Report on the 34th Annual Meeting of the PIAC

The 34th Annual Meeting
1991 — Berlin/Germany
by Hidehiro Okada
tr. by Oliver Corff

Source: The Collected Works by Hidehiro Okada. Fujiwara Shoten, 2016. (ISBN: 978-4-86578-076-5) Vol. VIII, part I: PIAC reports. pp. 118–133.

The 34th Annual Meeting of the PIAC took place from July 21 (Sunday), to July 26 (Friday), 1991, at the Christophorus House in Spandau, located in the north-western outskirts of Berlin which just happened to be unified.

The President of this Meeting was the Director of the Institute of Turkology of Free University of Berlin, Prof. Dr. Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, who had just relocated from Frankfurt am Main the year before, and by and large single-handedly had succeeded in organizing an amazing meeting, for which she was universally praised by the participants.

For this Meeting, approximately 100 participants had registered, with 49 participants from Germany, 21 participants from the Soviet Union, 7 participants from the United States of America, 5 participants from Poland, 4 participants from Hungary, 4 participants from Turkey, 3 participants from Japan, 2 participants from England, and one participant from Israel, Sweden, India, France and Belgium. Among the participants from Germany, eminent scholars like Gerhard Doerfer and Herbert Franke appeared, and Rashidonduk from Bonn, despite being 80 years old, made a very healthy impression. The big delegation from the Soviet Union was headed by Vadim Solntsev (Institute of Language of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, Moscow), including participants from the national minorities of Kyzyl (Tuva Autonomous Republic), Baku (Azerbaidjan Republic), Elista (Kalmyck Autonomous Republic), Bishkek (formerly Frunze, Kyrgyz Republic) and Tashkent (Uzbek Republic). From Turkey, Ahmet Temir showed up after a long absence again. Gunnar Jaring came from Sweden, and Jean Richard joined from France. Among the participants from Japan were Hidehiro Okada, Junko Miyawaki (both at the Research Institute of Asian and African Studies of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies), and Michio Satō from Iwate University, though he participated only without reading a paper. Among the 100 participants, 74 delivered speeches and presented their research.

On the first day, July 21 (Sunday), registration started at noon at Christophorus House. Everybody paid the registration fee which was 767 DM for single-room accommodation, 667 DM for double-room accommodation, and 637 DM for a three-person room. At the time, one DM equalled 78 Japanese Yen, which might appear quite high, but the fee included lodging, meals, excursion and all other cost.

At the same evening at 7:00 o’clock p.m., a welcome reception was held at the dining hall, allowing all participants to reunite and share their past experiences.

On the second day, July 22nd Monday morning, the opening ceremony took place in the Small Assembly Hall (Kleiner Festsaal). President Kellner-Heinkele declared the Meeting open, a representative of Free University of Berlin offered a welcome address and elaborated on the the ongoing coordination between Free University and Humboldt University, notably after overcoming the initial difficulties of unification. In response to this address, Denis Sinor, Secretary General of the PIAC, gave a speech, remembering the many contributions by scholars of the German Democratic Republic to the PIAC, strongly expressing the hope that Humboldt University, where he had once studied himself, may honour and continue their fine tradition in East Asian studies.

Speeches were continued.

Denis Sinor (Bloomington): “How to become a great khan?” As a khan traditionally is confirmed by being elected in a formal election process by a small number entitled to electory rights, mere power alone does not sufficiently qualify for becoming a khan.

After that, in long-standing tradition, the first part of the confessions began, where all participants reported about their research work they had conducted after their previous participation.

After lunch, the participants departed by bus to the center of the city, forming two groups, one with an English-speaking guide, one with a Russian-speaking guide, and looked at the remnants of the Berlin Wall, later mounting the tower of the French Cathedral (Französischer Dom), enjoying the panoramic sight from there. After that, they were invited to Schöneberg City Hall (Rathaus Schöneberg) by the Municipal Assembly (Abgeordnetenhaus von Berlin). Mayor Steffie Schnoor gave a welcome speech to which Denis Sinor offered a word of gratitude in reply. Afterwards, the group enjoyed wine and dance. The Red City Hall (Rotes Rathaus) in the heart of the city was still under repair, however, the City Hall prepared to relocate there. In the evening, the participants embarked on busses again, returning to the dormitories; beer and sandwiches were served as a light supper.

1st Day of Presentations

The forenoon of July 23rd, which also happened to be the third day of this Meeting, took place again in the Small Assembly Hall; the morning began with the second part of the confessions, followed by the business meeting. In the beginning, two members who had recently passed away, Nicholas Poppe and Uray Géza, were honored with a minute of silence. Then, Denis Sinor announced that this year’s Indiana University Prize for Altaic Studies (also known as the PIAC Gold Medal) was awarded to Edmond Schütz. By ballot of those participants (PIAC members) who had attended three times or more, Hidehiro Okada, Hans-Peter Vietze and Dimitri Vasiliev were elected into the Medal Committee. After that, Denis Sinor announced that though the Soviet Union had issued a formal invitation to host the next year’s meeting, this invitation had been received too late and thus, the next meeting were to be convened in Taiwan, Republic of China. Since there had been quite an expectation that the next meeting were to be hosted in Japan, this announcement was met with voices of surprise.

In fact, during a visit to Japan by Chen Jiexian (professor at the Faculty of History, National Taiwan University, Director of the National Archive of the Lien-ho Pao Cultural Foundation) in October of the previous year, Hidehiro Okada had already suggested to him to agree to Denis Sinor’s enquiry on holding the 1992 Meeting in Taiwan. Immediately before Okada’s departure from Tokyo to Berlin, Chen Jiexian had asked him by telephone to relay to Denis Sinor that all financial preparations for holding a meeting next year had already been settled. So, at least to Okada, the background of this decision had been all known.

Beginning with the afternoon of the same day, in Christophorus House the presentation of papers started, divided in three sessions, namely A, B and C. This year’s main theme was “The concept of Sovereignty in the Altaic World,” to which a major share of the papers was contributed.

Session A

Gerhard Doerfer (Göttingen): “Zu alttürk. Is 2 g ~ s 2 g küčg b 2 ir 2 — Dem Herrscher gegenüber seine Pflicht erfüllen, ihn unterstützen.”
Stanisław Kałużiński (Warsaw): “Allgemeine Bemerkungen zum tungusischen Lehngut im Jakutischen.”
Vadim Solntsev (Moscow): “Some lexical correspondences between Altaic languages and the languages of South-East Asia.”
H. Nowka (Berlin): “Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Turkologie in Berlin.”
Bakhtiyar Nazarov (Tashkent): “Revival of Khodja Ahmed Yasevi and implication of his creative works for Uzbekistan.”
Erika Taube (Markkleeberg): “Märchen im Dienste religiöser Macht.”

Session B, Chair: Ruth Meserve.

Hidehiro Okada (Tokyo): “The khan as the sun, the jinong as the moon.” According to Mongolian chronicles of the 17th century, the khan and his viceroy jinong were treated as brothers more often than not. This is the origin of the story that after the death of Kublai Khan (世祖) in 1294, Temür Öljeytü Khan (成宗), when succeeding the throne, offered the northern half of the empire to his elder brother, Jin Wang 晉王 (Jinong) Gammala.
Hartmut Walravens (Berlin): “Portraits of meritorious officers with Manchu eulogies (18th century).” Three paintings of meritorious officers (Badai, Hamtuk and Baningga), commissioned by the Qianlong Emperor and originally hanging in Ziguang Hall (紫光閣), can be found in the Museum for East Asian Art in Berlin-Dahlem.
R. W. Howell (Hilo): “The 19th century ports lingo in Japan.” The anonymous (perhaps: Atkinson?) Exercise in Yokohama Dialect (Yokohama, 1874), contains records of strange Japanese words found in usage in the ports of the Meiji era as well as hybrid words of Japanese and Malay origin, which have disappeared today without leaving any trace.
Michael Drompp (Memphis): “Chinese ‘qaghans’ appointed by the Turks.” The history of the three Chinese ‘qaghans’ appointed by Shibi Khan during the rebellion at the end of the Sui dynasty, namely the Dingyang qaghan Liu Wuzhou and others.
David Honey (Provo): “The concept of sovereignty among the medieval Hsiung-nu.” In the Hsiung-nu state that existed during the rebellions of the Sixteen Kingdoms, the positions of king and chanyu were usually separated, which allows the conclusion that the functions of the two were different.
A. van Tongerloo (Leuven): “The concept of sovereignty in the Manichean Central Asian texts.”

Session C, Chair: Ahmet Temir.

Nicola di Cosmo (Cambridge): “The concept of sovereignty in the early relations between China and Inner Asia.”
Bess Brown (Munich): “A comparison of the declarations of sovereignty of the Soviet Central Asian republics.”
Sergej Klyashtorny (Leningrad): “Khagan, begi, and the people in ancient Turk memorials.”
Dimitri Vasiliev (Moscow): “Personalia of ancient Turk epitaphs and political structure of the periphery of the Turk khaganate.”
Saim Sakaoğlu (Konya): “From tale to fact: on the concept of sovereignty in Altaic communities (Uzbek, Turkmen, Azeri and Turkish).”

On the evening of the day, at 8 o’clock p.m., “Hayal” a Turkish movie about shadow play, was shown.

2nd Day of Presentations: July 24, Wednesday forenoon

Session A, Chair: Edward Tryjarski

H. J. Klimkeit (Bonn): “Die manichäische Staatskonzeption in Zentralasien.”
Marcel Erdal (Jerusalem): “Über den Ursprung des Titels Ilkhan.”
Ahmet Temir (Ankara): “Über die Herkunft des Namens Ermak (Yermak/Yarmak).”
Alexander Dubinski (Warsaw): “Euphemistische Redewendungen in ausgewählten türkischen Sprachdenkmälern.”
Agata Bareja Starzyńska (Warsaw): “Some more notes on Čiqula kereglegči.”
Klára Széni-Sándor (Szeged): “A note on the Šapkino inscription.”

Session B

G. M. Kurpalidis (Moscow): “The Seljuqids and the power of Sultan.”
Tuncer Baykara (Izmir): “Türkiye Selçuklularında halkin Şehzadeler mücadelesindeki tutumu.”
N. Gadžieva (Moscow): “Kontaktologie und relative Selbständigkeit der Sprachen.”
A. K. Narain (Benares): “The Yuezhi-Kushana concept of sovereignty.”
Johannes Reckel (Göttingen): “Das Souveränitätsverständnis der Bohai-Herrscher.”

Session C, Chair: Hidehiro Okada

Alice Sárközi (Budapest): “Mandate of Heaven.”
Danuta Chmielowska (Warsaw): “The idea of sovereignty in Atatürk’s concept.”
Ruth Meserve (Bloomington): “The positions of Turkmen tribal leaders according to 19th century Western travellers.” Among the field reports sent by American missionaries, there are many regarding Turkmens, and their society can be seen as lacking a centre and unity, and having an order where order was actually absent. The title khan had been given to them by the Persians, but that title did not confer any authority. The aksals defended their narrow home turf and extorted passage fees from caravans. Even today, whatever identity this society had and what its working principles are, remains to be clarified.
This presentation was received with great interest, and the chairman urged the presenter to continue her research on this matter.
N. M. Rogozhin (Moscow): “Посольские книги как источник по истории политических взаимоотношений России со странами и народами востока.” An introduction to embassy letters kept at the State Central Archive.
The presenter is the author of “Обзор посольских книг из фондов-коллекций, хранящихся в РГАДА (конец XV —начало XVIII в.), Москва 1990.”
Renate Bauwe (Berlin): “Jagdkult und seine Reflexion in der mongolischen Dichtung.” A presentation of rhymes sung during hunting.
Chen Xuelin (Seattle): “Nomad’s geomancy: shooting arrows to choose a site in the Mongolian tradition.” The presentation discusses the meaning behind the story contained in the “Secret History of the Mongols” according to which Chinggis Khan, having taken the heartland of the Jin, shot arrows and gave the land with an arrow’s reach to Jaʿfar Khwaja and Chīnkqāī.

Afternoon

Session A, Chair: Herbert Franke

E. von Mende (Berlin): “Zur Sprachkompetenz der koreanischen Manjurischdolmetscher.”
Liliya Gorelova (Moscow): “The Sibes and various forms of their native language.”
Hans-Peter Vietze (Berlin): “Das Altan Tobči im Computer.”
Armin Bassarak (Berlin): “Zum Charakter morphologischer Klassenbildungen: am Beispiel der Vokalharmonie im Türkischen.”

Session B

A. I. Kolesnikov (Moscow): “Portraits of local governors of East Turkestan of the XIX century:” based on the material of Russian travellers.
Sigrid Kleinmichel (Berlin): “Das Prinzip staatlicher Organisation in historischen Romanen der Kasachen der letzten Jahrzehnte.”
Gülnar Kendirbaeva (Tübingen): “The specific nature and pecularities of the manifestation of folklorism in Kazakhstan.”
Mária Ivanics-Res (Budapest): “Über den Quellenwert der krimtatarischen tiyiš defters.”
M. Einhorn (Berlin): “Vom Kalifat zum Parlamentarismus. Scheiterte das kemalistische Experiment der Säkularisierung?”
Fikret Türkmen (Izmir): “Anadolu halk kültüründe devlet ve hūkūmdarlık.”

Session C, Chair: Erika Taube

I. Mordvayev (Bishkek): “Проблему комплексного изучения тюрко-монгольского эпоса в алтаистическом мире.”
Udo Barkmann (Berlin): “Die mandjurische Gesetzgebung für die Aussenprovinzen aus dem Jahr 1815 zum Status mongolischer lamaistischer Mönche.”
Elena Boikova (Moscow): “Official State policy in Mongolia in regard to the lower lamas in the 1930s.” The paper traces the background of the continuous failure of Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party policies against lower-ranking lamas, monasteries and monks.
S. I. Irshenko (Leningrad): “The problem of the ethnic origin of Alats.”
R. Bormann (Berlin): “Progressive Züge in den gesellschaftlichen Anschauungen in der Mongolei im 19./20. Jahrhundert.”
Yusif Jafarov (Baku): “The Hun state and Byzantium: supreme power and state.”

There was another presentation after dinner:

Gerhard Doerfer (Göttingen): “Cahit Külebi, der Dichter Anatoliens.”.

3rd Day of Presentations: July 25, Thursday forenoon

Session A, Chair: Emil Wallacker

V. Asranov (Baku): “Bilingualism and multilingualism in Azerbaijan and national sovereignty.”
Z. B. Anayban (Kyzyl): “Problems of bilingualism and demographic processes in Tuva.”
Edward Tryjarski (Warsaw): “Origin of the royal sovereignty and doctrinal legimitimacy of the ruler according to Yūsuf Khaşş Ḥājib of Balasaghun.” Quoting from the “Kutadgu Bilig”, a ruler’s qualification rested in, first, to be born as the son of a ruler, then, to not abuse power, to be fair and to demonstrate integrity and a lack of bias.
Galsangiin Janbarsuren (Cambridge): “A comparative analysis of some problems of Mongol and Japanese syntax.” In fact, it can be pointed out that the aspect is a common property to the tempus terms of both languages.
The author, who is a specialist on Japanese linguistics in the Mongolian People’s Republic, teaches Mongolian at the Central Asia Research Unit at Cambridge. Even though he had never stayed in Japan, he speaks a refined and fluent Japanese. The presentation left an unforgettable impression on the listeners.
Vera Podlesskaya (Bochum): “Some pecularities of the Japanese syntax from the point of view of Altaic typology.”
Vladimir Alpatov (Moscow): “A conception of relations between language, culture and power in the Japanese science.”

Session B, Chair: Leonid Borisovich Araev

F. G. Heyne (Bielefeld): “Der Andaki-Handel der chinesischen Rentier-Ewenken.”
Galina Vaclavna Dorjinevskaya (Leningrad): “Location of Kirghiz khagan’s headquarters.”
Bibijna Oruzbaeva (Bishkek): “The Kirghiz language in the role of state language in new conditions.”
Edit Tasnády (Budapest): “300 yıllık Türkiye muhabiri: Macar yazar Kelemen Mikes.”
D. Schorkowitz (Berlin): “Konsanguinalpolitische Organisation und Souveränität bei den Kalmücken (Oiraten).” This was a hilarious presentation. The presenter had neither read the historical materials nor made any sound reasoning.
Junko Miyawaki (Tokyo): The birth of the khong tayiji viceroyalty in the Mongol-Oirad world. After the establishment of the Mongol Empire, in the Mongol-Oirad worldcomprising the eastern half of the empire, habitually the khan would personally lead the left wing, being in charge of all affairs relating to China, while the viceroy, leading the right wing, would be in charge of conquering and ruling the nomad peoples of the western areas. In the beginning, the viceroy was called jinong (晉王), Altan Khan, who was born as a son of a jinong, his elder brother continued to use the title jinong while giving the title khong tayiji (皇太子) to his own viceroy. From that time on, khong tayiji became the title of those Mongolian kings and nobility who were in charge of conquering and ruling the Oirads. After the Oirads gained independence from Mongolia, the first Oirad khan, Güsi Qagan of the Khoshut, appointed the tribal leader of the Dzungars as his viceroy, conferring the title bagatur khong tayiji upon him. The title hong tayiji, borne by all Dzungar tribal leaders following Tsewang Rabtan, did not mean that they became Oirad khans. Rather the were the viceroys, implying that their position was to conquer and rule the Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and Uzbeks.
Many discussions arose from this presentation, and many listeners were eager to receive a copy of the paper.

On the afternoon, a bus trip was organized to Lake Wannsee, from where a boat tour began which crossed the lake and continued into the channel. At Charlottenburg, the group disembarked and enjoyed dinner at the Luisenbräu restaurant.

4th Day of Presentations: July 26, Friday forenoon

Session A, Chair: Vadim Solntsev

Charles Carlson (Munich): “The concept of sovereignty in Kazakhstan from Kül Tegin to the present.”
Ingo Nentwig (Rödinghausen): “Heldenepen der Oroqen und Hezhen.”
Johannes Reckel (Göttingen): “[Diavortrag:] Ruinen von Bohai in der Mandschurei. Ausgrabungsbericht.”
Sultan Tulu (Göttingen): “Das Partizip Perfekt im Chorasan-Türkischen.”
J. Taube (Markkleeberg): “Vorstellungen von Ordnung und Herrschaft in usbekischen Märchen.”

Session B, Chair: Barbara Kellner-Heinkele

U. Schöne (Berlin): “Das Frauenbild in der Geheimen Geschichte der Mongolen.”
Klaus Koppe (Berlin): “Schamanische Reminiszenzen im westmongolischen Heldenepos.”
Leonid Borisovich Araev (Moscow): “Heterogeneity of the state organization of the Delhi Sultanate.” The Mamluk (Delhi dynasty) conquerors had no interest in consolidating the indigenous society of Northern India but rather preferred to live in their own narrow environment. From fragmentary reports of the middle strata of the indigenous society it can be concluded that they enjoyed a high living standard and had kept many horses which were considered a luxury good.
The presenter is the editor-in-chief of the new journal Vostok/Orient. Okada had heard from him that before his forefathers four generations ago had been baptized, they were tatars of Astrakhan, and his students were said to call him “Chinggis Khan’s son”.

Session C

B. Unterbeck (Königs Wusterhausen): “Eine souveräne grammatische Kategorie — Transnumerus.”
T. G. Borjanova (Elista): “Zur Genrebildung in kalmückischer Folklore.”

At this point, a program of full six days came to its end. After lunch, the participants bade farewell to each other, agreed to meet again the following year in Taiwan, and departed.