Reconstructing a Medieval Library? The Contents of the Manuscript Bundles in the Dunhuang Library Cave

It may state two separate claims as one.

From Stein's diary we can see the bundles he looked at each day: May 23rd: C.i. to C.ii.; 24th: C.iii. to C.xxi.; 25th: C.xxii. to C.xxx; 26th: C.xxxi to C.xli; 27th: C. xlii to C.xlvi; 28th: C.xlvii. to C.lvii.

“From Stein's diary we can see the bundles he looked at each day: May 23rd: C.i. to C.ii.; 24th: C.iii.to C.xxi.; 25 th : C.xxii. to C.xxx; 26 th : C.xxxi to C.xli; 27 th : C. xlii to C.xlvi; 28 th : C.xlvii. to C.lvii (MSS Stein 294/308-17).”

• cites MSS Stein 294/308-17Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The earliest known photographs and written records of the cave are from Stein when he visited in May 1907.

“The earliest known photographs and written records of the cave are from Stein when he visited in May 1907.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

There are surprisingly few cases when items are not annotated.

“Given the amount of material and logistics in the field, there are surprising few cases when items are not annotated.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Because of lack of time, no classification of the different objects found in the same bundle could be attempted.

“As Stein notes, because of lack of time, 'no classification of the different objects (manuscripts, paintings, decorated fabrics etc.) found in the same bundle could be attempted.'(Stein 1921: 814 n.2).”

• cites Stein 1921: 814 n.2Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Id1 records the material by bundle, with the bundle number shown by the Roman number, and items in the bundle given a serial number.

“This id.records the material by bundle, as noted by Takeuchi, the bundle number shown by the Roman number (2012: 210).The items in the bundle are then given a serial number, 001 etc.”

• cites Takeuchi 2012: 210Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

MAS.859 was then the sixth item annotated from this bundle by Stein's assistants when unpacked at the British Museum.

“It was then the sixth item annotated from this bundle by Stein's assistants when unpacked at the British Museum.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

In some cases, the final part of the Id1 is not given: only the site and bundle number, sometimes in lower case and sometimes upper case.

“In some cases, the final part of the id. is not given: we only have the site and bundle number, the latter sometimes in lower case and sometimes upper case, eg.Ch.ix (Id.2a),Ch.IX (Id.2b).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Ac1a-d consisted of over 300 paintings/embroideries, a case of Tibetan and other non-Chinese material, and 90 bundles of Chinese/Tibetan manuscripts containing about 1200 items, packed in 16-17 cases.

“In total, Ac1a-d consisted of over 300 paintings/ embroideries, a case of Tibetan and other non-Chinese material, and 90 bundles of Chinese/Tibetan manuscripts containing about 1200 items which altogether were packed in 16-17 cases.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

There is no known direct documentary evidence for the account that Wang Yuanlu discovered the cache by accident on 22-3 June 1900; it is based on later oral reports.

“However, it is important to stress that there is no known direct documentary evidence for this account: it is based on later oral reports.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Stein's system was not comprehensive: when numbering took place later many paintings and manuscripts were not part of any bundle and were simply given a serial number preceded by two zeros.

“Nor, as Stein admits, was this system comprehensive: when numbering took place later many paintings and manuscripts were not part of any bundle and therefore simply given a serial number, preceded by two zeros (Id5 below, eg Ch.001)”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The wrappers shown in these photographs appear to be no more than pieces of cloth with little shaping, while other scrolls have no outer wrapper.

“The wrappers shown in these photographs appear to be no more than pieces of cloth with little shaping while other scrolls have no outer wrapper.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Two exceptions of the finer type of scroll wrapper are MAS.858(Ch.xlviii.001) and MAS.859 (Ch.xx.006), both in the British Museum and originally found in miscellaneous bundles by Stein.

“Two exceptions of the finer type are MAS.858(Ch.xlviii.001) and MAS.859 (Ch.xx.006), both in the British Museum and originally found in miscellaneous bundles by Stein.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

No evidence has been found to confirm why the material was placed in the library cave chamber.

“No evidence has been found to confirm why this material was placed in this chamber.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Items with Id1 format are listed in Serindia as 'paintings, woodcut, textiles, and miscellaneous antiques' from Dunhuang.

“Items with id. in this format are listed in Serindia as 'paintings, woodcut, textiles, and miscellaneous antiques' (Stein 1921: 544) from Dunhuang, eg. the sutra wrapper mentioned above, MAS.858 (Ch.xlviii.001).”

• cites Stein 1921: 544Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Unlike other material, there was no complete master list to use for checking when unpacking the Dunhuang manuscripts and paintings in London, nor were all annotated with a site id.

“Unlike other material, therefore, there was no complete master list to use for checking when unpacking the Dunhuang manuscripts and paintings in London, nor were all annotated with a site id.”

It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.

Stein had a system for inventorying his finds, assigning site ids, roman numerals to locations, lower-case roman numerals to rooms or sections, and sequential numbers to finds.

“Stein had a system for inventorying his finds.When he visited a new archaeological site, most previously unrecorded, he would give it a site id.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Very few of the sophisticated purpose-made scroll wrappers have survived in their original state because once it was discovered they contained fragments of manuscripts in their structure, most were taken apart.

“Very few have survived in their original state: once it was discovered that they contained fragments of manuscripts in their structure, most were taken apart.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Id1 is the system Stein applied on his second expedition to the manuscripts, paintings and textiles retrieved first from the miscellaneous bundles, Ac1a, and which he had time to annotate on the ground.

“Id1 (eg.Ch.i.001): is the system which Stein applied on his second expedition to the manuscripts, paintings and textiles retrieved first from what he called the miscellaneous bundles, Ac1a, and which he had time to annotate on the ground, as was his usual practice.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Stein originally used 'C' for Ch'ien-fu-t'ung, as seen in his diary and on some manuscripts.

“He originally used 'C' for Ch'ien-fu-t'ung, as seen in his diary and on some manuscripts, eg.C.i. -C.lvii.given in his diary (MSS Stein 294/308-17).”

• cites MSS Stein 294/308-17Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.

The miscellaneous bundles contained many manuscripts in scroll and pothi format with Brahmi script, generally to transcribe Sanskrit and Khotanese languages, as well as Tibetan pothi mixed up in varying sizes and texts in Old Uyghur and Sogdian.

“They also contained many Tibetan pothi mixed up in varying sizes 'in great confusion' (1921: 816) as well as texts in Old Uyghur and Sogdian.”

• cites Stein 1921: 816Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The earliest known photographs of the interior of the cave were taken in 1908 by Charles Nouette, not by Stein.

“The earliest known photographs of the interior of the cave were not by Stein but taken in 1908 by Charles Nouette (1869-1910), the photographer on Pelliot's expedition.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Tibetan manuscripts contain 'CCC' but these notations are not in Stein's hand and evidence suggests they were added later by the cataloguer and are not part of Stein's original system.

“Tibetan manuscripts contain 'CCC' but these notations are not in Stein's hand and evidence suggests that these were added later by the cataloguer (la Vallée Poussin 1962: 109) and are not part of Stein's original system.”

• cites la Vallée Poussin 1962: 109Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Case 89 has only two manuscripts, both Chinese: Or.8210/S.2217 with Ch.89.V.5 and Or.8210/S.7111 with Ch.89.XII.13/19.

“Similarly, case 89 has only two manuscripts, both Chinese: Or.8210/S.2217 with Ch.89.V.5 and Or.8210/S.7111 with Ch.89.XII.13/19.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Some Tibetan manuscripts were sent to Dr F. W. Thomas in November 1909.

“Some Tibetan manuscripts were sent to Dr F. W. Thomas (1857-1956), a Tibetologist and Librarian of the India Office, in November 1909.46”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Some items bear different or additional numbering, e.g., Or.8210/S.529 has 912 in mazi and Arabic numbers, but also 882 written in black pencil.

“For example, Or.8210/S.529has 912 in mazi and Arabic numbers.but also 882 written in black pencil.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Stein notes that Jiang prepared an index slip list of these 1318 manuscripts, which presumably included the number and title and which was packed in box 91, but this has not been located.

“Stein notes also that Jiang prepared an index slip list of these 1318 manuscripts, which presumably included the number and title and which was packed in box 91, but this has not been located.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Many manuscripts also have the mazi number as an Arabic number written in blue or black pencil.

“Many manuscripts also have this as an Arabic number written in blue or black pencil.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The highest Chien number recorded during the initial survey was Chien.0599.

“The highest Chien.number we recorded during our initial survey was Chien.0599.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Stein counted 1,050 Chinese bundles each containing about a dozen manuscripts, as well as eighty packets of Tibetan scrolls and pothi and eleven large Tibetan pothi.

“them, noting there were 1,050 Chinese bundles each containing about a dozen manuscripts, as well as eighty packets of Tibetan scrolls and pothi and eleven large Tibetan pothi (Stein 1921: 822-3).”

• cites Stein 1921: 822-3Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

In the second expedition, Id6 was used for eleven Tibetan manuscript items, all pothi except Ch.011 which was a collection of scrolls.

“In the second expedition it was used for eleven Tibetan manuscripts items, all pothi except Ch.011 which was a collection of scrolls.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Bundle Ch.i was brought to Stein on 23 May, and he selected 14 items listed.

“This bundle was brought to Stein on 23 May, and he records that he selected the following 14 items: '6 silk gauze paintings, small; 2 painted cotton flags, small 3 large silk paintings; 2 paintings on paper; 1 large painting on cotton.' ( MSS Stein 204/306-8)”

• cites MSS Stein 204/306-8Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

There were more large mixed bundles originally beneath these in the cave which Stein examined on 28 and 29 May and assigned bundle numbers Ch.xlvii-lvii.

“There were more large mixed bundles originally beneath these in the cave which Stein examined on 28 and 29 May and assigned bundle numbers Ch.xlvii-lvii.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Manuscripts started to be sent to Louis de la Vallée Poussin from October 1910 after Stein and he had met in Paris.

“Manuscripts started to be sent to Louis de la Vallée Poussin (1869-1938) from October 1910 after Stein and he had met in Paris (MSS Stein 102/153).”

• cites MSS Stein 102/153Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Or.8210/S.316, dated to 865, has the mazi number 1283 on the manuscript itself and is referred to as Ch.1283 in Serindia.

“to 865, has the mazi number 1283 on the manuscript itself.It is referred to as Ch.1283 in Serindia (1921: 918 and Plate CLXVIII):”

• cites Stein 1921: 918Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Ch.78.ix.001 is the first item from bundle 9 found in packing case 78.

“So, for example, Ch.78.ix.001, is the first item from bundle 9 found in packing case 78.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

There are no manuscripts with case number 90, and four with case number 91 (none Tibetan) with bundle numbers I, II, and VII.

“There are no manuscripts with case number 90, and four -none of which are Tibetan -with case number 91 and bundles numbers I, II, and VII.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The ids are in different handwritings, not Stein's.

“They are also in different handwritings, not Stein's.50”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The location of Ch.i.001 cannot be confirmed: it does not tally with any of the paintings listed in the BM or NMI collections.

“Interestingly, the location of Ch.i.001 cannot be confirmed: it does not tally with any of the paintings listed in the BM or NMI collections.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

These large mixed bundles largely contained paintings which were very difficult to extract because the bundles had been crushed.

“These largely contained paintings which he noted were very difficult to extract because the bundles had been crushed.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The database of Stein items in London collections includes 691 items with Id5, many of which are multiple fragments with the same id number.

“The database of Stein items in London collections includes 691 items with this Id.but many are multiple fragments with same id.no.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Some Tibetan manuscripts are also inscribed with an id which starts with this form, e.g. IOL Tib J 37 has Ch.2.D and IOL Tib J 42, Ch.2.fr 1, but these are not in Stein's handwriting nor part of this sequence.

“Some Tibetan manuscripts are also inscribed with an id.which starts with this form, eg IOL Tib J 37 has Ch.2.D.And IOL Tib J 42, Ch.2.fr 1.These are not in Stein's handwriting nor part of this sequence.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The additional bundles in Ac1c and Ac1d were not annotated at this time.

“The additional bundles in Ac1c and Ac1d were not annotated at this time.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

As Stein records, this work was done in Khotan in June-July 1908 at the end of the expedition and before the material was packed for dispatch to London.

“As Stein records, this work was done in Khotan in June-July 1908 at the end of the expedition and before the material was packed for dispatch to London (1921: 916 and Figure 5).”

• cites Stein 1921: 916Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Stein's packing list for case 72 states that Jiang reached number 1318.

“Stein's packing list (for case 72) states that Jiang reached number 1318 (MSS Stein 37/119).”

• cites MSS Stein 37/119Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In Serindia, Ch.i.001 to 023 are recorded, all paintings except Ch.i.021.

“If we look at Serindia, Ch.i.001 to 023 are recorded, all paintings except Ch.i.021.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Cases 67 to 71 contained Chinese manuscripts numbered by Jiang in Khotan, i.e. Id2, and therefore did not receive an Id4.

“Cases 67 to 71 contained Chinese manuscripts numbered by Jiang in Khotan, ie Id2, and therefore did not receive an Id4.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Stein spent from 23-27 May examining the miscellaneous bundles, interested in anything dated and in languages and scripts other than Chinese.

“As noted above, Stein spent from 23-27 May examining these miscellaneous bundles, interested in anything dated and in languages and scripts other than Chinese.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Id4 incorporates the site id with the number of the case in which the material was packed in Khotan from June 9 to July 18, 1908, to send to London.

“Id4 (eg.Ch.78.ix.001):This id.incorporates the site id with the number of the case in which the material was packed in Khotan from June 9 to July 18, 1908, to send to London: Stein prepared a packing list for each numbered crate (MSS Stein 37/117-20, Figure 7).”

• cites MSS Stein 37/117-20Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

In a random sample, the ids recorded in la Vallée Poussin do not always appear on the manuscript, or are partial and sometimes on different pothi.

“Looking at a random sample shows that the ids recorded in la Vallée Poussin do not always appear on the manuscript; or are partial and sometimes on different pothi.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

On 28 May, Wang Yuanlu removed the remaining regular bundles of Chinese and Tibetan manuscripts from the cave and placed them in the corridor of Cave 16 where they were photographed by Stein.

“On 28 May, Wang Yuanlu removed the remaining regular bundles of Chinese and Tibetan manuscripts from the cave and placed them in the corridor of Cave 16 where they were photographed by Stein (Figure 3), although this negative was double-exposed.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Id4 only seems to have been used for the manuscripts and not for paintings; paintings were packed in cases 41 to 45 and manuscripts in cases 67 to 91.

“This only seems to have been used for the manuscripts and not for paintings, most of which had an id1 (the paintings were packed in cases 41 to 45 and the manuscripts in cases 67 to 91.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The cases started to be unpacked in 1909 and the numbering continued at least into 1914.

“The cases started to be unpacked in 1909 (MSS Stein 37/116) but the numbering continued at least into 1914.45”

• cites MSS Stein 37/116Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Case 72 contained manuscripts with Id2, but also two additional bundles which were presumably given an Id4, e.g. Or.8210/S.692 which has the Id4, Ch.72.VIII.22.

“Case 72 contained manuscripts with Id2, but also two additional bundles which were presumably given an Id4., eg Or.8210/S.692which has the Id4, Ch.72.VIII.22.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Id2 refers to annotations made in red found on a proportion of the Chinese manuscripts which use a Chinese numbering notation often called Suzhou mazi, the traditional system used in accounting and mathematics in China.

“Id2: refers to annotations made in red found on a proportion of the Chinese manuscripts which use a Chinese numbering notation often called Suzhou mazi, which was the traditional system used in accounting and mathematics in China (Figure 4).”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Looking at Ch.76 (case 76), there are 202 records on the database for 11 bundles, i.e. c.18 items per bundle.

“But, looking at Ch.76, i.e. material in case 76, we find 202 records on the database with records for 11 bundles, i.e. c.18 items per bundle.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Caroline Ridding worked with la Vallée Poussin on cataloguing the manuscripts between 1914-18.

“Caroline Ridding (1962-1941) looked at some of the manuscripts in this early period and then worked with la Vallée Poussin on cataloguing them between 1914-18 when he was living in Cambridge (although la Vallée Poussin was named as sole author of the subsequent catalogue 1962).47”

It may state two separate claims as one.

On 27 June 1908 in Khotan Stein noted the manuscript 778 which had the date 743; this corresponds to Or.8210/S.316, which has 778 written in mazi in red ink and in roman numbers in blue crayon.

“So, for example, on 27 June 1908 in Khotan Stein noted the manuscript 778 which had the date 743.This corresponds to Or.8210/S.316which, indeed, has 778 written in mazi in red ink and in roman numbers in blue crayon.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The photograph usually reproduced (as in Stein, 1912: fig 188 and Rong, 2013) is a forgery, although with no intent to deceive.

“The photograph usually reproduced (as in Stein, 1912: fig 188 and Rong, 2013), is a forgery, although with no intent to deceive.”

• cites Stein, 1912: fig 188Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Rong, 2013 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

It may state two separate claims as one.

They all contain the Chinese translation Wuliangshoujing of the Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra, some containing up to four copies.

“They all contain the Chinese translation, Wuliangshoujing [佛說無量壽經], of a Buddhist sutra (Sukhāvatīvyūhasūtra, The Infinite Life Sutra), some containing up to four copies.60”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Searching the IDP database for id5 brings up 691 items, most of which are fragmentary pieces of textiles or small paintings, supporting the narrative.

“Searching the IDP database for this id brings up 691 items, most of which are fragmentary pieces of textiles, now in the V&A, or small paintings, now in the BM, which supports the narrative.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

IDP started recording site information on its database at the British Library, but the work has not yet been completed.

“IDP started recording this information on its database at the British Library, but the work has not yet been completed.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Stein found much of his non-Chinese material by examining and removing material from wrappers with open ends, leaving the remainder of the bundle intact.

“Stein found much of his non-Chinese material by doing this.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Bundle C (Bundle 4 from case 80) is much more heterogeneous, containing a mixture of Tibetan and Chinese material in different formats, including Buddhist texts and divination texts.

“Bundle 4 from case 80 (Bundle C) is another another bundle for which we have almost complete data, listed in Table 4, but which is much more heterogenous.It contains a mixture of Tibetan and Chinese material in different formats, comprising Buddhist texts, including Tantric invocations, and divination texts.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Stein notes that the bundles containing the 570 scrolls showed evidence of being opened by Pelliot.

“Stein notes that the bundles containing the 570 scrolls showed evidence of being opened by Pelliot which would accord with Pelliot's assertion that he examined everything in the cave [MSS Stein 216/28].”

• cites MSS Stein 216/28Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The highest serial number recorded on a scroll in Bundle A is 37 and the database search brings up 33 items; we can reasonably assume that the sequence is near complete.

“The highest serial number recorded on a scroll in Bundle A is 37 and the database search brings up 33 items; we can reasonably assume that the sequence is near complete.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Stein described case 76 as containing 12 bundles of Chinese manuscripts, unsorted.

“Stein described this case as containing 12 bundles of Chinese manuscripts, unsorted.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

All the scrolls in Bundle A are mostly complete; there are no fragments.

“In addition, all the scrolls are also mostly complete -there are no fragments.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Bundle B (Ch.84.III) has 14 items recorded in the BL collection, all in Chinese and scroll format, all but two complete.

“The highest number recorded with this bundle id. is 14 and 14 items are recorded in the BL collection.They are all in Chinese and in scroll format and all but two are complete.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Stein's diaries note 12 cases of manuscripts and 4 of paintings.

“Stein's diaries note 12 cases of manuscripts and 4 of paintings.(MSS Stein 204/344-45).”

• cites MSS Stein 204/344-45Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

Bundle B does not conform to any systematic Buddhist cataloguing system, comprising a range of Buddhist texts including both apocrypha and sutras from across the canon.

“However, as can be seen from Table 3, they do not confirm to any systematic Buddhist cataloguing system, comprising a range of Buddhist texts including both apocrypha and sutras from across the canon.64”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The site id, when given, was not always recorded in catalogues and databases of the material.

“It is regrettable that the site id, when given, was not always recorded in catalogues and databases of the material.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Stein took an image but it was double exposed, and he recreated it later by drawing the manuscripts on an image of the empty Cave 16.

“Stein took an image but it was double exposed, as shown here. He therefore recreated it later by drawing the manuscripts on an image of the empty Cave 16.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

There is one other Chinese manuscript recorded with id4, Ch.91.II., but these are the only 3 manuscripts so far recorded with this id.

“There is one other Chinese manuscript recorded with the id4, Ch.91.II., but these are the only 3 manuscripts so far recorded with this id.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

The original order of the cache was not documented.

“The original order of the cache was not documented but, as several curators and scholars have observed, the documentary evidence made by Aurel Stein, seven years after the discovery, might provide some clues.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Given the dimensions of the cave, it would have been very difficult if not impossible for the stele to have been removed without the cave having been cleared of its contents.

“Given the dimensions of the cave, it would have been very difficult if not impossible for the stele to have been removed without the cave having been cleared of its contents.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

In other cases, the number is on later repair paper and in a different hand, but this almost certainly copied from Stein's notation which was lost or covered over during repair.

“In others, the number is on later repair paper and in a different hand: but this almost certainly copied from Stein's notation which was lost or covered over during the repair.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The manuscripts in Nouette's photographs appear to be largely in three formats: piles of flat items, probably Tibetan pothi; scrolls wrapped together in bundles, which Stein called 'regular library bundles'; and messier bundles.

“The manuscripts appear to be largely in three formats: piles of flat items, marked A in Figure 1, are most probably formed from piles of largely Tibetan pothi; scrolls which are wrapped together in bundles, marked B, are what Stein called 'regular library bundles'; finally, messier bundles, marked C in the picture.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Wang left many bundles untouched, based on Stein's observation that many of the covers were still sewn up.

“But we argue here that he left many untouched, based on Stein's observation that many of the covers were still sewn up.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

To date there has been no systematic attempt to collate the data and test whether Stein's documentary evidence can provide clues to the original order of the cache.

“Despite the potential importance of this for our understanding of this unique find and, more broadly, for life in Dunhuang at this time, to date there has been no systematic attempt to collate the data and test this.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Stein's documentation can be used to reconstruct the contents of some of the bundles in the cave as he found them, but not the order of the bundles in the cave itself.

“We conclude that there is strong evidence to show that Stein's documentation can be used to reconstruct the contents of some of the bundles in the cave as he found them, although not the order of the bundles in the cave itself.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The contents of most of the regular bundles were as originally placed in the cave.

It may state two separate claims as one.

It is probable that Stein also labelled items in Ac1b and Ac1c at this time with the same system, but the system then fell apart owing to the amount of material and the very limited time available.

“It is probable that he also labelled items in Ac1b and Ac1c at this time (but see below), with the same system, but the system then fell apart owing to the amount of material and the very limited time available.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

It would have been natural for Wang to remove all the contents on the cave's initial discovery both to find out what it contained and to uncover any wall paintings and statues.

“It would have been natural for him to remove all the contents on the cave's initial discovery both to find out what it contained, as well as to uncover any wall paintings and statues, his main interest.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Material was stored in other caves and some of this was almost certainly placed in Cave 17 after its discovery by Wang, with no record made to distinguish it from material found in Cave 17 or to note its original find site.

“First is the fact that, as noted by Stein, material was stored in other caves and some of this was almost certainly placed in Cave 17 after its discovery by Wang but no record had been made to distinguish this material from that found in Cave 17, or to note its original find site (1921: 828-9).”

• cites Stein 1921: 828-9Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The list of Stein's identification systems (Id1-Id8) is comprehensive, based on examination of several thousand manuscripts and other documentation.

“A survey and documentation of the annotations on all the material in the Stein collection is not yet complete but we are confident that this list is comprehensive as it is based on an examination of several thousand manuscripts as well as the other documentation and working with the manuscripts and other material for many years.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The reason and date for the cave's sealing and disguise are conjecture.

“The reason and date for its sealing and disguise are also conjecture: Rong notes the various scholars who have suggested that it might have been prompted by threats of invasion (1999: 254).”

• cites Rong 1999: 254Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The Arabic numbers were presumably added in London to help the non-mazi reading assistants.

“The Arabic numbers were presumably added in London to help the non-mazi reading assistants.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The start of the sequence shows Chinese titles written in red ink, same as the mazi, and probably in Jiang's hand.

“The start of the sequence shows Chinese titles written in red ink, same as the mazi, and probably in Jiang's hand.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

It is possible that some Arabic numbers were added when the material was unpacked on the visit of Paul Pelliot in 1910.

“It is possible that some were added when the material was unpacked on the visit of Paul Pelliot in 1910.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

It is most probable that these additional numbers were inscribed on the material when it was in the British Museum and being sorted and catalogued.

“In other cases, their purpose is not clear, but it is most probable that these were inscribed on the material when it was in the British Museum and being sorted and catalogued.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

In some cases, no corresponding mazi number has been found on the manuscript, but this is probably because it was inscribed on a section since lost, such as a fragmentary beginning or original backing paper since removed.

“In some cases, we have not found a corresponding mazi number on the manuscript but this is probably a case of it having been inscribed on a section of the manuscript which has since been lost, e.g. a fragmentary section at the beginning, or on original backing paper, since removed.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Id7 material is from Stein's 3rd expedition, using 'Chien.' to distinguish this material from that obtained on previous expeditions.

“Id7 (eg.Chien.0599):material from Stein's 3 rd expedition (Ac3) in which he used the alternative site abbreviation, 'Chien.' to distinguish this material from that obtained on previous expedition.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Id1 gives information on the contents of the miscellaneous bundles which Stein notes were on top of the cave, placed there by Wang after he emptied and refilled the cave, because of their very irregularity.

“This gives information on the contents of the miscellaneous bundles which, Stein notes, were on top of the cave placed there, Stein assumed, by Wang after he has emptied and then refilled the cave, because of 'their very irregularity.'”

Probably not a substantial claim.

We can test the validity of the above analysis from the types of material found with the different id numbers.

“To some degree, we can test the validity of the above analysis from the types of material found with the different id numbers.”

The quote only partly states this claim.

We can hypothesize with confidence that Id2 and Id3 give the same information.

“So we can hypothesize with some confidence that Id2 and Id3 give the same information.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.

Stein believed that the original contents of the bundles are not likely to have been mixed up altogether by Wang.

“It also shows that the original contents of the bundles are not likely to have been mixed up altogether by Wang… ' (1921: 852, n.33).”

• cites 1921: 852, n.33Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Id4 describes material kept in what Stein called the 'regular bundles' in the body of the Library Cave, those whose contents are most unlikely to have been substantially disturbed or rearranged by Wang and thus most likely to be as originally placed there.

“This is probably the most useful id to explore as it describes material kept in what Stein called the 'regular bundles' in the body of the Library Cave, those whose contents are most unlikely to have been substantially disturbed or rearranged by Wang and thus most likely to be as originally placed there.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Id5 was used for objects recovered amongst manuscript bundles at the British Museum but not obviously part of any bundle.

“Id5 (eg.Ch.001): used for 'for 2nd expedition 'objects which were recovered amongst manuscript bundles etc., at the British Museum' but not obviously part of any bundle (1921: 836, n. 13).”

• cites 1921: 836, n. 13Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Id6 was used by Stein on both his second and third expeditions.

“Id6 (eg.Ch.011):This was used by Stein on both his second and third expeditions.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Stein was alert to the possibility of reconstructing the bundles, the reason he tried to document this material as comprehensively as possible in the very limited time available.

“Stein was alert to this possibility, the reason he tried to document this material as comprehensively as possible in the very limited time available.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

All this suggests that Dunhuang was starting to develop printing technology at this time but that it was still a long way behind Tang China, Korea and Japan.

“All this suggests that Dunhuang was starting to develop printing technology at this time but that it was still a long way behind Tang China: or indeed Korea and Japan where printing is seen from around 700.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Rong suggested that many bundles comprised manuscripts discarded by other monasteries or collected elsewhere to fill in gaps in the Sanjie Monastery collection.

“Rong suggested that many bundles comprised manuscripts discarded by other monasteries or collected elsewhere to fill in gaps in the Sanjie Monastery collection.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Case 91 is problematic.

“As mentioned above, case 91 is problematic.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The hypothesis that this bundle contained items associated with Zhai Fengda remains extremely tentative.

“Until we have more data, the hypothesis that this bundle contained items associated with Zhai Fengda, if not in his possession, remains extremely tentative.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The discrepancies in Stein's figures are minor and most convincingly explained by the rushed nature of Stein's activities over that period, rather than any attempt to mislead.

“The discrepancies are minor and most convincingly explained by the rushed nature of Stein's activities over that period, rather than any attempt to mislead.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Zhai is almost certainly Zhai Fengda and it is a reasonable hypothesis that he acquired this almanac and reused paper with rough copies of notes he had made as backing to extend its life.

“Zhai is almost certainly Zhai Fengda and it is a reasonable hypothesis that he acquired this almanac and reused paper with rough copies of notes he had made as backing to extend its life.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The bundles were almost all sewn up tightly in coarse covers of linen.

“'The bundles were almost all sewn up tightly in coarse covers of linen.' Stein elsewhere described them as canvas.”

• cites SteinNot matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: The coarse covers Stein described as linen or canvas were hemp.

Probably not a substantial claim.

Stein originally described four types of bundles.

“From examination of a small -but random -sample, and building on Stein's original description of four types of bundles, we suggest an at least one additional type, B5 below:”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The evidence goes against conclusions 1 and 2.

“It is impossible to be certain about 1) or 2) but, as discussed above, the evidence we have goes against either of these conclusions.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The examination sample was small but random.

“From examination of a small -but random -sample, and building on Stein's original description of four types of bundles, we suggest an at least one additional type, B5 below:”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Stein noted four types of bundles: B1, miscellaneous bundles; B2, relics of worship; B3, library waste; and B4, regular bundles.

“Stein noted four types of bundles: B1, miscellaneous bundles; B2, relics of worship; B3, library waste; and B4, regular bundles.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

Based on this initial study, there seem to be three possible conclusions: 1) Stein's numbering is not consistent; 2) the contents of the bundles are not as originally placed in the cave; or 3) not all the bundles comprised contents selected according to a catalogue or other system.

“Based on this initial study, there seem to be three possible conclusions: 1) Stein's numbering is not consistent; 2) the contents of the bundles are not as originally placed in the cave; or 3) not all the bundles comprised contents selected according to a catalogue or other system.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

B4 regular bundles were many of these, as Rong has argued, 'Buddhist sutras stored in traditional bundles.'

“Turning to his final classification, B4, the regular bundles, were many of these, as Rong has argued, 'Buddhist sutras stored in traditional bundles.'? (2013: 113)”

• cites Rong 2013: 113 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

It may state two separate claims as one.

The second numbers on these manuscripts are close to the eventual catalogue number and could represent an early ordering prepared by la Vallée Poussin and Ridding between 1914-18.

“Although the second number is not the same as the eventual catalogue number, they are all close and so this could represent, we would suggest, an early ordering of the manuscripts for cataloguing prepared by la Vallée Poussin and Ridding between 1914-18.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

The photograph shown has hundreds of bundles but not over 1000; also no visible pothi, so there must have been more material piled in the corridor outside the shot.

“The photograph shown here has hundreds of bundles but not over 1000; also no visible pothi, so there must have been more material piled in the corridor outside the shot.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

B5 consists of groups of largely textual material in different categories, possibly including items collected by Daozhen-and maybe others-for the monastic holdings, individual collections or items brought together for other, non-random reasons.

“B5: Groups of largely textual material in different categories, possibly including items collected by Daozhen-and maybe others-for the monastic holdings, individual collections or items brought together for other, non-random reasons, yet to be proposed.”