¹ As an example, in 1785 there were, in the ecclesiastical estate of the Jebtsundamba Khutuktu alone, 3, 878 families, comprising 21, 964 persons, who had no livestock of their own (Tsedev, D., Ih Shav' ‘The ecclesiastical estate’ (Studia Historica, VI, 2,) Ulan Bator, 1964, 51). The situation was similar amongst the subjects of lay princes.Google Scholar

² See for example the deposition of the slave woman Dashjid, accused in 1789 of causing the death of one of her children: ‘I am the daughter of Nomon, subject of the late taiji Garvi, aged 32. Formerly, when I was small, my father Nomon, having nothing to live on, sold me to the taiji Wangjil of the same banner. Soon after that my father died of starvation’. (üremgiilegchdiin üe deh Mongolyn emegteichüüdiin darlagdal, 1764–1833dotbl; ‘Oppression of women in Mongolia during the period of the Manchu aggressors, 1764–1833’, Ulan Bator, 1958. This is a collection of legal documents covering four cases concerning women.)Google Scholar

³ The jasaa or league offices at Urga of Zasagtu Khan aimak and Sam Noyon Khan aimak were known as the hermeliin jasaa or ‘vagrancy offices’ since they were much concerned with the administration of vagrants from the two western aimaks. (See Nawaannamjil, , Övgōn bicheechlin ügüülel ‘Tales of an old secretary’, Ulan Bator, 1956, 140.)Google Scholar

⁴ See Nasanbaljir, Ts., Manjiin üeiin albat—sum ard ‘The imperial subject in the Manchu period’, Ulan Bator, 1958, 7.Google Scholar Joint petitions are dealt with in more detail by Natsagdorj, Sh., Ar Mongold garsan ardyn hōdōlgōōn ‘Popular movements in North Mongolia’, Ulan Bator, 1956,Google Scholar and the Russian-language version of the same, Iz istorii aratskogo dvizheniya vo vneshnei Mongolii, Moscow, 1958Google Scholar; by the same author in his Halhyn tüüh, ‘History of Khalkha’, Ulan Bator, 1963, 215–36Google Scholar and 241–7; by Puntsagnorov, , Mongolyn avtonomit üeiin tüüh, 1911–1919 ‘History of autonomous Mongolia 1911–19’, Ulan Bator, 1955, 175–83;Google Scholar by Tserendorj, , Zasagt han aimgiin Darhan günii hushuund garsan ardyn hōdōlgōōnii Odnii tolgoilogch ard Ayush ‘The commoner Ayush, leader of the people's movement in Darhan gong banner of Zasagtu Khan aimak’, Ulan Bator, 1959;Google Scholar and by Shirendyv, B., Mongoliya na rubezhe XIX-XX vekov, Ulan Bator, 1963, 131–40.Google Scholar Documentation is to be found in 1921 ony ardyn huv'sgalyn tuuhend holbogdoh barimt bichgititd 1917–1921 ‘Source material connected with the 1921 people's revolution, 1917–21’, Ulan Bator, 1957, 21–6, 27–33, and 36–43.Google Scholar

⁵ That against the zasag Tsedevdorj and his son Dugartsembel, of Setsen Khan aimak, 1824–42. See Halhyn tüüh, 216.

⁶ ibid., 224.

⁷ For the duguilang see especially Lattimore, Nationalism and revolution in Mongolia, Leiden, 1955, 23,Google Scholar 24, 34; also Dylykov, S. D., Demokraticheskoe dvizhenie Mongol'skogo naroda v Kitae, Moscow, 1953,Google Scholar and the similar account in Bayan, Yüi, Övōr Mongolyn tüühiin nairuulal ‘History of Inner Mongolia’, Shanghai, 1958, 149Google Scholar (in Chinese). Another interesting form of popular protest, similar in some ways to the duguilang, was the hashiga, described by Natsagdorj, Ar Mongold…, 101. This was practised especially by the lamas of Dörbed, who would surround the dwelling of the prince or noble they were accusing, and hold court over him in this formation. A particular instance occurred in 1913, when lamas who were opposed to the idea of joining autonomous Mongolia organized a hashiga against the Zorigt haan Sodnomjamts of Dōrbed aimak. The rising was put down by the Mongol army (Mongol ardyn juramt tsergiin durdatgaluud ‘Memoirs of soldiers of the Mongol people's army’, Ulan Bator, 1961, 266).Google Scholar

⁸ One facsimile is to be found in Ytii Bayan, op. cit. The other is that connected with Tüdenwang's case, and is reproduced in Natsagdorj, Ar Mongold… and Iz istorii…, in 1921 ony ardyn…, and in Heissig, W., Ein Volk sucht seine Geschichte, Düsseldorf, Wien, Econ Verlag, 1964, facing p. 225.Google Scholar

⁹ As was done for instance by the taiji Regdendagva in the case of Tüden-wang.

¹⁰ Dambijantsan, the famous Ja lama, (for whom see Lattimore, op. cit.), did the same in 1913 in west Mongolia and provoked a hashiga movement against himself. (See Natsagdorj, Ar Mangold…, 101.)

¹¹ Thus at the beginning of the nineteenth century the Setsen Khan Sanjaidorj was accused by his subjects of various offences, including the levying of taxes on them to pay enormous bribes to Manchu officials on the occasion of his accession to the khanate. He was dismissed from his post as league head and lost his rank of Setsen Khan as well (Halhyn tüüh, 215).

¹² For example, Tsedendorj-wang of Tushetu Khan aimak was in 1815 adjudged guilty of various offences and ordered to restore to hamjilga status poor serfs of his whom he had transferred to the register of imperial subjects and to pay back over 11, 200 taels of silver taken in unlawful taxation. He was also fined some of his salary (Nasanbaljir, op. cit., 8).

¹³ e.g. Tserendorj, op. cit., 8: ‘Written petitions were a form of the class struggle fought by the people against the Manchu and Mongol feudal nobility’.

¹⁴ Social status was in any case in a state of flux, and it might well be that a taiji was economically worse off than his hamjilga or nominal retainer. For example, a partisan in the war of 1921, telling his life story 40 years later, recalled: ‘When I was nine years old, my father's mother used to tell me how my grandfather, though he was supposed to be a taiji with four retainers, was chronically poor, and used to feed his children by such ways as hunting gazelles with his flint-lock, or by watching the road and taking in caravaners for the night, looking after their worn-out camels and oxen for them, and returning them when recovered, in exchange for a bit of grain. My father, the taiji Dashzeveg, was poor, and from the time when he was young he used to hire himself out to his own retainer, the relay-rider Sonom, and do relay work for him, or caravanning, or farm-labouring’ (Mongol ardyn juramt taergiin durdatgaluud, 332).

¹⁵ op. cit., 177–83. However, the plea and judgement show it to have reached the Ministry of Justice via the Ministry of the Interior.

¹⁶ e.g. Puntsagnorov, though Natsagdorj, Ar Mangold…, 99, does draw attention to the religious aspect of this case.

¹⁷ Mo. hōhiin shajin. Cf. sharyn shajin and haryn shajin for lamaism and shamanism respectively.

¹⁸ See Rintchen, , ‘Schamanische Geister der Gebirge Dörben A’ Acta Ethnographica, VI, 3–4, 1958, 443.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The text translated here is that given in 1921 ony ardyn…, 36–43. The original of the plea. is in item 54 of collected typed material concerning the history of the autonomous period in the State Archives, Ulan Bator. The original of the judgement is in folder 58, section 34 of the political section of the same archives. Puntsagnorov, op. cit., quotes a number of points from the petition, but his text frequently diverges from the one used here. His reference is to folder 10, section 1, division 1 of the State Archives, and he speaks of a petition in 24 particulars with 74 plaintiffs, instead of 26 and 75 respectively. A third source for a copy of this petition is item 461 of the manuscript stock of the Historical Cabinet of the Committee (now Academy) of Sciences, as given by Natsagdorj, Ar Mongold…, 99.

²⁰ Mo. Ōrgōv, a term appropriate in an official document submitted to a higher authority than the originator. The prescribed terminology for use in the addressing of official documents is dealt with in Cebele, Mongyol alban bičig-ün ulamfilal ‘Traditions of Mongol official correspondence’ (Studia Mongolica, I, 22), Ulan Bator, 1959.Google Scholar

²¹ Mo. gain medüüleh uchir, a term used to introduce the substance of a document submitted to a higher authority.

²² i.e. the head and subsidiary officers of an ecclesiastical estate.

²³ A lama learned in dharanis.

²⁴ Pozdneev, , Mongoliya i Mongoly, II, 422, mentions that there were three concurrent reincarnations of the Yügüüzer (his logatszari) Khutuktu, which may be relevant to this rather puzzling passage.Google Scholar

²⁵ Mo. ehavran šabrong), explained by Schulemann, , Geschichte der Dalailamas, Heidelberg, 1911, 97,Google Scholar as a ‘fourth class’ of incarnation, rebirths of simple monks known for the purity of their morals and their devotion. (This explanation based on Pozdneev, Ocherki byta buddiiekikh monastyrei, 233, not available to me.) Cf. Tib. zabs-druṅ, glossed by Sumadiradna, , II, 679 as pubilγan gegegen qutuγtu.Google Scholar

²⁶ Puntsagnorov's text reads zod. Not at present identified.

²⁷ Presumably the Kharchin troops who manned part of the Altai route relay-posts. Cf. Halhyn With, 167, and Nasanbaljir, Ts., Ar Mongoloos Manj chin ulsad zalguulaj baisan alba 1691–1911 on ‘Feudal duties performed by North Mongolia for the Manchu Ch'ing dynasty, 1691–1911’, Ulan Bator, 1964, 54–5.Google Scholar

²⁸ Variant text in Puntsagnorov. For guij olgoson ‘requested and were granted’ Puntsagnorov uses a co-operative verb form: guij olood züütsgeedeg, indicating that others as well as the zasag got rank and appointment.

²⁹ Puntsagnorov abbreviates this article to read: ‘He married three times and ran up improper debts’.

³⁰ Otog is an old organizational term surviving as the name of an administrative unit in a shabi or ecclesiastical estate.

³¹ Mo. hiyōg (xuer) for Tib. dge-γyog.

³² Both sub-units of the banner.

³³ The officer in charge of the military work of the banner. Puntsagnorov reverses items 19 and 20.

³⁴ Mo. haraal jatga, the latter from Tib. byad-k'a=Mo. qariyal, qab fasal (Sumadiradna, II, 227).

³⁵ Mo. ilgeev, a term used in heading a document sent to an office of equal rank with the originator.

³⁶ Mo. yavuulah uchir, a term used to introduce the substance of a document sent to an office of equal rank.

³⁷ Cebele, 16, states that documents sent out were always drawn up on folded paper.

³⁸ Mongol tsaazny bichig. This seems to refer to the Regulations of the Li Fan Yuan, though no copy of the Regulations has been available for checking. The supposition of identity is inherently likely, since the Regulations were in general use in Mongolia, outside the Khutuktu's shabi-estate, from 1789 onwards, and is strengthened by the fact that the extract here quoted is virtually identical with the text of section 8, article 5 of the Regulations of 1789 as given in German translation by Alinge, Curt, Mongolische Gesetze, Leipzig, 1934, 151.Google Scholar There does, however, seem to be some inconsistency in the nomenclature of the legal codes in use in Mongolia, and it is not certain that Mongol tsaazny bichig always refers to the same code. The full title of the Regulations was Zarligaar togtooson gadaad Mongolyn tōriig zasak, yavdlyn yaamny huul' züiliin bichig. However, some writers clearly refer to them as Mongol tsaazny bichig, e.g. Jalan-aajav, S., Halh Juram bol Mongolyn huul' tsaazny ertnii dursgalt bichig ‘The Khalkha Jirum as an early monument of Mongol legal codes’, Ulan Bator, 1958, 102 and 108, speaks of the Mongol tsaazny bichig coming into general use in Mongolia in 1789 as a Manchu code and supplanting the Khalkha Jirum except in the shabi-estate's administration. These details clearly identify what he is referring to as the Regulations of the Li Fan Yüan.Google Scholar

However, Natsagdorj at least twice (Halhyn tüüh, 96 and 145) speaks of a Mongol tsaazny bichig as having been printed in the time of K'ang Hsi, 1693, nearly a century before the codification of the Regulations. In the introduction to Ulaan hatsart (Monumenta Historica, V, 1), Ulan Bator, 1961, 2, he refers unequivocally to the Regulations of the Li Fan Yüan as Mongγol sigükü čayajan-u bičig (or, in modern orthography, Mongol shüüh tsaazny bichig).Google Scholar

Natsagdorj, Halltyn tüüh, 89, refers to a Mongol tsaazny bichig prepared at various times during the early Manchu period, and consisting of 152 articles. This appears to be the same as the one mentioned elsewhere in the same book, though apparent errors in the dates given make it difficult to be certain on this point. (Natsagdorj speaks for instance of the years 1626 and 1638 with reference to the reigns of the emperors Shun Chih and K'ang Hsi, which began in 1644 and 1662 respectively.) Under the Russian title Mongeskoe ulozhenie, this code is referred to in more detail in Ts. Zh. Zhamtsarano and Dylykov, S. D., Khalkha Dzhirum, Moscow 1965, 13. The authors state: ‘This code presents a collection of statutes concerning Mongolia drawn up under the Manchu emperors Abahai, Shun Chili, and K'ang Hsi from 1629 to 1695. The collection consists of 152 articles. Collation of them -with the Regulations of the Chinese Board of External Affairs (i.e. the Li Fan Yüan) of 1789, consisting of 210 articles, showed that almost all the articles coincided, and, accordingly, it may be surmised that the Mongol Code of K'ang Hsi formed the basis of the Regulations of 1789’.Google Scholar

It seems, then, that the title Mongol tsaazny bichig may sometimes refer to the Regulations of the Li Fan Yuan and sometimes to earlier codes. From the statement in Ulaan hatsart by Natsagdorj it seems that the Regulations are also referred to as Mongol shüüh tsaazny bichig.

On the application in practice of different codes there is an interesting statement in Nawaannamjil, op. cit., 140: ‘There were two codes of Ch'ing law, the Shüüh tsaaz and the Mongol tsaazny bichig. All sorts of matters were contained in the Shüüh tsaazny bichig, but the Mongol tsaazny bichig was not only very summary, but when the courts in the aimaks and banners of Mongolia decided cases, if the matter was not in the Mongol tsaazny bichig they were not allowed to refer to the Shüüh tsaazny bichig, but had to refer the matter to the general or amban at Uliasutai or Urga’.

Confirmation of this in practice appears from the documents of a case decided in 1791: ‘The girl Omboh, following the advice of the man Chavga who suggested it to her, stuck her knife three times from outside into the tent where her zasag Ütjinjav was living, but because the knife was too short she did not succeed in assaulting Ürjinjav or his wife. Now, as it is not specified in the Mongol tsaazny bichig how to sentence a person guilty of this, the correct thing is to decide the matter according to the Shüüh tsaazny bichig. What the Shüüh tsaazny bichig prescribes is as follows…’ (Manjiin türemgiilegchdiin…, 26).

³⁹ Mo. heleltsehgüi bolgon tasalj. For this expression cf. Manjiin türemgiilegchdiin…, 27, Chavga odoo negent övchnöör ügüi bolson tul heleltseh gazargüi bolgohoos gadna… ‘since Chavga has already died of illness, make him not liable to sentence, and…’. Also p. 28, Wanchig negent övehnöö ügüi bolsny tuld heleltseh yavdalgui bolgosugai ‘ As Wanchig has already died of illness, make him not liable to sentence’.