66 蒙藏現況雙月報第十五卷第一期
ŏ३! ! ෞŏ
John Man,New York: Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin’s Press, 2004. ISBN 0-312-314442. 388 pp. including bibliography and index.
Genghis Khan, Life, Death, and Resurrection.
Dr. Alicia J. Campi
﹝美蒙顧問團主席﹞
With the approach of 2006 and Mongolia’s celebration of 800 years of its
statehood, interest in the country’s founding father, Chinggis [Genghis] Khan,
is increasing greatly. There are two new biographies which have captured the
attention of the English-speaking world, and it was my original intention to
compare these popular books in the same essay. However, since the books are
very different in approach, each book merits separate discussion.
John Man’s biography of Genghis Khan follows on the heels of his
successful travelogue of a few years ago, Gobi: Tracking the Desert.
Unfortunately, this new work is full of problems and in many ways is not a
serious biography. Still, Man writes for the popular audience and his work
may especially influence British readers, so it cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, there are elements to this book which are unique, as the author
seeks to go beyond the mere recitation of events of Chinggis Khan’s life as
revealed by the contemporaneous sources. Rather he has fashioned a
biography which includes intriguing chapters on Tangut (Hsi Hsia [Xi Xia])
ruins in Ningxia and the Inner Mongolian shrine at Ejen Khoroo.
Man’s text includes a mish mash of transliteration of names and spellings,
which is not unusual for a person unfamiliar with Mongolian and Chinese.
However, one wonders why he did not give the text to Mongolists such as
Charles Bawden and Igor de Rachewiltz, whom he thanks in his
‘Acknowledgements,’ to assist him with standardization. In fact, the author
deliberately cultivates the perception that he can command the linguistic
difficulties so well known to scholars of the Secret History. He (“with help”)
Genghis Khan, Life, Death, and Resurrection. 67
brazenly claims to have checked with the ‘original’ text of the Secret History
to refute an identification of ‘grasshopper’ by the eminent Francis Cleaves, to
instead claim the translation should be ‘swallow’. (pg. 84) The lack of a book
editor who is familiar with Chinese and Mongolian languages is very evident
by the example of Man transliterating Ejen Khoroo as ‘Edsen’ Khoroo and
moving back and forth haphazardly from Wade Giles to Pinyin transcription
systems.
Man tells us the reason he wrote this book “is an attempt to realize an
ambition conceived over three decades ago, when I wanted to travel
somewhere really, really remote. Mongolia seemed as remote as I could hope
for. In preparation, I started to learn Mongolian, and reading something of
Genghis Khan. Youth passed into middle age. Only then did the journeys
start, in an attempt to understand the impact Genghis had on his world, and on
ours.” (pg. 4) This biography is a modern paen to Chinggis Khan. However,
unlike previous popular writers such as Harold Lamb, who saw Chinggis as a
great military leader and strategist, Man opines that Chinggis has transformed:
“in life, from a ‘louse’ on a mountain to world-conqueror; after death, to
demi-god; and now to a spirit of universal harmony.” (pg. 373)
The author maintains that the Mongol leader’s conquests forged new
links between east and west, realigned major religions, influenced art, and
established new trade patterns—all keystones in Eurasian history. However,
he puts a special twist on his analysis by emphasizing that the modern focus
on Chinggis Khan is a form of worship by Chinese and Mongols which is
evolving into a religion! “Genghis, reborn in spirit by the faith of his
adherents, is more now than a help in ages past; he is a spiritual hope for
years to come.” (pg. 9) Man’s commentary about modern manifestations of
respect for and interest in Chinggis Khan has a peculiar religious tone:
“strangest of all to me, his cult has genuine religious aspirations, in which
Genghis is emerging as a power through whom the true adept may make
contact with the Mongols’ overarching divinity, Eternal Heaven.” (pg.8)
This point of view particularly is evident in Chapter 15’s discussion,
68 蒙藏現況雙月報第十五卷第一期
‘The Making of a Demi-God.’ (pp.287-317) This chapter is devoted to Man’s
visit to the Ordos, Inner Mongolian ‘Mausoleum of Genghis Khan,’ “where
Genghis has undergone the final and strangest part of his metamorphosis from
barbarian chief to divinity.” (pg. 289) I am not certain that most Mongolists
and Sinologists would interpret the rites to Chinggis that are practiced at the
shrine in Ejen Khoroo as real religious worship. Man does not explain how
such rites are different from traditional Chinese ancestor ‘worship’, if in fact
they are. Since Man’s credentials as a Chinese historian are weak, it may be
that his lack of experience with traditional Chinese and Asian respect or
veneration for dead spirits leads him to false conclusions. Or, it may be that
he has captured a special different quality about the rites to Chinggis that are
in fact more religious, or what he believes “were the heart of what soon
became the cult that turned Chinggis from hero and lost leader into a
divinity.” (pg. 291)
Or, another explanation might lie in how Man interprets Chinggis’ own
religious beliefs and faith in Blue Heaven’s guidance: Chinggis sees Burkhan
Khaldun mountain, where he went to pray, as “the Mongols’ cathedral. It was
only natural that Genghis, as ruler, would wish to be seen as its high priest,
and to cast his younger self in that role. This was no mere political stance. I
think he believed it, heart and soul. How or why this should be so he could
not fathom, and this mystery became part of his character, with some
interesting implications for the religions with which he came into contact, and
for those who revere him today.” (pg. 85)
The author’s historical account of the Ordos shrine’s development
appears to come from his Inner Mongolian informants, Sainjirgal [sic], former
Chief Researcher at the Mausoleum and author of the book Mongolian
Worship; Nachug, Director of the Mausoleum’s Institute of Genghis Khan
Studies; Sharaldai, the Dharhat Mongol whom he called the Mausoleum’s
“resident theologian,” who wrote a book (Power of Eternal Heaven)
explaining the nature of the Khan’s divinity, and from Jorigt, his translator
and travel companion from Inner Mongolian University. He also made
Genghis Khan, Life, Death, and Resurrection. 69
extensive use of the University of Pennsylvania dissertation (2000) of Rihu
Su, entitled “The Chinggis Khan Mausoleum and its Guardian Tribe” (which
apparently was but no longer is available on the internet), as well as Owen
Lattimore’s account of April 1935 from his Mongol Journeys. Other scholarly
studies of the rites in Zentralasiatische (Vol. 16 and 17) and Almaz Khan’s
“Chinggis Khan, From Imperial Ancestor to Ethnic Hero,” in Cultural
Encounters on China’s Ethnic Frontiers, ed. By S. Harrell (Seattle: University
of Washington Press, 1995), unfortunately, are not utilized by Man.
However, since the Rihu Su dissertation is not generally available, the
fact that Man includes many of the stories from this study makes the chapter
very interesting. For example, there is the account of the Golden Pole
ceremony outside the Mausoleum’s temple main ovoo, or sacred rock pile.
Supposedly, a thief who took a horse was made to stand all night with his feet
buried in the ground, while holding the horse’s reins. This became a tradition
with people coming to throw money and scatter milk 99 times at the reenacter’s feet for lamas to use to tell fortunes. (pp. 295-296)
Man also provides a detailed account of the 20th century history of the
shrine, particularly explaining how the mobile 8 sacred white gers which
housed Chinggis Khan’s supposed relics were moved around China under the
protection of both Kuomintang and communist forces to prevent them from
falling into the hands of the invading Japanese. He claims that in June 1939,
when the shrine convoy came into the protection of nationalist army forces in
Xian, 200,000 people, mostly Chinese, were in the streets to welcome the
relics of Chinggis, their great Chinese emperor. (pg. 302 quoting from Ju
Naijun, ‘The Coffin of Genghis Khan Passes Yenan,” National Unity, vol. 6,
1986 quoted in Rihu Su).
While the material in this chapter is in some cases new and often
fascinating to read, Man indulges in considerable wild, even malicious
analysis which is bound to confuse and mislead the average reader. One such
example is his ridiculous reference to the Mausoleum and its web of ritual
practice as “a sort of cosa nostra” for Mongols, from which Chinese and other
70 蒙藏現況雙月報第十五卷第一期
foreigners were excluded. (pg. 296) In trying to explain the rites the author
falls into all sorts of peculiar illusions to other religious practices which in
fact not only do not explain the Chinggis rituals but insult them. His
prejudicial comparisons are often made to various Christian customs. He
refers to the Darkhats, who were given the duty to guard the relics and
perform the commemorative rites, as doing so “with a combination of
emotional blackmail and sincerity, rather like pardoners and sellers of
indulgences in medieval Christendom.” (pg. 294) The actual texts of the
ritual prayers were described as “beginning with words which, if the names
were changed, could just as well be used by a priest invoking Christ.” (pg.
295) Banners inside the main temple are compared to “rather tatty Christmas
decorations.” (pg. 305)
The weirdest analogy is Man’s claim that at Ejen Khoroo the ceremonies
to Chinggis represented “a sort of Mongolian Trinity, with God the Father,
Son and Holy Spirt mirrored by Blue Heaven, Genghis and [yak-tailed]
Standard.” (pg. 314) Man’s discussion at the end of the book with the
‘theologican’ Sharaldai on the subject of Chinggis Khan’s divinity and the
Eternal Heaven religious philosophy is extremely interesting and complex.
Sharaldai’s message is that the real purpose of the Ejen Khoroo Mausoleum is
for Mongols and the rest of the world’s peoples to understand their place in
the universe: “It doesn’t matter whether the objects are genuine or not. The
real significance lies in the connection with the Eternal Sky. Genghis Khan is
a spirit for all of us. We are created by Eternal Heaven. If we follow the way,
then we shall all be eternal.” (pg. 372) From such conversations, Man has
concluded that the Mausoleum “is the heart of this religion in the making,
with a developing and (for some) effective set of beliefs.” (pg. 370)
In this same chapter, when recounting the destruction of the shrine
during the Cultural Revolution, Man includes a dismissive quotation from a
poem about Chinggis Khan by Mao Tsetung: “The hero! The one Heaven is
proud of for one generation! What he knew was no more than hunting
eagles.” (pg. 307) In other places, the author’s choice of words is full of
Genghis Khan, Life, Death, and Resurrection. 71
hyperbole: Inner Mongol leader Ulanhu is called a “communist warlord” (pg.
303). “The Mongolians have no indigenous architecture to speak of.” (pg.
304) In the Chinese celebrations in 1962 on the 800th anniversary of
Chinggis’ birth, “30,000 people, mostly Mongols, participated in an excess of
adoration that suited the official line perfectly.” (pg. 307) Despite such
flamboyant comments, this chapter on his visit to Ejen Khoroo is good
reading, even though its accuracy may be questioned.
The actual biographical chapters on Chinggis are written in a lively,
modern style, designed to capture the attention of non-specialists. Various
well-known documentary sources are utilized including the Secret History,
Persian, Arabic and Chinese contemporaneous accounts. These are listed in
the Bibliography, but are not footnoted in the text, even when directly quoted.
Of course, one may quibble about what Man has emphasized or omitted, but
the historical account is basically correct. Chinggis is made out to be “the
most alpha of all alpha males.” (pg. 4) For Man, no exaggeration is too much:
“Everywhere the Mongols rode, the present is haunted by the shade of
Genghis.” (pg. 5) The old pre-Chinggis city of Avarga is called “a Mongolian
Camelot, a place of legend with no material substance to it.” (pg. 16)
Mongolian dogs are “by nature man-eaters. Some try to eat passing cars.” (pg.
71)
The biography of Chinggis is presented within the framework of John
Man’s own journeys to the important places in the Mongol leader’s life. Thus
the book opens with a visit to the Khenti Mountain region around Avarga,
Mongolia, the supposed birthplace of young Temujin. The vivid writing style
of the author, as epitomized by descriptions such as, “the mushroom dot of a
felt tent” (pg. 20) and “up towards a rocky outcrop on another ridge, from
which the past lay spread out like a map” (pg. 39), make the text alive and
vibrant. Man, with a Mongol driver, Ms. Goyo his translator, and Baatartsogt,
former director of the Khenti Museum in Ondorkhan, drove around the
Kherlen River area in the summer of 2002 in a UAZ minibus. The group also
drove to Blue Lake, where many including Man believe Chinggis established
72 蒙藏現況雙月報第十五卷第一期
the Mongol state in 1206.
Interspersed in the book’s early background chapters about the validity
of the various contemporaneous sources for information on Chinggis Khan,
the ecology of nomadism, the importance of various bows and arrows to the
Mongol war machine (4 pages of explanation!), and the history of precursor
tribes on the steppes to the Mongols are witty descriptions of marmot stew
recipes, mini countryside naadams, and conversations in a remote dacha with
a old Mongolian historian. Even Man’s simplistic take on the rise and fall of
nomadic empires on the steppe is eloquently stated: “Medieval steppe-land
history is a cloud chamber in which the tribal particles collide, split, bounce
away, decay, re-form and annihilate each other in an utterly random way.
Family ties linked enemies; men could gallop 150 kilometres in a day to spy,
or help, or betray, and no-one could tell in advance which it would be.” (pg.
92)
However, the actual historical facts are sometimes missing or distorted.
Discussion of the Turkic peoples who lived on the Mongolian plateau during
the Uighur Empire times is totally absent. He describes the relationship
between the nomad and the farmer of the Inner Asian steppes as “tortuous,”
and the constant interaction between the first steppe nomadic empire (the
unidentified Hsiung-nu) with China as “a nightmare of a marriage, bound by
need, divided by hatred, each side regarding itself as superior, the other with
contempt.” (pg. 58) Man mistakenly identifies Jurchen tribes as nomads like
the Mongols, and does not explain well the Jurchen (Jin Dynasty) conflicts
with the Khitans (Liao Dynasty). He thinks the Great Wall was built in its
present form during the pre-Jin period. Man also seemingly invents a very
prominent role in Sino-Mongol relations for Kabul, the great grandfather of
Chinggis, and mentions without explanation a 1160 defeat of the Mongols by
the Jin, when is actually was by the Tatar tribe (a Jin ally). (pp. 55-63) He
thinks the Mongols in official positions during Chinggis’ time were newly
literate, which is why there was great need for 100,000 sheets of Korean
paper!
Genghis Khan, Life, Death, and Resurrection. 73
He rejects the derivation of the name ‘Temujin’ from the word tomor
(iron), claiming a spurious ‘r’ had appeared in the Persian texts. All of this
discussion is not referenced, and thus appears that Man is the originator of
this theory, which he certainly is not. His explanation of the importance of
the Baljuna Covenant between Chinggis and his most loyal companions is
lifted in the main from Cleaves, again with out attribution, when Man
compares this event to Shakespeare’s speech of English King Henry V on St.
Crispian’s Day. (pg. 98-99)
There are many examples of pseudo-psychological comments throughout
the book. One example is when Mohammed, Shah of Khwarezmians, is
labeled “an idiot” (pg. 154) and “an unpopular, unscrupulous, isolated,
mother-dominated, sex-obsessed drunkard; a disaster in waiting.” (pg. 153)
Chinggis, upon hearing of the murder of his envoys by the Khwarezmians, is
described as “the fire of wrath driving the water from his eyes so that it was
only to be quenched by blood.” (pg. 155)
Effectively interwoven throughout the chapters are snippets of poetry
from Onon Urgunge’s 1990 translation of the Secret History. To further
enliven his account Man draws in additional stories and information at
appropriate points. For example, when discussing the wedding of young
Temujin and Borte, Man describes what the ritual presided over by a shaman
would be like. Although he gives no references for his account, he alludes to
the fact that such marriage ceremonies likely were similar to more modern
Buddhist rituals (“enough of the ancient rituals endured until recently to
imagine the scene,” pg. 81).
Sometimes conclusions are drawn with no explanation beyond the
personal, unsubstantiated views of the author. For instance, Man thinks Tolui
was not chosen by his fellow Mongols as Khan after his father’s death,
because Tolui’s wife was a Nestorian Christian who would produce heirs that
would not respect Mongol native traditions (pg. 157). Then, there is the
rejection by Man of the story that the Khwarezmian leader Inalchuk was
punished by the Mongols by molten silver poured into his eyes and ears. All
74 蒙藏現況雙月報第十五卷第一期
Man says is this is “an unlikely and unnecessarily expensive end, I think; it
would probably have been something rather more efficient.” (pg. 163)
There is considerable focus on the death count, particularly in the
Muslim campaigns, inflicted by the Mongol armies. Man entitles his chapter
“The Muslim Holocaust,” but then rejects the comparison to the Nazi
Holocaust, which makes one suspect he used the term only to shock the reader.
In fact, objecting to the idea that Mongols committed genocide, the author
creates a new term—“urbicide”—for Mongol destruction of towns. He sees
the wiping out of cities only as vengeance, “a decision to use terror to back
strategy.” (pg. 181) This is a strangely weak comment when living in today’s
world of terrorists such as Bin Laden and World Trade Center bombers.
This book places too much emphasis on Chinggis’ search for immortality
through Taoism. Man is intrigued by the monk Ch’ang-ch’un and believes his
meeting with the Mongol leader in 1222 was very significant. The focus on
Taoism comes from Man’s exaggerated interpretation of the Khitan Yeh-lu
Chu-tsai.
The Khitan adviser is considered more than just wise. Rather he is the
reason that all the Chinese farmers were not slaughtered during the Mongol
conquest of China: “He was advancing in his life’s work—to help Heaven
along in its odd choice of ruler by transforming barbarity and ignorance into
virtue and wisdom. His dream was both revolutionary and utopian, his raw
material a shattered northern China. He sought to apply Confucius’s rules for
good government while at the same time promoting Buddhism to cultivate the
mind, his ultimate goal being the creation of a society that transcended
Confucianism, rather as idealist communists foresaw a society that would
evolve through socialism to perfect communism. He had made a good start.
His people, acting as scribes, interpreters, envoys, astrologers and tax experts,
had proved increasingly vital in governing what had been won. He had been
on hand in several cities—Samarkand, Ling-wu, Kaifeng—to save libraries,
treasures and scholars….To this end, he drew up a plan for renewal and
government such as China, let alone Mongolia, had never seen before.” (pp.
Genghis Khan, Life, Death, and Resurrection. 75
262-263)
Man credits Yeh-lu Chu-tsai with saving the lives of countless Chinese
officials as he set up the Confucian-based administration and tax system in
China. However, when he was pushed aside by Ogedei Khan, he soon died
“some say of a broken heart, …after almost 30 years of devoted service to an
impossible ideal….If Genghis did one good thing, it was to employ this able,
brilliant and idealistic man.” (pg. 265) To honor him, Man writes that he went
to see the 18th century remake of his statue in the gardens of the Summer
Palace outside Beijing.
Man includes various contemporaneous accounts from Western
European sources which have information about the Mongols to illustrate
post-Chinggis Mongolian Empire development. However, he does not utilize
many sources on Mongolian rule in Russia, which may be why he is rather
dismissive of the harshness of Mongol rule there. When referring to the
Russian recollection of the two centuries of Golden Horde rule as the ‘Tartar
Yoke,” the author writes: “In fact, it was less of a yoke, more of an
accommodation…” (pg. 277) Yet, there is great sympathy for Persian
suffering under the Mongols: “In Persia, Mongol rule sucked blood from
stones.” (pg. 280) In general, the post-Chinggis discussion in Chapter 14,
“the Outer Reaches of Empire,” is quite poorly put together, as epitomized by
one of his naïve conclusions—“But the Mongols were never liked.” (pg. 281)
One of the real highlights of this biography is Man’s visit to Yinchuan
and the surrounding steppes of Ningxia in search of Tangut imperial ruins and
the place where Chinggis in 1227 was injured and died. Chapter 6,
intriguingly named “The Great State of White and High,” is a discussion of
the Xi Xia state founded by the Tanguts. Man makes it clear that he has great
admiration, bordering on glorification, of this people. He visited the Xi Xia
Institute of Ningxia University to learn about the Tangut language and the
lastest archaeological discoveries, and went to view the Tangut imperial
tombs and recently constructed museum.
76 蒙藏現況雙月報第十五卷第一期
Chapter 12, “The Valley of Death,” describes the author’s fascinating
journey to Guyang—a former Silk Road city--in the south of Ningxia, in Hui
minority country. With the Guyan Museum’s deputy director as a guide, he
explored Liupan Shan State Forest Park, where the locals asserted that
Chinggis Khan was brought during the last days of his life. Man claims the
Park is totally unknown to foreigners, and not mentioned in any guidebooks.
Yet the site is huge—679,000 square kilometers with forested peaks, ridges,
and ravines. Within it is a modern ‘Chinggis Khan camp’ with concrete gers
and stool-sized cylinders of stone which may date back to 1227. Two
hundred kilometers from the Xi Xia border and 150 kilometers from the old
Song territory, this hard-to-visit, isolated valley full of medicinal plants, is
believed to be the place where Chinggis, injured in battle with the Tanguts and
dying, retreated with his army to in order to plan the future expansion of the
Empire. Man is not convinced that this valley really was the death and
perhaps burial spot of the Mongolian leader, but his travel account there is
worth the price of the book, and should inspire more serious scientists to
return for research.
The book’s concluding chapters are also quite interesting, since they deal
with the modern reputation of Chinggis Khan and how the Mongol leader is
identified with post-socialist Mongolian identity. He devotes a chapter to the
search for Chinggis Khan’s burial site. He presents a valuable summary
account of the Johannes Schubert of Leipzig’s Karl Marx University’s 1961
failed expedition, which is known to few. (pp. 323-324) Then he discusses
the Japanese Three Rivers (Gurvan Gol) Project (1990-1993), noting but not
emphasizing the suspicion that instead of real archaeology there was a
different hidden agenda—a secret search for minerals. Finally, some of the
story behind the recent Maury Kravitz-inspired expeditions (1999-2004) is
recounted. However, it is evident that Man took much of his information
from people favorably disposed to this American’s enterprise, and was not
familiar with all the facts that make these expeditions so controversial.
Nonetheless, Man believes that Kravitz’s team will not find Chinggis Khan’s
tomb.
Genghis Khan, Life, Death, and Resurrection. 77
Chapter 17 is travel literature at its best. Man gives us a thrilling account
of his own attempts to ascend the holy mountain of Burkhan Kahldun. He
had use of two unpublished papers on the supposed burial spot and a trip
report with map from five years earlier by the famous Mongolist, Igor de
Rachewiltz of Australian National University. De Rachewiltz believes that he
did see royal graves on the mountain, while Man highly doubts these rock
features represented the graves. But the most fascinating aspect of the whole
chapter involves the determination of the author and his small team to fight
the elements and walk to the mountain when their jeep could not proceed any
further.
The last chapter, “The Prophet of Eternal Heaven,” attempts to analyze
the meaning of Chinggis Khan in today’s Mongolia. Man recognizes that the
Mongol ruler “symbolizes several living aspects of his land and its people:
the nation as an independent political entity; the nomadic herding lifestyle;
the spirit of rugged individuality; the feel of the landscape. And that is just in
Mongolia. In China, Genghis is also a symbol, but of very different values—
those of Chinese unity and imperial grandeur.” (pg. 363) Included here are
philosophical comments by former Parliamentarian Ms. Oyun, who although
a most urbanized and modern politician, speaks romantically of the validity of
Chinggis as a “looking back to look forward” symbol. (pg. 166)
Unfortunately, this chapter also has several places where Man’s limited
knowledge of contemporary Mongolia is very evident. For example, he
writes that one-half of the population of Ulaanbaatar lives in gers on the
outskirts of the city (pg. 364), when by all credible calculations this
percentage is closer to 10-15%. He also is confused about the Russian role
[actually non-role] in Mongolia’s Autonomy Period prior to the 1921
revolution. (pg. 367)
Man opines that Mongolia will hold the legacy of Chinggis Khan:
“Either in a peculiarly dominant position, and/or in a peculiarly dangerous
one; and in any event at a turning-point, when the nation, the creation of
Genghis, must rethink its nature and its role in the world.” (pg. 368) He
78 蒙藏現況雙月報第十五卷第一期
makes the astute observation that the image of Chinggis Khan is claimed by
both China and Mongolia: “It would be a strange irony if the farmer and
urbanite were to take over the remaining heartland of the pastoral nomads; for
it they do, it will be in the name of Genghis Khan, the man who made
Mongolia part of China. And if Mongols resist this pressure, then they too
will do it in the name of Genghis, the man who made China part of
Mongolia.” (pg. 369) However, because of the author’s conviction that
Chinggis Khan today has religious significance as well as historical meaning
for Mongols, the book insists that the founding father now has become “a
symbol of spirituality, of peace, of the unity of opposites.” (pg. 369)
John Man is a very good writer. He is not a serious biographer. His
book on Chinggis Khan should have been confined to a travelogue of visits to
the important places in the life of Chinggis Khan. Such a focus would have
made the book unique in approach and at the same time limited the
expectations of the readers. Man should have stuck with what he does best—
write travel books. His foray into biographical writing sows confusion and
distortion. Yet because he includes some very interesting travel accounts in
the text, his book cannot be completely dismissed by serious Mongolian
researchers.