The Borders of Chinese Architecture 9780674269583

Citation preview

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

The Edwin O. Reischauer Lectures

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

•••

N ancy S hat zman S teinha rd t

H A R VA R D U N I V E R SI T Y P R ESS Cambridge, Mas­sa­chu­setts London, ­England 2022

 Copyright © 2022 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States of Amer­ic­ a First printing Cover design: Graciela Galup Cover art: Minaret, Hongshuiquan Mosque, Huangzhong, Qinghai. Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt 9780674269576 (EPUB) 9780674269583 (PDF) The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows: Names: Steinhardt, Nancy Shatzman, author. Title: The borders of Chinese architecture / Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt. Description: Cambridge, Mas­sa­chu­setts : Harvard University Press, 2022. | “Edwin O. Reischauer lectures.” | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021020573 | ISBN 9780674241015 (hardcover) Subjects: LCSH: Architecture, Chinese—­East Asia—­History. | Architectural design—­East Asia—­History. | Religious architecture—­ East Asia—­History. | China—­Bound­aries. | East Asia—­Civilization—­ Chinese influences. Classification: LCC NA1540 .S735 2022 | DDC 720.951—­dc23 LC rec­ord available at https://­lccn​.­loc​.­gov​/­2021020573

 To the memory of John M. Rosenfield (1924–2013) Oleg Grabar (1929–2011) Joseph F. Fletcher, Jr. (1934–1984) Who first encouraged me to question the borders of Chinese architecture

CONTENTS

Preface ix Introduction: The Borders Prob­lem

1

1. Chinese Architecture before China

28

2. Han

44

3. Architecture before Reunification

58

4. Seeing the Sixth ­Century as the Seventh and Eighth 88 5. Tang Internationalism

106

6. Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

154

7. Western Xia, Song, Japan, Jin

179

8. A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

195

9. Ming

244

10. The Long Eigh­teenth ­Century

274

Afterword

306

viii

Contents

Notes 311 Bibliography 351 Illustration Credits 415 Index 419

PREFACE

The invitation to deliver the Edwin O. Reischauer Lectures in April 2014 was a humbling opportunity to speak to an audience that included men and w ­ omen who had been my teachers, former fellow students I had sat next to in class, and current students formulating ideas that would guide research in the ­future. I had sat in such an auditorium countless times as a student at Harvard in the 1970s, perhaps on occasion with E. O. Reischauer; I know I saw him in the corridors and library of 2  Divinity Ave­nue, but we never had a conversation. Like many who became students of East Asia a­ fter 1958, my introduction to him was a version of his book East Asia: The ­Great Tradition, which I read as a freshman. But the Edwin Reischauer book I knew best was Ennin’s Diary: The Rec­ord of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Law, published three years ­earlier. The travel account of a Japa­nese monk-­pilgrim from Kyushu to the sacred Buddhist monasteries, peaks, and shrines of China in the ­middle of the ninth ­century was a starting point for a student of Chinese architecture during the de­cades when China was not accessible. It was especially valuable for the extensive information about Mount Wutai, the repository of hundreds of Buddhist structures, among which was the oldest known wooden building in China. This diary supported notions widely held in the 1970s about the international Tang—­and for an art historian, an understanding that the art and architecture of China’s seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries had a profound impact on

x

Preface

Japan. This view of China as the source of major artistic, philosophical, social, and po­liti­cal developments, not just in Japan’s Nara period (710–794) but as waves of transmission that continued beyond China as Buddhism and the arts changed or evolved in China, was ingrained in education about East Asia at that time. The diary also is notable for the much more l­imited information about ­Korea, for Ennin did not travel inland beyond its ports. The scant study of ­Korea in the 1960s and 1970s was not due to its lack of engagement with Chinese civilization. Nor was it ­because ­Korea was not accessible. Rather, it seems, many who studied East Asia in the 1960s and 1970s w ­ ere caught up in the frenzy to engage with Japan’s economic boom, and for so many ­others, Japan was such a rich repository for research that they sought to mine it before moving slightly west to a repository whose border physically touched China. Borders, or bound­aries, usually po­liti­cal or geographic, that separate one nation from another guided research more than any other f­ actor not just in my generation but in that of my teachers and theirs, and of all our students. Only rarely during my ­career has it been pos­si­ble to see ­every building or site discussed in a book or article. My teachers saw and taught much that I have not seen, and I have seen much that they did not, sometimes b ­ ecause of access, other times b ­ ecause a building has been destroyed, other times ­because it was not yet known. The dynamism of the East Asian art field is almost unparalleled. It is implicit that something found t­ oday or that ­will be uncovered next year may change this year’s understanding. With few exceptions, the buildings I discuss in this book are buildings I have stood inside or in front of, many of them having become accessible in the course of my c­ areer, for only on-­site can one confirm the written rec­ord. I draw material primarily from four countries on t­ oday’s map of East Asia: China, K ­ orea, Japan, and Mongolia. Like my teachers, I saw Japan first, then China, then ­Korea; unlike them, I have done research in Mongolia. The physical evidence—­ extant buildings, tombs, excavation sites, rock-­carved worship caves, and city walls—­has guided my research and what follows ­here more than any written source. Perhaps b ­ ecause I was able to rely so heavi­ly on the illustrations when I delivered the Reischauer Lectures, it proved very challenging to turn three sixty-­minute lectures into a coherent book with enough back-

Preface

xi

ground material for an audience hopefully much wider than t­ hose who come to a late after­noon lecture on a weekday, with enough substance for t­ hose who heard the lectures, and without abandoning the theme and writing instead a short history of Chinese architecture as it has influenced East Asia. In expanding the three lectures, I have tried to recognize the controversial implications of this prob­lem and explain what one needs to know about Chinese architecture, its key monuments and history, in as continuous a narrative as pos­si­ble. The book includes many buildings outside China’s eigh­teen core provinces, but it is not a history of Xianbei, Koguryŏ, Türk, Japa­nese, Uyghur, Parhae, Khitan, Jurchen, Mongol, and Manchu architecture. It is a history of Chinese architecture, which, I argue, is most accurately told through buildings that survive ­today in Japan, ­Korea, and Mongolia combined with what remains in China. In the investigation, we are mindful that what can be called sameness has limits; that what is referred to as translation cannot but occur when one building is the model for another; that a copy can never be an exact likeness; that climate and ecol­ogy affect architecture; that some buildings w ­ ere erected by necessity within strict guidelines, whereas ­others, ­whether for rulers, religion, or for all eternity, may somewhere express personal choice; and how much premodern East Asian architecture was built for po­liti­cal purposes. I have turned to colleagues and often to local residents with questions and for insights through more than fifty research trips to East Asia. My field notes include casual conversations with anonymous f­aces as much as descriptions of what I see en route or on-­site. For initial encouragement, impor­tant discussions, answers to questions, or reading parts of this manuscript, I thank: Christopher Atwood, Lkhagvasuren Erdenebold, Mark Elliott, Paul Goldin, Money Hickman, Kang In-­Uk, Karen Koehler, Nikolay Kradin, Nikita Kuzmin, Lothar Ledderose, Ah­R im Park, Michael Puett, Qu Lian, Sijie Ren, Charles Steinhardt, Eugene Wang, Wang Guixiang, Wei Jian, and Mimi Yiengpruksawan; and teachers, in addition to t­hose to whom this book is dedicated, James Cahill, Jan Fontein, Wai-­kam Ho, Marylin Rhie, and Tanaka Tan, all the late. I thank my f­amily, now three generations, for unflagging interest in my research and encouragement to see this book through to publication. For support that made research, travel, and publication pos­si­ble,

xii

Preface

I thank the School of Arts and Sciences, Director’s Fund of the Museum, Research Foundation, and Housing + Urbanism + Design Initiative, all of the University of Pennsylvania; the Metropolitan Center for Far Eastern Art Studies in Kyoto; and Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts of the National Gallery. Fi­nally, I thank Kathleen McDermott of Harvard University Press for patient belief in this book, Chen Wei for drawings, and Elizabeth Beck, Constance Mood, and Christal Springer of Penn Visual Resources for their help with countless details in the preparation of the illustrations.

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

The Edwin O. Reischauer Lectures

Rus

Ukraine

Kazakhstan

Uzbekistan

Georgia Armenia Azerbaijan Turkey Cyprus Syria Lebanon

Tajikistan

Iran

Kuwait

Saudi Arabia

Egypt

Xinjia

Afghanistan

Iraq

Israel Jordan

Turkmenistan

Kyrgyzstan

T Pakistan

Nepal

Qatar United Arab Emirates Oman

India

Sudan Eritrea

Yemen

Somalia Ethiopia

m ap 1 Asia t­ oday.

Sri Lanka

ssia

Mongolia

Ulaanbaatar

Heilongjiang Jilin

ang

Shanxi

Ningxia

Hebei Tianjin

Shaanxi Yunnan Sichuan

Bhutan

Hubei Chongqing

Guizhou

Bangladesh Myanmar

Yunnan

Yunnan

Yunnan Jiangxi

Taibei Taiwan

Hainan Philippines

Thailand Cambodia

Singapore

Shanghai

Zhejiang

Fujian

Vietnam

Malaysia

Seoul South Korea

Jiangsu

Yunnan Guangdong

Laos

North Korea Pyongyang

Shandong

Qinghai

Tibet

Liaoning

Beijing

Inner Mongolia

Gansu

Brunei

Indonesia

Japan Tokyo

INTRODUCTION

The Borders Prob­lem

Borders have been negotiated constructs since the first two p ­ eople ended a dispute by drawing a line. Looking across that line, or conquering so as to move it, ­people who theretofore may have been of the same or dif­ fer­ent ethnicities, nomadic or sedentary, agrarian or urban, prac­ti­tion­ers of the same, variant, or highly divergent religions have seen buildings, walled enclosures, cities, and terrain that ranged from almost identical to spectacularly dif­fer­ent from their own. This book focuses on four periods of approximately one to two centuries between the sixth and eigh­teenth centuries in East Asia when Chinese architecture crossed borders as often as did ­people.1 China’s borders changed at least nineteen times during the first nineteen CE centuries,2 so much so that the use of the word “China” is fraught with prob­lems.3 Yet no ­matter how far China extended at any time in any direction, its architecture extended farther. This statement is driven by physical evidence. The buildings shown as Figures i.1 through i.4 date between the eighth and eigh­teenth centuries. ­Today they are within the territory of China, K ­ orea, Japan, and Mongolia, respectively; only one site has ever been part of China. Out of context or as a unit, it is likely that only an architectural historian of East Asia would know that one is Daoist and known as a Daoist palace ­because it is based on the Chinese palatial tradition, and the o ­ thers are Buddhist. It is equally unlikely

i.1 Three Purities Hall, Yongle Daoist Monastery, Ruicheng, Shanxi, 1247–1262.

i.2 Kondō, Tōshōdaiji, Nara, 756.

i.3 Muryangjŏn Hall, Pusŏksa, Yŏngju, South ­Korea, 1376.

i.4 Bud­d ha Halls, Erdene Zuu, Khar­k horin, Mongolia, sixteenth c­ entury with l­ ater repairs.

i.5 Hall of ­Great Achievement, Confucian ­Temple, Beijing, Ming dynasty with ­later repairs.

i.6 Prayer Hall with roof covering mihrab ­behind it, North Mosque, Xuanhua, Hebei, Qing

period with ­later repairs.

i.7 Hall of Spiritual ­Favors, Changling, tomb of Yongle emperor, Changping, Beijing suburbs,

ca. 1424.

i.8 Residential and garden architecture, Hu Mansion, Nanjing, ca. 1876.

6

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

that anyone but an art historian of East Asia would know their dates. Adding four more buildings, we look at Confucian, Islamic, funerary, and garden architecture together with Buddhist and Daoist, dated from the eighth to nineteenth centuries (Figures i.1–­i.8). Figures i.5–­i.8 are all in China.4 The questions addressed ­here concern China and Chinese architecture as much as borders. Is it ­really pos­si­ble that so much Chinese architecture looks like so much other Chinese architecture, and that it appears so similar to so much architecture in ­Korea, Japan, and Mongolia for two thousand years? Or is this a superficial statement that one disproves by disassembling a building and studying its components individually? Disassembling does indicate distinctions, but not enough to ­counter the fact that wooden frames and replicas of them, and ceramic tile roofs and replicas of them, and bracket sets and replicas in several materials persist through the millennia. One can call the question why Chinese architecture changes so l­ittle over such a long period a field-­defining question, for only when one accepts that sameness exists for so long can she begin to answer it.

SA MENE SS A ND T R A NSL AT ION

The visual sameness is deeply rooted: it is much more than just the use of supporting pillars and a ceramic tile roof whose eaves turn upward. The notched timbers excavated at the Neolithic site Hemudu, about 200 kilo­meters south of Shanghai in Zhejiang province, confirm the use of wood joinery without metals or abrasives in ca. 5000 BCE. Notching is specific: a small rectangular prism emerges from the end of the main timber so that it can be tenoned into the groove of another piece of wood. The thirty-­four-­chapter, twelfth-­century CE, court-­issued building manual Building Standards (Yingzao fashi), the oldest complete treatise of its kind, illustrates three kinds of notches, the top and m ­ iddle ones beveled, and the third a kind not in evidence at Hemudu. In the twenty-­ first ­century, timbers with the notches used at Hemudu are made for repairs at the Forbidden City (Figures i.9–­i.11). Is this sameness? An evolutionary biologist would say yes. Recent studies of homology, the state

Introduction

7

i.9 Notched timbers excavated

at Hemudu, Zhejiang, ca. fifth millennium BCE.

i.10 Three kinds of notching. i.11 Repair work at Forbidden City, Beijing, 2015.

of having the same or similar structures, and homoplasy, a shared characteristic, assume evolution, and in the resolution, find convergence.5 Phi­los­o­phers, it seems, beginning with Aristotle, also would agree that sameness can be concluded in the three examples of Chinese wood joinery. Posing the question of material sameness according to Aristotle, Michael Rea writes: “The prob­lem of material constitution arises whenever it appears that an object a and an object b share all of the same parts and yet are essentially related to their parts in dif­fer­ent ways.” He argues that Aristotle views them as the same.6 Two examples of bracket sets, the clusters of blocks and arms that interlock on top of pillars to support the undersides of eaves, are evidence of Aristotle’s understanding of the sameness of material constitution. Figure i.12 shows that blocks and arms may be parallel to and perpendicular to the building plane, and other pieces may proj­ect from the front

8

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

i.12 Example of bracket sets in twelfth ­century.

i.13 Example of bracket set in

eigh­teenth c­ entury.

of the set. Figure i.13 shows that six hundred years l­ ater, blocks and arms are in the same positions, and only one new piece, a brace beneath the architrave known as a sparrow brace, has been added. Through more than a thousand years, the thickness of pillars may change, but their function as the primary support of a structure does not. The distances between roof purlins and the order in which they are joined to the rest of the frame may change, but the main roof ridge, purlins, and raf­ters are tenoned, without abrasives or metal, and the roof is covered with

Introduction

9

ceramic tiles, all for more than a millennium. This is the initial context in which the statement that so many Chinese buildings look like so many ­others is made and in which the criteria for sameness are assessed. ­Going further, the timber frame of an eighth-­century building, a building whose frame type is described in the twelfth-­century Building Standards, one described in Construction Regulations of the Board of Works (Gongbu gongcheng zuofa), hereafter Construction Regulations, issued in 1734, and any building erected in the intervening centuries comprises three interlocking wooden layers: pillars, bracket sets, and roof.7 Brick, stone, and ceramic replicas of buildings such as sarcophaguses and miniature pottery structures, as well as cave-­temple facades and interiors, suggest that around the seventh c­ entury the wooden frame becomes the sole support of a building, and around the eleventh c­ entury a change from a lengthwise to a crosswise support framework occurs. Still, the fundamental components of a lengthwise or crosswise section do not change.8 Th ­ ere is no question builders sought to add endurance to the frame, especially to counteract earthquakes. Yet in striving to accomplish this, they did not alter the basic building components; they manipulated the same ones. The variations of pillar placement are documented in Building Standards. Eigh­teen structures of two to six columns in a crosswise framework, the beams above them, and the use of as few as four and as many as ten roof raf­t ers, are specified and illustrated.9 Configurations with pillars, beams, raf­ters, and bracket sets are the only options. The manipulative quality of the post-­and-­lintel system yields a similar flexibility of ground plan. This adaptability also is described and illustrated in Building Standards, and like the components of a bracket set, all four plans prescribed and illustrated in the text are still in use in the eigh­teenth ­century (Figure i.14). The possibilities for pillar placement shown in Figure i.14 all employ the three wooden networks—­pillar layer, bracket set layer, and roof frame—­and each easily transfers to a multistory building. A pavilion with two complete stories and a mezzanine level, for example, from bottom to top is constructed as: pillar network, bracket set network, mezzanine level made of shorter pillars (or posts) and struts, mezzanine bracket set network, upper pillar network, upper bracket set network, and fi­nally the roof frame network (Figure i.15). The

i.1 4 Four variations of pillar arrangement. i.15 Structural framework of a building with

two stories and a mezzanine level.

Introduction

11

same construction princi­ple is used in taller timber-­f rame pagodas, the most complicated one extant having five a­ ctual stories and four mezzanines. According to the definition of an evolutionary biologist or a phi­los­o­pher studying Aristotle, the pavilion and pagoda exhibit sameness. The aspect of sameness of the Chinese building system that can be called the adaptability of function of a wooden frame further sets it apart from other building traditions with features that repeat over long histories. For example, the Hall of Supreme Harmony in the Forbidden City, inside which an emperor ascends the throne, is eleven-­bays-­by-­five, or twelve pillars across the front and six pillars along each side, the corner pillars double-­counted (Figure i.16). The other buildings in the history of Chinese architecture with eleven or thirteen bays across the front are pre­de­ces­sors to Beijing’s supreme hall: the G ­ reat Ultimate Hall (Taijidian) of dynasties such as Northern Wei (386–534) and Tang (618–907) in the imperial capital, both no longer extant, buildings an emperor entered, such as the Hall of Spiritual F ­ avors where imperial funerary sacrifices are performed (Figure i.7), and the Hall for Worship of the Ancestors at the Ancestral ­Temple complex in Beijing are examples. The most impor­tant Buddhist image halls at China’s most eminent monasteries have only two fewer bays across the front for a total of nine. Examples are at Fengguo Monastery in Yi county, Liaoning, a structure built in 1020, and at Huayan Monastery in Datong, Shanxi, built in 1140. Except for the number of bays across the front, an imperial hall of audience or ancestral ­temple is hard to distinguish from a monastery’s major Bud­d ha hall, b ­ ecause their pillars support the same kind of bracket sets and they are capped by the same kind of roof. A palace can become a t­ emple, or a t­ emple a palace by the substitution of an image on an altar for a throne on a podium, yet the placement of pillars and support system that interlocks them, as well as the roof type, remain the same. The system whereby a building is ranked, from highest, ­here called eminent, to lowest, h ­ ere called ­humble, is described in detail in Building Standards and is evident in Chinese architecture throughout the premodern period. Rank is identified by features such as a multi-­tier marble platform as opposed to a brick slab foundation, the number of bays in

12

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

i.16 Infrastructural drawing of Hall of Supreme Harmony, Forbidden City, Beijing.

e­ ither direction, and a hipped, as opposed to hip-­gable or overhanging-­ eaves roof. Figures i.17 and i.18 are eminent and ­humble structures, respectively, from the same province, built within fifty years of each other: the differences, including hipped as opposed to hip-­gable roof, use of bracket sets as opposed to braces between columns along the front façade, and use or lack of an approach platform, are due to status, not date. This ranking system in which all the same pieces are used—­pillars, bracket set components, beams, braces, and purlins—­means that the most impor­tant building in the Forbidden City and the humblest dwelling in China are supported by pillars and beams. In the case of China’s most eminent, imperial construction, evidence of wealth and grandeur is in the form of decorative material, such as gold, silver, lacquer, or mother-­of-­pearl, that overlays the wooden frame. The choice of expensive decoration rather than more costly support material, such as stone for pillars, raises another perennial question about Chinese architecture: Why did China never abandon perishable wood for more permanent materials? Chinese builders knew how to construct in brick and stone in the last millennium BCE. The walls of

Introduction

13

top: i.17 Three Sacred Ones (Sansheng) Hall, Shanhua Monastery, Datong, Shanxi, 1128–1143. bottom: i.18 Shakyamuni Hall, Qinglian Monastery, Jincheng, Shanxi, 1089.

under­ground tombs, built for all eternity, w ­ ere made of t­ hese materials. In the first and second CE centuries, on small scale, ceramic burial goods in the shapes of fantastic structures such as towers as well as buildings associated with daily life such as granaries and pig pens ­were made for tombs. In the next several centuries, stone and brick handheld pagodas for private worship w ­ ere manufactured. Concerning wood, even though

14

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

deterioration was assumed, the ease of replacement of parts, the con­ve­ nience of adding or removing bays of rooms inside and outside a structure, and the consequent adaptability of interior space and function not only distinguish the Chinese building tradition from many o ­ thers, they are features that make it exportable. The Classical tradition of ancient Greece as represented by the Parthenon also is recognizable and was exported. And as we s­ hall see similarly with China, the ancient Greek ­temple also is intentionally imitated and referenced in l­ ater architecture.10 It was copied by ancient Rome and across Rome’s provinces, inspired and referenced in Italian Re­nais­sance architecture, copied in Neo-­Classical architecture, and sought as a reference to Classical Antiquity in the Beaux-­Arts tradition that was carried across Eu­rope, to Eu­ro­pean colonies, Rus­sia, North Amer­i­ca, and, in the twentieth c­ entury, to China. The availability, cost of acquisition, and transport of stone ­were not ­factors when non-­timber construction was desired. Another aspect of Chinese architecture that distinguishes it from so many building traditions is that it was accomplished by anonymous craftsmen. In the early twentieth ­century, coincident with the entry of the profession of architect, widespread use of permanent materials commenced in China.11 Through the nineteenth ­century, court officials, counter­parts to ­those who produced manuals like Building Standards or Construction Regulations, still directed the imperial tradition, and other construction was accomplished by master craftsmen who oversaw builders and artisans such as woodworkers, brick carvers, and muralists. Both groups used age-­old guidelines; ­those who gave directives ­were not necessarily designers. The twentieth-­century word for architect was the same as the word that had been introduced into modern Japanese—­ literally, one who does architecture (jianzhushe or jianzhuzhe; Jap: kenchikusha). In nineteenth-­century China, and in Japan before the arrival of Commodore Perry in 1868 and resulting modernization movements, building was accomplished primarily by anonymous craftsman, known in Chinese as jiangren, a word used in texts in the first millennium BCE. In addition to patrons, many of them royal, the few names associated with buildings through the long history of China ­were court officials such as Li Jie (1035–1110), a member of the Board of Works ­under whose

Introduction

15

guidance Building Standards was compiled.12 A tenth-­century official named Yu Hao wrote an ­earlier treatise named Wood Classic (Mujing) from which a few fragments survive. Names of officials of the Sui and Tang (589–907) courts are associated with the plans of the two primary capitals of t­ hose dynasties and construction of the first open spandrel bridge in ca. 600.13 A Chinese official guided construction in two of Khubilai Khan’s capitals, and l­ater, a religious leader from Nepal who was appointed an official supervised construction of at least one religious monument.14 If China had a Parthenon, perhaps it is a no longer extant, late first-­millennium BCE pre­de­ces­sor to the Forbidden City; but China has no Phideas. Although literacy was not required of a builder or craftsman, Chinese wood joinery necessitated more than putting notches into grooves. The mea­sure­ments of components of ­every wooden building are generated by a module. Through this module, which in the twelfth ­century, according to Building Standards, was the cross-­section of a bracket arm or joist, the mea­sure­ment of almost ­every other wooden piece, and the positions of many of them, could be generated. It was a proportionate mea­sure­ment, not an absolute length or width. The Chinese word cai translates as module. Cai ­were divided into fifteen subunits known as fen. Ideally, the height of the cai mea­sured fifteen fen and the width of the cai mea­sured ten fen. The cai-­fen system promulgated in Building Standards has eight grades, which inform the eminence of a building. The first to third grades are used in large-­scale architecture, the fourth to sixth grades in middle-­scale architecture, and the seventh and eighth grades for small buildings. Once the cai is known, other mea­sure­ments, such as the distance between bracket sets across the front façade of a building and the width of bays, could be calculated, and roof types appropriate to that rank could be installed. Although someone standing in front of a Chinese building any time between the seventh and eigh­ teenth centuries knew at first view w ­ hether a building was eminent or ­humble, like the reader ­today, the observer saw a ­grand hall or a ­humble hall, but did not know if it was for the Bud­dha or Confucius or Muslim worship or secular. He would know its purpose only upon reading an inscription or entering where deities or lack of them would identify its affiliation. In ­Korea and Japan, for periods from which enough survives

16

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

for wooden components to be mea­sured, it has been proved that the Chinese modular system was employed.15 One familiar with Chinese art might ask at this point ­whether Chinese architecture follows a more general pattern in the arts, one observed in painting, for Chinese court paint­ers learned to paint by copying masterpieces of former times that ­were available to them in the imperial collection. In the thirteenth c­ entury, a painter wrote that capturing the spirit of antiquity was the most impor­tant aspect of painting.16 In the seventeenth and eigh­teenth centuries, paint­ers attempted to follow orthodoxy by painting in the style or spirit of ­earlier paintings.17 Chinese painting is profoundly dif­fer­ent from Chinese architecture in two ways. First, Chinese painting’s multimillennial history includes a continuous history of paint­ers with known biographies and painting titles from the fourth c­ entury onward, and the extensive lit­er­a­ture about painting includes treatises about the meaning and purpose of the art and its relation to the ­human spirit.18 Paint­ers of some early works remain anonymous, but only mural paint­ers ­were anonymous craftsmen, and a few of their names are known.19 In the seventeenth ­century, even as the school of orthodoxy was being formed, con­temporary paint­ers known as individualists challenged it.20 In other words, the role of painter as creator and definer of a style existed in China, if not in the fourth c­ entury when painting, like architecture, was promulgated at the court, certainly long before the nineteenth. Second, aside from paintings on walls or ceramic tile or wood or bronze, paintings on silk or paper, which are the vast majority, can be rolled up, put aside, stored, or archived. A building, w ­ hether for an emperor or the humblest subject, imperial, private, public, or religious, requires planning and a ­labor force, and often is the most expensive endeavor of a ­family or reign. It is assumed that a building w ­ ill be seen long a­ fter its patrons have passed away. And it is assumed that as long as it stands, it ­will alter the landscape and determine l­ater construction around it. Still, for a painting copied with an ­earlier version in front of it, or for a Chinese building from any premodern ­century, some pro­cess occurs that renders it impossible for two works by h ­ uman hands to be identical. Even with the ­earlier version or construction diagram or model in front of the painter or builder, a pro­cess that can be likened to translation is

Introduction

17

inevitable. Seeking to determine if builders or o ­ thers in premodern China contemplated how or why architecture did or did not change, one searches for an equivalent of Aristotle’s exploration of sameness in Classical China. How would one have described the similarities in the emperor’s palace and ancestral ­temple in the first millennium BCE? Classical Chinese offers the words tóng 同 and tǒng 統, the first suggesting an identity, or one in the same, and the second a kind of universal unity; but like the word “architect,” the concept of sameness is better expressed in the modern language. Yīyàng 一樣 means literally one style or one and the same style. More eloquent ways of capturing the essence of sameness exist, such as qiānpiānyīlǜ 千篇一律, which can translate as myriad (bundled) bamboo strips, one rule. When the second character, piān, which can mean a tablet on which something is written, is generalized and the translation becomes, among myriad possibilities, only one right way, one understands much that is implicit in the Chinese building system. ­There exists orthodoxy, an archetype, that dominates even when details differ. Tóng, tǒng, yīyàng, and qiānpiānyīlǜ underscore another aspect of the borders prob­lem. Once a pedigree example or a template exists, subsequent examples, particularly in a dif­fer­ent place or from a period dif­ fer­ent from the origin, require translation. In 1923, Walter Benjamin’s introduction to his edited version of Charles Baudelaire’s Les fleurs de mal, which he titled “The Task of the Translator,” focused readers’ attention so profoundly on the translation pro­cess that it has been argued that his essay opened the field of translation studies.21 Half a ­century ­later, George Steiner’s ­After Babel, first published in 1975, challenged the reader to ask w ­ hether any communication, even in the same language, is not translation.22 Not long afterward, similar questions ­were asked by architectural historians, both about architects and about their buildings Defining the prob­lem in 2018, Karen Koehler and Jeffrey Saletnik write: “Architecture and / as translation . . . ​implies a kind of transformative action that takes place over time as some kind of original something is translated, or transubstantiated, into something ­else. In the act of translation, meaning hovers somewhere in between the structure and its repre­sen­ta­tion, as it leaves the first instance and accumulates into something dif­fer­ent. . . . ​Translation is time-­based, yet also dialogic;

18

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

architectural meaning migrates.”23 Esra Akcan’s Architecture in Translation does not shirk the global component. Her essay in the collection on the global in architectural translation is a coda to this book in which she explains the pro­cess of modern Eu­ro­pean architecture becoming twentieth-­century residential architecture in Turkey.24 The pro­cess occurs across disciplines and in the arts, including performing arts. Derrida addressed this, as have many o ­ thers.25 Refocusing on China, in a recent essay “On Translation,” Perry Link asks if any translation, other than a mirror image, even if useful, can ever be accurate.26 For Chinese architecture, perception weighs heavi­ly on implicit understanding. Even if builders did not contemplate how closely eighteenth-­ century imperial palaces or tombs followed ­those of the twelfth ­century, which w ­ ere not available for them to see, they believed they ­were constructing as had their ancestors. “Mimesis” is an even more challenging word to translate into Chinese than “sameness.” Sometimes nǐtài 擬 態, an intentional or deliberate resemblance or imitation, is used.27 Like sameness, mimesis was explored by Aristotle. According to Stavros Tsi­ tsiridis, Aristotle believed that painting was a means of accomplishing mimesis.28 And like sameness, mimicry, a natu­ral offshoot of mimesis, has clear meaning in the biological sciences.29 If the ancient Greeks thought that even nature could be copied in a painting, and if biological mimicry allows for the natu­ral pro­cess of evolution ­because “a certain organism (may have) a prob­lem in making correct interpretations in regard to the objects in its environment, within the limits of its perceptual sphere,” and even if mimesis may have been on the minds of Chinese paint­ers who saw an original and made their best attempt to copy or imitate it in the ambiance of a Chinese court studio, ­these concepts prob­ably ­were not part of the thought pro­cess of Chinese builders. Builders ­were hired at set wages, also prescribed in Building Standards, to cut pieces according to set mea­sure­ments and proportions, and then join them into frames. A ­ fter the framing, another set of builders took over to assem­ble and attach the roof tiles, and yet ­others filled in walls or carved and added stone components. However one tries to explain it, the physical rec­ord of Chinese architecture is a multimillennial history of buildings that are remarkably sim-

Introduction

19

ilar, made largely of perishable materials, and built by craftsmen. This historicity should be emphasized. China’s history is recorded in court annals since the first millennium BCE, and in national and local histories, all of which name countless buildings, many which still stand or whose remains have been excavated. ­These rec­ords render Chinese buildings aty­pi­cal of a tradition labeled “architecture without architects.”30 The intentional imitation of the past was carefully construed and nurtured by highly literate patrons. The phenomenon extended far beyond the individual building. Sameness, Inside and on Larger Scale

In China, age-­old building components of a timber frame ­were imitated on the walls of under­ground tombs and of ­temples carved into caves. The practice is known as fangmugou (imitation of the timber frame). In a fangmugou environment, ele­ments of the timber frame—­such as columns, beams, bracket sets, and roof types—­are carved, molded, or painted on a stone, brick, or white-­washed surface (Figures i.19 and i.20).31 The Forbidden City in Beijing is an excellent example through which to observe both prescriptive and repetitive features on much larger scale. The defining feature of Chinese space is the courtyard. Since the second millennium BCE, buildings ­were positioned on the sides of ­these quadrilateral enclosures or centrally positioned in them.32 The princi­ple of four-­sided enclosure (siheyuan) is the dominant planning device in the Beijing imperial city (Figure i.21). Its use is so ubiquitous in Chinese planned space that when only three sides are constructed, the fourth is implied. That side may be marked by a small building such as a gate, in which case the formation is known as three-­sided enclosure (sanheyuan). Courtyards are added modularly, just like bays of buildings. The enclosure affords privacy, and it differentiates more impor­tant or more sacred interior space from more profane activity outside it: the innermost enclosure is the most sacred. The enclosing device may be a wall, but often it is a covered arcade. The arcades serve a practical function in certain weather conditions of permitting movement from one part of a building complex to another without getting wet or receiving direct

20

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

top: i.19 Interior of tomb 1, Digengpo, Gansu, third to fourth ­century. bottom: i.20 Interior of cave 9, Yungang, Shanxi, 470s.

exposure to sunlight. Walled enclosures are in evidence in China since the seventh millennium BCE, although the shapes of China’s earliest walled cities ­were not always quadrilateral.33 Other features of Chinese space that evidence sameness ­because they endure through millennia are the placement of buildings along straight lines. Usually the lines, or axes, run north–­south, with buildings facing

Introduction

21

i.21 Forbidden City, Beijing.

south. Axes parallel to the main one are the locations of less impor­tant buildings. Perpendicular axes are pos­si­ble. One building dominates ­every courtyard or group, but no building stands in isolation. The dominant building is almost always the largest in area. It may be at the front or back of its complex. ­Every complex, like ­every walled enclosure, has a gate in front and usually at the back. Gates are psychological as much as physical markers that the spaces ­behind them are more significant or sanctified than the profane world in front; the concept is similar to that of the courtyard and what lies outside it. Fi­nally, Chinese buildings are low. In an architectural environment in which spatial magnitude requires land, more low buildings signify greater wealth than a multilevel structure. In fact, tall buildings are con­spic­u­ous on the Chinese landscape. A necessary tall building, such as a pagoda, may attempt to merge into the Chinese architectural system by its timber-­frame or imitation timber-­ frame exterior (fangmugou) and ceramic-­tile or imitation ceramic-­ tile roofs on each level, but a pagoda still often proj­ects uncomfortably beyond the lower building environment that defines Chinese space. China’s most impor­tant buildings, such as the Hall of Spiritual F ­ avors

22

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

(Figure i.7) and Hall of Supreme Harmony in the Forbidden City, have two sets of roof eaves, but both buildings are only one story. Two formations dominate China’s most impor­tant enclosed spaces. As seen along the main axis of the Forbidden City, two buildings often are joined by a narrow arcade or have a smaller building equidistant between them. The shape is a capital-­I, known in Chinese as gong plan ­after the character that takes this shape (工). This formation is confirmed by excavated evidence from the end of the second millennium BCE.34 The second is a U-­shaped formation of buildings whose corners are formed by segments joined at 90-­degree ­angles, not curved like the letter U. The U-­shaped complex may border a courtyard, and the I-­shaped formation may be inside the courtyard. So much repetition in individual structures and complexes of courtyards may suggest that Chinese architecture is an underachiever in a civilization that has left written rec­ords since the mid-­second millennium BCE, employs more than 47,000 characters to compose documents, produced paper in the second c­ entury CE and silk before then, divided its urban and agrarian population into government-­controlled, tax-­paying units since the last BCE centuries, produced moral and ­legal codes even ­earlier, built city walls in the seventh millennia BCE, and designed gardens in the first millennium BCE, and whose painting, sculpture, and ceramics changed, can be dated, and often are associated with paint­ers, workshops, kiln sites, or geographic regions through several millennia. If Chinese arts except for architecture changed significantly over time, and the Chinese court articulated a vision of how to successfully form and maintain an imperial government that was debated and refined through two millennia of history, the adherence to an ancient building system through to the nineteenth c­ entury must have an explanation.

T H E J A P A ­N E S E P A R A D I G M

Many of the features of Chinese buildings and spatial units also existed in Japan; they have been recognized for a long time. Sir Banister Fletcher’s famous frontispiece in the 1896 edition of his History of Architecture on

Introduction

23

the Comparative Method, a work that aspired to be a comprehensive, global architectural history, divides architecture of the world into twenty-­ four groups, each represented along a tree trunk or hanging from its branches. Twenty-­three of the tree leaves represent a single tradition. The last leaf, hanging at the level of individually leaved Peru, Egypt, and Assyria, merges two traditions, China and Japan.35 ­There is a documented history of transmission of much more than architecture and other arts from China to Japan.36 Between 607 and 894, twenty-­one official embassies crossed the sea from Japan to China.37 Some of t­ hese missions included monks who would transmit Buddhist doctrines.38 The Japa­nese monk Ennin, mentioned in the preface, was one of them. The missions disembarked in southern Chinese ports such as Mingzhou, t­ oday Ningbo in Zhejiang province, or on the Shandong peninsula, and traveled from t­ here inland to the Chinese capital. In 735 the Japa­nese emissary Kibi Makibi is said to have brought histories of the Tang dynasty back to Japan. The Chinese monk Jianzhen (688–753) was brought to Japan to supervise the construction of a Bud­dha hall at the Nara monastery Tōshōdaiji in the 750s.39 The Japa­nese monk Kūkai (774–835) was part of a government-­sponsored embassy to China, where he studied in a Buddhist monastery in Chang’an in 804–805; he subsequently returned to Japan with the form of Buddhism known as Zhenyan (Jap: Shingon), whose doctrine he preached and for which he directed monastery construction.40 Saichō (767–822) was in Chang’an at the same time, and brought Tiantai (Jap. Tendai) Buddhism to Japan.41 The official embassies and monks who saw China’s architecture and brought it to Japan are only one piece of evidence that brings attention to architecture in Japan in order to understand more about construction in China in the seventh and eighth centuries. The second reason one turns to Japan to study China’s early architecture is that the twenty­two oldest wooden buildings in East Asia are in Japan. The twenty-­ third oldest is the main worship hall at Nanchan Monastery on Mount Wutai in China, dated 782. Researchers have looked to Japan to fill in the missing histories of both China’s and K ­ orea’s oldest architecture for more than a c­ entury. Twenty-­one of Japan’s oldest buildings are Buddhist; one is a residential-­style building on the grounds of a Buddhist monastery.42

24

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

The approximately 1400-­year history of Japa­nese architecture from the seventh into the twenty-­first c­ entury is more nuanced than China’s.43 Before Buddhism came to Japan, in the year 538, the prevailing ideology was Shinto, an imperial tradition with its own, unique forms of wooden architecture that are indigenous to Japan and continue ­today.44 China, too, had architecture for rituals and rites of the pre-­Buddhist age. Buildings in which they occurred, however, had timber frames that may have supported roofs of natu­ral materials but could have been used to support ceramic-­tile roofs. From the beginning, Chinese architecture was a singular wooden system into which a roof of ceramic tile or of natu­ral materials could be absorbed. It was a single Chinese tradition that was brought to Japan beginning in the sixth ­century: in the seventh ­century, Shinto shrines ­were sometimes constructed alongside Buddhist architecture, which still occurs t­ oday. Yet also in the seventh c­ entury, Shinto buildings with the identifiable features of directly implanted pillars, forked finials, and ridge billets w ­ ere positioned in enclosed courtyards with gates in front and major buildings along axial lines. Chinese ground plans absorbed Shinto architecture in the way the Chinese plan of palatial, Buddhist, or funerary space would incorporate minarets and Tibetan-­style pagodas, discussed in Chapters 8 and 9.45 Chinese architecture was built in what are t­ oday ­Korea and Mongolia ­earlier than in Japan, and for dif­fer­ent reasons. Th ­ ere ­were no official periods “of g­ reat exchange” when missions came to China intent on learning and borrowing models of civilization. Nor do old wooden buildings survive in t­ hose countries. Instead, north of the area along the line we think of as The ­Great Wall and northeast into North ­Korea, Han (206 BCE–220 CE) and l­ater dynasties built garrison towns. We s­ hall not debate h ­ ere w ­ hether ­these ­were colonies in the modern sense, but it is a fact that Han constructed walled cities in ­today’s southern Mongolia and North K ­ orea, and elite members of Han society who died in t­ hose places built tombs that could have been built in China; they are discussed in Chapter 2. Chinese walled settlements and architecture often stood in ­t hese commanderies a­ fter China had lost power. Craftsmen who had built government offices and residences and tombs, and their descendants, often remained a­ fter power changed hands. Chinese-­style construction was available for anyone in the former garrisons to see, and

Introduction

25

craftsmen could be commissioned to build in ­those modes. Japan’s adoption or adaptation of Chinese architecture, by contrast, was never the result of Chinese imperial expansion; it was always intentional. We s­ hall see that in ­later times, ­Korea’s and Mongolia’s construction of Chinese architecture could be intentional, often b ­ ecause the same forms of Buddhism ­were practiced. In the twentieth ­century, the Japa­nese became colonizers of continental East Asia. Colonization would extend into ­today’s Rus­sia, ­Korea, Mongolia, and northeastern China. The po­liti­cal impact, as it related to architecture, included access to Chinese sites. Following the Russo-­ Japanese War in 1904–1905, Japa­nese excavation teams had access to parts of Heilongjiang province that border Rus­sia, parts of North K ­ orea, and the eastern part of ­today’s Inner Mongolia. Although the official Japa­nese invasion, occupation of Manchuria, and Japa­nese puppet state of Manchukuo did not occur ­until 1931, Japa­nese archaeologists and historians excavated, studied, and published remains across ­these regions during the two de­cades leading up to that year; publication would continue for several more de­cades. Often t­ hese w ­ ere the initial modern studies of remains of China’s Han, Sixteen States (304–439), Northern Wei (386–534), Liao (916–1125), Jin (1126–1234), Yuan (1267–1368), and Qing (1644–1912) architecture, K ­ orea’s Koguryŏ (37 BCE—­CE 668) and Parhae (698–926) architecture, and Rus­sia’s Parhae architecture. ­Because of the po­liti­cal circumstances ­under which excavation and exploration had occurred, Chinese research groups sometimes did not acquire the reports and other times ­were hesitant to trust them. Further, some of Japan’s writing of architectural history during the first half of the twentieth ­century, especially on the subject of Buddhist architecture and art, can be interpreted as diffusionist—­a po­liti­cally motivated aspect of Japa­ nese imperialist ambitions ­under the framework of a Greater East Asia Co-­Prosperity Sphere whereby the history of Japa­nese Buddhist art and architecture could be written following Eu­ro­pean models such as Banister Fletcher’s Tree of Architecture, so as to see architecture emerging from one source, China and occasionally India, degenerating en route to provincial locations, but ultimately finding its way to Japan, where Buddhist art and architecture w ­ ere the perfected resolution of centuries of development from India and across Central Asia and

26

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

China.46 Japa­nese archaeologists who found evidence of the origins of Japan’s art traditions in occupied ­Korea and China fueled the validity of this notion. As for Buddhist art and architecture, Japan’s ultimate achievements in an aesthetic that began in China and culminated in the period known as Fujiwara (897–1185) was an ideal fit for a scenario whereby Japan not only was the caretaker of what China had not been able to preserve, but the final destination and pinnacle of East Asian civilization and the repository of more glorious artistic achievements than China had been able to accomplish, or that, at least, could not be confirmed ­because examples did not survive on the continent. In other words, in the early and mid-twentieth century, Japanese architectural historians recognized the long presence of Chinese architecture in Japan and interpreted that presence for political justification.47

A CHINE SE N A RR AT IVE

Japa­nese excavation reports and histories of buildings in Manchuria ­were the initial ones in large part ­because China and K ­ orea had not yet conducted their own surveys. Eu­rope was more deeply committed to exploration west of China, in the area known as Central Asia that included the intriguing Silk Roads that might confirm connections with ancient Rome.48 The birth of Chinese architectural history in China came l­ ater. In many ways it is a field of modern discourse born in direct response to po­liti­cal realities. Chinese architectural historians view the First Opium War (1839–1842) as the beginning of modern Chinese architecture. Before then, as we have mentioned, architects and the concept of architectural design did not exist. Archaeology was illegal. The First Opium War resulted in the cession of Hong Kong Island, an indemnity to Britain, and the opening of Canton (Guangzhou), Amoy (Xiamen), Foochow (Fuzhou), Ningbo, and Shanghai as treaty ports.49 The Second Opium War (1856–1860), fought against ­England and France, led to the burning of the famous European-­designed imperial garden Yuanmingyuan in 1860, cession of Kowloon to Britain, and British, French, and Rus­sian embassies in Beijing.50 Through most of this period,

Introduction

27

the Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864), maintained by Christian reformers centered in Nanjing, was raging.51 1895 and 1904–1905 ­were years of Sino-­ Japanese wars. 1900 brought the Boxer Rebellion aimed at eight foreign powers.52 By this time the Chinese and Rus­sians ­were massacring each other at the border near the Amur River. The de­cades of “unequal treaties” and mistrust of Western ideas had forced on China a realization that it had to reckon with Westernization, including the education offered outside China. The first Chinese architects and archaeologists w ­ ere trained in t­ hose professions abroad. In 1905, five schools of specialized higher education in Japan, in fields that included architecture and engineering, had opened to Chinese students. In the 1910s, Chinese students of architecture ­were studying their own national building history from Japa­nese professors who had done fieldwork in Manchuria.53 It would be several de­cades u ­ ntil this work merged with Chinese research into a Chinese narrative of Chinese architecture. The majority of China’s first architects, approximately twenty-­five, studied in the United States. They came on Boxer Indemnity Scholarships, a program established in 1909 that required China to use a percentage of reparations owed to the United States following the Boxer Rebellion to pay for the education of Chinese students in the States. It funded preparatory training in China, transportation to the United States, and study for advanced degrees. Most of the architects returned home to establish university programs in design, set up practices that built modern buildings, and initiate restoration and historic preservation. This First Generation, as they are known in China, also produced China’s first histories of Chinese architecture based on buildings rather than texts.54 Chinese architecture changed coincident with po­liti­cal upheaval and turmoil, in the half-­century when the Qing dynasty fell, Republic r­ ose and fell, ­People’s Republic ­rose, and China fought Japan while the rest of the world fought one another. K ­ orea would then fight its own war, Rus­sia would occupy the northern half of Mongolia, and by the mid-­ twentieth ­century K ­ orea also would be divided. Chinese timber-­frame architecture survived millennia of po­liti­cal turmoil across East Asia, including that of the last ­century. Buildings across ­these contested lands are the subject of this book.

••• 1

CHINESE ARCHITECTURE BEFORE CHINA

In 221 BCE, the man known as the First Emperor (Shi Huangdi [First August Thearch]) (259–210 BCE) conquered the last of seven states, thereupon founding the Qin dynasty. The dynasty endured only fifteen years, but thenceforth China’s history was a history of dynasties, many of them large and of long duration, against and alongside which smaller dynasties, kingdoms, and states vied for power. In his short reign, the First Emperor promulgated a single script, standard weights and mea­ sures, a national postal system, and the aspiration of a G ­ reat Wall that would define China’s northern border, if not protect China from northern invasions. This perceived boundary, never in fact completed as a walled barrier between China and her enemies to the north, was as power­ful a symbol as any one might conceive of an understanding that China was a separate and definable entity from all that lie beyond it. The Wall is a supreme expression of ­human construction in China; if it has an equal, it is the Forbidden City in Beijing. The First Emperor did not officially unify a building system, but he did look to the past in palace construction. Each time he conquered one of the states on his path to empire, he had a replica of its palace built in the expansive territory of his capital city. To him this act may have simply symbolized conquest, but like so much that he did, it was precedent-­ setting for China’s subsequent imperial history. A new conqueror

Chinese Architecture before China

29

Liaoyang Niuheliang Juyongguan

Helinge’er

Yingchengzi Xiadu

Milanhao Fenghuangshan

Wangdu Galatu Shimao

Pingshan

Mancheng Anping Linzi

Jingbian

Taosi Xintian Anyi Xunyi Erlitou

Handan

Chengziya

Anyang Zhengzhou

Anqiu

Yinan Cangshan Xuzhou Mangdangshan

Xinzheng Xianyang Luoyang Zhouyuan Banpo Pingliangtai Wuyang Chang’an Dadiwan Suixian Baoshan

Panlongcheng

Yuhang Hemudu

Ya’an

Lixian

Mawangdui

Chong’an

Guangzhou

m ap 2 Sites mentioned through the second c­ entury CE.

enhanced his power as a ruler of China by appropriating for himself symbols, including architecture, of the conquered. Although attempts have been made, based on written rec­ords and excavation, to reconstruct the palaces and other architecture of Qin, the verifiable rec­ord is primarily pieces of bronze used to join and reinforce wooden building parts and ceramic tile decoration. The wooden notched timbers shown in Figure i.9 are extremely rare pieces of timber-­frame architecture that survive from before the first millennium CE. The physical evidence of cities in China is ­earlier than the evidence of individual buildings, for city walls ­were constructed of rammed earth. Group settlements predate the formation or construction of cities. Walled settlements whose inhabitants used stone implements and buried their dead in cemeteries date to the sixth millennium BCE. An example is in Li county, Hunan province, on the Yangzi River.1 A more complex settlement, but without walls, remains in Wuyang county of Henan province in north central China.2 In Dadiwan in Gansu, a rectangular

30

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

space oriented 30 degrees northeast has a circular fire pit for cooking, with symmetrically positioned rooms on three sides, suggesting the beginnings of courtyard-­style construction. One building foundation, dated to the fifth millennium BCE, has two large pillars supported by pilasters in the central area, right and left b ­ ehind the fire pit with an entry­way or porch in front.3 By the fourth millennium BCE, Banpo, just east of Xi’an, had residential buildings of at least three sizes, three cemeteries, a pottery workshop, and animal pens.4 Pingliangtai, in Huaiyang, Henan province, is the earliest evidence of a squarish city.5 Pingliangtai also had a prominent entry at the center of its southern wall and was approached from the south by an ave­nue that continued northward to divide the city into eastern and western sections. By the third millennium BCE, cities across China served populations that spread as many as 90 kilo­meters in more than one direction from the center. Taosi in Xiangfen, southern Shanxi, is an example.6 Taosi, Banpo of the previous millennium, and Hemudu a millennium ­earlier, all had a “­great ­house” (dafangzi), a structure significantly larger than ­others in the same settlement that is understood as a palatial or ceremonial center. The walled city at Chengziya(i) in Shandong province was one of the earliest known when it was discovered in the 1920s. It is dated ca. 2600 BCE.7 Shimao, on the Yellow River in Shaanxi near t­ oday’s border with Inner Mongolia, dated ca. 2000–1700 BCE, the largest walled city up to its time, has the earliest evidence of stone, as opposed to mud-­earth, walling.8 Oriented roughly southward, Shimao also has the earliest evidence of defensive projections from the city wall, a feature ­later known as mamian, literally “horse ­faces.” Niuheliang, in Liaoning province in northeastern China, dated ca. 4700–2900 BCE, is characterized by stone platforms, stone mounds, and carved jade.9 Several thousand kilo­meters to the south in Yuhang district of Hangzhou, a ceremonial altar within a walled and gated area is dated ca. 3300–2300 BCE. The many jade objects excavated ­here are believed to date ­earlier than ­those from Niuheliang.10 Thus, before 3000 BCE, above­ground architecture and urbanism ­were pre­sent across the expanse that is ­today’s China: remains in Henan, Hunan, Gansu, Liaoning, Gansu, Shaanxi, Shanxi, and Zhejiang are selected for mention above. The walled settlements confirm drainage

Chinese Architecture before China

31

canal systems, cemeteries, and workshops, and that wooden pillars ­were the primary support system for buildings. Hemudu and the placement of pillar holes at Banpo confirm the use of timber framing. Building foundations w ­ ere made of rammed earth. Mud-­earth and sun-­dried bricks w ­ ere used to fill in walls of a building supported by a wooden frame. Stone was used for altars as well as city walls. Whitewash and other forms of paint covered surfaces. Tombs and workshops, including kilns and areas designated for handicrafts, w ­ ere part of cities and smaller settlements from this preliterate period. ­Great ­houses suggest communal hierarchy and perhaps ceremonial architecture. Th ­ ese features are found across the regions that the First Emperor would unite approximately 2500 years ­later.

ARCHIT ECT URE OF CHINA’S BRONZE AGE

The entry into the second millennium BCE is coincident with the period sometimes known as the Xia dynasty (ca. 2070–­ca.1600 BCE). The Shang dynasty (ca.1600–1046 BCE) follows. The manufacture of bronze objects predates Shang; the logographic writing system develops during it. Many of China’s impor­tant architectural remains of Xia and Shang are in Henan province. Erlitou is in Yanshi county of Henan on the Luo River that runs through the city of Luoyang. Between ca. 1900 BCE and ca. 1500 BCE, ­t here ­were at least four phases of occupation. The largest of all con­ temporary sites in China, if t­ here was a Xia dynasty, Erlitou exemplifies its material remains.11 They include turquoise, which is believed to have been local. Erlitou’s population is estimated at having been 18,000– 30,000, large enough to call it a city.12 Clusters of building foundations of rammed earth are assumed to have been for ritual, and smaller units to have been palatial or residential. Seven foundations include three features that would be pre­sent through the next four millennia of Chinese construction: building complexes are oriented t­ oward the south; pillar-­ supported structures divide into symmetrically positioned interior rooms that face southward in larger, four-­sided, enclosed courtyards; gates pierce the south side of enclosing arcades or walls (Figure 1.1).

32

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

1.1 Reconstruction of palace 1, Erlitou, Yanshi, Henan, Luoyang Museum, ca. 1750–1530 BCE.

The Shang dynasty is known for huge cities. Erlitou of ca. 1700 BCE may have been a Shang capital, but ­after ca. 1600, China’s largest cities almost certainly ­were capitals.13 The wall of Erligang in the modern city Zhengzhou in Henan was a south-­oriented rectangle of 6960 meters in perimeter and 20 to 32 meters wide at the base. Its northeastern corner was truncated. Eleven gaps in the wall prob­ably indicate gates. The wall was made of both rammed earth and wooden planks. The Shang city sometimes known as Yanshi ­after the county in which is it located, the same county as Erlitou, had multiple walled sectors. The outer wall had eleven gates and was surrounded by a moat. An inner city of 740 by 1100 meters shared the southern sections of the eastern and western walls of the outer city. At its center was a 200-­meter-­square palace-­city. Building foundations w ­ ere positioned symmetrically on its east and west. The walls of the three cities—­outer, inner, and palace—­were 17 to 19 meters, 6 to 7 meters, and 2 meters, respectively, in thickness.14 Both the Zhengzhou and Yanshi cities had drainage systems. Palatial foundations at Yanshi confirm that the buildings they upheld used the construction

Chinese Architecture before China

33

system in place at Erlitou: exterior columns supported a main building that was divided into interior rooms; an enclosing structure, perhaps a pillared arcade, surrounded the courtyard in front of it; a gate was centrally positioned in front of the enclosure at a place that formed an axial line to the center of the back chamber. The same construction princi­ples w ­ ere employed in a con­temporary Shang complex in Panlongcheng in Hubei province. The 75,000-­square-­​ meter wall (about 290 by 260 meters) that enclosed the Shang city in Hubei was roughly four-­sided, with ­water flowing around all but the northwestern corner and prob­ably with a gate in each wall face.15 The outer wall was made by the same technique as used in Zhengzhou: layers of rammed earth w ­ ere packed between and around wooden planks, with the widest base thickness 45 meters and the narrowest surviving part at the top, 18 meters. Intramural architecture suggests a more complicated building arrangement than can be verified at e­ arlier or con­temporary Shang sites: two building foundations are positioned in front and back of each other in an enclosure to which they are attached by side arcades. A gate is at the central front. As shown in reconstruction, the complex not only confirms the axial arrangement of major buildings, use of a front central gate, and four-­sided enclosure around courtyards, it anticipates the configuration of complexes, specifically the Two Back Halls of the fourteenth-­to-­fifteenth-­century Forbidden City (Figures 1.2 and i.21).16 When a single, clearly impor­tant example exists, in this case a front-­ and-­back-­hall arrangement that anticipates a building configuration employed by Chinese emperors 3000 years ­later, it is noteworthy. A second example of the same arrangement suggests that the scheme was a style of the period. A nearly square, rammed-­earth wall, 300 to 310 meters on each face, uncovered in the 1990s at Fucheng, in Jiaozuo county, Henan province, is this kind of evidence. The wall enclosed a building foundation with two south-­oriented halls in front of and ­behind each other, dated to the m ­ iddle of the second millennium BCE.17 Shang China’s most impor­tant city and without a doubt its last capital, sometimes referred to as Yinxu (ruins of Yin), is in Anyang, Henan province. The ruler Pan Geng is said to have moved the capital h ­ ere; the

34

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

1.2 Theoretical reconstruction of palatial complex at Panlongcheng, Huangpi, Hubei,

ca. 1500–1300 BCE.

city certainly existed u ­ nder the ruler Wu Ding. Their dates are not precise, but the city endured from the thirteenth c­ entury BCE ­until the fall of the Shang dynasty. Excavation has been continuous since 1928, except for the period 1937–1949. A single palatial complex with two main halls or two main halls joined by an arcade is not as clearly defined as the above-­mentioned examples at Panlongcheng and Fufeng. The last Shang city is more significant in the long history of Chinese architecture as evidence that a ruler’s city has palaces, ritual structures, and a royal necropolis; and that it has the infrastructure of bronze foundries, kilns, and workshops to support imperial needs. In Shang China, architecture was central to a hierarchical society whose royalty worshipped a god on high, Shangdi, as well as their own ancestors. Shang society had lineages and clans, and members who held titles and ranks. The fifty-­three largest building foundations in the sector of the Anyang capital known as Xiaotun belonged to or ­were used by elite members of society.18

Chinese Architecture before China

35

ARCHIT ECT URE OF CHINA’S FIRST MILLENNIUM BCE

The first millennium BCE, which includes the Zhou (1046–221 BCE) and Qin (221–206 BCE) dynasties, was a Bronze Age. Historians divide Zhou into Western (1046–770 BCE), when the capital was in the west near Chang’an (Xi’an), and Eastern (770–221 BCE), when the capital was in Luoyang to the east. Eastern Zhou is further divided into the Spring and Autumn period (770–476), named a­ fter a chronicle, Chunqiu (Springs and Autumns), that rec­ords events according to the season through the reigns of twelve dukes, and the period of the Warring States (475–221), also chronicled in a text Zhanguoce (Stratagems of the Warring States). The Zhou dynasty was the age of Confucius (551–479) and the age of historical, literary, and philosophical writings that include the Shujing (Book of Documents), Shijing (Book of Odes), and Yijing (Book of Changes). Before the conquest of Shang, the Zhou royal f­ amily lived in Zhouyuan (plain of Zhou), a 15-­square-­k ilometer area of Shaanxi province about 140 kilo­meters west of Xi’an. The grand­father of the first Zhou king, Wen (1099–1050), moved the capital of his state ­here. Architectural remains are sometimes called predynastic Zhou. The building complex in Fengchu is in Zhouyuan. Approached by a screen wall on the south, a gate and rooms along an arcade enclosed the compound. The three-­bay gate is on the main north–­south building line, directly ­behind the screen wall. The gate, the back hall, and the arcade they join form four sides of a courtyard, one of the fundamental princi­ ples of Chinese space discussed in the Introduction. The equally impor­ tant arrangement for eminent construction, the gong scheme, is achieved by the central hall, the corridor, and the back hall that joins the back corridor. The screen wall, centrality of the hall in its courtyard, axial arrangement, and pillars that define a bay system all anticipate the Forbidden City and countless other building complexes of the next three millennia (Figures 1.3 and i.21).19 Shaochen in Fufeng, Shaanxi, about 25 kilo­meters southeast of Fengchu, has yielded fifteen building foundations that date from the twelfth to the eighth ­century BCE. Each was supported by a timber frame and elevated on an earthen platform. One building was seven bays by three, supported by eight columns across the front and five in depth

36

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

1.3 Theoretical reconstruction of palatial complex at Fengchu, Qishan, Shaanxi, ca. twelfth ­century BCE.

(double-­counting the corner pillars). Another was eleven bays across the front—­a span, as noted in the Introduction, used only in imperial Chinese construction. Both roofs are believed to have been hipped. Frameworks w ­ ere made in parallel units beginning across the front and continuing to the back of the building. Slanting roof purlins and horizontal beams that extended from front columns to back ones and ­were parallel to the floor and perpendicular to the columns on the same planes, also are believed to have been part of buildings in Shaochen.20 Two buildings excavated in Fufeng are identified as ceremonial. One, believed to be an ancestral t­ emple, is oriented south with side buildings to its southeast and southwest and a sluice gate to the south. A complex in Majiazhuang, fewer than 50 kilo­meters northwest of Fufeng and about 25 kilo­meters northwest of Fengchu, consisted of five courtyards along a 326.5-­meter north–­south line, each entered by a south-­central gate, each with at least one gate on the east, and three courtyards with one or more western gates. The second, third, and fourth courtyards each enclosed a central building or a pair of structures, and three buildings ­were in the back courtyard.21 Although above­ground reconstructions are theoretical, locations of enclosing walls or arcades, gates, and positions of foun-

Chinese Architecture before China

37

dations inside courtyard are certain. The courtyards one b ­ ehind another anticipate the arrangement of the Forbidden City. Architectural remains of the Eastern Zhou often are examined alongside passages in the “Kaogongji” (Rec­ord of the investigation of artisans) section of the Rituals of Zhou (Zhouli) that includes the four-­ character dictum: qianchao, houqin, or “in front, audience hall; b ­ ehind, private chambers.” The idea that the more public space is in front and residential space is ­behind it is in evidence at ­every Chinese palace for which enough information exists to know building functions. At the Beijing Forbidden City, the three front halls w ­ ere for audience and other court affairs and w ­ ere known as the governing court; the back halls w ­ ere for imperial residence and known as the resting court. The outer court, farthest from the resting court, was for government business, as well as the location of the Ancestral ­Temple and Altars to Soil and Grain. In Ming-­Qing times, the system was referred to as “three courts, five gates.”22 Another passage from “Kaogongji” describes Wangcheng (ruler’s city).23 Wangcheng begins with a square whose four wall positions are determined by mea­sur­i ng out from a midpoint according to the sun’s shadow. Each side of the square wall is nine li, the number nine associated with fullness and perfection, and by extension, with royalty. Major thoroughfares are to cross the entirety of Wangcheng from wall to opposite wall. The central thoroughfares, however, are blocked by the ruler’s palace, positioned in its own walled enclosure in the center. The palace ­faces south with markets ­behind it, a ­temple to the ruler’s ancestors on the east, and altars to soil and the five grains on the west.24 The space that includes the palace, known as palace-­city, was not always at the center, but ­every Zhou capital, cities of kings of states, as well as the major capitals Chang’an and Luoyang, had an enclosed palace area.25 The Zhou capital Luoyi, about 3 kilo­meters square and surrounded by a moat, is the city on which the description of Wangcheng is based. Not enough remains of this area within Luoyang t­ oday to confirm that it followed the prescription in “Kaogongji.” Qufu in Shandong province, where Confucius was born in 551 BCE, and Anyi in Shanxi are the closest Eastern Zhou examples of cities with a palace-­city near the center. The capital of the state of Jin in Shanxi province represents a second urban

38

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

pattern of the Eastern Zhou period in which the palace area is in the north-­center of a moat-­surrounded, rectangular outer wall. The third urban pattern has multiple walls that are adjacent but not concentric. The capital of the state of Qi in Linzi, Shandong province, which flourished from 859–221 BCE, is an example. Its 14-­k ilometer rammed-­earth outer wall contained a population of 210,000 ­house­holds. Two gates provided access on the north and south, and t­ here was a single gate each on the eastern and western sides. The seven main roads through the city emanated primarily from wall gates; they w ­ ere as wide as 20 meters. The palace-­city was enclosed by its own wall and had main roads passing through its gates. A 14-­meter-­high platform of 86 meters north-­to-­south prob­ably was the main palace sector. A drainage system ran beneath both walled enclosures. Linzi had pottery, bronze, iron, and bone workshops and a mint. The cemetery of the ­later rulers of Qi is about 10 kilo­ meters outside the city walls.26 Xiadu, literally, lower capital, of the Yan state in Yi county, Hebei, just south of Beijing, was another Eastern Zhou city with adjacent walled areas. Remaining wall portions are about 40 meters wide. Bronze, iron, bone, and pottery workshops are among the ruins.27 The con­temporary capital of the state of Zhao in Handan, in southern Hebei, had three walls whose ­faces touched parts of the other two.28 Xintian, capital of the state of Jin in Houma in southern Shanxi province that flourished in 585–376 BCE, also had multiple, adjacent walls.29 The capital of the state of Zheng and then of the state of Han in Xinzheng, Henan province, was a city of about 20 square kilo­ meters with two adjacent walled areas.30

RULERS’ TOMBS

Royalty of the Zhou ­were interred in royal funerary precincts (lingyuan), spacious areas that included above­ground architecture for sacrifices to the deceased, adjacent land that could be used for auxiliary burials of ­family members or o ­ thers close to the interred in life, such as officials and sometimes servants or slaves, as well as additional land that kept the tomb area isolated from a nearby city of the living. Non-­nobility also

Chinese Architecture before China

39

had cemeteries, as did families, or lineages. The size and structure of the tomb, number of layers of coffins, numbers and kinds of bronze vessels, and presence of objects such as instruments ­were prescribed in texts and determined by rank. More than a dozen royal tombs or cemeteries of the Warring States period have been excavated. Chu, the largest state during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, has yielded more than 5000 tombs. The Chu capital moved through the state’s history, but many of the impor­tant Chu royal tombs ­were in Baoshan, in Jingzhou, Hubei. A typical Chu tomb has an approach ramp, stepped sides, and a coffin pit at the center. Marquis Yi of Zeng, who died in 433 BCE, was buried in Sui county, Hubei, in a pit tomb divided into four under­ground compartments, each lined with wooden planks and each connected to adjacent sections by four-­sided tunnels.31 Space between rooms and between the burial and ground level was sealed by charcoal and other materials. Known for the set of sixty-­ five bronze bells weighing about two and a half tons, Marquis Yi’s tomb reveals three impor­tant features, two of which are believed to be true of Eastern Zhou architecture above as well as below ground: the contents and purpose of the compartments are differentiated, in this case two for ­human burial and two for grave goods; doors and win­dows are pre­sent; and walls are made of wooden planks.32 Doors are painted on the outer of two lacquered wooden coffins of the marquis, and win­dows divided into four panes are painted on the inner sarcophagus. The win­dows might be compared to the repre­sen­ta­tion of win­dows or other light sources in tombs of ancient Egyptian royalty, symbolically providing a view to the world outside. King Cuo (r. 327–313 BCE) of the Zhongshan kingdom in Pingshan county of Hebei province and his wife and concubines are buried beneath truncated pyramidal mounds, his 100.5 by 90 meters at the base and 18 meters square at the top. A funerary hall was above the mound. Under­ground the king’s tomb is approached by ramps from the north and south. Horse and chariot pits, trea­suries, sacrificial burials, and a pit for a boat ­were all part of the universe created under­ground for King Cuo. One of the most impor­tant artifacts for the study of Eastern Zhou architecture was excavated in this tomb.

40

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

1.4 Zhaoyutu (plan of the omen territory), 94 × 48 × 1 cm. Tomb of King Cuo, Zhongshan

kingdom, Pingshan, Hebei; now in Hebei Provincial Museum, ca. 313 BCE.

It is a bronze plate 94 by 48 centimeters and about 1 centimeter in thickness (Figure 1.4). A plan of the burial precinct is inlaid with gold. A two-­dimensional repre­sen­ta­t ion of three-­dimensional space is extraordinary anywhere in the world in the third ­century BCE, and the use of scale is equally impressive. Distinctions in line thickness suggest indications of varying wall or other perimeter thicknesses. Breaks in lines mark gates. Building sizes and distances between buildings and walls are provided. South is at the top of the diagram, where it would be for most of the rest of China’s premodern cartographic history. A forty-­ two-­character inscription on the plate states that two copies ­were made, one to be kept in the palace and this second one to be buried with the ruler. The purpose, it reads, was so that f­ uture generations would know how to construct a tomb in the manner of their ancestors.33 The plate is the earliest document that declares that patterns of Antiquity ­were to be followed by subsequent generations, or more explic­itly, that the intent of royal architecture was to model itself ­after its past and to be continued in the same manner in the f­ uture. Images of buildings also w ­ ere cast and incised into bronze vessels of the Warring States period. Some depict a structural type that w ­ ill dominate Chinese architecture for the next two millennia—­a three-­level building of base, walls, and roof, supported by three timber frameworks: pillars, bracket sets, and roof frame. Buildings also have balustrades, roof raf­ters are parallel, and the main roof ridge is decorated (Figure 1.5).34

Chinese Architecture before China

41

1.5 Sectional drawing and reconstruction of multilevel pillar-­supported structure incised on bronze vessel excavated in Zhaogu village, Hui county, Henan, Warring States period.

ARCHIT ECT URE OF CHINA’S FIRST EMPIRE

Between 677 and 383 BCE, the state of Qin had been centered in the above-­mentioned Zhouyuan. In 383 the Qin state moved its capital farther east in Shaanxi to Lintong county, near the site that would become the capital of the Qin dynasty. Initially Prince Zheng, who would become the First Emperor, resided in palaces that remained from the Qin state. Following unification he built new, larger palaces on a new site. Rec­ords of the G ­ rand Historian (Shiji) tells us that by the time the prince was the First Emperor, he had three hundred palaces with another four

42

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

hundred outside the palace-­city walls.35 Prob­ably ­these numbers refer to rooms of buildings, but they may refer to buildings themselves. The outer bound­aries of Qin Shi Huangdi’s capital also are vague. Dif­fer­ent from the dictum in “Kaogongji” that stipulates a ruler should build the square outer wall of his city and then construct his hall of audience, private chambers, altars, and markets inside it, the First Emperor began with his palaces. The short duration of his dynasty is the likely reason the outer wall was never completed. The intended city appears to have been 7.2 kilo­meters east-­to-­west by 6.7 kilo­meters north-­to-­south, with its northern boundary along the Wei River. By the early twenty-­first ­century, foundations of four building groups believed to be palaces had been excavated. Evidence is strong that one building was two stories, with seven rooms on the first floor and five rooms upstairs, and with a central pillar extending from the ground to the upper-­story ceiling. The largest palace building also seems to have been two stories with at least eleven rooms on the ground story; it was joined to two other buildings by arcades.36 In addition, excavators believe they found some of the palaces the emperor is reported to have built in imitation of t­ hose of the six conquered states, b ­ ecause pottery tiles with the names of several of the states have been uncovered. The First Emperor’s famous Epang Palace, immortalized in Rec­ords of the ­Grand Historian as a proj­ect for which the emperor conscripted more than 700,000 laborers and that burned for several months a­ fter the attack that would topple the Qin dynasty, is believed to have been uncovered about 15 kilo­meters west of Xi’an.37 In addition to the use of multiple palaces in the capital, the First Emperor is credited with the first xinggong (traveling palaces), where he stayed while inspecting his empire. Both the multi-­palace-­city system and traveling palaces would remain impor­tant through the nineteenth c­ entury. No tomb in China has aroused as much interest or has been excavated or studied as intensely as the First Emperor’s. Known for the 7,000 life-­ size terracotta warriors buried in pits to serve the emperor in the afterlife, excavation has not occurred beneath the squarish mound, approximately 350 meters on each side, that covers his corpse. Two walls around

Chinese Architecture before China

43

the burial complex suggest a continuation of Zhou royal burial depicted on the bronze plate of King Cuo of Zhongshan (Figure 1.4). The First Emperor surely did not achieve his vision of China, dynasty, or empire during his reign of just over ten years. Yet when Qin fell to Han, palaces, capitals, walls, shrines, and tombs stood across China. This architecture, whose sources are verified several millennia ­earlier by excavations across China, and that vision would be the sources of buildings, and occasionally entire cities, for China, Japan, K ­ orea, and Mongolia for the next 2000 years.

••• 2

HAN

China’s first long dynasty, the Han, built and left its architectural legacy in ­every town and prefecture of its empire—­territory that extended west from North ­Korea across southern Mongolia and Xinjiang, and that included all of China ­today plus part of Vietnam. Extensive excavation provides abundant information about architecture in the capitals Chang’an and Luoyang,1 but Han’s architectural history is best written through remains across East Asia. We turn briefly to the capitals for background. The focus on the capitals in a study of Han architecture is b ­ ecause, in contrast to the po­liti­cal complexity of the Warring States period, China’s last two centuries BCE and first two centuries CE are one dynasty with an interregnum. One can observe two hundred years of architectural history in the first Han capital and the two hundred subsequent years in the second capital. As in Zhou times, the Western, or Former, Han (206 BCE‒9 CE) capital is in Chang’an in the west and the Eastern, or Latter, Han (25‒220) capital is in Luoyang in the east. Both capitals also have long, l­ater histories as imperial cities. The buildings that defined a Han capital would define capitals in K ­ orea and Japan, as well as China, long a­ fter the Han dynasty. The plan of Western Han Chang’an has been drawn for more than a thousand years. The straight wall on the east, sharp bends of the north and south walls, and irregular positions of other segments are recorded

Han

45

Liaoyang Niuheliang Yingchengzi

Helinge’er

Juyongguan Xiadu

Milanhao

Mancheng

Wangdu

Galatu

Fenghuangshan

Anping Pingshan

Shimao

Linzi

Jingbian

Chengziyai

Jingbian Xintian Xunyi Xianyang Zhouyuan

Banpo Chang’an

Taosi Anyi Erlitou

Handan

Xinzheng

Luoyang Wuyang

Anqiu Yinan

Anyang Zhengzhou

Cangshan Xuzhou Mangdangshan

Pingliangtai

Dadiwan

Suixian Baoshan

Ya’an

Yuhang

Panlongcheng

Hemudu

Lixian

Mawangdui

Chong’an

Guangzhou

m a p 3 East Asia during the Han Dynasty, ca. 200 BCE–ca. 200 CE.

in texts and confirmed by excavation. Approximately 25.7 kilo­meters in perimeter, and not a perfect rectangle, the 12-­to-16-­meters-­wide outer wall had three gates on each side, and each entry was wide enough to accommodate at least three side-­by-­side carriages, both features stipulated in the prescription for a ruler’s city in “Kaogongji.” Han Chang’an had six palace complexes, five inside the city walls and one on the exterior. Four ­were extensively excavated by the beginning of the twenty-­first ­century. ­There was an armory between the two southern, intramural complexes.2 Remains confirm timber-­frame construction, gong-­shaped complexes, axial alignment of the major buildings in each complex, and courtyards pierced by gates. Fully two-­thirds of Han Chang’an was occupied by palace architecture compared to one-­ fourth to one-­tenth for Eastern Zhou capitals, which, we have observed, had only one palace area even when a city had multiple walls that ­were adjacent to one another. Han Luoyang’s palaces would occupy about one-­ third of the capital, and t­ here would be only two, only one of which was

46

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

used by the emperor at a given time.3 Prob­ably Han Chang’an was a realization of the First Emperor’s vision of a walled city built almost exclusively for his residence and governance. Imperial tombs also ­were integral to the Han vision of empire and the capital Chang’an. Nine formed a coherent shield to the capital’s north and northwest. Two provided responding forces to the southeast, all eleven within 30 kilo­meters of the walled capital. Each imperial tomb consisted of four parts: the mounds, one for the emperor and a smaller one for the empress, located in an area known as the funerary precinct (lingyuan), which may have been walled; above­ground ritual halls; the funerary city (lingyi), believed to have been walled, where workers lived during tomb construction and where tomb caretakers continued to reside a­ fter imperial interment; and auxiliary tombs, which could include burials awarded to officials for ser­vice to the emperor or plots for servant or slaves.4 Sacrificial burial had ended by this time. Changling, the tomb complex of the Han founding emperor who died in 195 BCE, and his empress who died in 180 BCE, was the hub of all subsequent Western Han imperial burials. Its funerary precinct was 3.12 kilo­meters in perimeter. Traces of architecture suggest that corner towers prob­ably ­were parts of an enclosing wall. Other pieces of architecture and ceramic tiles marked with numbers are believed to be remains of ritual structures inside the funerary precinct.5 The funerary city north of the burial precinct was walled only on the north, south, and west sides, a configuration described in rec­ords of the capital and confirmed by excavation.6 Auxiliary tombs w ­ ere to the east. They included large tombs that belonged to loyal ministers of the first Han emperor as well as ­simple burials, presumably for servants. Yangjiawan tomb 4 is a large tomb that some believe belongs to the famous Han general Zhou Bo (d. 169) or his son. If this is true, then one surmises that auxiliary burial plots ­were awarded ­after an emperor’s demise, when tombs of subsequent rulers already existed or w ­ ere u ­ nder construction.7 The tomb complex of the second Han emperor and his wife is due west of Changling. The placement, to the right of his parents as the older generation ­faces south, suggests the implementation of the zhaomu system. Originating during the reigns of the sixth and seventh Zhou kings at the beginning of the tenth ­century BCE, and intended specifically for above­

Han

47

ground funerary t­ emples, the zhaomu system prescribed that the founder of a dynastic line be positioned in the center, with the zhao (­temple, and l­ater, ­after the destruction of the t­ emple, the tablet), for the second ruler, to the found­er’s right (facing south) and the mu, for the third ruler, to the found­er’s left. Subsequently the fourth and sixth rulers would be represented by zhao and thus to the right, and the fifth and seventh, as mu, would be to the left.8 ­Here we observe an example of sameness in Chinese imperial and vernacular architecture. In imperial tombs, the zhaomu system is implemented in the positions of the first four tombs of the royal necropolis of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) in Beijing, all built in the fifteenth ­century. In residential architecture, as recently as the nineteenth ­century, the oldest son’s living space is to the right (west of) his parents as they face south, the second son is to the left, third son is to the right, and so on.9 The fourth Han emperor’s tomb, named Yangling, has received tremendous attention since the 1990s when hundreds of naked figurines (possibly originally clothed with perishable materials) ­were excavated in pits near his funerary mound.10 A circular stone divided into quadrants by bisecting lines is one of the most impor­tant objects at the tomb site.11 Continuing north along the due north–­south line of the compass, one reaches the midpoint between the eastern wall of the emperor’s tomb and western wall of the empress’s. It is believed that the stone was placed before construction began. A similar compass had been found at another Western Han imperial tomb complex by 2017.12 We ­will again see a central marker from which the rest of an imperial capital was laid out in the period of Mongolian rule. A device that marks the center of imperial space has not yet been excavated outside China, but we s­ hall see the centrality of the palace in imperial planning of non-­Chinese states northeast of China more than a millennium a­ fter Han. The concept of centrality in Han planning extended along an axial line far beyond a midpoint. This prob­ably was part of the First Emperor’s vision, and it is a feature we ­will see in Chinese-­style construction outside China. In Han Chang’an, the north–­south axis through the city extended from Ziwu Valley due south of the south gate of the Chang’an outer wall, 74 kilo­meters northward along the longest street in the capital, continued between Changle Palace and Weiyang Palace in the

48

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

southern half of the city, through the north city wall, between the tombs of the founding emperor of the Han dynasty and his wife, and northward to Tianqi Shrine.13 Given that the first Han emperor’s and empress’s tombs w ­ ere built before Weiyang Palace or the south central outer wall gate, it is likely that a midpoint was located directly south of the midpoint between the two tombs to anticipate the placement of Weiyang Palace. Whereas Weiyang Palace was constructed in the Han dynasty, Changle Palace, in a symmetrical position to Weiyang Palace, was built on the site or ruins of a preexisting Qin palace. The Han Chang’an central line can be extended nearly 600 kilo­meters to join a Han military commandery on the Yangzi River in the south to a Han commandery ­today in Inner Mongolia at the northern bend of the Yellow River. This imaginary line was an axis mundi. Its point of origin at the symbolic center of the capital was a pivot of the four quarters—­for a perpendicular line to the east from Xianyang, the location of the First Emperor’s capital, leads straight to his traveling palace Shangqiugong in Shandong province on China’s east coast (Figure 2.1). A fourth point in the west has not been identified. Mea­ sur­ing outward from the capital as far west as the distance between the central point and Shangqiu, the location would be in the so-­called Western Regions where, it was believed, dwelt the Queen ­Mother of the West who possessed the elixir of immortality. The ruler’s domain was thus the center of the universe.14 Aspects of the Han imperial city plan would be carried out in many ­later Chinese capitals. Capitals outside China where physical evidence of Chinese imperial urban patterns is strong ­will be highlighted in ­later chapters, but without a stone marker, textual rec­ords, or sufficient excavation, confirmation that the construction of an imperial city began at the center and was mea­sured outward awaits such evidence. Ritual architecture also was erected in both Han capitals. Its use by non-­Chinese dynasties such as Northern Wei (386–534) can be confirmed. In Han times, Mingtang (Numinous Hall), Biyong (Jade-­R ing Moat), Lingtai (Spirit Altar), Taixue (Imperial Acad­emy), Yuanqiu (Round Mound), and a pair of altars or t­ emples for sacrifices to soil and grain ­were all necessary spaces in a Chinese imperial city.15 ­Every structure and its rituals w ­ ere described in texts. The intriguing and elusive Mingtang

2.1 Imaginary line from Ziwu valley in the south to Tianqi shrine in the north, ­r unning

between Changle and Weiyang palaces and the tombs of the first Han emperor and his empress.

50

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

has been the subject of numerous proposed reconstructions through the ages, usually with configurations of rooms in groups of four, five, nine, and twelve.16 Each number has associations deeply embedded in Chinese civilization: four is associated with the directions, seasons, colors, and animals; five is the number of xing (phases of the fundamental entity known as qi [metal, wood, ­water, fire, and earth]) and the number of sides of a quadrilateral plus a center; nine combines four plus five, is associated with the Chinese emperor, and is three-­squared. A three-­ squared surface, or magic square, divides into nine internal units but twelve perimeter units (three on each of its four sides), so that one can pro­gress around the perimeter of a square in ritual and make twelve stops, one for each lunar month. Twelve also is the number of divisions of the day in China.17 ­These four numbers and the circle are implicit in Chinese ritual construction through the rest of imperial history.18 Gardens ­were integral to the Chinese concept of a palace at least since the time of the First Emperor, who had parkland with animals for his personal use in his imperial city.19 Remains of Han palaces with adjacent gardens survive in South China among kingdoms with high degrees of autonomy such that their rulers had imperial privileges. Impor­tant examples from the Nanyue kingdom in Guangzhou and from the state of Min near Chong’an in Fujian have been excavated.20 The first emperor of Eastern Han also walled his capital from its beginning. The Mang mountains in the north and the Luo River in the south ­were extramural natu­ral bound­aries. Mountains in the north and ­water to the south also are features that one observes through the next two millennia of Chinese imperial construction that would be implemented beyond China’s borders; sometimes the mountains and w ­ ater 21 are considered aspects of Chinese geomancy, or fengshui. Fengshui would become fundamental to Korean understanding of space.22 Luoyang had twelve gates, as prescribed in “Kaogongji” and as had been used at Han Chang’an, but at Luoyang the outer wall was rectangular, approximately 13 kilo­meters in perimeter, and the gates w ­ ere distributed as three on the east and west, four at the south, and two in the north. Ten of the most major streets, five ­running north–­south and five east–­west, emanated from the gates, with a continuous street that traversed the southern part of the city from east to west gate.23 A ­ fter the

Han

51

Han dynasty, multiple capitals would sometimes coexist, but never again would ­there be more than one palace-­city at an imperial city anywhere in East Asia. The locations of the twelve Eastern Han imperial tombs are known, but they remain unexcavated. Five emperors ­were laid to rest north of the Mang mountains and the other six are south of Yanshi county. The last emperor, who abdicated in 220, was buried outside Luoyang in 234, the year of his death.

EASTERN HAN TOMBS

In contrast to imperial tombs of Eastern Han, much is known about burials of officials and other nonroyalty who could afford tombs. Most Eastern Han tombs are brick; e­ arlier tombs are made of larger, hollow bricks and ­later tombs are of small, solid bricks.24 Almost all are multichamber, usually with at least two main chambers and one or more side niches joining them. Several well-­preserved, Eastern Han brick tombs survive in the vicinity of the capital. Tombs made of small, solid bricks dated to Eastern Han ­were found beneath a gas station in 1987, on the grounds of a glass factory in 1981, on the grounds of a truck factory, excavated in 1990–1991, in Xingyuan village in 1984, and in Xin’an in 1984, all in Luoyang. They and a tomb excavated in 1995 in Chang village, Wangcun, Xingyang, 140 kilo­meters east of Luoyang, are representative.25 The tombs mentioned above are among approximately one hundred with murals, among perhaps 15,000 uncovered from more than 100,000 one anticipates as excavation continues across China.26 Already in the 1950s, scholars outside China ­were identifying Han funerary themes such as pro­cessions of h ­ orses, chariots, and riders that w ­ ere pre­sent in relief sculpture on the walls of tombs and on funerary shrines in both Shandong province in the east and Sichuan province in the west. Based on the repre­sen­ta­t ions, they postulated styles, blocklike silhouettes in the east and flowing lines that anticipated the brushes of paint­ers in the west.27 Pictorial style, like Chinese painting more generally, as mentioned in the Introduction, changes in China. Themes one expects in a funerary

52

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

environment do not, perhaps ­because they are integral to the architecture that also changes ­little over time. Horses and chariots move across the painted walls of ­every tomb mentioned above and the tombs on which we focus below. Other recurrent themes are: the tomb owner, often with his wife, often flanked by servants smaller than he; the interred on ­horse­back or as part of a cavalcade; architecture, painted or in sculpture, to create in microcosm the world outside the tomb; door guards; food ser­vice for the deceased; entertainment for the deceased, including dancers, acrobats, wrestlers, and musicians; heavenly bodies, sometimes star groups and often the three-­toed or three-­legged crow in the sun and toad and / or hare in the moon; four animals associated with the directions; a flowering tree, sometimes the one whose suns ­were shot down by the mythical archer Yi, other times perhaps representing life, sometimes in the form of a money tree; tales of filial piety and other acts of exemplary morality; and the Queen M ­ other of the West. ­Every subject listed ­here, except the archer Yi and Queen M ­ other of the West, that has explicit Chinese symbolism is found in tombs in ­Korea, Japan, and Mongolia discussed in l­ater chapters. The tombs should be viewed as single entities, the structure and its decoration together presenting an environment for existence a­ fter the one on earth.28 Among all the examples from which one may choose to represent an Eastern Han tomb, we start with one in Inner Mongolia, for its features comprise what can be called a standardized Chinese system of funerary architecture and decoration. This is the system that would be in place in China and far beyond for the next fifteen hundred years. Inner Mongolia, Hebei, Liaoning, North ­Korea

The Eastern Han subterranean tomb in Helinge’er, a county that borders Höhhot (Huhehaote), ­today the capital of Inner Mongolia, is dated 145–160 CE. Made of small, solid bricks, it belongs to an official whose rise in status as he was transferred to command dif­fer­ent parts of the Han empire is represented by numbers of ­horses and depictions of chariots around him.29 Entered on the east, the 19.85-­meter-­long interior consists of three main chambers along an east–­west axis with side niches north and south of the first one and a southern niche off the second

Han

53

2.2 Drawing of interior of tomb, Helinge’er, Inner Mongolia,145–160 CE.

(Figure 2.2). The construction materials, three main chambers, eastern orientation, painting of the walled city where the tomb owner governed or lived, and cavalcades that move across the walls are shared by a tomb dated by inscription to 176 CE in Anping in southern Hebei province, some 600 kilo­meters south of Höhhot as the crow flies.30 Two tombs in Wangdu, Hebei, about 60 kilo­meters northeast of Anping, also are made of small, solid bricks, have three or four main rooms with side niches off the first two in one tomb and projecting from all four rooms in the other, but southern orientation. They are dated before 182 CE.31 ­Every chamber along the main building line of all three tombs is vaulted. ­Because they are intact, dated or approximately dated, have extensive murals, are the subjects of monographs, and have been known since the early 1980s, ­these four Eastern Han tombs have received ­great attention. In any study of Han tombs, they join the above-­mentioned imperial tombs, Western Han tombs of princes, other Western Han tombs, especially in Shaanxi province, and Eastern Han tombs in greater Luoyang and elsewhere.32 H ­ ere we turn to Mongolia beyond Helinge’er, to Liao­ ning, and to North K ­ orea to pre­sent the standard information about an Eastern Han tomb, the material that is usually studied through remains in China’s core provinces. Three tombs in Inner Mongolia more distant from China’s borders than Helinge’er have mural programs as extensive and well preserved, with similar themes. The best-­k nown is in Fenghuangshan in Etuokeqi,

54

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

fewer than 150 kilo­meters northeast of Yinchuan, the capital of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.33 The route to Yinchuan is more rugged and less traversed than the road due north from northern Shanxi that leads to Helinge’er. In the Fenghuangshan tomb, a courtyard scene offers a pillar-­supported enclosure of food and entertainment for the deceased who sits in an open, elevated space where he can be served with a view of all the entertainment. A pair of towers, of the kind painted in the Anping and Helinge’er tombs, that reflect Han structures discussed below, are at the back of the courtyard. Bracket sets that support eaves above the occupant and along the enclosing wall have two blocks above the cap-­block that joins the set to the pillar. One of the most sophisticated features of the murals is the repre­sen­ta­tion of timber pieces. A T-­shaped piece on the north wall shows both the grains of its wood and a notch that joins the central support to the top. Wall paint­ers continue to pre­ sent both the three-­dimensional aspect of architecture and the texture of wood as late as the ­fourteenth ­century.34 Milanhao tomb 1 also is in Etuokeqi. ­Here, too, grains of wood are shown in pillars, roof eaves are outlined in white so that they can be viewed individually, win­dows are latticed, and all variety of creatures leap across the walls. The third tomb, in Galatu, in the desert of Wu­ shenqi, is fewer than 50 kilo­meters from the northern tip of Shaanxi province and about 150 kilo­meters from the Shang site Shimao mentioned in Chapter 1. The tall, slender figures, whose garments are painted with bright, flat colors, suggest comparison with the portrayal of figures in the tomb of Bin Wang in Shaanxi province. The leafy tree in the background, also like trees in Bin Wang’s tomb, is painted with black brush strokes onto which single colors are painted to indicate leaves.35 Single-­ step bracket sets and parallel roof raf­ters are as sharp and clear as any painted in a tomb in Shaanxi or Henan (Figure 2.3). All the tombs in Inner Mongolia ­were constructed in commanderies built by Han across the empire.36 They are among hundreds in Inner Mongolia with dated inscriptions or bronze vessels or other objects that confirm Han dates. ­There are dozens with standard Han plans—­that is, with two or three main chambers with side niches and at least one vaulted ceiling. Tombs 66 and 67 in a cemetery excavated in the vicinity of Baotou between 1979 and the early 1990s are typical (Figure 2.4).37

2.3 Painting on west wall of front chamber, Galutu tomb 1, Wushenqi, Inner Mongolia, Eastern Han period.

2.4 Plan of tomb 66, south-­central

Inner Mongolia, Eastern Han.

56

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

left: 2.5 Wall painting showing inverted-­V-­shaped braces, corridor of Nanjiao Street tomb 1, Liaoyang, Liaoning, late Eastern Han.  right: 2.6 Detail of Zhao ­family que with architectural decoration, including long, curved bracket arms, Pingyang, Sichuan, 190–195 CE.

Han tomb construction and painting are as easy to document 1325 kilo­meters east of Höhhot in Yingchengzi, near Dalian in Liaoning province.38 Like tombs 66 and 67 in the cemetery in Inner Mongolia, the Liaoning tombs have one or two main rooms and at least one side niche. The tombs in Inner Mongolia and in Yingchengzi are made of small, solid bricks and have at least one truncated pyramidal ceiling. Subjects of interior murals include door guardians, offerings for and ser­vice to the deceased, mythological creatures, and cloudlike patterns. Han tombs also cluster in the vicinity of Liaoyang in Liaoning province.39 A mural in a stone subterranean tomb excavated in Liaoyang county in 2004 has inverted-­V-­shaped braces positioned on a beam between columns to support architectural members above it (Figure 2.5).40 This feature is ubiquitous in Chinese and Japa­nese wooden construction and in Chinese, Japa­nese, Korean, and Mongolian murals with wooden construction through the eighth ­century.

OTHER HAN ARCHITECTURE

Above­ground, architecture that has weathered the two millennia since the Han dynasty is brick or stone. It is of two types: que and offering shrines. Que are freestanding gate-­towers or pillar-­towers that often are paired at an entrance or on e­ ither side of a path (Figure 2.6). About thirty

Han

57

survive.41 Offering shrines w ­ ere commemorative structures where descendants came to pay homage to their ancestors. The best examples are in Shandong. The dimensions of an offering shrine are 2 to 4 meters in any direction. Roofs, pillars, beams, and bracket sets of the shrines are considered reliable evidence of architecture of the period.42 Evidence of Han architecture also comes from mingqi, a word that may be translated “numinous objects.” Mingqi can refer to almost any burial object. Thousands of Han mingqi take the form of architecture.43 ­There is no proof that they imitate specific buildings, but like que and offering shrines, mingqi include specific and accurate building components such as bracket sets or roof tiles. Before the end of the Han dynasty, Buddhism had come to China.44 Buddhist architecture would travel as far beyond China as the religion; secular features of architecture with which it merged in China would travel with it. When Buddhist architecture changed in response to doctrine in China, corresponding changes would occur in K ­ orea and Japan and Mongolia. Upon the fall of Han, China possessed an architectural system displayed in the capitals that was equally evident in Western China, Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, and North ­Korea. The ruler lived in the capital, amid streets that crossed one another at right a­ ngles. This urban system was painted on walls of tombs and molded in clay so that it could define a built environment in the afterlife. The emperor was buried beneath a mound in a tomb whose plan remains unknown, but that had halls for sacrifices, que, land for caretakers, and tombs of t­ hose whose ser­v ice merited it above­ground around him. This system, carried to Han garrison towns, would remain for t­ hose who fought and conquered Han China.

••• 3

A RCHIT EC T URE BEFORE REUNIF IC AT ION

In 220 BCE, China turned from a country with one capital and architectural production that emanated from it like the spokes of a wheel to a multicentered entity whose spoke ends became hubs for their own transmission of art and architecture. No point reached by any of the more than thirty polities that r­ ose and fell in the 361 years before reunification in the late sixth c­ entury was beyond the borders of Chinese architecture. When Han fell, the Wei kingdom ­rose in the north, Shu-­Han, retaining the name Han and joining it to Shu, the ancient name for Sichuan, r­ ose in and around Sichuan in the southwest, and the Wu kingdom, whose capital was in ­today’s Nanjing, was in the southeast. From 281–316, China was briefly united ­under a dynasty known as Western Jin. ­After 316, five more dynasties with a capital at Nanjing ­rose and fell before 589. By the beginning of the fourth c­ entury, aggressive states w ­ ere confederating in the north: the period 304–439 is known as the Sixteen States. Most of their rulers had come from north of the boundary we think of as the ­Great Wall, many from what ­today is Inner Mongolia but ­others from farther northeast or northwest. In 386 a Türkic group that included men of Xianbei ethnicity established the Northern Wei dynasty. It endured in the north, including territory across Inner Mongolia and North China

Architecture before Reunification

59

from Gansu to Shandong, u ­ ntil 534 / 535, when it split into Eastern Wei (534–550) and Western Wei (535–557), succeeded by Northern Qi (550–577) and Northern Zhou (557–581), respectively. It was an age of chiefdoms and continuous warfare, and a time of strongmen whose names may have sounded exotic even in their own times: Shi Hu (Stone Tiger), Helian Bobo, Juqu Mengsun, and Erzhu Rong are examples. It was a devoutly Buddhist age whose rulers from outside China patronized this faith as strongly as ­those centered in Nanjing. Among all the kingdoms, states, and dynasties that r­ ose and fell, the turn to China was striking and almost exclusive. By reunification in 589, third-­, fourth-­, fifth-­, and sixth-­century versions of Han architecture stood from the swamps of Guangxi to the deserts of Gansu, the grasslands of Mongolia, and the forests of Manchuria. From desert to sea, the system would be continued u ­ nder the Sui dynasty (581–618). As we turn to the third through fifth centuries, we start with tombs.

Rouran

Koguryo Northern Wei

Tuyuhun

Türk

Koguryo

Western Eastern Wei Wei

Tuyuhun Tuyuhun

Liang

Qi

Koguryo

Northern Koguryo Türk Northern Zhou Qi Northern Jiangling Zhou Northern Qi Chen Jiangling

497

Chen

546

572 Changchun

Pendzhikent

Nisa

Koguryo

Kumtura Kucha Loulan

Bamiyan

Gandha-ra

Niya Endere Rewak

Milan

Fangshan

Dunhuang Dingjiazha Digengpo Jiayuguan

Beijing Northern Shaling/Pingcheng Wei XinzhouYungang Mount Wutai Tongwan

Yongjing

Yuanzhou Xi’an Maijishan

Northern Koguryo Wei Northern Yan g Xia n Southern a Li ng Yan rn Lia Later Qin e n rth her o N out S Eastern Jin

Western Liang

Jincheng Qi county Mount Ye Song Xiangtangshan

P’yongyang Kongju Puyo

Nagoaka Otsu Kuni Asuka Nara Kyongju Nanjwai Ikaruga

Iksan

Luoyang Longmen Zhongxia/Jiankang

Song

415

m ap 4 East Asia, fifth to sixth centuries, with selected modern cities labeled.

449

60

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

PAEKCHE TO GANSU BY WAY OF NANJING

The tomb of King Muryŏng (462–523) of Paekche (18 BCE–660 CE) in Kongju on the eastern side of southern K ­ orea is cut directly into a mound and oriented south. Under­g round one finds an antechamber and main chamber. The space is 4.2 meters from front to back (north–­ south), 2.72 meters in width, and has a barrel-­vaulted ceiling that rises to 3.14 meters at its highest point. A front step down from the antechamber leads to a small, narrow space ­behind it which is the rest of the tomb, about four-­fifths of the interior. Muryŏng and his queen w ­ ere placed in individual lacquer coffins on this elevated section. The interior walls are covered with layers of bricks that alternate between horizontal and vertical, with four rows in the horizontal layers (Figure 3.1). The bricks of the horizontal rows are placed at the approximate centers of ­those above or below them. Many horizontal bricks are stamped with half-­lotus patterns so that e­ very pair forms a lotus. Other bricks have two lotuses each, each flower at the midpoint of two diagonal lines. Five onion-­shaped niches are interspersed through the tomb as lamp stands. The technique for a segmented vault is perfected in the entry as well as the main chamber.1 Bricks in the tomb have inscriptions stating they ­were made in imitation of bricks manufactured in China during the Liang dynasty (502–557), one of the Southern Dynasties (420–589) that flourished in the vicinity of Nanjing.2 Muryŏng’s tomb was built during this period. In fact, a long-­held understanding of Paekche secular and Buddhist art and architecture of the fourth to seventh centuries has been that it was transmitted across the sea from the Six Dynasties (281–589) capital Jiankang (­today Nanjing).3 Bricks from interiors of tombs of the Six Dynasties, such as ­those with repre­sen­ta­tions of the Seven Worthies of the Bamboo Grove, support the idea that architecture and artifacts flowed from Jiankang to Paekche (Figure 3.2).4 As in King Muryŏng’s tomb, the bricks are in vertical and horizontal rows, but sometimes only three bricks comprise the horizontal sections. Also as in King Muryŏng’s tomb, the horizontal bricks are positioned at the approximate midpoints of the bricks above and below them.

Architecture before Reunification

61

3.1 Interior of tomb of King Muyŏng (d. 523) and his

queen, Kongju, South ­Korea, Paekche kingdom.

3.2 Detail of relief of Seven Worthies of the Bamboo Grove, from interior wall of tomb excavated in Nanjing; now in Six Dynasties Museum, Nanjing, ca. fifth ­century CE.

A tomb excavated in Zhongxia village, within the city limits of Nanjing, also has brick walls composed of horizontal and vertical layers, the horizontal layers three bricks high, segmented arches above some archways, and seams that join large walls with curved tops to ceilings (Figure 3.3). Approached by a diagonal ramp from ground level, the two-­chamber, north–­south oriented tomb, each chamber with two side niches, is dated by excavated objects, from stone coffin supports to jars in which corporeal remains ­were kept, to the Wu kingdom (220–280) that precedes the first of the Six Dynasties in Nanjing.5 King Muryŏng’s tomb is dug directly into rock, whereas the Wu kingdom tomb is entered via a ramp from ground level. Still, the third-­century date of the tomb in Zhongxia village should only strengthen evidence that a ruler of the Paekche kingdom turned to architecture of a capital in the vicinity of Nanjing for his tomb structure. Yet the juxtaposition of King Muryŏng’s tomb with one from Jiayuguan in Gansu province indicates equally remarkable similarities. Jiayuguan tomb 6, one of eleven tombs uncovered t­ here between 1971 and 1989, also has walls with horizontal rows of three layers of bricks. The Jiayuaguan tombs have the additional feature of painted bricks that are inserted into the wall design (Figure 3.4). This configuration is found in other brick tombs with decorated brick inserts in Jiayuguan and in the

62

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

3.3

Interior of tomb in Zhongxia village, Nanjing, Wu kingdom, 220–280 CE.

3.4

Interior of tomb 5, Jiayuguan, Gansu, Wei-­Jin period.

Dunhuang region to the west, also in Gansu. The Gansu tombs are dated third to early fifth c­ entury.6 Jiayuguan is 2054 kilo­meters northwest of Nanjing. King Muryŏng’s tomb, another 906 kilo­meters northeast, has a firm date of 523. We know that the Muryŏng court did not come up with the construction technique for his tomb walls and ceiling in­de­pen­dently; imitation of bricks of the Liang kingdom confirms this. If construction in the Nanjing region is the earliest evidence of this kind of tomb, the presence of the structural type in Gansu raises the possibility of a Han source that presented in western China and eastern China and then in K ­ orea.

Architecture before Reunification

63

The arrangement of bricks in vertical and horizontal rows is compelling evidence of how impor­tant Gansu province—­part of the Wei kingdom, and subsequently of Western Jin, and then of a succession of non-­Chinese states of the sixteen—is in understanding the reach of Chinese architecture. The comparison of tomb structure in the Paekche kingdom, Nanjing, and Gansu also emphasizes the possibility that the transmission of architecture and decoration is nonlinear. This fact ­will be shown again and again through the rest of this book.

­K O R E A T O G A N S U , G A N S U T O K ­ OREA

Paekche is not the only Korean kingdom whose architecture and decoration are so similar to Gansu’s in the centuries following the Han dynasty. Jiuquan, the location of Dingjiazha tomb 5, is 25 kilo­meters east of Jiayuguan. It is a two-­chamber, subterranean tomb covered by a mound and approached from ground level by a 33-­meter diagonal ramp. Changchuan tomb 1, with which it is compared h ­ ere, is located about 22 kilo­meters northeast of Ji’an, in Jilin province, ­today in China. When the Changchuan tomb was built, that territory was part of the Koguryŏ kingdom (37 BCE—668) that straddled t­ oday’s ­Korea, Northeast China, and eastern Mongolia.7 The tomb in Dingjiazha consists of two main chambers joined by an arcade.8 Mea­sur­ing 8.64 meters from entry to back wall, the front chamber has a truncated-­pyramidal ceiling; the ceilings of the causeway and back chamber are barrel vaults. Originally, ­every space of the interior was painted. Only the front chamber’s paintings are well preserved (Figure 3.5). Archaeologists and scholars believe the tomb was built by the Northern Liang state (397–439), one of the sixteen. One part of the floor of one room of Dingjiazha tomb 5 is elevated. Dif­fer­ent from the arrangement of King Muryŏng’s tomb, the elevated section is not the burial chamber and it occupies far less than 80 ­percent of the floor space; steps lead to and from the lower section of the floor. ­Because this feature is unusual, it is noteworthy that King Muryŏng’s tomb is a second example of a two-­ level tomb floor, again perhaps pointing to shared architecture in K ­ orea and Gansu.

64

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

3.5 Infrastructural drawing of tomb 5, Dingjiazha, near Jiuquan, Gansu, ca. 400.

Changchuan tomb 1 extends about 6½ meters between the far sides of the front and back rooms, slightly smaller but of the same plan of two chambers joined by a causeway used in Dingjiazha. As in Dingjiazha, the ceilings above its two rooms are dif­fer­ent, the first formed by horizontal, stepped layers of decreasing perimeter from the top of the walls to the flat, central ceiling apex with chamfered corners, and the second a rectangle without altered corners at each level. Like most Koguryŏ tombs, it is dated by stylistic analy­sis. Ca. 400 is its widely accepted date.9 Truncated pyramidal ceilings, one of which has lotus flowers at the apex in the Dingjiazha tomb, is used in Han tombs and, by the fourth c­ entury, in Buddhist caves in Gansu and Xinjiang. The layered ceiling also appears in Buddhist caves as far west as Af­ghan­i­stan.10 Sweeping statements about similarities in architecture across thousands of kilo­meters can be justified only when comparisons are much deeper than a pair of rooms joined by an arcade, a dif­fer­ent ceiling structure above each room, lotuses at the apex of ceilings, and con­temporary dates. Like the comparisons between tombs in Paekche, Nanjing, and Gansu, the similarities in the Ji’an and Dingjiazha tombs continue to interior walls. In both tombs, a deity occupies a high, central position opposite the doorway. It is the image first seen upon entry into the under­ ground spaces. In Dingjiazha tomb 5, the Queen ­Mother of the West dominates the west wall ceiling of the front chamber. In Changchuan

Architecture before Reunification

65

tomb 1, the Bud­dha is seated opposite the entry of the front chamber, in this tomb on the east wall. Both divinities are amid identifying signs—­the Queen ­Mother’s being the three-­legged black bird and nine-­tailed fox, and the Bud­d ha’s being the lion throne and the mandorla ­behind his head—­a nd worshippers making obeisance. Yet neither the native Chinese (Daoist) nor the Buddhist environment is pure. A lotus, a fundamental sign of the Buddhist world, is painted on the ceiling of Dingjiazha tomb 5 in the same position as ­those in countless Buddhist cave-­temples, whereas in Changchuan tomb 1, native Chinese symbols such as three of the four animals associated with the directions—­the red bird, azure dragon, and white tiger—as well as the three-­legged crow associated with the sun, and the toad and hare associated with the moon, and Ursa Major and Ursa Minor are painted in a cosmos in which the focus is suppliants kneeling before the Bud­dha. Local ele­ments identify the place of each tomb: adobe architecture with crenellations across the top places Ding­ jiazha is the Gansu desert, and spotted, fur-­bordered garments identify the dancers in Changchuan tomb 1 as being of the Koguryŏ kingdom. Celestial beings float across the ceilings in both tombs. In both tombs, the owner is designated by an umbrella over his head. Also in both tombs, he is served food and entertained, and ­there is evidence of his estate on lower registers of the walls, with godly worlds painted above. The ­human register in both tombs includes a prominent, flowering tree. With no explanatory guide, a tree in Ji’an or Dingjiazha may be the fusang tree, whose suns w ­ ere shot down by legendary Archer Yi; a money tree, common in Han funerary art; or a general longevity / life-­giving symbol, all noted in Han tomb imagery. Or it may be specific: in Koguryŏ, the tree may be the one in the Korean founding myth beneath which the prince of Heaven founds a city, whereas in a tomb with as much Buddhist imagery as Changchuan 1, it may be the bodhi tree beneath which the Bud­dha attained enlightenment; or a combination of them. As we observed in the Han dynasty, images that have clear Chinese pre­ce­ dents may appear on walls as symbols of China without understanding of their meanings in Chinese civilization. Many of the same images also are found on an undated lacquer sarcophagus excavated in a tomb in Leizumiao village in Yuanzhou district of Guyuan county, in southern Ningxia: the Queen ­Mother of the

66

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

West, Buddhist deities, celestial symbols, including the crow in the sun and toad-­and-­hare in the moon, and the tomb occupant wearing native dress.11 One finds in addition tales of Confucian filial piety. Six images painted on a piece of paper of 46.2 by 105 centimeters, dated ca. 400, excavated in tomb 13  in a large cemetery in Astana, in Xinjiang, 1000 kilo­meters west of Jiuquan, are all found in Changchuan tomb 1, Dingjiazha tomb 5, and on the Guyuan sarcophagus: a centrally positioned, seated occupant beneath a canopy; his ­horse and groom and a nearby female, all smaller than he; preparation of food; the three-­toed crow in the sun and the toad and hare in the moon; a prominent leafy tree; and the two dipper constellations on its branches.12 One of course would like to know who lies in t­ hese four tombs. That information should be key to knowing the extent to which the interred or whoever commissioned a tomb understood or was affiliated with any of the philosophical and ideological systems represented on the enclosure for corporeal remains. Motif by motif, each image could have been seen, admired, or copied for reasons ranging from pure aesthetics to generalized symbols of China or ­Korea or Buddhism or places farther north, east, or west in which the tomb occupant or men who served him or who passed through his territory mingled. When viewed together, however, the two tombs, sarcophagus, and piece of paper form a representative group of motifs inspired by Asian symbols of the early CE centuries. The first three exhibit a strikingly similar format. All four pre­ sent the same set of motifs, even though each patron made dif­fer­ent specific choices in assembling the imagery. Each set shows awareness of imagery far beyond the location of the tomb, but perhaps not beyond what the occupant had seen. Awareness of a motif, of course, does not require understanding of its meaning. Whereas Han tombs can be classified into five or six structural types according to ground plan and material, the variety of tomb configurations across the same territory from the third through fifth centuries is less. The third and early fourth centuries can be seen as a transitional period in tomb construction during which tombs with as many as three main rooms and side niches, the type constructed in the second c­ entury CE in Inner Mongolia, in Anping and Wangdu in Hebei, and in Liaoning in the Northeast, became less complicated. In the fourth ­century, is it

Architecture before Reunification

67

rare to find a tomb in Gansu or Xinjiang in the West, on China’s Central Plain in Hebei, Shanxi, or Henan, or in Liaoning or Jilin in the Northeast, or in the Nanjing region and contiguous areas in the Southeast, with more than two chambers and occasional side niches.13 In the fifth c­ entury, the tomb with two chambers joined by a short cause­way proliferates in the vicinity of the Northern Wei capital Pingcheng (­today Datong), approximately halfway between Koguryŏ and Gansu. The tombs and their decoration are almost indistinguishable from ­those to the east and west. Among more than one hundred tombs studied by Shanxi University, Shanxi Archaeology Institute, and the Datong Municipal Museum, not one has more than two rooms.14 A Northern Wei cemetery in Datong whose ninety-­one tombs ­were published in 2006 contains all single-­chamber burials.15 Tombs excavated on the campus of Yanbei Normal University in Datong similarly are single-­ and two-­chamber.16 The tomb of Song Shaozu, who died in 477, and his wife is a two-­chamber tomb approached by an extremely long ramp.17 As we have observed in Dingjiazha and Changchuan, the lack of structural complexity does not carry over to contents or decoration. The 3.48-­meter-­wide, 2.4-­meter-­high stone sarcophagus of Song and his wife is decorated with twenty-­five door knockers on the exterior, and murals with themes noted above in Han and ­later tombs on its interior walls. It pre­sents as a three-­bay Chinese structure with three-­arm bracket sets, the inverted-­V-­shaped brace, and a ceramic tile roof imitated in stone (Figure 3.6). A single-­chamber tomb found in 2005 in Shaling, Datong, had a lacquer sarcophagus and murals of a quality previously unknown in the Datong region, more detailed and with finer delineation than the above-­mentioned lacquer sarcophagus excavated in Guyuan.18 Shared structure and similarities in decoration in Datong and Gansu perhaps can be explained. In the mid-­fifth c­ entury, the Northern Wei resettled tens of thousands of ­people from Gansu ­after the conquest of several of the Sixteen States. Song Shaozu, who was an official at the time of his death, had been born in Dunhuang and was resettled to the Datong capital as a child.19 Scenario building is always ambiguous, but rec­ords of resettlement are an example of the kind of evidence that supports the fact that architecture and art move with populations. The movement is not unidirectional. The route of transmission of Buddhism

68

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

3.6 Sarcophagus of Song Shaozu, excavated in Datong, Shanxi, 477.

and its art from India to Japan was similarly nuanced and definitely nonlinear.

BUDDHIST CONSTRUCTION

Buddhism was a major ideological force that drove construction across China and beyond in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries. We have noted the presence of Buddhist symbols such as the lotus flower, from which a Buddhist can be reborn in paradise, amid Daoist motifs in Dingjiazha tomb 5; tomb occupants making obeisance to the Bud­dha, with directional animals of native Chinese thought around them, in Changchuan tomb 1; and the juxtaposition of Buddhist, Daoist, and Confucian motifs on the Guyuan sarcophagus (Figure 3.5). Buddhism was the first belief system that came to China from outside. It required worship spaces that had not existed for the native philosophical systems Daoism or Confucianism. In its earliest vestiges in India, Buddhist prac-

Architecture before Reunification

69

tice did not require freestanding architecture. Buddhist architecture would be the model test case for how a foreign building system entered a structural system as old and unchanged as China’s. The third, fourth, and fifth centuries, when so much of China was ruled by so many foreigners, was the period when the foreign religion Buddhism made the greatest inroads. It would become part of Chinese ideology, determining decisions about construction for life and death in China, and it would be transmitted in and out of China thereafter. The aniconic faith that would be known as Buddhism r­ ose in India in the sixth c­ entury BCE. Before the first ­century BCE, circular structures with egg-­shaped domes of brick and stone known as stupas w ­ ere built in central India to commemorate the historical Bud­dha, Siddhārtha Gau­ta­ma (ca. 563–ca. 480), and his teachings, and as symbols of Buddhist death. Also by this time, worship in rock-­carved spaces known as chaitya had commenced. Ogee-­shaped (pointed, horseshoe-­shaped) arches often w ­ ere at the top of entries to ­these caves. The Sans­k rit name chaitya would refer to the shape of such arches and the worship caves themselves in descriptions of China’s earliest Buddhist architecture. The concept of a monastic community also was in place in South Asia before the first ­century BCE. Some of the earliest surviving architectural evidence of early Buddhist monasticism is from communities in the region known as Gandhāra that spanned large portions of t­oday’s Pakistan and Af­ghan­i­stan.20 Buddhist symbols ­were pre­sent in Sichuan province of southwestern China in the Han dynasty. By the third c­ entury, Buddhist stupas w ­ ere built in southern Xinjiang. Examples still stand in Loulan, Rewak, Niya, Miran, and Endere. Each one is elevated on a platform, roughly circular, usually centered in an enclosed precinct, and dominates its monastery. Sometimes, as had been the case in Gandhāra, other buildings such as small cells for monks’ prayer or residence formed as cloisters around stupas. Other times, worship took place in the above-­mentioned rock-­ carved spaces (chaitya). The stupa would become taller and slender in its transformation to a Chinese monument. The circular shape would be attempted as a twelve-­sided building. ­Later, four-­sided, and occasionally eight-­sided, circular, and six-­faced stupas would be built. In East Asia, the structure is referred to as pagoda.

70

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

By the fifth ­century, rock-­carved cave-­temples proliferated across the deserts and occasionally on other terrain between India and China. Natu­ral rock that made chaitya construction pos­si­ble in China was rare in ­Korea and Japan. Interior decoration absorbed features such as the chaitya arch to frame Chinese deities in Chinese rock-­carved interiors while the same interiors ­were adorned with taller, four-­sided, storied pagodas that resembled Chinese towers. Imitation-­ceramic-­tile roofs supported by parallel raf­ters with circular ends and Chinese ornaments that resembled owls’ tails on the ends of the main roof ridges w ­ ere sculpted above chaitya arches (Figure i.20). Eventually the rock-­carved cave-­ temples would transform into Chinese structures, freestanding ­temples supported by wooden frames with ceramic-­tile roofs. The model for ­these Bud­dha halls was the Chinese palace. The Buddhist monastery is one of the most power­ful examples of the ability of Chinese architecture to overlay its building system for a non-­native religion, and the expansive borders of Chinese architecture that result. The transformed Buddhist worship space into Chinese space would be exported to K ­ orea, Japan, and Mongolia. In l­ ater centuries, mosques would undergo this kind of transformation into Chinese space. Chinese Monasteries of the Fifth C ­ entury

Rec­ords attest to more than 7000 monasteries in China in the fifth and sixth centuries.21 Fewer than 2 ­percent are described beyond name and location. Archaeological evidence confirms fewer than 1 ­percent. Still, the remains of some thirty monasteries from which evidence is drawn ­here indicate only three configurations, which may have been used in sequence. The oldest excavated monasteries have a central pagoda enclosed in its own courtyard. This arrangement is seen in third-­century monasteries in southern Xinjiang.22 Remains of three monasteries with a central pagoda have been uncovered from the fifth c­ entury near Datong. This is the period when that city was the location of the Northern Wei capital (398–493). Two are above Yungang caves 5–6 and 39; a third is Siyuan Buddhist Monastery, dated 479, in hilly terrain near the tomb of a

Architecture before Reunification

71

Northern Wei empress dowager (Figure 3.7a).23 The same dowager built Siyan Buddhist Monastery in the capital of Northern Yan, one of the Sixteen States.24 The plan is a logical successor to the Xinjiang monasteries. The second monastery type is represented by one of China’s most famous monasteries. Yongning Monastery was built by a dif­fer­ent empress dowager in the Northern Wei capital Luoyang in 516 (Figure 3.7b). Its central, four-­sided pagoda is said to have soared 40 zhang (about 100 meters) with its mast (chatra) composed of thirty golden plates capped by a golden jar inlaid with precious stones. Even allowing for hyperbole, the pagoda surely dominated its monastery and a large part of the capital. Still, it shared the main monastery cloister with a Bud­d ha hall ­behind it and a gate in front of both of them. Yongning Monastery burned to the ground in 534.25 The third monastery plan cannot be confirmed in China ­until the mid-­sixth ­century. It has a central pagoda and symmetrically placed structures on ­either side in front. Examples survive near the Northern Qi capitals Ye in southern Hebei and Jinchang (­today Taiyuan) in central Shanxi (Figure 3.7c).26 ­Korea’s Oldest Buddhist Monasteries

Between the late fourth and early sixth ­century, Buddhism came to ­Korea. An official entry date for the religion exists for each of the Three Kingdoms (­after which this period of Korean history is named) (57 BCE– 668 CE): Koguryŏ in 372, Paekche in 384, and Silla in 527.27 Remarkably, each kingdom is associated with a dif­fer­ent plan. They are the plans just noted in China from approximately the same time period. The earliest remains of Koguryŏ monasteries are in the vicinity of P’yŏngyang, where the capital was moved in 427. Each focuses on an octagonal pagoda and has a Bud­dha hall b ­ ehind it and at both sides. Chŏngnŭng Monastery, the largest Koguryŏ t­ emple complex known, 223 meters east-­to-­west by 132.5 meters north-­to-­south, is about 17.5 kilo­ meters southeast of P’yŏngyang (Figure 3.7d). Adjacent to the four Buddhist buildings is the gong-­shaped configuration, the building arrangement associated with China’s most eminent building complexes from the end of the second millennium BCE through the Forbidden City, mentioned in the Introduction.28

3.7 Plans or reconstruction plans of fifteen Buddhist monasteries of the fifth to seventh

centuries in China, K ­ orea, and Japan. a. Plan of Siyuan Buddhist Monastery, greater Datong, Shanxi, Northern Wei, 479. b. Plan of Yongning Monastery, Luoyang, Henan, Northern Wei, 516. c. ­Plan of Great Zongchi Monastery, Ye capital, Hebei, Northern Qi, 562. d. Plan of Chŏngnŭng Monastery, greater P’yŏngyang, North K ­ orea, Koguryŏ kingdom. e. Plan of Chŏngnim Monastery, South Ch’ungch’ong, South K ­ orea, Paekche kingdom. f. Plan of Mirŭk Monastery, Iksan, South K ­ orea, Paekche kingdom, 600–660. g. Plan of Kamun Monastery, North Kyŏngsang, South ­Korea, Unified Silla, 682. h. Plan of Asuka Monastery, Asuka, 588. i. Plan of Kudara ­Great Monastery, Asuka, 639. j. Plan of Tachibana Monastery, Asuka, a­ fter 680. k . Plan of Kawara Monastery, Asuka, ca. 668. l. Plan of Yakushi Monastery, Asuka, 680s. m. Plans of three building periods of Hwangnyong Monastery, Kyŏngju, South K ­ orea.

74

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Monasteries associated with the Paekche kingdom are dated from the late 520s ­until shortly before Paekche’s fall to Silla in 668. Most of them are in or near Puyŏ in South Ch’ungch’ong province of South ­Korea, the capital during this period.29 Each has a gate, pagoda, and Bud­dha hall on a main central axis through the monastery, the plan of Yongning Monastery in China (Figures. 3.7b and 3.7e). As we observe throughout this book, nonstructural evidence strongly supports the extent of the spread of Chinese art at buildings sites. H ­ ere, clay images uncovered at the Paekche kingdom Chŏngnim Monastery suggest remarkable similarities with clay figures excavated at Yongning Monastery (Figures. 3.8 and 3.9).30 Specifically, the shapes of heads, headgear, and texture are enough alike to suggest con­temporary manufacture, transport from Luoyang to Paekche, or manufacture of the one based on the other. Mirŭk Monastery is Paekche’s most famous.31 It dates to the last period of Paekche rule, ca. 600–660, when the capital was at Iksan, a date confirmed by the excavation of a gold plate inscribed with the date 639 on a reliquary.32 The monastery has three courtyards, with a plan that can be understood as three side-­by-­side Paekche plans or as a central, dominant pagoda with a Bud­dha hall ­behind it and to each side, and a pair of pagodas in front (Figure 3.7f). In other words, a combination of the Koguryŏ and Paekche plans, and perhaps the paired structures observed in the two sixth-­century Chinese monasteries, the third plan, are all found h ­ ere. Seven Silla monasteries are known from the year 528 to the end of the seventh ­century. If they ­were conceived as a group, then they may symbolize the stars of Ursa Major.33 Seven monasteries from the Asuka period (552–645) in Japan may be based on the same ideology.34 The defining feature of a Silla monastery is twin pagodas. The date of sixth to seventh c­ entury for this feature is consistent with what is known from China. Hwangnyŏng Monastery, Silla’s most famous, was built in three phases whose dates confirm what we have observed in China (Figure 3.7m). Located in Kyŏngju, the first period of construction was on a site intended for a palace. The appearance of a yellow dragon gave way to the change in function and name Hwangnyŏng (Yellow Dragon).35 Constructed between 553 and 569, the plan consisted of a gate, pagoda, and Bud­dha hall on a line and an enclosing covered corridor, the plan of

3.8 Clay head of figure uncovered at remains of Yongning Monastery, Luoyang, Henan, ca. 516.

3.9 Clay heads of figurines uncovered at site of Chŏngnim Monastery, South Ch’ungch’ong,

South K ­ orea, Paekche kingdom.

76

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Yongning Monastery and Paekche monasteries (Figures. 3.7b and 3.7e). By the first rebuilding period, 574–645, Bud­dha halls stood east and west of the enlarged Bud­dha hall at Hwangnyŏng Monastery—in other words, a plan that followed a Koguryŏ monastery but may also be considered a combination of the two earliest Chinese monastery plans, or the plan of Mirŭk Monastery in the first half of the seventh c­ entury (Figures. 3.7a, b, d, e, and f). We are observing a pro­cess of the merging of plans and perhaps some experimentation, but always based on the three fundamental plans. The last construction period at Hwangnyŏng Monastery included paired structures at the front on e­ ither side of the main axis, the plan that appears at the Great Zongchi Monastery, in the Unified Silla kingdom (668–935) at, for example, Kamun Monastery, and in Japan before the end of the seventh c­ entury (Figures 3.7c, 3.7g, and 3.7l). Japan’s Oldest Buddhist Monasteries

Buddhism came to the Japa­nese islands about five hundred years ­later than to China, officially through the pre­sen­ta­tion of an image from the king of Paekche in 538.36 Unlike the beginnings of Buddhism in China, where waves of entry may have encouraged hybrid Sino-­Buddhist forms, the religion entered Japan from China as well as from all three Korean kingdoms, but as already coherent architectural systems with multiple examples of the same monastery plan. All three Korean monastery plans, plus an offshoot of one of them, w ­ ere constructed in Japan between the sixth and eighth centuries. The oldest evidence of Japa­nese ­temple complexes is in Asuka, the center of Japa­nese Buddhist life from 538 ­until the capital was moved to Nara in 710. Four ­great monasteries ­were built in Asuka before this move. Evidence suggests that three plans already used in China and representing each of the three Korean kingdoms dominated construction. Asuka Monastery was founded in 588. It had a central pagoda with Bud­dha halls ­behind it and to ­either side (Figure 3.7h). This is the plan associated with Koguryŏ that may find its origins in the focal pagodas of monasteries in the Datong region or ­earlier in Xinjiang (Figures 3.7a and 3.7d). Kudara G ­ reat Monastery, founded in 639, the second monastery plan in Asuka, had a Bud­d ha hall and pagoda side-­by-­side

Architecture before Reunification

77

(Figure 3.7i). Some interpret this as a new Japa­nese plan. ­Others, such as this author, believe it is a 90-­degree turn of the Yongning Monastery / ​ Paekche plan t­oward east–­west orientation, perhaps initially in response to topography, for Tachibana Monastery in Asuka, oriented east–­west, had such a plan (Figure3.7j). At Kudara G ­ reat Monastery, however, t­ here is a change: the pagoda and Bud­dha hall each face the front of the monastery, and each is approached by its own entrance. Kawara Monastery in Asuka, of the third type, founded in about 668, has a single entry to a cloister whose focal buildings are a Bud­dha hall and pagoda. ­There, the two buildings face each other (Figure 3.7k). By the seventh ­century in Japan, the Bud­dha hall, which had been China’s version of the rock-­ carved chaitya, shares importance with the once-­dominant pagoda. In China and ­Korea, the shared importance of Bud­dha hall and pagoda had been indicated by the images enshrined in both of them, but the side-­by-­side configuration so far is exclusive to Japan. Yakushi Monastery in Asuka was founded in 680 and had twin pagodas (Figure 3.7l).37

ARCHITECTURE IN RESPONSE TO ARCHITECTURE

In ­Korea, the relation between monastery and royal tomb is explicit. Chŏngnŭng means Determined by the Tomb, and indeed, Chŏngnŭng Monastery, the oldest to survive in Koguryŏ, is 120 meters due south of a burial mound (Figure 3.7d). The mound is believed to belong to King Dongmyŏng (r. 37–19 BCE), one of the first Koguryŏ rulers.38 If this is the tomb of a first-­century-­BCE ruler, then the positions of the pagoda and the monastery ­were in response to the existing tomb. It is not pos­ si­ble to prove that royal Koguryŏ builders knew about the layout of Han Chang’an. However, Paekche seems to have engaged in a similar practice of placing imperial architecture in response to existing imperial architecture. Nŭng means tomb, so that the Paekche monastery Nŭngsa translates as Monastery of the Tombs. That monastery is 200 meters west of a group of eight royal Paekche tombs.39 Its name tells us that the tombs came first, and then the religious architecture. In China, Siyuan Buddhist Monastery in Fangshan is near the tomb of the Northern Wei dowager empress Wenming, who died in 490.40

78

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Both are north of the capital Pingcheng, ­today Datong. The date of the monastery is unknown. Still, in the post-­Buddhist world of the fifth-­ century Chinese capital, we observe construction of royal architecture of life and death, the ­later built in response to the ­earlier. We observe the same phenomenon in Koguryŏ and Paekche. Monastery and Monastery

The Silla kingdom offers evidence that monasteries w ­ ere built in response to each other. A central pagoda ­rose at Hwangnyŏng Monastery in Kyŏngju since the founding of the t­ emple complex between 553 and 569. By 643, two years before the completion of the second construction period, a towering wooden pagoda stood on the central building axis. Nine years ­earlier, in 634, while construction was ongoing, Bunhwang Monastery was founded 390 kilo­meters ­behind it. Of the same core plan as Hwangnyŏng Monastery—­t hat is, with a pagoda enclosed by Bud­d ha halls due north, northeast, and northwest of it—­the Bunhwang Monastery stone pagoda was seven or nine stories and is calculated to have risen between 14.15 and 17.27 meters.41 It was without a doubt lower than the nine-­story pagoda of Hwangnyŏng Monastery, whose height, based on textual accounts and ground surveys, is calculated as between 76 and 81 meters.42 ­Today as then, Bunhwang Monastery is clearly vis­i­ble from the remains of Kyŏngju’s tallest pagoda. The towering pagoda, taller than t­ hose of other monasteries within its viewing range, was part of an imperial monastery in the capital. The relation between the two Silla monasteries may find pre­ce­dents in China’s Northern and Southern Dynasties as well as in ­Korea’s kingdoms in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. In Northern Wei Luoyang, the pagoda of Yongning Monastery, even if it w ­ ere a mere 75 meters, dominated the view and offered visual and audible power in the city from much farther than 390 meters. Yang Xuanzhi’s (d. 555) description of Luoyang’s monasteries, written in 547, declares that on windy nights the ringing of the 120 bells suspended from its nine stories could be heard 5 kilo­meters away.43 The same text calls it Luoyang’s most impor­tant monastery. Of the 1367 Buddhist institutions that, according to Yang Xuanzhi, stood in Northern Wei Luoyang, the pagoda is the most likely

Architecture before Reunification

79

one to have offered a protectorate relationship to ­t hose even beyond viewing range. This tallest pagoda in the capital and the imperial pagoda on Mount Song, on the highest peak in the region, some 75 kilo­ meters apart, both had Empress Dowager Hu (d. 528) as their patroness. Both towered, perhaps as the hubs of protectorates of Buddhist architecture in the vicinity. Perhaps they w ­ ere also beacons among a Buddhist protectorate system joined from towering pagoda to towering pagoda.44 We ­shall revisit t­ hese possibilities when we consider architecture of the tenth and eleventh centuries. The use of specific monuments to define an imperial universe, in China or ­Korea, secular or religious, centered on the capital, is traced by physical evidence to Western Han Chang’an (Figure 2.1). Perhaps it was the vision of the First Emperor. Sacred Space and ­Earlier Sacred Space

A third relationship, between sacred space and sacred space, was forged in North and South China in the fifth c­ entury. Jingming Monastery in Luoyang was built on the site of the Eastern Han ritual structure Mingtang, one of the supreme ritual spaces of pre-­Buddhist China mentioned in discussion of Han Chang’an. In the 450s and 460s, during the rule of the Southern Dynasty (Liu-)Song in Nanjing, the Mingtang was moved so that Dazhuangyan Monastery, with a seven-­story pagoda, could be built in its place. The same patron emperor Mingdi (r. 466–472) then vowed to erect a ten-­story pagoda at Xinggong Monastery.45 The pagoda, by then the power­ful symbol of Buddhism, supplanted architecture of Confucian ritual in the Chinese capital, and the pagoda replaced the most sacred architecture of pre-­Buddhist China in the same location. Imperial capitals thus became religious capitals without altering the central axis of the city or the location of its most sacrosanct architecture. The Southern Dynasties cities in the vicinity of Nanjing, the Northern Wei capitals in Datong and Luoyang, and the Northern Qi capital at Ye all had at least one monastery with a towering pagoda as well as imperial tombs and imperial Buddhist cave-­temples. The rock-­carved architecture, Qixiasi near Nanjing, Yungang near Datong, Longmen near Luoyang, and Xiangtangshan near Ye, was integral to the imperial vision of a city that had expanded since the Han dynasty to include Buddhist

80

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

institutions, even though ritual architecture such as Mingtang still existed, if in new locations. Although topography afforded only a few cave-­carved sites in ­Korea, monasteries and imperial tombs ­were as integral to the palace in the capitals near P’yŏngyang of Koguryŏ, Puyŏ of Paekche, and Kyŏngju of Silla, as they ­were in the Northern Wei, Northern Qi, and Southern Dynasties capitals. If royalty ­were spending less on tombs and funerary cities than in the Han dynasty, they w ­ ere spending much more on Buddhist construction.

INTERIOR DESIGN

­ ese few above­ground pagodas provide ­little information about inteTh rior design. For this, we return to tombs. Ceilings ­were one of the ­great construction feats of East Asia from the late first millennium BCE onward. Their investigation takes us across the Asian continent from North ­Korea to Tajikistan. The ceilings of greatest interest are vaulted. Chinese builders constructed vaults and domes (domical vaults) in brick since the last centuries BCE.46 Seven common forms of Chinese vault survive in tombs from the Warring States period to the Eastern Han. They follow one another in chronological sequence and complexity: flat ceiling; ceiling of three segments, the upper flat and the flanking ones diagonal; segmented vault with inserts between segments; segmented vault without inserts; tongue-­and groove jointed ceiling; segmented arch (also known as a barrel vault); domical vault. Sometimes wooden supports have been found in brick tombs with vaulted ceilings. As stated already, the prototypes for most features of Chinese construction are believed to be wooden. An entirely wooden dome is hard to imagine, let alone construct, but brick and stone tomb ceilings from the Han period suggest that domes rising on four-­or eight-­ sided bases may have had wooden ribs. Superimposed quadrilaterals painted and in three dimensions also ­were built in tombs in the Han dynasty (Figure 3.10). Ceilings with star groups also have a continuous history in China through the next millennium in tombs, Buddhist caves, and freestanding timber-­frame buildings.47 By the fourth c­ entury, domes ­were made in rock-­carved caves. Their surfaces ­were plastered before

Architecture before Reunification

81

3.10 Center of ceiling of Taliangzi tomb 1, Zhongjiang, Santai, Sichuan, Eastern Han.

3.11 Ceiling of cave GK 21, Kumtura,

Xinjiang, prob­ably fourth c­ entury.

3.12 Ceiling of main chamber of Tomb of the Dancers, Ji’an, Jilin, ca. fifth ­century.

painting (Figure 3.11), and by the fifth ­century, octagonal domes with flat ceilings w ­ ere among the explosion of creative and challenging designs in Koguryŏ tombs that included superimposed four-­, six-­, and eight-­sided shapes, inverted-­ladle-­shapes, and truncated pyramids (Figure 3.12). Ceilings in Han tombs, tombs from Gansu to Koguryŏ in the fourth and fifth centuries, and in Buddhist cave-­temples in Gansu and Xinjiang as late as the sixth ­century are intriguing in the context of what has been labeled a Dome of Heaven. The Chinese translation of Dome of Heaven is usually zaojing, a word also translated as caisson, cupola, and lantern ceiling (Lanternendecke). The name has been used to describe ceilings

82

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

in the Koguryŏ tombs: Anak tombs 1 and 3, Twin Pillars tomb, Honamri tomb, Kangsŏ ­Great tomb, Chinp’ari tomb 4, Wukui tombs 4 and 5, Changchuan tomb 1, Tŏkhwari tomb 2, and the Tomb of the Dancers (Figure 3.12).48 It is also used to describe ceilings in rock-­carved Buddhist caves in Bamiyan, Af­ghan­i­stan, from the same time period.49 The ceiling continues for another millennium, with excellent fifteenth-­ century examples in buildings at Zhihua Monastery in Beijing.50 By the 1960s, scholars tried to make connections with vaulted interiors in West Asia—­specifically, material coming from excavations in the former Soviet Republics. Nisa in Turkmenistan and Pendzhikent in Tajikistan w ­ ere suggested to be impor­tant sources of Domes of Heaven (Figure  3.13).51 All discussions sought to identify the earliest Dome of Heaven and its subsequent route across Asia. The Han tomb ceilings, most of them still unexcavated in the 1960s, are prob­ably the earliest examples. The ceilings in Foladi caves in Bamiyan are likely to be as old as almost any other post-­Han example (Figure 3.14). The most likely intermediary location between Han China and Af­ghan­i­stan is the Kucha region, represented by the cave-­temples in Kumtura (Figure 3.11). If an Aegean source ­were proved for construction in Bamiyan, and Buddhist transmission brought such ceilings to Kucha, Han still had accomplished vaulting on its own before Bamiyan or the Kucha-­region caves w ­ ere carved.

left: 3.13 Reconstruction of reception hall in residence, Pendzhikent, Tajikistan, ca. sixth to seventh c­ entury.  right: 3.1 4 Foladi ceiling, Bamiyan, Af­ghan­i­stan.

Architecture before Reunification

83

­ omen painted on cave-­temple and tomb walls and on a sarcophW agus are examples of an image that decorates interiors from Gansu to Japan. The w ­ oman in question is full-­faced with multiple neck wrinkles. Her nose is formed by a single line that comes to a point at the bottom. She wears a skirt whose pleats are indicated by color differentiation and a jacket of another color that closes in front with cuffs that cover her hands. Buddhist devotees in cave 169 of Binglingsi, dated ca. 420, are an early example (Figure 3.15).52 A very similar w ­ oman wears the same costume on the lacquer sarcophagus excavated in Guyuan that was discussed above (Figure 3.16). W ­ omen wearing multicolored pleated skirts are painted on the walls of Twin Pillars Tomb and the tomb at Susanri, both of Koguryŏ in North ­Korea (Figure 3.17).53 The Koguryŏ ­women are taller and slimmer, their f­ aces more slender, their skirts more narrowly pleated, compared to renderings in Binglingsi and Guyuan. The same attire is worn by more corpulent ­women in murals in the tomb Takamatsuzuka in Asuka, Japan (Figure 3.18).54 We thus observe another example of an image first painted in China that was painted across East Asia in secular and religious contexts. Occasionally one power­ful image captures a period. Figure 3.19 is such as image. This wall portion remains from the capital begun by Helian Bobo (d. 425), a leader of a branch of the Xiongnu who moved across Mongolia, Ningxia, and northernmost Shaanxi. In 413 he relocated 100,000 conquered laborers to build the capital of the state named Xia or Da Xia.55 Texts describe a four-­sided wall with a gate at each side that enclosed a palace-­city with a pair of gate-­towers at the center front, an ancestral t­ emple, and an altar to soil and grain. Gilded statues stood in front of the palace. Excavation confirms a heavi­ly fortified city of two adjacent walls with four outer-­wall gates and battlements projecting roughly e­ very third of a kilo­meter so that approximately two-­thirds of the wall was taken up with fortifications. Inside the walls, Tongwan was a city of tents in which hundreds of thousands of ­horses, sheep, and oxen w ­ ere sequestered.56 Imperial seals excavated inside the walls confirm that even if royalty lived in tents, they took on the accoutrements of Chinese rulers.57 The city fell in 431. By the time invaders from the North came to this wall, prob­ably nothing was left inside it. The power and allure of this enceinte pre­sents

3.15 Female devotees of the

Bud­d ha, cave 169, Binglingsi, Gansu, 420–424.

3.16 Female alongside tomb occupant, lacquer

sarcophagus, Guyuan, Ningxia, late fifth c­ entury.

3.17 Females in pro­cession, Twin Pillars Tomb,

near P’yŏngyang, North K ­ orea, ca. fifth to sixth ­century.

3.18 Painting of females, west wall, Takamatsuzuka, Asuka.

Architecture before Reunification

85

3.19 Wall of Tongwan, Shaanxi, Xia state, 407–431, with l­ ater repairs.

in one picture the draw of China for ­those who saw it for the first time. If a non-­Chinese dynasty of only eigh­teen years could leave such an inspiring legacy on China’s northern grasslands, the inspiration to build palaces, religious institutions, and cemeteries inside Chinese walls can only be ­imagined.

CHIN A , ROME , A ND L AT E A NT IQUIT Y

Just this glimpse at Han architecture alongside construction across the former territory of the empire, including its commanderies, and beyond in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, indicates why scholars compare the empires of Han and ancient Rome.58 Provincial Han could be as valid a construct as Provincial Rome, Chang’an compared with Rome itself, and Gansu, Koguryŏ, Paekche, and greater Nanjing finding comparisons in Dura Europos or Palmyra or Leptis Magna. A Chinese counterpart to Grafton, Most, and Settis’s The Classical Tradition that aims to “provide a reliable and wide-­ranging guide to the reception of classical Greco-­Roman

86

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

antiquity in all its dimensions in ­later cultures” would yield a similarly comprehensive text.59 Chinese architecture is a building tradition that, like the Classical tradition, at any time extends far beyond the farthest reaches of a state or kingdom or dynasty in China or an empire that is centered in or includes a Chinese population. Another comparison also provides a framework for understanding the three centuries a­ fter Han. One might consider them as China’s Late Antiquity.60 Viewing Han China as Antiquity and the centuries between then and the next long dynasty, Tang, as Late Antiquity, dated as ca. 250– ca. 750, one might substitute Han for ancient Rome, China’s Classical Age for ancient Greece, and Buddhism for Chris­tian­ity, in sentences in the book Interpreting Late Antiquity by Bowersock, Brown, and Grabar. It would read: The Han past was interpreted and often remade during this period through palaces and monuments to emperors that stood alongside or on the ruins of h ­ ouses of Buddhist-­practicing emperors; philosophical writings of Zhou and Han ­were still read, albeit selectively, and known to writers who s­ haped the more Buddhist philosophical tradition of the five centuries following the fall of Han; mendicants and clergy, some sponsored by the Buddhist Church and ­others with sectarian beliefs, wrote and proselytized; ethnicities ­were many, they mattered, and the Han concept of the barbarian was an impor­tant ­factor in ­these centuries of war and vio­lence; empires and smaller states ­rose and fell across the farthest reaches of the old Han empire; Buddhism dominated life and thought, but other religions gained momentum and w ­ ere pre­sent; and amid all the turmoil families continued and occasionally prospered on farms, as craftsmen, in trades, and through mercantilism.

In China, however, Late Han Antiquity is not a unique period. Tang could replace Han in the same sentences, and the capitals would still be Chang’an and Luoyang. In terms of architecture, specifically, whereas Neo-­Classical was a framework cultivated in Eu­rope and Amer­i­ca in the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, China—­not Neo-­Han or Neo-­

Architecture before Reunification

87

Tang—­was the single framework across the parts of Asia we consider ­here, and aspects of its Han manifestation persisted for millennia. One thus might add: Rulers in the Chinese period of Late Antiquity and as late as the eigh­teenth ­century from Xinjiang to Japan to Mongolia sought to construct a world of imperial power modeled a­ fter Han China; they ­were the greatest patrons of ­every age; they viewed architecture and cities as ways to identify themselves as supreme rulers of all the territory that had formerly belonged to Han, and then Tang, u ­ ntil the Mongols controlled all of it, far beyond Han’s or Tang’s outpost commanderies and regions beyond ­those borders; many of the rulers ­were Buddhist, still more of them ­were patrons of monuments to glorify what­ever form of Buddhism or occasionally Daoism they practiced even as they patronized monuments of the imperial Chinese State. The prevailing messages of architecture in China from Qin-­Han forward was that its power emanated from imperial construction in the capitals and that the ideological world of Han rulers was grounded in native Chinese beliefs, ­whether texts of Confucianism, ideas about a spirit world and man’s opportunities outside society, or a world that could exist unchallenged by the many gods of Buddhism. Sometimes rulers saw Chinese architecture when they conquered, and destroyed it only to rebuild its likeness in the same location or in their homeland. The most impor­tant three-­dimensional realization of a Chinese imperial order was the ruler’s central position in his universe represented by the capital; it could endure a multicentered world with as many centers as ­there ­were aspirants to rule in the manner of China.

••• 4

SEEING THE SIXTH C ­ ENTURY AS THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH

Looking to Japan to understand art and architecture of the Tang dynasty (618–907) was a standard practice of scholars and students through most of the twentieth c­ entury. The exercise yielded quantifiable results of what was believed to have been lost in China but presumed to have its origins in the power­ful Tang dynasty. Data was drawn from remains of orthogonal street planning, ­temples, pagodas, Buddhist sculpture, murals, and a few scroll paintings from the years ca. 645–ca. 794 when the Japa­ nese capital was in Asuka or Nara. By the late twentieth ­century, evidence of China’s sixth ­century was impressively comprehensive. Twenty years ­later, the sixth ­century offers a physical rec­ord based on uncovered monuments and excavated remains of art and architecture in China that requires one to rethink paradigms of how and when China influenced ­Korea and Japan; for much of what was assumed to be Tang when twentieth-­century art histories of East Asia w ­ ere conceived is now known to have existed in the sixth c­ entury. We saw evidence of this in Chapter 3: late-­twentieth-­ century excavation confirms that two of the three plans of sixth-­century Korean and Japa­nese monasteries existed in fifth-­century China; twenty-­ first-­century excavation confirms that the third plan was built in China in the mid-­sixth ­century. H ­ ere we deal with sixth-­century evidence from Chinese tombs and Japan’s earliest above­ground architecture.

Seeing the Sixth Century as the Seventh and Eighth

89

X INZHOU A ND CH A NG’A N

We begin with two repre­sen­ta­tions of buildings, one a mural in a tomb excavated in Xinzhou, about 50 kilo­meters north of the Northern Qi capital Jinyang, in Shanxi, and the second, a detail of an inlaid funerary couch excavated in a tomb in Xi’an, 602 kilo­meters southwest of Xinzhou, and dated by inscription to 571 when Xi’an’s pre­de­ces­sor Chang’an was the capital of the Northern Zhou dynasty (557–581) (Figures 4.1 and 4.2). Neither the occupant nor the date of the tomb in Xinzhou is recorded. The funerary couch was made for a Sogdian named An Jia. The painting shown in Figure 4.1 is the focal point of its tomb.1 The structure is at least five bays across the front, the three central ones taller than t­hose on the sides, with double doors, each door panel with a knocker held in the toothy mouth of a creature, and the shorter side bays shown only in part ­because joints with the side walls of the tomb cut them off. The side bays have the very standard, inverted-­V-­shaped braces that have identified Chinese architecture from the late Han dynasty onward (Figure 2.5). The placements of columns and the bracket sets above them in the central bays, by contrast, are unusual. Two columns support the undersides of each of the large brackets at two dif­fer­ent points. Double columns had been used in Chinese architecture in the Shang dynasty, but in the second millennium BCE the columns are bundled or next to each other.2 ­Here they are separated so that each of a pair is casing for a dif­fer­ent door, joining a floor board to a lintel. The columns also are starting points for balustrades that proj­ect on the front porch. Each side of each balustrade runs the depth of the front porch, ending with a decorative, bulb-­shaped knob at the top front end of each side. Each of the six columns shown in the painting is capped by a block with a slightly larger piece above it into which are lodged four diagonal timbers that proj­ect approximately 45 degrees to ­either side of the wall plane. Blocks at the ends of ­those timbers support arms that support the underside of the roof above them. The cut-­off ends of seven of the eight diagonal members are indicated by a dif­fer­ent color of paint than the other wooden pieces. Similar attention is given to the pronounced owls’ tails that proj­ect at ­either side of the main roof ridge; their ends are painted as two layers of feathers. Animal ­faces decorate the tiles at the ends of the ridges that proj­ect from the main one to define a hipped roof. The floor

4.1 Painting on

north wall of single-­chamber tomb in Xinzhou, Shanxi, Northern Qi.

4.2 Detail of funerary couch of An Jia showing Chinese structure with inverted-­V-­shaped braces and single-­step bracket sets, Xi’an, 571.

Seeing the Sixth Century as the Seventh and Eighth

91

of the porch is made of four-­sided tiles that alternate in color to create a checkerboard pattern. Paint on the wall around the archway below continues this pattern. Perhaps the most impressive feature of this building is the attempt to show three-­dimensionality. Beneath the bracket sets, the columns that support them are not of uniform thickness or length. The second column from the right is just slightly longer and thicker at the base than the ­others of the front façade. The end columns of the outer central bays curve and thicken similarly in the lower sections. The effect is to enhance the projection of the balustrades from the front façade as well as the curvature of their top beams.3 Large birds proj­ect from the roof, as is common in Han art, but ­these birds are scaled, feathery phoenixes who blow vapor from their skeletal ­faces that turn outward. One plantlike and one honeycomb-­like tree, both with bifurcated trunks, proj­ect ­behind the structure. A candelabra-­ like plant is at the back center of the wall. Like the architecture, each of ­these details is specific, suggesting that equally specific models might have been the source, but painted with an intent of detail and creativity beyond what is required to show flora or fauna. E ­ very detail of this wall is as specific as it is carefully rendered. The mural stands imposingly above the arched entry to the single chamber of the subterranean tomb. It is at the end of a 41.2-­meter diagonal ramp from ground level. This superior example of the use of architectural detail beyond what would be necessary to portray the building or to define a detail of a mural as a building is not unique in sixth-­century China. The east and west walls of the ramp into the tomb are divided into four registers. Murals and relief sculpture have been presented in this way since the Han dynasty. Motion often is intense, shown by a fluid yet controlled brush. The motion is unidirectional, a feature employed well into the second millennium CE that can be described as entry into the tomb on one side and exit from it on the other. The detailed rendering observed in the focal structure and trees also is pre­sent along the registers: a h ­ orse dangles a rabbit in his mouth; a winged creature is about to hurl a boulder at a demon; a figure holding a heart-­shaped fan runs from a large-­beaked bird, but turns back to look at him in flight; a creature mounted on a flying fish holds the same kind of fan; a being with

92

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

prominent teeth and hair around his naval has a serpentine yet flat tongue that curls around his arm; ­horses are as shaded as mountains; claws and toenails are sharp and emphatic; beaks, tails, fur, and feathers are sometimes tactile; and men from all parts of the world have facial features, clothing, and headgear that define them, even if the viewer ­today cannot determine the ethnicities or nationalities identified. Constellations are painted on the domed ceiling. The motion across space and the fluidity of line ally the Xinzhou murals with t­hose in tombs and cave-­temples from Gansu to Koguryŏ. Murals in Dingjiazha tomb 5 represent a Gansu pre­ce­dent that continues in Mogao Buddhist cave-­temples (Figure 3.5). Murals in Wukui tombs 4 and 5 and the Tomb of the Dancers near Changchuan tomb 1 in Ji’an, Jilin province, are Koguryŏ examples (Figure 3.12).4 The prominence and specificity of detail of the image of architecture in the Xinzhou tomb, and perhaps even the lack of motion compared to the rest of the murals, not only make this first image one sees upon entry all the more dominant, the position and details define the interior built environment as China. Only if one turns her head 90 degrees does she notice that the p ­ eople progressing to and from that building are not Chinese. With ­these painting details of the Xinzhou tomb in mind, we turn to the third panel from the left of six panels on the back of a funerary couch found in the single-­chamber tomb of the Sogdian official An Jia, who served the Northern Zhou government in the capital Chang’an and was buried in that city (Figure  4.2). An Jia and his wife are in a more open space than the figures in the Xinzhou tomb. Their seated positions on the couch identify the male and female as the tomb occupants. The servants self-­identify ­because they stand, carry objects used in ser­vice, and are smaller than An Jia and his wife. In the Xinzhou tomb painting, servants also stand on ­either side of the doors, carry­ing objects for the deceased who may be ­behind the closed doors. Both An Jia and the Xinzhou tomb occupant are in all likelihood portrayed elsewhere on the couch panels and on the side walls, respectively. Still, in Chang’an as in Xinzhou, architecture is a central image and its framing components are red-­brown. The position on the couch may not be as

Seeing the Sixth Century as the Seventh and Eighth

93

prominent as the placement of architecture in the murals, but as the only structure with such detailed Chinese features among twelve panels, the intent of prominence is assumed. On the couch panel, two sets of roof raf­ters have carefully incised ends to show that the lower level are circular in section with a pattern on each tile and the upper level are four-­sided in section. Bracket sets are two-­ color, one for the blocks and one for the arms. Color contrasts differentiate detail for this artisan in the way that shading serves the Xinzhou paint­er: wooden members of the roof are red-­brown whereas ceramic tile is a natu­ral tone; the circular and four-­sided raf­ters that support the undersides of the eaves are red-­brown whereas the parallel raf­ters of the roof frame that are covered with ceramic tile are the lighter tone. All the raf­ters are shown as diagonal pieces, so that the three-­dimensionality of the structure, also sought in Xinzhou, is apparent. As in the Xinzhou building, inverted-­V-­shaped braces alternate between the pillar-­top bracket sets, a circular tile is at the end of each rafter, owls’ tails ornaments on ­either end of the main roof ridge are exaggerated, and flowering trees with vari­ous kinds of leaves proj­ect ­behind ­either side of the roof. A balustrade whose sides are supported by three curved pieces of wood, with a straight piece at the center of each side for additional support, is in front. The positions of wooden pieces and their shapes, straight or curved, are as their counter­parts in the Xinzhou painting. No scenes on this couch show motion to the extent of ­t hose on the walls of the Xinzhou tomb, but dancers, h ­ orse riders, archers, and men in groups interrelated by conversation, gesture, and objects held are part of the composition, so that architecture is decidedly static by comparison. Not only are the carefully made details all exclusively of the Chinese building system; the three-­dimensionality of carving highlights their accuracy. Architecture above the archway of a tomb is standard in North and South China in the sixth c­ entury. An inverted-­V-­shaped brace or a single-­tier bracket set with one cap-­block and three blocks above three arms above it is the first identifying feature. The entries to the tombs of Xiao Wei and Xiao Xiu, both royalty of the Chinese dynasty Liang (502–557) in Ganjiaxiang outside Nanjing, and a tomb dated to 521 within Nanjing county have t­ hese features.5 One-­step bracket sets alternate

94

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

4.3 Entrance to tomb of Han Yi, Qi county, Shanxi, Northern Qi.

with inverted-­V-­shaped braces above a checkerboard brick wall at the entrance to the tomb of Han Yi, buried in Qi county of Shanxi during the Northern Qi period (Figure 4.3).6 Of the examples mentioned h ­ ere, the formation in Han Yi’s tomb is most similar to the painting in Xinzhou, and the location is closest as well. All the architecture, ­whether at the outside entry or above the entrance to the main tomb chamber, is positioned to be the first feature seen upon entering a tomb. In all likelihood, the Xinzhou tomb belongs to an elite member of Northern Qi society. This assessment is based on its location near the Northern Qi capital, the fluidity of line suggesting a skilled mural painter, the longish, slender ­faces of figures that nevertheless have pronounced cheeks, the pre­sen­ta­tion of ­faces in profile or three-­quarters profile, and the many hats with extensions that both shade and warm the back of the neck. Paintings in the single-­chamber tombs of official Xu Xianxiu who died in Taiyuan in 571, and of Lou Rui, brother-­in-­law of the Northern Qi emperor, who was buried in Taiyuan in 577, provide some of the closest examples from the second half of the sixth c­ entury of lines

Seeing the Sixth Century as the Seventh and Eighth

95

of similar thickness and dexterity to render profiles and three-­quarter views of figures, hats, clothing, and facial shapes, and features that identify men as ethnically non-­Chinese; and in Lou Rui’s tomb, one finds paintings of movement along registers t­ oward and away from the burial chamber.7 In the tombs of Lou Rui, Xu Xianxiu, and in the Xinzhou tomb, ethnicities are distinguished by clothing, headgear, and facial details, but ­today the specific ethnicity indicated by ­these features cannot be identified; one can only determine that more than one ethnicity is intended. Architecture, however, is identifiable as of China. An Jia sits in a formal pose beneath a detailed Chinese building in Figure 4.2. Camping with his followers, he is ­under a tent.8 In the funerary world of Northern Qi in Xinzhou or Taiyuan or of a Sogdian in Xi’an, a tomb owner may camp in a tent, but he is posed for all eternity with his spouse in a Chinese timber frame covered by a ceramic-­tile roof.

OTHER SOGDIAN FUNER ARY ARCHITECTURE

Multiethnic populations are standard in funerary sculpture and in secular and religious painting from Gansu eastward in the fifth and sixth centuries before the ascendancy of Northern Qi in 550. Garments, headgear, and skin color differentiate worshippers from across Asia in countless passages in early Mogao caves at Dunhuang.9 In t­ hose same caves, as we have observed in fifth-­century relief at Yungang, Chinese architecture frames or other­w ise dominates the environment to render it Chinese regardless of the figures, whose skin colors are as varied as ­those who are practicing Buddhism beneath it (Figures i.20 and 4.4). Architectural framing renders the Buddhist world in Dunhuang and Yungang as Chinese as the eternal resting place of someone of Northern Qi descent in Xinzhou, the Sogdian An Jia in Chang’an, or native Chinese royalty of the Southern Dynasties interred near Nanjing (Figures  4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). The sixth-­century examples, particularly above archways at entrances or the beginning or end of an under­ground space, are the source of images dated to the seventh and eighth centuries that have previously been used to demonstrate that the art and

96

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

4.4 Detail of mural in Mogao cave 275 showing Chinese architecture enclosing non-­Chinese

figures, Dunhuang, Gansu, late fourth to early fifth c­ entury.

architecture of Tang Chang’an was the source of similar repre­sen­ta­tions across East Asia. Sogdian funerary art offers some of the best evidence that the international use of Chinese architecture beyond China’s borders is as pervasive in the sixth ­century as in the seventh and eighth. Sogdians crossed Asia from centers in t­oday’s Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Not nomadic, but with few urban centers, Sogdians had settlements fifteen hundred years older than the sixth c­ entury. Zoroastrianism was among the religions they practiced.10 In the sixth ­century, a few Sogdians who entered Chinese territory held the Chinese official title sabao, a position restricted to Sogdians whose purpose was to provide information to the Chinese court about Sogdian affairs.11 An Jia held this title, as did Shi Wirkak, a man known in Chinese as Master Shi (Shijun). He and his wife, surname Kang, ­were buried in the year 579 in Chang’an, at that time the Northern Zhou capital. The stone sarcophagus that contained their remains is decorated with Sogdian divinities, guardians, musicians

Seeing the Sixth Century as the Seventh and Eighth

97

4.5 Sarcophagus of Master Shi, Xi’an, 579.

and other entertainers, hybrid creatures, posts topped by animal heads, scroll-­a nd-­v ine designs, and other motifs that have been identified as Persian or Zoroastrian.12 Yet the sarcophagus is a carefully assembled facsimile of a Chinese timber-­frame building (Figure 4.5). The stone structure is 2.46 meters across the front, 1.55 meters in width, and 1.58 meters high. It is three-­bays-­square, and as expected, the central front bay is the widest; but atypically, the central bay on the other three sides is the narrowest of its faces, prob­ably b ­ ecause the pillars are not placed in accordance with the seams of stone. The pillars stand out from the structure, semicircular on the four sides and nearly in their entirety on the corners. Tie beams and architraves positioned from the top of pillars to the undersides of roof eaves are the backing for two-­tier bracket sets, each tier consisting of an arm and three rises. The bracket sets alternate with inverted-­V-­shaped braces; single sets cover entire corners. The blocks beneath the brackets are in two parts, the upper piece known as a mindou. The roof is a combination of hip and gable, all raf­ ters in both directions are parallel, and end tiles are decorated with lotuses with six petals around a central seed.

98

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

The mindou is an example of an architectural detail so specific that it must have been carved from a model or by a craftsman who knew the fine points of Chinese construction. It is found in buildings in murals in Mogao caves 71 and 321 at Dunhuang, dated “early Tang.”13 We s­ hall see below that it was used in the Bud­dha hall at the monastery Hōryūji in Ikaruga, Nara prefecture, Japan, dated 670–710. Again we observe a feature heretofore associated with seventh-­to eighth-­century architecture in China and Japan that is found in a dated building of the sixth c­ entury. The stone sarcophagus of a sabao named Yu Hong, buried with his wife in Taiyuan in the 590s, is decorated with mounted figures identified as Sogdians or Sasanians, and deities, hunters, animals, and ceremonies confirmed to be Zoroastrian on e­ very exterior face.14 Yet the sarcophagus is a three-­bay-­by-­two, hip-­gable roofed structure, as clearly Chinese in style as the building in the Xinzhou tomb. The corpse of Kang Ye, a Sogdian with the title datianzhu (­grand heavenly master), buried in Chang’an in 580, 150 meters north and 2 kilo­meters west of An Jia’s and Shi Jun’s tombs, respectively, was placed directly on a funerary couch with six panels at the back and two on e­ ither side.15 Kang Ye sits alone on one of the central back panels, similarly positioned to An Jia and his wife. He is surrounded by camels and bearded, large-­nosed, long-­haired men, yet he is portrayed beneath a ceramic tile roof whose parallel raf­ters and concave tiles between them are clearly delineated. Inverted V-­shaped braces that support the undersides of roof eaves are clear, although the bracket sets are sketched with three or four projections from the top. Birds, not ceramic ornaments, are at the corners and along the roof ridge. We observed them in the Xinzhou tomb mural and noted their presence in Chinese funerary art since Han times. The curtain above Kang Ye is standard in funerary portrayals, also since Han times. B ­ ehind him one finds not only a paneled screen, as is b ­ ehind An Jia, but repre­ sen­ta­tions of landscape on that screen. Weeping willows, native to South China but not to the Xi’an region or Sogdiana, are carved. The same kind of trees are on other panels of the couch, as are banana plants in the lower right corner (Figure 4.6). The Chinese roof and bracketing are already clear indicators of China; the fo­liage places this Sogdian in South China. It is especially noteworthy ­because the vessel and ­t hose making offerings in front of it in this scene are identified as a fire offering for a

Seeing the Sixth Century as the Seventh and Eighth

99

4.6 Panels on back of funerary couch of Kang Ye, Taiyuan, Shanxi, 579–580.

Zoroastrian. A stone sarcophagus acquired by the National Museum of China in 2012, identified as belonging to a Sogdian, has only single-­step bracket sets, but a lozenge-­patterned decorative band beneath them that, like the mindou, in all likelihood was copied from a Chinese building.16 By the time Princess Li Jingxun, grand­daughter of Emperor Xuandi of Northern Zhou, was buried in Chang’an in 608, the city was the capital of the Sui dynasty (581–617). Her sarcophagus is a three-­bay-­by-­two structure, without need for exterior decoration that referenced anything about her nativity. Its three-­by-­two-­bay dimensions are ­those of the Sogdian sarcophaguses and buildings carved on Sogdian funerary couches described above.17

THE ENIGMA OF HŌRYŪJI

We have observed that by the end of the fifth ­century, two monastery plans coexisted in China and ­Korea, and by the sixth ­century at least

100

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

one additional monastery plan had emerged. We have also seen that through the sixth ­century, the evidence of monasteries is archaeological. We have turned to small-­scale structures such as sarcophaguses and to murals in search of details of freestanding buildings. Hōryūji is the oldest monastery in East Asia where one can study full-­size buildings. Hōryūji has received more attention than any other early Buddhist monastery in Japan.18 Not only are three of the four oldest, and ten of the twenty-­two oldest, wooden buildings in East Asia ­there; the three—­ Kondō (Bud­dha hall), central gate, and pagoda—­have features that have been considered unique to the location in Ikaruga.19 The unusual constructions, in addition to statues inside the Kondō, which many believe to be by seventh-­century Korean craftsmen, have led to suggestions that the building represents Korean architecture of the period or that it represents a provincial style of Japan.20 The exact dates of Hōryūji’s buildings are controversial: they depend on the meaning of two entries in Nihon shoki (Chronicles of Japan), completed by 720. The entry for the twelfth lunar month of 669 rec­ords a fire in the Trea­sure Hall, and the ominous entry for the thirtieth day of the fourth lunar month of 670 states: “­After midnight a fire broke out. Not a single building was left.”21 Alongside ­these dates are inscriptions on statues and excavated objects that range from 607 to 711. Even without precise dates, ­t here is no dispute that the Bud­d ha hall, pagoda, and ­middle gate of Hōryūji can safely be dated ca. 700.22 The Hōryūji Kondō is raised on a two-­layer stone platform that is not original. It is five bays across the front, four bays deep, and supported by a grid of thirty columns. The bays decrease in size from the central to the outer across the front and back in the manner standard for Chinese timber construction. An open central interior space for an altar is provided without eliminating pillars from the column grid. The exterior pre­sents as two stories ­because ­there are two set of eaves, but it is a single-­story building. The upper level is balustrade-­enclosed with a hip-­ gable roof. Th ­ ere are two sets of roof raf­ters, the upper circular in section and the lower four-­sided; all raf­ters are parallel (Figure 4.7). We have observed two sets of parallel roof raf­ters in buildings in relief in Yungang caves, in the mural in Xinzhou, on An Jia’s funerary couch, and on the Shijun sarcophagus (Figures i.20, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.5). In addition,

Seeing the Sixth Century as the Seventh and Eighth

101

4.7 Kondō (main Bud­d ha hall), Hōryūji, Ikaruga, Nara prefecture, ca. 710 with ­later

restoration.

pillars of the Kondō bulge near their m ­ iddles, a feature known as entasis, and they are penetrated by beams near the tops. On top of each pillar is the plate (mindou; Jap: saraito) above which the cap-­block of the bracket set rests, the feature observed in the Shijun sarcophagus. The bracket sets are distinguished by cloud-­shaped decoration carved into them. Single-­step bracket sets alternate with inverted-­V-­shaped braces across the facade. Long, plain bracket arms support an additional lower layer of eaves. The parallel raf­ters, small plate ­under the cap-­block, entasis, beam placement, alternating bracket sets and braces, and cloud-­ shaped patterning also are used in the Hōryūji ­middle gate. In fact, the major architectural features that characterize Hōryūji’s oldest buildings are found in Han rock-­carved architecture in Sichuan province or slightly ­later architecture in Gansu. The Hōryūji Kondō is as likely to be the unique surviving example in wood of a kind of building that stood in China in the sixth c­ entury or e­ arlier as it is to represent any other attribution.

102

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Four features have long been associated with Hōryūji’s Kondō and ­middle gate: the inverted-­V-­shaped strut, the attenuated brace that supports the eave’s underside, cloud-­shaped patterning on bracket arms, and pillar entasis. The central pillar, which extends from a stone foundation at the bottom to the top of the pagoda, is a fifth feature associated with Ikaruga architecture. The inverted V-­shaped brace was used in the Han dynasty (Figure 2.5). The front façade of the sarcophagus of Song Shaozu and his wife shows its use in the fifth c­ entury (Figure 3.6). The elongated brace and cloud-­shaped decoration are found in the pagoda of the monastery Hokkiji in Ikaruga, dated to e­ ither ca. 685 or 706.23 They are believed to have been pre­sent at the pagoda of Hōrinji, built ca. 670–ca. 710, also in Ikaruga, that was destroyed in 1944 and rebuilt in the 1970s.24 The cloudlike decoration of bracket arms also is carved on Tamamushi Shrine, a 2.327-­meter-­high personal devotional shrine made of cypress and camphor wood on which beetle wings originally had been inlaid beneath the lacquer surfaces, and with surfaces joined by gilt-­bronze repoussé. Believed by some to have been made for Empress Suikō (554–628), it dates to the seventh c­ entury at the latest.25 Attenuated bracket arms and cloud patterns w ­ ere carved in stone tombs of the Eastern Han period and as decoration on freestanding gate-­ towers (Figures 2.6 and 4.8). They are painted on the walls of the Koguryŏ tomb in Susanri, in Kangsŏ, North K ­ orea, dated to the fifth or sixth ­century, above a pillar with entasis (Figure 4.9). Fourth-­century tombs in Digengpo, Gansu, where a large, inverted-­V-­shaped truss also was carved (Figure i.19), also contain examples of entasis.26 The truss is carved in the same position at Maijishan cave 15 in Tianshui in eastern Gansu, dated to the fifth ­century.27 Not ­every wooden pagoda is constructed with a central pillar, but all three pagodas in Ikaruga ­were. The central pillar has been presumed to be a feature of pagodas of the Koguryŏ kingdom, and, according to some, was used in the wooden pagoda of Yongning Monastery in the Northern Wei capital Luoyang, which burned to the ground in 516 (Figure 3.7b). It, too, is found in Eastern Han rock-­carved tombs in Sichuan province (Figure 4.10).

Seeing the Sixth Century as the Seventh and Eighth

103

left: 4.8 Bracket set with elongated arms on right side of front chamber, Dongzipai tomb 1, Qijiang, Santai, Sichuan, Eastern Han. ­ orea, fifth to right: 4.9 Elongated, curved bracket arm, tomb in Susanri, Kangsŏ, North K sixth ­century.

When Han features of rock-­carved construction are considered, the architecture of pre-­Nara Japan pre­sents as a continuation of the implementation of t­ hose building components beyond Han’s borders or commanderies. Again previous suppositions of the transmission to Japan of Chinese architecture are pushed back a ­century in Japan and several centuries in China.

BUILDING AND CIT Y

We end with one more feature of sixth-­century East Asian construction: the location of the three most impor­tant components of the Japa­ nese palace-­city: imperial residence ([dai]dairi), emperor’s hall of audience (daigokuden), and hall of state (chōdōin), the last the place where officials met. All three are named ­after spaces in a Chinese imperial city, where danei, taijidian, and chaotang, respectively, are found more than three centuries ­earlier. In the Sui-­Tang capitals Chang’an and Luoyang, built in the last de­cade of the sixth ­century and first de­cade of the seventh c­ entury, respectively, and at the seventh-­century Japa­nese capital

104

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

4.10 Central pillar, back chamber, Balinpo tomb 1, Qijiang, Santai, Sichuan, Eastern Han.

in Asuka, the three building complexes w ­ ere constructed on a single north–­south line, with the imperial residence farthest north, the place where the emperor held audience directly south of it, and the hall of state compound last: the Sui-­Tang Chinese palace-­city and imperial-­city ­were the models for Asuka.28 By the time the Nara capital was built in 710, however, ­there ­were two building axes inside the imperial space, the imperial residence on one and the hall of audience and hall of state on the second. It is now known through excavation that the palace-­cities of the third-­ century capital of the Wei kingdom (220–280) in Luoyang, of Eastern Jin (317–420) and the Southern Dynasties (420–589) at Nanjing, of Northern Wei in Luoyang, and of Eastern Wei and Northern Qi in Ye, had the two building axes implemented in Nara.29 Why the source of the arrangement in Nara’s early eighth-­century palace-­city predates the layout of the same structures in Japan’s ­earlier capital is unknown. The evidence indicates that just as the source of architectural detail at Hōryūji traces to Han, the plan of the capital Nara seems to trace ­earlier in China than the Tang period, just a c­ entury ­after the Han dynasty. ✦

✦

✦

Seeing the Sixth Century as the Seventh and Eighth

105

In this chapter we have observed a turn to China for building models of imperial life and death outside China and by non-­Chinese inside China, and we have observed that Chinese sources for construction in eighth-­ century Japan predate China’s Sui-­Tang dynasty. The old paradigm, whereby t­ hose who brought tribute to the Tang capital Chang’an or who traded t­ here for profit in the seventh and eighth centuries carried Chinese art, architecture, and ideology home with them is still true, but it was not necessarily Tang art and the pro­cess occurred a full c­ entury before Tang. Much that has been associated with Tang was built before the seventh ­century, and ­those sources may be as early as the Han dynasty. The importance of Chinese architecture in the self-­identities of royalty and in state formation outside China would be equally strong in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, Tang China would, indeed, offer models, and the spread of China’s architectural presence would be wider than in the past.

••• 5

TA NG INT ERN AT ION A L ISM

Words like “internationalism” and “cosmopolitanism” are often used to describe life in the Sui-­Tang (581–907) capital Chang’an. Th ­ ere is no question that men and w ­ omen of ­every nationality on the Asian continent and farther west passed through or settled in this city—­that they worshipped ­there, that goods from their homelands ­were sold ­there, that images of the multinational population of Asia ­were painted and sculpted ­there—­and that the presence of ­people from across the Asian continent and farther west is recorded in documents of the time. We have shown in Chapter 4 that the well-­documented impact of China’s architecture outside China occurs a full c­ entury ­earlier, in the fifth and sixth centuries, and in ­earlier chapters, through archaeology, that China’s presence extended from ­Korea to Mongolia in the first centuries CE. H ­ ere we observe the impact of the architecture of a Chinese empire that controlled or fought from K ­ orea to Kashgar. At its fullest extent, Tang China was larger than Han China, and by the seventh c­ entury, commerce between West, South, Central, and East Asia was by sea as well as by land. Guangzhou, on the Pearl River Delta, and Yangzhou, on the Yangzi River, ­were ports for merchants from South Asia and the Arabian Peninsula, from where traffic could sail the G ­ rand Canal to the Yellow River or travel by sea to K ­ orea and Japan. As mentioned in the Preface and Introduction, the monk Ennin’s travel diary is just one of the documents that have guided the under-

Tang Internationalism

Astana

107

Türk (Uyghur) Kukh Ordung Sagonar Por-bazhin r er ve ge Riv Ri n Selen ho Kharabalghasun Ork Zaamar Bayannuur Khöshöö Tsaidam Kharkhorin

r

u ygh fU ry o 4 nda r 74 Bou afte

Urumqi

Beiting/Besh-baliq Turfan/ Gaochang

Adzhina-tepe Termez

Kashgar

Parhae

Pr im or ye

Samarkand Pendzhikent Afrasiab

Baliancheng Ning’an Madida Liudingshan Kraskino Longquanfu Changbai Xigiucheng Hunjiang Linjiang

ur

gh f Uy ry o nda r 744 afte

Bou

Hamnyŏngdo

Silla

Beijing

Dunhuang

Xinzhou

al

Japan Nara

Guyuan

Tibet

Chang’an Longtoushan

Pucheng Sanyuan Qianzhou Fufeng Wei River

Jingyang Xianyang Chang’an

Grand

Canal

Yangzhou

Tang

Hangzhou Ningbo

Yello

w Riv er

Guyuan

Gr an

dC

an

Taiyuan

Gwanong Sokkuram

iver

wR

o Yell

Guangzhou

m ap 5 East Asia, seventh to ninth centuries.

standing of contact between China and Japan in the Tang dynasty. Uisang (625–702) of the Silla kingdom, credited with founding the monastery Pusŏksa, traveled in China for fifteen years. Hyech’o (704–787) traveled to China and from t­ here to India by sea, and then by land to ­today’s Uzbekistan. Other examples are the sea journey of the monk Jianzhen (Jap. Ganjin) from Yangzhou to Nara that led to construction of a Bud­dha hall at the monastery Tōshōdaiji in 754; the mission of Japa­ nese monks Kūkai and Saichō to China to study Buddhism in Chang’an in 804–805, and their subsequent return and teaching of the Shingon and Tendai sects, respectively, and supervision of monasteries where ­those doctrines could be practiced, in Japan; and kentōshi, the official emissaries who brought more than twenty missions from Japan to Tang China between 607 and 894.1 The eighth-­century hoard found in Hejia, ­today in Xi’an, the Tang imperial repository beneath the pagoda at the monastery that came to be known as Famensi in Fufeng county of Shaanxi, about 120 kilo­meters west of Chang’an (a county where Western

108

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Zhou architecture discussed in Chapter 1 was excavated), and the imperial collection stored in the trea­sure hall named Shōsōin in 756 at the monastery Tōdaiji in Nara contain gifts and objects acquired by Chinese and Japa­nese royalty, respectively, from across the known world.2 We begin our discussion of the seventh and eighth centuries as we began for the sixth c­ entury, with a painting over an archway at the entrance to a subterranean tomb. The tomb is in Mongolia. Evidence from Mongolia, Xinjiang, and Northeast Asia writes a history of seventh-­and eighth-­century East Asian architecture based on monuments that is less told but as valid as the more standard one shown through above­ground architecture in China and Japan.

TOMB IN BAYANNUUR

A three-­bay structure elevated on a high platform stands above an archway as the dominant image at the entrance to an under­ground tomb in Bayannuur county of Bulgan province of Mongolia (Figure 5.1). The location, about 220 kilo­meters west of Ulaanbaatar, is remote even t­ oday. Excavators have referred to the tomb by a descriptive nickname, shoroon bumbagar, literally “dirt bump,” and more eloquently “earthen rotundity.”3 Shoroon bumbagar is a low mound that rises on the Mongolian grasslands to signal a tomb below. The shoroon bumbagar in Bayannuur is approximately 34 meters north–­south, 30 meters east–­west, and 32 meters in base dia­meter at its longest stretch. The building in the mural is supported by slender, reddish pillars above which are cap-­blocks and three rises of bracket-­arms above them that form bracket sets to support blocks that support the undersides of roof raf­ters. The raf­ters also are red, and they are parallel. Between the pillar-­top bracket sets are inverted-­V-­shaped braces that are topped by bracket blocks to further support the roof frame. A tie beam penetrates the pillars just beneath the cap-­blocks. A two-­panel, central door with six rows of ten knobs each framed by a wooden lintel fills most of the central bay. Slat win­dows fill the width near the center of each side bay. A balustrade is outlined in black ink with controlled, slender brushstrokes. The posts of the balustrade narrow from base to top, capped by

Tang Internationalism

109

5.1 Building painted above archway at entry to tomb in Bayannuur, Bulgan, Mongolia, prob­ably

late seventh ­century.

circular ornaments with pointed tops. The lower part of the balustrade is decorated with a red lattice pattern, but only on viewer’s right; if the left side was started, it is unfinished. The three-­dimensionality of the structure, a feature noted in the mural in the same position in the Xinzhou tomb (Figure 4.1), also is attempted ­here. The joint between the balustrade and the platform is shown with a diagonal line at the front corners, so that both the front and sides can be seen. At the top, a line of some twenty birds curves upward in flight from the decorated corner of the roof ridge. The image above the archway leads directly into the under­ground tomb. This image is one of two repre­sen­ta­tions of architecture in the tomb. The second is above the archway that leads to the last of four small chambers along a pathway from the entry to the burial space (Figure 5.2). It also is three bays across the front with a two-­panel latched door with six rows of black knobs and slat win­dows that dominate the bays on e­ ither side. Like the building at the tomb entry, the front of this structure

110

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

5.2 Building painted above archway at end of under­g round path to burial chamber, tomb in

Bayannuur, Bulgan, Mongolia, prob­ably late seventh ­century.

includes components of Chinese architecture. The roof is especially detailed, with concave and convex tiles differentiated by dark and light shades of blue-­green and two sets of roof raf­ters. Pillar-­top bracket sets have three rises from the cap block with inverted-­V-­shaped braces between them, and a second set of inverted-­V-­braces that appear to serve no purpose is above the win­dows and doors. Owls’ tails decorate the ends of the roof ridge, but birds do not appear b ­ ehind them. The balustrade has a lattice pattern, unpunctuated by posts and knobs. It is hard to imagine a clearer definition of Chinese space than t­ hese buildings at the front and back of the tomb interior. They are only two of the ele­ments of this tomb that must have been painted with knowledge of sixth-­to eighth-­century burial in China. Comparisons with China begin above­ground. The Bayannuur tomb had been enclosed by a mud-­earth wall of about 200 meters north–­south by about 180 meters east–­west that was 2 to 3 meters in thickness at the base, r­ ose about half a meter, and was surrounded by a trench. A 42-­meter ramp from ground level into the tomb chambers is 2 meters wide and slopes at a 45-­degree ­angle from ground level to the subterranean spaces. At that point one comes to the archway with the image in Figure 5.1 above it. The walls of the passageway leading to the arched entry are

Tang Internationalism

111

5.3 Tiger, four figures, and banner rack, west wall of diagonal entry ramp, tomb in Bayannuur,

Bulgan, Mongolia, prob­ably late seventh ­century.

dominated by a dragon followed by four figures and a banner rack on the east and a symmetrical composition of a tiger followed by four men and a banner rack on the west (Figure 5.3). Both creatures face outward, heads, one forepaw, and tails erect, not in motion but rather as if announcing to the outside the space ­behind them. Each has a pronounced joint in his erect forearm, and a mushroom-­shaped decoration is placed as if emerging from each raised paw. As for the figures, the lead figure, closest to the animals, is largest. Both turn to face the archway, the man on the east pointing t­ oward it. The man on the east wears red; he on the west wears brown. Three figures are b ­ ehind the banner rack on each side. They all face the animal in front of them. The ­middle figure of each triplet wears red. Th ­ ose who flank him wear blue. The figures’ sizes decrease from the pair closest to the beasts to t­ hose closest to the archway. Each figure wears a belted garment, loose at the waist, and a black hat with tassels at the back. Each man is bearded and mustached. Fluid, black lines outline the figures and show their garment folds, hand gestures, and facial features. At the bottom of the ramp, a 20.2-­meter passageway, 1.8 meters wide, that is accessible from above­ground by four airshafts with curved walls, each approximately 1.8 meters by 75–80 centimeters in perimeter, and 1.3 meters wide at the base, terminates in front of a room with two side chambers. A corridor joins this room to the final room, the burial chamber, above which is a vaulted ceiling. Painting remains above each archway and on the lower wall portions throughout the tomb. The archway above the first airshaft chamber has

112

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

a decorative pattern with ele­ments of a fleur-­de-­lis emerging from a stem, lotus petals, and scrolls-­and-­vines. At ground level, a groom leads a ­horse on e­ ither side. Like the dragon and tiger and the four figures near banner racks on the sides of the approach ramp, they are a symmetrical but not identical pair. On the west, a long-­haired man with headgear holds the muzzle of a h ­ orse in his right hand. He wears red, the ­horse is blue, and the ­saddle is red. On the east, the groomsman wears a blue garment with red boots and a red hat. His h ­ orse is red with a blue s­ addle decorated with red. Both h ­ orses have bent hind legs, indicating they are stationary. The ­horse on the east bends his head downward as if to emphasize he ­will not move u ­ ntil commanded. The h ­ orse on the west has stirrups. Both compositions are outlined in controlled black lines with parts filled in with color. The back wall above the archway of the second chamber is dominated by a ferocious beast whose toothy, open mouth takes up half of his face. This chamber has a pair of male figures on ­either side, both significantly effaced. Their clothing and headgear are t­ hose worn by the men in front of and ­behind the banner racks. The third archway painting is too effaced for its subject to be known. The fourth is the second three-­bay structure. The somewhat-­effaced murals in the third and fourth chambers appear to have had pairs of males wearing the same clothing and hats as the figures in chambers in front and on the approach ramp. Wood is used throughout the tomb to help support the archways and prevent collapse. On ­either side of the fourth airshaft chamber, where the second three-­bay structure announces the burial room ­behind it, are side niches framed in wood that contained mounted and standing clay figurines. A two-­panel, wooden door with three rows of knobs, metal hinges, and a central lock, of the style of the doors in the paintings, was hinged to the opening to the west side chamber. Statues of figures and animals ­were found ­behind it, only a few of which ­were intact. The vaulted, irregularly ­shaped burial chamber is approximately 3.5 meters in dia­meter and 2.7 meters high. It is 11.5 meters below the ground. Nested coffins that contained a cremation burial ­were found on the western side of an asymmetrical space that was larger on this

Tang Internationalism

113

side to make room for the coffins. The outer coffin had a trapezoidal-­ shaped lid and base, 85 centimeters across the head, 40 centimeters at the foot, and 230 centimeters in length. Evidence indicates only one corpse inside the inner coffin in which ­human ashes w ­ ere in a silk bag. The silk bag was placed in a box lined with brown silk decorated with a gold pattern. Other silk in this box had a plant pattern with red buds and numerous leaves on each stem. A single row of males and females punctuated by trees is painted at eye level along the north, east, and west walls of the burial chamber. The figures are only slightly shorter than the trees. Of the three males preserved well enough to be vis­i­ble, their hats have the tassels like ­t hose worn by the figures near the banner rack on the entry ramp walls and ­those who stand on ­either side wall of the second room along the path to the burial chamber. One male raises his right arm, turning his hand ­toward his face as would an entertainer. Two black bands suggest he might be wearing a bracelet. The ­women wear full-­length garments with high yokes. The yokes and capes are red, the skirts darker, that of the tallest w ­ oman with carefully delineated pleats of the kind observed in the fifth and sixth centuries and in Japan in the eighth c­ entury (figs. 3.15–3.18). ­Women’s hair is pulled into tight buns at the top, and hands are concealed b ­ ehind long sleeves. Two guards and two four-­legged creatures standing at the back wall of the burial chamber w ­ ere among the 118 clay h ­ uman or animal figurines uncovered in the tomb. Males are hooded cavalry and infantry; some played musical instruments. The clothing and ­horse trappings originally ­were brightly painted. Facial features are added in strong, black strokes and lips are red. Th ­ ese females also wear pleated skirts whose two colors alternate pleat by pleat. Horses are saddled, blanketed, or armored, and some riders use stirrups. Camels are Bactrian. Domestic animals include dogs, pigs, hens, ­horses, and sheep. In addition, 150 metal objects, dozens of them gold, some in a silk pouch, gold coins also in a silk pouch, and iron and wooden objects ­were among the more than 550 burial goods. Metal objects include h ­ orse trappings. Among the coins, some are Byzantine and Sasanian, and o ­ thers are Byzantine or Sasanian bracteates that are equally old.

114

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

T H E T A N G - ­P E R I O D T O M B

The tomb structure, e­ very detail of its murals, and ­every clay and metal object point to a Chinese source. The Chinese sources are of the seventh and eighth centuries and are found in tombs of royal or elite members of society. One begins comparisons with burials in the Tang capital Chang’an. More than one hundred Tang tombs with murals have been excavated, most of them in the vicinity of Xi’an.4 Some 20 ­percent of ­those in the Xi’an region belong to ­children of emperors and empresses buried as tombs auxiliary to their parents’. Although the location of e­ very Tang emperor and empress tomb is known, only the tomb of Xizong (862–888) has been opened.5 Tombs of princes and princesses thus offer the best source through which to anticipate the contents of a tomb of a seventh­or eighth-­century ruler. One can begin with the tombs of Prince Yide (682–701) and Princess Yongtai (685–701), a b ­ rother and s­ ister, both buried in the shadow of the tomb of their ­father, the third Tang emperor Gaozong (628–683) and his wife, who usurped the throne, reigned as Empress Wu Zetian (624–705), and orchestrated the death of ­t hose in line to succeed Gaozong.6 The prince and princess suffered this fate. Like ­others who died prematurely for the same reason, they w ­ ere reburied with royal status a­ fter the death of Empress Wu, in their cases in 706. Yongtai and Yide are interred beneath mounds that rise above flat ground on the level plains north of the Chang’an capital, a setting comparable to that of the Bayannuur tomb on the Mongolian grasslands. Both Chinese burials w ­ ere originally enclosed by at least one wall. Above­ ground, the approach to the single or inner of two walls was marked by pairs of stone animals that defined a spirit path (shendao) along which the corpse was carried in the funeral. No animals to suggest such a path have been found in Bayannuur. Also as in Bayannur, the approach to the under­ground tombs in China is via a diagonal ramp. Five airshafts that end in rooms, four of them with niches on e­ ither side, provided access for workers and installation of burial goods. In the Tang tombs, the airshafts are along the diagonal ramp whereas in Bayannuur the airshafts reach the flat subterranean approach to the back chambers. At

Tang Internationalism

115

the end of the ramp, a short approach leads to the first of the two larger chambers that are joined by a causeway in the Tang tombs. In Bayannuur, the final airshaft room has side niches, and perhaps served as an antechamber, for it is connected by a causeway to the burial chamber. In the Yide and Yongtai tombs, the first of the two chambers is symmetrical with regard to the axial line through the tomb, as is the final airshaft chamber in Bayannuur, and the final chamber in China and Mongolia is asymmetrical with additional space on one side for the coffin.7 Some the many burials defined by an above­ground mound, entered by a diagonal ramp from ground level, with airshafts, and with an asymmetrical burial space are the tombs of Princess Changle buried in 643, ­Grand Princess Xincheng buried in 663, Zheng Rentai buried in 664, Li Sang buried in 668, and Li Ji (Xu Maoling) buried in 670, all auxiliary tombs to Zhaoling, the tomb of the second Tang emperor Taizong; of Li Shuang who was buried in 668 in Yanta district of Xi’an; of Princess Dazhang who died in 673 and of Li Feng who died in 675, both in Fuping; of An Yuanshou who also had an auxiliary tomb in Zhaoling, dated 684; of Yuan Shizhuang in Qishan dated 686; of Prince Wei Dong who was reburied between 705 and 710 and of Prince Jie Min, reburied in 710, who both suffered the fate of Prince Yide and Princess Yongtai; of Prince Huichuang of 724 in Pucheng; of Wei Zhen in Chang’an in 727; of Wei Zhenming in Chang’an in 727; of Li Xian in Pucheng in 742; of Su Sixun in the eastern suburbs of Chang’an of 745; of Zhang Qushe and Zhang Quyi in Xianyang in 747 and 748, respectively; of Zhang Chang­hui in Jingyang in 753; and of Liang Yuanhan of 844 and Yang Xuanlue of 864, both in Xi’an.8 ­Every subject painted on the walls of the Bayannuur tomb is found in numerous Tang tombs in the vicinity of Xi’an. The dragon and tiger are on the east and west walls, respectively, of the ramps to the tombs of Yide and Yongtai, heads facing the ground-­level entrances. They also are painted opposite each other on the ramp walls, heads facing outside, in the tombs of, for example, Prince Zhanghuai, who died during the reign of Empress Wu and was buried in 706 in a tomb near his ­father Gaozong and the empress; of Li Xian who was buried in Sanhe hamlet, Pucheng, in 742; and in the undated tomb of Sujun (Master Su), who was buried in Xianyang. A banner rack and men with the same round-­collared,

116

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

belted garments and black hats with two tassels are on both ramp walls of each of the tombs, as well. ­There is no doubt that the animals in the Bayannuur tomb are two of the four directional animals found in Chinese art since the Han dynasty and in Chinese, Korean, and Japa­nese tombs ­after Han, discussed in ­earlier chapters. ­There also is no doubt that the men painted in Bayannuur wear the clothing of Chinese officials, for men in the same costumes and hats are officials in the murals in the large group whose architecture and other murals are listed above. Men and w ­ omen alongside trees also are painted on seventh-­and eighth-­century tomb walls. Again we find them in the tombs of Prince Yide, Princess Yongtai, and Prince Zhanghuai as well as the tomb of the official Wen Shenzhi, who was buried in Taiyuan in 730 with three of the four directional animals painted around him in an asymmetrical burial chamber with space for his coffin.9 The building above the archway, too, has a counterpart in seventh-­ and eighth-­century murals in royal tombs in the vicinity of Chang’an and greater Shaanxi province, at least one of which is dated to the Sui dynasty (581–618).10 In Yide’s tomb, the archway joins architecture on the ramp walls to e­ ither side, terminating in three-­bodied gate-­towers plus an additional que, believed to represent ­those of the capital in which the prince lived (Figure 5.4).11 Always with alternating inverted-­V-­shaped braces and bracket sets with three rises, some of the best-­preserved Tang paintings of one-­and two-­story structures are found above the archways. Examples are in the tombs of Prince Li Shou, who was buried in Sanyuan in 631; of Princess Changle; of Emperor Taizong’s concubine Wei, who was buried in a tomb auxiliary to his in 666; of Li Xian in Pucheng; and of Wei Dong and Jie Min (Figure 5.5). Whereas for a prince, a princess, or other royalty in Chang’an or Shaanxi the repre­sen­ta­tion may be his or her own city, in Bayannuur the image is transposed to a new environment where cities the likes of China’s w ­ ere inconceivable. The detailed ele­ments of Chinese architecture are thus all the more impressive. They identify this environment as unambiguously Chinese, raising the obvious question of w ­ hether the interred or the painter had seen a Chinese city. One might note that a few standard themes of Tang tomb murals, such as musicians, are not painted in the Bayannuur tomb, but perhaps

1

3

2

5.4 Line-­d rawings of murals showing architecture, Tomb of Prince Yide,

Qianzhou, Xi’an, ca. 710. (1) on approach ramp, ­behind it, and as plan (2) with directional animals in

front, bannermen ­behind, and gate-­towers (3) three-­d imensional rendering of architecture shown in no. 1 and no. 2, with courtyard and hall ­behind, following plan of a Tang prince’s palace as described in texts.

5.5 Front façade of three-­bay structure, above arched entry to tomb of

Princess Changle, Xi’an, 643.

118

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

it is more significant that no ele­ment depicted on the walls in the Mongolian grasslands is not found in a Tang tomb. The lack of anything that identifies the locale is also significant. One recalls that, in ca. fourth-­and fifth-­century tomb murals in Gansu and Koguryŏ, an adobe structure and clothing of the Northeast Asian kingdom, respectively, identified the locations (Figure 3.5). Scenes on the Bayannuur tomb walls are found in seventh-­and eighth-­ century tombs across the expanse of the Tang empire and its commanderies. In Guyuan county of southern Ningxia, Liang Yuanzhen was buried in 699 in a single-­chamber tomb with three airshafts and an asymmetrical burial chamber to accommodate his coffin.12 Its murals include eight images of ­horses and grooms, some grooms wearing the hats of Chinese scholars, ­others with hooded head coverings, and one with no hat. All h ­ orses are covered with blankets above which are ­saddles. The tomb also has murals with Chinese officials, one with a dog, as well as ­women next to trees. All ­t hese are represented on the tomb walls of Princes Yide and Zhanghuai. In Guyuan the figures are divided into five panels of a screen. The scroll-­and-­vine and other ornamental patterns above the first airshaft archway in Bayannuur appear in relief, some of the floriation enclosing hybrid and imaginary creatures, in the single-­chamber tomb of asymmetrical shape with five air shafts of Xue Jing, a son-­in-­law of Tang emperor Ruizong who died in 720 and was buried just south of Huangpu village in southwestern Shanxi.13 The motif also is found in relief in the tomb of Shi Daode, who died in 678 and was buried in a cemetery of the Shi ­family about 5 kilo­meters southwest of Guyuan, near Liang Yuanzhen’s tomb. Five tombs of the Shi ­family, some single burials and ­others with husbands and wives together, are dated by inscriptions from 610 of the Sui dynasty to 678. Each has a long approach ramp above­ground, a diagonal ramp leading under­ground, and airshafts. The tomb of Shi Kedan and his wife has a symmetrically positioned burial chamber; the burial chambers of the other tombs in the group have extra room on one side for the coffin. ­Every tomb has murals and / or relief sculpture, pottery figures, metal objects, and real and imitation coins. A floral pattern on a piece of silk printed on a piece of dried earth found in the tomb of Shi Daode is remarkably similar to a pattern on silk found in the Ba­

Tang Internationalism

119

yannuur coffin.14 According to epitaphs in the tombs, the Shi buried in this cemetery w ­ ere Sogdians.15 We looked at Sogdian funerary couches and sarcophaguses in Chapter 4 as evidence of the intentional se­lection of Chinese architecture among non-­Chinese ­peoples who came to China in the sixth c­ entury to enclose their corpses or to decorate couches for their remains. The Shi cemetery in Guyuan shows that Sogdians who may never have come to China’s Central Plain, and ­were buried in southern Ningxia in the seventh and eighth centuries, selected Chinese-­style tombs and tomb decoration in the manner of Tang. The single-­chamber tomb covered by a mound, entered by a diagonal passageway on which a dragon and tiger dominate the walls that line that passageway, and on which officials stand near banner racks, is yet another seventh-­and eighth-­century feature of interior tomb space with sources among sixth-­century royal tombs. The tomb of Yuan Shao of the Northern Wei royal ­family, who died in 528 and is buried in Luoyang, and the tomb of Northern Zhou Emperor Wudi (r. 561–578) and his wife, buried in Chenma village of Xianyang, are examples.16 The Northern Zhou tomb of Li Xian, who died in 569 and was buried in Guyuan, also is an example. This tomb is known ­because a gilt silver ewer with images that reference ancient Rome and a glass bowl w ­ ere found in it.17 The tombs of Tian Hong, buried in 575, and Shi Daoluo, buried in 658, both Sogdians and both in Guyuan, are of the same plan.18 In the east, near the capital named Ye in Hebei, the tomb of a female identified as a princess of the Rouran (or Ruru) ­people has the dragon and tiger, guards, and banner racks on the walls of the diagonal ramp into the tomb, and a creature above an archway of the kind that may have inspired the painting above the second Bayannuur airshaft archway.19 The tomb of Xu Xianxiu in Taiyuan, mentioned in Chapter 4, also has a creature above the archway entrance similar to the one in the second airshaft chamber of the tomb in Bayannuur. This kind of zoomorph is considered apotropaic. Known in Chinese as zhenmushou, ­these creatures have guarded Chinese tombs since the Zhou dynasty.20 They and the clay figurines in military garb found next to them in the Bayannuur tomb are as common in Tang and pre-­Tang tombs across China as shared features discussed already. They also have

120

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

5.6 Apotropaic figure, tomb in Bayannuur, Bulgan,

Mongolia, prob­ably late seventh ­century.

been excavated from tombs in regions that w ­ ere ­under the jurisdiction of Tang, including the Turfan area of Xinjiang autonomous region and Guyuan in Ningxia. A comparison between a zhenmushou from the Bayannuur tomb and one excavated in the Astana cemetery, now in the Xinjiang Museum in Urumqi, shows not only two excessively painted creatures, but two with a slice in the front paw and black lines painted perpendicular to it on ­either side. Both are also spotted, an unusual feature for ­these creatures (Figure 5.6). Another zhenmushou from the Bayannuur tomb has upright ears whose undersides are shown, like ­t hose of the Xinjiang creature. Cavalry from the Astana cemetery, like t­ hose from Bayannuur, wear hoods of the same color as their garments, leggings of a dif­fer­ent color, and black boots. They ­ride on blankets of yet a dif­fer­ent color. Their

Tang Internationalism

121

­ orses are bridled with two pieces, presumably painted to imitate leather, h across the forehead and mouth that join at the sides and then come around the head, with further trappings below the ­horse’s neck and at his flanks. The ­horse’s eyes are painted with the same thick brush stroke of the rider’s eyebrows, mustache, and beard that comes just below the center of the lips. The Guyuan sources for both the cavalry and their ­horses are from the sixth c­ entury. They are found among the many cavalry and infantry in the tomb of the above-­mentioned Li Xian of Northern Zhou, who died in 569.

TOMB IN ZAAMAR

A tomb like the one in Bayannuur in and of itself is noteworthy and impressively in­ter­est­ing, but when it is among a group, one is able to make more valid comparisons and assessments. The Bayannuur tomb is among some twenty mounds within a radius of approximately 10 kilo­meters. A tomb in Zaamar county of Töv prefecture, separated by a river from the Bayannuur tomb and t­ oday in both another county and another province, but only 11 kilo­meters away, is the example from which comparisons can be made. Excavated in 2009, the Zaamar tomb also was covered by an earthen mound, entered on the south, and enclosed by a wall. It has gained wide attention b ­ ecause a funerary inscription in Chinese inside the tomb provides the kind of information one would like to know about the Bayannuur tomb.21 The Zaamar tomb belongs to a local official named Pugu Yitu (635–678), originally from the Altai Mountains. He was buried in a double-­layer, wooden coffin, lined in silk. His tomb has an asymmetrical burial chamber connected by a short corridor to a third airshaft chamber. The second airshaft chamber in this tomb has side niches. ­There is no evidence of murals. The Zaamar tomb yielded clay figurines of cavalry, infantry, and ­women that suggest comparisons not only with ­those in the Bayannuur tomb and excavated finds in Astana from the Tang period, but with ­earlier painted statues from eastern Gansu to Japan. ­Women wearing skirts of two colors of vertical stripes intended to imitate pleats, observed in murals from t­ hose regions, have cloth arms (Figures 5.7, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17,

122

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

and 3.18). Cloth arms are a feature of clay figurines from the Astana cemetery. A guardian in Pugu Yitu’s tomb and a more heavi­ly polychromed one from Astana both wear leggings that fasten just below the knee and at the ankle, and open in three places on the inner side of the leg. A clay guardian in the tomb of Shi Daoluo in Guyuan wears the cap with flaps and that bend back above the forehead worn by a Bayannuur guardian. ­Those from the two tombs in Mongolia and Shi Daoluo’s have bulging eyes, porcine noses, thick lips, mustaches, and beards, the beard of the Pugu Yitu tomb figure fuller than the ­others. All four also wear collared armor that ties ­u nder the neck, the ties in the guards from Bayannuur and Shi Daoluo’s tomb forming a circle around the circular end (Figure 5.8). ­Every guard has a breastplate with two parts at the top and a ­belt below. Like the Bayannuur tomb, Shi Daoluo’s tomb yielded a pair of zhenmushou. Both Pugu Yitu’s and Shi Daolou’s tombs also had metalwork, including gold objects and Byzantine coins as well as bracteates. The tomb in Bayannuur and Pugu Yitu’s tomb are believed to be roughly con­temporary. With a date of 678 for Pugu Yitu’s death and the same year for Shi Daode’s, and the wealth of comparative dated material from seventh-­century Chang’an, it is logical to date the Bayannuur tomb to the 660s–680s. More specifically, it prob­ably dates during or just

left: 5.7 Figurines excavated in tomb of Pugu Yitu, Zaamar, Töv, Mongolia, d. 678. right: 5.8 Guardian figure excavated in tomb in Bayannuur, Bulgan, Mongolia, prob­ably late seventh c­ entury.

Tang Internationalism

123

a­ fter the period between 659 and 682 when the Türk briefly fell to Tang and Türk royalty came to the Chinese capital, some of them ­under circumstances that have been compared to ­house arrest.22 Still, no one forced Pugu Yitu or any other man or w ­ oman of Türk ethnicity to be buried in a tomb so similar to con­temporary burials in the Tang capital; and t­ here is no rec­ord of a Tang citizen ­dying in Bayannuur or Zaamar. Yet the intent of the two tombs in Mongolia was to bury according to the practices in con­temporary China. It is worth noting, perhaps, that the Bayannuur tomb patron accomplished this task in a more streamlined manner than some o ­ thers who sought Chinese funerary models in other times or places. The walls of the tomb in Xinzhou, for instance, where the wooden-­supported building proclaims China on the back, are filled with men of specific ethnicities who might have been seen by the tomb occupant or painter, and ethereal creatures that can be compared to ­t hose who decorate walls and ceilings in Koguryŏ and Dunhuang (Figure 3.12). The subjects of murals in Bayannuur include age-­old motifs such as the dragon and tiger, and motifs not quite as old such as bannermen and men and ­women near trees, but all undoubtedly Chinese. The burial goods in both tombs in Mongolia associated with the period of Türk rule in the late seventh c­ entury could have been bought, carried, sent, or gifted to Mongolia. The murals in Bayannuur could have been copied from handbooks, none of which would necessitate deep knowledge of Chinese thought. The Bayannuur tomb and Pugu Yitu’s are Türk period, but they are Chinese structures with Chinese murals and Chinese burial goods. This is certain not only b ­ ecause of comparisons with Tang royal tombs, but ­because surviving Türk architecture is much less clearly inspired by China.

T Ü R K -­U Y G H U R C O N S T R U C T I O N

The Türk khaganate ­rose in the mid-­sixth ­century following their defeat of the Rouran. By around 582, the Türk separated into the Western Türk khaganate and the Eastern Türk khaganate. The Eastern Türk fell to Tang in 630; by 659 the Western Türk had fallen to Tang. Yet the Türk ­rose again in 682 u ­ nder their leader Elterish, who unified p ­ eoples of

124

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

5.9 Scale-­model reconstruction of memorial to Bilge Khagan, Khöshöö Tsaidam, Arkhangai,

Mongolia, Türk period.

Mongolia u ­ nder the Second Türk Khaganate. This khaganate would fall to the Uyghurs in 744. This sixty-­two-­year period was a time of positive relations with Tang China, especially u ­ ntil 734.23 In fact, when Köl Tegin (684–731), the younger ­brother of the Türk ruler Bilge Khagan (683–734), died, Tang emperor Xuanzong (r. 713–756) sent six “famous” paint­ers to paint ­battles fought by the deceased ruler.24 It is not known where t­ hese images ­were painted. No royal Türk tomb has been found. Perhaps, like ­later ­peoples of Mongolia, the rulers wanted their final resting places to remain elusive. Memorial architecture to Türks survives in Arkhangai province. Above­ground the shrines include altars with stone men and other stone sculpture in the vicinity. Bilge Khagan’s shrine at Khöshöö Tsaidam, where excavation undertaken in 2001 yielded more than 1500 pieces of gold, silver, and gems, has features of a Chinese burial. The current reconstruction positions stone men and animals along a path that can be likened to a Chinese spirit path at the approach to a tomb; and the site was enclosed by a rectangular wall of 96 by 60 meters that may have had a moat around it (Figure 5.9). A stele on a tortoise back has been a privilege of Chinese royalty since the Han dynasty. Two steles known as the Orkhon Steles, originally positioned on the backs of tortoises, are dedicated to Bilge Khagan and his ­brother Köl Tegin. T ­ oday the stones with pairs of dragons that entwine at the tops are in the museum at Bilge Khagan’s memorial. In addition to the possibility that the Tang emperor sent paint­ers to help decorate the tomb of Bilge Khagan’s ­brother and the strong evidence

Tang Internationalism

125

of Chinese funerary architecture in central Mongolia, Türks saw Chinese architecture in Tang garrisons. Remains of a walled city t­ oday in Beiting in eastern Xinjiang is an example. Once a battleground between Eastern Han and the Xiongnu, in 640, a­ fter a decisive victory against the Türk, Tang established a garrison t­ here named Tingzhou. It changed hands between Tang and Türk ­until the Uyghur defeat of the Türk in 744. For the next c­ entury, Uyghurs came to the aid of Tang several crucial times, when Chang’an and Luoyang ­were u ­ nder attack in 757 by An Lushan and in 762 by Shi Chaoyi, respectively, and in 765 when the Uyghurs helped Tang resist an attack by the Tibetans. Tingzhou fell briefly to the Tibetans, in 790–791. The Uyghurs helped Tang China regain Tingzhou, but by the beginning of the ninth ­century the city was in Uyghur hands. That Tang city suffered destruction by the Uyghurs, and then was rebuilt by them as Besh-­baliq, one of the capitals of a khaganate that spanned north Asia from Heilongjiang to western Xinjiang from 744–840. Besh-­baliq became an auxiliary capital, and Qoço, known as Gaochang in the Tang dynasty, just outside Turfan in Xinjiang, became another Uyghur urban center.25 When the Uyghurs of Mongolia fell to the Khirghiz in 840, a remnant of the Uyghur empire migrated southeastward to Gansu province and eastern Xinjiang. The portions of the layers of pounded-­earth brick that formed the wall segments of Besh-­baliq are not precisely dated. The name Besh-­baliq is Uyghur for “five walls.” This would refer, not to layers, but to walled enclosures, which may have been built before, during, and ­after the Tang period. At some point during ­these centuries, five dif­fer­ent kinds of battlements ­were part of its walls: mamian (horse f­aces), yangma (sheep-­ horses), and ditai (­enemy towers) ­were projections of the outer wall that had to be penetrated before the wall itself could be attacked; wengcheng ­were less penetrable projections; corner towers, jiaotai, like ditai, had rooms at the top from which to watch for attacks. All five have Chinese names and counter­parts in pre-­Tang Chinese urban enclosures. ­Whether Tang or Türk or Uyghur built them at Tingzhou / Besh-­Baliq, they are part of the Chinese architectural tradition. The most extraordinary feature of this wall is architectural relief on ­either side of a gap that must have been the location of a gate. A pair of

126

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

four que, the number painted on the walls of the tomb of Tang Prince Yide, which are believed to re­create in microcosm ­those of the ­actual city gates of the capital Chang’an, are molded into the brick (Figures 5.4 and 5.10). The three-­dimensional version is extremely impor­tant. It indicates not only that the wall in Xinjiang in all likelihood was based on features of the Tang capital Chang’an, four que, more clearly a three-­bodied unit plus one in Chang’an than is apparent ­here, the greatest number of grouped que known, survives only on this wall and in the Tang royal mural. A unique monument associated with the Uyghurs of Besh-­baliq stands outside the wall to the west.26 Made largely of mud-­brick with timber supports in selected areas, the 45.8-­by-43.8-­meter structure is multilevel. Oriented southward, the subterranean lower level comprises eigh­teen rooms positioned roughly symmetrically on e­ ither side of the entrance, with an extra chamber on the west. The same entry leads to an interior mound that at one time concealed a monumental Buddhist deity. Enclosing that statue on the east, north, and west ­were two or three levels of niches, each at one time containing images and paintings. Statues and paintings in interior rooms belowground and exterior niches are Buddhist. Even though the structure finds no counterpart on the Asian continent, e­ very building in the murals, w ­ hether backdrop for Buddhist narrative or the framework above the man at the entry, believed to be royalty b ­ ecause his garment and hat are gold, and identified in a Uyghur inscriptions as Arslan, a common Uyghur name meaning lion, has green or golden ceramic roof tiles with circular tile ends on its raf­ters, three-­rise, red bracket sets supporting it, and gate-­towers at the front (Figure 5.11). The location of this man at the entrance, with a monumental Bud­dha ­behind him and an image of the death of the Bud­dha (parinirvana), in a niche below him, has led to interpretation of the monument as a Uyghur shrine to Buddhist death, perhaps also the death of a ruler.27 Like the Sogdians of the late sixth c­entury discussed in Chapter 4 (Figure 4.2), the Uyghur ruler Arslan chose to enter death beneath a Chinese roof. A thousand kilo­meters northwest of Besh-­baliq, in Tuva, Siberia, a rectangular enclosure surrounded by an earthen wall formed in layers of pounded earth of 215 meters east–­west by 162 meters north–­south, entered on and oriented ­toward the east, has been identified as a Uyghur

Tang Internationalism

127

5.10 Remains of entry showing multi-­

bodied que, (­today) Beiting, Xinjiang, Tang, Türk, or Uyghur period.

5.11 Man beneath Chinese

entry­way, entrance to brick structure, Beiting, Xinjiang, Uyghur period.

5.12 Por-­bazhin, Tuva,

Siberia, showing remains dated eighth to ninth ­century.

building complex. Named Por-­bazhin, “clay ­house” in Tuvan, it occupies most of an island (Figure 5.12). The site has been known since the eigh­teenth ­century, was studied at the end of the nineteenth ­century, was excavated in the mid-­twentieth and early twenty-­first centuries, and attracted international attention at that time.28 Excavation revealed three sides of rooms (the inverted-­U shape) enclosing a central, gong-­shaped set of buildings with at least two symmetrically adjoining buildings on e­ ither side. Eight rooms are identified in

128

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

an inner enclosure between the three sides and the central buildings. Located within the Uyghur empire, the rectangular wall, courtyard formation, and several objects found on-­site have led to reconstruction drawings of the architecture as exclusively Chinese. Excavation of a circular, ceramic, roof end-­tile with a lotus pattern and convex roof tiles are key evidence of the use of Chinese building components. An animal-­ faced tile also was found. Karabalgasun, also known as Khar Balgas, both translatable as “black walls” or “black city” and t­ oday known as Ordu-­baliq (city of the court), was the primary Uyghur capital. Twenty kilo­meters southwest of Khöshöö Tsaidam and 35 kilo­meters north of Khar­k horin, by the early twenty-­first ­century Karabalgasun’s size was confirmed as at least 32 square kilo­meters.29 Remains of brick wall rise on the grasslands on the east side of the Orkhon River (Figure 5.13). Karabalgasun is unique among walled enclosures in Mongolia, for it was described during its period of flourishing by an envoy of the Samanid empire (819–999), which at its zenith spanned from eastern Iran to Kazakhstan and whose capitals w ­ ere in Samarkand u ­ ntil 892 and then in Bukhara. Tamim ibn Bahr visited Karabalgasun in 821. He came upon the city a­ fter forty days of travel, the first twenty on the steppe and the next twenty among villages and “cultivation tracts.” Only then did he reach the “king’s town.” This man who had seen Samarkand described Karabalgasun as “thickly crowded,” with a market and twelve iron gates of huge size in its wall. He wrote of a palace, inside the wall, on the flat top of which was a gold tent that could hold a hundred p ­ eople.30 One assumes that the planted fields, markets, metal gates, and khagan’s gold tent existed, b ­ ecause Tamim ibn Bahr’s descriptions are referred to in other sources. Chinese historical writings of the Tang period suggest that the relationship between the Tang and Uyghur empires was fluid and dynamic, with each having the upper hand at certain times and with history not necessarily recording accurately who was the superior at one time or another.31 Two self-­contained walls have been proposed since the first probing at Karabalgasun in the 1890s.32 The city seems never to have been walled in entirety. Still, a walled city on the grasslands is a nod to China’s multimillennial self-­definition of an urban environment (Figure  5.13). The

Tang Internationalism

129

5.13 Wall remains, Karabalgasun, Arkhangai, Monngolia, Uyghur period.

smaller enclosure is thought to have been a Manichaean ritual complex built in two phases. The larger, whose existing walls are parallel to ­those of the first, both positioned roughly east-­oriented, was approximately 404 meters by 360 meters and is believed to have been palatial or for ritual.33 Remains of a mound that may have been a stupa and nine more mounds on e­ ither side of the enclosure that may have been smaller stupas have led to identifications as a city where Buddhism was practiced. The three mounds, large, small, and large, the first of which might be the base of a stupa, also suggest the gong-­shape associated exclusively with imperial architecture in China. The formation as well as a perimeter of rooms is as similar to Por-­bazhin as to any other building complex known from the period. Circular, ceramic roof end-­tiles with alternating lotus petals of teardrop and diamond shapes that usually associate a building with China and square pilasters on circular bases enclosed by lotus petals w ­ ere found, and a marble statue on which are sculpted three, four-­claw scaly dragons, two vis­i­ble in profile and one between them, also remain (Figure 5.14).

130

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

5.1 4 Marble sculpture, Karabalgasun, Arkhangai, Mongolia, Uyghur period.

A Uyghur city also was built at Bay-­balik where, ­after de­cades of hiatus, excavation has been ongoing since 2019.34 Located on the Selenge River about 400 kilo­meters north of Karabalgasun, Bay-­balik is the Uyghur city referred to in the Shine-­usu inscription, in Runic (the language of the Türk), Chinese, and Sogdian, dated to the reign of Moyanchuo Khagan (r. 747–759), as having been built by Sogdians and Chinese.35 It was a squarish walled city with corner towers, a major architectural complex roughly in the center, and other four-­sided structures. The three building foundations in a row uncovered so far may have followed a gong plan. Stone sculptures, including a turtle base for a stele and lions, are as ­those from other Uyghur sites in Mongolia. Uyghur and Uyghur-­contemporary remains also are found at Khermen-​denj and Chin-­tolgoi, both sites discussed in Chapter 6, and both better known for Khitan wall remains of the tenth and eleventh centuries.36 Shagonar in Tuva and Kukh Ordung in Mongolia also pre­ sent excavated evidence of Uyghur palatial architecture.37 At all t­hese sites, roof tiles and stone sculpture are primary evidence for dating.

Tang Internationalism

131

Tombs in the Orkhon Valley of Arkhangai are more evidence of the impact of China on Uyghur architecture in central Mongolia. Positioned in groups of three to eight mounds, all originally enclosed by walls with a gate at the front, they are usually oriented eastward (Figure 5.15).38 Under­ground, a single, domed chamber is approached by a stepped ramp from ground level. The subterranean space is simpler than the tombs in Bayannuur and Zaamar of the Türk period, but similar to countless burials across North China and Inner Mongolia from the sixth through eighth centuries, including several discussed in Chapter 4. The tombs are nicknamed dörvöljin (squares) ­because the enclosures are squarish. The above­ground enclosure among ­people who did not complete the wall around their largest city, Karabalgasun, is strong evidence of the influence of Chinese architecture; decorative features are stronger evidence. Animal-­faced ceramic sculpture and murals with floral roundels with eight-­petaled lotuses at the center, punctuated by triangular floral motifs with four-­petaled lotuses at the hubs, are identifying features to which we return below (Figures 5.16 and 5.17). A wall in and of itself does not mean the influence of China, but it is always noticeable on grassland or steppe. Neither a wall of pounded mud-­brick, lotus patterns on roof end-­tiles, a domed subterranean burial chamber, a gong-­shaped building arrangement, the concentration of architecture on the central axis of a walled enclosure, a painting of a ceramic tile roof with two sets of raf­ters supporting it, or bracket sets alone identify China as the guide for construction. When t­ hese occur in combination, one cannot but observe a desire to emulate China, and perhaps recognition of the aura of the Chinese building tradition. Yet whereas the Türk-­period tombs in Bayannuur and Zaamar are the only two such similar burials, and in close proximity to each other, the distances between Besh-­baliq, Por-­bazhin, Karabalgasun, Bay-­baliq, and the quadrilateral tombs open the possibility ­either that craftsman and builders trained in Chinese techniques worked at each location or that a workforce, Chinese, Uyghur, or other, moved among the Uyghur capitals. Chinese architecture may have come to the Uyghur empire by more than one route, or through craftsmen who ­were Sogdian rather than Chinese. The results of excavation at e­ very site are that Chinese-­inspired similar models, what­ever their origins or routes ­until they w ­ ere seen by Uyghurs, w ­ ere the source, and similar products w ­ ere made.

5.15 Tombs once enclosed by quadrilateral walls, Arkhangai, Mongolia, Uyghur period.

5.16 Animal-­

faced sculpture excavated at dörvöljin 3, Khöndiin-­ Khooloi, Arkhangai, Mongolia, Uyghur period.

5.17 Decorative band of roundels, 2.3 meters wide by 74 centimeters high, painted on west wall, dörvöljin 3, Khöndiin-­k hooloi, Arkhangai, Mongolia, Uyghur period.

Tang Internationalism

133

Sometimes a single structure in an image is all that is necessary to indicate that China is pre­sent. Examples of this are found on walls of cave 9, known as cave 20 in an alternate numbering system, in Bezeklik, located about 50 kilo­meters northeast of Turfan in Xinjiang. The murals are dated to the Uyghur period. They are among an original group of fifteen, of which thirteen survive ­today. A similar group is on the walls of cave 4. The subject of each mural is pradnihi, a moment in the life of a bo­dhi­sat­t va, before ascension to Buddhahood, when he makes a vow to a Bud­dha of a past age.39 Eight of the pradnihi paintings in cave 9, known as Cave 20 in an alternate numbering system, have architecture in the upper right or top left corner. Each scene has a distinctive building, and e­ very structural detail of e­ very building is Chinese (Figure 5.18). Architecture, such as the pavilion in Figure 5.18, places the scene, regardless of the nationality of worshippers, in China. Like buildings and images of them in relief and painting discussed already, such as Sogdian or other Uyghur examples, this building’s details are t­ hose of a con­temporary Chinese structure, in this case Tang. The checkerboard foundation is used in murals in the tombs of Princes Yide and Zhanghuai (Figure 5.4), the red wooden members, white walls, and green tile roofs are their colors, as well as the colors of architecture ­behind Bud­dhas in Tang-­period paradise scenes in Mogao caves. Inverted-­V-­shaped braces and two sets of roof raf­ters are painted in all the buildings in the Tang caves and tombs.40 The intention of the architecture to place the moment of pradnihi in China is clear through comparison with murals on the ceiling of Buddhist cave-­temples in Kakrak, dated seventh-­eighth centuries, a few kilo­ meters southeast of Bamiyan in Af­ghan­i­stan. To the upper right and left of a row of Buddhist deities are Indian-­style stupas.41 Like the Chinese buildings in the same positions in Bezeklik caves or the pavilion ­under which An Jia sits, or architecture above an archway, the Indian stupa locates the realm in which the scene takes place. In the seventh and eighth centuries, the Bamiyan Valley sought to identify itself with a South Asian-­centered Buddhist world. In eastern Xinjiang, Mongolia, and Ningxia, architecture placed tomb occupants and Buddhist devotees in China. The borders of Chinese architecture had been reached in Af­ghan­i­stan in this period, but would extend farther in other directions.

134

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

5.18 Mural of Simhaparakrama Bud­d ha surrounded by monks and guardian figures, cave 9,

Bezeklik, Xinjiang, ca. ninth ­century.

By the eighth ­century, one can document an awareness of China and ­Korea in the heartland of the Sogdians. Afrasiyab, just north of Samarkand in Uzbekistan, offers impor­tant evidence in the form of murals. A painting from room 1 of sector 23, perhaps a reception hall used by the Sogdian ruler Varkhuman in the mid-­seventh ­century, with a termimus ante quem of 751 when the city was destroyed by the Arab conquests, now in the Afrasiyab Museum in Samarkand, is believed to portray ambassadors to the king for the festival at the time of the New Year known as Nowruz (Figure 5.19).42 Even if the repre­sen­ta­tion is not of Nowruz, it is

Tang Internationalism

135

5.19 Detail of mural showing figures wearing Korean headgear, north wall, room 1, sector 23,

Hall of the Ambassadors, Afrasiyab, Uzbekistan, mid-­seventh ­century.

nevertheless one in which an international population was pre­sent. Chinese men and ­women and Korean men are unmistakable ­because of their clothing or headgear. Textiles excavated in Afrasiyab and worn by other figures in the Afrasiyab mural have the roundel pattern painted in dörvoljin 3 in Khöndiin-­k hooloi and on the garment worn by a figurine excavated in Pugu Yitu’s tomb (Figures 5.7 and 5.17). Buddhist architecture stood in lands that became Sogdian. Termez in Uzbekistan, south of Samarkand and about halfway between t­ here and the Uzbekistan-­Afghanistan border, is the site of stupas and other Buddhist architecture dated as early as the third ­century CE and not ­later than ca. 700, when the city became largely Muslim.43 Hyech’o may have been in this region shortly before the Arab conquest.44 A monumental

136

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

image of the parinirvana, an example of which was noted above in the monument at Besh-­baliq, survives at Adzhina-­tepe, a site of approximately 100 meters by 50 meters in southern Tajikistan, dated to the seventh or early eighth c­ entury.45 As in Afrasiyab, mud-­brick, the building material easily available in the region, is employed, yet Chinese ele­ments are seen in the Buddhist sculpture and murals.

TOMBS OF KINGS OF TUBO

The Tibetan kingdom Tubo flourished from the mid-­seventh to the mid-­ ninth ­century. The Tubo battled with Tang China and with the Uyghur empire in eastern Xinjiang, Gansu, Ningxia, and Qinghai. Contact with China can be compared to that of the Türk at the same time. In 640 and again in 709, the Chinese princesses Wencheng and Jincheng, respectively, ­were married to kings of Tubo.46 This is the kind of information scholars continue to seek to explain a pos­si­ble patron of the tomb in Bayannuur. Buddhism also came to Tibet during this period, but the appearance of tombs in the royal cemetery in Vphyongs-­rgyas (Ch: Qiongjie), in southern Tibet south of Lhasa, is decidedly inspired by China. Mounds above most of the tombs and spirit paths leading to them are impor­tant evidence.47 ­Today, twenty tombs cluster in two groups. Among the eight in a southern group associated with the kings of the mid-­seventh to the mid-­ninth ­century, the most extensive remains of animals from spirit paths are at tomb 5 (Figure 5.20).48 Four-­sided pillars on tortoise bases with imitation ceramic-­t ile roofs and decorated roof-­rafter ends w ­ ere found at tomb 7.

PARHAE ARCHITECTURE AND CITIES

The Parhae kingdom in the northeastern corner of Asia was looking almost exclusively to the same architectural and art models as the ­peoples of Mongolia and Sogdiana. K ­ orea, China, and Rus­sia count the Parhae (Balhae / Bohai) period as part of their histories. In ­Korea, Parhae is

Tang Internationalism

137

5.20 Stone lion from spirit path, royal cemetery of Tubo kingdom, Vphyongs-­rgyas, Tibet,

mid-­seventh to mid-­ninth c­ entury.

considered the successor to Koguryŏ, b ­ ecause the Parhae kingdom was established by a former Koguryŏ general named Tae Choyŏng (Ch: Da Zurong) in 698 ­after his troops won a b ­ attle against Tang, who had helped Silla unite the three Korean kingdoms in 668. The Tang emperor conferred upon Tae the title of prince, an act that since the Han dynasty had signified China’s understanding that a polity inside or beyond China’s borders had to be recognized and was likely to have to be reckoned with. Koreans usually view the eighth and ninth centuries of their history, ­until the year 926, as a period of northern and southern dynasties, Parhae in the north and Unified Silla in the south. China views Parhae as it views Koguryŏ: physical remains are in Heilongijang and Jilin, whereby the empire was part of China. Rus­sia views Parhae as a feudal state of the southeasternmost province Primorye. Parhae’s architectural and art histories are written by documents in Korean, Chinese, Rus­sian, and Japa­nese, not only ­because rec­ords about Parhae from the eighth to the tenth c­ entury exist in all four languages, but also b ­ ecause teams of all four nations, Japan only during the occupation of Manchuria, excavated Parhae sites. Two Parhae royal tombs are dated. We begin with them.

138

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Royal Tombs

The e­ arlier tomb is at a cemetery in Liudingshan, 5 kilo­meters south of the capital once known as Kuguk, ­today Dunhua, in Jilin province. The approximately one hundred graves that cluster in groups are primarily stone and covered with mounds of piled stones. All are believed to date to the eighth c­ entury.49 Many of the plans follow that of countless sixth-­ century tombs of Koguryŏ and China: a burial approached via a diagonal ramp with an antechamber with two side niches and a single room covered by a domical vault. The tomb of Princess Chŏnghye (Zhenhui), third d ­ aughter of Tae Mun (Da Wen [Qinmao]) (r. 737–793), the third king of Parhae, is in this cemetery and has such a plan. A 700-­character funerary inscription states she was buried in 780.50 Her younger s­ ister Chŏnghyo (Zhenxiao), Tae Mun’s fourth d ­ aughter, died at the age of thirty-­six and is buried with her husband in one of twelve tombs believed to comprise a Parhae royal cemetery at Longtoushan in Helong, Jilin.51 She was interred in 793 in a stone tomb approached by a 7.1-­meter ramp that ends at a sealing door. The sealing door is a feature of sixth-­through eighth-­century royal tombs in China. A sixth-­century example is in the tomb of Emperor Wu and his wife of Northern Zhou.52 ­Behind this door is a single chamber with a floor of 3.1 by 2.1 meters and height of 3.4 meters. To date, no Parhae tomb with air shafts has been found. The tomb was stocked with the gold and silver objects and other precious accoutrements of royalty, most of which had been stolen by the time of excavation in 1980. Chŏnghyo’s tomb has the best-­preserved murals of any Parhae tomb to date. Twelve images are painted in Chŏnghyo’s tomb: one on e­ ither side at the end of the approach ramp, four each on the east and west walls ­behind it, and two on the north wall (Figure 5.21). ­Those on the approach ramp are 0.98 meters in height; the first two images, t­ hose closest to the tomb entrance on the south part of the side walls, are 1.17 meters high, the other three on the east and west walls of the burial chamber are 1.13 meters, and t­ hose on the back wall, 1.17 meters. Although the differences in height are small, the lengths of symmetrical images are similar enough to believe they ­were mea­sured, and thus that the increase in height t­oward the back of the tomb was intentional. The first four

Tang Internationalism

139

5.21 Interior of tomb of Princess Chŏnghyo, Liudingshan, Jilin, 793. Re­created for exhibition at

Seoul National University Museum.

pictures one sees upon approach from outside, the two on the approach itself and the first two on the east and west walls, are identified as guards. The next three on the west wall are musicians; ­those opposite them on the east wall are servants, identified by objects they carry. Th ­ ose on the north wall face each other. They also are identified as servants. The murals suggest immediate comparisons with Tang royal tombs, including t­ hose of female princesses buried in the seventh and eighth centuries in Chang’an, such as Changle, Xincheng, or Yongtai, and with the Türk tomb in Bayannuur. G ­ rand princess Xincheng’s tomb offers especially strong comparative evidence ­because individual figures are the main subjects of the walls of its chambers. The directional animals that have been observed across East Asia, and are frequently portrayed in Koguryŏ tombs as well as along the under­g round approach ramps to Tang tombs, are missing,53 but the yoked dresses with multicolored pleated skirts are t­ hose of China and Koguryŏ, and silk patterns of the clothing are typical of China’s seventh and eighth centuries as far west as Dunhuang.54 ­Every ele­ment that is pre­sent, however, in each mural and each tomb structure of the Türk and the Parhae, finds a counterpart or source in the wall programs in Tang royal tombs in Shaanxi, even if murals in Mongolia and of Parhae appear abbreviated by comparison. Enough of China is always pre­sent to confirm it was the source. The tomb in Bayannuur was built, stocked, and painted based on burials of Sui-­Tang

140

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

5.22 Statue along spirit path, tomb of King Wonsŏng,

Kwangnŏng, Kyŏngju, South ­Korea, 798.

China or perhaps Sui’s pre­de­ces­sors Northern Qi and Northern Zhou; it finds no source in pre-­Türk Mongolia. Parhae murals, by contrast, painted a full ­century ­later, have three ­viable prototypes: Tang, Koguryŏ, and Silla. Both Buddhist and funerary architecture survives from Silla before and ­after that kingdom unified the territory of the Three Kingdoms in 668.55 A spirit path with stone statues of foreigners and animals remains in Kwangnŏng, Kyŏngju, at the tomb of Wonsŏng (r. 785–798), entitled as king the year the ruling king died without an heir (Figure 5.22). Wonsŏng had been responsible for Silla sending tribute to the Tang court and for the establishment of an exam system for the appointment of officials in Silla.56 It is not known why foreigners stand ­there; in China they are associated with imperial Song spirit paths.57 The Wonsŏng spirit path is an example of monumental construction that has ­earlier sources only in China, for to date, no Parhae or Koguryŏ or e­ arlier Silla or Paekche

Tang Internationalism

141

tomb has one.58 Wonsŏng’s tomb approach is understood as construction inspired by China for which t­ here now, and perhaps always, existed as an isolated, eighth-­century example. As we ­shall see in Chapter 9, Korean kings would erect statue-­lined paths inspired by China, if not by King Wonsŏng’s tomb, in the fifteenth ­century. The pre­sen­ta­tion of relief sculpture in the rock-­carved Buddhist cave Sŏkkuram, usually dated to the sixth, seventh, and eighth de­cades of the eighth c­ entury, has individual monks and deities occupying wall panels that line the approach to and surround a focal Bud­dha beneath a dome.59 The interior plan and placement of individual images on walls of the single-­chamber Buddhist shrine is similar to t­ hose of the Parhae princess tombs. Still, if the Parhae kings ­were aware of Sŏkkuram, they prob­ably had not seen it. The mural program in Chŏnghyo’s tomb in all likelihood was inspired by royal Tang tombs. Parhae tombs also remain in Ning’an, Heilongjiang, 4 kilo­meters north of a Parhae capital discussed below. Tomb 2, undated and with figures lining the walls of its single chamber in the manner of princess tombs in Jilin, has the floral roundels punctuated by diamond-­shaped flowers observed in the Uyghur tomb in Arkhangai (Figures 5.17 and 5.23).60 As in comparisons between the tomb of Princess Chŏnghyo and the tomb in Bayannuur, a common Tang source, however it was transmitted east and west, is the most likely explanation for the similarities in the con­temporary Uyghur and Parhae tomb interior decoration. Capitals and Their Palaces

The fifteen Parhae kings ruled from five capitals. Th ­ ese five cities are referred to in scholarly lit­er­a­ture as a “five-­capital system,” a name derived from a passage in the chapters on the Parhae “Bohaizhuan” in the standard history of the ­later Tang dynasty (Xin Tangshu). The capitals are geo­g raph­i­cally designated as upper (sometimes translated “superior”), central, east, west, and north.61 It is generally agreed upon by scholars of China, North ­Korea, South ­Korea, Japan, and Rus­sia that the five-­capital system was administrative, and further, that it was original to Parhae, although Northern Wei, Northern Qi, Tang, Uyghur, and o ­ thers 62 used multiple capitals.

142

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

5.23 Mural along lower part of ceiling showing roundel pattern, tomb 2, Sanxing village, Sanling, Ning’an, Heilongjiang, Parhae period.

Some believe a walled city at Kuguk, the location of Princess Chŏnghye’s tomb, was used by the Parhae king beginning in 698. Excavated by a Japa­nese team before 1949 and l­ater re-­excavated by a Chinese team, the two-­walled city that sometimes is known as Aodong, had an outer wall of 200-­by-400 meters and segments of an inner wall that ranged from about 60 meters to more than 80.63 Some believe the first Parhae rulers also used a mountain-­castle (shancheng) named Chengshanzi (city mountain). If so, it was built in the manner of, or reused from, a Koguryŏ mountain-­castle, a signature Koguryŏ form of construction, without clear Chinese pre­ce­dents. Mountain-­castles remain only in Liaoning, Jilin, and K ­ orea.64 Three of the five Parhae capitals are believed to have been cities where Parhae kings held court. The city at Helong in Jilin province of China, the location of Princess Chŏnghyo’s tomb, was prob­ably used first. It is identified as the central capital (Zhongjing), once known as Xuandefu (Xuande prefectural center) and ­today as Xigucheng (old west city). The city has been excavated since the 1930s, with four major efforts by Japa­

Tang Internationalism

143

nese teams and eleven by Chinese teams since 1954, some of the most recent joint proj­ects with Japa­nese archaeologists. More than ten plans have been published based on t­ hose excavations, with ongoing scholarly debate about the most accurate version.65 The central capital was a city of inner and outer walls, the inner wall positioned in the north center of the outer wall and with two large lakes southeast and southwest of that wall. The inner walled enclosure contained five main structures, four of them in a southern sector arranged one in front and three ­behind, all connected by covered arcades, and the back one in its own enclosed area. The plans and the fact that ­there is controversy about them are at the heart of the “borders” prob­lem. Since the earliest excavation, archaeologists and scholars have turned to Tang capitals and palaces and to Chinese texts, such as the above-­mentioned “Bohaizhuan” in the Chinese history of Tang, that describe Parhae capitals, to guide the reconstructions. The dimensions of the walls, 2720.1 meters in perimeter for the outer and 992.8 meters for the inner, are not controversial; they have been known for eighty years. The configuration of buildings of the inner city is presented as adhering to the fundamental concepts of Sui-­Tang imperial city planning, whose sources lie in Northern Wei Luoyang and Eastern Wei-­Northern Qi Ye: two main palatial halls joined by a covered arcade form the gong plan; a central hall that joins two auxiliary halls whose outer sides join a covered arcade that encloses the complex; and gardens b ­ ehind the back hall of the palace-­city. That the city followed Chinese urban patterns prob­ably was assumed before the first Japa­nese excavations ­were completed. If Xigucheng was the primary capital early in Parhae history, then in 755 the capital moved to Longquanfu, the Parhae capital known as the upper capital (Shangjing), ­today in Bohaizhen (Bohai [Parhae] town) in Ning’an, Heilongjiang.66 It is located far enough north that N. Ya. (Hyacinth) Bichurin (1777–1853) rec­ord it in his investigations of Northeast Asia, although he misidentified it as Shangjing of the twelfth-­century Jin dynasty, a city discussed in Chapter 7. Like the central capital at Xigucheng, the capital at Longquanfu has been excavated since the early twentieth ­century, but much more remains ­here, thirty-­seven building foundations. The Japa­nese reports of excavations from 1909 to 1927, published in 1939, refer to the city as Dongjingcheng, eastern capital city.67

144

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

V. V. Bartol’d (1869–1930) was t­ here and drew a plan but did not excavate.68 Chinese excavation commenced in the 1960s and continued in the 1980s and from 1997 ­until 2007. The Parhae upper capital was a three-­walled city. The second wall, which defined the imperial-­city, was the oldest, followed in age by the palace-­city wall and the outer wall built last. Oriented just 4.5 degrees west of due north–­south, its palace-­city and imperial-­city w ­ ere approached from the south by a major thoroughfare. Longquanfu was laid out with the intent of three major gates on the north and south sides and major thoroughfares cutting through the city from outer wall to outer wall, defining a ward system like t­ hose of the Sui-­Tang capitals Chang’an and Luoyang and the major Tang city in South China, Yangzhou. Not all the gates appear to have been completed. The widest street in the capital was along the approach through the imperial-­city to the palace-­city. The palace-­city was entered through an inverted-­U-­shaped gate. ­There followed three courtyards, the second of which had a gong-­ plan complex at its focus. Major buildings ­were flanked by smaller buildings joined to them by covered arcades. Each courtyard comprised three or five parallel building complexes.69 The Parhae upper capital was divided into four-­sided wards within the major thoroughfares according to the Tang system. ­There are more similarities between the eastern and central Parhae capitals and ­those of Tang. If one draws a straight line from the northeast corner to the southwest corner, and a straight line from the northwest corner to the southeastern one, the lines bisect at the main entry to the palace-­city. If one draws similarly positioned lines from corner to corner of Parhae Shangjing, the point of intersection is its palace no. 2. Planning from the outset, even if the outer wall was completed last, is confirmed by ­these lines. Construction of an outer wall based on a midpoint whereby the north and south walls and east and west walls are equidistant from it is a fundamental princi­ple of Chinese imperial city planning, stipulated, as we have seen, in “Kaogongji.” We ­shall see the impact of this text on imperial planning again in Chapter 8. In 785 the Parhae capital moved to Baliancheng, formerly in Long­ yuanfu and ­today in Hunchun, Jilin province; it was the eastern capital. This site, too, was first excavated by Japa­nese archaeologists in the 1920s,

Tang Internationalism

145

1930s, and 1940s.70 Eight Chinese excavations preceded the major study of the site between 2004 and 2009.71 Like Xigucheng, Baliancheng is a two-­walled city, with its inner city in the north center of the outer wall. The outer wall is 2894 meters in perimeter and the inner wall is 1072 meters. The inner city has a gong-­shaped building complex at its north center, a feature shared with the other primary capitals Xigucheng and Shangjing. The back building extends northward in two places, also observed at Xigucheng and Shangjing. South of the northern sector, the complex divides into three parallel sectors where building remains have not been found. The outer city was divided into wards. So far, only a central gate at the south center of the outer wall has been located. In 794 the primary capital moved back to Shangjing. In 1899, Parhae’s western capital was proposed to be in Linjiang, near the Yalu River northeast of Ji’an and 65 kilo­meters southeast of Hunjiang in southern Jilin province.72 Parhae’s southern capital t­ oday is in North K ­ orea and thus was the closest to Silla territory. Most scholars believe it is in Hamnyŏngdo. Kraskino, in southwestern Primorye in Rus­sia, 37.8 kilo­meters from Hunchun, Jilin, and closer to both China’s and North K ­ orea’s borders, was not a capital. Yet it has been excavated through as many seasons as the capitals.73 A city of three straightish wall segments, each with one wengcheng, and the rest of the wall curved, the most impor­tant remains excavated between 1980 and the early twenty-­first c­ entury are in the northwest section. Monasteries

Buddhist monasteries ­were constructed across the Parhae empire. Not enough remains to fully reconstruct the plan of any of them.74 A pagoda and a lantern pagoda survive, as do Buddhist sculpture, other artifacts, and written rec­ords. So far, the largest monasteries are in the vicinity of Shangjing, where fourteen Buddhist sites had been identified within the city walls and two more beyond the walls in 2002.75 Each had buildings longer across the front than in depth, elevated on earthen foundations, and with stone pilasters. The largest building was 37-­by-25 meters and the smallest was 12-­by-7.1 meters. The heights of platforms ­were between

146

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

0.8 and 1.2 meters. Ceramic roof tiles with lotus patterns w ­ ere found at most of the sites. Xinglong Monastery is one of the most famous t­ emple complexes of Parhae Shangjing b ­ ecause one of the two extant buildings, a 6-­meter stone lantern pagoda on an octagonal base, stands t­ here. The lantern pagoda is elevated on a pillar with entasis, a feature noted in a fourth-­ century tomb in Digengpo and in the earliest buildings at the monastery Hōryūji, discussed in Chapters 3 and 4, respectively. The pillar has lotus flowers at its top and base. The upper flower supports an octagonal structure with an imitation ceramic-­tile roof and four plates at the top. Stone sculpture at the monastery includes support for a stele in the shape of a tortoise (Figure 5.24). The unnecessary hair and mane of the tortoise equally suggest comparisons with the stone dragon at Karabal­ gasun (Figure  5.14). In the sculptures, one observes an undeniably Chinese form, the dragon, and a tortoise joined with features of an imperial dragon in Heilongjiang, carved for two dif­fer­ent imperial patrons on two ends of the Tang empire. ­There are, of course, many sources for the dragon before eighth-­century China. Lingguang Monastery in Changbai, one of the Korean autonomous regions of Jilin province, is the other Parhae monastery where a pagoda survives. It stands on a hill no more than a kilo­meter from the Yalu River. Since the first modern scholarship about this four-­sided, 12.86-­meter brick pagoda, it has been called Tang-­style (Figure 5.25).76 Brick and of five stories that diminish in perimeter from base to roof, Xuanzang Pagoda at Xingjiao Monastery in Xi’an, built in 669 and restored in 828, is considered a prototype for it.77 Korean pagodas of the Three Kingdoms period and Unified Silla are brick or stone with smooth layers of eaves whose undersides are flat plates of decreasing size, as one sees ­here, but their bodies are made of huge, smooth parts.78 The pagoda at Tianning Monastery in Ningbo, Zhejiang province, in South China is more similar in structure to the Lingguang Monastery pagoda (Figure 5.26). The most significant features of the comparison are the brick undersides of the eaves, for unlike the appearance of brick pagodas of Tang China, the four layers are divided by triangular details that serve as abbreviated forms of bracket sets. Further, the first story of each has a segmented arch on each side, three of which ­today are sealed

5.2 4 Stone sculpture, Xinglong Monastery, near Ning’an, Heilongjiang,

Parhae period.

5.25 Brick pagoda, Lingguang Monastery, Changbai,

Jilin, Parhae period.

5.26 Brick pagoda, Tianning Monastery, Ningbo, Zhejiang, 862–863.

148

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

by a wall b ­ ehind them and one of which is open. The Ningbo pagoda is dated 862–863, perhaps con­temporary with the pagoda in Changbai, but they are separated by a land route of 2200 kilo­meters or a combination of travel by land and sea. One posits a common Tang source for both, one whose eave undersides are articulated as t­ hese are, a feature not pre­ sent in Xuanzang Pagoda in Xi’an. We have observed similar structural details of Uyghur and Parhae in tomb murals as distant from each other as Arkhangai and Jilin. Still, a motif such as roundel is easier to copy from a picture than a brick pagoda and its details are to construct. Further, monumental religious structures more often are built through the direction of monks or prac­ti­tion­ers. So far ­there is no evidence of a monk who was in Jilin and coastal Zhejiang, the manner through which, we ­shall see below, transmission of architectural forms often occurred between China and Japan in the eighth c­ entury. A four-­sided, seven-­story brick pagoda that may have been of the style of Lingguang Monastery’s, in Madida, Huncheng, Jilin, is mentioned in lit­er­a­ture in 1982.79 Among Parhae Bud­dha halls, one observes fundamental princi­ples of Chinese architecture noted in the Introduction. In the eastern capital Baliancheng one finds halls with three dif­fer­ent arrangements of pillars: an outer perimeter only, a complete column grid, and inner and outer rings; the building exterior of all three configurations would have been the same.80 Two of ­these interior plans and a third that is dif­fer­ent from them survive in Tang China. The single perimeter of columns is the scheme of three of the four extant Tang religious halls.81 The concentric inner and outer sets of columns is the plan of Tang China’s best-­ known Buddhist hall, the east hall of Foguang Monastery constructed in 857.82 Inner and outer column rings are one of the four fundamental pillar arrangements prescribed in Building Standards (Figure i.14). Buddhist statuary on-­site confirms that the Parhae buildings in question h ­ ere ­were Buddhist ­temples. Three more examples of ­temples supported by inner and outer rings of columns are among the extensive remains of Buddhist monasteries at the Parhae capital Shangjing. Two have yielded enough information to know interior arrangements as well as ground plans. The main hall of monastery 1 was a five-­bay-­by-­four structure of 23.68 by 20 meters with side corridors of 8.4-­by-3.6 meters that joined 9.23-­meter-­square side

Tang Internationalism

149

buildings. The altar had a main image and three pairs of images positioned symmetrically with re­spect to it. The main hall of monastery 9, which is a five-­by-­four-­bay structure of 16.6-­by-13.2 meters in perimeter, elevated on a pounded-­earth platform of 1 meter. A central, U-­shaped altar necessitated the elimination of two interior pillars.83 Parhae monasteries, again, identified by Buddhist statues excavated on the grounds, also have been uncovered in Primorye. A five-­by-­four-​ ­bay hall with a complete column grid was excavated at Kraskino. Remains on a hilltop known as Hoof Hill, about 50 kilo­meters south of Vladivostok, include a five-­bay-­square hall elevated on a stone platform of 7.3-­by-6.2 meters.84 Inner and outer rings of eight stones w ­ ere excavated at a Parhae site in Gaochang village, about 15 kilo­meters north of Helong in Jilin.85 The excavator proposed a circular ground plan for this structure whose purpose is unknown.86 Based on con­temporary standing buildings and excavated remains in China, ­Korea, and Japan, a one-­story octagonal structure supported by interior and exterior rings of pillars is more likely (Figure 5.27a). Octagonal halls in t­ hese three countries have e­ ither eight or four interior pillars. The two dated octagonal halls are in Japan, the Hall of Dreams (Yumedono), constructed in 739 in the east precinct of Hōryūji, with eight interior columns (Figure 5.27b), and the hall at the monastery Eizanji in Nara prefecture, built in the 760s, with four (Figure 5.27c). An octagonal hall with four interior columns was excavated in its own precinct in the Tang capital Luoyang (Figure 5.27d). One with four interior pillars was found in the capital Kyŏngju, from ­either the Silla or the Unified Silla period (Figure 5.27e).87 The buildings in Japan are commemorative halls of royalty. The purposes of the buildings in Luoyang and Kyŏngju are unknown. Again we observe a structural type with examples of Tang, Nara, Silla, and Parhae. Octagonal commemorative halls prob­ably originated in metropolitan China, spread nearly 2000 kilo­ meters to the northeast to lands controlled by Korean kingdoms, and also spread to Japan, where the oldest wooden examples survive. Ground plans thus join murals, roof end-­tile designs, raf­ters of circular-­and four-­ sided sections, inverted-­V-­shaped braces, guardians wearing leg armor that fastens at the inner leg, ­women whose skirts are pleated, and

150

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

5.27 Plans of eighth-­or ninth-­century octagonal structures:

a. Drawing of remains of octagonal building, Gaochang Monastery, Jilin, Parhae period. b. Plan of Hall of Dreams, east precinct, Hōryūji, Ikaruga, 739. c. Plan of octagonal hall, Eizanji, Gojō, eighth c­ entury. d. Plan of remains of octagonal building in palace-­city of Luoyang, Henan, Tang period. e. Plan of octagonal remains, Kyŏngju, Unified Silla period (?).

figurines wearing garments with roundel patterns from Afrasiyab to Nara as examples of transmission of Tang Chinese art and architecture in the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries that survives in K ­ orea and in Japan and farther northeast in Asia. As we noted in assessing the fifth and sixth centuries, occasionally an architectural form such as the mountain-­castle of Koguryŏ or the Sogdian palace of Uzbekistan or Tajikstan is unique to a time or place with no presence in China. One formation is unique to Parhae. Known

Tang Internationalism

151

as twenty-­four stones, twelve examples remain in Jilin, Heilongjiang, and North K ­ orea, so far without explanation and without an e­ arlier source or l­ater example. ­These rows of stones are found near Parhae t­emples, tombs, and capitals discussed ­here.88

JAPAN

We save for the end of this chapter the best-­studied examples of Chinese construction beyond China’s borders in the seventh and eighth centuries. They are in Japan. We do this to emphasize that Japan was not unique in its turn to China, but one among the places outside China where Chinese architecture was built in the seventh and eighth centuries. Not only is t­ here more Japa­nese evidence of Chinese-­style architecture than survivals from Türk, Uyghur, or Parhae patronage, the documentation about it is more extensive. Construction by Emperor Shōmu (701–756) is exemplary. Shōmu sought to emulate Tang and thereby show himself to be a ­great East Asian monarch, building a national system of monasteries and nunneries based on the Tang system, acquiring objects from all over the world in the manner of a Tang emperor, and inviting monks from as far west as India to participate in construction in his capital.89 The objects w ­ ere stored in the trea­sury, mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, known as Shōsōin. We saw in Chapter 4 that Hōryūji’s oldest buildings have features of Han architecture and that the parallel axes of palatial buildings at the Nara capital have Chinese sources as early as the third c­ entury. We just observed that Hōryūji is one of two monasteries in Japan where an eighth-­century octagonal hall survives, and that the eight-­sided structure is found across East Asia with a source in the Tang capital Luoyang. The eighth-­century building to which historians turn most often to confirm the direct influence of Chinese architecture on Japan is the main Bud­dha hall, or Kondō, of the monastery Tōshōdaiji where the Chinese Buddhist monk Jianzhen, also mentioned in the Introduction and at the beginning of this chapter, was invited from China to guide the construction of a Chinese-­style worship hall (Figure i.2). The curved tie beams are invariably presented as key evidence of Tang building practices. This

152

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

feature in fact is found in fifth-­century Chinese construction. Curved tie beams are carved in tomb interiors at one of the Digengpo tombs as well as in cave 3 at Maijishan.90 They also are used in the eighth-­century covered arcade at Hōryūji as well as inside Tōshōdaiji Kondō. Again we observe an architectural component that may originate in China before the Tang dynasty that, b ­ ecause it exists in wooden architecture of Japan, has been believed to find its source in the Tang period. A second feature of Nara wooden architecture is the inverted-­V-­ shaped truss. Large, inverted-­V-­shaped trusses dominate the interior of the main hall of Shin Yakushiji in Nara prefecture, founded by Emperor Shōmu’s wife Kōmyō in 747.91 They, too, are used in a Digengpo tomb and at Maijishan.92 Exposed framing like this, of course, can occur only when t­ here is no drop ceiling. The east hall of Foguang Monastery, with which Tōshōdaiji Kondō most often is compared, has a ceiling. The impact of Chinese construction in Japan continues in the first de­ cades of the ninth c­ entury when the above-­mentioned Japa­nese monks Saichō and Kūkai, who studied in Chang’an in the first years of the ninth c­ entury, carried doctrines, paintings, diagrams, and construction methods home, and participated in the building of new monasteries for the sects of Buddhism they had studied in China. Several buildings whose construction was directed by Kūkai survive, even though some structural features have been restored. Kanjōdō, or ordination halls, in which the Shingon ceremony abhiṣeka takes place, built u ­ nder Kūkai’s guidance remain at Murōji in Nara prefecture and Kanshinji in Osaka prefecture. The defining features are inner and outer sanctums—­inner, as in the designation inner city of Beijing, referring to the more sacred space farther from the world outside; and outer to the space closer to the entrance to the building. The Chinese hall at Ximing Monastery in Chang’an where Kūkai received initiation from his teacher Huiguo (746–805) in 805, is of the inner-­and-­ outer-­sanctum plan. So is a version of Mizong (Esoteric Buddhist) Hall at Qinglong Monastery in Chang’an where Huiguo (746–805) resided and Kūkai taught. The archaeological evidence of inner and outer spaces dates to before 845, the year the structure was destroyed. The post-845 plan of the hall at Qinglong Monastery is the plan implemented at the Foguang Monastery east hall in 847.93 This kind of transmission of a spe-

Tang Internationalism

153

cific hall type in China for the practice of a specific religious doctrine in Japan is believed to be the circumstances u ­ nder which the Tōshōdaiji Kondō was built. However, excavation has not confirmed the plan of a specific building in China where Jianzhen studied or taught. In the seventh and eighth centuries, ­there was no East Asian cultural system as power­ful as Tang’s. Tang architecture drove construction in Xinjiang and Ningxia and Mongolia and K ­ orea and Japan, not always ­because Tang had built ­there, as had occurred five hundred years ­earlier when Han built commanderies across the Eastern half of Asia, but ­because nomads, semi-­nomads, aspirants to empires, and established imperial families desired it on steppe, grassland, desert, and in cities.

••• 6

DEFINING CHINESE ARCHITECTURE AND BORDERS DURING LIAO

If someone ­were to say, “­There’s Liao and t­ here’s Liao and ­there’s Liao,” someone familiar with the dynasty is likely to nod, and perhaps add, “Yes, and no m ­ atter what of Liao is the subject, it is intrinsically in­ter­ est­ing.” The visual draw to ­things Liao includes engagement with metal-­ wire body suits, wooden mannequins that contain h ­ uman ashes, a metal bust with heads looking forward and backward like a Janus figure, and in architecture, a wooden pagoda more than 67 meters tall, brick pagodas that tower more than 70 meters, and ceilings with symbols of the Western zodiac. The images in Figures 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 show that Liao employed the Chinese building system and then manipulated it in ways China seems never to have conceived. Liao also w ­ ere the patrons of China’s two largest extant wooden Buddhist buildings, and although the dynasty ruled sixteen prefectures of northern Shanxi and Hebei, they ­were from beginning to end a border empire. Depending on the historian asked, t­ hose beginnings are 907 when the Tang fell and a man named Abaoji (872–926) assumed the title of khagan (supreme khan), or 916 when Abaoji declared a Chinese reign period, or 947 when Abaoji’s son Deguang (902–947), the second Liao ruler, declared himself emperor of a dynasty named Liao and Abaoji’s vision of an empire of northern administration for the largely non-­Chinese population and southern administration for sedentary p ­ eoples, including the Chinese, was realized.

6.1 Timber Pagoda, Ying county, Shanxi, 67.31

meters, 1056.

6.2 White Pagoda (Baita), 64 meters high plus

7.43-­meter spire, Qingzhou, Balinyouqi, Inner Mongolia, 1047–1049.

6.3 Dome of tomb of Zhang

Shiqing, Xiabali cemetery, Xuanhua, Hebei, 1116.

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

nd afte ary of r 11 Jin 15

156

Acheng Liao Shangjing (Balinzuoqi ) Bayintala Qingzhou (907-1125) Baoshan Raozhou Khüree Yemaotai Balinyouqi Yixian Beizhen Liaoyang Ningcheng Khara-khoto Xuanhua Beijing Datong Fangshan Shuozhou Jixian Yingxian Zhengding Taiyuan Kyongju Yinchuan Haodong Qingtongxia

Liao

Balasagun Khujand

Bou

Khermen-denj Kharbukhyn-balgas Ulaan-kherem Chin-tolgoi

Jin

(1115-1234)

Besh-baliq

Uyghur Dunhuang

Koryo

Western Xia

Khotan

Japan Kyoto Uji Nara - Hyogo

Pingyang Luoyang Maijishan Baoji

Kaifeng Baisha Gongxian

Boundary

Tibet

after 1125

Song

Nanjing Hangzhou Yuyao Mingzhou

Fuzhou Putian Dali

Dali

Guangzhou

m ap 6 East Asia, tenth to thirteenth centuries.

Liao was the first of three non-­Chinese dynasties that ruled an increasingly larger part of China and territory beyond it from the tenth to the f­ourteenth ­century. It was con­temporary with Northern Song (960–1127). When Liao fell to Jin (1115–1234) in 1125, the second dynasty, its remnant migrated westward as Qara-­k hitai / n, or Western Liao (1124–1218). A c­ entury into Liao rule, Western Xia (Tangut) (1038–1227) ­rose southwest of Liao and northwest of Song in t­ oday’s northern Shaanxi, Ningxia, Gansu, Inner Mongolia, and Tibet. During the sixteen-­year period 1218–1234, Jin, Qara-­k hitai, and Western Xia would fall to the Mongols, the third non-­Chinese dynasty. The K(h)itan, the primary non-­Chinese population of the Liao empire, has drawn scholarly attention since the nineteenth c­ entury.1 Sections of the dynastic history Liaoshi ­were translated into French and En­glish in the 1930s and 1940s.2 By then Japan’s explorer-­archaeologists had published their findings from the years of occupation of Manchuria.3

Kamakura

Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

157

Like Northern Wei, the Chinese dynasty Liao has been considered an exemplar of the engagement of a non-­Chinese dynasty with Chinese civilization and of the resolution of a new society that results from it.

T E N T H - ­C E N T U R Y A R C H I T E C T U R E B E F O R E L I A O

From the fall of Tang in 907 ­until unification of most of China in 960 ­under the Song dynasty, seventeen powers ruled from more than twenty capital cities in territory that had once been controlled by Tang. Fifteen of them give the period the name Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, from the rise of the first in 907 ­until the fall of the last in 979. Whereas only four wooden buildings survive from the Tang dynasty, and all of them are in Shanxi, more than twice that number remain from the period 925–966, in Hebei, Shanxi, and Fujian.4 All are Buddhist. Some have features of China’s grandest tradition, but none is an obvious, direct pre­ de­ces­sor of a Liao Buddhist building. Instead, the extant tenth-­century buildings can be described as ­humble halls. Two have highly complicated bracket sets: Ten Thousand Bud­dhas Hall of Zhenguo Monastery in Haodong village, Shanxi, built by Northern Han (951–979) in 963 (Figure 6.4), and Daxiongbao (­Great Strength Preservation) Hall, a name given only to a highly impor­tant Bud­dha hall, of Hualin Monastery in Fuzhou, Fujian, built in 964. Both halls are squarish, the first 11.57-­by-10.77 meters at the base and three-­ bays-­square, supported by twelve perimeter pillars with no columns inside, and the second, constructed during rule of the Wu-­Yue kingdom (907–979), whose capital was at Hangzhou, also three-­bays-­square.5 Both have hip-­gable roofs that do not indicate eminent construction according to Building Standards. Yet according to the same text, their enormous and complicated bracket sets associate them with eminence. Bracket sets at Ten Thousand Bud­dhas Hall are about 1.85 meters tall, more than one-­ third the distance from the base to the roof of the building. The number is significant b ­ ecause the most eminent extant bracket sets of the Tang period, at the east hall of Foguang Monastery of 857, are just u ­ nder half the height of the building up to the roof underside. The proportion w ­ ill decrease, so that in Qing buildings of the Forbidden City it is about 1:6.6

158

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

6.4 Ten Thousand Bud­d has Hall, Zhenguo Monastery, Haodong, Pingyao, Shanxi, 963.

At Hualin Monastery’s Daxiongbao Hall, not only are bracket sets noticeably tall, they have three diagonal descending projections known as ang (cantilevers). The piling of bracket-­arms both lateral and perpendicular to the building plane corresponds to seven-­puzuo in Building Standards, a ranked bracketing system in which eight-­puzuo, the highest number for the most complex bracketing, is reserved for China’s most eminent buildings such as imperial halls of audience. The puzuo number is determined by counting bracket-­set components. Bracket sets at Ten Thousand Bud­dhas Hall also are seven-­puzuo. In other words, both halls have the structural frame that defined a building of secondary importance, according to Building Standards, including the lack of interior columns, a hip-­gable roof, and an exposed roof frame (without a ceiling). Yet both have the enormous and complicated bracket sets of high eminence. Ten Thousand Bud­dhas Hall also has end pillars on the front façade that are one-­half centimeter taller than the pillars on ­either side of the central bay, 4.62 compared to 4.55 meters. This feature, also defined in Building Standards, is known as “rise.” Columns have entasis, observed since the fourth ­century in China and at Hōryūji buildings.

Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

159

The structures of t­ hese two halls can be viewed as reflections of the times. The An-­Shi rebellions of 755–763 that drove the Chinese emperor Xuanzong to flee Chang’an for Sichuan, w ­ ere the beginnings of widespread economic decline from which North China never fully recovered. The Southeast, by contrast, where coastal cities maintained trade with merchants from South and West Asia, preserved a strong economy that would become stronger in the tenth and eleventh centuries. That economy would have supported the continuation of Tang-­style architecture, exemplified by tall bracket sets and curved beams.7 The very large bracket sets with seven-­puzuo configurations also are used on four three­bay façades at Mogao caves in Dunhuang that date to the tenth ­century.8 Similarly, the façades are carved in brick or stone at entrances to tenth-­ century tombs such as Feng Hui’s in Bin county and Li Maozhen (d. 924) and his wife’s in Baoji, both in Shaanxi. Their use in facades alone, as well as throughout the structures of freestanding buildings, indicates this kind of bracketing was the norm in the first half of the tenth c­ entury across China.9 Tombs of royalty in the first half of the tenth ­century follow plans, and are decorated with images, observed in Tang. The tombs of Li Bian (r. 937–943) and Li Jing (r. 943–961) of the dynasty known as Southern Tang (937–976) are in Nanjing. Each has three main chambers, two of them with side niches, and burial is in the back room.10 Walls are covered with relief sculpture as well as painting, among which are bracket sets and eight-­sided pillars decorated with scroll-­and-­vine and honeysuckle patterns, ceiling constellations, the black bird in the sun, and the toad in the moon. The tombs are not as far under­ground as Tang tombs or the two in Mongolia discussed in Chapter 5, and thus t­ here are no airshafts. In addition to the Five Dynasties, Ten Kingdoms, Liao, and Song, Dali is the eigh­teenth polity that ­rose in the tenth ­century. Centered in Yunnan province in southwestern China, it was founded in 937 on territory that had belonged to the Nanzhao kingdom (738–937), which left few architectural remains. Dali endured ­until falling to the Mongols in 1253.11 A tenth-­century white pagoda at Chongsheng Monastery in Dali, Yunnan, is evidence of the presence of Tang-­inspired architecture this far southwest.12

160

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

GRANDEUR AND MAGNIFICENCE

It is rare to find words like “­g rand” and “magnificent” in twenty-­first-­ century writing about architecture. ­Here we use them, and leave it to images such as Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, and 6.5 to justify the use. The contrast between ­these illustrations and Figure 6.4 is as dramatic as what Liao accomplished in architecture. Nine Liao wooden buildings survive. A tenth was rebuilt in 1953. Five more ­were mea­sured and photographed before destruction in the 1940s or 1950s. Two more that w ­ ere heavi­ly restored in the twelfth ­century are sometimes included in lists of Liao buildings.13 Four Liao timber buildings are magnificent. Daxiongbao Hall of Fengguo Monastery in Yi county, Liaoning, is one of the magnificent. It mea­sures 48.2 meters (nearly 160 feet) by 25.13 meters and is elevated on a 3-­meter-­high platform with base dimensions of 55.8-­by-25.91 meters. The approach platform is 37-­by-15 meters (Figure 6.5).14 Daxiongbao Hall of Fengguo Monastery is only the second largest Liao Bud­dha hall. Daxiongbao Hall of Huayan Monastery, one of the structures rebuilt in the twelfth ­century, is elevated 4 meters, its approach is 32.42-­by-18.48 meters, and the hall mea­sures 53.75-­by-29 meters.15 The first extraordinary aspect of the two Daxiongbao Halls is that neither has the features required to be called a diantang, translated as highest-­ranking or eminent hall, according to Building Standards. The criteria for designation as diantang includes bracket sets with formations of six-­puzuo or more and the mea­sure­ment of the module (cai), the cross-­ section of a joist or bracket arm that ideally has the proportion of 3:2. Cai is the basis for mea­sure­ments such as heights of columns and distances between bracket sets. Another criterion of diantang as opposed to a humbler hall (tingtang) is the existence or lack of an interior ring of columns, a feature discussed in Chapter 5 that is pre­sent in the east hall of Foguang Monastery and in Parhae buildings; diantang have the interior ring. “Rise” is another feature of eminence. If one princi­ple from the thirty-­four-­chapter Building Standards is selected as most impor­tant, it is that Chinese timber-­frame architecture is a modular, ranked system. This means that diantang from two dif­fer­ent

Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

161

6.5 Daxiongbao Hall, Fengguo Monastery, Yi county, Liaoning, 1019.

periods ­will be more similar than a diantang and a tingtang from the same c­ entury. A craftsman need only know the cai, number of bays, placement of interior pillars, and number of roof raf­ters to prepare and assem­ble ­every wooden component of a building. This, of course, is a major reason the Chinese building system was so easily exported and constructed beyond China. Still, even when one who knows the stipulations in Buildings Standards first confronts the Daxiongbao Halls at Fengguo and Huayan Monasteries, visually, it is hard to believe that a building of 48.2-­by-25.13 meters or 53.75-­by-29 meters that received court patronage, as ­these two had, would be anything but a diantang. Research groups in the 1990s and early twenty-­first c­ entury remea­sured building parts that had first been studied by architectural historians in the 1930s and 1940s. Mea­sur­ing revealed that the buildings are hybrids, with some diantang features and some tingtang features. The key ele­ments that define Daxiongbao Hall of Fengguo Monastery as partially diantang and partially tingtang are: bracket sets are five-­puzuo or higher, but few are six-­puzuo and none is

162

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

seven-­puzuo; exterior columns u ­ nder the eaves are positioned as ­those in a diantang, two rafter-­lengths apart, but interior and exterior frames with bracket sets above them are sometimes separated by a two-­rafter distance and sometimes by three or four rafter lengths; pillars of the exterior are shorter than t­ hose of the interior, a feature of tingtang construction; yet the two rings exist, indicating a diantang; and ­there is a mix of braces and bracket sets, representing tingtang and diantang, respectively, on top of ­every interior column. One won­ders if China’s First Generation of architects and architectural historians, the ones who studied ­these buildings in the 1930s, knew about the unusual features of the two Liao halls. Or if the Liao imperial patrons w ­ ere aware that the statues they commissioned in 1062 for Huayan Monastery w ­ ere not inside the most eminent hall the Chinese system could offer. The twentieth-­century architects surely knew Liao was a non-­native dynasty. Liang Sicheng, mentioned in the Introduction as a leader of his generation of architects and architectural historians, was one of the core group studying Building Standards in the 1920s to1940s. His voluminous writings confirm he knew the difference between diantang and tingtang.16 Liang also was one of twelve architects who submitted a design for the competition for a National Museum in Nanjing, and one of three chief architects of that building, constructed between 1936 and 1948. The two Liao Daxiongbao Halls have been shown to be models for the National Museum.17 Perhaps Liang viewed the two mammoth Liao buildings as the most worthy models ­because of their visual impact, selecting aesthetics rather than the textual accuracy for the design. Neither Daxiongbao Hall prepares one for the greatest achievement in Liao wooden construction, so uniquely impressive that it is called, simply, Timber Pagoda. This tallest premodern wooden structure in the world was built in 1056 (Figure 6.1). The pagoda was constructed at the height of Liao ascendance by the Daozong emperor (r. 1055–1101), prob­ ably as a memorial to his ­father Xingzong (r. 1031–1055). The module of the most eminent bracket sets of Timber Pagoda is 25.5:17, a 3:2 ratio. Six components of Timber Pagoda also are within the proportional range for seventh-­rank prescribed in chapter 26 of Building Standards, even though some fall to the lower side of the range. In t­ hese cases, it is pos­ si­ble that the h ­ uman hands that cut the wood or the complexity of the

Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

163

structure gave way to pieces necessitated by stability rather than perfect mea­sure­ments. The fourth extraordinary Liao building, Guanyin (Avalokiteśvara) Pavilion of Dule Monastery, in Ji county, Hebei, dated 984, is even closer to a diantang. In this case, it is the pavilion version of diantang known as diange (eminent pavilion) (Figure i.15).18 The pavilion is raised on a polished stone base of 26.72-­by-20.62 meters and about 1.06 meters in height. The structure itself is more than an additional 21 meters, with an open interior built to contain a 16-­meter statue of the bo­dhi­sat­t va. In order to achieve the interior space, Guanyin Pavilion was constructed as two stories with a mezzanine level. At Guanyin Pavilion, the most complicated bracket sets are u ­ nder the exterior eaves of the lower level. The cross-­sections of bracket arms are 27:18 cm, a 3:2 ratio that corresponds to seventh rank. Sometimes Guanyin Pavilion is compared to the Timber Pagoda. The patron of the pavilion was an official, as opposed to an emperor; twenty-­four dif­fer­ent kinds of bracket sets are used in comparison to fifty-­six types at the pagoda; and the pavilion has one mezzanine level compared to four mezzanines in the pagoda. Research about Liao’s eminent structures, beginning with Liang Sicheng’s and continuing u ­ ntil ­today, invariably mea­sures building components and compares ­t hose of the four Liao halls with Tang China’s most eminent surviving building, the east hall of Foguang Monastery, for which mea­sure­ments taken in the 1930s confirmed it is the only extant Tang diantang.19 Based on the mea­sure­ments, one confirms that the building system of Tang extended not only to Nara, Kyŏngju, and Parhae territories, but also to Liao. It is assumed that Liao builders looked directly to Tang Chinese architecture in territory they conquered for guidance in Bud­dha hall, pagoda, and pavilion construction.

LIAO BUILDERS AND THE BUILDING STANDARDS

Hundreds of Liao tombs have been opened and hundreds more await excavation. The best known are t­ hose with murals or extraordinary artifacts. The cemetery in Xuanhua, Hebei province, where the ceiling

164

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

shown in Figure 6.3 covers a burial chamber, has been famous since the tomb was published in 1975.20 Most of the tombs in this cemetery belong to members of the Zhang ­family, and at least one belongs to a man surnamed Han. All the interred w ­ ere Chinese living u ­ nder Liao rule. The man buried beneath the ceiling in Figure 6.3 is Zhang Shiqing, a devout Buddhist who, according to the inscription in his tomb, read the Lotus Sutra more than 100,000 times, donated food during the famine of 1085– 1088, and donated funds for construction of Buddhist and Daoist monasteries. At the center of his dome was a bronze mirror, a standard feature of tenth-­to twelfth-­century Chinese tombs of the Song dynasty, around which a lotus with two layers of nine petals each is painted. Moving outward, one finds the Big and L ­ ittle Dippers, the sun with a black bird, and the moon. Next comes a concentric ring with the twenty-­ eight lunar lodges, the twenty-­eight configurations of stars according to premodern Chinese observation of the heavens.21 Beyond are the twelve signs of the Western zodiac. Star groups are found on ceilings in Chinese tombs since the Han dynasty, but the Western zodiac is rare before the Liao dynasty. At the Xuanhua cemetery, seven tombs have domes with concentric rings of decoration that may include the lunar lodges, floral motifs, other heavenly bodies, and / or figures associated with the zodiac. Tombs 2 and 5 have repre­sen­ta­tions of the twelve figures of the Chinese zodiac, and tomb 2 has both Western and Chinese zodiacs.22 It is likely that the immediate source of the Western zodiac signs was the Buddhist mandala known as the Star Mandala or Big Dipper Mandala. Examples of this diagram of a Buddhist universe on silk are among Buddhist paintings excavated at Khara-­k hoto in Inner Mongolia, now in the collection of the Hermitage and in the collection of Hōryūji.23 Another burial practice observed in the Xuanhua cemetery is widespread in the Liao period. As devout Buddhists, Zhang Shiqing and other members of his ­family ­were cremated. His ashes ­were then placed in a wooden mannequin. Cremation burials ­were thus concealed in Chinese-­ style tombs built and stocked for an afterlife, without indication that the interred recognized the philosophical conflict of ashes of a Buddhist enjoying grave goods that represented lavish burials of the pre-­Buddhist age.24 A practice more exclusively associated with the Khitan is the preservation of the corpse in white gauze covered with a metal wire suit

Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

165

and metal facemask.25 Yet another practice was burial in a sarcophagus, sometimes of two layers.26 Other tombs had only stone containers for the deceased’s remains. Two tombs in Baoshan, Chifeng county, Inner Mongolia, at least one of which belonged to a member of Abaoji’s royal ­house who was buried in 923, had single, stone containers. An image of the Queen M ­ other of the West, mentioned in e­ arlier chapters, descends from the heavens to greet the soul of Han emperor Wudi (r. 141–87 BCE) in a mural in this tomb. The gifting of brocade, recitation of a Buddhist sutra perhaps by Tang consort Yang Guifei (719–756), banana plants, bamboo, and an inscription that makes reference to a palindrome also have been identified among the paintings.27 This gathering of symbols and motifs of the Chinese world so far from their points of origins, by Khitan, is comparable to the se­lection of motifs on the Guyuan sarcophagus discussed in Chapter 3. Spirit paths w ­ ere erected at three Liao imperial tombs at a cemetery in Qingzhou as well as in front of the tomb of a member of the royal h ­ ouse in Chifeng county, Inner Mongolia, in 979.28 Murals in another Liao cemetery, in Kulunqi, in eastern Inner Mongolia, indicate not only a depth of understanding of Chinese building practices, but the ability to manipulate them.29 The cemetery has eight tombs believed to belong to members of the Xiao clan, the consort clan that provided wives for many of Abaoji’s ­family and into which Abaoji’s female descendants often ­were married. All eight tombs have a main chamber approached by a long ramp from ground level. Only one has a second room, and some have side chambers. Imitation wooden architecture ( fangmugou) is painted on the walls, as was the case at the Baoshan and Xuanhua tombs mentioned above. We have observed fangmugou since the Han dynasty, and its use to identify China as the built environment in Northern Wei, Northern Qi, Koguryŏ, Tang, Türk, and Uyghur tombs. Architectural details on an archway in Kulunqi tomb 1 include fan-­ shaped bracket sets—­t hat is, bracket sets with arms that fan out at 45 degrees from the building façade as well as parallel and perpendicular to it (Figure 6.6). This kind of bracketing is a signature of Liao and Jin architecture: one sees it in e­ very building from t­ hose periods at Shanhua Monastery in Datong (Figure i.17).30 Two sets of roof raf­ters, the upper four-­sided in section and the lower circular, and imitation

166

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

left: 6.6 Line drawing of entry archway to tomb 1, Kulunqi, Inner Mongolia, Liao period. ­ iddle chamber, eastern tomb, prob­ably of right: 6.7 Bracket sets painted above entrance of m Liao Shengzong (d. 1031), Qingzhou, Inner Mongolia.

ceramic-­tile roof eaves are just as clearly articulated on the Kulunqi tomb 1 archway. The bracket sets are seven-­puzuo. Landscapes of the four seasons are among the murals in Kulunqi tomb 1. Landscapes of the seasons also are painted in the eastern of the three above-­mentioned imperial Liao tombs in Qingzhou, the one believed to belong to Liao emperor Shengzong (r. 982–1031) (Figure  6.7). Imitation timber members in the emperor’s tomb are painted in gradations of the same color, a technique described and illustrated in Building Standards; the turning birds shown in Figure 6.7 also are illustrated in the treatise.31 The decoration is so closely in accord with illustrations in the building manual that one assumes the painter knew that the bracket sets w ­ ere of five-­puzuo formation. It is unlikely such a detail was unintentional. One won­ders, of course, ­whether the patrons of the emperor tomb and the consort clan tomb saw preliminary designs and w ­ ere aware of the meaning of bracket set details. If the ranking of the bracketing system ­were known, at least one member of the Xiao clan entered the postmortem world with higher

Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

167

status, defined by architecture, as stipulated in Building Standards than that of the ruling f­amily. Following this argument of intentionally lower status for the emperor, one also won­ders if the designer of the imperial-­ sponsored Daxiongbao Halls intentionally did not render highest architectural status ­there. Liao emperors prob­ably liked the huge size, but Chinese builders knew that not just bracket sets, but certain kinds of bracket sets ­were required to designate true Chinese imperial status. What­ever the details that led to the buildings and paintings, the Chinese building system was carefully followed in the Daxiongbao Halls and on walls of both tombs. ­There are few better examples of the turn both exclusively to China and, more specifically, to Building Standards, than the wooden, outer sarcophagus from Yemaotai tomb 7 in Faku county, Liaoning.32 The female corpse inside the inner, stone sarcophagus wore a b ­ elt from which ­were suspended precious objects, held a crystal ball, had a silver plug in her nose, was covered with silk embroidered with gold thread, and had more than ten pieces of silk garments around her. ­Belts of this kind have been excavated in tombs in Northeast Asia since the post-­Han period; the plugging of orifices had been a Chinese custom since the Han dynasty.33 Paintings hung on e­ ither side of the inner walls of the outer sarcophagus w ­ ere Chinese.34 The wooden sarcophagus is 2.15-­by-1.25 meters at the base, three-­ by-­two bays, and 88 centimeters high (Figure 6.8). Supported by ten exterior pillars, the wide, central front bay has a double door; slat win­dows are in the side bays. Two steps are built in front of it and a balustrade with inlaid decoration encloses it. The roof eaves proj­ect at 45-­degree ­angles, significantly sharper than the projection on an a­ ctual building, which is rarely more than 28 degrees. Animal heads are attached to e­ ither end of the main ridge. Bamboo nails ­were used in constructing the roof. Just as the bamboo and plants of South China painted on the walls of the Baoshan tombs are evidence of an awareness of South China, the nails confirm that building materials from South China ­were used by the Liao. The wooden coffin is the closest known example of jiuji xiaozhang (small container with nine roof spines [a hip-­gable roof]), described in Building Standards.35 Again ­there is ­little doubt that patrons and builders of the Liao dynasty knew the Chinese building system in detail.

168

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

6.8 Outer coffin, tomb 7, Yemaotai, Faku county, Liaoning, 2.15 × 1.25 × .88 meters high,

Liao period.

LIAO PAGODAS

Four Liao masonry pagodas, including the one in Qingzhou shown in Figure 6.2, display four-­t ier, seven-­puzuo bracket sets. The Qingzhou structure is 64 meters tall with a spire that adds 7.43 meters to its height. The patroness of the building was dowager empress Zhangsheng, ­widow of Shengzong, the emperor whose tomb is decorated with five-­puzuo bracket sets (Figure  6.7). Built between 1047 and 1049, the Qingzhou beacon of Liao Buddhism towers only 14 meters from the tombs of Shengzong and his successors. Above­ground for all to see, the brackets sets are of the most eminent form that survive in China or at the borders. The Liao pagoda known as G ­ reat Pagoda (Data), ­today in Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia, the site of the Liao central capital, soars 73.12 meters. It was constructed between 1007 and 1098. The enormous sizes and dramatic views of gigantic monuments on the grasslands t­ oday belie the fact that Liao pagodas ­were never built in isolation. ­Every known pagoda in East Asia of the tenth through the thirteenth centuries was ­either the

Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

169

dominant structure in its monastery or one of a similarly large, symmetrical pair. When erected along the main monastery axis, as in e­ arlier times in China, K ­ orea, and Japan, the pagoda or a shorter, multistory pavilion such as Guanyin Pavilion, was b ­ ehind a gate and often in front of a Bud­dha hall. When one of a pair, the pagodas ­were usually symmetrical to the main building axis, each in its own precinct. Physical evidence of Khitan pagodas indicates a relationship with one or more buildings beyond the monastery in which it stands, but within viewing range or perceived viewing range. This relationship prob­ably was forged in fifth-­to seventh-­century monasteries. One recalls that 390 meters ­behind the tall pagoda of Hwangnyŏng Monastery in Kyŏngju, discussed in Chapter  3 (Figure  3.7m), stands the shorter pagoda of Bunhwang Monastery, founded a­ fter it, in 634. Such a relationship has long been recognized between the 16-­meter bo­d hi­sat­t va in Guanyin Pavilion and a funerary pagoda erected 380 meters south of the pavilion, beyond the front gate of Dule Monastery (Figure i.15).36 When the upper-­ story front-­door panels of the pavilion are open, the eyes of the deity cast a direct gaze on a funerary pagoda erected seventy-­four years l­ater. An earthquake in 1976 and subsequent excavation revealed this eleventh-­ century pagoda, which had been covered by a white pagoda during the Qing dynasty. The eleventh-­century funerary pagoda contained the cremated remains of two officials and a monk.37 The funerary pagoda must have been placed so that the bo­dhi­sat­t va could protect it. We have already noted that the white pagoda in Qingzhou and three imperial tombs are only 14 meters apart. The funerary significance of that pagoda is confirmed by a tiangong, a relic repository, in its mast. Like the more common digong, a repository beneath a pagoda, the purpose is containment of Buddhist relics or, as was the case beneath the white pagoda south of Guanyin Pavilion, of h ­ uman ashes.38 The White Pagoda in Qingzhou contained or covered a staggering number of objects—­ more than six hundred—­many of them highly miniaturized to fit into the available space. ­There is no huge, interior image whose gaze would have been intended to protect the imperial tombs, but miniature Bud­d has in parinirvana, the pose of Buddhist death, the pose noted among statues at the Uyghur monument in Besh-­baliq and the Sogdian

170

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

monastery in Adzhina-­tepe, are deposited ­here. The tomb of the second Liao ruler, Abaoji’s son who died in 947, is 30 kilo­meters southeast of Qingzhou White Pagoda. Abaoji is buried about 23 kilo­meters from the earliest Liao capital, where tall, but not towering, north and south pagodas survive. The third and fifth Liao emperors are buried in the vicinity of Beizhen in central Liaoning where twin pagodas of 42.63 and 43.85 meters rise at Chongxing Monastery.39 ­Whether the pagodas or the tombs came first, whichever was constructed ­later would have been built in response to already existing architecture. Although all the pagodas had monastery buildings around them, ­those that soared even 40 meters ­were so noticeable from so far away that they should have been hubs of Buddhist protectorates, built to enhance a relationship with lower monuments or under­ground tombs. Pagoda in Kherlen-­Bars

A Khitan pagoda in Kherlen-­bars, Dornod province, Mongolia, identifies itself by structure, relation to other monuments, and location, even though ­there are neither associated inscriptions nor documentary evidence to confirm its patrons and date (Figure 6.9).40 Since 1955 when the pagoda was first reported, it has been assessed to be Khitan ­because of its shape, the composition of its brick, and the style of Buddhist sculpture excavated in the vicinity.41 The pagoda stands at the northeastern-­ most location of Khitan walled towns in Outer Mongolia, which run southwest along the Russo–­Inner Mongolian border into Khentii province; the route is nicknamed Chinggis Khan Wall.42 The location confirms that the Khitan w ­ ere building across the extent of their empire. The pagoda stood on the east, outside a town whose four wall segments mea­sured nearly 7 kilo­meters in perimeter. The brick exterior wall of the pagoda in Kherlen-­bars was about 1.8 meters in thickness, so that of the 9-­meter base dia­meter, the interior open space was 5.6 meters wide at ground level and significantly narrower in ascent t­oward the top. The interior walls at one time w ­ ere plastered. Approximately forty Liao pagodas w ­ ere published in the 1930s when Japa­nese teams surveyed the region known as Manchuria.43 The current

Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

171

6.9 Pagoda, Kherlen-­bars, Dornad, Mongolia, Khitan period.

count is at least fifty and as many as eighty in Shanxi, Hebei, Beijing, Liaoning, and Inner Mongolia, many of which have been somewhat to greatly restored. The number depends on w ­ hether small, funerary pagodas such as the one in front of Guanyin Pavilion are included and the extent of restoration for which a Liao as opposed to ­later date is proposed.44 The Kherlen-­bars pagoda is not included in any of ­these studies. Just one comparison suffices to indicate the visual similarities between the Kherlen-­bars pagoda and a typical Liao pagoda in China: both are octagonal, brick, and divided into three main sections: a tall base, a shaft that at one time prob­ably had relief sculpture on its exterior, and narrow layers at the top (Figures 6.9 and 6.10). Other evidence indicates that the protectorate aspect of the tall Liao building observed at Guanyin Pavilion

172

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

left: 6.10 Yongfeng Pagoda, Fuxin, Liaoning, Liao period. right: 6.11 Foundation platforms for structures within protectorate range of Pagoda, Kherlen-­bars, Dornad, Mongolia.

and White Pagoda, and at Hwangnyŏng Monastery in Kyŏngju, also was pre­sent ­here. Two foundation platforms survive within viewing range of the Kherlen-­bars pagoda (Figure 6.11). Both appear to have been octagonal, or perhaps circular. The base of the Kherlen-­bars Pagoda is larger than the other two, suggesting that it also was the tallest and therefore the “protector.” ­Whether the two foundations supported twin pagodas is unknown. Support for a configuration of lower, twin structures comes from the identification of a Liao pagoda in 2012 at Xishanpo, within the northern section of the Liao upper capital Shangjing, in Balinzuoqi, Inner Mongolia, the earliest of the five Liao capitals, founded in 918.45 Xishanpo is in the part of the capital known as huangcheng (imperial city), a sector separated from the adjacent part of the city known as Hancheng, where, as the latter name indicates, the Han Chinese population lived. Excavation revealed a large circular platform that supported a hexagonal foundation and much smaller hexagonal foundations symmetrically positioned on each side (Figure  6.12).46 The small side pagodas had under­ground reliquaries, with Buddhist statuary among the relics.

Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

173

6.12 Three interconnected hexagonal foundations excavated within walled enclosure of Liao

capital Shangjing, Xishanpo, Inner Mongolia.

CHINA OR BORDERS

Architectural tripling occurs in East Asia long before the period of Khitan rule. It exists in Northern Wei, Northern Qi, and Three Kingdoms–­ period ­Korea. The Binyang caves of the rock-­carved Buddhist site Longmen, about 12 kilo­meters south of Luoyang, are a triplet group. Initially two caves w ­ ere planned, one each for Xiaowendi (467–499) and his wife, née Feng, the deceased parents of Emperor Xuanwudi (483–515). A third cave, for the emperor himself, was added ­under the direction of the palace eunuch Liu Teng (463–523), who wielded tremendous power in the Yongping era (508–512). That cave, in the ­middle, was prob­ably completed in 523. Although the south cave was not completed ­until 641, the intent of the triplet formation was to associate each grotto with sixth-­ century royalty.47 The three Binyang caves are roughly the same size and connected by a causeway from which each one-­chamber grotto can be accessed. A similar path joins the Xishanpo pagoda to the small one on ­either side (Figure 6.12). The Great Zongchi Monastery at Zhaopengcheng,

174

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

adjacent to the capital at Ye in southern Hebei, and Tongzi Monastery in the hills near the capital Taiyuan, both discussed in Chapter 3, each had a central pagoda on its main axis and symmetrically positioned building foundations in front on ­either side (Figure 3.7c). Three niches are common in the sixth c­ entury at the rock-­carved Buddhist site Maijishan in eastern Gansu province.48 Mirŭk Monastery of Paekche and Hwangnyŏng Monastery of Silla, which also pre­sent evidence for the protectorate relationship suggested for tall Liao structures and ­those in viewing range ­behind it, had towering pagodas and twin structures on ­either side (Figures 3.7f and 3.7m). One cannot prove that a towering pagoda was a standard feature in Khitan walled towns or that its presence indicated a nearby monastery of lower buildings or a smaller structure within view of its top story. Yet the physical evidence that ­these are true is strong, and it is equally strong that the tall pagoda and lower pagodas built in response to it is a Liao building scheme that finds sources in North China and in ­Korea in the sixth and seventh centuries. From the tenth ­century into the twelfth, in China and ­today’s Mongolia, the Khitan built monuments whose timber frames w ­ ere grounded in the Chinese building system. They then achieved, in wood and brick, in height and size what cannot be documented in extant Tang architecture.

LIAO AND JAPAN

We have seen that Japan built religious and palatial architecture based on Chinese and Korean models for several hundred years before the Khitan came to power. ­There seems to have been no break in the influence of continental architecture on the Japa­nese islands in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This is true even though the prevailing form of Buddhism in Japan had become Pure Land, a sect less in evidence among the Khitan, and the aesthetic of the late Heian period (794–1185), sometimes known as the Fujiwara period (898–1185), is associated with delicate, decorative detail that strongly contrasts 70-­meter pagodas. Two buildings that best represent Fujiwara architecture are Phoenix Hall of Byōdōin in Uji, dated 1053, and the Main Hall of Jōruriji in Nara prefecture, dated 1107. Each exemplifies the Japa­nese architectural style

Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

175

known as shinden, associated with Tang palaces as represented by the reconstruction of Hanyuan Hall of the Tang palace Daminggong in Chang’an.49 At Phoenix Hall, red architectural members, a white-­washed exterior, and long arcades are ele­ments of this style derived from Chinese palaces. The building complex also follows Tang-­style architecture as presented in murals representing Buddhist paradises at Mogao caves 172 and 217 and the Taima Mandala, of which the most famous version is dated to the thirteenth c­ entury.50 At Jōruriji, the Bud­dha hall f­ aces a lotus pond, a feature sometimes pre­sent in murals of Pure Land cave-­ temples of Mogao or in the cave itself, and the small pagoda across the pond is painted in reds, yellows, blues, and greens used in architecture in Tang murals. In 2017 Mimi Yiengpruksawan posited Northern Wei architectural sources such as ­Great Ultimate Hall, the hall of audience of Northern Wei Luoyang, for the Phoenix Hall. Recognizing that the Fujiwara aristocracy would never have seen a Northern Wei or Tang building, she turned to Japa­nese monks who had crossed the sea to China in the Liao period, to Liao and Song compilations of the Buddhist canon, the Tripitaka, to the transport of a Liao Buddhist statue to the Fujiwara ­family, and to the recognition of a smaller, or “surrogate,” version of the sacred Buddhist peak Wutai by the Khitan, Western Xia, and the Japa­nese to build her case. Yiengpruksawan proposed that by the time Phoenix Hall was built, the Fujiwara may have been aware of the scale of Liao architecture, of Liao’s penchant for opening an interior for a monumental image, and Liao’s use of small-­scale architectural decoration.51 Parhae merchants came to Japan a full ­century ­earlier than Liao. The route was from Shangjing to Baliancheng to Kraskino, where they crossed the sea.52 In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, Liao–­Japanese communications would have taken the same route. If Liao buildings ­were seen by Japa­nese, it would have occurred in former Parhae territory or just south of it.

URBANISM ON THE GRASSLANDS

As so many other nomads and semi-­nomads had done in the past, the Khitan established capitals and other urban centers as they moved

176

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

t­ oward China in their pro­cess of confederating. In 918, Liao Abaoji established a walled city that a­ fter 938 would be known as Shangjing, the name Parhae had used for its first capital. Shangjing was one of hundreds of cities where Khitan occupation is verified during the two centuries of their ascendency.53 Liao Shangjing, ­today in Balinzuoqi, Inner Mongolia, is an example of a double-­city, a type known in China since the Zhou dynasty.54 The walls w ­ ere north and south of each other, sharing a wall and separated by a river. The northern city was named huangcheng (imperial city) and the southern enclosed area was called Hancheng (city of the Han). The northern city was more heavi­ly fortified, with both wengcheng and mamian, both pre­sent at Besh-­baliq. Gates afforded entry to each huangcheng wall. Excavation confirms all this. The perimeter of the entire area was 9.325 kilo­meters. Wall pieces as high as 9 meters remain from huangcheng, whereas the highest portions of Hancheng are 4 meters. Pieces of huangcheng are 15 meters thick while the widest sections of Hancheng are 12 meters. The clearly more fortified huangcheng suggests that the ruling population sequestered and protected itself more than the walled population to the south, so that w ­ ere attack to come from China, the non-­Khitan population would be the first defense for the city. In spite of the designation Han, Parhae and other non-­K hitan lived and worked in the southern city. In 919, Abaoji designated a second capital in territory that had been the southern of the five Parhae capitals. This eastern capital also was a two-­walled city, the northern portion known as bencheng, or native city, and the southern again designated for its Chinese and other non-­Khitan populations as Hancheng. T ­ oday the city is Liaoyang in Liaoning province. A heavi­ly restored, towering white pagoda built by Liao remains. Liao’s southern capital came next, founded in the 940s on a site ­today in Xuanwu district of Beijing.55 Like the eastern Liao capital, and unlike Shangjing, the central capital had an e­ arlier urban history. It had been known as Jicheng and Yuzhou, the first the name of a walled city of the Zhou dynasty. The perimeter of the outer wall was about 18 kilo­ meters and it had eight gates, two at each side. The southern gate on the western wall led to the palace-­city, which was in an unusual position, southwest in the capital. Yanshou Monastery once stood in the palace-­

Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao

177

city, where the shopping area Liulichang is t­ oday, and the pagoda from Tianning Monastery, although restored, still remains on its Liao site. The Liao southern capital was divided into twenty-­six wards, fewer than the Tang system implemented at Chang’an but based on it. The Liao central capital, the location of ­Great Pagoda, ­today in Ningcheng county near Inner Mongolia’s border with Liaoning, was founded in 1007. The capital comprised a palace-­city in the north center that was accessible by three south gates, an imperial-­city that shared its north wall and enclosed it on three sides, and an enormous outer city with three distinct sectors, one of them divided into two halves. A major thoroughfare ran from the south center gate of the outer city, named Vermilion Summer as a Chinese structure positioned in the south should be. Also following Chinese pre­ce­dents, the street ran northward through the south gate of the imperial-­city and on to the south gate of the palace-­ city. Names of other gates and buildings also made reference to Chinese concepts, such as civil and military officials. The outermost wall was 4200 meters east-­to-­west by 3500 meters north-­to-­south. The Laoha River ran through the outer city along the southeastern corner of the imperial-­ city. A nearby w ­ ater supply was crucial to a premodern city’s existence, but it is prob­ably coincidence that ­water also ran through the southeastern corner of Tang Chang’an. Among Liao capitals, the central one had the clearest references to Tang architecture. The last Liao capital, the western (Xijing), was established in 1044 in the city that is ­today Datong. The above-­mentioned Huayan and Shanhua Monasteries w ­ ere constructed during this period. The city was about 10 kilo­meters in circumference with four gates. ­Today’s Liaoyang, Datong, and Beijing ­were part of a largely grasslands empire in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Even into the late twentieth ­century many of the walled cities used by Liao ­were readily accessible for excavators. Three in Inner Mongolia have yielded impor­tant information about the function of walled settlements u ­ nder Khitan rule. A city believed to be Liao Yongzhou, whose outer wall is between 525 and 545 meters on each side, is located at the meeting point of the Yellow and Tu Rivers about 10 kilo­meters from Bayintala in Wengniuteqi. Similar ceramic roof tiles, some with dragons and lotuses and some with animal ­faces, w ­ ere excavated at Ling’anzhou in Kulunqi, whose four walls

178

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

­ ere between 540 and 700 meters in length. The outer wall of Raozhou w in the vicinity of Balinzuoqi was about 700 by 1400 meters.56 Studied alongside the walled towns dated to the Liao period of Khentii province of Mongolia—­such as Chin-­tolgoi, Kharbukhyn-­balgas, Ulaan-­k herem, and Khermen-­denj, towns along the Chinggis Khan Wall—it is certain that walled enclosures ­were impor­tant in the Liao vision of empire.57 The borders of Chinese architecture ­under Liao rule extended across the extensive borders of the Liao empire. Across this vast territory, Khitan saw Northern Dynasties and Koguryŏ and Tang and Parhae and Uyghur remains. Yet Building Standards was the source of all Liao timber-­frame construction. As in the past, architecture in China, ­Korea, Japan, Mongolia, and Primorye in the tenth and eleventh centuries was a unified system that originated in China.

••• 7

WESTERN XIA, SONG, JAPAN, JIN

In 1125 the Liao empire disintegrated, its former territory falling to the Jurchen, who had risen in the forested areas of Heilongjiang and Jilin provinces and eastern Rus­sia. A remnant of Liao reestablished itself as Qara-­khitai / n and migrated to territory in t­ oday’s Xinjiang, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan. The cities Besh-­baliq, Khotan, Kashgar, Khujand, and Balasagun ­were part of the reconfigured empire. ­Little architecture, not even tombs, is associated with them during this period.1 Calling themselves the Jin dynasty in 1115, the Jurchen conquered most of North China in the next de­cade; in 1127 the Song capital Bianjing, ­today Kaifeng, fell to them. The Song would regroup in the south, whereupon the dynasty would be known as Southern Song (1127–1279). The city that is t­ oday Hangzhou became the Song capital in 1132. While Liao was at full strength and the Song dynasty was largely intact, beginning in 1038, Western Xia ­rose.2 Western Xia and Jin saw Liao and Song architecture in land that became part of their empires. Song, Western Xia, and Jin also saw extant Tang architecture. It is impossible to know w ­ hether Western Xia, Jin, or even Southern Song differentiated between Tang and early Song buildings, or if they only saw preexisting structures as being of ­either eminent or more h ­ umble Chinese style. Japa­nese continued to come to continental Asia during this period, primarily to southeastern China. ­Here we look

180

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

at architectural choices of Western Xia, Song, Jin, and Japan in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

ROYAL CEME T ERIES OF WEST ERN XIA AND SONG

The Western Xia capital was Xingqing, ­today Yinchuan. The most extensive Western Xia remains are at Khara-­k hoto, literally “black city,” a heavi­ly fortified city whose major north–­south and east–­west streets ­were positioned orthogonally. ­Today in Ejinaqi, Alashan county, in the Gobi Desert of western Inner Mongolia, the heavi­ly fortified, 421-­by-374-­meter outer wall was excavated in the early twentieth ­century.3 Architecture, statues, paintings, and manuscripts confirm it was a Buddhist capital. Most of the remains are in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg.4 Few Western Xia buildings survive.5 Due to widespread damage in Ningxia during warfare and po­liti­cal turmoil at the end of the Qing dynasty and in the twentieth ­century, fewer than ten Western Xia pagodas still stand. Some are as tall as 60 meters and many are octagonal. They surely ­were inspired by Liao pagodas or Tang pagodas that might have been sources of tall structures of Liao and Western Xia. A unique group of 108 pagodas configured across ten levels remains in Qingtongxia on the east bank of the Yellow River in Ningxia.6 The Western Xia royal cemetery occupies an area of 50 square kilo­ meters in the Helan mountains north of Yinchuan. Weiming Yuanhao (r. 1038–1048), considered the first emperor of Western Xia, built additional mounds daily, up to a total of 360, to elude f­ uture grave robbers, and as an added precaution forced all workers to commit suicide a­ fter his tomb and ­those of his grand­father and f­ ather ­were constructed. ­Today ­there are nine tombs of rulers, more than 270 auxiliary tombs, walled enclosures, and ancestral t­ emples.7 Three of the royal tombs have been excavated. Above­ground the imperial Western Xia tombs begin with gate-­towers. ­Behind them are stele pavilions, followed by spirit paths with statues of men and beasts, then a gateway that serves as the front central entry to an inner walled complex with a gate at the center of its other three walls and corner towers. An offering hall is ­behind the central gate. The pas-

Western Xia, Song, Japan, Jin

181

7.1 Above­g round remains of tomb, Yinchuan, Ningxia, Western Xia period.

sage to the subterranean part of a tomb began ­there. The passageway and burial are north and slightly west of the axis created by the towers, pavilions, spirit path, front gate, and offering hall. ­There is no rec­ord of why the axis deviated. An above­ground hall is directly ­behind the under­ ground burial chamber (Figure 7.1). We have observed the gate-­towers, stele pavilions, spirit paths, and double enclosing walls of the Western Xia tombs in Tang imperial tombs. The same structures w ­ ere in use in the eleventh and the early twelfth ­century by Northern Song rulers and their empresses. From the air, it is clear how much is shared by a Western Xia tomb and one from the Northern Song royal cemetery in Gong county, Henan: large imperial mounds, spirit paths of columns and then animals and officials, smaller auxiliary mounds, and walled enclosures (Figure 7.2). Both Northern Song and Western Xia royal tombs also had offerings halls above­ground where sacrifices ­were made to the deceased.8 Under­g round, the similarities continue. A long ramp that may be stepped leads from ground level to the burial area. The under­ground space on flat ground in front of the burial chamber is divided by a sealing wall into two parts. The one Northern Song tomb that has been excavated

182

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

7.2 Airview of cemetery of Northern Song, Gong county, Henan, Northern Song period.

has only one circular room with a vaulted ceiling where the coffin was placed on a coffin bed.9 An imperial Northern Song tomb is described as upper palace (shanggong), with the tomb mound near the center of it, a wall enclosing it, a gate at each side, towers at the corners, and a spirit path approach; and lower palace (xiagong), the area b ­ ehind the upper palace where objects used in sacrifices to the emperor, including the tablets with the ruler’s name, w ­ ere kept. Western Xia royal tomb 8 has side niches to the single burial chamber that is slightly larger on the east side, perhaps based on Tang-­period pre­ce­dents that had space for the coffin. The mark of distinction of the Western Xia tombs is the octagon. Not only are subterranean chambers eight-­sided, ­behind the under­ ground burial chambers stand tall, octagonal, exterior structures. The freestanding buildings may be pagodas, for the Western Xia ­were Buddhists and most of their pagodas w ­ ere octagonal. No predynastic Western Xia tomb is known. Buddhists who ­rose from Tibet in ­earlier times may have left h ­ uman remains to nature. As so many before them, the establishment of capitals in empires alongside China gave way to construc-

Western Xia, Song, Japan, Jin

183

tion of Chinese-­style architecture. For the Western Xia, it included buildings along the approach to the tomb and its under­ground spaces. Following the move to Hangzhou, the Southern Song imperial tombs ­were located in Shaoxing, Zhejiang province. All w ­ ere destroyed by the Mongols. Nonroyal Southern Song tombs have been uncovered primarily in Zhejiang and Fujian.10

SONG ARCHITECTURE

Sage ­Mother Hall, 1038–1087, at the Jin shrines west of Taiyuan, in Shanxi province, is a diantang.11 Distinguished in addition by a bridge over ­water in front of it, Sage ­Mother Hall is one of several remaining Song buildings in Shanxi dedicated to female deities or spirits.12 Four Song buildings stand at Longxing Monastery in Zhengding, Hebei province—­ more than at any other t­ emple complex in China.13 One of the features in Sage ­Mother Hall is found in a Song diantang in Zhejiang province of South China: qinmian, or lute-­faced, cantilever tips. Daxiongbao Hall of Baoguo Monastery in Yuyao, near Ningbo, Zhejiang, dated 1013, is further distinguished by: three caisson ceilings (zaojing), each in its own bay; melon-­wheel-­shaped (gualunzhuang) pillars, the name a reference to a cross-­section of eight lobes, rather than the flat f­aces of most octagonal columns and a feature described in Building Standards; bracket sets that proj­ect with a clear perpendicular thrust; and rainbow-­shaped beams (Figure 7.3).14 The curved beams in the early eleventh-­century hall in South China recall their use in the east hall of Foguang Monastery dated 857, in the main Bud­dha hall at the monastery Tōshōdaiji in Nara dated 756, and, as we have noted, e­ arlier pre­de­ces­sors in cave 3 at Maijishan and in a tomb in Digengpo. Curved beams also are employed at Daxiongbao Hall of Hualin Monastery in Fuzhou of 964, a building strongly inspired by architecture of Tang China. The reference to Tang building features in bracket sets and beams of Daxiongbao Hall of Baoguo Monastery supports the idea that Tang features that do not survive in the tenth c­ entury in north China ­were continued in the south.15 Although bracket sets with a primarily vertical thrust also are found in the Liao Daxiongbao Hall of Fengguo Monastery (Figure 6.5), one of the hybrid structures discussed

184

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

7.3 Interior of Daxiongbao Hall, Baoguo Monastery, Yuyao, Zhejiang, 1013.

in Chapter 6, the Daxiongbao halls of Hualin and Baoguo monasteries and Three Purities (Sanqing) Hall at the Daoist monastery Xuanmiaoguan in Putian, Fujian province, built in 1016, considered South China’s three most impor­tant buildings of the tenth and eleventh centuries, all have such bracket sets.16

SONG ARCHITECTURE IN JAPAN

Part of the importance of the three Song buildings in South China is the impact of their shared features on a group of late twelfth-­and early

Western Xia, Song, Japan, Jin

185

thirteenth-­century structures in Japan of the style known in Japa­nese as Dai Butsuyō (­Great Bud­dha Style). Bracket arms that proj­ect perpendicular to the building plane, such as one observes at the Daxiongbao halls of Hualin and Baoguo Monasteries and at Three Purities Hall, are the most prominent detail of the style. Bracket arms of the ­Great South Gate (Nandaimon) of the monastery Tōdaiji in Nara are often considered the best Japa­nese example, for the length of the seven layers of arms and solely linear thrust necessitated tie beams to support them (Figure 7.4). The connection with China is certain: the Japa­nese monk Shunjōbō Chōgen (1121–1206) oversaw repairs to the gate in the aftermath of destruction during the Genpei War (1180–1185) that ultimately gave the Minamoto f­ amily more power than the imperial f­ amily. Chōgen sought the advice of Chinese craftsmen in Japan at the time. The story goes that Chōgen was able to catch them at the port Hakata (­today Fukuoka in Kyūshu), just as they ­were about to return to China. Two ­brothers surnamed Chen, metal workers, are believed to have been heavi­ly involved in recasting Tōdaiji’s bronze ­Great Bud­dha.17 It cannot be confirmed that this group of craftsmen from southeastern China offered guidance in rebuilding the gate, but it is certain that the gate is one of the buildings with long, vertically projecting bracket arms constructed in Japan during Chōgen’s life. The o ­ thers are at the monastery Jōdōji in Hyōgō and Daigōji in the suburbs of Kyoto.18 Another architectural style was transmitted from southeastern China to Japan at about the same time. It goes by the name Karayō (Chinese style), “China” h ­ ere referring to a style associated with Chan (Zen in Japa­nese) Buddhism. Chan / Zen means meditation. Chan Buddhism had risen in China in the sixth ­century and began to flourish in the Tang period. In southeastern China ­under Southern Song rule, it was the Buddhism associated with the Five Mountains and Ten Monasteries system. The Five are the most impor­tant monasteries, designated “mountains” ­because they w ­ ere located on mountains, and ten is the number of secondarily impor­tant monasteries. The Southern Song government designated both the five building complexes and the monks in charge of them among a group of approximately sixty significant Chan ­temple complexes.19 Three of the Five Mountains monasteries w ­ ere in the vicinity of the Southern Song capital at Hangzhou, and two w ­ ere near

186

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

7.4 ­Great South Gate, Tōdaiji, Nara, 1199–1203.

Mingzhou (­today Ningbo) in Zhejiang province. Six of the Ten Monasteries also w ­ ere located in Zhejiang, three w ­ ere in Jiangsu, and one was in Fujian. Ten of the next tier ­were in Zhejiang, nine ­were in Jiangsu, and eight w ­ ere in Jiangxi, with the other eight in Fujian, Guangdong, Hubei, Anhui, Henan, and Hebei. Many Chan monasteries followed a seven-­hall plan for which specific arrangements are known b ­ ecause of the survival of the illustrated treatise, Wushan shichatu (Five Mountains, Ten Monasteries Illustrated), dated 1248. The plan of Lingyin Monastery, in the hills outside Hangzhou, shows the seven most common structures in a Chan monastery of Southern Song: the front gate, Bud­dha Hall, and Law Hall (for teaching the Buddhist law, or dhar­ma) along the main north–­south line, with the Bud­d ha hall at the center, or “heart,” with the kitchens and bathing rooms / privies flanking the heart like “hands” and the bell and drum towers flanking the front gate like “feet.” Wushan shichatu is h ­ oused in a Japa­nese monastery, and in fact, the Five Mountains and Ten Monasteries system became as impor­tant in Japan as it was in China. In Japan, the monasteries designated as Five Mountains changed. By the ­fourteenth ­century t­ here w ­ ere five in Kyoto and five in the capital established by the Shōgunate government in Kamakura, 54 kilo­meters south of Tokyo.

Western Xia, Song, Japan, Jin

187

The cusped win­dow is a characteristic of Kamakura-­period (1185–1333) architecture. It is seen on ­either side of the doors of the upper story, beneath the cusped eave, on the Relic Hall (shariden) of the monastery Kenchōji, built ­under the direction of Chan Buddhist monk Lanxi Daolong (ca. 1213–­ca.1278), who had sailed to Japan from Tiantong Monastery, one of the Chinese Five Mountains, in 1246 (Figure  7.5). The win­dow also is used in the bell tower of Hedong Monastery, one of the buildings illustrated in Wushan shichatu (Figure 7.6). By the f­ ourteenth ­century, one sees cusped win­dows and cusped framing above doors not just in Chan Buddhist monasteries of South China but also in the north. Daxiongbao Hall of Huayan Monastery in Datong, whose hybrid diantang-­tingtang timber frame of the Liao period was discussed in Chapter 6, was repaired in 1370 and more extensively in 1426–1454. The decoration above the doorway prob­ably was reshaped during the second repair (Figure 7.7). ­Those structures and monasteries such as Huayansi and Fengguosi, built by Liao and thus far north in China, would be used by the Jin conquerors of North China, whose architecture is discussed below.

JIN ARCHITECTURE IN NORTHEAST ASIA AND CHINA

Jin built cities with palaces, royal and nonroyal tombs, and monasteries, and some of t­ hose monasteries had towering pagodas. Examples of all of them remain. Often l­ittle distinguishes Jin buildings from t­ hose of Liao or Song. Jin architecture clusters in three regions: Heilongjiang, Southeastern Rus­sia, to its north, and Jilin to its south; in and around Beijing; and north China, particularly Shanxi, Hebei, and Shandong provinces. Like Parhae and Liao, Jin ruled their empire from five capitals. ­Because of expansion southwestward, a total of six sites w ­ ere used. The northernmost was in t­ oday’s Acheng, about 300 kilo­meters northwest of the Parhae upper capital. Four Jin capitals had been Liao capitals. The sixth was the former Northern Song capital. Perhaps b ­ ecause so many had previously functioned as imperial cities, all six w ­ ere established as Jin

7.5 Relic Hall, with

cusped win­dows, Kenchōji, Kamakura, 1253.

7.6 Bell tower, Hedong Monastery, Wushan shichatu, 1248.

7.7 Cusped win­dow,

Daxiongbao Hall, Huayan Upper Monastery, Datong, Liao period, with repairs in ca. 1140, 1370, 1426–1454.

Western Xia, Song, Japan, Jin

189

capitals during the first thirty years of the dynasty, the majority of construction between 1153 and 1155 during the reign of Hailingwang (1149–1161). In this pro­cess, the ruler also ordered restoration. The 73.12-­ meter ­Great Pagoda of the Liao central capital, which became a Jin capital, was one of ­those buildings. The name Lu Yanlun is described in rec­ords as a designer of the first Jin capital near Acheng and the central capital Zhongdu, t­ oday Beijing, the second a capital built on a Liao site. He is said to have consulted diagrams of the Northern Song capital Bianjing (Kaifeng) in preparation for construction in the north.20 From the 1960s through the 1990s this statement was taken to mean that the south gates of imperial-­cities and palace-­cities of both Bianjing and Jin Zhongdu w ­ ere approached via a boulevard that began at the central gate of the south wall and opened onto a T-­shaped space in front of the palace-­city.21 It is now certain that this street was not centrally positioned between the east and west outer city walls and that the T-­shaped approach did not exist. In fact, excavation confirms that the palace area of Zhongdu comprised three hall complexes, each of which took the gong configuration, the first two with separate front and back gates, and that this area was enclosed, perhaps with a wall but perhaps only with a covered arcade that had a gate or structure at each side and four corner towers. The imperial-­city was south of the palace area. It contained official bureaus and an ancestral t­ emple (taimiao), the t­ emple in the southeast, the location prescribed since the Zhou dynasty. Jin Zhongdu also had imperial gardens.22 The Jurchen also built traveling palaces. Taizicheng, 140 kilo­meters northwest of Beijing, in Hebei province, is one.23 Oriented 22 degrees west of due north, a wall and ­water surrounded an area of about 400 meters north–­south by 350 meters east–­west. A second wall ran the entire north–­south length of the city about 50 meters east of the one along the waterway. The main entrance, at the south, had the defensive projection wengcheng in front of it. Sixty-­seven building foundations w ­ ere uncovered as well as sections of fourteen roads. Two waterways ran through the city. Taizicheng pre­sents as a complex of front and back courtyards with a south gate in front (Figure 7.8). The single opening in the front gate is about 4 meters. It was supported by pillars with a wengcheng whose

190

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

7.8 Theoretical reconstruction plan of Taizicheng, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, Jin period.

dimension w ­ ere 38.5 meters north–­south by 54 meters east–­west. The main structure of the southern courtyard complex was 68.7 meters ­behind the south gate. This building was about 26.2 meters on all four sides, and three-­bays square. Pillars w ­ ere eliminated from its interior. The back complex was nearly 100 meters directly b ­ ehind. Two halls occupying an area of 105.38 meters north–­south by 46.7 meters east–­west comprised front and back halls, prob­ably joined into a gong configura-

Western Xia, Song, Japan, Jin

191

tion. Two more courtyards w ­ ere due west. Another courtyard was adjacent to the south part of the interior west wall. ­Whether Taizicheng was a palace where the Jurchen ­stopped en route to hunt or one they used for longer periods, it was private space. No builder name such as Lu Yanlun is associated with it. Thus, the impressively Chinese features should be understood as personal choices of the rulers, and therefore impor­tant. The front-­and-­back-­halls scheme is age­old: as mentioned in Chapter 1, qianchao, houqin (hall for governance [chaotang] in front, private chambers b ­ ehind) is described in Rituals of 24 Zhou. We have observed countless implementations of the gong plan. Elimination of interior pillars is a standard feature of Jin timber architecture based on Chinese construction.25 Large numbers of ceramic roof tiles and animals that would have been attached to roof ridges also are ­those of Chinese buildings. Porcelain and bronze objects w ­ ere of Chinese imperial quality. Fi­nally, Taizicheng stood on a 4.9-­k ilometer axial line defined by mountains, the Wang mountains to the south and Kao mountains to the north. The placement of imperial buildings on an axial line that includes natu­ral features, we have seen, was used in Chinese imperial urban plans since the Han dynasty. A building complex whose spatial features similarly ­were dominated by Chinese planning was excavated in Antu county of Jilin from 2014– 2017.26 ­Here a front (south) gate was followed by a gate and two buildings, all on an axial line within an enclosure of approximately 100 meters east-­to-­west by about 175 meters north–­south with only an additional structure in the southeast. Among the more than 5000 pieces of objects excavated ­here was an inscribed jade tablet as well as sculptures that led archaeologists to identify the site as a ­temple for rituals to the spirit of Changbai Mountain. If its purpose was Jurchen ritual, then we again observe a native ceremony in a remote area that took place in or around Chinese-­style buildings. The continued excavation of new sites with such clear evidence of Chinese building practices among the Jurchen confirms an often-­published illustration of the Jin capital Zhongdu in the encyclopedia Shilin guangji (Expansive Rec­ord of a Forest of Affairs), first published in the thirteenth ­century but surviving in an edition of the 1330s.27 The image shows tents in enclosed courtyards of the palace-­city. Even though the T-­shaped

192

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

approach through the imperial city that leads to the palace-­city in this picture has been disproved by excavation, the dominant architectural façade of China holds true. ­Whether it was the primary capital, a private palace in the mountains, or a ritual complex, the Jurchen constructed a façade of China: walls, enclosed quadrilateral courtyards, and buildings along axial lines, often arranged in the gong scheme, with ceramic tile roofs. The Mongols, too, would live in tents b ­ ehind the facade of a Chinese-­style capital. For both groups, the Chinese building system made it pos­si­ble to maintain their native residential style ­behind the privacy of concentric courtyards and walls. One of Hailingwang’s major decisions was to dismantle imperial tombs and move them south to a new imperial Jin cemetery in the Da Fangshan hills south of Beijing The 65-­square-­kilometer Jin imperial necropolis south of Beijing that would include the tombs of Hailingwang’s ­father, the first seven Jin emperors, their wives and some of their c­ hildren, and other royalty also ­were enclosed in Chinese-­style walls and approached by a spirit path.28 The excavation of a headgear made of golden silk thread in a stone sarcophagus believed to belong to the founding emperor of the Jin dynasty, Aguda (r. 1115–1123), or his empress may be significant. Its shape and the amount of space between pieces of gold thread may indicate the continuation of the Liao practice of burial in metal-­wire suits mentioned above.29 The firmly constructed cap is of the size of metal-­wire headgear sewn onto gauze that was worn by Liao men and ­women buried in metal-­wire garments.30 As has been in evidence through this book, like city walls, the Chinese tomb made pos­si­ble the private, concealed continuation of customs of the Northeast. At the same time, a transformation to more fully Chinese-­style burial seems to have taken place early in the Jin period in the vicinity of the Jin homeland. Although some early Jin tombs in Heilongjiang are ­simple, single-­chamber pits, sometimes with expensive burial goods,31 in 1140 when Wanyan Xiyi, the man who in­ven­ted Jurchen script at the request of the second Jin emperor, Wuqimai (r. 1123–1135), was buried in Shulan county of Jilin province, his remains w ­ ere in an imitation hipped-­roofed stone container (Figure 7.9). All five tombs in the cemetery had their own spirit paths consisting of pairs of civil and military officials, pillars, tigers, and sheep.32

Western Xia, Song, Japan, Jin

193

7.9 Tomb of Wanyan Xiyi (d. 1140), Shulan, Jilin province.

The hundreds of nonroyal Jin tombs excavated within the city limits of Beijing and to its south have one or two main chambers, like nonroyal tombs of Chinese and non-­Chinese since the fifth ­century CE.33 ­Unless ­there is a dated inscription, Jin tombs whose brick interior walls are covered with murals in the vicinity of Beijing are usually hard to distinguish from Liao or Song tombs. The twelve animals that symbolize the Chinese zodiac, for instance, found in the Liao cemetery in Xuanhua county, Hebei, are painted by Jin.34 Other themes in Jin tombs include scenes from the life of the deceased, servants, entertainment and banquets for the deceased, and illustrations of filial piety. The same themes cover the walls of tombs in Pingyang, a region in southern Shanxi and the third area with a concentration of Jin tombs.35 Pingyang tombs are distinguished by elaborately decorated interiors in which brick is transformed to imitate wooden construction in small, single-­room spaces.

194

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Often the decoration is more embellished than the wooden prototype. This overlay of elaboration may be an extraordinary contrast to the one-­ room, constricted space of the tomb, but it leaves no doubt that Chinese architectural detail could be maintained ­under Jin rule.36 Hundreds of wooden buildings survive across north China from the twelfth ­century.37 A few exhibit two bracket sets on the central front bay of the building, a feature that first appears ­after the Tang dynasty. The fan-­shaped bracket sets noted in Liao architecture at Datong continue in Jin construction. In wood, as with tombs, all but a very few Jin buildings are extremely ­simple: the majority are three to five bays across the front. Exceptions are the hall for Amitabha Bud­d ha built at Chongfu Monastery in Shuo county in northern Shanxi in 1143 and Mañjuśrī Hall of 1137 at Foguang Monastery on Mount Wutai, the location of the Tang-­ period east hall.38 Seven bays across the front and eight rafter-­lengths in depth (but only four bays), with a roof with overhanging eaves, only two pillars stand inside Mañjuśrī Hall. The very few interior pillars also are a characteristic of Chinese architecture in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Diagonal braces and excessively long lintels aid in the support of exposed roof frames. Song and Jin also built towering pagodas. At least eighty-­five pagodas survive in Song territory from the mid-­tenth c­ entury u ­ ntil the fall of Northern Song.39 ­There is a sharp drop in pagoda construction u ­ nder Southern Song patronage b ­ ecause the pagoda was not impor­tant in Chan monasteries. As many as thirteen pagodas are dated to the Jin period.40 They stand in Henan, Shanxi, Liaoning, Jilin, and Beijing. Most are at Liao monasteries that ­were restored ­under Jin rule. Chinese architecture had survived Liao, Western Xia, Song, and Jin rule. Jin architecture does not pre­sent new, subtle features, nor did Jin take Chinese architecture to the creative level of Liao construction. This would not be the case in China u ­ nder Mongol rule.

••• 8

A REVISIONIST HISTORY OF YUAN ARCHITECTURE

The Mongols ruled China for only one hundred years. It was the only period in history when China was part of a much larger empire and the rulers of that empire w ­ ere not Chinese. The empire extended from K ­ orea in the east to eastern Eu­rope in the west. Known in Chinese history as the Yuan dynasty (1271–1368), it was also the first period when Eu­ro­pe­ans left rec­ords about what they saw—­not just Marco Polo, but friars Giovanni of Montecorvino (1247–1328), Odoric of Pordenone (1286–1331), and Giovanni of Marignolli (dates unknown; in China from 1338–1353), among ­others.1 Eu­ro­pe­a ns also painted the Mongols.2 Through war and conquest, and ­later through diplomacy, emissaries, officials, and artisans came to China from e­ very part of Eurasia. If ever ­there ­were an age when one would have expected non-­Chinese architecture to infiltrate the Chinese building system, it is the period of Mongolian rule. Buildings such as the White Pagoda of Miaoying Monastery in Beijing, dated 1279, confirm that Tibetan Buddhism was pre­sent in China ­under Mongol rule (Figure 8.1). At least two mosques that display features of West Asian architecture w ­ ere built in China during the Mongol-­r uled dynasty Yuan (1267–1368), as well. In general, however, architecture in ­every province of China, in K ­ orea, and in ­today’s Inner Mongolia e­ ither

196

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Ögedeids Kondui

Golden Horde Ulitau

Chaghadai Khanate - Kasan Dash

Mongol Empire

Yili

Dunhuang

Ardebil Maragha Soltaniyeh Alamut Takht-i Suleiman Baghdad

Ilkhanate

Delhi Sultanate

Yingchang Zhenglanqi Shangdu Liangcheng Juyongguan Beijing Datong Shuoxian Zhengding Quyang Yesan Ji’nan Guyuan Qinyang Andong Hongdong Hancheng Dengfeng Pucheng Ruicheng Xi’an Nanjing Suzhou Shanghai Hangzhou Ningbo Wuyi county Jinhua

Khara-khoto

Bukhara

Quanzhou Guangzhou

Makkah

m ap 7 Eurasia u ­ nder Mongol rule.

adhered to the Chinese building system, both above and below ground, or used or manipulated the Chinese building system in its construction. The handful of buildings that may challenge this notion are discussed at the end of this chapter. Except for them, Chinese architecture continued as it had existed for millennia leading up to the Mongol conquest. What follows thus is a revisionist assessment of the narrative of Yuan-­period architecture presented since the 1930s, a narrative that referred to the Yuan as the end of the Period of Elegance that led to the Period of Rigidity; or ­either as the third of the “barbarian dynasties,” following Liao and Jin, or as a prelude to Ming architecture.3 We show that the buildings to which some have turned to argue the influence of non-­Chinese architecture in China w ­ ere constructed as part of the Chinese building tradition, and thus that the influence of non-­Chinese architecture in China as a result of Mongol rule is much less than has been believed. A remarkably comprehensive group of buildings exists for this discussion: nearly four hundred wooden structures, dozens of buildings in

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

197

8.1 White Pagoda, Miaoying Monastery, Beijing, 1279.

brick and stone, at least seventy tombs with murals, many times that number without murals, rock-­carved caves, many of them also with murals or relief sculpture, stages, a residence, and the anomalous buildings to which we turn at the end.

CHINESE WOODEN BUILDINGS

Yuan wooden buildings are Chinese wooden buildings. A history of this architectural form often begins with two structures: Hall of Virtuous Tranquility at the ­Temple to the Northern Peak in Quyang, Hebei, built in 1270, and the Hall of the Three Purities at Yongle Daoist Monastery in Ruicheng, Shanxi, constructed in the period 1247–1262 (Figure i.1).4 One begins t­here ­because both are diantang according to Building

198

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Standards, confirming the use of the Chinese text in construction during the Yuan period and b ­ ecause their details provide physical confirmation of the descriptions of Khubilai’s hall of audience, Daming Hall, that ­were written in 1366 and 1396. The e­ arlier description, by Tao Zongyi (1316?—1396?), is included in his book (Nancun) Chuogenglu (Rec­ords while Resting from the Plow [in the Southern Village]), an example of the type of collected writings a literatus produced in China through the centuries.5 Tao’s sources for his chapter on the buildings of the Yuan palaces in Daidu are not known. The second work was commissioned in 1396 by Zhu Di (1360–1424), fourth son of the first Ming emperor, who at that time was governor of the territory that included the former Yuan capital. Zhu Di already aspired to become the Ming emperor, but he would wait ­until his ­father died and he could take the throne from his nephew, the oldest son of the Ming emperor’s already deceased oldest son. Zhu Di would move the Ming capital north upon his accession of the throne as the emperor Yongle. In anticipation, he ordered the official Xiao Xun to rec­ord what remained of Khubilai’s city before it was destroyed so that a new capital could be built ­there. Xiao Xun’s treatise is Gugong yilu (Rec­ord of Remains of the Old Palaces). Xiao Xun’s description provides six specific facts about Khubilai’s (1215–1294) main hall of audience, Daming Hall: it was raised on a high platform with a stairway in front; a marble balustrade carved with figures of dragons and phoenixes surrounded the hall; each vertical post of the balustrade rested on a sea-­dragon-­like creature (ao) whose head protruded beyond the edge of the terrace; ­every exterior pillar of the hall was decorated with raised flowers, golden dragons, and clouds, on top of which w ­ ere carved decoration; a pair of dragons coiled in the center of the ceiling; and golden and red mullioned win­dows with gold leaf attached to the intervening spaces ­were on all four sides of the hall.6 Each detail except the gold leaf is found in Virtuous Tranquility Hall, the main hall for offerings to the northern of the five most-­sacred peaks (yue) where the emperor himself was privileged to make supplications, and in Three Purities Hall, the most impor­tant structure in the premier Daoist monastery that survives from the Yuan period. Virtuous Tranquility Hall was built within five years of Khubilai’s Daming Hall. Forty meters across the front and almost 30 meters deep,

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

199

Virtuous Tranquility Hall is the largest surviving building from the Yuan period. Although it is significantly smaller than the Daxiongbao Halls of the Liao dynasty at Fengguo and Huayan Monasteries (Figure  6.5), the Yuan structure has a huge front platform (yuetai), 25 meters east-­to-­west by 20 meters north–­south, that is approached by stairs from the center front and two sides, with the stairs, platform, and perimeter of the hall enclosed by a white marble balustrade whose pillars are capped by lions. Thirty pillars are lodged into the platform to define a covered arcade encircling the seven-­by-­four-­bay hall. Creatures that could be ao are beneath posts of the balustrade. The platform is extremely high. That height, combined with the hipped roof, two sets of roof eaves, and enormous yuetai are signs of eminence. So are exterior pillar-­top bracket sets of six-­puzuo formation, six being the highest puzuo number among extant bracket sets of the Yuan dynasty. Bracket sets beneath the upper exterior eaves are slightly larger in e­ very dimension than t­ hose ­under the lower exterior eaves. The upper sets employ one true cantilever (ang) and one “false,” or nonstructural, decorative cantilever, whereas sets below the lower eaves employ two false cantilevers. Decorative, or nonessential, parts such as a false cantilever, are marks of Yuan wooden construction. Two intercolumnar bracket sets are lodged into the architrave between ­every pair of pillars; an auxiliary tie beam is above the architrave. Intercolumnar bracketing is five-­puzuo, also with one false cantilever. Both the architrave and auxiliary tie beam have projecting, decorated corners associated with the Yuan dynasty. Other Yuan features are a “chrysanthemum head” (juhuatou) on the second and third steps of bracket sets in the back of the hall and chuomu (grabbing curtain) tie beams on the ends of other tie beams, so named ­because they appear to curve at the ends.7 Three Purities Hall is the grandest of four buildings constructed between 1247 and 1262 at the Daoist monastery Yonglegong. The suffix gong, the same word used for imperial palaces, refers to the fact that the eminent construction of a Daoist hall is on par with that of palatial architecture. ­Every piece of ­every building was studied when the entire complex was moved to its pre­sent location 25 kilo­meters northeast of the original site between 1959 and 1963 to make way for rechanneling of w ­ ater 8 in this part of Shanxi. Like Virtuous Tranquility Hall, Three Purities Hall is seven bays across the front and four bays deep, but smaller, 28.44

200

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

by 15.28 meters. Also like Virtuous Tranquility Hall, it has a hipped roof, six-­puzuo bracket sets, and two sets between each of the pillars across the front facade. Further like Virtuous Tranquility Hall, Three Purities Hall has a huge front platform approached from the front and both sides. The columns across the front exhibit “rise,” and they have a slight inward incline known as batter. Three Purities Hall has three recessed ceilings decorated with coiling dragons, compared to only one at Virtuous Tranquility Hall. Three caissons is rare. We noted their presence at Daxiongbao Hall of Baoguo Monastery near Ningbo, a diantang (Figure 7.3). It is a sign of eminence, as are the open-­mouthed ornaments known as owls’ tails (chiwen) at the ends of the roof ridge that at Three Purities Hall are a staggering 1.87 meters high. The eminence of Virtuous Tranquility Hall, Three Purities Hall, and Daming Hall of Khubilai’s palace is underscored through comparison with the second and third buildings at Yongle Daoist Monastery, which find correspondences in other buildings of the palace-­city described by Tao Zongyi and Xiao Xun. Both are elevated on platforms, but they are approached at ground level; neither has a yuetai. Both are five bays across the front with three bays of paneled doors with lattice win­dows across the top (Figure 8.2). The features that define lower rank than the structure of Three Purities Hall are hip-­gable roofs as opposed to the ­simple hipped roof, five-­as opposed to six-­puzuo bracket sets, exposed ceiling raf­ters as opposed to a ceiling, and one or no caissons compared to three. ­These are the criteria found in eminent compared to h ­ umble halls in the Tang dynasty, except for the two intercolumnar bracket sets observed in Chapter 7 that first appear in the central front bay of a Song structure. The intercolumnar sets define the period, not rank. None of the Yongle­gong buildings is a hybrid structure. All three buildings at Yonglegong have doors with lattice panels only at the front and no win­dows. The solid walls are not related to the structural ranking system. The interior of Three Purities Hall is covered with 403.34 square meters of murals, which ­were signed by craftsmen in the year 1325. More than 700 square meters of paintings are inside the second two Yonglegong halls. The Yonglegong ­middle hall is signed by a dif­fer­ent craftsmen workshop with the date 1358. Its walls include fifty­two scenes from the life of a Daoist patriarch that are contained in ar-

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

201

8.2 Chunyang Hall, Yongle Daoist Monastery, Ruicheng, Shanxi, 1247–1262.

chitectural settings. Details in murals also confirm descriptions in Tao Zongyi’s and Xiao Xun’s texts, as well as structural features of halls. A scene on the eastern half of the north wall of the second Yonglegong hall, for instance, shows relief with animal f­ aces and dragons of the kind used at Virtuous Tranquility Hall and illustrated in Building Standards (Figure 8.3).9 Less-­eminent timber-­frame Yuan buildings further confirm the use of Building Standards. Two are at Guangsheng Monastery in Hongdong (formerly known as Zhaocheng) in south central Shanxi. Both ­were rebuilt in the aftermath of an earthquake on September 17, 1303, that killed as many as 400,000 p ­ eople.10 The Dragon King T ­ emple, rebuilt in 1319 and dedicated on September 17 of that year, exactly sixteen years a­ fter the earthquake, is in its own precinct on the west. It is of the structural system of the second and third Yongle Daoist Monastery buildings, with a hip-­gable roof and five-­puzuo bracket sets. The Buddhist hall, rebuilt in 1309, has a roof with overhanging eaves, designating lower status than

202

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

8.3 Detail of mural on east half of north wall, Chunyang Hall, Yongle Daoist Monastery,

Ruicheng, Shanxi, 1247–1262.

a hip-­gable combination. The juxtaposition of Buddhist and Daoist precincts seems to indicate that the same p ­ eople prayed to age-­old gods of Buddhism alongside the place where they made supplications to the Dragon King who supplied ­water to the region. Another feature of Chinese architecture is confirmed by Yuan buildings in the south, one in Shanghai and two in Zhejiang province, to which

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

203

Shanghai is adjacent: roof eaves and beams in south China curve more than t­ hose in north China. The buildings in south China have the hip-­ gable roofs of the second and third Yongle Daoist Monastery halls and Dragon King T ­ emple that designate them just below most eminent rank while the curved beams and roof eaves associate them with southeastern China since the tenth ­century. Both features further support Yuan as producing mainstream Chinese architecture. The five-­bay-­square main hall with base dimensions of only 11 by 11.75 meters at Yanfu Monastery in the mountains of Wuyi county of Zhejiang is dated 1317–1324, the years of repair and rebuilding ­under the supervision of a monk (Figure 8.4).11 The bracket sets are eminent, six-­puzuo formation with two ­actual cantilevers and a third that is purely decorative. The gracefully curving beams and braces also are found in the main hall of Zhenru Monastery in Shanghai, built in 1320. Its columns have both entasis and batter, with spacers known as upside-­down plates ( fupan) on top of bases.12 The same pedestals are used at Three Purities Hall of Xuanmiao Daoist Monastery in Suzhou, dated 1176, with l­ ater repairs. That building also has deeply curved eaves.13 Building components of the Zhenru Monastery hall contain fifty-­four inscriptions that include names of craftsmen and placement positions for building parts. Some of the names of pieces are found in

8.4 Bud­d ha hall, Yanfu Monastery, Wuyi, Zhejiang, 1317 or 1324.

204

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

8.5 Statues on e­ ither side of short stone bridge, Hancheng, Shaanxi, Jin or Yuan period.

Building Standards.14 The third Yuan building in South China is similar in many ways to the main hall of Yanfu Monastery. The main hall of Tianning Monastery, dated 1318, in Jinhua county of Zhejiang, is three-­ bays-­square, approximately 12.72 meters on each side, and has a hip-­gable roof. Its pillars also have entasis and batter. Bracket sets are six-­puzuo formation. All bracketing has one false cantilever.15 The city and environs of Hancheng in eastern Shaanxi province have more than a dozen thirteenth-­and fourteenth-­century buildings.16 Walk­ing through the preserved parts of the old town or to the area where some of the Yuan-­period buildings have been moved, t­ here is no hint that this town in Shaanxi was part of an empire ruled by the Mongols. Yet in other parts of the city one finds crouching men whose costumes—­ hats whose backs extend to cover their necks, ­belts with metal in the notches, and boots—­identify them as Mongols, or perhaps Jurchen, since construction in Hancheng took place during both periods (Figure 8.5). This unobtrusive presence has no greater impact on the city than a tent inside a wall-­enclosed courtyard. Timber-­frame stages for outdoor per­for­mances, all with bracket sets of about four-­puzuo, a ­house, and several large residential compounds

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

205

remain in Shanxi, Henan, and Beijing from the Yuan period. They bear no sign that China was not ruled by a native dynasty.17 If one seeks to generalize about the hundreds of wooden buildings in China that survive from the mid-­thirteenth to the mid-­fourteenth ­century, one concludes that Yuan is a time when clear distinctions between construction for the top echelons of society and ­those who lived and worshipped humbly in villages and towns can be documented; that Yuan is a period when one can discuss vernacular architecture and the life of the populace in villages and towns, where they lived, prayed, came to watch per­for­mances, and, as discussed below, where they ­were buried. ­These observations surely are true of ­earlier centuries, but they are all documented with physical evidence in the thirteenth.

RE VISING THE STANDARD HISTORY

Observatories and architecture for religions that ­were not native to China have been used to argue a change in Chinese architecture as a result of Mongolian rule. ­Here we examine ­those buildings, as well as repre­sen­ ta­tions of them in paint. Observatories: Dengfeng, Beijing, and Marāgha

The observatory in Dengfeng, Henan province, is a unique building that has been assumed to represent several ­others like it as evidence of the impact of West Asian architecture in Yuan China. Dated 1279, it is China’s oldest extant observatory. Buildings for the observation of the heavens had a history in China of at least two millennia prior to that year. Since the Zhou dynasty, court officials had recorded heavenly bodies: a structure known as Lingtai was used for observation of the heavens. Before then, China’s Legendary Emperors are said to have consulted the heavens.18 The purpose was to try to assess a ­future course or obtain heavenly blessing in a ­f uture action. The remains of a Lingtai south of the Han capital Xi’an ­were mentioned in Chapter 2. Remains support the belief that one climbed to a terrace to view the heavens. The Dengfeng observatory follows a lineage that began by the Zhou dynasty

206

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

of structures from which to observe the heavens. However, it is the earliest such building where one can confirm the presence of West Asians alongside Chinese observers. The Dengfeng observatory stands in the shadow of the sacred central peak, Mount Song. It was one of five observatories planned by Khubilai. Mount Song had been designated China’s central sacred peak long before Khubilai’s time, so that one assumes that the sacred centrality of the location was one of the reasons for the Yuan choice of the site. Eight Chinese officials w ­ ere involved in the planning. Among them ­were Guo Shoujing (1231–1316), variously described as an engineer, a mathematician, and an astronomer who also oversaw major hydraulic proj­ects in the Yuan capital,19 and Liu Bingzhong (1216–1274), who served Khubilai in a position equivalent to prime minister ­until Liu’s death. Liu Bingzhong was responsible for the designs of two of Khubilai’s capitals.20 All eight men listed in the annals of the proj­ect w ­ ere first and primarily educated for officialdom, in which ­there ­were few opportunities for advancement in the very ­limited bureaucracy in the early de­cades of Mongolian rule of China. One had training in mathe­matics, one had previously participated in calendar reform, one is said to have had experience using astronomical instruments, and one, we are told, retooled in order to work at the observatory.21 In contrast to this group, the roles of four West Asians who w ­ ere involved in astronomy in Iran and came to China at this time are often emphasized in discussions of Yuan astronomy. One was Naṣīr al-­Dīn Ṭūsī (1201–1274), who worked for Möngke (r. 1251–1259), Khubilai’s older b ­ rother and pre­de­ces­sor as ­Great Khan, and then came to work for Khubilai’s younger ­brother Hülegü (1218–1265), who would become the first ruler of the Mongol state in Iran known as the Ilkhānate. In his capacity as Hülegü’s chief advisor, a position similar to Liu Binzhong’s for Khubilai in China, Ṭūsī convinced Hülegü to build an observatory near Marāgha, in Azerbaijan, in 1259. Ṭūsī does not have a biography in Chinese sources, but his life is well documented in Persian sources, including in biographical lit­er­a­ture about his colleague Quṭb al-­Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Mas’ūd Shīrāzī (1236–1311), trained in medicine, who came to Marāgha, prob­ably in 1262.22 Chinese rec­ords give more attention to Jamāl al-­Dīn, who began his ­career as an astronomer in Marāgha and subsequently entered Khubi-

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

207

lai’s ser­vice. Jamāl al-­Dīn is discussed in both Rashid al-­Dīn’s history of the world, Jāmiʿ al-­tawārīkh, and in History of Yuan (Yuanshi) and is credited with bringing seven astronomical instruments to China in 1267.23 Men and devices are not architecture. The Platform for Observing Celestial Bodies (Guanxingtai), as this building would be known, rises 17 meters (Figure 8.6). Like all observatories in China since the time of the Legendary Emperors, a major purpose was to regulate the calendar. The pro­cess for achieving a regulated calendar in the early Yuan period is recorded in 1280 in the treatise Shoushili (Season-­granting system).24 In Chinese sources, including History of Yuan, the word gaobiao is used to refer to all five of Khubilai’s intended observatories. Gaobiao can be translated as “tall gnomon.” Gaobiao actually refers to one of three key features in the structure, a pole that rises nearly the full height of the building that was placed in an indentation 36 centimeters from the wall. The pole ensured that the other two features, a metal crossbar positioned in the lower half of a win­dow at the front of the structure and a paved path on the ground, ­were perpendicular to it and thus parallel to each other. The sun would cast a shadow on the crossbar and further

8.6 Platform for Observing the Heavens, Observatory, Dengfeng, Henan, 1279.

208

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

to the paved stone path in front to determine the time and season. The designation of the building as gaobiao suggests that this component was the centerpiece of the Dengfeng observatory. It is a crucial aspect for comparison with observatories outside China. Although nothing survives from the Daidu observatory, rec­ords make it clear how extensive the building complex completed in 1280 was. Enclosed by e­ ither a wall or a covered arcade, the multi-­courtyard complex included eight major buildings (Figure 8.7). Gaobiao was the eastern of a symmetrical pair on e­ ither side of the main structure. It stood at the back, ­behind a gate, pavilion, and long hall. The space could have served a Buddhist or Daoist monastery, Confucian ­temple, several courtyards of a palace, or official complex. ­Here one found offices for officials, astrologers, and calendar clerks; buildings or rooms for the observatory director, astronomical observers, ­water clocks, the supervisor of ­water clocks, and timekeepers; rooms for the acquisition and provision of instruments and supplies, star maps, the armillary clepsydra, the ­spherical sky globe, and a model of the sky as a carriage-­cover; models for understanding features of the sky; a room or building for Jupiter; places for astronomy books and computational books; and an education hall for training students in mathe­matics. Almanacs ­were printed in a long, narrow building at the back of the complex. Long buildings to its

8.7 Plan of observatory, Daidu, 1280.

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

209

front sides w ­ ere for teaching and preparing offerings. The armillary sphere was on a platform on top of the tall building symmetrical to gaobiao. The observatory in Khubilai’s capital also included halls for research and education, as well as the other astronomical instruments transmitted by Jamāl al-­Dīn for mea­sur­ing the sun’s shadow and setting the calendar.25 The observatory in Marāgha, t­ oday in East Azerbaijan province, also had a library, a famous one, much of which had been removed from Alamūt, ­today also in Iran, a­ fter that city was taken by Hülegü. The librarian came from Baghdad. Naṣīr al-­Dīn Ṭūsī was responsible for the transfer.26 The Syrian Christian Bar Hebraeus (1226–1286), who died in Marāgha, worked in the library. As at Daidu and Dengfeng, instruments ­were moved to Marāgha, in this case also from Alamūt.27 Also similar to China, the site at Marāgha had a school for training observers, a domed building, and a mosque. ­Because domes are characteristic of Persian architecture for a variety of functions, it is one of the construction details that led Julio Samsó to remark that the observatory appears to have been “subsidized in a manner ordinarily reserved for schools, hospitals and libraries.”28 The comment is highly significant ­because in the premodern Islamic world, the madrasa, the school of higher learning, was usually the location of education and libraries, both before and ­after the Mongol period. Aydin Sayili finds no evidence that an observatory ­earlier than the one in Marāgha had a library of any significant size, and yet the next observatory from the period of Mongolian rule in Iran, near Tabriz, commissioned by Ghazan Khan (r. 1295–1304), who had visited Marāgha more than once, was built among a hospice, a hospital, a library, an acad­emy of philosophy, a fountain, a pavilion, two madrasas, and his own mausoleum.29 As for so much early astronomy, the purposes of both the Ilkhānid and Yuan observatories have been argued to have been more astrological than astronomical. Still, as in China, one purpose of the observatory of Mongol-­period Iran was to regulate the calendar. Th ­ ere is no question Naṣīr al-­Dīn Ṭūsī and Jamāl al-­Dīn had firsthand knowledge of observatories in Iran and in China. Ṭūsī compiled an astronomical handbook with t­ ables (zīj) in 1272 that included a chapter on the Chinese calendar.30 Like Khubilai, Persian astronomers encountered in China

210

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

a system with a continuous history of millennia in which observation of the heavens to set the calendar had been a privilege of kingship at least since the Han dynasty, and the education of officials may have occurred in the same structure as observations of the heavens. In Han Chang’an, one recalls, buildings where ­these two official pursuits took place ­were in a group south of the capital.31 The fact that the types of buildings in observatory complexes in China and Iran ­were similar may or may not be the result of influences from China to Iran in the Mongol period. In any case, the history of the multifunctionality of a building complex with an observatory in China long predates this kind of range in Iran. Determination of the influence of the one on the other would be easier if one could confirm the existence of an observatory in Shangdu. Yang Gongyi (1225–1294), one of the eight Chinese who worked at the Dengfeng observatory, had met Khubilai ­there, but not ­until the 1270s. In 1260 Khubilai established a Sitiantai, literally “platform for administration of the heavens,” at Shangdu, but it was a bureau of astronomy. In spite of the name, ­there is no evidence it was more than an office.32 The same bureau existed at the central capital of the Jin dynasty, which was incorporated into the city Daidu. In the 1970s Parvīz Varjavānd published a plan based on his on-­site investigation of the grounds of the Marāgha observatory.33 Six circular foundations are prominent, one of them much larger than the rest. ­Today covered by a white dome supported by a metal frame, a narrow strip rises above the brick floor, similar to the path along which the sun’s rays w ­ ere mea­sured at Dengfeng. The age of this floor and when the strip was placed are unknown. It is pos­si­ble that the floor or some of it dates to the late thirteenth c­ entury, but ­there is no evidence of a gaobiao or metal crossbar. According to Donald Wilber, a slit in the dome, which does not survive, was the aperture for the sun’s rays to proj­ect onto a paved surface below.34 The Marāgha observatory rises on high ground overlooking the town. Some 20 meters below, but still above the town, are caves that have been noted by anyone who visited Marāgha: Ker Porter, who was t­ here in the 1810s, may have been one of the first Eu­ro­pe­ans to write about it.35 In 1934 André Godard published a plan of the caves showing a narrow entrance on the west, a long narrow passageway from it northward, and

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

211

short path to the central area with rooms on three sides. The roughly cruciform shape was used as evidence to support the idea that ­these ­were caves carved by Hülegü as a church for the above-­mentioned Bar Hebraeus. Christians, including Hülegü’s wife Doghuz Khatun, definitely prayed at Marāgha, but nothing about their worship spaces is known. Ghrāzān Khan (r. 1295–1304) also built a church in Marāgha, perhaps the one in which Mar Yaballaha III (1245–1317) worshipped.36 This entanglement of Marāgha does not stop with China and Iran or Islam and Chris­tian­ity.37 Varjavānd, who presumably saw the caves when surveying the observatory, proposed they are Mithraic. The idea that they w ­ ere used for rituals that originated in ancient Rome and involved sacrifice of bulls gained popularity and is widely accepted in Iran ­today.38 Yet at about the same time, Warwick Ball proposed that the best comparisons with the architecture of the caves are Buddhist construction, with some in ­today’s Af­ghan­i­stan and Uzbekistan especially similar.39 Architecture of the period of Mongolian rule seems to suggest a license for the sensational, such as an association with Mithraism, but the fact is, rock-­carved worship spaces had a long history across Asia. No ­matter where the carvers at Marāgha first saw it, t­ here is no possibility that the earth-­sheltered architecture beneath the observatory was carved in northwestern Iran without knowledge of cave-­temples somewhere ­else. The proximity of ­these caves and an observatory where West and East Asians calculated together to set the calendar, though, may inspire theories about their origins and purpose. At this time, they remain rock-­ carved caves whose initial date of carving is unknown and in which no in-­situ images or furnishing helps determine their purpose. The best evidence for the impact of West Asian astronomy on China during the period of Mongolian rule is that astronomical instruments ­were brought to China from the West and that West Asian astronomers worked in China. Evidence of the impact of Chinese astronomy in Iran ­under Ilkhānid rule is the adoption of the Chinese duodenary calendar and the names of Chinese who worked ­there—­again, not buildings. We have no evidence that the tall gnomon was developed or used anywhere but China. That gaobiao is the Chinese word for observatory is the emphatic feature that defines it and separates it from construction of observatories in Iran.

212

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

No aspect of the brick structure that was used for observation of the heavens in Dengfeng was beyond the capability of Yuan builders or did not have a long history in Chinese architecture. Tall brick pagodas had risen on the Chinese landscape for nearly a millennium before the Mongols came to China, and Chinese builders had constructed subterranean brick tombs for even longer. To the extent that this building appears distinctive among other thirteenth-­century buildings, it is prob­ably ­because it was a highly specialized structure for a specialized function. The plan of the observatory is as Chinese as that of countless Buddhist or Daoist monasteries since the sixth c­ entury (Figures 3.7f, 3.7g, 3.7h, and 3.7m—­middle and right—­and 8.7). Main buildings on a north–­south axis and symmetrically positioned high structures on ­either side of the axis is the plan of the imperial Song monastery Longxingsi in Zhengding, Hebei province, and of Shanhua Monastery in Datong, built in the eleventh ­century by Liao patronage. The plan could accommodate an anomalous structure like the observatory, or a pair of buildings like it, for any Chinese plan accommodated twin pagodas or twin pavilions. The plan of Miaoying Monastery, where the White Pagoda has stood since the thirteenth ­century, has an even longer history in China: it is the plan of a towering central pagoda with a Bud­dha hall b ­ ehind, on a line with a gate at the front and back. It is the sixth-­century plan of Yongning Monastery in Luoyang, of Paekche monasteries, and of Shitennōji and other sixth-­and seventh-­century monasteries in Japan discussed in Chapter 3 (Figures 3.8b, 3.8e, and 3.8m, left). The adaptability of Chinese architecture, in this case a building plan, is an impor­tant reason this system could survive Mongolian rule and be exported. It could also adapt to mosque construction. Mosques

The oldest evidence of Islamic architecture in China are inscriptions of the Tang period. From the Song dynasty, inscriptions rec­ord mosques and burials. Muslims w ­ ere among the many foreign populations in China in Tang times, but t­ here are no building remains. It is pos­si­ble Muslims worshipped in ­houses in Tang China. Ox Street Mosque in Beijing was founded shortly ­after the Tang dynasty, in 996. China’s oldest

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

213

mosque architecture is in southeastern coastal terminuses of the so-­ called Silk Road of the Sea where Muslims docked, traded, and stayed long enough to build worship spaces. The two oldest mosques, in Quanzhou and Guangzhou, retain buildings that are unique in their references to mosque architecture in Muslim lands. Like the observatory and White Pagoda, the plans of Yuan mosques are Chinese. Mosque of the Companions in Quanzhou, Fujian province, is known in Chinese as Shengyousi; both names are translations of the Arabic Masjid al-­Ashab. The last character of the Chinese name, si, is the word used to refer to a Buddhist building complex as well as a designation that originally referred to an official bureau. This adoption of a Chinese name for non-­Chinese architecture parallels the adaptation of Chinese worship space for religions that came to China from outside. Mosque of the Companions was founded in 1009 or 1010, but ­today the oldest building is dated 1310. It may not be on its original site. The entrance is on the south, consistent with Chinese religious space. It is a ­grand, formal structure framing three sides of an arched opening, distinct from any existing building known in China before it, and further distinguished by the granite wall with eight enormous win­dows, t­ oday allowing a view into the courtyard that joins it to the west (Figure 8.8). The passageway into the mosque is a high, three-­part sequence of interconnected arches and vaults set in rectangular frames, each component or dia­meter no more than 5 meters. This kind of entry was used in Iran and adjacent regions of Central Asia in the thirteenth and f­ourteenth centuries.40 The remains of the prayer hall are 30-­by-27 meters, a space that was supported by twelve stone columns from which bases or partial columns survive. Quanzhou is the obvious city for a mosque that exhibits so much foreign influence, for non-­Chinese faiths had built worship spaces ­there since the tenth ­century. Epitaphs and other artifacts document the practice of Buddhism, Daoism, Brahmanism, Manichaeaism, Chris­tian­ity, and Islam in this city in the Song and Yuan dynasties.41 Guangzhou was equally a center of Muslim life in Song and Yuan China. It has been described as China’s greatest seaport in the early Song period.42 Guangzhou’s Flourishing of the Prophet Mosque (Huaishengsi) is the earliest recorded mosque in China. An inscription of 1634 says that Saʿd ibn Abi Waqqas (595–664) founded the mosque in 627. This date is

214

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

8.8 Mosque of the Companions (Shengyousi), Quanzhou, Fujian, 1310.

so close to the rise of Islam that it is prob­ably apocryphal, although a mosque may have existed in Guangzhou in the Tang dynasty. The current building arrangement survives from a rebuilding in 1350, the date of Flourishing of the Prophet Mosque’s minaret. Known as Guangta (Tower of Light), the second syllable, ta, is the Chinese word for pagoda. Rising 35.75 meters, one interpretation of the structure and name is that it served as a light­house. The cylindrical shape in all likelihood is inspired by minarets of Saljuq-­period (1038–1194) Iran, but towering pagodas of South China also are pos­si­ble sources. Like monumental pagodas of the Song dynasty, the minaret can be ascended via interior spiral staircases. The plaster walls are ­those of White Pagoda of Miaoying Monastery (Figure 8.1).43 Like the designations si for mosque and ta for pagoda, buildings of the mosque w ­ ere configured according to a Chinese monastery plan. The

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

215

plan of Flourishing of the Prophet Mosque is a Chinese monastery with one emendation. Oriented southward like a ­temple complex, the approach to the first courtyard is defined by gates at its beginning and end. The covered arcades that extend from the east and west sides of the second gate, and then turn northward, terminating in front of two kiosks, also are found in Buddhist, Daoist, Confucian, and secular spaces. An approach ­behind the second gate to the second courtyard of the mosque leads to a large platform of the kind we have observed in front of Virtuous Tranquility Hall of the ­Temple to the Northern Peak in Quyang and Three Purities Hall of Yonglegong (Figure i.1). The prayer hall is directly ­behind but not exactly in line with the platform. To enter, worshippers must walk east to the end of a covered arcade and turn 90 degrees to the north, where they then comes to an entry. As in any standard mosque, the miḥrāb (indicator of the direction of Makkah) is on the western wall, directly opposite the entry at the front of the worship space. This directional change so that the prayer hall is entered on the east is evident only ­after one has passed through two gates and ascended the platform or walked through a courtyard to its east. The necessary orientation is thus fully incorporated into the Chinese scheme. It is impor­tant to emphasize that although Muslim worship in Guangzhou took place b ­ ehind the walls of a Chinese compound, the purpose of the plan was not to conceal the Muslim affiliation of the space. The minaret projected boldly above the low, Chinese-­style walls of Flourishing of the Prophet Mosque. It was not on the main building line: it was not viewed as a pagoda. This resolution of Muslim worship and Chinese space was a convergence.44 It was pos­si­ble for the same reason Chinese space had endured for millennia of Buddhist and Daoist and Confucian and palatial construction in China and beyond China. Chinese building complexes w ­ ere equally adaptable to the requirements of Muslim prayer. Except for the wall with its directional indicator of Makkah, Islamic worship space—­ prayer hall, courtyard, pulpit for Friday sermons, interior space for an eminent community leader, educational hall, residential halls for religious leaders and visitors, ser­v ice buildings such as kitchens, libraries, adjacent markets that enhanced the communal function of the neighborhood around the religious space, and the ubiquitous

216

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

domed ceilings—­a ll were spaces of Chinese architectural settings. The plaster walls of the minaret w ­ ere part of the repertoire of Chinese builders. The transformation from ­temple complex to mosque complex was no more challenging for the Chinese architectural tradition than that of stupa, chaitya, and vihāra to pagoda, worship hall, and monks’ spaces, respectively, of a Chinese Buddhist monastery. The granite entry and adjoining wall of Mosque of the Companions in Quanzhou and the plaster minaret in Guangzhou stand out, and they are unique among all Chinese buildings. With t­ hese two exceptions, both incorporated into larger Chinese building arrangements, extant architecture among more than seventy premodern mosques that survive in almost ­every province of China is in the setting of a Chinese religious complex.45 In fact, some mosques retain features of Chinese architecture that have other­wise almost dis­appeared. An example is fluted decoration at the bottom of a joist named chandu (cicada belly) (Figure 8.10). Described in Building Standards, it is known to survive only h ­ ere, at Daxiongbao Hall of Baoguo Monastery, dated 1013, in Zhejiang province (Figure 7.3), and at Feilai Hall, dated 1327, of the ­Temple to the Eastern Peak outside Emei in Sichuan province.46 Figure 8.9 is from ­Great North Mosque in Qinyang, Henan province, approximately 1200 kilo­meters northwest of Baoguo Monastery and 1300 kilo­meters northeast of Emei. According to a stele on-­site, ­Great North Mosque was founded in the period 1341– 1370. The five-­puzuo bracket sets with two cantilevers, the exposed ceiling frame, painted motifs on the wooden members, and original interior pillars that ­were positioned so as to eliminate the majority from the interior, a feature of all three Yonglegong halls described above and the Jin-­period building at Foguang Monastery mentioned at the end of Chapter 7, pre­ sent as pure a Chinese structure of the thirteenth to f­ ourteenth ­century as ­those discussed at the beginning of this chapter or end of Chapter 7, or any that could be substituted for them. Old narratives of architecture in China u ­ nder Mongolian rule would consider the interior of ­Great North Mosque remarkable. It is not. The use of such a specific detail in the prayer hall of a mosque confirms how carefully descriptions in Building Standards w ­ ere employed even in architecture of foreign faiths in Yuan China. This kind of detail is one of the reasons the Chinese building tradition survived as it did for so long.

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

217

8.9 Chandu (cicada belly) brace with serrated edge on bottom, seen above blade of ceiling fan,

­Great North Mosque, Qinyang, Henan, 1341–1370.

Architecture of Manichaeans

Manichaeism was mentioned e­ arlier as a faith practiced by Uyghurs. This religion, which traces its origins to Gnosticism in the early centuries of Chris­tian­ity, built a monastery in Chang’an in 762.47 Its name was Dayunguangmingsi, using the suffix si, the same Chinese word employed in mosques, to denote a religious institution. Nothing more than the name is known. Following imperial persecution of Manichaeans in Chang’an in 843, the religion flourished primarily in the Uyghur empire.48 Manichaeism returned to China, at least in the city of Quanzhou, in the Song dynasty.49 A destroyed t­ emple associated with the year 1339 is rebuilt outside Quanzhou in Jinjiang, Fujian, ­today. Based on the appearance of mosques, as well as Buddhist, Daoist, and Confucian architecture during and before the Mongol period, one believes worship occurred in a timber-­frame structure with features of Chinese construction. Architecture in Manichaean paintings dated to the Yuan period, or perhaps a ­little ­earlier or l­ ater, supports this statement. Repre­sen­ta­tions of architecture pre­sent a knowledge of the Chinese tradition as specific as details in murals on the walls of Yongle Daoist Monastery (Figure 8.3)

218

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

and, as we s­ hall see below, in tomb murals.50 The painting known as “Manichaean Painting Hagiography 3” has six repre­sen­ta­tions of architecture (Figure 8.10). A gong-­shaped complex is the most prominent. Worship occurs in this complex, and attributes of eminent construction in addition to the gong form define its importance. All three parts are elevated on a platform and enclosed by a balustrade, one of which has decorated panels that appear to be carved marble. Such a balustrade survives at the above-­mentioned ­Temple to the Northern Peak and is described by Xiao Xun as pre­sent in Khubilai’s Daming Hall at Daidu. The roofs of the front and back halls have two sets of eaves. Bracket sets uniformly have three arms, a feature in all buildings in this painting and in the one described below; repetitive use suggests the bracket set might be a signature detail of a painter or workshop. The second repre­sen­ta­ tion in “Manichaean Painting Hagiography 3” is the wall that encloses the gong complex. It has crenellations as a Chinese wall should, and it has decorative inserts at the corners that one finds in Yuan-­period outer walls discussed below (Figure 8.16). The front gate of this complex, the third repre­sen­ta­t ion of architecture, shares features with the fourth, in the upper left corner of the painting. Both are gate­houses, elevated structures that could quarter troops, and in the context of eminent architecture, the kind of structure atop a gate that is appropriate for an entry to the building complex. The gate­houses have single-­eave roofs. The other two buildings are shrines, both open in the front. Their blue roofs, in contrast to golden for the gong-­complex structures and gate towers, identify their lower status. The three repre­sen­ta­tions of architecture in “Sermon on Mani’s Teaching on Salvation,” in the Yamato Bunkakan in Nara, also confirm an understanding on the part of the painter that Chinese architecture is a ranked system.51 In this second painting, the most eminent building is at the top center, a seven-­bay-­wide structure approached by a ramp that is decorated so as to suggest the kind of decorated marble approach of Three Purities Hall of Yonglegong (Figure i.1). The ceramic tile roof with two sets of gracefully sloping roof eaves is typical of Bud­dha halls in southeastern China, where Manichaeism flourished in the Yuan period. One sees such as roof in the Bud­d ha hall of Yanfu Monastery (Figure 8.4). The structure in the right foreground of the second painting

8.10 “Manichaean Painting Hagiography 3.”

220

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

is the clearest example in the two paintings of the three-­arm bracket formation. The m ­ iddle arm of a bracket set is positioned close enough to the building façade to see the circular roof rafter above it. The third structure is a frame alone. ­Here it is unambiguous: pillars, pilasters, cap-­blocks of pillars, and beams combine as only t­ hose in a Chinese building do. A third painting, “Community ­after Mani’s Death,” includes a detail of worshippers in front of an icon of Mani. Only h ­ ere, among hanging scrolls and fragments of Manichaean painting, are two-­tier bracket sets. The bracket set formation is always rendered with one tier slightly to the left and above the second tier, a detail again indicating that a single hand or workshop painted the architecture; but more impor­tant, the painter knew to use more eminent bracket sets to inform a viewer that the space in which Mani is pre­sent is more eminent than any other building in any of the other paintings.52 The architecture in and around which activity occurs is not described in any text whose hagiography this painting supports. Deities are worshipped in a variety of architecture, with or without gong arrangements, two sets of roof eaves, or marble insets for balustrades. Gates do not require buildings at the top with decorated roof ridges; here ­those buildings are eminent. The artist or patron not only knew the stipulations of the Chinese building system but followed t­ hose rules in the paintings. Sometimes scholars point to the flourishing of more religions in Yuan China than in the past—­and not just in cities with a foreign merchant presence, such as Tang Chang’an or Song-­Yuan Quanzhou, but across China—as due to a greater tolerance for the faiths of the pan-­Asian population.53 This may or may not be true, and the Mongol policy of filling government positions first with Mongols and then with non-­Mongols who also w ­ ere not Chinese was a ­factor in the presence of religions from the West. H ­ ere we are observing something that is not unique to the Mongol period. As we have seen in Mogao caves, Sogdian sarcophaguses, Northern Qi and Türk murals, and in Japan since the seventh ­century, no m ­ atter the patron, the architecture around him is unambiguously Chinese. Once in China, wherever the activities that scholars use to define religious affiliation and iconography take place, they are practiced in Chinese t­ emples.

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

221

Framing a Tibetan Buddhist

The Mongols did not conquer Tibet, but it was the heartland of the Buddhism practiced by most of the Mongol rulers and many of their wives. It is thus significant that two portrayals of Khubilai receiving instruction from the Tibetan monk ‘Phags-pa (1235–1280), one in the Rubin Museum and one in the Art Gallery of Greater Victoria, both believed to be copies of thirteenth-­century paintings, show teacher and Khagan beneath Chinese, ceramic-­tile roofs, the one above ‘Phags-­pa’s head, gold, and Khubilai’s green, in a courtyard entered via a Chinese gate enclosed by a Chinese-­style covered arcade (Figure 8.11).54 ‘Phags-pa was with Khubilai in China in the late 1250s and 1260s, including times in his capitals.55 Chinese-­style buildings stood in t­hose capitals. Still, ­there is no reason to suppose that a monk who grew up in Tibet and a Mongol who moved on h ­ orse­back across the steppe discussed Buddhist teachings in a Chinese courtyard. Yet ­there is no hint of Tibet as the source of ‘Phags-­pa’s teachings in the painting. More likely, as in paintings of Mani and e­ arlier murals in Bezeklik, the prominent, glazed roof tiles, color-­coded so that the Buddhist master was in a more eminent space than the ruler, ­were intentional. Through architecture, the transmission of the doctrine and its f­ uture occur in China. Muslim Mausoleums

A Muslim can pray in any built environment with an indicator of the direction of Makkah, including one configured as a Buddhist ­temple complex, but burial does not offer him so much latitude. Since the time of Muhammad (571–632), burial was prescribed to be just below the ground without elaboration in an unmarked grave. Yet within a hundred years ­after Muhammad’s death, his grave was moved from below his residence, first to a place separate from his ­house with a shrine above it and then to a mosque.56 The many Muslim burials in Quanzhou and other cities in southeastern China in the Song and Yuan dynasties are marked by gravestones and cenotaphs, but no Muslim death monument as ­grand as a mausoleum is known u ­ ntil the Yuan dynasty.57

222

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

8.11 “Initiation of Khubilai Khan and Offering Rule of Tibet to

‘Phags-pa in 1264.”

Three domed, brick buildings in China ­today share features that identify them as Muslim mausoleums. Only one is dated. It is in Huocheng, in western Xinjiang near the border with Kazakhstan. This well-­documented building is the tomb of Tughluq Temür, a descendant of Chinggis Khan who came to power in 1346 and converted to Islam the next year, followed by the conversion of approximately 160,000 of his Khanate in 1352. Upon his death, the western lands of the Khanate fell to Tamerlane.58 A brick structure t­oday faced with plaster, in Khara-­k hoto in

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

223

8.12 Tomb, Guyuan, Hebei.

western Inner Mongolia, has been photographed since exploration of this city in the early twentieth c­ entury.59 The third, 13 meters high and 10 meters square at the base, stands in isolation in Guyuan in northern Hebei province near the Mongolian border (Figure 8.12). It has drawn attention since the eigh­teenth c­ entury when the building is referred to as Xiliangting (West Cool Kiosk) and Shuzhuanglou (Comb and Cosmetics Tower), the second a reference to the fact that the territory where it stands was part of the appanage of Empress Dowager Chengtian (932–1009) of the Liao dynasty. It is unclear why the same text refers to the building both as ting and ge; perhaps it is ­because more than one scholar worked on the compilation in which the names are found. The two Chinese structural types referenced by t­ hese words prob­ably are attempts to name a highly unusual building with a Chinese structural designation. Ting and ge are taller-­ than-­standard structures with notable roofs.60 A mausoleum identified as belonging to Chinggis’s oldest son, Jochi (1182–1227), in Ulytau, Kharagandy, in eastern Kazakhstan, first built in 1227 and now heavi­ly restored,

224

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

is an example of this kind of building constructed during the Mongol period outside China ­today. The Tomb of the Samanid, dated 943 in Bukhara, is the archetypical example of such structures, nicknamed dome-­on-­square. Numerous dome-­on-­square buildings survive in ­today’s Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and contiguous countries.61 They include the tomb of Buyan Quli Khan, who died in Bukhara in 1356. The architecture argues that the building in Hebei is a Muslim mausoleum. Inside, a male and two females buried in coffins beneath the floor confirm it is a tomb. The burial objects, which included silks, jade, and gold, identify the interred as elite, if not royalty, and perhaps challenge how far t­ oward the Chinese system of burial a Muslim, even one inside a monumental burial hall, might divert from prescriptions for simpler burial. The interred cannot be compared with bodies beneath Tughluq Temür’s mausoleum b ­ ecause they have not been excavated. Inside the Guyuan building one finds pillars of the kind that for centuries ­were molded or painted on the walls of Chinese tombs to imitate wooden architecture. Above the pillars are imitation bracket sets (Figure 8.13). Positioned at corners, they bear striking resemblance to muqarnas, the ubiquitous squinches of Islamic architecture. The closest Chinese counter­parts for t­ hese cornices are in the Yuan-­period Phoenix Mosque in Hangzhou, which was restored early in the Ming dynasty.62 The attention given to identifying who is interred in this tomb intensified in the 1990s. The interest perhaps is b ­ ecause the location is northern Hebei. In spite of its proximity to southern Mongolia, Guyuan (dif­fer­ent characters from the Guyuan in Ningxia whose remains have been discussed in e­ arlier chapters) is much closer to China’s Central Plain than to western Inner Mongolia or western Xinjiang. Between 1995 and 2019, three identifications of the male occupant of this tomb w ­ ere proposed. In 1996 Wang Beichen argued that this is the tomb of Ananda, a grand­son of Khubilai who, in spite of the Buddhist name given to him at birth (Ananda was a disciple of the Bud­dha), had converted to Islam. The location is in lands of his entitlement, Prince of Anxi. Even though Ananda was executed in a power strug­gle for the throne, he was buried ­here in 1307.63 ­Those who challenge this idea won­der if someone executed would have been permitted this kind of burial monument. Th ­ ose who believe the identification as Ananda’s tomb

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

225

8.13 Interior of tomb showing imitation corner pillars, beams, and bracket sets above pillars, Guyuan, Hebei.

is the most convincing, which include this author, are quick to emphasize that in the same year 1307, the new Mongol emperor, who was instrumental in Ananda’s execution in order to make his path to the throne more ­viable, built a new capital, the central capital discussed below, in the same county of Hebei to deflect the power of Ananda’s memory. ­Others, however, emphasize that Mongol princes-­of-­the-­blood (relatives or direct descendants of Chinggis Khan), even if practicing Muslims, would not have been interred in this way. They also question if Chinggis’s son Jochi is beneath in the dome-­on-­square identified as his tomb in Ulitau, Kazakhstan, or if it is a ­later memorial. This line of thinking argues that the person beneath the building could be a Muslim, but could not be a descendant of Chinggis Khan.64 The third possibility is that it is a Christian tomb.65 The Guyuan mausoleum is a superlative example of a building that, from the moment it was known, joined White Pagoda, the minaret in Guangzhou, entry to Mosque of the Companions in Quanzhou, and the

226

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

observatories in the standard history of Chinese architecture to confirm change in Yuan China as a result of Mongolian rule. Its special status in this group, however, is that White Pagoda, Dengfeng and Daidu observatories, and mosques stood in Chinese building schemes supported by archaeological evidence (Figures 8.1, 8.7, and 8.8). The attention given to the Guyuan mausoleum is ­because even with imitation timber framing, and use of vaulting and brick technology that have histories in China since the Han dynasty,66 a dome-­on-­square structure has overwhelming Islamic context that cannot be explained away as Chinese. The Guyuan building definitely stands as testament to a foreign structural type in Yuan China. More such challenges to the Chinese building system w ­ ill rise in the Ming and Qing dynasties. They ­w ill coexist with Chinese timber-­frame construction rather than alter it. Perhaps the architectural details—in the case of the Guyuan mausoleum, the presence of imitation timber-­framing inside—­are so clear ­because so many buildings in Yuan China ­were constructed by Chinese craftsmen or artisans who worked alongside Chinese craftsmen, and Chinese craftsmen ­were trained in the Building Standards. The role of non-­Chinese builders ­under Mongolian rule also has been overemphasized in the standard history of Yuan architecture. Iktyar

If the Guyuan mausoleum had been known, it surely would have been used to promote the role of assumed non-­Chinese builders and craftsmen in Yuan construction. The name Iktyar, associated with building at Khubilai’s capital Daidu, figures prominently in this scenario. He in fact has been declared the “architect” of Daidu.67 Iktyar was an official in the Board of Works, the same bureau in which Li Jie had served at the beginning of the twelfth ­century when Building Standards was compiled at the Song court. Unlike Li Jie, he did not supervise the compilation of the major architectural treatise of premodern China. He came to scholarly attention through a book by the Chinese historian Chen Yuan (1880–1971), who declared him Khubilai’s architect. In 1966 the book was translated into En­glish with the title Western and Central Asians in China ­under the Mongols, leading to greater interest in its contents outside China.68 In 1922 Ke Shaomin (1850–1933) included

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

227

Iktyar’s biography in an updated history of Yuan known as Newer History of Yuan (Xin Yuanshi). Like the names of men who came to work at the Dengfeng observatory, the name Iktyar fuels the idea that foreigners impacted building proj­ects in Yuan China. Iktyar does not have a biography in History of Yuan. Information about his life is taken from his son’s funerary inscription.69 The inscription begins with the statement that Iktyar was descended from Arabs. It says nothing about him prior to his appointment together with two other officials to the Board of Works in the twelfth lunar month of 1266. Zhang Rou has a biography in History of Yuan.70 Other impor­tant foreigners, such as Jamāl al-­Dīn, are mentioned in the Yuan history.71 The funerary inscription is the source of information that Zhang, Duan Tianyou, and Iktyar “carried out construction of gongcheng,” which may mean the palace-­city—­that is, the walled area where stood the buildings used almost exclusively by Khubilai, also may mean, simply, palaces and walls. Information in the inscription combined with other sources suggest that whereas the first two had official titles of ­Grand Master of Illustrious Rank and Minister and ­later Branch Minister of Works, respectively, Iktyar was largely involved in crafts, working in the Daidu bureau in charge of tents before moving to buildings. Zhang Rou died in 1268, before much of the capital was completed: the above-­mentioned Daming Palace was still not finished in 1282, even though Khubilai held audience ­there in 1274.72 Duan Tianyou continued to rise in officialdom through the 1280s, but one finds nothing more about Iktyar’s increased rank or responsibilities. Iktyar also is dif­fer­ent from two ­others who have received widespread acclaim for their work for Mongol rulers. Guillaume Boucher, a French artisan who was captured by the Mongols in Belgrade and taken to Khara-­k horum, where at the end of the 1240s or in the 1250s he designed a magnificent gold automaton from which flowed mare’s milk, worked in­de­pen­dently or directed a very specific proj­ect. He was part of a small artisan community in Khara-­k horum composed primarily of captives.73 Arniko (Araniko; Anige in Chinese) (1245–1306), credited with the design of White Pagoda (Figure 8.1), discussed below, also was a chief advisor to Khubilai who was invited from Nepal to Daidu. He came with twenty-­three other artisans in a manner similar to ­those who came from China to Japan in ­earlier centuries to oversee or build Buddhist

228

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

architecture at the request of the government. Arniko also has a biography in History of Yuan.74 The importance of foreign artisans, often captive artisans, in Yuan China has been emphasized in secondary lit­er­a­ture about the Mongol impact on Chinese civilization. Yet in a study from the 1930s that was often quoted alongside Chen Yuan’s research, Ju Qingyuan exposes a dif­ fer­ent aspect of what brought foreigners to Mongol building proj­ects: During the city-­wide massacre at Baoding (in Hebei), only the artisans w ­ ere spared. I joined their group, pretending that I was an artisan, and ­there ­were many ­others who did likewise. ­There ­were some who wanted to screen us as to our abilities, but they ­were s­ topped by one who said: “Every­one who can pull a saw is an artisan. It is your choice ­whether to allow ­t hese p ­ eople to live.” . . . ​All who pretended to be artisans ­were thus enabled to survive.75

This passage suggests that, just as men who w ­ ere not specifically trained in astronomy came to work at observatories, men without formal training became artisans for the Mongols. ­There is a long list of foreign émigrés and captured artisans. Isma’il (Yisimayin), a Muslim metalworker came to Daidu with ‘Ala’ al-­Dīn (Alaowading), the latter receiving an official title and both with biographies in History of Yuan.76 Shimoming’an, also with a biography in History of Yuan, built bridges and boats.77 He was of Khitan ethnicity. Gao Xi, involved in palace construction during Khubilai’s reign, was of Parhae descent. Youhalabadu made guns, as did the Muslim Yiqimaqin. Names of non-­Chinese also survive among rec­ ords of Yuan paint­ers, including the Muslim Gao Kegong (1248–1310), who had been born in ­today’s Kazakhstan. Often rec­ords list merely Western Regions as the native land. Often the date when the artisan or his ­family came to China is unknown or ambiguous.78 Tombs and Their Decoration

Funerary architecture also pre­sents a revision to the standard understanding of Chinese architecture. Yuan-­period tombs challenge a

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

229

twentieth-­century notion about Mongol use of Chinese architecture under­ground. The understanding is sometimes labeled legitimation, or the pro­cess by which a non-­native dynasty such as Northern Wei, Liao, Jin, or Yuan used art and other cultural models to make itself more legitimate according to Chinese notions. Khubilai’s construction of capitals at Shangdu and Daidu, discussed below, are examples of this pro­ cess. Cave-­temples patronized by Northern Wei rulers who embraced Buddhism a­ fter they came into contact with China are also examples.79 The Japa­nese adoption of the plans of Chinese capitals and Buddhist monasteries are yet ­others. With such deeply ingrained beliefs that only by embracing a minimum number of Chinese customs could the Mongols rule China, scholars ­were poised in the 1980s, when tombs with murals showing males in Mongolian attire ­were discovered, to declare that even though Mongol royalty returned corpses for burial to unmarked locations near Chinggis’s birthplace in Mongolia, some Mongols had themselves buried in Chinese-­style tombs, painted seated frontally alongside their wives, who may have been Chinese, with ­children or servants smaller than they, a banquet in front of them, and as participants in activities of their lives.80 Other tombs yielded equestrian figurines wearing the same Mongol headgear. A tomb that belonged to the He f­ amily in Hu county, Shaanxi, and another belonging to the Wang f­amily in Gansu had inscriptions that confirmed the occupants ­were Chinese.81 One concluded that ­those in Mongol dress served the tomb ­owners as ­horse­men. In 1998 a tomb with a 6.4-­meter approach ramp and 1.8-­meter under­ ground approach to an eight-­sided, vaulted chamber, approximately 2½ meters at its widest points and 2.74 meters from ground level to its apex, was uncovered in Dong’er village of Pucheng county, Shaanxi.82 Excavators found an image of a male of the type profiled as a Mongol based on pose, headgear, and clothing, attired like males in murals found in Inner Mongolia nearly twenty years e­ arlier, seated next to a female wearing a boqta (Ch: gugu), a hat known to be worn by Mongol ­women (Figure 8.14). It is among images of other men wearing the same hat and costume as the seated male and other subjects that covered the walls and ceiling. As seen on the right end of the picture, brown pillars with ­simple bracket sets at their tops are painted at the wall seams. The

230

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

8.1 4 Painting of tomb occupants and servants, northwest, north, and northeast walls of

single-­chamber tomb in Dong’ercun, Shaanxi.

scenes of the occupants’ life, the screen with landscape ele­ments ­behind them, and Chinese ceramics on nearby t­ ables supported the idea that as far south as Shaanxi province, Mongols had chosen to enter the afterlife in a setting with more than a millennium of history in China. The tomb ceiling is unlike any found in a Yuan tomb before this excavation. A band of 40–42 centimeters in width joins each of the eight walls, four wide and four narrow, to a section of similar width above it. The narrow sections contain flowers whose five petals emerge upward in flame-­like formation. Each of the broad sections is occupied by a nearly naked boy who holds the stem of a flower as large as he in his two hands. At the border of the top of the ceiling is a trefoil pattern, perhaps calyx and receptacle, whose projections are spaced to appear at the eight corners plus an additional four, one above each boy’s head. The placard painted at the top center of the screen is dated 1269. It states that the eldest son is in charge of sacrifices to his ancestors, a line one would expect in a Chinese tomb of any period. The same inscription refers to the male occupant as the anda Zhang Buhua, a native of

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

231

Xuande in t­ oday’s Hebei province. The Mongolian word anda means a blood relative of the Mongol brotherhood. Zhang’s given name Buhua is a Sinicized form of the Turco-­Mongolian Buqa, meaning “bull,” one of the most common names of the period of Mongolian rule across the empire.83 One seeking to show that Mongols put themselves in Chinese tomb environments could hardly conceive of better evidence than an anda named Bull dressed as he is alongside a w ­ oman wearing a boqta. Deeper research reveals that someone Chinese who aspired to successfully maneuver life in the face of Mongol conquest might have taken a Mongol name such as Buqa and been able to call himself anda not ­because he was a Mongol but instead ­because he had sworn friendship or allegiance to a Mongol. In fact, Mongol males rarely took Chinese surnames, and this man’s surname is Zhang. One has to ask if in the first de­cade of Mongol rule of North China when Khubilai was in the ascendant and the potential of the Mongols to endure g­ reat, a Chinese official aspiring to po­liti­cal or social position might have had himself and his wife painted in Mongol dress. The wording of the inscription and ambiance of the tomb are strongly Chinese. Still, would this c­ ouple have had themselves portrayed for all eternity in the privacy of a tomb in this way? The millennia-­long history of Chinese funerary art indicates that in tomb design, the final statement that can be made on earth, no m ­ atter who someone was in life he would portray himself and enclose himself in the way he (or his descendants) sought to enter the afterlife. One concludes that Zhang Buhua and his wife wore Mongol costume in the 1260s ­because they or their ­children de­cided it was prudent for subjects of the Mongol empire to dress like Mongols. If so, they relied on wording of the inscription, the screen b ­ ehind them, ceramics in the paintings, and ceiling images, the cultural properties, to clarify their Chinese ethnicity in the afterlife.84 Architecture, and h ­ ere also inscriptions, are the more power­ful identifiers, and they declare China. More than seventy-­five tombs with murals in Inner Mongolia, Liaoning, Hebei, Shandong, Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Gansu can be dated to the Yuan period through inscriptions or context. Excavations since the late 1990s have revealed at least ten more occupant paintings in prominent positions in Yuan-­period tombs in which males wear the clothing and

232

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

8.15 Line drawing of mural on south wall of tomb, Sili Street, Ji’nan, Shandong.

headgear of a Mongol, some of the w ­ omen wear boqta, and both are seated on folding chairs of the kind, we s­ hall see below, used by elite Mongols. A tomb excavated beneath Sili Street in Ji’nan, Shandong province, has murals with buildings with such specific detail that they include the additional tie beam above the architrave (Figure 8.15).85 A two-­level pavilion in the murals shares architectural features of an eminent pavilion (diange) (Figure i.15). Again we observe not just the repre­sen­ta­tion of architecture to re­create the built environment, but repre­sen­ta­tion to a specificity that only a builder or someone copying a handbook is likely to have had the ability to execute.

CIT IE S BUILT BY MONGOL RUL ER S

Capitals and other cities as well as walled residential estates of relatives of the line of Chinggis in t­ oday’s Inner and Outer Mongolia or the Transbaikal (east of Lake Baikal) region of Rus­sia, follow Chinese patterns. The pro­cess was explicit u ­ nder Khubilai, who charged Liu Bingzhong to design Shangdu and Daidu. In 1256, Shangdu was built to follow the eight fundamental trigrams of the Yijing (Book of Changes). Like previous Chinese capitals, Shangdu had a concentric palace-­city, imperial-­

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

233

city, and outer city wall.86 Daidu, planned and begun in the 1260s, started with the placement of a midpoint, marked by a stone, from which the north and south and the east and west walls ­were mea­sured equidistant from it. This is the pro­cess described in “Kaogongji” as the way to construct a ruler’s city.87 The Mongol central capital Zhongdu, built between 1308 and 1311, similarly was a three-­walled Chinese city.88 Even Khara-­k horum, the capital in Mongolia used by Chinggis and walled by Chinggis’s successor, Ögedei (r. 1229–1241), and other walled cities built in Mongolia discussed below had streets that followed a grid pattern and permanent architecture. Glazed ceramic roof tiles, marble pieces decorated with dragons that fit into the sides of buildings, and relief sculpture with images of Chinese rockery, dragons, and pure ornament have been excavated at all four capitals and cities that belonged to ­brothers, u ­ ncles, or ­children of the rulers (Figure 8.16).89 Yingchang(lu [cir­cuit)) was the appanage of the Prince of Lu. Located in Kesheketengqi, Inner Mongolia, it came into the possession of imperial g­ rand princess Sengge Ragi (ca. 1283–1331), Princess of Lu, a grand­ daughter of Khubilai who was renowned for her collection of paintings and calligraphy.90 Yingchang also would be the capital of the last Yuan emperor, from 1369–1370, a­ fter Daidu and the rest of China had fallen to the Ming. The city’s main palatial buildings, arranged in the gong scheme, ­were in the north center of the city.91 The location follows the arrangement of Tang Chang’an and cities modeled a­ fter it in Japan and by Parhae rulers. Streets of the city presented as orthogonal lines from wall to wall. Jininglu in Bayantala, Ulanqab, about 25 kilo­meters east and slightly south of the center of Jining ­today, also had a rectangular outer wall with major north–­south and east–­west streets that divided the city into wards, and palaces in the north ­century (Figure 8.17).92 It is believed to have had Buddhist monasteries, a Confucian ­temple (for civil officials), and a ­temple to Guanyu (for military officials), as well as official quarters, shops, markets, and artisan workshops. The only known dated inscription is of the year 1312, on a stele in the second walled enclosure, west of its north gate. Jining is best known for ceramics and textiles found ­there in the 1970s and 1980s with marks and gold thread, respectively, that confirm they ­were produced for the court.

234

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

8.16 Marble relief insert to building corner, Shangdu, Inner Mongolia,

thirteenth to ­fourteenth ­century.

MONGOL ARCHITECTURE

The phrase “Mongol architecture” refers ­here to building proj­ects not only where the patrons ­were without a doubt Mongols but where ­there is scant evidence of Chinese building patterns, even if Chinese builders ­were involved in construction. We have noted that the borders of Chinese architecture w ­ ere reached in Koguryŏ’s mountain-­castles and Parhae’s twenty-­four stones. In the Yuan period, we have seen how often

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

235

8.17 Plan of Jininglu, Inner Mongolia, Yuan period.

buildings that appear to be outside the Chinese building tradition ­were usually incorporated into Chinese ground plans. ­Here we turn to buildings whose patrons definitely ­were Mongol. Sheep Group ­Temple (Yangqunmiao), in Zhenglanqi, Inner Mongolia, is as close as one comes to building remains of Mongol patronage. In 1992 four sites positioned roughly along a northeast–­southwest line of just over a kilo­meter ­were excavated about 40 kilo­meters northwest as the crow flies from the capital Shangdu. Each had a mound that was

236

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

enclosed by a stone wall that mea­sured about 30 meters on each side.93 A marble statue of a male of elite status was posed outside the wall at the front-­center of each mound. Seated on folding chairs like the occupants in Yuan murals discussed above, many hold a horn cup in the right hand at chest level, have long fin­gers with carefully molded nails, peonies, lotuses, and chrysanthemums among the nine flowers sculpted in three rows of three across the chest and back, and carry a small pouch that is believed to contain ele­ments necessary to make a fire (Figure 8.18). Known as stone men, statues with ­these features have been found across the northern portion of the Yuan empire. Some in Rus­sia sit on chairs with backs. Some have the fire pouch sewn onto an outer sleeve. Even if one assesses the floral patterns and the carvings on statues used near Shangdu to be more carefully rendered than ­those on statues found in Outer Mongolia or Rus­sia, the objects themselves derive from the stone men associated with the Türk, mentioned in Chapter 5 (fig. 5.9).94 A group of Buddhist cave-­temples entices scholars to find connections with Mongol patrons as early as Chinggis Khan. Known in En­glish as Arzhai, Arjai, or A’erzhai, sixty-­five rock-­carved caves rise about 40 meters as a unit on a low hill. The area of 300 meters by 50 to 80 meters in Etuokeqi in western Inner Mongolia is believed to have once had more than one hundred cave-­temples. Material evidence, primarily Buddhist sculpture and shards that would have been used by resident monks, suggests dates from Northern Wei through mid-­Ming.95 Twenty-­six pagodas are carved into the cliff f­ aces; all but one are Tibetan style, the shape of White Pagoda (Figure 8.1). Cave 28 has been the focus of t­ hose who believe Chinggis came to Arzhai.96 A central-­pillar cave, a type associated with the Northern Wei period, Tibetan Buddhist deities and the sixteen luohan cover one of its walls.97 Support for the belief that Chinggis or his immediate descendants w ­ ere the patrons comes from passages in The Secret History of the Mongols that indicate Chinggis camped in this region while healing wounds he received during attacks on the Western Xia, whose territory included Arzhai. The same scholars believe that Chinggis, his wife, two ­daughters, and his four sons are painted on one wall of the cave (Figure 8.19). ­Those who are skeptical that the Mongols, especially in the

8.18 Stone statues found at Sheep Group T ­ emple, Zhenglanqi, Inner Mongolia; now in Shangdu

Museum.

8.19 Detail of wall of cave 28, Arzhai, Inner Mongolia.

238

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

generation of Chinggis or his sons, would have had themselves painted, instead believe that the decoration of cave 28 occurred ­after the fall of the Mongols to the Ming in 1368, during the period known as Northern Yuan when, a­ fter a brief stay in Shangdu and Yingchang, the Mongols regrouped farther north.98 Other cave-­temples with murals and relief sculpture that include Tibetan Buddhist deities and are dated to the Yuan period are distinctive additions at monuments with long Chinese histories before and a­ fter the ­century of Mongol rule. One of ­t hese is Feilaifeng on the grounds of Lingyin Monastery in Hangzhou. Among Feilaifeng’s 102 caves and more than three hundred sculptures that date from 951 through the Yuan dynasty, approximately one hundred images are dated to the Yuan period, with nineteen inscriptions from the years 1282–1292.99 Some of the Yuan statues are of Tibetan style. The Tibetan Buddhist caves at Feilaifeng may be compared to the minaret of Flourishing of the Prophet Mosque, visually proclaiming a non-­native religion, but inside a Chinese-­style religious space. Cloud Terrace (Yuntai) at Juyongguan, a pass of the G ­ reat Wall, may be considered similarly, although it is a structure with a stronger post-­ Yuan impact in China b ­ ecause it stands 60 kilo­meters from the center of the Beijing. Relief sculpture on the underside of the marble archway is Tibetan Buddhist. It is carved alongside inscriptions in Chinese, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uyghur, Sans­k rit, and Tangut, the six together impor­ tant in unlocking the Tangut language of the Western Xia. Erected in 1345, the terrace of the 9.5-­meter platform originally supported three pagodas of the style of White Pagoda. One was lost in the early Ming period and the other two ­were gone by the mid-­fifteenth c­ entury when a Bud­dha hall was erected in their place. That hall burned in 1702 and was never replaced.100 A gateway of this kind is known as guojieta (overpass [or street passage] pagoda). Khubilai is believed to have been the first to commission one.101 In 1294, which would be the year of his death, he had relics buried beneath a gate of a wall, and built a pagoda on top of it. ­Because the overpass pagoda appears in China ­under Khubilai, it can be considered a new architectural form of the Yuan period. It is thus significant that even though some overpass pagodas survive ­today, the ones prominently displayed near the capital dis­appeared in the fifteenth c­ entury.

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

239

8.20 Kŭngnak Hall, Pongjŏng Monastery, Andong, South K ­ orea, thirteenth c­ entury.

­K O R E A A N D I R A N

We end this chapter on two sides of China, the Korean peninsula where ­Korea’s oldest wooden architecture survives, and northwestern Iran ­under the Ilkhānate (1256–1335), part of the Mongol empire that became increasingly autonomous with time, whose first ruler was Khubilai’s younger ­brother Hülegü (1215–1265). The wooden buildings are from the Koryŏ dynasty (918–1392).102 Kŭngnak Hall at Pongjŏng Monastery in Andong is believed to be ­Korea’s oldest wooden building (Figure 8.20). Dated to the thirteenth c­ entury, the three-­by-­four-­bay hall with s­ imple, overhanging eaves is a h ­ umble structure of a kind that could have stood at a small mountain ­temple in China. Taeung Hall, dated to just ­after the Koryŏ period, at the same monastery, is a building that might have stood in Hancheng. So is Taeung Hall at Sudŏk Monastery in Yesan, of the structure of Kŭngnak Hall at Pongjŏng Monastery with three bays across the front and four bays deep, and a ­simple roof of overhanging

240

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

eaves. It is dated to 1308 by an inscription on a beam.103 Pusŏk Monastery’s Muryangjŏn Hall, dated 1376, in Yŏngju is the best-­k nown Koryŏ wooden hall due to its large bracket sets, inverted-­V-­shaped truss, curved beams, curved braces, camel’s-­hump-­shaped brace that serves as a kingpost, two intercolumnar bracket sets, and hip-­gable roof (Figure i.3). The large, curved tie beam and truss, and founding date 676 for the monastery, have led to comparisons with the east hall of Foguang Monastery on Mount Wutai, dated 857. The smaller, sharply curved beams and two intercolumnar bracket sets, however, more logically suggest comparisons with eleventh-­to fourteenth-­century buildings in China that ­were not diantang—­the short, sharply curved beams a prominent feature in Yuan-­period buildings of southeastern China such as the main hall of Zhenru Monastery in Shanghai, discussed above. Aware of widespread destruction not only during the Mongol period but by Japa­nese invasions of ­Korea in the 1590s, one envisions ­Korea’s Buddhist monasteries as ­t hose in many parts of China during the period of Mongolian rule. Dāsh Kasan, in the village of Viar in Zanjan province of Iran, is 5800 kilo­meters from Daidu. It is well known that Takht-­i Suleiman, in West Azerbaijan, the province due west of Zanjan where Abaqa (r. 1265–1282), Hülegü’s successor, built a palace on the remains of a Sasanian fire t­ emple complex, was covered with glazed tiles with Chinese motifs that included phoenixes and dragons.104 The presence of Buddhism in this part of Iran in the Mongol period also is well documented.105 One views a pair of raised reliefs on the eastern and western sides of the back room of the two-­room, rock-­carved complex in Viar in this context. A creature called Viar Dragon has been known for de­cades (Figure 8.21). Cleaning in the aftermath of a rock fall in 2005 revealed a symmetrical creature on the opposite side of the rock-­carved space that was not considered in e­ arlier publications. The positions of two such similar animals on the east and west walls raises possibilities of a Chinese source, specifically an eastern dragon and western tiger. U ­ nder ideal circumstances the dragon has more features that resemble scales and the tiger has stripes, but through their many manifestations in China, ­Korea, Japan, and Mongolia, some of them discussed in Chapter 5, the dragon and tiger often are hard to distinguish. Transference of two creatures

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

241

8.21 Relief of dragon, Dāsh Kasan, Viar, West Azarbaijan, thirteenth to ­fourteenth ­century?

inspired by China so that the pre­sen­ta­tion by Ilkhānid artisans is as a pair of dragons, on east and west walls, is not impossible. ✦

✦

✦

What then was the impact of Mongolian rule on architecture when China was part of such a large empire? One finds no evidence of any building patterns but China’s at Virtuous Tranquility Hall, four halls of Yongle Daoist Monastery, Guangsheng Monastery, three buildings in Zhejiang, architecture in Hancheng and Sichuan and elsewhere in China, or in K ­ orea. Individual buildings that represent non-­Chinese architecture at mosques, observatories, Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, and single cave-­temples at Buddhist cave sites are easily put into Chinese building complexes. Paintings of Daoism and Manichaeism and Tibetan Buddhism pre­sent architectural details used in Yuan buildings. Murals that portray figures in Mongol costume share wall space with buildings that are as purely Chinese as ­those in religious settings.

242

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

­ hether architecture across China and across the Mongol empire W would remain Chinese certainly was tested during the period of Mongolian rule. In 1368, not only was sameness still in evidence across ­every part of East Asia discussed previously, but Chinese architectural ele­ments also w ­ ere pre­sent in pockets of Iran. The standardized parts and plans had continued to serve the building program even of the Mongols. Had t­ hese standardized parts not served China so well, the Chinese conquerors of the Mongols, the Ming, would not have had models in front of them for the 10,000 wooden pieces that compose the Hall of Supreme Harmony, the focal point of the Forbidden City. That Khubilai had used the same building axis was not at issue, for Khubilai’s imperial city was a Chinese imperial city. Like e­ very ­Great Ultimate Hall that preceded the Hall of Supreme Harmony for more than a millennium, the ­simple timber frame would be decorated with all the wealth of the nation, and the humblest citizens of the Ming state could frame their dwellings with the same, but unelaborated, pillars, beams, and roof components deep in the countryside. Having survived Mongolian rule, the Ming emperor could enter the Chinese imperial city as triumphantly as an ­earlier non-­Chinese conqueror; the ceramic tile roofs that projected above low walls that had enticed Northern Wei, Koguryŏ, Parhae, Uyghur, Liao, Western Xia, Jin, or Yuan, even if for a period entangled with tents or converged so as to have a mihrab inside one structure, offered comfort and security to Ming. The period of Mongolian rule confirmed that the Chinese building system was exportable and adaptable in climates and ecological systems that had not been theretofore tested, particularly new parts of Mongolia and Iran. It also confirmed that building types not previously seen in China—­t he pagoda of Tibetan Buddhism and a dome-­on-­square mausoleum—­could come inside China’s borders and challenge neither the capabilities of Chinese artisans nor the ground plans they knew how to accomplish. The more rulers or contenders who turned to the Chinese building system, the greater its validation and the stronger its attraction. Why something so potent was made of s­ imple, easily transportable wooden parts prob­ably was never considered u ­ ntil Chinese architecture was historicized in the twentieth ­century.

A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture

243

“Revisionist” is a catchy word; I have used it h ­ ere to emphasize that, dif­fer­ent from previous understanding of this period, if four hundred buildings can be documented from 1267 to 1368—­more if one includes architecture in Mongolia, ­Korea, Japan, southeastern Rus­sia, and perhaps northwestern Iran—­even ­under Mongol rule never would more than 1 ­percent suggest any building tradition but China’s. Iktyar neither directed nor supervised buildings that changed Chinese architecture. Arniko built architecture of a religion practiced by the khans that could be accommodated into a Chinese monastery plan. The Mongol or West Asian or Christian or Muslim or Tibetan Buddhist presence is largely in the details. Liu Bingzhong’s vision for Khubilai’s capitals would remain the legacy, not of the Mongols or Yuan China, but of China. Serious challenges to the Chinese building system would be posed in ­every post-­Yuan ­century. Yet Ming as well as Manchu rulers would continue to turn to the Chinese building system to construct their empires.

••• 9

MING

Like the transition to Mongol rule, t­ here was no pre­ce­dent for the pro­ cess through which China would return to native rule ­a fter a period when not even one county had remained in Chinese hands. The transformation would begin during the long reign of the last Mongol ruler of China, Toghon Temür (1333–1370). His Korean wife Empress Ki had been influential in bringing Koryŏ into the Mongol po­liti­cal sphere. This relationship ended when the Mongol empire collapsed.1 In 1449 a Chinese emperor would be taken captive to Mongolia. Unlike the capture of the Song emperor Huizong (r. 1101–1125) by the Jurchen that would result in the fall of the dynasty in North China, the Tumu Crisis, as this capture came to be known, became a part of Chinese history.2 The Mongol Esen (d. 1455) who orchestrated it and a eunuch who led Ming troops in b ­ attle against him, the latter a patron of Buddhist architecture mentioned below, would both die by execution, and Altan Khan and the Dalai and Panchen Lamas would be patrons and recipients of patronage of Ming-­ period architecture. The Ming dynasty, particularly in the fifteenth ­century following the Tumu debacle, rebuilt large sections of the ­Great Wall. More of it stood in Ming times than during any other period in Chinese history. The wall was, of course, only a symbol of China’s defense against the non-­Chinese world—­but like the Forbidden City, other imperial construction, and religious, funerary, and private architecture across Ming China, the

Ming

245

Mongolia Yingchang Shangdu

Turfan Amdo Tümed Huangzhong

Yongning Xining Ledu Linxia

Beijing Tianjin Mount Wutai Cangzhou Botou Qingzhou Dezhou Taiyuan Linqing Qufu Jining Qingyang

Choson Kyonggi

Xi’an Guge

Tibet

Nikko

Japan

Nanjing Xiangyang

Ming

m ap 8 Ming China, Chŏson ­Korea, Japan, and Mongolia.

power of the forms of e­ arlier construction w ­ ere such that not only did the age-­old patterns of Chinese architecture continue with l­ ittle change, their use in Mongolia, with whom China battled, and in ­Korea and Japan also continued as in the past. Rulers built Chinese-­style palaces beyond the Ming provinces, and non-­Chinese rulers who died in China ­were awarded the burial of Ming princes. Po­liti­cal change was dramatic, but architectural change was not. Thousands of Ming buildings and hundreds of city walls or pieces of them survive. In this chapter I limit discussion to China’s most major buildings and ­those that demonstrate the use of Chinese architecture outside Chinese context, both for the purpose of showing the continuation of age-­old building princi­ples. I also provide enough architectural background to understand the expanse of architecture Qing would have available. The most impor­tant imperial construction in Ming China occurred first in Nanjing and then in Beijing. The first Ming emperor, Hongwu

246

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

(1328–1398), ­rose to resist the Mongols in the South and put his capital ­there, settling on Nanjing as its location around 1373. Parts of the outer wall, palace foundation, and the tomb Hongwu shares with his wife survive. The plan of their tomb would be the template for the first Ming ruler in Beijing, Yongle (1360–1424), whose tomb would be the focus of thirteen tombs in the Ming imperial cemetery in Changping, north of Beijing. Approached by a path that bends to confuse evil spirits, who ­were believed to travel in straight lines, pairs of animals and officials line this road to an axis of gates, stele pavilion, sacrificial hall, and burial mound. Above­ground, Yongle’s funerary ­temple, Hall of Spiritual ­Favors, built in 1424, is as similar to Three Purities Hall of Yongle Daoist Monastery built more than a century-­and-­a-­half e­ arlier as any two buildings discussed in this book: both are elevated on marble platforms, approached by stairs, and enclosed by marble balustrades, and have hipped roofs and two sets of roof eaves (Figures i.1 and i.7). The major difference is inside: in a Ming building, no interior pillars are eliminated from complete latitudinal and longitudinal rows, whereas interior pillar elimination was excessive at Three Purities Hall. A difference due to rank is the use of seven bays of front door panels with lattice win­dows at Hall of Spiritual F ­ avors, whereas Three Purities Hall has five bays of panels with win­dows in accordance with the Chinese system for an emperor’s hall and eminent religious building, respectively.

MING IMPERIAL TRADITION

The Forbidden City was built by Yongle with impor­tant renovations and rebuilding in the sixteenth, seventeenth, eigh­teenth, and nineteenth centuries. Its architecture is best described as Ming-­Qing. Buildings for imperial rituals are in and around the city. Many ­were constructed ­under the emperor Jiajing (r. 1521–1567) and retain enough of their Ming forms to join Hall of Spiritual F ­ avors as exemplary Ming imperial architecture. In 1553 Jiajing expanded the city southward to include a ritual complex within the walls of an area that came to be known as the outer city. It was Beijing’s fourth walled enclosure (Figure i.21). Thereafter, the former outer city, the area enclosed by a wall that included most of Khubi-

Ming

247

lai’s wall but whose northern boundary was nearly 3 kilo­meters south of Khubilai’s city and whose original Ming boundary had already once been extended a kilo­meter southward, was then known as the inner city, “inner” still being a reference to its proximity to the Forbidden City. Inside the new inner city ­were the Forbidden City, in ­earlier times called the palace-­city, and the imperial-­city that enclosed the Forbidden City along with government offices. Jiajing’s extension marked the end of long debates at court as to ­whether worship of the ancestors or worship of the heavens was more impor­tant, and w ­ hether Heaven and Earth should be worshipped in the same place; it was the heavens and worship was in separate places. The road map for imperial rituals, many of which w ­ ere performed before the Yuan dynasty and many of which also had an architectural presence ­u nder Khubilai, was certified u ­ nder Jiajing. Like halls of the Forbidden City, some of the ritual structures w ­ ere rebuilt a­ fter the mid-­sixteenth ­century. The altar complex for sacrifices to the heavens is well known, and it is unique. Consisting of three circular structures, like buildings of non-­ Chinese religions, the unusual spaces fit into schemes of Chinese planning: the three main buildings are on a north–­south axis and are large, small, and large at the base, following the gong plan. The circular shape, as we have noted many times, is a symbol of Heaven. Rulers of Jin and Yuan had made sacrifices to Heaven and Earth, but the first circular mound was constructed by Hongwu. In 1368, even before he determined that his primary capital would be in Nanjing, Hongwu ordered construction of a circular mound south of the main south gate of this city and a square mound north of the city, both for imperial sacrifices. By 1371 the circular mound had two levels, was approached by nine stairs from each of four sides, and was enclosed by a balustrade with four gates and an additional gate beyond each of them. Following the Chinese princi­ple of south as the most auspicious direction, the southern gate to the mound is the largest. In 1378, G ­ reat Sacrifice Hall (Dasidian), decorated with gold and approached by a three-­bay path, was built for worship of Earth in the same complex. A kitchen, a storage hall, a pavilion for preparing animals for sacrifices, and an abstinence hall (zhaitang) where the emperor slept the night before the enactment of ceremonies and following three days of abstention from meat and wine, w ­ ere within the complex.

248

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

In 1420 Yongle ordered construction of a suburban altar for sacrifices to Heaven and earth, according to the system implemented by Hongwu. The altar was covered by ­Great Sacrificial Hall and placed southeast of Beijing’s south wall. Jiajing maintained the circular, open-­air altar for worship of Heaven and built a hall for sacrifices for a good harvest, the successor to ­Great Sacrificial Hall, to its north. The back building became Hall for Prayer for a Prosperous Year (Jiniantan). By 1545 G ­ reat Sacrifice Hall was replaced with Altar for Prayer for Grain (Qigutan), a circular structure with a dia­meter of 24.5 meters, crowned with ­triple eaves and a conical roof. In 1531 Jiajing had a small, circular building with two sets of roof eaves constructed directly ­behind the Circular Mound; ­today it is known as Imperial Vault of Heaven. The next changes to what came to be known as the T ­ emple to Heaven complex took place in the eigh­teenth ­century. ­There w ­ ere some ten other altars or spaces for imperial ceremonies in imperial Beijing. The designated number is not precise, b ­ ecause some ­were part of multi-­altar complexes and o ­ thers ­were structures for imperial rituals but not altars. The ancestral t­emple, the ritual structure whose importance in comparison to the altar for sacrifices to the heavens was debated, is an example of the second type. Tablets on which the names of the imperial ancestors ­were worshipped were inside. Worship of ancestors was an imperial as well as a private practice since ancient times in China. It was a supreme obligation of the Chinese emperor through the Yuan dynasty. ­Under Hongwu and all subsequent rulers of China, the ancestral ­temple was maintained, even though sacrifices to Heaven w ­ ere supreme. Rituals of Zhou prescribes that the ancestral ­temple be southeast of the palace, which was its location in e­ very Chinese imperial city from the Han onward. Yongle built an ancestral ­temple in Beijing in 1420. Eleven bays across the front, it other­wise is a structural clone of Hall of Supreme Harmony to its northwest and an extended version of Hall of Spiritual ­Favors (Figure i.7) and Hall of Virtuous Tranquility, except that a greater number of intercolumnar bracket sets express its renovation in the Qing dynasty. Smaller-­scale altars and ­temples ­were: ­Temple for Rulers of the Past, beginning with the legendary emperors who ­were calculated to have

Ming

249

lived in the third millennium BCE, built in 1530 by Jiajing based on a ­temple of the same name built by Hongwu in Nanjing in 1373; Altar to Soil and Grain, mentioned in the Rituals of Zhou and sometimes with a single altar and other times twin altars, which had been on the west side of Khubilai’s Daidu; Altar of Earth, north and slightly east of the Forbidden City, erected in 1530 following the debate at Jiajing’s court that determined that the worship of Heaven and Earth should occur in separate locations, and modeled ­after the altar for worship of the earth god built by Hongwu in Nanjing; Altar to the Sun, east of the Forbidden City, also built in 1530 by Jiajing; Altar to the Moon, also built by Jiajing, opposite Altar to the Sun on the west of the Forbidden City; T ­ emple to Agriculture, also known as Altar to the First Crops, in the south, constructed in 1420; and Altars to the Planet Jupiter and the Gods of Sky and Earth built on the grounds of ­Temple of Agriculture in 1420. No city proclaims imperial China to the extent of Beijing, and this increased number of altars proclaimed a Chinese city beyond visual proclamations of architecture in Daidu. ­After the second de­cade of the fifteenth ­century, any imperial city in East Asia that sought China as a model would have to reckon with Beijing’s eminent architecture, palatial and ceremonial, if not its plan. Yongle did not begin construction of palaces in Beijing ­until 1416. In the years between his empress’s death in 1407 and then, the focus of his architectural patronage was their joint tomb. He also worked on repairs to the ­Grand Canal. Yongle first held court in the Forbidden City in 1421. Most who see the Forbidden City are left with one of the most profound visual impressions architecture can offer. ­Those who wax eloquent have described it as the greatest city on earth.3 As we have observed, the Mongol preservation of the Chinese building tradition was in large part responsible for the Ming construction on Daidu’s axis. The division of space along this line is often referred to as “three courts, five gates.” The courts are two inner courts—­the governing court (zhichao), where the ruler holds audience, and the resting court (yanchao), for the ruler’s private chambers, ­behind it; and the outer court (waichao), south of both of them, is for government affairs. The five gates are: Tian’an Gate, known in Ming China as Chengtian Gate, the point beyond which only t­ hose with imperial business could proceed; Duan (Primordial) Gate; Wu (Meridian) Gate, the five-­entry, inverted-­U-­shaped gate that t­ oday is the

250

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

entrance to the Palace Museum; Taihe (Supreme Harmony) Gate, known as Fengtian Gate during the Yongle reign; and Qianqing Gate, entry to the resting court. Some ­were locations of gates in Yuan China, but all the names are dif­fer­ent. The Forbidden City embodies the princi­ples of Chinese spatial planning outlined in the Introduction: construction along horizontal axes; southern orientation of major buildings; construction around courtyards; buildings as part of groups rather than individual halls, with the major structure in a group clearly identified by size, roof type, and building components; and the use of the module. Hall of Supreme Harmony ­today is a Qing-­dynasty version of the building commissioned by Yongle more than three hundred years ­earlier.4 Its importance as the superlative example of imperial construction in Ming and Qing China is undisputed. As also noted in the Introduction, it is part of a three-­ unit group that possesses remarkable similarities with the late-­second-­ millennium BCE building complex excavated at Fengchu (Figure 1.3), and with numerous three-­structure compounds with gong arrangements; and the timbers are notched for tenoning without metal joiners or abrasives, as they have been since construction at Hemudu in ca. 5000 BCE (Figures i.9, i.10, and i.11). As Ming-­Qing structures, the details of Hall of Supreme Harmony and other buildings along the central axis of the Forbidden City, Hall of Spiritual F ­ avors and other sacrificial halls at the Ming tombs near Beijing, and sacrificial halls of Beijing’s altars are compared with specifications in Construction Regulations, the treatise issued by the Board of Works at the Qing court in 1734. In contrast to the dearth of Song buildings and necessary extrapolation from the texts that inform our understanding of Song architecture, countless buildings have been available since the 1730s alongside which to assess correspondences with Construction Regulations, and a few imperial buildings are mentioned in the eighteenth-­century treatise.5 Like Building Standards, Construction Regulations was issued at court and prescribes a modular unit—in this case, the width of the bracket arm (doukou). Unlike Building Standards, the Qing manual prescribes ­actual mea­sure­ments in eleven sizes from approximately 15 centimeters to approximately 2½ meters.

Ming

251

Imperial Beijing is almost unique in the degree to which modules are implemented. Ground plans and distances between buildings and walls are modularly generated. The outer wall of the Forbidden City, for example, is 753 meters east-­to-­west by 961 meters north-­to-­south. The distance between the outer edges of the northern wall of the Forbidden City and the northern wall of the outer city of Beijing is 2904 meters; the distance between the outer edge of the Forbidden City southern wall and the southern wall of the outer city is 1448.9 meters. The ratio of the north–­south length from the north side of the outer wall to the Forbidden City north wall: the north–­south length of the Forbidden City was 2904 meters: 961 meters, or 3.02:1, and of the counterpart southern walls was 1448.9 meters: 961 meters, or 1.51:1. Allowing for a deviation of 1–2 ­percent the distance between the northern wall of the Forbidden City and the northern city wall was twice the distance from southern wall to southern wall and three times the north–­south length of the palace complex, and the distance between its southern wall and the southern city wall is 1.5 times the Forbidden City’s north–­south length. It thus appears that when Beijing was built, the north–­south length of what was then the outer city (the inner city ­after Jiajing’s southern extension) was intended to be 5.5 times the north–­south length of the Forbidden City, and the Forbidden City was positioned so that the distance to the southern outer wall was one-­half the distance to the northern outer wall. The east–­ west width of Ming Beijing is 6637 meters, and compared to the east–­ west width of the Forbidden City, their proportional relationship is 6637 meters: 753 meters, or 8.81:1, which rounds up to 9:1, with a deviation of 2 ­percent. The area of Beijing’s outer city u ­ nder Yongle was 49.5 times the area of the Forbidden City, which is approximately 50 times. Inside the Forbidden City, the east–­west width of the Three Front Halls (234 meters) is twice that of the Back Palaces (118 meters), again allowing for slight deviation. The area of the Three Front Halls was exactly four times the area of the Back Halls.6 Similar modular proportions and ratios are in place in the residential palaces and Altar to Heaven complex.7 The use of wooden parts and general construction princi­ples, such as the importance of a center point and gong plan, would continue to be exported with ease. The modular ground plan determined the placement

252

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

of almost all impor­tant buildings in Beijing, including the suburban altars, but it would not be used to this degree anywhere outside Beijing.

THE MING HALL IN THE MING MONASTERY OUTSIDE THE FORBIDDEN CIT Y

Emperors and many less eminent ­people built architecture across China during the Ming dynasty. Most that survives is religious. Some of the architecture is unique or nearly so, although always within the norms of the Chinese building system. In 1381 in Nanjing, for instance, Hongwu commissioned a “beamless hall,” a building made of brick in which no wooden beams or other pieces are used but that nevertheless imitates a timber structure in the manner of wall surfaces in under­ground tombs (Figure 9.1). This is the building type referred to in comparison with the Dengfeng observatory and Guyuan mausoleum in Chapter 8 (Figures 8.6 and 8.12). Nanjing also is the location of Porcelain Pagoda, commissioned in 1412 and completed by 1431. Rising more than 100 meters, it was the tallest pagoda in China ­until it was destroyed in 1854 during the Taiping Rebellion. The pagoda was illustrated in works of Johan Nieuhof (1618–1672) in 1669 and t­ hose of Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach (1656–1723) in 1721, thereby influencing William Chambers’s publication of a book on Chinese architecture in 1757 and his design of the Chinese pagoda in Kew Gardens in 1762.8 Flying Rainbow Pagoda, built between 1515 and 1527 at Guangsheng Monastery in southern Shanxi where two Yuan-­period buildings discussed in Chapter  8 survive, is covered with tricolor glazed ceramic tiles that give the impression of porcelain. Like Porcelain Pagoda, the 47.31-­meter, thirteen-­story structure of Guangsheng Monastery stands as one of the five main buildings on a single axis of a three-­courtyard complex. Buddhist and Daoist monasteries, Confucian t­ emples, building complexes dedicated to popu­lar gods and heroes such as Guan Yu (160–220), the late-­Han general revered by military men and referenced in statues of military officials along spirit paths, and ­temples dedicated to mountains are among survivals from the Ming period in e­ very province of China. Almost without exception, w ­ hether a few courtyards or dozens,

Ming

253

9.1 Beamless Hall, Linggu Monastery, Nanjing, 1381.

they are oriented t­ oward one of the four cardinal directions, usually south, and have one primary structure among the entire complex, and their timber-­frame halls have straight pillars of the same height and complete or nearly complete column grids. Like the reappearance of interior pillars, the straight pillars are a Ming-­Qing feature. A well-­known monastery such as Zhihuasi in Beijing, founded in 1443 by the above-­mentioned eunuch, Wang Zhen (d. 1449), who had led troops against Esen, is a four-­ courtyard complex whose main halls are on a single north–­south line. Fayuan Monastery in Beijing has six timber-­frame buildings in a line ­behind its front gate. Chongshan Monastery in Taiyuan, Shanxi, built between 1381 and 1391, was destroyed in 1864; a painting of the monastery of 1482 illustrates the clear axial arrangement of major buildings and the courtyard system, a plan that follows that of the Forbidden City, in which the most impor­tant cloister exhibits buildings in gong formation, centered, approached by a three-­lane path and stairs, with multiple walled areas around it (Figure 9.2). Even a sprawling monastery like Kaiyuansi, which grew from its Tang beginnings to 70,000 square

9.2 Painting of Chongshan

Monastery, Chongshan Monastery, Taiyuan. 9.3 Kaiyuan Monastery, Quanzhou, Fujian, additions and alterations Tang through today.

Ming

255

meters in the southeastern city Quanzhou, with pagodas of dif­fer­ent dates and major repairs in the seventeenth ­century and much more recently, exhibits symmetry, four-­sided enclosure, axial alignment, clear designation of the major building, importance of gates, and a modular basis for each structure (Figure 9.3). The twin-­pagodas plan, of course, traces to the sixth ­century. The Daoist monastery Purple Empyrean Palace and the nine-­courtyard Confucian T ­ emple in Qufu, also show the implementation of spatial princi­ples of the Forbidden City in spectacular Daoist and Confucian survivals. Yongning Monastery in Telin

In 1413–1414, at least one monastery dedicated to the bo­dhi­sat­tva Guanyin was built on the Amur River at the town ­today called Tyr in Khabarovsk, Eastern Rus­sia. In the fifteenth c­ entury, the monastery was called Yong­ ningsi, and the Chinese name of the site was Telin. It was built u ­ nder the direction of the eunuch Ishikha (Ishiha / Isiha), a man of Jurchen descent, during the second of his nine missions to secure a Ming presence in the far northeast beyond Heilongjiang. Burned shortly afterward, the monastery was rebuilt again u ­ nder Ishikha’s direction in 1432 by order of the emperor Xuande (r. 1425–1435).9 Scholars have known about Yongningsi since the mid-­nineteenth ­century, in part ­because two stele that rec­ord Ishikha’s expeditions survive. One was carved in Chinese, Jurchen, and Mongolian in 1413 and other in Chinese, dated 1433.10 Much more recently it was discovered that the second construction of Yongningsi was not on the original site, but instead 90 meters to the east on the site of a Yuan monastery. Twenty-­ first-­century excavation has uncovered circular stones with bisecting lines, similar to t­ hose mentioned in Chapter 2 that ­were placed to ensure that Western Han tombs w ­ ere constructed according to the cardinal directions, and ceramic roof-­end tiles with animal ­faces (Figure 9.4). Excavators date the tiles to 1433, but their resemblances to ­earlier roof tiles, including from Yongning Monastery in Northern Wei Luoyang or Three Kingdoms monasteries of ­Korea, are striking.11 ­Under native rule in the early Ming dynasty, Chinese architecture dedicated to Guanyin of Chinese Buddhism was thus used by the central

256

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

9.4 Roof tile excavated at remains of Yongning Monastery, Tyr, Rus­sia, 1433.

government to establish a recognizable Chinese presence in a commandery far from the capital. Its architectural details w ­ ere as Chinese as any Buddhist monastery described above, although on smaller scale. Yongle’s returned to the Han system would leave a legacy of Ming Chinese architecture from Northeast Asia to Qinghai. Many of t­ hese monasteries would be destroyed. Yet Qing emperors would follow the same practice of monastery construction and commemorative stele erection at the farthest reaches of their empire. One that survives is discussed in Chapter 10.

ISL AM AND TIBETAN BUDDHISM WITHIN THE CHINESE BUILDING SYSTEM

Like Buddhism and Daoism, Islam and Tibetan Buddhism continued to have a large number of followers in Ming China. As in ­earlier times,

Ming

257

Ming mosques w ­ ere hard to distinguish from architecture for Buddhists and Daoists. ­There is no evidence that minarets or entry­ways like t­ hose at Flourishing of the Prophet Mosque or Mosque of the Companions, respectively, ­were built ­under Ming rule, but in contrast to extant evidence from the Mongol period, Ming mosques ­were oriented east–­west from the entrance gate directly to the mihrab that indicated Makkah. Tibetan Buddhist architecture was pre­sent on the landscape, but as was the case of White Pagoda in Yuan China, a Tibetan-­style structure continued to be incorporated into a traditional Chinese Buddhist setting. China’s largest and most famous Ming mosque, the ­Great Mosque in Xi’an (Huajue Lane Mosque), is said to have been established in the Tang dynasty and rebuilt between 1260 and 1263. The mosque one sees t­ oday was begun in 1392 by sanction of the emperor Hongwu and the support of the famous Muslim seafarer Zheng He (1371–1433).12 The G ­ reat Mosque in Xi’an consists of five courtyards along an extremely long axial line. More than twenty buildings occupy the enclosed 254-­by-47-­meter space in an east–­west progression of screen wall, five­bay gate, wooden ceremonial gate, stone ceremonial gate, symmetrical stele pavilions on e­ ither side b ­ ehind it, multistory octagonal building that may have been a minaret, One and Only (Yiyizhi) Pavilion, triple-­ lane approach to the seven-­by-­four-­bay prayer hall (32.9 by 27.5 meters), a structure with a single-­eave, hip-­gable roof of azure glazed tiles, in the fourth courtyard that could accommodate a thousand worshippers, and a final courtyard b ­ ehind. One readily compares the plan to that of the Northern Song Longxing Monastery, both having a length-­to-­w idth ratio of about 5:1.13 Individual halls and courtyards are similar to t­ hose found at Guangsheng, Zhihua, or Chongshan Monasteries, Daoist monasteries on sacred peaks, and ­temples to Confucius or Guan Yu, all of which w ­ ere official or eminent complexes that received high-­level patronage from emperors or officials such as Wang Zhen. Ox Street Mosque in Beijing was founded in 996, when Beijing was part of the Liao empire, by the son of a Muslim seafarer who received imperial permission to build it. The oldest buildings ­today date to the fifteenth ­century. By 1442 a seven-­bay-­deep prayer hall was the focus of an east–­west oriented, four-­courtyard mosque whose prayer halls accommodate a thousand worshippers. The mosque was extensively repaired in the late twentieth ­century.14

258

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Islam and mosque construction flourished along the ­Grand Canal in the Ming dynasty, especially ­under Yongle between 1411 and 1415. ­Great East Mosque was built in Jining, Shandong province, between 1454 and 1464, and greatly expanded in the seventeenth and eigh­teen centuries.15 Facing the ­Grand Canal to its east, so that the mihrab is at the back on the west, is a three-­entry, stone ceremonial archway followed by a three-­ entry, two-­story main gate, another three-­bay gate, and then the three-­ part prayer complex. This complex takes a cruciform shape that becomes increasingly common in Ming mosques: a front porch functions as an antechamber, a prayer area is b ­ ehind it, and then a narrower space b ­ ehind it named yaodian serves as a place for a small group of worshippers with a mihrab at its back. Meaning “kiln hall,” yaodian is a unique feature of Chinese mosques; the name may reflect the warmer temperature of the enclosed space compared to the rest of the mosque, or that it was often made of brick, both features of kilns. It is an example of a Chinese addition to mosque architecture, using Chinese materials and Chinese terminology, that does not alter the mosque’s purpose. A three-­bay, hexagonal tower for viewing the height of the moon that signals the end of daily fasting during Ramadan, a structure also found at Ox Street Mosque, and a wooden gateway are at the back with a lecture hall, hall for ablutions, administrative offices, and residences for the religious leaders filling in courtyards on ­either side of the axis. White marble of the kind used in imperial construction and at the Confucian ­Temple in the same province is found throughout ­Great East Mosque. ­Great North Mosque in Linqing, Zhenjiao Mosque in Qingzhou, ­Great North Mosque in Cangzhou, the mosque in Botou, and Tianjin G ­ reat Mosque all w ­ ere founded in the fifteenth ­century along the ­Grand Canal. Each is oriented east–­west and announced by at least one ceremonial gateway with three or more courtyards along an axial line b ­ ehind it. T ­ oday each retains timber-­frame prayer halls and other buildings with ceramic-­tile roofs. Only upon entering does one know t­ hese complexes are Muslim as opposed to Buddhist or Daoist—­and even then, optional features such as a pulpit are made in small-­scale decorative carpentry (xiaomuzuo) that has characterized religious interiors from sutra cabinets to ceilings across China since the technique was articulated in Building Standards.16

Ming

259

West of the ­Grand Canal, similar mosques ­were rebuilt or restored in Hebei, Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Henan during the Ming dynasty. Said to have been founded in the Tang period, Datong’s and Taiyuan’s mosques are examples in Shanxi. In Henan, East Mosque in Kaifeng also has a founding date in the Tang dynasty, but was extensively repaired ­under Hongwu and Yongle.17 All ­these mosques have prayer halls with decorative animals along ceramic-­tile roof ridges, proclaiming from the outside that they are Chinese structures. Farther West, in Ningxia, Gansu, and Qinghai, which are heavi­ly Muslim ­today, one finds mosques founded in the Ming dynasty that ­were reconstructed as recently as the twentieth ­century in decidedly Chinese style. Na ­Family Mosque in Yongning, Ningxia, is in a county where the Muslim ­family Na has lived since the Mongol period.18 The 2000-​ ­square-­meter area is dominated by two structures: a gate with green-­ glazed roof tiles and the prayer complex directly ­behind it. The gateway exploits both the Chinese and Islamic architectural systems (Figure 9.5). The roofs and e­ very decorative detail of them unambiguously pre­sent a Chinese building. The pair of flanking towers pre­sent as gate-­towers at entrances to Chinese space. They are equally reminiscent of the paired minarets that are used in Iran, Turkey, and India. Yet h ­ ere the towers are not minarets. The minaret is the upper three levels of the central building, encompassed by Chinese architectural detail. This twentieth-​ ­century reconstruction of a Ming entry to a mosque intentionally retained roofs, balustrades, beams, and sparrows’ beaks, the braces on the top sides of pillars directly below architraves, of China, and the uncommon feature of a minaret within a five-­bay structure. Tongxin Mosque near the center of Ningxia began as a Tibetan Buddhist monastery in the Yuan period and was converted to a mosque during the early Ming dynasty. We have observed this kind of transformation of religious space for use by another faith numerous times already. It is impor­tant to note ­here that a Tibetan Buddhist complexes was as convertible as Buddhist and Daoist and Confucian spaces. In the heavi­ly Muslim region of Gansu ­today called Linxia, which borders Ningxia and Qinghai, Islamic construction in Chinese style also is by choice, as it has been since the Ming dynasty. Laowang Mosque, founded in 1377, is one of the oldest and largest mosques in Linxia.

260

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

9.5 Na F ­ amily Mosque, Yongning, Ningxia, Ming period with ­later repairs.

Reconstructed as recently as 1980–1983, the prayer space is like that of ­Great East Mosque in Jining: anteroom and prayer area with yaodian at the back. The minaret is hexagonal, supported by a wooden frame and with balustrades on each level. Laohua Mosque, founded between 1465 and 1487, also was rebuilt in 1981 with a hexagonal minaret. Nanguan ­Great Mosque was founded in 1273, expanded during the reign of Hongwu and again in the eigh­teenth ­century, destroyed, and rebuilt between 1980 and 1983 with an exterior as close as pos­si­ble to its eighteenth-­ century form.19 Hongshuiquan Mosque in Huangzhong, in Qinghai province, constructed in the Qing dynasty, has some of the finest Chinese-­style woodwork in China, from decorative supports of beams to bracket sets to win­dow lattices to balustrades. The hexagons inside a hexagonal win­dow on the second story of the minaret reference Islamic ornament, but along the four win­dow panels, patterns found in Suzhou gardens of Southeastern China are easily incorporated into the structure (Figure 9.6).

Ming

261

9.6 Minaret, Hongshuiquan Mosque, Huangzhong, Qinghai.

This region where Ningxia, Gansu, and Qinghai meet has hundreds of structures known as gongbei. Gongbei is the Chinese word for qubba, Arabic for “dome,” with the extended meaning of a memorial shrine for a holy man, who often is buried beneath the dome. The majority of gongbei take the form of a hexagonal shaft rising on a hexagonal platform; the shaft is crowned with a six-­sided layer defined by eaves that curve sharply at the ends; roofs are hexagonal, curved like a dome with clear ridges dividing the ­faces; tall ornaments composed of numerous individual bulbs or other shapes rise at the top center. Like so much

262

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

mosque architecture in t­ hese three provinces, most qubba also ­were rebuilt or restored in recent de­cades. Again the Chinese architectural details are intentional. Ming and ­later mosque architecture continues to be mistakable for Buddhist, Daoist, Confucian, or palatial construction. The requirements for a mosque in Ming China are no dif­fer­ent from in the past, so that its architecture is equally compatible with the Chinese building system. Islamic architecture that clearly references West Asian buildings would rise in China beginning in the seventeenth ­century, but primarily in Xinjiang autonomous region. Like Islam, Tibetan Buddhism lends itself to theocracy, but in China, Tibetan Buddhists had the ear of the emperor, whereas even though emperors sanctioned some mosques, Muslim clergy never gained such a position. Perhaps for this reason, in contrast to mosque architecture, pagodas and roof forms of Tibetan Buddhism often self-­identify on the Chinese landscape. Yet in the Ming dynasty, they, too, are positioned in plans with older Chinese histories. The oldest architecture for the practice of Tibetan Buddhism is in Tibet. Guge in western Tibet has tenth-­century buildings.20 The lama ‘Phags-pa discussed in Chapter 8, who instructed Khubilai (Figure 8.11), lived at Sakya Monastery in Guge and also governed from ­there. By the Ming dynasty, when the form of Tibetan Buddhism sometimes known as Gelug (Yellow) sect was founded by Je Tsongkhapa (1357–1419), a Tibetan Buddhist monastery comprised a standard set of buildings. Image halls and pagodas, the pagodas often in the form of White Pagoda in Beijing, are among them. Image halls may more reflect Chinese architecture, but some employ a structural type used in Tibetan residential architecture known as block-­house, a building with rows of win­dows on ­every side that takes the form of a rectangular prism. Block-­house buildings can be capped by ceramic-­tile roofs inspired by Chinese architecture, often golden when their patrons are royal. Educational halls also are impor­tant, as they are in traditional Chinese Buddhist or Daoist or Confucian or Muslim settings. Residences for the chief monks, sometimes one for a resident eminent lama such as the Dalai Lama or Panchen Lama (whose authority is second only to the Dalai Lama), dormitories for lesser members of the community, including monks and

Ming

263

students, kitchens, storage halls, and refectories also are pre­sent. A unique aspect of Tibetan Buddhism is debate of the scriptures. It can occur in a hall or outdoors. Always a ritual center, even when its buildings take on features of Chinese wooden architecture, the Tibetan Buddhist monastery often is laid out like a mandala, a configuration that still allows for princi­ples of Chinese planning.21 Ta’ersi (Monastery of the Pagoda), known in Tibetan as Kumbum Jampa Ling (Cloister of Maitreya Bud­dha of 100,000 Bud­dha Images), one of the six ­great Gelug sect monasteries, is 26 kilo­meters southwest of Xining in Qinghai. It was established in 1379 to mark Je Tsongkhapa’s birthplace. In 1577 Altan Khan invited the Dalai Lama Sönam Gyatso (1543–1588) to preach h ­ ere. The lama was put in charge of the monastery, which greatly expanded ­u nder his direction. Maitreya Hall was built in 1577. A two-­story, five-­bay hall with a hip-­gable roof, ­every timber is straight, according to patterns of Ming construction. The Chinese wooden frame combines with a Tibetan interior in which a gallery of prayer wheels encloses the statue of Maitreya. ­Great Silver Pagoda, built in 1582 and rebuilt in 1642, 1712, and 1784, which commemorates Je Tsongkhapa, is adjacent. It takes the standard Tibetan form of a five-­layer platform on a throne, drum, and thirteen-­ring spire. A veneration hall for Tsongkhapa was built in 1594, a Shakyamuni Hall in 1604, Dazhao Hall in 1613, Three Generations of Bud­dhas Hall in 1626, Xijingang Hall in 1627, and the Sutra Library in 1629. Like Maitreya Hall, they all are Chinese timber-­frame structures with bracket sets and gilded Chinese roofs, so that the rows of win­dows characteristic of block-­style construction are not dominant features (Figure 9.7).22 Qutan Monastery in Ledu, Qinghai, where Tibetan Buddhism also is practiced, was begun at the same time as Ta’ersi. All its buildings are timber-­frame except one white, Tibetan-­style pagoda (Figure 9.8).23 Murals in Qutan Monastery’s wooden halls depict the deities and holy men of Lamaism, but like mihrab in mosques, they are concealed within timber frames, beneath ceramic-­t ile roofs, and then in courtyards of China’s age-­old building tradition. Individual buildings at Ta’ersi, Qutan Monastery, and Hongshuiquan Mosque all share fan-­shaped bracket sets with flat-­planed tops (Figures 9.6, 9.7, and 9.8). Even though Altan Khan is directly associated with Ta’ersi and the regions of Qinghai where all

9.7 Buddha Hall, Ta’ersi, Xining, Qinghai, 1583 with ­later repairs.

9.8 Baoguang Hall, Qutan Monastery, Ledu, Qinghai, Ming period.

Ming

265

three buildings stand, exterior construction and the placement of buildings remained predominantly Chinese. The Yongle emperor, the first serious Ming imperial patron of Tibetan Buddhism, began construction of a complex at (Da) Zhenjue ([­Great] Pure Enlightenment) Monastery following a visit to court by the Indian monk Pandida. The monk is said to have brought five golden images of the Bud­d ha and, according to some sources, a drawing or model of Mahābodhi (­Great Enlightenment) Stupa in Bodhgaya, t­ oday in Vihar province of India. Located on the site of a t­ emple constructed by King Aśoka in the third c­ entury BCE to commemorate the Bud­dha Shakyamuni’s enlightenment beneath the branches of a bodhi tree several centuries ­earlier, Mahābodhi Stupa is of a form known as Diamond Throne, and nicknamed Five-­Pagoda Pagoda. The Chinese monastery has gone by the name Wutasi (Five-­Pagoda Monastery) since the Ming dynasty.24 Characterized by a tall central pagoda and four smaller, corner pagodas, the focal structure of the Beijing monastery was completed in 1473 (Figure 9.9). The base of the white marble pagoda is 7.7-­meters high and nearly square. Myriad Bud­dhas and other Buddhist imagery decorate the six levels of its sides. Entering and ascending, one reaches the upper level where the five pagodas are positioned. Imitation ceramic-­tile roof eaves proj­ect from each level. The roofs identify the monument’s location in China. In the Ming dynasty, the pagoda stood among timber-­ frame buildings, many of which ­were restored by Qing emperors. Serious damage occurred during the Second Opium War in 1860 and the Boxer Rebellion in 1900. In Ming and Qing China, five-­pagoda pagodas are almost always Tibetan Buddhist. The pagoda at Yuanjiao Monastery on Mount Wutai was built in 1434 for the relics of a monk who traveled t­ here from India. Guandu Diamond Throne Pagoda, built in Yunnnan in 1458, is similar in structure to the pagoda of Five-­Pagoda Monastery in Beijing with its pagodas rising from a platform, but like the pagoda at Yuanjiao Monastery, the individual pagodas take the shapes of circular drums on square bases with, in the case of the central one, a spire of thirteen rings. At Guandu Monastery, about 10 kilo­meters west of Xiangyang in Hubei, a brick diamond-­throne pagoda was built in the last de­cade of the fifteenth c­ entury. Seventeen meters at its highest point, this five-­pagoda

266

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

9.9 Five-­pagoda Pagoda, (Da) Zhenjue Monastery, Beijing, 1473.

pagoda stands on a three-­tier octagonal platform. The diamond throne pagoda at Cideng Monastery in Hohhot was built in 1727.

PRINCELY TOMBS

The Hongwu emperor had twenty-­seven sons and fourteen d ­ aughters. His fourth son, the Yongle emperor, broke succession when he usurped the throne from his nephew, the oldest son of Hongwu’s deceased oldest son, and moved the Ming capital to Beijing. Anticipating such an undesired event, during his lifetime Hongwu had awarded fiefdoms that guaranteed land and status similar to governorship to his sons, who ­were entitled wang, translated as both “prince” and “king.”25 Yongle’s principality, named Yan, its name in the first millennium BCE when it was a state of Zhou, was the state that included Yuan Daidu and ­today’s Beijing. ­After Yongle, a descendant of Hongwu, but not necessarily the son of the former emperor, would rule China from Beijing ­until the fall of

Ming

267

Ming in 1644. The cost of maintaining peace was exorbitant, for in princi­ple ­every prince and his descendants had a state, palace complexes, and royal burial. The lavish contents of several Ming princely tombs have been revealed through excavation. Their luxury goods are comparable to objects excavated at the only Ming imperial tomb that has been opened, that of Wanli (1572–1620) and his empress.26 Among the many princely tombs constructed in the course of the Ming dynasty, several, notably in Guangxi and Hubei, retain spirit paths. Long before the Ming dynasty, emperors recognized the loyal ser­vice of officials and o ­ thers by posthumous titles and awards in the form of tombs and above­ground sculpture in front of them. The Han official Huo Qubing (140–117 BCE), buried near his emperor Wudi north of the capital Chang’an, the official Gao Yi of Eastern Han, buried in Ya’an, Sichuan, and the Ming official Xu Da (1332–1385), buried in Nanjing, are examples of men whose tombs ­today retain stone sculpture above­ground. In 1408, three years ­after sending tribute to Beijing, the king of Boni (Brunei) came to China with about 150 relatives and officials, traveling along the G ­ rand Canal to the court of Yongle. The emperor hosted a banquet for him in the Forbidden City.27 The trip was predicated by the good relations between Boni and China that had begun during the Hongwu reign. When the king became ill in China, Yongle sent the imperial physician, but the king died. Between 1412 and 1425, a king of Boni or his emissaries would make five more trips to China. Yongle awarded the king of Boni a tomb in Nanjing. Although it is known as Mound of the Muslim Ma (Ma Huihui fen), the architecture above­ground is indistinguishable from that of the tomb of a Ming prince. A pair of stele followed by pairs of h ­ orses, Confucian officials, sheep, tigers, military officials, and a stele pavilion lead to the tumulus located just outside Ande Gate of the Ming city wall. The approach bends sharply from the stele pavilion to the funerary mound, the feature noted above at Hongwu’s tomb and the Ming imperial tombs in Beijing (Figure 9.10). A similar Muslim tomb is in Dezhou, a town on the G ­ rand Canal in Shandong where mosques have stood since the Ming dynasty. In 1417, during the land journey from Beijing to the ship that would carry him home, the king of Sulu, an island in the Philippines, died in Dezhou.28 The Muslim ruler had come e­ arlier that year with an entourage of about

268

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

9.10 Spirit path, tomb of King of Boni, Nanjing, 1408.

350 to pay tribute and personally establish friendly relations with Yongle. The emperor also awarded him burial as a Chinese prince. His tomb approach begins with a ceremonial archway followed by a stele pavilion, then a second archway and another pavilion that contains a stele with an epitaph written by the emperor. Four pairs of animals, a pair of ceremonial columns, and then the standard pairs of civil and military officials (one of each pair is now missing) comprise the spirit path. Beyond the spirit path is a funerary t­emple with the king’s tumulus b ­ ehind it. The pair of columns and positions of officials and h ­ orses differ from the arrangement of statues at the approach to the king of Boni’s tomb. East of the spirit path are tombs of three of the king’s relatives who stayed in Dezhou to establish a Muslim community. They, too, are buried beneath Chinese-­style funerary mounds. No rec­ord informs us if the families of the Muslim rulers had any say in the design of e­ ither tomb. Nor do we know the conditions in which the corpses ­were placed under­ground. Perhaps the ­human remains are

Ming

269

in three layers of non-­silk, white cloth, positioned on the right side into the ground as soon as pos­si­ble ­after death, without a casket, head facing Makkah, propped up with fistful of sand beneath the chin and shoulder, all features that ­were not part of the burial beneath the mausoleum in Guyuan discussed in Chapter 8. No m ­ atter what ­else occurred in Nanjing in 1408 or Dezhou in 1417, the statues, stele, and mound would have been anathema to a Muslim, all of them permanent visual signs that a Ming prince lies below. The point ­here is not to challenge the faith of Muslims who came to China from islands to the south. It is that the architectural landscape of Ming China, with a few exceptions such as a white, marble, diamond-­ throne-­style pagoda inside a monastery with Chinese style buildings, was as exclusively Chinese as it had been for ­every ­century of Chinese history leading up to it. The privilege of designation as wang indeed had aura in the early Ming period. King Sejong (1397–1450), fourth ruler of the Chosŏn dynasty of ­Korea, received entitlement as wang by the Ming court. Statues of men and beasts line the spirit path to the tumulus beneath which he is buried with his wife. The tomb is in Kyŏnggi among other Korean royalty. Had Sejong not received the status of wang, one might emphasize that Wonsŏng (r. 785–798) in Kyŏngju had a spirit path approach to his tomb (Figure 5.22). The Sejong court surely knew about the tomb in Kyŏngju, but the Chosŏn ruler’s tomb was built b ­ ecause of Chinese entitlement— in other words, the impact of Chinese construction continued at the Koren court six hundred years a­ fter Silla. We end this chapter in Japan in the year 1617, a year ­after the death of Ieyasu (1543–1616), the first shōgun of the Tokugawa period (1603–1868). Ieyasu chose Nikko, a beauty spot shielded by mountains and with a waterfall and hot springs, about 140 kilo­meters north of Tokyo, for his burial, based on description; he never saw it. The burial complex known as Tōshōgū was a reibyō, a shrine mausoleum, for someone who not only had been royalty but whose status was elevated to that of a divinity.29 Such an act of glorification had pre­ce­dent in the posthumous designation as kami to Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1537–1598), whose son would lose his bid for shōgun to Ieyasu; Hideyoshi was interred in a reibyō named Hōkoku in 1598.30

270

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

The architecture to be created for Ieyasu had to be worthy of both the venerated first ruler of a ­family that would control Japan for, as it turned out, 265 years and a deity to whose shrine worshippers would come to pray. Japan had seen emperor-­patrons such as Shōmu (701–756) and shōgun-­patrons such as Ashikaga Yoshimitsu (1358–1408) who built, respectively, much of the architecture of the monastery Tōdaiji in Nara and Gold Pavilion, gardens, and art collections of Kyoto.31 We have observed the intentional turn to China for imperial and Buddhist architecture in the Nara period and to southeastern China’s Buddhist monasteries in the Kamakura period. The influence of the architecture of Ming China, specifically on mausoleums of the Tokugawa shōguns in the first half of the seventeenth c­ entury, is not as carefully documented as cases of the transmission of Buddhist architecture from China to Japan in the eighth or twelfth and thirteenth centuries by monks, builders, and specific building parts. The interment of the first three Tokugawa shōguns not only declared a rejection of Buddhist burial practices, replacing them with a splendor never previously expressed in Japan in imperial or shōgunate mausoleums; it also declared that the symbolic power of the Chinese imperial building system was as strong in the seventeenth c­ entury as it had been in the eighth. The only funerary monuments in Asia that approach in scale and magnificence the three Tokugawa necropolises are the Ming tombs. As the Ming dynasty waned, three men whose civilization did not name them Sons of Heaven w ­ ere buried in Japan as if they w ­ ere. Tōshōgū in Nikko is the oldest surviving Tokugawa reibyō, but it was not the first constructed. It was built in 1634–1636 by the third Tokugawa shōgun Iemitsu (1604–1651) for his grand­father, whose body was moved ­there when Tōshōgū was completed. Iemitsu began Tōshōgū a­ fter overseeing construction of the reibyō of the second Tokugawa shōgun, his ­father Hidetada (1579–1632). Named Taitokuin, Hidetada’s mausoleum was on the grounds of the Tokugawa clan monastery Zōjōji in Edo, t­ oday Tokyo, the capital of Japan during the Tokugawa shōgunate. Premier artisans and craftsmen ­were moved to Zōjōji by the Tokugawa government. Some would continue to work on major building proj­ects in Edo. Iemitsu’s mausoleum, Taiyuin, also would be in Nikko.

Ming

271

Although Taitokuin was leveled to the ground during a bombing of Tokyo in 1945, its buildings and plan are known.32 Amid a complex of more than thirty structures, the most impor­tant ­were a front hall for worship of the shōgun and the main hall b ­ ehind it, a squarish building with two sets of roof eaves and an altar near its center, which ­were joined by a covered arcade to form a gong plan. The straight approach to the main hall complex required passage through three gates. Symmetrical pavilions for ablutions, not for stele, ­were on ­either side of the path between the second and third gates. A bent path from this sector leads to okunoin, a burial precinct whose two main buildings are a gate joined by a path to an octagonal hall ­behind it, suggesting another gong arrangement. As discussed in Chapter 5, octagonal architecture in China and Japan since the eighth ­century had been commemorative, if not explic­itly memorial. The details of a lacquer model of Taitokuin that survives in London confirm the use of Chinese and Japa­nese architectural ele­ments. Karahafu, the gracefully curved gable often at a central entry­way above a gate or to a building, noted in the relic hall of Kenchōji in Kamakura and used in early Ming construction, means “Chinese gable” (Figure 7.5). Its Chinese source could have been Buddhist construction of the Five Mountains and Ten Monasteries system (Figure 7.6) in southeastern China or Ming architecture (Figure 7.7). Karahafu are prominent in ­every gate and main hall at Tōshōgū. The combination with bracket sets, decoration on them, balustrades and their decoration, door lattices and their decoration, and subjects and style of relief sculpture pre­sent occasionally overpoweringly Chinese ele­ments. ­These ele­ments and details also are used at Tōshōgū (Figure 9.11). Tōshōgū is entered via a stone gate of the Japa­nese style known as torii, made of two vertical side pillars and two horizontal beams that extend between (and sometimes one of them beyond) them. ­There follows a front gate and then the approach bends, as the approach to the above-­ mentioned okunoin, and in the manner of the approaches to the Ming imperial tombs in Nanjing and Beijing and the tomb of the king of Boni. As mentioned above, in Ming China the bend was believed to steer evil spirits off course. Another torii leads to Yomei (Sun’s Brightness) Gate.

272

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

9.11 Tōshōgū, Nikko, 1634–1636.

­ ere one makes comparisons with the Three Front Halls complex of the H Forbidden City: Yōmei Gate joins the enclosing arcade. Directly ­behind it is Kara (Chinese) Gate, the entrance to the gong-­shaped complex of worship hall, covered corridor, and main hall. A bending path leads from a side gate of the enclosing arcade to another torii, worship hall, and octagonal pagoda that form the okunoin of Tōshōgū. The two structures—­ front hall and back private burial space, the latter symbolized above­ ground by the pagoda—­are a configuration we have seen in China since the fifth ­century. Three-­bays-­by-­two, Yōmei Gate is the structure of the front gate of a Buddhist or secular building complex throughout China’s history. The adorned pieces of wood with which it is framed are circular or four-­sided in section, and all are straight, like the pieces of Ming China’s most elaborated architecture, including the Hall of Supreme Harmony. Two bracket sets are used in the central bay, and only one is found on the front side and side bays. The arms of the bracket sets proj­ect only parallel or perpendicular to the building plane. In other words, one observes Ming framing with bracket positioning that could be found in a Song or Yuan building. Further, the decorative ele­ments are exclusively Chinese.

Ming

273

Dragons, phoenixes, lions with manes that curl as only Chinese lions’ do, Chinese emperors, Chinese legendary men and heroes, Chinese sages, and paragons of Chinese filial piety fill e­ very available space.33 Iemitsu’s mausoleum Taiyuin, about 350 meters west of Tōshōgū, is slightly smaller and less overwhelmingly decorated by comparison with Tōshōgū. It nevertheless is approached by a path that bends twice, has a front gate ­behind which is Kara Gate and a gong-­shaped worship hall–­main hall complex with an okunoin complex of worship hall and octagonal pagoda to the west. Nikko never became the necropolis of thirteen rulers, but the conceptual design of Ming imperial architecture is evident in ­every multi-­ structure unit and in the overall designs of Tōshōgū, Taitokuten, and Taiyuin. Tokugawa mausoleums of the most power­ful men in Japan exhibit the implicit relationship between architecture, power, and authority.34 ­These are precisely the visual message of the Ming imperial architecture. Comparisons between shōgunate mausoleums and the Ming imperial tombs and architecture of the Forbidden City indicate that to construct power, the Tokugawa shōgun turned to China. The Manchu emperors of China, whose rule coincided with more than two centuries of Tokugawa rule, w ­ ere masters of the exploitation of Chinese architecture and its symbolism for the expression of po­liti­cal power. Their vision of architecture and empire, perhaps more significantly than any other force except Chinese architecture itself, are the reason a book like this can be written.

••• 10

T H E L O N G E I G H ­T E E N T H C ­ ENTURY

The architecture inherited by the Manchus in late April 1644 when the Ming emperor hanged himself and a general named Wu Sangui defected to ally himself with a Manchu leader named Nurhaci (1559–1626) was the same set of buildings that had influenced King Sejong’s tomb in the fifteenth c­ entury and Shōgunate tombs in the early seventeenth ­century. Ming imperial construction, specifically the Forbidden City and thirteen Ming tombs in Beijing, was among the architecture the five-­ year-­old grand­son of Nurhaci, who would become the Shunzhi emperor (1638–1661), found in the city when Manchu troops entered ­under the regency of a son and nephew of Nurhaci. When Shunzhi died of smallpox at the age of twenty-­t wo, his six-­year-­old son succeeded him. The successor would be known as the Kangxi emperor (1654–1722). He would reign for sixty years, followed by his son Yongzheng (1678–1735), who was followed by his son the Qianlong emperor (1711–1799), who also reigned for sixty years, u ­ ntil 1796. Architecture of the 135 years of the Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong reigns is the focus h ­ ere. The period from ca. 1660 to ca. 1800 on the Eurasian continent draws immediate images of empires and aspiring colonizers: west of China, Mughal, Safavid, and Ottoman; to the north, Romanov; in Western Eu­rope, Habsburg, British, and French, with the Catholic Church and challenges to it ever pre­sent. In the de­cades following the Second World War, historians of China wrote about the Chinese World Order, a frame-

The Long Eighteenth Century

275

1689

1644

1689 1727 Selenge

1696

1757 1734

1691 Kulunqi Xinbin Shenyang

Shangdu 1691 1759

Hohhot Baotou

1676

1725

1644

1725

1721

Qing

Shunzhi

1644 –1661

Kangxi

1661–1722

Nikko Kyonggi

Dezhou Mount Tai Wanrong Mount Song Wuxi Suzhou

1725 1657

1636 –1643

Chengde

Zunhua Yixian

Yangzhou

Guge

Hong Taiji

1644 Beijing

1792

Shigatse

Lhasa

1721 1662

1657 1769

1683

Yongzheng 1722–1735 Qianlong

1736–1796

m ap 9 Qing Empire in the eigh­teenth ­century, including bordering p ­ eoples.

work in which Qing was yet another example of a non-­Chinese empire whose rulers became Sons of Heaven.1 In the 1980s the seventeenth ­century was presented as “the Manchu reconstruction of imperial order in China.”2 By the 1990s a New Qing History was promulgated.3 How to accurately, appropriately, and adequately describe what the word “China” meant required that paradigms of legitimation applied to Khitan, Jurchen, and Mongols e­ ither had to apply to the Manchus or be revised. The rich documentation for China’s seventeenth through nineteenth centuries, the well-­trod study of con­temporary empires, particularly Eu­ro­pean, and the face-­to-­face contact between Chinese and other Eurasians brought Qing China into the discourse of the global, early modern period. So far I have argued in this book, through extant buildings or archaeological evidence, that the fundamental features of the Chinese structure and its placement in space not only persisted, but flourished, as dynasties in China r­ ose and fell, and in K ­ orea, Japan, and Mongolia

276

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

in situations when appropriation of t­hose building types and plans enhanced rulership. From the beginning of Kangxi’s conquests through the last of Qianlong’s, the physical space of the Qing dynasty extended to territory outside China that had belonged to the empires of Parhae, Uyghur, and Liao, to almost e­ very point in Asia where architecture discussed in ­earlier chapters stands. The map of Qing China at its zenith, whose borders differ from t­ hose of the P ­ eople’s Republic primarily in the inclusion of what is t­ oday called Outer Mongolia, is an excellent approximation of the borders of Chinese architecture (Map 9). We begin at one of t­ hose far Qing reaches.

A M ARBAYA SGAL ANT MONA ST ERY

Amarba(i)yasgalant Monastery is in Selenge, 278 kilo­meters northeast of Ulaanbaatar and one of the provinces of Mongolia that touches Rus­sia (Figure 10.1). The monastery spans 170 meters east-­to-­west by 207 meters north-­to-­south. From a distance, one sees a white pagoda and knows Tibetan Buddhism is practiced h ­ ere. The pagoda, however, is in isolation. Other­w ise one sees a Chinese building complex oriented due north–­ south that could be religious or palatial, with concentric, rectangular walls, space partitioned as four courtyards along a north–­south axis, with four-­sided courtyards with shrines or auxiliary buildings on all but the south side and all placed roughly symmetrically, and with a screen wall, gates, pavilions, and three main halls along the main building line in gong fashion. The tents in which monks dwell are interspersed in Chinese space. As we observed at Ming Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and at mosques, affiliation is definite only ­after when one enters halls, where, in this case, one finds mandalas and Tantric deities on altars and in cabinets. This northernmost of the monasteries discussed in this book is all the more impressive ­because of its location. Amarbayasgalant Monastery is announced by a screen wall flanked by two stele pavilions. The main entrance is about 60 meters ­behind with a platform in front of it. Another gate, in which the four divine kings are paired on ­either side according to Chinese pre­ce­dent, follows. Between the two gates are symmetrically positioned, four-­sided stele pavilions,

The Long Eighteenth Century

277

10.1 Amarbayasgalant Monastery, Selenge, Mongolia, eigh­teenth ­century with ­later repairs.

only one of which contains a stele t­ oday. The second central courtyard follows. Its focal building is the squarish main hall known as tsogchin, 32 meters on each side, for ceremonies and chanting. Occupying most of the space of its courtyard, one finds inside a remarkably lifelike statue of the lama Rinpoche Gurdava (d. 2009), who was born in Mongolia, lived in Tibet and Nepal, and returned to Mongolia in 1992 when it was an in­de­pen­dent nation. The statue is amid an intense display of mandalas and statuary of the kind one t­ oday finds in Tibet. The building’s ceramic tile roof exhibits unique construction that responds to its location: a flat upper section directs melting snow to the interiors of columns and then under­ground to protect wood from rotting. The pair of hexagonal towers that flank this hall in front contain a large bell and drum, on the east and west, respectively, the timekeeping devices that have marked the daily routine of monks in China, ­Korea, and Japan since the fifth and sixth centuries. Shakyamuni Hall, directly b ­ ehind tsogchin, is the focus of the third courtyard. The pairs of halls on ­either side are dedicated to hallowed lamas, a bo­dhi­sat­tva, and mandala. The labrang, where the Jibzundamba

278

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Khutugtu, the highest-­ranking lama in Mongolia, dwells, is at the center of the fourth and last courtyard. Four ­temples, two east and two west, are dedicated to Maitreya and eminent lamas. Twenty-­eight buildings ­today remain or have been restored since they w ­ ere first constructed. Except for the gold-­leafed statues above the roof of the front portico of the tsogchin, the timber frames and ceramic tile roofs with open-­ mouthed creatures (chiwen) at the corners of main roof ridges, odd numbers of men and animals along the side ridges of lower roof portions, and three bracket sets along architraves between t­ hose on top of columns proclaim China, as they have done for centuries before this monastery was built. ­Every beam and column is straight. Sparrow braces (queti), also used in Na F ­ amily Mosque (Figure 9.5) and in e­ very Qing building of the Forbidden City, are on e­ ither side of exterior columns. Inside, the pillars that support the tsogchin and labrang are in hypostyle arrangements. The wooden pieces and their placement are ­those of Ming or Qing China, tenoned, without metal, as they have been in Chinese construction since the Han dynasty. Legend and text rec­ord specific explanations for the location and dates associated with the monastery. Mongolian legend relates that the name is the joining of the names of a boy Amar and a girl Bayasgalant, found playing ­here when the site was chosen. Th ­ ose names translate as qing (auspicious joy / felicity) and ning (tranquil peace) into the Chinese name Qingning Monastery. According to the trilingual inscription (Chinese, Mongolian, and Manchu) on the imperial stele preserved in the pavilion west of the main monastery axis in the first courtyard, the emperor Yongzheng (r. 1723–1735) founded Amarbayasgalant Monastery in 1727. It was completed in 1736. Justification for Yongzheng’s patronage begins about fifty years ­earlier. The monastery honors the memory of Zanabazar (1635–1723), the first Jibzundamba (Jebzundamba) Khutugtu of Mongolia (to which title the main hall in the fourth courtyard is dedicated), the third highest lama in Tibetan Buddhism, ­a fter the Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama.4 He studied in Tibet with the fourth Panchen Lama and fifth Dalai Lama. Zanabazar thus had seen Buddhist architecture in Tibet. Zanabazar’s activities in Mongolia and China w ­ ere as interwoven with the Chinese emperor and with Mongolia as ­those of any religious leader

The Long Eighteenth Century

279

before him. The lama was a sculptor and painter, as well as a designer or director of monastery construction. The founder of Shankh Western Monastery in 1649, Tövkhen Hermitage Monastery in 1651–1655, and Baldan Bereeven Monastery in 1654, this man traced his ancestry to both Chinggis Khan and Altan Khan, who was his grand­father’s ­uncle. Amarbayasgalant Monastery, although not built during his lifetime, is one of the most po­liti­cally motivated ­temple complexes in East Asia. Zanabazar lived during years of intense rivalry between the Khalkha Mongols, who recognized his authority, and the Zünghar, to whom he gave his own artworks and sacred texts to express his recognition of them. The Zünghar leader Galdan (1644–1697) forced the Khalkhas south, destroying the monastery Erdene Zuu in Khara-­k horum (Figure i.4) en route in 1688. In 1691, three Khalkha leaders pledged allegiance to Kangxi at Shangdu, formerly Khubilai’s summer capital and a Northern Yuan capital. Some reckon this year to be the formal end of the Northern Yuan dynasty. Kangxi recognized this act by sending troops north to quell the Zünghar in what would be a decades-­long war. In the 1690s Zanabazar became one of Kangxi’s closest spiritual advisors. He traveled to Beijing to meet with Kangxi ­every winter, building monasteries en route, and joined Kangxi at his resort in Chengde, discussed below, e­ very summer. They made pilgrimage together to Mount Wutai in 1697, evidence that Zanabazar had seen Wutai’s architecture. When Kangxi died in December of 1722, Zanabazar went to Beijing to perform rites for the deceased. Zanabazar died in Beijing two months ­later at the age of eighty-­eight, on February 23, 1723. Kangxi’s successor then founded Amarbayasglant Monastery to honor Zanabazar’s memory. When Amarbayasgalant Monastery was completed in 1736, by then Qianlong’s reign, it was dedicated to Maitreya, Zanabazar’s tutelary deity. Zanabazar’s body was moved to the monastery in 1779. A. M. Pozdneyev (1851–1920) visited Amarbayasgalant Monastery in 1892. His account mentions an inscription on a wooden tablet in a pavilion that flanks the screen wall, both of which t­ oday contain ovoo (shrines), stating that anyone below a certain rank had to dismount before entering.5 The same directive was inscribed in stone at a corresponding location at the Confucian ­Temple in Qufu and at the palace-­ cities of Nanjing and Beijing in Ming and Qing times before entry deeper

280

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

into t­ hose complexes was permitted. Pozdneyev also informs readers that in the nineteenth c­ entury, according to the practice across China in the Qing dynasty, lamas had small individual structures, some of them tents, in which they lived year-­round on the outer periphery of monastery courtyards, but that some of the perimeter lands ­were rented to Chinese who cultivated them, an activity that required permission. Whereas dozens of Chinese rented and cultivated land in this part of Mongolia in e­ arlier years, by the time Pozdneyev came, only two w ­ ere ­here and no more than a handful ­were at other formerly popu­lar locations he visited. In addition, he met four Chinese merchants who worked out of tents trading Chinese, locally made, and Rus­sian goods between this location, China, and Kyakhta, ­today in Buryatia—an enterprise that had been made pos­si­ble by the Sino-­Russian Treaty of Nerchensk in 1689, before Mongolia was part of the Qing empire, and was solidified in the Treaty of Kyatkhta in 1727, the year Amarbayasgalant Monastery was founded. Based on Pozdneyev’s account, it seems that Chinese who practiced Tibetan Buddhism w ­ ere among the worshippers. One thus draws a comparison with mosques in China where Chinese Muslims prayed: all the requirements of the foreign faith are met within a Chinese architectural environment for Chinese merchants who worship ­here, w ­ hether during an overnight stop or much longer residence. Other reasons for building Amarbayasgalant Monastery are suggested in the stele. The inscription expresses the vision of the three g­ reat rulers of China’s long eigh­teenth ­century: All men born u ­ nder Heaven possess one eternal and true quality. This true quality does not make distinction between rich and poor, does not make distinction between external appearance and surface, does not set value upon the division into countries and localities . . . ​ruling is a s­ imple m ­ atter. The Gelupga [Buddhism of Tsongkhapa] is widespread in the northern countries; all the aimaks (provinces), without distinction . . . ​strive for it. . . . ​Who ­will deny that this is of the utmost urgent necessity for the eternal continuance of the state in which all my c­ hildren living beyond the frontiers and beyond the ­Great Wall make . . . ​ virtue the basis for their activities and may deem the peace and

The Long Eighteenth Century

281

tranquility of the universe to be of the greatest importance and likewise that the inner and outer population (of the empire may enjoy) contentment, joy, benefits, and grace? My royal fore­ fathers graciously showered the foreign aimaks with their ­favors and gave prosperity to all lands. Hence, vast multitudes of ­peoples have become entirely happy, and works of e­ very sort are in plenty and abundance. The superiors of this monastery must exhort and guide all living creatures . . . ​in order that all individuals and families may enjoy peace and tranquility. Only then w ­ ill they duly appreciate the lofty purposes with which my royal parent gave his f­ avors and benefits to all aimaks.6

On the seventh day of the first summer moon of 1737 the Qianlong emperor thus placed himself in the lineage of his ­father and grand­father, men whose years of rule would bring the borders of China from Tuva to Burma and from Kyrgyzstan to K ­ orea. The buildings that Qianlong sanctioned for the ­people he protected and “kept happy” in this province distant from Beijing w ­ ere as Chinese as the Confucian t­ emple or a monastery he built in the capital. Perhaps worshippers moved in and out as merchants, but Amarbayasgalant Monastery was constructed b ­ ecause it served Qing po­liti­cal purposes, as a beacon of Chinese power on the Selenge River and a hub for Rus­sians and Mongols and Chinese, all considered the emperor’s ­people. ­Because of widespread purges against religion in Mongolia in the 1930s during the Stalinist era, at least 750 and as many as 1000 monasteries ­were lost. Amarbayasgalant Monastery is a rare survival.

OTHER RELIGIOUS CONSTRUCTION

Many aspects of the relationship between Qing emperors and Amarbayasgalant Monastery ­were standard. The Manchu ruling f­ amily Aisin Gioro not only practiced Tibetan Buddhism, emperors and empresses and dowagers took instruction from eminent lamas, invited them to China, and w ­ ere patrons of religious architecture. Potala, the residential palace of the Dalai Lama, the ultimate Asian theocrat, in Lhasa, was

282

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

built in the second half of the 1640s, shortly ­a fter the Qing moved to Beijing, on the site of the palace of the Tibetan king Songtsen Gampo. In 1649, the Fifth Dalai Lama, who was in charge of the construction, was invited to Beijing; he would arrive in the capital in 1653. Ming emperors had invited the third (1543–1588) and fourth (1589–1617) Dalai Lamas to Beijing, but ­those invitations ­were declined.7 The Third Dalai Lama met with Altan Khan in 1571, and with Altan’s son in 1584. In Chapter 9 we noted that the monastery Kumbum (Ta’ersi) in Xining, Qinghai, was founded in 1577 with the support of Altan Khan and that buildings with blocklike structures of Tibet had Chinese-­style roofs and bracket sets. The turn of Dalai Lamas to Chinese emperors from the second half of the seventeenth ­century onward is understandable. The seventeenth-­century po­liti­cal relationship between Mongolia and China had the Tumu Crisis and subsequent 190 years of Ming China in its history. Altan Khan, the leader of Mongolia in the second half of the sixteenth ­century, is particularly associated with monastery construction in the “blue city,” Kökeqota, known as Höhhot in En­glish and ­today the capital of Inner Mongolia. Altan Khan founded Maidari Juu (Meidaizhao), about 50 kilo­meters west of Höhhot in the direction of Baotou, in 1572, both as a fortified city and as a monastery for the practice of Tibetan Buddhism. His wife’s ashes are ­there. In 1582 a hall was built at Maidari Juu for the Third Dalai Lama. In 1579 Altan Khan founded Yeke Juu (Dazhao), where the Third Dalai Lama presented a silver statue of Sha­ kyamuni and where the Kangxi emperor came in 1696. The next year the azure roof tiles w ­ ere changed to gold. Shireetū Juu (Xilituzhao) was founded a short walk from Yeke Juu by Altan Khan’s son in 1585, also for a visit from the Third Dalai Lama. The Fifth Dalai Lama, by this time in the Qing dynasty, visited Shireetū Juu, as did the second Manchu ruler, Hong Taiji (1592–1643), when the Manchu capital was still in Shenyang, Liaoning province. In other words, during the Ming dynasty, architecture of Tibetan Buddhism in Mongolia, as far south as t­oday’s Höhhot, was built by Mongol patrons to glorify the gods and lamas of Tibet. In 1694 Kangxi visited Shireetū Juu and gave it the Chinese name Yanshousi. He inscribed Chinese characters on a placard at the front to bring this largest monastery in Höhhot into the Chinese realm, for

The Long Eighteenth Century

283

Tibetan, block-­style buildings already stood ­there. Chinese writing, one recalls, had been the power­ful sign in Yuan-­period under­ground tombs that the occupants w ­ ere Chinese (Figure 8.14). On the other side of Inner Mongolia, in Kulunqi, the location of the Liao consort clan cemetery discussed in Chapter 6 (Figure 6.6), Xingyuan Monastery, which had been established ­under the Shunzhi emperor (r. 1644–1661) in 1649, was expanded in 1719 and again in 1899. The three-­courtyard complex retained its huge, combination worship hall–­sutra hall at the focus, standard in Tibetan and now Mongolian Buddhist architecture. However, dragons entwine pillars in the manner found at the eleventh-­century Sage ­Mother Hall of the Jin shrines in Taiyuan, Shanxi, and at Dacheng Hall of the Confucian Shrine in Qufu. The support system of buildings in all three courtyards of Xingyuan Monastery is Chinese timber framework. Stories of the Bud­d ha’s life are painted alongside the twenty-­eight lunar lodges of the Chinese cosmos on an interior wall of Xingyuan Monastery. In 1749 the monastery Badgar Süme (Wudangzhao) was built 70 kilo­meters northeast of Baotou for the Gelug sect of Tibetan Buddhism. In 1756 Qianlong gave it the Chinese name Guangjuesi. T ­ oday it is Inner Mongolia’s largest monastery. The model was Tashi Lhumpo in Shigatse (Xigazê), and as such it is also Inner Mongolia’s most Tibetan-­style monastery. Again the Chinese name incorporates it into China, for like Ta’ersi, Tashi Lhumpo, and other lamaseries of Qinghai and Tibet, topography and landscape overtake the building arrangement so that not ­every impor­tant hall is on the main axial line. By the reign of Kangxi, the Chinese imperial presence could be manifest in an inscription on a stele or just a placard at a monastery that other­ wise was built like one in Tibet. Chinese words clarified that a Tibetan monastery in Mongolia had an imperial Qing-­sanctioned presence and that it was part of the empire centered in Beijing, China, no m ­ atter the appearance of its architecture. Diamond Throne Pagoda at Biyun (Azure Clouds) Monastery on a slope in the Fragrant Hills, about 20 kilo­meters from the center of Beijing, is an example of how the Qing resolved the incompatibility between Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist construction. Previously a residential estate and nunnery, Biyun Monastery was expanded ­under the direction of court eunuchs in 1516 and 1623. The 100-­meter axis along which a gate

284

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

and five Bud­d ha halls are positioned reflects its Ming and pre-­Ming origins. Diamond Throne Pagoda, the fifth structure and in the sixth courtyard, spectacularly dominates the back of the monastery. The transformation into a Tibetan-­style Buddhist monastery occurred in 1748 during the Qianlong reign. Whereas the five front courtyards follow Chinese style, the alpine setting and free-­flowing landscape, without enclosing walls, simulate Tibet. Beijing’s best-­k nown Tibetan-­style monument, White Pagoda at Beihai (North Sea) Park, northwest of the Forbidden City, is one of the tallest vantage points in the capital. Sometimes considered a Manchu response to White Pagoda that had been built on flat ground during Khubilai’s reign (Figure 8.1), the monastery at Beihai was constructed during the Shunzhi reign in 1651. As at Biyun Monastery, the pagoda is in its own precinct ­behind traditional Chinese buildings that begin with a gate on the main axis. West Yellow Monastery was founded ­under Shunzhi the next year. H ­ ere, traditional timber-­frame Chinese buildings are in the first and second courtyards with bell and drum towers and ser­v ice buildings flanking the main structures. The Diamond Throne Pagoda in the third courtyard was built in 1784 by order of Qianlong to commemorate the visit of the Sixth Panchen Lama, who had come to Beijing in 1780 to offer congratulations on the emperor’s birthday. The lama would die in Beijing in 1784. As in past times and among other religions practiced in China, in eighteenth-­century Beijing a palace-­compound transformed into a Tibetan-­style monastery by changing interiors without amending exteriors of buildings. In 1744, Yonghegong, Yongzheng’s palace as a prince, was converted by his son Qianlong into a Tibetan-­style monastery (Figure 10.2). ­A fter Yongzheng died, Qianlong changed the roof tiles from azure to golden. Yonghegong confirms fundamental princi­ples of the Chinese timber frame since the second millennium BCE: the rank of a structure is always evident, but its function is adaptable; amending a feature such as roof tile color can elevate a building’s function as well as its status without changing its wooden frame. The direct patronage of Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong at Amarbayasgalant Monastery or in Beijing suggests the similar patronage of Pope Julius II (1443–1513), Ieyasu, Constantine (c. 272–337), Shah Jahān

10.2 Aerial view of palace and lamasery, fourth through seventh courtyards, Yonghegong,

Beijing, ca. eigh­teenth ­century.

286

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

(1592–1666), Shah ‘Abbas (1571–1629), or Aśoka (c. 304–232 BCE). The city that ­today is Chengde, northeast of Beijing in Hebei province, is a superlative example of the unification of architecture and po­liti­cal agenda. The vision was as power­ful as that of any of history’s greatest patrons of architecture for imperial purposes.

CHENGDE: QING VISION OF EMPIRE

The city Chengde, known in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as Jehol (Rehe in Chinese), was the summer resort-­capital of the Qing rulers. Occupying 5.64 square kilo­meters, it was begun ­under Kangxi in 1703 and completed u ­ nder Qianlong in 1792. Kangxi named the place Bishushanzhuang, Mountain Hamlet for Escaping the Heat. This largest of nineteen imperial resorts where the emperor could stop, and hold court if necessary, between Beijing and the Manchu hunting grounds in northeastern Hebei known as Mulan, divides into two main parts: the mountain hamlet, often translated into En­glish as Hill Station, and Eight Outlying T ­ emples, actually eleven in number, that spread across 60,000 square meters north and east of Hill Station. Support staff for this enormous landscape architecture proj­ect meant that the population grew from about 100,000 in the early eigh­teenth c­ entury to about 460,000 ­under Qianlong. They supported imperial activities that included the annual fall hunt, in which about 12,000 soldiers participated.8 The landscape of Mountain Hamlet naturally divides into four sections: palace, lake area, plain, and mountains. The building complexes of the palace area w ­ ere constructed u ­ nder Kangxi with unpainted exterior columns and grey roofs, a mode more in line with a rustic retreat than a forbidden city. The palace area consists of an entry gate, a second gate named Wumen, the name used for the gate in this position in the Beijing Forbidden City, a third gate that leads to the main palatial halls, and then a front hall complex for conducting affairs of government and private chambers b ­ ehind it on a single north–­south axis. Both the front and back complexes focus on a single hall. A parallel two-­courtyard building complex where Qianlong’s m ­ other resided, built in 1749, is to the east. It is named Pine and Crane Studio, pines and cranes being sym-

The Long Eighteenth Century

287

bols of longevity. A small group of buildings where Kangxi instructed his grand­son Qianlong is directly ­behind it. A three-­story theater farther east to the south was part of another eastern palace that was destroyed in 1948. Theaters ­were among the Daoist building complexes dedicated to deities such as the earth deity Houtu and the Dragon King. Entertainment was part of both the Chinese imperial leisure model and of t­ emple complexes that served as hubs for the community.9 Seventy-­t wo scenic spots ­were built into the Chengde hamlet; the number of sacred Daoist plots as well as a multiple of the Chinese symbolic number nine.10 The 550,000 square meters of lake area include thirty-­one of ­those scenic views, many of them “borrowed views” based on garden or lake designs Kangxi or Qianlong had himself seen in another part of China. Lion Grove in Suzhou, Jinshan in Zhenjiang, both in Jiangsu province, and dikes of West Lake in Hangzhou are some of the inspirations for landscape architecture in the lake area. This design princi­ple is older. It is described in Yuanye, a three-­volume illustrated treatise written by Ji Cheng (1582–ca. 1642) between 1631 and 1634 that has been translated into En­glish as The Craft of Gardens.11 The plain, north of the lake, is grassland where tents w ­ ere erected for imperial use and ceremonies, and for visitors such as the Sixth Panchen Lama and, in 1793, the British diplomat Lord Macartney (1737–1806). The area also included a field for training ­horses and archery, a gallery of imperial portraits, small Buddhist t­emples and gardens, and a working space where scholars compiled court-­sponsored encyclopedias. The multistory Wenjinge (Literary Ford Pavilion), built in 1774, was inspired by the pavilion Tianyige in Ningbo, Zhejiang province and is another example of borrowing of distant architecture for erection h ­ ere. Both pavilions ­housed one of the first four copies of Siku quanshu (Complete Writings of the Four Trea­suries), the magisterial literary compilation of Chinese texts made between 1773 and 1781 that would define the texts certified as appropriate reading, and by exclusion not certified, by the Qianlong court.12 The 67-­meter, nine-­story Yongyou Monastery Pagoda also stands on the plain. Last are the mountains, occupying 80 ­percent of the hamlet. The Eight Outlying ­Temples is perhaps the ultimate manifestation of po­liti­cal use of architecture by China’s three eighteenth-­ century emperors.

288

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Puren Monastery was one of them. Constructed in 1713 to commemorate Kangxi’s sixtieth birthday (calculated according to the traditional Chinese system as beginning from gestation), it had a stronger po­liti­cal than celebratory motive. Puren was to be a Mongolian-­style monastery that would symbolize the Qing government’s appreciation of the loyalty of Mongol nobility as Qing subjects. It begins with three courtyards of buildings oriented north–­south, typical of Ming-­Qing Buddhist construction in China. Six main structures along this line are: a prominent gateway (shanmen), a bell and drum tower on ­either side ­behind it in the first courtyard, Divine Kings Hall as the entrance to the second courtyard, and Bud­dha Hall at the entrance and Back Hall as the last structure of the third courtyard. A second wall encloses a larger area as the outer boundary of the monastery. Without buildings, the enclosed landscape reminds one of Tibetan-­style monasteries of the Höhhot-­ Baotou region that occupy open landscape or hilly regions; with buildings, the arrangement recalls Biyun Monastery in Beijing. Pushan Monastery was constructed in the same year, officially also to commemorate Kangxi’s birthday. Consisting of four courtyards that occupy 1800 square meters, the main structures of each of the back two courtyards are seven bays across the front, with side buildings of five bays, each facing inward along the sides of the courtyards. By his sixtieth year, in other words, Kangxi defined a monastery as containing Chinese Buddhist and Tibetan Buddhist construction. Puning (universal peace) Monastery, built in 1755 by Qianlong, had an unambiguous po­liti­cal purpose: to mark both the final defeat of the Mongolian rebels, the Zünghars, and to host them in Chengde. This act signified Qianlong’s policy of bringing the conquered ­people into his empire. He thus built a religious complex of the kind in which the Zünghar worshipped in Mongolia in the confines of his city. Upon its completion, the emperor invited former Zünghar, Dōrbōd, Khoid, and Khoshud nobility to banquet and worship in Chengde in spaces that reflected their homelands; their presence in his private capital outside Beijing was a concession to his suzerainty. The huge Buddhist complex, of 33,000 square meters and with more than thirty structures, was consistent with the enormity of the victory. Kangxi had won major ­battles with the Zünghar in 1697 but did not achieve Qing control over their territory,

The Long Eighteenth Century

289

which included much of western Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and part of Tibet. Qianlong’s more decisive victories led to the summons of the leaders to Chengde, construction of their native-­style architecture in his city, and the po­liti­cal name of this monastery, universal peace. Every­thing about Puning Monastery is massive, and every­thing about its buildings is standard for an imperial Ming-­Qing religious complex. Seven structures follow a south–­north line in three rectangular courtyards, terminating in a serrated semicircle that encloses the landscape ­behind it. ­Because Kangxi had already included landscape that was neither enclosed in a quadrilateral nor flat in Puren and Pushan Monasteries, Qianlong’s use of this formation could be considered early Qing Chinese style. Compatible with this concept, Tibetan ele­ments of the architecture could be exposed on the exterior. The first seven structures are Chinese Buddhist religious architecture: the prominent gateway; a stele pavilion whose stone is inscribed by Qianlong in Manchu, Mongolian, Chinese, and Tibetan; Divine Kings Hall with bell and drum towers to the east and west between the pavilion and hall; a seven-­bay Daxiongbao Hall, the name given to highly impor­tant Bud­d ha halls since the tenth ­century, this one enshrining three Bud­dhas of the ages and images of the eigh­teen luohans on e­ ither side; and the culmination, the 36.75-­meter ­Great Vehicle Pavilion (Dashengge), elevated on a 9-­meter platform with six eaves in the front, four in the back, and five on the sides. Of four stories, it is built exclusively with straight vertical and horizontal timbers in the manner of Ming and Qing architecture. Its front is articulated with doors and win­dows with lattice patterns and pillars dividing each bay of each level, but the back and sides of the two lower stories are flat, red plaster with rows of trapezoidal-­shaped win­ dows as are found in the architecture of Tibet (Figure 10.3). The non-­ Chinese building features are vis­i­ble only ­here, on the exterior at the back. The structure is said to take as its model the buildings of Samye Monastery in Shannan, Tibet’s oldest monastery, which was first built in the mid-­eighth ­century. ­Great Vehicle Pavilion ­houses the world’s tallest wooden sculpture of the bo­dhi­sat­t va Guanyin (Avalokitesvara), 24.14 meters and weighing more than 120 tons. With a thousand arms and a thousand eyes, it is made of pine, cypress, elm, fir, and linden wood. A scripture recitation hall adjoins the pavilion.13

290

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

10.3 Dasheng (­Great Vehicle) Pavilion, Puning Monastery, Chengde, Hebei, 1755.

Twenty years into his reign, at the age of forty-­four, Qianlong boldly proclaimed conquest through a merging of architectural traditions. Seventeen years ­earlier in faraway Selenge, the stele and architecture of a twenty-­six-­year-­old emperor in the third year of his reign proclaimed the universal rule of his empire u ­ nder China and Buddhism, as did the exterior of its architecture. Architecture at Chengde referenced ­people who had lived south or west of Amarbayasgalant Monastery, but their buildings ­were similarly Chinese-­style on the exterior. The interior of ­Great Vehicle Pavilion loudly proclaimed Tibet, thereby declaring it to be by the grace of the ruler who accepted lamas and former Zünghar royalty, all devotees of his brand of Buddhism as his loyal subjects. Anyuanmiao (­Temple of Distant Peace) was begun in 1756 and completed in 1764 for the same purpose. Its model was Gu’erzha Monastery in Yili in western Xinjiang. Destroyed in war during the conquest of the Zünghar, the three-­courtyard complex, perhaps named miao (­temple) ­because it was small and did not have monks associated with it, has only

The Long Eighteenth Century

291

one main structure, a seven-­bay-­square, three-­story hall with two sets of roof eaves, a glazed roof, and a complete grid of sixty-­four columns. Centered in the back courtyard, like ­Great Vehicle Pavilion of Puning Monastery, its exterior combines Chinese lattice win­dows on the upper stories with a plaster facade with rows of small, four-­sided win­dows below. In other words, China and Tibet join, China on top. In his stele in four languages, Qianlong dedicated the ­temple to the Zünghar leader Dashi Dawaa, whose twelve thousand followers had been relocated to the vicinity of Anyuanmiao following their defeat in 1758. Also in 1758, Qianlong had Giuseppe Castiglione (1688–1766), a Jesuit, brought to his court, paint the Kazakhs’ submission to him at Chengde. Pule Monastery was built in 1766 for chieftains of the Kazakh and Khirgiz, who began to pay tribute to Qianlong ­after his victory over the Zünghar. Its focus is a circular structure named Xuguangge (Pavilion of Nascent Light), sometimes called round pavilion b ­ ecause of similarities to the Imperial Vault of Heaven and Hall for Prayer for a Prosperous Year at the Altar to Heaven complex in Beijing. Xuguangge follows three courtyards whose primary structures are a prominent gate, Hall of Divine Kings, and three-­Buddha hall named Manifest Faith Hall (Zongyindian) with side halls between them, all standard in the front part of a Tibetan Buddhist complex in seventeenth-­and eighteenth-­ century northern China and southern Mongolia. Orientation ­here, however, is east–­west, dictated by topography. In spite of its architectural references to Chinese ritual architecture, Xuguangge is unique. The three-­t ier structure is enclosed by fortified walls. Chinese-­style pavilions, Tibetan-­style pagodas, and Tibetan Buddhist deities stand on the terraces. Inside the timber-­frame pavilion, male and female wooden Buddhist gods perform the sex act amid other deities, u ­ nder a Chinese gilded conical ceiling with entwined dragons at the center. The statues and structures inside and outside can be explained as a mandala inside a mandala.14 Again we observe Qianlong’s innovations and politicization of architecture, references to Beijing monuments that only he was permitted to enter, alternation of Chinese pavilions and Tibetan pagodas in one row, and life-­size, explic­itly Tibetan statuary beneath a ceiling on which entwine five-­clawed dragons that only the Chinese Son of Heaven may construct.

292

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

Qianlong’s next two monasteries at Chengde not only contain unique structures, they exhibit unpre­ce­dented incorporation of landscape as well as architecture from the outside into China. Like e­ very other complex at Chengde, their inspiration was architecture to the west. Putuozong­ cheng ­Temple may be the most direct example of imitation in the entire city: its source is Potala in Lhasa, the residence / governmental center / ​ private devotional space of the Dalai Lama. Although the Chengde version is only about one-­t hird the size of Potala, it is but one of the religious complexes that joined palatial architecture, gardens, the imperial library, borrowed views, and Tibet in the city where Qianlong manifested his rulership. Built between 1767 and 1771 to celebrate the emperor’s sixtieth birthday and his ­mother’s eightieth, the 220,000 square meters and more than forty structures make it the largest complex at Chengde. The birthdays coincided with the return of the Torgut, who had been chased from Yili to the Volga River by the Zünghar but then back to western Xinjiang and thus into the Qing fold. The Torgut leader Ubashi (1745–1774) came to Putuozongcheng ­Temple. Putuozongcheng ­Temple sprawls up its mountain like architecture in Tibet (Figure 10.4). It has only one courtyard, with a stele pavilion in the center and front and back gates, the back gate capped by five white pagodas. The white, block-­style buildings ascend in two rows. The main structure is described by its name, Dahongtai (­Great Red Terrace). In six stories that rise 43 meters, its three-­t ier base is white.15 Shuxiang Monastery, built next, is the only one at Chengde with a clear architectural source in China. It was constructed by Qianlong during 1774–1776 following a visit he made with his ­mother to the sacred Buddhist peak Wutai. Like many of Mount Wutai’s monasteries, it is dedicated to Mañjuśrī. Shuxiang Monastery has one courtyard with a front gate, bell tower, Divine Kings Hall, main hall, and octagonal pavilion along its main axis, and side halls positioned symmetrically to it. Qianlong’s last expression of self-­aggrandizement and politicization of architecture at Chengde is the spectacular Xumifushou (Longevity and Happiness of Sumeru [the sacred Buddhist mountain in India]) ­Temple. Built in 1780 for the emperor’s seventieth birthday, the Sixth Panchen Lama came from the Tashi Lhunpo in Shigatse for the occasion. Qianlong honored his long journey by replicating the Tibetan monastery

The Long Eighteenth Century

293

10.4 Putuozongcheng (Potala) ­Temple, Chengde, Hebei, 1767–1771.

whose name translates in Chinese as Xumifushou. Xumifushou ­Temple occupies 37,900 square meters on a hill just east of Chengde’s Potala. Dif­fer­ent from the visit of the Fifth Dalai Lama to Qianlong’s great-­ grandfather Shunzhi in Beijing some 150 years e­ arlier, which could be described as a peacekeeping mission initiated by the new Qing emperor, the Panchen Lama chose to honor Qianlong with his presence at a celebratory moment. Qianlong reciprocated by the unpre­ce­dented architectural display and exquisite gifts, and by sitting with the lama in Xumifushou ­Temple’s halls to receive instruction. Unfortunately, the lama died of smallpox in Beijing in 1780. More so than Chengde’s t­ emple complex modeled a­ fter the Potala in Lhasa, Xumifushou ­Temple took the form of a Chinese monastery. Its six main structures from south to north are: a two-­story gateway, stele pavilion, ceremonial gate, ­Great Red Terrace in which is concealed another hall, an additional two-­story hall, and the octagonal Wanshou Pagoda faced with glazed ceramic tile. The Panchen Lama’s residence is on the west b ­ ehind the main building. G ­ reat Red Terrace is a three-­story, red foundation with rows of small rectangular win­dows on the exterior,

294

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

joined by two-­story platforms ­behind and to the east, recalling the structure at Putuozongcheng ­Temple. It supports the two-­story Miao­ gaozhuangyan Hall, where the lama preached. Covered with a Chinese, gilded, double-­eave, pyramidal roof and with five smaller pavilions with pyramidal roofs among the three platforms, the main hall is accessible only from the uppermost, central terrace. A statue of the founder of the Gelug sect and of Shakyamuni are inside it. The lama’s residence in this complex, Jixiangfaxi (Auspicious Dhar­ma) Hall, has a roof of gold-­plated copper tiles. Chengde is an unpre­ce­dented example of entry into China of architecture from beyond China’s borders. ­Until the construction of Chengde, Chinese-­style architecture was built beyond China’s borders u ­ nder three sets of circumstances: when China ruled, dominated, or exerted influence in t­ hose regions; a­ fter Chinese control had fallen but China’s architecture remained for reuse or as models; or to intentionally reference China and symbolically the power of Chinese architecture. Han-­and Tang-­period architecture outside China was of the first type; Sixteen States, Northern Dynasties, and Liao architecture was of the second type, as was Türk, Uyghur, and Parhae construction; and King Muryŏng’s tomb of Baekje, urban plans and Buddhist architecture of Nara and Heian-­period Kyoto, and tombs in Nikko and ­were of the third type, sought as symbols of Chinese-­style empire-­building or religion where China had never ruled. Only Kangxi and Qianlong ­were able to bring new architectural styles to China, incorporate them into Chinese spaces, and then bring the conquered into China and display their conquest. Kangxi and Qianlong still turned to China for official imperial construction in their urban centers, but among power­ful or aspiring rulers of the seventeenth and eigh­teen centuries, only t­ hese two emperors of China successfully toppled p ­ eople, all but the Tibetans, whose architecture they brought into their realm.

OTHER QING IMPERIAL CONSTRUCTION

Even as Kangxi and Qianlong expanded the size of their empire, deliberately defined the po­liti­cal use of architecture and its relation to empire,

The Long Eighteenth Century

295

and practiced a religion that was formulated outside China, all in ways that had never been accomplished in China, they renovated and restored Beijing’s imperial monuments, visited and constructed across the rest of China from the sacred peaks to the southern beauty spots, and built and maintained private gardens. Imperial Beijing ­under Qing rule remained very much the city Yongle had built and Jiajing had expanded. The Forbidden City’s three courts and the five gates and many gong-­planned spaces remained, although some of the names of buildings changed. By the Qing dynasty t­ here ­were three Back Halls in place of two. New construction included Repose and Longevity (Ningshou) Palace, a 6000-­square-­meter complex added by Kangxi in 1688 for his m ­ other. Qianlong erected a ceramic-­tile, freestanding screen wall decorated with nine dragons ­there in 1771.16 Qianlong, upon reaching his sixtieth reign year and not wanting to surpass the time his grand­father Kangxi has spent on the throne, retired to Repose and Longevity Palace, where he lived from 1795–1799. He hosted a spectacular banquet for the el­derly on New Year’s Day of 1776 to which more than five thousand w ­ ere sent invitations and more than two thousand w ­ ere seated in the hall. The Palace of Cultivating the Mind (Yangxin) was another complex added in the eigh­teenth c­ entury. Qianlong designed a 6700-­square-­meter garden to its northwest that borrowed views from South China, the princi­ple he and Kangxi had employed at Chengde. Jesuit paint­ers did some of the decoration.17 Building complexes in the Forbidden City still w ­ ere constructed according to prescriptions in Construction Regulations. Qing imperial tombs followed the same architectural princi­ples as palaces of the Forbidden City and imperial tombs of the Ming dynasty. Beginning with the Shunzhi reign, Qing emperors ­were buried in Zunhua, Hebei province, about 125 kilo­meters northeast of Beijing. Yongzheng initiated a new imperial necropolis 120 kilo­meters southwest of Beijing in Yi county of Hebei. Unlike the Mongols who ­were buried in unmarked locations in Mongolia throughout the duration of their reign in China, half a c­ entury before the Manchus conquered China they elected to be buried in cemeteries marked by Chinese architecture. The four earliest Manchu tomb sites are in Liaoning. In 1598, Nurhaci (1559–1626), who unified groups in Northeast Asia ­under Eight Banners that would lead

296

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

to the Manchu governing system, built an ancestral tomb site in Xinbin. In 1658 his grand­son Shunzhi moved the tombs of Nurhaci’s grand­father and f­ather to this site, which is entered via a Red Gate b ­ ehind which are four stele pavilions, a courtyard, and then the main sacrificial hall, followed by a stairway leading to five funerary mounds. The arrangement is unique, but ­every structure is Chinese in style.18 Nurhaci and his wife are buried near ­today’s Shenyang, the city he established as the Manchu capital. Walled by Liao, destroyed by Jin, walled by Yuan, and again by Ming in 1388, Nurhaci’s capital had twelve gates and was about 16 kilo­ meters in perimeter. His palace complex comprised two parallel courtyards of buildings, to which Qianlong added a western section with a stage where opera could be performed and a multistory pavilion to contain one of the seven copies of the 36,381-­volume compilation Complete Writings of the Four Trea­suries. Nurhachi’s tomb divides into four parts: Red Gate at the front; next a spirit path of six pairs of statues, the only one in China that requires an ascent of 108 steps (a multiple of nine); a stele pavilion above a stele inscribed by Kangxi; and last, the area known as “square city and precious wall” ( fangcheng ji baocheng). The first three parts follow the pattern of the Ming tombs, whereas the fourth section is first employed h ­ ere and associated with Qing construction; it is another example of a Qing imperial design that uses exclusively Chinese building parts to construct exclusively Chinese buildings, but configures them into a new arrangement. Square city is a rectangle that has a tower at each corner inside which Spiritual ­Favors Gate and Spiritual ­Favors Hall define its central axis. Spiritual ­Favors, one recalls, was the name of the sacrificial hall at Yongle’s tomb in Beijing. At the end of the enclosed area, parallel to the back corner-­towers, is a minglou (bright tower), a tower that contains a stele recording that Nurhaci is buried h ­ ere. Precious wall, a curved wall of approximately 270 degrees, encompasses the back of the tomb (Figure 10.5).19 The tomb of Nurhaci’s son and successor, Hong Taiji, and his wife is north of Shenyang.20 Begun in 1643 and occupying 450 square meters, it has nearly the same plan; a ceremonial archway in front, a pair of pillars in front of the spirit path, and two pairs of small buildings on the sides of the pathway to Spiritual ­Favors Gate are the only features not pre­sent at Nurhaci’s tomb. It is on flat ground. An artificial hill was

The Long Eighteenth Century

297

10.5 Fuling, tomb of Nurhaci and his wife, Shenyang, Liaoning, 1620–1630s.

added, but ­there are no stairs leading to the back section. The circle and square are the fundamental shapes of Chinese ritual architecture since the Zhou dynasty, but their use together by early Manchu emperors is new. Still, the new space is overpowered by wooden frames, façades, and golden roof tiles of imperial China. The Qing emperors fulfilled their obligations at all the altars in place ­under the Jiajing emperor. Only the Altar to Silkworms was added, in 1742 by Qianlong, in the lake district west of Beijing, the location of the second White Pagoda. The ritual was the only one performed by the empress. Qing imperial construction also included garden design, a practice very dif­f er­ent from the designation of space as open parkland for hunting, which was part of Mongol and Manchu practice at their leisure palaces, notably Shangdu and Chengde, respectively.21 Chinese emperors of almost ­every dynasty built gardens, but Qing rulers took the practice to unpre­ce­dented heights, particularly in Beijing. In 1651 one of the first construction acts of Shunzhi was development of the lake area west of the Forbidden City where he erected White Pagoda. In 1756 Qianlong

298

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

added a 27-­meters-­long, 6.65-­meters-­high, 1.42-­meters-­w ide, ceramic-­ tile, nine-­dragon screen wall, the only one with dragons on both sides. He built Haopu Creek Garden on the east in 1757, naming it to reference the happiness of fish alluded to in the writings of the Chinese phi­los­o­ pher Zhuangzi (370–287 BCE). The garden was designed to imitate a view he had seen on a visit to southeastern China. Kangxi and Qianlong are largely responsible for the area known as Three Hills and Five Gardens, the nickname for the imperial gardens and scenic spots west of Beijing that ­were built or expanded primarily between 1738 and 1775.22 The gardens ­were created for beauty and imperial plea­sure, but the court also understood the importance of ­water flow, which not only was redirected for t­ hese gardens but also supplied the capital and helped prevent flooding. Changchun Garden was built on the remains of a garden that had been the residence of Li Wei, the grand­ father of Ming emperor Wanli (r. 1572–1620). In 1684 Kangxi began construction ­there of a summer palace where he would spend as much as half the year. Qianlong’s m ­ other lived in Changchun Garden for forty­t wo years. In 1737, following expansion u ­ nder Yongzheng, Qianlong extended the garden so that it became part of Yuanming Garden, where construction had begun in 1707. Two years l­ater Kangxi gave it to his fourth son. In 1725 the son, by then the emperor Yongzheng, began building palatial architecture in the garden. It included “living tableaux” where eunuchs pretended to be farmers and shop­keep­ers in a fanciful village in which the imperial ­family could be residents and consumers. ­Under Yongzheng, when the imperial ­family was not in Chengde, they spent summer and autumn months in Yuanming Garden. The above-­ mentioned Guiseppe Castiglione and Michel Benoist (1715–1774) ­were among the designers of European-­style buildings of permanent materials commissioned by Qianlong in the part of Yuanming Garden known as the Western Mansions. Planning began in 1747 and construction commenced two years l­ater. The majority of building occurred between 1756 and 1780, a­ fter Castiglione had died. Jean-­Denis Attiret (1702–1768) and Ignatius Sichelbart (1708–1780) did interior designs, and other Eu­ ro­pean missionaries took charge of Eu­ro­pean plantings, wrought-­iron components, glass, and automatic devices such as clocks.23

The Long Eighteenth Century

299

Yuanming Garden is renowned not only ­because of ­these European-­ designed buildings, but b ­ ecause they ­were burned by joint British-­French forces by order of British High Commissioner to China, Lord Elgin (1811– 1863), in 1860 during the Second Opium War.24 Qianlong’s idea for the Eu­ro­pean section is said to have come from a fountain pictured in a set of engravings sent as a gift from Louis XIV to Kangxi. The placement of Eu­rope, represented by architecture, into the Qianlong gardens parallels the construction of architecture of the Zünghars and Kazakhs, and from Tibet at Chengde. Ironically, troops from Eu­ro­pean countries whose architecture was h ­ ere would destroy it. Yihe Garden, the largest of the five, had been a monastery u ­ nder Ming emperor Hongzhi (r. 1487–1505). His successor Zhengde (r. 1505–1521) built a palace and gardens. Between 1749 and 1794, Qianlong built a garden-­palace on ­these grounds, during which time Kunming Lake was excavated. Wanshou (Longevity) Hill was added to its north to commemorate Qianlong’s m ­ other’s birthday and three islands, named a­ fter the isles of the immortals in the Classic of Mountains and Waterways (Shanhaijing), ­rose out of the ­water. ­Here Qianlong took inspiration from views he had seen of West Lake in Hangzhou. Th ­ ese gardens also ­were heavi­ly damaged during the Second Opium War and rebuilt beginning in 1886 by the empress dowager Cixi (1835–1908). They are t­ oday known as the Summer Palace. Kangxi and Qianlong took inspiration for parts of the gardens through a practice older than the Chinese concept of empire—­the inspection tour. Mencius (372–289 BCE) called the imperial inspection a cornerstone of benevolent rule, a way to confirm the loyalty of the nobility and that the commoners w ­ ere content, but in fact a practice that sages in the sixth ­century BCE argued to have originated in the Xia dynasty.25 The First Emperor sanctioned inspection tours “as a means of imperial aggrandizement as well as surveillance.”26 He built traveling palaces (xinggong) for his lodging during t­hese journeys, one of which was mentioned in Chapter 2 as positioned at the end of a perpendicular line east from the north–­south axis of Han Chang’an (Figure 2.1); he died unexpectedly on an inspection tour in 210 BCE. Imperial inspection tours included places like sacred peaks with monuments where only the emperor could

300

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

make sacrifices and imperial tombs where the ruler paid homage to emperors of past dynasties. Kangxi and Qianlong hired paint­ers, Wang Hui (1632–1717) and Xu Yang (1712-­a ft. 1777), respectively, to accompany them on inspection tours. The repre­sen­ta­tions of architecture along the Kangxi and Qianlong routes w ­ ere as po­liti­cally motivated as the tours themselves. The oversized scrolls, both in length and height, reflect the changing ambitions of the ­century between the first Kangxi tour in 1684 and the final Qianlong tour in 1784.27 Both paint­ers understood that the purpose of inspection was po­liti­cal and that the depiction of architecture, as was the case at Chengde, was to serve the imperial agenda. The seventh scroll in the set of twelve, from Kangxi’s second inspection tour in 1698, shows about 200 kilo­meters of China’s most impressive beauty spots, including Wuxi and Suzhou in Jiangsu province. Wang Hui paints Suzhou’s most emblematic site, Tiger Hill Pagoda, in peach-­ pink hues that characterized Suzhou painting in the prosperous fifteenth ­century when this pagoda in this city of wealthy merchants and literate estate ­owners was painted in the same colors by Shen Zhou (1427–1509) (Figure 10.6).28 The pagoda defines this scene as Suzhou, but it is in the far right corner of this scene. Kangxi, in the foreground, is the focus of the city that would not have been painted except for his presence. Like the architecture, p ­ eople around the emperor are ­here to serve the man who monitors ­human affairs, receives homage from the city’s officials, and makes pos­si­ble the city’s ­future. From this territory, always within China’s borders, architecture is selectively borrowed. The borrowing is to serve the empire. In this case architecture in its natu­ral habitat or moved as a borrowed view serves the emperor to confirm his control over Suzhou as relocated architecture of the conquered Zünghar does at Chengde. Xu Yang appears to have understood the politics of a Qianlong visit to Suzhou as well as Wang Hui understood Kangxi’s, for the po­liti­cal circumstances of the Qianlong southern inspection tours in the late eigh­teenth ­century ­were dif­f er­ent.29 In 1759 Xu made a painting of Suzhou, which is now in the Liaoning Provincial Museum. Five Ming martyrs who ­were put to death for rising up against a corrupt official are among the details.30 ­These heroes who gave their lives to expose Ming corruption indicate that Qianlong w ­ ill honor martyrdom for his kingdom

The Long Eighteenth Century

301

10.6 Wang Hui, detail of Suzhou showing Tiger Hill Pagoda, 1691–1708, “Kangxi Inspection Tour,” seventh scroll.

and similarly punish corruption. One also sees this kind of intentionality in the sixth scroll in Xu Yang’s inspection tour set, the one that includes Suzhou. Xu paints Qianlong’s long approach to Suzhou by boat, and an equally panoramic approach into the city on ­horse­back through a gate. The pomp and circumstance of the imperial progression echo his role amid architecture in scroll 2 which portrays his entry into Dezhou, the city with the tomb of a Muslim prince mentioned in Chapter 9. Qianlong enters Dezhou on ­horse­back, as he does Suzhou, but the land approach to Suzhou is significantly longer than the approach to Dezhou. In the painting of Dezhou, Qianlong crosses a pontoon bridge, perhaps one set up for him, between triple-­entry ceremonial gateways of the kind that stand at Qing palaces and tombs. ­Here, heraldic architecture of Beijing is moved beyond the borders of its city to identify the emperor, while no reference to the tomb is indicated in the small city where it stands near the ­Grand Canal. No architecture or other reference to Dezhou in the Xu Yang paintings detracts from Qianlong’s despotic rule of China; all serve to enhance it. Through the long eigh­teenth c­ entury, any architecture touched, seen, or aspired to by the emperor was symbolically or physically appropriated for the empire he conquered and the new definition of empire of China that he constructed. He accomplished this in construction and in paintings that depict architecture. In addition to conquest, building an empire, and constructing its image, Qing rulers had to deal with more Eu­ro­pe­ans than their pre­de­ ces­sors. Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) and Johann Adam Schall (1591–1666)

302

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

­ ere in Beijing in the Ming dynasty, and Jean Denis Attiret, Ferdinand w Verbiest (1623–1688), and Giuseppe Castiglione designed or decorated for Qianlong.31 Jesuits instructed Chinese rulers and officials in Western math, science, medicine, and technology, compiled dictionaries of Chinese and other Asian languages, and mapped China. Their writings led to other ones, including illustrated descriptive works both by t­ hose who had never seen China, such as Olfert Dapper (1636–1689), Jean-­Baptiste du Halde (1674–1743), and Johann Bernard Fischer von Erlach, and by ­those who had.32 The audience for the illustrated works that included pictures of Chinese architecture represented a taste for t­ hings Chinese that was spreading across Eu­rope during the reigns of Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong. Known by the French word chinoiserie, it was a Eu­ro­pean interpretation and imitation of Chinese art, including architecture.33 In 1670 Louis XIV’s chief architect, Louis le Vau (1612–1670), designed Trianon de Porcelaine, modeled ­a fter the Nanjing Porcelain Palace, at Versailles.34 Between 1716 and 1719, Maximilian Emanuel of Bavaria (1662–1726) asked his French-­trained architect Josef Effner (1687–1745) to build an octagonal pagoda at Nymphenburg Palace inspired by an unrecorded building he had seen in Paris. Mathäus Pöppelmann (1662–1736) and Zacharias Longuelune (1669–1748) reconstructed Pillnitz C ­ astle on the bank of the Elbe River about 15 kilo­meters east of Dresden for Augustus  II the Strong (1670–1733) in the Baroque and Neo-­Classical modes of the day, with decorative projections from roofs that suggest inspiration from Chinese pagodas. A pavilion in a garden built for his descendant Frederick Augustus I of Saxony (1750–1827) in 1765 was also based on Chinese architecture.35 In 1738 Emmanuel Héré de Corny (1705–1763) built a pavilion-­like structure named Maison du Trèfle for the Duke of Lorraine at Lunéville that is likely to have been the inspiration for the Chinese House designed by Johann Gottfried Büring (1723–1788) in the garden of Frederick the ­Great’s (1712–1786) palace Sanssouci in Potsdam.36 In the same year, Chinese House, with Chinese figures on interior panels, was built, perhaps by William Kent (1685–1748), at Stowe, Buckinghamshire (Figure 10.7). Frederick subsequently commissioned a Chinese kitchen and Dragon House in the garden.37 Catherine the ­Great (1729–1796) sought to hire a Chinese builder to design a Chinese village

The Long Eighteenth Century

303

10.7 William Kent (1685–1748?), Chinese House, Stowe, Buckinghamshire, ca. 1738.

that would be called Tsarskoye Selo. Work on this proj­ect, including a Chinese theater, continued u ­ ntil 1818. Catherine is reported to have asked the Rus­sian ambassador in London to get a replica of a structure designed by William Chambers (1723–1796) in the Royal Botanic Gardens in Kew. In 1750 British architect William Halfpenny, active from the 1720s ­until at least 1755, had written Rural Architecture in the Chinese Taste, followed by Chinese and Gothic Architecture Properly Ornamented in 1752, and had co-­authored New Designs for Chinese T ­ emples, in four parts, between 1750 and 1752. Halfpenny had never been to China.38 A Chinese ­temple at Studley Royale in Yorkshire is the subject of a painting by Balthazar Nebot (act. c. 1730–­c. 1762) from ca. 1750, made within a few years of its construction. A Chinese pavilion at Kew is shown in an engraving of 1763 by Charles Grignion (1721–1810). In ­every case the roof is the telling feature, identifiable by the deep curvature of its eave ends, often by strong ridge lines, and sometimes the use of an enclosing balustrade with a Chinese lattice pattern. Williams Chambers would codify the Chinese tradition for Western Eu­rope. Between 1740 and 1749 Chambers made three trips to China with

304

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

the Swedish East India Com­pany. ­After returning to Eu­rope, he studied architecture in Paris, Italy, and E ­ ngland, eventually becoming Architect to the British King.39 Chambers is best known for the Chinese pagoda in Kew Gardens, a lone survivor among other Chinese-­inspired buildings, and only a small part of his many royal works, predominantly in Neo-­Classical style, that stand across E ­ ngland. Chambers’ Designs of Chinese Buildings, Furniture, Dresses, Machines, and Utensils, published in London in 1757, includes specific, firsthand information about Chinese ­houses, building parts such as columns, and instructions for how to lay out a Chinese garden. Illustrations show infrastructures such as the column-­and-­beam framing system for residential architecture, curvature for residential roofs, and the moon gate. It is unlikely that the Chinese court knew the depth of the craze for ­things Chinese in eighteenth-­century Eu­rope, even though export porcelain had provided a lucrative industry for several centuries. “Chinoiserie” and “orientalism” prob­ably w ­ ere not words in Qianlong’s vocabulary. Yet like his Eu­ro­pean counter­parts, the Chinese emperor colonialized, particularly in places like Selenge in Mongolia. Chinoiserie, orientalism, and Eu­ro­pean colonialism ­were fueled by many of the same forces as Qianlong’s colonization, mercantilism being a most lucrative one. One might argue that a Chinese structure in a private royal setting in ­England, France, Bavaria, or Rus­sia was simply chinoiserie, a taste for the exotic, rather than a statement that a nation who traded with China and aspired to increase that trade in the nineteenth c­ entury, symbolically proclaimed that a piece of China was already absorbed into its empire. It might also be hard to prove that Qianlong’s placement of Western Mansions in his Beijing gardens was dif­fer­ent from a Zünghar or Tibetan t­ emple in Chengde, that the first was intended to demonstrate his knowledge of Eu­ro­pean architecture and ability to have it constructed in China, merely europoiserie, whereas had he constructed a cathedral inside the gardens it would have to have been accompanied by transplantations of conquered Eu­ro­pe­ans and placement of refugees inside his realm. If architecture is a mea­sure of culture, as Jörg-­Kurt Grütter wrote in 1987,40 Qianlong and his Eu­ro­pean counter­parts may have aspired to proj­ect similar images of their imperialist aspirations—­not simply the

The Long Eighteenth Century

305

10.8 Zhang Kaiji, Sanlihe Government Complex, Beijing, 1955.

ruler’s cosmopolitanism, but instead that trade, national wealth, and security ­were a ruler’s strongest stakes. By the mid-­nineteenth ­century, the Opium Wars brought Eu­ro­pe­ans and Eu­ro­pean architecture to China’s ports, chinoiserie was no longer in vogue, and China was on its way to revolution. Continuing into the nineteenth c­ entury, one would extend the discussion to Hue in Vietnam, which became the capital in 1802 and where Pagoda of the Celestial Lady survives as it stood in the early seventeenth ­century. Continuing into the twentieth ­century, one would write about China’s self-­referential buildings of the first half of the c­ entury made of reinforced concrete with ceramic-­t ile or imitation ceramic-­tile roofs. ­These roofs could cover the starkly contrasting international Marxist-­ style architecture beneath them. Sanlihe Government Complex, built in Beijing in 1955, is an example (Figure 10.8). The ceramic-­tile roof is a power­ful symbol of China even when China’s hold on its premodern past is negligible. Most premodern Chinese architecture that survives follows the imperial building tradition, and therefore is po­liti­cal. In China that vocabulary was standardized and obvious such that it served China, East Asia, North Asia, and eventually Eu­rope from the Han dynasty through the eigh­teenth ­century, and occasionally its symbols projected in the ­People’s Republic.

 AFTERWORD

In 2018 I asked a highly respected colleague in Mongolia if he had thoughts about why the buildings at Amarbayasgalant Monastery had so many Chinese features. He shrugged and said, “What e­ lse would they look like?” That immediate reply to a question that I, as a researcher of East Asia’s architecture, had pondered since the first day I stood in Nara more than forty years ­earlier reminded me of the imperative of working alongside colleagues who grow up with Chinese or Korean or Japa­nese or Mongolian architecture in their backyards. At the same time, it empowered me to keep seeking explanations for what surely has been taken for granted or missed. The mandate of the lectures from which this book developed was to take as a starting point a view of East Asia of the generation s­ haped by World War II and the Korean War—­the generation of Edwin Reischauer, and in my case also my teachers—­and determine if that narrative could be laid to rest. Architectural history offered a unique opportunity, for when I sat in 2 Divinity Hall or the Fogg Art Museum as a student, more than 80 ­percent of the buildings pictured or discussed in this book ­were unknown, unexcavated, or unseen by t­ hose teaching and studying in the United States. My own research journey has included a commitment to seeing e­ very building about which I write. Architecture and paintings of architecture have been my primary evidence; e­ very word h ­ ere is based

Afterword

307

as much on fieldwork and close examination as on reading. I was as surprised as anyone when I saw murals in a tomb sealed ­until 2011 in central Mongolia, architectural decoration of Parhae more Chinese in inspiration and detail than I would have i­ magined, that Khubilai’s observatories and a mosque with a circular minaret w ­ ere inside age-­old Chinese building complexes, and the buildings of Amarbayasgalant Monastery. From laying the first stone or pillar through e­ very restoration proj­ect ­until ­today, the buildings whose purposes range from imperial to funerary to religious have confirmed notions that in the 1950s often w ­ ere based on intellectual hunches derived from texts. One prob­ably cannot give Chinese architecture or its builders credit for understanding or reinterpreting or manipulating the princi­ples of sameness or the subtleties between it and mimesis. Patrons of Chinese buildings in China and beyond its borders prob­ably did not pro­cess differences between direct and indirect borrowing or consider w ­ hether a builder understood that to build in a new context could not but require translation. Once in China, rulers built as China, and when ­those rulers built outside China, they usually built as if in China. Often this did not require replacing a native system. No ­matter what kind of building a non-­Chinese ruler chose for privacy, he built Chinese architecture for public display. He stood inside the same walls as a Chinese emperor. This desire from beyond China to build as China, on both large and miniature scale, above­ground and ­under it, may be the most remarkable feature and feat of the Chinese building system. Changes in bracket sets and roof styles are pos­si­ble within the system b ­ ecause they are details. A Chinese building or building complex is ever identifiable, easy to imitate, and readily accessible. China’s early empires, notably Han and Tang, surely aspired to the longevity of their impact as colonizers and diffusionists. China surely knew the power of historical memory and of the preservation of the historic for the f­ uture. The reasons and pro­cesses for turning to Chinese architecture from the outside, for restoring and preserving it once built, and ­whether or not a building that symbolized China or East Asia or imperial power changed in periods when China was large or small, power­ful or weak, are sometimes unknown and often ambiguous. Yet ­there is no ­century when men and ­women did not cross Asia in the name

308

THE BORDERS OF CHINESE ARCHITECTURE

of commerce, religion, adventure, or conquest. Nor is t­ here a c­ entury when the borders of most of ­those p ­ eoples did not change. Even in the eigh­teenth ­century, China notched perishable timbers and joined them into mortises and grooves to make buildings in the manner of buildings in ca. 5000 BCE. Logic may suggest that the rise and fall of dynasties and kingdoms that enacted war and practiced governance across more than ten million square kilo­meters should have had numerous building systems. The physical rec­ord tells us that ­there was one. I have called it China’s, for its endurance played a large part in why China endured.

NOTES BIBLIOGRAPHY I L LU S T R AT I O N C R E D I T S INDEX

NOTES

Introduction 1. It is not my intention to transfer border issues of the 2010s to the study of premodern Chinese or East Asian architecture. My purpose is to see, without national associations that might prejudice this study, where Chinese-­style architecture stands, and to try to understand why patrons placed it where they did. On current uses of the word “borders,” see the long bibliography by Beth A. Simmons, including the blog of a proj­ect conducted during the summer of 2018 (https://­g lobal​.­upenn​.­edu​/­perryworldhouse​/­blog​/­report​-­road​-­borders​-­a nd​ -­boundaries​-­beth​-­simmons​-­part​-­5). 2. Tan Qixiang’s Zhongguo lishi ditu ji includes several hundred maps that illustrate the bound­aries of China through history. Th ­ ese maps are the source of this statement and the maps on which I rely. 3. Kyong-­McClain and Du, in Chinese History in Geo­graph­i­cal Perspective, explore the prob­lem of China and its changing borders, which they frame as geography, and propose social, po­liti­cal, and economic explanations; see especially Bol, “What Is a Geo­graph­i­cal Perspective.” 4. The oldest wooden building in China dates to the eighth c­ entury. Countless buildings dated between the eighth and nineteenth centuries could be substituted for Figures i.1–­i.8. 5. See, for example, Wake, “Homoplasy”; and Wake et al., “Homoplasy.” 6. Rea, “Sameness without Identity.” 7. Gongbu gongcheng zuofa was supervised at the Chinese court by Yinli (1697–1738). Like Yingzao fashi, it is illustrated. On Yingzao fashi, see Feng Jiren, Chinese Architecture and Meta­phor. On Gongbu gongcheng zuofa, see Malone, “Current Regulations.”

312

Notes to Pages 9–17

8. On frameworks and the change in construction from lengthwise to crosswise support, see Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 97–139. 9. The configurations are illustrated in Li Jie, Yingzao fashi, vol. 2, 808–837. 10. ­These issues have been explored for de­c ades. Two works that remain important are Summerson, Classsical Language of Architecture, and Hugh Honour, Neo-­classicism. 11. On modernization of Chinese architecture in the early twentieth ­century, see Cody et al., Chinese Architecture; Rowe and Seng, Architectural Encounters. 12. Feng, Chinese Architecture and Meta­phor, 1–13, 100–107. 13. Tanaka Tan, “Zuichō kenchikusha.” 14. On the Chinese official Liu Bingzhong, see Hok-­lam Chan, “Liu Ping-­ chung” and “Liu Ping-­chung”; on the Nepali Arniko or Anige, see Anning Jing, “Financial and Material Aspects” and “Portraits of Khubilai Khan and Chabi”; and Acharya, “Aniko.” 15. Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 209–225. 16. Neither the history of Chinese painting leading to this statement, nor the context of the thirteenth and ­fourteenth centuries in which it was written, can be recounted h ­ ere. The statement is attributed to the painter Zhao Mengfu (1254–1322). For the passage, see Siren, The Chinese on the Art of Painting, 110. For Zhao’s biography, see McCausland, Zhao Mengfu; on Zhao in the context of the Yuan dynasty and its painting, see also J. Cahill, Hills, 38–46. 17. The goals of orthodox masters and how they came to paint are discussed in J. Cahill, “The Orthodox Movement.” 18. Siren, Chinese Painting, is based on many of t­ hose texts. For a list of texts and abstracts of them, see Lovell, An Annotated Bibliography. 19. The court painter Wang Kui is said to have painted murals in the Mañjuśrī Hall at Yanshan Monastery in Fanzhi, Shanxi, in 1167. Zhu Haogu and his workshop ­were some of the mural paint­ers working in southern Shanxi in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries; see Qu Lian, “Antiquity or Innovation.” 20. On individualists in Chinese painting, see J. Cahill, Fantastics and Eccentrics. 21. Walter Benjamin, “The Task of the Translator,” in his edited version of Les fleurs du mal, a set of poems published by Charles Baudelaire in 1857. Writing in German, d ­ ying in France as he tried to escape the Nazis, and read primarily a­ fter 1950 as a German-­Romantic-­Marxist-­Jew in French or En­glish edited volumes of his writings, Benjamin is an early twentieth-­century voice in what becomes translation studies and cultural studies. See, Benjamin, Charles Baudelaire. 22. Steiner, ­After Babel. 23. Koehler and Saletnik, Translation and Architecture.

Notes to Pages 18–23

313

24. Akcan, Architecture in Translation; for essay, see Koehler and Saletnik, Translation and Architecture, 136–142. 25. Derrida, L’oreille de l’autre. Ironically, many read this in translation as The Ear of the Other. On this subject, see also Grossman, Why Translation ­Matters; for a summary of the prob­lem, see Bermann, “Performing Translation.” 26. Link, “On Translation.” 27. Auerbach, Mimesis, is the standard starting point for the study of mimesis in lit­er­a­ture. 28. Tsitsiridis, “Mimesis and Understanding.” 29. Its range of uses is explored in Maran, Mimicry and Meaning. 30. This phrase was coined in a 1964 exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art. Its cata­logue, Rudofsky, Architecture without Architects, pre­sents a way to describe what Rudofsky and ­others had previously written about as “primitive” and primarily of the vernacular tradition. Chinese architecture without architects includes the Forbidden City, and thus challenges Rudofsky’s explication of socie­ties in which builders, not architects, erect structures. 31. On fangmugou, see Wei-­cheng Lin, “Under­ground Wooden Architecture in Brick”; Harrer, “Wood to Stone and Beyond” and “Where Did the Wood Go?”; and Yu Lina, “Song, Jin shiqi.” 32. As discussed in Chapter 1, the practice is prob­ably older, but archaeology confirms it from the first half of the second millennium BCE. 33. Steinhardt, “Early Cities—­China.” 34. Evidence comes from the vicinity of the modern city Baoji in Shaanxi province. Figure 1.3 is an example of architecture from this region during this period. 35. On the famous tree, as well as its impact on architectural history, see Baydar, “­Toward Postcolonial Openings” and “Cultural Burden of Architecture.” 36. Fogel, Articulating the Sinosphere and Lit­er­a­ture of Travel. 37. Fuqua, “Japa­ nese Missions”; Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan, Dai Kentōshi-­ten. 38. This subject was discussed in some of the earliest scholarly lit­er­a­ture about Japan. See, for example, Titsingh’s translation of Nihon Odai Ichiran. 39. On the transmission of Buddhist art and ideas from China to Japan, see D. Wong, Buddhist Pilgrim-­Monks. 40. On Kūkai, see Abe, Weaving of Man­tra, and Hakeda, Kūkai. On centers for the study of esoteric Buddhism in Chang’an when Kūkai and Saichō w ­ ere ­t here, see Chou Yi-­liang, “Tantrism in China.” 41. On Saichō, see Groner, Saicho. 42. Japan’s twenty-­two oldest buildings are: the main Bud­dha hall (Kondō), five-­story pagoda, ­middle gate, covered arcade, octagonal hall (Yumedono),

314

Notes to Pages 24–27

g­ reat east gate, Dempōdō, sutra repository, dormitory (Higashimuro), and refectory, all at Hōryūji; three-­story pagoda at Hokkiji; octagonal hall at Eizanji; east pagoda at Yakushiji; five-­story miniature pagoda and west Kondō at Kairyūōji; Gokurakubo five-­story miniature pagoda at Gangōji; east pagoda at Taimadera; hall for ceremonies of the third lunar month (Sangatsudō) and Tegai Gate at Tōdaiji; main hall of Shin Yakushiji; and the Kondō and lecture hall at Tōshōdaiji. Each location is a Buddhist monastery. Dempōdō, on the grounds of Hōryūji, was once the residence of an imperial wife who died in 759. 43. The above-­mentioned residential structure is an example of a vernacular tradition that ­w ill always be more distinctive in Japan than in China. China has vernacular architecture across its vast space. Some of it is not timber-­frame. The majority of Chinese extant residential architecture dates to no e­ arlier than the eigh­teenth ­century; see Knapp, China’s Old Dwellings and Chinese Houses. 44. On Shinto architecture, see Y. Watanabe, Shinto Art; Maruyama, Jinja kenchiku; and Inagaki, Jinja kenchikushi. 45. On similarities between the Jin Shrines in Shanxi province, whose oldest building dates to the eleventh c­ entury, and Shinto architecture, see T. Miller, “Influence of Chinese Empire.” 46. In the West, Josef Stryzgowski’s many writings, such as Orient oder Rome, or Benjamin Rowland’s, Art in East and West, represent this kind of approach. See also Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 285–287. 47. The po­liti­cal context is explained in Daqing Yang et al., History beyond Borders, particularly essays by Kawashima Shin, 53–50, and Liu Jie, 81–120. 48. A few Eu­ro­pe­ans produced works based on examination of in situ Chinese architecture. They include ­Father Jozef Mullie (1886–1976), who documented buildings he saw in eastern Inner Mongolia, and whose writings include “Les sépultures”; Emil Bretschneider (1833–1901), who lived in Beijing from 1866–1883 and wrote Archaeological and Historical Researches; or Édouard Chavannes (1865–1918), Mission archéologique. Several seventeenth-­and eighteenth-­ century Eu­ro­pe­ans whose writings contain information about Chinese architecture are discussed in Chapters 9 and 10. National Eu­ro­pean sponsorship of major expeditions in western China and Central Asia was greater and more ambitious; see Hopkirk, Foreign Dev­ils. 49. Beeching, Chinese Opium Wars; J. Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy; Fay, Opium War; Wakeman, Strangers at the Gate. 50. In addition to Wakeman, Strangers at the Gate, see Spence, Search for Modern China. 51. Spence, Search for Modern China and God’s Chinese Son; and Kuhn, Rebellion and Its Enemies. 52. Esherick, Origins of the Boxer Uprising; Cohen, History in Three Keys.

Notes to Pages 27–35

315

53. Liu Dunzhen (1897–1968) was one of them. Liu Shiying (1893–1973) was another; see Yang Yongsheng and Ming Liansheng, Jianzhu sijie; and Tian Yang, “Making of an Architectural Historian.” 54. Cody et al., Chinese Architecture, xi–­x xi, 3–72.

1. Chinese Architecture before China 1. Hunan Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Hunan Lixian Mengxi Bashidang.” 2. Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Wuyang Jiehu. 3. Zhong Xiaoqing, “Qin’an Dadiwan jianzhu”; Gansusheng Bowuguan et al., “Gansu Qin’an Dadiwan.” 4. Xi’an Banpo Bowuguan, Xi’an Banpo; Xi’an Banpo Bowuguan et al., Jiangzhai Xinshiqi shidai yizhi. 5. Henansheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo and Zhoukoudiqu Wenhuaju Wenwuke, “Henan Huaiyang Pingliangtai.” 6. He Nu, “Taosi.” 7. Li Chi, Ch’eng-­tzu-­yai; Zhang Xuehai, “Shilun Shandong.” 8. Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiuyuan et al., “Shaanxi Shenmudian Shimao yizhi”; Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiuyuan et al., “Shaanxi Shenmudian Shimao.” 9. Chaoyangshi Wenhuaju and Liaoningsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Niu­ heliang yizhi. 10. Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Yuhang Yaoshan Liangzhu”; Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Yaoshan. 11. Li Liu, The Chinese Neolithic, 226–236; Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Yanshi Erlitou; Du Jinpeng and Xu Hong, Yanshi Erlitou; Guo Huaxiao, Yanshi Erlitou wenhua. 12. Li Liu, The Chinese Neolithic, 229. 13. Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Zhengzhou Shangcheng; Steinke and Ching, Art and Archaeology; Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Zhengzhou Shangcheng; Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Shangcheng kaogu. 14. Henan Yanshi Renmin Zhengfu, Gudu Yanshi. 15. Zhang Changping, “Erligang,” 51; Hubeisheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Panlongcheng; Yang Hongxun, “Cong Panlongcheng.” 16. In Figure i.21 one sees three halls ­behind the Three ­Great Halls. The third back hall was added in the sixteenth ­century. 17. Yuan Guangkuo et al., “Henan Jiaozuoshi Fucheng yizhi.” 18. Kwang-­chih Chang and Xu Pingfang, Formation of Chinese Civilization, 161, 164, 166. 19. Yang Hongxun, Gongdian kaogu tonglun, 89–95; Fu Xinian, “Shaanxi Qishan”; Shaanxi Zhouyuan Kaogudui, “Shaanxi Qishan Fengchucun.”

316

Notes to Pages 36–44

20. Shaanxi Zhouyuan Kaogudui, “Shaanxi Qishan Fengchucun”; Shaanxi Zhouyuan Kaogudui, “Fufeng Shaochen Xi Zhou jianzhuqun”; Zhouyuan Kaogudui, “Shaanxi Fufeng Yuntang Qizhen”; Fu Xinian, “Shaanxi Fufeng Shaochen.” 21. Han Wei, “Majiazhuang Qin zongmiao jianzhu”; Shaanxisheng Yongcheng Kaogudui, “Fengxiang Majiazhuang yihao jianzhuqun.” 22. Liu Chang, The Forbidden City, 43. 23. “Kaogongji” is the sixth section of the Rituals of Zhou (Zhouli), compiled by the director of the Board of Works, or Public Works. The current version is a Western-­Han-­period (second or first ­century BCE) replacement for a lost ­earlier text. The sections quoted ­here are assumed to describe practices of the Zhou period; see Loewe, Early Chinese Texts, 24–32. 24. “Kaogongji,” Zhouli, in Song Liankui, Guanzhong congshu, juan 2, 11a–12b; Jun Wenren, Ancient Chinese Encyclopedia of Technology, 95–100. 25. Steinhardt, Chinese Imperial City Planning, 36–50. 26. Shandongsheng Wenwu Guanlichu, “Shandong Linzi Qigucheng shijue jian­bao”; Qun Li, “Linzi Qi gucheng kantan jiyao”; Liu Dunyuan, “Chunqiu shiqi Qiguo.” 27. Chang and Xu, Formation of Chinese Civilization, 216; Hebeisheng Wenhuaju Wenwu Gongzuodui, “Hebei Yixian gucheng.” 28. Komai Kazuchika and Sekino Takeshi, Han-­tan; Handanshi Wenwu Baoguosuo, “Hebei Handanshiqu yizhi”; Shi Yongshi, “Yan Xiadu, Handan.” 29. Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Henan Xinzhengshi Zheng-­Han gucheng.” 30. Yu Weichao, “Zhongguo gudai ducheng.” 31. Hubeisheng Bowuguan and Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusou, Zeng Hou Yimu. 32. Robert Thorp, “The Sui Xian Tomb.” 33. Fu Xinian, “Zhanguo Zhongshanwang Cuomu”; Yang Hongxun, “Zhanguo Zhongshanwangling.” 34. Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 1–30. 35. Sima Qian, Rec­ords of the G ­ rand Historian, 56. 36. Wang Xueli, Qindu Xianyang. 37. Sima Qian, Rec­ords of the G ­ rand Historian: Qin, 56.

2. Han 1. The amount of information on Xi’an and Luoyang is staggering. Histories of Han architecture that include extensive sections on the capitals are: Liu Xujie, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 1: 384–570; Liu Qingzhu and Li Yufang, Han Chan-

Notes to Pages 45–48

317

gancheng; and Wang Zhongshu, Han Civilization, 1–51; for illustrations of major artifacts, Pirazzoli-­T’Serstevens, Han Civilization. 2. For in-­depth information on Chang’an’s palaces: Liu Qingzhu and Li Yufang, Han Changancheng, 46–105; Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Nihon Nara Kokuritsu Bunkazai Kenkyūjo, Han Chang’ancheng Guigong; Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al., Han Chang’an­ cheng yizhi; Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Han Chang’an­ cheng Weiyanggong. 3. Liu Qingzhu and Li Yufang, Han Changancheng, 103–104. 4. Liu Qingzhu and Li Yufang, Xi Han shiyi ling. 5. Liu Qingzhu and Li Yufang, Xi Han shiyi ling, 7. 6. Liu Qingzhu, Gudai ducheng yu diling, 209. 7. Xianyangshi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Xi Han diling diaocha zuantan baogao, 11–15. 8. Li Hengmei, Zhaomu zhidu yanjiu; Loewe, Divination, My­thol­ogy and Monarchy, 272–286. 9. Spencer, “Houses of the Chinese”; Knapp, Chinese Houses, 100–111, 240–247. In the Han dynasty, the tomb of the third ruler was correctly positioned to the left (east) of the dynastic ancestor’s, but far to the south. He had become emperor following a power strug­g le with the first Han emperor’s w ­ idow, and perhaps chose to be distant from her grave, but nevertheless was on the correct side; see Allison Miller, “Emperor Wen’s ‘Baling.’ ” The mountainous terrain is no doubt the reason ­t here is no evidence of walls in the vicinity of the third emperor’s burial, but he and his empress are separately interred, as was the practice in Han China. ­There also are remains of auxiliary tombs. 10. Yangling Bowuguan, Han Yangling and Han Yangling Bowuguan. 11. For an illustration, see Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Hanling Kao­ gudui, Zhongguo Han Yangling, 22. 12. Private communication with excavator in October 2017. 13. Qin Jianming, Zhang Zaiming, and Yang Zheng, “Shaanxi faxian yi Han Chang’ancheng wei zhongxin.” 14. The Chinese worldview—­with the emperor at the center and the four cardinal directions further symbolized by animals, colors, and seasons (yellow emperor at the center, vermilion phoenix of summer on the south, white tiger of autumn on the west, dark [black] warrior of winter at the north, and azure dragon of spring on the east)—­was promulgated at the Han court by officials such as Dong Zhongshu (179–104 BCE). The symbols are molded on roof tiles and painted on ceilings from the Han dynasty onward. The concept of the centrality of the emperor is more fundamental; it exists without ele­ments around

318

Notes to Pages 48–51

it. From the long bibliography on how Chinese writers from the age of Confucius u ­ ntil the fall of Han understood the universe, see, for example, Rosemont, Explorations in Early Chinese Cosmology; Wang Aihe, Cosmology and Po­liti­cal Culture; and Michael Loewe, “Wang Zhongshu,” in Loewe, A Biographical Dictionary, 70–73. On the complicated meanings of the Spirit ­Mother of the West, see Li Song, Lun Handai yishuzhong de Xiwangmu; S. Cahill, Transcendence and Divine Passion; and Rothschild, Emperor Wu Zhao. 15. Each ritual structure is discussed in Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Xi Han lizhi jianzhu; and Zhongguo Shehui Kexue Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Han-­Wei Luoyang gucheng nanjiao. See also Jiang Bo, Han-­Tang ducheng lizhi jianzhu, 18–69; and Liu Qingzhu and Li Yufang, Han Changancheng, 135–156. 16. Soothill, The Hall of Light, is an old but still useful book on Mingtang. For an in-­depth discussion, see Hwang Ming-­chorng, “Cosmology, Po­liti­cal Order, and Monuments.” 17. On the symbolism of Chinese numbers, see Eberhard, Dictionary of Chinese Symbols; on the Chinese calendar, see Zurndorfer, Bibliography, 297–307. 18. On the institutions of Chinese ritual through history, see Meyer, Peking as a Sacred City and The Dragons of Tian­anmen, 79–120; Wang Nan, Gudu Beijing, 129–152. 19. Wang Xueli, Xianyang diduji, 180–184. 20. On gardens of the Nanyue kings, see Yang Hongxun, Gongdian kaogu tonglun, 286–312; on Min gardens, see Zhang Qihai, “Chong’anchengcun Hancheng.” 21. The old article by Andrew March is still a recommended introduction to this complex subject; see “An Appreciation of Chinese Geomancy.” 22. On fengshui in K ­ orea, see Hong-­key Yoon, Culture of Fengshui in ­Korea and Pungsa. 23. Luoyangshi Wenwuju and Luoyang Baimasi Han-Wei Gucheng Wenwu Baoguansuo, Han-­Wei Luoyang gucheng; Du Jinpeng and Qian Guoxiang, Han-­Wei Luoyangcheng yizhi yanjiu. 24. Huang Xiaofen, Hanmu kaoguxue, offers a detailed typology based on hundreds of tombs. 25. I choose ­t hese tombs ­because all are well published and all have murals whose themes remained impor­tant for more than the next thousand years of funerary construction in China. On the tombs in Luoyang, see Huang and Guo, Luoyang Hanmu bihua, 141–186; on the tomb in Xingyang, see Xu Guangji, Zhongguo chutu bihua, vol. 5, 91–106. 26. ­These numbers are hard to come by. My own count is that more than ninety tombs with murals w ­ ere published by 2020. In both 2009 and 2017 archaeolo-

Notes to Pages 51–54

319

gists of Han material told me they anticipated at least 100,000 to be the number of Han tombs worth excavating. In addition to Huang Xiaofen, Hanmu kaoguxue, Erickson’s “Han Dynasty Tomb” is a recent overview. 27. This is an impor­tant point in the textbook by Sickman and Soper, Art and Architecture of China, 67–84. 28. Much has been written on this subject. While scholars may argue w ­ hether the tomb should be considered a continuation of the occupant’s life on earth, an environment for a next life, or an ideal environment that offers what life on earth does not, the placement of ­t hese activities on walls, and w ­ hether time is frozen in a tomb, t­ here is l­ ittle disagreement that architecture and decoration in the form of burial objects and murals work together to create the Chinese funerary environment. On Chinese views of life and death as reflected in the tomb, see Wu Hung, Art of the Yellow Springs; Rawson, “Eternal Palaces of Western Han,” and “Changes in the Repre­sen­ta­tion of Life”; Loewe, Chinese Ideas of Life and Death; and Mu-­chou Poo, In Search of Personal Welfare. 29. On this tomb, see Ge Shanlin, Helinge’er Hanmu; Bulling, “Eastern Han Tomb.” On all the tombs discussed in this paragraph, see Hsu, “Pictorial Eulogies.” 30. Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Anping Dong Han bihua mu. 31. Hebeisheng Wenhuaju Wenwu Gongzuodui, Wangdu erhao mu. 32. On the core group of Han tombs, see Tseng, Picturing Heaven, esp. 316–357; Huang and Guo, Luoyang Hanmu bihua; Hebeisheng Wenwuju, Mancheng Hanmu; Xuzhou and Nanjing, Xuzhou Beidongshan Xi Han Chuwangmu; Zhou Xueying, Xuzhou Hanmu; Yan Genqi, Mangdangshan; Xi Han Nanyuewang Bowuguan, Trea­sures from the Museum. 33. The Fenghuangshan tomb is discussed in Wei Jian, Nei Menggu Zhongnanbu, 161–175; Wallace, “Chasing the Beyond”; Ma Liqing, “Nei Menggu Feng­ huangshan Hanmu.” 34. Another Han tomb in which the grains of timber are shown is in Jingbian, Shaanxi; see Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al., “Shaanxi Jingbian Dong Han bihuamu,” 40. One sees three-­dimensional balconies for dancers and musicians in Northern Wei (386–535) murals at the Mogao caves. One of the earliest examples of the attempt to paint three-­dimensionality is along the upper gallery of Mogao cave 254. For an illustration, see Xia Nai et al., Zhongguo shiku: Dunhuang Mogaku, vol. 1, pl. 26. For grains of wood and attempts to show the three-­d imensional quality of wood in the tomb of Wu Qing and Jing Shi in Xing county, Shanxi, dated 1309, see Shanxi Daxue Kexueyuan Jishu Zhexue Yanjiu Zhongxin, “Shanxi Xingxian Hongyucun,” 41, 42. 35. On the Galatu tomb, see E’erduosi Bowuguan et al., “Nei Menggu E’erduosi; on the tomb of Bin Wang, see Greiff and Yin, Das Grab des Bin Wang.

320

Notes to Pages 54–64

36. All the tombs in Inner Mongolia mentioned h ­ ere are discussed in Xu Guangji, Zhongguo chutu bihua quanji, vol. 3, 1–69. 37. Wei Jian, Nei Menggu Zhongnanbu, 215–252. 38. Mōri Osamu., Ying-­ch’eng-­tzu. The tombs are part of a cemetery where excavation continues. In 2003 a gold ­belt buckle whose motifs suggest comparisons with animals outside this region was uncovered: see Dalianshi and Dalian, “Liaoning Dalianshi Yingchengzi.” 39. Xu Guangji, Zhongguo chutu bihua quanji, vol. 8, 3–31; W. Fairbank and Masao, “Han Mural Paintings.” 40. Liaoningsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Liaoning Liaoyang Nanjiaojie.” 41. Most are in Sichuan, Shandong, and Henan; see Xu Wenbin, Sichuan Handai shique. 42. Recent studies have re-­examined the pre-1950 investigations; see Cary Liu et al., Recarving China’s Past; see also Wu Hung, The Wu Liang Shrine, and W. Fairbank, “A Structural Key.” 43. On architectural mingqi, see Guo Qinghua, Mingqi Pottery Buildings. 44. On Buddhist architecture in Han China, see He Yun’ao, Fojiao chuchuan nanfang; Wu Hung, “Buddhist Ele­ments”; and the first five articles in Wenwu, no. 7 (1981): 1–24.

3. Architecture before Reunification 1. Kim Wŏn-­yong, Bunei ōryō. 2. Kim Wŏn-­yong, Recent Archaeological Discoveries, 55. 3. Kungnip Chungang Pangmulgwan, Kungnip Puyŏ Pangmulgwan, and Kungnip Taegu Pangmulgwan, Paekche. 4. The widely accepted date of the Seven Worthies tombs is Eastern Jin (317– 420). For more on the tombs and images, see Spiro, Contemplating the Ancients. 5. Nanjingshi Bowuguan and Nanjingshi Jiangningqu Bowuguan, “Nanjing Jiangning Shangfang Sun Wumu.” 6. Gansusheng Wenwudui et al., Jiayuguan bihuamu; Wang Tianyi, Under­ ground Art Gallery. Some tombs at Jiayuguan are dated as late as the early fifth ­century. Similar tombs dated 265 to early fifth ­century at Qijiawan and Foyemiaowan near Dunhuang are discussed in Dai Chunyang and Gansusheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Dunhuang Foyemiaowan. 7. For more on this comparison, see Steinhardt, “Changchuan Tomb No. 1.” 8. Gansusheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Jiuquan Shiliuguo bihuamu. 9. Ji’anxian Wenwu Baoguansuo, “Ji’an Changchuan yihao bihuamu,” with numerous illustrations. 10. For examples in Gansu, see cave 141 of Maijishan (illustrated in Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 227) and Mogao cave 285 in Dun-

Notes to Pages 66–71

321

huang, among many other examples; in Kizil, in Xinjiang, see Xia Nai et al., Zhongguo shiku: Kezi’er shiku, vol. 2, pls. 177 and 178; Xinjiang Qiuci Shiku Yanjiusuo, Kezi’er shiku neirong, 187–188; for examples in the Bamiyan regions, see Foladi / Fauladi caves, copyright Michael Meister in the Fine Arts Library Image Collection of the University of Pennsylvania or in the Collection of the American Institute of Indian Studies. 11. Bradford, The Guyuan Sarcophagus; Ningxia Guyuan Bowuguan, Guyuan Bei Weimu. I thank Luo Feng for making it pos­si­ble for me to see and photo­ graph the sarcophagus. 12. For an illustration and discussion, see Chen Guangzhi, ed. “Xin Jiang Uygur Autonomous Region Museum,” 10–11. 13. Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 110–113, 122–132, 142–157. 14. See Shanxi Daxue Lishi Wenhua Xueyuan et al., Datong Nanjiao Bei Wei muqun. 15. Gao Feng, “Shanxi Datong Yingbindadao.” 16. Liu Junxi, Datong Yanbei Shifan Daxue. 17. Juliano, Unearthed, 35–53; and Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Datongshi Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Datongshi Bei Wei Song Shaozumu.” 18. On the Shaling tomb, see Liu Junxi, “Shanxi Datong Shaling.” 19. Two inscriptions that provide biographical information about Song are on brick interior walls of his tomb; see Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Datongshi Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Datongshi Bei Wei Song Shaozumu,” 36–37. 20. Behrendt, Buddhist Architecture of Gandhāra. 21. Much of the literary evidence is biographies of monks and dynastic histories. More than one thousand monasteries are listed in t­ hese rec­ords. For lists that draw from the rec­ords, see Wang Guixiang, Zhongguo Hanzhuan Fojiao jianzhushi, vol. 1, 16–20, 22–23, 25–26, 30–34, 54–96, 130–140, 145–169; some monasteries listed on the last groups of charts date to the sixth c­ entury. See also He Liqun, “Buddhist State Monasteries”; Li Chongfeng, Fojiao kaogu. 22. Wang Guixiang, Zhongguo Hanzhuan Fojiao jianzhushi, vol. 1, 45–46. 23. I thank Li Yuqun for showing the Siyuan and Yungang Buddhist monastery remains to me in 2015. See Zhang Qingjie, “Yungang shiku kuding”; Guojia Wenwuju, 2010 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, 127–130. The report on Siyuan Fosi is Hu Ping, “Datong Bei Wei Fangshan Siyuan Fosi.” 24. Liaoningsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Chaoyangshi Beita Bowuguan, Chaoyang Beita, 126–133. 25. Yang Hsüan-­chih, Rec­ord of Buddhist Monasteries, 16–17. 26. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al., “Hebei Linzhangxian Yecheng”; Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Bianjiang Kaogu Yanjiu Zhongxin et al., “Taiyuanshi Longshan Tongzisi.”

322

Notes to Pages 71–77

27. The sources are the historical rec­ords—­Kim Pu-­sik et al., Samguk sagi, and Iryŏn, Samguk yusa, believed to have been compiled in the 1280s. Kaya, which confederated in the second c­ entury CE and fell to Silla in 562, functioned as a fourth kingdom in the southernmost part of the Korean peninsula. Excavation suggests that monasteries existed in Kaya beginning in the fourth ­century; Byington, The Rediscovery of Kaya. 28. Much of the information about monasteries of the Koguryŏ kingdom is de­cades old, published by Japa­nese archaeologists during the occupation of Manchuria or in infrequent North Korean publications. The Chŏngnŭng Monastery ruins are discussed in: Yun Chang-­sŏp, Ha’guk kŏnch’uksa, 83–86; Chang Kyŏng-ho, Han’guk ui chongt’ong konch’uk, 69–71; and Hollenweger, “Buddhist Architecture,” 102–129. 29. Hollenweger, “Buddhist Architecture,” 266–653. 30. The first digging was conducted ­under Fujisawa Kazuo, who did not publish his findings. Systematic excavation and publication was undertaken by a team from Ch’ungnam University Museum led by Yun Mu-­byong; see Yun Mu-­ byŏng, Chŏngnimsaji. On sculpture from Yongningsi, see Qian Guoxiang, “Bei Wei Luoyang Yongningsi.” 31. On Mirŭk Monastery, see Kim and Chang, Mirŭksa. 32. The reliquary was found during repair of the west pagoda. See Lee Kwang­Pyo, “Buddhist Relics”; Choi, “Mireuksa.” 33. For the names and dates of the seven monasteries and associations of the number seven, see Hollenweger, “Buddhist Architecture,” 674–677. 34. Edward Kidder’s book, The Lucky Seventh, was named for this group. Hōryūji, the lucky seventh, is discussed below. On Japa­nese symbolism during this period, see Ooms, Imperial Politics, esp. 154–186. 35. The story is recounted in Samguk sagi and in most secondary lit­er­a­ture about the monastery. 36. G. Renondeau, “La date.” 37. I follow McCallum, The Four G ­ reat T ­ emples, in which he explains the justification for each date. 38. North Korean scholars believe the monastery was built by King Changsu (413–491). The mound is among a group of approximately twenty tombs, some with murals, that include the often-­published paintings from Chinp’ari tomb 4. 39. Hollenweger, “Buddhist Architecture,” 353–375. 40. A power­f ul figure in late fifth-­century North China, the empress dowager’s biography is in Wei Shou, Weishu, 13:328–330, and Li Yanshou, Beishi, 13:495–497; on the dowager and her tomb, see Wenley, ­Grand Empress Dowager; for the excavation report, see Xie Yanqi, “Datong Fangshan.”

Notes to Pages 78–83

323

41. Hollenweger, “Buddhist Architecture,” 841–875. 42. Hollenweger, “Buddhist Architecture,” 799. 43. Yang Hsüan-­chih, Rec­ord of Buddhist Monasteries, 16. 44. The official building date of Songyue Monastery pagoda is 523, placing it in the period when the empress dowager, who commissioned Yongning Monastery pagoda, wielded g­ reat influence on the Northern Wei capital Luoyang. Songyue Monastery pagoda has been restored many times, extensively in the twenty-­first ­century; see Xiao Mo, “Songyuesita”; Zhang Jiatai, “Songyuesita.” 45. Shimokura Wataru, “Nambokuchō.” 46. The definition of a vault used ­here is an arched ceiling of stone or brick that can be imitated in wood or plaster; see Fleming et al., Penguin Dictionary of Architecture, 296–297. The most common types of vaulted ceilings in China are: barrel vault, also known as a tunnel vault, a continuous vault of semicircular or pointed sections, used in tombs in Jiayuguan, Dingjiazha tomb 5, and the tomb of King Muryŏng; and domical vault, a dome that rises on a four-­ sided base. For an illustration of the progression, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 270; and for the source of this illustration, see Liu Dunzhen, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 179. 47. The tomb of Yuan Yi in Shangyang, Luoyang, of Northern Wei, and seven tombs in the Liao cemetery in Xiabali, Xuanhua county, Hebei, dated eleventh and twelfth centuries, are among the most famous examples. 48. For illustrations of ­t hese ceilings and ­others that are similar, see Jeong, World Heritage Goguryeo Tomb Murals, 91, 100–101,135, 140–141, 151, 184, 185, 200–201, 203, 217, 220–221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 236–237, 239, 240–241, 242, 245, 256, 272, 273, 283, 285, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 299, 313, 314, 315, 316, and 317. 49. The name became widely used following Lehmann, “The Dome of Heaven.” Lehmann defines a dome of heaven as a ceiling where the sky is represented. He traces its continuous use in Christian art from Byzantium through the Baroque period, but sees its origins in repre­sen­ta­tions of astrological images in Roman and provincial Roman art, and ancient Egypt. On Asian evidence of the feature see, Soper, “The ‘Dome of Heaven.’ ” 50. The ceilings from Zhihua Monastery are in the United States, one in the Philadelphia Museum of Art and one in the Nelson-­Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City. 51. Oleg Grabar, “Islamic Dome.” One purpose of the study is to caution against a presumption that Islamic domes are derived from the Greco-­Roman world, without full knowledge of domes geo­graph­i­cally closer to the Islamic domes, which Muslim builders are more likely to have seen. 52. For Marylin Rhie’s long argument about the date of this cave, see Rhie, Early Buddhist Art, vol. 3, 49–353.

324

Notes to Pages 83–95

53. On the Twin Pillars tomb, see Steinhardt, “Twin Pillars Tomb,” and Jeong Ho-­seop, World Heritage Goguryeo Tomb Murals, 152–165. 54. On Takamatuszuka, see Nara Kenritsu Kōkogaku Kenkyūjo, Asuka Takamatsuzuka; Takamatsuzuka Kofun Gakujutsu Chōsakai, Takamatsuzuka kofun hekiga; Inokuma Kanekatsu and Watanabe Akiyoshi, Takamatsuzuka kofun; and Nara Kokuritsu Bunkazai Kenkyūjo Asuka Shiryōkan, Takamatsuzuka. 55. For Helian Bobo’s biography, see Fang Xuanling, Jinshu, 130:3201–3214. 56. Li Daoyuan, Shuijingzhu, 3:94; Sima Guang, Zizhi tongjian, 120:2911. 57. Dai Yingxin, “Tongwancheng.” 58. On this topic, see, for example, Teggart, Rome and China; Deng Hainan, Qin-­Han-­Louma; Mittag and Mutschler, Conceiving the Empire; Scheidel, State Power; and Muzhou Pu et al., Old Society, New Belief. 59. Grafton et al., The Classical Tradition, vii. 60. Several studies by Glenn Bowersock, Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar inspired my use of the term: see their Late Antiquity and Interpreting Late Antiquity. I presented the ideas in this and the following paragraphs in the Reischauer Lectures. They are also discussed in Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 200–600, 42, which was in press at that time.

4. Seeing the Sixth C ­ entury as the Seventh and Eighth 1. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Xinzhoushi Wenwu Guanlichu, “Shanxi Xinzhoushi Jiuyuangang.” 2. Double columns are used in the early centuries of the second millennium BCE at Erlitou near Luoyang. It should be assumed that at that time, their purpose was support for the under-­eaves of the roof. They are used as late as the year 1306 to support Ciyun Pavilion in Dingxing, Hebei. 3. This was my feeling when I saw the mural in December of 2017 when it was on special exhibition at the Shanghai Museum. 4. Park, “Tomb of the Dancers”; and Sutherland, “Adaptation and  Trans­ mission.” 5. Nanjingshi Wenwu Baoguan Weiyuanhui, “Nanjing jiaoqu liangzuo Nanchaomu.” 6. Tao Zhenggang, “Shanxi Qixian Baigui.” 7. Funerary inscriptions on stone (muzhiming) provide the kind of information about Xu Xianxiu and Lou Rui that does not exist for the occupant of the Xinzhou tomb; see Tao Zhenggang et al., Bei Qi Dong’angong Lou Ruimu, and Taiyuanshi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Bei Qi Xu Xianxiumu. An undated tomb excavated in Shuozhou in northern Shanxi has similarly painted figures and similar line fluidity. Based on location and style, it is also believed to be

Notes to Pages 95–100

325

Northern Qi; see Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo et  al., “Shanxi Shuozhou Shuiquanliang.” 8. Steinhardt, “Structuring Architecture.” 9. For example, in caves 268, 272, 275, 259, 254, 257, 251, 263, 260, 435, 431, 248, 249, 288, 285, 438, 428, 290, 296, 299, 302, 303,304, 305, 417 423, 433, 295, and 311. 10. Compareti, Samarkand; Wertmann, Sogdians in China; de la Vaissière, Sogdian Traders; Gulasi and Beduhn, “The Religion of Wirkak and Wiyusi”; de la Vaissière and Trombert, eds., Les Sogdiens en China; Mode, Sogdien; Azarpay, Sogdian Painting. 11. Rong Xinjiang, “Sabao or Sabo,” in de la Vaissière and Trombert, Les Sogdiens, 207–230. 12. Yang Junkai, Bei Zhou Shijunmu; Rong Xiniang, “Bei Zhou Shijun.” 13. For illustrations, see Dunhuang Yanjiuyuan, Dunhuang shiku, vol. 21, 85, 88. 14. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al., Taiyuan Sui Yu Hongmu; and Yin Cao, A Silk Road Saga. 15. Xi’an Wenwu Kaogu Baohusuo, “Xi’an Bei Zhou Kang Yemu fajue jianbao”; Zheng Yan, “Bei Zhou Kang Yemu”; Zheng Yan, “Shizhe de mianju”; Lerner, “Yidu”; Mandy Jui-­man Wu, “Contact and Exchange in Northern China.” 16. Ge Chengyong, “Beichao Shuteren.” 17. For an illustration, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 244; the princess is also known as Li Xiaohai. 18. Murata Jirō, Hōryūji; Asano Kiyoshi, Hōryūji; Murata and Ueno, Hōryūji; Ishida, Hōryūji; Nara Rokudaiji Taikan kankōkai, Nara rokudaiji taikan, vols. 1–5: Hōryūji; Mizuno Keizaburō, Hōryūji kara Yakushiji e; Mizuno Seiichi, Asuka Buddhist Art; Suzuki Kakichi, Asuka Hakuhō no bijutsu; Kenchū Jōen, Hōryūji; ­Inoue Shōichi, Hōryūji; and Dorothy Wong, Hōryūji; among many other publications. Naitō Tōichirō, Wall-­Paintings of Hōryūji, also received significant attention in the twentieth c­ entury. Naitō proposed that the style of Buddhist murals in rock-­carved caves in Ajanta, near Aurangabad in central India, dated ca. third ­century to 480 CE, was transmitted eastward across Asia to find resolution in eighth-­century murals in the Kondō of Hōryūji. Naitō may have had the right instincts, but like any research conducted before the 1950s, excavated material was not available to confirm it. The murals on which he focused w ­ ere consumed by fire in 1949. 19. For the list of twenty-­two, see Introduction, note 42. Shared features at the pagoda of the monastery Hokkiji and the Tamamushi Shrine are discussed below. 20. This is the thesis of Donald McCallum, The Four ­Great T ­ emples. On the statues, see also Mizuno Seiichi, Asuka Buddhist Art, 30–39.

326

Notes to Pages 100–114

21. Aston, trans., Nihongi, vol. 2, 292, 293. 22. Mizuno Keizaburō, Hōryūji kara Yakushiji e; and Steinhardt, “Seeing Hōryūji.” 23. Kidder, The Lucky Seventh, 203; Sagawa Masatoshi, “Nihon kodai mokutō.” 24. Parent, “A Reconsideration.” 25. On Tamamushi Shrine, see Uehara Kazu, Tamamushi no zushi. 26. Gansusheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Gaotaixian Bowuguan, “Gansu Gaotai Digengpo.” 27. For illustrations, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 126, 168. 28. For discussion of the Chinese city plans, see Fu Xinian, Zhongguo gudai jianshushi, vol. 2, 314–340; for illustrations, see 327, 332; for detailed maps, 369 and 370. The modern study of Japa­nese capitals begins with Kita Sadakichi’s Teito and chance finds of archaeological remains before formal excavation began in Nara in 1924. The history of research on Japa­nese capitals is summarized in Farris, Sacred, 124–130. Empress Suiko’s Toyura Palace, Emperor Jomei’s Okamoto Palace, rebuilt ­under Emperors Saimei and Tenji, Empress Kōgyoku’s Itabuki Palace, and Emperor’s Temmu’s Kiyomihara Palace are among ­those for which ­there is evidence in Asuka. Ele­ments that pre­sent opportunities for comparison with Chinese royal residential architecture, such as ceramic decoration from the ends of roof ridges and roof tiles, have been uncovered at all the sites 29. For illustrations of ­these plans, see Fu Xinian, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, vol. 2, 2, 105, 110, 115.

5. Tang Internationalism 1. Of the long bibliography on the subjects in this paragraph, works that include more than one topic are: D. Wong, Buddhist Pilgrim-­Monks; Lopez, Hyecho’s Journey; Steinhardt, “Mizong Hall”; Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan, Dai Kentōshi-­ten. 2. On objects from Hejia, see, for example, Shaanxi Lishi Bowuguan, Da Tang yibao; Qi Dongfang et al., Huawu Da Tangchun. On Famensi objects, see Shi Xingbang, Famensi. On Shōsoin objects, see Shōsoin Office, Trea­sures of the Shosoin. 3. Steinhardt et al., “Shoroon Bumbagar.” 4. Cheng Yi, Guanzhong diqu; Eckfeld, Imperial Tombs; Li Xingming, Tangdai mushi; Su Bai, “Xi’an diqu”; Tang Changdong, Da Tang bihua; Yin Shengping, Tangmu bihua; Zhou Tianyou, Tangmu. No written document or inscription proves that a tomb with murals designates a person of higher social status than a tomb without murals. Logic suggests that the more time and

Notes to Pages 114–119

327

money spent on a tomb, the wealthier, if not higher status, its occupant. In Han, the tenth c­ entury, Song, and Jin, tomb walls could be covered with relief or with murals, and t­ hose tombs w ­ ere not all royal. In the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, however, ­every royal tomb that has been uncovered has painted walls. ­Because murals are one of the most impor­tant comparative features of the Bayannuur tomb, for comparisons we turn only to tombs with murals. 5. For the locations, see Chen Anli, Tang shibaling; Cheng Zheng and Hui Li, Sanbaili diaoke. On Dingling, the tomb of Tang Xizong, see Shaanxi Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Shaanxi xinchutu, 185–190. 6. For a biography, see Fitzgerald, The Empress Wu; Rothschild, Wu Zhao and Emperor Wu Zhao. 7. Shaanxisheng Wenguanhui, Yongtai; Wang Xiaoli, “Yongtai gongzhumu”; Zhang Tianyou, Tangmu bihua zhenpin; Shaanxisheng Bowuguan and Shaanxi­ sheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui, Tang Li Xianmu Li Chongrunmu; Shaanxi­ sheng Kaogu Yanjiuyuan and Qianling Bowuguan, Tang Yide; Shen Qinyan and Fan Shuying, Yide taizimu. 8. On Princess Xincheng’s tomb, see Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al., Tang Xincheng; on Prince Huizhuang’s tomb, see Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yan­ jiusuo Tianye Kaogu Baogao, Tang Huizhuang; on Zhanghuai’s tomb, see Shaanxisheng Bowuguan and Shaanxisheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui, Tang Li Xianmu. 9. Li Xingming, Tangdai mushi bihua yanjiu, 109–112; Shanxisheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui, “Taiyuan Nanjiao”; Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Taiyuanshi Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui, “Taiyuan Jinshengcun.” 10. The tomb is in Shui village of Dongguang county; see Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Dongguan Shuicun, 101. 11. Fu Xinian, “Tangdai suidao xingmu.” 12. Ningxia Huizu Zizhiqu Guyuan Bowuguan and Luo Feng, Guyuan Nanjiao, 112–135. 13. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Tangdai Xue Jingmu. 14. For illustrations, see Ningxia Huizu Zizhiqu Guyuan Bowuguan and Luo Feng, Guyuan Nanjiao Sui-­Tang mudi, fig. 68; Steinhardt et al., “Shoroon Bumbagar,” fig. 18. 15. Ningxia Huizu Zizhiqu Guyuan Bowuguan and Luo Feng, Guyuan Nanjiao Sui-­Tang mudi, 87–111. 16. Wudi’s wife was a member of the Türkic clan Ashina. One keeps this in mind in seeking non-­Chinese influences for the motif, given that bannermen so far do not appear in murals on entrance ramps to Han tombs. At this time ­t here is no compelling evidence for the origin of this image. On this tomb, see Zhang Jianlin et al., “Bei Zhou Wudi Xiaoling.”

328

Notes to Pages 119–130

17. Ningxia Huizu Zizhiqu Guyuan Bowuguan and Ningxia Bowuguan, “Ningxia Guyuan”; Wu Zhuo, “Notes on the Silver Ewer”; Carpino and James, “Li Xian Silver Ewer.” 18. Yuanzhou Lianhe Kaogudui, Bei Zhou Tian Hongmu and Yuanzhou Lian­he Kaogudui, Tang Shi Daoluomu. 19. Cixian Wenhuaguan, “Hebei Cixian”; Tang Chi, “Dong Wei Ruru gongzhumu.” 20. Chaffin, “Strange Creatures of Chu”; M. Fong, “Tombs Guardian Figurines.” 21. Danilov et al., “Kurgan Shoroon Dov”; Ochir et al., Ertniĭ nüüdelchdiĭn. 22. Pan Yihong, Son of Heaven, 168–203, 262–286. 23. Sinor, “The Establishment and Dissolution of the Türk Empire,” in Sinor, The Cambridge History, 285–316; Pan Yihong, Son of Heaven, 262–286; Golden, An Introduction; Skaff, Sui-­Tang China. 24. Sinor, “Establishment and Dissolution,” 313. 25. Moriyasu, “Qui des Ouigours”; Ecsedy, “Uighurs”; Hamilton, Les Ouighours; and Steinhardt, “Beiting”; 26. Meng Fanren, Beiting; Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Beiting. 27. Steinhardt, “Beiting.” 28. Vaĭnsteĭn, “Drevniĭ Por-­Bazhyn”; Härke, “Letter”; Arzhantseva et  al., “Por-­Bajin.” 29. Hüttel and Erdenebat, Karabalgasun und Karakorum; Klements, “Arkheologicheskij dnevnik”; Dähne, Karabalgasun. On the Türk and Uyghur cities and monuments discussed in this section, see Arden-­Wong, “The Eastern Uighur Khaganate. 30. Minorsky, “Tamīm ibn Baḥr’s Journey,” 283. 31. Skaff, Sui-­Tang China; Drompp, “Chinese ‘Qaghans’ ”; Drompp, Tang China; Pan Yihong, Son of Heaven, 168–203, 262–279. A famous example of the recounting of history in f­ avor of the wrong victor is the painting attributed to Li Gonglin (1049–1106) in the Palace Museum, Taipei, in which the Uyghur khan bows in deference to the Tang general Guo Ziyi for China’s help, when in fact the Uyghurs ­were responsible for Tang’s keeping possession of eastern Xinjiang. 32. Radloff, Altas; Klements, “Archeologicheskij dnevnik”; Kotwicz, “Poezdka v dolinu Orchona”; Bukinič, “Obshchii otchet”; Kiselev, “Drevnie goroda”; Dähne and Erdenebat, “Archaeological Excavations.” 33. Dähne, Karabalgasun; Hüttel and Erdenebat, Karabalgasun und Karakorum. 34. Khud ͡iakov, “Pam͡iatniki”; Hayashi et al., “Site of Bay Bäliq.”

Notes to Pages 130–136

329

35. Yoshida, “Some New Readings”; Moriyasu, “Site and Inscription.” 36. Ochir and Erdenebold, “About the Uighur City”; and verbal communication with Nikolay Kradin in 2018. ͡ ia ͡ 37. Kyzlasov, “Srednevekovye goroda”; Kyzlasov, Istoriia; Kyzlasov, Drevnia Tuva; Kolbas, “Khukh Ordung.” 38. Ta La et  al., Mengguo Haotengtesumu; Ochir et  al., “Ancient Uighur Mausolea”; Shanxi Daxue Lishi Wenhua Xueyuan et  al., “Mengguguo Houhang’aisheng.” 39. Of the long bibliography on the Bezeklik caves and cave 9, the following, in chronological order, are most relevant to discussion ­here: Gabain, Das Leben; Murakami, Seiiki no Bukkyō; Yaldiz, Archäeologie und Kunstgeschichte, 123– 142; Jia and Xinjiang, Tulufan Bozekelike; Xinjiang Tulufan Diqu Wenwu Gaoguansuo, Tulufan Bozekelike; Meng Fanren, Gaochang, esp. 114–134; Leidy, “Bezeklik ­Temple 20”; Steinhardt, “Red Lintels, Green Rooftops.” 40. The mural on the north wall of Mogao cave 217 is dominated by architecture with ­t hese details. For an illustration, see Dunhuang Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Zhongguo shiku, vol. 3, pl. 103. 41. The ceiling is in the Musée Guimet in Paris. On Kakrak, see Chandra, “The Twelve Light-­Buddhas.” 42. On this interpretation of the scene, see Comparati, Samarkand, 63–243; Mode, Sogdien, 19–118. 43. Muzio, “Remarks on the Paintings”; Nekrasova, Termez; Staviskiĭ, Buddiĭskie komplexky Kara-­tepe: Pugachenkova, Termez; Al’baum, “Raskopki Buddiyskogo kompleksa”; Masson, “Gorodischa Starogo Termeza.” 44. Lopez, Hyecho’s Journey, 30–31. 45. On excavations at Adzhina-­tepe, and for an image of the parinirvana, see Litvinskij and Zeĭmal’, Buddiĭskiĭ monastyr’, 31 and 101; Buddhist Monastery, 31 and 101; and Adzhina-­tepa, 163–164. 46. Ouyang Xiu, Xin Tangshu, juan 216, is one of the Chinese sources that rec­ords the history of the Tibetan kings. On the period, see Beckwith, The Tibetan Empire; for shorter discussion, Rolf  A. Stein, Tibetan Civilization, 56–70. 47. The tombs w ­ ere known in the West since the eigh­teenth c­ entury. Giuseppe Tucci studied them in 1948: Tucci, Tombs. See also Richardson, “Early Burial Grounds.” Presumably his photo­graphs are used in Snellgrove and Richardson, A Cutural History, 35–37; see also 51–54, 91–92. 48. Chinese researchers turned to this material in 1961; see Wang Yi, “Zang wangmu.” On the twenty tombs identified by 2006, see Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Zang Wangmu; for a plan of their locations, see p. 152.

330

Notes to Pages 138–141

49. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Liudingshan; Reckel, Bohai, 209–214. 50. Wang Chengli, “Jilin Dunhua”; Song Kiho, “Parhae Chŏnghye.” 51. Chŏng Yŏngjin et  al., Kobunŭro bon Parhae; Chŏn Hot’ae, “Parhaeŭi kobun”; Yanbian Chaoxianzu Zizhizhou Bowuguan, “Bohai Zhenxiao”; Wang Chengli, “Tangdai Bohai Zhenhui.” 52. This is the tomb mentioned above; see note 16 for excavation report. 53. Ariane Perrin has studied directional animals in Koguryŏ tomb murals throughout her ­career. For a recent study, see Perrin, “Reassessment.” 54. This style of Tang court female dress is portrayed in paintings by or attributed to Zhang Xuan (first half of eighth c­ entury) and Zhou Fang (ca. 740–800), such as: Ladies Preparing Newly Woven Silk, in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Ladies with Flowers in Their Hair, in the Liaoning Provincial Museum; Ladies Playing Double Sixes, in the Freer Gallery; and Tuning the Lute and Drinking Tea, in the Nelson-­Atkins Museum in Kansas City; and in murals in Mogao caves 45 and 85. 55. A single English-­language work in which some of this material is discussed is Youn-mi Kim, New Perspectives. 56. Iryŏn, Samguk Yusa, bk. 2, 96. 57. Paludan, Chinese Spirit Road, 121–155. 58. The stone men in Figure 5.9 are not part of a spirit path, for they approach a funerary shrine, not a tomb. They are known, literally, as stone men. Their origins are traced to deer stones (orthostats with deer imagery) erected across Mongolia since Neolithic times; on deer stones, particularly their global use as much as 10,000 years ago, see Fitzhugh, “Mongolian Deer Stones”; on ­later stone men of Mongolia, see Charleux, “From Ongun to Icon.” The popularity of stone men at Türk shrines across Mongolia, con­temporary with Tang, may lead to suggestions that knowledge of Tang spirit paths inspired their increased use in Mongolia at this time. So far, this idea has not been proved. 59. On Sŏkkuram, and for illustrations of the figures on the interior walls, see Harrell, “Sokkuram.” 60. Very ­limited publications include the announcement of the 1991 excavation in “Heilongjiang fajue Bohai”; Liu Xiaodong and Fu Ye, “Shilun Sanjingfen”; sections of general studies, such as Reckel, Bohai, 318–319; Xu Guangji, Zhongguo ͡ chutu bihua quanji, vol. 8, vii, xix, 216–220; and D’ iakova, Gosudarstvo Bokhai. On a thoroughly excavated cemetery in Heilongjiang, see Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Ning’an Hongzunyuchang. 61. On the five-­capital system, see Song Yubin, “Bohai ducheng guzhi yanjiu,” summarized in an En­g lish article in Chinese Archaeology 10 (2010): 83–90. Shangjing, the name of a capital of Parhae that would ­later be used by Liao and

Notes to Pages 141–145

331

Jin, translates, literally, as “upper capital,” but ­because of its status it sometimes is translated as “superior capital.” On the five capitals, see Wei Cuncheng, Bohai kaogu, 191–290; Zhu Guochen and Zhu Wei, Bohai kaogu, 63–75. 62. Song Yubin, “Bohai ducheng,” believes the eastern capital is in China; some North Korean scholars believe it is in North ­Korea. 63. Wang Chengli, “Jilin Dunhua”; Wei Cuncheng, Bohai kaogu, 51–55. 64. On mountain-­castles, see Wei Cuncheng, Gaogouli yizhi, 68–142; Chen Dawei, “Liaoning Gaogouli.” 65. Song Yubin and Jilinsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Xigucheng; see 6–15 for the proposed reconstruction plans considered most significant by archaeologists, and 16–19 for a brief debate on their accuracy based on opinions of major scholars. 66. Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, ed., Bohai Shangjingcheng; Zhao Hongguang, Bohai Shangjingcheng. 67. Harada and Komai, Tung-­ching-­ch’eng. Chinese excavation commenced in the 1960s and continued in the 1980s and from 1997 ­until 2007. 68. Zhao Hongguang, Bohai Shangjingcheng, 5–6. 69. The configuration is as similar to the Hanyuan Hall complex, the main hall of audience of the Tang emperors from 634 to ca. 880 in the Daming palace-­ complex in Chang’an, as to any other building complex known. For details, see Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 167–208. 70. Toriyama Kiichi excavated ­t here, at Xigucheng, and at Shangjing in the 1920s and 1930s. Much of the Japa­nese material was not published ­u ntil the 1960s; see Toriyama, Bokkai shijō. 71. Wang Peixin and Liang Huili, Baliancheng. 72. By Matsu Namihachi in one of the earliest modern studies of the five capitals, “Bokkai gokyō.” 73. Discovered by Pyotr (Palladius) Kafarov (1817–1878) in 1870. E. V. Savkunov excavated and published the site beginning in the 1950s; see, for example, Savkunov, Gosudarstvo Bochaj, and Savkunov, Gosudarstvo Bochaj 698–926. Since 1980, Kraskino has been excavated by Rus­sian, joint Russian–­South Korean, and occasionally Japa­nese archaeologists; for a summary of excavations and reports through 2008, see A. Kim, “Archeological Studies of Bohai.” For maps, locations of excavation sites within the outer wall, and illustrations of excavated objects, see D’ ͡iakova, Gosudarstvo Bokhaĭ, 113–119. 74. As of 2012, forty-­four monasteries ­were distributed in Kuguk—­seventeen in the vicinity of the central capital, seven in the eastern capital region, two in the cir­cuit of the southern capital, ten (­those about which the most is known) near Shangjing, five in Primorye, and three ­others; Duncan, A New History, 154. 75. Zhu Guochen and Zhu Wei, Bohai kaogu, 114.

332

Notes to Pages 146–149

76. In 1908 in Liu Jianfeng, “Changbaishan jianggang zhilue” [Rec­ord of waterways and grottoes on Mt. Changbai]; reprinted in Changbai congzhu (Jilin, 1987): 388; both unavailable to me; cited in Reckel, Bohai, 383. 77. For an illustration of Xuanzang Pagoda in Xi’an, see Zhang Yuhuan and Luo Zhewen, Ancient Chinese Pagodas, 164. 78. For illustrations of the many stone pagodas that survive from Silla, see Chŏn Tŭg-­yŏm, Paekcheyu sŏkt’ap; for more general discussion, see Ko, Han’guk t’app’a. 79. Zhu Guochen and Zhu Wei, Bohai kaogu, 126–127. 80. For more on the excavations, see Wei Cuncheng, Bohai kaogu, 65–67. 81. The three halls are: the main hall of Nanchan Monastery in Wutai, Shanxi, dated 782; the main hall of Tiantai Hermitage in Pingshun, Shanxi, dated 808– 832; and the main hall of Wulong (Five Dragons) ­Temple, dated 831. All have been repaired. On t­ hese buildings, see, for example, Chai Zejun, Chai Zejun gujianzhu, 78–82, 353–372, on the Nanchansi building; Wang Chunbo, “Shanxi Pingshun” on the hall at Tiantai Hermitage; and Jiu Guanwu, “Shanxi Zhongtiaoshan” on the hall at Five Dragons ­Temple. 82. The long bibliography on the Tang building at Foguang Monastery includes Liang Sicheng, “Wutaishan Foguangsi”; Qinghua Daxue Jianzhu Sheji Yanjiusuo et al., Foguangsi; Zhang Yingying and Li Yan, Wutaishan; Chen Tong, “Foguangsi.” 83. Toriyama Kiichi, “Manshūkoku Kenshimaken,” is the earliest report. On all the monasteries, see Wei Cuncheng, Bohai kaogu, 117. 84. The first comprehensive study of Parhae remains in Primorye based on excavations is Śavkunov, Gosudarstvo Bokhaĭ. Some of his material is summarized in Reckel, Bohai, 65–371. D’ ͡iakova (Diakova; Dyakova), Gosudarstvo Bokhaĭ, 109–214, includes material found since Reckel’s study. For a more current summary, see Kradin, Goroda srednevekovykh imperiĭ, 68–123. 85. He Ming, “Jilin Helong. 86. The octagonal plan presented h ­ ere was published in Yanbian wenwu jianbian, a source not available to me. The plan and a proposed theoretical reconstruction as a pavilion also are published in Reckel, Bohai, 589. Wei Cuncheng, Bohai kaogu, 58, publishes only the plan. He shows it as a circular configuration. 87. On Yumedono, see Saeki Keizō, Yumedono. On the octagonal hall at Eizanji, see Fukuyama Toshio and Akiyama Terukazu, Eizanji hakkakudō and Eizanji hakkakudō no kenkyū; Tamura Yoshinaga, Eizanji. On the structure in Luoyang, see Chen Jiuhuan, “Sui-­Tang dongdu.” The ­limited publications on the remains in Kyŏngju discovered in the twenty-­first c­ entury are highly

Notes to Pages 151–157

333

speculative. No one has proposed a commemorative hall as the purpose of this building, the function argued ­here. 88. By 2009, twelve groups of twenty-­four stones arranged in three groups of eight had been identified. The only suggestion about their purpose has been pedestals. Pieces of ceramics dated to Parhae have been found in their vicinities. If the stones ­were used in a ceremony, nothing about its specifics is known. See Jilinsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Dunhuashi Wenwu Guanlisuo, “Jilin”; Sun Xiuren, “Bohaiguo ershisikuaishi.” 89. Titsingh, Nihon Odai Ichiran; Noguchi, Emperor; Ponsonby-­Fane, The Imperial House; Varley, Chronicles; Piggott, Emergence of Japa­nese Kingship. 90. For an illustration of the tie beam at Maijishan, see Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 65. 91. On this building, see Mōri Hisashi, Shin Yakushiji. 92. For an illustration of the truss in Maijishan cave 15, see Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 49. 93. Steinhardt, “The Mizong Hall of Qinglong Si.”

6. Defining Chinese Architecture and Borders during Liao 1. One finds mention of the K(h)itan in works of Iakinf (Hyacinth) Bichurin (1777–1853) and Emil Bretschneider (1833–1901). In 1897 Édouard Chavannes brought attention to the Khitan in “Voyageurs chinois.” ­Father Jozef Mullie conducted some of the most impor­tant early on-­site research; see his, “Les anciennes villes,” “Les sépultures,” “La rivière,” and, with L. Ker, “La tombeau”; and one of Mullie’s last articles, “Anciennes villes.” 2. R. Stein, “Leao-­tche”; Wittfogel and Feng, History. 3. Sekino and Takeshima, Ryō Kin jidai; Torii, Kōkogakujō yori mitaru and Ryō no bunka; Takeshima, Ryō-­Kin jidai; Tamura Jitsuzō and Kobayashi, Keiryō. 4. The buildings associated with the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms are: West Side Hall (Xipeidian) of Longmen Monastery in Pingshun, Shanxi, dated 925; G ­ reat Bud­dha Hall (Dafodian) of Dayunyuan, also in Pingshun, dated 940; Ten Thousand Bud­dhas Hall of Zhenguo Monastery in Haodong, Shanxi, dated 963; ­Great Bud­d ha Hall of Hualin Monastery in Fuzhou, Fujian, dated 964; Wenshu (Mañjuśrī) Hall of Geyuan Monastery in Laiyuan, Hebei, dated 966, and sometimes labeled a Liao building; two halls in Zhangzi, Shanxi, one at Jade Emperor T ­ emple (Yuhuangmiao) and one at Biyun Monastery; the pavilion at Kaiyuan Monastery in Zhengding, Hebei; and the Hall of ­Great Achievement (Dacheng) at the Confucian ­Temple, also in Zhengding, are likely

334

Notes to Pages 157–164

to date from the tenth c­ entury, as well. As in the Tang dynasty, the number of survivals from the first half of the tenth ­century is still small compared to what rec­ords suggest; Steinhardt, “Standard Architecture.” 5. Zhang Buqian, “Fuzhou Hualinsi Dadian”; Yang Binglun et al., “Fuzhou Hualinsi”; Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 273–295. 6. Qi Yingtao, Zenyang jianding, 6. 7. For evidence of the distinctions between North and South China in architecture as a result of events in the mid-­eighth ­century, see Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 229–231. 8. Liang Sicheng, Liang Sicheng quanji, vol. 1, 129–159; Pan Yushan and Ma Shichang, Mogaoku. 9. Steinhardt, “Standard Architecture”; Xianyangshi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Wudai Feng Huimu; Baojishi Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Wudai Li Maozhen. 10. Zeng Zhaoyue and Nanjing Bowuyuan, Nan Tang erling. 11. The caves of Shizhongshan in the Sibao mountains about 25 kilo­meters southwest of Jianchuan, Sichuan, ­were carved around the year 850. The sixteen caves, spread over a 3-­square-­k ilometer area, include repre­sen­ta­t ions of the kings of Nanzhao, presumably wearing the distinctive headgear of the kingdom’s royalty; see Liu Changjiu, Nanzhao he Daliguo and Yunnansheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui, Nanzhao Dali Wenwu. 12. For an image, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 135. 13. For a list of Liao wooden buildings, see Steinhardt, Liao Architecture, 59. 14. Significant new research has been gleaned from on-­site study of this building since Steinhardt, Liao Architecture. The work was guided by Chen Mingda (1914–1997), who initiated it in the 1930s; it was completed and published in the twenty-­first ­century. On Fengguosi Daxiongbao Hall, see Jianzhu Wenhua Kaochazu, Yixian Fengguosi. 15. Ding Mingyi, Huayansi; Qi Ping et al., Datong Huayansi. 16. Liang Sicheng used ­t hese two terms freely in e­ very study of a Tang, Liao, Song, Jin, or Yuan building; see any article by him on a building of one of ­these periods. 17. Lai Delin, “Idealizing a Chinese Style.” 18. Liang Sicheng, “Jixian Dulesi”; Chen Mingda et al., Jixian Dulesi; Yang Xin, Jixian Dulesi. 19. Liang Sicheng, “Wutaishan Foguangsi de jianzhu,” is the earliest. Zhang Yingying and Li Yan, Wutaishan; Qinghua Daxue Jianzhu Sheji Yanjiusuo et al., Foguangsi; and Chen Tong, “Foguangsi Dongdadian” are the most recent. 20. Zheng Shaozong, “Hebei Xuanhua” and “Liaodai caihua.” 21. On the lunar lodges, see Schafer, Pacing the Void, 79–83 and Pankenier, Astrology and Cosmology, 392–393.

Notes to Pages 164–169

335

22. Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Xuanhua Liaomu; Zhangjiakoushi Xuanhuaqu Wenwu Baoguansuo and Liu Haiwen, Xuanhua Xiabali. 23. Steinhardt, Liao Architecture, 342–351. 24. On Chinese views of death, see Oldering and Ivanhoe, Mortality; Poo, In Search of Personal Welfare; Loewe, Chinese Ideas. 25. Louis, “Iconic Ancestors.” 26. On the tomb in Yemaotai, see Liaoningsheng Bowuguan and Liaoning Tielingdiqu Wenwuzu, “Faku Yemaotai.” On Liao tomb structure, see Steinhardt, “The Architectural Landscape.” 27. Wu Hung, “Two Royal Tombs.” 28. For extant remains of a spirit path, see Li Yiyou, “Liao Yelü Congmu.” On a cemetery of three imperial Liao tombs, see Tamura Jitsuzō and Kobayashi, Keiryō. 29. Wang Jianqun and Chen Xiangwei, Kulun bihua. 30. For more illustrations, see Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen, “Datong gu­jianzhu.” 31. Li Jie, Yingzao fashi, vol. 2, juan 33 and 34, 894–1075. 32. Cao Xun, “Yemaotai.” 33. ­Belts of gold and other metals have been found in Koguryŏ, Paekche, and Silla tombs, including the tombs of King Muryŏng. They are believed to be a Northeast Asian tradition. The plugging of orifices to contain bodily ­matter is a reason for the use of jade suits, a common practice in the Han dynasty with a few e­ arlier examples. On the ­belts, see Cui Xianhua, “Bohai fushi,” 29–39, 90– 95; I thank Ah-­R im Park for sending me this reference. On the use of jade suits and jade to plug h ­ uman orifices, see Kao, “On Jade Suits,” and Erickson, “Ways of Facing the Dead.” 34. The paintings, too, have been studied alongside Chinese masterworks: see J. Cahill, “Some Aspects,” and Vinograd, “New Light.” 35. Li Jie, Yingzao fashi, vol. 2, juan 22, 489–494. 36. Liang Sicheng, “Jixian Guanyinsi.” 37. Han Jiagu, “Dulesi shiji kao”; Tianjinshi Lishi Bowuguan Kaogudui and Jixian Wenwu Baohusuo, “Tianjin Jixian.” 38. Two tiangong inside the spire of the imperial pagoda of Songyue Monastery on Mount Song prob­ably ­were added in the Song dynasty during a repair or other emendation. Excavation in the 1980s confirmed that the objects in the digong ­were dated to 523; Guo Tiansuo and Wang Guoqi, “Dengfeng Songyuesita,” and Yang Baoshun, “Dengfeng Songyuesita.” Impor­tant reliquaries beneath Liao pagodas are published in Dong Gao et al., “Liaoning Chaoyang Beita”; Liaoningsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Chaoyangshi Beita Bowuguan, Chaoyang Beita; Zhongguo Lishi Bowuguan and Shanxisheng Wenwuju, Yingxian

336

Notes to Pages 170–176

muta; De Xin et al., “Nei Menggu Balinyouqi.” On a Song digong, see Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Leifeng yizhen, and Lin Shimin, “Zhejiang Ningbo Leifengta.” Two other digong from the same time period are discussed in the same issue of Wenwu; see Liu Youheng and Fan Zilin, “Hebei Zhengding,” and Guo Jianbang et al., “Henan Dengzhoushi.” 39. Wang Guang, Liaoxi guta, 79–85. 40. Steinhardt et al. “Shoroon Bumbagar.” Since I was ­t here in 2013, the pagoda has been restored. 41. Perlee, Büteeliin Chuulgan. 42. Andrei Lunkov et al., “The Frontier Fortification.” All the towns predate Chinggis Khan (ca. 1162–1227). 43. In publications listed in note 3. 44. “Liaoningsheng Renmin zhengfu bangongting zhuanfasheng wenhuating deng bumen guanyu Liaota baohu gongcheng shishi yijian de tongzhi” and the following MA or PhD dissertations: Yang Nan, “Liaodai miyanshi”; Yang Rui, “Hebei Liaota”; Wang Ying, “Liaota fenbu”; Yang Nan, “Liaoning Liaota.” Wang Guang, Liaoxi guta includes fifty-­six pagodas, among which twenty-­seven monumental pagodas are believed by the author to date to the Liao period and one to Liao-­Jin. My estimate is that forty to fifty extant monumental pagodas, even if restored, bear exterior signs of their original Liao structures. 45. Wang Yuting, Liao Shangjing; Liu Ximin, Liao Shangjing. 46. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Nei Menggu Di’er Gongzuodui and Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Nei Menggu Balinzuoqi Liao Shangjing huangcheng,” 3–6; Guojia Wenwuju, 2012 Zhongguo zhongyao, 140–144. 47. On the associations between royalty and cave-­temples, see Soper, “Imperial Cave-­Chapels.” On the Binyang caves, see McNair, Donors of Longmen, 31–50. 48. Caves 28 and 30 are examples of the first type, and cave 5 is an example of the second type. See Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 28–37, 46–48. 49. Coaldrake, Architecture and Authority, 83–93; Ota Seiroku, Shinden-­ zukuri. For illustrations of Hanyuan Hall, see Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 167–208. 50. Yiengpruksawan, “The Phoenix Hall” and “A Pavilion for Amitabha.” 51. Yiengpruksawan, “Countdown to 1051.” 52. Northeast Asia History Foundation, New History of Parhae, 40–41. 53. Qu Yingjie, Gudai chengshi, 213. 54. ­There is a long bibliography on Liao Shangjing. Very recent excavations reports are: Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Nei Menggu Di’er Gongzuotui and Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Nei Menggu

Notes to Pages 176–185

337

Balinzuoqi Liao Shangjing gongcheng”; Wang Ying et  al., “Nei Menggu Balinzuoqi.” 55. Impor­tant resource material for the Liao southern capital and Jin and Yuan cities, of which it became part, are: Mei Ninghua, Beijing Liao, Jin shiyi; Beijingshi Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Beijing kaogushi; Xu Pingfang, Liao-­Jin-­Menggu shiqi. 56. Qu Yingjie, Gudai chengshi, 235. 57. Kradin, Kidanʹskiĭ gorod. All four Khitan towns have Parhae remains, and some show evidence of Jurchen construction.

7. Western Xia, Song, Japan, Jin 1. Biran, Empire of Qara Khitai. 2. In 1005, to keep peace with Liao, Song ceded sixteen prefectures of North China to them; see Wright, “The Sung-­K itan War” and From War to Diplomatic Parity. 3. Kozlov, Mongoli ͡ia i Amdo; Lubo-­L esnichenko, Mertvyĭ gorod; Guo Zhizheng and Li Yiyou, “Nei Menggu Heicheng.” 4. Piotrovsky, Lost Empire. 5. Shi Jinbo, Xi Xia wenwu. 6. For an illustration, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 148. 7. Steinhardt, “The Tangut Royal Tombs.” 8. Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Bei Song huangling. 9. Luoyangshi Wenwu Guanliju, Gudu Luoyang, 189. 10. Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Zhejiang Songmu; Sichuansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Luxian Songmu and Huaying An Bingmu; Zhou Diren et al., De’an Nan Song; Fujiansheng Bowuguan, Fuzhou Nan Song. 11. T. Miller, Divine Nature of Power. 12. At least six ­temples dedicated to two female immortals known as Erxian remain in Shanxi. The ­temple to the earth goddess, Houtu, in Wanrong, now rebuilt, was one of several Song ­temples dedicated to that divinity in Shanxi. 13. Hebeisheng Zhengdingxian Wenwu Baoguansuo et  al., Zhengding Longxingsi. 14. Guo Daiheng, Donglai diyishan; Dongnan Daxue Jianzhu Yanjiusuo, Ningbo Baoguosi. 15. This building, mentioned in passing in Chapter 6, is the most impor­tant extant example of the transmission of details of a Tang diantang to South China; see Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 275–277. 16. Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 273–295. 17. Rosenfield, Portraits of Chogen, 110, 111, 121, 122–123, 125–126.

338

Notes to Pages 185–193

18. Rosenfield, Portraits of Chogen.; Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 273–295; Soper, Evolution of Buddhist Architecture, 210–215, 217, 253; Tanaka Tan, “Chōgen no zoei and “Dai Butsuyō”; Zhang Shiqing, Zhong-­Ri. 19. Colcutt, Five Mountains, xvi–­x vii; Zhang Shiqing, Wushan shishantu, 23–30. 20. Lu is a rare example of someone named in city design through the history of China; his biography is Tuotuo, Jinshi, juan 75, 1716. 21. Jing Ai, Jin Shangjing, and Yu Jie and Yu Guangdu, Jin Zhongdu, represent publications based on excavated evidence through the 1980s. The presence of a T-­shaped approach to Song Bianjing and Jin Zhongdu, as well as at the ­later capital Daidu of the Yuan dynasty and at Ming-­Qing Beijing, was assumed when I wrote about t­ hose cities in Chinese Imperial City Planning. One of the impor­ tant pieces of evidence for twentieth-­century secondary scholarship was an illustration of Jin Zhongdu in the encyclopedia, Chen Yuanjing, Shilin guangji, first published in the thirteenth c­ entury and reissued in the period 1330–1333. It is illustrated in Steinhardt, Chinese Imperial City Planning, 133. 22. For information on most recent excavations, see Ding Linuo, Beijing kaogushi, 20–27, including the map on p. 21. The map in Sun Dachuan, Beijing kaogu, vol. 2, 303, is slightly dif­fer­ent. Both maps represent information based on excavations up to the dates of publication. 23. Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo et al., “Hebei Zhangjiakoushi.” 24. Fan Ye, Hou Hanshu, juan 30, 3199. 25. Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 253–272. 26. Chen Guojun and Kong Guangquan, Antuxian zhi [Rec­ord of Antu county] (Taipei: Chengwen chubanshe, 1974) and Antuxian Difangzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui, Antuxian, the latter published in several editions at dif­fer­ent times. 27. See, for example, Steinhardt, Chinese Imperial City Planning, 133. 28. Beijingshi Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Beijing Jindai. The eighth Jin ruler (r. 1209– 1213) died in Henan and was buried t­ here; the last Jin ruler did not receive a royal tomb. 29. For illustrations, see Beijingshi Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Beijing Jindai, 245–246 and colorpl. 14.2. On Jin burial practices, see Jing Ai, “Liao-­Jin shidaide,” and Song Dachuan et al., Jindai, 51–208. 30. It suggests comparison with the headgear of the Princess of Chenguo. For illustrations, see Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Zheli­ mumeng Bowuguan, Liao Chenguo, colorpl. 4.2. 31. Zhu Qixin, “Royal Costumes.” 32. For Wanyan Xiyi’s biography, see Tuotuo, Jinshi, 1684–1686. On the tomb, see Dong Xuezeng, “Wanyan Xiyi.” 33. Song Dachuan, Beijing diqu Liao-­Jin.

Notes to Pages 193–203

339

34. Song Dachuan, Beijing Longquanwu, Beijing diqu Liao-­Jin, and “Bejing Jinmu.” 35. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Pingyang Jinmu. 36. Steinhardt, “Jin Hall at Jingtusi.” 37. Many are discussed in: He Dalong, Jin Dongnan; Ning Jianying, Shanxi wenwu; Zeng Chenyu, Ninggu de yishu; T. Miller, “Northern Song Architecture”; Chai Zejun, “Shanxi gujianzhu.” 38. On the Jin-­period Amitabha Hall at Chongfu Monastery, see Chai Zejun, ed., Shuozhou Chongfusi, 19–40, 212–335; on the Jin structure at Foguang Monastery, see Zhang Yingying and Li Yan, Wutaishan Foguangsi, 140–165. 39. Zhang Yuhuan, Zhongguo Fotashi, 101, 142. 40. Zhang Yuhuan, Zhongguo Fotashi, 194; Guo Daiheng, Zhongguo gudai jian­ zhushi, vol. 3, 454–455, recognizes only nine.

8. A Revisionist History of Yuan Architecture 1. ­There is a long bibliography on this subject. For an introduction, see Dawson, The Mongol Mission. 2. Olschki, “Italian Art”; Burke, “Martyrdom of the Franciscans.” 3. Presented by China’s First Generation of architects, mentioned in the Introduction. That group, represented by Liang Sicheng, referred to Yuan as the end of the Period of Elegance that led to the Period of Rigidity (Liang Ssu-­ ch’eng, Chinese Architecture, 96–102). This assessment led to descriptions of Yuan as the period when China’s g­ reat architecture “declined” and post-­Yuan architecture as a period of rigid timber framing; and to presenting Yuan architecture e­ ither as an appendage to Liao and Jin (Sickman and Soper, Art and Architecture of China, 439–459) or as a prelude to Ming (Pan Guxi, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi. 4. On Virtuous Tranquility Hall, see Steinhardt, “­Temple to the Northern Peak.” 5. Tao Zongyi, Chuogenglu, juan 21, 250–263. 6. Xiao Xun, Gugong yilu, 1. 7. Steinhardt, “­Toward the Definition.” 8. Du Xianzhou, “Yonglegong”; Lu Hongnian, Eirakukyū; Liao Ping, Yongle Palace; Jin Weinuo, Yonglegong. 9. Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 205–206, and “­Toward the Definition,” 62–63. 10. Meng Fanxing and Lin Hongwen, “Luetan liyong gujianzhu.” 11. Zhejiangsheng Gujianzhu Sheji Yanjiuyuan and Huang Zi, Yuandai mugou Yanfusi.

340

Notes to Pages 203–210

12. Shanghaishi Wenwu Baoguan Weiyuanhui, “Shanghai shijiao Yuandai jian­zhu”; Liu Dunzhen, “Zhenrusi.” 13. On this building, see Dong Shouqi and Bo Jianhua, Suzhou Xuanmiaoguan. 14. Shanghaishi Wenwu Baoguan Weiyuanhui, “Shanghai shijiao Yuandai jianzhu.” 15. Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogusuo Wenbaoshi, “Jinhua Tianningsi”; Chen Congzhou, “Jinhua Tianningsi.” 16. Zhang Yuhuan, “Dui Hancheng.” 17. Ding Mingyi, “Shanxi zhongnanbu”; Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al., “Beijing Houyingfang”; Liu Nianzi, Xiqu wenwu; Liao Ben, “Song-­Yuan xitai”; Zhang Guangshen, “Gaopingxian”; Liao Ben, Zhongguo xiju tushi; Liao Ben, Zhongguo gudai juchangshi; Yu Xuecai, Lao xitai; Feng Junjie, Xiju yu kaogu; Qiao Zhongyan, Shanxi guxitai; Xue Linping and Wang Jiqing, Shanxi chuantong; Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao; Xue Linping, Zhongguo chuan­ tong; He Dalong et al., “Shanxi Yangcheng.” 18. Pankenier, Astrology and Cosmology, 17–148. 19. Cai Fan, Yuandai shuilijia; Feng Zizhang, Guo Shoujing; Li Di, Guo Shoujing. 20. Chan, “Liu Ping-­chung.” 21. Sivin, Granting the Seasons, 151–170. 22. Lane, The Mongols in Iran, 3. 23. The seven instruments are: armillary sphere, triquetrum, sundial for unequal hours, sundial for equal hours, celestial globe, terrestrial globe, and astrolabe. 24. Sivin, Granting the Seasons. 25. Chen Meidong, Zhongguo kexue jishushi, 233. An alternate reconstruction was proposed in Li Qibin, “Beijing Astronomical,” 66. 26. Lane, The Mongols in Iran, 3. 27. Saliba, “First Non-­Ptolemaic Astronomy” and “Horoscopes and Planetary Theory.” 28. Julio Samsó, “Marsad,” 4. 29. Sayili, Observatory in Islam, 224. 30. Isahaya, “Tārīkh-­i Qitā. On Rashīd al-­Dīn’s discussion of the Chinese calendar, see Melville, “Chinese-­Uighur Animal Calendar.” I thank Christopher Atwood for the first reference. 31. According to Wang Shiren, the functions of Mingtang, Biyong, and the above-­mentioned Lingtai took place in the same structure; see Wang Shiren, “Han Chang’ancheng.” 32. Li Di and Lu Sixian, “Yuan Shangdu Tianwentai”; Lu Sixian, “Guanyu Yuan Shangdu.”

Notes to Pages 210–215

341

33. Vardjavānd, “Rapport préliminaire” and “La Decouverte archaeologique”; Vardjavānd and Bausani, “The Observatory.” 34. Wilber, Architecture of Islamic Iran, 10. 35. S. Morier, 1818; R. Ker Porter, 1822; Monteith, 1833, H. Rawlinson, 1841; G. Hoffman, 1880; A. Houtum-­Schindler, 1883; S. G. Wilson, 1890; J. De Morgan, 1894; Zugmayer, 1905; Guy Le Strange, 1905; and R. de Macquenem, 1908. The titles are listed in Minorsky, “Maragha”; Samsó, “Marsad”; and Wilber, Architecture of Islamic Iran, 33. 36. Also known as Rabban Marcos; for his biography, see Budge, Monks of Kublai, and Rossabi, Voyager from Xanadu. The most recent scholarly support for Christian caves is Bowman and Thompson, “The Monastery-­Church.” 37. “Entanglement” is a term borrowed from the physical sciences. The phenomenon occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in ways such that the (quantum) state of each particle cannot be described in­de­pen­dent of the state of the o ­ thers, even when the particles are separated by a large distance. Einstein first posed the question of entanglement in 1935; see Witze, “75 Years of Entanglement.” ­Here I follow the architectural use of “entanglement” to refer to a building that cannot be fully understood without considering buildings beyond it; see, for example, Duanfang Lu, “Entangled Modernities.” 38. On Mithraism, see Ulansey, The Origins. On interpretation of the caves, see Jabbari and Nia, “Analyzing Architecture,” which cites ­earlier bibliography in Persian and more popu­lar pieces aimed at tourists, such as Tavakoli, “Verjuy Mithra T ­ emple.” For a recent survey of the rock-­carved caves in this region, see Azad, “Three Rock-­Cut Cave Sites.” 39. Ball, “The Imamzadeh Ma’sum,” “Two Aspects,” and “Some Rock-­Cut Monuments.” 40. The entry­way is known as pishtaq in Persian; the space enclosed on three sides is known as iwan. 41. Wu Wenliang and Wu Youxiang, Quanzhou zongjiao shike, includes many of the inscriptions in a single volume. See also Chaffee, The Muslim Merchants. Also Angela Schottenhammer, East Asian “Mediterranean”; East Asian Maritime World; Emporium of the World; and Trade and Transfer. 42. Clark, Community, Trade, and Networks, 66; So, Prosperity, Region, and Institutions. 43. On Flourishing of the Prophet Mosque, see Liu Zhiping, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao, 10–14; Wu Jianwei, Zhongguo qingzhensi, 227–228; Zhong Yuanxiu et al., Guangzhou Yisilan; Qiu Yulan and Yu Zhensheng, Zhongguo, 129–133; Lu Bingjie and Zhang Guanglin, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao, 38–41. 44. ­Here too I borrow a term from the natu­ral sciences. Evolutionary biologists define convergence as the pro­cess whereby unrelated organisms come

342

Notes to Pages 216–223

together to evolve similar characteristics as the result of similar environments or ecological niches; Gould, Wonderful Life, 79. 45. For illustrations and discussion, see Steinhardt, China’s Early Mosques. 46. On this building, see Zuo, Diversity in the ­Great Unity, 74–81. 47. On the Gnostics, see Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels; Peterment, A Separate God; Walker, Gnosticism. On connections between Gnosticism and China, see Conze, “Buddhism and Gnosis”; Lieu, Manichaeism; Lin Wushu, Monijiao. 48. Xiong, Sui-­Tang Chang’an, 239–241; see also Chavannes and Pelliot, Un traité manichéen. 49. On the t­ emple site and relief sculpture, dated ca. 1339, see Lieu, Manichaeism, 177–195; Lieu, “Christian and Manichaean Remains”; Lieu, “Manichaean Art.” 50. I choose three to represent a slightly larger group. ­Those known by 2015 are discussed in Gulacsi, Mani’s Pictures, 244–259. On the most recently identified, discussed h ­ ere, see Yoshida, “Discovery.” See also Yoshida, Chūgoku Kōnan. I thank Zsuzsanna Gulacsi and Yutaka Yoshida for helpful correspondence about ­t hese paintings. 51. For an illustration and discussion, see Gulacsi, “A Manichaean ‘Portrait of the Bud­dha Jesus.’ ” 52. For an illustration, see Gulacsi, Mani’s Pictures, 265. 53. See, for example, Saunders, History of the Mongol Conquests, 125–127; Atwood, “Validation by Holiness”; Jackson, “Mongols and the Faith”; May, The Mongol Empire, 119 156–159, 203–207. 54. For more on ­these paintings, see Debreczeny, Faith and Empire, 108, 112, 113. 55. On ‘Phags-pa, see Petech, “ ’P’ags-pa.” 56. The interment was in accordance with Muslim orthodoxy that since the time of Muhammad had followed hadiths favoring burial just below ground level without elaboration in unmarked graves; see Halevi, Muhammad’s Grave, 1–113, 165–196. Hadiths regarding burial are more often followed by Sunni Muslims, who include most Muslims on the Arabian Peninsula. As Thomas Leisten notes, Muslims, especially royalty, have been interred beneath glorious mausolea since the ‘Abbasid Khalifate in the eighth c­ entury; see Leisten, “Between Orthodoxy and Exegesis.” 57. Studies of the inscriptions with illustrations of the stones include: Chen Dasheng and Kalus, Corpus d’inscriptions; Wu and Wu, Quanzhou zongjiao shike; and Chen Dasheng, Quanzhou Yisilanjiao shike. 58. O’Kane, “Chaghatai Architecture.” 59. Pyotr Kozlov saw this building in 1908 and Aurel Stein saw it in 1914, followed by Langdon Warner in 1925, Folke Bergman in 1927 and 1929, Sven Hedin between 1927 and 1931, John DeFrancis in 1935, and Li Yiyou in 1983 and 1984. When I was t­ here in 2018, the ground plan was unchanged from Stein’s and

Notes to Pages 223–228

343

Koslov’s photo­graphs, but the exterior had been replastered; M. A. Stein, In͡ i Amdo. For Kozlov’s photo­graph, nermost Asia, vol. 3, and Kozlov, Mongoli ia see Piotrovsky, Lost Empire, 37. 60. Jin Zhizhang and Huang Kerun, Chaha’ersheng Koubei santingzhi, juan 3, 4, 15, and 53. 61. For examples in Kazakhstan, see Gerasimov, Pam͡iatniki. 62. On Phoenix Mosque, see Lane, Phoenix Mosque; for an illustration of the corners, see Steinhardt, China’s Early Mosques, 86. 63. Wang Beichen, Wang Beichen, 421–436. On Ananda and the power strug­gle, see Franke and Twitchett, Cambridge History, 505–506. 64. Beijing Daxue Kaogu Wenbo Xueyuan and Zhongguo Jianzhu Shejiyuan Jianzhu Lishishi Yanjiusuo, “Hebei Guyuan,” argues that it is a Yuan structure that reflects architecture of Iran but also reflects Song construction, especially the interior dome. Signage at the Guyuan monument as recently as 2015, the last time I was t­ here, pre­sents the structure as Mongol-­period, with the grounds laid out in recognition of the heavens, astronomy being a subject of deep interest to the Mongols. 65. Li Tang, “Rediscovering the Ongut King”; Paolillo, “In Search of King George.” This possibility also is discussed in Blair, “Muslim-­Style Mausolea.” 66. Rare buildings known as “beamless halls” also stand in China, the earliest extant from the ­fourteenth ­century. Made of brick, many have features that imitate Chinese construction, such as bracket sets and ceramic-­tile roofs; see Bodolec, L’architecture en voûte chinoise. 67. Rossabi, Khubilai Khan, 132–135; Allsen, “Technician Transfers”; and Lane, “Persian Notables,” 187. If the term has any relevance in this context, it is in the sense of its use to describe the pro­cess of construction in medieval Eu­rope; see Pevsner, “The Term ‘Architect.’ ” 68. Chen Yuan et al., Western and Central Asians, 224–225. 69. The inscription is in Ouyang Xuan’s (1273–1357) Guizhai wenji [Collected writings of Gui (jade tablet) Studio], which is the basis for the biography of Iktyar in Ke Shaomin, Xin Yuanshi, juan 151 / 3a–4b. For discussion and translations of relevant passages, see C. Y. Liu, “The Yüan Capital.” 70. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 147, 3471–3476. 71. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 90, 2297. 72. Steinhardt, “Imperial Architecture,” 208. 73. He may have been the Frenchman mentioned in Villard de Honnecourt’s sketchbooks who had settled in Hungary ­a fter working on the Cathedral of Reims; see Olschki, Guillaume Boucher. 74. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 203, 4545–4547; Anning Jing, “Financial and Material Aspects” and “Portraits”; Acharya, “Aniko.”

344

Notes to Pages 228–233

75. Sun and de Francis, “Government Artisans.” 76. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 203, 4544–4545. 77. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 150, 3555. 78. In addition to biographies in Song Lian, Yuanshi, information about Yuan artisans is found in Ji Fotuo, Yuandai huasuoji, and Li Fang, Zhongguo yishujia. Zhu Qiqian and Liang Qixiong gleaned ­these works and ­others for a large-­scale compilation of Chinese artisan biographies entitled, “Zhejianglu,” much of which was published in segments, the last co-­authored by Liu Dunzhen. For Yuan artisans, see Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan, vol. 3, 2, 155–159; vol. 4, 2, 74; vol. 5, 2, 83–85; and vol. 6, 2, 140–151. 79. The paradigm of legitimation by non-­Chinese rulers who follow the models of Chinese rulers in order to rule China more successfully was framed by studies such as Franke’s Tribal Chieftain. 80. I was one who subscribed to this when I did research on Yuan tomb murals in the early 1980s; see Steinhardt, “Yuan Period Tombs.” 81. Gansusheng Bowuguan and Zhangxian Wenhua Zhongxin, “Gansu Zhangxian”; Xianyangqu Wenwuju, “Shaanxi Huxian”; Beijing Wenwuju, “Yuan Tie Ke fuzimu.” 82. Wang Xiaomeng, “Shaanxi Pucheng.” 83. The inscription is translated with more extensive coverage of this tomb and other Yuan tombs and their inscriptions in Steinhardt, “Yuan Period Tombs.” 84. Steinhardt, “Yuan Period Tombs.” 85. Zhang Shaohui et al., “Ji’nanshi Silijie.” 86. Steinhardt, “Imperial Architecture,” includes plans and discussion of cities discussed in this paragraph that ­were known before 1988. The excavation report on Shangdu, popularly known as Xanadu, the name Samuel Coleridge used in his poem, is Wei Jian, Yuan Shangdu. 87. Steinhardt, “Plan of Khubilai Khan’s.” 88. Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Yuan Zhongdu. 89. Cities other than the capitals where excavation has been extensive enough to confirm street patterns and the use of Chinese architectural detail are Kondui in Transbaikalia, Kharkhur-­k han in Erdenemandal prefecture of Arkhangai, and the city at Heishantou in Inner Mongolia that was built for Chinggis’s younger ­brother Jochi-­Khasar (1164–­ca.1213). Th ­ ere is a long bibliography about Mongol cities. It includes: Shiraishi, Chingisu kan no kōkogaku; Shiraishi, Mongoru; Bemmann et al., Mongolian-­German Karakorum Expedition; Shiraishi, Chingisu kan no imashime; Song Dachuan, Da Yuan sandu; Chuluun, Ėrmitazh dakhʹ Kharkhorum. 90. On the princess and her collection, see Weidner, Flowering in Shadows, 61–69. 91. Li Yiyou, “Yuan Yingchanglu”; the plan is on p. 531.

Notes to Pages 233–244

345

92. Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Gongzuodui, “Yuandai Jininglu”; Zhang Yuhuan, “Yuan Jininglu”; Chen Yongzhi, “Fajue Jininglu”; Zhao Libo, “Jininglu.” 93. Wei Jian and Chen Yongzhi, “Zhenglanqi Yangqunmiao.” 94. Amartuvshin and Badma-­O yu, Mongolyn hün culuu; Charleux, “From Ongon to Icon.” 95. Batujirghal and Yang, A’erzhai; Ban Chongming, A’erzhai. 96. Ban Chongming, A’erzhai, 13, 31–37; Batujirghal and Yang, A’erzhai, 81– 84. The latter believe the image in cave 31 is Chinggis. They nickname the mural “Chinggis Mandala”; Batujirghal and Yang, A’erzhai, 100. 97. Tibetan Buddhism, in the past sometimes called Lamaism, is the form of Buddhism practiced in Mongolia during the Yuan period and ­later. 98. Some date Northern Yuan from 1368–1388, the termination being the year the last Yuan emperor, Tughluq Temür, was murdered; but o ­ thers date it to the fall of Mongolia to the Manchus in the seventeenth ­century. The second date opens the possibility that the caves ­were painted or repainted in the sixteenth ­century and may include images of Altan Khan, discussed in Chapter 9. On Northern Yuan, see Robinson, Empire’s Twilight. 99. Gao Nianhua, Feilaifeng. 100. Murata and Fujieda, Chü-­yung-­kuan, is the major publication about Cloud Terrace; on this aspect of its history, see vol. 1, 30–34. See also Xiong Wenbin, Yuandai Zang-­Han yishu, 93–114. 101. On guojieta, see Su Bai, “Juyongguan guojieta” and Su Bai, Zangchuan Fojiao, 350–356, 360–364. 1 02. Chang Kyŏng-ho, Han’guk, 203, provides a list of twenty-­two dates found in annals of the period that are relevant to Koryŏ buildings. 103. On the buildings discussed in this paragraph, as well as illustrations of them, see Yun Chang-­sŏp, Ha’guk kŏnch’uksa, 269–338; and Chang Kyŏng-ho, Han’guk, 214–250. 104. Masuya, “The Ilkhanid Phase”; Masuya, “Il-­k hanid Courtly Life”; Masuya, “Seasonal Capitals”; Soucek, “Ceramic Production”; and Kadoi, Islamic Chinoiserie, 39–73. 105. Melikian-­Chirvani, “Buddhist Heritage” and “Recherches sur l’architecture”; Ball, “Two Aspects”; Scott, “Ira­nian Face of Buddhism”; Bulliet, “Naw Bahār”; and Stavisky, “The Fate of Buddhism.”

9. Ming 1. Robinson, Empire’s Twilight. 2. On the Tumu Crisis, see Mote, “The T’u-­Mu Incident”; and Mote and Twitchett, Cambridge History of China, vol. 7, 322–331.

346

Notes to Pages 249–265

3. From Marco Polo, The Travels, vol. 1, 363, referring specifically to the palace, the equivalent of ­today’s Forbidden City, to Bacon, The Design of Cities, 244. Bacon slightly qualifies this, by writing, “Possibly the greatest single work of man on the face of the earth is Peking.” 4. Liu Chang, The Forbidden City, 70–90, 116–137. 5. The supervising author was Yinli (Prince Guo) (1697–1738); Wang Puzi, Gongcheng zuofa. 6. Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 316–328. 7. Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 333–346. 8. Nieuhof, Voyages and Travels; Erlach, A Plan; and Chambers, Designs of Chinese Buildings. 9. On Ishikha, see Rossabi, “Two Ming Envoys”; Ejima Hisao, “Taikan Ishiha ni tsuite”; Tsai, Perpetual Happiness, 158–159; Tsai, Eunuchs, 129–130. 10. Ravenstein (1834–1913), Rus­sians on the Amur, 193–196, that includes a map, one stele, and an octagonal pedestal. On the stele inscriptions, see Golovachev et al., Tyrskie stely XV veka. 11. For the excavation reports, see Artem’ev, Buddiĭskie khramy and Ocherki po istorii. 12. Steinhardt, China’s Early Mosques, 120–130. 13. For illustrations of this monastery, see Hebeisheng Zhengdingxian Wenwu Baoguansuo et al., Zhengding. 14. Xie Tianli, Qingzhen guyun. 15. Liu Zhiping, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao, 80. 16. Steinhardt, China’s Early Mosques, 154–158, 161, 163–172. 17. Steinhardt, China’s Early Mosques, 172–198. 18. Chen Yuning and Tang Xiaofeng, Zhongguo Huizu, 76; Steinhardt, China’s Early Mosques, 215–218. 19. Wu Jianwei, Zhongguo qingzhensi, 363; Lu Bingjie and Zhang Guanglin, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao, 122. 20. Xizang Jianzhu Kancha Shejiyuan, Guge wangguo. 21. Su Bai, Zangchuan; Yang Jiage et al., Zhongguo Zangshi; Alexander, ­Temples of Lhasa. 22. Jiang Huaiying et al., Qinghai Ta’ersi. 23. Campbell, Architecture and Empire; Debreczeny, “Sino-­Tibetan Artistic Synthesis.” 24. Five-­pagoda pagodas are seen throughout the Buddhist world. Well-­known pre-­Ming examples include a painting on the west wall of Mogao cave 428 at Dunhuang, dated to the Northern Zhou period, and a mud-­brick structure at Jiaohe, near Turfan in eastern Xinjiang, dated to the Tang period. The nine-­ pagoda Pagoda in Licheng, Shandong, may have been inspired by the five-­

Notes to Pages 266–275

347

pagoda pagoda prototype. The early examples, however, are not as clearly associated with Tibetan Buddhism as t­ hose of Ming China and ­later. The undated, bronze miniature pagoda known as King Aśoka Pagoda, excavated at Ayuwangsi (Aśoka Monastery) in Ningbo, a t­emple complex associated with the Song dynasty, for instance, may have a diamond-­t hrone pagoda as its source. 25. The translation of wang as “prince” or “king” since its use in the Zhou dynasty is debated. Clunas, Screen of Kings, argues for king. Robinson, “The Ming Court,” argues for prince. H ­ ere I use “prince,” in the context of the son of a Ming emperor. 26. Clunas, Screen of Kings, 25–63; Hubeisheng Bowuguan, Liangzhuangwangmu; Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Dingling. 27. The visit and gift list are recorded in the official histories of the Ming dynasty. For a summary, along with a study of the tomb, see Yang Xin­hua and Yang Jianhua, Boniguo wangmu. 28. The six-­hundredth anniversary of this event received attention in the Philippines. The king is identified as Paduka Pahala or Paduka Batara; see See, Ties That Bind. 29. William Coaldrake uses the term “avatar” to refer to Ieyasu, someone whose status had been elevated to a kami, or Shinto divinity; Coaldrake, Architecture and Authority, 180. 30. Coaldrake, Architecture and Authority, 180. 31. Architecture of Kyoto ­under the Ashikaga shōguns has not been a subject ­here. The Gold Pavilion is a shinden structure, an architectural style discussed in Chapter 6. On patronage of Kyoto’s buildings by Yoshimitsu and a ­later Ashikaga shōgun, Yoshimasa, see Stavros, “Monuments and Mandalas”; Stavros and Tomishima Yoshiyuki, “The Shōkokuji Pagoda”; on Yoshimasa’s buildings, see Keene, Yoshimasa. 32. A series of discoveries by William Coaldrake, including the complete set of pieces of a 1:10 scale model made in Japan for an exhibition in London in 1910 and a folding screen of the city of Edo on which Taitokuin is illustrated, confirm a careful survey made in 1934; see Coaldrake, “Mystery of the Meiji Model,” “The Taitokuin Mausoleum,” and Architecture and Authority, 162–192. 33. For illustrations, see Ōkawa Naomi, Nikko Tōshōgū. 34. This is the thesis of Coaldrake’s Architecture and Authority.

10. The Long Eigh­teenth C ­ entury 1. John K. Fairbank was the center of this discourse. See, for example, Fairbank, The Chinese World Order and China: A New History. 2. Wakeman, The ­Great Enterprise.

348

Notes to Pages 275–296

3. Some of the many major contributors and books on this subject are, in alphabetical order: Crossley, Empire at the Margins and Orphan Warriors; Elliott, The Manchu Way; Fletcher and Manz, Studies; Millward, Beyond the Pass; and Rawski, Last Emperors. 4. Jibzundamba Khutugtu is the oldest reincarnation line among Khalkha Mongols; see Schwieger, The Dalai Lama, 47. The ninth Jibzundamba Khutugtu died in 2012. As of 2020 the tenth had not been identified. On Zanabazar, see Bareje-­Starzynska, Biography of the First Khalkha. 5. Pozdneyev’s research of 1892 and 1893 was published as Mongolia, in six volumes, by the Imperial Rus­sian Geo­graph­i­cal Society. It was translated by Shaw and Krueger in two volumes, the source used below. Information in this paragraph is summarized from vol. 1, 16–30. 6. Pozdneyev, Mongolia, vol. 1, 21–22. 7. Laird, Story of Tibet, 139. 8. Hedin, Jehol; Tianjin Daxue Jianzhuxi and Chengdeshi Wenwuju, Chengde; Chayet, Les ­temples; Millward et  al., New Qing Imperial History; Wang Xingfeng and Li Ran, Qingdai de huangjia; Whiteman, Where Dragon Veins Meet. 9. We observed in Chapter  8 that dramatic per­for­mances took place at Dragon King ­Temple of Guangsheng Monastery in Hongdong, Shanxi. Houtumiao (­Temple to the Earth Goddess) in Wanrong and Sanjieyi T ­ emple in Jiexiu, both also in Shanxi, held per­for­mances. On stages in Shanxi, see Chapter 8, note 17. The Beijing Summer Palace also would have a stage. 10. Four mountain ranges are most sacred to Daoism. Ten mountains are next most sacred, followed by thirty-­six sacred grottoes, followed by seventy-­t wo sites known as fudi, sacred plots. On symbolism of the number nine in Chinese art, see Eberhard, Dictionary; Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 37, 38, 231, 232, 233, 254, 259, 261. 11. Ji Cheng, The Craft of Gardens. 12. On the implications of the se­lection of writings, see Spence, Treason. 13. Sun Dazhang, Chengde, 11–16, 277. 14. Chayet, Les ­temples, 39–41. 15. Trea­sures from Putuozongchengmiao ­were exhibited at the World’s Fair in Chicago in 1932. Montell et al., Chinese Lama ­Temple. 16. Eng, Colours, 224–225. 17. Berliner, Juanqinzhai; Kleutghen, Imperial Illusions; Chu, Qing Encounters. 18. Jin Futang et  al., Shengjing sanling; Lu Haiying and Wang Yanchun, Shengjing; Yi Ren, Shengjing sanling; Lu Haiying, Shengjing. 19. Wang Peihuan, Shengjing Fuling; Zhao Chen, Fuling. 20. Wang Peihuan, Shengjing Zhaoling; Zhao Chen, Zhaoling.

Notes to Pages 297–302

349

21. The Chinese character yuan can be translated as “garden” or “park,” and can be the suffix for the private garden of an elite citizen in Suzhou, an emperor’s garden in Beijing, or larger, open space where an emperor hunted. 22. Siu, Gardens, is a comprehensive study of the gardens. The two gardens that have received the most attention are Yiheyuan, now known as the Summer Palace, which is associated with Empress Dowager Cixi (1835–1908), and Yuanmingyuan, the location of the so-­called Western Mansions designed by Jesuits. On Yuanmingyuan, see Danby, Garden; Pirazzoli-­T ’Serstevens, Le Yuanmingyuan; Young-­tsu Wong, Paradise Lost; Zou Hui, Jesuit Garden; Bailey, “Rococo.” 23. Chiu, “Vegetal Travel.” 24. He is the son of the Earl of Elgin who purchased the Parthenon friezes, known as the Elgin Marbles. 25. Michael Chang, Court on Horse­back, 45. 26. Michael Chang, Court on Horse­back, 45 27. The most impor­tant studies of the Wang Hui inspection paintings are by Maxwell Hearn: see his “Document and Portrait,” Kangxi Southern Inspection Tour, “Collection of Chinese Paintings,” “Pictorial Maps,” and, with ­others, Landscapes Clear and Radiant. The painter Xu Yang is less studied than Wang Hui. For an introduction to his inspections paintings, see Brown, ­Great Qing, 38–41. See also Tsang, Brilliant Strokes, 33–38. 28. For discussion and illustrations, see Wu Gan, Shen Zhou. 29. Elliot, Manchu Way, 78–85. 30. Brown, ­Great Qing, 75. 31. Mungello, ­Great Encounter. 32. I thank Diane Wolfthal for sending me “Home of a Wealthy Chinese” and other illustrations from Dapper’s Gedenkwaerdig Beschryving des keizerryks van Taising of Sina, published in Amsterdam in 1670 and in French, En­glish, and German editions in the same de­cade. Du Halde’s four-­volume Description géographique, historique, chronologique, politique et physique de l’empire de la Chine et de la Tartarie chinoise, published in Paris in 1735, was more influential. Fischer von Erlach’s Entwurff einer Historischen Architectur, with the En­ glish title A Plan of Civil and Historical Architecture, of 1721, was heavi­ly influenced by Nieuhof, who had traveled between Guangdong and Beijing from 1655 to 1657 for the Dutch East India Com­pany. Nieuhof’s Voyages and Travels to the East Indies was published in several versions in Eu­ro­pean languages between 1665 and 1669. Nieuhof, An Embassy, is a facsimile reprint. 33. This is the Oxford En­glish Dictionary definition; see also Honour, Chinoiserie; Impey, Chinoiserie; Jacobson, Chinoiserie, 3; Porter, Chinese Taste; Chu and Milam, Beyond Chinoiserie.

350

Notes to Pages 302–304

34. Louis XIV had it destroyed in 1687 b ­ ecause its faience panels w ­ ere so damaged by weather. Th ­ ere are engravings of it. 35. Of the many publications by Hans-­Günther Hartmann on Pillnitz C ­ astle, his most recent book is Schloss Pillnitz; see also Chen Liu, “Pillnitz ­Castle.” 36. Avcioglu, “A Palace of One’s Own.” 37. Conner, Oriental Architecture, 24. 38. From 1724 u ­ ntil the 1750s, William Halfpenny wrote at least nine books about Chinese architecture and design, some co-­authored with his son John. 39. Summerson, Architecture in Britain; Prey, John Soane. 40. Grütter, “Kultur und Stil,” 29.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abe, Ryūichi. The Weaving of Man­tra: Kūkai and the Construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Acharya, Baburam. “Aniko: His F ­ amily and Place of Birth.” Regmi Research Series 3, no. 11 (1971): 241–243. Akcan, Esra. Architecture in Translation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012. Al’baum, L. I. “Raskopki Buddiĭskogo kompleksa Faiaz-­Tepe” [Excavations of the Buddhist Complex of Fayaz-­Tepe]. In Drevniaia Baktriia, 53–58. Leningrad: Nauka, 1974. —­—— ­ . Zhivopis’ Afrasiaba [Paintings from Afrasiyab]. Tashkent: FAN, 1975. Alexander, André. The ­Temples of Lhasa: Tibetan Buddhist Architecture from the 7th to 21st Centuries. Singapore: Times Editions–­Marshall Cavendish, 2005. Allsen, Thomas. “Technician Transfers in the Mongolian Empire.” In Central Eurasian Studies Lectures. Vol. 2. Edited by Daniel Prior. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2002. Amartuvshin, Ch., and B. Badma-­Oyu, eds. Mongolyn hün culuu [Stone statues of Mongolia]. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Ulsyn Šinžlèh Uhaany Akademi. Tüüh, Arheologijn Hürèèlèn, 2016. Antuxian Difangzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui. Antuxian wenwuzhi [Rec­ord of cultural remains in Antu county]. Changchun: Jilin wenshi chubanshe, 1993. Arden-­Wong, Lyndon. “The Eastern Uighur Khaganate.” PhD diss., Macquarie University, 2014.

352

Bibliography

Artem’ev, A. R. Buddiiskie khramy XV v. v nizovʹiakh Amura [Buddhist monasteries of the fifteenth c­ entury in the Lower Amur]. Vladivostok: Institut istorii arkheologii i ėtnografii narodov Dalʹnego Vostoka, 2005. —­—— ­ . Ocherki po istorii i arkheologii Zabaikalʹia, Priamurʹia i Aliaski: (XIII–­XIX vv.) [Studies of the history and archaeology of Zabaykal, Primorye, and Altai]. Vladivostok: Institut istorii, arkheologii i ėtnografii narodov Dalʹnego Vostoka Rossiĭskoĭ Akademii Nauk, 2019. Aržanceva, I., H. Härke, and H. A. Schubert, “Por-­Bažyn: Eine ‘Verbotene Stadt’ des Uiguren-­Reiches in Südsibirien.” Antike Welt 3 (2012): 36–44. Arzhantseva, Irina, O. Inevatkina, V. Zav’yalov, A. Panin, I. Modin, S. Ruzanova, and H. Härke. “Por-­Bajin: An Enigmatic Site of the Uyghurs in Southern Siberia.” Eu­ro­pean Archaeologist 35 (2011): 6–11. Asano Kiyoshi. Hōryūji kenchiku sōkan [Survey of architecture of Hōryūji]. Kyoto: Benridō, 1953. Aston, W. G., trans. Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A. D. 697. 2 vols. Rutland, VT: Tuttle, 1972. Atwood, Christopher. “Validation by Holiness or Sovereignty: Religious Toleration as Po­liti­cal Theology in the Mongol World Empire of the Thirteenth C ­ entury.” International History Review 26, no. 2 (2004): 237–256. Auerbach, Erich [1892–1957]. Mimesis: Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abend­ ländischen Literatur. Bern: A. Franke, 1945. —­—— ­ . Mimesis: The Repre­sen­ta­tion of Real­ity in Western Lit­er­a­ture. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Press, 1953. Avcioglu, Nebahat. “A Palace of One’s Own: Stanislas I’s Kiosks and the Idea of Self Repre­sen­ta­tion.” Art Bulletin 85, no. 4 (2003): 662–684. Azad, Arezou. “Three Rock-­Cut Cave Sites and Their Ilkhanid Buddhist Aspects Reconsidered.” In Islam and Tibet Interactions along the Musk Routes, edited by A. Akasoy, C. Burnett, and R. Yoeli-­Tlalim, 209–230. Surrey: Ashgate, 2011. Azarpay, Guitty. Sogdian Painting: The Pictorial Epic in Oriental Art. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Bacon, Edmund. The Design of Cities. London: Thames and Hudson, 1995. Bailey, Gauvin Alexander. “Rococo in Eighteenth-­Century Beijing: Ornament Prints and the Design of the Eu­ro­pean Palaces at Yuanming Yuan.” Burlington Magazine 159, no. 1375 (2017): 778–788. Ball, Warwick. “The Imamzadeh Ma’sum at Vardjovi: A Rock-­Cut Ilkhanid Complex near Maragheh.” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 12 (1979): 329–340.

Bibliography

353

—­—­—. “Some Rock-­Cut Monuments in Southern Iran.” Iran 24 (1986): 95–115. —­—­—. “Two Aspects of Ira­nian Buddhism.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute of Pahlavi University 1 (1976): 127–143. Ban Chongming. A’erzhai shiku bihua [Rock-­carved caves and murals at Arzhai]. Huhehaote: Nei Mengu Renmin chubanshe, 2010. Baojishi Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Wudai Li Maozhen fufumu [The tomb of Li Maozhen and his wife of the Five Dynaties]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2008. Bareja-­Starzyńska, Agata. The Biography of the First Khalkha Jetsundampa Zanabazar by Zaya Pandita Luvsangprinlei. Warsaw: Dom Wydawniczy Elpisa, 2015. Batujirghal and Yang Haiying. A’erzhai shiku [Rock-­carved cave-­temples at Arzhai]. Beijing: Nei Menggu Zizhiqu E’erduosishi Etuokeqi wenwu baohu guanlisuo, 2006. Baudelaire, Charles. Les fleurs du mal. Translated by Walter Benjamin. 1923. Baydar (Nabatoglu), Gülsüm. “The Cultural Burden of Architecture.” Journal of Architectural Education 57, no. 4 (2004): 19–27. —­—­—­. “­Toward Postcolonial Openings: Rereading Sir Banister Fletcher’s History of Architecture.” Assemblage, no. 35 (1998): 6–17. Beckwith, Christopher. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia: A History of the Strug­gle for ­Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the ­Middle Ages. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Press, 1987. Beeching, Jack. The Chinese Opium Wars. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1975. Behrendt, Kurt. The Buddhist Architecture of Gandhāra. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Beijing Daxue Kaogu Wenbo Xueyuan and Zhongguo Jianzhu Shejiyuan Jian­zhu Lishishi Yanjiusuo. “Hebei Guyuan Shuzhuanglou Yuanmu mushang jianzhu yanjiu” [Research on the above­-­ground architecture of the Yuan tomb Shuzhuanglou in Guyuan, Hebei]. Wenwu, no. 6 (2018): 58–64. Beijing Daxue Kaogu Wenboyuan and Osaka Keizai Hōkaku Daigaku. 7–8 shiji donga diqu lishi yu kaogu guoji xueshu taolun huilun wenji [Proceedings of the international conference on archaeology and history of East Asia in the 7th–8th centuries]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2001. Beijingshi Wenwu Yanjiusuo. Beijing Jindai huangling [Jin imperial tombs in Beijing]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2006. —­—— ­ . Beijing kaogushi [History of archaeology in Beijing]. 3 vols. (Liao, Jin, and Yuan). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2012. —­—­—. “Yuan Tie Ke fuzimu he Zhang Honggangmu” [Tombs of Tie Ke and his ­father and Zhang Honggang]. Kaogu xuebao, no. 1 (1986): 95–114.

354

Bibliography

͡ Belenitskiĭ, A. M. Monumental’noe Iskusstvo Pendzhikenta: Zhivopisʹ, skulʹptura [Monuments of art at Pendzhikent: Painting and sculpture]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1973. Bemmann, J., U. Erdenebat, and E. Pohl, eds. Mongolian-­German Karakorum Expedition. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2010. Benjamin, Walter. Charles Baudelaire: A Lyric Poet in the Era of High Capitalism. Translated by Harry Zohn. London: NLB, 1973. —­—— ­ . Charles Baudelaire: Un poète lyrique a l’apogée du capitalism. Translated by Walter Benjamin. Paris: Payot, 1974. Berliner, Nancy. Juanqinzhai: In the Qianlong Garden, the Forbidden City, Beijing. London: Scala, 2008. Bermann, Sandra. “Performing Translation.” In A Companion to Translation Studies, edited by Sandra Bermann and Catherine Porter, 285–297. Chichester: Wiley-­Blackwell, 2014. Biran, Michal. The Empire of Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Blair, Sheila. “Muslim-­Style Mausolea across Mongol Eurasia: Religious Syncretism, Architectural Mobility and Cultural Transformation.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 62 (2019): 318–355. Bodolec, Caroline. L’architecture en voûte chinoise: Un patrimoine méconnu. Paris: Maisonneuve et Larose, 2005. Bol, Peter K. “What Is a Geo­g raph­i­cal Perspective on China’s History?” In Chinese History in Geo­graph­i­cal Perspective, edited by Jeff Kyong-­ McClain and Yongtao Du, 197–203. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013. Bowersock, G. W., Peter Brown, and Oleg Grabar. Interpreting Late Antiquity: Essays on the Postclassical World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. —­—— ­ . Late Antiquity: A Guide to the Postclassical World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Bowman, John, and J. A. Thompson. “The Monastery-­Church of Bar Hebraeus at Maragheh in West Azerbaijan.” Abr-­Nahrain 7 (1967–68): 35–61. Bradford, Rosalind. The Guyuan Sarcophagus. 3 vols. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic, 2011, 2012. Bretschneider, Emil. Archaeological and Historical Researches on Peking and Its Environs. Shanghai and London, 1876. Translated as Recherches archeologiques et historiques sur Peking et ses environs. Paris: E. Leroux, 1879. Brown, Claudia. ­Great Qing: Painting in China, 1644–1911. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2014.

Bibliography

355

Budge, Wallis. The Monks of Kublai Khan. London: Religious Tract Society, 1928. Bukinič, D. D. “Obshchii otchet po arkheologicheski rabotam za 1933 i 1934 god” [Overall report on archaeological activities in 1933 and 1934]. In Rukopisnyĭ fond Instituta Arkheologii Akademii Nauk Mongolii 9, no. 11 (1933): 32–33. Bulliet, Richard. “Naw Bahār and the Survival of Ira­nian Buddhism.” Iran 14 (1976): 140–145. Bulling, Annelise G. “The Eastern Han Tomb at Ho-­lin-­ko-­êrh.” Archives of Asian Art 31 (1977–1978): 79–103. Burke, S. Maureen. “ ‘The Martyrdom of the Franciscans’ by Ambrogio Lorenzetti.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 65, no. 4 (2002): 460–492. Byington, Mark. The Han Commanderies in Early Korean History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Early K ­ orea Proj­ect, 2013. —­—— ­ . The Rediscovery of Kaya in History and Archaeology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Early K ­ orea Proj­ect, 2012. Cahill, James. Fantastics and Eccentrics in Chinese Painting. New York: Asia House, 1975. —­—— ­ . Hills beyond a River. New York: Weatherhill, 1976. —­—­—. “The Orthodox Movement in Early Ch’ing Painting.” In Artists and Traditions: Uses of the Past in Chinese Culture, edited by Christian Murck, 169–181. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Art Museum, 1976. —­—­—. “Some Aspects of Tenth-­Century Painting as Seen in Three Recently Published Works.” In Zhongyang Yanjiuyuan Guoji Hanxue huiyi lunwenji [Proceedings of the International Conference on Sinology, Academic Sinica], 1–34. Taipei: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan, 1980. Cahill, Suzanne. Transcendence and Divine Passion: The Queen M ­ other of the West in Medieval China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993. Cai Fan. Yuandai shuilijia Guo Shoujing [The Yuan engineer Guo Shoujing]. Beijing: Dangdai Zhongguo chubanshe, 2011. Campbell, Aurelia. Architecture and Empire in the Reign of Yongle, 1400–1424. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2020. —­—­—. “The Origin and Development of Tibeto-­Chinese Gate Stupas.” Paper presented at annual meeting of Society of Architectural Historians, Providence, RI, April 2019. Cao Xun. “Yemaotai Liaomuzhong de guanchuang xiaozhang” [The small-­scale container and coffin bed in the Liao tomb at Yemaotai]. Wenwu, no. 12 (1975): 49–62. Carpino, Alexandra, and Jean James. “Commentary on the Li Xian Silver Ewer.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 3 (1989): 71–75.

356

Bibliography

Castell, Wulf Diether, Graf zu. Chinaflug. Berlin and Zu­rich: Atlantis-­Verlag, 1938. Chaffee, John W. The Muslim Merchants of Pre-­Modern China: The History of a Maritime Asian Trade Diaspora, 750–1400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Chaffin, Cortney. “Strange Creatures of Chu: Antlered Tomb Sculptures of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States Period.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2007. Chai Zejun. Chai Zejun gujianzhu wenji [Essays on premodern Chinese architecture by Chai Zejun]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999. —­—­—. “Shanxi gujianzhu zaishu” [General discussion of old architecture in Shanxi]. In Zhongguo gujianzhu xueshu jiangzuo wenji [Collected essays on ancient Chinese architecture], 244–298. Beijing: Zhongguo zhanwang chubanshe, 1986. —­—— ­ ,­ ed. Shuozhou Chongfusi [Chongfu Monastery in Shuo county]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. Chambers, William. Designs of Chinese Buildings, Furniture, Dresses, Machines, and Utensils. New York: Arno Press, 1980. Chan Hok-­lam. “Liu Ping-­chung.” In In the Ser­vice of the Khan: Eminent Personalities of the Early Mongol-­Yuan Period, 2 parts, edited by I. de Rachewiltz, H.-­k. Chan, Ch.-ch. Hsiao, and P. Geier, part 2, 245–269. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1993. —­—­—. “Liu Ping-­chung (1216–74): A Buddhist-­Taoist Statesman at the Court of Khubilai Khan.” T’oung Pao 53 (1967): 98–146. Chandra, Lokesh. “The Twelve Light-­Buddhas of Kakrak, Af­ghan­i­stan.” Cultural Horizons of India 2 (1990): 145–155. Chang, Kwang-­chih, and Xu Pingfang, eds. The Formation of Chinese Civilization. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Chang Kyŏng-ho. Han’guk ui chongt’ong konch’uk [Korean traditional architecture]. Seoul: Munye Ch’ulp’ansa, 1992. Chang, Michael. A Court on Horse­back: Imperial Touring and the Construction of Qing Rule, 1680–1785. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Asia Center, 2007. Chaoyangshi Wenhuaju and Liaoningsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Niuheliang yizhi [Niuheliang remains]. Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe, 2004. Charleux, Isabelle. “From Ongun to Icon: Legitimization, Glorification and Divinization of Power in Some Examples of Mongol Portraits.” In Representing Power in Ancient Inner Asia: Legitimacy, Transmission and the Sacred, edited by I. Charleux, G. Delaplace, R. Hamayon, and S. Pearce, 209–260. Bellingham: Western Washington University, 2010.

Bibliography

357

Chavannes, Édouard (1865–1918). Mission archéologique dans la Chine septentionale. 2 vols. Paris: E. Leroux, 1909–1915. —­—­—. “Voyageurs chinois chez les Kitan et les Joutchen.” Journal Asiatique (May–­June 1897 and 1898). Chavannes, Édouard, and Paul Pelliot. Un traité manichéen retrouvé en China. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1912. Chayet, Anne. Les t­ emples de Jehol et leurs modèles Tibétains. Paris: Éditions Récherches sur les Civilisations, 1985. Chen Anli. Tang shibaling [Eigh­teen Tang royal tombs]. Beijing: Zhongguo qing­ nian chubanshe, 2001. Chen Congzhou. “Jinhua Tianningsi Yuandai zhengdian” [The Yuan main hall of Tianning Monastery in Jinhua]. Wenwu, no. 12 (1954): 101–107. Chen Dasheng. Quanzhou Yisilanjiao shike [Islamic inscriptions in Quanzhou]. Yinchuan and Fuzhou: Ningxia Renmin cubanshe and Fujian Renmin chubanshe, 1984. Chen Dasheng and Ludvik Kalus. Corpus d’inscriptions Arabes et Persanes en Chine. Vol. 1, Province de Fu-­jian (Quan-­zhou, Fu-­zhou, Xia-­men). Paris: Geuthner, 1991. Chen Dawei. “Liaoning Gaogouli shancheng zaitan” [Further discussion of Koguryŏ mountain c­ astles in Liaoning]. Beifang wenwu, no. 3 (1995): 55–63. Chen Guangzhi, ed. “Xin Jiang Uygur Autonomous Region Museum, Ürümqi.” La muse. Shijie Bowuguan Xunli [Sight-­seeing at museums of the world], special issue, no. 42 (January 1995). Chen Guojun [Hongmo] and Kong Guangquan. Antuxian zhi [Rec­ord of Antu county]. Taipei: Chengwen chubanshe, 1974. Chen Jiuhuan. “Sui-­Tang dongdu chengzhi de kancha he fajue xuji” [Investigation and excavation of city remains at the eastern capital of Sui-­ Tang, continued]. Kaogu, no. 6 (1978): 361–379. Chen Liu. “The Pillnitz ­Castle and the Chinoiserie Architecture in Eighteenth-­ Century Germany.” Zhonguo jianzhu shilun huikan 7 (2013): 489–523. Chen Meidong, ed. Zhongguo kexue jishushi [History of Chinese science and technology]: Tianwenxue juan [Astronomy volume]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2003. Chen Mingda, Wang Qiheng, and Yin Lixin. Jixian Dulesi [Dule Monastery of Ji county]. Tianjin: Tianjin Daxue chubanshe, 2007. Chen Tong. “Foguangsi Dongdadian mushidu tanwei” [On some details of large-­scale timber construction in the east hall of Foguang Monastery]. Zhongguo jianzhu shilun jikan 18 (2019): 57–100.

358

Bibliography

Chen Yongzhi. “Fajue Jininglu Yuandai chengzhi ji disan pi yaozang” [Excavation of the city and third kiln site at the Yuan city remains of Jining­lu]. Wenwu tiandi, no. 3 (2004). Chen Yuan and Chen Zhichao. Yuan Xiyouren huahua kao [Research on the transformation of ­peoples from Western Regions into Chinese in Yuan]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1934. Chen Yuan, Hsing-­hai Ch’ien, and L. C. Goodrich. Western and Central Asians in China ­under the Mongols: Their Transformation into Chinese. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 1989. Chen Yuanjing, comp. Shilin guangji [Compendium of a Forest of Affairs]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1999. Chen Yuning and Tang Xiaofeng. Zhongguo Huizu wenwu [Cultural relics of the Hui in China]. Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin chubanshe, 2008. Cheng Yi. Guanzhong diqu Tangdai muzang yanjiu [Research on Tang tombs in the Guanzhong area]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2012. Cheng Zheng and Hui Li. Sanbaili diaoke yishuguan: Tang shibaling shike [Museum of sculpture within 300 li: Sculpture at the eigh­teen Tang tombs]. Xi’an: Shaanxi Renmin meishu chubanshe, 1994. Chiu, Che-­bing. “Vegetal Travel: Western Eu­ro­pean Plants in the Garden of the Emperor of China.” In Qing Encounters: Artistic Exchanges between China and the West, edited by Petra ten-­Doesschate Chu, 95–110. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2015. Choi, Hyejeong. “Mireuksa: A Baekje Period T ­ emple of the F ­ uture Bud­dha Maitreya.” PhD diss., Ohio State University, 2015. Chŏn Hot’ae. “Parhaeŭi kobun pyŏkhwawa Parhae munhwa” [Parhae’s tomb paintings and Parhae culture]. Koguryŏ Parhae yŏngu [Studies of Koguryŏ and Parhae] 6 (1999): 347–370. Chŏn Tŭg-­yŏm. Paekcheyu sŏkt’ap yŏn’gu [Research on Paekche stone pagodas]. Kwangju Kwangyŏksi: Chŏnnam Taehakkyo Ch’ulp’anbu, 2003. Chŏng Yŏngchin, Yun Hyŏnch’ŏl, and Yi Tonghwi. Kobunŭro bon Parhae munhwaŭi sŏnggyŏk [Cultural characteristics of Parhae tombs]. Seoul: Northeast Asia History Foundation, 2006. Chou Yi-­liang. “Tantrism in China.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 8 (1946): 241–332. Chu, Petra ten-­Doesschate. Qing Encounters: Artistic Exchanges between China and the West. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2015. Chu, Petra ten-­Doesschate, and Jennifer Milam. Beyond Chinoiserie: Artistic Exchange between China and the West during the Qing Dynasty (1796–1911). Leiden: Brill, 2019.

Bibliography

359

Chuluun, C., ed. Ėrmitazh dakhʹ Kharkhorum khotyn ȯv: S.V. Kiselëvyn shinzhilgėėniĭ angi: 1948–1949 on [Karakorum city heritage at the Hermitage: Kiselev Research Unit, 1948–1949]. Ulaanbaatar: Acad­emy of Sciences, 2018. Cixian Wenhuaguan. “Hebei Cixian Dong Wei Ruru gongzhumu” [Tomb of the Eastern Wei Ruru princess in Ci county, Hebei]. Wenwu, no. 4 (1984): 1–9. Clark, Hugh R. Community, Trade, and Networks: Southern Fujian Province from the Third to the Thirteenth C ­ entury. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Clunas, Craig. Screen of Kings: Royal Art and Power in Ming China. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2013. Coaldrake, William. Architecture and Authority in Japan. London: Routledge, 1996. —­—­—. “The Mystery of the Meiji Model of the Shogun’s Mausoleum.” Orientations 37, no. 4 (May 2006): 34–40. —­—­—. “The Taitokuin Mausoleum.” Monumenta Nipponica 52, no. 4 (1997): 541–546. Cody, Jeffrey, Nancy Steinhardt, and Tony Atkin, eds. Chinese Architecture and the Beaux Arts. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2011. Cohen, Paul A. History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. Colcutt, Martin. Five Mountains: The Rinzai Zen Monastic Institution in Medieval Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Council on East Asian Studies, 1975. Compareti, Matteo. Samarkand: Center of the World. Costa Mesa: California Mazda, 2016. Conner, Patrick. Oriental Architecture in the West. London: Thames and Hudson, 1979. Conze, Edward. “Buddhism and Gnosis.” Paper presented at the conference Origins of Gnosticism: Colloquium of Messina, April 13–18, 1966. Crossley, Pamela. Empire at the Margins: Culture, Ethnicity, and Frontier in Early Modern China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. —­—— ­ . Orphan Warriors: Three Manchu Generations and the End of the Qing World. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Press, 1991. Cui Xianhua, “Bohai fushi de kaoguxue tansuo” [Research on Parhae costume, based on archaeology]. MA thesis, Jilin University, 2007. Dähne, Burkart. Karabalgasun: Stadt der Nomaden. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2017.

360

Bibliography

Dähne, Burkart, and U. Erdenebat. “Archaeological Excavations in Karabal­ gasun by K. Maskov during Kotwicz’s Expedition of 1912: A New Contribution to the Research History of the Capital of the Eastern Uighur Khaganate.” In In the Heart of Mongolia: 100th Anniversary of W. Kotwicz’s Expedition to Mongolia in 1912, edited by Jerzy Tulisow et al., 245–265. Kraków: Polish Acad­emy of Arts and Sciences, 2012. Dai Chunyang and Gansusheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Dunhuang Foye­ miaowan Xi Jin huaxiangzhuanmu [Western Jin tombs with painted bricks at Foyemiaowan, Dunhuang]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1988. Dai Yingxin. “Tongwancheng chengzhi tanceji” [Rec­ord of excavation of city remains of Tongwan]. Kaogu, no. 3 (1981): 225–232. Dalianshi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Dalian Yingchengzi Handai mudi kaogu gongzuodui. “Liaoning Dalianshi Yingchengzi Hanmuqun 2003 M76 de fajue” [Excavation of tomb 76 in 2003 from the Han group at Yingchengzi, Dalian, Liaoning]. Kaogu, no. 10 (2019): 52–62. Danby, Hope. The Garden of Perfect Brightness: The History of the Yuan Ming Yuan and of the Emperors Who Lived ­There. Chicago: Williams and Norgate, 1950. Danilov, S. V., A. I. Buraev, B. V. Saganov, A. Ochir, Lkh. Erdenebold, and Kh. Batbold. “Kurgan Shoroon Dov i Ego Mesto v Obschchei Sisteme Arkheologicheskikh Pamiatnikov Tiurkskoi Epokhi Tsentral’noi Azii’ [The Kurgan Shoroon Dov and its place in the general system of archaeological monuments of the Türk period in Central Asia]. In Ancient Cultures of Mongolia and Baikal Siberia, 254–257. Ulan-­Ude: Buryat State University Publishing Department, 2010. Dawson, Christopher. The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and ­Fourteenth Centuries. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955. De la Vaissière, Étienne. Sogdian Traders. Translated by James Ward. Leiden: Brill, 2005. De la Vaissière, Étienne, and Éric Trombert, eds. Les Sogdiens en China. Paris: École française de’Extrême-­Orient, 2005. De Xin, Zhang Hanjun, and Han Renxin. “Nei Menggu Balinyouqi Qingzhou Baita faxian Liaodai Fojiao wenwu” [Liao Buddhist cultural relics excavated at the White Pagoda in Qingzhou, Balinyouqi, Inner Mongolia]. Wenwu, no. 12 (1994): 1–33. Debreczeny, Karl. Faith and Empire: Art and Politics in Tibetan Buddhism. New York: Rubin Museum, 2019. —­—­—. “Sino-­Tibetan Artistic Synthesis in Ming Dynasty T ­ emples at the Core and the Periphery.” Tibet Journal 28, no. 1–2 (2003): 49–108.

Bibliography

361

Deng Hainan. Qin-­Han-­Louma [Qin, Han, Rome]. Haikou: Hainan chubanshe, 2006. Derrida, Jacques, et al. The Ear of the Other: Otobiography, Transference, Translation. Edited by Christie McDonald. Translated by Peggy Kamuf. Lincon: University of Nebraska Press, 1985. —­—— ­ . L’oreille de l’autre: Otobiographies, transferts, traductions: Textes et débats avec Jacques Derrida. Montreal: VLB, 1984. ͡ D’iakova, O. V. Gosudarstvo Bokhaĭ: Arkheologiia, istoriia, politika [The State of Bohai: Archeology, history, politics]. Moscow: Nauka, 2014. Ding Linuo, ed. Beijing kaogushi [History of Beijing archaeology]: Jindai juan [Jin dynasty volume]. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2012. Ding Mingyi. Huayansi [Huayan Monastery]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1980. —­—­—. “Shanxi zhongnanbu de Song-­Yuan wutai” [Song-­Yuan dancing platforms in south-­central Shanxi]. Wenwu, no. 4 (1972): 47–56. Dong Gao et al. “Liaoning Chaoyang Beita tiangong digong qingli jianbao” [Excavation report on the tiangong and digong of the North Pagoda in Chaoyang, Liaoning]. Wenwu, no. 7 (1992): 1–18. Dong Shouqi and Bo Jianhua. Suzhou Xuanmiaoguan [Xuanmiao Daoist monastery]. Beijing: Zhongguo lüyou chubanshe, 2005. Dong Xuezeng. “Wanyan Xiyi ji qi mudi” [Wanyan Xiyi and his tomb]. In Jilinshiyi [Remains in Jilin city], edited by Jilinshi Bowuguan, 34–40. Changchun: Jilin Renmin chubanshe, 1984. Dongnan Daxue Jianzhu Yanjiusuo. Ningbo Baoguosi dadian [Main hall of Baoguo Monastery in Ningbo]. Nanjing: Dongnan Daxue chubanshe, 2012. Drompp, Michael. “Chinese ‘Qaghans’ Appointed by the Türks.” Tang Studies 25 (2007): 183–202. —­—— ­ . Tang China and the Collapse of the Uighur Empire: A Documentary History. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Du Jinpeng and Qian Guoxiang. Han-­Wei Luoyangcheng yizhi yanjiu [Research on remains of Han-­Wei Luoyang]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2007. Du Jinpeng and Xu Hong. Yanshi Erlitou yizhi yanjiu [Research on remains at Erlitou in Yanshi]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2005. Du Xianzhou. “Yonglegong de jianzhu” [Architecture of Yonglegong]. Wenwu, no. 8 (1963): 3–18. Duncan, John B., trans. A New History of Parhae. Seoul: Northeast Asia History Foundation, 2012. Dunhuang Wenwu Yanjiusuo. Zhongguo shiku: Dunhuang Mogaoku [Chinese cave-­temples: Dunhuang Mogao caves]. 5 vols. Vol. 3. Beijing: Wenwu chubanhe, 1987.

362

Bibliography

Dunhuang Yanjiuyuan. Dunhuang shiku quanji [Comprehensive rec­ord of Dunhuang rock-­carved caves]. Vol. 21, Jianzhuhua juan [Architectural painting volume]. Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2001. Eberhard, William. A Dictionary of Chinese Symbols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986. Eckfeld, Tonia. Imperial Tombs in Tang China, 618–907: The Politics of Paradise. London: Routledge Curzon, 2005. Ecsedy, Hilda. “Uighurs and Tibetans in Pei-­t’ing (790–719 A.D.).” Acta Orientalis 17 (1964): 83–114. E’erduosi Bowuguan, E’erduosishi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiuyuan, and Wushenqi Wenwu Guanlisuo. “Nei Menggu E’erduosi Barisong Gu’aobao Hanmu bihuamu qingli jianbao” [Brief report on the sorting out of the Han tomb with murals at Gu’aobao, Barisong, Ordos, Inner Mongolia]. Wenwu, no. 3 (2019): 38–64. Ejima Hisao. “Taikan Ishiha ni tsuite” [On Yishikha], Si’en 50 (1951): 19–26. Elliott, Mark C. The Manchu Way: the Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006. Eng, Clarence. Colours and Contrast: Ceramic Traditions in Chinese Architecture. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Erickson, Susan. “Han Dynasty Tomb Structures and Contents.” In China’s Early Empires: A Re-­appraisal, edited by Michael Nylan and Michael Loewe, 13–113. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. —­—­—. “Ways of Facing the Dead in Ancient China.” Arts Asiatiques 67 (2012): 19–34. Erlach, Johann Bernhard Fischer von. A Plan of Civil and Historical Architecture, in the Repre­sen­ta­tion of the Most Noted Buildings of Foreign Nations, Both Ancient and Modern. Farnborough: Gregg Press, 1964. Esherick, Joseph. The Origins of the Boxer Uprising. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Fairbank, John K. China: A New History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. —­—— ­ . The Chinese World Order: Traditional China’s Foreign Relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. —­—— ­ . Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast: The Opening of the Treaty Ports, 1842–1854. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1973. Fairbank, Wilma. Liang and Lin: Partners in Exploring China’s Architectural Past. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994. —­—­—. “A Structural Key to Han Mural Art.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 7, no. 1 (1942): 52–88.

Bibliography

363

Fairbank, Wilma, and Masao Kitano. “Han Mural Paintings in the Pei-­y uan Tomb at Liao-­Yang.” Artibus Asiae 17, no. 3–4 (1954): 238–266. Fan Ye (398–445), comp. Hou Hanshu [History of ­Later Han]. Beijing: Zhong­hua shuju, 1965. Fang Xuanling [578–648]. Jinshu [History of Jin]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Farris, William Wayne. Sacred Texts and Buried Trea­sure. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i, 1998. Fay, Peter Ward.The Opium War: 1840–1842: Barbarians in the Celestial Empire in the Early Part of the Nineteenth ­Century and the War by which They Forced Her Gates Ajar. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975. Feng Jiren. Chinese Architecture and Meta­phor: Song Culture in the Yingzao fashi Building Manual. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2012. Feng Junjie. Shanxi shenmiao juchang kao [Investigation of stages at ­temples in Shanxi]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2006. —­—— ­ . Xiju yu kaogu [Stages and archaeology]. Beijing: Wenhua yishu chubanshe, 2002. Feng Zizhang. Guo Shoujing [Guo Shoujing]. Beijing: Xin­hua chubanshe, 2011. Fitzgerald, C. P. The Empress Wu. London: Cresset, 1968. Fitzhugh, William. “Mongolian Deer Stones, Eu­ro­pean Menhirs, and Canadian Arctic Inuksuit: Collective Memory and the Function of Northern Monument Traditions.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24, no. 1 (2017): 149–187. Fleming, John, Hugh Honour, and Nikolaus Pevsner. The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture. 2nd ed. Harmonds­worth: Penguin Books, 1972. Fletcher, Joseph, and Beatrice Forbes Manz. Studies on Chinese and Islamic Inner Asia. Aldershot: Variorum, 1995. Fogel, Joshua. Articulating the Sinosphere: Sino-­Japanese Relations in Space and Time. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009. —­—— ­ . The Cultural Dimension of Sino-­Japanese Relations: Essays on the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe, 1995. —­—— ­ . The Lit­er­a­ture of Travel in the Japa­nese Rediscovery of China, 1862–1945. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996. Fong, Mary. “Tombs Guardian Figurines: Their Evolution and Iconography.” In Ancient Mortuary Traditions of China: Papers on Chinese Ceramic Funerary Sculptures, edited by George Kuwayama, 84–105. Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum, 1991. Franke, Herbert. From Tribal Chieftain to Universal Emperor and God: The Legitimation of the Yüan Dynasty. Munich: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaft, 1978.

364

Bibliography

Franke, Herbert, and Denis Twitchett, eds. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 6, Alien Regimes and Border States, 907–1368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Fu Xinian. “Shaanxi Fufeng Shaochen Xi Zhou jianzhu yizhi chutan” [Preliminary investigation of Western Zhou architectural remains in Shaochen, Fufeng, Shaanxi]. In Fu Xinian jianzhushi lunwenji [Collected essays on architectural history by Fu Xinian], 42–66. Tianjin: Baihua wenyi chubanshe, 2009. —­—­—. “Shaanxi Qishan Fengchu Xi Zhou jianzhu yizhi chutan” [Preliminary discussion of the Western Zhou architectural remains at Fengchu, Qishan, Shaanxi]. Wenwu, no. 1 (1981): 65–74. —­—­—. “Tangdai suidao xingmu de xingzhi gouzao he suofanying de dishang gongshi” [Above­ground palace architecture as relflected on the walls of Tang tomb paths]. In Wenwu yu kaogu lunji [Essays on cultural relics and archaeology], edited by Wenwu Chubanshe Bianjibu, 322–343. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986. —­—— ­ ­. Traditional Chinese Architecture: Twelve Lectures. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Press, 2017. —­—­—­. “Zhanguo Zhongshanwang Cuomu chutu de zhaoyutu ji qi lingyuan guizhi de yanjiu” [Research on the plan on zhaoyutu of the tomb of King Cuo of the Zhongshan kingdom of the Warring States period and the arrangements of the surrounding tombs]. Kaogu xuebao, no. 1 (1980): 97–118. —­—— ­ . Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi [History of premodern Chinese architecture]. Vol. 2, Sanguo, liang Jin, Nan Beichao, Sui, Tang, Wudai jianzhu [Three Kingdoms, Two Jins, Northern and Southern Dynasties, Sui, Tang, and Five Dynasties architecture]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2009. Fujiansheng Bowuguan. Fuzhou Nan Song Huang Shengmu [The Southern Song tomb of Huang Cheng in Fuzhou]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1982. Fukuyama Toshio and Akiyama Terukazu. Eizanji hakkakudō [The octagonal hall of Eizanji]. Tokyo: Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan, 1950. —­—— ­ . Eizanji hakkakudō no kenkyū [Research on the octagonal hall of Eizanji]. Kyoto: Benridō, 1951. Fuqua, Douglas Sherwin. “The Japa­nese Missions to Tang China and Maritime Exchange in East Asia, 7th–9th Centuries.” PhD diss., University of Hawai‘i, 2004. Gabain, Annemarie von. Das Leben im uigurischen Königreich von Qoço. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1973.

Bibliography

365

Gansusheng Bowuguan, Qin’anxian Wenhuaguan, and Dadiwan Fajue Xiaozu. “Gansu Qin’an Dadiwan Xinshiqi shidai zaoqi yizun” [Remains from the early Neolithic period at Dadiwan, Qin’an, Gansu]. 2 parts. Wenwu, no. 4 (1981): 1–8, and Wenwu, no. 5 (1981): 62–73. Gansusheng Bowuguan and Zhangxian Wenhua Zhongxin. “Gansu Zhangxian Yuandai Wang Shixian jiazu mucan” [Tombs of the Wang Shixian ­family in Zhang county, Gansu]. Wenwu, no. 2 (1982): 1–21. Gansusheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Jiuquan Shiliuguo bihuamu [A Sixteen States tomb with murals in Jiuquan]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1989. Gansusheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Gaotaixian Bowuguan. “Gansu Gaotai Digengpo Jinmu fajue jianbao” [Excavation report on Jin tombs at Digengpo, Gaotai, Gansu]. Wenwu, no. 9 (2008): 29–39. Gansusheng Wenwudui, Gansusheng Bowuguan, and Jiayuguanshi Wenwu Guanlisuo. Jiayuguan bihuamu fajue baogao [Excavation report on tombs with murals at Jiayuguan]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1985. Gao Feng, “Shanxi Datong Yingbindadao Bei Wei muqun” [A Northern Wei tomb group from Yingbindadao, Datong, Shanxi]. Wenwu, no. 10 (2006): 50–71. Gao Nianhua. Feilaifeng gaoxiang [On images from Feilaifeng]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2002. Ge Chengyong. “Beichao Shuteren Dahuizhong Xijiaosecai de xingexiang” [New images with Zoroastrian flair in an assembly of Sogdians of the Northern Dynasties]. Wenwu, no. 1 (2016): 71–84. Ge Shanlin. Helinge’er Hanmu [A Han tomb with murals in Helinge’er]. Höhhot: Nei Menggu Renmin chubanshe, 1978. Gerasimov, G. G. Pami͡ atniki arkhitektury doliny reki Kara-­Kengir v Tsentralʹnom Kazakhskstane[Architectural monuments in the Kara-­Kengir river valley and central Kazakhstan]. Alma-­Ata: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk Kazakhskoĭ SSR, 1957. Golden, Peter B. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic ­Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-­Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the ­Middle East. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992. Golovachev, V. Ts., A. L. Ivliev, A. M. Pevnov, and P. O. Rykin, Tyrskie stely XV veka: Perevod, kommentarii, issledovanie kitaiskikh, mongolʹskogo i chzhurchzhenʹskogo tekstov [The Tyr steles of the 15th ­century: Translations, commentaries, study of the Chinese, Mongolian, and Jurchen texts]. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2011. Gould, Stephen J. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: Norton, 1989.

366

Bibliography

Grabar, Oleg. “The Islamic Dome, Some Considerations.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 22, no. 4 (1963): 191–198. Grafton, Antony, Glenn Most, and Salvatore Settis. The Classical Tradition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. Greiff, Susanne, and Yin Shenping. Das Grab des Bin Wang: Wandermalereien der ostlichen Han-­Zeit in China. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003. Groner, Paul. Saicho: The Establishment of the Japa­nese Tendai School. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2000. Grossman, Edith. Why Translation ­Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Grütter, Jörg Kurt. “Kultur und Stil.”In Asthetik der Arkitektur: Grundlagen der Archiktektur-­Wahrnehmung. Berlin: 1987. Gulacsi, Zsuzsanna. “A Manichaean ‘Portrait of the Bud­dha Jesus’: Identifying a Twelfth-­or-­Thirteenth-­Century Chinese Painting from the Collection of Seiun-ji Zen Temple.” Artibus Asiae 69, no. 1 (2009): 102–105, 118. —­—— ­ . Mani’s Pictures: The Didactic Images of the Manichaeans from Sasanian Mesopotamia to Central Asia and Tang-­Ming China. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Gulacsi, Zsuzsanna, and Jason Beduhn. “The Religion of Wirkak and Wiyusi: The Zoroastrian Iconographic Program on a Sogdian Sarcophagus from Sixth-­Century Xi’an.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 26 (2012): 1–3. Guo Daiheng. Donglai diyishan: Baoguosi [Premier monastery from the east: Baguo Monstery]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. —­—— ­ ,­ ed. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi [History of premodern Chinese architecture]. Vol. 3, Song, Liao, Jin, Xi Xia jianzhu [Song, Liao, Jin, Western Xia architecture]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2001. Guo Huaxiao. Yanshi Erlitou wenhua kaoguxue yanjiu [Research on the archaeological culture of Erlitou at Yanshi]. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guoji chubanshe, 2015. Guo Jianbang et al. “Henan Dengzhoushi Fushengsita digong” [The digong of the Fusheng Monastery Pagoda in Dengzhou, Henan]. Wenwu, no. 6 (1991): 38–47. Guo Qinghua. The Mingqi Pottery Buildings of Han Dynasty China. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2010. Guo Tiansuo and Wang Guoqi. “Dengfeng Songyuesita digong qingli jianbao” [Brief report on the sorting out of the digong of Songyue Monastery pagoda in Dengfeng]. Wenwu, no. 1 (1992): 14–25. Guo Zhizheng and Li Yiyou. “Nei Menggu Heicheng kaogu fajue jiyao” [Notes on the excavation of Khara-­k hoto in Inner Mongolia]. Wenwu, no. 7 (1987): 1–23.

Bibliography

367

Guojia Wenwuju, ed. 2010 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian [Major archaeological discoveries in China in 2010]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2011. —­—— ­ ,­ ed. 2012 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian [Major archaeological discoveries in China in 2012]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2013. Hakeda Yoshito. Kūkai. New York: Columbia University Press, 1972. Halevi, Leor. Muhammad’s Grave: Death Rites and the Making of Islamic Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. Hamilton, James Russell. Les Ouighours a l’époque des Cinq Dynasties, d’après les documents chinois. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient, 1900. Han Jiagu. “Dulesi shiji kao” [Research on historical remains at Dule Monastery]. Beifang wenwu 2 (1986): 50–56. Han Wei. “Majiazhuang Qin zongmiao jianzhu zhidu yanjiu” [Research on the architectural system of the Qin ancestral ­temple at Majiazhuang]. Wenwu, no. 2 (1985): 31–45. Handanshi Wenwu Baoguosuo. “Hebei Handanshiqu yizhi diaocha jianbao” [Investigative report on city remains of Handan in Hebei]. Kaogu, no. 2 (1980): 142–146, 158. Harada Yoshito et al., Lo-­lang: A Report on the Excavation of Wang Hsü’s Tomb in the “Lo-­lang” Province, an Ancient Chinese Colony in ­Korea. Tokyo: Toko-­shoin, 1930. Harada Yoshito and Komai Kazuchika. Tung-­ching-­ch’eng [The eastern capital]. Tokyo: Tōa kokōgakkai, 1941. Härke, Heinrich. “Letter from Siberia: Fortress of Solitude.” Archaeology 63, no. 6 (2010): 51–52, 54, 56–58. Harrell, Mark. “Sokkuram: Buddhist Monument and Po­l iti­cal Statement in K ­ orea.” World Archaeology 27, no. 2 (1995): 318–335. Harrer, Alexandra. “Where Did the Wood Go? Rethinking the Problematic Role of Wood in Wood-­Like Mimicry.” Frontiers of History of China 12, no. 2 (2015): 188–221. —­—­—­. “Wood to Stone and Beyond: The Idea of Imitation in Chinese Architectural History.” Frontiers of History of China 12, no. 2 (2015): 183–187. Hartmann, Hans-­Günther. Schloss Pillnitz: Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Dresden: Husum Verlag der Kunst, 2008. Hayashi Toshio, Shiraishi Noriyuki, and Matsuda Kōichi. “Site of Bay Bäliq.” In Mongorukoku genson iseki, hibun chōsa kenkyū hokoku [Provisional report of researches on historical sites and inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998], edited by T. Moriyasu and A. Ochir, 196–198. Osaka: Society of Central Eurasian Studies, 1999. He Dalong. Jin Dongnan zaoqi jianzhu zhuanti yanjiu [Comprehensive research on early architecture in southeastern Shanxi]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2015.

368

Bibliography

He Dalong et al. “Shanxi Yangcheng faxian Yuandai minzhu” [A Yuan residence uncovered in Yangcheng, Shanxi]. Zhongguo wenwubao, October 23, 2011. He Liqun. “Buddhist State Monasteries in Early Medieval China and Their Impact on East Asia.” PhD diss., University of Heidelberg, 2013. He Ming. “Jilin Helong Gaochang Bohai simiaozhi” [Remains of a Bohai monastery in Gaochang, Helong, Jilin]. Beifang wenwu, no. 4 (1985): 21–24. He Nu. “Taosi: An Archaeological Example of Urbanization as a Po­liti­cal Center in Prehistoric China.” Archaeological Research in Asia 14 (2018): 20–32. He Yun’ao. Fojiao chuchuan nanfang zhi lu [The southern route of the early transmission of Buddhism]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1993. Hearn, Maxwell. “A Collection of Chinese Paintings Comes to Canada.” Orientations 36, no. 8 (2005): 77–83. —­—­—. “Document and Portrait: ‘The Southern Tour Paintings of Kangxi and Qianlong.’ ” Phoebus 6, no. 1 (1988): 91–131. —­—­—. “The Kangxi Southern Inspection Tour: A Narrative Program by Wang Hui.” PhD diss., Prince­ton University, 1990. —­—­—. “Pictorial Maps, Panoramic Landscapes, and Topographic Paintings: Three Modes of Depicting Space during the Early Qing Dynasty.” In Bridges to Heaven: Essays on East Asian Art in Honor of Professor Wen C. Fong, edited by Jerome Silbergeld and Wen C. Fong, 91–114. Prince­ton, NJ: Tang Center, 2009. Hearn, Maxwell, et al. Landscapes Clear and Radiant: The Art of Wang Hui (1632–1717). New York and New Haven: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2008. Hebeisheng Zhengdingxian Wenwu Baoguansuo, Zhang Xiusheng, Liu Youheng, et  al. Zhengding Longxingsi [Zhengding Monastery in Zhengding]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2000. Hebeisheng Wenhuaju Wenwu Gongzuodui. “Hebei Yixian gucheng kancha he shijue” [Investigation and digging at the old city of Yan Xiadu in Yixian, Hebei]. Kaogu xuebao, no. 1 (1965): 83–106. —­—— ­ . Wangdu erhao mu [Tomb 2 at Wangdu]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1959. Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo. Anping Dong Han bihua mu [An Eastern Han tomb with murals in Anping]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1990. —­—— ­ . Xuanhua Liaomu bihua [Murals in Liao tombs in Xuanhua]. Beijing: Wenwu chubansh, 2001. —­—— ­ . Yuan Zhongdu: 1998–2003-­nian fajue baogao [Yuan central capital: Report on excavations from 1998 to 2003]. 2 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2012.

Bibliography

369

Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Zhangjiakoushi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, and Chongliqu Wenhua Guangdian he Luyouju. “Hebei Zhangjiakoushi Taizicheng Jindai yizhi” [Remains of the Jin Taizicheng in Zhangjiakou, Hebei]. Kaogu, no. 7 (2019): 77–91. Hebeisheng Wenwuju. Mancheng Hanmu [Han tombs in Mancheng]. Guangzhou: Lingnan Meishu chubanshe, 2000. Hebeisheng Zhengdingxian Wenwu Baoguansuo et al. Zhengding Longxingsi [Longxing Monastery in Zhengding]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2000. Hedin, Sven. Jehol: City of Emperors. New York: Dutton, 1933. Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, ed., Bohai Shangjingcheng [Shangjing of Parhae]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2009. —­—— ­ . Ning’an Hongzunyuchang: 1992–1995-­nian Bohai mudi kaogu fajue baogao [Report of excavations between 1992 and 1995 at the Bohai cemetery at Hongzunyuchang in Ning’an]. 2 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2009. “Heilongjiang fajue Bohai daxing shishi bihuamu” [A stone Parhae tomb with murals excavated in Heilongjiang]. Zhongguo wenwubao 19, no.  1 (1992): 1. Henan Yanshi Renmin Zhengfu. Gudu Yanshi [The ancient city Yanshi]. Luoyang: Henan huabaoshe, 2001. Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Bei Song huangling [Imperial tombs of Northern Song]. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1997. —­—­—. “Henan Xinzhengshi Zheng-­Han gucheng Zhengguo jisi yizhi fajue jianbao” [Report on the excavation of remains of a sacrificial site of the state of Zheng at the site of the old cities of Zheng and Han in Xinzheng, Henan]. Kaogu, no. 2 (2000): 40–60. —­—— ­ . Shangcheng kaogu xin faxian yu yanjiu, 1985–1992 [New excavations and research on the Shang city at Zhengzhou, 1985–1992]. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1993. —­—— ­ . Wuyang Jiehu [Jiehu in Wuyang]. 2 vols. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1999. —­—— ­ . Zhengzhou Shangcheng: 1953–1985-­nian kaogu fajue baogao [Shang city at Zhengzhou: Report on excavations from 1953 to 1985]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2001. Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Zhoukoudiqu Wenhuaju Wenwuke. “Henan Huaiyang Pingliangtai Longshan Wenhua chengzhi shijue jian­bao” [Preliminary report on city remains of the Longshan Culture at Pingliangtai in Huaiyang, Henan]. Wenwu, no. 3 (1983): 21–36. Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiuyuan. Zhengzhou Shangcheng yizhi kaogu yanjiu [Research on archaeological remains of the Shang city in Zhengzhou]. Zhengzhou: Daxiang chubanshe, 2015.

370

Bibliography

Hollenweger, Richard. “The Buddhist Architecture of the Three Kingdoms Period in K ­ orea.” PhD diss., Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 1999. Honour, Hugh. Chinoiserie: The Vision of Cathay. New York: Harper and Row, 1961. —­—— ­ . Neo-­classicism. Harmonds­worth: Penguin, 1991. Hopkirk, Peter. Foreign Dev­ils on the Silk Road. Amherst: University of Mas­ sa­chu­setts Press, 1980. Hsu, Hsin-­mei Agnes. “Pictorial Eulogies in Three Eastern Han Tombs at Wangdu and Anping.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2004. Hu Ping. “Datong Bei Wei Fangshan Siyuan Fosi yizhi faxian baogao” [Excavation report on the remains of Siyuan Buddhist Monastery of the Northern Wei in Fangshan]. Wenwu, no. 4 (2007): 4–26. Huang Minglan and Guo Yinqian. Luoyang Hanmu bihua [Han tombs with murals in Luoyang]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. Huang Xiaofen. Hanmu kaoguxue yanjiu [Research on the archaeology of Han tombs]. Changsha: Yuelu shushe, 2003. Hubeisheng Bowuguan. Liangzhuangwangmu [Tomb of the Prince of Liangzhuang]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Hubeisheng Bowuguan and Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusou. Zeng Hou Yimu [Tomb of Marquis Yi of Zeng]. 2 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1989. Hubeisheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Panlongcheng: 1963–1994-­nian kaogu fajue baogao [Panlongcheng: Report on excavation between 1963 and 1994]. 2 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2001. Hunan Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. “Hunan Lixian Mengxi Bashidang Shiqi shidai zaoqi yishi fajue jianbao” [Excavation report of a Stone Age site at Bashidang, Mengxi, Li county, Hunan]. Wenwu, no. 12 (1996): 26–39. Hüttel, Hans-­Georg, and Ulambajaryn Erdenebat. Karabalgasun und Karakorum: Zwei spätnomadische Stadtsiedlungen im Orchon-­Tal; Ausgrabunden und Forschungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts und der Mongolischern Akademie des Wissenschaften, 2000–2009. Ulaanbaatar: Botschaft der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 2009. Hwang Ming-­chorng. “Cosmology, Po­liti­cal Order, and Monuments in Early China.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1996. Ikeuchi Hiroshi, Umehara Sueji, and Harada Jirō. T’ung-­kou [[Material remains in] Tonghua [­today Ji’an]]. 2 vols. Tokyo: Nichiman bunka kyokai, 1938–1940. Impey, Oliver. Chinoiserie: The Impact of Oriental Styles on Western Art and Decoration. London: Oxford University Press, 1977.

Bibliography

371

Inagaki Eizō. Jinja kenchikushi kenkyū [Research on the history of shrine architecture]. 2 vols. Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Bijutsu shuppan, 2006–2008. Inokuma Kanekatsu and Watanabe Akiyoshi. Takamatsuzuka kofun [The mounded tomb Takamatsuzuka]. Tokyo: Shibundō, 1984. I­ noue Shōichi. Hōryūji e no seishinshi [History of the spirit of Hōryūji]. Tokyo: Heibonsha, 1994. Iryŏn. Samguk Yusa: Legends and History of the Three Kingdoms of Ancient ­Korea. Translated by Tae-­Hung Ha and Grafton  K. Mintz. Seoul: Yonsei University Press, 2004. Isahaya, Yoichi. “Tārīkh-­i Qitā in the Zīj-­i Īlkhānī: The Chinese Calendar in Persian.” SCIAMVS 14 (2013): 149–158. Ishida Mosaku. Hōryūji. Tokyo: Kodansha, 1970. Jabbari, Zohre Ali, and A. H. F. Nia. “Analyzing Architecture of Mithraism Rock T ­ emples.” Journal of History Culture and Art Research 6, no. 3 (June 2017): 1030–1042. Jackson, Peter. “The Mongols and the Faith of the Conquered.” In Mongols, Turks, and ­Others, edited by Reuven Amitai and Michal Biran, 245– 290. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Jacobson, Dawn. Chinoiserie. London: Phaidon, 1993. Jeong Ho-­seop. World Heritage Goguryeo Tomb Murals. Seoul: Inter-­Korea Historian Association, 2013. Ji Cheng. The Craft of Gardens. Translated by Alison Hardie. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Ji Fotuo [1888–1933], ed. Yuandai huasuoji [Rec­ords of paint­ers and sculptors of the Yuan dynasty]. In Xueshu congbian [Collected scholarly writings], juan 15. Shanghai: Guangcangxue, 1916. Jia Yingyi and Xinjiang Weiwu’er Bowuguan, Tulufan Bozekelike shiku [Rock-­ carved caves at Bezeklik, Turfan]. Ürümqi and Shanghai: Xinjiang ­People’s Press and Shanghai ­People’s Art Press, 1990. Jiang Bo. Han-­Tang ducheng lizhi jianzhu yanjiu [Research on ritual architecture in the capitals from Han to Tang]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. Jiang Huaiying et al. Qinghai Ta’ersi xiushan gongcheng baogao [Excavation report on the restoration of Ta’ersi in Qinghai]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. Ji’anxian Wenwu Baoguansuo. “Ji’an Changchuan yihao bihuamu” [Changchuan tomb no. 1 with murals in Ji’an]. Dongbei kaogu yu lishi 1 (1982): 154–173. Jianzhu Wenhua Kaochazu. Yixian Fengguosi [Fengguo Monastery in Yi county]. Tianjin: Tianjin Daxue chubanshe, 2008. Jilinsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Dunhuashi Wenwu Guanlisuo. “Jilin Dunhuashi Jiangdong, Linsheng ‘ershisikuaishi’ yiji de diaocha he

372

Bibliography

fajue” [Survey and excavation of the groups of twenty-­four stones in Jiangdong and Linsheng, Dunhua, Jilin]. Kaogu, no.  6 (2009): 57–61. Jin Futang, Wang Peihuan, and Gao Yaoxiong. Shengjing sanling [Three royal tombs in Shengjing [Shenyang]]. Shenyang: Liaoning meishu chubanshe, 1990. Jin Weinuo. Yonglegong bihua quanji [Comprehensive rec­ord of Yonglegong murals]. Tianjin: Tianjin Renmin chubanshe, 1997. Jin Zhizhang and Huang Kerun [1758]. Chaha’ersheng Koubei santingzhi [Rec­ord of the three areas of Koubei in Chaha’er region]. Taipei: Cheng­wen, 1968. Jing Ai. Jin Shangjing [Shangjing of the Jin dynasty]. Beijing: Sheng­huo, dushu, xinzhi sanlian shudian, 1991. —­—­—. “Liao-­Jin shidaide huozangmu” [Liao-­Jin period cremation burials]. Dongbei kaogu yu lishi 1 (1982): 104–115. Jing, Anning. “Financial and Material Aspects of Tibetan Art u ­ nder the Yuan Dynasty.” Artibus Asiae 64, no. 2 (2004): 213–241. —­—­—. “The Portraits of Khubilai Khan and Chabi by Anige (1245–1306), a Nepali Artist at the Yuan Court.” Artibus Asiae 54, no. 1–2 (1994): 40–86. Jiu Guanwu. “Shanxi Zhongtiaoshannan Wulongmiao” [Five Dragons ­Temple south of the Zhongtiao Mountains in Shanxi]. Wenwu cankao ziliao, no. 11 (1959): 43–44. Juliano, Annette. Unearthed: Recent Archaeological Discoveries from Northern China. Williamstown, MA: Clark Art Institute, 2012. Jun Wenren. Ancient Chinese Encyclopedia of Technology: Translation and Annotation of the Kaogong ji (the Artificers’ Rec­ord). London: Routledge, 2013. Jung Ho-­sub, ed. World Heritage Goguryeo Tomb Murals. Seoul: Inter-­Korea Historian Association, 2013. Kadoi, Yuka. Islamic Chinoiserie. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2016. Kao, Jeffrey. “On Jade Suits and Han Archaeology.” Archaeology 36, no. 6 (1983): 30–37. Ke Shaomin. Xin Yuanshi [New History of the Yuan dynasty]. Beijing: Tuigengtang, 1922. Keene, Donald. Yoshimasa and the Silver Pavilion: The Creation of the Soul of Japan. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Kenchū Jōen. Hōryūji. Tokyo: Gakuseisha, 1993. Khud ͡iakov ͡Iu. S. “Pam͡iatniki uĭgurskoĭ kul’tury v Mongolii” [Monuments ͡ ͡ia Azi ͡ia i sosednie of Uyghur Culture in Mongolia]. In Tsentral’na

Bibliography

373

territorii v srednie veka [Central Asia and neighboring territories in the m ­ iddle ages], edited by V. E. Larichev, 84–89. Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1990. Kidder, Edward. The Lucky Seventh and Its Time. Tokyo: Hachiro Yuasa Memorial Museum, 1999. Kim, Alexander A. “Archeological Studies of Bohai in Rus­sia.” Oriens Extremus 47 (2008): 302–312. Kim Ch’ŏng-gi and Chang Kyŏng-ho. Mirŭksa: Yujok palgul chosa pogosŏ [Mirŭksa: Excavation report of remains]. 2 vols. Seoul: Munhwajae kwalliguk munhwajae yŏn’guso, 1989. Kim, Hyŏng-­ch’an, et al. Korean Confucianism: The Philosophy and Politics of Toegye and Yulgok. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2018. Kim Pu-­sik and Edward Shultz. The Silla Annals of the Samguk Sagi. Gyeonggi­do: Acad­emy of Korean Studies Press, 2012. Kim Wŏn-­yong. Bunei ōryō [Tomb of King Muryŏng]. Tokyo: Kondo shuppansha, 1979. —­—— ­ . Recent Archaeological Discoveries in the Republic of ­Korea. Tokyo: UNESCO, 1983. Kim, Youn-mi, ed. New Perspectives on Early Korean Art: From Silla to Koryŏ. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Early ­Korea Proj­ect, 2013. Kiselev, S. V. Drevnemongol’skie goroda [Ancient Mongolian cities]. Moscow: Nauka, 1965. —­—­—. “Drevnie goroda Mongolii” [Ancient Cities of Mongolia]. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, no. 2 (1957): 91–101. Kita Sadakichi (1871–1939). Teito [Imperial capitals]. Tokyo: Nihon Gakujutsu Fukyukai, 1915; second edition 1939. Klements, Dmitrii A. Arkheologicheskij dnevnik poezdki v Sredniuiu Mongoliiu v. 1891 godu [Archaeological diary of a trip to Central Mongolia in 1891]. St. Petersburg: Akademiia Nauk, 1895. Kleutghen, Kristina. Imperial Illusions: Crossing Pictorial Bound­aries in the Qing Palaces. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2015. Knapp, Ronald. China’s Old Dwellings. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2000. —­—— ­ . Chinese Houses: The Architectural Heritage of a Nation. Boston: Tuttle, 2005. Ko, Yu-­sŏp. Han’guk t’app’a ŭi yŏn’gu [Research on Korean stone pagodas]. Seoul: T’ongmun’gwan, 1993. Koehler, Karen, and Jeffrey Saletnik, eds. Translation and Architecture. Special issue, Art in Translation 10, no. 1 (March 2018): 1–142, ArtHist​.­net, March 16, 2018, https://­arthist​.­net​/­archive​/­17623.

374

Bibliography

Kolbas, Judith. “Khukh Ordung: A Uyghur Palace Complex of the Seventh C ­ entury.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 15, no. 3 (2005): 303–327. Komai Kazuchika. Chūgoku tojō, Bokkai kenkyū [Chinese imperial cities, research on Parhae]. Tokyo: Yūzankaku shupansha, 1977. Komai Kazuchika and Sekino Takeshi. Han-­tan: Sengoku jidai Chōtō jōshi no hakkutsu [Handan: Excavation at the ruins of the Zhao capital during the Warring States period]. Tokyo: Tōa kōko gakukai, 1954. Kotwicz, W. “Poezdka v dolinu Orchona letcom 1912” [Journey in Orkhon Valley in the summer of 1912]. Zapiski vostochnogo otdeleniia imperiaiial russkogo archeologicheskogo obshchestva 22, no. 1–2 (1914): 5–7. ͡ i Amdo i mertvyĭ gorod Khara-­khoto [MonKozlov, Pyotr Kuz’mich. Mongoli ia golia and Amdo and the Dead City of Khara-­k hoto]. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo, 1923. Kradin, Nikolay N. Goroda srednevekovykh imperiĭ dal’nego vostoka [Cities of the medieval empires of the Far East]. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo vostochnoĭ literatury, 2018. —­—— ­ . Kidan’skiĭ gorod Chintolgoĭ-­balgas [The Khitan city of Chin-­tolgoi]. Moscow: Vostochna͡ia literatura RAN, 2011. Kuck, Loraine. The Art of Japa­nese Gardens. New York: John Day Com­pany, 1940. Kuhn, Phillip. Rebellion and Its Enemies in Late Imperial China: Militarization and Social Structure, 1796–1864. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. Kŭm Chang-­t ’ae. Confucianism and Korean Thoughts. Seoul: Jimoondang, 2000. Kungnip Chungang Pangmulgwan, Kungnip Puyŏ Pangmulgwan, and Kungnip Taegu Pangmulgwan. Paekche: T’ŭkpyŏlchŏn [Paekche: Special exhibition]. Seoul: Tongch’on Munhwasa, 1999. Kungnip Puyŏ Munhwajae Yŏn’guso. Han, Chung, Il kodae saji pigyo yŏn’gu [Comparative study of wooden pagodas in ­Korea, China, and Japan]. Puyŏ: Kungnip Puyŏ Munhwajae Yŏn’guso, 2009. Kyong-­McClain, Jeff, and Yongtao Du. Chinese History in Geo­graph­i­cal Perspective. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013. ͡ ia ͡ Tuva [Ancient Tuva]. Moscow: Moscow State Kyzlasov, Leonid R. Drevnia University, 1979. —­—— ­ . Istoriia Tuvy v srednie veka [History of Tuva in the medieval period]. Moscow: Moscow State University, 1969. —­—­—. “Srednevekovye goroda Tuvy” [Medieval towns of Tuv]. Sovetska͡ia arkheologi ͡ia, no. 2 (1957): 92–100. Lai Delin. “Idealizing a Chinese Style: Rethinking Early Writings on Chinese Architecture and the Design of the National Central Museum in Nan-

Bibliography

375

jing.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 73, no. 1 (2014): 61–90. Laird, Thomas. Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama. London: Atlantic, 2007. Lane, George. The Mongols in Iran. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018. —­—­—.“Persian Notables and the Families Who Underpinned the Ilkhanate.” In Nomads as Agents of Cultural Change: The Mongols and Their Eurasian Pre­de­ces­sors, edited by Reuven Amitai and Michal Biran, 182–213. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2015. —­—— ­ ,­ ed., The Phoenix Mosque and the Persians of Medieval Hangzhou. London: Ginko Library, 2018. LeCoq, Albert von. Chotscho. Ergebnisse der Kgl. Preussischen Turfan Expeditionen: Facsimile-­Wiedergaben d. wichtigeren Funde d. ersten Königl. Preuß. Expedition nach Turfan in Ost-­Turkistan. Graz: Akademische Druck-­u. Verlagsanstalt, 1913. Lee Kywang-­pyo. “Buddhist Relics from the Stone Pagoda of Mireuksa ­Temple.” Koreana: A Quarterly on Korean Art and Culture 23, no. 3 (2009): 16–25. Lehmann, Karl. “The Dome of Heaven.” Art Bulletin 27, no. 1 (1945): 1–27. Leidy, Denise. “Bezeklik ­Temple 20 and Early Esoteric Buddhism.” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 7 (2001): 201–222. Leisten, Thomas. “Between Orthodoxy and Exegesis: Some Aspects of Attitudes in the Shari’a t­oward Funerary Architecture.” Muqarnas 7 (1990): 12–22. Lerner, Judith. “Yidu: A Sino-­Sogdian Tomb?” In Sodgians: Their Precursors, Contemporaries and Heirs, 129–146. St. Petersburg: State Hermitage, 2013. Li Chi. Ch’eng-­tzu-­yai: The Black Pottery Cultures at Lung-­shan-­ch’en in Li-­ ch’eng-­hsien, Shantung. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956. Li Chongfeng. Fojiao kaogu [Archaeological evidence of Buddhism]. 2 vols. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2014. Li Daoyuan [d. 527], Shuijingzhu jiao [Commentary on the ­Water Classic]. Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1929. Li Di. Guo Shoujing [Guo Shoujing]. Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin chubanshe, 1966. Li Di and Lu Sixian. “Yuan Shangdu Tianwentai yu Alabo tianwenxue zhi chuan­ru Zhongguo” [The Yuan Platform for Observing the Heavens in Shangdu and the transmission of Arab astronomy to China]. Nei Menggu Minzu shiyuan xuebao (Ziran Kexue ban) 1 (1981): 80–89. Li Fang, ed. Zhongguo yishujia zhenglue [Evidence of Chinese artisans]. Yizhou: Lishi zikan, 1914.

376

Bibliography

Li Hengmei. Zhaomu zhidu yanjiu lunji [Research on the zhaomu system]. Jinan: Qilu shishe, 1996. Li Jie. Yingzao fashi [Building standards]. 2 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo shuju, 2006. Li Liu. The Chinese Neolithic: Trajectories to Early States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Li Qibin. “Beijing Astronomical Observatory in the Yuan Dynasty.” In Oriental Astronomy from Guo Shoujing to King Sejong, edited by Il-­sŏng Na and F. R. Stephenson. Seoul: Yonsei University Press, 1997. Li Song. Lun Handai yishuzhong de Xiwangmu tuxiang [On images of the Spirit ­Mother of the West in the Han dynasty]. Changsha: Hunan jiaoyu chubanshe, 2000. Li Tang. “Rediscovering the Ongut King George: Remarks on a Newly Excavated Archaeological Site.” In From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Chris­tian­ity in China and Central Asia, edited by Li Tang and Dietmar Winkler, 255–266. Vienna: LIT, 2013. Li Xingming. Tangdai mushi bihua yanjiu [Research on Tang tomb murals]. Xi’an: Shaanxi Renmin meishu chubanshe, 2005. Li Yanshou [7th ­century]. Beishi [History of the Northern Dynasties]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Li Yiyou. “Liao Yelü Congmu shike ji shendao beiming” [Stele and inscriptions along the spirit path and stone carvings at the Liao tomb of Yelü Cong]. Dongbei kaogu yu lishi 1 (1982): 174–183. —­—­—. “Yuan Yingchanglu gucheng diaochaji” [Excavation report on the old Yuan city of Yingchanglu]. Kaogu, no. 10 (1961): 531–533. Liang Sicheng. “Jixian Dulesi Guanyinge, Shanmen kao” [Research on Guanyin Pavilion and the front gate of Dule Monastery in Ji county]. Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 3, no. 2 (1932): 1–92 and 99. —­—­—. “Jixian Guanyinsi Baita ji” [Notes on the White Pagoda of Guanyin Monastery in Ji county]. Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 3, no. 2 (1932): 93–98. —­—— ­ . Liang Sicheng quanji [Complete writings of Liang Sicheng]. 10 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2001. —­—— ­ . Liang Sicheng wenji [Essays of Liang Sicheng]. 4 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1984–2001. —­—­—. “Wutaishan Foguangsi de jianzhu” [Architecture of Foguang Monastery on Mount Wutai]. Wenwu cankao ziliao, no. 5–6 (1953): 80–123. —­—­—. “Yangzhou Jianzhen dahesheng jiniantang” [A commemorative hall for the ­great monk Jianzhen in Yangzhou]. In Liang Sicheng wenji, 4: 315–330.

Bibliography

377

Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen. “Datong gujianzhu diaocha baogao” [Report on the investigation of ancient architecture in Datong]. Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 4, no. 3–4 (1934). —­—­—. “Dougong jianshuo: Han-­Song” [Notes on bracket sets: Han-­Song]. In Zhongguo jianzhu ziliao jicheng [Collected research materials on Chinese architecture], edited by Liang Sicheng. N.p. N.d. Liang Ssu-­ch’eng (Sicheng). Chinese Architecture: A Pictorial History. Edited by Wilma Fairbank. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984. Liao Ben. “Song-­Yuan xitai yizhi: Zhongguo gudai juchang wenwu yanjiu zhi yi” [Remains of Song-­Yuan stages: The first of articles on ancient Chinese relics of stages]. Wenwu, no. 7 (1989): 82–95. —­—— ­ . Zhongguo gudai juchangshi [History of old Chinese stages]. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1997. —­—— ­ . Zhongguo xiju tushi [Illustrated history of Chinese stages]. Zhengzhou: Henan jiaoyu chubanshe, 1996. Liao Bin, Wang Tianxing, and Liu Zongren. Beijing gucha mingsi [Famous monasteries in Beijing]. Beijing: Zhongguo shijieyu, 1993. Liao Ping. The Yongle Palace Murals. Beijing: Foreign Language Press, 1985. Liaoningsheng Bowuguan and Liaoning Tielingdiqu Wenwuzu. “Faku Yemaotai Liaomu jilüe” [Notes on a Liao tomb at Yemaotai, Faku]. Wenwu, no. 12 (1975): 26–36. “Liaoningsheng Renmin zhengfu bangongting zhuanfasheng wenhuating deng bumen guanyu Liaota baohu gongcheng shishi yijian de tongzhi” [Official government document transmitted through the province to the cultural and other bureaus giving notice of ideas that ­will be implemented concerning the preservation and structure of Liao pagodas]. Issued in Liaoning province in 2009. Liaoningsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. “Liaoning Liaoyang Nanjiaojie Dong Han bihuamu” [An Eastern Han tomb on Nanjiao Street in Liaoyang, Liaoning]. Wenwu, no. 10 (2008): 34–59. Liaoningsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Chaoyangshi Beita Bowuguan, eds. Chaoyang Beita Kaogu fajue yu weixiu gongcheng baogao [Chao­ yang North Pagoda: Archaeology, excavation, and restoration work]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Lieu, Samuel. “Christian and Manichaean Remains from Zayton: An Introduction and Update.” In From Palmyra to Zayton: Epigraphy and Iconography, edited by I. Gardner, S. Lieu, and Kan Parry, 189–206. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005. —­—­—. “Manichaean Art and Achitecture along the Silk Road.” In Art, Architecture and Religion along the Silk Roads, edited by Ken Parry, 79–101. Turnhout: Brepols, 2008.

378

Bibliography

—­—— ­ . Manichaeism in Central Asian and China. Leiden: Brill, 1998. —­—— ­ . Manichaeism in the L ­ ater Roman Empire and Medieval China. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985. Lin Shimin. “Zhejiang Ningbo Leifengta digong fajue baogao” [Report on the excavation of the digong at Leifeng Pagoda in Ningbo, Zhejiang]. Wenwu, no. 6 (1991): 1–27, 96. Lin, Wei-­cheng. “Under­ground Wooden Architecture in Brick: A Changed Perspective from Life to Death in 10th-­through 13th-­Century Northern China.” Archives of Asian Art 61 (2011): 3–36. Lin Wushu. Monijiao ji qi dongjian [Manichaeism and its eastward flow]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987. Link, Perry. “On Translation: How and Why Can Something Less than a Mirror Be Useful?” Texts and Transformations: Essays in Honor of the 75th  Birthday of Victor  H. Mair, edited by Haun Saussy, 17–30. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press, 2018. Litvinskij, B. A., and Zeĭmal’, T. I. Adzhina-­tepa. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1971. —­—— ­ . The Buddhist Monastery of Ajina Tepa, Tajikistan: History and Art of Buddhism in Central Asia. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente, 2004. —­—— ­ . Buddiĭskiĭ monastyr’ Adzhina-­Tepa (Tadzhikistan): Raspopki, Arkhitektura, Iskussto [Buddhist Monastery of Adzhina-­Tepa (Tajikistan): ͡ 2010. Excavations, Architecture, Art]. St. Petersburg: Nestor-­Istori ia, Liu, Cary Y. “The Yüan Capital, Ta-­tu: Imperial Building Program and Bureaucracy.” T’oung Pao, 2nd ser., 78, no. 4 –5 (1992): 264–301. Liu, Cary Y., Michael Nylan, and Anthony Barbieri-­L ow. Recarving China’s Past: Art, Architecture, and Archaeology of the Wu ­Family Shrines. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Art Museum, 2005. Liu Chang. The Forbidden City. Beijing: Tsing­hua University Press, 2012. Liu Changjiu. Nanzhao he Daliguo zongjiao yishu [Religious art of the Nanzhao and Dali kingdoms]. Chengdu: Sichuan Renmin chubanshe, 2001. Liu Dunyuan. “Chunqiu shiqi Qiguo gucheng de fuyuan yu chengshi buju” [Reconstruction and plan of the old city of the Qi capital in the period of Spring and Autumn]. Lishi dili 1 (1981): 48–59. Liu Dunzhen. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi [History of premodern Chinese architecture]. 2nd ed. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1984. —­—­—. “Zhenrusi zhengdian” [The main hall of Zhenru Monastery]. Wenwu, no. 8 (1951): 91–97. Liu Junxi. Datong Yanbei Shifan Daxue Bei Wei muqun [A Northern Wei tomb group at Yanbei Normal University, Datong]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008.

Bibliography

379

—­—­—. “Shanxi Datong Shaling Bei Wei bihuamu fajue jianbao” [Preliminary report on the Northern Wei tomb with murals in Shaling, Datong, Shanxi]. Wenwu, no. 10 (2006): 4–24. Liu, Lydia H. The Clash of Empires: The Invention of China in Modern World Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Liu Nianzi. Xiqu wenwu congkao [Compendium of cultural relics of drama]. Beijing: Zhongguo xiju chubanshe, 1986. Liu Qingzhu. Gudai ducheng yu diling kaoguxue yanjiu [Research on the archaeology of ancient capitals and imperial tombs]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2000. Liu Qingzhu and Li Yufang. Han Changancheng [The city of Chang’an in the Han dynasty]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. —­—— ­ . Xi Han shiyi ling [Eleven Western Han royal tombs]. Xi’an: Shaanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1987. Liu Xiaodong and Fu Ye. “Shilun Sanjingfen de niandai yu muzhuren shenfen” [On the date and occupant of the tomb in Sanjing]. Beifang wenwu, no. 1 (1992): 30–35, 29. Liu Ximin, Liao Shangjing Qidan jiyi [Khitan aristocracy in Liao Shangjing]. Huhehaote: Nei Menggu chuban jituan and Yuanfang chubanshe, 2014. Liu Xujie, ed. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi [History of pre-­modern Chinese architecture]. Vol. 1, Yuanshi shehui, Xia, Shang, Zhou, Qin Han jianzhu [Architecture of primitive socie­ties, Xia, Shang, Zhou, Qin, and Han]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2003. Liu Youheng and Fan Zilin, “Hebei Zhengding Tianningsi Lingxiaota digong chutu wenwu” [Trea­sures excavated in the Lingxiao Pagoda digong in Zhengding, Hebei]. Wenwu, no. 6 (1991): 28–37. Liu Zhiping. Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu [Chinese Islamic architecture]. Ürümqi: Xinjiang Renmin chubanshe, 1985. Loewe, Michael, ed. A Biographical Dictionary of the Qin, Former Han and Xin Periods (221 BC—­AD 24). Leiden: Brill, 2000. —­—— ­ . Chinese Ideas of Life and Death: Faith, Myth and Reason in the Han Period (202 b.c.—­AD 220). London: Routledge, 2019. —­—— ­ . Divination, My­thol­ogy and Monarchy in Han China. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997. —­—— ­ . Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Loewe, Michael, and Michael Nylan, eds. China’s Early Empires: A Re-­appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Lopez, Donald. Hyecho’s Journey: The World of Buddhism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018.

380

Bibliography

Louis, François. “Iconic Ancestors: Wire Mesh, Metal Masks, and Kitan Image Worship.” Journal of Song-­Yuan Studies 43 (2013): 91–115. Lovell, Hin-­cheung. An Annotated Bibliography of Chinese Painting Cata­logues and Related Texts. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan, 1973. Lu Bingjie and Zhang Guanglin. Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu [Chinese Islamic architecture]. Shanghai: Shanghai sanlian shudian, 2005. Lu, Duanfang. “Entangled Modernities in Architecture.” In The Sage Handbook of Architectural Theory, edited by C. G. Crysler, S. Cairns, and H. Heynen, 231–246. Los Angeles: Sage, 2012. Lu Haiying. Shengjing Yongling [Yongling in Shengjing (Shenyang)]. Shenyang: Shenyang chubanshe, 2004. Lu Haiying and Wang Yanchun. Shengjing sanling [Three royal tombs in Shengjing (Shenyang)]. Shenyang: Liaoning minzu chubanshe, 2002. Lu Hongnian. Eirakukyū hekiga [Yonglegong murals]. Beijing: Zhongguo waiwen chubanshe, 1981. Lu Sixian. “Guanyu Yuan Shangdu gongcheng beichiang zhongduan de queshi jianzhu taiqi” [A que-­style architectural foundation at the central portion of the north wall of the Shangdu palace-­city]. In Yuan Shangdu yanjiu wenji [Collected research essays on Yuan Shangdu], edited by Ye Xinmin and Jimudedao’erqi, 73–79. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue chubanshe, 2003. Lubo-­Lesnichenko, E. I. Mertvyĭ gorod Khara-­khoto [The dead city of Khara-­ khoto]. Moscow: Nauka, 1968. Lullo, Sheri, and Leslie Wallace, eds. The Art and Archaeology of Bodily Adornment: Studies from Central and East Asian Mortuary Context. New York: Routledge, 2020. Lunkov, Andrei, Artur Kharinskii, Nikolai Kradin, and Evgenii Kovychev. “The Frontier Fortification of the Liao Empire in Eastern Transbaikalia.” Silk Road 9 (2011): 104–121. Luoyangshi Wenwu Guanliju. Gudu Luoyang [Ancient city of Luoyang]. Beijing: Zhaohua chubanshe, 1999. Luoyangshi Wenwuju and Luoyang Baimasi Han-Wei Gucheng Wenwu Baoguansuo. Han-­Wei Luoyang gucheng yanjiu [Research on the old city of Han-­Wei Luoyang]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2000. Ma Liqing. “Nei Menggu Fenghuangshan Hanmu bihua erti” [Two questions regarding the murals in a Han tomb at Fenghuangshan, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu yu wenwu, no. 2 (2003): 60–69. Malone, Carroll. “Current Regulations for Building and Furnishing Chinese Imperial Palaces, 1727–1759.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 49 (1929): 234–243.

Bibliography

381

Maran, Timo. Mimicry and Meaning: Structure and Semiotics of Biological Mimicry. New York: Springer International, 2017. March, Andrew. “An Appreciation of Chinese Geomancy.” Journal of Asian Studies 27, no. 2 (1968): 253–267. Maruyama Shigeru. Jinja kenchiku shiron: Kodai ōken to saishi [Historical discussion of shrine architecture: Ancient imperial authority and rituals]. Tokyo: Chūō Kōron Bijutsu shuppan, 2001. Masson, M. E., “Gorodishcha Starogo Termeza i ikh izuchenie” [Hillforts of Old Termez and their study]. Trudy Uzbekistanskogo filiala Akademii nauk SSSR 1, no. 3 (1940–1941): 5–122. Matsui Namihachi. “Bokkai gokyō kō” [On old Parhae cities]. Shigakkai 1, no. 4 (1899): 344–350, and 1, no. 7 (1899): 661–667. Masuya, Tomoko. “Il-­k hanid Courtly Life.” In The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, edited by Stefano Carboni and Linda Komaroff, 75–103. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. —­—­—. “The Ilkhanid Phase of Takht-­i Sulaiman.” PhD diss., New York University, 1997. —­—­—. “Seasonal Capitals with Permanent Buildings in the Mongol Empire.” In Turko-­Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life,” edited by David Durand-­ Guédy, 223–256. Leiden: Brill, 2013. May, Timothy. The Mongol Empire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018. McCallum, Donald. The Four G ­ reat T ­ emples: Buddhist Art, Archaeology, and Icons of Seventh-­Century Japan. Honolulu: Universityof Hawai‘i Press, 2009. McCausland, Shane. Zhao Mengfu: Calligraphy and Painting for Khubilai’s China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2011. McDonald, Christie, ed. The Ear of the Other: Otobiography, Transference, Translation: Texts and Discussions with Jacques Derrida. Translated by Peggy Kamuf. Lincon: University of Nebraska Press, 1985. McNair, Amy. Donors of Longmen. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2007. Mei Ninghua, chief ed. Beijing Liao, Jin shiyi tuzhi [Pictorial rec­ord of historical remains of Beijing in Liao-­Jin times]. 3 vols. Beijing: Beijing Yanshan chubanshe, 2003–2004. Melikian-­Chirvani, A. B. “The Buddhist Heritage in the Art of Iran.” In The Westward Influence of the Chinese Arts from the 14th to the 18th ­Century, edited by William Watson, 56–65. London: Percival David Foundation, 1972. —­—­—. “Recherches sur l’architecture de l’Iran bouddhique.” Le monde iranien et l’Islam 3 (1975): 1–61.

382

Bibliography

Melville, Charles. “The Chinese-­Uighur Animal Calendar in Persian Historiography of the Mongol Period.” Iran 32 (1994): 83–98. Meng Fanren. Beiting shidi yanjiu [Research on the history of Beiting]. Ürümqi: Xinjiang Renmin chubanshe, 1985. —­—­—,­ et al. Gaochang bihua jiyi [Gathering of the rare and dispersed wall paintings from Gaochang]. Ürümqi: Xinjiang ­People’s Press, 1995. Meng Fanxing and Lin Hongwen. “Luetan liyong gujianzhu ji fushuwu yanjiu Shanxi lishishang liangci dadizhen de yixie wenti” [Some questions about old architecture in the light of the two earthquakes in the history of Shanxi]. Wenwu, no. 4 (1972): 5–21. Meyer, Jeffrey. The Dragons of Tian­anmen: Beijing as a Sacred City. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991. —­—— ­ ­. Peking as a Sacred City. Taipei: Chinese Association for Folklore, 1976. Miller, Allison. “Emperor Wen’s ‘Baling’ Mountain Tomb.” Asia Major, 3rd ser., 28 (2015): 23–37. Miller, Tracy. The Divine Nature of Power: Chinese Ritual Architecture at the Sacred Site of Jinci. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Asia Center, 2007. —­—­—. “The Influence of Chinese Empire on East Asian Shrine Architecture: An Experiment in Cross-­Cultural Comparison.” Asia Major, 3rd ser., 19, no. 1–2 (2006): 267–297. —­—­—. “Northern Song Architecture in Southern Shanxi Province.” Journal of Sung-­Yuan Studies 29 (1999): 135–155. Millward, James. Beyond the Pass: Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759–1864. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2016. Millward, James, R. Dunnell, M. Elliott, and P. Forêt, eds. New Qing Imperial History: The Making of Inner Asian Empire at Qing Chengde. London: Routledge Curzon, 2004. Minorsky, Vladimir. “Maragha.” In Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd  ed. Brill Online. —­—­—. “Tamīm ibn Baḥr’s Journey to the Uyghurs.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 12, no. 2 (1948): 275–305. Mittag, Achim, and Fritz-­Heiner Mutschler. Conceiving the Empire: China and Rome Compared. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Mizuno Keizaburō. Hōryūji kara Yakushiji e: Asuka, Nara no kenchiku, chōkoku [From Hōryūji to Yakushiji: Asuka-­Nara architecture and sculpture]. Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1974. Mizuno Seiichi. Asuka Buddhist Art: Hōryūji. Translated by Richard Gage. New York: Weatherhill; Tokyo: Heibonsha; 1974. Mode, Markus. Sogdien und die Herrscher der Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1993.

Bibliography

383

Montell, Gösta, et al. The Chinese Lama T ­ emple Potala of Jehol: Exhibition of Historical and Ethnographical Collections Made by Dr. Gösta Montell, Member of Dr.  Sven Hedin’s Expeditions and Donated by Vincent Bendix. Chicago: ­Century of Pro­gress Exhibition, 1932. Mōri Hisashi. Shin Yakushiji kō [Research on Shin Yakushiji]. Kyoto: Kawara shōten, 1947. Mōri Osamu et al. Ying-­ch’eng-­tzu: The Han Brick-­Tomb with Fresco Paintings (in Japa­nese). Tokyo: Tōa kōkogakukai, 1934. Moriyasu Takeo. “Qui des Ouigours ou des Tibétains ont gagné en 780–792 à Bes-­Baliq.” Journal Asiatique 269, no. 1–2 (1981): 193–205. —­—­—.“Site and Inscription of Šine-­Usu.” In Provisional Report of Researches on Historical Sites and Inscriptions in Mongolia from 1996 to 1998, edited by T. Moriyasu and A. Ochir, 177–195. Osaka: Society of Central Eurasian Studies, 1999. Mote, Frederick. “The T’u-­Mu Incident of 1449.” In Chinese Ways in Warfare, edited by Edward Dreyer, Algerton Kierman, and John K. Fairbank, 243–272. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974. Mote, Frederick, and Denis Twitchett, eds. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, part 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Mullie, Jozef. “Anciennes villes dans les environs de I-­tcheou (=I-­hien).” Central Asiatic Journal 15, no. 4 (1972): 288–294. —­—­—. “Les anciennes villes de l’empire des g­ rands Leao au royaume Mongol de Bārin.” T’oung Pao, 2nd ser., 21, no. 2–3 (1922): 105–203. —­—­—. “La rivière Jao-­Lo.” T’oung Pao 30, no. 1–2 (1933): 182–223. —­—­—. “Les sépultures de K’ing des Leao.” T’oung Pao, 2nd ser., 30, no. 1–2 (1933): 1–25. Mullie, Jozef, and L. Ker. “La tombeau de l’empereur Tao-­tsong des Leao, et les premières inscriptions connues en écriture K’itan.” T’oung Pao, 2nd ser., 22, no. 4 (1923): 292–301. Mungello, David E. The ­Great Encounter of China and the West, 1500–1800. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2013. Murakami Shinkan. Seiiki no Bukkyō: Bezekuriku seiganga kō [Buddhism in Western Regions: Research on Pranidhi Paintings at Bezeklik]. Tokyo: Daisan Bunmeisha, 1984. Murata Jirō. Hōryūji no kenkyū shi [History of research on Hōryūji]. Tokyo: Mainichi shinbunsha, 1949. Murata Jirō and Fujieda Akira. Chü-­yung-­kuan (Koyōkan) [The Buddhist arch of the ­fourteenth ­century AD at the pass of the ­Great Wall northwest of Peking]. Kyoto: Kyoto University, 1955–1957.

384

Bibliography

Murata Jirō and Ueno Teruo, Hōryūji. Tokyo: Mainichi shinbunsha, 1960. Murck, Christian, ed. Artists and Traditions: Uses of the Past in Chinese Culture. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Art Museum, 1976. Muzio, Ciro Lo. “Remarks on the Paintings from the Buddhist Monastery of Fayaz Tepe (Southern Uzbekistan).” Bulletin of the Asia Institute, new ser., 22 (2008): 189–206. Naitō Tōichirō. The Wall-­Paintings of Hōryūji. Translated and edited by William R. B. Acker and Benjamin Rowland. Baltimore: Waverly Press, 1943. Nanjingshi Bowuguan and Nanjingshi Jiangningqu Bowuguan. “Nanjing Jiang­ning Shangfang Sun Wumu fajue jianbao” [Excavation report on a tomb of the Wu kingdom in Shangfang, Jiangning, Nanjing]. Wenwu, no. 12 (2008): 4–34. Nanjingshi Wenwu Baoguan Weiyuanhui. “Nanjing jiaoqu liangzuo Nanchaomu qingli jianbao” [Excavation report on two Southern Dynasties tombs in the vicinity of Nanjing]. Wenwu, no. 2 (1980): 24–30. Nara Bunkazai Kenkyūjo, Kan Chū Nichi kodai jishi hikaku kenkyū [Research comparing monastery remains in K ­ orea, China, and Japan]. Nara: Nara Bunkazai Kenkyūjo, 2017. Nara Kenritsu Kōkogaku Kenkyūjo. Asuka Takamatsuzuka [The tomb Takamatsuzuka in Asuka]. Nara: Benridō, 1972. Nara Kokuritsu Bunkazai Kenkyūjo Asuka Shiryōkan. Takamatsuzuka hekiga no shin kenkyū [New research on the murals of Takamatsuzuka]. Kyoto: Kansai Purosesu, 1992. Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan. Dai Kentōshi-­ten: Heijō senta 1300-­nen kinen [Exhibition of imperial envoys to Tang China: Commemorating 1300 years of envoys from Nara]. Nara: Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan, 2010. Nara Rokudaiji Taikan kankōkai, ed. Nara rokudaiji taikan [Compendium of the six ­great monasteries of Nara]. Vols. 1–5, Hōryūji. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1971. Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Gongzuodui. “Yuandai Jininglu yizhi qingliji” [Rec­ord of sorting out the remains of Jininglu of the Yuan dynasty]. Wenwu, no. 9 (1961): 52–57. Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Zhelimumeng Bowuguan, eds. Liao Chenguo gongzhu mu [Tomb of the Princess of Chenguo]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1993. Nekrasova, E. G. Termez i ego arkhitekturnye pam͡iatniki [Termez and its architectural monuments]. Tashkent: FAN, 2001.

Bibliography

385

Nieuhof, Johan. An Embassy from the East India Com­pany of the United Provinces, to the G ­ rand Tartar Cham, Emperor of China. Menston: Scholar Press, 1972, 1988. —­—— ­ . Voyages and Travels to the East Indes, 1653–1670. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Ning Jianying, ed. Shanxi wenwu jianzhu baohu yanjiu wenji [Research essays on the preservation of architecture and relics in Shanxi]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2011. Ningxia Guyuan Bowuguan. Guyuan Bei Weimu qiguan hua [The lacquer-­ painted sarcophagus from the Northern Wei in Guyuan]. Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin chubanshe, 1988. Ningxia Huizu Zizhiqu Guyuan Bowuguan and Luo Feng. Guyuan Nanjiao Sui-­Tang mudi [Sui-­Tang tombs in the southern suburbs of Guyuan]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. Ningxia Huizu Zizhiqu Guyuan Bowuguan and Ningxia Bowuguan. “Ningxia Guyuan Bei Zhou Li Xian fufumu fajue jianbao” [Excavation report on the Northern Zhou tomb of Li Xian and his wife in Guyuan]. Wenwu, no. 11 (1985): 1–20. Ningxia Huizu Zizhiqu Guyuan Bowuguan and Zhong-­R i Yuanzhou Lianhe Kaogudui. Yuanzhou gumu jicheng [Compendium of old tombs in Yuan­zhou]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999. Noguchi Yone. Emperor Shomu and the Shosoin. Tokyo: Kyo Bun Kwan, 1941. Northeast Asia History Foundation. A New History of Parhae. Translated by John Duncan. Leiden: Global Oriental, 2012. Ochir, A., S. V. Danilov, Lkh. Erdenebold and Ts. Tserendorj, Ertniĭ nüüdelchdiĭn bunkhant bulshny maltlaga sudalgaa: Töv aimgiĭn Zaamar sumyn Shoroon bumbagar dursgalyn maltlaga sudalgaa [Studies of funerary excavations of ancient nomads: Studies on the excavation of the “shoroon bumbagar (earthen swell)” monument in Zaamar county, Töv province], edited by B. Enkhtüvshin. Ulaanbaatar: Tuukhiĭn khurėėlėn, 2013. Ochir, A., and Lkh. Erdenebold. “About the Uighur City of Khedun, Mongolia.” In Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia, edited by J. Bemmann, 437–443. Bonn: Vor-­und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie Rheinische Friedrich-­Wilhelms-­Universität, 2009. Ochir, A., Ts. Odbaatar, B. Ankhbayar, and Lkh. Erdenebold. “Ancient Uighur Mausolea Discovered in Mongolia.” Silk Road 8 (2010): 16–26. O’Kane, Bernard. “Chaghatai Architecture and the Tomb of Tughluq Temur at Almaliq.” Muqarnas 21 (2004): 277–287.

386

Bibliography

Ōkawa, Naomi. Tōshōgū [Tōshōgū]. Tokyo: Kajima Kenkyūjo shuppankai, 1970. Oldering, Amy, and P. J. Ivanhoe. Mortality in Traditional Chinese Thought. Albany: SUNY Press, 2011. Olschki, Leonardo. Guillaume Boucher: A French Artist at the Court of the Khans. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1946. —­—­—.“Italian Art of the Early Re­nais­sance.” Art Bulletin 26, no.  2 (1944): 95–106. Ooms, Herman. Imperial Politics and Symbolics in Ancient Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2008. Ōta Seiroku. Shinden-­zukuri no kenkyū [Research on shinden-­style]. Tokyo: Yoshikawa kobunkan, 1987. Ouyang Xiu (1007–1072), comp. Xin Tangshu [New History of Tang]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1075. Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, 1979. Paludan, Ann. The Chinese Spirit Road. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Pan Guxi. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi [History of pre-­modern Chinese architecture]. Vol. 4, Yuan, Ming jianzhu [Yuan and Ming architecture]. Beijing: Zhonguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2001. Pan Yihong. Son of Heaven and Heavenly Qaghan: Sui-­Tang China and Its Neighbors. Bellingham: Western Washington University, 1997. Pan Yushan and Ma Shichang. Mogaoku kuqian diantang yizhi [Remains of eminent hall structures as frontal buildings of Mogao caves]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1985. Pankenier, David. Astrology and Cosmology in Early China: Confronting Earth to Heaven. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Paolillo, Maurizio. “In Search of King George.” In Hidden Trea­sures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Chris­tian­ity in China and Central Asia, edited by Dietmar Winkler and Li Tang, 241–255. Munich: LIT, 2009. Parent, Mary N. “A Reconsideration of the Role of Hōrinji in the History of Japa ­nese Architecture.” Japan Architect, January1977, 77–84; February 1977, 73–80; April 1977, 77–84; May 1977, 77–84; June 1977, 77–84; July 1977, 77–84. Park, Ah-­R im. “Tomb of the Dancers: Koguryŏ Tombs in East Asian Funerary Art.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2002. Perlee, Kh. Büteeliin Chuulgan [Collected works]. Vol. 3. 1955. Perrin, Ariane. “A Reassessment of the Emergence of the Images of the Four Animals of the Cardinals Directions in Koguryŏ Funerary Arts.” In

Bibliography

387

The History and Archaeology of the Koguryŏ Kingdom, edited by Mark Byington, 411–436. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Early K ­ orea Proj­ect, 2016. Petech, Lucien. “ ’P’ags-pa.” In In the Ser­vice of the Khan: Eminent Personalities of the Early Mongol-­Yüan Period, edited by I. de Rachewiltz, H., Chan, H-­k. Ch-ch. Hsiao, and P. Geir, part 2, 646–654. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993. Peterment, Simone. A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticism. New York: Harper and Row, 1990. Pevsner, Nicholaus. “The Term ‘Architect’ in the M ­ iddle Ages.” Speculum 17 (October 1942): 549–562. Piggott, Joan. Emergence of Japa­nese Kingship. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. Piotrovsky, Mikhail, ed. Lost Empire of the Silk Road: Buddhist Art from Khara-­ Khoto (x–­xiii ­century). Lugano: Thyssen-­ Bornemiszi Foundation; Milan: Electa, 1993. Pirazzoli-­T ’Serstevens, Michèle. The Han Civilization of China. Oxford: Phaidon, 1982. —­—— ­ ,­ ed. Le Yuanmingyuan: Jeux d’eau et palais européens du XVIII siècle à la cour de Chine. Paris: Recherche sur les civilizations, 1987. Polo, Marco. The Travels of Marco Polo: The Complete Yule-­Cordier Edition, 2 vols. New York: Dover, 1993. Ponsonby-­Fane, Richard. The Imperial House of Japan. Kyoto: Ponsonby Memorial Hall, 1959. Poo, Mu-­chou. In Search of Personal Welfare: A View of Ancient Chinese Religion. Albany: SUNY Press, 1998. Porter, David. The Chinese Taste in Eighteenth-­Century E ­ ngland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Pozdneyev, A. M. Mongolia and the Mongols. Translated by. J. R. Shaw, J. R. Krueger, et  al., 2  vols. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1971–1977. Prey, Pierre de la Ruffinière du. John Soane: The Making of an Architect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Pu, Muzhou (Poo Muchou), H. A. Drake, and Lisa Raphals. Old Society, New Belief: Religious Transformation of China and Rome, ca. 1st–6th Centuries. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. Pugachenkova, Galina. Termez: Shakhris͡iabz. Khiva [Termez, Shakhrisiabz, Khiva]. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1976. Qi Dongfang, Shen Qinyan, and Shanxi Lishi Bowuguan. Huawu Da Tangchun: Hejiacun yibao jingcui [Flower dance of the ­Great Tang spring:

388

Bibliography

Pa­norama of precious remains of Hejiacun]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. Qi Ping, Chai Zejun, Zhang Wu’an, and Ren Yimin. Datong Huayansi (Shangsi) [Huayan Monastery in Datong (Upper Monastery)]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008. Qi Yingtao. Zenyang jianding gujianzhu [How to identify Chinese architecture]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1981. Qian Guoxiang. “Bei Wei Luoyang Yongningsi suxiang de chubu yanjiu” [Early stages in research on the sculpture from Yongningsi of Northern Wei Luoyang]. Zhonggyuan wenwu, no. 1 (2005): 76–85. Qiao Zhongyan. Shanxi guxitai [Ancient Shanxi stages]. Shenyang: Liaoning Renmin chubanshe, 2004. Qin Jianming, Zhang Zaiming, and Yang Zheng. “Shaanxi faxian yi Han Chang’ancheng wei zhongxin de Xi Han nanbeixiang zhaochang jian­zhu jixian” [A long north–­south axial line through the center of Western Han Chang’an]. Wenwu, no. 3 (1995): 4–15. Qinghua Daxue Jianzhu Sheji Yanjiusuo et al. Foguangsi dong dadian jianzhu kancha yanjiu baogao [Report of on-­site investigation and research on the architecture of the east hall at Foguang Monastery]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2011. Qiu Yulan and Yu Zhensheng. Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu [Chinese Islamic architecture]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1992. Qu Lian. “Antiquity or Innovation: Architecture, Sculpture, and Murals in Southern Shanxi ­under the Yuan Dynasty.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2019. Qu Yingjie. Gudai chengshi [Premodern cities]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. Qun Li. “Linzi Qi gucheng kantan jiyao” [Notes on the exploration of the old city Linzi of Qi]. Wenwu, no. 5 (1972): 45–54. Rachewiltz, Igor de, Hok-­lam Chan, Ch’i-­ch’ing Hsiao, and Peter Geier, eds. In the Ser­vice of the Khan: Eminent Personalities of the Early Mongol-­ Yüan Period. 2 pts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1993. Radloff, Wilhelm. Altas der Alterhümer Mongolei: Arbeiten der Orchon-­ Expedition. St. Petersburg: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1892. Ravenstein, E. G. (1834–1913). The Rus­sians on the Amur. London: Trübner and Co., 1861. Rawski, Evelyn. The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institutions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2009. Rawson, Jessica. “Changes in the Repre­sen­ta­tion of Life and the Afterlife as Illustrated by the Contents of Tombs of the T’ang and Sung Periods.”

Bibliography

389

In Arts of the Sung and Yuan, edited by Cary Liu, 23–43. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Art Museum, 1999. —­—­—. “The Eternal Palaces of Western Han: A New View of the University.” Artibus Asiae 1–2 (1999): 5–58. Rea, Michael C. “Sameness without Identity: An Aristotelian Solution to the Prob­lem of Material Constitution.” Ratio: An International Journal of Analytic Philosophy 11, no. 3 (1998): 316–328. Reckel, Johannes. Bohai: Geschichte und Kultur eines mandschurisch-­ koreanischen Königreiches der Tang-­Zeit. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995. Renondeau, G. “La date de l’introduction du bouddhism au Japon.” T’oung Pao 47 (1959): 16–29. Rhie, Marylin. Early Buddhist Art in China and Central Asia. 3 vols. Vol. 3, The Western Ch’in in Kansu in the Sixteen Kingdoms Period and Inter-­ relationships with the Buddhist Art of Gandhara. Brill: Leiden, 2010. Richardson, Hugh. “Early Burial Grounds in Tibet and Tibetan Decorative Art of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries.” Unpublished paper, 1963. Robinson, David M. Empire’s Twilight: Northeast Asia u ­ nder the Mongols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Asia Center, 2010. —­—­—. “The Ming Court.” In Culture, Courtiers, and Competition: The Ming Court (1368–1644), edited by David Robinson, 21–60. Harvard: Harvard Asia Center, 2008. Rong Xiniang. “Bei Zhou Shijun shiguo suojian zhi Suteshangdui” [Study of the Sogdian caravan as seen in the reliefs in the tomb of Shijun]. Wenwu, no. 3 (2005):47–56. —­—— ­ . “Sabao or Sabo: Sogdian caravan leaders in the wall-­paintings in Buddhist caves.” In Les Sogdiens en China, edited by É. de la Vaissière and É. Trombert, 207–230. Paris: École française d’Extrême-­Orient, 2005. Rosemont, Henry, Jr., Explorations in Early Chinese Cosmology. Chico, CA: Scholar’s Press, 1976. Rosenfield, John M. Portraits of Chogen: The Transformation of Buddhist Art in Early Medieval Japan. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Rossabi, Morris. Khubilai Khan, His Life and Times. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. —­—­—. “Two Ming Envoys to Inner Asia.” T’oung Pao 62, no. 1–3 (1976): 1–34. —­—— ­ . Voyager from Xanadu: Rabban Sauma and the First Journey from China to the West. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Rothschild, N. Harry. Emperor Wu Zhao and Her Pantheon of Devis, Divinities, and Dynastic M ­ others. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015.

390

Bibliography

—­—— ­ . Wu Zhao: China’s Only ­Woman Emperor. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. Rowe, Peter, and Seng Kuan. Architectural Encounters with Essence and Form in Modern China. Munich: Prestel, 2007. Rowland, Benjamin. Art in East and West: An Introduction through Comparisons. Boston: Beacon Press, 1968. Rowlands, Michael, Mogens Larsen, and Kristian Kristiansen, eds. Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Rudofsky, Bernard. Architecture without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-­pedigreed Architecture. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1987. Saeki Keizō. Yumedono (Hall of Dreams). Nara: Ikaruga kokyōsha, 1930–1933. Sagawa Masatoshi. “Nihon kodai mokutō kidan no kōchiku gihō to chikashiki shinso oyobi sono Higashi Ajiateki kōsatsu” [Inquiry into the construction techniques of the foundations of ancient Japa­nese wooden pagodas and under­g round heart stones]. Tōhoku Gakuin Daigaku ronshū: Rekishi to bunkan 40 (2006): 126–143. Saliba, George. “The First Non-­Ptolemaic Astronomy at the Maraghah School.” Isis 70, no. 4 (1979): 571–576. —­—­—. “Horoscopes and Planetary Theory: Ilkhanid Patronage of Astronomers.” In Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, edited by Linda Komaroff, 358–368. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Samsó Julio. Astronomy and Astrology in al-­Andalus and the Maghrib. Aldershot: Variorum 2007. —­—— ­ . “Marsad.” Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed. Brill Online. Saunders, J. J. The History of the Mongol Conquests. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971. Śavkunov, Ė. V. Gosudarstvo Bokhaĭ 698–926 gg. i plemena Dal’nego Vostoka Rossii [The State of Bohai 698–926, and the tribes of the Rus­sian Far East]. Moscow: Nauka, 1994. —­—— ­ . Gosudarstvo Bokhaĭ i pam͡iatniki ego kul’tury v Primor’e [The State of Bohai and monuments of its culture in Primor’e]. Moscow: Nauka, 1968. Sayili, Aydin. The Observatory in Islam. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1988. Scarcia, Gianroberto. “The Vihār of Qonqor-­olong: Preliminary Report.” East and West, no. 1–2 (1975): 99–104. Schafer, Edward. Pacing the Void: Tang Approaches to the Stars. Warren, CT: Floating World Editions, 2005. Reprint of Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.

Bibliography

391

Scheidel, Walter. State Power in Ancient China and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Schottenhammer, Angela, ed. The East Asian Maritime World, 1400–1800: Its Fabrics of Power and Dynamics of Exchanges. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007. —­—— ­ . The East Asian “Mediterranean”: Maritime Crossroads of Culture, Commerce and H ­ uman Migration. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008. —­—— ­ . The Emporium of the World: Maritime Quanzhou, 1000–1400. Leiden: Brill, 2001. —­—— ­ . Trade and Transfer across the East Asian “Mediterranean.” Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005. Schwieger, Peter. The Dalai Lama and the Emperor of China. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. Scott, David Alan. “The Ira­nian Face of Buddhism.” East and West 40 (1990): 43–77. See, Teresita An. The Ties That Bind: The Saga of the Sultan of Sulu in China. Manila: Kaisa Para Kaunlaran, 2017. Sekino Tadashi. Chōsen koseki zufu [Pictorial ­a lbum of ancient remains in ­Korea]. Tokyo: Chōsen Sōtokufu, 1915–1935. Sekino Tadashi and Takeshima Takuichi. Ryō Kin jidai no kenchiku to sono Butsuzō [Liao-­Jin architecture and its Buddhist sculpture]. 2 vols. Tokyo: Tōhōbunka gakuin, Tokyo kenkyūjo, 1925. Shaanxi Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Shaanxi xinchutu Tangmu bihua [Newly excavated Tang tomb murals in Shaanxi]. Chongqing: Chongqing chubanshe, 1998. Shaanxi Lishi Bowuguan. Da Tang yibao: Hejiacun jiaocang chutu wenwuzhan [Trea­sures of ­Great Tang: Objects Unearthed from the Hejia village hoard]. Xi’an: Shaanxi Renmin chubanshe, 2010. Shaanxisheng Bowuguan and Shaanxisheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui. Tang Li Xianmu Li Chongrunmu bihua [Murals in the tombs of Li Xian and Li Chongrun]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1974. Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Dongguan Shuicun Suidai bihuamu [A Sui tomb with murals in Shui village, Dongguan]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2013. Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Hanling Kaogudui, ed. Zhongguo Han Yangling caiyong [Colored figurines from the Han tomb Yangling]. Xi’an: Zhongguo Shaanxi Lüyou chubanshe, 1992. Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Shaanxi Lishi Bowuguan, and Zhaoling Bowuguan. Tang Xincheng zhang gongzhumu fajue baogao [Excavation report on the tomb of ­grand princess Xincheng of the Tang]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2004.

392

Bibliography

Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al. “Shaanxi Jingbian Dong Han bihuamu” [An Eastern Han tomb in Jingbian, Shaanxi]. Wenwu, no. 2 (2009): 32–43. Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo Tianye Kaogu Baogao. Tang Huizhuang taizi Li Huimu fajue baogao [Excavation report on the tomb of Tang prince Huizhang Li Hu]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2004. Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiuyuan and Qianling Bowuguan. Tang Yide taizimu fajue baogao [Excavation report on the tomb of Tang prince Yide]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2016. Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiuyuan, Yulinshi Wenwu Kaogu Kantan Gongzuodui, and Shenmuxian Wentiju. “Shaanxi Shenmudian Shimao yizhi” [Remains of Shimao in Shenmu country, Shaanxi]. Kaogu, no. 7 (2013): 15–24. —­—­—. “Shaanxi Shenmudian Shimao yizhi Houyangwan Hujiawa didian shijue jianbao” [Report on trial digging at the Houyangwan and Hujiawa sites at the remains of Shimao in Shenmu county, Shaanxi]. Kaogu, no. 5 (2015): 60–71. Shaanxi Zhouyuan Kaogudui. “Fufeng Shaochen Xi Zhou jianzhuqun qizhi fajue jianbao” [Excavation of remains of an architectural group of Western Zhou at Shaochen in Fufeng]. Kaogu, no. 3 (1981): 10–22. —­—­—. “Shaanxi Qishan Fengchucun Xi Zhou jianzhu qizhi fajue baogao” [Excavation report on Western Zhou architectural remains in Fengchu village, Qishan, Shaanxi]. Wenwu, no. 10 (1979): 27–37. Shaanxisheng Wenguanhui. Yongtai gongzhumu bihuaji [Collection of murals from the tomb of princess Yongtai]. Beijing: Renmin meishu chubanshe, 1963. Shaanxisheng Yongcheng Kaogudui. “Fengxiang Majiazhuang yihao jianzhuqun yizhi fajue jianbao” [Excavation report on remains of architectural group no. 1 at Majiazhuang, Fengxiang]. Wenwu, no. 2 (1985): 1–19. Shandongsheng Wenwu Guanlichu. “Shandong Linzi Qigucheng shijue jian­bao” [Preliminary report on the excavation of Linzi, the ancient city of the state of Qi in Shandong]. Kaogu, no. 6 (1961): 289–297. Shanghaishi Wenwu Baoguan Weiyuanhui. “Shanghai shijiao Yuandai jianzhu Zhenrusi zhengdian zhong faxian de gongjiang mobizi” [Craftsmen signatures discovered in the main hall of Zhenru Monastery, Yuan architecture in Shanghai]. Wenwu, no. 3 (1961): 16–26. Shanxi Daxue Kexueyuan Jishu Zhexue Yanjiu Zhongxin. “Shanxi Xingxian Hongyucun Yuan Zhida’ernian bihuamu” [A tomb with murals from 1309 of the Yuan dynasty in Yongyu village, Xingxian, Shanxi]. Wenwu, no. 2 (2011): 40–46.

Bibliography

393

Shanxi Daxue Lishi Wenhua Xueyuan, Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, and Mengguguo Youmu Wenhua Yanjiu Guoji Xueyuan. “Mengguguo Houhang’aisheng Heliekese Haolai shangu 6-­hao Huihu muyuan fajue jianbao” [Excavation Report on dörvöljin 6 in Khirgisiĭn Khooloin Valley, Arkhangai]. Wenwu, no. 4 (2016): 32–40. Shanxi Daxue Lishi Wenhua Xueyuan, Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, and Datongshi Bowuguan, eds. Datong Nanjiao Bei Wei muqun [A group of Northern Wei tombs in the southern suburbs of Datong]. Bejing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2006. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Pingyang Jinmu zhuandiao [Carved bricks from Jin tombs in Pingyang]. Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1999. —­—— ­ ,­ ed. Tangdai Xue Jingmu fajue baogao [Excavation report on the tomb of Xue Jing of the Tang dynasty]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2000. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Datongshi Kaogu Yanjiusuo. “Datongshi Bei Wei Song Shaozumu fajue jianbao” [Excavation report on the Northern Wei tomb of Song Shaozu in Datong]. Wenwu, no. 7 (2001): 19–39. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Shanxi Bowuguan, et al. “Shanxi Shuozhou Shuiquanliang Bei Qi bihuamu fajue jianbao” [Preliminary report on the excavation of a Northern Qi tomb with murals at Shuiquanliang, Shuozhou, Shanxi]. Wenwu, no. 12 (2010): 26–42. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Taiyuanshi Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui. “Taiyuan Jinshengcun 337-­hao Tangdai bihuamu” [Tang tomb 337 with murals in Jinsheng village, Taiyuan]. Wenwu, no. 12 (1990): 11–15. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Taiyuanshi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, and Taiyuanshi Jinyuanqu Wenwu Luyouju. Taiyuan Sui Yu Hongmu [The tomb of Yu Hong of Sui in Taiyuan]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2005. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Xinzhoushi Wenwu Guanlichu. “Shanxi Xinzhoushi Jiuyuangang Beichao bihuamu” [A Northern Dynasties tomb with murals in Jiuyuangang, Xinzhou, Shanxi]. Kaogu, no. 7 (2015): 51–74. Shanxisheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui. “Taiyuan Nanjiao Jinshengcun Tangmu” [A Tang tomb in Jinsheng village in the southern suburbs of Taiyuan]. Kaogu, no. 9 (1959); 473–476. Shen Qinyan and Fan Shuying. Yide taizimu bihua [Murals from the tomb of Prince Yide]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2002. Shi Jinbo. Xi Xia wenwu [Cultural relics of Western Xia]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2014. Shi Xingbang. Famensi digong zhenbao [Precious trea­sures from the reliquary of Famensi]. Xi’an: Shaanxi Renmin meishu chubanshe, 1989.

394

Bibliography

Shi Yongshi. “Yan Xiadu, Handan, he Lingshou gucheng de jijiao yanjiu” [Comparative research on the cities Yan Xiadu, Handan, and the ancient Lingshou]. In Zhongguo kaogu xuehui diwuci nianhui lunwenji [Chinese Archaeology Society Fifth Annual Conference Proceedings], edited by Zhongguo Kaogu Xuehui, 40–48. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1985. Shimokura Wataru. “Nambokuchō no teito to jiin” [Imperial cities and monasteries of the Northern and Southern dynasties]. Tōhoku Daigakuin Daigaku ronshū: Rekishi to bunka 40 (2006): 197–212. Shiraishi Noriyuki. “Avraga Site: The ‘­Great Ordu’ of Genghis Khan.” In Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, edited by Linda Komaroff, 83–93. Leiden: Brill, 2006. —­—— ­ . Chingisu kan no imashime: Mongoru sōgen to chikyū kankyō mondai [Perceptions of Chinggis Khan: questions about the extent of the grasslands and territory]. Tokyo: Doseisha, 2010. —­—— ­ . Chingisu kan no kōkogaku [Archaeology of Chinggis khan]. Tokyo: Dōseisha, 2001. —­—— ­ . Mongoru teikokushi no ōkogakuteki kenkyū [Archaeological research on Mongol imperial history]. Tokyo: Dōseisha, 2004. Shōsoin Office. Trea­sures of the Shosoin. Tokyo: Asahi Shimbun, 1965. Sichuansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al. Huaying An Bingmu [Tomb of An Bing in Huaying]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008. Sichuansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al. Luxian Songmu [Song tombs in Lu county]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2004. Sickman, Laurence, and Alexander Soper. The Art and Architecture of China. Harmonds­worth: Penguin Books, 1956; paperback edition, 1971. Sima Guang [1019–1086], comp. Zizhi tongjian [Comprehensive mirror for aid in government]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1956. Sima Qian. Rec­ords of the ­Grand Historian: Qin Dynasty. Translated by Burton Watson. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Sinor, Denis, ed. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Siren, Osvald. The Chinese on the Art of Painting. New York: Schocken Books, 1971. —­—— ­ . Chinese Painting: Leading Masters and Princi­ples. 7 vols. London: Lund Humphries, 1956–1958. Siu, Victoria. Gardens of a Chinese Emperor. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 2013. Sivin, Nathan. Granting the Seasons: The Chinese Astronomical Reform of 1280, with a Study of Its Many Dimensions and an Annotated Translation of Its Rec­ords. New York: Springer, 2009.

Bibliography

395

Skaff, Jonathan. Sui-­Tang China and Its Turko-­Mongol Neighbors. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Snellgrove, David, and H. Richardson. A Cutural History of Tibet. New York: Praeger, 1968. So, Billy Kee-­long. Prosperity, Region, and Institutions in Maritime China: The South Fukien Pattern, 946–1368. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Asia Center, 2000. Song Dachuan. Beijing diqu Liao-­Jin muzang bihua baohu yanjiu [Preservation and research on Liao-­Jin tombs with murals in the vicinity of Beijing]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2008. —­—­—. “Bejing Jinmu faxian jianbao” [Preliminary report on excavation of Jin tombs in Beijing]. Beijing wenwu yu kaogu 1 (1983): 55–72. —­—— ­ . Beijing Longquanwu Liao-­Jin muzang fajue baogao [Excavation report on Liao-­Jin tombs in Longquanwu, Beijing]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2009. —­—— ­ ,­ ed. Da Yuan sandu [Three ­great Yuan capitals]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2016. Song Dachuan et al. Jindai lingqin zongmiao zhidu shiliao [Historical sources on the Jin system of tombs and ancestral t­ emple]. Beijing: Beijing Yanshan chubanshe, 2003. Song Kiho. “Parhae Chŏnghye gongju myobiŭi kongjŭngge taehayo” [Historical investigation of the stele inscription of Parhae princess Chŏnghye]. Hanguk munhwa 2 (1981): 141–165. Song Lian [1310–1381]. Yuanshi [History of Yuan]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Song Liankui, comp., Guanzhong congshu [Collected writings of Guanzhong]. Taipei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1970. Song Yubin. “Bohai ducheng guzhi yanjiu” [Research on remains of the Parhae capitals]. Kaogu, no.6 (2009): 40–49, 113. Summarized in an En­glish article in Chinese Archaeology 10 (2010): 83–90. Song Yubin and Jilinsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Xigucheng [The Parhae central capital]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Soothill, William. The Hall of Light. London: Lutterworth Press, 1951. Soper, Alexander C. “The ‘Dome of Heaven’ in Asia.” Art Bulletin 29, no. 4 (1947): 225–248. —­—— ­ . The Evolution of Buddhist Architecture in Japan. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Press, 1942. —­—­—. “Imperial Cave-­Chapels of the Northern Dynasties: Donors, Beneficiaries, Dates.” Artibus Asiae 28, no. 4 (1966): 241–270. Soucek, Priscilla. “Ceramic Production as Exemplar of Yuan-­I lkhanid Relations.” Res 35 (1999): 125–141.

396

Bibliography

Spence, Jonathan. God’s Chinese Son: The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom of Hong Xiuquan. New York: W. W. Norton, 1996. —­—— ­ . The Search for Modern China. New York: Norton, 1990. —­—— ­ . Treason by the Book. London: Allen Lane, 2001. Spencer, Joseph. “The Houses of the Chinese.” Geo­graph­i­cal Review 37 (1947): 254–272. Spiro, Audrey. Contemplating the Ancients. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Staviskiĭ, B. ͡Ia, ed. Buddiĭskie kompleksy Kara-­tepe v Starom Termeze (Budd­ hist complex of Kara-­tepe in Old Termez). Moscow: FAN, 1996. Stavisky, Boris. “The Fate of Buddhism in ­Middle Asia.” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3 (1993–1994): 113–137. Stavros, Matthew. “Monuments and Mandalas in Medieval Kyoto: Reading Buddhist Kingship in the Urban Plan of Ashikaga Yoshimitsu.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 77, no. 2 (2017): 321–361. Stavros, Matthew, and Yoshiyuki Tomishima. “The Shōkokuji Pagoda: Building the Infrastructure of Buddhist Kingship in Medieval Japan.” Japa­nese Journal of Religious Studies 45, no. 1 (2018): 125–144. Stein, M. Aurel. Innermost Asia: Detailed Report of Explaorations in Central Asia. 4 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928. Stein, Rolf. “Leao-­tche,” T’oung Pao 35 (1940): 1–154. —­—— ­ . Tibetan Civilization. Translated by J. E. Stapleton. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972. Steiner, George. ­After Babel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Steinke, Kyle, with Dora Ching. Art and Archaeology of the Erligang Civilization. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Press, 2013. Steinhardt, Nancy S. “The Architectural Landscape of Liao and Under­ground Resonances.” In Gilded Splendor: Trea­sures of China’s Liao Empire, edited by Hsüeh-­man Shen, 41–53. New York: Asia Society, 2006. —­—­—. “Beiting: City and Ritual Complex.” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 7 (2001): 223–262. —­—­—. “Changchuan Tomb No. 1 and Its North Asian Context.” East Asian Archaeology 4, no. 1–4 (2002): 225–292. —­—— ­ . China’s Early Mosques. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015. —­—— ­ ­, ed. Chinese Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. —­—— ­ . Chinese Architecture: A History. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Press, 2019. —­—— ­ . Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 200–600. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2014.

Bibliography

397

—­—— ­ . Chinese Imperial City Planning. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. —­—­—. “Early Cities—­China.” In The Oxford Handbook of Cities in World History, edited by Peter Clark, 105–111. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. —­—­—. “Imperial Architecture along the Mongolian Road to Dadu.” Ars Orientalis 18 (1989): 59–93. —­—­—. “Imperial Architecture ­under Mongolian Patronage: Khubilai’s Imperial City of Daidu.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1981. —­—­—. “A Jin Hall at Jingtusi: Architecture in Search of Identity.” Ars Orientalis 33 (2003): 77–119. —­—— ­ . Liao Architecture. Honolulu: Universityof Hawai‘i Press, 1997. —­—­—. “The Mizong Hall of Qinglong Si: Ritual, Space, and Classicism in Tang Architecture.” Archives of Asian Art 44 (1991): 27–50. —­—­—. “The Plan of Khubilai Khan’s Imperial City.” Artibus Asiae 44, no. 2–3 (1983): 137–158. —­—­—. “Red Lintels, Green Rooftops: The Role of Architecture in Eight Paintings from ­Temple 9 at Bezeklik.” Toronto Studies in Central and Inner Asia 6 (2004): 177–190. —­—­—. “Seeing Hōryūji through Chinese Eyes.” In Hōryūji Reconsidered, edited by Dorothy Wong, 49–97. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2008. —­—­—. “Standard Architecture in a Multi-­Centered, Multi-­Cultural Age.” In Tenth-­Century China and Beyond: Art and Visual Culture in a Multi-­ Centered Age, edited by Wu Hung, 38–69. Chicago: University of Chicago Center for the Arts of East Asia, 2012. —­—­—. “Structuring Architecture at the Cultural Crossroads: Architecture in Sogdian Funerary Art.” Oriental Art 49, no. 4 (2003): 48–62. —­ —­ —.“The Tangut Royal Tombs near Yinchuan.” Muqarnas 10 (1993): 369–381. —­—­—. “The ­Temple to the Northern Peak in Quyang.” Artibus Asiae 58, no. 1–2 (1998): 69–90. —­—­—. “­Toward the Definition of a Yuan Dynasty Hall.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 47, no. 1 (1998): 57–73. —­—­—. “Twin Pillars Tomb.” Journal of Inner and East Asian Studies 1 (2004): 25–57. —­—­—. “Yuan Period Tombs and Their Decoration: Cases at Chifeng.” Oriental Art 36, no. 4 (Winter 1990–1991): 198–221. —­—­—. “Yuan Period Tombs and Their Inscriptions: Changing Identities for the Chinese Afterlife.” Ars Orientalis 37 (2009): 138–172.

398

Bibliography

Steinhardt, Nancy S., Ah-­R im Park, and Lkhagvasuren Erdenebold. “Shoroon Bumbagar: A Tomb in Bayannuur, Mongolia.” Artibus Asiae 80, no. 2 (2020): 167–210. Stoddard, Heather. Early Sino-­Tibetan Art. 2nd ed. Bangkok: Orchid Press, 2008. Stryzgowski, Josef. Orient oder Rome: Beiträge zur Geschichte der spätantiken und frühchristlichen Kunst. Leipzig: Hinrichs’siche Buchhandlung, 1901. Su Bai. Baisha Songmu [Song tombs in Baisha]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1957, 2002. —­—­—. “Juyongguan guojieta kaogao” [Research on the overpass pagodas at Juyongguan]. Wenwu, no. 4 (1964): 13–29. —­—­—. “Xi’an diqu de Tangmu xingzhi” [Forms of Tang tombs in the vicinity of Xi’an]. Wenwu, no. 12 (1995): 1–50. —­—— ­ . Zangchuan Fojiao siyuan kaogu [Archaeology of Buddhist monasteries in traditional Tibetan style]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. Summerson, John. Architecture in Britain, 1530–1830. Harmonds­worth: Penguin, 1970. —­—— ­ . The Classical Language of Architecture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963. Sun Dachuan, ed. Beijing kaogu faxian yu yanjiu (1949–2009) [Beijing archaeology and research]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2009. Sun Dazhang. Chengde Puningsi [Puning Monastery in Chengde]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2008. Sun, E-tu and John de Francis, trans. “Government Artisans of the Yuan Dynasty.” In Chinese Social History: Translations of Selected Studies, edited by E-­t Sun and J. de Francis, 17–29. Washington, DC: American Council of Learned Socie­ties, 1956. Sun Xiuren. “Bohaiguo ershisikuaishi zhi mijie xi” [Analy­sis of the puzzle of the twenty-­four stones of Parhae]. Beifang wenwu, no. 4 (1993): 31–37. Sutherland, Heather. “Adaptation and Transmission in Early East Asian Funerary Arts: The Three Goguryeo Four Spirits Tombs in Ji’an, China.” PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 2009. Suzuki Kakichi, ed. Asuka Hakuhō no bijutsu: Hōryūji to Ikaruga no tera [Art of the Asuka and Hakuhō periods: Hōryūji and monasteries of Ikaruga]. Tokyo: Gakushū kenkyūsha, 1978. Ta La, B. Enkhtuvshin, Chen Yongzhi, and A. Ochir. Mengguo Haotengtesumu Wubu’erhabuqile sanhao sifangxing yizhi fajue baogao (2006 nian) [Excavation report on the four-­sided remains, tomb 3, in Övör-­K havtsal, Ulaanchuluu, Khotont district, Arkhangai (2006 season)]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008.

Bibliography

399

Taiyuanshi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Bei Qi Xu Xianxiumu [Tomb of Xu Xianxiu of Northern Qi]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2006. Takamatsuzuka Kofun Gakujutsu Chōsakai. Takamatsuzuka kofun hekiga [Murals in the mounded tomb Takamatsuzuka]. Kyoto: Benridō, 1974. Takeshima Takuichi. Ryō-­Kin jidai no kenchiku to sono Butsuzō [Liao-­Jin architecture and its Buddhist sculpture]. Tokyo: Ryūbun shokyoku, 1944. Tamura Jitsuzō and Kobayashi Yukio. Keiryō: Higashi Mongoria ni okeru Ryōdai teiōryō to sono hekiga ni kansuru kōkogakuteki chōsa hōkoku [Qingling: Archaeological report on Liao imperial tombs and their murals in Eastern Mongolia]. 2 vols. Kyoto: Kyoto Daigaku bungakubu, 1952–1953. Tamura Yoshinaga. Eizanji [Eizan Monastery]. Kyoto: Kawahara shoten, 1948. Tan Qixiang. Zhongguo lishi ditu ji [Historical atlas of China]. 8 vols. Beijing: Ditu chubanshe, 1987. Tanaka Tan. “Chōgen no zoei katsudo” [Chōgen’s construction activities]. Bukkyō geijutsu, no. 105 (1976): 20–50. —­—­—.“Dai Butsuyō kenchiku Sōyō no juyō to henshitsu” [Architecture in the ­Great Bud­dha Style: Reception and Degeneration of Song Modes]. In Kamakuraki no Tōdaiji fukkō: Chōgen shōnin to sono shōhen [The Kamakura-­period Reconstruction of Tōdaiji: Chōgen and His Environment], edited by Tōdaiji, 48–60. Nara: Tōdaiji, 2007. —­—­—. “Zuichō kenchikusha no sekkai to kōshō” [Investigation and proof of Sui-­Tang architects]. In Chūgoku no kagaku to kagakusha [Chinese science and scientists], edited by Yamada Keiji. Kyoto: Jimbun Kagaku Kenkyūjo, 1978. Tang Changdong. Da Tang bihua [Murals of the ­great Tang]. Xi’an: Shaanxi youyi chubanshe, 1996. Tang Chi. “Dong Wei Ruru gongzhumu bihua shitan” [Discussion of murals in the Western Wei tomb of the Ruru princess]. Wenwu, no. 4 (1984): 10–15. Tao Zhenggang. “Shanxi Qixian Baigui Bei Qi Han Yimu” [The Northern Qi tomb of Han Yi in Baigui, Qi county, Shanxi]. Wenwu, no. 4 (1975): 64–73. Tao Zhenggang et al. Bei Qi Dong’angong Lou Ruimu [The tomb of Lou Rui, Prince of Dong’an of Northern Qi]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2006. Tao Zongyi. (Nancun) Chuogenglu [Rec­ord while resting from the plow (in the southern village)]. Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju, 1959. Tavakoli, Afshin. “Verjuy Mithra ­Temple, the Oldest Surviving Mithraist ­Temple in Iran.” Iran, Daily Newspaper, May 16, 2004, 12.

400

Bibliography

Teggart, T. J. Rome and China: A Study of Correlations in Historical Events. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1983. Thorp, Robert. “The Sui Xian Tomb: Re-­Thinking the Fifth ­Century.” Artibus Asiae 43, no. 1–2 (1981): 67–110. Tian Yang. “The Making of an Architectural Historian: Liu Dunzhen and the Knowledge of Traditional Chinese Architecture, 1917–1937.” PhD diss. National University of Singapore, 2003. Tianjin Daxue Jianzhuxi and Chengdeshi Wenwuju. Chengde gujianzhu [Traditional architecture in Chengde]. New York: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1982. Tianjinshi Lishi Bowuguan Kaogudui and Jixian Wenwu Baohusuo. “Tianjin Jixian Dulesi ta” [The pagoda of Dule Monastery in Ji county, Tianjin]. Kaogu xuebao, no. 1 (1989): 83–119. Titsingh, Isaac, trans. Nihon Odai Ichiran, ou, Annales des empereurs du Japon. Paris: Royal Asiatic Society, 1834. Torii Ryūzō. Kōkogakujō yori mitaru Ryō no bunka: Zufu [Liao culture seen from archaeology: Illustrations]. 4 vols. Tokyo: Tōhōbunka gakuin, Tokyo kenkyūjo, 1936. —­—— ­ . Ryō no bunka o sagaru [On Liao culture]. Tokyo: Shokasha, 1937. Toriyama Kiichi. Bokkai shijō no shomondai [Questions about Parhae history]. Tokyo: Kazama shobō, 1968. Tsai, Shih-­shan Henry. Eunuchs in the Ming Dynasty. Albany: SUNY Press, 1996. —­—— ­ . Perpetual Happiness: The Ming Emperor Yongle. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001. Tsang, Ka Bo. Brilliant Strokes: Chinese Paintings from the Mactaggart Art Collection. Edmonton: University of Albert Museums, 2008. Tseng, Lillian Lan-­y ing. Picturing Heaven in Early China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2011. Tsitsiridis, Stavros. “Mimesis and Understanding: An Interpretation of Aristotle’s Poetics 4.1448B4-19.” Classical Quarterly 55, no. 2 (2005): 435–446. Tucci, Giuseppe. The Tombs of the Tibetan Kings. Rome: M.E.O., 1950; reprinted Milan: Mimesis, 2015. Tuotuo [1313–1355]. Jinshi [History of Jin]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975. —­—— ­ . Songshi [History of Song]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1977. Uehara Kazu. Tamamushi no zushi: Asuka, Hakuhō bijutsu yoshiki shiron [Tamamushi shrine: A study of the history of Asuka and Hakuhō art styles]. Tokyo: Yoshikwaw kōbunkan, 1991. Ulansey, David. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Bibliography

401

Umehara Sueji. “Two Remarkable Lo-­lang Tombs of Wooden Construction Excavated in Pyongyang, K ­ orea.” Archives of the Asian Art Society of Amer­i­ca 8 (1954): 10–21. Vaĭnsteĭn, S.  I. “Drevniĭ Por-­Bazhyn” [Ancient Por-­Bazhyn]. Sovetska͡ia ėtnografi͡ia 3 (1963). Vardjavānd, Parvīz. “La Découverte archaeologique du complexe scientifique de l’observatoire de Maraqe.” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 6 (1979): 527–536. —­—­—. “Rapport préliminaire sue les fouilles de l’observatoire de Marâqe. Le Monde iranien et l’Islam: Sociétés et cultures 3 (1979): 119–124. Vardjavānd, Parvīz, and Alessandro Bausani. “The Observatory of Marāghe.” Soltāniye 3 (1982): 125–151. Varley, Paul. Chronicles of Gods and Sovereigns. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980. Vinograd, Richard. “New Light on Tenth-­Century Sources for Landscape Painting Styles of the Late Yüan Period.” In Suzuki Kei sensei kanreki kinen: Chūgoku kaigashi ronshū, [Commemoration of the sixtieth birthday of Professor Suzuki Kei], edited by Suzuki Kei Sensei Kanreki Kinenkai, 3–30. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1981. Wake, D. B. “Homoplasy, Homology and the Prob­lem of ‘Sameness’ in Biology.” Novartis Foundation Symposium 222 (1999): 24–33; discussion, 33–46. Wake, D. B., M. H. Wake, and C. D. Specht, “Homoplasy: From Detecting Pattern to Determining Pro­cess and Mechanism of Evolution.” Science 332 (April 1, 2011), https://­w ww​.­ncbi​.n ­ lm​.­nih​.­gov​/­pubmed​/­10332751. Wakeman, Frederic. The ­Great Enterprise: The Manchu Reconstruction of Imperial Order in Seventeenth-­Century China. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. —­—— ­ . Strangers at the Gate: Social Disorder in South China, 1839–1861. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Walker, Benjamin. Gnosticism: Its History and Influence. New York: Harper Collins, 1990. Wallace, Leslie V. “Chasing the Beyond: Depictions of Hunting in Eastern Han Dynasty Tomb Reliefs (25–220 CE) from Shaanxi and Shanxi.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, 2010. Wang Aihe. Cosmology and Po­liti­cal Culture in Early China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Wang Beichen. Wang Beichen xibei lishi dili lunwenji [Collected essays on historical geography in northwestern China by Wang Beichen]. Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe, 2000.

402

Bibliography

Wang Chengli. “Jilin Dunhua Mudanjiangshang you Bohai yizhi diaochaji” [Excavation report of Parhae remains on the Mudan River]. Kaogu, no. 11 (1962): 575–580, 584. —­—­—. “Tangdai Bohai Zhenhui gongzhu muzhi he Zhenxiao gongzhu muzhi de bijiao yanjiu” [Research comparing the funerary inscriptions in the tombs of Bohai princess Zhenhui and princess Zhenxiao of the Tang period]. Shehui kexue zhanxian 1 (1982): 181–187. Wang Chengli et al. “Jilin Dunhua Liudingshan Bohai gumu” [Ancient Parhae tombs at Liudingshan in Dunhua, Jilin]. Kaogu, no. 6 (1961): 298–301. Wang Chunbo. “Shanxi Pingshun wan Tang Tiantai’an Zhengdian” [The main hall of Tiantai Hermitage of the late Tang period in Pingshun, Shanxi]. Wenwu, no. 6 (1993): 34–43. Wang Guang. Liaoxi guta xuncong [In search of pagodas in Liaoxi (west of the Liao River)]. Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe, 2006. Wang Guixiang. Zhongguo Hanzhuan Fojiao jianzhushi [History of Chinese Buddhist architecture]. 3 vols. Beijing: Qinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2016. Wang Jianqun and Chen Xiangwei. Kulun bihua Liaodaimu [Liao tombs with murals at Kulun]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1989. Wang Jinxian. Changzhi Song-­Jin-­Yuan mushi jianzhu yishu yanjiu [Research on art and architecture of Song-­Jin-­Yuan tombs in Changzhi]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2015. Wang Nan, ed. Gudu Beijing [Old Beijing]. Beijing: Qinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2012. Wang Peihuan. Shengjing Fuling [Fuling in Shengjing (Shenyang)]. Shenyang: Shenyang chubanshe, 2004. —­—— ­ . Shengjing Zhaoling [Zhaoling in Shengjing (Shenyang)]. Shenyang: Shenyang chubanshe, 2004. Wang Peixin and Liang Huili, eds. Baliancheng: 2004–2009-­niandu Bohaiguo Dongjing guzhi tianye kaogu baogao [Baliancheng: Report on excavations of the remains of the old eastern capital of the Parhae state from 2004–2009]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2014. Wang Puzi. Gongcheng zuofa zhushi [Editing and notes on Gongcheng zuofa]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1995. Wang Shiren. “Han Chang’ancheng nanjiao lishi jianzhu yuanzhuang de tuice” [Conjectures on the original appearance of architectural remains of ritual structures in the southern suburbs of Han Chang’an]. Kaogu, no. 9 (1963): 501–515. Wang Tianyi. Under­ground Art Gallery. Beijing: New World Press, 1989.

Bibliography

403

Wang Xiaoli. “Yongtai gongzhumu bihua ticai ji yishu tese” [Special features of the art and subjects in the tomb of Princess Yongtai]. Wenbo, 5 (2003): 59–67. Wang Xiaomeng. “Shaanxi Pucheng Dongercun Yuandai bihua mu” [A Yuan-­ period tomb with murals in Donger village, Pucheng county, Shaanxi]. Kaogu yu wenwu, no. 1 (2000): 16–21, 48. Wang Xingfeng and Li Ran. Qingdai de huangjia yuanlin: Chengde gujianzhu [Qing imperial residences and gardens: traditional architecture in Chengde]. Taipei: Bohaitang, 2016. Wang Xueli. Qindu Xianyang [The Qin capital Xianyang]. Xi’an: Shaanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1985. —­—— ­ . Xianyang diduji [Rec­ords of the imperial city at Xianyang]. Xi’an: Shaanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1998. Wang Yi. “Zang wangmu” [Tombs of Tibetan kings]. Wenwu, no. 4–5 (1961): 81–87. Wang Ying. “Liaota fenbu ji xingzhi chutan” [Preliminary investigation of the form and distribution of Liao pagoda]. PhD diss., Beijing University, 2009. Wang Ying, Dong Xinlin, Cheng Yongzhi, Zuo Lijun, and Xiao Weiyan. “Nei Menggu Balinzuoqi Liao Shangjing yizhi de kaogu xinfaxian” [New excavations at the remains of Liao Shangjing in Balinzuoqi, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, no. 1 (2017): 3–8. Wang Yuting, ed. Liao Shangjing yanjiu lunwenxuan [Selected essays on Liao Shangjing]. Balinzuoqi: Zhengxie Balinzuoqi Weiyuanhui, 2006. Wang Zhongshu. Han Civilization. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. Watanabe Akiyoshi. Takamatsuzuka kofun [The mounded tomb Takama­ tsuzuk]. Tokyo: Shibundō, 1984. Watanabe, Yasutada. Shinto Art: Ise and Izumo Shrines. New York and Tokyo: Weatherhill / Heibonsha, 1974. Wei Cuncheng. Bohai kaogu [Parhae archaeology]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008. —­—— ­ . Gaogouli yizhi [Koguryŏ remains]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2002. Wei Jian, ed. Nei Menggu Zhongnanbu Handai muzang [Han tombs in south-­ central Inner Mongolia]. Beijing: Zhongguo daibaike quanshu chubanshe, 1998. —­—— ­ . Yuan Shangdu [Shangdu of Yuan]. 2 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 2008. Wei Jian and Chen Yongzhi. “Zhenglanqi Yangqunmiao shidiaoxiang yanjiu” [Research on stone sculpture at Sheep Group ­Temple in Zhenglanqi]. In

404

Bibliography

Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji [Collected essays in Inner Mongolian archaeology and cultural relics], edited by Li Yiyou and Wei Jian, 622–629. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 1994. Wei Shou (506–572). Weishu [History of Wei]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Weidner, Marsha S. Flowering in Shadows: ­Women in the History of Chinese and Japa­nese Painting. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. Wenley, Archibald. ­Grand Empress Dowager Wenming and the Northern Wei Necropolis at Fangshan. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1947. Wenwu, no. 7 (1981). [Most of issue on Lianyungang.] Wertmann, Patrick. Sogdians in China: Archaeological and Art Historical Analyses of Tombs and Texts from the 3rd to the 10th ­Century AD. Darmstadt: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2015. Whiteman, Stephen. Where Dragon Veins Meet: The Kangxi Emperor and His Estate at Rehe. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2020. Wilber, Donald. The Architecture of Islamic Iran: The Il Khanid Period. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Press, 1955. Wittfogel, Karl, and Feng Chia-­sheng. History of Chinese Society: Liao (907–1125), new ser., vol. 36. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1949. Witze, Alexandra. “75 Years of Entanglement.” Science News 23 (September 2013). Wong, Dorothy. Buddhist Pilgrim-­Monks as Agents of Cultural and Artistic Transmission: The International Buddhist Art Style in East Asia, ca. 645–770. Singapore: National University of Singapore, 2018. —­—— ­ ,­ ed. Hōryūji Reconsidered. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2008. Wong, Young-­tsu. A Paradise Lost: The Imperial Garden Yuanming Yuan. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2000. Wright, David. From War to Diplomatic Parity in Eleventh-­Century China: Sung’s Foreign Relations with Kitan Liao. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005. —­—­—. “The Sung-­Kitan War of A.D. 1004–1005 and the Treaty of Shan-­Yuan.” Journal of Asian History 32, no. 1 (1998): 3–48. Wu Gan. Shen Zhou. Shijiazhuang: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 2003. Wu Hung. The Art of the Yellow Springs: Understanding Chinese Tombs. London: Reaktion Books, 2015. —­—­—. “Buddhist Ele­ments in Early Chinese Art (2nd  and 3rd  Centuries AD).” Artibus Asiae 47, no. 3–4 (1986): 263–303, 305–352. —­—— ­ ,­ ed. Tenth-­Century China and Beyond: Art and Visual Cuture in a Multi-­​ Centered Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Center for the Arts of East Asia, 2012.

Bibliography

405

—­—­—. “Two Royal Tombs from the Early Liao: Architecture, Pictorial Program, Authorship, Subjectivity.” In Tenth-­Century China and Beyond, edited by Wu Hung, 100–125. Chicago: University of Chicago Center for the Arts of East Asia, 2012. —­—— ­ . The Wu Liang Shrine: The Ideology of Early Chinese Pictorial Art. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989. Wu Jianwei. Zhongguo qingzhensi zonglan [Compendium of Chinese mosques]. Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin chubanshe, 1985. Wu, Mandy Jui-­man. “Contact and Exchange in Northern China: A Case Study on the Tomb of a Zoroastrian-­Sogdian, Kang Ye (512–571 CE)” Asian Archaeology 3 (2015): 107–128. Wu Wenliang and Wu Youxiang. Quanzhou zongjiao shike [Religious stone carving in Quanzhou]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2005. Wu Zhuo. “Notes on the Silver Ewer from the Tomb of Li Xian.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 3 (1989): 61–70. Xi Han Nanyuewang Bowuguan. Trea­sures from the Museum of the Nanyue King. Guangzhou: Lingnan Meishu chubanshe, 2015. Xia Nai et al. Zhongguo shiku: Dunhuang Mogaku [Chinese rock-­carved caves: Mogao caves at Dunhuang]. 5 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1982. —­—— ­ . Zhongguo shiku: Kezi’er shiku [Chinese rock-­carved caves: Kizil rock-­ carved caves]. 3 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1993. Xi’an Banpo Bowuguan. Xi’an Banpo [Banpo in Xi’an]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1982. Xi’an Banpo Bowuguan, Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, and Lintongxian Bowuguan. Jiangzhai Xinshiqi shidai yizhi fajue baogao [Excavation report on Neolithic-­period remains at Jiangzhai]. 2 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1988. Xi’an Wenwu Kaogu Baohusuo. “Xi’an Bei Zhou Kang Yemu fajue jianbao” [Preliminary excavation report on the Northern Wei tomb of Kang Ye in Xi’an]. Wenwu, no. 6 (2008): 14–35. Xianyangqu Wenwuju. “Shaanxi Huxian He Shimu chutu daliang Yuandai yong” [A large number of figurines uncovered in the tomb of the He ­family in Hu county, Shaanxi]. Wenwu, no. 4 (1979): 10–16. Xianyangshi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Wudai Feng Huimu [The Five Dynasties tomb of Feng Hui]. Chongqing: Chongqing chubanshe, 2001. —­—— ­ . Xi Han diling diaocha zuantan baogao [Excavation report on the investigation of Western Han imperial tombs]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2010. Xiao Mo. “Songyuesita yuanyuan kaobian” [Investigation of the origins of Songyue Monastery pagoda]. Jianzhu xuebao, no. 4 (1997): 49–53.

406

Bibliography

Xiao Xun. Gugong yilu [Rec­ord of remains of the imperial palace]. Taipei: Shijie chubanshe, 1963. Xie Jisheng. Zangchuan Fojiao yishu fazhanshi [History of the development of the transmission of Tibetan art]. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2010. Xie Tianli, ed. Qingzhen guyun: Beijing Niujie libaisi [Tones of an ancient mosque: Ox Street Mosque in Beijing]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2009. Xie Yanqi. “Datong Fangshan Bei Wei Yongguling” [Yonggu royal tomb of the Northern Wei at Fangshan near Datong]. Wenwu, no. 7 (1978): 29–33. Xinjiang Qiuci Shiku Yanjiusuo. Kezi’er shiku neirong zonglu [Comprehensive contents of the Kizil rock-­carved caves]. Ürümqi: Xinjiang Meishu Sheying chubanshe, 2000. Xinjiang Tulufan Diqu Wenwu Gaoguansuo. Tulufan Bozekelike shiku bihua yishu [Murals in rock-­carved caves of Bezeklik, Turfan]. Ürümqi: Xinjiang ­People’s Press, 1990. Xiong, Victor Cunrui. Sui-­Tang Chang’an: A Study in the Urban History of Medieval China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Center for Chinese Studies, 2000. Xiong Wenbin. Yuandai Zang-­Han yishu jiaoliu [Yuan Sino-­Tibetan artistic interchange]. Shijiazhuang: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 2003. Xizang Jianzhu Kancha Shejiyuan. Guge wangguo jianzhu yizhi [Remains of imperial architecture in Guge]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2011. Xu Guangji, ed. Zhongguo chutu bihua quanji [Comprehensive collection of tomb murals exvcavated in China]. 10 vols. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2011. Xu Liangguo and Wang Wei. “Shaanxi Fufeng Yuntang Xi Zhou jianzhu yizhi de chubu renshi” [Preliminary identification of Western Zhou architectural remains at Yuntang, Fengfu, Shaanxi]. Wenwu, no. 9 (2002): 27–35. Xu Pingfang, ed. Liao-­Jin-­Menggu shiqi Yanjing shiliao biannian; Yuan Dadu chuangjian shiliao biannian [Edited historical documents of Liao-­Jin-­ Mongol-­period Yanjing; edited historical documents of the construction of Yuan Daidu]. Beijing: Beijing lianhe chuban gongsi, 2017. Xu Wenbin. Sichuan Handai shique [Han stone pillar-­towers in Sichuan]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1992. Xue Linping. Zhongguo chuantong juchang jianzhu [Chinese traditional stage architecture]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2009.

Bibliography

407

Xue Linping and Wang Jiqing. Shanxi chuantong juchang jianzhu [Traditional stage architecture in Shanxi]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2005. Xuzhou Bowuguan and Nanjing Daxue Lishixi Kaogu Zhuanye. Xuzhou Beidongshan Xi Han Chuwangmu [A Western Han tomb of a King of Chu at Beidongshan in Xuzhou]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. Yaldiz, Marianne. Archäeologie und Kunstgeschichte chinesisch Zentralasiens (Xinjiang). Leiden: Brill, 1987. Yan Genqi. Mangdangshan Xi Han Liangwang mudi [Tombs of Liang kings at Mangdangshan]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2001. Yanbian Bowuguan and Yanbian Wenwu Jianbian Bianxiezu. Yanbian wenwu jianbian [Brief notes on cultural relics in Yanbian]. Yanji: Yanbian Renmin chubanshe, 1988. Yanbian Chaoxianzu Zizhizhou Bowuguan. “Bohai Zhenxiao gongzhumu fajue qingli jianbao” [Preliminary excavation report on the tomb of Princess Zhenxiao of Parhae]. Shehui kexue zhanxian 1 (1982): 174–180. Yang Baoshun. “Dengfeng Songyuesita tiangong qingli jianbao” [Brief report on the sorting out of the tiangong of Songyue Monastery pagoda in Dengfeng]. Wenwu, no. 1 (1992): 26–30. Yang Binglun, Wang Guixiang, and Zhong Xiaoqing. “Fuzhou Hualinsi Dadian” [The main hall of Hualin Monastery in Fuzhou]. Jianzhushi lunwenji 9 (1988): 1–32. Yang, Daqing, Jie Liu, Hiroshi Mitani, and Andrew Gordon, eds. ­Toward a History beyond Borders: Contentious Issues in Sino-­Japanese Relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Asia Center, 2012. Yang Hongxun. “Cong Panlongcheng gongdian yizhi tan Zhongguo gongdian jianzhu fazhan de jige wenti” [Several questions concerning the development of Chinese palatial architecture in the light of palace remains from Panlongcheng]. Wenwu, no. 2 (1976): 16–25. —­—— ­ . Gongdian kaogu tonglun [Discourses on palace archaeology]. Beijing: Zijincheng chubanshe, 2001. —­—­—. “Zhanguo Zhongshanwangling ji zhaoyutu yanjiu” [Research on zhao­ yutu and the tombs of Zhongshan kings of the Warring States period]. Kaogu xuebao, no. 1 (1980): 119–138. Yang Hsüan-­chih (Xuanzhi). A Rec­ord of Buddhist Monasteries of Lo-­yang. Translated by Yi-­t’ung Wang. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Press, 1984. Yang Jiage et al. Zhongguo Zangshi jianzhu yishu [Architectural art in Sino-­ Tibetan style]. Chengdu: Sichuan Renmin chubanshe, 1998.

408

Bibliography

Yang Junkai. Bei Zhou Shijunmu [The Northern Zhou tomb of Shijun]. Beijing: Wenwu Press, 2014. Yang Nan. “Liaodai miyanshita xingzhi tese yanjiu” [Special features of the form of miyan-­style pagodas in the Liao dynasty]. MA thesis, Huanan Engineering University, 2005. —­—­—. “Liaoning Liaota jianzhu yishu yanjiu” [Research on the art of the architecture of Liao pagodas in Liaoning]. PhD diss., Shenyang Architecture University, 2011. Yang Rui. “Hebei Liaota sheji yishu yanjiu” [Research on the art of planning Liao pagodas in Hebei]. MA thesis, Suzhou University, 2007. Yang Xin. Jixian Dulesi [Dule Monastery in Ji county]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Yang Xin­hua and Yang Jianhua, eds. Boniguo wangmu tanyuan [Discussion of the sources of the tomb of the king of Boni]. Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 1958. Yang Yongsheng and Ming Liansheng. Jianzhu sijie [Architecture: Four geniuses]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1998. Yangling Bowuguan. Han Yangling [Yangling of the Han dynasty]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2017. —­—— ­ . Han Yangling Bowuguan [The Han Yangling Museum]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2013. Yi Ren. Shengjing sanling [Three royal tombs in Shengjing (Shenyang)]. Shenyang: Liaoning Minzu chubanshe, 2002. Yiengpruksawan, Mimi. “Countdown to 1051: Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Periodization of the Buddhist Eschaton in Heian and Liao.” In Texts and Transformation: Essays in Honor of the 75th Birthday of Victor H. Mair, edited by Haun Saussy, 369–434. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press, 2018. —­—­—. “A Pavilion for Amitabha.” In Buddhist Transformations and Interactions: Essays in Honor of Antonino Forte, edited by Victor Mair, 401– 516. Amherst, NY: Cambria Press, 2017. —­—­—. “The Phoenix Hall at Uji and the Symmetries of Replication.” Art Bulletin 77, no. 4 (1995): 647–672. Yin Cao. A Silk Road Saga: The Sarcophagus of Yu Hong. Sydney: Art Gallery of New South Wales, 2013. Yin Li. Gongbu gongcheng zuofa zeli [Construction Regulations of the Board of Works]. Beijing: Imperial Court, 1734. Yin Shengping. Tangmu bihua zhenpin xuancui [Se­lection of precious examples of Tang tomb murals]. Xi’an: Shaanxi Renmin meishu chubanshe, 1991.

Bibliography

409

Yoon, Hong-­key. The Culture of Fengshui in ­Korea: An Exploration of East Asian Geomancy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010. —­—— ­ . Pungsa: A Study of Geomany in K ­ orea. Albany: SUNY Press, 2017. Yoshida Yutaka. Chūgoku Kōnan Manikyō kaiga kenkyū [Research on Manichaean paintings of the Jiangnan region (in Japan)]. Kyoto: Rinsenshoten, 2015. —­—­—. “The Discovery of the South Chinese Manichaean Painting ‘Hagio­ graphy (3)’ and Its Contents.” Rivista degli Studi Orientali, new ser., 92, no. 1–2 (2019): 209–230. —­—­—. “Some New Readings of the Sogdian Version of the Karabalgasun Inscription.” In Documents et archives provenant de l’Asie central: Actes du colloque franco-­japanais, edited by Haneda Akira, 117–123. Kyoto: Ryokoku University, 1988. Yu Jie and Yu Guangdu. Jin Zhongdu [The Jin central capital]. Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 1989. Yu Lina. “Song, Jin shiqi Henanzhong beibu diqu muzang fangmugou jianzhu shiliao yanjiu” [Research materials on imitation of the timber frame in Song-­Jin tombs in northern Henan]. Zhongguo jianzhu shilun jikan 17 (2019): 65–89. Yu Weichao. “Zhongguo gudai ducheng guihua de fazhan jieduan xing” [Developmental stages in ancient Chinese city planning]. Wenwu, no. 2 (1985): 52–60. Yu Xuecai. Lao xitai [Old stages]. Beijing: Renmin meishu chubanshe, 2002. Yuan Guangkuo, Qin Xiaoli, and Yang Gujin. “Henan Jiaozuoshi Fucheng yizhi fajue baogao” [Excavation report on remains of Fucheng in Jiaozuo, Henan]. Huaxia kaogu, no. 2 (2000): 16–35. Yuanzhou Lianhe Kaogudui. Bei Zhou Tian Hongmu [Tomb of Tian Hong of Northern Zhou]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2009. —­—— ­ . Tang Shi Daoluomu [Tomb of Shi Daoluo]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2014. Yun Chang-­sŏp. Ha’guk kŏnch’uksa yŏn’gu [Korean architecture]. Seoul: Seoul taehakkyo ch’ulp’anbu, 1996. Yun Mu-­byŏng, Chŏngnimsaji palgul chosa pogoso [Excavation report on the remains of Chŏngnimsa]. Pusan chikhalsi: Minjok Munhwa, 1986. Yunnansheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui. Nanzhao Dali wenwu [Cultural relics of Nanzhao and Dali]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1992. Zeng Chenyu. Ninggu de yishu hunpo: Jin Dongnan gudai jianzhu kaocha [Solidifying the art of the soul: Invesgation of old architecture in southern Shanxi]. Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe, 2005.

410

Bibliography

Zeng Zhaoyue and Nanjing Bowuyuan. Nan Tang erling fajue baogao [Excavation report on two Southern Tan tombs]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1957. Zhang Buqian. “Fuzhou Hualinsi Dadian” [The main hall of Hualin Monastery in Fuzhou]. Unpublished paper, 1958. Zhang Changping, “Erligang: A Perspective from Panlongcheng.” In Art and Archaeology of the Erligang Civilization, edited by Kyle Steinke et al. Prince­ton: Prince­ton University Press, 2013. Zhang Guangshen. “Gaopingxian Yuandai minzhu—­Jizhai” [A ­humble Yuan h ­ ouse in Gaoping—­Jizhai]. Wenwu jikan, no. 3 (1993): 29–33. Zhang Jiatai, “Songyuesita” [Pagoda of Songyue Monastery]. Wenwu, no. 6 (1979): 91–92. Zhang Jianlin, Sun Tieshan, and Liu Daiyun, “Bei Zhou Wudi Xiaoling fajue jianbao” [Excavation report on Xiaoling, the tomb of Northern Zhou emperor Wu]. Wenwu, no. 1 (2001): 27–52. Zhang Qihai. “Chong’anchengcun Hancheng tanjue jianbao” [Preliminary report on the excavation of a Han city in Chong’an]. Wenwu, no.  11 (1985): 37–47. Zhang Qingjie. “Yungang shiku kuding xiqu Bei Wei Fojiao siyuan yizhi” [Remains of Northern Qi Buddhist monasteries above the western section of the Yungang caves]. Kaogu xuebao, no. 4 (2016): 533–562. Zhang Shaohui, Shi Yun, and Liu Shanyi. “Ji’nanshi Silijie Yuandai zhuandiao bihua mu” [A Yuan tomb with relief sculpture and murals on Sili Street, Jinan]. Wenwu, no. 3 (2004), 61–68. Zhang Shiqing. Wushan shishantu yu Nan Song Jiangnan Chansi [Illustrations of the Five Mountains and Ten Monasteries and Chan Monasteries of Jiangnan in the Southern Song]. Nanjing: Dongnan Daxue chubanshe, 2000. —­—— ­ . Zhong-­Ri gudai jianzhu damu jishu de yuanliu yu bianqian [Flow and transformation of wood technique in Sino-­Japanese premodern architecture]. Tianjin: Tianjin Daxue chubanshe, 2002. Zhang Tianyou, ed. Tangmu bihua zhenpin: Xincheng Fangling Yongtai gongzhumu bihua [Precious Tang murals: Murals in the tombs of princesses Xincheng, Fangling, and Yongtai]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2002. Zhang Xuehai. “Shilun Shandong diqu de Longshan wenhua cheng” [On cities of the Longshan Culture in the area of Shandong]. Wenwu, no. 12 (1996): 40–52. Zhang Yingying and Li Yan. Wutaishan Foguangsi [Foguang Monastery on Mount Wutai]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2010.

Bibliography

411

Zhang Yuhuan. “Dui Hancheng Yuwangmiao Yuandai jianzhu de taolun” [On Yuan architecture at the ­Temple of King Yu in Hancheng]. In Zhang Yuhuan wenji [Collected essays of Zhang Yuhuan], edited by Zhang Yuhuan, 71–72. Beijing: Zhongguo wenshi chubanshe, 2008. —­—­—. “Yuan Jininglu gucheng yu jianzhu yiwu” [City remains and excavated objects of Yuan Jininglu]. Wenwu, no. 11 (1962): 585–587. —­—— ­ . Zhongguo Fotashi [History of Chinese pagodas]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2006. Zhang Yuhuan and Luo Zhewen. Ancient Chinese Pagodas. Beijing: Science Press, 1988. Zhangjiakoushi Xuanhuaqu Wenwu Baoguansuo and Liu Haiwen. Xuanhua Xiabali II qu bihuamu kaogu fajue baogao [Exavation report on murals in sector two of the Xiabali cemetery in Xuanhua]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008. Zhao Chen. Fuling [Fuling (Mausoleum of Nurhaci)]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2011. —­—— ­ . Zhaoling [Zhaoling (Mausoleum Hong Taiji)]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2011. Zhao Hongguang. Bohai Shangjingcheng kaogu [Archaeology of Parhae Shangjing]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2012. Zhao Libo. “Jininglu chengzhi guji de kaoguxue tansuo” [Archaeological discussion of the distribution of remains of Jininglu]. Hebei Shifan Daxue baogao: Zhexue shehui kexue ban 36, no. 1 (2013): 54–59. Zhejiangsheng Gujianzhu Sheji Yanjiuyuan and Huang Zi. Yuandai mugou Yanfusi [The Yuan wooden structure at Yanfu Monastery]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2013. Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Leifeng yizhen [Precious trea­sures from Leifeng Pagoda]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2002. —­—— ­ . Yaoshan [(The) Yaoshan (site)]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. —­—­—. “Yuhang Yaoshan Liangzhu wenhua zaitan yizhi fajue jianbao” [Preliminary excavation report on a sacrificial altar of Liangzhu Culture in Yaoshan, Yuhang]. Wenwu, no. 1 (1988): 32–53. —­—— ­ . Zhejiang Songmu [Song tombs in Zhejiang]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2009. Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogusuo Wenbaoshi. “Jinhua Tianningsi dadian de gouzao ji weixiu [Structure and repair of the main hall of Tianning Monastery in Jinhua]. Zhejiangsheng wenwu kaogusuo xuekan 1 (1981): 176–183.

412

Bibliography

Zheng Shaozong, “Hebei Xuanhua Liao bihuamu fajue jianbao” [Excavation report on a Liao tomb with wall paintings in Xuanhua, Hebei]. Wenwu, no. 8 (1975): 31–39. —­—­—.“Liaodai caihua xingtushi woguo tianwenshishang de zhongyao faxian” [Liao painting of a star map: An impor­t ant discovery in Chinese astronomy]. Wenwu, no. 8 (1975): 40–44. Zheng Yan. “Bei Zhou Kang Yemu shita huaxiangzhaji” [Notes on the images engraved on the stone funerary couch in the tomb of Kang Ye of Northern Zhou]. Wenwu, no. 11 (2008): 67–76. —­—­—. “Shizhe de mianju—­zai lun Bei Zhou Kang Yemu shi guanchuang hua­ xiang” [Face of the Departed: Another discussion of the images on the stone sarcophagus of Kang Ye]. Meiyuan, no. 2 (2010): 7–14. Zhong Xiaoqing. “Qin’an Dadiwan jianzhu yizhi luexi.” [Brief analy­sis of architectural remains at Dadiwan in Qin’an]. Wenwu, no. 5 (2000): 62–73. Zhong Yuanxiu, Ma Jianzhao, and Ma Fengda. Guangzhou Yisilan guji yanjiu [Research on Islamic remains in Guangzhou]. Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin chubanshe, 1989. Zhongguo Lishi Bowuguan and Shanxisheng Wenwuju. Yingxian muta Liao­dai dicang [Liao period under­ground repository of Yingxian timber pagoda]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1991. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo. Beiting Gaochang Hui-­Hu Fosi yizhi [Remains of a Uyghur Buddhist monastery in Gaocheng-­ Beiting]. Shenyang: Liaoning meishu chubanshe, 1991. —­—— ­ . Dingling [The imperial tomb (Dingling)]. 2 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1990. —­—— ­ . Han Chang’ancheng Weiyanggong [Weiyang palace-­complex of Han Chang’an]. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike Quanshu chubanshe, 1996. —­—— ­ . Han-­Wei Luoyang gucheng nanjiao lizhi jianzhu yizhi: 1962–1992-­nian kaogu fajue baogao [Remains of ritual architecture in the southern suburbs of Han-­Wei Luoyang: Excavation report from the years 1962– 1992]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2010. —­—— ­ . Liudingshan yu Bohaizhen [Liudingshan and Bohai township]. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike Quanshu chubanshe, 1997. —­—— ­ . Xi Han lizhi jianzhu yizhi [Remains of ritual architecture of Western Han]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. —­—— ­ . Yanshi Erlitou: 1959-­nian—1978-­nian kaogu fajue baogao [Archaeology report on excavations of the years 1959–1978 at Erlitou, Yanshi]. Beijing: Zhongguo dabaike quanshu, 1999. —­—— ­ . Zang Wangmu [Tombs of Tibetan kings]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2006.

Bibliography

413

Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Beijingshi Wenwu Guanlisuo, and Yuan Dadu Kaogudui. “Beijing Houyingfang Yuandai zhuzhu yizhi” [Remains of Yuan residential architecture at Houyingfang in Beijing]. Kaogu, no. 6 (1972): 2–11. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Bianjiang Kaogu Yanjiu Zhongxin, Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, and Taiyuanshi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. “Taiyuanshi Longshan Tongzisi yizhi fajue jianbao” [Excavation report on remains of Tongzi Monastery on Longshan, Taiyuan]. Kaogu, no. 7 (2010): 43–56. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Han Chang’ancheng Gongzuodui, and Xi’anshi Han Chang’ancheng Yizhi Baoguansuo. Han Chang’ancheng yizhi yanjiu. [Research on the remains of Han Chang’an]. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2006. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiu­suo, and Yecheng Kaogudui. “Hebei Linzhangxian Yecheng yizhi Zhaopengcheng Beichao Fosi yizhi de kantan yu fajue” [Exploration and excavation of Buddhist monastery remains of the Northern Dynasties at Zhaopengcheng, from the city of Ye in Linzhang county, Hebei]. Kaogu, no. 7 (2010): 31–42. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Nihon Nara Kokuritsu Bunkazai Kenkyūjo. Han Chang’ancheng Guigong [Gui palace-­ complex of Han Chang’an]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Nei Menggu Di’er Gongzuotui and Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo. “Nei Menggu Balinzuoqi Liao Shangjing gongcheng dongmen yizhi fajue jianbao” [Excvation report on remains of the east gate of the palace-­city of Liao Shangjing, Balinzuoqi, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, no. 6 (2017): 3–27. —­—­—. “Nei Menggu Balinzuoqi Liao Shangjing huangcheng Xishanpo Fosi yizhi kaogu huozhong dafaxian” [The highly impor­tant discovery of the remains of the Buddhist monastery at Xishanpo in huangcheng of the Liao capital Shangjing in Balinzuoqi, Inner Mongolia]. Kaogu, no. 1 (2013): 3–6. Zhou Diren et al. De’an Nan Song Zhoushimu [Southern Song tombs of the Zhou ­family in De’an]. Nanchang: Jiangxi Renmin chubanshe 1999. Zhou Tianyou, ed. Tangmu bihua yanjiu wenji [Collected research essays on Tang murals]. Xi’an: Sanqin chubanshe, 2001. Zhou Xueying. Xuzhou Hanmu jianzhu [Architecture of Xuzhou tombs]. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu chubanshe, 2001. Zhouyuan Kaogudui. “Shaanxi Fufeng Yuntang Qizhen Xi Zhou jianzhu yizhi 1999–2000-­niandu fajue jianbao” [Excavation report on Western Zhou

414

Bibliography

architectural remains at Yuntang and Qizhen in Fufeng, Shaanxi, from the 1999–2000 season]. Kaogu, no. 9 (2002): 3–26. Zhu Guochen and Zhu Wei. Bohai kaogu [Parhae archaeology]. Beijing: Wenwu chhubanshe, 2002. Zhu Qiqian and Liang Qixiong. “Zhejianglu” [Rec­ords of artisans]. Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan [Bulletin for research on Chinese architecture] 3, no. 1 (1932): 125–161; 3, no. 2 (1932): 125–162; 3, no. 4 (1932): 92–120; 4, no. 1 (1933): 82–113; 4, no. 2 (1933): 60–85; 5, no. 2 (1934): 74–105. Zhu Qiqian and Liu Dunzhen. “Zhejianglu” [Rec­ords of artisans]. Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan [Bulletin for research on Chinese architecture] 6, no. 2 (1935): 114–157. Zhu Qixin. “Royal Costumes of the Jin Dynasty.” Orientations Magazine, December 1990, 59–64. Zou Hui. A Jesuit Garden in Beijing and Early Modern Chinese Culture. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 2011. Zuo Lala. Diversity in the ­Great Unity: Regional Yuan Architecture. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 2019. Zurndorfer, Harriet. Bibliography: A Research Guide to Reference Works about China Past and Pre­sent. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1999.

I L LU S T R AT I O N C R E D I T S

figures i.1, i.18, 8.2, 8.6, 8.18: William Steinhardt figures i.2, i.3, i.4, i.5, i.6, i.7, i.8, i.17, i.20, 1.1, 3.2, 3.6, 3.9, 3.15, 3.16, 3.19, 4.1, 4.7, 5.1, 5.2, 5.8, 5.10, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15, 5.22, 5.24, 5.25, 5.26, 6.1, 6.2, 6.5, 6.8, 6.9, 6.11, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.7, 8.4, 8.5, 8.8, 8.9, 8.12, 8.13, 8.16, 8.19, 8.20, 9.1, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11, 10.1: Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt figures i.9, 8.1: Chinese Academy of Architecture, Ancient Chinese Architecture figures i.10 and i.14: Li Jie, Yingzao fashi figures i.11, 2.1, 5.27 c and d, 9.3: Sijie Ren figures i.12, i.13, i.15, i.16, 1.2, 1.4, 2.2, 3.7, 5.27 a ,b, and e, 7.8, 8.7, 8.17, 10.3, 10.4, maps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9: Chen Wei figures i.19, 1.3, 2.5, 3.3, 3.10, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.8, 4.10, 6.3, 8.15: Wenwu figure i.21: Pinterest figures 1.5 and 5.4: Fu Xinian figures 2.3, 5.23, 6.10: Kexue chubanshe figure 2.4: Zhongguo Dabaike chubanshe

416

Illustration Credits

figure 2.6: Liang and Liu, “Dougong jianshuo,” 126 figure 3.1: UNESCO figure 3.4: Wang Tianyi, Under­ground Art Gallery, 11 figure 3.5: Gansusheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Jiuquan Shiliuguo bihuamu figure 3.8: Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo figure 3.11: China Heritage Quarterly Newsletter figure 3.12: Ikeuchi and Umehara, T’ung-­kou, vol. 2, pl. 22 figure 3.13: Beleni͡tskiĭ, Monumental’noe Iskusstvo Pendzhikenta, 13 figure 3.14: Michael Meister figure 3.17: Sekino, Chōsen koseki, 190 figure 3.18: Nihon bijutsu zenshu, vol. 3, colorpl. 24 figures 4.2, 4.4, 5.20, 8.3: Wenwu chubanshe figure 4.9: Inter-­Korea Historian Association, Goguryeo Tomb Murals figures 5.3, 5.16, 5.17: Lhk. Erdenebold figure 5.5: Renmin Meishu chubanshe figures 5.6, 5.7, 5.9: Ah-­R im Park figures 5.11 and 10.5: Liaoning Meishu chubanshe figure 5.12: Paula T. DePriest, Museum Conservation Institute, Smithsonian Institution figure 5.18: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin figure 5.19: Al’baum, Zhivopis’ Afrasiaba, pl. 7 figure 5.21: Song Kiho figure 6.4: Zhang Sirui

Illustration Credits

417

figure 6.6: Wang and Chen, Kulun Liaodai bihuamu, p. 6 figure 6.7: Tamura and Kobayashi, Keiryō, vol. 1., fig, 101 figure 6.12: Kaogu figure 7.2: Castell, Chinaflug, p. 77 figure 7.6: Soper, The Evolution of Buddhist Architecture in Japan, 123 figure 7.9: Zhongguo ditu chubanshe figure 8.10: Matsunaga Eichiro figure 8.11: The Rubin Museum figure 8.14: Kaogu yu wenwu, no. 1 (2000) figure 8.21: Scarcia, “The Vihār of Qonqor-­olong,” fig. 11 figure 9.2: Li Yuming, Shanxi gujianzhu tonglan, 20 figure 9.4: A.L. Ivliev figure 10.2: Liao, Wang, and Liu, Beijing gucha mingsi, p. 151 figure 10.6: Mactaggert Collection, University of Alberta figure 10.7: Richard Guy Wilson figure 10.8: Chang Yung-­Ho

INDEX

Note: Figures are indexed in italic Abaoji, 154, 170 abhiṣeka, 152 Adzhina-­tepe, 136, 170 Afrasiyab, 134–135, 135 ­After Babel, 17 Altan Khan, 244, 263, 282 Amarbayasgalant Monastery, 276–281, 277 Ananda, 224–225 anda, 230–231 ang. See cantilever An Jia, funerary couch of, 89, 90, 92, 93 Anping, Han tomb in, 53, 54 Antu, 191 Anyang, 33–34 Anyi, 37 Anyuanmiao (­temple), 290–291 architect, in China, 14–15 Arniko, 227–228 Arzhai, 236–238, 237 Astana, paper excavated in cemetery at, 66 Asuka, 76, 104

Asuka Monastery, 72, 76 axis mundi, 48 Badgar Süme, 283 Baliancheng, 144–145, 148 Balinpo, tomb 1, 104 Bamiyan, 82, 82 Banpo, 30, 31 Baoguo Monastery, 183–184, 184, 185, 216 Baoshan tombs, 165 Baotou, Han tombs in vicinity of, 54, 55 Bar Hebraeus, 209, 211 Bartol’d, V. V., 144 Baudelaire, Charles, 17 Bayannuur, tomb in, 108–113, 109, 110, 111, 119–120, 120, 122, 123, 139 Bay-­balik, 130 beamless hall, 252, 253 Beijing, altars, 247–249; inner, outer, and other city designations, 246–247; Ming and Qing walls, 246–247

420

Index

Beiting, 125, 127 Benjamin, Walter, 17 Besh-­baliq, 125, 126, 169 Bezeklik, 133, 134 Bichurin, N. Ya (Hyacinth), 143 Bilge Khagan, tomb of, 124, 124 Binglingsi, 83, 84 Bin Wang, tomb of, 54 Binyang caves, 173 Bishushanzhuang. See Chengde Biyun Monastery, 283–284, 288 Bohaizhen, 143 Boni, King of, tomb of, 267, 268 borders, definition of, 2–6 Boucher, Guillaume, 227 Boxer Indemnity Scholarships, 27 Boxer Rebellion, 27 Building Standards, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 148, 157, 158, 160, 162, 166, 167, 178, 183, 201, 203–204, 216, 226, 250, 258 Bunhwang Monastery, 78, 169 Buyan Quli Khan, mausoleum of, 224 cai-( fen), 15, 160 cantilever, 158 Castiglione, Giuseppe, 291, 298 central capital, of Liao, 177 chaitya, 69, 70, 77, 216 Chambers, William, 252, 303–304 chandu, 216, 217 Chang’an, in Han, 44–49, 49; Sui-­Tang, 103–104 Changchuan, tomb 1, 63–65, 68 Changle, Princess, 115, 116, 117, 139 Changling, of Han, 46 chaotang, 103 Chengde, 279, 286–294 Chengziya(i), 30

Chen Yuan, 226 Chinese House, in Stowe, 302, 303 chinoiserie, 302–304 chiwen, 70, 89, 110, 200, 278 chōdōin, 103 Chōgen, Shunjōbō, 185 Chongfu Monastery, 194 Chŏnghye, Princess, tomb of, 138 Chŏnghyo, Princess, tomb of, 138–139, 139, 142 Chŏngnŭng Monastery, 71, 72, 77 Chongrim Monastery, 72, 74, 75 Chongshan Monastery, 253, 254 Chongsheng Monastery, pagoda of, 159 Chongxing Monastery, 170 (Nancun) Chuogenglu, 198 chuomu, 199 church, in Marāgha, 211 Chu tombs, 39 Cideng Monastery, 266 Classical tradition, 14 Confucian ­Temple, in Beijing, 4; in Qufu, 255 Construction Regulations, 9, 250, 295 Cuo, King, tomb of, 39–40, 40 Dadiwan, 29–30 dafangzi, 30 Dai Butsuyō, 185 Daidu, 229, 232, 233 Daigōji, 185 daigokuden, 103 (dai)dairi, 103 Daming Hall, of Yuan Daidu, 198, 218 Daming Palace, 175 Dancers, Tomb of the, 81, 92 danei, 103 Datong, tombs in, of Northern Wei, 67

Index

Deguang, 154 Dengfeng. See Observatory Diamond Throne Pagoda, 265, 283, 284 diange, 10, 163, 232 diantang, 160, 161, 162, 183, 197 Digengpo, 20, 102, 146, 152 digong, 169 Dingjiazha, tomb 5, 63–66, 64, 68, 92 ditai, 125 dome, 80–81, 81; Dome of Heaven, 81–82 Dong’er village (cun), tomb in, 229, 230 Dongjingcheng, 143 Dongmyŏng, King, 77 Dongzipai, tomb 1, 103 dörvuljin, 131, 132 Dragon King ­Temple, 201, 203 Dreams, Hall of, 149, 150 Eastern Peak, T ­ emple to, near Emei, 216 Eizanji, 149, 150 Ennin, 23, 106–107 entanglement, 211 Epang Palace, 42 Erdene zuu, 3, 279 Erlach, Johann Bernhard Fischer von, 252 Erlitou, 31, 32, 32, 33 Famensi (Monastery), 107–108 fangmugou, 19, 21, 165, 224 fan-­shaped bracket sets, 13, 165, 166 Fayuan Monastery, 253 Feilaifeng, 238 Feng Hui, tomb of, 159 Fengchu, 22, 35, 250

421

Fengguo Monastery, 11, 187; Daxiongbao Hall of, 160, 161, 161, 162, 183–184, 199 Fenghuangshan, Han tomb in, 53–54 fengshui, 50 First Emperor, 28–29, 41; tomb of, 42–43 First Generation, of Chinese architects, 27, 162 five-­capital system, of Parhae, 141 Five Mountains and Ten Monasteries System, 185–187 Five-­Pagoda Monastery. See (Da) Zhengjue Monastery Five-­Pagoda Pagoda, 265, 266, 266 Flourishing of the Prophet Mosque, 213–215 Flying Rainbow Pagoda, 252 Foguang Monastery, east hall, 148, 152, 157, 160, 163; Mañjuśrī Hall, 194, 216 Forbidden City, 7, 12, 21, 33, 35, 37, 250–252, 295 Fucheng, 33, 34, 36 fupan, 203 Galatu, tomb in, 54, 55 Gandhāra, 69 Gao Yi, tomb of, 267 gaobiao, 207, 208, 210, 211 Gaochang (village), Jilin, octagonal hall in, 149, 150 gates, 21 gong (palace), 199 gong (plan), 22, 35, 71, 127, 129, 130, 143, 144, 145, 189, 190, 191, 218, 220, 233, 247, 250, 253, 254, 276, 295; in Japan, 271, 272, 273, gongbei, 261–262

422

Index

Gongbu gongcheng zuofa. See Construction Regulations gongcheng, 227 G ­ reat Bud­dha Style. See Dai Butsuyō ­Great East Mosque, in Jining, 258 ­Great Mosque, in Xi’an, 257 ­Great North Mosque, in Qinyang, 216, 217 ­Great Pagoda, in Ningcheng, of Liao, 168; of Jin, 189 ­Great Sacrifice Hall, 247–248 ­Great South Gate, of Tōdaiji, 185, 186 gualunzhuang, 183 Guandu Diamond Throne Pagoda, 265–266 Guangsheng Monastery, 201. See also Flying Rianbow Pagoda Guangta, 214 Guanxingtai. See Observatory: in Dengfeng Guanyin Pavilion, 10, 163, 169 Gugong yilu, 198 Guo Shoujing, 206 guojieta, 238 Guyuan, lacquer sarcophagus excavated at, 65–66, 68, 83, 84 Guyuan, mausoleum in, 223–226, 223, 225, 269

Iktyar, 226 Ishikha, 255

Hamnyŏngdo, 145 Han Yi, tomb of, 94, 94 Hancheng, 172, 176, 204, 204 Handan, 38 Hangzhou, 157 Hanyuan Hall, 175 Hedong Monastery, 187, 188 Hejia hoard, 107 Helian Bobo, 83 Helinge’er, Eastern Han tomb in, 52–53, 53, 54

Jamāl al-­Dīn, 206–207, 209, 227 Jāmi’ al-­tāwarīkh, 207 Jianzhen, 23, 107, 151, 153 jiaotai, 125 Jiayuguan, tombs in, 61–63, 62 Jingming Monastery, 79 Jininglu, 233, 235 jiuji xiaozhang, 167 Jochi, mausoleum of, 223–224 Jōdoji, 185 Jōruriji, 174–175

Helong, 142 Hemudu, 7, 30, 31 Höhhot, 282 Hokkiji, 102 Hong Taiji, tomb of, 296–297 Hongshuiquan Mosque, 260, 261 Hōrinji, 102 Hōryūji, 99–101, 101, 146, 149, 150, 152 Hu Mansion, Nanjing, 5 Huaishengsi. See Flourishing of the Prophet Mosque Huajue Lane Mosque. See ­Great Mosque, in Xi’an Hualin Monastery (in Fuzhou), Daxiongbao Hall, 157, 158, 185 huangcheng, 172, 176 Huayan Monastery, 11; Daxiongbao Hall of, 160, 162, 167, 187, 188, 199 Huiguo, 152 Hülegü, 206 Huo Qubing, tomb of, 267 Hwangnyŏng Monastery, 72, 74–76, 78, 169, 174 Hyech’o, 107, 135

Index

juhuatou, 199 Juyongguan, 238 Kaiyuansi (Monastery), 253–255, 254 Kakrak, 133 Kang Ye, funerary couch of, 98–99, 99 Kanjōdō, 152 Kanshinji, 152 “Kaogongji,” 37, 42, 45, 50, 144, 233 Karabalgasun, 128, 129, 130, 130, 131 karahafu, 188, 271, 272 Karayō, 185 Kawara Monastery, 72, 77 Kenchōji (Monastery), Relic Hall of, 187, 188 kentoshi, 107 Khara-­k hoto, mausoleum in, 222–223 Kherlen-­bars, pagoda in, 170, 171, 172 Khöndiin-­k hooloi, 132, 135 Khöshöö Tsaidam, 124, 124 Khubilai, 206, 207, 209–210, 221, 222, 226, 227, 229, 231, 232, 238, 242, 247, 262, 307 Kibi Makibi, 23 Köl Tegin, 124 Kraskino, 145 Kudara ­Great Monastery, 72, 76–77 Kūkai, 23, 107, 152 Kukh Ordung, 130 Kulunqi, cemetery in, 165–167, 166 Kumbun Jampa Ling. See Ta’ersi Kumtura, 81, 82 Kuyuk, 142 labrang, 277–278 Laowang Mosque, 259–260 Li Bian, tomb of, 159 Li Jie, 14–15, 226 Li Jing, tomb of, 159

423

Li Jingxun, 99 Li Moazhen, tomb of, 159 Li Xian, tomb of, 119, 121 Liang Sicheng, 162 Liang Yuanzhen, tomb of, 118 Liao burial practice, 163–165 Liaoyang, Han tomb in, 56, 56 Lingguang Monastery, 146, 147 lingyi, 46 lingyuan, 38, 46 Linzi, 38 Liu Bingzhong, 206, 232 Longmen, 79 Longxing Monastery, 183, 212 Lou Rui, tomb of, 94–95 Lu Yanlun, 189 lunar lodges, 164 Luoyang, in Han, 31, 35, 37, 44, 45, 50, 51, 53, 74, 79, 86; in Sui-­Tang, 103–104 madrasa, 209 Maidari Juu, 282 Maijishan, 102, 152, 156, 174, 183, 320, 333 Maison du Trèfle, 302 Majiazhuang, 36–37 mamian, 30, 125, 176 Manichaean, architecture and painting, 129, 217–220, 219 mannequin, 164 Mar Yaballaha, 211 Marāgha, 206, 209, 210, 211. See also observatory mihrāb, 215 Milanhao, tomb 1, 54 mimesis, 18 mindou, 97, 98, 101 Ming tombs, 5 minglou, 296

424

Index

Mingtang, 48–50, 79, 80 Mirŭk Monastery, 74, 75, 174 Mithraism, 211 Mizong Hall, 152 module, 15 Mogao caves, 95, 96, 159, 175 Möngke, 206 Mosque of the Companions, 213, 214 Mount Song, 206 mountain-­castle. See shancheng Mujing. See Wood Classic muqarnas, 224 Murōji, 152 Muryŏng, King, tomb of, 60–61, 61, 62, 63 Na ­Family Mosque, 259, 260 Nanchan Monastery, 23 Naṣīr al-­Dīn Tusi, 206, 209 National Museum, in Nanjing, 162 Nieuhof, Johan, 252 Nikko, 269–273 Ning’an, tomb in, 141, 142, 143 Nisa, 82 Niuheliang, 30 North Mosque, in Xuanhua, 4 Northern Peak, ­Temple to, 197, 198, 215, 218 Nŭngsa (Monastery), 77 Nurhachi, tomb of, 296–297, 297 observatory, 205–212; in Daidu, 208, 208; in Dengfeng, 205–209, 207; in Marāgha, 209, 210, 211; in Shangdu, 210 octagonal halls, 149–150, 150, 271 okunoin, 271, 272, 273 Opium Wars, First and Second, 26 Ordu-­baliq. See Karabalgasun ovoo, 279

owls’ tails. See chiwen Ox Street Mosque, 257 Pan Geng, 33 Panlongcheng, 33, 34, 34 parinirvana, 126, 136, 169 Pendzhikent, 82, 82 Perry, Commodore, 14 ‘Phags-pa, 221, 222 Phoenix Hall, of Byōdōin, 174–175 Phoenix Mosque, 224 Pillnitz ­Castle, 302 Pingliangtai, 30 Pongjŏng Monastery, 239, 239 Por-­bazhin, 126–128, 127 Porcelain Pagoda, 252 Potala, 281–282, 292 pradnihi, 133 Pugu Yitu, tomb of, 121, 122, 122, 123, 135 Pule Monastery, 291 Puning Monastery, 288–289, 290 Puren Monastery, 288 Purple Empyrean Palace, 255 Pushan Monastery, 288 Pusŏk(sa) Monastery, 3, 107, 240 Putuozongcheng ­Temple, 292, 293 puzuo, 158, 160, 161, 166 qi, 50 qianchao, houqin, 37, 191 Qing imperial gardens. See Three Hills and Five Gardens Qing imperial tombs, 295–297 Qinglian Monastery, 13 Qinglong Monastery, 152 Qingtongxia, 180 Qingzhou, Liao tombs in, 165, 166, 166; pagoda in, 155, 168, 169 qinmian, 183

Index

Qixiasi (Monastery), 79 qubba, 261–262 que, 56–57, 56, 117, 125–126, 127 queti, 8, 8, 259, 278 Quṭb al-­Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Mas’ūd Shīrāzī, 206 Qufu, 37 rainbow(-­shaped) beam, 183 ranking system, of Chinese architecture, 11–12 Raozhou, 178 Rec­ords of the ­Grand Historian, 41, 42 reibyō, 270 “rise,” 158, 160 Rituals of Zhou, 37, 191, 238, 248, 249 Rouran (Ruru), princess, tomb of, 119 Sage ­Mother Hall, 183 Saichō, 23, 107, 152 Sakya Monastery, at Guge, 262 Samanid, tomb of the, 224 sameness, 6–22 Samye Monastery, 289 Sanlihe Government Complex, 305, 305 saraito, 101 Sejong, King, tomb of, 269 shancheng, 142, 150 Shangdu, 232–233, 234, 279 shanggong, 182 Shangjing, of Liao, 172, 176; of Parhae, 143–144, 145 Shanhua Monastery, Three Sacred Ones Hall, 13, 165, 212 Shaochen, 35–36 shariden, 188 Sheep Group ­Temple, 235–236, 237 Shen Zhou, 300 shendao, 114

425

Shengyousi. See Mosque of the Companions Shi Daode, tomb of, 118 Shi Daoluo, tomb of, 119, 122 Shi Kedan, tomb of, 118 Shi, Master, sarcophagus of, 96, 97 Shiji. See Rec­ords of the ­Grand Historian Shilin guangji, 191–192 Shimao, 30 Shin Yakushiji, hall of, 152 shinden, 175 Shinto architecture, 24 Shireetü Juu, 282 Shōmu, emperor, 151 Shōsoin, 108, 151 Shoushili, 207 si, 213, 214, 217 siheyuan, 19 Sili Street, tomb of, 232, 232 Sitiantai, 210 Siyan Buddhist Monastery, 71 Siyuan Buddhist Monastery, 70–71, 72, 77 Sŏkkuram, 141 Song Shaozu, tomb of, 67, 68, 102 southern capital, of Liao, 176 sparrow beak or brace. See queti Spiritual ­Favors, Hall of, in Ming, 5, 11, 246, 248, 250; in Qing, 296 square city and precious wall, 296 stone men, 124, 236, 237 stupa, 69, 216 Sudŏk Monastery, 239–240 Sulu, King of, tomb of, 267–268 Supreme Harmony, Hall of, 11, 12 Susanri, tomb in, 83, 102, 103 ta, 214 Tachibana Monastery, 72, 77

426

Index

Ta’ersi, 263, 264, 282 Taima Mandala, 175 Taiping Rebellion, 27 Taitokuin, 270, 271 Taiyuin, 270, 273 Taizicheng, 189–190, 190, 191 Takamatsuzuka, 83, 84 Taliangzi, tomb 1, 81 Tamamushi Shrine, 102 Tao Zongyi, 198 Taosi, 30 Tashi Lhumpo, 283 ­Temple to Heaven, 248; pre­de­ces­sors to, 247–248 Ten Thousand Bud­dhas Hall. See Zhenguo Monastery Termez, 135 three courts, five gates, 249–250 Three Hills and Five Gardens, 298–300 Tian Hong, tomb of, 119 tiangong, 169 Tianning Monastery, in Beijing, 177; in Jinhua, Zhejiang, 204; in Ningbo, pagoda of, 146–148, 147 Tiantong Monastery, 187 Tianyige, 287 Timber Pagoda, 155, 162–163 tingtang, 160, 161, 162 Tingzhou, 125 Tōdaiji. See ­Great South Gate Tongwan, 83, 85 Tongxian Mosque, 259 Tongzi Monastery, 174 torii, 271, 272 Tōshōdaiji, Kondō (Bud­dha hall) of, 2, 23, 151, 152, 153 Tōshōgū, 269, 270, 271, 272, 272, 273 translation, 17–19 Trianon de Porcelaine, 302

Tsarskoye Selo, 303 tsogchin, 277, 278 Tsongkhapa, Je, 262, 263 Tughluq Temür, mausoleum of, 222 Tumu Crisis, 241 Twin Pillars Tomb, 82, 83, 84 Uisang, 107 vaulted ceiling, 80–81, 81 Viar Dragon, 240–241, 241 vihāra, 216 Virtuous Tranquility Hall. See Northern Peak, ­Temple to Vphyongs-­rgyas, 136, 137 V-­shaped braces, 56, 56, 67, 68, 89, 90, 93, 94, 94, 97, 97, 98, 101, 101, 102, 108, 109, 110, 110; truss, 102, 152, 240 Wang Hui, 300, 301 Wang Zhen, 253 Wangcheng, 37 Wangdu, Han tomb in, 53 Wanyan Xiyi, tomb of, 192, 193 Weiming Yuanshao, 180 Wen Shenzhi, tomb of, 116 wengcheng, 125, 145, 176, 189, 189–190 Wenjinge, 287 Wenming, Empress Dowager, tomb of, 77 West Yellow Monastery, 284 western capital, of Liao, 177 Western Mansions, 298, 304 Western zodiac, 164 White Pagoda, of Miaoying Monastery, 195, 197, 214, 227–228; of Qing dynasty, 284; in Qingzhou, 155 Wirkak. See Shi, Master Wonsŏng, King, tomb of, 140–141, 140, 269

Index

Wood Classic, 15 Wu Ding, 34 Wudi, emperor, of Northern Zhou, and wife, tomb of, 119, 138 Wushan shichatu, 186 Wutasi. See Zhengjue Monastery Xiadu, 38 xiagong, 182 Xiangtangshan, 79 Xiao Wei, tomb of, 93 Xiao Xiu, tomb of, 92 Xiao Xun, 198 xiaomuzuo, 258 Xiaotun, 34 Xigucheng, 142, 143, 145 Ximing Monastery, 152 Xinbin, tombs in, 295–296 Xincheng, Princess, tomb of, 115, 139 xing (phases), 50 xinggong, 42, 299–300 Xinglong Monastery, 146, 147 Xingyuan Monastery, 283 Xintian, 38 Xingzhou, tomb in, 89, 90, 91–92, 94 Xishanpo, 172, 173, 173 Xu Da, tomb of, 267 Xu Xianxiu, tomb of, 94, 95, 119 Xu Yang, 300–301 Xuandefu, 142 Xuanhua, cemetery in, 163–165 Xuanmiao Daoist Monastery, in Putian, 184; in Suzhou, 203 Xuanzang Pagoda, 146 Xue Jing, tomb of, 118 Xumifushou ­Temple, 292–294 Yakushi Monastery, 72, 77 Yanfu Monastery, 203, 203, 218 Yang Gongyi, 210

427

Yangjiawan, 46 yangma, 125 Yanshi, 32–33 yaodian, 258 Ye, 104 Yeke Juu, 282 Yemaotai, tomb in, 167, 168 Yide, Prince, tomb of, 114, 115, 116, 118, 133 Yingzao fashi. See Building Standards Yijing, 232 Yingchang, 233 Yomei Gate, 271–273 Yongfeng Pagoda, 172 Yonghegong, 284, 285 Yonglegong (Daoist Monastery), 2, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 215, 216, 217 Yongning Monastery, in Luoyang, 71, 72, 74, 75, 78, 102 Yongning Monastery, in Tyr / Telin, 255, 256 Yongtai, Princess, tomb of, 114, 115, 116, 118, 139 Yongyou Monastery Pagoda, 287 Yongzhou, 177 Yu Hao, 15 Yu Hong, sarcophagus of, 98 Yuanjiao Monastery, 265 Yuan Shao, tomb of, 119 Yuanye, 287 yuetai, 199 Yungang, 20, 79 Zanabazar, 278–279 zaojing, 81, 183 Zeng, Marquis Yi, tomb of, 39 Zhang Rou, 227 Zhang Shiqing, tomb of, 155, 163–164

428

Index

Zhanghuai, Prince, tomb of, 115, 116, 118, 133 zhaomu, 46–47 zhaoyutu, 40, 40 Zheng He, 257 Zhenguo Monastery, Ten Thousand Bud­dhas Hall of, 157, 158 Zhengzhou, 32 (Da) Zhengjue Monastery, 265, 266

zhenmushou, 119, 120, 120, 122 Zhenru Monastery, 203, 240 Zhihua Monastery, 82, 253, 257 Zhongdu, of Yuan, 233 Zhongxia, village, tomb in, 61, 62 Zhouyuan, 35 zodiac, 164, 193 Zōdōji, 270 (­Great) Zongchi Monastery, 72, 173