, marked out by fourwalls and adjoined by a slightly smaller area,surrounded by three walls. Unfortunately, ol-der tracks within the larger western area ofKarakorum cannot be traced due to the mona-stery’s development. The fortresses differ intheir orientation: Karabalgasun is orientedsoutheast-northwest and Karakorum east-west. The east-west orientation of Karakorummight be viewed in the context of the Mongo-lian imperial encampment rules, its southernside has to be undisguised. Also the doors ofthe palace face south. Whereas the yurt of theruler is located in the center of such an ordu,the arrangement of other yurts is only allowedto the east and west of the imperial yurt. Ru-bruk described such an imperial encampmentwhen he stayed at Möngke Khan’s encamp-ment outside of Karakorum.62

Fig.: 7 a) Scheme of Karakorum b) Scheme of Karabalgasun

The schematic representation of Karakorumand Karabalgasun (figure 7) corresponds tothe drawing (Plate XXXVI) from Atlas der Al-terthümer der Mongolei (fig. 8).

.

Fig.: 8 Comparison of the eastern remains of the walls by Radloff and the elevation level plan.


9

The line drawings figures 7a + 7b are based onfigures 6a and 6b. It is evident that these re-constructions and measurements may only re-present a guideline. Since unfortunately onlypublished documents and no original plansand drawings were available for this essay.

Nevertheless, these drawings were availablefor this essay shall be used in the spreadsheetbelow in order to compare the measurementsof the two fortresses.

Considering the material available up to dateon which the calculations are based, it can beassumed that Karakorum and Karabalgasunare two identical cities. A maximum deviationoccurs in the length of the west walls (c): InKarakorum 424 m and in Karabalgasun 378m. When comparing the outline (fig. 4) of thetwo cities a regular rectangle is discernable forKarabalgasun, whereas the south wall of Ka-rakorum has almost a trapezoidal shape.However this south wall of Karakorum puts aproblem to the reconstruction, because the ele-vation level plan reproduces just the southwall of the monastery. Yet, the walls of thesoutheast corner are clearly visible and canalso be seen on the drawing by the Orkhon ex-pedition of 1891 (fig. 8). Figure 9 offers an al-ternative possibility: from the corner of thesoutheast rampart a straight line is drawn in aright angle to the west wall. in this case theoutline of Karakorum has also a rectangularshape and the length of its south rampart ap-

proximates the length of the northeast-south-west wall of Karabalgasun: there is only adifference of 14 m instead of 46 m and the dif-ferences (h2) between the western areas andthe total area level off as well (s.a. Spreads-heet „Rectangular variant [fig.9])“.

Fig.: 9 Scheme of Karakorum. Rectangular variant

Measures of the fortresses

Distance / Measure Karabalgasun Karakorum KarakorumVariant (Fig. 9)

a; E-W, entire Northside 727 m 757 m

b; E-W, entire Southside 727 m 757 m

c = Westwall 378 m 424 m 392 m

d = Westwall of the middle partition wall 378 m 409 m

e = Eastwall of the middle partition wall 378 m 409 m

f = Eastwall 394 m 394 m

a1; Northwall of the Northwest resp. West areal 409 m 462 m

a2; Northwall of the Southeast resp. East areal 248 m 265 m

b1; Southwall of the Northwest resp. West areal 401 m 454 m

b2; Southwall of the Southwest resp. East areal 254 m 265 m

g/2 (a2 x f) 107.846 m2 110.067 m2 108.437 m2

h/2 (a1 x c) 151.760 m2 199.072 m2 188.026 m2

Entire walled area 274.947 m2 320.915 m2 307.253 m2


10

6. Karabalgasun and Karakorum: Central Asian city models?

In order to discuss this question it is necessaryto look at the cities and fortresses of CentralAsia existing already in pre-Islamic and Isla-mic periods. Especially at those located on theSilk Road. The Uyghur capital Karabalgasunwas founded 491 years before the Mongoliancapital.

6.1. Features of a Central Asian cityA detailed study of Central Asian cities in re-lation to Karakorum and Karabalgasun wouldbe appropriate but would go beyond the scopeof this essay in every respect. Instead, an at-tempt will be made to compare Karakorumand Karabalgasun with medieval CentralAsian cities on the basis of the general des-cription made by S. Chmelnizkij and alsocomparing them with the archaeological inve-stigations and the written sources. This is justan additional contribution to a discussionwhich may be follow later by other aspectsand views.

„Die frühmittelalterliche Stadt bestand in derRegel aus zwei Teilen: der Zitadelle - genannt„Ark“ oder „Kuchendiz“, die dem Regenten alsResidenz diente und der eigentlichen Stadt(„Schahristan“). In dem gut befestigten, höhergelegenen „Ark“ befand sich der Palast desHerrschers, ... . Der Schahristan selbst hatte ge-wöhnlich einen regelmäßigen, rechteckigenGrundriß und bestand aus dicht bebauten Vier-teln, die durch schmale, gerade Straßen getrenntwaren. Die großen öffentlichen Gebäude stan-den auf Hofplätzen, die sich in die Stadtvierteleinfügten. Die Befestigungen durch Mauern mitTürmen, die die ganze Stadt umschlossen, wa-ren ein unerläßlicher Bestandteil jedes Schahri-stan. Der Ark gehörte, von wenigen Ausnahmenabgesehen, nicht zum Scharistan. Er befand sichentweder abgesondert in unmittelbarer Nähe(z.B. in Buchara, Pendschikent, Bundschikat)oder er nahm innerhalb des Schahristans, gemäßder Tradition der antiken Zitadelle, einen iso-lierten Winkel ein. ... Der älteste Teil der früh-mittelalterlichen Stadt Mittelasiens war ohneZweifel der Ark (oder Kuchendiz), der entwedereine umgestaltete antike Zitadelle darstellte,oder einen größer gewordenen, in einen befe-stigten Palastkomplex verwandelten Schloß-Kjoschk. Am Fuße des Ark entstand zur einenSeite von seiner hohen Plattform (selten um sieherum) die Siedlung. Unter günstigen Bedin-gungen wurde hier der Schahristan errichtet. Die

Stadt entstand weder willkürlich noch entwik-kelte sie sich allmählich, wie noch vor kurzemangenommen wurde. Außerdem wurde sie nichtausschließlich als Wirtschafts- und Handelszen-trum gebaut. Der regelmäßige Grundriß dermeisten heute bekannten Schahristane weistdarauf hin, daß der Bau nach einem bestimmten,gut durchdachten Plan erfolgte. Dieser Planwurde vollständig in seiner Einmaligkeit reali-siert. Ein solches Verfahren setzt einen auf Zu-wachs angelegten Städtebau voraus; zuerstwurde offensichtlich ein Netz von rechtwinkli-gen Wohnviertel angelegt, das von Straßendurchzogen und mit Mauern umgeben war. Aufden von ihnen abgezweigten freien Plätzen wur-den die Kultstätten errichtet. Die eigentliche Be-bauung der Viertel erfolgte in Abhängigkeit vonder Bevölkerungszahl, d. h. im Falle eines Be-völkerungszuwachses wurde die Bebauung demPlan entsprechend fortgesetzt. Mit der Zeit kames zu einer Verlagerung der Regierungs- undVerwaltungseinrichtungen und der Paläste ausdem Ark in den durch Mauern begrenztenSchahristan. Dies führte zwangsläufig dazu, daßder Schahristan über seine eigenen Mauern hin-aus „schwappte“, und zwar bis hinter die wie-derum mit einem Befestigungsring versehenenRabade.63 Der Bau von Städten auf der Grundla-ge eines Plans besaß in Mittelasien eine weitver-breitete Tradition, die aus der Vorantikestammte.“64.

6.2. S. Chmelnizkij: comparison of historical sources and excavationsHere follows an attempt using the statementsby S. Chmelnizikij about Central Asian citiesin comparison with the archaeological investi-gations and historical sources concerning Ka-rakorum and Karabalgasun.

Chmelnizikij: Die Stadt bestand aus zwei Tei-len: der Zitadelle - genannt „Ark“ oder „Ku-chendiz“ und der eigentlichen Stadt(Schahristan).

In both, the layout of the walled area of Kara-balgasun and the layout of Karakorum two di-stinct parts are recognizable. Whether thesetwo parts represent one or two urban elementsis not clear. If the walled areas should beconsidered the shahristan where was then theark located?

The excavators about Karabalgasun

Klemenc and Radloff, the first explorers whomade an inventory of Karabalgasun, did notagree on how to define the fortress of Karabal-


11

gasun. Klemenc saw in the remains a formerlysecular site, which has been converted into aBuddhist monastery.65 In the opinion of Radl-off these were on the one hand the remains ofa „palace built by the Mongols on the ruins ofancient Holin“66 and on the other hand the ru-ins of the „Great Pagoda“67 built by MöngkeKhan. Kiselev called the entire walled area a„cidadel“68 and Hüttel/Erdenebat describedthe building as an „imperial / temple city“69 oras a „central palace or walled citadel“70.

Four excavators - five opinions! None of thecited researchers had conducted a thoroughand purposeful investigation of the ruins ofKarabalgasun. Only Bukinič admitted clearlyin 1934 that he had no opportunity to studyKarabalgasun.71

The excavators about Karakorum

Statements about the original Karakorum arenot available, because, since the Orkhon expe-dition of 1891, the deserted area north of themonastery has been identified as Karakorum,so that this area was in the focus of all subse-quent archaeological investigations, and un-fortunately, the building of the monastery inthe 16th century makes it impossible to see itsremains on the surface.

The sources about Karakorum

Juvaini, Rubruk and the Yuanshi reported a„two-part“ city layout, including - all of them- a city and a palace area.

Chmelnizkij: Der Schahristan selbst hatte ge-wöhnlich einen regelmäßigen, rechteckigenGrundriß und bestand aus dicht bebautenVierteln, die durch schmale, gerade Straßengetrennt waren. Die großen öffentlichen Ge-bäude standen auf Hofplätzen, die sich in dieStadtviertel einfügten. Die Befestigungendurch Mauern mit Türmen, die die ganzeStadt umschlossen, waren ein unerläßlicherBestandteil jedes Schahristan.

The excavators about Karabalgasun and Karakorum

Both the drawings from the late 19th centuryand the modern topographic surveys indicate aregular, rectangular shape for the fortresses of

Karabalgasun and Karakorum. Several struc-tures are recognizable in the south eastern areaof Karabalgasun which possibly could be ta-ken for narrow straight streets. All representa-tions show an enclosed site and forKarabalgasun also towers are detectable.


Juvaini, Rubruk and the Yuanshi reported thatKarakorum was an enclosed location. OnlyJuvaini mentioned that Chinese and Muslimswere settled in Karakorum.72 However, Ru-bruk modified this statement when he reportedthat these populations lived in their own quar-ters and he additionally specified their profes-sions. As discussed above there were palacesfor the secretaries in Karakorum too. Therefo-re future archaeological excavations shouldinvestigate whether large public buildingsstood on courtyards, fit into these quarters.

Chmelnizkij: Der Ark gehörte, von wenigenAusnahmen abgesehen, nicht zum Schahri-stan. Er befand sich entweder abgesondert inunmittelbarer Nähe oder er nahm innerhalbdes Schahristans, gemäß der antiken Zitadel-le, einen isolierten Winkel ein.

The excavators about Karakorum

The question regarding the exact location ofthe palace of Karakorum is discussed only byHüttel/Erdenebat. They state that the monaste-ry’s complex corresponds to the imperial city73

of Karakorum, which therefore was erectedoutside of the town. Since a more accurate de-finition of „Imperial City“ is missing, it canonly be assumed that the excavators based thelayout of Karakorum on a Chinese city model.They describe four trenches at the monasterywalls and confirm the statement of Radloffabout an older wall, but they unfortunately didnot publish any scientific data except generaldescriptions and interpretations.74

Looking at Karabalgasun there exists alsopossibly an ark or a citadel in the southeastcorner of the northwestern area, a well knownfeature from Central Asian fortresses. Kle-menc described this building - probably accu-ratley - as a square-shaped turret.75


12

Exkurs: Toprak Kala

Toprak Kala in Karakalpakstan has to be men-tioned here as an example of a fortress inwhich the ark is located inside the city wallsand where the ark is located in the northwe-stern corner of the town (sharistan).

Fig.: 10 Illustration of Toprak-Kala76


Rubruk writes in regard to the location of thepalace that it was located „iuxta muros ville“.„Close to the city walls“ means both inside oroutside the city wall and also that the palacewall had possibly four own walls or the palaceused two city walls for its own enclosure, likethe palace in Toprak Kala (fig. 10).

Juvaini used the Persian preposition „bar“ toexpress a relationship between the palace andthe city. As discussed above the significanceof this preposition „bar“ causes difficulties fortranslation. Using „bar“ in the literal sense,namely as „above“, Juvaini may also have ex-pressed that the palace was located definitelyhigher than the city. Maybe the palace wasbuilt on a podium so it could be seen above thetown.

The Yuanshi does not allow any assumptionabout the location of the palace; it only menti-ons the palace as having been built.

The reports of the eyewitnesses state an ambi-guous site of the palace, so that the ark mayhave been located both inside or outside the

shahristan, depending on the respective inter-pretation.77

Chmelnizkij: Am Fuße des Ark entstand zureinen Seite von seiner hohen Plattform (seltenum sie herum) die Siedlung. Unter günstigenBedingungen wurde hier der Schahristan er-richtet. ... Der regelmäßige Grundriß dermeisten heute bekannten Schahristane weistdarauf hin, daß der Bau nach einem be-stimmten, gut durchdachten Plan erfolgte.

About Karabalgasun and Karakorum

Such a Central Asian settlement (shahristan),as described by Chmelnizkij, is neither appli-cable to Karabalgasun nor Karakorum, becau-se both cites were built on the banks of theriver Orkhon. The remains of settlements,joining the fortresses both in Karabalgasunand in Karakorum, have no regular rectangu-lar shape so that they can not in all likelihoodbe labeled as shahristan.

Chmelnizkij: Die Stadt entstand weder will-kürlich noch entwickelte sie sich allmählich,wie noch vor kurzem angenommen.


This interpretation of the foundation of a Cen-tral Asian city corresponds with the foundati-on of Karakorum having grown „out of theblue“ as described by Juvaini and the Yuanshi.The parallels between Karabalgasun and Ka-rakorum makes this assumption seem correctat least for Karakorum: the urban buildingconcept of the older city (Karabalgasun) ser-ved as a master print for the latter one. For thefoundation of Karabalgasun the influence ofthe Sogdians should be considered and whichkind of familiar city layout they carried intothe Orkhon valley must be found by future re-search.

Exkurs: Kheldun

These cities’ outline were not created arbitra-rily, because they present not only a remarka-ble resemblance to the Central Asian cities butalso to other Uyghur settlements in Mongolia.In 2009 Ochir/Erdenebold published a shortreport about the excavation of the Uyghur


13

settlement Khedun and argue that „its struc-ture and construction resembles other Uighurremains at Khar Balgas and Chilen Balgas“78.Unfortunately there is no site plan attached tothe report and the descriptions are limited tothese general remarks.

Fig.: 11 Map of Kheldun

Khedun is located in the Tula valley, about130 km beeline in a northwestern direction toKarakorum and about 125 km beeline fromKarabalgasun. For the enclosed settlementwhich is oriented northwest-southeast likeKarabalgasun, the excavators report for theeast- and westwalls a length of 1.260 m andfor the north- and southwalls 680 m. So theenclosed space has a size of 856.800 sq.m.,which is roughly 5,5 times the size of Karabal-gasun. There are two separate areas within thewalls and the southern area is characterized byintersecting streets. On the aerial image an ad-joining settlement can not be detected, andsuch a settlement is not mentioned by Ochir/Erdenebold. Therefore the structure of Khe-dun falls into a line with the fortresses of Ka-rakalpakstan and has a close resemblance toToprak Kala (fig. 10).

Chmelnizkij: Die eigentliche Bebauung derViertel erfolgte in Abhängigkeit von der Be-völkerungszahl, d. h. im Falle eines Bevölke-rungszuwachses wurde die Bebauung demPlan entsprechend fortgesetzt. Mit der Zeitkam es zu einer Verlagerung der Regierungs-und Verwaltungseinrichtungen und der Palä-ste aus dem Ark in den durch Mauern be-

grenzten Schahristan. Dies führtezwangsläufig dazu, daß der Schahristan überseine eigenen Mauern hinaus „schwappte“,und zwar bis hinter die wiederum mit einemBefestigungsring versehenen Rabade.

If one considers the fortresses of Karabalga-sun and Karakorum as a unit of ark and shah-ristan then the joined settlements must bereferred to as rabaz79.These suburbs (rabaz)would at least explain where those people li-ved in Karakorum, who were not explicitlymentioned by Rubruk.

We find in Karabalgasun and in Karakorumwalls which fortify the suburb (rabaz). Simi-lar to the Central Asian settlement the rabaz(suburbs) of Karabalgasun and Karakorumfeature an irregular layout too, and it seems -following Chmelnizkij - „they spilled out“.80 Itis conceivable that this „spilled out“ layoutwas the reason why Bukinič doubted that thedeserted area is identical with the ancientMongolian capital.81 His opinion could be ta-ken as an indication that Bukinič also assumeda Chinese city layout for Karakorum, althoughit can be expected that he was very well ac-quainted with the layout and structure of Cen-tral Asian cities and fortresses too.

Excursion: Sogdians, Muslims, Saracens

The Sogdians filled an exposed position in thesociety of the Uyghur Empire and „the Uig-hurs encouraged Sogdian migration since itwas extremely important to the economy, en-hancing trade through a vast Sogdian networkof contacts“.82 In this context Laut points outthat the Sogdians had already had an influenceon the Göktürk empire in the 6th century,considering the stele of Bugut and the usage ofthe Sogdian scripture.83

The terms „Muslim“ or „Saracens“ as used byJuvaini and Rubruk have to be understood ascollective terms, which subsume many diffe-rent peoples. In this manner it is conceivablethat the cities and fortresses of the Uyghur arebased on Central Asian patterns, which werecarried by (Manichaean) Sogdians into theOrkhon valley too. After the downfall of theUyghur empire the Manichaean religion wasforbidden in China84 and under the rule of the


14

Yuan dynasty the Manichaean Sogdians werealready converted to Islam85. For Juvaini theUyghur and the Sogdians were coreligionistsand for Rubruk it was not essential to belongto an ethnic group but to a religious one. BothJuvaini’s History of the World Conqueror andthe itinerary of Rubruk are expressions ofdeep religious convictions: what was estima-ted by one of them, was despised by theother.86

7. Concluding thoughts

Bukinič took the view that the deserted areanorth of the monastery Erdene Zuu was asettlement of the Chinese military colonizati-on in the 17th century. This is probably notright. Karakorum was not abandoned after thetransfer of the capital to Dadu but became atown inhabited by craftsmen and manufacto-ries.87 What happened after the downfall of theYuan dynasty in 1368 remains untold. Theonly hint is given by the History of the East-Mongols and their royal house, which statesthat in 1415 a decision was made to recon-struct Karakorum.88 If Karakorum should real-ly have been destroyed it has to be askedwhether all three components of the city weredemolished or, for example, only the ark oronly the shahristan.

The three-phase settlement, consisting of apre-palace period, a palace period and a mona-stic period proposed by Kiselev does not bearan examination.89

A monograph about the investigation of theMDKE in the so called city part of Karakorumwas published while this essay was written.90

Without assessing the content of the mono-graph the title is irritating: Excavations in thecraftsmen quarter at the main road. The exca-vations by Kiselev and MDKE have all takenplace in those areas that Bukinič had alreadydigged in 1932. None of these excavationswere able to verify a quarter of the Muslims,still less to distinguish it from a Chinese craft-smen’s quarter. Ground plans of buildings,which suggest a living or a working area aremissing so far.91

How do the archaeologists know that they ex-cavated in the „Chinese craftsmen quarter“ or(at) the „main road of Karakorum“? Signifi-cantly, an article about the Muslim cemeteryoutside the walls of the deserted area wasincluded in the monograph. Should the exist-ence of the Muslim inhabitants, reported byRubruk and Juvaini, be proved in this way?„While a Muslim cemetery has been excava-ted, we still have no evidence of the mosque ormosques which the city is supposed to havecontained or the residences the arguably sub-stantial Muslim merchant population mayhave occupied.“92 It is also necessary to askwhat is meant by „main road“. How can a roadbe declared as the „main road“ of a medievaltown if the archaeological evidence for otherstreets and roads is missing93 and if only a fewsquare meters of this road have been excava-ted so far94?

The German excavators answer to the questi-on of the 18th century, „was nun nachgehendesmit Olugh-yurt oder Kara-koram vorgegan-gen ist, (denn es mögen dieses zween Nameneiner Stadt gewesen seyn oder nicht, so ist esdoch wahrscheinlich, daß sie gleiches Schick-sal gehabt haben)“ 95, by claiming that Juvainireproduces two different oral traditions andcombines the right name with the wrong pla-ce.96

As described above, Ordu Baliq is the term fora rulers encampment that not only refers toKarabalgasun.97 Buqu Khan would have hadmore than one „imperial encampment“ inde-pendently from Karabalgasun, like the Mon-gol Khans in later times.98 In no sense Juvainiconnected Ordu Baliq with Karabalgasun, heconnected Ordu Baliq with the remains of awall: „There had previously been no town orvillage in that place except for the remains ofa wall called Ordu-Baligh“99.The later editorsof the historical source and their subsequentrecipients thought the connection betweenOrdu Baliq, Buqu Khan and Karabalgasun isexclusive, and this led and still leads to confu-sion in relation to Karakorum.100 It is to specu-late about how large or small the remains of awall were in the place where Ogodai foundedhis capital.


15

A second misconception is the interpretationof „cheng Helin“ in the Yuanshi. „Cheng He-lin“ is translated again and again in such amanner that an existing city was enclosed, soit had to be assumed that a city already existedin 1235 when the palace of Karakorum wasbuilt.

The third misunderstandig is based on thestatement of Radloff, who assumed that thebuilt-in inscriptions in the monastery were ori-ginally located at the deserted area north of themonastery. This is an erroneous assumptionsince the original side of this recycled materialcan not be located.101

In all three cases the inaccurate translations,together with subjective suggestions had a de-termining influence on the research about Ka-rakorum and directed the focus toward thedeserted area north of the monastery ErdeneZuu.

All excavations at the deserted area have incommon that solely Chinese artifacts werefound. A single coin with Arabic inscriptionremains a unique exception and changes not-hing even if the numismatist asserts that it wasstruck in Karakorum „under the control of theMuslim community“102.

As the layers in the so-called craftsmen quar-ter are 5 m deep103 a multi-phase site can be as-sumed, whose finding context may reach asfar as to the time of the Chinese military colo-nization, as Bukinič suspected already.

If - moreover - the latest excavations proveKarakorum to be „only“ a settlement havingexisted until the end of the 14th century, the ex-cavator admits an uncertainty: „Another arte-fact of historical value marks the probable endof the settlement process in the area of the citycentre (or at least in the area excavated sofar)“.104

This essay wanted to discuss the hypothesis ofa Central Asian city layout for Karakorum. Itbecame apparent that Karakorum and Kara-balgasun have an identical city layout so that aCentral Asian city layout is more likely than aChinese layout.

It must also be discussed whether the wallsunder the monastery walls and the east walls

might be identical with the Uyghur walls men-tioned by Juvaini or if it is possible to findother remains of these „remains of a wall“ so-mewhere else, but so far no excavations havetaken place in the area of the east walls.

However, the statement that Karakorum wasbuilt „bar“, therefore „above“, on existingwalls makes the assumption more likely thatthe monastery and the east walls reflect theoutline of the ancient Mongolian capital. Anenclosed medieval city of about 300,000 m2

cannot be called small.105

This essay is meant as food for thought, it is anattempt to leave the beaten tracks of the Kara-korum research and it emphasizes that Kara-korum was not necessarily based on a Chinesecity layout, as assumed by previous resear-chers.106 The Mongolian heartland includingKarakorum is located geographically betweenChina and Central Asia and therefore betweentwo different cultures and religions. Whyshould nomadic people, „überzeugt von derÜberlegenheit der Nomadenkultur“107, prefer acity layout of a nation that was sedentary forhundreds of years?

It can only be considered whether the idea ofa Chinese city model was influenced by theMongol khans, the Chinese emperors of theYuan Dynasty. To derive a Chinese city mo-del from the close relationship between Chinaand Mongolia since 1270 (foundation of theYuan Dynasty) seems highly improbable, be-cause the relationship between China andMongolia in the times of the foundation of Ka-rakorum (1235) were not really harmonious.

Until today there is no proper evidence thatthe layout of Karakorum was based on Chine-se conceptions. Simply put, the question aboutthe city layout was never asked. Therefore itwas proposed here, that a Central Asian citylayout may well have served as a model for theurban architecture of Karakorum.

There are still many pending questions towhich the ongoing Karakorum research cannot yet give satisfactory answers: where wasthe location of the palace with the legendarysilver tree108, where were the quarters of themerchants and the craftsmen, also the situati-on of the caravansarais in Karakorum, already


16

formulated by Bukinič, remain a secret of theMongolian steppe.

The question how the Uyghur built their citiesin the Tarim basin after their departure fromthe Orkhon valley has so far not been investi-gated.109 Nor a debate initiated on the ancientsettlements published in Atlas der Alterthü-mer der Mongolei by Radloff. And last but notleast the influence of the Sogdians on the Ork-hon empires was barely touched so far.

Following Minorsky110 I hope that this essay isevidence to the speculative assumptions, thatthat archaeological results are congruent withhistorical sources, since equivalence can notbe produced by hook or by crook. A compara-tive study of all available sources, involvingdifferent disciplines, may be time consumingand tedious, but it is the only safe method offinding one’s way through the maze of tradi-tional lore, both archaeological traditions andhistorical traditions.

PostscriptFinally it should be mentioned that the deser-ted area north of the monastery Erdene Zuuwas fenced in by UNESCO and has been pla-ced under protection. This does not apply forthe east walls. If these walls are not protectedin the immediate future they will be gone in afew years. Already modern housing came upclose to the remains of the ancient walls, ifthey have not reached them already.

Fig.: 12 Recent buildings at the east walls

Citations

1. Hüttel 2009: 147 writes, that „the first excavations atKhara Khorum were carried out in 1933 as part of aRussian-Mongolian collaborative expedition. The areawas investigated systematically with small test pits, butthe results were disappointing because findings werealmost entirely from Buddhist-related contexts“. Unfor-tunately the author omits to point out that it was Buki-nič, who recognized a Buddhist temple in the walledarea of the southwest corner. Instead he passes off thisresult as his own: „About 90 percent of our discoveries,as well as most of the interior architectural features ofthe „palace-level“ strata, belongs to a Buddhist inven-tory that is very different from that used in the construc-tion of Erdene Zuu monastery. The stratigraphicalevidence as well as the dating of the Buddhist antiqui-ties places the area of the site between the twelfth andfourteenth centuries and proves that Kiselev’s so-calledpalace sector in fact holds the ruins of a Buddhisttemple contemporary with the imperial city of KharaKhorum“ (Hüttel 2009: 148). The result may not havebeen so „disappointing“. Hüttel orientates himselftowards the statement of Kiselev (1965: 131-n12), whoalso did not appreciate the results of Bukinič (see alsoBecker 2008: 23f.).

2. Becker 2007.

3. Cleaves 1952: 29M. Weiers made me aware on how „instructive it was toknow what or who Taizu Shengwu Huangdi“ was. Heexplains that „Taizu <chin. Zeichen> „Allererster Vor-fahre, Urahn“ der Titel ist, der jedem ersten Kaisereiner chinesischen Dynastie gegeben wurde. Tsching-gis Khan erhielt diesen Titel posthum auch als Tempel-name 1309 während der Yuan Dynastie (1272-1368)unter der Herrschaft des Herrschers Haishan Külüg(1307-11). Shengwu <chin. Zeichen>„EhrwürdigerUngestümer“ ist die chinesische Übersetzung des Zuna-mens des Tschinggis Khan, der wohl wegen seinesungestümen Charakters Činggis „Ungestümer (Spitz-name?) genannt wurde, danach mongolisch ČinggisQan „Ungestümer Herrscher“. Huangdi <chin. Zei-chen> „Höchster Herrscher“ ist der Titel der chinesi-chen Herrscher, die wir im Deutschen als „Kaiser“ zubezeichnen gewöhnt sind“. Email to the author12.08.2010

4. The two elections of Temüdjin are not to be discussedhere. It should only be emphasized that further researchis required (Weiers 2004: 38f.). With regard to the firstelection Heissig states in a footnote that those wereheld only „in a small group of Mongols“ and that thetitle „’Khan’ means king or duke“ (Heissig 1989: 47,n1). In relation to the second election in 1206 Heissignotes (Heissig 1989: 112, n1): „1206 war also dieeigentliche Erhebung Tschinggis Khans zum Herrscher.Bis dahin war er lediglich Führer eines Teils der Mon-golen gewesen“.

5. Weiers 2004: 67.

6. Weiers 2004: 68.

7. Brose 2007.

8. Sagaster 2005: 151.


17

9. I would like to express my thankfulness to ProfessorMichael Weiers for his valuable advise with regard tothe Persian and Mongolian sources. The present trans-lation made by the author is based on his comments inan email (12/09/2010) to the author.

10. On the term „ordu“ see also Doerfer 1965: 32. It is fre-quently observed that the term „baliq“ is used as a syn-onym for the Uyghur capital Karabalgasun. Forexample: „Especially the passage from Juvaini and itsconjunction with the Uighurian capital Karabalgasun (=Ordu Baligh) .. .“ (Pohl 2009: 529). This might be true so far as Karabalgasun was indeedthe ruler’s encampment-“city“. But it should be alsonoted that „ordu baliq“ is used as a „technical term“and that there were other places which were characteri-zed as a ruler’s encampment as well and therefore werecalled „ordu baliq“. „That name of Ordu-baliq may notbe exclusive; for instance, its Turko-Iranian counterpartOrdu-känt or Ordu-känd was a name of Kâšăar.“ (Pel-liot 1959: 168). Concluding, it can be said that the term„city“ ist not necessarily associated with solid buil-dings, a large encampment can also described as a„city“.

11. Pelliot 1959: 167.

12. This refers the Mongolian part of the Inscription of1346.

13. Weiers. Email to the author (12/09/2010).

14. ’Ala-ad-Din ’Ata-Malik Juvaini/Boyle 1958: 236.

15. See also Barthold 1962:181f: „Nach dem Tode ChingizChan’s wurde Ügedei zum Kaiser gewählt und siedeltenach der Mongolei über, wo er die Stadt Qara Qorumund einige Paläste sowohl in der Stadt selbst als in ihrerUmgebung erbaute und wo er offenbar alle Herrscher-rechte ausübte, ohne die Tululi als Erben des väterli-chen Jurt, d. h. der Mongolei, zustehenden Rechte zubeachten.“ Whether this occurred because „Qara-qorum had already been designated as Mongol capitalin the lifetime of Chingiz-khan“, as suspected by Pelliot(1959: 167) thus is not provable.

16. Weiers translates this text passages as follows: „(1)...Und eine Bleibe und einen Aufenthaltsort (2) für denThron des Königreichs am Rande des Flusses Orkhonund der Berge von Karakorum wählte er aus.“ Mail tothe author (14/09/2010).


18. Mail to the author 14/09/2010.

19. The line count is indicated by ( ), translations from thecritical apparatus stand between [ ] and subsidiarydetails, which are not in the text, are between < >.Weiers email to the author 14/09/2010.As for Māwū Bālīg Weiers adds: „Der Name bestehtaus Mittelmongolisch mâwû „schlecht, übel, schlimm“(es handelt sich sprachlich-entwicklungsgeschichtlichum die Dissimilationsstufe zwischen maγu und ma’u)und türkisch bâlîg „Stadt“: „schlechte Stadt“. Dies waranscheinend die Bezeichnung für Orte, die sich denMongolen nicht unterwerfen wollten. Es ist hervorzu-heben, daß Ğuwainī in diesem Zusammenhang nir-gends (auch nicht in den übrigen Textzeugen)ausdrücklich und namentlich die Mongolen nennt!“

20. S. a. Rubruk 1929: 207f und 233, Rockhill 1900: 220-n2, Jacobsen/Morgan 1990: 123, Becker 2007: 37.

21. Abramowski 1976: 130.

22. :: Ershiliu shi 1999: 12340.

23. A source-critical examination of the Yuanshi in relationto the foundation of Karakorum remains a desideratum.In context of the foundation of the rebuilding of theChinese capital Daxing Thilo (1977: 173) writes:„Innerhalb eines knappen Jahres soll die Stadt - womitzunächst die Mauer gemeint sein dürfte - fertig dage-standen haben."

24. It seems that the German excavators fell victim to theGerman Yuanshi translation when they write: „Danachist mit dem Bau von Palaststadt, Palast und Stadtmauer1235 begonnen worden“ (Hüttel/Erdenebat 2009: 14)and „..., the earliest building activities at Khara Kho-rum can be dated to 1235, when the son and successorof Genghis Khan, Ögödei Khaghan, began to buildwalls to enclose the area to the future city“ (Erdenebat/Pohl 2009: 137f.). This might also apply to Moses/Greer (1998: 112): „..., a fortress wall was built aroundthe formal city in that year <1234>“. Further, it isinteresting to note for one thing it is the „future city“,which is enclosed and for another thing it is the „formalcity“. It could not be clariyfied to which sources theauthors refer to in relation to the adjectives they app-lied. The list of those assuming that Ogodai enclosed analready existing city can be continued endlessly: „In1235 Genghis Khan's son and successor, Ögödei, sur-rounded Karakorum with walls and built a rectangularpalace supported by 64 wooden columns standing ongranite bases.“ (Karakorum. (2011). Encyclopædia Bri-tannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate ReferenceSuite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.)

25. S.a. footnote 40.


27. „Die Verwaltung der Länder mit seßhafter Bevölkerungstellte die Mongolen vor schwere Probleme. Die Mon-golen hatten keine Kader, die für diese Aufgabe sicheigneten, sie waren sprachunkundig, die Geldwirtschaftwar ihnen fremd. Sie waren auf die Dienste von sprach-und schriftkundigen Angehörigen der unterworfenenVölker angewiesen. ... Die zentralistische Lenkung desReiches, die multinationale Zusammensetzung derBevölkerung machten das Bedürfnis geltend, eineKanzlei einzurichten, die die Befehle des Herrschersschriftlich festlegte, sie in die verschiedenen nationalenSprachen übersetzte und offizielle Urkunden wie Steu-erbefreiungsbriefe, Geleitbriefe u. a. ausstellte. Schonnach dem Siege über die Naiman hatte Činggis-khanden uigurischen Naiman-Kanzler Tata-tonãa in seineDienste als Siegelverwahrer übernommen und angeord-net, daß die kaiserlichen Befehle mit einem Siegel ver-sehen werden sollten (YS 124, 6a). Die Gespräche, dieČinggis-khan 1222 mit dem Patriarchen Changchungeführt hat, sind in Türkisch, Chinesisch, Persisch undMongolisch schriftlich registriert worden (Xiyu ji,shang, 46a). Schrift- und sprachkundige Männer - meistUiguren - sind als Sekretäre (bičēči) eingesetzt wor-den.“ Ratchnevsky 1983: 161f.


18

28. The Persian ‘Ala-ad-Din ‘Ata-Malik Juvaini was amember of the Arghuns entourage in Karakorum (1252- During his stay in Karakorum (1252-1254) he startedto compose his History of the World-Conqueror. TheJourney to the Mongol Khan of the Westeuropean Fran-scican monk Wilhelm von Rubruk occurred in 1253 -1255. 1254 Rubruck spent Easter in Karakorum. Tilltoday these two „reports“ are the only descriptions ofeye witnesses. S.a. Becker 2007: 7-40.

29. ’Ala-ad-Din ’Ata-Malik Juvaini/Boyle 1958: 236f.

30. Rubruk/Rockhill 1900: 207. „habet aput Caracarummagnam curiam iuxta muros ville, clausam muro lateri-cio (latentio), ... „“ Rubruk 1929: 276f.

31. Rubruk 1929: 279f.



34. Rubruk 1929: 277.

35. Cleaves 1952: 30.

36. Cleaves 1952: 80.


38. Rubruk 1929: 276.

39. Abramowski 1979: 18.

40. ’Ala-ad-Din ’Ata-Malik Juvaini/Boyle 1958: 236: „TheMongols named it Ma’u Baligh, and Qa’an caused atown to be tuilt on it, which they called Ordu-Baligh,though it is better known as Qara-Qorum. Hither arti-sans of every kind were brought from Khitai, and like-wise craftsmen from the lands of Islam; and they beganto till the ground. And because of Qa’an’s great bountyand munifecence people turned their faces thitherwardfrom every side, and in a short space of time it becamea city.“ Whether these artisans and craftsmen fromChina and the lands of Islam (Central Asia) were sett-led in Karakorum or just brought there to build the city,remains to be solved.

41. Rubruk 1929: 285f.: „Ibi sunt duo vici : ununs sarra-cenorum in quo sunt nundine, et multi mercatores con-fluunt ibi propter curiam que semper est prope illam, etpropter multitudinem nunciorum ; alius est vicusCataianorum qui omnes sunt artifices.“ „There are twoquarters in it; one of the Saracens in which are the mar-kets, and where a great many Tartars gather on accountof the court, which is always near the (city), and onaccount of the great number of ambassadors ; the otheris the quarter of the Cathayans, all of whom are arti-sans.“ Rubruk/Rockhill 1900: 221.

42. Rubruk/Rochkhill 1900: 221, Rubruk 1929: 285: „extraistos vicos sunt magna palatia que sunt scriptorumcurie.“

43. Vicos: Quarter or Alleyway/Street; extra: except, fur-thermore, outside/beyond/besides. S. a. Becker 2007:17.

44. S. a footnote 19.

45. Радлов 1892: 10. Haller 1892: 401. Becker 2007: 70.

46. Radloff 1892: Plate XXXVI.

47. Weiers 1998: 1.

48. Падеринъ 1873.

49. Ядринцев 1890.

50. Heikel 1892.

51. Radloff 1892.

52. Клеменцъ 1895.

53. Киселев 1957.

54. Radloff 1892: Plate XXVII.

55. Клеменцъ 1895: 53f.

56. Becker 2007: 235 f.

57. Haller1894: 315.

58. Shiraishi 2002. Unfortunately, the elaborations of Shir-aishi were not available for the present paper. Accor-ding to Pohl (2009: 524) Shiraishi assumes a successivesettlement of the deserted area north of the monastery.His thesis is based on the excavations of Kiselev andaddresses the walled area in the southwest corner of thedeserted area as the palace area of Ogodai Khan. Thiswalled area is the starting point for the settlement andShiraishi dates it back to the 8th - 12th century. After thedownfall of the Yuan dynasty a second walled palacewas erected in Karakorum and on the western part ofthis second palace the monastery was built in the 16th

century.

59. Cited from Pohl 2009: 527.

60. The segment from the elevation level plan was takenfrom Bemmann/Munkhbayar 2010: 15; s. a. Hüttel/Erdenebat 209: 25.

61. Hüttel/Erdenebat 2009: 35.

62. Rubruk 1929: 213.

63. I was warned that Soviet texts make no distinction bet-ween the Arabic words „robat“ and „rabaz“. Robatdenominates buildings and rabaz an area. It may be the-refore assumed that in the quoted text „rabaz“ is meant.

64. Chmelnizkij 1989: 19f.

65. Клеменцъ 1895: 58.

66. Radloff 1892: without pagination.

67. Клеменцъ 1895: 51. In a distance of 6 Sash <12,8 m>from this jut inside the courtyard stands the large buil-ding, which the chief of the expedition is inclined toacknowledge as the remains of the pagoda with thefive-storey hall, built by Möngke Khan in 1256. [Trans-lation by the author]Въ 6 саженяхъ отъ этого выступа, внутри двора,под-нимается высокое сооружение, котороеначальникъ экспедиции склоненъ признать заостатки пагоды съ 5-ти яруснымъ теремомъ,воздвигнутой Мунка ханомъ въ 1256 году.

68. Киселев 1957: 94. To imagine how it really was, it isenough to say that the citadel with its adjoininig gar-dens almost has a length of 1 kilometer. [Translation bythe author]Чтобы представить себе, каков он <город > был насамом деле, достаточно сказать, что одна цитадель сприлегающими к ней садами занимает в длинупочти 1 км.

69. Hüttel/Erdenebat 2009: 20.

70. Hüttel 2009: 146.

71. Both the excavation and final report of Bukinič is unpu-blished. A copy is kept at the Mongolian Academy ofSciences in Ulaan Baatar and was first published byBecker 2007.



19

73. Hüttel/Erdenebat 2009: 13. Hüttel 2009: 149 even wri-tes that „all written sources indicate that the palace wassituated outside the city proper, but near or beside thecity wall, ... .“ As stated above, from no medievalsource can be inferred a relation between the palace andthe town, let alone, that the sources indicate a site out-side the town for the palace.

74. Hüttel/Erdenebat 2009: 14 and 27 (Fig.8).

75. Клеменц 1895: 50.

76. Неразик 1981: 10 (fig. 2).

77. Hüttel 2009: 149 details why he thinks the monasteryarea is the imperial city: „The Persian sources<Juvaini> describe the palace sub-sector as a walledarea with four main gates oriented in cardinal direc-tions. All written sources indicate that the palace wassituated outside the city proper, but near or beside thecity wall, and was known to have had an artificial riverflowing through it. The only construction in the vicinitymatching these features is Erdene Zuu monastery its-elf.“ It is not enough to claim „all written sources“ andnot to prove them.

78. Ochir/Erdenebold 2009: 441.


80. Shiraishi (cited by Pohl 2009: 525) and Hüttel (2004:185) take the view that todays deserted area was expan-ded to the east in 1299, therefore „spilled out“ overtheir borders / walls.

81. „On the attached map of the expedition NIK the ruinsof Karakorum adjoin to the western <actually nort-hern!> wall of the monastery Erdene Zuu. These ruinsdo not show the images of a city with an enclosedpalace similar to the described Uyghur settlements ofKarakbalgasun, Cin-Tologoja at Chadasan. ... . But atthe ruins of Erdene Zuu it is possible to distinguish anirregular shape of the city wall, and some areas withrubble heaps between them, like an intersection of twostreets, become apparent.“ Cited in Becker 2007: 359.Russian: „Как видно из прилагаемого плана съемкиэкспедиции НИК‘а, развалины Каракорума,прилегающие к западной стене монастыря Эрдени-Цзу, не дают картины города с крепостнымистенами наподобие уже описанных на местеуйгурских городищ - Хара-Балгасуна, Цин-Тологояк Хадасана. ... На развалинах же Эрдэни-Цзу самоебольшее, что можно отличить, - это неправильнойформы обваловку некоторого участка мусорныхкуч, внутри которой намечаются как бы следыперекрестка от двух улиц.“

82. Kolbas 2005: 305.

83. Laut 1985: 171f.

84. Minorsky 1948: 296.

85. Kolbas 2005: 306.

86. Rubruk reported: „So we went down the river in a boatfrom this village to his (Baatu’s) ordu, and from thatplace to the cities of Greater Bulgaria to the north thereare five days. I wonder what devil carried this religionof Machomet thither“ (Rubruk/Rockhill 1900: 121).For Juvaini see also Weiers 2009.

87. Lech 1968: 258, n50.

88. Ssanang Ssetzsen Chungtaidschi/Schmidt 1829: 168.

89. Becker 2007: 209.

90. Bemmann 2010.

91. Also the excavations made by MDKE could not answerthis problem satisfactorily, although one hoped to getnew and detailed insights into the urban developmentfrom the proximity to the Kiselev excavation „House atthe intersection“. „Needless to say that excavation atthe same area <Kiselev-excavation> would produce acomparable stratigraphy, which - based on modernexcavation techniques - could lead to more refinedunderstanding of the city’s development.“ Erdenebat/Pohl 2009: 140f.

92. Waugh 2010: 111.

93. Kiselev called that excavation: House at the intersec-tion.

94. Pohl 2009: 507, fig. 3.

95. Schwabe 1749: 54.

96. „However, the confusion between these two cities andtheir geographical position in the Orkhon Valley isusually solved in that way that Juvaini obviously repro-duced two oral traditions connecting the correct names(„Ordu Baligh“, „Buqu Khan) with a wrong place.“(Pohl 2009: 529) Hüttel writes: „abweichend vomYuanshi und der Inschrift von 1346 nennt die chinesi-sche Mongolengeschichte von 1699 nicht ČingisChaan, sondern einen (apokryphen?) Uigurenkönig des8. Jahrhunderts als Gründer der Stadt. Indes ist offen-sichtlich, dass hier zwei Überlieferungen vermischtwerden, eine ältere Überlieferung der Tang-Zeit mit derJüngeren der Yuan-Dynastie“. (Hüttel 2007: 288). Howcould Juvaini, according to Pohl, mix two oral traditi-ons when Hüttel dates the younger of these two traditi-ons to the time of the Yuan dynasty, which started in1271, almost twenty years after Juvaini’s journey toMöngke Khan, and at which time Juvaini (1226-1283)already had started to write his ’History of the worldconqueror’? According to Weiers (2009: 212) Juvainicomposed his ’History of the world conqueror’ bet-ween 1252 and 1260.

97. S.a footnote 10.

98. Boyle 1972.

99. Juvaini/Boyle 1958: 236.

100. Hüttel 2007: 289 writes that „spätestens seit 1889 ...jedoch gesichert ist, dass das „mongolische Karako-rum“ (W. Radloff) nicht, wie Juvaini suggeriert, auf denÜberresten der uigurischen Hauptstadt Char Balgaserrichtet worden ist.“ Juvaini does not suggest that atall. The suggestion takes place in the minds of his rea-ders who not only belong to another era but also to acompletely different cultural sphere, when they claim„Ord Balyg oder Char Balgas ohne Zweifel die Haupt-stadt der Uiguren ist“ (Hüttel 2007: 289).

101. Becker 2007: 67ff.

102. Statements such as: „The coin was struck presumablywithin the palace compound, in a workshop under thecontrol of the Muslim community. It was found withina copper smith's workshop located in the Chinese com-mercial area of the city“ (Heidemann 2006: 94) lead tomisunderstandings because facts are suggested forwhich there is no evidence so far.

103. Erdenebat/Pohl 2002:40.


20

104. Pohl 2009: 512.

105. To Chmelnizkij 1989: 18 „lebte in den frühmittelalterli-chen Städten zweifellos nur ein kleiner Teil der mit-telasiatischen Bevölkerung. ... Deutlich wird dies auchan der Größe der Städte, die selten 50 ha überstieg. Inden meisten Fällen umfaßte die Fläche nicht mehr als20 ha.“

106. So still Pohl 2009: 530.

107. Ratchnevsky 1983: 157.

108. Becker 2010.

109. For a hint to Bish-balīq und Khocho s.a. Minorsky1948: 295.

110. Minorsky 1948: 304: „I hope that, once again, thisarticle will show how dangerous it is to assume that thenames of Arab geographers cover the contents of theircompilations, as a flag covers a cargo. Similarly to acustoms' officer in time of war, an Orientalist shoulddiscriminate between the components of the cargo. Acomparative study of all the available sources may looklong and tedious, but it is the only sure method of fin-ding one's way through the maze of traditional lore.“

References

Abramowski, Waltraut . 1976. "Die chienesischenAnnalen von Ögödei und Güyük - Übersetzungdes 2. Kapitels des Yüan-Shi", in: Zentralasiati-sche Studien des Seminars für Sprach- und Kul-turwissenschaft Zentralasiens der UniversitätBonn 10, S. 118-167

1979. "Die chinesischen Annalen des Möngke.Übersetzung des 3. Kapitels des Yüan-Shi", in:Zentralasiatische Studien des Seminars fürSprach- und Kulturwissenschaft Zentralasiensder Universität Bonn 13, S. 8-71

'Ala-ad-Din 'Ata-Malik Juvaini . 1958. The History ofthe World-Conqueror. Translated from the textof Mirza Muhammad Qazvini by John AndrewBoyle, Manchester : Manchester UniversityPress

Bayar, D., Voitov, V. E. 2010. "Excavation in the Isla-mic cemetery of Karakorum", in: Bemmann,Jan, U. Erdenebat, E. Pohl (Hg.), Mongolian-German Karakorum Expedition, Volume 1: Ex-cavations in the Craftsmen Quarter at the MainRoad, Wiesbaden: Reichert, S. 289-305

Becker, Eva. 2010. "The silvertree of Karakorum", in:Zwischen Fjorden und Steppe. Festschrift fürJohan Callmer. In: Internationale Archäologie :Studia honoria 31, S. 211-215

- 2008. "Karakorum - Bukinič vs. Kiselev", in:Zentralasiatische Studien des Seminars fürSprach- und Kulturwissenschaft Zentralasiensder Universität Bonn (ZAS) 37, S. 9-32

- 2007. Die altmongolische Hauptstadt Karako-rum : Forschungsgeschichte nach historischenAussagen und archäologischen Quellen, Rah-den/Westf.: Marie Leidorf

Bemmann, Jan; Munkhbayar, Lkhagvadorj. 2010"Im Zentrum der Steppenreiche", in: Archäolo-gie in Deutschland 3, S. 14-18

Bemmann, Jan; Erdenebat, Ulambayar; Pohl, Ernst(Hg.). 2010. Mongolian-German KarakorumExpedition, Volume 1: Excavations in the Craft-smen Quarter at the Main Road, Wiesbaden:Reichert

Boyle, John Andrew. 1972 "The seasonal residencesof the Great Khan Ögedei", in: Central AsiaticJournal XVI, Nr. No.2, S. 125-131

Brose, Michael. 2007. Subjects and masters : Uyghursin the Mongol Empire, Bellingham, Washing-ton: Center for East Asian Studies, Western Wa-shington University

Chmelnizkij, Sergej. 1989. Zwischen Kuschanen undArabern : Die Architektur Mittelasiens im V.-VIII. Jh. - Ein Rückblick in die Kulturgeschichteder Sowjetunion, Berlin: Hosemann & GoebelGmbH u. Co Verlag KG

Cleaves, Francis Woodman. 1952. "The Sino-Mon-golian Inscription of 1346", in: Harvard Journalof Asiatic Studies 15, S. 2-122

Doerfer, Gerhard. 1965. Türkische und MongolischeElemente im Neupersischen : Türkische Ele-mente im Neupersischen (Bd. II), Wiesbaden:Franz Steiner Verlag

Erdenebat, Ulambajar; Pohl, Ernst. 2002. "Karako-rum 2 - Archäologie im Stadtzentrum", in: Bonncontributions to Asian archaeology 1, S. 37-51

- 2009. "The crossroads in Khara Khorum : Exca-vations at the center of the Mongol empire", in:Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire, S. 137-145

Haller, O. 1894. "Vorläufiger Bericht über die Resul-tate der mit allerhöchster Genehmigung von derKaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften aus-gerüsteten Expedition zur Archäologischen Er-forschung des Orchon-Bekkens; Übersetzungdes russischen Textes von Radloff, Sbornik Tru-dov Orchonskoj Ekspedicii, Bd. 1", in: Mélan-ges asiatique X, S. 404-436

Heidemann, Stefan. 2006. "The First documentaryEvidence for Qara Qorum, from the Year 635/1237-8". In: Zeitschrift für Archäologie Aus-sereuropäischer Kulturen, Bd. 1, pp. 93-102

Heikel, Axel. 1892. Inscriptions de l´Orkhon. Recueil-lies par l´expédition Finnoise 1890, Helsing-fors: Imprimerie de la Société de LittératureFinnoise


21

Heissig, Walther (Hg.). 1989. Das Buch vom Ur-sprung der Mongolen, München: Eugen Diede-richs Verlag 2. Aufl.

Hüttel, Hans-Georg. 2009. "The search of Khara Kho-rum and the Palace of the Great Khan", in: Ge-nghis Khan and the Mongol Empire, S. 146-149

- 2007. "Die Stadt des Čingis Chaan. Zum Grün-dungsmythus von Karakorum", in: Barkmann,Udo (Hg.), Čingis Chaan und sein Erbe : DasWeltreich der Mongolen., Ulaanbaatar: Centrefor Mongol Studies, S. 284-296

Hüttel, Hans-Georg; Erdenebat Ulambayar. 2009.Karabalgasun und Karakorum - Zwei spätno-madische Stadtsiedlungen im Orchon-Tal : Aus-grabungen und Forschungen des DeutschenArchäologischen Instituts und der Mongoli-schen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2000 -2009, 2. Aufl.

Jacobsen, Peter; David Morgan. 1990. "The Missionof Friar William of Rubruck. His journey to thecourt of the Great Khan Möngke 1253-1255",in: Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, SecondSeries, 173

Kolbas, Judith. 2005."Khukh Ordung, A Uighur Pala-ce Complex of the Seventh Century", in: Jour-nal Of The Royal Asiatic Society (JRAS) 15, Nr.3, S. 303-327

Laut, Jens Peter. 1985. "Betrachtungen zur uiguri-schen "Maitrisimit" : Ein präklassischer Text?",in: Sonderdrucke aus der Albrecht-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg

Minorsky, Vladimir . 1948. "Tamim ibn Bahr's Jour-ney to the Uyghurs", in: Bulletin of the Schoolof Oriental and African Studies XII, Nr. 2, S.275-305

Moses, Larry, Greer, Charles. 1998. "Kara Korum anits peri-urban environment", in: Eurasian Stu-dies Yearbook 70, S. 105-122

Ochir, Ayudai, Lkhagvasüren Erdenebold. 2009"About the Uighur city of Khedun, Mongolia",in: Current Archaeological Research in Mongo-lia, S. 437-443

Pelliot, Paul. 1959. Notes on Marco Polo, Paris: Li-brairie Adrien-Maisonneuve

Pohl, Ernst. 2010. "The excavations in the craftsmen-quarter of Karakorum (KAR-2) between 2000and 2005 - Stratigraphy and architecture", in:Bemmann, Jan, U. Erdenebat, E. Pohl (Hg.),Mongolian-German Karakorum Expedition,Volume 1: Excavations in the Craftsmen Quar-ter at the Main Road, Wiesbaden: Reichert, S.63-135

- 2009 "Interpretation without excavation - Topo-graphic mapping on the territory of the firstMongolian capital Karakorum", in: Current Ar-chaeological Research in Mongolia, S. 505-533

Radloff, Wilhelm . 1892. Atlas der Alterthümer derMongolei, St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei derAkademie der Wissenschaften

Ratchnevsky, Paul. 1983. Cinggis-Khan - sein Lebenund Wirken, in: Münchner Ostasiatische Studi-en 32

Rubruk, Wilhelm . 1929. Itinerarium Willelmi de Ru-bruc, hg. v. Wyngaert, P. Anastasius van den,Firenze: Sinica Franciscana

Rubruk, Wilhelm; Rockhill, William Woodville .1900. "The Journey of William of Rubruck tothe eastern parts of the world, 1253-55, as narra-ted by himself, with two accounts of the earlierjourney of John of Pian de Carpine", in: Worksissued by the Hakluyt Society, Serie 2,4

Sagaster, Klaus. 2005. "Die chinesisch-mongolischeInschrift von 1346 aus Erdeni Joo", in: Kunst-und Ausstellungshalle der BundesrepublikDeutschland GmbH <Bonn>, Dschingis Khanund seine Erben : das Weltreich der Mongolen,München: Hirmer, S. 150-151

Schwabe, Johann (Hg.). 1749. Allgemeine Historieder Reisen zu Wasser und Lande; od. Slg. allerReisebeschreibungen, welche bis itzo in versch.Sprachen von allen Völkern herausgegebenworden, und einen vollständigen Begriff v. d.neueren Erdbeschreibung und Geschichte ma-chen ..., Leipzig: Arkstee und Merkus

Shiraishi, Noriyuki . 2002. Mongoru teikokushi nokoukogakuteki kenkyuu, Tokyo (Japanese)

Ssanang Ssetzsen Chungtaidschi. 1829. Geschichteder Ost-Mongolen und ihres Fürstenhauses, hg.v. Isaac Jacob Schmidt, St. Petersburg / Leipzig:N. Gretzsch / Carl Cnobloch

Thilo, Thomas. 1977. Klassische chinesische Bau-kunst, Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang

Waugh, Daniel C. 2010. "Nomads and Settlement:New Perspectives in the Archaeology of Mon-golia", in: Silk Road 8, S. 97-124

Weiers, Michael. 2009. "Die Mongolen und der Ko-ran", in: The Early Mongols : Language, Cultureand History. Studies in honor of Igor de Rache-wiltz on the occasion of his 80th birthday, S.209-217

- 2005. "Sprache und Schrift der Mongolen", in:Kunst- und Ausstellungshalle der Bundesrepu-blik Deutschland GmbH <Bonn>, TschinggisKhan und seine Erben : das Weltreich der Mon-golen , München: Hirmer, S. 106-107

- 2004. Geschichte der Mongolen, Stuttgart:Kohlhammer

- 1998. Uiguren (www.zentralasienforschung.de/Uiguren.PDF, 23. August 2010)

:: 1999. Ershiliu shi, Yanji: Yanbian renmin chub-anshe


22

Беленицкий, А.М. 1973. Средневековый ГородСредней Азии, Ленинград

Киселев, С. В. 1957. "Древние городов Монголии",in: Советская Археология 2, pp. 91-101

- 1965. Древнемонгольские Города, Москва

Клеменцъ, Д. А. 1895 "Археологический дневникъпоездки среднюю Монголию въ 1891 году",in: Сборникъ трудовъ оронсой экспедиции II,pp. 1-76

Неразик, Е. Е. (Ed.). 1981. Городище Топрак-Кала :Раскопки 1965-1975 гг., Москва

Падеринъ, И. 1873. "О Каракоруме и о другихъразвалинахъ близъ Орхона", in: ИзвестияИмператорскаго Общества IX, pp. 355-360

Радлов, В. В. 1892. "О результатахъ снаряженнойсъ высочайшаго соизволения Император-скою Академиею Наук экспедиции дляархеологическаго изследования бассейнареки Орхона", in: Сборникъ трудовъ оронсойэкспедиции I, pp. 1-13

Ядринцев, Н.М. 1890. "Путешествие на верховьяОрхона къ развалинамъ Каракорума", in:Известия Императорскаго Русскаго Георафи-ческаго Общества XXVI, Nr. 3, pp. 257-271

List of figures

fig. 1: Illustration of Karakorum. Radloff 1892: Plate XXXVI

fig. 2: Illustration of Karabalgasun. Radloff 1892: Plate XXVII

fig. 3: Drawing of the walls of the monastery Erde-ne Zuu with the remains of older walls.Cited from Pohl 2009: 527

fig. 4: Illustration of the wall remains of the mona-stery Erdene Zuu.Made by author, based on Bemmann/Munk-hbayar 2010: 15

fig. 5: Remains of walls recorded by the Orkhon expedition in 1891.Segment of Radloff 1892: Plate XXXVI

fig. 6: a) The eastern remains of walls of Karako-rum. Made by author b) Segment of Karabalgasun. Aerial photo. Hüttel/Erdenebat 2009: 35.

fig. 7: Scheme of Karakorum and Karabalgasun. Made by author

fig. 8: Comparisons of the eastern remains of walls by Radloff and the elevation level plan.Made by the author

fig. 9: Scheme of Karakorum. Rectangular variant. Made by author

fig. 10: Illustration of Toprak-Kala. Nerazik 1981: 10, fig. 2

fig. 11: Map of Kheldun. Google earth

fig. 12: Recent buildings at the east walls. Google earth

Karakorum - Questions about the city layout

Documents

Transcript of Karakorum - Questions about the city layout