buddhism in the west uyghur kingdom and beyond 203
ögirdäči) follows. The persons are for the most part relatives of the donating
family enumerated according to the degree of relationship.60 The list includes
some names of the Buddhist clergy related to the monastery. Finally, names
of spiritual friends (Skt. kalyāṇamitra) who are said to rejoice with the cou-
ple are mentioned. These people are presumably not related to the couple.
The deceased persons, to whom the merit accrued by means of the erection
of the statue and the construction of the monastery, are mentioned as well.61
Afterwards a list of craftsmen who contributed to the erection of the monas-
tery is appended.62 Thus, the structure, content and purpose of stake inscrip-
tions I and III are quite similar. As Hamilton has observed,63 the idikut (< ıdok
kut)64 mentioned in both inscriptions under the title Köl Bilgä T(ä)ŋri Elig is
one and the same person. What makes stake inscription III all the more pre-
cious is that in the introductory part, which contains the dating and the name
of the Uyghur ruler, the frontiers of the West Uyghur Kingdom are defined:65 it
stretches as far as Šačiu (< Chin. 沙州 Shazhou) in the East and as far as Uč (i.e.
Uč Turfan) and (Upper) Barshan in the West.
Both inscriptions are outstanding documents of the transitional phase in
the West Uyghur Kingdom, which is characterised by the loss of political influ-
ence on the part of Manichaeism to the benefit of Buddhism.66 In the case of
ruin α in Kočo—formerly an important Manichaean building where numer-
ous texts of the Religion of Light were discovered—we find that by means of
stake I, which was unearthed in ruin α, the structure had been consecrated as
a Buddhist building.67 The inscriptions further confirm the importance of the
60 Ed. Moriyasu, “Stake Inscriptions,” 187–188 (lines 11–24).
61 Ed. Moriyasu, “Stake Inscriptions,” 188 (lines 24–27). Note that in line 25 we can read
ärtmä barma “the deceased” (followed by kaŋımız “our father”). These two words have not
been deciphered correctly yet. See Moriyasu, “Stake Inscriptions,” 188 (only transliterated
as ’’t(mn) (k)’(mn)). Cf. Hamilton, “Remarks,” 124a: “The forms atma buma (or atmn
bumn) remain as yet unexplained.”
62 Ed. Moriyasu, “Stake Inscriptions,” 188 (lines 01’–15’). This list is clearly written as a text
separate from the main one.
63 Hamilton, “Remarks,” 122a.
64 This title of the Uyghur king was borrowed from the Basmıl.
65 On the names of the cities see the translation in Moriyasu, “Stake Inscriptions,” 188 and
the note to uč barshan on p. 192.
66 This process had already begun in the late 10th century. See Sundermann, Werner, “Der
Manichäismus an der Seidenstraße: Aufstieg, Blüte und Verfall,” in Die Seidenstraße:
Handel und Kulturaustausch in einem eurasiatischen Wegenetz, ed. Ulrich Hübner et al.
(Hamburg: EB-Verlag, 2001), 164–165.
67 Sundermann, “Manichäismus,” 165.