Echoes of a Forgotten Presence: Reconstructing the History of the Church of the East in Central Asia (orientalia - patristica - oecumenica) 9783643911032, 9783643961037, 3643911033

Citation preview

OPOe 15

Reconstructing the History of the Church of the East in Central Asia

Echoes of a Forgotten Presence

Mark Dickens works at St. Joseph‘s College, University of Alberta (Canada). His research addresses connections between Syriac Christianity and Central Asia in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Echoes of a Forgotten Presence Mark Dickens

This volume contains eleven articles by Mark Dickens, ten of which were published between 2009 and 2016, with the final article appearing in print here for the first time. The articles concern the evidence from which historians attempt to reconstruct the history of Syriac Christianity in Central Asia, particularly that associated with the Assyrian Church of the East, the most important Church in the region for well over a millennium. Three articles deal with important personalities in the history of the Assyrian Church of the East: Nestorius, Timothy I and Yahbalaha III. Two contributions address Christian gravestone inscriptions from Semirechye (Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan). The remaining six are concerned with the large collection of Christian manuscript fragments found at Turfan (China) in the early 20th century, now housed in various locations in Berlin. In particular, the multilingual nature of many fragments, the presence of psalters and other biblical texts in the corpus, the importance of prayer and calendrical fragments in the collection, and evidence of Christian scribal practices from Turfan are all examined.

Mark Dickens

978-3-643-91103-2

LIT www.lit-verlag.ch

9 *ukdzfe#.y -cx*

orientalia – patristica - oecumenica vol. 15

LIT

LIT

Mark Dickens

Echoes of a Forgotten Presence

orientalia – patristica – oecumenica herausgegeben von/edited by

Dietmar W. Winkler (Universität Salzburg)

Vol. 15

LIT

Mark Dickens

Echoes of a Forgotten Presence Reconstructing the History of the Church of the East in Central Asia

LIT

In memory of Mar Yahbalaha III (d. 1317) For Ruth, Yaqub & Talitha Cover image: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, A.A.Arm. I-XVIII, 1800.1 Printed with the support of the Assyrian Church of the East, Commission on Inter-Church Relations and Educational Development

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-643-91103-2 (pb) ISBN 978-3-643-96103-7 (PDF) A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

©

L

IT VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG Wien, Zweigniederlassung Zürich 2020 Klosbachstr. 107 CH-8032 Zürich Tel. +41 (0) 44-251 75 05 Fax +41 (0) 44-251 75 06 E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.lit-verlag.ch Distribution: In the UK: Global Book Marketing, e-mail: [email protected] In North America: International Specialized Book Services, e-mail: [email protected] In Germany: LIT Verlag Fresnostr. 2, D-48159 Münster Tel. +49 (0) 2 51-620 32 22, Fax +49 (0) 2 51-922 60 99, e-mail: [email protected] In Austria: Medienlogistik Pichler-ÖBZ, e-mail: [email protected] e-books are available at www.litwebshop.de

Table of Contents

Table of Contents i Forward ii Introduction and Acknowledgements iv NESTORIUS, THE MISUNDERSTOOD “HERETIC” 1 SYRIAC GRAVESTONES IN THE TASHKENT HISTORY MUSEUM 25 PATRIARCH TIMOTHY I AND THE METROPOLITAN OF THE TURKS 65 MULTILINGUAL CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPTS FROM TURFAN 96 CHRISTIAN CALENDRICAL FRAGMENTS FROM TURFAN 120 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PSALTER AT TURFAN 149 SYRO-UIGURICA II: SYRIAC PASSAGES IN U 338 FROM TURFAN 173 SCRIBAL PRACTICES IN THE TURFAN CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY 189 BIBLICAL FRAGMENTS FROM THE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY OF TURFAN, AN EASTERN OUTPOST OF THE ANTIOCHIAN TRADITION 216 MORE GRAVESTONES IN SYRIAC SCRIPT FROM TASHKENT, PANJIKENT AND ASHGABAT 246 YAHBALAHA THE TURK: AN INNER ASIAN PATRIARCH OF THE EASTERN CHRISTIANS 272 Addenda et Corrigenda 293 Index 299 Comprehensive Bibliography 323 Images 363

i

Forward Mar Awa ROYEL

The present volume, Echoes of a Forgotten Presence, is an anthology of articles concerning the missionary activities of the Assyrian Church of the East in Central Asia, beginning from the late eighth century onward. The author, Dr. Mark Dickens of St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta, is one of the premier experts in this particular field of research. He has written extensively on the subject, and remains one of the principal researchers of the missionary activities of the Church of the East (often times referred to as the ‘East Syriac’ or ‘Persian’ Church) in the evangelized parts of Central Asia. The idea for this collection of research articles and essays was born around the Church’s desire to observe the 700th death anniversary of one of her most well-known catholicos-patriarchs, Mar Yahbalaha III (d. 1317). Being a Turco-Mongol of the Ongüt (or Uyghur) tribe, Mar Yahbalaha epitomizes a synthesis of the Syriac and Mongol aspects and elements of the Church prevalent at the time. His reign coincided with a period for the Church of the East that was marked by both liberty and oppression, as often was the case in her two-millennium history. With the conquest of the Abbasid caliphate by Hülagu Khan in 1258, a long-awaited ‘sigh of relief’ and era of reprieve was earnestly received by the Church of the East in the Middle East. In order to solidy the prestige and favored status of the Church by the Mongols, the fathers of the Church elected in 1281 an inconspicuous metropolitan of China—Mar Marqos—to the highest office of the Church of the East. It was hoped that by electing Marqos as catholicos-patriarch, the ruling Mongol khans would favor the Church and grant freedom to the eastern Christians. Alas! That was only a short-lived aspiration. Yahbalaha’s reign was positively marked by a mix of pilgrimage, ambassadorship, Christian ecumenical exchange and theological flourishing on the part of the Church of the East. However, it was towards the latter part of the patriarch’s reign that the political situation took a sour turn, and his patriarchate ended in despair for his ancient Christian community, to the point that ii

he himself was tortured. Sadly, on July 4th, 1310 he could not prevent the massacre of the Assyrian Christians living in the citadel at Erbil at the hands of the Ilkhan Oldjaïtu, empowered by the local Muslim community. Yahbalaha died on the 13th of November in 1317, in Maragha, and was buried at the monastery of St. John the Baptist which he had built at Maragha sixteen years previous. This volume, therefore, commemorates the personage of Patriarch Mar Yahbalaha III, seven centuries after his death. The work of the Church in the missionary outposts of Central Asia gradually declined after Yahbalaha’s death, and reached a definitive end in 1399-1400 with the military campaigns of Taïmur ‘the Lame’—who decimated the Christian population of the east, reducing it to the scanty numbers which have survived to this very day. Nonetheless, the glory of the Church of the East’s missions of yesteryear are memorialized in relics, fragments and potsherds—such as those at the famous site of Turfan in Xinjiang. The work of scholars on an international level brings to our present day the golden age of the past. The present volume is one such shining example of erudite scholarship that objectively studies the most famous among the Christian missions of yesteryear. The Assyrian Church of the East’s ecumenical and educational arm— CIRED—is happy to sponsor the publication of this present volume by LIT Verlag, Münster. Not only is the Church’s most famous missionary enterprise presented by a premier scholar in the field, but the present (and future) generations of the Church of the East are challenged to study the history of their Church and her evangelization of Asia in centuries past. May this volume be received with due appreciation and welcome by scholar and student alike. ♱ Mar Awa Royel Assyrian Church of the East Diocese of California November 2019

iii

Introduction and Acknowledgements Mark DICKENS This anthology contains ten of my articles which were previously published in academic journals or edited volumes, with the addition of one new article on “Yahbalaha the Turk.” With a couple of exceptions, the articles occur in this volume in the order of publication. This project was proposed by my friend and colleague Mar Awa Royel, bishop of California for the Assyrian Church of the East, back in 2016. The original plan was to have it published in 2017, the 700th anniversary of the death of Yahbalaha III, the only Turkic patriarch of the Church of the East (r. 1281-1317). Due to various personal and work-related matters, not to mention good old procrastination on my part, that auspicious date was unfortunately missed. If the good patriarch (who experienced challenges far greater than I ever have or will) were with us today, I like to think that he would be understanding of the delay. I am very grateful to Mar Awa for sponsoring this book and obtaining the funding that has enabled it to be published and to Dietmar Winkler, who agreed to include this anthology in the Orientalia-Patristica-Oecumenica series that he edits. I would also like to express my thanks for permission to reproduce the articles included in this volume to those who published them in their original form: Nestorius, the Misunderstood “Heretic” originally appeared as “Nestorius did not intend to argue that Christ had a dual nature, but that view became labeled Nestorianism” in Popular Controversies in World History: Investigating History’s Intriguing Questions by Steve Danver, Editor, pp. 145161. Copyright © 2010 by Steve Danver. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission of ABC-CLIO, LLC, Santa Barbara, CA. Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum originally appeared in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia-PatristicaOecumenica, Vol. 1), ed. Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2009), pp. 13-49. Patriarch Timothy I and the Metropolitan of the Turks originally appeared in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 20, Issue 2 (2010), pp. 117-139.

iv

Multilingual Christian Manuscripts from Turfan originally appeared in Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, Vol. 9 (2009), pp. 2242. Christian Calendrical Fragments from Turfan originally appeared in Living the Lunar Calendar, ed. J. Ben-Dov, W. Horowitz, and J. M. Steele (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2012), pp. 269-296. The Importance of the Psalter at Turfan originally appeared in From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in Central Asia and China (Orientalia-Patristica-Oecumenica, Vol. 5), ed. Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2013), pp. 357-380. Syro-Uigurica II: Syriac Passages in U 338 from Turfan originally appeared in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 16, Issue 2 (2013), pp. 301-324. Scribal Practices in the Turfan Christian Community originally appeared in Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, Vol. 13 (2013), pp. 32-52. Biblical Fragments from the Christian Library of Turfan, an Eastern Outpost of the Antiochian Tradition originally appeared in The School of Antioch: Biblical Theology and the Church in Syria (The Bible in the Christian Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 6), ed. Vahan Hovhanessian (Bern: Peter Lang, 2016), pp. 19-40, 87-97. More Gravestones in Syriac script from Tashkent, Panjikent and Ashgabat originally appeared in Winds of Jingjiao: Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia-Patristica-Oecumenica, Vol. 9), ed. Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2016), pp. 105-129. The volume begins with an exploration of the story of Nestorius, whose influence permeates much of the later history of the Church of the East in Central Asia. I have subtitled this introductory article “The Misunderstood ‘Heretic’”; I believe that this is an accurate description of that hapless patriarch of Constantinople, as well as those in the Church of the East who were branded as “Nestorians” (and hence heretics) as a result of their association with Nestorius. For anyone who takes the time to examine texts (whether manuscript fragments or inscriptions) left behind by these “Nestorians,” it is plain that there is no more heresy to be found there than in the writings of other branches of Christianity. The anthology ends with a newly-written article that examines another important personage in the history of the Church of the East (particularly in relation to that history in Central Asia, the main focus of my academic research): Mar Yahbalaha III. Although he is not well-known outside of those v

who specialize in Syriac Christianity, his is a story which deserves retelling, especially in light of his strong connections to the Mongol-Turkic world in the 13th and 14th centuries. In between these two bookends the reader will find nine other articles that consider various aspects of the history of Syriac Christianity in Central Asia. Most of these look at either inscriptions or manuscript fragments. All of them serve to reinforce the title of this volume – Echoes of a Forgotten Presence and to underline the challenges involved in Reconstructing the History of the Church of the East in Central Asia. A note about the format of these republished articles is also in order. In essence, they appear as they did in their earlier iterations. However, there are a few places where fonts (particularly Syriac and transliteration fonts) have been changed to ensure both uniformity and intelligibility, headings have been slightly adjusted to provide more clarity, images have been moved to the end of the volume or occasionally wording has been slightly changed to improve grammar, style or general readability. Additionally, there are some places where the formatting of references and bibliographical entries is slightly different from that found in the original publications. Every effort has been made to maintain stylistic consistency within each article, but the referencing and bibliographic styles are not uniform throughout the volume. It should also be noted that the original pagination of the articles has not been preserved. None of these minor editorial changes affects the content of the articles in question. Of all the articles, only Nestorius, the Misunderstood “Heretic” required minimal re-writing in order to separate it from its previous title, which was not relevant to this volume. Where I wish to address errors or omissions in the original articles, I have done so in the Addenda et Corrigenda section at the end of the volume. In particular, this section includes references to the current status of articles (whether written by myself or others) that were forthcoming at the time of writing. I wish to express my profound thanks to the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz and the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften for access to and permission to reproduce images of the relevant fragments from the Berlin Turfan Collection. All these images are copyright Depositum der BERLIN-BRANDENBURGISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN in der STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. Similarly, I am indebted to my friend and colleague Alexei Savchenko for the use of images he took of various gravestones housed in Tashkent and other locations in the former Soviet Union. I am particularly thankful to my colleagues who were part of The vi

Christian Library at Turfan project to catalogue all known Christian fragments that are part of the Turfan Collection in Berlin – Erica C.D. Hunter, Nicholas Sims-Williams and Peter Zieme – who are referenced frequently in the articles dealing with the Turfan materials. Finally, I am grateful to the following, who have provided assistance and valuable information in the process of writing these articles: Christopher Atwood, Michal Biran, Pier Giorgio Borbone, Sebastian Brock, Thomas Carlson, J.F. Coakley, François de Blois, Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst, Amina Elbendary, Peter B. Golden, Amir Harrak, Wassilios Klein, Jonathan Loopstra, Rastin Mehri, Sergey Minov, Aleksandr Naymark, Andrew Palmer, Simone Raschmann, Salam Rassi, Christiane Reck, Steven Ring, Mar Awa Royel, Alexei Savchenko, Aho Shemunkasho, Sacha Stern, Werner Sundermann and David Taylor. The image on the cover is the seal of Yahballaha III, the Catholicos of the Church of the East, currently located in the Vatican Secret Archives (item A.A.Arm. I-XVIII, 1800.1). It goes without saying that any errors or omissions that have not been acknowledged and addressed in the Addenda et Corrigenda are solely my responsibility. Finally, I dedicate this book to my dear family: my wife Ruth and our two children Yaqub and Talitha. I am eternally grateful that you three are in my life. Thanks for your patience with my many foibles.

vii

1 NESTORIUS, THE MISUNDERSTOOD “HERETIC” Mark DICKENS SOAS, University of London Original publication information: “Nestorius did not intend to argue that Christ had a dual nature, but that view became labeled Nestorianism (PRO),” in Popular Controversies in World History: Investigating History’s Intriguing Questions, ed. Steven L. Danver (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2010), pp. 145-162. Introduction History is rarely kind to heretics, even less so to heresiarchs, those who devise systems of belief which lead the faithful astray. Their stories are usually told not by themselves, but by their opponents. In the process, they are condemned for questioning the religious status quo or offering innovative solutions to theological problems. Their beliefs are minutely scrutinized to discredit their views and they are often accused of immoral behavior, as further evidence of their heretical thinking. Since those who triumph over the heretics often destroy most or all of their works, one can only evaluate them through the lens of their opponents. A list of heresiarchs from early Christianity would likely include Marcion, Valentinus, Sabellius, Arius, Apollinarius of Laodicea and Nestorius. Undeniably, some of these men taught things diametrically opposed to the Bible, often involving alien systems of thought like Gnosticism. Much of what the Bible states about God, Christ, humanity and salvation requires that apparently opposite truths are held in dynamic tension with each other. Any attempt to legitimately define the Scriptural position on a subject frequently involves embracing paradox (for example, affirming that God knows all things and yet allows humans genuine free will). In addressing such paradoxes, heresiarchs have often devised explanations which emphasize one side of the biblical perspective to the exclusion of the other side, resulting in theological imbalance. Most of those in the list above are universally regarded by scholars as clearly opposed to the basics of the Christian faith as outlined in the Bible and interpreted by the Church since apostolic times. However, about Nestori1

us there is significantly less consensus; for the past century theologians have held widely divergent views on his teachings. Was he truly a heretic or was he rather a victim of church politics whose views have been subsequently misinterpreted, in part due to the exalted status of his opponent, Cyril of Alexandria? This article proposes the latter view; Nestorius does not deserve to be labeled a heretic, because he did not teach what he is accused of, namely that there were two persons in Christ. Historical and Theological Background After three centuries of surviving as an illegal religious sect within the Roman Empire, Christianity experienced a dramatic turn-around when Constantine I (306-337) issued the Edict of Milan (313), signaling the end of official state opposition to the faith. The Christianization of the Empire proceeded apace over the next several decades, resulting in the proclamation of Christianity as the official state religion in 380 by Theodosius I (378-395). The reprieve from persecution and subsequent state sponsorship of Christianity meant church leaders could turn their attention to unresolved theological issues which had been brewing for decades. There were both religious and political reasons for doing so. Church and State were increasingly interconnected and most Emperors viewed the ecclesiastical unity of the Empire as inextricably linked to its political unity; solving theological problems had serious implications for governing the Empire. Hence, beginning with Constantine I at the Council of Nicaea (325), Emperors periodically convened ecumenical councils at which the gathered bishops debated issues vital to the doctrinal unity of the Church. The chief concerns at the first several ecumenical councils centered on two Christological issues: the relationship between the Son and the Father in the Trinity and the relationship between divinity and humanity in Christ. The first concern was at the heart of the Arian controversy, which was addressed at the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). The second issue was the core of the Nestorian and Monophysite controversies, dealt with at the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). The essential problem is that the New Testament affirms both the divinity of Christ (John 1:1; 14:9-10; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9) and his humanity (Matt. 4:2; Luke 2:40; John 4:6; 11:35; Heb. 2:14-15), but does not clearly explain how the two interact with or relate to each other. Various biblical statements on this relationship can be interpreted in several different ways, notably John 1:14 – “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” and Phil. 2:5-11 – “Christ Jesus, who, be2

ing in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” Two contrasting views on the divine-human interaction in Christ were developed in the theological “schools” of Antioch (Syria) and Alexandria (Egypt). The Antiochians followed a literal and historical approach to biblical exegesis, while the Alexandrians favored an allegorical and philosophical approach. The emphasis that Antioch placed on the historical facts of Jesus’ life resulted in a strong focus on his humanity, whereas the more metaphysical approach of Alexandria produced a greater emphasis on his divinity. Important representatives of the Antiochian tradition include Paul of Samosata, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom and Nestorius. The Alexandrian School produced Origen, Athanasius, Apollinarius of Laodicea, Cyril of Alexandria and Eutyches (both lists contain “saints” and “heretics”). A corollary of these different theological emphases was their approach to the role of the Logos, the pre-existent Word of God that became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Antiochians generally spoke of the Logos dwelling alongside the human in Jesus, resulting in two logical subjects in Christ (called Logosanthropos or “Word-man” theology). His humanity and divinity were distinguished from each other, joined in a moral union in which there was room for genuine development in Christ, including the exercise of his human will. In their biblical exegesis, the Antiochians usually differentiated between Christological statements in the Bible applicable to the divine Word, those applicable to the human Christ and those applicable to the two together. In contrast, Alexandrians described the Word taking on flesh to such an extent that it became the sole logical subject of the person of Christ, with the practical result that his divinity often eclipsed his humanity in their thinking (called Logos-sarx or “Word-flesh” theology). The union was one of essence or substance, in which the human will was eclipsed by the divine will. All Christological statements in the Bible, including those about his birth, suffering and death, were ultimately ascribed to the divine Logos become flesh (and therefore to God). Not surprisingly, Alexandrians accused Antiochians of preaching two Sons or a divided Christ, while Antioch viewed the Alexandrian reduction of Christ to essentially one divine nature as unbiblical and therefore heretical. These two positions eventually crystallized into the Dyophysite view (from Greek dyophysitai, “two natures,” referring to the divine and human natures of Christ) championed by Nestorius and the Miaphysite perspective (from Greek mia physis, “one nature”) inherited from Cyril. 3

Taken to their logical extremes, both viewpoints could end up in heretical thinking. The Antiochian Paul of Samosata (d. 275), taught that Jesus was merely a man in whom the Holy Spirit dwelt, whereas the Alexandrian Apollinarius of Laodicea (d. ca. 390) argued that the human mind in Christ had been replaced by the divine mind of the Logos. Apollinarius also coined the phrase “one incarnate nature of the God Logos,” later used by Cyril, who thought it came from Athanasius, the great champion of Nicene Christianity. The teachings of both Paul and Apollinarius were subsequently condemned by church councils. On the same basis, many scholars would also include as examples of the heretical potential in the two competing theological systems the names of Nestorius and Eutyches (representing Antioch and Alexandria, respectively), both condemned by the Council of Chalcedon (451). Another key factor was the increasing rivalry between the apostolic sees (or patriarchates) of Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople. Initially, there had been near equality between Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, with Rome being accorded the status of “first among equals.” However, Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople (381) moved the new capital Constantinople into second place after Rome (a position strengthened by Canon 28 of the later Council of Chalcedon). This move particularly irked the patriarchs of Alexandria, who looked back to the evangelist Mark as their apostolic founder and had called themselves “popes” since the patriarchate of Heraclas (232-248). By contrast, any claim by Constantinople to apostolic foundation had to be fabricated (and was, in the person of the apostle Andrew). Four Key Terms It is easy for those accustomed to the formula “Christ is one person in two natures” to wonder how Christians could conceive of any other way of expressing the biblical claim that divinity and humanity dwell together in Jesus of Nazareth. However, such formulas do not arrive pre-packaged overnight, but result from decades of proposing, challenging and reformulating ideas. Furthermore, concepts expressing human psychological make-up can differ radically between languages and cultures and can change significantly over time, especially concerning the idea of “personhood.” This is particularly true of four Greek terms at the center of the Nestorian controversy: ousia, physis, prosopon and hypostasis. Ousia (pl. ousiai) is usually translated as “substance, essence.” It can also mean the “true nature” of something. Physis (pl. physeis) refers to “nature,” as in “the natural world” and “the natural form or constitution” of a person or thing. Prosopon (pl. prosopa) literally means “face, countenance, mask, role” and by extension “person” (Latin persona); it usually refers to the outward 4

appearance of a person, rather than the inner ego. Hypostasis (pl. hypostaseis) refers to “that which stands under” and by extension, “foundation, substratum, support.” Originally a scientific term, it was used in philosophy to refer to “substance, real nature, essence” (Latin substantia, essentia). In early Christian thought, hypostasis was considered a synonym of both ousia and physis, resulting in considerable confusion until it was differentiated from ousia by Basil of Caesarea (d. 379) and from physis by the Council of Chalcedon (451). Although Basil introduced the idea that hypostasis could be understood to mean “person,” this was not universally accepted until after it was used as such in the Definition of Chalcedon. Not surprisingly, the use of these terms with multiple and changeable meanings resulted in significant misunderstanding, especially between the representatives of Antiochian Christology and Alexandrian Christology. Sabellius (fl. ca. 215) had referred to one hypostasis manifested under three different prosopa to express his modalistic view of the Trinity (denounced by Tertullian and Hippolytus), in which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were viewed as three different modes or aspects of one God (rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead). Tainted by this association with Sabellianism, prosopon was considered by Basil to be an inherently weak term for describing the three persons in the Trinity (Turcescu 1997, 386, 388, 390-1). This had implications for the Nestorian controversy, since Nestorius used prosopon to designate where the union between divinity and humanity occurred in Christ. The interchangeability of ousia, physis, and hypostasis caused even more problems. The original version of the Nicene Creed adopted in 325 quite clearly anathematized “those who pretend that the Son of God is ‘of other hypostasis or substance’ [ousia]” from the Father (Stevenson and Frend 1987, 345). The intention was to guard against the Arian idea that Christ was of one substance (created), the Father of another (uncreated). However, the equation of hypostasis and ousia made it initially impossible to locate the union in the hypostasis of Christ (which Nicaea clearly stated was shared by the Father and Son). Since the union was not common to the whole Trinity, but only to the Son, it had to take place in a part of Christ that was not shared with the Father. This problem was only overcome when Basil of Caesarea, displaying genuine theological creativity, disregarded the anathema attached to the Nicene Creed (the “gold standard” of orthodoxy) and differentiated the two terms, affirming three separate hypostaseis in one ousia of the Godhead (Turcescu 1997, 377-8, 383-5, 388, 393). However, although this distinction was accepted in relation to the Trinity, “there is not any clear evidence that… 5

a similar differentiation between ousia and hypostasis, had been extended in the time of Cyril to the Christological problem” (Loofs 1914, 71). Meanwhile, the difference between physis and hypostasis was only made clear at Chalcedon (and then only to those who accepted its Definition, which acknowledged Christ in two physeis and one hypostasis). For many, the Chalcedonian Definition was illogical, because “if one is to speak of two natures, this implies two hypostaseis, and if one speaks of one hypostasis, this implies one nature” (Brock 1996, 24). Thus, since Cyril often equated the two terms, his statements about “one hypostasis in Christ” could be (and were) interpreted as references to “one nature in Christ.” Conversely, Antiochians (like Nestorius) who asserted two natures (physeis) in Christ were often understood by the Alexandrians to be promoting the idea of two persons (hypostaseis) in Christ. Not surprisingly, many Miaphysites have historically viewed the Dyophysite (“two-nature”) Christology of Chalcedon as just a “reworking of Nestorianism.” The Rise and Fall of Nestorius When Sisinnius I, Patriarch of Constantinople, died in December 427, Emperor Theodosius II (408-450) chose Nestorius, a Syrian monk and disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia, to replace him. Nestorius was consecrated as Bishop of Constantinople in April 428. The church historian Socrates Scholasticus describes him as “distinguished for his excellent voice and fluency of speech,” but his subsequent actions revealed the “violent and vainglorious temperament,” of one who “continually disturbed the public tranquility” (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 287-8). Whether or not Nestorius was as arrogant as Socrates claims, his actions reveal why the people of the capital nicknamed him the “incendiary” bishop. In his inaugural sermon he asked the emperor’s assistance in purging the realm of heretics. When he attempted to impose his authority over the Arians in Constantinople, a fire and riot ensued in the city. Demonstrating both religious zeal and political naivety, Nestorius proceeded to attack immorality in public entertainment, to bring the city’s monks under his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to restrict the involvement of aristocratic women in ecclesiastical affairs, and to challenge the role of the Augusta (Empress) Pulcheria, the powerful sister of Theodosius II. In so doing, he alienated the general population, the monks, the aristocracy and the Empress. This was to haunt him during the subsequent theological controversy; while his opponent Cyril of Alexandria (412-444) “had an immensely strong personal power-base in his own church… Nestorius had set almost everyone against him on the home front” (McGuckin 1996, 20). 6

Although these actions played a role in Nestorius’ eventual downfall, the main complaints about him concerned his Antiochian Christological views and particularly his rejection of the term Theotokos, “Bearer/Mother of God,” to describe the Virgin Mary. When the presbyter Anastasius preached against the use of Theotokos, saying “It is impossible that God should be born of a human being,” Nestorius backed him up and began to also preach against the term, urging instead the use of Christotokos, “Bearer/Mother of Christ,” since it avoided the implication that divinity had its source in humanity. However, as Socrates notes, he “acquired the reputation among the masses of asserting that the Lord was a mere man.” Although Socrates concluded this was not what Nestorius actually taught, he critiqued him for not paying adequate attention to earlier theologians’ use of Theotokos (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 288-9). Nestorius’ rejection of the term was seen by the general populace, who increasingly venerated Mary, as an assault on their religious devotional life and Pulcheria (a consecrated virgin with a reputation for prayer and good works) probably interpreted Nestorius’ opposition to Theotokos as a personal attack (Russell 2000, 32-3). Meanwhile, to Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius’ position amounted to questioning the divinity of Christ. Cyril had succeeded his uncle Theophilus (responsible for the deposition and exile of John Chrysostom in 403) as Patriarch of Alexandria in 412. He was a brilliant and articulate theologian, but also a power-hungry and unscrupulous man who has been blamed for the death of the Alexandrian philosopher Hypatia (d. 415). Against the backdrop of strained relations between Alexandria and Constantinople, Nestorius’ indiscretions provided Cyril with an “opportunity to deal a deadly blow to the authority and prestige of the church in the capital” (Frend 1972, 17). Hearing of Nestorius’ rejection of Theotokos, he began in early 429 to investigate further and to strengthen his alliances with the monks of both Egypt and Constantinople, who were to prove key allies in the evolving Nestorian controversy (Frend 1972, 136-42). “Defining the theological dispute in its starkest terms, Cyril declared that if Mary is not Theotokos… then Christ is not God” (Wessel 2004, 77). In June, Cyril wrote his first letter to Nestorius, urging him to restore peace in the Church by agreeing to the use of Theotokos. Nestorius replied in peaceable terms, but did not abandon his position. Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius, written in early 430, asserted that “Scripture does not say that the Word united to himself the person of a man, but that he became flesh… This is the doctrine which strict orthodoxy everywhere prescribes… So did they [the Church Fathers] make bold to call the holy Virgin Theotokos” (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 297). As the rhetorical temperature rose, Nestorius replied in a more aggressive tone, asserting that 7

Christ should be spoken of as “Christ, the common title… of the natures… impassible [incapable of suffering pain] in godhead, passible in his bodily nature” (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 298-9). At the same time, Cyril wrote to his agents in Constantinople concerning reports that Nestorius had met with Egyptian clerics opposed to Cyril. The vitriolic nature of his campaign against Nestorius can be heard clearly in the letter: “For supporting my enemies he shall give answer to God… that wretched man shall not hope that he can be my judge. I will withstand him, if I come hither, and it is he who shall answer for error” (Loofs 1914, 33-4; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 100-2). Cyril also wrote letters against Nestorius to the Emperor Theodosius, his sister Pulcheria, his wife Eudocia, and Pope Celestine I of Rome (422-432). His cogent arguments, eloquent rhetorical style and attention to protocol helped win most of the recipients over to his position, although Theodosius persisted in supporting Nestorius until shortly after the Council of Ephesus. Nestorius also wrote to Celestine, but due to various factors, the Pope had already decided in Cyril’s favor (Loofs 1914, 41-5; Frend 1972, 17) and Nestorius was condemned at a church synod held in Rome in August 430, after which Celestine wrote to Cyril delegating to him “the authority of our see” to ensure that if Nestorius did not “condemn in writing this wicked preaching of his… he is in every way removed from our body” (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 300). Despite theological differences between Rome and Alexandria, both were wary of the rising influence of Constantinople as the imperial see, contributing to a natural alliance between the two against Nestorius. Seemingly oblivious to the trouble brewing, Nestorius wrote a third time to Celestine in November, saying he was not opposed to the use of Theotokos, “unless it should advance to the confusion of natures in the manner of the madness of Apollinaris or Arius. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that the term Theotokos is inferior to the term Christotokos” (DelCogliano 2005). It is clear from this and other comments of Nestorius that he was not entirely opposed to the use of Theotokos, but “he refuses to use it by itself, as Cyril constantly did, without adequate qualification” (Anastos 1962, 122). Meanwhile, Theodosius II summoned an Ecumenical Council to meet at Ephesus at Pentecost 431. Although Nestorius welcomed this as an opportunity to confront Cyril, the Council was to prove his undoing, given the way his teaching and actions as Patriarch had alienated so many. Cyril then wrote a third letter to Nestorius, an unequivocal ultimatum. In it, he accused Nestorius of “[having] given offence to the universal Church, and [having] cast the leaven of a novel and strange heresy amongst the laity.” Referring to the synod in Rome which had condemned him, Cyril called on Nestorius “to abstain from these mischievous and perverse doctrines,” reas8

serting Celestine’s words that failure to do so within a specified time limit would result in Nestorius having neither “place nor rank among the priests and bishops of God” (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 301-2). Cyril went on to outline again his Christological position, centered on a “personal union of the Word with the flesh” a union similar to that of soul and body in man, rather than the “conjunction” of the two natures that Nestorius preached (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 302-3). Challenging the traditional Antiochian position, he affirmed that “we do not distribute the Words of our Saviour in the Gospels to two several subsistences or Persons. For the one and sole Christ is not twofold… to one Person, therefore, must be attributed all the expressions… the one incarnate hypostasis of the Word” (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 305). Cyril’s “hypostatic union” – locating the joining of Christ’s divinity and humanity in the hypostasis – contrasted with Nestorius’ “prosopic union,” which placed the union in the prosopon. The picture is complicated still further by Cyril’s use of physis and hypostasis as synonyms, so that “one hypostasis” could also mean “one nature,” as noted above (Frend 1972, 121-2). After a final defense of the term Theotokos, Cyril attached twelve anathemas to his letter (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 307-8). To avoid excommunication, Nestorius had to agree to all twelve. In issuing the anathemas, Cyril had clearly overstepped the authority delegated to him by Celestine. They presented a strong Alexandrian position that no Antiochian could agree with. Moreover, the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius had become so personal that the latter was probably beyond agreeing to anything the former proposed, even where there were grounds for genuine theological agreement. Several of the anathemas were highly problematic for Nestorius and his Antiochian allies (not to mention later proponents of Chalcedonian theology), particularly anathemas 3 and 4, which condemned anyone who “divides the personalities, i.e. the human and the divine, after the union” or “distributes to two Persons or Subsistences (hypostaseis) the expressions used both in the Gospels and in the Epistles… attributing some to a man… [and others] to the Word” (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 307; Uthemann 2007, 483). Undoubtedly, theological issues were at the heart of the conflict between Cyril and Nestorius. “The issue was… about the nature of salvation… Cyril and Nestorius approached it from different starting-points, Cyril… asking how does the Word become human without ceasing to be divine, Nestorius… asking how is the man Jesus Christ divine without compromising his humanity” (Russell 2000, 40). At the same time, the conflict became “not primarily theological… but largely personal, ecclesiastico-political, and terminological” (Anastos 1962, 120). Nestorius received Cyril’s letter and Celestine’s 9

sentence of excommunication in December 430. He responded to Cyril by sending him counter-anathemas and then quoted Cyril’s anathemas to John of Antioch (429-441) in order to ensure his support at the impending ecumenical council. John subsequently enlisted the aid of the Antiochian theologian and historian Theodoret of Cyrrhus. Meanwhile, Marius Mercator, a Latin writer living in Constantinople, began to write against Nestorius and Cyril wrote to “the Orientals” (the Antiochians), particularly Theodoret, defending his ideas. The battle lines were being drawn. The Council of Ephesus and its Aftermath In early June 431, approximately 200 bishops gathered in Ephesus. Apart from ten accompanying Nestorius, most were Cyril’s allies, since John of Antioch and his delegation of forty-three bishops had been delayed. Despite receiving a letter from John announcing their imminent arrival, the council began without them, under Cyril’s leadership. Ignoring protests from the Emperor’s representatives and gathering in the Great Church of St. Mary the Theotokos in Ephesus, the council proceeded to depose and excommunicate Nestorius on June 22. Although summoned to appear, Nestorius refused, rightly understanding that he would not get a fair trial. He later wrote of the council, that Cyril “was everything – accuser and Emperor and judge… Who is judge? Cyril. And who the accuser? Cyril. Who the bishop of Rome? Cyril. Cyril was everything… If then these things are so… where was the need of a synod?” (Bethune-Baker 1908, 38-9; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 132). When John and the Antiochian bishops arrived on June 26, they convened an alternate council and immediately deposed Cyril and Memnon, bishop of Ephesus and Cyril’s ally, as well as excommunicating their supporters who refused to “anathematize the heretical propositions of Cyril” (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 309). When the Pope’s legates reached Ephesus on July 10, they supported Cyril, giving papal assent to Nestorius’ deposition. Meanwhile, the Antiochian party refused to have anything to do with the “Cyrillians,” to which the main council under Cyril responded by excommunicating any bishop who “has joined himself to the assembly of revolt” (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 310). Theodosius was still backing Nestorius at this point, but his support was wavering. On July 17, he ordered that Cyril and Memnon be deposed along with Nestorius. All three were arrested in August, after which both sides wrote letters to the Emperor, appealing their case. Finally, on September 11, 431, Theodosius dissolved the council, sending Nestorius back to his monastery in Antioch, while Cyril returned in victory to Alexandria, having overcome the imperial judgment against him by the distribution of extensive 10

bribes to the court in Constantinople, a practice he repeated later on to maintain his position of favor with the imperial family and to ensure that the Antiochians would agree to the Formula of Reunion in 433 (Bethune-Baker 1908, 10-1; Loofs 1914, 55-6; Driver and Hodgson 1925, 279-82, 349-51). Although Alexandria hailed him as a conquering hero, one of the Egyptian monks, Isidore of Pelusium (d. ca. 449), compared him unfavorably with his reviled uncle Theophilus, accusing him of being “a man bent on pursuing his private animosities, not… one who seeks in correct belief the things of Jesus Christ” (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 319), a view echoed by many modern commentators: “Cyril was incapable of writing an uncontroversial work… His abiding passion was the destruction of Antiochene teaching” (Frend 1972, 135). All this casts into serious question the validity and hence authority of the Council of Ephesus. Over the next two years, the Emperor and the two sides in the conflict conducted negotiations aimed at reconciliation. Cyril was especially motivated to see this happen, for the Council of Ephesus could not be considered as binding unless there was unanimous agreement to its decision. Without the support of Antioch, the ecclesiastical legitimacy of Nestorius’ deposition was questionable and Cyril’s position was vulnerable. Finally, in April 433, in response to an Antiochian proposal, Cyril wrote a letter to John of Antioch “to make peace between the Churches” and agreed to the Formula of Reunion, probably drawn up by Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The Formula was a compromise theological statement which favored the Antiochian “two-nature” position over the Alexandrian “one-nature” position and made no mention of Cyril’s contentious anathemas, but confessed Mary as Theotokos (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 314-5). As Loofs points out, Cyril “could have come to an agreement with him [Nestorius] as easily as with the Antiochians afterwards in 433, if he had not had… an interest in discrediting him” (Loofs 1914, 41). As it was, to secure the peace, the Antiochians had to accept the decisions of Ephesus as binding, including the deposition of Nestorius. Thus, in exchange for a theological agreement which he would have whole-heartedly agreed with, Nestorius was sacrificed and thereafter considered a “heretic.” That Cyril had not abandoned his essentially “one-nature” approach is evident from a letter he wrote to fellow Alexandrians to defend his acceptance of the Formula of Reunion, in which he stated unequivocally “after the union [the Incarnation] we do not divide the natures from each other… but say ‘one Son’ and, as the fathers have put it, ‘one incarnate nature of the Word’.” This final phrase was a quote from the heretical Apollinarius which Cyril believed to be from Athanasius (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 318). Although the Antio11

chian bishops agreed to acknowledge Cyril as orthodox, many initially refused to accept the deposition of Nestorius. However, by 437, all had finally agreed to this, many albeit reluctantly. Nestorius had become expendable and denouncing him was the price of theological peace: “John of Antioch… and Pope Celestine of Rome ended up taking the side of Cyril against Nestorius, not for theological reasons, but for church-political reasons… there is no evidence that they held a different viewpoint from Nestorius. Actually, all the evidence indicates that they held precisely the same view” (Braaten 1963, 252). Meanwhile, in 435, Theodosius had officially banned “the impious books of the said lawless and blasphemous Nestorius” and forbidden his followers “all right of assembly,” an edict which was re-issued in modified form in 448, during the height of Theodosius’ subsequent support for Eutyches (Millar 2006, 176-7, 186-7). Nestorius himself was banished to Arabia in 436, eventually ending up in the Egyptian desert. The deaths of John of Antioch (440) and Cyril (444) ended this chapter in church history. It was followed by the Monophysite controversy, a theological antithesis to the Nestorian controversy. Once again trouble brewed when Eutyches, an archimandrite (senior abbot) in Constantinople, adopted an extreme Monophysite position, claiming that Christ was not “consubstantial with us,” but was rather “after the union, one nature,” essentially denying his humanity (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 335-6). Eutyches was condemned at a local synod in Constantinople in 448 by Patriarch Flavian (446-449), but managed to secure the support of his godson Chrysaphius (the Emperor’s Grand Chamberlain) and Cyril’s successor Dioscorus (444-451), who together convinced Theodosius to convene the Second Council of Ephesus in August 449. Shortly before this Council, Pope Leo I (440-461) wrote his famous Tome to Flavian, which denounced Eutyches in the strongest terms. The Tome had many affinities with Antiochian Christology, employing numerous phrases reminiscent of the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, although this theological debt was not acknowledged (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 336-44). However, at the 449 Council (known to history as the Latrocinium or “Robber’s Council”), Dioscorus prevented Leo’s Tome from being read out, reversed the earlier condemnation of Eutyches, deposed Flavian (who died shortly afterwards from mistreatment at the hands of Eutyches’ supporters) and ratified Cyril’s twelve anathemas (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 345-9). It was another, albeit temporary, victory for Alexandria. The actions of the 449 Council were reversed by the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, convened in order to deliver “a Christological statement… that would end all uncertainty and dispute, uniting the church 12

and empire” (Gray 2005, 221). In the end, the Council deposed Dioscorus, condemned Nestorius (again) and Eutyches, and adopted a Definition of Faith which acknowledged Christ “in two natures [physeis]… one Person [prosopon] and one subsistence [hypostasis]” (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 353). In an attempt to harmonize two increasingly different theological positions, the Definition of Chalcedon accepted both “the synodical letters of the blessed Cyril… to Nestorius” (but not Letter III with the twelve anathemas) and the Tome of Leo. Whether or not this attempt was successful is still an open question (Uthemann 2007, 488-90). As Loofs notes, “there is no real harmony between these different standards of faith”; there is a basic “disharmony between the Cyrillian tradition and that of the western church represented by Leo” (Loofs 1914, 96). Thus, somewhat illogically, although Chalcedon virtually eulogized “the blessed Cyril” in its Definition, it anathematized “those who feign that the Lord had two natures before the union, but… one after the union,” a perfect description of Cyril’s position (Stevenson and Frend 1989, 352). Nonetheless, for the sake of ecclesiastical unity, the rallying cry was “Cyril and Leo taught alike” (Frend 1972, 48) and Nestorius continued to be the scapegoat, even though the language of the Definition of Faith, “apart from the word ‘hypostasis’… was exactly that used… by the West and by Nestorius” (Gray 2005, 222). Indeed, paradoxically, “the essence of Nestorius’ beliefs, without his name attached to them, came to be affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon under a Cyrillian guise” (Bevan 2007, 40). Again, although the Western position coincided theologically more with the Antiochian position, “tactically and emotionally Rome was the ally of Alexandria” (Frend 1972, 131-4) and in the end tactics trumped theological consistency. By this time, Cyril’s status as the champion of orthodoxy had become virtually unassailable; “at Chalcedon and for the century after each party [Chalcedonian or Miaphysite] was able to claim Cyril for their own and set one quotation from his works against another” (Frend 1972, 23). This universally favorable view of Cyril after Ephesus has traditionally been interpreted as evidence of the superiority of his theological views over those of Nestorius, but some have suggested that it equally reflects his polished rhetorical skills: “Nestorius’ homiletic discourse was pedantic and recondite in style, while Cyril’s was lively” (Wessel 2004, 9). Although some in Constantinople were concerned over Cyril’s references to “one incarnate nature” in Christ, especially in light of his equation of hypostasis with physis (so that his “one hypostasis in Christ” could easily be interpreted as “one nature in Christ”), these objections were overcome by “Cyril’s mastery of rhetorical argumentation” (Wessel 2004, 298, 301). Throughout this time, up to his death some13

time after 450, Nestorius remained in exile in Egypt, well-informed of ecclesiastical developments, as we learn from his extant memoirs, to which we now turn. Accusations against Nestorius and the Bazaar of Heracleides The standard accusations against Nestorius can be summed up as follows: 1. By rejecting the term Theotokos, he ignored the importance of the communicatio idiomatum (the idea that all the attributes of divinity in Christ can be attributed to his humanity and vice versa) and challenged (or even denied) the divinity of Christ, presenting him rather as a “mere man.” 2. By calling the union of divinity and humanity in Christ a “conjunction” of the two natures and promoting a “prosopic union” rather than Cyril’s “hypostatic union,” he devalued the idea that “the Word became flesh.” 3. By differentiating between Christ’s humanity and divinity, he promoted “two persons,” “two Sons” and “two Christs,” rather than a unified person. Did Nestorius actually teach any of these things? In order to determine this, his extant writings need to be analyzed. Until the late nineteenth century, this task was particularly difficult, since only a few of his works remained, nearly all in carefully-selected fragments preserved in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus or the writings of Cyril and others or disguised as sermons of John Chrysostom (Bethune-Baker 1908, 23-5; Loofs 1905; Nau 1910, 33558; Driver and Hodgson 1925, 382-98). However, the discovery in 1889 of the Bazaar of Heracleides, a Syriac translation of Nestorius’ defense of his life and doctrine, gave scholars new insights into the teachings of the condemned “heretic.” The work, originally composed in Greek under the pseudonym Heracleides (so as not to attract the attention of those intent on burning Nestorius’ writings), was probably finished sometime between late 450 and late 451, around the time of the Council of Chalcedon (Driver and Hodgson 1925, x; Bevan 2007, 42). Although there are no references to Chalcedon in the book, it has been proposed that Nestorius was actually summoned to the Council, but died en route (Bevan 2007, 42-51). As Driver and Hodgson (the English translators of the work) note, Nestorius’ aim was to show that “his own condemnation at Ephesus was unjust” and “the vindication of Flavian [after the 449 Council]… was the vindication of all that he [Nestorius] had stood for.” Over and over again he makes the point that his doctrines are consistent with the Bible, the Nicene Creed and 14

the Church Fathers (Driver and Hodgson 1925, xxix-xxxi). Some have questioned how much the Bazaar accurately expresses his position 20 years earlier during the height of the controversy. However, as Anastos has noted, “it remains legitimate to allow him to be judged by his own latest and most mature efforts” (Anastos 1962, 121). All commentators on the Bazaar agree that there are significant problems in understanding the text. A major objection concerns the unity of the book, which can be divided into two parts: a Dialogue between Nestorius and Sophronius (Driver and Hodgson 1925, 7-86) and an Apology by Nestorius (Driver and Hodgson 1925, 87-380). Some have maintained that, whereas the Apology is unquestionably by Nestorius, the Dialogue is the work of a later author, Pseudo-Nestorius (Turner 1975, 306-8), but this idea has been disputed by others (Chesnut 1978, 392-8). Most scholars note the serious stylistic challenges the work presents, challenges which in part explain why Nestorius’ ideas were never broadly accepted: “It is not possible… to gather together a series of quotations from the Bazaar which, without explanation of linkage, will give a coherent and connected account of the Incarnation” (Vine 1948, 188). Even Anastos, who regards him as “indubitably orthodox” and the “most brilliant theologian of the fifth century” describes the repetition in the Bazaar as “frustrating, wearisome, and painful” and concludes that his major defects were “the obscurity and prolixity of his style” (Anastos 1962, 123, 140). Nonetheless, careful consideration of both the Bazaar and the other extant fragments of Nestorius’ writings can greatly help in dispelling some of the misunderstandings about his teaching that persist to this day. Although scholars continue to disagree over exactly what he taught, the work clearly shows that he denied 1) an essential union of the divine and human natures in Christ (i.e. a union of the essence or substance of each nature); 2) any transformation from Godhead to manhood or vice versa in the Incarnation; 3) the idea that Christ was just another “inspired man”; 4) the notion that either of the two natures in Christ was not real; 5) the suffering of the divine Logos during the Incarnation; and 6) the idea of “two Sons” in Christ (Driver and Hodgson 1925, xxxii). Let us now analyze the key accusations against Nestorius with reference to his defense in the Bazaar. Nestorius’ Rejection of Theotokos As noted above, Nestorius’ rejection of Theotokos is seen by many as ignoring the importance of the communicatio idiomatum (the sharing of attributes between the divinity and humanity of Christ) and thus challenging the divinity of Christ. However, these accusations ignore several facts. First, 15

Nestorius’ objection to Theotokos, politically-unwise as it was, was based on biblical statements which speak of Mary as the mother of “Jesus,” “Christ” or “the Son of God,” but not “God” (e.g. Matt. 1:16, 18-25; Luke 1:31, 35; 2:11; John 2:1-5; 19:25; Acts 1:14; Gal. 4:4). In contrast to those who viewed Mary “as in some kind of way divine, like God,” Nestorius claimed to be following both “the holy fathers of Nicaea” and “the Scriptures” in his opposition to Theotokos (Bethune-Baker 1908, 17); indeed, he was on much more solid exegetical ground than Cyril and others who championed the term. Second, although he preferred Christotokos to Theotokos, Nestorius did not completely exclude the use of the latter, as long as it was clarified. As he stated in a sermon, “If any of you or any one else be simple and has a preference for the term Theotokos, then I have nothing to say against it – only do not make a Goddess of the virgin” (Loofs 1914, 32; cf. Sellers 1940, 172-3). The subsequent growth of the cult of Mary in many parts of the Christian world, in which the “Mother of God” is referred to as the “Queen of Heaven” and treated virtually as a goddess, can be seen as a realization of Nestorius’ fears. In particular, the later role of the Theotokos as “the special protectress of Constantinople” who “fought alongside them [the inhabitants] in the battle” during the Avar-Persian siege of the city in 626 (Cameron 1978, 78-9) would have made Nestorius turn in his grave. Third, Nestorius’ formula “the divinity makes use of the prosopon of the humanity and the humanity of that of the divinity” essentially serves the same function as the communicatio idiomatum (Anastos 1962, 136; cf. Sellers 1940, 167-71), so that “the Logos shows himself in the form of a servant and the man in the form of God” (Loofs 1914, 83; cf. Bethune-Baker 1908, 95; Driver and Hodgson 1925, 190, 241). As Anastos notes, the difference between Cyril and Nestorius on this point concerned “their disagreement concerning the subject of the God-man’s career and experience. Cyril… [following the Alexandrian Christology] preferred to begin with the divine Logos… Nestorius… associates all these activities [suffering, dying, rising from the dead] with ‘the prosopon of the union’ (the Jesus Christ of the Gospels)” (Anastos 1962, 138; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 141-8). Finally, the equation of Nestorius’ position on Theotokos with the heretical ideas of Paul of Samosata and Photinus (d. 376), both of whom denied the divinity of Christ, ignores the fact that Nestorius’ motivation in opposing Theotokos was to protect the Godhead from being diminished, for “if the Godhead of the Son had its origin in the womb of the Virgin Mary, it was not Godhead as the Father’s” and therefore was akin to Arianism (Bethune-Baker 1908, 19). In fact, Nestorius sought to avoid two erroneous ideas, that the Godhead had its origin in a human being (Mary) and that the manhood of 16

Christ was somehow less real than that of humanity in general (BethuneBaker 1908, 62). A related charge that was made against Nestorius must also be mentioned here. He was accused in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus of having said, “I could not give the name of God to one who was two or three months old,” referring to the Christ Child. This was accepted without further inquiry by Cyril as evidence of Nestorius’ rejection of the divinity of Christ. However, based on Nestorius’ own account in the Bazaar, it seems that his probable words were that “he could not bring himself to call God a babe… He refused to predicate infancy of God, rather than Godhead of an infant,” a crucial difference (Bethune-Baker 1908, 77; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 136-41). Nestorius’ “Prosopic Union” Although Nestorius’ rejection of Theotokos was the flashpoint for the controversy (due largely to the popularity of the term), Cyril equally critiqued him over his notion of a prosopic union. Herein lies a key problem over which scholars continue to disagree: the nature of Nestorius’ metaphysical system and its relation to the “orthodox” Chalcedonian view of two natures in one person (the latter represented by one prosopon and one hypostasis in the Chalcedonian Definition). This is difficult to unravel, given the different ways that Nestorius, Cyril and others in the fifth century used the relevant Greek terms. Following the differentiation between hypostasis and ousia introduced by Basil of Caesarea 50 years earlier, Cyril located the “person” of Christ in the hypostasis. Thus for him, the union of divine and human was a “hypostatic union.” In contrast, Nestorius generally used hypostasis in the older sense, as a synonym for ousia. For him, both the divine and the human in Christ each had not only their own nature, but also their own hypostasis / ousia. Since the Nicene Creed had declared the Son to be homoousios (of one ousia) with the Father, Nestorius was unwilling to distinguish the hypostasis (equal to the ousia in his mind) of the Son from that of the Father, a necessary requirement for a hypostatic union to take place (since it only took place in the Son, not the Father or the Spirit). Because the ousiai of Godhead (which Christ shared with the Father and the Spirit) and manhood (which he shared with all humanity) were completely different essences, they could not be combined with each other; “To Nestorius Godhead and manhood… were much too real to be able to lose themselves in one another; the unity must be found in something other than the ‘substances’ themselves” (Bethune-Baker 1908, 53). Rejecting Cyril’s “hypostatic union” (which in Cyril’s terminology also implied a union of natures), Nestorius opted instead for a “prosopic union,” 17

different in kind from both the unity of ousia (substance) shared by the members of the Trinity and the involuntary natural unity of body and soul in humans which was used by Cyril as a metaphor for the divine-human union in Christ (Driver and Hodgson 1925, 412-3; Anastos 1962, 126-7). “Nestorius rejected the idea of a substantial union [because] such a union would result in a confusion of God and man” (Braaten 1963, 260) in which “each loses its own identity and ceases to function as a self-contained unit” (Chesnut 1978, 403). His starting place was quite different from Cyril’s, as he notes in the Bazaar: “It is not the Logos who has become twofold; it is the one Lord Jesus Christ who is twofold in his natures. In him are seen all the characteristics of the God-Logos… and also all those of the manhood” (Loofs 1914, 79-80; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 145). Nestorius’ theory of the prosopic union suggests that “in the person of Christ, a union of two persons took place so that they exchanged what is each other’s… the union takes place in the interchange of roles, the one making use of the prosopon of the other” (Braaten 1963, 261). Thus, “the Logos ‘takes’ the prosopon of the manhood… as his prosopon, and ‘gives’ His divine prosopon to the manhood” (Sellers 1940, 147; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 69-70). Or again, “Christ is the union of the eternal Logos and the Son of Mary, the principle of the union being that the prosopon of each has been taken by the other, so that there is one prosopon of the two in the union.” In contrast, Nestorius terms Cyril’s hypostatic union as “unscriptural, unorthodox, destructive of true religion, and unintelligible” (Driver and Hodgson 1925, xxxii-xxxiii), realizing that, if “the divine Logos… took in his hypostasis a human body, soul and intellect… so that his human nature had, therefore, no hypostasis,” the practical result was “a suppression of the manhood of Christ” (Loofs 1914, 72-3). Although his critics, including Cyril, have typically rejected Nestorius’ use of “conjunction” (Greek synapheia) as too weak to describe the relationship between the divine and human in Christ, Bethune-Baker notes that the word can also have the stronger meaning “contact” or “cohesion” and that Nestorius uses “united” and “union” more frequently in the Bazaar than “conjoined” or “conjunction.” Throughout, Nestorius’ main concern was to avoid “words like ‘mixture’, ‘commingling’, ‘blending together’, ‘confusion’ and… all ideas which would merge the two substances and natures of Godhead and manhood in one” (Bethune-Baker 1908, 91), resulting in either “an Arian doctrine… which makes of the Logos a creature [or] an Apollinarian doctrine… which renders the humanity incomplete” (Braaten 1963, 260). Thus, for Nestorius, “God the Word does not become in his very nature 18

something that he was not before… [and] the man remains genuinely man within the incarnation” (Chesnut 1978, 407). But what exactly did Nestorius mean by prosopon? Biblical and patristic writers before him had used it to convey the whole range of meaning noted above (face, mask, role, outward appearance, person) and three (Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Theodore of Mopsuestia) had used it to describe the Incarnation in ways that anticipated Nestorius’ later use of the term (Driver and Hodgson 1925, 402-10). However, given this range of meaning and the fact that none of the terms Nestorius uses are exactly equivalent to our word “person” and the modern psychological framework it represents (Driver and Hodgson 1925, 412), it is misleading to automatically interpret prosopon in his works as “person.” By doing so, we are in danger of evaluating him from our modern point of view, modified by nearly 1600 years of theological, philosophical and psychological development since his time (Braaten 1963, 261). Loofs suggests rather that “the main thing in his notion of prosopon… was the external undivided appearance” and specifically “the undivided appearance of the historic Jesus Christ” (Loofs 1914, 76, 79), an idea expanded by Hodgson, who proposes that “Nestorius analysed everything that exists into… essence [ousia], nature [physis]… and appearance [prosopon],” the latter being “a real element in the being of a thing.” As such, the prosopic union was not merely a “moral union” but a “real metaphysical unity,” although Hodgson suggests it was “not strong enough to bear the strain it was designed to meet,” to explain the oneness of Godhead and manhood in Christ (Driver and Hodgson 1925, 414-7, 419). Chesnut further observes that “to be the prosopon of God means to Nestorius to be the Image of God, and to be the Image of God is first and foremost to will what God wills, to have the will and purpose of God” (Chesnut 1978, 399; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 59; Sellers 1940, 134). This aspect of prosopon reminds us of the Antiochian emphasis on the union being voluntary, requiring the active participation of Christ’s human nature. As Turner notes, “the problem is vital for Nestorius but purely marginal for Cyril” (Turner 1975, 311). However, the presence of a human will in Christ does not jeopardize the will of God, for as Nestorius explains, “he [Christ] acquired nothing else than to wish and to will whatever God willed in him. For this reason God became in him whatever he was in himself” (Chesnut 1978, 400; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 251). Again, “he in nothing deviated from the purpose of God… his will was bound to the will of God” (Chesnut 1978, 401; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 63-4; Sellers 1940, 138-40). 19

Nestorius and “Two Persons” in Christ The contrast between Alexandrian and Antiochian thought outlined above was essentially a difference in emphasis, between the unity of the person of Christ (Alexandria) and the duality of his divine and human natures (Antioch). Both “schools” tended to accuse the other of overstating their respective emphasis. That Nestorius and other Antiochians were accused of preaching “two persons” in Christ is therefore not surprising; this misinterpretation typically occurs when “the context and characteristics of the Christological language of the Antiochian tradition are ignored” (Uthemann 2007, 477). One of the main problems seems to have been Alexandria’s inability to accept the symmetrical Christology of Antioch, where divinity and humanity both played key roles, united in the person of Christ. By contrast, Cyril and other Alexandrians insisted on the subject of their Christology being the divine Logos, with the result that Christ’s humanity became less important. Any attempt by Nestorius or other Antiochians to present a balanced picture was interpreted as “preaching two persons.” However, Nestorius expressly denies any belief in two Sons or two Christs, ascribing this view to the followers of Paul of Samosata (“They speak of a double son and a double Christ”). In an exposition of the introduction to John’s gospel, which refers to the divine Word of God indwelling Christ, he says, “How then can we understand this to be one Son, and Christ to be another Son, and one that is man only?” Elsewhere, he remarks, “God the Word and the man in whom He came to be are not numerically two” and “He is a single (person), but… He is different in the natures of manhood and Godhead” and “I call Christ perfect God and perfect man, not natures which are commingled, but which are united” (Bethune-Baker 1908, 82-5; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 45-6, 50). Thus, judged by his own words, Nestorius comes across not as a “heretic,” but as orthodox, in agreement with the theology articulated at Chalcedon. Indeed, he was in complete accord with the Tome of Leo, commenting when he read it, “I gave thanks to God that the Church of Rome was rightly and blamelessly making confessions, even though they happened to be against me personally” (Bethune-Baker 1908, 191-2; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 340). A letter of Nestorius to the inhabitants of Constantinople, probably from 449, further states: “It is my doctrine which Leo and Flavian are upholding... Believe as our holy comrades in the faith, Leo and Flavian!” (Loofs 1914, 25). Nonetheless, Nestorius’ use of prosopon is sometimes confusing and undoubtedly supported his enemies’ accusations. Besides describing the union occurring in one prosopon, he also refers in places to two prosopa in Christ, 20

although the former use is much more common than the latter (Loofs 1914, 79). Anastos concludes that he used prosopon in two distinct senses: A) “the exterior aspect or appearance of a thing” (as Loofs observed) and B) “an approximate equivalent of our word ‘person’.” The first relates to the two natures of Christ, indicating that “each had a substantive reality… which remained undiminished after the union” while the second relates to Jesus Christ as “the common prosopon of the two natures.” Nestorius is then able to speak of the “two prosopa (sense A)… in the one prosopon (sense B) of Jesus Christ” (Anastos 1962, 129-30; cf. Chesnut 1978, 402; Uthemann 2007, 478). Put another way, “Nestorius’ theory was that the two distinctly existing persons combine to make a new person, who is called Jesus. Hence, Jesus is one person made up of two persons” (Braaten 1963, 258). Admittedly, this dual sense of the word, never clearly explained by Nestorius, is confusing and opens him up to criticism, but given the general fluidity in the terminology of “personhood” mentioned above, it is not surprising and should not be grounds for accusing Nestorius of heresy, especially when he openly said “I separate the natures; but unite the worship” (Sellers 1940, 196). Based on this distinction in the use of prosopon, Anastos summarizes Nestorius’ actual Christology as follows: Jesus Christ was the divine Logos incarnate, the Son of God in the flesh, the Lord whom his disciples knew as a man but recognized to be God. The unity of his “personality” was further guaranteed by the fact that it was the Logos who both “gave” his prosopon (sense A) to the human nature and “took” that of the human for his own. Moreover, the human will of Christ was always obedient to the divine, so that there never was any conflict or division between the two (Anastos 1962, 132). Anastos further comments that “Nestorius’ Christology is not characterized by preoccupation with either one of the two natures to the exclusion or detriment of the other, but rather by uncompromising insistence upon the union of both of them in Christ, in their full totality, and unimpaired” (Anastos 1962, 140). Conclusion In conclusion, a comment is necessary about the scholarly approach to Nestorius, especially in the twentieth century. Several scholars have concluded that Nestorius was either entirely or nearly orthodox in his beliefs, including Bethune-Baker (1908), Loofs (1914), Sellers (1940), Vine (1948) and Anastos (1962). Indeed, after reading the Bazaar, it is clear that he was not guilty of the heresy he was accused of, namely preaching two persons in 21

Christ. Again, note the almost Chalcedonian ring of his confession of “one Christ, one Son, one Lord,” and “in one Christ two natures without confusion. By one nature… of the divinity, he was born of God the Father; by the other… of the humanity, [he was born] of the holy virgin” (Anastos 1962, 128; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 295-6). Both Loofs and Anastos conclude that, being in full agreement with the Tome of Leo, Nestorius would have wholeheartedly approved of the Chalcedonian Confession (Loofs 1914, 99100; Anastos 1962, 138; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 388-9). However, the a priori conviction of other scholars that Nestorius was a heretic no matter what he actually taught has made it impossible for them to revise their views; “The old notion that church councils cannot err seems to exercise a powerful influence on some scholars” (Braaten 1963, 254). For those who believe that all church councils have the same divine inspiration and authority as the first Council of Jerusalem described in the New Testament (Acts 15:28), the idea that the Church Fathers may have got it wrong is a threatening concept. Such scholars dismiss statements by Nestorius that are in fact orthodox as “an emergency invention forced upon him by his adversaries” or as evidence that he “used orthodox phraseology to confound his readers, or he used the orthodox terms in an ambiguous sense, meaning something else by them” (Braaten 1963, 255). They tend to judge Nestorius “in terms of “orthodox christological categories which were made precise at a later date,” one even suggesting that if the orthodox Catholic position on Nestorius is questioned, then “even the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope is at stake” (Braaten 1963, 260). Such a subjective approach is intellectually dishonest and patently unfair to Nestorius. In contrast, Nestorius’ words in the Bazaar provide a fitting conclusion to this tragic chapter in church history: “The goal of my earnest wish, then, is that God may be blessed on earth as in heaven. But as for Nestorius, let him be anathema… And would to God that all men by anathematizing me might attain to a reconciliation with God; for to me there is nothing greater or more precious than this” (Bethune-Baker 1908, 190, 198; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 372) Bibliography Anastos, Milton V. “Nestorius Was Orthodox.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962): 117-40. Bethune-Baker, J. F. Nestorius and His Teaching: A Fresh Examination of the Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908. 22

Bevan, George A. “The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources.” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 7 (2007): 39-54. Braaten, Carl E. “Modern Interpretations of Nestorius.” Church History 32 (1963): 251-67. Brock, Sebastian P. “The ‘Nestorian’ Church: A Lamentable Misnomer.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 78, No. 3 (1996): 2335. Cameron, Averil. “The Theotokos in Sixth-Century Constantinople.” Journal of Theological Studies 29 (N.S.) (1978): 79-108. Chesnut, Roberta C. “The Two Prosopa in Nestorius' Bazaar of Heracleides.” Journal of Theological Studies 29 (N.S.) (1978): 392-409. DelCogliano, Mark, trans., “Nestorius, 2nd and 3rd Letters to Pope Celestine,” http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nestorius_two_letters_01.htm (translated 2005, cited April 5, 2009). Driver, G. R., and Leonard Hodgson, trans. Nestorius: The Bazaar of Heracleides. Oxford: Clarendon, 1925. Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Gray, Patrick T. R. “The Legacy of Chalcedon: Christological Problems and Their Significance.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, edited by Michael Maas, 215-38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Loofs, Friedrich, ed. Nestoriana: Die Fragmente Des Nestorius. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1905. Loofs, Friedrich. Nestorius and His Place in the History of Christian Doctrine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914. Reprint, New York: Burt Franklin Reprints, 1975. McGuckin, J. A. “Nestorius and the Political Factions of Fifth-Century Byzantium: Factors in His Personal Downfall.” Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library 78, No. 3 (1996): 7-21. Millar, Fergus. A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408-450). Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Nau, François, trans. Nestorius: Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1910. Russell, Norman. Cyril of Alexandria. London & New York: Routledge, 2000. Sellers, R. V. Two Ancient Christologies. London: SPCK, 1940. 23

Stevenson, J., and W. H. C. Frend, eds. A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1987. Stevenson, J., and W. H. C. Frend, eds. Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church AD 337-461. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1989. Turcescu, Lucian. “Prosōpon and Hypostasis in Basil of Caesarea’s ‘Against Eunomius’ and the Epistles.” Vigiliae Christianae 51, No. 4 (1997): 374-95. Turner, H. E. W. “Nestorius Reconsidered.” In Studia Patristica XIII (Texte und Untersuchungen 116), 306-21. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1975. Uthemann, Karl Heinz. “History of Christology to the Seventh Century.” In The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 2: Constantine to c. 600, edited by Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris, 460-500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Vine, Aubrey R. An Approach to Christology. London: Independent Press, 1948. Wessel, Susan. Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

24

2 SYRIAC GRAVESTONES IN THE TASHKENT HISTORY MUSEUM Mark DICKENS University of Cambridge, England Original publication information: “Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia-PatristicaOecumenica, Vol. 1), ed. Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2009), pp. 13-49. Our knowledge of the history of Syriac Christianity in Central Asia is generally dependent on data from the following corpora: 1) the literature of the Church of the East and the Syrian Orthodox Church, in both Syriac and Arabic; 2) the works of Muslim geographers and historians; 3) the reports of travellers (both Christians and Muslims) who had contact with Christians in Central Asia; 4) Christian texts in Syriac, Sogdian and Old Uighur that have been discovered in Chinese Turkestan; 5) non-textual archaeological finds; and 6) various inscriptions left by Central Asian Christians.1 The vast majority of Christian inscriptions from Central Asia have been found on gravestones.2 This corpus of gravestone inscriptions gives us lim1

I am indebted to Dr. Wassilios Klein (University of Bonn) and Dr. Alexei Savchenko (Society for the Exploration of Eurasia) for many helpful suggestions and answers to questions. My supervisor, Dr. Erica C.D. Hunter (University of Cambridge), read through the preliminary draft and provided valuable feedback. Thanks also to Dr. Savchenko for permission to use his images of the gravestones and to Prof. Niu Ruji (Xinjiang University) for a copy of his modified Serto font incorporating the letter ‫ݎ‬. Finally, I am grateful for questions answered and information supplied by Prof. Michal Biran (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Prof. Peter B. Golden (Rutgers University), Prof. Aleksandr Naymark (Hofstra University), Mr. John O’Farrell (Tashkent, Uzbekistan), Dr. Christine van Ruymbeke (University of Cambridge), Prof. Nicholas Sims-Williams (SOAS) and Prof. Peter Zieme (BerlinBrandenburg Academy of Sciences). 2 The few inscriptions (including those in black ink) not connected with gravestones include those found on 1) a rock wall located near Urgut (МЕЩЕРСКАЯ & ПАЙКОВА, 1981; SAVCHENKO, 1996; TARDIEU, 1999); 2) an ostracon found in Panjikent (PAYKOVA, 1979); 3) fragments of vases found at Taraz and Saryg (LALA COMNENO, 1997, 41; БАЙПАКОВ, 1994, 98); 4) a jug and a cross imprint found in Aq-Beshim (medieval Suyab) (KLEIN, 2004a, 27); and 5) the rims of large stone jars found in and near Krasnaya Rečka (medieval Navekath) (ГОРЯЧЕВА & ПЕРЕГУДОВА, 1994, 93; БАЙПАКОВ, 1994, 99-100). 25

ited, but nonetheless fascinating insights into the life of Central Asian Christians towards the end of the millennium that the Church of the East had a presence in the area. In so doing, they help us in the difficult task of determining how these Christians lived their lives on a daily basis and interacted with the society around them. The corpus of Christian gravestones written in the Syriac script (as opposed to those written in Chinese characters) can be further subdivided into four groups: those found in 1) the Chu Valley, in modern-day Kyrgyzstan,3 2) Almaliq, in Chinese Turkestan,4 3) Inner Mongolia5 and 4) other parts of China, principally in and around the city of Quanzhou (ancient Zaytun).6 This paper will concentrate on gravestones from the Chu Valley that are currently held in the National Historical Museum of Uzbekistan in Tashkent. Christian Gravestones from the Chu Valley Discovery and Deciphering of the Gravestones Beginning in 1885, Russian settlers in the province of Semirechye (called Zheti Su or Yettisu in Turkic),7 recently added to the Russian Empire and located adjacent to Chinese Turkestan, began to unearth stones marked with crosses and inscriptions from two sites in the Chu Valley: Karajigach, near Pishpek (now Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan) and Burana (medieval Balasaghun), just south of Tokmak. Although they were identifiable as Christian

3

See footnotes below dealing with this group of gravestones, the focus of this paper. Alexei Savchenko informs me that there are also “two gravestones at the Ashkhabad Museum, possibly brought from Urgut” (personal communication, 27 August, 2006, citing МАССОН, 1978) [see Chapter 10 in this volume]. 4 See DŽUMAGULOV, 1968; NIU, DESREUMAUX & MARSONE, 2004, 145-46. Other articles dealing with this corpus are mentioned below. 5 See MARTIN, 1938; GROENBECH, 1940; MURAYAMA, 1963; ENOKI, 1964; MURAYAMA, 1964a; NIU, DESREUMAUX & MARSONE, 2004, 146-49; HALBERTSMA & WEI, 2005; HALBERTSMA, 2006. 6 See FOSTER, 1954; ENOKI, 1964; MURAYAMA, 1964a, MURAYAMA, 1964b; HAMILTON & NIU, 1994; GENG, KLIMKEIT & LAUT, 1996; LIEU, 2002; NIU, 2004; NIU, DESREUMAUX & MARSONE, 2004, 149-51; NIU, 2005; FRANZMANN & LIEU, 2006; LIEU, 2006; NIU, 2006; BORBONE, 2006; FRANZMANN, 2007. Although this is obviously outside the geographical area of Central Asia, the fact that these inscriptions belong to Turkic Christians justifies their inclusion in this corpus. 7 Both names mean “Seven Rivers,” referring to various rivers that flow northward into Lake Balkhash. Although the Chu River is in this region, after flowing out of Lake IssyqKöl, it empties into the arid steppeland southwest of Lake Balkhash. 26

gravestones and the sites they came from were obviously cemeteries, 8 it was not until photographs and handmade rubbings from the stones were sent to the eminent Semitist Prof. Daniel Chwolson in St. Petersburg that the language on them was determined to be Syriac, written in the Estrangelo script.9 Over the next several years, as more gravestones were unearthed, Chwolson published an initial report in German10 and Russian11 and then two lengthy monographs in German covering a total of 568 stones (including those from the initial report).12 Most of the stones were dated according to the Seleucid Era (SE) used by Syriac Christians,13 the twelve-year animalcycle used by the Turkic peoples,14 or both. The stones with dates were dated from 1200/01 (or possibly 1185/86, based on uncertain readings of two stones) to 1344/45 CE.15 8

Approximately 3000 graves were found, although there were only about 600 gravestones with inscriptions (CHWOLSON, 1890, 2). Thus, the gravestones give us information about only 20% of the Christian community that was buried in the two cemeteries. 9 On the discovery and subsequent deciphering of the stones, see CHWOLSON, 1886, 1-6; CHWOLSON, 1890, 1-5. Good overviews of the history of these stones, including those that have ended up in other countries, can be found in THACKER, 1967 and DŽUMAGULOV, 1968. Chwolson actually described the script as a “transition from Estrangelo to the modern Nestorian script” (KLEIN, 2002, [23], quoting CHWOLSON, 1890, 119). 10 CHWOLSON, 1886, which dealt with 22 stones. 11 ХВОЛЬСОН, 1887a, which dealt with the same 22 stones; ХВОЛЬСОН, 1887b, which dealt with an additional six stones, & ХВОЛЬСОН, 1887c. 12 CHWOLSON, 1890, which dealt with 231 stones, and CHWOLSON, 1897, which dealt with 337 stones. In between the two, he also published ХВОЛЬСОН, 1895 (in Russian), which dealt with 12 stones found between his 1890 and 1897 publications. Of the 22 stones in CHWOLSON, 1886, only one, No. II, was not republished in CHWOLSON, 1890, since it was judged to be too indistinct (CHWOLSON, 1890, i). 13 The Seleucid era began on 1 October, 312 BCE. 14 Each year in the Turkic animal-cycle began between 14 January and 14 February during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (BAZIN, 1991, 414, 417). The twelve animals in the cycle are: 1) mouse/rat; 2) ox/cow; 3) tiger/leopard; 4) hare/rabbit; 5) dragon; 6) snake; 7) horse; 8) sheep; 9) monkey; 10) rooster/hen; 11) dog; and 12) pig. The seminal work on the animal-cycle calendar is BAZIN, 1991. 15 The first gravestone in Chwolson’s 1886 report was initially dated to 858; he later corrected this to 1258 (CHWOLSON, 1886, No. I; CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 69), but the literature continues to refer to the incorrect date, giving the impression that the stones are much earlier than they are (e.g. MINGANA, 1925, 334; DAUVILLIER, 1948, 290). As noted above, a second stone, originally dated 911, was later discarded by Chwolson as too indistinct (CHWOLSON, 1886, No. II; CHWOLSON, 1890, i). Leaving these two erroneous readings aside, the date ranges in 1) CHWOLSON, 1886, 2) CHWOLSON, 1890 and 3) CHWOLSON, 1897 are, respectively: 1) 1569 SE (1257/58 CE) to 1648 SE (1336/37 CE); 2) 1560 SE (1248/49 CE) or possibly 1543 SE (1231/32) to 1656 SE (1344/45 CE); 3) 1512 SE (1200/01 CE) or possibly 1497 SE (1185/86 CE) to 1653 SE (1341/42 CE). However, Aleksandr Naymark notes that “finds of re-used tombstones of 789 and 909 C.E. in the foundations of [a] building [from] 27

Although all of the inscriptions except one were exclusively in the Syriac script,16 not all were in the Syriac language; approximately 30 of the inscriptions in Chwolson’s corpus were wholly or partially in the Turkic language spoken in the region at that time.17 Furthermore, the paleography seemed to reflect the influence of the Uighur script still in use in parts of Central Asia at that time, since the Syriac characters were written vertically as well as horizontally. As a result of analyzing the gravestone inscriptions, it became clear that the deceased had been “Nestorian” Christians, members of the Church of the East,18 most of whom were ethnic Turks who died in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Furthermore, many of the deceased were clergy; Chwolson calculated that 120 of the 300 males referred to on the gravestones held some position in the church.19 Subsequent Research on the Gravestone Corpus Chwolson’s work aroused a great deal of interest, amongst both his fellow Russian scholars and those in other parts of Europe. There were several

the end of the 10th-early 11th century in the city of Navekath pose the question whether all of more than eight hundred Syriac-Turkic tombstones of Semirech’e belong to the 13th-14th centuries” (NAYMARK, 2004, 3). 16 The exception is the gravestone of an Armenian bishop, partially in Syriac and partially in Armenian (МАРР, 1894). 17 Not including the many references to the animal-year that are in Turkic. The linguistic status of Turkic will be dealt with below. On Turkic Christian gravestones in the Greek script, see PROKOSCH, 1992. 18 I am aware of the theological inadequacy of the term “Nestorian” to describe members of the Church of the East, but in the absence of a more convenient adjective, it is used sparingly in this article. Usage of the term does not imply any association with connotations of heresy. Of interest is the fact that the name Nestorius is found on at least two stones in the corpus (e.g. CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 49 & XXVIII). 19 The hierarchy in the Church of the East at the time consisted of nine ranks (further divided into three triads): 1) Catholicos-Patriarch, 2) metropolitan, 3) bishop, 4) archdeacon, 5) chorepiscopus (= periodeutes = visitor), 6) priest (presbyter), 7) deacon, 8) subdeacon, and 9) reader (VOSTÉ, 1931, 229). There also seems to have been a lower order of exorcists operating amongst Christians who had come from a shamanistic environment (CHWOLSON, 1890, 161; NÖLDEKE, 1890, 522; GILLMAN & KLIMKEIT, 1999, 238-39). Chwolson counted 9 archdeacons, 23 church visitors, 46 scholastics, 3 exegetes, 2 preachers, 8 readers/doctors, 15 others who held various church offices and a great number of priests (CHWOLSON, 1897, 54; cf. NAU, 1914, 334-35). Wassilios Klein counted 88 priests (bringing the actual total to 194) and suggested that the large number in this office, including many who are described as “youths,” could be a reflection of the Nestorian tendency to “have all the male children, even those in the cradle, ordained as priests,” as William of Rubruck noted (KLEIN, 2004b, 13334; JACKSON, 1990, 163). 28

important reviews and critiques of his publications 20 and further articles were published dealing with the way in which the gravestones fit into the overall picture of Syriac Christianity in Central Asia 21 and the personal names that appeared on the stones.22 At the same time, beginning in 1902, more gravestones were discovered in another cemetery, located just over the border in Chinese Turkestan, near the medieval city of Almaliq. These were sent to Prof. Pavel Kokovtsov in St. Petersburg, who published them, along with other stones that had been unearthed in the Chu Valley, over the next several years.23 However, the active excavation of the cemeteries ceased soon afterwards and any subsequent finds have been largely by happenstance. Although many of the gravestones ended up in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg or scattered throughout the Russian Empire (and then the Soviet Union) in various museums and universities, a number of them found their way to museums or private collections in England, Finland and France.24 Unfortunately, of the approximately 610 gravestones found in the Chu Valley, nearly 500 of them were destroyed in a fire in the museum where they were being kept in Almaty in 1939.25 Although there was little interest in the gravestone inscriptions for several decades after the initial flurry of publications in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there has been a steady stream of articles since the late fifties, either dealing with one aspect of the inscriptions (e.g. the Turkic language, personal names or dating systems used)26 or the corpus as a whole, including the publication of newly discovered stones and the republication of those already known from the work of Chwolson and Kokovtsov. Much of this work has been done by Chetin Jumagulov and Wassilios Klein.27

20

СЛУЦКИЙ, 1889; КОРШ, 1889; NÖLDEKE, 1890; HALÉVY, 1890; СЛУЦКИЙ, 1891. Of these, Nöldeke’s was the most influential and Chwolson incorporated a number of his suggestions into his 1897 publication. 21 BARTHOLD, 1901. 22 CHABOT, 1906. 23 КОКОВЦОВ, 1906; КОКОВЦОВ, 1907; КОКОВЦОВ, 1909. 24 THACKER, 1967; HEALEY, 1983; HJELT, 1909; TALLGREN, 1940; AALTO, 1981, 5, 7; CHAFFANJON, 1899, 63-64, 99-100; NAU, 1913; NAU, 1914, 301-46; DESREUMAUX, 2000. 25 KLEIN, 2000, 156-57. 26 МАЛОВ, 1959, 77-86; MANSUROĞLU, 1959, 108-12; RÁSONYI, 1962, 232-39; HAGE, 1978; BAZIN, 1991, 413-29; RYBATZKI, 2004. The stones are also referred to in SAEKI, 1951, 408-15. 27 ДЖУМАГУЛОВ, 1963, 1982 & 1987; ДЖУМАГУЛОВ, 1971; KLEIN, 1994; KLEIN, 1998; KLEIN, 2000; KLEIN, 2001; KLEIN, 2002; KLEIN, 2004b; KLEIN & ROTT, 2006. 29

Placing the Gravestones in their Context The Geographical and Historical Context The Chu River, flowing out of Lake Issyq-Köl and into the arid steppeland to the north, was strategically located on the northern route of the Silk Road, which was the favoured route during the Pax Mongolica.28 This northern route ran from Samarkand through Tashkent (known at different times as Čač, Šaš and Binkent) and Talas, north of the Talas-Alatau Mountains to the Chu Valley. From there, it continued on north of the mountains through Almaliq and Besh-baliq to either Turfan or Qamil (Hami), where other routes connected it with the central route of the Silk Road. At the same time, there were also minor routes that connected Lake Issyq-Köl with Samarkand via the Ferghana Valley 29 and with Kashghar through various passes in the Talas-Alatau Mountains. Other routes also ran eastward from the Chu Valley, along both the southern and the northern shores of Lake Issyq-Köl, converging eventually in the Ili Valley around Almaliq, where they joined the northern branch of the Silk Road. Important cities in the Chu Valley included Navekath (Krasnaya Rečka), Suyab (Aq-Beshim) and Balasaghun (Burana) to the west of Lake Issyq-Köl, along with Qayaliq, about 450 km by road north of the lake, and Almaliq, about 650 km by road northeast of the lake. On the other side of the Tien Shan Mountains, located on (or just to the north of) the middle route of the Silk Road, were the cities of Kashghar, Aqsu, Bai, Kucha, Bügür (Lun-t’ai), Qarashahr, Besh-baliq, Turfan, Qocho, Qamil, and Bars-köl (Barkul).30 The time period covered by the gravestones corresponds roughly to the period of Mongol dominance in Central Asia. The earliest gravestone can be confidently dated to 1200/01, shortly before Chingiz Khan became khan of the Mongols (1206). In the next two decades, before his death, the Mongols conquered the Kirghiz, the Uighurs, the Qarakhitai and the Khwarazmshahs. The Qarakhitai had held Semirechye-Zheti Su and the Tarim Basin since c. 1130-1140, although they were ruled by the Naiman prince Küchlüg between 1211 and 1218, when the Mongols defeated them, killing Küchlüg in the process. 28

For an excellent overview of the Silk Road, see FRANCK & BROWNSTONE, 1986, especially the map on p. 6 and the description of the various routes on pp. 9-26. As Baipakov notes, the northern route was “used from the seventh to the fourteenth century by the majority of ambassadorial and mercantile caravans” (BAIPAKOV, 2000, 222). 29 A detailed description of the route, requiring comparison with a modern map of Central Asia, can be found in BURYAKOV, 1999, 84, 98, 99. 30 For an excellent map, cf. http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/features/silkroad/pdf/silkroadmap.pdf. 30

When Chingiz Khan died in 1227, his empire was divided amongst his heirs and his son Chaghatay received the Chaghatayid ulus (a division of the Mongol Empire, usually called a khanate), encompassing Mawara’un-nahr (Transoxiana), the Tarim Basin, and Semirechye-Zheti Su. Whereas the Qarakhitai (and Küchlüg) had made Balasaghun their capital, the Chaghatayid seat of power was Almaliq.31 After the death of Chaghatay in 1244, the khanate became less and less stable, splitting into two halves in the early fourteenth century: Transoxiana in the west and Moghulistan in the east. Three of the four Mongol khanates eventually became Muslim.32 Although in each case the actual process was gradual, the official conversion of the Il-Khanids in Iran is associated with the reign of Ghazan Khan (12951304) and that of the Golden Horde on the northern steppe with Özbeg Khan (1313-1341). The first Chaghatayid khan to convert to Islam whose subsequent policies reflected that conversion was Tarmashirin Khan (1331-1334), after whom Islamization increased in the khanate.33 Less than twenty years after the latest stone in the corpus, dated to 1344/45, Timur (Tamerlane) overthrew the last independent Chaghatayid khan Tughluq Timur (1363) and began his program of military conquest that proved so disastrous for the Church of the East. The Ethnic, Linguistic and Religious Context Since the Semirechye-Zheti Su area was the centre of the Qarakhitai state and an important part of the Chaghatayid ulus, the population was probably a mixture of various Turkic tribes, including Uighurs and Qarakhanid Turks.34 William of Rubruck specifically mentions Christian Uighurs living in this area (see below; the other ethnic groups he identified as Christian – the Naiman, Kerait and Merkit – all lived further to the north) and one gravestone in the corpus is that of ‫( ܒܢܘܣ ܩܫܐ ܐܘܓܘܪ‬Banus, the Uighur priest).35 It seems reasonable to assume therefore that many of those buried in the Chu Valley cemeteries were ethnic Uighurs, although we cannot be sure. Linguistically, Semirechye-Zheti Su in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was in a state of transition from Old Turkic to Middle Turkic. Old Ui31

As RYAN, 1998, 362 notes, rather than a real capital, it was “a major rallying point for the bands of nomadic warriors who ruled Chaghatai, and served as a kind of administrative center.” 32 The exception was, of course, the Mongol Yüan Dynasty of China, ruled over initially by Qubilai Khan. 33 Several other Chaghatayid khans had converted previously, but there had been little if any effect on the political structure of the khanate prior to Tarmashirin, on whom see BIRAN, 2002. 34 Michal Biran, personal communication, 29 May, 2007. 35 CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 97. 31

ghur, which had dominated the area since the eighth century and had then been adopted as the language of officialdom in the Mongol Empire, gradually decreased in importance.36 So too did Qarakhanid (also called Xakani), the first Islamic Turkic literary language, which had developed in the eleventh century under the Qarakhanid dynasty. By the time of Timur, shortly after the last inscription in the gravestone corpus, these two languages would begin to be replaced by the Middle Turkic language, Chaghatay.37 In the opinion of Peter B. Golden, the language of the inscriptions is best termed Middle Southeastern Turkic.38 Its major characteristics have been documented by Mansuroğlu.39 The linguistic status of Syriac will be dealt with below. Semirechye-Zheti Su at the time was a religious intertidal zone. Muslims dominated to the south in Mawara’un-nahr, Buddhists to the east in China, and followers of traditional Central Asian animism-shamanism to the north. All of these, along with Christians, mixed together in Semirechye-Zheti Su. There had been Christians in the area since at least the eighth century, as evidenced by two churches excavated in Aq-Beshim (medieval Suyab), not far from the Burana cemetery.40 Based on the evidence of archaeological finds from the area, Aleksandr Naymark concludes that, while Christianity went into decline in Mawara’un-nahr during the ninth and tenth centuries (as a result of the Muslim conquest of Central Asia), it continued to flourish in Semirechye-Zheti Su under the Qarakhanids and in fact, spread south from there back into Mawara’un-nahr later on.41 When the shamanist and Buddhist Qarakhitai captured Semirechye-Zheti Su and the Tarim Basin from the Muslim Qarakhanids (c. 1130-1140), both Buddhism and Nestorian Christianity experienced a revival in the area. The two religions were further strengthened after the Qarakhitai khan Yelü Zhilugu was overthrown in 1211 by Küchlüg, who had been born into a Nestorian family and later converted to Buddhism. When Küchlüg was in turn defeated by the armies of Chingiz Khan in 1218, Christians in the area continued to be

36

Nevertheless, commenting on the Uighur language and alphabet, William of Rubruck noted that “almost every Nestorian is familiar with their script” (JACKSON, 1990, 157). 37 See JOHANSON, 1998, 85-86. 38 Personal communication, 23 May, 2006. 39 MANSUROĞLU, 1959, 108-12. 40 See KLEIN, 2001, 86-89; KLEIN, 2004a. It is debatable whether there was 1) a continual Christian presence from the eighth century or 2) a hiatus between an earlier Christian presence, probably dominated by Sogdian-speakers, and a later one, primarily made up of Turkic-speakers (KLEIN, 2004b, 130-31). 41 NAYMARK, 2004, 3-5. 32

treated well, due to the generally-favourable view that the Mongols held of Christianity. The Status of Syriac Christianity in the Chu Valley The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of the Church of the East in Central Asia Thanks to the two cemeteries and their contents, we have a significant amount of information about the Christian community near Lake Issyq-Köl. The cemetery in Burana (medieval Balasaghun), just south of Tokmak, is the smaller of the two, since Balasaghun at the time had a largely Muslim population, but the cemetery in Karajigach, near Bishkek, was much larger, reflecting the fact that it was located next to a Christian town called Tarsakent.42 Since the only bishop mentioned is an Armenian one43 and the highest Nestorian church office mentioned on the inscriptions is an archdeacon, we must assume that the area was overseen by the latter, rather than a bishop.44 The Christians in the area undoubtedly used Syriac as their primary liturgical language, as has been the case throughout the history of the Church of the East, but the degree to which those in the community used it outside of the liturgy is unclear. The poor quality of Syriac on the gravestones shows that those who prepared the inscriptions were not well-versed in the language, but it is difficult to know from this how literate either the clergy or laity were in Syriac.45 At the same time, as Wassilios Klein notes, if there had not been a significant degree of literacy in Syriac amongst the community, there would have been no need to produce the gravestones with inscriptions in the first place.46 Furthermore, “If Syriac dominates the tombstone inscriptions, then it follows that it must have played a substantial role as a liturgical language… As can be seen from the details relating to occupations contained on the tombstone inscriptions, there were schools both for elementary education and for ecclesiastical training... The level of competence in Syriac reflected in these inscriptions is reminiscent of a knowledge of foreign languages that has been

42

Meaning, literally, “City of the Christians,” on which see KLEIN, 2000, 132-36; KLEIN, 2001, 86. 43 МАРР, 1894. 44 The archdeacon’s residence was probably in Tarsakent (KLEIN, 2004b, 134). See also KLEIN, 2000, 240-41 on archdeacons in general. 45 Various grammatical inconsistencies are dealt with below. On the poor quality of the orthography, see KLEIN, 2002, [24]-[28]. 46 KLEIN, 2004b, 136. 33

acquired at school without any exposure to the country where the language is spoken.”47 Given the number of Turkic inscriptions in Syriac script on the gravestones, perhaps Old Uighur was also used in an ecclesiastical context. This was certainly the case in Eastern Turkistan several centuries earlier, based on the Christian texts found in Turfan,48 and there are a higher percentage of Turkic inscriptions on the gravestones found in Almaliq. William of Rubruck says that the area around Qayaliq “used to be known as Organum and to have its own language and script… Its script and language were habitually used by the Nestorians of these parts for their services and for writing their books,” perhaps a reference to the earlier use of either Sogdian or Old Uighur.49 Since neither bishops nor metropolitans are encountered in the gravestone inscriptions, we do not know which ecclesiastical diocese or even province these Christians belonged to. We have a rough idea of how the provinces of the Church of the East in Central Asia might have been organized at the time, thanks to various medieval Syriac and Christian Arabic sources which list the metropolitan see cities of the church (see below). However, we do not know how the dioceses were organized, since there are no references to bishops in Central Asia at this time, unless one considers that ‫“ يوحنا اسقف كمل‬John, bishop of Kamul,” who (according to ʿAmr ibn Mattai) was present at the consecration of Patriarch Denḥa I in 1265,50 refers to Qamil (Hami) in Chinese Turkestan.51 Interestingly, none of the Europeans who travelled through

47

KLEIN, 2001, 91. The situation was probably analogous to that of modern-day Syriac Christians in the Middle East, most of whom only use Syriac in the liturgy, whereas Arabic is their lingua franca for the rest of life, including social interaction with other Christians. On the educational situation that is revealed from the gravestones, see KLEIN, 2004b, 136. 48 See BANG, 1926 and ZIEME, 1974. 49 JACKSON, 1990, 148. Early scholars erroneously associated “Organum” with Orghina Khatun, regent of the Chaghatayid ulus (1251-1260) (PELLIOT, 1973, 114). In contrast, François Nau argued that the word was a latinization of ärkägün, the Mongol term for “Christian” (NAU, 1913, 8-9). The current scholarly consensus is that the term is “a corruption of Ürgench, the capital of Khwārazm, the name of the chief city being applied to the country as a whole” (JACKSON, 1990, 148, following PELLIOT, 1973, 113-18). My thanks to Michal Biran for clarifying my thinking on this matter (personal communication, 29 May, 2007). 50 GISMONDI, 1896-1897, ١٢١/70. On the basis of an average of three bishops per metropol-

itan in 1265, Bonin suggested that the metropolitan of Kashghar oversaw three bishoprics, namely Tokmak, Jan-baliq and Yarkand (BONIN, 1900, 585, 587), but this is pure speculation, not backed up by any solid evidence. 51 MINGANA, 1925, 328-29. 34

the area mention meeting a bishop or metropolitan,52 prompting some to ponder whether or not some of these positions were purely titular.53 Lists of metropolitanates in the Church of the East can be found in the works of Elias Jauhari of Damascus (c. 893), Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib (d. 1043), ʿAbdišo bar Berikha (1316) and ʿAmr ibn Mattai (c. 1350).54 All of the writers mention Samarkand. In addition, ʿAbdišo lists a metropolitan of the Turks, ʿAmr one of Turkestan, probably both referring to the same location. Various suggestions have been given for the location of this metropolitanate – initially created during the patriarchate of Timothy I (780-823) – including Kashghar and Otrar on the Syr Darya, but due to the uncertainty over its location, it will not be considered below.55 ʿAmr also lists Khan-baliq and AlFaliq (to be dealt with below) and Kashghar and Navekath. Unfortunately, we do not have precise start or end dates for any of these metropolitanates.56 Samarkand was the oldest and most stable of the Central Asian metropolitanates, but since it was also about 900 km by road southwest of Lake Issyq-Köl, its ecclesiastical authority likely extended only as far as the Ferghana Valley.57 Nevertheless, although we have no evidence of this from the gravestone corpus, there were presumably contacts between Christians in Samarkand and the Chu Valley as a result of travel along the Silk Road. The city was still an important centre for the Church of the East at this time. Marco Polo described a “a big church [built] in the city to the honour of St

52

PELLIOT, 1973, 5. For a discussion of the church hierarchy in Central Asia, see KLEIN, 2000, 240-49. At the same time, we know that the Turkic monk Marqos was consecrated as Metropolitan of Katay (Cathay) and Ong (i.e. Öng, the singular of Öngüt) and that only warfare in Central Asia prohibited him from returning to China to take up his position (MONTGOMERY, 1927, 41). 54 A good summary of the relevant lists of metropolitanates can be found in SACHAU, 1919, 21-22. 55 On the possible location of this metropolitanate, see NAU, 1914, 247-48; DAUVILLIER, 1948, 285-86; PELLIOT, 1973, 6-7; HUNTER, 1989/1991, 158-59. In contrast to these suggestions, Alexei Savchenko suggests that it was located at Čač (Tashkent), where coins with Christian crosses were minted (personal communication, 14 September, 2007). 56 For a discussion of these metropolitanates, see KLEIN, 2000, 250-55. On the relationship between the “metropolitans of the exterior” and the patriarch, see DAUVILLIER, 1948, 26366; HAGE, 1997, 22-25. For a map of the Church of the East in Central Asia with the various bishoprics and metropolitanates marked, see HAGE, 1970, 27. 57 Dating the establishment of the metropolitanate of Samarkand is very difficult, since it is attributed to all of the following Patriarchs by different authorities: Ahai (410-414), Shila (503-523), Isho‘yahb – either Isho‘yahb I (582-596), Isho‘yahb II (628-646), or Isho‘yahb III (650-658) – and Saliba-Zakha (714-728). It is most likely that it took place in the seventh or eighth century. On the history of the ecclesiastical province of Samarkand, see COLLESS, 1986; DAUVILLIER, 1948, 283-86; BARTHOLD, 1968, 485-87. 35 53

John the Baptist,”58 as well as a certain Mar Sergius, a “Nestorian” Christian (who we know was from Samarkand) that was appointed governor of the city of Zhenjiang (Chen-chiang) in eastern China by Kublai Khan.59 The Syriac History of Mar Yahballaha also mentions that Mar Jacob, the Metropolitan of Samarkand, was amongst those who consecrated the Turkic monk Marqos as Patriarch Yahballaha III in 1281.60 Kashghar, located over the Tien Shan Mountains, about 500 km by road south of Lake Issyq-Köl, received a metropolitan much later than Samarkand. According to ʿAmr ibn Mattai, writing c. 1350, this took place under Patriarch Eliya III (1176-1190), who consecrated two consecutive metropolitans for the city, John (‫ )يوانيس‬and Sabhrišo (‫)سربيشوع‬.61 However, a century later (c. 1280), when the monks Rabban Ṣauma and Marqos passed through the city, they found it in a state of war and desolation.62 ʿAmr’s list of metropolitanates also includes a joint metropolitanate of Kashghar and Navekath ( ‫كاشغر‬

‫)ونواكث‬.63 This seems to indicate that the historically-significant metropoli58

LATHAM, 1958, 81-82. According to Polo, the construction of the church was linked to the conversion of Chaghatay himself. A later khan, Eljigidei (1327-1330) was also reported to have built a church in Samarkand dedicated to John the Baptist, a coincidence that seems somewhat suspicious, as RYAN, 1998, 366 points out. In fact, Marco Polo could never have seen the church himself, since the head of a Sufi khanaqah in Samarkand reported in 1259 that it had been destroyed (BARTHOLD, 1968, 486). Since most of the Christians buried in the Chu Valley lived after this time, the church would have been no more than a painful reminder of the fragility of their faith in the predominantly Muslim culture around them. Three and a half centuries earlier, c. 900, the Muslim writer Ibn al-Faqih described the church at Samarkand as a well-known site, one of “le plus dignes de demeurer sur la face du temps et le plus éloignés d’être effaces” (MASSÉ, 1973, 296-97). 59 See PELLIOT, 1963, 774-76; MOULE, 1930, 145-57, 160. It is thought that, since Marco Polo could not have seen the church himself, he must have heard about it from Mar Sergius. This seems to be confirmed by a Chinese document called The History of Chên-chiang of the Chih-shun period, which speaks of Mar Sergius coming from Samarkand, “a land where the yeh-li-k’o-wên [Chinese for ärkägün, i.e. Christians] practice their religion” and refers to a “chapel” with one pillar “hanging in the air more than a foot [from the floor]” (MOULE, 1930, 146), a fact which Polo relates in his description of the church. 60 MONTGOMERY, 1927, 46. 61 GISMONDI, 1896-1897, ١١١/64. However, François Nau suggested that the elevation of

Kashghar to metropolitan status is to be equated with Patriarch Timothy’s appointment of a metropolitan for the Turks in the late eighth century (NAU, 1914, 247-48). See also DAUVILLIER, 1948, 286-88. 62 MONTGOMERY, 1927, 35. 63 GISMONDI, 1896-1897, ١٢٦/73. See also the version of this list by Ṣaliba ibn Yuḥannā

(GISMONDI, 1896-1897,

١٣٢/74).

36

tanate of Kashghar had been revived, but in conjunction with Navekath in the Chu Valley, which was much closer to the Chaghatayid capital of Almaliq.64 If so, then the Christians buried in the Chu Valley would presumably have belonged to this ecclesiastical province, located between the provinces of Samarkand to the southwest and Almaliq to the northeast. However, we have no other evidence that this city in the Chu Valley, so close to the cemeteries, had a metropolitan and no gravestone for even a Nestorian bishop, let alone a metropolitan.65 The final metropolitanate to consider is Almaliq itself, the capital of the Chaghatayid ulus, located about 650 km by road northeast of Lake IssyqKöl.66 This is somewhat less sure, based on an interpretation of Khan-baliq and Al-Faliq (‫ )خان ابلق والفالق‬in ʿAmr’s list of metropolitans.67 Rather than understanding ‫ خان ابلق‬Khan-baliq in its usual sense (referring to Peking),

Eduard Sachau suggested that it should be read as ‫ جان ابلق‬Jan-baliq, the equivalent of Besh-baliq (near modern-day Urumchi), and that ‫ الفالق‬Al-Faliq

should be read as ‫ البالق‬Ili-baliq, another name for Almaliq.68 The discovery of the Almaliq gravestones, along with the possibility that one of its rulers may have had a Christian name,69 confirms that it was an important Christian centre, but we have no solid evidence of the city’s status as a metropolitanate. Based on the gravestone inscriptions, however, we do know that several Christians from Almaliq, along with at least one from Kashghar,70 were buried in the Chu Valley cemeteries, implying that there was a certain degree of 64

As Erica C.D. Hunter has noted, there may be a parallel situation in the equation of Nishapur with the metropolitanate of Merv in the list of ʿAbdišo bar Berikha (1316): “Nišapur was never a metropolitanate, but its reputation may have bolstered the declining fortunes of Merv. Conversely, Merv may have been retained in the title on account of its renown, if the seat moved to Nišapur” (HUNTER, 1996, 137). 65 On the status of Navekath, see DAUVILLIER, 1948, 288-91; KLEIN, 2000, 136-39. Several Christian artifacts, including five pectoral crosses and a Sogdian inscription on a ceramic vessel, have been discovered in modern Krasnaya Rečka, the site of medieval Navekath (KLEIN, 2000, 112-13). For its location, see BREGEL, 2003, 5. See also the discussion in MINORSKY, 1970, 289-90. 66 On which, see DAUVILLIER, 1948, 305-08. Nau rather confusingly asserts that the capital of the (ecclesiastical or Chaghatayid?) province was Almaliq, but that the metropolitanate responsible for those buried in the cemeteries was “sans doubte” Kashghar (NAU, 1913, 18 and NAU, 1914, 335). 67 GISMONDI, 1896-1897, ١٢٦/73. 68 69 70

SACHAU, 1919, 22. See also DAUVILLIER, 1948, 305-06. Prince ’Ozar in 1211 (DAUVILLIER, 1948, 305). CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 98, 3,3, 11,1; CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 261, 211. 37

interaction between Christians in these cities. In the end, we cannot know for sure which metropolitanate those buried in the Chu Valley cemeteries came under. Medieval Travel Accounts In addition to the above information derived from Syriac and Christian Arabic literature, we are also fortunate to have more travel accounts related to Central Asia from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries than from any other time prior to the modern era. Although some of them give us significant information about the general status of Christianity in Central Asia and China at that time, there is less data on the state of the Nestorian Christians in Semirechye-Zheti Su than we would like. The earliest account is that of Ch’ang Ch’un, a Taoist monk and alchemist who travelled through Central Asia in 1219 en route to see Chingiz Khan at his orda in Afghanistan. He mentions that, when passing the city of Lun-t’ai (also known as Bügür, located on the northern rim of the Tarim Basin), “the head of the Tarsa [as Christians were known in Central Asia71] came to meet us.”72 In contrast, the Franciscan monk John of Plano Carpini, travelling through the area in 1246, makes no mention of Christians at all in “the land of the Black Kitayans.”73 Similarly, his fellow-traveller Benedict the Pole says of the “land which is called Kara Kitai” that “the inhabitants are pagans.”74 More promising is the account of William of Rubruck, who passed through Central Asia en route to see Khan Möngke in Khan-baliq (Peking) in 1253. His comments on the Christians of Qayaliq have been noted above. Of the Uighurs, he said, “All their cities contain Nestorians and Saracens intermingled… I encountered a man who had on his hand a little cross in black ink [i.e. a tattoo], which led me to believe he was a Christian, since he answered like a Christian all the questions I put to him.” 75 At one point, Rubruck speaks of entering a church in a settlement that was entirely Nestorian near the town of Qayaliq and breaking into a chant “as we had not seen a church for a long time.”76 Marco Polo, who journeyed through Central Asia 71

In Pahlavi, a Christian was called tarsāg, in New Persian

‫ ترسا‬tarsā, from the verb ‫ترسيدن‬,

tarsidān, “to fear.” On the possible origin of this term, see PINES, 1968. 72 WALEY, 1931, 82. See also MOULE, 1930, 216-18. 73 DAWSON, 1955, 59. 74 DAWSON, 1955, 81. Andrew of Longjumeau’s account of his passage through Central Asia in 1249-1250 is even briefer, mentioning only some German slaves in Talas ( DE RACHEWILTZ, 1971, 123). 75 JACKSON, 1990, 150. 76 JACKSON, 1990, 165. 38

in 1275, mentions Christians in Samarkand, Kashghar, Yarkand, Qara Khoja (near Turfan), and Ghinghintalas, which is generally identified with Barkul (= Bars-köl, to the north of Qamil).77 However, since he did not take the northern route of the Silk Road (as William of Rubruck had), he does not mention any in Semirechye-Zheti Su. Travelling in the opposite direction, the Turkic monks Rabban Ṣauma and Marqos78 passed through Central Asia en route to Jerusalem shortly after Marco Polo, c. 1280. They also took the southern route of the Silk Road, but no mention is made of Christians in Kashghar.79 Fifty years later, the Franciscan Odoric of Pordenone, returning to Europe from Khan-baliq c. 1328, did not even mention the Christians of Tangut that Rabban Ṣauma and Marqos had praised for their ardent belief, let alone Christians anywhere else on his route.80 By this time, the Catholics had established a presence in the area.81 Almaliq was probably made a bishopric in the 1320s. Thomas of Mancasola was appointed bishop of Samarkand in 1329. A third bishopric was set up in Urgench, in Khwarazm, sometime before 1340. Responsible in part for this openness to Christianity was the Chaghatayid ruler Eljigidei (1327-1330). However, the conversion to Islam (probably around the same time) and subsequent accession to the throne of his brother Tarmashirin in 1331 ultimately resulted in a decline in the fortunes of Christians in the khanate, whether “Nestorian” or Catholic.82 The Muslim traveller Ibn Baṭṭuta, who passed through Central Asia in 1332-1333, spent nearly two months at the court of Tarmashirin near Nakhshab (modern-day Qarshi, Uzbekistan), but he does not mention any Christians in the area.83 Not long afterwards, the plague swept through the 77

LATHAM, 1958, 80-82, 88-89. On the identification of Ghinghintalas with Barkul/Barsköl, see MOULE, 1930, 131. 78 Although Bar Hebraeus calls them Uighurs (ABBELOOS & LAMY, 1877, col. 451-54; BUDGE, 1932, 492), they were actually Öngüt Turks (BORBONE, 2005, 11-12). 79 MONTGOMERY, 1927, 35. Another important Catholic traveller to the East, John of Monte Corvino, travelled to China via India (1291-1294) and so did not pass through Central Asia. 80 DE RACHEWILTZ, 1971, 184-85. 81 An excellent overview can be found in RYAN, 1998. See HAGE, 1970, 63 for a map of Catholic missions in Central Asia. 82 Although, as RYAN, 1998, 367-68 notes, there was also openness towards, or at least tolerance of, Christianity under his successors Buzan (1334-1335) and Changshi (1335-1337). 83 GIBB, 1929, 172-74. Of course, Ibn Baṭṭuta did not travel through Semirechye-Zheti Su. Also, since he was meeting the newly converted khan of the Chaghatay ulus and his primary motive was to describe the spread of Islam throughout the known world, it is not surprising that he does not mention Christians in the area. He does, however, mention Christian Qipchaqs further west in the Muslim Qipchaq Khanate (ibid, 142). 39

area, a fact borne out by the large number of gravestones from the years 1338-1339.84 In the same year, 1339, seven residents of the Catholic friary at Almaliq were martyred, including the bishop, Richard of Burgundy. A year later, John of Marignolli stopped in Almaliq while en route to Khan-baliq. After learning of the martyrdoms the previous year, he “built a church, bought a piece of ground, dug wells, sung masses and baptized several; preaching freely and openly.”85 Despite the optimism of this account, however, the indigenous Christian community, after a presence of at least six centuries in the area, was on the verge of dying out.86 Christian Gravestones in Tashkent The National Historical Museum of Uzbekistan in Tashkent is the current name of the former Lenin Museum, originally opened in 1970 on the anniversary of the revolutionary’s birth. After Uzbekistan gained its independence in 1991, the museum’s contents were supplemented by archaeological material from the former Aybek Museum, founded in 1876, and the whole museum was subsequently closed for several years in order to update the tired old Soviet-style exhibits to a presentation more in keeping with modern museology. The renovated museum opened on 31 March, 2003. At the time, I was living and working in Uzbekistan and so I took advantage of the opportunity to see the new exhibits. Prominently displayed on the second floor in their own display case are four Christian gravestones in Syriac script.87 In April 2003, I obtained permission to photograph the four gravestones on display, which I will now pro84

CHWOLSON, 1890, 85-91; CHWOLSON, 1897, 33-38. This was the same plague which ravaged Europe shortly after, from 1347 to 1351. 85 YULE & CORDIER, 1914, 212. See also MOULE, 1930, 255-56; STANDAERT, 2001, 75-76. 86 Yet the memory of these Christians was not entirely lost, as we learn from the Portuguese Jesuit Benedict Goës. Passing through the Tarim Basin 250 years later, in 1603, he was told by the prince of Cialis, which Cordier equates with Qarashahr, located midway between Kucha and Turfan on the middle route of the Silk Road, that “Christians were really Misermans [musulmans = Muslims?], or True Believers, adding that his own ancestors had been professors of their faith” (YULE & CORDIER, 1916, 233-34). 87 МИНАСЯНЦ, 1992, 17-18 details how originally 17 gravestones were acquired by the Turkestan National Museum in 1918, of which only 13 are still extant. In addition to the four on display, another seven gravestones are kept in the attic of the museum and one in the History Faculty of the National University of Uzbekistan named after Mirza Ulugbeg, formerly known as TashGU (I do not know where the thirteenth stone is). See also МУСАКАЕВА, 1994, 46. My thanks to Alexei Savchenko for clarifying various questions about these stones and supplying me with the article by Mr. Minasiants (see next footnote also), as well as images he took of the stones to compare with my own photographs. 40

ceed to describe.88 As with most of the gravestones from the Chu Valley, the workmanship on these stones is somewhat crude and the inscriptions, in Syriac Estrangelo script, are difficult to decipher in places. Each of the stones appears to be the work of a separate engraver. Although I did not verify their geological makeup, Thacker has noted that most of the stones are of diorite, with some of bluish granite and a few of grey sandstone.89 Gravestone No. 1 The first gravestone [Fig. 2-1] is dated to 1573 SE (1261/62 CE). It is No. 5 in CHWOLSON, 1897.90 The inscription is engraved on three sides of what is often referred to as a “Nestorian cross,” or a “pearl cross.”91 In addition, the cross is placed on a raised stand. Syriac Text and Transliteration:92

‫ܫܢܬ ܐܬܩܥܓ‬ ‫ܗܕܐ ܗܝ ܩܒܪܗ‬ ‫ܦܗܛܣܝܣ؟‬ ‫ܣܐ‬ ‫ݎܘܫܛܐܢܨ‬ 88

šant 1000 + 400 + 100 + 70 + 393 hādāy qabrāh PHṬSYS-?94 sā qušṭānṣ

I am grateful to Dr. Margarita Filanovich (ret’d.), Dr. Edvard Rtveladze (Scientific Research Institute of the Academy of Arts of Uzbekistan) and Dr. Timur Shirinov (Samarkand Institute of Archaeology) for references & letters of introduction to the museum; to the museum director, Dr. Jannat Ismailova, for permission to take photos and to the curator, Mr. Vazgen Minasiants, for taking the stones out of their display case so I could photograph them. 89 THACKER, 1967, 95. 90 Cat. 908/8 in the Tashkent museum, 28.5 cm high x 20.5 cm wide. My thanks to Alexei Savchenko for supplying me with the catalogue numbers and dimensions of the four stones. A photograph with translation can also be found in BAUMER, 2006, 210. 91 On these and other crosses used in Central Asia, see DAUVILLIER, 1956; PARRY, 1996, 145-47; KLEIN & RECK, 2004; ROTT, 2006. On the general iconography of the gravestones, see EGAMI, 1966. On the use of the cross in Central Asia across the religious spectrum, see KLIMKEIT, 1979. 92 Since we do not know exactly how Syriac was pronounced by the community that produced these gravestones, I have chosen to follow the pronunciation of classical Syriac. Spirantized sounds are underlined. Non-Syriac names are transcribed according to RÁSONYI & BASKI, 2007. 93 It looks like there might be a final ‫ ܣ‬after the ‫ ܓ‬in the date, but this makes no sense and Chwolson has not included it, so I have not taken it into account in my reading. 94 Capital letters indicate uncertainty over the vocalization of this name. 41

‫ ܐܡܗ ܕܐܝܣܦܗܣܐܠܪ‬emeh d-ispah-salār Translation: The year 1573 [1261/62 CE]. This is the grave of PHṬSYS-sā qušṭānṣ (the teacher), the mother of the commander-in-chief. Commentary: This gravestone is a good example of the wealth of information, both linguistic and non-linguistic, that we can gain from this corpus. Linguistically, we may note the following:95 1. Whereas grammatically it would be more correct to have the prefix ‫( ܒ‬b, “in”) before the word ‫( ܫܢܬ‬šant, “year”), as is the case in the next three inscriptions,96 it is missing here and in many inscriptions in the corpus. 2. The demonstrative pronoun “this” in the phrase “this is the grave” should always be in the masculine, since it refers to the masculine noun ‫ܩܒܪ‬ (qabr, “grave”). On the gravestones, however, when the person named is a female, as with this example, the demonstrative pronoun “this” is changed from the masculine ‫( ܗܢܘ‬hānaw) to the feminine ‫ܗܕܐ ܗܝ‬ (hādāy). 3. In order to express the phrase “the grave of [name],” the prefix ‫( ܕ‬d, “of”) should be added to the name, but here it is missing (although it has been correctly used in the expression emeh d-ispah-salār “mother of the commander-in-chief”). These minor details, along with many other mistakes in the inscriptions, show that the stone-carvers were certainly not native speakers of Syriac and may not have been literate in any language.97 The word ‫( ݎܘܫܛܐܢܨ‬qušṭānṣ) is interesting on several accounts. It begins with a special letter ‫ ݎ‬that is borrowed from the Christian Sogdian alphabet, which in turn was a modified version of the Syriac alphabet. Although ‫ ݎ‬in Christian Sogdian is used to represent phonetic /x/,98 in Christian Turkic texts (primarily the gravestones), it generally represents phonetic

95

For more on the following grammatical and orthographic points, see KLEIN, 2002, [11][18]. 96 Tashkent gravestones No. 2-4 all have the more grammatically correct bašnat (“in the year”). 97 As KLEIN, 2002, [22] notes, “the orthography of the Turkic parts of these inscriptions is no better… The stonemasons were here as elsewhere illiterate, uneducated people.” 98 SIMS-WILLIAMS, 1989, 178; SIMS-WILLIAMS & EVERSON, 2002. 42

/q/, especially in Turkic words and personal names,99 but it can also represent phonetic /k/ in Turkic words.100 By comparison, the Syriac letter ‫ ܟ‬can represent both 1) its usual value of phonetic /k/ in Syriac words and names and 2) phonetic /q/ in Turkic words and names,101 showing that there was no direct correlation between these two letters and the sounds /k/ and /q/. Until recently, scholars dealing with the gravestones understood qušṭānṣ to be a corrupted form of Constance (or Constantia),102 the feminine form of the Late Latin name Constantius, which was itself derived from Constans, meaning “constant, steadfast.” It occurs frequently in the gravestone corpus, along with its variant ‫( ݎܘܢܫܛܢܨ‬qunšṭanṣ), ‫( ݎܘܫܛܢܨ‬qušṭanṣ) and ‫ݎܘܫܛܨ‬ (qušṭaṣ).103 In almost every case, it occurs after a female name (e.g. ‫ܡܪܝܡ‬, Maryam; ‫ܪܦܩܐ‬, Rafiqa; ‫ܦܒܪܘܢܝܐ‬, Febronia). However, Werner Sundermann has pointed out that this word is actually *xuštānč, a loan-word from Sogdian. Although unattested in Sogdian, it would be the feminine form of xušte, xušt, which is found in the gravestone corpus in the form ‫( ݎܘܫܛܝ‬qušṭi).104 The original meaning is “elder, eldest,” but in Christian Sogdian texts it usually means “teacher.” Thus, the pronunciation of the word should be amended to qušṭānč, since the Syriac letter ‫ ܨ‬is consistently used to render the Turkic sound /č/ on the gravestones. Whether those with this title taught in schools overseen by the church or were possibly in charge of educating the daughters of the ruling class is unclear.105 99

e.g. ‫( ݎܘܝ‬qoy) “sheep” and ‫( ݎܐܛܘܢ‬qātun, khātun) “lady” (CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 42). PELLIOT, 1973, 272 suggested that it was also used for Iranian (Sogdian or Persian) names, but gave no examples. Perhaps he was aware of the Sogdian origin of this letter, discussed below. 100 e.g. ‫( ݎܘܝܙܝ‬közi) “his eyes” (CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 97). 101 e.g. ‫( ܟܘܛܘܟ‬quduq) “well,” here used as a personal name (CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 97,4). See also Nöldeke’s discussion of this letter (NÖLDEKE, 1890, 525). The letter ‫ ܩ‬is only used for Syriac words, where it represents the expected phonetic /q/. 102 CHWOLSON, 1886, 23; CHWOLSON, 1890, 12, 134; KLEIN, 1994, 435. However, Nöldeke expressed doubts about this early on (NÖLDEKE, 1890, 525). 103 See CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 19, 19,1, 42,1, 42,3, 61, 65, 80,1, 85, VI, XXVI; CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 4, 5, 28, 40, 71, 104, 155, 194, 195, 1, 310, 312. NAU, 1914, 336 suggested that it was the most common female name in the corpus. The variant spellings ‫ݎܘܫܛܐܢܨ‬, ‫ݎܘܫܛܢܨ‬, ‫ݎܘܫܛܨ‬, ‫( ݎܘܢܫܛܢܨ‬see CHABOT, 1906, 290-91) generally involve the presence or absence of the letter nun in either or both syllables. 104 CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 75,2, where it occurs with the masculine name ‫( ܨܡܚܐ‬Ṣemḥa). 105 SUNDERMANN, 1995. As Sundermann notes, the Russian scholar V.A. Livshits independently came to the same conclusion some years earlier. See also KLEIN, 2000, 267-68; KLEIN, 2004b, 136. My thanks to both Wassilios Klein and Peter Zieme for alerting me to Sundermann’s article and to Nicholas Sims-Williams (personal communication, 12 December, 2007) for clarifying the meaning of this term. 43

On this gravestone, there are clearly two lines below hādāy qabrāh (“this is the grave of”) but it is very difficult to make them out, either on my photograph or one kindly supplied to me by Alexei Savchenko. Chwolson, noting a “strange scratch,” a ‫ ܛ‬and beneath it ‫ܣܐ‬, concluded that the stone-carver intended to write the name of the deceased here and made a mistake.106 However, since qušṭānṣ (or rather, qušṭānč) cannot be interpreted as the name on this gravestone and refers rather to the title “teacher,” the personal name must be located below hādāy qabrāh and above qušṭānč. My best reading of this is ‫( ܦܗܛܣܝܣ؟‬PHṬSYS), followed by ‫( ܣܐ‬sā) on the second line. ‫ܦܗܛ‬ (PHṬ) might possibly stand for Persian ‫ خبت‬baxt (“luck, fortune”), a name attested amongst Turkic peoples,107 but I am unable to make sense of the rest of the name.108 Regarding the date, this stone is one of only about 10% of Chwolson’s corpus109 that give the date strictly according to the Seleucid Era. Two methods of giving the Seleucid date are used in the corpus: 1) spelling out the numbers and 2) using the numerical equivalents of the letters of the Syriac alphabet, which is the method used on this stone, as well as the next two. In this case, the letters for 1000 + 400 + 100 + 70 + 3 are added together to give the date of 1573 SE, equivalent to 1 Oct. 1261-30 Sept. 1262 CE.110 The word ‫( ܐܝܣܦܗܣܐܠܪ‬ispah-salār) represents Persian ‫“( اسپهساالر‬military leader” or “commander-in-chief”).111 As Chwolson noted, it is found on three gravestones in the corpus, all in CHWOLSON, 1897: 1) this one (No. 5) from 1573 SE (1261/62 CE); 2) No. 71 from 1624 SE (1312/13 CE), the grave of “Tap-tirim qušṭānč (the teacher), the daughter of the ispah-salār”;

106

CHWOLSON, 1897, 7. RÁSONYI & BASKI, 2007, 96. 108 Although baxtsiz – formed by the addition of the Turkic negative adjectival suffix -siz and meaning “unlucky” – fits my reading of PHṬSYS, it is highly unlikely this name would be given to a child in Turkic culture, for obvious reasons. 109 According to BAZIN, 1991, 415. 110 For a table of the non-adjusted (to be explained below) equivalents between Seleucid Era dates, Common Era dates and the animal-cycle dates, see KLEIN, 2000, 339-48. 111 The word itself is very hard to read and could equally be read as just ‫( ܐܣܦܗܣܐܠܪ‬aspa107

hsalār), a variant spelling of ispahsalār. An alternative form is

‫ سپه ساالر‬sipahsalār

(STEINGASS, 1892, 653). My thanks to Christine van Ruymbeke for this information (personal communication, 27 April, 2006). The use of Persian terms so far east is not surprising, especially given William of Rubruck’s comments about the town of Equius (probably Quyas, near Almaliq), “inhabited by Saracens who spoke Persian, though they were a very long way from Persia” (JACKSON, 1990, 147). 44

and 3) No. 193 from 1650 SE (1338/39 CE), the grave of “Elišma (i.e. Elišba), the wife of Yuḥannan Tegin Beg Mirza (?), the ispah-salār.” Whether or not we are dealing with one family is impossible to say, but the fifty-year gap between PHṬSYS-sā qušṭānč (the mother of the ispahsalār) and Tap-tirim qušṭānč (the daughter of the ispah-salār), along with the fact that both women were teachers, makes this a plausible suggestion.112 Since the military commander’s name is not given in either case (No. 5 and No. 71), this may indicate that he was so well-known in the community that it was not necessary to name him. Two (or possibly three) other military commanders are also mentioned in the corpus, all employing the standard Syriac term ‫( ܪܒܚܝܐܠ‬rab ḥaylā)113: 1) the commander/amir George (undated) and 2) the priest and commander/amir Ṣauma, the son of the commander/amir George (1583 SE = 1271/72 CE).114 There are, of course, other examples of Christian military leaders during the Mongol period outside of the gravestone corpus, including the famous Mongol general Kitbuqa, a Kerait Christian, who captured Aleppo and Damascus for the Il-khanids, and King George of the Öngüt.115 The ongoing presence of Christians in the military in Central Asia is also suggested by the discovery of a tomb near Samarkand where the deceased was buried with a gold cross sewn on his clothing over his stomach, along with a quiver full of arrows.116 Gravestone No. 2 The second gravestone [Fig. 2-2] is dated to 1591 SE (1279/80 CE). It is No. 18 in CHWOLSON, 1897.117 The inscription is engraved under a small cross with indented arms and consists of two horizontal lines and six vertical lines.

112

See also CHWOLSON, 1897, p. 53. Literally, “great power” (see PAYNE SMITH, 1902, 140). 114 CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 309; CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 83. Since George’s gravestone is undated, it is impossible to know if he is the same George as the one named on Sauma’s gravestone. See also Chwolson’s comments on this stone (CHWOLSON, 1890, 129, 162). As Léon Cahun noted, this is the last epitaph of a Christian military commander found in the cemeteries, possibly indicating the subsequent decline of Christianity in the region (CAHUN, 1896, 407). See also the discussion in KLEIN, 2000, 256-57. 115 See also CHWOLSON, 1890, 129, 162-63. 116 The author suggests that the deceased was probably both a priest and a soldier (ШИШКИНА, 1994, 57). See also NAYMARK, 2004, 4-5. 117 Cat. 206/1 in the Tashkent museum, 22 cm high x 15 cm wide. 45 113

Syriac Text and Transliteration:

‫ܒܫܢܬ ܐܬܩܨܐ‬ ‫ܫܢܬ ܐܬܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܗܕܐ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܩܒܪܗ‬ ‫ܕܕܘܠܛܐܝܫܝ‬ ‫ܒܪܬܗ ܕܫܠܝܚܐ‬ ‫ܩܫܝܫܐ ܬܒܣܡ‬ ‫ܡܪܝܐ ܒܡܠܟܘܬܗ‬

bašnat 1000 + 400 + 100 +90 + 1 šant ātliyā hādāy qabrāh d-Dawlat-eši118 barteh d-Šliḥā qašišā tebsam māryā119 bmalkuteh

Translation: In the year 1591 [1279/80 CE], the year of the dragon. This is the grave of Dawlat-eši, the daughter of Šliḥa the priest. May she please the Lord in his kingdom. Commentary: Unlike the previous gravestone, this one employs both dating systems.120 Theoretically, since the new year in the Seleucid system began on 1 October and the new year in the animal-cycle began between 14 January and 14 February, each year in the Seleucid system should correspond to parts of two years in the animal-cycle and vice versa. However, upon analyzing the data, Louis Bazin concluded that in fact the animal-cycle dates on most of the gravestones were adjusted to coincide with the SE dates. Thus, each year had only one SE date and one animal-cycle designation.121 If this is the case with this gravestone (since those carving the gravestones were not consistent with this), then we can date this stone to somewhere between 1 October 1279 and 30 September 1280. Of particular interest is the use of ‫( ܐܬܠܝܐ‬ātliyā) for “dragon.” In common usage, and even for the sign of the Zodiac, the standard Syriac word is 118

It is difficult to tell from photographs whether this name ends in ‫ܐܫ‬, ‫ ܐܝܫ‬or ‫ܐܝܫܝ‬. Thus, the ending could be pronounced -āš, -iš or -eši. Since Chwolson seems to have read it as the latter and this fits in with my proposed reading, I have chosen this option. 119 Chwolson read this as ‫ ܡܪܝܐ‬māryā, but it could also be ‫ ܡܪܐ‬mārā, meaning respectively “the LORD” (i.e. Yahweh) and “lord” (PAYNE SMITH, 1902, 298). 120 As do 82% of the inscriptions, according to BAZIN, 1991, 415. 121 BAZIN, 1991, 417-18. For a table of the adjusted equivalents between Seleucid Era dates, Common Era dates and the animal-cycle dates, see KLEIN, 2000, 349-53. 46

‫( ܬܢܝܢܐ‬taninā), 122 whereas ātliyā means “solar or lunar eclipse.” 123 This word, or its variant ‫( ܐܗܠܝܐ‬āhliyā),124 is the only Syriac word used to designate the year of the dragon on the gravestones, although its Turkic equivalent ‫( ܠܘܘ‬luu), a loanword from Chinese, is also used on many of the gravestones for the same purpose.125 François Nau suggested that it should be read as “Ataliā,” in order to connect it with the Assyrian word Atalū, meaning “eclipse.”126 Chwolson and Theodor Nöldeke both gave considerable room to the discussion of this word, Chwolson suggesting that it was related to Hebrew ‫תלי‬, which was also translated as “dragon” in medieval rabbinic literature, possibly referring to the Milky Way, and ultimately originating in Babylonian astrological literature.127 Nöldeke, who agreed with Chwolson’s basic conclusions, further suggested that it might come from Greek άνθήλια (or άνθηλία)128 and also noted the fact that many ancient and medieval cultures thought of an eclipse as the result of a cosmic dragon devouring the sun. 129 It is interesting in this respect to note a conversation about an eclipse between Ch’ang Ch’un, the Taoist monk who travelled through Central Asia in 1219, and a Chinese astrologer in Samarkand, who remarked, “Here the eclipse was at its full at the hour of the Dragon, when it covered three-fifths of the sun.”130 Both Nöldeke and (in response) Chwolson suggested several other places in Syriac literature where ‫( ܐܬܠܝܐ‬ātliyā) seems to have the meaning of “dragon,” including one of the poems of Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286), a passage in the History of Mar Yahballaha (after 1317), and a reference to an eclipse in the Chronology of Simeon Šanqlawaya (c. 1200?).131 There is, however, one other very clear use of this word to designate “dragon.” It can be found in a treatise on the causes of a lunar eclipse by the West Syriac (“Jacobite”) 122

PAYNE SMITH, 1902, 616; NAU, 1896, 163. PAYNE SMITH, 1879, col. 423. 124 See, e.g. CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 74. 125 See, e.g. CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 3. On the etymology of luu, see CLAUSON, 1972, 762. In Qarakhanid, luu was replaced by nag, a loan-word from Sanskrit (CLAUSON, 1972, 776). 126 NAU, 1910a, 220. 127 CHWOLSON, 1890, 122-23. 128 This Greek word can be glossed as either “opposite the sun” (LIDDELL & SCOTT, 1996, 152) or “false sun” (SOPHOCLES, 1900, 168), both of which could suggest an eclipse, although the Greek word for eclipse is, of course, έκλειψις. 129 NÖLDEKE, 1890, 523-24. See also Chwolson’s response to this (CHWOLSON, 1897, 5960). 130 WALEY, 1931, 94. 131 NÖLDEKE, 1890, 524; CHWOLSON, 1897, 59-60. For the passage in the History of Mar Yahballaha, see BEDJAN, 1895, 53-54 (text) and MONTGOMERY, 1927, 54 (translation). 47 123

scholar Severus Sebokht, bishop of the monastery of Qennešrin, written in 971 SE (659/60 CE). In an effort to combat mistaken notions about the cause of an eclipse, Severus writes:

̈ ̈ ‫ܐܣܬܠܟܘܗ‬ ̇ ‫ܩܕܡܝܐ ܒܕܝܐ‬ ̇ ‫ ܐܬܪܥܝܘ‬...‫ܗܘ ܕܐܬܠܝܐ ܪܟܒܘ‬ ‫ܐܢܫܝܢ ܡܢ‬ ‫ܡܛܠ ܕܐܠ‬ ̈ ‫ ܡܛܠ ܠܡ ܕܒܐܦܝ ܬ̈ܪܝܗܘܢ ܢܗܝ̈ܪܐ‬.‫ܕܡܛܠ ܗܕܐ ̇ܗܘܝܐ ܐܩܠܦܣܝܣ ܣܗܪܢܬܝܐ‬ ܲ ‫ ܘܚܘܝܢܢ ܢܗܝܪܐܬܝ ܕܠܬܝܘܗܝ‬...‫ܘܡܚܦܐ ܠܗܘܢ ܡܢ ̈ܚܕܕܐ‬ .‫ܩܐܡ ܐܬܠܝܐ‬ 132 .‫ܐܬܠܝܐ‬

Because they did not understand, men from the ancients composed that fiction about the dragon (ātliyā)… They supposed that this lunar eclipse happened because ‘a dragon (ātliyā) rises up in front of the two lights and hides them from each other’… But we have demonstrated clearly that it is not a dragon (ātliyā). Somehow, this distinct usage of the Syriac word ‫ ܐܬܠܝܐ‬migrated from a West Syriac scholar of the seventh century to East Syriac Christians in Central Asia, living six centuries later.133 Chwolson read the name on this stone (‫ )ܕܘܠܛܐܝܫܝ‬as “Dultaïschi,” but I propose to read it as Dawlat-eši or possibly Dawlat-aša. The name “Dawlat” (Persian ‫دولت‬, “wealth, government”) occurs on two other stones in Chwolson’s corpus, both of them also females: ‫ ܕܘܠܝܛ‬in CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 49,9 and ‫ ܕܘܠܛ‬in CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 229, transliterated by Chwolson as “Dulit” and “Daulet” respectively.134 The ending is either ‫( ܐܝܫܝ‬eši) or, less likely, ‫( ܐܫܐ‬aša). The former means, “lady, the feminine counterpart of beg [referring to a common Turkic title for “lord”].”135 Klaus Röhrborn has outlined several different senses in which Old Turkic eši is used, usually in conjunction with the term beg (or bäg): 1) woman, lady; 2) princess; 3) female companion of a beg; 4) attendant of a beg; and 5) business of a beg.136 The second term, aša, is found on the end of many female names in the corpus.137 László Rásonyi suggested that it actually represents Turkic ača, 132

NAU, 1910a, 222-23. See also NAU, 1910b, 253-54. On the “mythological dragon… which was assumed to cause solar and lunar eclipses” in Arabic thought, see Encyclopaedia of Islam, s.v. Tinnīn. 134 See also RÁSONYI & BASKI, 2007, 235-37. 135 CLAUSON, 1972, 256. On the occurrence of this term in the gravestone corpus, see KLEIN, 2000, 257. 136 RÖHRBORN, 2000. 137 CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 19,1, 27,2, 38,3, 42,1, 50,1; CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 11, 14, 46, 51, 86, 107, 132, 134, 137, 240, 249, 259, 281, 291-293. 48 133

meaning “older sister,” “woman” or “aunt.”138 If so, then it must be a dialectal variant, since Turkic č is always represented by the Syriac letter ‫( ܨ‬never ‫ )ܫ‬in the inscriptions. However, in the absence of a final ‫ ܐ‬in this name (necessary if the ending is ‫)ܐܫܐ‬, eši is probably the correct reading, thus referring to a woman of considerable social rank.139 Dawlat-eši’s father, Šliḥa (meaning “apostle, messenger”) was a priest, one of many buried in the two cemeteries.140 His name is also a common one in the corpus141 and shows how both Syriac and Turkic (or in this case, Persian) names co-existed in Christian families in the Chu Valley at this time. Chwolson suggested that there are grammatical problems with the last three words, ‫( ܬܒܣܡ ܡܪܝܐ ܒܡܠܟܘܬܗ‬tebsam māryā bmalkuteh), which ought to have been written as either: 1) ‫( ܬܒܣܡ ܒܡܪܝܐ ܒܡܠܟܘܬܗ‬tebsam bmāryā bmalkuteh), meaning “May she delight in the Lord in his kingdom,” or 2) ‫( ܬܒܣܐܡ ܒܡܠܟܘܬܗ ܕܡܪܝܐ‬tebsam bmalkuteh dmāryā), meaning “May she delight in the kingdom of the Lord.” 142 However, there is a third option for interpreting the last sentence, which is the reading I have adopted, namely ‫( ܬܒܣܡ ܠܡܪܝܐ ܒܡܠܟܘܬܗ‬tebsam lmāryā bmalkuteh), meaning “May she please the Lord in his kingdom.” Since the prefix ‫ ܠ‬is frequently omitted before a direct object, this reading does not require any additions or changes to the text as it stands.143 Gravestone No. 3 The third gravestone [Fig. 2-3] is dated to 1605 SE (1293/94 CE), but is not in the Chwolson corpus and is published here, to the best of my 138

RÁSONYI, 1962, 232. See also CLAUSON, 1972, 20. There are only two other occurrences of eši, spelt ‫ܐܫܝ‬, in the corpus: ‫ݎܘܛܠܘܟ ܐܫܝ‬ (Qutluq-eši) and ‫( ܐܫܝܛܐܪܝܡ‬Eši-Tarim), although there is also a variant spelling of the latter name: ‫( ܐܫܛܐܪܝܡ‬CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 138, 157, 215). On these, or similar, names recorded in Chinese sources, see PELLIOT, 1973, 277-79, 284. 140 On which, see KLEIN, 2000, 244-47. 141 See CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 11,2, 27, 50,24, 73; CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 18, 115, 210, 265, 296. 142 CHWOLSON, 1897, 10. 143 The verb ‫ ܒܣܡ‬means “to be fragrant,” and by extension, “to please” (with the prefix ‫)ܠ‬ or “to enjoy/delight in” (with the prefix ‫( )ܒ‬PAYNE SMITH, 1902, 49). The notion that believers can delight the Lord, as well as take delight in the Lord, is mentioned in the Bible (Psa. 149:4; Zeph. 3:17; II Cor. 5:9), something which perhaps Chwolson overlooked. My thanks to my supervisor, Erica C.D. Hunter, for clarifying the grammatical issues involved in this sentence. 49 139

knowledge, for the first time.144 Unlike the previous two gravestones, the tips of each arm on the “pearl cross” are pointed, rather than indented. The inscription runs along three sides of the stone. Syriac Text and Transliteration:

‫ܒܫܢܬ ܐܬܪܗ‬ ‫ܝܘܢܛ ܗܢܘ ܩܒܪܗ‬ ‫ܕܐܝܫܥܝܐ ܩܫܐ ܒܪܗ ܣܥܘܪܐ‬ )‫ݎܘܛܠܘܟ؟ (ݎܘܛܐܝ؟) (ݎܘܛܐܫ؟‬

bašnat 1000 + 400 + 200 + 5 yunt hānaw qabreh d-Ešayā qašā breh surā Qutluq? (Qutāy?) (Qutāš?)

Translation: In the year 1605 [1293/94 CE], [the year of] the horse. This is the grave of Isaiah the priest, son of the church visitor Qutluq (or Qutāy or Qutāš?). Commentary: This inscription is uncommon, in that it uses only the Turkic word to indicate the year in the animal-cycle system, namely yunt (“horse”).145 Although not common in the corpus, the name Isaiah also occurs in CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 313 (p. 51). Here ‫( ܩܫܐ‬qašā), the contracted form of ‫ܩܫܝܫܐ‬ (qašišā), is used for “priest.” Although the name of Isaiah’s father is unclear on the stone, it is definitely Turkic and looks like Qutluq,146 Qutāy,147 or Qutāš.148 The father is one of 22 clerics designated by the term ‫( ܣܥܘܪܐ‬surā) that occur on the gravestones.149 This term can be translated as church visitor, periodeutes or chore144

Cat. 201/3 in the Tashkent museum, 28.5 cm high x 20 cm wide. Where the SE date is not given, it is more common to have both the Syriac and the Turkic name for the animal-year. See also CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 41, 41,1, 53,1, where yunt occurs in conjunction with ‫( ܣܘܣܝܐ‬susāyā), the Syriac word for horse. 146 An important Turkic word meaning “fortunate, happy, blessed” (CLAUSON, 1972, 601) which occurs often as a name in the corpus (CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 19,1, 21, 24, 29, 36, 41, 48,5, 50,15, 50,16, 53, 75, 80, XIX, XXII, XXIX, XXXIII; CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 58, 113, 129, 138, 149, 156, 179, 223, 231, 285, 286, 325). See RÁSONYI & BASKI, 2007, 507-12. 147 A much less common name in the corpus, found only in CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 189. It is a combination of the Turkic words qut, “good fortune, happiness” and āy, “moon” (CLAUSON, 1972, 594, 265). However, as RÁSONYI & BASKI, 2007, lxiii note, the -āy suffix is usually used for females, so this interpretation is unlikely. Compare RÁSONYI & BASKI, 2007, 16. 148 Again, a less common name, found in CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 21,1, XL; CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 137. See RÁSONYI & BASKI, 2007, 507. 149 The gravestone numbers are listed in KLEIN, 2000, 242-43. 50 145

piscopus – the latter two terms also occur independently in the corpus: ‫( ܦܪܝܕܘܛܐ‬peryādewṭā) and ‫( ܟܘܪܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ‬kurepisqupā). Periodeutes denotes “a visiting priest, acting as the bishop’s representative in visiting villages and monasteries.”150 Originally the chorepiscopus was a higher rank, signifying “one who ruled over village churches in the place of a bishop and appointed the lesser orders, but did not ordain priests or deacons,”151 but by the fourteenth century, the two ranks had basically merged into one.152 Gravestone No. 4 The fourth gravestone [Fig. 2-4] is dated only to “the year of the dragon.” It is No. 230 in CHWOLSON, 1897.153 The cross on this stone is similar to that on Tashkent Stone No. 3, with the addition of a smaller cross inside the larger cross. Again, the inscription runs along the top and both sides of the stone. Syriac Text and Transliteration:

‫ܒܫܢܬ ܐܬܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܗܢܘ ܩܒܪܗ‬ ‫ܨܘܡܐ ܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬ ‫ܒܪܗ ܝܫܘܥ ܪܝܫܚܘܒܐ‬

bašnat ātliyā hānaw qabreh Ṣaumā mhaymnā breh Išo rišḥubā

Translation: In the year of the dragon. This is the grave of the believer Ṣauma, son of Išo, the head of charity. Commentary: This stone is one of only about 8% of Chwolson’s corpus154 that give the date strictly according to the Turkic animal-cycle calendar. Again, the Syriac word that is used for “dragon” is ‫( ܐܬܠܝܐ‬ātliyā). Both Ṣauma155 and Išo,156 150

PAYNE SMITH, 1902, 460. PAYNE SMITH, 1902, 210. 152 Wassilios Klein, personal communication, 25 April, 2006. See also the helpful overviews in AMADOU, 1959; GILLMAN & KLIMKEIT, 1999, 238; KLEIN, 2000, 241-44. 153 Cat. 52/2 in the Tashkent museum, 26.5 cm high x 15 cm wide. 154 According to BAZIN, 1991, 415. 155 See CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 11,3, 13, 16,1, 27,4, 40,2, 47,3, 56, 83, 92; CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 7, 19, 25, 40, 130, 201, 222, 230, 237, 243. NAU, 1914, 336 suggested that it was the most common male name in the corpus. 156 See CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 16,1, 18,1, 19, 38,2, XXXVIII; CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 9, 59, 230, 269. See also RYBATZKI, 2004, 277, 282 on these two names in other Central Asian literature. 51 151

meaning “fasting” and “Jesus,” respectively, are common names in the corpus and the word ‫( ܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬mhaymnā, “believer”) is found on many of the gravestones. Although the SE date is not given, Chwolson suggested that this inscription may be linked with two others in the corpus: that of Išo the rišḥubā, dated to 1575 SE (1263/64 CE) (CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 9), and that of a certain Maïfrah (‫)ܡܐܝܦܪܗ‬, 157 the wife of Ṣauma the rišḥubā, dated to 1593 SE (1281/82 CE) (CHWOLSON, 1890, No. 92).158 Based on these three occurrences of the term ‫( ܪܝܫܚܘܒܐ‬rišḥubā), along with similarities between the carving on this stone and that of Maïfrah, Chwolson suggested that the two Ṣaumas may have been one and the same person, the husband of Maïfrah and the son of Išo, who thus inherited his title from his father. If so, then his father died in 1575 SE (1263/64 CE) and his wife died in 1593 SE (1281/82 CE). This would mean that Išo likely died in one of the following dragon-years: 1579 SE (1267/68 CE), 1591 SE (1279/80 CE), 1603 SE (1291/92 CE), or 1615 SE (1303/04).159 Chwolson admitted that he could not state with certainty what rišḥubā meant, since he could not find it in any Syriac dictionaries or lexicons at that time, including Payne Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus.160 The natural meaning seems to be quite simply ‫( ܪܝܫ‬riš, “head”) + ‫( ܚܘܒܐ‬ḥubā, “love, charity”) = “the head of charity,” presumably someone in charge of administering alms to the poor, although the term could also have meant something else which has been lost to history.161 If the former, then it may have been equivalent to 157

Nöldeke suggested that this name came from Persian

‫“ ماه اپره‬piece of the moon”

(NÖLDEKE, 1890, 527). 158 Chwolson originally dated it to 1592 SE = 1281 CE, but later corrected it to 1593 SE. Similarly, he corrected his original reading of ‫( ܨܘܡܐ ܝܥܩܘܒ‬Ṣaumā Ya‘qub) to ‫ܨܘܡܐ‬ ‫( ܪܝܫܚܘܒܐ‬Ṣaumā rišḥubā). His corrections can be found in CHWOLSON, 1897, 57. 159 This all depends, of course, on how much longer both Išoʿ and the stone-carver lived after Maïfrah’s death. 160 His discussion of this term can be found under CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 9, where he noted that the expression was even unknown to Nöldeke. 161 Chwolson commented that, “If this assumption should be confirmed, then one could conclude from this fact that Christianity seized root firmly under those wild trunks [i.e. the Central Asian Turks] and exerted a very charitable influence on the same.” In the absence of any other occurrence of this title, he also suggested that it might be interpreted as “bridge custodian,” but admitted that this does not harmonize well with the eulogy ‫( ܡܠܦܢܐ ܓܡܝܪܐ‬malpānā gmirā) “a perfect teacher” found on CHWOLSON, 1897, No. 9. There are no words even remotely close to this under the listing for ‫ ܪܝܫ‬in PAYNE SMITH, 1901, col. 3899-3911 (this volume was not available to Chwolson in 1897). Despite inquiries to the Hugoye email discussion list and even Sebastian Brock (personal communication, 27 July, 2006), I have yet to 52

what, in the early church, was overseen by a deacon or “the cleric put in charge of ‘administering good works’.”162 Conclusions This brief look at just four examples from the Chu Valley gravestone corpus demonstrates how much can be learned from these gravestones. Amongst other things, they show us the following: 1. Numerous grammatical and orthographic errors reveal that, although the Christian community used Syriac in ecclesiastical settings, it was probably not a language that many were fluent in. Like the non-Christians that they lived amongst, their day-to-day language would have been a Middle Turkic dialect. 2. The names, titles and terms on the gravestones demonstrate the rich blend of cultural influences in the area, including Syriac, Turkic, Sogdian, and New Persian, as well as, in the case of ‫( ܐܬܠܝܐ‬ātliyā), possibly Assyrian, Hebrew or Greek. 3. Several things demonstrate the synthesis of Turkic and Syriac culture that these Chu Valley Christians had developed, including the mixture of Syriac personal names with Persian and Turkic names in single families, as well as the joint use of the Seleucid Era calendar and the Turkic animalcycle calendar. 4. There are also several linguistic innovations in the gravestone corpus, including the use of ‫( ܐܬܠܝܐ‬ātliyā) for “dragon” and the clerical office of ‫( ܪܝܫܚܘܒܐ‬rišḥubā) “head of charity.” 5. There were few families which did not include at least one member who was in the clergy. In addition to clerics, however, the Christian community also included other professions such as military commanders and teachers. At least some in the community seemed to be well-connected with the ruling class. 6. Based on the prevalence of the term qušṭānč, there were a large number of female teachers in the community, possibly indicating a strong value on educating young women in the church. If so, this is consistent with

find any Syriac scholar who has encountered this term anywhere else. See also KLEIN, 2000, 249. 162 FINN, 2006, 77. 53

what we know about Turkic society, which traditionally accorded a higher status to women than elsewhere in the Muslim world.163 The corpus, so crucial to reconstructing the history of Christianity in this area, deserves further study and renewed efforts to establish connections between it and other witnesses to Syriac Christianity in medieval Central Asia. Bibliography AALTO, Pentti. 1981. “Central Asiatic Epigraphic and Manuscript Material in Finland,” in JA, Vol. 269, 3-10. ABBELOOS, Jean-Baptiste and Thomas Joseph LAMY, ed. & trans. 1877. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, Vol. III. Leuven: Peeters & Paris: J.-P. Maisonneuve. AMADOU, Robert. 1959. “Chorévêques et périodeutes,” in L’Orient Syrien, Vol. 4, 233-40. БАЙПАКОВ, К.М. 1994. “Христианство Казахстана в Средние Века,” in IDKSA. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 96-100. BAIPAKOV, K. 2000. “The Silk Route across Central Asia,” in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV, Part Two, ed. C.E. Bosworth and M.S. Asimov. Paris: UNESCO, 221-26. BANG, W. 1926. “Türkische Bruchstücke einer nestorianischen Georgpassion,” in Le Muséon 39, 41-75. BARTHOLD, W. 1901. Zur geschichte des Christentums in Mittel-Asien bis zur mongolischen eroberung, trans. Rudolf Stübe. Tübingen & Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr. BARTHOLD, W. 1968. Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion (E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series, New Series, V), trans. Mrs. T. Minorsky, ed. C.E. Bosworth. London: Luzac & Co., Ltd. BAUMER, Christoph. 2006. The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. London: I.B. Tauris. BAZIN, Louis. 1991. Les systèmes chronologiques dans le monde turc ancien. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiado (especially Chapter VIII, “Le double calendrier des turcs nestoriens,” 413-29). BEDJAN, Paul, ed. 1895. Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. 163

As Ibn Baṭṭuta noted, “A remarkable thing which I saw in this country [the Qipchaq Khanate, or Golden Horde] was the respect shown to women by the Turks, for they hold a more dignified position than the men” (GIBB, 1929, 146). 54

BIRAN, Michal. 2002. “The Chaghadaids and Islam: the Conversion of Tarmashirin Khan (1331-1334),” in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 122, 742-52. BONIN, Charles-Eudes. 1900. “Notes sur les anciennes chrétientés nestoriennes de l’Asie centrale,” in JA, Ser. IX, Vol. 15, 584-92. BORBONE, Pier Giorgio. 2005. “Some Aspects of Turco-Mongol Christianity in the Light of Literary and Epigraphic Syriac Sources,” in JAAS, Vol. 19, No. 2, 5-20. BORBONE, Pier Giorgio. 2006. “Peshitta Psalm 34:6 from Syria to China,” in Text, Translation and Tradition: Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition Presented to Konrad D. Jenner on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Leiden: Brill, 1-10. BREGEL, Yuri. 2003. An Historical Atlas of Central Asia (HdO, Section 8, Vol. 9). Leiden: Brill. BUDGE, E.A.W., ed. & trans. 1932. The Chronography of Gregory Abu’l Faraj, the son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, being the First Part of his Political History of the World, Vol. I (English translation). Oxford: Oxford University Press. BURYAKOV, Y.F. et al. 1999. The Cities and Routes of the Great Silk Road. Tashkent: Sharq. CAHUN, Léon. 1896. Introduction à l’histoire de l’Asie: Turcs et Mongols, des origines à 140 . Paris: A. Colin et Cie. CHABOT, Jean-Baptiste. 1906. “Éclaircissements sur quelques points de la littérature syriaque: Contribution à l’onomastique syriaque,” in JA, Ser. X, Vol. 8, 286-93. CHAFFANJON, M.J. 1899. “Rapport sur une mission scientifique dans l’Asie centrale et la Sibérie,” in Nouvelles archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires, Vol. IX, 55-101. CHWOLSON, D. 1886. “Syrische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in MAISSP, VIIe série, tome XXXIV, no. 4. 30 pp. + 1 plate. ХВОЛЬСОН, Д. 1887a. “Предварительныя замътки о найденныхъ въ Семиръченской области сирійскихъ надгробныхъ надписяхъ,” in ZVOIRAO, Vol. I (1886), 84-109. ХВОЛЬСОН, Д. 1887b. “Несторіанскія надписи изъ Семиръчья,” in ZVOIRAO, Vol. I (1886), 217-21. ХВОЛЬСОН, Д. 1887c. “Дополненія и поправки къ статьямъ ‘Несторіанскія надписи изъ Семиръчья’,” in ZVOIRAO, Vol. I (1886), 303-08. 55

CHWOLSON, D. 1890. “Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in MAISSP, VIIe série, tome XXXVII, no. 8. 168 pp. + 3 plates. ХВОЛЬСОН, Д. 1895. “Сирійско-тюркскія несторіанскія надгробныя надписи XIII и XIV стольтій, найденныя въ Семиръчьъ,” in Восточныя Замътки, 115-29. CHWOLSON, D. 1897. Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. Neue Folge. St. Petersburg: Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences. 62 pp. + 4 plates. CLAUSON, Sir Gerald. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. COLLESS, Brian E. 1986. “The Nestorian Province of Samarkand,” in AbrNahrain, Vol. XXIV, 51-57. DAUVILLIER, Jean. 1948. “Les Provinces Chaldéennes ‘de l’Extérieur’ au Moyen Age,” in Mélanges offerts au R. P. Ferdinand Cavallera. Toulouse: Bibliothèque de l’Institut Catholique, 260-316. DAUVILLIER, Jean. 1956. “Les croix triomphales dans l’ancienne Eglise chaldéenne,” in Eléona, 11-17 (reprint: Histoires et institutions des Eglises orientales au Moyen Age, by Jean Dauvillier. London: Variorum Reprints, 1983, Article X). DAWSON, Christopher, ed. 1955. The Mongol Mission. London: Sheed and Ward. DESREUMAUX, Alain. 2000. “Stèles syriaques nestoriennes,” in Bulletin des Musées et Monuments Lyonnais, Vol. 2-3, 58-73. ДЖУМАГУЛОВ, Ч. 1963, 1982 & 1987. Эпиграфика Киргизии, выпуск 1-3. Фрунзе: Академия наук Киргизской ССР. DŽUMAGULOV, Četin. 1968. “Die syrisch-türkischen (nestorianischen) Denkmäler in Kirgisien,” in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientsforschung, Vol. 14, 470-480. ДЖУМАГУЛОВ, Ч. 1971. Язык Сиро-Тюркских (Несторианских) Памятников Киргизии. Фрунзе: Академия наук Киргизской ССР. EGAMI, Namio. 1966. “On the Form and Decoration of Nestorian Tombstones discovered in East Asia,” in Transactions of the International Conference of Orientalists in Japan, Vol. 11, 22-24. ENOKI, Kazuo. 1964. “The Nestorian Christianism in China in Mediaeval Time According to Recent Historical and Archaeological Researches,” in PASC. Rome: Accademia Nationale de Lincei, 45-77. 56

FINN, Richard, OP. 2006. Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire: Christian Promotion and Practice (313-450). Oxford: Oxford University Press. FOSTER, John. 1954. “Crosses from the Walls of Zaitun,” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1-25. FRANCK, Irene M. and David M. BROWNSTONE. 1986. The Silk Road: A History. Oxford: Facts on File Publications. FRANZMANN, Majella and Samuel N.C. LIEU. 2006. “A New Nestorian Tombstone from Quanzhou: the Epitaph of Lady Kejamtâ,” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 293-302. FRANZMANN, Majella. 2007. “Syriac Language and Script in a Chinese Setting: Nestorian Inscriptions from Quanzhou, China,” in Hugoye, Vol. 10, No. 2. GENG Shimin, Hans-Joachim KLIMKEIT and Jens Peter LAUT. 1996. “Eine neue nestorianische Grabinschrift aus China,” in UAJb, N.F., Vol. 14, 164-75. GIBB, H.A.R. 1929. Ibn Battuta: Travels in Asia and Africa. London: George Routledge & Sons (reprint: London: Darf Publishers, 1983). GILLMAN, Ian and Hans-Joachim KLIMKEIT. 1999. Christians in Asia before 1500. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. GISMONDI, H. 1896-1897. Maris, Amri, et Slibae de patriarchis Nestorianorum commentaria, Vol. II: Amri et Slibae. Rome: Excudebat C. de Luigi. ГОРЯЧЕВА, В.Д. and С.Я ПЕРЕГУДОВА. 1994. “Памятники Христианства НА Территории Кыргызстана,” in IDKSA. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 84-95. GROENBECH, K. 1940. “Turkish Inscriptions from Inner Mongolia,” in MS, Vol. IV, 305-08. HAGE, Wolfgang. 1970. “Das orientalische Christentum in Asien bis zum 14. Jh.,” and “Das römisch-katholische Christentum im Machtbereich der Mongolen (13.-14. Jh.),” in Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte: die christlichen Kirchen in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Hubert Jedin, Kenneth Scott Latourette and Jochen Martin. Freiburg: Herder, 27, 63. HAGE, Wolfgang. 1978. “Einheimische Volkssprachen und syrische Kirchensprache in der nestorianischen Asienmission,” in Erkenntnisse und Meinungen II (Göttinger Orientforschungen I. Reihe: Syriaca, Vol. 17), ed. Gernot Wießner. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. 57

HAGE, Wolfgang. 1997. Syriac Christianity in the East. Kerala: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute. HALBERTSMA, Tjalling and WEI Jian. 2005. “Some Field Notes and Images of Stone Material from Graves of the Church of the East in Inner Mongolia, China,” in MS, Vol. LIII, 113-244. HALBERTSMA, Tjalling. 2006. “Some Notes on Past and Present Field Research on Gravestones and Related Stone Material of the Church of the East in Inner Mongolia, China,” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 303-319. HALEVY, J. 1890. “De l’introduction du christianisme chez les tribus turques de la haute-asie a propos des inscriptions de Semirjetschie,” in Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, Vol. XXII, 289-304. HAMILTON, James and NIU Ru-Ji. 1994. “Deux inscriptions funéraires turques nestoriennes de la Chine orientale,” in JA, Vol. 282, 147-64. HEALEY, John. 1983. “A Nestorian gravestone,” in Arts of Asia, Vol. 13, 87. HJELT, Arthur. 1909. “Drei syrisch-nestorianische Grab-Inschriften,” in Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, ser. B, t. 1, no. 2, 3-11 + 3 plates. HUNTER, Erica C.D. 1989/1991. “The Conversion of the Kerait to Christianity in A.D. 1007,” in Zentralasiatische Studien, Vol. 22, 142-63. HUNTER, Erica C.D. 1996. “The Church of the East in Central Asia,” in BJRL, Vol. 78, No. 3, 129-42. JACKSON, Peter, tr. 1990. The Mission of Friar William Rubruck. London: Hakluyt Society. JOHANSON, Lars. 1998. “The History of Turkic,” in The Turkic Languages, ed. Lars Johanson and Éva Ágnes Csató. London: Routledge, 80-125. KLEIN, Wassilios. 1994. “Christliche Reliefgrabsteine des 14. Jahrhunderts von der Seidenstrasse,” in VI Symposium Syriacum 1992 (OCA 247). Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 419-42. KLEIN, Wassilios. 1998. “Nestorianische Inschriften in Kirgizistan: Ein Situationsbericht,” in Symposium Syriacum VII 1996 (OCA 256). Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 661-69. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2000. Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh. (SRS III). Turnhout: Brepols. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2001. “A Christian Heritage on the Northern Silk Road: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence of Christianity in Kyrgyzstan,” in JCSSS, Vol. 1, 85-100. 58

KLEIN, Wassilios. 2002. “Syriac Writings and Turkic Language according to Central Asian Tombstone Inscriptions,” in Hugoye, Vol. 5, No. 2. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2004a. “A Newly Excavated Church of Syriac Christianity along the Silk Road in Kyrghyzstan,” in The Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, Vol. 56, 25-47. KLEIN, Wassilios. 2004b. “Les inscriptions syriaques des républiques d’Asie centrale,” in Les inscriptions syriaques (Études syriaques 1), ed. F. Briquel Chatonnet, M. Debié and A. Desreumaux. Paris: Geuthner, 125-41. KLEIN, Wassilios and Christiane RECK. 2004. “Ein Kreuz mit sogdischer Inschrift aus Ak-Bešim/Kyrgyzstan,” in ZDMG, Vol. 154, 147-156. KLEIN, Wassilios and Philipp G. ROTT. 2006. “Einige problematische Funde von der Seidenstrasse,” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 403-424. KLIMKEIT, Hans-Joachim. 1979. “Das Kreuzessymbol in der zentralasiatischen Religionsbegegnung,” in Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, Vol. 31, 99-115. КОКОВЦОВ, П.К. 1906. “Христіанско-сирійскія надгробныя надписи изъ Алмалыка,” in ZVOIRAO Vol. XVI (1904-1905), 0190-0200. КОКОВЦОВ, П.К. 1907. “Несколько новыхь надгробныхъ камней съ христіанско-сирійскіми надписями изъ Средней Азіи,” in IIAN (= BAIS), VI Série, Vol. I, 427-58. КОКОВЦОВ, П.К. 1909. “Къ сиро-турецкой эпиграфикь Семирьчья,” in IIAN (= BAIS), VI Série, Vol. III, 773-96. КОРШ, Ф.Е. 1889. “О Турецкомъ языкь Семирьченскихъ надгробныхъ надписей,” in DV, Vol. I, No. I, 67-72. LALA COMNENO, Maria Adelaide. 1997. “Nestorianism in Central Asia during the First Millennium: Archaeological Evidence,” in JAAS, Vol. XI, No. 1, 20-67. LATHAM, Ronald, tr. 1958. The Travels of Marco Polo. London: Penguin Books. LIDDELL, Henry George and Robert SCOTT. 1996. A Greek-English lexicon, 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. LIEU, Samuel N.C. 2002. “Nestorian Angels from Central Asia and other Christian and Manichaean Remains at Zaitun (Quanzhou) on the South China Coast,” in Walls and Frontiers in Inner-Asian History (SRS VI). Turnhout: Brepols, 1-17.

59

LIEU, Samuel N.C. 2006. “Nestorian Remains from Zaitun (Quanzhou), South China,” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 277-291. МАЛОВ, С.Е. 1959. Памятники Древнетюркской Письменности Монголии и Киргизии. Москва, Ленинград: Издательство Академии Наук СССР. MANSUROĞLU, Mecdut. 1959. “Das Karakhanidische,” in Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, Vol. I, ed. Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel and Zeki Velidi Togan, 87-112. МАРР, Н. 1894. “Надгробный камень изъ Семирьчія, съ армяанскосирійской надписъю 1323 г.,” in ZVOIRAO, Vol. VIII (1893-1894), 344-49. MARTIN, Desmond. 1938. “Preliminary Report on Nestorian Remains North of Kuei-hua, Suiyüan,” in MS, Vol. III, 232-49. MASSÉ, Henri. 1973. Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamadānī, Abrégé du livre des pays. Damascus: Institut Français de Damas. МАССОН, М.Е. 1978. “Происхождение двух несторианских намогильных галек Средней Азии,” in Общественные науки в Узбекистане, No. 10, 50-55. МЕЩЕРСКАЯ, Е. and А. ПАЙКОВА. 1981. “Сиро-тюркские наскальные надписи из Ургута,” in Культурные взаимодействия народов Средней Азии и Кавказа с окружающим миром в древности и средневековье (тезисы докладов). Москва, 109-10. МИНАСЯНЦ, В.С. 1992. “К истории комплектования археологического фонда Музея истории народов Узбекистана (1876-1917 гг.),” in Времен связующая нить (по материалам музейных фондов). Ташкент: Фан, 3-26. MINGANA, Alphonse. 1925. “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: A New Document,” in BJRL, Vol. 9, 297-371. MINORSKY, Vladimir, ed. & trans. 1970. Ḥudūd al-‘Ālam: “The Regions of the World” (E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series, New Series, XI) London: Luzac & Co., Ltd. MONTGOMERY, James A. 1927. The History of Yaballaha III. New York: Columbia University Press (reprint: New York: Octagon Books, 1966). MOULE, A.C. 1930. Christians in China before the year 1550. London: SPCK.

60

MURAYAMA, S. 1963. “Die syrisch-nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Pailing Miao und Ch’üan-chou,” in Transactions of the International Conference of Orientalists in Japan, No. VIII, 22-25. MURAYAMA, S. 1964a. “Über die nestorianischen Grabinschriften in der Innern Mongolei und in Südchina,” in PASC. Rome: Accademia Nationale de Lincei, 77-80. MURAYAMA, S. 1964b. “Eine nestorianische Grabinschrift in türkischer Sprache aus Zaiton,” in UAJb, Vol. XXV, 394-96. МУСАКАЕВА, А.А. 1994. “О Несторианах в Средней Азии,” in IDKSA. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 42-55. NAU, François. 1896. “Notice sur quelques cartes syriaques,” in JA, Ser. IX, Vol. 8, 155-165. NAU, François. 1910a. “Notes d’astronomie syrienne,” in JA, Ser. X, Vol. 16, 209-228. NAU, François. 1910b. “La cosmographie au VIIe siècle chez les syriens,” in ROC, Séries II, Vol. V (Vol. 15), 225-254. NAU, François. 1913. “Les pierres tombales nestoriennes du Musée Guimet,” in ROC, Séries II, Vol. VIII (Vol. 18), 1-35, 325-27. NAU, François. 1914. “L’expansion nestorienne en Asie,” in Annales du Musée Guimet. Bibliothèque de vulgarisation, Vol. 40 (Conférences faites au Musée Guimet en 1913), 193-383. NAYMARK, Aleksandr. 2004. “Christians in the Qarakhanid Khanate” (unpublished paper). NIU Ruji. 2004. “A New Syriac Uighur Inscription from China (Quanzhou, Fujian Province),” in JCSSS, Vol. 4, 60-65. NIU Ruji, Alain DESREUMAUX and Pierre MARSONE. 2004. “Les inscriptions syriaques de Chine,” in Les inscriptions syriaques (Études syriaques 1), ed. F. Briquel Chatonnet, M. Debié and A. Desreumaux. Paris: Geuthner, 143-53. NIU Ruji. 2005. “Nestorian Grave Inscriptions from Quanzhou (Zaitun), China,” in JCSSS, Vol. 5, 51-67. NIU Ruji. 2006. “Nestorian Inscriptions from China (13th-14th Centuries),” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 209-242. NÖLDEKE, Theodor. 1890. “Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in ZDMG, Vol. 44, 520-28. PARRY, K. 1996. “Images in the Church of the East: the Evidence from Central Asia and China,” in BJRL, Vol. 78, No. 3, 143-62. 61

PAYKOVA, A.V. 1979. “The Syrian Ostracon from Panjikant,” in Le Muséon, Vol. 92, 159-69. PAYNE SMITH, Jessie, ed. 1902. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press (reprint: Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999). PAYNE SMITH, Robert, ed. 1879 & 1901. Thesaurus Syriacus, Vol. I (1879) & II (1901). Oxford: Clarendon. PELLIOT, Paul. 1963. Notes on Marco Polo, Vol. II. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. PELLIOT, Paul. 1973. Recherches sur les chrétiens d’Asie centrale et d’Extrême-Orient. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. PINES, Shlomo. 1968. “The Iranian name for Christians and the ‘GodFearers’,” in Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. II. Jerusalem, 143-52 (reprint: Studies in the History of Religion, by Shlomo Pines, ed. by Guy Stroumsa. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1996, [11-20]). PROKOSCH, Erich. 1992. “Karamanisch-türkische Grabinschriften II,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 76, 158-176. DE RACHEWILTZ, I. 1971. Papal Envoys to the Great Khans. London: Faber & Faber. RÁSON I, László. 1962. “Der Frauenname bei den Türkvölkern,” in UAJb, Vol. XXIV, 223-39. RÁSON I, László (†) and Imre BASKI. 2007. Onomasticon Turcicum: Turkic Personal Names (2 vols) (Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 172/I & II). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University. RÖHRBORN, Klaus. 2000. “Nochmals zu alttürkisch bäg eši,” in Folia Orientalia, Vol. 36, 275-279. ROTT, Philipp G. 2006. “Christian Crosses from Central Asia,” in Jingjiao, ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006, 395-401. RYAN, James D. 1998. “Preaching Christianity along the Silk Road: Missionary Outposts in the Tartar ‘Middle Kingdom’ in the Fourteenth Century,” in Journal of Early Modern History, Vol. 2, 350-73. RYBATZKI, Volker. 2004. “Nestorian Personal Names from Central Asia,” in Studia Orientalia 99 SACHAU, Eduard. 1919. “Zur Ausbreitung des Christentums in Asien,” in Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1919, No. 1, 1-80. 62

SAEKI, P.Y. 1951. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China. Tokyo: Academy of Oriental Culture. SAVCHENKO, Alexei. 1996. “Urgut Revisited,” in Aram, Vol. 8, 333-54. ШИШКИНА, Г.В. 1994. “Несторианское погребение в Согде Самаркандском,” in IDKSA. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 56-63. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Nicholas. 1989. “Sogdian,” in Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 173-92. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Nicholas and Michael EVERSON. 2002. Proposal to add six Syriac letters for Sogdian and Persian to the UCS (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N2422). International Organization for Standardization (http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2422.pdf). СЛУЦКИЙ, С.С. 1889. “Семирьченскія несторіанскія надписи,” in DV, Vol. I, No. I, 1-66. СЛУЦКИЙ, С.С. 1891. “Къ Семирьченскимъ несторіанскимъ надписямъ,” in DV, Vol. I, No. II, 176-94. SOPHOCLES, E.A. 1900. Greek lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. STANDAERT, Nicolas, ed. 2001. Handbook of Christianity in China, Vol. 1, 635-1800 (HdO, Section 4, Vol. 15). Leiden: Brill. STEINGASS, Francis. 1892. A comprehensive Persian-English dictionary. London: W.H. Allen (reprint: Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1970). SUNDERMANN, Werner. 1995. “Soghdisch *xwšt’nc „Lehrerin“,” in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 48, 225-27. TALLGREN, A.M. 1940. “The Mannerheim Archaeological Collection from Eastern Turkestan,” in Across Asia from West to East in 1906-1908, Vol. II, ed. C.G. Mannerheim. Helsinki: Fenno-Ugrian Society (reprint: Oosterhout: Anthropological Publications, 1969), 1-53. TARDIEU, Michel. 1999. “Un site chrétien dans la Sogdiane des Sâmânides,” in Le Monde de la Bible, No. 119, 40-42. THACKER, T.W. 1967. “A Nestorian Gravestone from Central Asia in the Gulbenkian Museum, Durham University,” in The Durham University Journal, Vol. LIX (New Series, Vol. XXVIII), 94-107. VOSTÉ, Jacques. 1931. Codificazione Canonica Orientale, Fonti - Fascicolo IV. Discipline Chaldéenne (Chaldéens) I, Droit Ancien: Synodes (Synodicon Orientale) Collectio Canonum synodicorum d’Ebedjésus de Nisibe. Vatican City: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana. 63

WALEY, Arthur, ed. 1931. The Travels of an Alchemist: The Journey of the Taoist Ch’ang-Ch’un from China to the Hindukush at the Summons of Chingiz Khan. London: George Routledge & Sons. YULE, Sir Henry and Henri CORDIER. 1914 & 1916. Cathay and the Way Thither, Vol. III (1914) & Vol. IV (1916). London: The Hakluyt Society. ZIEME, Peter. 1974. “Zu den nestorianish-türkischen Turfantexten,” in Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der altaischen Völker: Protokollband der XII Tagung der Permanent International Altaistic Conference 1969 in Berlin (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 5), ed. Georg Hazai and Peter Zieme. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 661-68. Abbreviations: BAIS = Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg BJRL = Bulletin of the John Rylands (University) Library DV = Древности Восточныя HdO = Handbuch der Orientalistik IIAN = Известия Императорской Академіи Наукъ IDKSA = Из Истории Древних Культов Средней Азии: Христианство JA = Journal Asiatique JAAS = Journal of the Assyrian Academic Society JCSSS = Journal of the Canadian Society of Syriac Studies Jingjiao = Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia MAISSP = Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.Pétersbourg MS = Monumenta Serica OCA = Orientalia Christiana Analecta PASC = Problemi Attuali di Scienza e di Cultura: Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul tema: L’Oriente Cristiano Nella Storia Della Civiltà ROC = Revue de l’Orient chrétien SRS = Silk Road Studies UAJb = Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft ZVOIRAO = Записки Восточнаго Отдъленія Императорскаго Русскаго Археологическаго Общества

64

3 PATRIARCH TIMOTHY I AND THE METROPOLITAN OF THE TURKS Mark DICKENS164 Original publication information: “Patriarch Timothy I and the Metropolitan of the Turks,” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 20, Issue 2 (2010), pp. 117-139. Timothy I and his Correspondence Timothy I (780-823)165 was one of the greatest patriarchs of the Church of the East.166 In addition to his administrative duties, he was also a prolific author, writing on science, theology and church law and penning numerous epistles. Many of the letters he wrote while Catholicos are still extant,167 two of which provide fascinating insights into the history of Christianity in Central Asia: Letter XLI to the Monks of the Monastery of Mar Maron ( ‫ܕܝܠܗ ܠܘܬ‬ ‫ )ܕܝ̈ܪܝܐ ܕܡܪܝ ܡܪܘܢ‬and Letter XLVII to Sergius (‫)ܕܝܠܗ ܠܘܬ ܣܪܓܝܣ‬, dated to 792/93 and 795-798, respectively.168 The first letter was written to the Maronites, a Monothelite group in northern Syria who had experienced frequent persecution from the Syrian Orthodox,169 prompting them to ask Timothy to intervene on their behalf be164

This article is adapted from my doctoral dissertation, ‘Turkāyē: Turkic Peoples in Syriac Literature Prior to the Seljüks’. All translations from Syriac are my own. Abbreviations used for primary sources are listed at the end of the article. Page numbers for text and translation are separated by a slash, with volume numbers indicated by Roman numerals. Text and translation references cited individually are designated T (textus) and V (versio), following the practice of Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Where the original book and chapter divisions of the text are referenced in the footnotes, page numbers are given in parentheses: e.g. Governors, IV.20 (238/448). My thanks to Rastin Mehri for the use of his Ardeshir font for Pahlavi words. 165 On whom, see William Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894), 191-194; also Anton Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literature mit Ausschluss der christlich-palastinensichen Texte (Bonn, 1922), 217-218. 166 Commonly and erroneously referred to as the Nestorian Church, its full name is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. 167 See Oskar Braun, “Der Katholikos Timotheos I und seine Briefe”, Oriens Christianus, I (1901a), 146-151; Hans Putnam, L’Église et l’Islam sous Timothée I (Beirut, 1975), 20-23. 168 Timothy (Bidawid), 74. 169 The Syrian (or Syriac) Orthodox Church is the other main branch of Syriac Christianity, sometimes referred to pejoratively as the Jacobites, after Jacob Baradaeus, the sixth-century 65

fore the caliph, Harun al-Rashid.170 The second letter was written to Sergius, the Metropolitan of Elam, a close friend of Timothy’s and by far his most frequent addressee.171 Both mention the appointment of a Metropolitan for the Turks by Timothy.172 Letter XLI

:‫] ܗܐ ܓܝܪ ܒܟܠܗܘܢ ܐܬ̈ܪܘܬܐ ܕܒܒܠ ܘܕܦܪܣ ܘܕܐܬܘܪ‬1[ ̈ ̈ ‫ܗܢܕܘܝܐ ܟܝܬ ܘܒܒܝܬ‬ ‫ܕܡܕܢܚܝ ܫܡܫܐ ܘܒܒܝܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܒܐܬ̈ܪܘܬܐ ܟܠܗܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܒܟܠܗܘܢ‬:‫ ܘܒܒܝܬ ܬܘܦܬܝܐ ܐܟܚܕ ܘܒܒܝܬ ܛܘ̈ܪܟܝܐ‬:‫ܨܝܢܝܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ ܗܢܐ ܕܥܒܕܐ ܐܟܚܕ‬:‫ܦܘܠܝܛܝܣ ܕܬܚܘܬ ܬܪܘܢܘܣ ܗܢܐ ܦܛܪܝܪܟܝܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܡܢ ܥܠܡ‬ ̣ ‫ ̣ܗܘ ܗܢܐ ܩܢܘܡܐ‬.‫ܦܩܕ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܢܗܘܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܘܡܫܡܫܢܐ ܕܝܠܗ‬ ‫ ܒܐܬ̈ܪܘܬܐ ܟܝܬ‬.‫ ܕܗܝ ܕܐܨܛܠܒܬ ܚܠܦܝܢ ܡܬܐܡܪ‬.‫ܕܠܐ ܬܘܣܦܬܐ‬ ̈ ̈ 173 ̈ ̈ .‫ܘܡܫܚܠܦܐ‬ ‫ܡܫܓܢܝܐ‬ ‫ܘܒܠܫܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܒܓܢܣܐ‬ [1] For behold, in all of the lands of Babel [Baghdad], Pars [Persia] and Āthur [Assyria], and in all of the eastern lands and amongst Beth Hinduwāyē and indeed amongst Beth Ṣināyē, amongst Beth Tuptāyē and likewise amongst Beth Ṭurkāyē174 and in all of the domains under this patriarchal throne – this [throne] of which God commanded that we be its servants and likewise its ministers – that one who is this hypostasis – who is from eternity, without increase, who was crucified on our behalf – is proclaimed, indeed in different and diverse lands and races and languages.

̈ ‫ ܡܢ ܩܕܡ ܥܣܪ‬:‫ܒܝܘܡܬܢ ܕܝܠܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܫܢܝܐ ܗܠܝܢ‬ ‫] ܗܐ ܓܝܪ ܘܐܦ‬2[ ̣ ̇ ̈ ‫ ܬܠܬܥܣܪ ܓܝܪ ܫܢܝܢ ̣ܡܢ‬:‫ܕܥܒܕܘܬܐ ܕܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܕܥܕܬܐ ܐܬܗܝܡܢܬ‬ ‫ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܛܘ̈ܪܟܝܐ ܥܡ ܟܠܗ‬.‫ܟܕܘ ܐܝܬ ܠܝ ܝܬܝܪ ܚܣܝܪ ܒܥܒܕܘܬܐ ܗܕܐ‬

Syrian monk who was instrumental in organising Monophysites in opposition to the official Chalcedonian Christology of the Byzantine Empire. 170 Timothy (Bidawid), vi-vii. The Maronites re-united with Rome in the thirteenth century, the first eastern Christians to do so. 171 Braun, 1901a, 150. 172 For a discussion of these letters, see G. Uray, “Tibet’s Connections with Nestorianism and Manicheism in the 8th-10th centuries”, Contributions on Tibetan Language, History and Culture (Vienna, 1983), 400-404. 173 Timothy (Bidawid), ‫ܠܘ‬/117 = Jerome Labourt, De Timotheo I Nestorianorum Patriarcha (728-823) et Christianorum Orientalium condicione sub Chaliphis Abbasidis (Paris, 1904a), 45. 174 The Syriac word ‫( ܒܝܬ‬Beth) has a broad range of meaning, including ‘house, room, family, nation, race, people’, and can refer to both a place name and those associated with that place (Payne Smith, 1903, 43). When combined with an ethnonym, as in ‫( ܒܝܬ ܛܘܪܟܝܐ‬Beth Ṭurkāyē), I leave it unglossed, since it is often unclear from the context whether an ethnic group or its territory is meant. Similarly, Syriac ethnonyms for Turkic groups with the gentilic ending -āyē (e.g. Ṭurkāyē, Qumanāyē) are also left unglossed. 66

:‫ܫܒܩܘ‬ ‫ ܠܛܘܥܚ ̇ܡܢ ܥܬܝܩܬܐ ܕܠܐ ܐܠܗ‬:‫ܐܘܚܕܢܗ ܝܬܝܪ ܚܣܝܪ‬ ̣ ̇ ‫ ܗܘ‬:‫ ܒܡܥܒܕܢܘܬܐ ܕܚܝܠܗ ܪܒܐ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ‬:‫ܠܟܪܣܛܝܢܘܬܐ ܕܝܢ ܐܬܒܝܬܝ‬ ̄ ̈ ‫ܕܡܝܛܪܦܘ‬ ‫ ܐܝܟܢܐ‬.‫ܒܟܬܝܒܬܗ‬ ‫ ܘܫܐܠ ܡܢܢ‬.‫ܕܒܗ ܟܠ ܐܫܬܥܒܕ ܠܗ‬ ‫ ܘܐܦ‬.‫ ̇ܗܝ ܕܐܦ ܣܥܪܢܢ ܒܝܕ ܐܠܗܐ‬.‫ܢܥܒܕ ܠܐܘܚܕܢܐ ܕܡܠܟܘܬܗ‬ 175 .‫ܠܐܓܪܬܐ ܕܨܐܕܘܗܝ ܟܬܒܢܢ ܡܫܕܪܝܢܢ ܠܟܘܢ ܐܢ ܬܫܦܪ ܠܡܪܢ‬ [2] For behold, even in our days – prior to these ten years that I have been entrusted with the service of the administration of the church, for even now I have been thirteen176 years more or less in this service – the king of the Ṭurkāyē, with more or less all of his territory, has left the godless error from antiquity, for he has become acquainted with Christianity by the operation of the great power of the Messiah, that by which all are subject to him. And he has asked us in his writings [about] how he might appoint a Metropolitan for the territory of his kingdom. This also we have done through [i.e. with the help of] God. And also the letter that we wrote to him we will send to you if it is pleasing to our Lord. Letter XLVII

̈ ‫ ܘܐܦ‬.‫ܒܝܘܡܬܐ ܗܠܝܢ ܡܝܛܪܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܚܕ ܠܒܝܬ ܛܘ̈ܪܟܝܐ‬ ‫ܡܫܚ ܪܘܚܐ‬ ̄ ‫ܡܛܝܒܝܢܢ ܕܢܡܫܘܚ‬ 177 ̈ .‫ܬܘܦܬܝܐ‬ ‫ܐܚܪܢܐ ܠܒܝܬ‬

The Spirit has anointed in these days a Metropolitan for Beth Ṭurkāyē and we are also preparing to anoint another one for Beth Tuptāyē. Background on the Letters Letter XLI is Timothy’s attempt to convince the Maronites to join themselves doctrinally and ecclesiastically to the Church of the East.178 In light of this (and the controversy over his election during the first two years of his patriarchate),179 it is understandable that he asserts his patriarchal authority in such clear terms in the letter. Although he couches it in terms of servanthood and ministry, he is uncompromising in declaring his right to sit on the 175

Timothy (Bidawid), ‫ܡܘ‬/124 = Labourt, 1904a, 43 = Alphonse Mingana, “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: A New Document,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1925), 306. 176 As Timothy (Bidawid), 124 noted, Labourt, 1904a, 43 translated this as duodecim, rather than tredecim. 177 Timothy (Braun I), 308/309-311 = Labourt, 1904a, 43, 45. 178 It is, in the words of Cardinal Tisserant, ‘un exposé de la foi nestorienne rédigé avec une intention missionnaire’ (Timothy (Bidawid), vi). 179 Timothy (Bidawid), 3-4; Wright, 1894, 191-193. 67

patriarchal throne of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, recently relocated to Baghdad.180 However, his motivations seem to have been as much missional as political; he undoubtedly saw himself as a key figure in the proclamation of “this hypostasis181… who was crucified on our behalf… in different and diverse lands and races and languages.” Although he lived his whole life in the heartland of the Arab Caliphate and thus never visited most of the extensive territory under his patriarchal authority, Timothy was very conscious of ruling over a jurisdiction much larger than any other on earth, whether civil or ecclesiastical. Not only was he a trusted figure at the caliphal court, the head of the largest dhimmi under Muslim rule (those living in “Babel,” Persia and Assyria); there were also far-off and exotic territories beyond the pale of Islam that were “under this patriarchal throne,” including the lands of the Indians (Beth Hinduwāyē), Chinese (Beth Ṣināyē), Tibetans (Beth Tuptāyē) and Turks (Beth Ṭurkāyē). This undoubtedly gave him considerable prestige and influence in the eyes of the ʿAbbasid caliphs. The initial mission of the Church of the East to China took place in 635, inaugurating several centuries of Syriac Christian presence in the Middle Kingdom,182 and the famous Xi’an Stele was erected in 781,183 during Timothy’s patriarchate. Reflecting on the presence of Christianity in both China ̈ and India, he wrote in Letter XIII (795-798, also to Sergius) that ‫ܣܓܝܐܐ‬

̈ ‫ܝܡܡܐ ܠܒܝܬ‬ ̇ ‫ܝܚܝܕܝܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܒܪܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܗܢܕܘܝܐ ܘܠܒܝܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܨܝܢܝܐ܇ ܒܚܘܛܪܐ ܘܒܬܪܡܠܐ‬ ‫“ ܒܠܚܘܕ‬Many monks184 have crossed the seas to Beth Hinduwāyē and Beth

Ṣināyē with only a staff and a bag”;185 in the same letter, he referred to the ̈ ‫“ ܡܝܛܪܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܕܒܝܬ‬the Metropolitan of Beth Ṣināyē.”186 death of ‫ܨܝܢܝܐ‬ According to Thomas of Marga’s Book of Governors (ca. 850), “the letters of Mar Timothy” also mention the election of “David, 180

This took place in 775, 25 years after the ʿAbbasids established their capital in Baghdad. Syr. ‫ ܩܢܘܡܐ‬can be translated as either ‘hypostasis’ or simply ‘person’ (Payne Smith, 1903, 509-510). Here, Timothy undoubtedly means the former, designating the second person of the Trinity, equivalent to Gk. ὑπόστᾰσις. 182 See Ian Gillman & Hans-Joachim Klimkeit. Christians in Asia before 1500 (Ann Arbor, 1999), 265-305. I pass over here the history of the Church of the East in India, summarized in Gillman & Klimkeit, 1999, 155-202. 183 See P. Y. Saeki, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China (2nd ed.) (Tokyo, 1951), 11-112. The writer of the stele had presumably not heard of the death of Ḥenanisho II (775780) the year before, since he records that it was erected in the time of ‫ܚܢܢܝܫܘܥ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܐ‬ ‫ܦܛܪܝܪܟܝܣ‬,‘ Ḥenanisho, Catholicos, Patriarch.’ 184 ‫ ܝܚܝܕܝܐ‬can also mean ‘solitary, hermit, anchorite’ (Payne Smith, 1903, 191). 185 Timothy (Braun II), 107/70. 186 Timothy (Braun II), 109/72. 68 181

Metropolitan to Beth Ṣināyē,” presumably the successor to the deceased Metropolitan.187 ̈ Both letters connect the Tibetans (‫ )ܒܝܬ ܬܘܦܬܝܐ‬with the Turks ( ‫ܒܝܬ‬ ‫)ܛܘ̈ܪܟܝܐ‬. During the eighth and ninth centuries, the Tibetan Empire was a major power in both Central Asia and China.188 Timothy’s enigmatic reference to the imminent appointment of a Metropolitan for Beth Tuptāyē in Letter XLVII gives a tantalizing insight into the ephemeral presence of Christianity in that empire.189 Although Jean Dauvillier concluded that it was already in existence before Timothy’s patriarchate,190 we know nothing more about this mysterious metropolitanate and the remaining evidence for Christianity in Tibet at this time is scanty at best.191 Turkic Conversions to Christianity The date of the Turkic conversion mentioned by Timothy is unclear, partly due to the awkward grammar of the sentence, which mentions “in our days,” “ten years [ago]” and “thirteen years [ago].” Jerome Labourt, who first translated this text, understood the conversion to have happened in 792, approximately when the letter was written.192 Most others, including Raphaël Bidawid (who established the dates of all of Timothy’s letters) have dated it ten years earlier, in 782/83.193 The grammar seems to indicate that the conversion occurred sometime between ten and thirteen years prior to the time of writing. “Thirteen years” presumably refers to Timothy’s enthronement in 780, “ten years” perhaps to the consolidation of his authority that occurred 187

Governors, IV.20 (238/448). This letter does not seem to have survived. On which, see Christopher I. Beckwith, The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia (Princeton, 1987). 189 On which, see articles II-V in Jean Dauvillier, ed. Histoire et institutions des Eglises orientales au Moyen Age (London, 1983) and Uray, 1983. 190 Jean Dauvillier, “Les Provinces Chaldéennes ‘de l’Extérieur’ au Moyen Age,” in Mélanges offerts au R. P. Ferdinand Cavallera (Toulouse, 1948), 292. 191 Although a Sogdian inscription found adjacent to several ‘Nestorian’ crosses inscribed on a boulder in Ladakh (northern India) was previously thought to be the work of a Christian en route from Samarkand to the qaghan of Tibet in the mid-ninth century, Nicholas SimsWilliams has since shown that it was probably written by a Buddhist, although the crosses and one or two other inscriptions in the area indicate that Christians, probably Sogdian traders, did pass through this area (Nicholas Sims-Williams, “The Sogdian Inscriptions of Ladakh,” in Antiquities of Northern Pakistan: Reports and Studies (Rock Carvings and Inscriptions along the Karakorum Highway, Vol. 2), ed. by Karl Jettmar (Mainz, 1993), 151163). 192 Jerome Labourt, Le Christianisme dans l’Empire Perse sous la Dynastie Sassanide (224632) (2nd ed.) (Paris, 1904b), 14. 193 Timothy (Bidawid), 80. See the discussion in Uray, 1983, 402. 69 188

after all the bishops acknowledged him as the legitimate Patriarch at a synod held in 781/82. Thus, the conversion “in our days” could have occurred anytime between 780 and 783. Writing in 1214, Mari ibn Sulaymān claimed that Timothy himself led into faith “the Khāqān, king of the Turks” (‫)خاقان ملك الرتك‬.194 However, Timothy’s letter does not say that he personally converted the king, but merely that the latter had “become acquainted with Christianity by the operation of the great power of the Messiah.” In truth, it is difficult to see how Timothy could have led him into faith, since there is no indication that the two met, unless it took place through the correspondence between them. Two other similar events described in Syriac and Christian Arabic literature suggest that the conversion may have been facilitated either by someone in the church hierarchy located closer to the Turkic heartland in Central Asia or by members of the mercantile community that traded along the Silk Road. The conversion of the Turks to Christianity mentioned by Timothy is the second of three such events.195 The first conversion is mentioned in the Khuzistan Chronicle (ca. 660-680), also known as the Guidi Chronicle (after Ignazio Guidi who first published the Syriac text)196 or the Anonymous East Syrian Chronicle. In it, the anonymous writer tells how “Elia, Metropolitan of Merv, made disciples of many people from the Ṭurkāyē and from other peoples.” Although no date is given, scholars usually date it to 644.197 The extract, which occurs at the end of the Khuzistan Chronicle, describes in detail how, while travelling somewhere “in the outer border areas beyond (Merv),” Elia “encountered a minor ruler198 there who was going out to make war against another king.” The ruler demanded that Elia “demonstrate a sign for me like the priests of my gods.” When the Turkic “priests” 194 195

Majdal I,

٧٣/64.

All three conversions are explored in Erica C. D. Hunter, “The Conversion of the Kerait to Christianity in A.D. 1007,” in Zentralasiatische Studien, Vol. 22 (1989/1991), 142-163. 196 Ignazio Guidi, “Un nuovo testo siriaco sulla storia degli ultimi Sassanidi,” in Actes de Huitième Congrès International des Orientalistes, tenu en 1889 à Stockholm et à Christiania, Section I: Semitique, Sous-section B (Leiden, 1893), 3-36. 197 Based on the fact that the narrative is preceded by a reference to Patriarch Mar Ama (646-650) and followed by mention of the Muslim general Khālid ibn al-Walid (d. 642). However, Mihály Kmoskó has noted that ‘we cannot state positively whether the missionary activity of Elias of Marw preceded or followed the Arab conquest… Thus, the exact date of the event cannot be fixed’ (Ká oly Czeglédy, “Monographs on Syriac and Muhammadan Sources in the Literary Remains of M. Kmoskó,” in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 4 (1954), 58, based on Mihály Kmoskó & Felföldi Szabolcs, Szír írók a steppe népeiről (Budapest, 2004), 143-144). 198 Syr. ‫ ܡܠܟܘܢܐ‬can also be translated as ‘princeling’ or ‘kinglet.’ 70

subsequently engaged in weather magic, so that “the air became thick with clouds and wind, and thunder and lightning set in… then that Elia shook with divine power and he made the sign of the heavenly cross and restrained that phantasm which the rebellious demons had fabricated. And it completely vanished all at once. Then when the minor ruler saw this thing that the blessed one Elia had done, he fell down and worshipped before him. And he believed, and his entire cohort. And he (Elia) sent them down to a river and baptised all of them and appointed for them priests and deacons and returned to his region.”199 The third conversion is recounted by the Christian Arabic writer Mari ibn Sulaymān in his Kitāb al Majdal (Book of the Tower) (1214)200 and Bar ʿEbroyo’s Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (1286),201 both of whom attribute the report to another Metropolitan of Merv, ʿAbdisho.202 Bar ʿEbroyo gives the following summary in his Chronicon Syriacum (1286), dated to AH 398 (1007/08 CE): “And in that year, the members of a certain tribe from the tribes of the inner [or remote] Turkāyē in the east, who are called Kerait, believed in Messiah. And they became disciples and were baptised through a miracle which happened with their king.”203 Bar ʿEbroyo’s more extensive account in the Chronicon Ecclesiasticum specifically mentions how, after getting lost in the mountains while hunting and then being directed back to his camp by a saint who appeared to him in a vision, “when he [the king] returned in safety to his tents, he called the Christian merchants who were present there and he discussed with them about faith.”204 Thus, the king in Timothy’s account was most likely converted through contact with Syriac Christians in Central Asia, perhaps a bishop or metropolitan or, even more likely, Christian merchants. However, unlike the earlier 199

Khuzistan, 34-35/28-29 = Theodor Nöldeke, tr., Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik (Wien, 1893), 39-40 = Mingana, 1925, 305-306. 200 Following the date given in Wright, 1894, 255. Scholars now consider the authorship and dating of this work to be more complex than originally thought (Bénédicte Landron, Chrétiens et Musulmans en Irak: Attitudes Nestoriennes vis-à-vis de l’Islam (Paris, 1994), 99108). 201 Following current academic conventions, I use Bar ʿEbroyo rather than Bar Hebraeus. 202 Chron. Eccl. II, 279-281/280-282 = B.O. II, 444-445 = Mingana, 1925, 308-311; Majdal I, ١١٢-١١٣/99-100. Note that Section II of Chron. Eccl. is sometimes referred to as Volume III. 203

Chron. Syr., 204/184. As Hunter, 1989/1991 notes, there is some question as to whether the group which converted were indeed the Kerait or this was a subsequent gloss added by Bar ʿEbroyo. 204 Chron. Eccl. II, 279/280 = Mingana, 1925, 309. See Erica C. D. Hunter, “The Church of the East in Central Asia,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library, Vol. 78, No. 3 (1996), 140. 71

conversion of the Turkic minor ruler and the later Kerait conversion, it is unlikely that the Metropolitan of Merv was involved in this conversion, especially if it took place in 782/83, since Timothy’s election as Patriarch had been actively opposed by the incumbent in that office, Joseph. Although Timothy deposed and replaced him, his successor, Gregory was likely more concerned with bringing peace to the metropolitanate than with any missionary activity. However, there was already a metropolitanate of Samarkand, from which Christian missionaries or merchants could have made contact with these Turks. It was created either during the patriarchate of Ishoʿyahb, according to Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib (d. 1043) – referring to either Ishoʿyahb I (582-596), Ishoʿyahb II (628-646) or Ishoʿyahb III (650-658) – or during the patriarchate of ṢalibaZakha (714-728), according to ʿAbdisho bar Berikha’s Nomocanon (1290). ʿAbdisho also mentions that others ascribe its creation to the Patriarchs Ahai (410-414) or Silas (503-523).205 The existence of a Metropolitan in Samarkand in the fifth or sixth centuries is highly unlikely, since the much-closer Hephthalites did not even receive a bishop until ca. 550, but a seventh or eighth century date is indeed plausible.206 Identifying the Turks in Timothy’s Letters The conversion described by Timothy was on a much larger scale than that which Elia of Merv had facilitated 150 years earlier. The ruler involved was a ‫“ ܡܠܟܐ‬king,” as opposed to a ‫“ ܡܠܟܘܢܐ‬kinglet,” and “more or less all of his territory” followed his example, rather than just his army. The identity of the Turkic tribe referred to by Timothy has been the subject of conjecture for nearly a century. François Nau asserted that this was the origin of the metropolitanates of Kashghar and Almaliq.207 However, this is highly specu205

Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib VI.16 (II, 123); ʿAbdisho, Nom., 304/141-142 = B.O. III.2, 426. Both authorities say that the Metropolitanates of Herat and China were established at the same time as Samarkand. 206 It was certainly well-established by the time of Catholicos Theodosius I (Athanasius) (853-858), who refers to it in a list of metropolitanates, as recorded in ʿAbdisho, Nom., ܵ ܲ see 308/146. On Patriarch Mar Aba’s appointment of a bishop for the Hephthalites (‫)ܗܦܬܪ ܹܝܐ‬, Histoire, 266-269 = Oskar Braun, tr., Ausgewählte Akten persischer Märtyrer (Kempten & München, 1915a), 217-218 = Mingana, 1925, 304-305. Mingana gives the date as 549, but according to Paul Peeters, “Observations sur la vie syriaque de Mar Aba, Catholicos de l’église perse (540-552),” in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, Vol. V (1946), 106-108 it took place in 551. 207 François Nau, “L’expansion nestorienne en Asie,” in Annales du Musée Guimet, Bibliothèque de vulgarisation, Vol. 40 (1914), 247-248. Nau’s argument was based largely on the conclusion that a religious dignitary in the famous Inscription of Karabalghasun was a ‘Nes72

lative, since the first reference we have to a Metropolitan of Kashghar is four centuries later under Patriarch Elia III (1176-1190), according to ʿAmr ibn Mattai (ca. 1350), who also included it in his list of metropolitanates under the name ‫( كاشغر ونواكث‬Kashghar and Navekath).208 Almaliq, based on an interpretation of the Metropolitan of Khan-baliq and al-Faliq (‫والفالق‬ 209

‫)خان ابلق‬

in the same list of ʿAmr, is even more problematic. It is more likely that the Metropolitan of Turkistan (‫)تركستان‬, found in ʿAmr’s list and discussed

below, can be equated with the metropolitanate established by Timothy. In contrast, Paul Pelliot suggested that the Metropolitan of the Turks did not have a fixed see like that of Samarkand. Rather, being attached to a nomadic people, it was peripatetic, with its “centre de gravité” at Otrar, a city on the Syr Darya located about 250 km north-east of Chach (Tashkent).210 Although this is possible and may have a precedent in the earlier bishopric created for the Hephthalites, Pelliot gave no specific reasons for choosing Otrar and we have no textual or archaeological evidence of Christianity in that place. Finally, Annemarie von Gabain suggested that the ruler in question was an Uighur qaghan, discussed below.211 Whether it happened in 782/83 or 792/93, the conversion occurred several decades after a coalition of Uighur, Qarluq and Basmil forces overthrew the Second Türk Empire in 742, to be replaced in 744 by the Uighur Empire, also centred in Mongolia. To the south, the short-lived Türgesh domination of the Ili River Basin and Sogdiana (716-740) had already disintegrated. By torian’ Christian, even though Edouard Chavannes, “Le Nestorianisme et l’Inscription de Kara-Balgassoun,” in Journal Asiatique, Ser. IX, Tom. IX (1897), 85 had earlier concluded that it was impossible to determine the religion mentioned in the inscription. 208 Majdal II, ١١١/64, ١٢٦/73. Elia consecrated two consecutive metropolitans for the city, John (‫ )يوانيس‬and Sabrisho (‫)سربيشوع‬. 209

Majdal II,

١٢٦/73. See the discussion in Eduard Sachau, Zur Ausbreitung des

Christentums in Asien (Berlin, 1919), 22; Dauvillier, 1948, 305-306. Paul Pelliot, Recherches sur les chrétiens d’Asie centrale et d’Extrême-Orient, Vol. I (Paris, 1973), 6-7, followed by Dauvillier, 1948, 285-286 and Hunter, 1989/1991, 158-159. The latter posits that ‘the Oghuz appear to have been the subjects of the conversions of A.D. 644 [Elia] and 781/2 [Timothy],’ but in light of the evidence presented here, this seems unlikely. 211 The title qaghan, meaning ‘supreme ruler,’ was used first by the Juan-Juan before it was borrowed into Old Turkic (O.T. NGq). It was the functional equivalent of the titles Βασιλεύς and Son of Heaven used by the Greeks and Chinese, respectively. In the Turkic world, it came to be used only by dynasties that were linked to the royal Ashina clan, such as the rulers of the First and Second Türk Empires, the Khazars, the Uighurs, and the Qarluqs. 73 210

766, the remnants of the Türgesh had submitted to the Qarluq Turks, who now ruled over much of the former Western Türk territory, especially the Yeti Su or Semirechye (Seven Rivers) area.212 However, reflecting their initial relationship between 742 and 744, the Uighur ruler was called qaghan, while the Qarluq ruler used the lower title yabghu (O.T. uGBY).213 Perhaps significantly, two other Turkic polities converted to major world religions during this period. In late 762 or early 763, while in China helping to put down the An-lu-shan rebellion, the Uighur ruler Bögü Qaghan (759779) converted to Manichaeism after encountering some Sogdian devotees of that faith. Upon returning to his capital, Karabalghasun, he proclaimed it the official religion of his empire.214 Shortly afterwards, according to several Arabic sources, the king of the Khazars converted to Judaism during the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid (786-809).215 The conversion to Manichaeism necessarily rules out the Uighurs as candidates for Timothy’s Ṭurkāyē, despite von Gabain’s thesis that the ruler in question was Alp Qutlugh Bilgä Qaghan (Tun bagha, 779-789).216 Although he murdered his cousin Bögü Qaghan, took over power and inaugurated a period of anti-Sogdian and anti-Manichaean policy, this probably meant no more than “a return to the natural cults of the Turkic peoples.”217 Muslim geographical and historical accounts are uniform in asserting that Manichaeism was the primary faith of the Uighurs (referred to as the Toquz Oghuz in Arab accounts) at this time.218 Although there is abundant evidence of Chris212

The Tibetan capture of Beshbaliq (near modern-day Urumchi, China) in 790 resulted in the Uighurs losing control of the southern and western parts of their empire, thus enabling the Qarluqs to strengthen their power base there. 213 Ibn Khurd., 12. As Gerard Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford, 1972), 873 notes, this ancient title was ‘conferred by the xağan on close relatives and normally carried with it the duty of administering part of the xağan’s dominions.’ See EI, s.v. ‘Yabghu.’ With the collapse of the Uighur Empire in 840, it seems that the Qarluq leader inherited the title of qaghan (Peter B. Golden, “The Karakhanids and early Islam,” in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. by Denis Sinor (Cambridge: 1990), 349-351). 214 Colin Mackerras, “The Uighurs,” in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. by Denis Sinor (Cambridge, 1990), 329-335. 215 Omeljan Pritsak, “The Khazar Kingdom’s Conversion to Judaism,” in Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 2 (1978), 276-278. 216 Uray, 1983, 403. 217 Colin Mackerras, The Uighur Empire according to the T’ang Dynastic Histories: a study in Sino-Uighur relations, 744-840 (2nd ed.) (Canberra, 1972), 10. See also Mackerras, 1990, 333. 218 These accounts are all based on the report of Tamim ibn Baḥr’s journey to the Uighurs in 821, shortly after the conversion mentioned by Timothy took place. This is discussed in Vladimir Minorsky, “Tamīm ibn Baḥr’s Journey to the Uyghurs,” in Bulletin of the School of 74

tianity in the subsequent Uighur Kingdom of Qocho (ca. 860-1284),219 we have no record of an Uighur ruler converting to Christianity in either the Uighur Empire or the Uighur Kingdom. Gardizi (ca. 1050) specifically notes, “The Toğuz Oğuz Xāqān traditionally belongs to the Manichaean sect. There are, however, within his metropolis and dominions Christians (tarsā).”220 Other Central Asian Turkic tribes mentioned in Old Turkic inscriptions and by Muslim writers in the eighth and ninth centuries include the Basmil, Khalaj, Kimek, Kirghiz, Oghuz, Pecheneg, Qarluq, Qipchaq and Türgesh.221 Of these, we know nothing of Christianity amongst the Basmil, Kimek, Pecheneg222 or Türgesh, but there are either definite or possible Christian connections with the Oghuz, Kirghiz, Qipchaq, Khalaj and Qarluq. Tracing the early history of the Oghuz is very difficult; although the ethnonym occurs in the eighth-century Orkhon Turkic and Uighur inscriptions (O.T. ZGO), the referent is not always clear, since the word itself essentially means “tribe, tribal union.”223 The earliest reference to the group that is later known as the Oghuz (Ar. ‫غز‬, Ghuzz) occurs in Baladhuri (d. 892) and refers to events during the caliphate of al-Muʿtaṣim (833-842), after the time of Timothy,224 but there are no references to Christianity amongst them at this point, already too late for the conversion in question.

Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 12 (1948), 275-305. See also Ibn Khurd., 22; Ibn alFaqih, 388; Qudāma, 203. 219 On which, see Tang Li, “A History of Uighur Religious Conversions (5th - 16th Centuries),” in Asia Research Institute, Working Paper Series, No. 44 (2005), 39-41. 220 Gardizi, 134. This Persian term for Christians – M.P. nkaIQrt (tarsāg); N.P. ‫( ترسا‬tarsā), from the verb

‫ترسيدن‬, tarsidān, ‘to fear’ – is discussed in Shlomo Pines, “The Iranian name

for Christians and the ‘God-Fearers’,” in Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities II (Jerusalem, 1968), 143-152. 221 Ibn Khurd., 22-23; Yaʿqubi, 113; Ibn al-Faqih, 388 = Minorsky, 1948, 283-284. The earliest Muslim source of information on Central Asian Turkic tribes is Ibn Khurdādhbih (ca. 885), who may not necessarily reflect the situation a century earlier, at the time of the conversion in question. Due to the geographical location in Central Asia, the Bulghars and Khazars are not considered here. The Bashkir, Burdas, Chigil, Sarir, and Yaghma are also discounted, since they are only mentioned in later sources. So too are the Tatars, mentioned in the Old Turkic runic Orkhon inscriptions (720-735) and the Uighur runic Šine-Usu inscription (759), since it is unclear if they were Turkic or Mongolic at this time. 222 The origins of the Pechenegs are very obscure (EI, s.v. ‘Pečenegs,’ 289), so it is unclear if they were even present in Central Asia at the time of the conversion. 223 Talat Tekin, A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic (Bloomington, 1968), 234/267, 235/268, 237/271; G. J. Ramstedt, “Zwei Uigurische Runeninschriften in der Nord-Mongolei,” in Journal de la Societé Finno-Ougrienne, Vol. 30, No. 3 (1913), 12-13, 16-17. 224 Baladhuri II, 205-206. 75

Daniel Chwolson, followed by Wilhelm Barthold,225 made much of the fact that two of the sons of the Oghuz leader Seljük (d. 1009) had biblical names, as recorded by Bar ʿEbroyo (1286) – “Michael, Yabghu (or Payghu?), Moses and Arslan”226 – but this suggests the influence of the Jewish Khazar qaghan under whom Seljük and his Oghuz warriors served, rather than any Christian connection. More concretely, as Barthold noted, the Persian writer Qazwini (d. 1283/84) says of the Oghuz that “they are Christians who were allied to the Saljuq sultans until the time of Sanjar ibn Malikshah [1118-1157].” Following a report of Biruni (ca. 1000), Qazwini describes a spring in the land of the Kimek at which is “a rock with the imprint of a human being’s foot and the imprint of his palms with their fingers, and the imprint of his knees, as if he were kneeling, and the imprints of a boy’s feet, and the imprint of the hoofs of a donkey. And the Ghuzz Turks kneel before it when they see it because they are Christians and attribute it to Jesus.” 227 Although relevant to the history of Christianity amongst the steppe peoples, this is long after the conversion in question and seems to reflect the incorporation of oral traditions about Christianity into Turkic shamanistic practices, rather than the more structured version of the faith, involving a clearly-defined ecclesiastical hierarchy, that is reflected in Timothy’s correspondence. Based on rather scarce data, Anatoly Khazanov suggests that “there was a penetration of Christianity to the Qirghiz, although a part of the Qirghiz aristocracy converted to Manichaeism.”228 However, the use of O.T. Rm to represent the Syriac word ‫( ܡܪ‬mar), “lord, master” in an Old Uighur inscription erected by an ethnic Kirghiz almost certainly refers to a Manichaean teacher, not a Christian one.229 There are certainly references to the tarsā, a 225

Daniel Chwolson, “Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, Ser. VII, Tom. XXXVII (1890), 107; Wilhelm Barthold, Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Mittel-Asien bis zur mongolischen Eroberung (Turnhout & Leipzig, 1901), 42. 226 Chron. Syr., 218/196. 227 My thanks to Amina Elbendary for her translation from the Arabic of Qazwini II, ٣٩۴-

۳۹۵. Biruni’s original report does not equate the Ghuzz worshipping the imprints with Christianity (Biruni, 255). The report is also repeated in Qazwini I, 397 and Vladimir Minorsky, “The Khazars and Turks in the Ākām al-Marjān,” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 9 (1937), 147, neither of which make the link to Christianity either. 228 Anatoly M. Khazanov, “The Spread of World Religions in Medieval Nomadic Societies of the Eurasian Steppes,” in Nomadic Diplomacy, Destruction and Religion from the Pacific to the Atlantic, ed. by Michael Gervers & Wayne Schlepp (Toronto, 1994), 20. 229 Ramstedt, 1913, 4-9. 76

Persian term for Christians,230 in the Kirghiz oral epic Manas, but these have yet to be analysed and it is unclear how far back they can be traced, given the way that oral epics evolve over time.231 Since the Kirghiz were subject to the Uighurs in the late eighth century, they cannot be the Turks described by Timothy. If indeed “Nestorianism became widespread among the Qyrghyz,” as Sergey Klyashtorny maintains, this did not happen until the mid-ninth century, after they had ousted the Uighurs from power.232 Christianity amongst the Qipchaq Turks (known in western sources as the Cumans) is attested by various later authorities, including Marvazi (ca. 1120) and Michael the Syrian (1195). Marvazi relates that “the Qūn [part of the Qipchaq tribal confederation]… came from the land of Qitāy [China]… they [were] Nestorian Christians, and had migrated from their habitat, being pressed for pastures.”233 Similarly, after describing how they moved from the Central Asian heartland to somewhere north of “the border of the kingdom of the Greeks,” Michael notes of the Qumanāyē that “they adhere much to the nation of Christians that are found in the land now, although their customs are confused.”234 However, although there are clear references to Qipchaq rulers converting in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries to Orthodox or Catholic Christianity (in Georgia, Russia and Hungary), there is no information on when they adopted “Nestorian” Christianity and certainly no references to rulers converting in the eighth century.235 There has been speculation that the

‫مطران حليح‬

‘Metropolitan of Ḥaliḥ’ in

ʿAmr ibn Mattai’s list of metropolitanates, which is rendered as

‫خلج‬

‘Khalaj’ in one manuscript, refers to the Khalaj Turks, who lived in western 230

See the footnote above, in the discussion of Christianity amongst the Uighurs. Manas III, 60, 61, 147, 185, 263. The use of this Persian term, applied to ‘Nestorian’ Christians throughout Central Asia in several different literatures, suggests that this refers to Syriac Christians encountered earlier in the history of the Kirghiz, rather than the Russian Orthodox Christians that the Kirghiz came into contact with in the nineteenth century. 232 С. Г. Кляшторный, “Историко-культурное значение суджинской надписи,” in Проблемы Востоковедения, No. 5 (1959), 169. 233 Marvazi, IX.3 (29, 98). 234 Michael XIV.4 (570-571/III, 155). 235 The ethnic origin of the Qūn, before they merged with the Qipchaqs, is unclear (Peter B. Golden, “Religion among the Qıpčaqs of Medieval Eurasia,” in Central Asiatic Journal, Vol. 42 (1998), 185). As with the Pechenegs, we know little about the Qipchaqs or their ancestors at the time of the conversion that Timothy describes (see EI, s.v. ‘Kipčak’). Omeljan Pritsak, “Two Migratory Movements in the Eurasian Steppe in the 9th-11th Centuries,” in Proceedings of the 26th International Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi 1964, Vol. 2 (New Delhi, 1968), 160 suggested that the migration in question took place ca. 900. On Christianity amongst the Qipchaqs, see Golden, 1998, 217-222. 77 231

Turkistan and Afghanistan.236 If so, this is another example of a Metropolitan attached to a nomadic tribe, but there are no other references to this enigmatic metropolitanate and the concurrent mention of a Metropolitan of Turkistan in ʿAmr’s list suggests that the Turks that Timothy referred to are distinct from the Ḥaliḥ/Khalaj. Furthermore, ʿAbdisho bar Berikha (1315/16) includes in his list of metropolitanates ‫“ ܚܠܚ ܕܗܝ ܗܝ ܚܠܘܐܢ ܘܐܗܡܕܐܢ‬Ḥaliḥ, that is Ḥalwan and Hamadan,” suggesting that the reading in ʿAmr should indeed be ‫( حليح‬Ḥaliḥ), not ‫( خلج‬Khalaj).237 Equating this metropolitanate with Ḥalwan and Hamadan in western Iran clearly negates any connection with the Khalaj in western Turkistan and Afghanistan.

The Qarluqs However, a good case can be made for identifying the Ṭurkāyē in Timothy’s letter with the Qarluq Turks, also mentioned in the Orkhon Turkic and Uighur inscriptions (O.T. œLRq).238 The most convincing evidence is found in Narshakhi’s History of Bukhara (943/44), where we read that, in Muḥarram, AH 280 (March/April, 893 CE) the Samanid Amir Ismaʿil “went to fight Ṭarāz, where he experienced great difficulty. Finally the amīr of Ṭarāz came out with many dihqāns [landed gentry] and accepted Islam. Ṭarāz was thus subjugated. A large church was transformed into a grand mosque, and the

236

Majdal II,

١٢٦/73; M. Siouffi, “Notice sur un patriarche nestorien,” in Journal Asi-

atique, Ser. VII, Tom. XVII (1881), 95. 237 Syn. Or., 619 = Jacques-Marie Vosté, tr., Ordo Iudiciorum Ecclesiasticorum, collectus, dispositus, ordinatus et compositus a Mar ‘Abdišo‘ Metropolita Nisibis et Armeniae (Città del Vaticano, 1940), 56. 238 Tekin, 1968, 236/270; Ramstedt, 1913, 16-17, 24-25. I am not the first to make this equation. It was also made by the Russian scholar Sergey Klyashtorniy, followed by A. B. Nikitin, a fact I became aware of only after independently coming to the same conclusion (Кляшторный, 1959, 168; А. Б. Никитин, “Христианство в Центральной Азии,” in Восточный Туркестан и Средняя Азия: история, культура, связи, ed. by Борис Литвинский (Москва, 1984), 127). Unfortunately, since their publications are in Russian, they have been overlooked by non-Russian scholars dealing with this issue. It is also suggested in several unconnected statements found in Gillman & Klimkeit, 1999, 214, 218, 222, but these are not linked together by the authors and the theme is not developed any further. See also similar statements in Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, “Christian Art on the Silk Road,” in Künstlerischer Austausch. Artistic Exchange: Akten des XXVIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Berlin, 15.-20. Juli 1992, ed. by Thomas W. Gaehtgens (Berlin, 1993), 481-482. 78

khuṭba [sermon] was read in the name of the Commander of the Faithful Muʿtadid biʾllāh.”239 Ṭabari (d. 923) speaks of Ismaʿil raiding “the land of the Turks,” conquering their capital and capturing “their king and his wife Khātūn.”240 This is further corroborated by Masʿudi (d. 956), who tells us that the Turks were the Kharlukhiyya, the Arabic term for Qarluq.241 Bar ʿEbroyo also mentions this event, in an extract dependent on Ṭabari. Since the latter does not mention the Christian status of the Turks involved, neither does Bar ʿEbroyo.242 Taraz (also known at various times as Talas), located 300 km north-east of Chach (Tashkent) was the Qarluq winter capital243 and the fact that the church was large enough to be transformed into a “grand mosque” suggests that it was probably a cathedral, the residence of at least a bishop, if not a metropolitan. Although Dauvillier mentioned the conversion of the Talas/Taraz church into a mosque and suggested that the churches there and in Bukhara were attached to the putative metropolitanate centred on Otrar, he gave no evidence for this.244 It seems much more likely that the metropolitanate was located in Talas/Taraz itself. As for Bukhara, where we also hear of a church being converted into a mosque,245 it probably came under the Metropolitan of Samarkand, since both cities lay within Samanid territory.246 The Qarakhanid dynasty, which was established in Kashghar ca. 943 and whose ruler Satuq Bughra Khan converted to Islam ca. 955, is now generally believed to have originated from the Qarluqs. 247 The report of Ibn Miskawayh (d. 1030) and later Ibn al-Athir (d. 1233) that “200,000 Turkish 239

Narshakhi, 86-87. The Samanids were a Persian Muslim dynasty based in Bukhara, loyal allies of the Arab Caliphate. The practice of turning Christian churches into mosques can be traced back at least as far as the conversion of the church of St. John into the Grand Mosque of Damascus under Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān (685-705), as recorded in Baladhuri I, 191-192. 240 A Turkic word (borrowed from Sogdian) originally meaning ‘lady’ or ‘wife,’ this title was used for the qaghan’s wife (Clauson, 1972, 602-603). 241 Ṭabari XXXVIII, 11; Masʿudi §3284 (V, 1319). See also the discussion in Omeljan Pritsak,“Von den Karluk zu den Karachaniden,” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 101 (1951), 288-290; István Zimonyi, The Origins of the Volga Bulghars (Szeged, 1990), 169-172 and Narshakhi, 150. 242 Chron. Syr., 166/151. We may be sure that if Bar ʿEbroyo had known about the church in Taraz, he would have mentioned this fact. 243 Ibn Khurd., 21. 244 Dauvillier, 1948, 285. 245 Narshakhi, 53. 246 Not long after, Ibn al-Faqih (ca. 902) described the church at Samarkand as a well-known site, one of “le plus dignes de demeurer sur la face du temps et le plus éloignés d’être effaces.” (Ibn al-Faqih, 296-297). 247 Pritsak, 1951; Golden, 1990, 354-357. 79

tents adopted Islam” in AH 349 (960/61 CE)248 – probably referring to the Qarluqs – seems to have completed the process. It is a curious mirror image of the 200,000 Kerait that Bar ʿEbroyo describes converting to Christianity in 1007/08 CE249 and seemingly involved the same process noted in Timothy’s letter, whereby the ruler was followed by “more or less all of his territory.” If Timothy’s Ṭurkāyē were the Qarluqs, who then ruled a Christian polity for over a century (until Ismaʿil ibn Aḥmad defeated them), this may help explain the later establishment of a metropolitanate in Kashghar during the period 1176-1190, mentioned above. Indeed, the link between the former Christian dynasty and the future Muslim Qarakhanid state may have been quite direct, as Peter B. Golden suggests: “Ismāʿīl Sāmānī’s [Qarluq] opponent at Ṭarāz may have been Oghulchak Kadïr Khan, son of Bilge Kül Kadïr Khan… This defeat (893) was perhaps responsible for his withdrawal to the Kashgar region… it was here that a Karakhanid prince, Satuk (perhaps his son or nephew) converted to Islam.”250 Since Kashghar was an important centre for the Eastern Qarakhanid Qaghanate (which formally split from the Western Qaghanate in 1041/42), perhaps the memory of the Christian past of the ruling dynasty provided an environment favourable for the Church of the East to establish a metropolitanate there. Textual and Archaeological Support This process of conversion to Islam, in many instances from Christianity, is perhaps also reflected in legends that circulated in the Sufi tariqah founded in Central Asia by Khoja Aḥmad Yassavi (d. 1166). These legends describe the holy war waged by the descendents of Caliph ʿAli in order to bring Islam to Central Asia, in which they fought with the ‫( ترسالر‬tarsālar), ‘Christians’

in Uzgand (Uzgen, Kyrgyzstan), Ferghana, Chach (Tashkent), Isfijab (Sayram, Kazakhstan), Kashghar and several other cities. Of particular interest are references to the ruler of Kashghar, “who was a Christian; he is called Müngüzliq Aq Qarakhān, but his Christian name is given as Yuhannān [a common name amongst Syriac Christians]” and the conversion of “Magians and Christians to Islam” at Qarghalïq, a fortress near Talas/Taraz. Although, as Devin DeWeese notes, the historicity of the ac-

248 249 250

Ibn Misk. V, 196; Golden, 1990, 354. Chron. Eccl. II, 281/282 = Mingana, 1925, 309. Golden, 1990, 357, following Pritsak, 1951, 288-291. 80

count is highly suspect, the frequent mention of Christians in this text surely reflects some degree of historical reality.251 There is also significant archaeological evidence for the presence of Christianity in the Yeti Su area (modern day northern Kyrgyzstan and southern Kazakhstan), the heartland of the Qarluq realm, during the eighth and ninth centuries. In Taraz itself, various Christian artefacts have been discovered, including a Syriac inscription mentioning Peter and Gabriel,252 ossuaries with crosses on them,253 a clay vessel fragment with a cross on it,254 and a building which has been identified as a church, although this has been disputed.255 Other artefacts have been unearthed at Krasnaya Rechka (mediaeval Navekath), Aq-Beshim (mediaeval Suyab) and various other places in northern Kyrgyzstan that were formerly under Qarluq rule.256 In particular, two churches have been partially excavated in Aq-Beshim. At least one (and possibly both) can be dated to the eighth century. 257 Finally, in nearby Tokmak and Burana, hundreds of Christian gravestones, dating from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, were found in the 1880’s.258 Perhaps the earlier pres251

Devin DeWeese, “Yasavian Legends on the Islamization of Turkistan,” in Aspects of Altaic Civilization III: Proceedings of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference, ed. by Denis Sinor (Bloomington, 1990), 8-12. 252 А. Н. Бернштам, Памятники Старины Таласской Долины (Алма-ата, 1941), 21-22. 253 Л. И. Ремпель, “Некрополь Древнего Тараза,” in Краткие Сообщения Института Истории Материальной Культуры, Vol. 69 (1957), 110.; Frantz Grenet, Les pratiques funéraires dans l’Asie centrale sédentaire de la conquête grecque à l’islamisation (Paris, 1984), 180. 254 К. М. Байпаков, “Христианство Казахстана в Средние Века,” in Из Истории Древних Культов Средней Азии: Христианство, ed. by Г. А. Пугаченкова & Ю. Ф. Буряков (Ташкент, 1994), 99. 255 Maria Adelaide Lala Comneno, “Nestorianism in Central Asia during the First Millennium: Archaeological Evidence,” in Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1 (1997), 41. 256 Much of this evidence is summarized in В. Д. Горячева & С. Я. Перегудова, “Памятники Христианства на Территории Кыргызстана,” in Из Истории Древних Культов Средней Азии: Христианство, ed. by Г. А. Пугаченкова & Ю. Ф. Буряков (Ташкент, 1994), 84-95; Байпаков, 1994; Grigori L. Semenov, Studien zur sogdischen Kultur an der Seidenstraße (Wiesbaden, 1996), 62-68; Lala Comneno, 1997, 40-45; Wassilios Klein, Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh (Turnhout, 2000), 101-125. 257 Wassilios Klein, “A Newly Excavated Church of Syriac Christianity along the Silk Road in Kyrghyzstan,” in Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, Vol. 56 (2004), 25-47. 258 Chwolson, 1890; Daniel Chwolson, Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. Neue Folge (St. Petersburg, 1897). The first gravestone in Chwolson’s initial 1886 report was originally dated to 858. He later corrected this to 1258 (Daniel Chwolson, “Syrisch Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sci81

ence of Christianity in the area enabled the faith to flourish again when Mongol rule introduced a greater degree of religious tolerance. Motivations and Factors in the Conversion Religious conversion is a complex phenomenon, especially when rulers are involved.259 Thus, the political dimension of the conversion that Timothy reports should not be under-estimated. Although there were undoubtedly personal, even spiritual, reasons that the king of the Turks adopted Christianity, strategic factors were probably also involved. As Khazanov has noted, the rulers and aristocracy of nomadic societies understood well “the changes taking place in the political situation and the new possibilities, or even the necessity, of adjustment and readjustment.”260 The Qarluq yabghu would have been very aware that Manichaeism was the state religion of the Uighurs to the north. He was probably also apprised of the growing status of Judaism amongst the Khazars to the west. Although, as qaghans, the other two Turkic rulers had more status than he did, he may well have considered that adopting a world religion would increase his prestige in the nomadic world. Khazanov argues that the Khazar conversion to Judaism was “a declaration of political and ideological independence… from the two major rival and partner states: the Muslim Caliphate and Christian Byzantium.” By adopting Judaism, the Khazars made a strong political statement about not being assimilated or conquered by either of the empires to the south, as well as opening their state up to Jewish merchants, scholars and craftsmen.261 Similarly, the Uighur conversion to Manichaeism constituted a “proclamation of ideological independence,” along with a “demonstration of political force,” manifest in the Uighur demand that the Chinese prohibition on Manichaeism be ences de St.-Pétersbourg, Ser. VII, Tom. XXXIV, No. 4 (1886) 7-8; Chwolson, 1890, 15), but the literature continues to refer to the incorrect date, giving the impression that the earliest stones are from the ninth century (e.g. Mingana, 1925, 334; Dauvillier, 1948, 290; Lala Comneno, 1997, 40). A second stone, originally dated 911, was later discarded by Chwolson as too indistinct (Chwolson, 1886, 8; Chwolson, 1890, i). Thus, the earliest gravestone in Chwolson’s corpus can only be dated to 1201 or possibly 1186 (Chwolson, 1897, 5-6). Another gravestone not included in Chwolson’s corpus has been dated to either 789 or 909, but Wassilios Klein has shown that the date should rather be read as 1114/15 (Klein, 2000, 163165). Since there are only two possible gravestones from the twelfth century (both with problematic readings) and the vast majority of the corpus dates from the mid-thirteenth to the mid-fourteenth centuries, they cannot be used as direct evidence of Christianity amongst the Qarluqs. 259 For an excellent discussion of conversion to world religions in the Eurasian steppe, see Khazanov, 1994. 260 Khazanov, 1994, 15. 261 Khazanov, 1994, 16, 18. 82

removed.262 Again, a Manichaean state undoubtedly appealed to Sogdian Manichaean merchants, scholars and craftsmen, whose subsequent presence played a major role in the cultural elevation of the Uighurs.263 The Qarluq yabghu may well have been influenced by similar motives in his conversion to Christianity. Having already allied with the Arabs against the Chinese and Uighurs in the Battle of Talas (751), it was natural that the Qarluqs should seek ties with a religion represented in the Caliphate. The rather brutal history of jihad in Central Asia probably ruled out the idea of adopting Islam. Christianity, however, posed no such military (or taxation) threat to the Qarluqs. Though Timothy does not say what was communicated in his correspondence with the ruler, the latter surely became aware of the Patriarch’s status in the ʿAbbasid court and the extent of his jurisdiction. For his part, Timothy probably took every opportunity to impress these things upon the Turkic king. Additionally, parallel to the Khazars and Uighurs, conversion to Christianity would have induced more Sogdian Christian merchants, scholars and craftsmen to visit and even move to Qarluq territory. Finally, we may note the Qarluq-Tibetan alliance against the Uighurs and Chinese in the late eighth and early ninth centuries, precisely when Timothy was appointing these metropolitans. Perhaps their mutual relationship with the “patriarchal throne” of Timothy played a role in the development of their political ties (or conversely, the latter may even have facilitated the former). Following the example of the Hephthalite ruler ca. 550, the king of the Turks requested a Metropolitan for his people. It is unclear how much time elapsed between the conversion and the request for (or indeed the appointment of) the first Metropolitan. Timothy’s reference to “his writings” ̈ ) suggests that a certain amount of correspondence had been ex(‫ܟܬܝܒܬܗ‬ changed between the two, presumably translated between Syriac and Old Turkic (or Sogdian) along the way.264 Of special interest is the king’s request regarding “how he might appoint a Metropolitan for the territory of his kingdom.” The statement is in the third person, suggesting that the king wanted to appoint his own Metropolitan, rather than leave it in Timothy’s hands. Perhaps, if significant time had elapsed since first requesting a Metropolitan, he was growing impatient and wished to do the job himself. Furthermore, he presumably did not want to be put under the authority of the metropolitan of Samarkand, due to its location in Muslim Samanid territory. It was imperative that he have his own metropolitan, located in his territory. The Samanid conquest of the Qarluqs a century later 262 263 264

Khazanov, 1994, 19. Later on, the Uighurs fulfilled the same function for the Mongols. Regrettably, this correspondence has not survived. 83

clearly demonstrated the need for the latter to remain independent from the former at the time of the conversion.265 This desire for independence can also be seen in Ṭabari’s reference to the following comment of al-Maʾmun, governor of Khorasan and future caliph, in the year AH 195 (810/11 CE): “Jabghūyah has abandoned obedience; Khāqān, the ruler of Tibet, is acting up… and I have no strength for even one of these matters.”266 Barthold rightly identifies the “Jabghūyah” as the yabghu of the Qarluqs.267 It is perhaps no coincidence that both rulers who had recently acquired ‘Nestorian’ metropolitans were now causing trouble for the Caliphate. Based on Timothy’s statement in Letter XLI that “this also we have done”, the first Metropolitan was probably chosen sometime around 792/93. Timothy’s statement in Letter XLVII that “the Spirit has anointed in these days a Metropolitan for Beth Ṭurkāyē” almost certainly refers to the same event, rather than to a subsequent Metropolitan.268 Had clergy from the Church of the East previously been amongst his people or would this be their first contact with the church hierarchy? We have no way of knowing if the priests and deacons appointed for the minor ruler by Elia of Merv 150 years previously had inaugurated a presence amongst the Central Asian Turks that continued down to Timothy’s time. More likely, any previous contact with clergy was probably with representatives of the Samarkand metropolitanate, as suggested above. Postscript What evidence do we have that the metropolitanate which Timothy established for the Turks lasted beyond the Samanid conquest in 893? Lists of metropolitanates in the Church of the East can be found in the works of Elia Jauhari of Damascus, Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib, ʿAbdisho bar Berikha and ʿAmr ibn Mattai.269 Elia’s list, co-incidentally compiled in 893, the same year that Talas/Taraz was conquered by the Muslims, mentions only ‫ هوفركيا قند‬the Prov265

A parallel can perhaps be seen in the example of Boris I of Bulgaria, under whom the Christianisation of the Bulgarians proceeded apace. Although he was wooed by the Catholic Church after being baptised in 865, the pope’s refusal to grant him an independent national Patriarch ultimately convinced Boris to side with the Orthodox Church. 266 Ṭabari XXXI, 71. 267 Wilhelm Barthold, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion (London, 1968), 202. 268 A reasonable assumption, given the letter was written between 795 and 798. See the discussion on this in Uray, 1983, 403, n. 415. 269 Sachau, 1919, 21-22 contains a good summary of the relevant lists of metropolitanates. 84

ince of (Samar)Qand, 270 as does Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib (d. 1043). 271 However, ʿAbdisho’s Order of Ecclesiastical Judgements (1315/16)272 includes the following text:

̈ ‫ܝܡܡܝܬܐ܀‬ ‫ܪܘܫܡܐ ܕܡܝܛ̈ܪܦܘܠܝܬܐ ܕܠܒܪ܀ ܩܕܡܝܐ ܡܝܛܪܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܕܦܪܣ ܘܕܓܙ̈ܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܪܝܢܐ ܕܕܪܡܣܘܩ ܘܕܐܘܪܫܠܡ ܘܣܦ̈ܪܝ ܝܡܐ܀ ܬܠܝܬܝܐ ܕܡܪܘ ܘܕܢܝܫܒܘܪ܀ ܪܒܝܥܝܐ‬ ‫ܕܛܘ̈ܪܟܝܐ܀ ܚܡܝܫܝܐ ܕ̈ܪܙܝܩܝܐ ܕܗܝ‍ ܪܝ ܘܩܘܡ ܘܩܫܢ܀ ܫܬܝܬܝܐ ܕܗ̈ܪܝܘܢܐ ܕܗܝ ܗܪܝܘ܀‬ ̇ .‫ܒܪܕܥܗ ܘܫܢܝܟܐ ܡܢܬܐ ܡܢ ܐܪܡܢܝܐ܀ ܬܡܝܢܝܐ‬ ‫ܫܒܝܥܝܐ ܕܐܪܐܢ ܘܕܠܐܢܝܐ ܟܘܪܣܝܗ‬ 273 ̈ ‫ܕܓܙ̈ܪܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܝܡܡܐ ܘܕܠܓܘ ܕܐܒܓ ܘܨܝܢ ܘܡܨܝܢ܀‬

Description of the metropolitans of the exterior. First, the metropolitan of Persia and the maritime islands. Second, that of Damascus, Jerusalem and the sea-coast. Third, that of Merv and Nishapur. Fourth, that of the Ṭurkāyē. Fifth, that of the Raziqāyē,274 that is to say, Rayy, Qum and Qashan. Sixth, that of the Heratians, that is to say, Herat. Seventh, that of Aran and Alania. Its seat is Bardaʿah and Shnika,275 a part of Armenia. Eighth, that of the islands of the seas and that which is beyond, of Dabag and Ṣin and Maṣin. These Metropolitans are listed after the six that have the right to take part in electing a Catholicos. Thus, the Metropolitan of the Ṭurkāyē ranks tenth overall.276 Finally, ʿAmr, writing ca. 1350, ranks ‫( مطران تركستان‬the Metro-

politan of Turkistan) 22nd in his list, right behind the Metropolitan of Samarkand.277 Both ʿAbdisho and ʿAmr reflect the situation in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, a time when Christianity again flourished for a short while in Turkistan, as attested to by the aforementioned gravestones found in the Yeti Su region. However, it is unclear if the metropolitanate of the Turks/Turkistan mentioned by these two authors was a continuation of that established by Timothy or a subsequent creation. Brief as these references in Timothy’s correspondence are, they are immensely important in the difficult task of reconstructing the history of Syriac Christianity in Central Asia. If indeed the Qarluq Turks were those who con270 271

B.O. II, 458-460. Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib VI.16 (II, 123). He gives the full form

272

‫مسرقند‬.

Vosté, 1940, 13. Syn. Or., 619-620 = Vosté, 1940, 56-57. 274 The Raziqāyē were residents of the old Persian city of Ragha, now called Rayy, located near Tehran. 275 J.-B. Chabot suggested that this is a corruption of Armenian Sinnik (Syn. Or., 620, n. 2). 276 The list is contained in Canon XXI from the Synod of Isḥaq (Isaac) (410), updated by ʿAbdisho to reflect the situation in his time. 277 Majdal II, ١٢٦/73. 273

85

verted to Christianity during Timothy’s patriarchate, then a significant part of the Turkic world was part of the Christian oikumene for most of the ninth century. Abbreviations ʿAbdisho, Nom. = Mai, 1838 Baladhuri I = Hitti, 1916 Baladhuri II = Murgotten, 1924 Biruni = Sachau, 1879 B.O. = Assemani, 1719-1728 Chron. Eccl. = Abbeloos & Lamy, 1872-1877 Chron. Syr., T = Bedjan, 1890 Chron. Syr., V = Budge, 1932 EI = Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition Gardizi = Martinez, 1982 Governors, T = Budge, 1893a Governors, V = Budge, 1893b Histoire = Bedjan, 1895 Ibn al-Faqih = Massé, 1973 Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib = Hoenerbach & Spies, 1957 Ibn Khurd. = de Goeje, 1889 Ibn Misk. = Margoliouth, 1921 Khuzistan, T = Guidi, 1903a Khuzistan, V = Guidi, 1903b Majdal I = Gismondi, 1899 Majdal II = Gismondi, 1896-1897 Marvazi = Minorsky, 1942 Manas = Орозбак & Айтматов, 1978-1982 Masʿudi = Pellat, 1962-1997 Michael = Chabot, 1899-1910 M.P. = Middle Persian Narshakhi = Frye, 1954 N.P. = New Persian O.T. = Old Turkic 86

Qazwini I = Ethé, 1868 Qazwini II = Wüstenfeld, 1848278 Qudāma = de Goeje, 1889 Syn. Or. = Chabot, 1902 Ṭabari = Various, 1987-1999279 Timothy (Bidawid) = Bidawid, 1956 Timothy (Braun I) = Braun, 1901b Timothy (Braun II), T = Braun, 1915b Timothy (Braun II), V = Braun, 1915c Yaʿqubi = Wiet, 1937 Bibliography Abbeloos, Jean-Baptiste & Thomas Joseph Lamy, ed. & tr., 1872-1877. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (3 vols). Louvain & Paris: E. Peeters & Maisonneuve. Assemani, Joseph Simon, 1719-1728. Bibliotheca Orientalis ClementinoVaticana (4 vols). Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide. Barthold, Wilhelm, 1901. Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Mittel-Asien bis zur mongolischen Eroberung. Turnhout & Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr. Barthold, Wilhelm, 1968. Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion (E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series, N.S., Vol. 5). London: Luzac & Co. Baumstark, Anton, 1922. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluss der christlich-palastinensichen Texte. Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag. Beckwith, Christopher I., 1987. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bedjan, Paul, ed., 1890. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Syriacum. Paris: Maisonneuve. Bedjan, Paul, ed., 1895. Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, d’un prêtre et de deux laïques, nestoriens (2nd ed.). Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.

278

This is the only Muslim primary source referred to which has not been translated, so page references are to the edition of the Arabic text. 279 References to Ṭabari are to the volumes in the Bibliotheca Persica (SUNY) translation. 87

Bidawid, Raphaël, ed. & tr., 1956. Les lettres du patriarche nestorien Timothée I: étude critique avec en appendice la lettre de Timothée I aux moines du couvent de Mār Mārōn (Studi e Testi 187). Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Braun, Oskar, 1901a. “Der Katholikos Timotheos I und seine Briefe,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 1: 138-152. Braun, Oskar, 1901b. “Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I über biblische Studien des 9 Jahrhunderts,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 1: 299-313. Braun, Oskar, tr., 1915a. Ausgewählte Akten persischer Märtyrer (Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, Band 22). Kempten & München: J. Kösel. Braun, Oskar, ed., 1915b. Timothei Patriarchae I Epistulae I [Text] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 74/Syr. 30). Paris: J. Gabalda. Braun, Oskar, tr., 1915c. Timothei Patriarchae I Epistulae I [Trans] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 75/Syr. 31). Paris: J. Gabalda. Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, ed., 1893a. The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas Bishop of Margâ A. D. 840, Vol. I: The Syriac Text, Introduction, etc. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, tr., 1893b. The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas Bishop of Margâ A. D. 840, Vol. II: The English Translation. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, tr., 1932. The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj, the son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, being the First Part of his Political History of the World, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, ed. & tr., 1899-1910. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche 1166-1199 (4 vols). Paris: Ernest Leroux. Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, ed. & tr., 1902. Synodicon Orientale ou Recueil de Synodes Nestoriens (Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques, Vol. 27). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Chavannes, Edouard, 1897. “Le Nestorianisme et l’Inscription de KaraBalgassoun,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. IX (Ser.), No. IX (Tom.): 4385. Chwolson, Daniel, 1886. “Syrisch Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, Vol. VII (Ser.), No. XXXIV (Tom.), No. 4: 1-30. 88

Chwolson, Daniel, 1890. “Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.Pétersbourg, Vol. VII (Ser.), No. XXXVII (Tom.). Chwolson, Daniel, 1897. Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. Neue Folge. St. Petersburg: Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences. Clauson, Gerard, 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Czeglédy, Károly, 1954. “Monographs on Syriac and Muhammadan Sources in the Literary Remains of M. Kmoskó,” in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 4: 19-91. Dauvillier, Jean, 1948. “Les Provinces Chaldéennes ‘de l’Extérieur’ au Moyen Age,” in Mélanges offerts au R. P. Ferdinand Cavallera: 260316. Toulouse: Bibliothèque de l’Institut Catholique [repr: Histoire et institutions des Eglises orientales au Moyen Age, by Jean Dauvillier. London: Variorum, 1983, Article I]. Dauvillier, Jean, ed. 1983. Histoire et institutions des Eglises orientales au Moyen Age (Collected Studies Series 173). London: Variorum. de Goeje, M. J., ed. & tr., 1889. Kitâb al-Masâlik wa’l-Mamâlik, Auctore Abu’l-Kâsim Obaidallah ibn Abdallah Ibn Khordâdhbeh (Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum VI). Lugduni Batavorum: E. J. Brill. DeWeese, Devin, 1990. “Yasavian Legends on the Islamization of Turkistan,” in Aspects of Altaic Civilization III: Proceedings of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference (Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 145), ed. by Denis Sinor: 1-19. Bloomington: Indiana University. Ethé, Hermann, tr., 1868. Zakarija Ben Muhammed Ben Mahmûd elKazwîni’s Kosmographie, Erster Halbband: Die Wunder der Schöpfung. Leipzig: Fues's Verlag. Frye, Richard N., tr., 1954. The History of Bukhara. Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America. Gillman, Ian & Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, 1999. Christians in Asia before 1500. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Gismondi, Enrico, ed. & tr., 1896-1897. Maris Amri et Slibae. De Patriarchis Nestorianorum. Commentaria, Pars Altera (Amri et Slibae). Rome: C. de Luigi. Gismondi, Enrico, ed. & tr., 1899. Maris Amri et Slibae. De Patriarchis Nestorianorum. Commentaria, Pars Prior (Maris). Rome: C. de Luigi. 89

Golden, Peter B., 1990. “The Karakhanids and early Islam,” in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. by Denis Sinor: 343-370. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Golden, Peter B., 1998. “Religion among the Qıpčaqs of Medieval Eurasia,” in Central Asiatic Journal, Vol. 42: 180-237. Grenet, Frantz, 1984. Les pratiques funéraires dans l’Asie centrale sédentaire de la conquête grecque à l’islamisation (Publications de l’U.R.A. 29, Memoire No. 1). Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Guidi, Ignazio, 1893. “Un nuovo testo siriaco sulla storia degli ultimi Sassanidi,” in Actes de Huitième Congrès International des Orientalistes, tenu en 1889 à Stockholm et à Christiania, Section I: Semitique, Soussection B: 3-36. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Guidi, Ignazio, ed., 1903a. Chronica Minora: Chronicon anonymum de ultimis regibus Persarum [Text] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 1/Syr. 1). Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae. Guidi, Ignazio, tr., 1903b. Chronica Minora: Chronicon anonymum de ultimis regibus Persarum [Trans] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 2/Syr. 2). Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae. Hitti, Philip Khuri, tr., 1916. The Origins of the Islamic State, Vol. I (Kitāb Futuḥ al-Buldān of al-Balādhuri) (Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Vol. LXVIII). New York: Columbia University Press. Hoenerbach, Wilhelm & Otto Spies, tr., 1957. Ibn aṭ-Ṭaiyib, Fiqh anNaṣrānīya: «Das Recht der Christenheit» II [Trans] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 168/Ar. 19). Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste L. Durbecq. Hunter, Erica C. D., 1989/1991. “The Conversion of the Kerait to Christianity in A.D. 1007,” in Zentralasiatische Studien, Vol. 22: 142-163. Hunter, Erica C. D., 1996. “The Church of the East in Central Asia,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library, Vol. 78, No. 3: 129-142. Khazanov, Anatoly M., 1994. “The Spread of World Religions in Medieval Nomadic Societies of the Eurasian Steppes,” in Nomadic Diplomacy, Destruction and Religion from the Pacific to the Atlantic (Toronto Studies in Central and Inner Asia, No. 1), ed. by Michael Gervers & Wayne Schlepp: 11-33. Toronto: Joint Centre for Asia Pacific Studies.

90

Klein,

Wassilios, 2000. Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh (Silk Road Studies III). Turnhout: Brepols. Klein, Wassilios, 2004. “A Newly Excavated Church of Syriac Christianity along the Silk Road in Kyrghyzstan,” in Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, Vol. 56 (Symposium Syriacum VII): 25-47. Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim, 1993. “Christian Art on the Silk Road,” in Künstlerischer Austausch. Artistic Exchange: Akten des XXVIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Berlin, 15.-20. Juli 1992, ed. by Thomas W. Gaehtgens: 477-488. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Kmoskó, Mihály & Felföldi Szabolcs, 2004. Szír írók a steppe népeiről [Syriac sources on the peoples of the steppe] (Magyar Őstörténeti Könyvtár [Library of Hungarian Prehistory], Vol. 20). Budapest: Balassi Kiadó. Labourt, Jerome, 1904a. De Timotheo I Nestorianorum Patriarcha (728-823) et Christianorum Orientalium condicione sub Chaliphis Abbasidis. Paris: Victor Lecoffre. Labourt, Jerome, 1904b. Le Christianisme dans l’Empire Perse sous la Dynastie Sassanide (224-632) (2nd ed.). Paris: Victor Lecoffre. Lala Comneno, Maria Adelaide, 1997. “Nestorianism in Central Asia during the First Millennium: Archaeological Evidence,” in Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1: 20-69. Landron, Bénédicte, 1994. Chrétiens et Musulmans en Irak: Attitudes Nestoriennes vis-à-vis de l’Islam. Paris: Cariscript. Mackerras, Colin, 1972. The Uighur Empire according to the T’ang Dynastic Histories: a study in Sino-Uighur relations, 744-840 (2nd ed.) (Asian Publication Series, Vol. 2). Canberra: Australian National University Press. Mackerras, Colin, 1990. “The Uighurs,” in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. by Denis Sinor: 317-342. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mai, Angelo, ed. & tr., 1838. Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e vaticanis codicibus edita ab A.M., Vol. X. Rome: Typis Collegi Urbani. Margoliouth, D. S., tr., 1921. The Experiences of the Nations, by Miskawaihi (7 vols). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Martinez, A. P., 1982. “Gardīzī’s Two Chapters on the Turks,” in Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, Vol. 2: 109-217. 91

Massé, Henri, tr., 1973. Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamadānī: Abrégé du livre des pays. Damascus: Institut Français de Damas. Mingana, Alphonse, 1925. “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: A New Document,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol. 9, No. 2: 297-371 [repr: Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1925]. Minorsky, Vladimir, 1937. “The Khazars and Turks in the Ākām al-Marjān,” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 9: 141150. Minorsky, Vladimir, ed. & tr., 1942. Sharaf al-Zamān Ṭāhir Marvazī on China, the Turks and India (James G. Forlong Fund, Vol. XXII). London: Royal Asiatic Society. Minorsky, Vladimir, 1948. “Tamīm ibn Baḥr’s Journey to the Uyghurs,” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 12: 275305 [repr: The Turks, Iran and the Caucasus in the Middle Ages, by Vladimir Minorsky. London: Variorum, 1978, Article I]. Murgotten, Francis Clark, tr., 1924. The Origins of the Islamic State, Vol. II (Kitāb Futuḥ al-Buldān of al-Balādhuri) (Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Vol. LXVIII). New York: Columbia University Press. Nau, François, 1914. “L’expansion nestorienne en Asie,” in Annales du Musée Guimet, Bibliothèque de vulgarisation, Vol. 40: 193-388. Nöldeke, Theodor, tr., 1893. Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik (Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 128). Wien: F. Tempsky. Payne Smith, Jessie, 1903. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Oxford: Clarendon Press [repr: Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999]. Peeters, Paul, 1946. “Observations sur la vie syriaque de Mar Aba, Catholicos de l’église perse (540-552),” in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, Vol. V (Studi e Testi 125): 69-112. Pellat, Charles, ed., 1962-1997. Les prairies d’or (5 vols). Paris: Société asiatique. Pelliot, Paul, 1973. Recherches sur les chrétiens d’Asie centrale et d’Extrême-Orient, Vol. I (Oeuvres Posthumes de Paul Pelliot). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. 92

Pines, Shlomo, 1968. “The Iranian name for Christians and the ‘GodFearers’,” in Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities II: 143-152 Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities [repr: Studies in the History of Religion, by Shlomo Pines, ed. by Guy Stroumsa. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1996, [11-20]]. Pritsak, Omeljan, 1951. “Von den Karluk zu den Karachaniden,” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 101 (N.S. 26): 270-300. Pritsak, Omeljan, 1968. “Two Migratory Movements in the Eurasian Steppe in the 9th-11th Centuries,” in Proceedings of the 26th International Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi 1964, Vol. 2: 157-163. New Delhi [repr: Studies in Medieval Eurasian History, by Omeljan Pritsak. London: Variorum, 1981, Article VI]. Pritsak, Omeljan, 1978. “The Khazar Kingdom’s Conversion to Judaism,” in Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 2: 261-281 [repr: Studies in Medieval Eurasian History, by Omeljan Pritsak. London: Variorum, 1981, Article XI]. Putnam, Hans, 1975. L’Église et l’Islam sous Timothée I (780-823): Étude sur église nestorienne au temps des premiers abbasides (Recherches publiées sous la direction de l’Institut de lettres orientales de Beyrouth, N. S. B. Orient chrétien, Tom. III). Beirut: Dar el-Machreq. Ramstedt, G. J., 1913. “Zwei Uigurische Runeninschriften in der NordMongolei,” in Journal de la Societé Finno-Ougrienne, Vol. 30, No. 3: 1-63. Sachau, Edward, tr., 1879. The Chronology of Ancient Nations. London: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain & Ireland. Sachau, Eduard, 1919. Zur Ausbreitung des Christentums in Asien (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse. Jahrgang 1919, Nr. 1). Berlin: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften. Saeki, P. Y., 1951. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China (2nd ed.). Tokyo: Maruzen Company Ltd. Semenov, Grigori L., 1996. Studien zur sogdischen Kultur an der Seidenstraße (Studies in Oriental Religions, Vol. 36). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1993. “The Sogdian Inscriptions of Ladakh,” in Antiquities of Northern Pakistan: Reports and Studies (Rock Carvings and Inscriptions along the Karakorum Highway, Vol. 2), ed. by Karl Jettmar: 151-163. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. 93

Siouffi, M., 1881. “Notice sur un patriarche nestorien,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. VII (Ser.), No. XVII (Tom.): 89-96. Tang, Li, 2005. “A History of Uighur Religious Conversions (5th - 16th Centuries)” [Electronic Version], in Asia Research Institute, Working Paper Series, No. 44 (http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/showfile.asp?pubid=518&type=2). Tekin, Talat, 1968. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic (Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 69). Bloomington: Indiana University. Uray, G., 1983. “Tibet’s Connections with Nestorianism and Manicheism in the 8th-10th Centuries,” in Contributions on Tibetan Language, History, and Culture (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde, Band 11), ed. by Ernst Steinkellner & Helmut Täuscher: 399-429. Wien: Universität Wien [repr: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1995]. Various, tr., 1987-1999. The History of al-Ṭabarī (Taʾrīkh al-rusul waʾlmulūk) (39 vols) (Bibliotheca Persica). Albany: State University of New York Press. Vosté, Jacques-Marie, tr., 1940. Ordo Iudiciorum Ecclesiasticorum, collectus, dispositus, ordinatus et compositus a Mar ‘Abdišo‘ Metropolita Nisibis et Armeniae (Codificazione Canonica Orientale, Fonti, Serie II - Fascicolo XV. Caldei - Diritto Antico II). Città del Vaticano: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis. Wiet, Gaston, tr., 1937. Ya‘kūbī: Les Pays (Textes et Traductions d’Auteurs Orientaux, Vol. 1). Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Wright, William, 1894. A Short History of Syriac Literature. London: A. and C. Black [repr: Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2001]. Wüstenfeld, Ferdinand, ed., 1848. Zakarija Ben Muhammed Ben Mahmud elCazwini’s Kosmographie, Zweiter Theil: Die Denkmäler der Länder. Göttingen: Dieterichschen Buchhandlung. Zimonyi, István, 1990. The Origins of the Volga Bulghars (Studia UraloAltaica, Vol. 32). Szeged: Universitas Szegediensis de Attila József Nominata. Байпаков, К. М., 1994. “Христианство Казахстана в Средние Века,” in Из Истории Древних Культов Средней Азии: Христианство, ed. by Г. А. Пугаченкова & Ю. Ф. Буряков: 96-100. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий. Бернштам, А. Н., 1941. Памятники Старины Таласской Долины. Алмаата: Казахское Объединенное Государственное Исдательство. 94

Горячева, В. Д. & С. Я. Перегудова, 1994. “Памятники Христианства на Территории Кыргызстана,” in Из Истории Древних Культов Средней Азии: Христианство, ed. by Г. А. Пугаченкова & Ю. Ф. Буряков: 84-95. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий. Кляшторный, С. Г., 1959. “Историко-культурное значение суджинской надписи,” in Проблемы Востоковедения, No. 5: 162-169. Никитин, А. Б., 1984. “Христианство в Центральной Азии,” in Восточный Туркестан и Средняя Азия: история, культура, связи, ed. by Борис Литвинский: 121-137. Москва: Наука. Орозбак, Сагымбай & Чингиз Айтматов, ed., 1978-1982. Манас (4 vols). Фрунзе: Кыргыз ССР илимдер Академиясы. Ремпель, Л. И., 1957. “Некрополь Древнего Тараза,” in Краткие Сообщения Института Истории Материальной Культуры, Vol. 69: 102-110. MARK DICKENS School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

95

4 MULTILINGUAL CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPTS FROM TURFAN Mark DICKENS SOAS, University of London280 Original publication information: “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts from Turfan,” in Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, Vol. 9 (2009), pp. 22-42. Introduction: Christian Manuscripts from Central Asia The Turfan Oasis is located in western China, about 150 km SE of Urumchi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (often referred to as Eastern Turkistan by those outside China). It is situated on the middle branch of the Silk Road,281 on the northern edge of the Tarim Basin, with the rugged Tien Shan Mountains to the north-west and the vast Taklamakan Desert that fills most of the Basin to the south-east. After the fall of the Turkic Uyghur Empire (744-840), the Uyghurs fled southward to set up kingdoms in Gansu and the Turfan Oasis. In Turfan, the resultant Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho, based in the most important city in the area, lasted over four centuries (ca. 860-1284). Not surprisingly, due to its location on the Silk Road, Turfan was a cultural and religious meeting place. Although most Uyghurs had converted to Manichaeism under the Uyghur Empire, the majority religion in the Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho was Buddhism. In addition to these two religions, Christianity was also present, as is evident from the manuscript fragments and other archaeological artefacts that have been uncovered at Turfan. 280

I would like to acknowledge the generous input of the following specialists in Syriac, Sogdian and Old Turkic, without whose help this article would not have been possible: Sebastian Brock (Oxford University), Amir Harrak (University of Toronto), Erica Hunter (SOAS), Simone Raschmann (Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences), Christiane Reck (Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences), Nicholas Sims-Williams (SOAS), and Peter Zieme (Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences). I am also thankful to Clare Hall, Cambridge, for a research grant which made it possible to present this paper in Toronto. Thanks are also due to the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preussischer Kulturbesitz and the BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften for access to and permission to reproduce images of the relevant fragments. All images are copyright Depositum der BERLINBRANDENBURGISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN in der STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN - Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. 281 In actual fact, rather than just a single road, it was a network of trade routes, stretching from China through Central Asia to the Iranian and Mediterranean world. 96

Much later, Islam became the dominant religion of the area, although the final conversion of the Turfan Uyghurs to that religion did not take place until the 15th century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Chinese Central Asia attracted the interest of archaeologists and explorers from several European countries (England, France, Germany, Russia and Sweden), as well as Japan.282 Between 1902 and 1914, there were four German (or rather, Prussian) expeditions to Turfan, led by either Albert Grünwedel or Albert von le Coq. In addition to thousands of artefacts, these expeditions brought back 40,000 manuscript fragments in 20 scripts and 22 languages to Berlin. Despite a turbulent history due to the Second World War and the subsequent division of Germany into East and West, the vast majority of these fragments are still housed in Berlin, split between three locations: 1) the Turfanforschung, in the BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften; 2) the Oriental Department of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin; and 3) the Museum für Asiatische Kunst in Dahlem.283 Reflecting the religious climate of Turfan, the vast majority of manuscript finds were Buddhist or Manichaean in nature. The Turfan finds were especially valuable in the development of Turkic and Indo-European (particularly Iranian) philology, due to the many examples of texts in previously unknown or little-known languages, such as Old Turkic, Sogdian, Tocharian, and Bactrian. However, amongst the many fragments, a significant number of Christian texts were also unearthed. We now know that there are slightly over 1100 Christian manuscript fragments: 500 fragments in Syriac, 550 in Sogdian (an Eastern Middle Iranian language) in Syriac script, 50 in Sogdian in Sogdian script and 50 in Old Uyghur (a dialect of Old Turkic) in Syriac or Uyghur script. Although they constitute less than 3% of the total Turfan corpus, they nonetheless testify to the presence of a thriving Christian community in the middle of the Uyghur Kingdom. Most Christian manuscript fragments were discovered at the ruined Christian monastery of Shüi-pang near Bulayïq (in the Turfan Oasis),284 be282

On which, see Peter Hopkirk, Foreign devils on the Silk Road: the search for the lost cities and treasures of Chinese Central Asia (London: J. Murray, 1980). 283 The history of Turfan Studies is described in Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Turfan Studies (Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2007). 284 The monastic nature of the community is strongly suggested by the large number of Christian Sogdian texts dealing with asceticism and the spiritual life, including “admonitions, homilies, and treatises on… the seven canonical hours of prayer and the virtues of withdrawal from the world, solitude and silent contemplation within one’s cell”: Nicholas SimsWilliams, “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” in The Literature of Pre97

ginning in 1905, during the Second and Third Prussian Turfan Expeditions (1904-1907), led by Albert von le Coq.285 At the same time, some Christian manuscript fragments were also found at other sites in the Turfan Oasis, namely Astana, Qocho, Qurutqa and Toyoq. Like the other finds from Turfan, the Christian materials are generally dated between the 9th and 13th centuries, the duration of the Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho. However, with very few exceptions, these texts have not been dated more precisely, either by archaeological or epigraphic means.286 The few exceptions concern texts that can be dated to the Mongol era due to the occurrence of certain words not found before that time.287 With the possible exception of a few texts that may reflect Melkite influence,288 all Christian texts found at Turfan originated in the Church of the East, which had missions into China as early as the 7th century, as recorded in the famous Xi’an “Nestorian” Stele.289 Not surprisingly, the nature of the Christian monastic community at Bulayïq has determined the genre of the texts found there, which include liturgical texts, biblical texts (Psalters and lectionaries), ascetical and devotional texts, hagiographical texts and prayer booklets. As noted above, most Christian texts from Turfan are in three different languages: Syriac, Sogdian and Old Uyghur. Syriac fragments predominantly reflect the core liturgical and biblical texts, such as the Ḥudra and the Psalter, but there are also a number of prayer booklets and miscellaneous texts, such as the Legend of St. George,290 the Legend of Barshabba,291 and a Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew.292 The many Christian Sogdian texts (most in Syriac script, but a limited number in Sogdian script) include Psalters, lectionaries, hagiograph-

Islamic Iran, ed. by Ronald E. Emmerick & Maria Macuch, History of Persian Literature, Vol XVII (London: I. B. Tauris, 2009), 279. 285 On this site, see Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Bulayïq,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 4 (1990), 545. 286 As Ibid, 545 notes. 287 See below, in the discussion of fragment U 338. 288 See Nicholas Sims-Williams, “A Greek-Sogdian Bilingual from Bulayïq,” in La Persia e Bisanzio. Atti dei Convegni Lincei 201 (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2004), 623631; Sims-Williams, “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” 274-275. 289 On the history of the Church of the East in Central Asia, see Ian Gillman & HansJoachim Klimkeit, Christians in Asia before 1500 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 205-262. 290 See Miklós Maróth, “Eine unbekannte Version der Georgios-Legende aus Turfan,” in AoF 18 (1991), 86-108. 291 See F. W. K. Müller & W. Lentz, “Soghdische Texte II,” in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1934), 559-564. 292 Soon to be published by Miklós Maróth. 98

ical and ascetical texts.293 The relatively few Christian Uyghur texts (in both Syriac and Uyghur scripts) are varied in genre and include the Legend of the Magi and a wedding blessing.294 In addition, there are Christian texts in two other Iranian languages: the famous Pahlavi Psalter in Middle Persian295 and a few fragments in New Persian in Syriac script, including a folio from a bilingual Psalter discussed below and fragments of a New Persian pharmacological text in Syriac script.296 The Christian fragments from Turfan in Syriac script are currently the subject of a research project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, United Kingdom and based in the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.297 The Christian Library at Turfan Project aims to catalogue all manuscript fragments from Turfan in Syriac script, resulting in three separate catalogues for Syriac, Sogdian and Uyghur Turkic texts, all to be published in the series Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland (VOHD). 298 Christian fragments in either Sogdian or Uyghur script will be dealt with in two separate catalogues in the VOHD series.299 One of the most interesting aspects of the Christian materials from Turfan is what they reveal to us of the multilingual (and to some degree, multiethnic) 293

Many of these have been published by Nicholas Sims-Williams. See for example Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Dādišo‘ Qatrāyā’s Commentary on the Paradise of the Fathers,” in AB 112 (1994), 33-64. 294 See F. W. K. Müller, “Uigurica I,” in Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, No. II (1908), 5-10; Peter Zieme, “Ein Hochzeitssegen Uigurischer Christen,” in Scholia: Beiträge zur Turkologie und Zentralasienkunde, ed. by Klaus Röhrborn & Horst Wilfrid Brands (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), 221-232. 295 See F. C. Andreas & Kaj Barr, “Bruchstücke einer Pehlewi-Übersetzung der Psalmen,” in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1933), 91-152; SimsWilliams, “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” 269-270. 296 All are to be included in Nicholas Sims-Williams’ catalogue of Iranian Fragments in Syriac Script in the VOHD series, mentioned below. 297 Led by Dr. Erica Hunter (SOAS), the research team also includes Prof. Nicholas SimsWilliams (SOAS), Prof. Peter Zieme (Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences), and the author (SOAS). 298 Currently all in preparation, they are: 1) 5,2. Syrische Handschriften. Teil 2: Texte der Berliner Turfansammlung, compiled by Erica Hunter & Mark Dickens [provisional title only]; 2) 18,4. Mitteliranische Handschriften. Teil 4: Iranian Fragments in Syriac Script, compiled by Nicholas Sims-Williams; and 3) an edition of Christian Turkic Fragments in Syriac Script [final title not yet determined], compiled by Peter Zieme [See Addenda et Corrigenda in this volume for final publication information on all three volumes]. 299 1) 18,3. Mitteliranische Handschriften. Teil 3: Berliner Turfanfragmente in soghdischer Schrift, compiled by Christiane Reck, and 2) Alttürkische Handschriften [final title not yet determined], compiled by Simone Raschmann. 99

state of the Christian community there. This has been well summed up by Nicholas Sims-Williams (emphasis mine): Syriac was always maintained as the primary language of the liturgy, the languages of the local people being admitted into liturgical use only for particular parts of the service such as hymns, psalms, and Bible readings… The Pahlavi Psalter found at Bulayïq may be seen as an import from the motherchurch in Iran and the use of Middle Persian for the vernacular parts of the liturgy as a feature of the earliest period in the history of the Christian community in the Turfan oasis, before Sogdian was raised to the status of a church language… The writers and readers of the Christian Sogdian manuscripts may in many cases have been [Uyghur] Turkish speakers. During the final phase of the monastery’s existence… [Uyghur] Turkish was probably the principal language of day-to-day business, although Sogdian evidently retained a place beside Syriac as a language of literature and liturgy.300

This article surveys some of the more important multilingual manuscript fragments from Turfan, in an effort to shed more light on the roles that Syriac, Sogdian and Uyghur Turkic had in the Christian community in Turfan, in particular the relative status of those languages vis-à-vis each other and what the fragments tell us about the knowledge of Syriac amongst Sogdian and Turkic native speakers.301 Bilingual Fragments in Syriac and Sogdian (Syriac Script) There are seventeen bilingual Syriac-Sogdian fragments in Syriac script in the Turfan collection, some of which have been regrouped by Nicholas Sims-Williams into original manuscripts.302 The contents are written in Syriac and Sogdian (in Syriac script), a practice that the Turfan materials indicate was common amongst Sogdian-speaking Christians. The texts include portions from four Gospel lectionaries (N2-N5), one lectionary of Pauline epistles (N6) and one Psalter (N7), the underlying Syriac text of which is the Peshitta. 300

Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and Tun-huang Manuscripts,” in Turfan and Tun-huang, the Texts: Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route, Orientalia Venetiana IV, ed. by Alfredo Cadonna (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1992), 49-51, 54. 301 On Christian documents from Dunhuang, 600 km SE of Turfan, which give evidence of multilingual interaction, see Sims-Williams, “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” 285-287. 302 These have been previously described in Werner Sundermann, “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers „Soghdischen Texten I“, 3. Teil,” in AoF 8 (1981), 169-225 and will be included in the VOHD catalogue compiled by Nicholas Sims-Williams, who generously shared information on these fragments with me. 100

One example of these fragments is n 190 (T II S 25),303 part of the Gospel Lectionary N3 (from which no other folios have survived) which contains Luke 2:10-20 and Matt. 2:1-3, Gospel readings for Christmas and the first Sunday after Christmas respectively. The text alternates between the Syriac original and a Sogdian translation in Syriac script. The first line of the recto side gives an example of this alternation with the first two visible words: ‫( ܥܠܡܐ‬Syriac “the world”) ‫( ܩܛ‬kát, Sogdian, “that”). The Syriac marks the end of Luke 2:10.304 These fragments are important in demonstrating the importance of both Syriac and Sogdian in rendering the biblical text for the Christian community at Turfan (and possibly elsewhere in Central Asia). Syriac obviously had prestige as the liturgical language of the Church of the East, but translation of the biblical text into Sogdian also demonstrates its crucial role as a lingua franca and the fact that the Church of the East was willing to be linguistically flexible in its evangelistic efforts. Bilingual Fragments in Syriac and Sogdian (Sogdian Script) Fourteen fragments of a Syriac-Sogdian Psalter have been described by Martin Schwartz and Christiane Reck.305 In contrast to the lectionary fragments just described, these are written in Sogdian script, a practice seemingly 303

Wherever possible, the current signature of each fragment is given first, with the original T II or T III signature (short for Turfan Expedition II or III) in parentheses, since the latter is frequently cited in the literature. Images of all the fragments are available on either the International Dunhuang Project or the Turfanforschung websites, at the following URLs: Syriac: http://idp.bl.uk/ Middle Persian Psalter: http://www.bbaw.de/forschung/turfanforschung/dta/ps/dta_ps_index.htm Sogdian (Syriac script): http://www.bbaw.de/forschung/turfanforschung/dta/n/dta_n_index.html Sogdian (Sogdian script): http://www.bbaw.de/forschung/turfanforschung/dta/so/dta_so_index.htm Uyghur Turkic: http://www.bbaw.de/forschung/turfanforschung/dta/u/dta_u_index.htm. 304 Syriac Peshitta text: ‫ ܗܐ ܓܝܪ ܡܣܒܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ‬.‫ ܠܐ ܬܕܚܠܘܢ‬.‫ܘܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ ܡܠܐܟܐ‬ ‫ ܕܬܗܘܐ ܠܟܠܗ ܥܠܡܐ‬.‫ܚܕܘܬܐ ܪܒܬܐ‬, “And the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for the whole world.’” 305 Previously described in Martin Schwartz, Studies in the Texts of the Sogdian Christians (Dissertation: Near Eastern Languages, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, 1967), 126-144; Martin Schwartz, “Sogdian Fragments of the Book of Psalms,” in AoF 1 (1974), 257-261; Christiane Reck, “A Survey of the Christian Sogdian Fragments in Sogdian Script in the Berlin Turfan Collection,” in Controverses des chrétiens dans l’Iran sassanide, Studia Iranica - Cahier 36, ed. by Christelle Jullien (Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 2008), 192-193, these will be included in the VOHD catalogue compiled by Christiane Reck, to whom I am grateful for supplying information on these fragments. 101

less common amongst Sogdian-speaking Christians at Turfan, given the relative number of Christian texts we have in the two scripts. The extant fragments contain portions of Psa. 5-6, 19-20, 23-24, 28-30, 50, and 51, all obviously translated from the Peshitta. As Schwartz notes, “the format of each Psalm is as follows: (1) the number of the Psalm in Syriac words; (2) the number of the Psalm in Sogdian numerals, consisting of a Sogdian numeral followed by an ordinal suffix; (3) the Sogdian translation of the East Syrian Psalm Title ... (4) the opening verse in Syriac, and (5) the Sogdian translation of the entire Psalm.”306 Of the relevant fragments listed by Christiane Reck, several are now lost, preserved only in photos, and the specific biblical references of others are yet to be identified. Two examples can however be cited, both glassed together: So 15490, side 2, line 3 contains the Syriac rubric ‫ܐܠܗܐ‬, the end of the first half of Psa. 19:1.307 Under the same glass, So 15492, side 1, line 1 contains ̈ the Syriac rubric ‫ܒܢܝ ܕܟ̈ܪܐ‬, the end of the first half of Psa. 29:1.308 The rubric on So 15493, side 2, line 1 is difficult to decipher, but may be ‫[ܐܪ]ܡܪܡܟ ܡܪ[ܝܐ]؟‬, the beginning of Psa. 30:1.309 Although Syriac maintains a presence in this Sogdian Psalter, it is more for show, as only the initial line (or half-line) of each Psalm is given in Syriac. As Nicholas Sims-Williams points out, the fact that this Psalter (and a fragment from another Psalter, with the first phrase from Psa. 33 in Greek) was written in Sogdian script may “indicate that they were intended for use by laymen as well as monks.” Whatever the reason, the Sogdian Psalter seems to indicate a desire by the Turfan Christians to identify more with the local culture than with the Mesopotamian milieu from which the Church of the East originated. Bilingual Fragments in Syriac and New Persian (Syriac Script) Werner Sundermann managed to join together two fragments kept in separate places in Berlin that originally formed the only folio remaining from a bilingual Syriac-New Persian Psalter, again written in Syriac script: MIK III 112 (T II B 57), kept in the Dahlem Museum, and SyrHT 153 (T II B 64), 306

Martin Schwartz, Studies in the Texts of the Sogdian Christians (revised version) (Dissertation: Near Eastern Languages, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, 1982), 158. 307 Syriac Peshitta text: ‫ܫܡܝܐ ܡܫܬܥܝܢ ܫܘܒܚܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” 308 Syriac Peshitta text: ‫ܐܝܬܘ ܠܡܪܝܐ ̈ܒܢܝ ܕܟ̈ܪܐ‬, “Bring to the Lord lambs...” 309 Syriac Peshitta text: ‫ܐܪܡܪܡܟ ܡܪܝܐ ܕܐܪܝܡܬܢܝ‬, “I will exalt you, O Lord, who has lifted me.” 102

kept in the Staatsbibliothek.310 The folio contains Psa. 146:5-147:7 according to the Peshitta version of the Bible (Psa. 147:5-18 in the Masoretic text used in English Bibles). The Syriac lines are followed by a New Persian translation in the modified Syriac script used for Christian Sogdian and Christian Persian,311 constituting the earliest known translation from Syriac into New Persian. A rubric on SyrHT 153, side 2, line 11 gives the number of the Psalm in Syriac, according to the Peshitta text: ‫ܕܡܐܐ ܘܐܪܒܥܝܢ ܘܫܒܥ‬ (147).312 As with the Syriac-Sogdian bilingual lectionaries, this fragment demonstrates the dual importance of the liturgical language (Syriac) and the emerging lingua franca of Central Asia (New Persian). Rather than being content to stick with Sogdian, the Christians at Turfan were willing to adapt with the times and adopt New Persian, which over the course of the 9th and 10th centuries replaced Sogdian amongst the Iranian-speakers in Central Asia, particularly in the Sogdian homeland between the Oxus and Jaxartes rivers (the Amu Darya and Syr Darya), now located in modern-day Uzbekistan. However, as Nicholas Sims-Williams notes, “it is an open question whether they [referring to both the Psalter and pharmacological fragments] were written in the Turfan oasis… or in Sogdiana.”313 Syriac Texts with Sogdian Instructions in Syriac Script Six fragments have been discovered so far consisting of Syriac texts with Sogdian instructions (often in rubrics).314 Perhaps the most significant of these texts is an East Syriac baptismal rite with instructions to the priest in Sogdian, preserved in two adjacent folios: SyrHT 88 (T II B 46 No. 4) and 310

The Dahlem fragment was previously described in F. W. K. Müller, “Ein syrischneupersisches Psalmenbruchstück aus Chinesisch-Turkistan,” in Festschrift Eduard Sachau, ed. by Gotthold Weil (Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer, 1915), 215-222 and E. Benveniste, “Sur un fragment d’un psautier syro-persan,” in Journal Asiatique 230 (1938), 458-462. The reconstructed folio is treated in Werner Sundermann, “Einige Bemerkungen zum SyrischNeupersischen Psalmenbruchstük aus Chinesisch-Turkistan,” in Mémorial Jean de Menasce, ed. by Philippe Gignoux & A. Tafazzoli (Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1974), 441-452. Both fragments will be included in the VOHD catalogues compiled by Sims-Williams and Hunter & Dickens. 311 On which, see the Proposal to add six Syriac letters for Sogdian and Persian to the UCS, by Nicholas Sims-Williams and Michael Everson (std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/WG2/docs/n2422.pdf). 312 Psa. 147:1 in the Peshitta is Psa. 147:12 in the Masoretic text. 313 Sims-Williams, “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” 270. 314 All will be published in the VOHD catalogue compiled by Hunter & Dickens, although SyrHT 83 and 84, containing Uyghur overwriting, will also be included in the catalogue compiled by Raschmann. 103

SyrHT 66 (T II B 20 No. 1). Translated and soon to be published by Sebastian Brock (with Sogdian translation by Nicholas Sims-Williams), the following lines (from SyrHT 66 recto, lines 11-17; [Fig. 4-1]) are representative of this unique text, the earliest example of this particular rite (other manuscripts are from the 15th century or later):315

]‫ܩܢܘ܀ ܕܠܟ ܘܠܗ ܘܠܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕ[ܫܐ‬ ]‫ܬܫܒ ̄ܘ(ܚܬܐ) ܘܐ ̄ܝ(ܩܪܐ) ܘܬ ̄ܘ(ܕܝܬܐ) ܘܣ(ܓܕܬܐ) ܗܫܐ܀ ܦܝܫܛܪ[ܘ‬ ‫•[ܐ]ܣܛ•ܡܫܚܐ•ܐܛ•ܛܐܦܛ‬.‫ܡܣܝܕܪ‬ ‫ܦܪ•ܧܘܢܝ•ܪܘܥܢ•ܩܝ•ܦܪ•ܬܪܘܢܘܣ‬ ‫ܒܐܛ•ܦܪ•ܨܠܝܒܐ•ܡܐܢܘܩܝܐ•ܐܛ‬ ‫ܘܐܒܛ܀ ܡܬܪܫܡ ܘܡܬܚܠܛ ܡܫـ[ܚـ]ܐ‬ 316 ]‫ܗܢܐ ܒܡܫܚܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ [ܕܢܗܘܐ‬

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

11. Canon (Syr. qano[na]). For to you and to him and to the Spirit of Holi[ness] 12. be glo(ry) and ho(nour) and tha(nksgiving) and w(orship), now. Afterwards 13. the priest takes the oil (Syr. mešḥa) and seals 14. that oil (Sog. rwγn) which is on the altar (Syr. tronos, from Gr. θρόνος) 15. with the likeness of the cross (Syr. ṣliba), and 16. he says, This oil is marked and mingled 17. with the holy oil, [to become…] Of particular interest is the use of Syriac for standard Christian terminology and the fact that the first mention of “oil” in the Sogdian instructions uses Syriac mešḥa, whereas the second mention uses Sogdian rwγn. SyrHT 83 (T II B 43 No. 1a; [Fig. 4-2] & [Fig. 4-3]) and SyrHT 84 (T II B 43 No. 1b) are two adjacent fragments, probably from an original booklet. The folios can be considered a palimpsest; the underlying Syriac text has a Sogdian rubric (in Syriac script), but side 1 has been overwritten with three lines of Syriac and side 2 has been overwritten with eight lines of Uyghur 315

I am very grateful to Sebastian Brock for permission to reproduce this extract here. Throughout this article, Sogdian words in Syriac script and their translations are underlined. All translations from Sogdian in this article are by Nicholas Sims-Williams, to whom I also express many thanks. Other translations from Syriac are my own. 316 Note the occurrence in line 14 of the modified Syriac letter ‫ܧ‬, used to render Sogdian /x/ and Turkic /q/ in Christian texts written in Syriac script. My thanks to Pier Giorgio Borbone for the use of his modified Syriac font which includes this letter. In Christian Sogdian texts, the Syriac letters ‫ ܥ‬and ‫ ܨ‬stand for phonetic /γ/ and /č/ respectively. 104

script (before the two folios were separated). Thus it is a trilingual text, albeit not by original intent. The portion with the Sogdian rubric is reproduced here (SyrHT 83, side 1, lines 1-8):

‫ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܟ ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܟ ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܫܘܒܚܐ ܠܟ ܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܥܠ ̈ܐܦܝ ܟܠܗܝܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܛܝܒܘܬܟ ܕܠܘܬܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕܠܐ ܡ‬ ‫ܬܡܠܠܢ‬ ̣ ‫ܠܥܠܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ܀‬ ‫ܐܒܝܢܛ ܩܪܒܝܢܢ ܡܪܝ‬ •‫ܫܪܝܪܬܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܒܗܝܡܢܘܬܐ‬

ܵ • ‫ܘܩܨܝܢܢ• ܒܚܢܢܟ‬ ‫ܘܪܫܡܝܢܢ ܒܡܪܚܡܢܘܬܟ‬ ‫ܦܓܪܗ ܘܕܡܗ ܕܡܚܝܢܢ‬ ‫ܡܪܢ ܝܫܘܥܡܫܝܚܐ‬ ‫ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ‬

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14

Praise to you, my Lord. Praise to you, my Lord. Praise to you, my Lord, for all of your unspeakable grace (pl.) to us, forever and ever, Amen. Continue (Sog ’bynt).317 We draw near, my Lord, in true faith to break through your mercy and sign through your favour the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the name of the Father, the Son [and the Holy Spirit]. This text comes from the Signing and Breaking of the Consecrated Bread and Blood in the Eucharistic liturgy of the Church of the East. While the text reflects the wording of the current liturgy, there are some insignificant variants between them.318 The three lines of Syriac overwriting on side 1 of both folios, written in a large hand in light black ink on top of the underlying text,

317

Remarking on this word, Nicholas Sims-Williams notes: “It is attested as a noun meaning ‘union, connection,’ but can also be the imperative of a verb meaning ‘to attach, join.’ Here perhaps it might mean something like ‘continue!’ or ‘join in!’ (personal communication, June 11, 2009). 318 See Ṭaksā d-kahnē d-‛edtā d-madnḥā [the Priestly Office of the Church of the East] (Mosul: 1928; repr. Chicago: 2002), 40. My thanks to Amir Harrak for identifying and commenting on the Syriac text. 105

are very difficult to decipher or relate to the rest of the letter.319 The Uyghur overwriting, perhaps written in the same hand as the Syriac overwriting, will be addressed in the next section. SyrHT 87 (T II B 46 No. 3) is a third text with Sogdian instructions in Syriac script, as shown in this extract from side 1, lines 5-9:

][‫ܬܘܒ ܛܟܣܐ ܕܠܠܝܐ ܕܥܠ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܡܫܡܫܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܦܣܩܘܦܐ ̈ܩܫܝܫܐ‬ ‫ܫܪܪܐ [ ]ܠ[]ܟ܀ ܘܛܡ ̣ܝ܀ ܣܦܧܫ[]ܠܝ܀܀‬ ‫ ܘܡܘܬܒܐ܀ [ܫ]ܘܪܝܐ܀ []ܝܐ‬.‫ܧܐܢܝܫ‬ ‫ܫܡܥ܀ ܢܕܚܘܠܘܢ []ܡ܀ ܦܝܘܐܩ܀ ܒܪܐ‬

5 6 7 8 9

5. Again, the Taksa (liturgy/office) of the Night about/upon… (?) 6. Bishops and priests and deacons 7. Truth… [Sogdian word incomplete and therefore unclear] 8. Reading (Sog. x’nyš): And the Mawtbā [part of the service sung sitting]. Beginning… (?) 9. Hear. Let them fear… (?). Response (Sog. pyw’q). The Son… This text deals with a commemoration, specifically that part which pertains to the night, but the use of the preposition ‫“ ܥܠ‬about/upon” is problematic.320 The final example of a Syriac liturgical text with instructions to the priest in Sogdian is SyrHT 158 (T II B 66 No. 4). The fragmentary nature of the text makes it difficult to fully interpret, as an extract from side 1, lines 7-12 shows:

‫]ܠܝܘܪܕܢܢ‬ ‫] ܨܢ ܛܘܒܝܗܘܢ ܝ‬

[7 [8

319

My best reading at this point is: line 1: )‫ܫܡܥ (؟‬, “Hear [illegible word; looks like ‫ ;”]ܒܢܛܝܘܠ‬line 2: ‫ܫܠܛܢ‬, “we ruled”; line 3: ‫ܚܒܛ‬, “he beat down.” Nicholas Sims-Williams suggests that some of these words may be misspellings, with ‫ ܫܠܛܢ‬a scribal error for ‫ܫܐܠܬܢ‬, “our petition” and ‫ ܚܒܛ‬a scribal error for ‫ܝܗܒܬ‬, “you gave.” If his suggestion is

correct, it renders a more intelligible reading: “Hear… our petition… you gave” (personal communication, June 11, 2009). These misspellings are entirely logical if the writer was indeed an Uyghur with minimal knowledge of written Syriac, since neither Sogdian nor Old Uyghur distinguish between /h/ and /ḥ/, /s/ and /ṣ/ or /t/ and /ṭ/. Thus, ‫ ܚ‬is often used for phonetic /h/ and ‫ ܛ‬for phonetic /t/ in Christian Sogdian and Uyghur texts. Furthermore, the omission of ‫ ܐ‬in ‫ ܫܐܠܬܢ‬makes perfect sense if the writer was not proficient in spoken Syriac. 320 Again, my thanks to Amir Harrak for identifying and commenting on the Syriac text. 106

̈ ‫ܣܗܕܐ‬ ‫]ܦܪܨܝ‬ ‫]ܢܝ ܦܪܨܝ‬ 321 ‫] ܐ ܛ ܙܥܪܛ‬ ‫]ܒܐ ܝ ܦܝܪܢܡܣܐܪ‬

[9 [ 10 [ 11 [ 12

7. […] to the Jordan 8. […] from (Sog. čn) their blessings322 9. […] afterwards (Sog. prčy) the martyrs (Syr.) 10. […] afterwards (Sog. prčy) 11. […] quickly (Sog. žγrt) 12. […] before (Sog. pyrnms’r) These Syriac liturgical texts with Sogdian instructions give interesting insights into the role of the two languages in the lives of priests and others who celebrated the liturgy. The texts themselves are in Syriac, indicating that they were memorized in that language by those who trained for the priesthood. The instructions, however, are in Sogdian, again demonstrating the lingua franca that was spoken by most in the Turfan Christian community, at least initially. It is also interesting to note that Syriac, not Sogdian, is generally used for standard Christian terms, such as “oil,” “altar,” “cross,” and “martyrs.” Syriac Texts with Multilingual Marginalia and Overwriting Nine fragments have so far been discovered containing Syriac texts featuring marginalia or overwriting in either Sogdian script or Uyghur script.323 SyrHT 48 and 49 (T II B 11 No. 11) is a double folio from a Syriac New Testament lectionary, featuring readings from the Book of Romans: Rom. 1:24-2:6 for the First Monday and First Tuesday of the Great Fast (Lent), and Rom. 5:12-21; 7:1-7 for the Second Sunday and Second Friday of the Great Fast. In the lower margin of SyrHT 49, side 1 Nicholas Sims-Williams reads the following words written in Sogdian script, in outline form: ’yny pwsty, “This book ...” This folio is the last in the sequence, so presumably this sentence continued onto the next (lost) folio, perhaps originally reading, “This book belongs to [name]”? 321

The first letter is the adapted letter for Sogdian /ž/, currently not included in any Syriac fonts. 322 As Nicholas Sims-Williams notes, “a particularly interesting grammatical point is the use of Syr. twbyhwn [their blessings] as a loanword with Sogd. obl. ending –y” (personal communication, May 7, 2009). 323 All to be published in the VOHD catalogue compiled by Hunter & Dickens. 107

The Uyghur overwriting on side 2 of SyrHT 83 and SyrHT 84 (discussed in the section above) has been described and translated by Simone Raschmann as a text which was “probably a draft for an Old Turkish letter… the two fragments SyrHT 83 and 84 must have been directly stitched together, when the scribe wrote the Old Turkish letter on the one side and the cursive Syriac scribbling on the other side… the Syriac text must have been already damaged by abrasion when the secondary text was written down. An affiliation to the Christian community may be seen in the use of this Syriac manuscript for this Turkish letter and in the Syriac scribbling. The colour of the ink and to a certain extent the characteristics of the script may suggest that the scribe of the lines [i.e. the overwriting in broad brush strokes] on both sides might have been one and the same person.”324 Raschmann translates the text as follows: To Tängrikän Kün Tugmıš (or Togrıl) Tegin Tüm(?). Let us send as many words (as there are) in this letter. Tämür Saŋun. I, Irsik (?), wrote (it). It is eternal. I, Yu // Tomačak. If the overwriting in both Syriac and Uyghur was indeed written by the same person (which it appears to be), then he was undoubtedly a Christian. Furthermore, Raschmann notes that the name Tomačak at the end of the text could be interpreted as the Christian name Toma (Syr. ‫ܬܐܘܡܐ‬, Thomas) with the Turkic diminutive suffix -čak, yielding “Little Thomas.”325 Why the Uyghur writer chose to “deface” the underlying Syriac text is unclear, but perhaps it occurred at a later time in the life of the monastery, when Syriac was less well-known by the monks. SyrHT 122 (T II B 58 No. 1a) is a fragment from the Ḥudra, the primary liturgical text of the Church of the East. Side 1 seems to be the first page326 from a Ḥudra designated as Ḥudra “H” in the hand-list of the Turfan Syriac fragments. Side 2 (which does not contain text from the Ḥudra) has writing in at least three hands; the last of which is Sogdian in Syriac script, as shown in the extract below (it is unclear if line 12 is in same hand as lines 6-11):

‫ ܒܐܘܪܚܐ ܕܢܘܗܪܐ ܘܕܒܚ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܪܕܐ‬6 ‫ ܒܪ ܢܘܗܪܐ ܐܒܘܢ ܙܗܝܐ ̈ܪܘܡܐ‬7 ‫ ܕܒܪܐ ܒܪܝܟ ܕܘܟܪܢܟ܀ ܒܪܝܟ‬8 324

From an article to appear soon in a Festschrift. To my query about whether the partial name preserved as Yu might represent Yuḥannan (John), Simone Raschmann replied: “The problem with YW is that nothing seems to follow just these two letters. The name Yohanan (in different writings) is attested in the Old Turkish texts. But, as far as I know, not in this abbreviated form. On the other hand, /m(ä)n/ ‘I’ at the beginning is a signal for a personal name, which has to follow” (personal communication, October 1, 2009). 326 Or possibly the first page of a quire. 108 325

X....‫ ܕܘܟܪܢܟ‬9 ‫ ܐܣܝܐ ܡܗܝܪܐ‬..‫ ܣܘܓܝܬܐ‬.‫ ܬܘܒ‬10 ‫ ܐܬ‬11 ‫ ܒܥܝ ܢܐܡ ܝܘܧܢܘܢ ܫܝܪܕܦܝܪܒ‬12 6. He travelled in the way of light and he sacrificed (?) light 7. The Son of light, our venerable Father, the shining heights 8. of the Son. Blessed be your remembrance. Blessed be 9. your remembrance… X 10. Again, a song. The skilled healer 11. (?) 12. [In] the name of God, Yuḥannan (John) (Sog. bγy n’m ywxnwn…) the good scribe (Sog. šyr-dpyr) OR [In] the name of God, Yuḥannan [has written] a good manu[script] This text reveals little to us, apart from the name of one of the monks who wrote on the reverse side of a liturgical text presumably used in regular worship services at the Bulayïq monastery. Yuḥannan is a very common name in the Syriac tradition and occurs several times in the fragments discussed in this article. SyrHT 161 (T II B 66 No. 7; [Fig. 4-4]) is fixed to pasteboard, so the back side is not accessible. It seems to be a list of names, including an Uyghur name in Syriac script, as well as sporadic writing over a “blank” area that may contain faded rubrics:

] [‫[ܣ]ܒܪ[ܝܫܘ]ܥ• ܘܕܢܝܐܝܠ• ܘ[ܝ]ܘܚܢܢ‬ ] ‫ܘܥܒܕܝܫܘܥ• ܘܓܝܘܪܓܝܣ• ܘܐܝܣ[ܚܩ؟‬ ̈ illegible rubric? ‫ܐܣܟܘܠܝܐ܀‬ ‫ܘܚܠܦ ܦܘܝܓܐ ܛܘܛܘܧ‬

1 2 3 4

1. [Sa]br[išo]ʿ and Daniel and Yuḥannan (John) 2. and ʿAbdišoʿ and Giwargis (George) and Is[ḥaq (Isaac)?] 3. Scholars/students. ?? 4. And instead of Bögä Totoq… This text gives more evidence of what is seen in the Syriac gravestone inscriptions from Semirechye (SE Kazakhstan and NE Kyrgyzstan), namely the

109

use of both Syriac and Turkic names by Central Asian Christians.327 Presumably, new members of the monastic community took Syriac names when they became monks, as was the case elsewhere with the Church of the East. Bögä Totoq is a classic Turkic name in this list of otherwise Syriac names.328 If it is a list of either students or scholars at the monastery, perhaps the final line which unfortunately breaks off originally read “and instead of Bögä Totoq, he will have the name [Syriac name]”? Another enigmatic fragment is SyrHT 249 (T II B 67 No. 11), which has several partial lines of Syriac on side 1, with two partial lines of Syriac written vertically in the margin in another hand and one line of Sogdian in Syriac script in yet a third hand at the bottom. The main Syriac text, comprising the bottom right corner of the original folio, includes phrases like “piercing of his evil doer (?)” (‫ ܕܒܪܠܠܝܗ‬.‫)ܕܩܪܬܐ‬, “he gave deliverance to him” ( ‫ܘܝܗܒ ܠܗ‬ ̈ ‫ )ܚܙܘ‬and ‫)ܪܘܚܬܐ‬, “they saw snakes (or devils?) in the herd” (‫ܚܘܝܐ ܒܗܒܠ‬ “with joy they answered” (‫)ܘܒܚܕܘܬܐ ܦܪܥܘ‬, all of which conjure up images of conflict with demonic powers, including biblical events like the deliverance of the Gerasene (or Gadarene) demoniac after Jesus cast the evil spirits into a herd of pigs (Matt. 8; Mark 5; Luke 8) and the report of the Seventy sent out by Jesus who “returned with joy and said, ‘Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name’” (Luke 1):17). Nicholas Sims-Williams translates the Sogdian line, ‫( ܢܝܣܛ ܐܕܝ ܨܢ ܡܐܧܝ‬nyst ’dy čn m’xy) as “it is not one of us.”329 Could this be an allusion to the disciple John’s statement to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us” (Mark 9:38), in which case there is a connection to the possible theme of deliverance from demons suggested by the main text?330 327

Thus, there are numerous examples in the gravestone corpus of families in which one generation uses a Syriac name and another generation uses a Turkic or Persian one. Examples include the graves of “Dawlat-eši [Persian], the daughter of Šliḥa the priest” and “Isaiah the priest, son of the church visitor Qutluq [Turkic]”: Mark Dickens, “Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Orientalia – Patristica – Oecumenica 1, ed. by Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2009), 32-33, 37 [See Chapter 2 in this volume]. 328 My thanks to Nicholas Sims-Williams and Peter Zieme (personal communication, May 7, 2009 & May 11, 2009) for clarifying the correct form of this Turkic name, which was originally a Chinese title for a military governor. 329 Personal communication, September 23, 2009. 330 Just prior to submitting this article, I managed to connect this fragment (the lower half of a folio) to another one, SyrHT 254 (the upper half), but time did not permit proper identification of the text or its source. 110

These Syriac texts with marginal notes or overwriting in Sogdian or Uyghur give us interesting insights into the daily life of the members of the monastic community at Turfan, possibly identifying the owner of a liturgical book or maybe the scribe who wrote it, giving the Turkic name of a member of the community and perhaps showing the thoughts that went through the minds of those who read these texts. Syriac Calendrical Fragments The Christian fragments from Turfan include eight fragments which seem to be from Syriac calendrical tables, six of which feature Sogdian on the reverse side.331 Although similarities in scribal hands suggest some of these fragments may originate from the same original manuscript, they are so few and small that reconstruction of the original texts is not possible at this point. The extant fragments are SyrHT 67-70 (T II B 22 No. 2), one of which has Sogdian in Syriac script and two of which have Sogdian script on the other side. The Syriac sides reveal at least two, if not three, separate hands.332 Two other fragments, So 15850 (T III TVB) and U 3858, also have Sogdian script on the other side from the Syriac calendrical tables.333 Due to the fragmentary nature of these texts, it is unclear how the Sogdian writing on the reverse side of these fragments relates to the Syriac calendrical tables on the front, with the exception of one fragment, n 354 (T II B 66 No. 48a; [Fig. 4-5]),334 which has calendrical references in Sogdian in Syriac script on side 2, translated by Nicholas Sims-Williams as follows: “... by day and night (?) alike [from] the month [...] until the 19th of the month Kanon Qdim,335 at night (?) ... Again, after the last (?) fast, after 40 days from Easter is the feast of Ascension, and on the tenth (?) day is the feast [of ...] ...”336

331

Mentioned in Sims-Williams, “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” 285 and to be included in the VOHD catalogues compiled by Hunter & Dickens, Reck, and SimsWilliams. 332 Another calendrical fragment, SyrHT 273 (T II D), is illegible on the reverse side. 333 Mentioned in Reck, “A Survey of the Christian Sogdian Fragments,” 196. 334 Another fragment, seemingly also calendrical in nature, T II B 66 No. 48b, is recorded as “lost” (presumably during or shortly after World War II) on the hand-list of the Turfan Syriac fragments. 335 Transliteration of Syriac ‫ܟܢܘܢ ܩܕܝܡ‬, roughly equivalent to December. 336 Personal communication, October 1, 2009. There are two more Christian Sogdian calendrical fragments in Syriac script, n 295 (T II B 46 No. 2) and n 288 (T III B 61 [h] & T II B 62), which “have calendrical content even though they do not contain calendar tables” (Nicholas Sims-Williams, personal communication, October 16, 2009). 111

Fragments Mixing Syriac and Uyghur scripts337 U 338 (T II B 41, No. 1) is a small booklet consisting of ten folios, described in depth by Peter Zieme.338 It can be divided into four sections: 1) a prayer in Uyghur, written in Syriac script, with 2 lines of Syriac interjected in the middle; 2) a colophon, written in Uyghur script, giving the date (year of the Cow), the scribe’s name (Bäküz = Bacchus) and a request to transfer merit to the scribe’s father, Yonan (Yuḥannan = John); 3) a long Syriac section; and 4) a somewhat different version of the prayer, written in Uyghur script. The prayer describes how “the Saviour, our Lord Messiah” ( ‫ܧܘܛܧܐܪܛܐܨܝ‬ ‫ܚܢܡܙ ܡܫܝܚܐ‬, kutgartačı hanımız mšyh’) “keeps our bodies healthy” and “rescues our souls” and asks that blessings may come on the “Christians” (‫ܐܪܝܟܐܟܘܛܠܐܪܟܐ‬, ärkäkütlär, reflecting ärkägün, the term commonly used to refer to Christians in the Mongol Empire). Zieme speculates that it may have been used as an exercise book to help children learn how to write in both scripts. Like several of the other fragments discussed in this article, U 5545 (T II B 9(?))339 is actually trilingual (although perhaps not initially by design). Side 1 is in Uyghur script, but has not yet been fully deciphered. Side 2 contains 4 horizontal lines of Syriac and Sogdian in Syriac script with an additional vertical line in Syriac, representing two or three different hands:

] [‫ܥܒܕܐ‬ ] [‫ܣܘܓܒ‬ ‫ܥܒ ̈ܕܐ ܚܢܢ‬ ̣ ‫ܣܘܓܒܪܐ‬

337

1 2 3 4

Fragments not included in this article include SyrHT 154 (T II B 65 b), SyrHT 322 (T III Kurutka) and SyrHT 328. SyrHT 154 is the lower corner of a Syriac folio that appears to have been joined (glued?) to another piece of paper to form a larger piece. There are five partial lines of Syriac on side 1. Uyghur script in a large hand on side 2 obscures all but a few Syriac characters from the underlying text. Most words are illegible, so the text has not been deciphered yet. SyrHT 322 is a fragment with several Syriac names and words (including Peter and Paul) on side 1 and Uyghur script on side 2 (yet to be deciphered). SyrHT 328 is a very small fragment with a few words of Syriac (probably from a liturgical text) on side 1 and remnants of a line of Sogdian script on side 2. 338 See Peter Zieme, “Notes on a bilingual prayer book from Bulayık,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Orientalia – Patristica – Oecumenica 1, ed. by Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2009), 167-180; also to be published in the VOHD catalogues compiled by Zieme and Hunter & Dickens. 339 To be published in the VOHD catalogue compiled by Raschmann. 112

340

‫] ܟܬܒܬ‬

[ )‫ ܝܘܚܢܢ (؟‬5

1. servant (or the name ‛Abdā)341 2. monk (Sog. swgb[’r]) 3. we are servants 4. monk (Sog. swgb’r) [spelling confusion] 5. Yuḥannan (?)… I wrote [it] The text seems to be expressing the idea that monks are servants (of God), a sentiment that is not surprising in a monastic community! As Nicholas Sims-Williams points out, if ‫( ܣܘܓܒܪܐ‬swgbr’) is indeed intended to represent Sogdian swgb’r, then it is either misspelled or has been given a Syriac emphatic ending (‫)ܐ‬.342 We have no way of knowing the ethnicities of the scribes involved, but both the Uyghur script on the other side and the Sogdian misspelling suggest they may have been Uyghurs. U 7252 (T II B 66 [No. 49]) is another trilingual text, comprising Syriac and Uyghur (in Uyghur script) on one side, with Syriac and Sogdian (in Syriac script) on the other.343 Side 1 consists of four lines of Syriac, followed by seven lines of Uyghur script (with four interlinear lines) and a final line which begins in Uyghur and ends in Syriac. The Syriac is roughly written and difficult to decipher, due to lacunae, but includes stock words and phrases to be expected in religious texts: ] [‫“ ܠܟ ܩܕܝܫ‬to you, holy…”; ‫“ ܫܒܥ‬seven”; ‫“ ܟܝܢܐ‬nature”; ‫“ ܣܗܕܐ‬martyr” and ‫“ ܚܝܐ‬life.” The Uyghur Turkic lines have not yet been published in entirety, but based on a transcription provided by Simone Raschmann,344 they are similar in content to the draft letter located on side 2 of SyrHT 83 and SyrHT 84, this time addressed to Tängrikän El Almıš Alp Kutlug and including the same stock phrase “Let us send as many words (as there are) in this letter.” Given that the last line starts in Uyghur and ends in Syriac, the writer was undoubtedly a Christian. Side 2 is quite different in content, consisting of several columns in Syriac and Sogdian (in Syriac script). Column 1 contains the letters of the Syriac alphabet from ‫ ܐ‬to ‫ܝܛ‬, representing the numbers 1-19. Curiously, there 340

This line is written vertically on the left side of the fragment. My thanks to Amir Harrak for this latter suggestion, which potentially identifies the name of the monk who wrote it. 342 Personal communication, October 1, 2009. 343 Mentioned in Sims-Williams, “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” 285. Due to its multilingual nature, it will probably be included in three VOHD catalogues: those compiled by Hunter & Dickens, Raschmann, and Sims-Williams. 344 Personal communication, October 1, 2009. 113 341

appear to be two lines between the numbers 10 and 11, but these are badly damaged and overwritten with words in larger brush strokes. These two lines start with the letters ‫ ܟܟ‬and ‫ܠ‬, representing the numbers 20 and 30, but the words in columns 2 and 3 are not visible here. Columns 2 and 3 spell out the numerals in Sogdian and Syriac. Column 4 gives a list of words which do not seem to bear any relation to the numerals they are next to, but were perhaps used as mnemonic devices. Read from top to bottom, they form a sentence, part of which is discernible: “… angels and men, we praise, saying Hallelujah, Hallelujah...” Column 5 contains the following letters/words in Syriac: ‫ܩ‬, ‫ܪ‬, ‫ܫ‬, ‫ ܬ‬and ‫ܐܠܦ‬, representing the numbers 100, 200, 300, 400 and 1000. Finally, column 6 spells out the equivalent Syriac numerals to the numbers in column 5. Much of the lower half of side 2 is covered with individual words written in large brush strokes. Discernible words include ‫ܐܒܐ‬ ‫[ܗ]ܠܠܘܝܐ‬, “Father, Hallelujah,” ‫ܡܫܝܚܐ‬, “Messiah,” and ‫ܐܠܗܐ‬, “God.” The following lines give an example of how the columns work:345

] [‫ܨ‬ ] ‫ܩ ܡܐ[ܐ‬

] [ ‫ܡܠܐܟܐ‬ ] [ ‫ܘܒܢܝܢܫܐ‬ ‫ܡܫܒܚܢܢ ܟܕ‬

] [‫ܪ ܘܡܐܬܝܢ‬ ] [ ‫ܫ ܡܐ ܬܠܬ[ܝ]ܢ‬ ‫ܬ ܗܠܠܘܝܐ‬

‫ܐܡܪܝܢ‬ ‫ܗܠܠܘܝܐ‬ ‫ܗܠܠܘܝܐ‬

7. zayn 8. ḥeth 9. ṭeth 10. yod 11. kaph 12 lamedh 345

seven (Sog. βt’, Syr. šb‘’) eight (Sog. št’, Syr. tmny’) nine (Sog. nw’, Syr. tš‘’) ten (Sog. δs’, Syr. ‘sr’) Father, Hallelujah348 (?)349

‫ܘܫܒܥܐ‬ :‫ܘܬܡ[ܢܝ]ܐ‬ :‫ܘܬ[ܫ]ܥܐ‬ ‫ܥܣܪܐ‬

:‫ܒܛܐ‬ :‫ܫܛܐ‬ ]:[‫ܢܘܐ‬ ]:[‫ܕܣܐ‬

:‫ܙ‬7 :‫ܚ‬8 :‫ܛ‬9 : ‫ ܝ‬10 ‫ ܟܟ ܐܒܐ [ܗ]ܠܠܘܝܐ‬11 ‫ ܠ ܘܢܨ‬12 ]‫ ܚܕ[ܥܣܪ‬:‫] ܝܘܢܛܣ‬:[‫ ܝܐ‬13

angel(s?)346… and men347… ṣode we praise qoph 100 (Syr. m’) saying: Hallelujah

resh 200 (Syr. m’tyn) šin 300 (Syr. m’ tltyn)350

My thanks to Nicholas Sims-Williams for guidance in figuring out this side of the folio (personal communication, 13 October, 2009). 346 The word is not marked as plural, but based on the word below it should perhaps be interpreted as such. 347 The seyame plural marking is missing. 348 These words (‫ )ܐܒܐ ܗܠܠܘܝܐ‬are written in large brush strokes by a different hand. 349 This word (‫ )ܘܢܨ‬is also written in large brush strokes by a different hand. 350 Note the spelling of this word, in contrast to the standard form ‫ܬܠܬܡܐܐ‬. 114

13 yod aleph eleven (Sog. ywnts, Syr. ḥd‘sr) Hallelujah

taw

Hallelujah351

Thus, the second side of the fragment seems to have been used for memorizing the numerical equivalents of Syriac letters in both languages, but how this relates to the Syriac and Uyghur text on side 1 is unclear. These fragments mixing Syriac and Uyghur probably reflect life in the Christian community of Turfan towards the end of the Christian presence there, during the Mongol Empire. At this time, the majority (if not all) of the monks were probably Uyghurs, but they still used Syriac and Sogdian, as evidenced by the mixture of these three languages in two of these fragments. However, the use of Syriac tends to be limited to stock biblical or liturgical phrases and the handwriting samples suggest that the writers had minimal literacy in Syriac. Fragments with Syriac in Uyghur Script At least three texts exhibit transliteration from Syriac into Uyghur script.352 SyrHT 124 (T II B 58 No. 2a; [Fig. 4-6]) is another fragment from the Ḥudra. While side 2 seems to be the last page353 from Ḥudra “H,” side 1, the backside of the last page, has writing in both Syriac and Uyghur script, seemingly from the same hand (similar to SyrHT 287, side 2, discussed below). There are several blocks of text: Block 1

‫ܨܠܘܬ ܡܪܝ ܦܝܬܝܘܢ‬ Prayer of St. Pethion

Block 2

351

354

]‫ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ [ܩܕܝܫܐ‬ ̇ ] ‫ܕܡܪܢ ܝܫ[ܘܥ‬

This word (‫ )ܗܠܠܘܝܐ‬is also written in large brush strokes by a different hand, obscuring the original line underneath, which must have been the Syriac numeral for 400, either ‫( ܐܪܒܥܡܐܐ‬standard) or ‫( ܡܐ ܐܪܒܥܝܢ‬non-standard, but following the pattern used for 300 in line 12). 352 All to be published in the VOHD catalogue compiled by Hunter & Dickens. For the decipherment and translation of the Uyghur script, I am indebted to Peter Zieme. 353 Or possibly the last page of a quire. 354 Lacunae are filled in from the Syriac in text block 4. ‫ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‬means “the gospel” in a generic sense; ‫ ܟܪܘܙܘܬܐ‬refers to the preaching of a specific evangelist (e.g. Matthew, Mark, Luke or John). 115

]‫ܡܫܝܚܐ ܟܪ[ܘܙܘܬܐ‬ ]‫ܕܝܘܚܢـ[ܢ‬ [Holy] Gospel of our Lord Je[sus] Christ [(according to) the preaching] of John Block 3

355

‫ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‬

Gospel Block 4

‫ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܕܡܪܢ‬ ‫ܝܫܘܥ ܡܫܝܚܐ ܟܪܘܙܘܬܐ ܕܝܘܚܢܢ‬ Holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, (according to) the preaching of John Immediately to the right of text block four are three lines in Uyghur script, direct transliterations from the Syriac phrase to the left, but mentioning two different evangelists: 1. ‘wnklywn qty-š’ dmrn ’yšwq (The holy Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ) 2. kyrwzwt’ dlwq’ (according to the preaching of Luqa/Luke) 3. m’rqws (Marqos/Mark) It is interesting to compare this fragment to SyrHT 122, discussed above. Whereas that fragment has writing in Syriac and Sogdian on the back side of the Ḥudra text (albeit unrelated to the Ḥudra text itself), this fragment has Syriac and Uyghur transliteration of Syriac on the back side. Again, the latter was probably penned at a time when Syriac and perhaps even Sogdian were less well-known at the monastery, having been largely supplanted by the use of Uyghur, except in the liturgy itself. SyrHT 286 and 287 (T III B No. 1) are two fragments from Ḥudra “H” (possibly from the same folio) which are very similar in nature to SyrHT 124. Again, side 1 seems to be the last page356 from the Ḥudra; side 2 is 355

This word seems to be written in a different hand from that of the other text blocks. The word following it is in Uyghur: ’’nk tsy “?” (Peter Zieme, personal communication, 11 May, 2009). 356 Or possibly the last page of a quire. 116

blank except for a line of Syriac followed by a line of Uyghur script (other lines on this side are too faint to make out). Both the Syriac and the Uyghur script seem to be from the same hand and look very similar to that on the reverse side of SyrHT 124. Again, like the latter, the Uyghur script is a transliteration of the Syriac text:

‫[ܝܘܚܢܢ] ܚܛܝܐ ܨܠܘ ܥܠܝ‬ Uyg: ywxn x[ty]a slaw ’ly From the more complete sentence in Uyghur script, we can supply the name missing in the Syriac sentence: Yuḥannan (John), the sinner; pray for me. One of the real treasures of the Turfan collection is a text consisting of nine folios: eight kept in the Staatsbibliothek (SyrHT 20-27) and one kept in the Dahlem Museum (MIK III 58) (T II B 10), all of which consist of an underlying Syriac text written in Uyghur script (except for the colophon, which is pure Uyghur). Briefly mentioned by von le Coq and Zieme, it remains unpublished.357 It is a mixture of passages from the Psalter (roughly two-thirds) and the Ḥudra (roughly one-third). The Syriac texts were obviously transliterated by ear, since they do not include silent letters which are present in the Syriac text but which were not pronounced in the spoken language. Thus, Syr. ‫“ ܐܢܬ‬you,” is transliterated as at, with a silent nun, not ant, as one would expect if the text were being copied by someone who did not know how it was pronounced. Two lines from this unique text (SyrHT 27, side 1, lines 1-2) should suffice as an example. They are from the opening of the Hymn of St. Ephrem for Morning Prayer and quote from Psa. 97:11:358 Uyghur script: 1. nwqrʾ tnʾq lztyq̈y wldrysʾy 2. lybʾ qdwdʾ : ʾyswq mʾrʾn

357

Albert Von le Coq, “Kurze Einführung in die uigurische Schriftkunde,” in Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin. Jahrgang 1919 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1919), 95; Zieme, “Notes on a bilingual prayer book from Bulayık,” 169. This text will be published shortly by Peter Zieme and the author of this article. 358 I am indebted to Mar Emmanuel, bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East in Canada, for identifying the source of this text. The Syriac text can be found in the edition of the Hudra prepared by Mar Toma Darmo, Vol. I (Trichur: Mar Narsai Press, 1960), 104 ( ‫)ܩܕ‬. 117

Underlying Syriac text:

̈ ‫ ܘܠܬ̈ܪܝܨܝ‬.‫ܠܙܕܝܩܐ‬ ‫ܢܘܗܪܐ ܕܢܚ‬ ‫ܠܒܐ ܚܕܘܬܐ܀ ܝܫܘܥ ܡܪܢ‬

Translation: Light shone on the righteous, and joy on the upright in heart. Jesus, our Lord… This was probably the final stage in the evolution of the Syriac Psalter at Turfan. Whereas most Psalters found there are either exclusively in Syriac or a mixture of Syriac and an Iranian language (Sogdian or New Persian), this text demonstrates that the monks at a later stage of the community were far more comfortable with Uyghur script than Syriac script, so they transliterated the Psalter and other liturgical texts from the latter into the former. All of these Syriac texts in Uyghur script clearly show that Uyghur Christian monks in Turfan were able to transliterate at least simple Syriac passages into their native script, often on the blank back sides of liturgical texts. They had heard the phrases so often that they had memorized them in Syriac and could easily render them into Uyghur script. This phenomenon is also reflected in modern (18th-20th centuries) transliteration of Syriac texts (usually liturgical) into Arabic, Cyrillic and Malayalam, intended to help the faithful who are not familiar with the Syriac script recite the liturgy. Conclusions Although many of the Christian manuscript fragments from Turfan have been deciphered and analyzed by eminent scholars of the past and present,359 these fragments still have much to reveal to us about the nature of the Christian community in Turfan between the 9th and 13th centuries. As Nicholas Sims-Williams has already pointed out,360 the fragments clearly illustrate the way that Sogdian came to play a role in ecclesiastical settings that was second only to Syriac and how Uyghur functioned as the primary language of day-to-day communication outside of liturgical settings, especially towards the end of the Christian presence in Turfan. In particular, the presence of bilingual Psalters and lectionaries at Turfan indicates the importance put on translating the Bible into local languages (although so far these have all been in Iranian languages, not in Turkic). Although the Church of the East retained Syriac as the primary language of the 359

Notably Émile Benveniste, Philippe Gignoux, Olaf Hansen, Miklós Maróth, F.W.K. Müller, Martin Schwartz, Nicholas Sims-Williams, Werner Sundermann and Peter Zieme. 360 See the quotation above, at the end of the Introduction. 118

liturgy, it did not do so at the expense of translating biblical and other texts into Sogdian or New Persian. The inclusion in Syriac liturgical texts of instructions to the priest in Sogdian again shows the importance of the latter in the day-to-day life of the Christian community at Turfan, whereas marginal notes in Sogdian or Uyghur give us insights into daily life in the community, including the names of some of its members. The Syriac texts themselves are generally well-copied, with few mistakes, although samples of Syriac hand-writing practice suggest that the overall literacy in the language, apart from memorized texts, was not high. In the absence of comparable textual material from elsewhere in Central Asia, apart from gravestone inscriptions, it is impossible to compare the situation in Turfan with that in Semirechye or Inner Mongolia, as discussed by Pier Giorgio Borbone, who concludes that “their [the Turkic Önggüds of Inner Mongolia] knowledge of Syriac consisted at the best of a passive competence in the liturgical use, without any active competence.”361 Thanks to the constant repetition of the Psalter and other parts of the liturgy, the Christian monks of Turfan knew the liturgical texts well and when they transliterated them into the Uyghur script, they retained the proper pronunciation of those texts. Again, by permitting such transliteration, the Church enabled the faithful who were not familiar with the Syriac script to continue to celebrate the liturgy, a practice continued to this day in various Syriac churches around the world.

361

Pier Giorgio Borbone, “Siroturcica 1. The Önggüds and the Syriac Language,” in Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock, ed. by George Kiraz (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008), 7. 119

5 CHRISTIAN CALENDRICAL FRAGMENTS FROM TURFAN by Mark DICKENS and Nicholas SIMS-WILLIAMS, with contributions by Thomas A. CARLSON and Christiane RECK362 Original publication information: “Christian Calendrical Fragments from Turfan,” in Living the Lunar Calendar, ed. J. Ben-Dov, W. Horowitz, and J. M. Steele (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2012), pp. 269-296. Introduction The Turfan Collection in Berlin, split between the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, the Oriental Department of the State Library of Berlin and the Museum for Asian Art, contains approximately 40,000 manuscript fragments in more than 20 languages and scripts which were brought back by four Prussian expeditions to Turfan, western China between 1902 and 1914.363 Alongside the many Buddhist and Manichaean texts in the collection are somewhat over 1100 Christian fragments, mostly written in Syriac or Sogdian in Syriac script. There are also smaller numbers of Sogdian texts in Sogdian script, Uyghur Turkish texts in either Syriac or Uyghur script, Middle Persian texts in Pahlavi script and New Persian texts in Syriac script.364 362

The Syriac texts are dealt with by MD and NSW, the Sogdian texts in Syriac script by NSW and the texts in Sogdian script by CR. The Easter table in the Appendix was contributed by TC. Since neither MD nor NSW is a specialist in calendrical matters, we owe an immense debt of gratitude to those who are and who have provided invaluable help in interpreting and reconstructing the calendrical texts and tables from Turfan presented in this article. François de Blois (FdB), Thomas Carlson, Gareth Hughes and Sacha Stern (SS) have all contributed important suggestions and insights, in particular with regard to what turned out to be a crucial point: the significance of the numbers 28, 12 and 19 in Text 8 (n288). Without their input this article would be much the poorer. Thanks are also due to the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preussischer Kulturbesitz and the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften for access to and permission to reproduce images of the relevant fragments. All images are copyright Depositum der BERLIN-BRANDENBURGISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN in der STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN - Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. 363 On the Turfan expeditions and the resultant Turfan collection in Berlin, see BerlinBrandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (2007). 364 Although generally referred to as “fragments”, the texts range from a 61-folio Syriac liturgical text to small scraps upon which only a few letters are visible. Several dozen of the 120

Most of the Christian fragments were found at Bulayïq, a small town located 10 km north of Turfan, although small numbers were found at other locations in the Turfan area.365 These fragments, currently in the process of being catalogued for the first time,366 present intriguing glimpses into the status of East Syrian Christianity in the Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho located in the Turfan Oasis, a major junction on the Silk Road. Based on the few texts which have been reliably dated, the Church of the East had a presence in this multireligious environment from at least the ninth to the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries.367 Alongside Syriac, the liturgical language of the Church of the East, Sogdian also played a crucial role in the Christian community at Turfan, reflecting the importance of this eastern Middle Iranian tongue as a major lingua franca along the Silk Road. The linguistic importance of Uyghur, the Turkic language spoken by many in the Turfan area, is also evident in the few extant Uyghur Christian texts in the Turfan Collection, particularly those from the Mongol era, when the majority of the Turfan Christian community were probably Uyghur native speakers.368 Most Syriac texts from Turfan are liturgical or biblical, with a small number of prayer texts, hagiographies and miscellanea. By contrast, the Sogdian Christian texts largely reflect genres that would be read by members of a monastic community—hagiographical, homiletic, and ascetical texts— although there are a number of biblical and liturgical texts, many of which are bilingual Syriac-Sogdian.369 Finally, the few Uyghur Christian texts reflect a wide variety of genres, including hagiographies, apocryphal sayings,

Christian fragments (including some discussed in this article) are in fact bilingual, and a few are even trilingual. 365 On Bulayïq, see Sims-Williams (1989). 366 The fragments in Syriac script are being catalogued by The Christian Library from Turfan Project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council of the United Kingdom and based in the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. The project team consists of Erica C. D. Hunter (principal investigator), Nicholas Sims-Williams, Peter Zieme and Mark Dickens. 367 Rather than the problematic adjective “Nestorian”, “East Syrian” is used throughout to refer to the Church of the East, as well as other churches (such as the Chaldean Catholic Church) which have subsequently split from it, all of which follow the same basic liturgical rite, albeit with certain theological differences. 368 The ethnic makeup of the Turfan community is discussed in Sims-Williams (1992), the multilingual nature of the Christian texts from Turfan in Dickens (2009) [See Chapter 4 in this volume]. 369 Indeed, it is the nature of the literature found at Bulayïq which indicates that it was almost certainly home to a Christian monastery, as noted in Sims-Williams (1989). 121

prayers and a wedding blessing. Amongst the Syriac and Sogdian fragments are a dozen or so that are calendrical in nature, the focus of this article. Calendrical tables are an important component of the Syrian approach to time and dating systems, although there is little discussion of them in scholarly literature.370 The primary use of such tables is to determine when dates in the liturgical calendar which depend upon the movable date of Easter will fall in a given year. A classic example is the table for calculating the beginning of Lent found in the second part of the Opus chronologicum of Elias of Nisibis, written in 1019 and published with a Latin translation by J.-B. Chabot in 1909–1910.371 This table is reproduced in a slightly adapted form in the Appendix to the present article, along with a table for calculating the date of Easter kindly prepared for us by Thomas Carlson. A similar table, described by its editor as a “perpetual calendar, intended to give the beginning of Lent for any possible year”,372 is included as part of a short treatise on the Syrian calendar in a manuscript formerly in the possession of Mar Severius, Archbishop of Syria and Lebanon, later Mar Ignatius Ephrem I Barsoum, Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church (1933–1957). According to a colophon preceding the treatise on the calendar, the manuscript was written in 1003/4 CE in the Syrian Orthodox Monastery of the Forty Martyrs near Melitene, but the date of composition of the treatise and accompanying tables is not known. A different use for Syriac calendrical tables is evident in “The Book of Medicines” published by E. A. Wallis Budge.373 The text consists of lectures on human anatomy and pathology, astrological material dealing with “omens, portents, spells, divinations and planetary forecasts,” and prescriptions for various ailments. Two calendrical tables are included in the astrological section, accompanied by statements such as “If you wish to know on how many days of a solar month the moon will rise”; “If you wish to know on what day of the week the beginning of the lunar month is born”; “That you may know in what hour the moon is born, by night or by day”; and “if you wish to know

370

On Syrian approaches to chronology, including the Syrian calendar and the Seleucid era, see Bernhard (1969); the work does not deal with calendrical tables. 371 Chabot (1909), pp. 124–125; Chabot (1910), p. 139. We are particularly grateful to François de Blois for drawing our attention to this important source. 372 Dean (1934), p. 129; the relevant table is Table I, ibid., p. 139. This West Syrian manuscript is currently located in Damascus, with the catalogue number Dam. Syr. 7/16. Thanks to Jonathan Loopstra (American University in Iraq) for this information. 373 Budge (1913). Page references will be given as follows: Syriac text/English translation. 122

how long the moon will shine, and when it will set”.374 The reason for the calendrical tables in this text becomes clear from the material that follows, namely “calculations concerning those who are sick”, essentially divination techniques, in which the moon often plays an important role.375 This is a far cry from the liturgical focus of the calendrical tables in the texts edited by Chabot and Dean, as well as those found amongst the Turfan fragments. Syriac calendrical texts In addition to calendrical tables, discussed below, the Syriac texts from Turfan include several small fragments containing lists of months with associated information, in particular the number of days in each month.376 Text 1: SyrHT 291 (T III B 99 No. 1), recto: 8.9 x 5.8 cm; 8 lines; verso blank [Fig. 5-1]

‫ܚܙܝܪܢ ]ܠ܀ ܐܬܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܐܝܪ ]ܠܐ܀ ܐܬܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܢܝܣܢ ]ܠ܀ ܐܬܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܐܕܪ ]ܠܐ܀ ܐܬܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܫܒܛ ]ܟܚ܀ ܐܬܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܟܢܘܢ ܐ]ܚܪܝ ܠܐ܀ ܐܬܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܟܢܘܢ ]ܩܕܝܡ ܠܐ܀ ܐܬܘܬܗ‬ ‫ܬܫܪܝܢ ]ܐܚܪܝ ܠ܀ ܐܬܘܬܗ‬

374

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Budge (1913), pp. 448/527, 451/529, 451/530, 452/531. Budge’s rather archaic translation has been modified here. The phrase “if you wish to know” or “if you wish to understand” is also found throughout the text edited by Dean, cf. Dean (1934), pp. 130–138. 375 Budge (1913), pp. 453–468/531–549. 376 SyrHT signature numbers are kept in the Oriental Department of the State Library of Berlin, while n, So and U signature numbers are kept in the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences. Signature numbers in parentheses (e.g. T II B 22) are those originally given to the fragments at the time of the Prussian Turfan expeditions. Fragment measurements are given in height x width order. The following conventions are used: [ ] for missing or illegible text, ( ) for letters which are only partially legible, italics within ( ) for traces compatible with the reading proposed, and ••• for unidentified letters. Grey shaded cells in the calendrical tables are either outside the fragment or have no visible letters in them. Rubrics are indicated by underlining for Syriac texts and their translations; for Sogdian texts, they are indicated by bold type. It should be noted that one cannot always reliably distinguish red ink from black ink on these fragments, since the former can darken over time and the latter can fade. 123

1 [… Ḥaziran] 30: its sign 2 [… Iyar] 31: its sign 3 [… Nisan] 30: its sign 4 [… Adar ] 31: its sign 5 [… Shebaṭ] 28: its sign 6 … Latter [Kanun] 31: its sign 7 … Former [Kanun] 31: its sign 8 … Latter [Teshri] 30: its sign

As with other texts discussed below (notably U 3858), SyrHT 291 lists the months in reverse order,377 along with the number of days in each and a reference to the “sign” of each. A similar list can be found in the text published by Dean (1934), where a full listing of the months is given, with the first, Former Teshri (October), at the bottom and the last, Elul (September), at the top. The first line of this text will suffice to show what SyrHT 291 might have originally looked like: Elul (has) 30 (days); and its sign is 7, and its excess is ½ (day).378

Dean’s text explains how to derive the signs for each month as follows: Take the days of the year, which are 365, and divide them by 7. Then there remains 1, which is the sign of First Tishri. Add its sign to the days of its own month and divide the sum by 7, and there remains 4, which is the sign of Second Tishri. Then, in like manner, add again the sign of Second Tishri to its days, and when you have divided the sum by 7 there remains 6, which is the sign of First Canun. And proceed likewise with the rest of the months—add the sign (of a month) to its days and divide by 7, and you find the sign of the following month.379

As the editor notes, “If the year began on Sunday these signs would indicate the day of the week on which each month began. In all other cases they indicate the relative positions of these first days in the weekly scheme.”380 In the case of SyrHT 291, the actual signs for each month must have been on an adjacent folio, now missing, since there is no obvious text missing in the lefthand margin of the fragment. 377

We are grateful to Sacha Stern for noticing this point and thus making it possible to reconstruct the missing month-names in these texts. The reason for listing the months in reverse order remains unclear. 378 Dean (1934), p. 136. As noted here by Dean, “excess” refers to “the excess over the moon month of 29½ days.” 379 Dean (1934), p. 130. 380 Dean (1934), p. 130, n. 4. 124

Text 2: SyrHT 264 (T II B 69 No. 3), recto: 3.2 x 4.8 cm; 3 lines; verso blank [Fig. 5-2]

‫ܙ‬ ‫ܐ ܢܦ[ ](ܝܠܕܫܥ)ܬܐ‬ ‫ܒ ܬܫܪܝܩܕܝܡـ ܠܐ‬ ] [‫ܓ‬ 7: 1: [ ] hour(?) 2: Former Teshri: 31 3: [ ]

There is not enough of this fragment extant to discern its full significance. It is included at this point because one line clearly contains the name of a month (Former Teshri, equivalent to October, the first month in the Syrian year) and the number of days in that month (31). The right hand column contains part of a series of numerals between 1 (‫ )ܐ‬and 7 (‫)ܙ‬, presumably referring to the days of the week. Since only four numerals survive, one cannot see whether they belong to a simple repeating series [... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,] 7; 1, 2, 3, [4, 5, 6, 7; ...], or, as is perhaps more likely, a series which skips one day after every four in line with the occurrence of a leap year: [... 2, 3, 4, 5;] 7, 1, 2, 3; [5, 6, 7, 1; ...]. A series of the latter kind would give the weekday in a series of years of any day with a fixed position in the calendar, such as New Year or Christmas.381 Text 3: SyrHT 101 (T II B 22), recto: 2.1 x 5.9 cm; 1 line; verso blank [Fig. 5-3]

..‫ܠܐ‬..‫ܐܕܪ‬ Adar: 31

This is obviously the remnants of a list of the months with the number of days in each, similar to SyrHT 291 above, although there is not enough extant to know if the sign of each month was also included in this case.

381

cf. the five right-hand columns in Dean’s Table I (p. 139), which indicate the weekdays of the “Foundation of the Year”, New Year, Christmas, Epiphany, and Holy Cross. 125

Text 4: U 3858 ([T II] B): 8.0 x 6.8 cm recto = 6 rows x 3 columns; cells drawn free-hand in red and black [Fig. 54a]

‫ܠ‬

]‫[ܢܝܣܢ‬

1

]‫ܐ[ܬܘܬܗ؟‬

‫ܠܐ‬

‫(ܐܕ)ܪ‬

2

]‫ܐ[ܬܘܬܗ؟‬

‫ܟܚ‬

‫[ܫܒ]ܛ‬

3

‫ܠܐ‬

‫[ܟܢܘܢ] ܐܚܪܝ‬

4

‫ܩܕܝܡ‬

1

[Nisan]

30

2

(Ada)r

31

[its sign (?)]

3

[Sheba]ṭ

28

[its sign (?)]

4

Latter [Kanun]

31

5

Former (Kanun)

6

Latter (Teshri)

382

)‫(ܟܢܘܢ‬

5

‫(ܬܫܪܝܢ) ܐܚܪܝ‬

6

This text is very similar to SyrHT 291, consisting of a list of the months in reverse order, with the number of days in each and probably the word ‫ܐܬܘܬܗ‬, “its sign” at the end of each line, although only the first letter is visible. Although there are also similarities with SyrHT 70, the two fragments do not come from the same original table, in view of differences in the paper. verso = 4 lines in Sogdian script [Fig. 5-4b] /1/ /2/ 382

](m)[ ](..)383 xwrmzt(ʾ)[

The first words on lines 5 and 6 are illegible due to the faded rubric. The final letter of this word and the first letter of line 4 could be read as p in Syriac script, according to a proposal by Peter Zieme. 126 383

/3/ /4/

](... x)yδm[yδ384 ](.) mr(ys)rky[s385

/1/ /2/ /3/ /4/

]... xurmazda[ ]... on that d[ay ] Mar Sergius[

The word xwrmztʾ, in origin the name of the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda, is also used as the name of the first day of the month in the traditional Sogdian calendar. If it is so used here, it is possible that the text on the verso may be connected with the calendrical table on the recto. The use of the traditional (Zoroastrian) day-names by the Sogdian Christians at Bulayïq is proved by two further texts published below (n295 and SyrHT 67). The proposed reconstruction of (x)yδm[yδ is also consistent with terminology one might expect in a calendrical text. If the reading mr(ys)rky[s is accurate, it would suggest that the author of the Sogdian text on the verso was indeed a Christian. The reference here may be to the commemoration of this saint.386

384

A less likely restoration is (x)yδm[ʾx, “in that m[onth]”. Peter Zieme proposes reading the word in this way, with the s in Syriac script, to be interpreted as Mar Sergius (Syriac ‫)ܡܪܝ ܣܪܓܝܣ‬. 386 Sergius features quite frequently in the Martyr’s Anthems, which are an important part of the liturgy of the Church of the East; see Maclean (1894), pp. 28, 34, 39, 46, 116, 119. The current lectionary of the Church of the East also mentions a commemoration day for Sergius and his fellow martyr Bacchus, on the first Wednesday in October, although no special lessons are appointed in the lectionary; see Maclean (1894), p. 282. However, two Christian fragments from Turfan indicate that this commemoration was celebrated there, at least in the ninth century (based on provisional dating of one of the manuscripts concerned), even though it is not contained in modern liturgical texts of the Church of the East. Thus, a folio from a Sogdian lectionary with Syriac rubrics (n164), gives Matthew 16:24–17:6 (the text breaks off at this point) as the reading for the commemoration ‫ܕܡܪܝ ܣܪܓ[ܝ]ܤ ܘܡܪܝ‬ ‫ܒܟܘܤ‬, “of Mar Sergius and Mar Bacchus”; see Müller (1913), pp. 12-16; Sundermann (1975), pp. 75-78. Significantly, Mar Awa, Bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East in California, has recently found the actual text of the commemoration of these saints in MIK III 45, a 61-folio liturgical manuscript which is part of the Turfan Collection: ‫ܫܒܬܐ‬ ‫ܕܛܘܒܢܐ ܡܪܣܪܓܝܣ ܣܗܕܐ ܢܨܝܚܐ‬, “Saturday of the blessed Mar Sergius the victorious martyr” (fol. 13 recto—Bacchus is mentioned on fol. 13 verso—findings presented at the Christianity in Iraq VIII conference held at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London on 28 May, 2011). 127 385

Text 5: SyrHT 70 (T II B 22 No. 2), recto: 3.9 x 5.7 cm; 1 row x 3 columns + 2 lines; cells drawn free-hand in red; verso blank387 [Fig. 5-5]

]‫ܐ[ܬܘܬܗ؟‬ ]

1

… Former [Teshri]

2 3

… Sunday of A[nnunciation?]… … Latter T[eshri]…

31

‫ܠܐ‬

‫ [ ܬܫܪ]ܝـ ܩܕܝܡ‬1

388

‫ [ ]ܚܕܒܫܒܐ ܕܣ[ܘܒܪܐ؟‬2 ] ‫ [ ]ܬܫܪܝ ܐ[ܚܪܝ‬3

[its sign (?)]

The top line of this fragment is evidently the bottom line of a table similar to SyrHT 291 and U 3858. Despite some palaeographic similarities between SyrHT 70 and U 3858, the difference in paper rules out the possibility that they are from the same table. Beneath it, apparently in a different hand, are two fragmentary lines which seem to deal with ‫ܣܘܒܪܐ‬, Subbārā, “Annunciation”, the first season in the liturgical year, which begins in either Latter Teshri or Former Kanun (cf. Text 6 below). Text 6: SyrHT 69 (T II B 22 No. 2): 4.3 x 8.9 cm recto = 4 rows x 3 columns; cells drawn free-hand in red [Fig. 5-6a] 389

]‫[ܒܟܢܘ]ܢ [ܩܕܝܡ‬

]‫[ܐ‬

] [‫ܒܬܫܪܝ ܐܚܪܝ‬

‫ܠ‬

] ‫ܒܬܫܪܝ ܐܚܪ[ܝ‬ 387

‫ܟܚ‬

]‫[ܒܬܫܪܝـ ܐܚܪܝ‬

]‫[ܓ‬

1

]‫[ܒܬܫܪܝـ ܐܚܪܝ‬

]‫[ܒ‬

2

‫[ܒܬܫܪ]ܝ ̣ـ ܐ ܩܕܝܡ‬

]‫[ܠܐ‬

3

390

SyrHT 67–70 are glassed together. The letter immediately following ‫ ܕ‬is partially torn off. Since it almost certainly refers to one of the seasons in the liturgical year, there are only a few options for the missing word. Based on the visible remnants of the letter and the reference to Latter Teshri in the next line, the most logical option is ‫ܣܘܒܪܐ‬. 389 This is the most likely reconstruction, given what is visible of the bottoms of the missing letters, along with the final nun. 390 The last word in this cell has been altered from ‫ܐܚܪܝ‬, “Latter” to ‫ܩܕܝܡ‬, “Former”, leaving the unexplained ‫ܐ‬. Based on the final ‫ ܝـ‬visible at the beginning of this cell and that 128 388

] ‫ܒܬܫܪܝ ܐܚ[ܪܝ‬

391

‫ܟܙ‬

‫[ܒܬܫܪ]ܝـ ܩܕܝܡ‬

]‫[ܠ‬

1

[3]

[in Latter Teshri]

[1]

[in Former Kanu]n

2

[2]

[in Latter Teshri]

30

in Latter Teshri

3

[31]

[in] Former [Teshri]

28

in Latter Teshri

4

[30]

[in] Former [Teshri]

27

in Latter Teshri

4

This table looks at first sight similar to those above, but the numbers in the second column do not refer to the number of days in either Former or Latter Teshri, which have 31 and 30 days respectively. Rather, they are from a table giving the seven possible dates for the beginning of ‫ܩܘܕܫ ܥܕܬܐ‬, Quddāsh ʿEdtā, “Hallowing of the Church” and ‫ܣܘܒܪܐ‬, Subbārā, “Annunciation” (roughly equivalent to Advent), the last and first seasons in the Syrian liturgical year respectively. The date of the former can range from the 30th day in Former Teshri (October) to the 5th day in Latter Teshri (November) and that of the latter from the 27th day in Latter Teshri to the 3rd day in Former Kanun (December). It follows that the numbers in the second visible column (27, 28 and 30, from the bottom up) must belong with the months in the third column and refer to the beginning of Subbārā. By counting back four weeks, the length of Quddāsh ʿEdtā, we can then reconstruct the numbers which would have been in the column immediately preceding the first column, to find the beginning of that liturgical season. The reconstruction of the figures 30 and 31 in rows 4 and 3 is confirmed by the fact that these are the only possible dates for Quddāsh ʿEdtā which are within the month of Former Teshri named in the adjacent column. The difference of 2 between rows 2 and 3 indicates the position of the leap year and thus enables us to reconstruct the missing numbers and month-names in rows 1 and 2. The scribal alteration of ‫ܐܚܪܝ‬, “Latter” to ‫ܩܕܝܡ‬, “Former” in the first visible column of row 3 can also be explained by the fact that this is where the month changes from Latter Teshri to Former Teshri.

immediately below, the first word must be in both cells. 391 This number has a line over it.

‫ܬܫܪܝ‬, thus indicating the month of Former Teshri 129

verso = 4 lines in Sogdian script392 [Fig. 5-6b] /1/ /2/ /3/ /4/

(βwγy?c)[393 myšβwγ[yc (ẓ)-y(mt)[yc395 xw[šmyc

βūγ(i)č[ mišβūγ[(i)č394 žīmt[(ī)č xu[šmič396

(9th month in the Sogdian calendar) (10th month) (11th month) (12th month)

The names of four months of the traditional Sogdian calendar (βūγič, mišβūγič, žīmtīč and xušmič) suggest that there may be a connection between the text on the verso and the calendrical table on the recto side. Sogdian calendrical texts in Syriac script Text 7: n295 (T II B 46), recto and verso: 10.5 x 6.5 cm; 10 lines on recto + 1 line on verso [Fig. 5-7] This is a page of a codex in very small format. Amongst the Christian Sogdian manuscripts, such a size is characteristic of liturgical booklets intended, presumably, for individual use.397 The present text, which seems to contain an account of work carried out on various days of the month, or perhaps rather predictions regarding the advisability of working on various days of the month, may have been written on a blank page at the end of such a booklet. R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 392

(................................) (m)[y](θy)..398 [•••]n [ (nʾ)[? ••](r)[••• ʾ](r)q (qt)[? •••](w .......) stm (p)tnym (xʾ)n? sʾr tyny (xw? )[ ] frnx[w]nty (w)[bʾt]399

]

Lower right corner of page, rounded and darkened; side margin = 1.4–1.6 cm; lower margin = 1.0 cm. 393 The reading of this word is very uncertain. 394 This is the form used in the Manichaean texts. The texts from Mt. Mugh call this month tγmych, as discussed in Panaino (1990), p. 665. 395 There is probably a diacritic dot under z. 396 Presumably with metathesis for xšwmyc. 397 cf. Sims-Williams (1995), p. 258a. 398 Bold type in Sogdian texts indicates rubrics. 130

R8 dtšy r(w)c(y m)[yθy] R9 ʾ(yc? ʾ)r(q )[ ] R10 ny [••](•• ••)[ ] V1 rwcy (m)yθy.. rest blank “On the day [...-rōč]: ... un-(?)... work(?), (R4)so that(?) ... he might(?) bring a coarse(?) implement(?) to the khan(?) (who) ... He/it(?) ... [will be](?) fortunate. (R8) On the day dhatšī-rōč: No work(?) ... (V1)On the day ...-rōč: (here the text breaks off unfinished).”

R3. The restoration of [ʾ](r)q “work” is supported by the occurrence of this word in R9. R5. On stm see the note to Text 9 (n354), line 5. The following (p)tnym is unfortunately obscure. One or more words so spelled are attested (in the ̈ plural form ptnymt) as a translation of Syriac ‫ ܡܐܢܐ‬in the sense “gear, trappings, implements”400 and as the second element of two Manichaean Sogdian compounds: jnʾ-ptnym “advisor”401 and ṭrγyy-pṭnym, an epithet of “hands” with a negative connotation.402 Finally, (xʾ)n could represent the Turkish title khan, but the reading is quite uncertain. R6–7. If tyny in R6 is 3 sg. imperfect “introduced, brought” the obvious restoration in R7 will be frnx[w]nty (w)[m’t] “[he/it was] fortunate”. But it seems equally possible to interpret tyny as 3 sg. optative (for *tynyy) and to restore a 3 sg. subjunctive frnx[w]nty (w)[b’t], giving the sense “[he/it will be] fortunate” or “[may he/it be] fortunate”. R8. For rwc “day”, cf. Text 10 (SyrHT 67), line 6. The day specified here is dhatšī rōč, the 8th, 15th and 23rd day of the month in the traditional Sogdian calendar. Two other days of the month were presumably named in R1 and R10, but they are unfortunately illegible.

399

Or (w)[mʾt]? Sims-Williams (1985), p. 179. 401 Gershevitch (1985), pp. 33–39. 402 “Sharply-inclined” according to Gershevitch (1985), pp. 35–36, “swiftly-grabbing” according to Sundermann (1992), p. 134. 131 400

Text 8: n288 (T II B 62 + C93 = T III B 61), recto: 13.5 x 8.5 cm; 11 lines; verso blank [Fig. 5-8] This text is written on one side of a sheet made by gluing together two, in parts even three, layers of paper. The other side is blank. Although poorly preserved, it has proved crucial to the understanding of the calendrical tables which follow (Texts 9–13), since it contains instructions for consulting such tables. The key to the reconstruction and understanding of this text is the sequence of numerals mentioned in it: 28, 12 and 19. Lines 1–4 contain instructions for calculating the position of the year within the 28-year solar cycle. The procedure described is as follows: Start with the number of the Seleucid year, divide by 28, and take the remainder. Lines 5–8 contain instructions for calculating the position of the year in the 19-year lunar cycle. In this case, the procedure is to add 12 to the number of the Seleucid year,403 to divide by 19, and to take the remainder. Exactly the same procedure is described by Elias of Nisibis, in the text accompanying his table for calculating the beginning of Lent: Subtract the years of Alexander 28 (by) 28, and what remains, enter with it the line of 28 ... Then add 12 years to the years of Alexander and subtract the total 19 (by) 19, and what remains, enter with it the line of 19 ... Then proceed with the remainder of the 19 as far as the remainder of the 28, and the number which you find opposite both numbers, if it is in black ink, then the Monday of the Fast falls in Shebaṭ, and if it is in red, then the Monday of the Fast (falls) in Adar.404

The same calculations are described in the Introduction to the printed text of the Ḥudra, the primary liturgical text of the Church of the East;405 there, however, the resulting figures are used to consult two separate tables rather than a single table of 28 x 19 (= 532) cells, such as the table of Elias. Our Sogdian text states that one should place a “line” (Sogdian wytq) first on the axis of 28 and then on the axis of 19. Evidently the point of intersection indicates the required date. The implication that the text describes the procedure for consulting a 28 x 19 matrix receives strong support from the associated fragments of calendrical tables (Texts 9–13 below), most of which can now be seen to belong to tables of exactly this type. 403

“The purpose of adding 12 is to reconcile the Seleucid year count with the Alexandrian cycle” (SS). 404 Chabot (1909), p. 124; Chabot (1910), p. 139. 405 Darmo (1960), pp. 13–14, especially p. 13, r. col., bottom 12 ll; p. 14, r. col., ll. 1–11. 132

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

[qʾ](m)y qt γrb(y )[ qdʾm-zʾyy sty. ʾ[ ʾštwystq(y ) ʾštwyst(q)[y bysʾ wʾc cʾf .........] p(rxsʾt )xʾt wytq wdy ʾ[wst nw(ts ••)qy wytq-ʾy pydʾ[r pcmʾry cwpr( )dwʾts p(c)[mʾr ....... nwtsqy] nwtsqy bysʾ( )wʾc cʾ[f .................. prxsʾt xʾt] (w)ytq wdy ʾwst.. 406[ m(yw)407 srdy( θ)šryq(dym)[ mʾx (pc)mʾr mʾt [ (..... xw)tʾw( •)[

“[If you des]ire to know [the ...], in which position it is, [take the number of the year, subtract] 28 (and again) 28 (as many times as possible). [However many] ... (4)may be left (over), p[ut] the line there. Concerning the line of 19 ...: To (lit. over) the number [of the year add the] nu[mber] 12 ... subtract [19] (and again) 19 (as many times as possible). However many [... may be left over] ... (8)put the line there. “[The month] Former Teshri of the tiger year ... the number (of the year of the Greeks) was ... [Our] Lord ...”

Line 1. The verbs are probably 2 sg. optative: “[if you des]ire that you may know”. Virtually identical phrases are used to introduce the explanations of the calendrical tables in the text translated by Dean, as well as in the Syriac “Book of Medicines”.408 Line 2. The compound qdʾm-zʾyy probably consists of qdʾm “which? what?” and zʾy “earth, ground”, plus the suffix -y which turns the compound into an adjective, literally: “having what ground? in which position?” Line 3. Sogdian has two ways of expressing a distributive sense: by repetition, as in nym nym “half-and-half”,409 or by use of the suffix -ky, as in zʾrkyy “by the thousands”.410 Here in ʾštwystqy ʾštwystqy “28 (and again) 28” the two methods are combined. The same construction is probably attested in lines 6–7: [nwtsqy] nwtsqy “19 (and again) 19”. Since both ex406 407 408 409 410

The rest of the line left blank? Hardly ms. Cited above at the end of the Introduction. Gershevitch (1954), §1633. Gershevitch (1985), pp. 27–29. 133

amples are followed at a distance of one line by the words wytq wdy, it does not seem too fanciful to assume that the two passages are parallel, hence the restorations [bysʾ wʾc cʾf] in line 3, ʾ[wst] in line 4 and [prxsʾt xʾt] in line 7. The literal meaning of bysʾ wʾc (2 sg. imperative) is “send away, let out”. In a mathematical context this must mean “take away, subtract”. The Sogdian text thus expresses division as a process of repeated subtraction, as does Elias, who uses the Syriac verb ‫ܢܦܩ‬, lit. “go out”, hence “cast out, subtract” with repeated numerals: “28 (by) 28”, “19 (by) 19”. Line 4. Forms such as prxsʾt xʾt (subjunctive + conditional particle xʾt) have recently been discussed by Yoshida,411 who points out that they are restricted to late Sogdian texts whose syntax shows the influence of Uyghur Turkish. The Syriac equivalent in the text of Elias is ‫ܦܐܫ‬, “remains”. The word wytq, which also occurs in lines 5 (with oblique case ending -ʾy) and 8, is otherwise unknown. Etymologically, it may be understood as a diminutive of wītē “cord, rope” (in Sogdian script wytʾk, Yaghnobi wīta),412 hence a “string” or “line”. It seems to apply both to a row or a column of figures (“line of 19 ...”), in which sense it corresponds to Elias’ use of the Syriac term ‫ܣܘܪܛܐ‬, “line”, and to the horizontal and vertical lines or markers whose point of intersection determines the required date. Lines 9–11. The reference to a “tiger year” (the third year in every cycle of twelve years according to the Chinese and Central Asian animal cycle) suggests that this part of the text applies the method of calculation described to a specific year. Calendrical tables with Sogdian on the reverse Five fragments from Turfan have remnants of calendrical tables in Syriac script on one side and (with one exception, where the reverse is blank) Sogdian texts in either Sogdian or Syriac script on the other side.413

411

Yoshida (2009), pp. 281–282. See Livšic (1962), p. 156. 413 For convenience, the calendrical tables will be considered the recto side of each fragment. Translations of each table with Arabic numerals are given in left-to-right format, as are the Easter and Lenten tables at the end of the article, in contrast to the Syriac text, where the original right-to-left format is obviously maintained. 134 412

Text 9: n354 (T II B 66 No. 48a): 14.5 x 12.3 cm recto = 9 rows x 8 columns; cells drawn free-hand in red and black; one indistinct line in Manichaean script in the lower margin414 [Fig. 5-9a]

416

‫ܠܐ‬

‫[ܟـ]ܐ‬

‫ܠ‬ ‫ܗ‬

‫ܙ‬

1

]‫[ܝܕ‬

2

‫ܙ‬

]‫[ܝܕ‬

‫ܟܐ‬

]‫[ܟܟ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܝܓ‬

‫ܟܙ‬

]‫[ܝܛ‬

]‫[ܕ‬

‫ܝܒ‬

‫ܟܘ‬

‫ܗ‬

4

]‫ܟـ[ܕ‬

‫ܓ‬

‫ܝـ‬

‫ܟܕ‬

‫ܓ‬

5

‫ܒ‬

‫ܟܓ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܝܘ‬

‫ܟܓ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܝܘ‬

6

‫ܐ‬

‫ܟܒ‬

‫ܐ‬

‫ܝܗ‬

‫ܟܒ‬

‫ܚ‬

‫ܝܗ‬

7

]‫ܠ[ܐ‬

‫ܟܐ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܝܕ‬

‫ܟܚ‬

]‫[ܙ‬

‫ܝܕ‬

8

‫ܗ‬

‫ܝܛ‬

‫ܗ‬

‫[ܝ]ܒ‬

‫ܟܘ‬

]‫[ܗ‬

417

418

415

‫ܝܗ‬

3

9

1

15

[8]

[22]

[15]

[1]

[22]

[1]

2

14?

7

21

14?

7

21?

31

3

[13]

[6]

27

13

6

20?

30

4

[19]

5

26

12

4?

19?

5

5

[17]

3

24

10

3

24?

[3]

6

16

2

23

16

2

23

2

7

15

8

22

15

1

22

1

8

14

7?

28

14

6

21

31?

9

[19]

5?

26

12?

5

19

5

414

Numbers in missing cells are supplied in the translation based on the Easter and Lenten tables reproduced in the Appendix. 415 Apparently in black ink, but should be red (according to expected sequence). 416 Apparently in red ink, but should be black. 417 In black ink, but should be red. 418 In red ink, but should be black. 135

Most of this fragment can be identified as a section of the Lenten table reproduced in the Appendix (Table 1, columns 14–19; rows 20–28). However, the last column of n354 does not correspond with any part of that table; in fact it includes two numbers (30 and 31) which can never occur in a Lenten table. A series of numbers which agrees with the surviving figures in this column does occur in the corresponding Easter table reproduced in the Appendix (Table 2, column 17, rows 12–19) and the same pattern would also occur in a table for determining certain other dates dependent on Easter, such as Pentecost, though the comparison requires one to assume that the scribe wrote several numbers in red instead of black or vice versa. However, it is difficult to see how this fragment of an Easter or Pentecost table can relate to the Lenten table which stands beside it, since the dates indicated in this last column, whether Easter or Pentecost, do not align with the Lenten dates to their right. verso = 9 lines of Sogdian in Syriac script [Fig. 5-9b] On the reverse of the calendrical table is the following Sogdian text. The two texts may have been written at different times, but are presumably connected, in so far as both are concerned with the calculation of certain dates in the liturgical year. 1 2 3 4 5 6

](my)θ( •)[• xš]p(ʾ p)r(w) yw m(γ)[w]n [cn ](m)ʾx (wy)t(wr )qw (knw)n q[dy]m mʾx nwts (prm x)[š]p(yʾ xwr)ty (..) ty(m) stm p(ʾšy pr)c[y .](. )cn q(ym)θ(ʾ)[y] ʾwsʾr (ctfr)s m(y)θ( pr)c(y)

7 8 9

(swl)qʾ[ ʾ](γ)ʾm bw(t ) ʾt [d](s)m(y)q myθ(y) [ [ʾ](γ)ʾm bwt .. [

] ]

“... both day [and] night alike, [from] the month ... until the nineteenth of the month Former Kanun one eats(?) at night. Again, (5)after the Great(?) Fast, after forty days from the Resurrection is the feast of the Ascension, and (8)on the [ten]th day is the feast [of Pentecost].”

136

Lines 3–4. The date (19th of Former Kanon, equivalent to December) is clear but its significance is unknown. The Church of the East observes a fast prior to Christmas, beginning on the 1st of December, and one might perhaps speculate that there was some change in the rules of the fast on the 19th, seven days before Christmas itself. However, the reading and translation of the phrase (x)[š]p(yʾ xwr)ty “one eats(?) at night” are quite doubtful. Line 5. The word stm also occurs in Text 7 (n295), R5, but is otherwise unattested in this spelling. It apparently corresponds to the form written ʾstm in Sogdian script,419 which seems to be a later form of Manichaean Sogdian stmb “stern(?),” in Sogdian script ʾstʾnp or ʾstmp “coarse”.420 Here one could understand stm pʾš as “Severe Fast” or merely “Great Fast”, corresponding to Syriac ‫ܨܘܡܐ ܪܒܐ‬, the regular term for Lent. The Manichaean form stmb translates Middle Persian ʿstbr (= New Persian sitabr), a word whose senses include the neutral “big, strong, solid” as well as the more negative “coarse, stiff”. Lines 5–9. The references to stm pʾš “Lent”, qymθʾ “the Resurrection” and swlqʾ ʾγʾm “the feast of the Ascension” are all quite clear, so there can be little doubt that “the feast [of Pentecost]” should be restored in lines 8–9. That the community at Bulayïq celebrated the feast of the Ascension forty days after Easter and ten days before Pentecost, as is of course to be expected, is also clear from the Sogdian version of the Apostolic Canons.421 Text 10: SyrHT 67 (T II B 22 No. 2): 7.5 x 10.9 cm recto = 7 rows x 9 columns; cells ruled in red [Fig. 5-10a]

‫ܝܓ‬

‫[ܟـ]ܙ‬

‫ܝܐ‬

‫ܟܗ‬

‫ܝـ‬ ]‫ܝـ[ܘ‬ 419

]‫[ܟܟ‬

‫[ܟـ]ܙ‬

1

‫ܕ‬

‫ܝܚ‬

‫ܟܗ‬

‫ܝܐ‬

‫ܟܕ‬

‫ܓ‬

‫ܝܙ‬

‫ܟܕ‬

‫ܝ‬

‫ܝܙ‬

‫ܓ‬

‫ܟܓ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܝܘ‬

‫ܒ‬

‫ܛ‬

‫ܝܘ‬

‫ܒ‬

2 ‫ܝـ‬

‫[ܟـ]ܕ‬

3

‫[ܟܓ] ܛ‬

4

Sundermann (1997), p. 105, line 4, where ʾstm occurs in a context parallel to ʾstmp in Yoshida (2000), p. 13, line 110. The proposal in Yoshida (2008), p. 59 to read rxnʾm in place of ʾstm is hardly justified. 420 Gershevitch (1954), §157; Yoshida (2000), pp. 13 (line 110), 83. On the late Sogdian development of [mb] to [m] see Gershevitch (1954), §453. 421 See Sims-Williams (1985), pp. 106–107, with n. 67. 137

]‫[ܟܒ‬

]‫[ܚ‬

]‫[ܝـܗ‬

‫ܟܛ‬

‫ܚ‬

‫ܟܒ‬

]‫[ܘ‬

‫ܝܓ‬

‫ܟܙ‬

‫ܘ‬

‫ܟܟ‬

]‫[ܝـ]ܛ [ܗ‬

]‫ܟـ[ܘ‬

‫ܟܛ‬

‫[ܝـ]ܗ‬

5 6 7

1

[20]

[13]

[5]

[20]

[6]

27?

20?

[6]

27?

13

2

[25]

[11]

[4]

[18]

11

25

18

4

25

11

3

24?

10

3

17

10

24

17

3

24

10

4

23?

9

2

16

9

2

16

2

23

16?

5

[22]

15?

29

22

8

29

15?

8?

22?

[15]

6

[20]

[13]

[27]

20

6

27

13

6?

[27]

[13]

7

[19]

[12]

[5]

[19]

[5]

26?

19?

5?

[26]

[12]

Again, this fragment can be located in the Lenten table in the Appendix (columns 8–17, rows 11–17). As noted below, SyrHT 273 may come from the same original table. verso = 8 lines of Sogdian in Syriac script [Fig. 5-10b] On the other side of the calendrical table is a Sogdian text which appears to be concerned with a calendrical calculation, though its purpose is not clear. Two occurrences of a verb meaning “(it was) written” and (probably) one of the word for “scribe” suggest that it may be a colophon, in which the dates when the scribe began and finished writing the manuscript might have been mentioned. 1 2 3 4 5 422 423

](•wy)st(422 n)ʾwqt[ ] b]žʾwt dwy(s)t ʾšt(c)[ ] p]cmʾry prw (s)ʾq q(wn)ʾ [ ] 423 p](c)r(w d)pyd( xw) ⁘ npxšt(y) qty ʾ•[ ](tn)q[•]nʾ(yʾ n)wwyst (s)γt(yʾ sw)ryq

Quite uncertain. Not dwyst. Or (r)pyd. Wrongly pointed for dpyr?

138

]

6 7 8

](tw ⁘ )d(yny) rwc(y) ⁘ (mʾ)t ]••st ⁘ npxšt(y) py](d)ʾr

“... twenty-...(?) ... increases, two hundred and eighteen ... (3)with the reckoning he(?) put(?) the number ... he is the scribe(?) instead of ... It was written ... on the 29th day of the month (by) the Syrian (6)[calendar] ... (The day) dhēnē-rōč. There was ... [It was] written ... because of ...”

Line 1. The first word may be a compound ending in -wyst “20,” i.e. a number between 21 and 29. It does not seem likely that it can be read dwyst “200.” The following (n)ʾwqt[ appears to be the beginning of an otherwise unknown word. Line 2. The spelling ʾštc “18” stands for [əštaʦ], cf. pncc [pãǰaʦ] “15”. Other attested spellings in Syriac script are štʾts [štaʦ] (in U 7252, side A, col. 1, line 20),424 and šts [štas].425 Line 3. The noun pcmʾr or ptšmʾr—cf. also Text 8 (n288), lines 6 and 10— derives from the verb pcmr-, ptšmr- “to consider, reckon” and can generally be translated as “reckoning” or “number”. In the Sogdian version of the Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:12-27), pcmʾr translates Syriac mnyʾ as a unit of currency, no doubt as a calque based on the meaning of the underlying root mnʾ “to count”. As for sʾq, this too can usually be translated as “number” and is virtually synonymous with pcmʾr, as is clear for instance from the dyadic expression pww sʾk pww ptšmʾr “countless, innumerable”.426 However, it is possible that one or both of these words may have a more specific sense in a mathematical context such as this. Finally, qwnʾ may be either 2 sg. imperative “make, put” or 3 sg. imperfect “(he) made, put”. Line 4. Since dpyd or rpyd is unknown, it seems likely that it is a mispointed form for dpyr “scribe”. Line 5. The phrase (n)wwyst (s)γt(yʾ sw)ryq ... “on the 29th day of the month (by) the Syrian [calendar]” suggests that the preceding [...](tn)q[•]nʾ(yʾ) might be a contrasting ethnic adjective with the Syriac suffix -āyā (spelled -ʾyʾ in Sogdian fashion rather than -yʾ as in Syriac). However, it is difficult to find a plausible restoration. 424 425 426

An unpublished fragment discussed by Dickens (2009), pp. 30–32. Thus correctly read in Müller (1913), p. 41, line 3, contra Sundermann (1974), p. 231. Gershevitch (1954), §1164. 139

Line 6. In Sogdian the word rwc “day” is exclusively used with the traditional names of the 30 days of the month, to which it is suffixed. There is virtually no doubt that the preceding word here should be read dyny, the name of the 24th day, since no other day-name is compatible with the traces. However, it is not clear whether the text indicates a synchronism between the 24th day (of a Sogdian month) and the previously-mentioned 29th day (of a Syrian month). Text 11: SyrHT 68 (T II B 22 No. 2): 4.1 x 3.1 cm recto = 4 rows x 2 columns; cells drawn free-hand in red [Fig. 5-11a]

‫ܝܙ‬

1

[3]

17

2

1?

23

3

28

21

4

27

20?

1

‫ܟܓ‬

]‫[ܐ‬

2

‫ܟܐ‬

‫ܟܚ‬

3

]‫ܟـ[ܟ‬

‫ܟܙ‬

4

This fragment can also be located in the Lenten table in the Appendix (columns 10–11, rows 2–5). verso = 3 lines in Sogdian script [Fig. 5-11b] /1/ /2/ /3/

[ ](. ...)[ c[t](β)ʾr s(.)[ [1](δ)[

/1/ /2/ /3/

[ ](...)[ (four) ...[ [ 140

The Sogdian word ctβʾr “four” on the verso could relate to many contexts, including that of a calendar, but it is not possible to draw any clearer conclusions. Text 12: SyrHT 273 (T II D), recto: 5.4 x 2.3 cm; 4 rows x 1 column; cells ruled in red; verso illegible427 [Fig. 5-12]

‫ ܕ‬1 ‫ ܓ‬2 ‫ ܒ‬3 ‫ ܐ‬4 1

4

2

3

3

2

4

1

There are two different places where this fragment could fit into the Lenten table (either column 10 or 18, rows 23–26), as well as two places in the Easter table (either column 6 or 17, rows 3–6). Of interest is the fact that it was apparently not found at Bulayïq, the site where most of the Christian fragments were discovered, but rather at Qocho, elsewhere in the Turfan oasis. However, similarities in palaeography, along with the red ruling, suggest that it may have originally belonged to the same table as SyrHT 67, the only other fragment with cells ruled in red, rather than drawn free-hand. In this case, it belongs in the Lenten table.

427

A label on the glass-plate links it with a now-lost fragment T II B 66 No. 48b and a typed hand-list of the Syriac fragments (prepared sometime between 1946 and 1972) further connects it with other calendrical texts discussed in this article: T II B 22 No. 2 (SyrHT 67– 70) and T II B 66 No. 48a (n354). 141

Text 13: So 15850 (T III T.V. B): 3.3 x 4.9 cm recto = 2 rows x 5 columns; cells drawn free-hand in red and black [Fig. 513a]

‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ܝܐ‬

1

1 428

‫ܘ‬

‫ܝܚ‬

2

6

2

18

6

11

4

Due to the anomalous occurrence of the number 6 in two adjacent cells, which should not happen in Syriac calendrical tables, and the absence of a number in the upper right-hand cell, this fragment may represent a table which was left unfinished due to a scribal error. verso = 3 lines in Sogdian script [Fig. 5-13b] /1/ /2/ /3/

](....)[ 4 ](.)[ ](.)δy xw (ʾm/rδ)[429 ](..)[

Concerning the text on the verso, other than the possibility that the language is Sogdian, nothing more can be assumed. As noted above, it is likely that SyrHT 67 and SyrHT 273 come from the same original Lenten table. Especially given the unique text on the reverse, n354 seems to be the sole remnant of its original table, which apparently contained information for determining the dates of both Lent and Easter. Of the remaining calendrical tables, there are similarities in the scribal hand on SyrHT 68 and So 15850, but given the anomalous nature of the latter, it is questionable whether they originally belonged together.

428

Written vertically in black ink in the cell (perhaps to save space). This line seems to contain the Sogdian word xw, which functions as a demonstrative pronoun (“that”), an article (“the”), the nominative 3 rd person singular pronoun (“he”) or the 3 rd person singular present of the verb “to be.” 142

429

Conclusions The Christian calendrical fragments from Turfan are few in number, but they offer interesting insights into the Christian community that existed in this outpost of the Church of the East for several centuries. The remnants of calendrical tables, which can be located in reconstructed Lenten and Easter tables show that the Turfan Christians were as concerned with determining the correct dates for these important events in the liturgical calendar as Christians elsewhere in Europe, the Middle East or Asia at that time. The fact that Sogdian texts in either Syriac or Sogdian script which mention Sogdian months or provide calendrical calculations can be found on the reverse sides of most of the fragments containing calendrical tables further shows that these texts were not just being recycled (as is the case with many texts from Turfan which contain different languages on the recto and the verso). Rather, it seems that the Sogdian texts on the verso of the calendrical tables were intended to help members of the community in calculating important dates in the church calendar. In contrast, there seems no evidence that these tables were used for divination purposes, as is the case in the Syriac “Book of Medicines”. Finally, the use of three calendrical systems in these fragments—Syrian, Sogdian and the 12-year animal cycle used by the Chinese and subsequently the Turks—further attests to the multilingual and multicultural nature of the Christian community in Turfan. Appendix: Lenten and Easter Calendrical Tables Two tables are reproduced below. The Lenten Calendrical Table is an adaptation of the table in the work of Elias of Nisibis.430 The parallel Easter Calendrical Table has kindly been prepared by Thomas Carlson, to whom the authors are very grateful. The numbers in each cell give the dates of, respectively, Lent and Easter in any year. Figures in bold type in the Lenten table (red ink in the original) stand for dates in Adar while non-bold figures are dates in Shebaṭ in the Easter table bold figures represent dates in Nisan, non-bold figures dates in Adar. The significance of the rows and columns shaded light grey is the same in both tables: the top row is the place in the 19year lunar cycle (the remainder after adding 12 to the Seleucid year and dividing by 19); the left column is the place in the 28-year solar cycle (the remainder after dividing the Seleucid year by 28); the right column is the

430

Chabot (1909), pp. 124–125; Chabot (1910), p. 139. The first three rows of Elias’s table have been omitted, since they are not relevant to this article. 143

“foundation of the year”,431 while the bottom row indicates the day of the month on which Passover432 falls, either in Adar (March) or Nisan (April). Darker grey shading indicates portions of the table which are paralleled in the Turfan fragments. In the Lenten table: n354 = columns 14–19; rows 20–28; SyrHT 67 = columns 8–17, rows 11–17; SyrHT 68 = columns 10–11, rows 2–5; SyrHT 273 = either column 10 or 18, rows 23–26. In the Easter table: n354, last column = column 17, rows 12–19; SyrHT 273 = either column 6 or 17, rows 3–6.

431

As Dean (1934), p. 131, n. 6 notes: “the day of the week on which the preceding year ended, expressed as a numeral, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7”. This is also referred to as the dominical letter. 432 Here and in what follows the term “Passover” refers “not to the Passover of the Jews but to the notional ‘Passover’ of Christian Easter computus, that is: the 14 th day of the Paschal lunar month” (FdB). 144

Table 1: Lenten Calendrical Table, after Chabot Chabot (1909), pp. 124–125; Chabot (1910), p. 139 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

1

11

25

18

4

25

11

4

25

11

4

18

11

25

18

4

25

11

4

18

1

2

10

3

17

3

24

17

3

24

10

3

17

10

24

17

3

24

10

3

24

2

3

9

1

16

9

23

16

8

23

9

1

23

9

1

16

9

23

16

1

23

3

4

7

28

14

7

28

14

7

21

14

28

21

7

28

14

7

21

14

7

21

5

5

6

27

20

6

27

13

6

20

13

27

20

6

27

13

6

27

13

6

20

6

6

12

26

19

5

26

12

5

19

12

5

19

5

26

19

5

26

12

5

19

7

7

11

3

18

4

25

18

3

25

11

3

18

11

25

18

4

25

11

3

25

1

8

9

2

16

9

23

16

2

23

9

2

16

9

2

16

2

23

16

2

23

3

9

8

1

15

8

22

15

8

22

8

1

22

8

1

15

8

22

15

1

22

4

10

7

28

14

7

28

14

7

21

14

28

21

7

28

14

7

21

14

7

21

5

11

13

27

20

6

27

13

5

20

13

5

20

6

27

20

6

27

13

5

20

6

12

11

25

18

4

25

11

4

25

11

4

18

11

25

18

4

25

11

4

18

1

13

10

3

17

3

24

17

3

24

10

3

17

10

24

17

3

24

10

3

24

2

14

9

2

16

9

23

16

2

23

9

2

16

9

2

16

2

23

16

2

23

3

15

8

29

15

8

29

15

7

22

15

29

22

8

29

15

8

22

15

7

22

4

16

6

27

20

6

27

13

6

20

13

27

20

6

27

13

6

27

13

6

20

6

17

12

26

19

5

26

12

5

19

12

5

19

5

26

19

5

26

12

5

19

7

18

11

25

18

4

25

11

4

25

11

4

18

11

25

18

4

25

11

4

18

1

19

10

2

17

10

24

17

2

24

10

2

17

10

2

17

3

24

17

2

24

2

20

8

1

15

8

22

15

8

22

8

1

22

8

1

15

8

22

15

1

22

4

21

7

28

14

7

28

14

7

21

14

28

21

7

28

14

7

21

14

7

21

5

22

6

27

20

6

27

13

6

20

13

27

20

6

27

13

6

27

13

6

20

6

23

12

26

19

5

26

12

4

26

12

4

19

12

26

19

5

26

12

4

19

7

24

10

3

17

3

24

17

3

24

10

3

17

10

24

17

3

24

10

3

24

2

25

9

2

16

9

23

16

2

23

9

2

16

9

2

16

2

23

16

2

23

3

26

8

1

15

8

22

15

8

22

8

1

22

8

1

15

8

22

15

1

22

4

27

7

28

21

7

28

14

6

21

14

28

21

7

28

14

7

28

14

6

21

5

28

12

26

19

5

26

12

5

19

12

5

19

5

26

19

5

26

12

5

19

7

25

13

2

22

10

30

18

7

27

15

4

24

12

1

21

9

29

17

6

145

Table 2: Easter Calendrical Table (by Thomas Carlson) 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1

31

14

7

24

14

31

21

14

31

21

7

31

14

7

24

14

31

21

7

1

2

30

20

6

23

13

6

20

13

30

20

6

30

13

6

23

13

30

20

13

2

3

28

18

4

28

11

4

25

11

28

18

11

28

18

4

28

11

4

18

11

4

4

27

17

3

27

17

3

24

10

3

17

10

27

17

3

27

10

3

24

10

5

5

26

16

9

26

16

2

23

9

2

16

9

26

16

2

26

16

2

23

9

6

6

1

15

8

25

15

1

22

8

1

22

8

25

15

8

25

15

1

22

8

7

7

30

20

6

23

13

6

20

13

30

20

6

30

13

6

23

13

30

20

13

2

8

29

19

5

29

12

5

19

12

29

19

5

29

19

5

22

12

5

19

12

3

9

28

18

4

28

11

4

25

11

28

18

11

28

18

4

28

11

4

18

11

4

10

27

17

3

27

17

3

24

10

3

17

10

27

17

3

27

10

3

24

10

5

11

1

15

8

25

15

1

22

8

1

22

8

25

15

8

25

15

1

22

8

7

12

31

14

7

24

14

31

21

14

31

21

7

31

14

7

24

14

31

21

7

1

13

30

20

6

23

13

6

20

13

30

20

6

30

13

6

23

13

30

20

13

2

14

29

19

5

29

12

5

19

12

29

19

5

29

19

5

22

12

5

19

12

3

15

27

17

3

27

17

3

24

10

3

17

10

27

17

3

27

10

3

24

10

5

16

26

16

9

26

16

2

23

9

2

16

9

26

16

2

26

16

2

23

9

6

17

1

15

8

25

15

1

22

8

1

22

8

25

15

8

25

15

1

22

8

7

18

31

14

7

24

14

31

21

14

31

21

7

31

14

7

24

14

31

21

7

1

19

29

19

5

29

12

5

19

12

29

19

5

29

19

5

22

12

5

19

12

3

20

28

18

4

28

11

4

25

11

28

18

11

28

18

4

28

11

4

18

11

4

21

27

17

3

27

17

17

3

27

10

3

24

10

5

22

26

16

9

26

16

2

26

16

2

23

9

6

23

31

14

7

24

14

31

21

7

1

24

30

20

6

25

29

19

5

26

28

18

27

26

16

1 25

28

19

3

17

10

27

9

2

16

9

26

21

14

31

21

7

31

14

7

24

6

20

13

30

20

6

30

13

6

23

13

30

20

13

2

5

19

12

29

19

5

29

19

5

22

12

5

19

12

3

11

4

25

11

28

18

11

28

18

4

28

11

4

18

11

4

16

2

23

9

2

16

9

26

16

2

26

16

2

23

9

6

15

1

22

8

1

22

8

25

15

8

25

15

1

22

8

7

10

30

18

7

27

15

4

24

12

1

21

9

29

17

6

3

24

10

16

2

23

14

31

23

13

29

12

4

28

9

26

15

8

25

13

2

22

146

References Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2007, Turfan Studies (Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities): http://www.bbaw.de/bbaw/Forschung/Forschungsprojekte/ turfanforschung/bilder/Turfan_engl_07.pdf. Bernhard, P. L., 1969, Die Chronologie der Syrer, Sitzungsberichte der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse 264 (Wien: Hermann Böhlau). Budge, E. A. W. (ed.), 1913, Syrian Anatomy, Pathology and Therapeutics or “The Book of Medicines”, Vol. I: Introduction, Syriac Text (Oxford: Oxford University Press). ______ (tr.), 1913, Syrian Anatomy, Pathology and Therapeutics or “The Book of Medicines”, Vol. II: English Translation, Index (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Chabot, J.-B. (ed.), 1909, Eliae Metropolitae Nisibeni, Opus chronologicum, Pars posterior. CSCO, Scriptores Syri, III/8, Textus (Parisiis: e Typographeo Reipublicae). ______ (tr.), 1910, Eliae Metropolitae Nisibeni, Opus chronologicum, Pars posterior. CSCO, Scriptores Syri, III/8, Versio (Romae: Karolus de Luigi). Darmo, T. (ed.), 1960, Ktaba da-Qdam wad-Batar wad-Ḥudra wad-Kashkol wad-Gazza wQala d-ʿUdrane ʿam Ktaba d-Mazmure, Vol. I (Trichur, Kerala: Church of the East). Dean, J., 1934, “The Old Syriac Calendar”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 54, 129–142. Dickens, M., 2009, “Multilingual Christian manuscripts from Turfan”, Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 9, 22–42. Gershevitch, I., 1954, A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian (Oxford: Blackwell). ______, 1985, Philologia Iranica (Wiesbaden: Reichert). Livšic, V. A., 1962, Juridičeskie dokumenty i pis’ma, Sogdijskie dokumenty s gory Mug 2 (Moscow: Izd-vo vostochnoĭ it-ry). Maclean, A. J., 1894, East Syrian Daily Offices (London: Rivington, Percival; repr: Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003). Müller, F. W. K., 1913, Soghdische Texte I, Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1912 No. 2 (Berlin: Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften). Panaino, A., 1990, “Pre-Islamic calendars”, Encyclopaedia Iranica 4, 665. Sims-Williams, N., 1985, The Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2, Berliner Turfantexte 12 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag). ______, 1989. “Bulayïq”, Encyclopaedia Iranica 4, 545. ______, 1992, “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and Tun-huang Manuscripts”, in A. Cadonna (ed.), Turfan and Tun-huang, the Texts: Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route, Orientalia Venetiana IV (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore), 43–61. ______, 1995, “A Sogdian version of the ‘Gloria in excelsis Deo’”, in R. Gyselen (ed.), Au carrefour des religions. Mélanges offerts à Philippe Gignoux, Res Orientales 7 (Leuven: Diffusion, Peeters Press), 257–262. Sundermann, W., 1974, “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers ‘Soghdischen Texten I’, 1. Teil”, Altorientalische Forschungen 1, pp. 217–255. ______, 1975, “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers ‘Soghdischen Texten I’, 2. Teil”, Altorientalische Forschungen 3, pp. 55–90. 147

______, 1992, Der Sermon vom Licht-Nous, Berliner Turfantexte 17 (Berlin: AkademieVerlag). ______, 1997, “Three fragments of Sogdian letters and documents”, in La Persia e l’Asia centrale da Alessandro al X secolo, Atti dei convegni Lincei 127, 1996 (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), 99–111. Yoshida, Y., 2000, “Sute wen kaoshi” [Studies of Sogdian texts], in Liu Hongliang (ed.), Tulufan xinchu Moni jiao wenxian yanjiu [Studies in the Manichaean texts recently discovered at Turfan] (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe), 3–199 [in Chinese]. ______, 2008, [Review of C. Reck, Mitteliranische Handschriften, Teil 1: Berliner Turfanfragmente manichäischen Inhalts in soghdischer Schrift,] Indo-Iranian Journal 51, 51–61. ______, 2009, “Minor moods in Sogdian”, in K. Yoshida and B. Vine (ed.), East and West. Papers in Indo-European Studies (Bremen: Hempen), 281–293.

148

6 THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PSALTER AT TURFAN Mark DICKENS433 University of Alberta, Canada Original publication information: “The Importance of the Psalter at Turfan,” in From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in Central Asia and China (Orientalia-Patristica-Oecumenica, Vol. 5), ed. Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2013), pp. 357-380. The East Syriac Psalter The Psalter has always played a major role in Christian liturgy, especially in monastic contexts. This is as true of the Church of the East as it is of other Christian traditions. Indeed, a glance through Maclean’s English translation of East Syrian Daily Offices clearly shows how central the recitation of the Psalms was in the daily worship of the church.434 Equally as revealing is the fact that the printed edition of the Ḥudra, the cycle of services appointed to be said in the Church of the East throughout the year, includes the entire

433

This research is based on the author’s participation in The Christian Library of Turfan research project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), UK and headed up by Dr. Erica Hunter, who, along with the present author, will produce a catalogue of all known Syriac fragments from Turfan [See Addenda et Corrigenda in this volume for final publication information on the catalogue]. Thanks to the following individuals who provided helpful information or answered questions by email during the preparation of this article: Sebastian Brock, Erica Hunter, Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst, Sergey Minov, Simone Raschmann, Salam Rassi, Christiane Reck, Steven Ring, David Royel (Mar Awa), Aho Shemunkasho, Nicholas Sims-Williams, Werner Sundermann, David Taylor, Herrie van Rooy and Peter Zieme. Thanks to the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preussischer Kulturbesitz and the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften for access to and permission to reproduce images of the relevant fragments. All images are copyright Depositum der BERLIN-BRANDENBURGISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN in der STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN - Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. Low resolution images of the various signature numbers are available on the following websites: SyrHT on http://idp.bl.uk/ (enter the signature number in the search box); n, So or U on http://www.bbaw.de/forschung/turfanforschung/dta/index.html (follow the relevant link in the list). MIK images (from the Museum für Asiatische Kunst) are not currently available to the public. 434 MACLEAN, 1894, passim, esp. 260-263. See also MATEOS, 1959, 450-456. 149

Psalter at the back of each of the three large volumes it comprises.435 Therefore, it is not surprising that we have abundant evidence of the use of the Psalter at the Christian monastery of Shüipang near Bulayïq where, beginning in 1905, so many Christian manuscript fragments were discovered by the Second and Third Prussian Turfan Expeditions (1904-1907).436 The Turfan Psalter finds are important for at least two reasons. First, no other Christian text found at Turfan was rendered in more languages and scripts than the Psalter437 and second, the Syriac Psalter fragments from Turfan are amongst the earliest extant anywhere and can therefore be helpful in tracing the development of the Syriac Peshiṭta text of the Psalms.438 Before looking at the Psalters found at Turfan, an overview of the Psalter in the East Syriac tradition is in order.439 The Psalter itself is usually referred to as either 1) ‫( ܟܬܒܐ ܕܕܘܝܕ‬kthābhā d-dhawidh), “the Book of David” (or elliptically, just ‫ܕܘܝܕ‬, “David”) or 2) ‫( ܟܬܒܐ ܕܡܙܡܘ̈ܪܐ‬kthābhā d-mazmurē), “the Book of Psalms.”440 The term ‫( ܡܙܡܘܪܐ‬mazmurā, pl. mazmurē) is used most commonly to designate each Psalm in the East Syriac Psalter.441 Although other Syriac translations of the Bible have been used in the West Syriac tradition, the primary translation used in the East Syriac tradition has always been the Peshiṭta. The Psalm numbering in the Peshiṭta differs from that of both the Hebrew Masoretic text (followed by most modern translations of the Bible) and the Septuagint; from Psa. 115 to Psa. 147, the Peshiṭta numbering is one behind the Hebrew numbering.442 Furthermore, 435

DARMO, 1960-1962. On Bulayïq, see SIMS-WILLIAMS, 1990. On the Turfan expeditions, see BERLINBRANDENBURG ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES, 2007. 437 The only other text which comes close is the Legend of St. George, found in Syriac (MARÓTH, 1991), Sogdian in Syriac script (HANSEN, 1941) and Uyghur Turkic (BANG, 1926). 438 Critical edition published by the Peshiṭta Institute, Leiden in WALTER, 1980. 439 On the Syriac Bible in general, including the Psalter, see BROCK, 2006. “East Syriac” is used throughout this article as an adjective referring to the Church of the East, in preference to the problematic adjective “Nestorian.” 440 Transliteration of Syriac follows the classical language, including the spirantised sounds bh, gh, dh, kh, ph and th, all of which are underlined in the transliterations. 441 Other Syriac terms for “Psalm” include ‫( ܙܘܡܪܐ‬zumārā) and ‫( ܙܡܝܪܬܐ‬zmirthā), all from the root ‫( ܙܡܪ‬zmar), “to sing, chant or play on a stringed instrument.” 442 Although in truth it is slightly more complicated than this: Psa. 114 and 115 in the Hebrew text are joined together as Psa. 114 in the Peshiṭta, whereas Psa 147:1-11 and 147:1220 in the Hebrew are Psa. 146 and 147 in the Peshiṭta. For a helpful chart setting out the differences, see BROCK, 2006, 138. See also MATEOS, 1959, 447. Note also that versification of individual Psalms in the Peshiṭta frequently differs from that found in English Bibles, with many Psalms starting at verse 2 or even 3, rather than verse 1. 150 436

there are five additional Psalms (Psa. 151-155) attested in some manuscripts of the Peshiṭta Psalter, but these have not yet been encountered amongst the Turfan fragments. The Psalter is divided up in different ways in the East Syriac and West Syriac traditions (Church of the East and Syrian Orthodox Church, respectively). The former divides the text into 20 major sections, each called a ‫( ܗܘܠܠܐ‬hulālā, pl. hulālē), “praising, chant, hymn,” from the same root as Hebrew hallelujah. The Odes or Canticles found at the end of the Psalter (on which, see below) form hulālā 21.443 Each hulālā is further divided into 2-4 subsections, each known as a ‫( ܡܪܡܝܬܐ‬marmithā, pl. marmayāthā). There are 57 marmayāthā in the whole Psalter and each marmithā contains 1-6 Psalms, except for Psa. 118 (Psa. 119 in the Hebrew text), which is divided into two marmayāthā. It is thought that the division into marmayāthā precedes the division into hulālē. There are several additional elements found in the East Syriac Psalter which are relevant to the Turfan finds: 1) Psalm headings or titles; 2) Psalm farcings or canons; 3) Prayers in the Psalter text; and 4) Odes or Canticles from other Old Testament books. Psalm headings or titles: The Psalms in both the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Septuagint have headings, understood to have been added at some point after the composition of each Psalm to indicate the author and sometimes the circumstances in which it was written. The Psalms in the Peshiṭta text originally did not include headings, but these were added in the 5th century or later. They are different from those in the Hebrew or Septuagint text and moreover they differ between the East Syriac and West Syriac traditions. The East Syriac Psalm headings are derived from the commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Psalms and primarily give information on the historical setting for each, although many also indicate a prophetic dimension to the Psalm in question, stating that it was written about some future time in Jewish history, such as the time of the Maccabees. Example from Psa. 1: ̈ ‫ܬܫܥܝܬܐ ܘܡܪܬܝܢܘܬܐ ܕܥܠ‬, “An account and exhortation about the ‫ܙܢܝܐ ܫܦܝ̈ܪܐ‬ virtuous ways.”444 Psalm farcings or canons: The Syriac term ‫( ܩܢܘܢܐ‬qānonā, pl. qānonē), “canon,” has many uses, but in this case refers to sentences which are usually inserted after the first verse of each Psalm or between the first and second half of the first verse. These are attributed to Patriarch Mar Aba I (540-552), 443

See MACLEAN, 1894, 259. Syriac text from DARMO, 1960, 241. The Syriac text of all the headings (without translations) can be found in BLOEMENDAAL, 1960. 151

444

a convert from Zoroastrianism who travelled to Nisibis, Edessa, Antioch, Egypt and Constantinople before becoming Catholicos (Patriarch) in 540. Example from Psa. 1: ‫ܛܘܒ ܠܐܝܢܐ ܕܛܥܢ ܢܝܪܟ ܘܐܬܗܓܝ ܒܢܡܘܣܟ ܡܪܝܐ ܒܠܠܝܐ‬ ‫ܘܒܐܝܡܡܐ‬, “Blessed is he who has borne your yoke and has meditated on your law, O Lord, by night and by day.”445 Prayers in the Psalter text: The East Syriac Psalter also includes prayers inserted before each new marmithā or hulālā. Example from Psa. 1: ‫ܐܫܘܐ ܠܢ‬ .‫ ܘܢܗܘܐ ܨܒܝܢܢ ܒܢܡܘܣܟ‬.‫ܡܪܢ ܘܐܠܗܢ ܕܢܬܕܒܪ ܒܕܘܒ̈ܪܐ ܕܡܝܬܪܘܬܐ ܕܫܦܪܝܢ ܠܡܪܘܬܟ‬ ‫ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ ܠܥܠܡܝܢ‬.‫ܘܒܗ ܢܬܗܓܐ ܒܠܠܝܐ ܘܒܐܝܡܡܐ ܡܪܐ ܕܟܠܝ‬, “Make us worthy, O our Lord and our God, to be led in the ways of virtue that are pleasing to your lordship, and may our desire be in your law, that we would meditate on it by night and by day, O Lord of all, eternal Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”446 Odes or Canticles: In addition to the 150 Psalms, East Syriac Psalters typically include several Odes or Canticles, in Syriac ‫( ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ‬teshboḥtā, pl. teshbḥāthā), consisting of the following Psalm-like passages from elsewhere in the Old Testament, normally placed at the end of the Psalter and considered to form hulālā 21. In the East Syriac (and Maronite) tradition, the normal order is: 1) Ex. 15:1-21 (the First Song of Moses); 2) Deut. 32:1-43 (the Second and Third Songs of Moses, sometimes divided into verses 1-20 and 21-43); 3) Isa. 42:10-13; 45:8 (the Song of Isaiah). The oldest known East Syriac manuscripts of the Psalter (e.g. 8a1, an 8th century complete Bible) have them in this order, but later manuscripts (e.g. 12t4, a 12th century manuscript containing the Psalms and Odes) put the Song of Isaiah second, a practice evident in SyrHT 96, the only Turfan Psalter fragment with more than one Ode extant.447 Role of the Psalter in the Church of the East The Psalter is integral to the liturgy of the Church of the East, with Psalms being used at numerous places in the service, whether on festival days (including Sundays, saints’ days, feast days and fasts) or ferial days (ordinary weekdays). In non-monastic communities, each day traditionally consisted of four daily services: 1) ‫ܬܫܡܫܬܐ ܕܪܡܫܐ‬, teshmeshtā dh-ramshā, “Evening 445

Syriac text from DARMO, 1960, 241. Translations of all the farcings/canons can be found in MACLEAN, 1894, 236-248 and MATEOS, 1959, 315-338. 446 Syriac text from DARMO, 1960, 241. Translations of all the prayers can be found in MACLEAN, 1894, 86-95. 447 For a list of Psalter manuscripts used in the preparation of the Leiden critical edition, see WALTER, 1980, vii-xxix. A critical edition of the Odes has also been published by the Peshiṭta Institute, Leiden in SCHNEIDER, 1972. 152

Service, Vespers”; 2) ‫ܣܘܒܥܐ‬, subhā‘ā, “Compline”; 3) ‫ܨܠܘܬܐ ܕܠܠܝܐ‬, ṣlothā dh-lelyā, “Night Prayer, Nocturns”; and 4) ‫ܨܠܘܬܐ ܕܨܦܪܐ‬, ṣlothā dh-ṣaphrā, “Morning Prayer, Matins.” However, the practice of Compline has gradually declined over the centuries, so that today it is virtually non-existent.448 Two marmayāthā (usually totalling six or seven Psalms) are recited near the beginning of ferial evening services (Vespers).449 After the Old Testament reading (called ‫ܩܪܝܢܐ‬, qeryānā), several verses from a Psalm (called ‫ܫܘܪܝܐ‬, shurāyā, pl. shurāyē), introduce an anthem or hymn. Many anthems also typically begin with a verse from the Psalms. Prayers are interspersed with more Psalms, followed by a second shurāyā and anthem. Other verses from the Psalms are scattered throughout the remainder of the service, often used to introduce specific liturgical components. This is especially true of the Martyrs’ Anthems, where each clause is introduced with a Psalmic quotation.450 Festival evening services differ slightly, with only one marmithā near the beginning, three shurāyē and no Martyrs’ Anthem. Again, various prayers and Psalms are interspersed throughout other parts of the service.451 The entire Psalter is recited twice through each week during the ferial night service (Nocturns): hulālē 1-7 (Psa. 1-58) on Monday, hulālē 8-14 (Psa. 59-101) on Tuesday and hulālē 15-21 (Psa. 102-150, plus the Odes) on Wednesday, the same pattern then repeating for Thursday, Friday and Saturday.452 Additionally, when the Eucharist is celebrated during this service, an anthem called the ‫( ܩܠܬܐ‬qālthā) is sung, which includes 1-3 Psalms. Later on in the night service, the ‫( ܫܘܒܚܐ‬shubhḥā), a Psalm of praise, is recited and on Wednesday nights, the ‫( ܡܘܬܒܐ‬mawtbhā), an anthem sung while sitting, features verses from the Psalms at the beginning of each clause, similar to the Martyrs’ Anthems.453 Again, festival night services are different. On feast days, the entire Psalter is recited, divided up into three groups of hulālē: 1-11 (Psa. 1-81), 12-17 (Psa. 82-119:88) and 18-21 (Psa. 119:89-150, plus the Odes). On Sundays, either hulālē 5-11 (Psa. 37-81) or 12-18 (Psa. 82-131) are recited at the beginning of the service, followed later on in the service by either hulālē 12-14 (Psa. 82-101) or 19-21 (Psa. 132-150, plus the 448

On the hours of prayer in the Church of the East, see BADGER, 1852, 16-18. The following description of the role of the Psalter in various services is based on MACLEAN, 1894. See also the descriptions in BADGER, 1852, 21-22; TAFT, 1986, 225-237. 450 For an example of a ferial evening service, see MACLEAN, 1894, 1-23. 451 For an example of a festival evening service, see MACLEAN, 1894, 68-84. 452 MACLEAN, 1894, 86. Following Maclean, Psalm numbers here follow the Hebrew text, not the Peshiṭta. 453 For an example of a ferial night service, see MACLEAN, 1894, 85-86, 95-102. For the mawtbhā, see MACLEAN, 1894, 130-150. 153 449

Odes), respectively. As with the ferial night service, the Eucharist is accompanied by the qālthā, with different Psalms appointed to be sung for different Sundays in the church year.454 Psalms interspersed with prayers begin both the ferial and festival morning services (Matins) and, as with the ferial evening service, each clause of the Martyrs’ Anthem is introduced with a quotation from the Psalms.455 The Psalms also play an important role in the Compline service (occurring between Vespers and Nocturns); again, interspersed Psalms and prayers begin the service and verses from the Psalms introduce the Anthems of the Departed recited at this service.456 Finally, the whole Psalter is read through twice weekly during the Great Fast of Lent and once daily during the Rogation of the Ninevites. Psalms are also recited at the beginning of baptismal, Eucharist and burial services.457 As noted above, this pattern of three or four daily services (Vespers, Nocturns, and Matins, along with Compline at an earlier date) has been fairly typical in the Church of the East throughout most of its existence. In monastic communities, however (as at Turfan), there have traditionally been seven daily services. This practice is traced back by ʿAbdisho bar Berikha (d. 1318), metropolitan of Nisibis and Armenia under Patriarch Yahballaha III, to “Jesus Christ, our good and merciful God and Lord” and “the Catholic Fathers” who “appointed the same for monks and anchorites, and their successors ordained that each of these seven services should consist of three hoolâlé.”458 Thus, theoretically at least, the whole Psalter (21 hulālē) was recited each day in monasteries of the Church of the East. The above summary should suffice to demonstrate that the liturgy of the Church of the East, particularly in monastic communities, was and is unimaginable without the Psalter. The use of the Psalms in a monastic community is further illustrated in the Book of Governors (Historia Monastica) by Thomas of Marga (ca. 840). The author tells us how the Psalms were sung in services (sometimes so “sweetly” that the preacher was unable to concentrate on the sermon he was

454

For an example of a festival night service, see MACLEAN, 1894, 151-163. For an example of a ferial morning service, see MACLEAN, 1894, 103-109 (followed by the morning Martyrs’ Anthems: 109-130). For the festival morning service, see MACLEAN, 1894, 164-184. 456 For an example of a Compline service, see MACLEAN, 1894, 185-190 (followed by the Anthems of the Departed: 190-204). 457 See MACLEAN, 1894, 205-224; BADGER, 1852, 22. 458 BADGER, 1852, 17. See also BUDGE, 1893a, lv, cxxxvi, cxlviii. The Syriac text, with an accompanying Latin translation, can be found in MAI, 1838, 81 (Lat.), 245-246 (Syr.). Thanks to Steven Ring and Salam Rassi for their assistance in locating this information. 154 455

to preach),459 recited during funerals,460 chanted by schoolboys who were educated in monastic complexes (sometimes to the ire of the ascetics trying to meditate in their cells),461 sung by monks while travelling in the countryside,462 recited ceaselessly (along with hymns) by ascetics in solitude,463 taught to new converts,464 and even sung as an accompaniment to the performing of miracles.465 Thomas also tells us of the monastic reforms instituted by Babai of Gebhilta (early 8th cent.), including the standardization of the tunes used in singing songs, prayers, Psalms, antiphonal responses and anthems.466 Most, if not all, of these practices, including the musical reforms, were likely present in the monastic community at Turfan. Non-Syriac Psalters from Turfan Although most Turfan Psalter fragments are in Syriac, there are also remnants of Psalters in several other languages and scripts used in Iran and Central Asia up to the Mongol era, namely the Pahlavi (Middle Persian), Sogdian, and New Persian languages and the Uyghur script (although not the Uyghur language, as we shall see below).467 The famous Pahlavi Psalter [Fig. 6-1] consists of 12 folios or part-folios, written in a version of Pahlavi script more archaic than Book Pahlavi and containing portions of Psa. 94-99, 118 (= Hebrew Psa. 119) and 121-136 (= Hebrew Psa. 122-137). Although generally a literal translation of the Peshiṭta, it occasionally agrees more with the Hebrew text or the Septuagint. It includes the canons of Mar Aba, but not the Psalm headings or prayers. The date of the text is uncertain; the inclusion of the canons indicates it must come from after the mid-6th century, but the original translation of the biblical text may have been composed earlier than that.468 Of special interest is the fact that the form of Pahlavi script used in the Psalter has also been found on a processional cross from Herat which mentions a date of 507 or 517 (pos459

BUDGE, 1893b, 120, 443, 444, 541-542, 611, 620. BUDGE, 1893b, 122. 461 BUDGE, 1893b, 148, 221-222, 581. 462 BUDGE, 1893b, 338, 463, 506, 515, 516. 463 BUDGE, 1893b, 442, 455, 502-504, 569-570, 587, 641. 464 BUDGE, 1893b, 512-513, 609. 465 BUDGE, 1893b, 671. 466 BUDGE, 1893b, 290-294; BUDGE, 1893a, lvii-lviii, cviii-cix. WRIGHT, 1894, 184-185 mistakenly identifies him with Babai of Nisibis. 467 See the Uyghur Psalter, under the next section. 468 On the Pahlavi Psalter, see ANDREAS, 1910; ANDREAS & BARR, 1933, ASMUSSEN, 1964; GIGNOUX, 1968; SKJAERVØ, 1983; GIGNOUX, 2008. Carbon dating has also been used to date the paper, but the findings have not yet been formally published. 155 460

sibly a reference to the Bactrian era, which began in 223 CE, giving a CE date of 730 or 740 for the cross).469 There are remnants of two Sogdian Psalters from Turfan, one with Syriac rubrics and another with the opening words of each Psalm in Greek. The former [Fig. 6-2] consists of 15 fragments, including three that have been lost and one folio (So 12601 = MIK III 59) with the end of a prayer and the complete text of the Nicene Creed, suggesting that the original manuscript contained more than just the Psalter.470 The fragments are written in Sogdian script and contain portions of Psa. 5-6, 19-20, 23-24, 28-30, 32, 33, 50, and 51. They are clearly translated from the Peshiṭta and include the Psalm headings, but not the canons or prayers. The first verse of each Psalm is given in both Syriac (red ink, in Syriac script) and Sogdian (black ink, in Sogdian script).471 The second Sogdian Psalter from Turfan, also written in Sogdian script, is represented by only two fragments: So 12955 (MIK III 56), containing Psa. 33:1-4, 8-10, and So 12950(2), containing Psa. 34:7-9, 14-16. The Sogdian translation follows the Peshiṭta in some places and the Septuagint in others. The opening words of each Psalm are in Greek as a headline in the upper margin of each fragment (the Greek writing possibly dating from the 9th century); this is clear on So 12955, but only traces remain on So 12950(2). Since the extant fragments do not contain the beginning of each Psalm, it is unclear if the Psalm headings, canons or prayers were included in this Psalter. The Greek headlines suggest that it originated in “a Melkite community in a Sogdian-speaking environment,” possibly Tashkent.472 There are also two fragments, representing portions of a double folio from a bilingual Syriac-New Persian Psalter [Fig. 6-3] written in Syriac script: MIK III 112 and SyrHT 153, containing Psa. 131:18-132:1; 133:1-3; 146:5-147:7 (= Hebrew Psa. 132:18-133:1; 134:1-3; 147:5-18). Again, it follows the Peshiṭta text and, like the Sogdian Psalter, includes the Psalm head469

On the Herat cross, see GIGNOUX, 2001. On the Bactrian era, see DE BLOIS, 2006. The creed was published in MÜLLER, 1913, 84-87. An English translation and short commentary can be found in GILLMAN & KLIMKEIT, 1999, 252-253. For the signature numbers of all 15 fragments, see RECK, 2008, 198. 471 On the Sogdian Psalter, see SCHWARTZ, 1967, 126-144; SCHWARTZ, 1974; SCHWARTZ, 1982, 158-189, 200-207; RECK, 2008, 192-193, 198-199. 472 SIMS-WILLIAMS, 2004, 631. This article discusses So 12995; So 12950(2) will be dealt with in a forthcoming article by the same author. See also the discussion of these fragments in D’AIUTO, 2008 [2009]. On the Melkite community in Central Asia, see DAUVILLIER, 1953; NASRALLAH, 1976; KLEIN, 1999. On connections between Byzantine Christianity and the community at Bulayïq, see SUNDERMANN, 1994. Obviously, if this originally came from a Melkite community, it would not have the East Syriac Psalm headings, canons or prayers. 156 470

ings, but not the canons or prayers. Typically, verses are divided up into two phrases (called colons, on which see below), with the Syriac text followed by a New Persian translation in a modified Syriac script very similar to that used for Christian Sogdian. Significantly, this is the earliest known translation from Syriac into New Persian.473 Syriac Psalter Fragments from Turfan474 In all, there are 446 signature numbers from Turfan with Syriac only on them, plus an additional 42 that are Syriac mixed with Sogdian, New Persian or Uyghur (including bilingual texts), for a total of 488 signature numbers.475 Most Syriac fragments are from liturgical books, although other genres are represented, including prayer booklets and hagiographies. So far, nearly 60 fragments have been identified as Syriac or bilingual Psalters, representing 473

MIK III 112, consisting of the upper half of both folios, was published in MÜLLER, 1915 and discussed in BENVENISTE, 1938. SyrHT 153, the bottom half of one folio, was published in SUNDERMANN, 1974, in which the author showed how the two fragments joined together. 474 Unless otherwise noted, all Psalter fragments listed here have been identified by the present author, with the help of SPRENGER, 1976. The ongoing task of identifying the Turfan Syriac fragments will likely reveal more Psalter fragments to add to this list. Excluding fragments from bilingual Syriac-Sogdian lectionaries (on which, see MÜLLER, 1907; MÜLLER, 1913; WELLESZ, 1919; BURKITT, 1925, 119-125; SUNDERMANN, 1981), there are only a handful of biblical fragments in Syriac from Turfan that are not from the Psalter. SyrHT 2 consists of two fragments (T II B 18 & T II B 62) containing the remnants of a letter. The back side of T II B 18 contains Prov. 9:14-10:11, the only non-Psalter Old Testament text found at Turfan thus far (the letter is published in MARÓTH, 1985). SyrHT 48 & 49 is the sole representative from Lectionary “A,” a double-folio containing the text of Rom. 1:24-2:6; 5:12-21; 7:1-7, the epistle readings for the First Tuesday in Lent, the Second Sunday in Lent and the Second Friday in Lent (MACLEAN, 1894, 270-271) in what looks like the same hand as Lectionary “B,” Psalter “C” and Psalter “K.” SyrHT 123 is a single folio containing John 3:21-36, probably from a New Testament, since the lectionary readings (for the fifth and sixth Sundays of Epiphany) divide the text between verses 21 and 22 (MACLEAN, 1894, 267, 269; DIETTRICH, 1909, 165). SyrHT 241, SyrHT 277, SyrHT 300, and n 327 all come from the same original folio, the sole remnant from Lectionary “B,” containing Luke 1:1-21, part of the gospel reading for the First Sunday of Advent (MACLEAN, 1894, 265; DIETTRICH, 1909, 164; BURKITT, 1921-1923, 316). As noted above, this appears to be from the same hand as Lectionary “B,” but the folio dimensions are different. Four other fragments from this hand have not yet been identified: SyrHT 17, SyrHT 370, n 311 and n 438. 475 These include SyrHT signature numbers (in the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin), n, So and U signature numbers (in the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften) and MIK signature numbers (in the Museum für Asiatische Kunst). Not included are 30 Sogdian or New Persian fragments in Syriac script which include Syriac words or phrases. Note that the signature numbers cover everything from small fragments with remnants of just one or two words to a 61-folio manuscript in the Museum für Asiatische Kunst, so an accurate assessment of percentages is difficult. 157

just over 12% of the Syriac only and bilingual texts.476 A number of fragments are identified on a typed hand-list of the Syriac fragments in the Turfan Collection477 as coming from various Psalters.478 Where fragments were readily identifiable as coming from specific original Psalter manuscripts, they were designated Psalter “C,” Psalter “D” and Psalter “E” on this hand-list (and a separate one compiled by someone else at a later date).479 The anonymous hand-list compiler’s system for identifying Psalters with capital letters is unclear. Specifically, why are Psalter “A” and “B” not on the list? Although a definitive answer is not possible, a plausible suggestion has been made by Nicholas Sims-Williams, who has suggested that Psalter “A” and “B” may refer to the Pahlavi Psalter and the bilingual Syriac-New Persian Psalter, since these were both discovered and published early on in the history of the Turfan Collection, before the hand-list was compiled (in contrast to the Sogdian Psalters, which were not identified until the 1960’s and afterward).480 Based on this supposition, other Psalters in the Turfan Collection that are not specifically labelled on the hand-list have been identified with the letters “F” through “M.” Psalter “C” [Fig. 6-4] is one of two Psalter booklets extant in the collection. In addition to the nine folios still stitched together (SyrHT 72), there are also four separate fragments which can either be joined to a folio or fitted between some of the non-adjacent folios in the booklet.481 It has the headings, 476

Removing the bilingual texts from the mix does not significantly change the percentage of Psalter fragments. A rough estimate at this point in deciphering the Syriac only and bilingual fragments is that 80% are liturgical, 15% are biblical (Psalters and lectionaries) and 5% are other genres. 477 Syrische Turfan-Fragmente der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. The compiler and date of compilation are not indicated on the list, but it was probably after World War II, due to the frequent reference to missing fragments. Various suggestions have been made as to the compiler, including Olaf Hansen, who worked with the Christian Sogdian fragments from the 1940’s to 1960’s, or an unidentified student of Anton Baumstark. Thanks to Werner Sundermann and Peter Zieme for these suggestions. 478 Specifically those now numbered SyrHT 62, SyrHT 63 & 64, SyrHT 71, SyrHT 72, SyrHT 90 & 91, SyrHT 92 & 93, SyrHT 96, SyrHT 108, SyrHT 119, SyrHT 129, SyrHT 153, SyrHT 180, and SyrHT 191. 479 Unfortunately, as with the first (older) hand-list, the name of the compiler and date of compilation of this second list are unknown. Various people, including Werner Sundermann, added notes about the contents of the fragments to both hand-lists. Thanks to Simone Raschmann for this information. 480 This suggestion was made when the present author presented an initial version of this paper at the “Christian Manuscripts from Turfan” workshop organized as part of the aforementioned AHRC project in Berlin, March 27-28, 2009. 481 SyrHT 72, under its old signature number T II B 24, is discussed briefly in SUNDERMANN, 1975, 86-87. 158

canons and prayers, as well as quire marks and marginalia (including the indication of new marmayāthā). It is also one of the few Syriac manuscripts from Turfan where the text box is ruled. The following Psalms are contained in the extant folios:  SyrHT 72, fol. 1-2 & SyrHT 348 = Psa. 72:18-74:1  SyrHT 72, fol. 3 = Psa. 117:23-118:4 (= Hebrew Psa. 118:23-119:4)  SyrHT 228 & SyrHT 379 = Psa. 137:7-138:8 (= Hebrew Psa. 138:7139:8)  SyrHT 79 = Psa. 140:1-141:2 (= Hebrew Psa. 141:1-142:2)  SyrHT 72, fol. 4-5 = Psa. 143:5-144:17 (= Hebrew Psa. 144:5145:17)  SyrHT 72, fol. 6-9 = Psa. 145:9-150:4 (= Hebrew Psa. 146:9-150:4) Of interest is the fact that the same scribe seems to have also penned extant folios from two separate lectionaries (Lectionaries “A” and “B”), as well as Psalter “K,” described below.482 Psalter “D,” represented by 12 fragments, is written in a very distinctive hand (especially ‫ )ܠ‬and appears to come from the same scribe as Ḥudra B:483            

482

SyrHT 129 = Psa. 72:8-73:4 SyrHT 377 = Psa. 74:21-23; 75:8-10 SyrHT 180 = Psa. 87:1-88:12 SyrHT 119 = Psa. 89:12-20, 23-33 SyrHT 224 (I) = Psa. 89:35-42, 48-53 SyrHT 64 = Psa. 89:46-47; 90:2 SyrHT 157 = Psa. 92:8-13; 93:1-5 SyrHT 239 = Psa. 94:12-15, 23-95:1 SyrHT 224 (II) = Psa. 95:4-7; 96:1-2 SyrHT 63 = Psa. 95:9-10; 96:5-8 SyrHT 308 = Psa. 103:2-4, 14-16 SyrHT 191 = Psa. 118:133-142, 146-153 (= Hebrew Psa. 119:133142, 146-153)

As noted above, Lectionary “A” = SyrHT 48 & 49; Lectionary “B” = SyrHT 241, SyrHT 277, SyrHT 300 and n 327. 483 Represented by the following fragments: SyrHT 13, SyrHT 159, SyrHT 248, SyrHT 310, SyrHT 377. 159

As can be seen, several of these fragments come from the same or adjacent folios. The Psalter includes the headings and canons, but not the prayers. It has quire marks and the Psalm numbers (using Syriac letters) and each new marmithā is designated in marginalia. Psalter “E” is the second Psalter booklet in the collection. It consists of four adjacent folios stitched together (SyrHT 71) and contains Psa. 22:826:3, including the headings, canons and prayers. Again, marginalia designate Psalm numbers using Syriac letters and a distinctive mark is found in the upper right corner on the verso side of each folio which looks roughly like ‫( †ܚܐ܀‬this mark is found on many of the Christian fragments from Turfan, whether Syriac or Sogdian). Of interest also is that the later hand-list, under the entry for SyrHT 71, also mentions 2 fragments (now lost)484 with the old signature number T II B 66 No. 1 which apparently belonged to the same Psalter. Psalter “F” [Fig. 6-5] is in another very distinctive hand with each line consisting of one colon of the biblical text (each verse of the Psalms, in both the Hebrew and Syriac text, consists of two or three cola) and ending in the punctuation mark : in red ink. As a result, the last word on each line is elongated as necessary and there are several places where words are omitted at the end of a line (especially evident on SyrHT 92), in order to ensure that each new line begins with the next colon (see also Psalters “G” and “J” below). Psalter “F” has the canons and prayers, but no headings and is extant in 15 fragments:  SyrHT 14, 15 & 17 = Psa. 66:13-15; 67:5-6485  SyrHT 174 = Psa. 73:25-27; 74:4-7486  SyrHT 90 = Psa. 78:26-45487  SyrHT 91 = 78:46-64  SyrHT 93 = 79:9-80:12  SyrHT 92 = Psa. 84:3-85:5  SyrHT 172, SyrHT 175 & n 418 = Psa. 85:6-12; 86:1-8488

484

The Turfan Collection experienced significant loss at the end of World War II due to its location in Berlin. 485 These are three small fragments, glassed separately, each containing only a few identifiable words, but plainly from the same original folio. 486 This fragment is glassed with SyrHT 172, SyrHT 173 and SyrHT 175, also from the same Psalter. 487 SyrHT 90 & 91 and SyrHT 92 & 93 are preserved as two double folios. 160

 SyrHT 173, SyrHT 176 & SyrHT 177 = Psa. 90:2-7, 9-16489  SyrHT 367 = currently unidentifiable490 Psalter “G” [Fig. 6-6] is represented by only one long narrow folio with another distinctive hand (SyrHT 96), containing portions of the Odes found at the end of the Psalter, namely Ex. 15:15-21; Isa. 42:10-13; 45:8 (part of the First Song of Moses, followed by most of the Song of Isaiah). As noted above, it follows the order of 12th century Psalter manuscripts, not 8th century ones. It does not have the headings, canons or prayers. Similar to Psalters “F” and “J,” in order to keep just one colon of the biblical text on each line, words which do not fit at the end of lines are omitted or represented by only the first several letters of the word. 491 Since these texts were so wellmemorized, those reciting them presumably did not need the missing words. The next two Psalters also have only one extant folio each. Psalter “H” (SyrHT 62) contains Deut. 32:31-40 (the Third Song of Moses) and Psalter “I” (SyrHT 108) contains Psa. 10:12-12:3. Psalter “J” [Fig. 6-7] has two extant fragments: SyrHT 113, a double-folio containing Psa. 14:7-16:5; 18:35-50, and SyrHT 164, containing Psa. 18:51-19:2; 19:4-7. In all three Psalters, there is only one colon per line and all lines end with the punctuation mark ‫܀‬. In Psalters “H” and “I” (especially the latter) many lines also end with the word ‫( ܗܠܠܘܝܐ‬Hallelujah) in order to fill out left-over space. Again (as with Psalters “F” and “G” above), words in Psalter “J” are omitted or abbreviated at the end of lines if there is not enough space for the entire colon. Both Psalter “I” and Psalter “J” have the canons and prayers, but not the headings (there is not enough of Psalter “H” to determine what additional items it had). Psalter “K” is represented by five fragments:  SyrHT 120 = Psa. 35:7-17, 22-36:3  SyrHT 121 = Psa. 36:7-37:2, 7-16  SyrHT 220 = Psa. 37:20-23, 34-38 488

Fragment n 418 was glassed with five other unrelated fragments, all of which are Syriac, but at the time all were thought to be Sogdian in Syriac script and so received signature numbers beginning with n (for nestorianische). 489 SyrHT 176 and SyrHT 177 are glassed separately from SyrHT 172-175. 490 Although the fragment is clearly from Psalter “F,” the very few letters left on it make its identification impossible without an unwarranted expenditure of energy to track it down in the Psalter. 491 However, whereas Psalter “F” only omits words for this reason a few times, Psalter “G” does it on nearly every line, presumably necessitated due to the narrow width of the folio and therefore the writing area. Since we only have one folio from this Psalter, it is impossible to know how general this was throughout the whole text. 161

SyrHT 357 = Psa. 38:9-12; 39:2-3 SyrHT 358 = Psa. 141:5-8 (= Hebrew Psa. 142:5-8); 143:15-144:4 (= Hebrew Psa. 144:15-145:4) This Psalter has headings, but not canons or prayers. Psalter “L” consists of two fragments that can be joined to form a partial folio (SyrHT 98 and SyrHT 203), containing Psa. 118:32-49, 63-80 (= Hebrew Psa. 119:32-49, 63-80). Without the beginning of the Psalm, it is impossible to tell if this Psalter had headings, canons or prayers. Finally, a small fragment in an attractive hand (MIK III 110), containing Psa. 24:3-4; 25:3-6 (currently housed in the Museum für Asiatische Kunst), is all that remains of Psalter “M.” Again, there is too little information to determine if this Psalter originally contained headings, canons or prayers.492 A final Psalter manuscript needs to be mentioned here, namely nine folios of a small booklet in Syriac transliterated into Uyghur script, currently referred to as the Uyghur Psalter (SyrHT 20-27 and MIK III 58) [Fig. 68].493 This text is one of only two in the Turfan Collection identified as Syriac transliterations into Uyghur script494 and was evidently prepared in order to enable Uyghur-speaking monks who could not read Syriac script to recite the Syriac liturgy. Six of the extant folios contain Psalms arranged according to marmayāthā, but not in overall numerical order (note SyrHT 20 below). Although the beginning of a new marmithā is indicated in one place, there are no headings, canons or prayers. The remaining three folios contain various teshbḥāthā used in the East Syriac liturgy (not the biblical odes mentioned above, but rather canticles or hymns by Syriac authors, such as Ephrem the Syrian). The Psalter portions are as follows:  SyrHT 23 = Psa. 11:6-13:3  SyrHT 26 = Psa. 13:3-14:7  SyrHT 20 = Psa. 14:7; 99:1-100:1  SyrHT 22 = Psa. 101:1-8  MIK III 58 = Psa. 86:11-87:7  SyrHT 21 = Psa. 87:7-88:15  

492

Thanks to Aho Shemunkasho for identifying this Psalter fragment during a visit to the Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Dahlem, Berlin on 29 April, 2010. 493 This text will be published by the present author and Peter Zieme in the near future. 494 The other is So 20131, not yet deciphered. There are also two instances of Syriac liturgical fragments which have several sentences of graffiti in Uyghur script on the blank reverse side where the underlying text is Syriac: SyrHT 124 and SyrHT 286 & 287, both discussed in DICKENS, 2009, 32-33 [See Chapter 4 in this volume]. 162

The fact that the Syriac script was not used for this text, presumably because it was no longer familiar to some (perhaps most?) of the Turfan monastic community, suggests a late date in the Mongol era. Numerous Christian Uyghur texts from Turfan written in Syriac script, some clearly datable to the Mongol era, clearly indicate that the script was known amongst Uyghur Christians at Turfan up to a certain point; how and when the script ceased to be well-known is unclear. An in-depth study of where and how the Turfan Psalter fragments differ from the standard text of the East Syriac Psalter, including the headings, canons and prayers, is currently underway, but some initial observations about scribal errors can be offered here. Following are some significant errors which are not merely textual variants.495 ̈ ̈  ‫ܥܡܬܐ‬ (ʿamātha, “aunts”) for ‫ܥܡܡܐ‬ (ʿamē, “nations”) [Psalter       

495

“D,” SyrHT 129] ‫( ܢܦܠܓܘܢܝܗܝ‬nephlghunay, “they will divide him”) for ‫ܢܦܠܚܘܢܝܗܝ‬ (nephlḥunay, “they will serve him”) [Psalter “D,” SyrHT 129] ‫( ܚܣܗ‬ḥaseh, “his lettuce”) for ‫( ܚܣܕܘ‬ḥasdu, “they have mocked”) [Psalter “D,” SyrHT 224] ‫( ܕܢܚܡ‬d-naḥem, “that resuscitates”) for ‫( ܕܢܗܡ‬d-nahem, “that roars,” of lions) [Psalter “E,” SyrHT 71]

‫( ܐܬܚܠ‬ethḥel, not Syriac) for ‫( ܐܕܚܠ‬edhḥel, “I will fear”) [Psalter “E,” SyrHT 71] ‫( ܒܒܪܬܐ‬b-bharthā, “with a daughter/egg”) for ‫( ܒܒܪܕܐ‬b-bhardhā, “with hail”) [Psalter “F,” SyrHT 91] ‫( ܠܬܗܘܡܐ‬lathhumā, “to the abyss”) for ‫( ܠܬܚܘܡܐ‬lathḥumā, “to the border”) [Psalter “F,” SyrHT 91] ‫( ܚܟܡܬܐ‬ḥekhmthā, “wisdom”) for ‫( ܚܡܬܐ‬ḥemthā, “anger, wrath”) [Psalter “F,” SyrHT 92]

Not included are the following variants (many which are relatively insignificant in nature) that occur in the fragments, including 1) omission or addition of the inseparable prefixes ‫ܒ‬, ‫ ܕ‬and ‫ ;ܘ‬2) omission or addition of the plural seyame marking; 3) words (especially pronouns and enclitics) joined together; 4) omission or addition of the third person singular masculine pronominal suffix ‫ ;ܗ‬5) omission or addition of the first person singular objective pronominal suffix ‫ ;ܝـ‬6) addition of ‫ ܝـ‬to turn “singular” pronominal suffixes (e.g., ‫)ܗܘܢ‬ into “plural” ones (e.g., ‫ ;)ܝܗܘܢ‬7) addition of the third person plural masculine perfect ending ‫ܘ‬. 163

  

‫( ܚܡܬܪܐ‬ḥamthrā, not Syriac) for ‫( ܚܡܪܐ‬ḥamrā, “wine”) [Psalter “H,” SyrHT 62] ‫( ܟܣܒܗ‬kesbeh, not Syriac) for ‫( ܟܣܦܗ‬kespeh, “his money”) [Psalter “J,” SyrHT 113] ‫( ܒܟܪܘܟܘܘܬܗܘܢ‬bakhrykuthhon, not Syriac) for ‫( ܒܟܪܝܗܘܬܗܘܢ‬bakhryhuthhon, “in their sickness”) [Psalter “K,” SyrHT 120]

‫( ܢܚܪܘܢ‬neḥrun, not Syriac) for ‫( ܢܚܦܪܘܢ‬neḥprun, “may they be ashamed”) [Psalter “K,” SyrHT 120]  ‫( ܡܠܢܘܬܐ‬malnuthā, not Syriac) for ‫( ܡܠܦܢܘܬܐ‬malphānuthā, “teaching”) [Psalter “K,” SyrHT 121] Most of these scribal errors seem to indicate that the scribe was not wellacquainted with Syriac. A number of them suggest that the scribes may have been native Uyghur-speakers, especially those involving bilabial confusion (‫ ܦ‬/p/ and ‫ ܒ‬/b/) or dental confusion (‫ܬ‬/t/ or /θ/ and ‫ ܕ‬/d/ or /ð/). In other cases, confusion between various velar, pharyngeal and glottal sounds (notably ‫ ܟ‬/k/ or /x/; ‫ ܓ‬/g/ or /γ/; ‫ ܚ‬/ḥ/ and ‫ ܗ‬/h/) could be due to phonological interference from either Uyghur (these four Syriac letters can all be represented by one Uyghur letter x when Syriac is transliterated into Uyghur script, as in the Uyghur Psalter) or (in the case of ‫ܓ‬, ‫ ܚ‬and ‫ )ܗ‬Sogdian. 

The error of ‫ ܚܣܗ‬in place of ‫ ܚܣܕܘ‬can be explained by the similarity in shape between ‫ ܗ‬and ‫ܕܘ‬, but again suggests lack of knowledge of the Syriac language.496 Other errors, including the omission of the letter ‫ ܦ‬/p/ or /f/ and the insertion of the letters ‫ ܬ‬/t/ or /θ/ and ‫ ܟ‬/k/ or /x/, may or may not indicate phonological interference. Indeed, the substitution of the legitimate ̈ ̈ Syriac words ‫ܥܡܬܐ‬ (ʿamātha, “aunts”) for ‫ܥܡܡܐ‬ (ʿamē, “nations”) and ‫( ܚܟܡܬܐ‬ḥekhmthā, “wisdom”) for ‫( ܚܡܬܐ‬ḥemthā, “anger, wrath”) could theoretically be made by native Syriac-speakers who were not concentrating enough while copying the original manuscript, resulting in the confusion of two common words. More study of these spelling errors, combined with palaeographic analysis of the different hands involved, could also shed light on the dating of these Psalters, since Uyghur influence probably indicates a later date, whereas Sogdian influence likely points to an earlier date.497 496

Someone well-versed in Syriac would be unlikely to write about “lettuce” in the context of Psa. 89 without realizing it was an error! 497 Thanks to Peter Zieme and Nicholas Sims-Williams for their observations about possible Uyghur or Sogdian influence in these errors. On orthographic errors in the Syriac text of Psa. 1 and 2 written on an ostracon recovered from Panjikent which indicate that the scribe was a native Sogdian-speaker, see PAYKOVA, 1979, 165. 164

References to the Psalter can also be found in other Syriac fragments from Turfan, particularly the many liturgical fragments currently being identified.498 One example which has already surfaced is SyrHT 87, containing a ‫( ܛܟܣܐ‬ṭakhsā, “rite”) for ‫( ܠܠܝܐ‬lelyā, “night”) that includes instructions to the priest in Sogdian and Psalm incipits in Syriac.499 Other Uses of the Psalms in Central Asia Although they are the largest corpus of Psalmic material from Central Asia, the Psalter fragments from Turfan are not the only texts showing how the Psalms were used by Christian communities in the region. Several other archaeological finds are also of relevance to this topic. Perhaps the most significant of these is an ostracon (potsherd) from Panjikent, Tajikistan, dating from the late 7th or early 8th century, containing portions of Psalms 1 and 2 in Syriac written in black ink. Although the text is the same as that of the Peshiṭta, scribal errors indicate that the writer was a Sogdian-speaker and suggest that “the inscription is a student’s exercise written under dictation for the purpose of mastering the Syrian [sic] script,” possibly at “a school attached to a monastery and built on the model of the Syrian [sic] schools described in numerous sources.”500 There are also several liturgical or prayer texts with quotations from the Psalms discovered in various parts of Central Asia. A Syriac prayer for rain after drought found in Qara-Khoto includes a quotation from Psa. 51:4, David’s Psalm of repentance after committing adultery with Bathsheba.501 Another Syriac liturgical fragment from Dunhuang consists of excerpts from ‫( ܟܬܒܐ ܕܩܕܡ ܘܕܒܬܪ‬kthābhā dha-qdhām wadh-bāthar), “Book of the Before and After” which contain quotations from the Psalms (Psa. 15, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28), along with an interlinear text in Uyghur script of Buddhist origin from the Mongol era.502 498

This is a laborious process, given the fact that, unlike the biblical texts, there is no concordance to the printed editions of the Ḥudra or other liturgical texts of the Church of the East. 499 Discussed in DICKENS, 2009, 27. The following Psalm incipits have been identified by Sebastian Brock: Psa. 102 (twice); 115 (Heb. 116); 129 (Heb. 130); 13; 26; 88; 3; 142 (Heb. 143); 128 (Heb. 129); 103 or 104; and 145 (Heb. 146). 500 PAYKOVA, 1979, 166. 501 PIGOULEWSKY [PIGULEVSKAYA], 1935/36, 14-18. 502 The Syriac text is published in DUAN, 2001, the Uyghur text in YAKUP, 2002. Although it was originally thought that the Uyghur text might also be of Christian origin, Yakup has shown clearly that it is a Buddhist text and therefore not related in any way to the Syriac fragment on which it was written. 165

An Uyghur Christian text from Turfan also contains at least an allusion to, if not a quotation from, the Psalter. U 4910, written in Uyghur script, is a prayer containing the phrase s(ä)n ärürs(ä)n [ögsüz]lärniŋ ögi kaŋsızlarnıŋ k[aŋı], “You are Mother to the motherless, Father to the fatherless.”503 This seems to be an expansion on Psa. 68:5 – “Father of the fatherless (or orphans) and judge (defender) of the widows is God in his holy dwelling.”504 Given the reputation of the medieval Mongol-Turkic world for according higher status to women than elsewhere in “the civilized world” at that time (whether Muslim, Christian or Chinese),505 it is interesting that a biblical passage referring to God only as male has here been extended to include the feminine aspect of the divine.506 Another Psalmic quotation is preserved in a funerary tile from Chifeng, Inner Mongolia, dated to 1253 CE. In the centre of the tile is a cross, with a vertical inscription in Uyghur script in the lower left and right quadrants of the tile.507 In the upper left and right quadrants are four Syriac words: ‫ܚܘܪ‬ ‫ܠܘܬܗ ܣܒܪܘ ܒܗ‬, “Look to him, hope (or trust) in him,” a quote from Psa. 34:6. Unlike other Christian gravestones from Central Asia, the tile is not engraved, but the vertical inscriptions are painted in black ink. As Pier Giorgio Borbone has noted, quotations from Psa. 34:6 sometimes accompany the image of the cross in Syriac manuscripts, and there is at least one other example of this text on a gravestone with a cross from China, found at the Buddhist Temple of the Cross in the Fangshan Region near Beijing.508 Preliminary Conclusions and Outstanding Questions The prevalence and variety of Psalters from Turfan, whether written in Syriac, Sogdian or New Persian or transliterated into Uyghur script, testifies to their importance in the life of the Christian community there. The Syriac Psalters in particular provide insight into the level of Syriac proficiency in the monastic community. Not surprisingly, the scribal hands differ considerably; some were obviously accomplished calligraphers who wrote their Psalters 503

ZIEME, 1974, 663. The updated transcription by Peter Zieme reproduced here is slightly different from that in the article. 504 Translation of Psa. 68:6 in the Peshiṭta (Psa. 68:5 in English Bibles). 505 See for instance, Ibn Battuta’s comment on the status of women in the Qipchaq Khanate under Özbeg Khan (1313-1341): “A remarkable thing which I saw in this country was the respect shown to women by the Turks, for they hold a more dignified position than the men” (GIBB, 1929, 146). On this theme in general, see also RYAN, 1998. 506 This aspect is however, suggested in other verses in the Bible, e.g. Psa. 131:2; Isa. 42:14; 46:3; 49:15; 66:13; I Thess. 2:7. 507 On the Uyghur inscription, see HAMILTON & NIU, 1994. 508 On the use of Psa. 34:6 in China and Central Asia, see BORBONE, 2006. 166

very carefully, but others were less attentive in their copying and allowed various errors to creep in. The omission of words in some Psalters due to space limitations reminds us that these texts were memorized by heart, so that omitted words did not hinder recitation of the Psalter. More work still needs to be done with the Syriac Psalter fragments from Turfan. A careful study of scribal errors in the fragments may give us further insight into how the Sogdian and Turkic speakers in the Turfan Christian community pronounced Syriac, as well as how knowledge of both the Syriac script and language changed over time in the community. Although comparison with the critical edition of the Peshiṭta Psalter has not revealed any significant variants from the established text of the Psalter itself, the headings, canons and prayers still need to be studied more in-depth to determine if there are any important differences from the standard text of these components of the Psalter, especially as they are preserved in the printed edition of the Ḥudra.509 As noted above, the Syriac Psalters from Turfan are amongst the earliest extant examples of this text. Although none have been dated definitively, they presumably come from sometime between the 9th and 13th centuries, the standard date range for Turfan manuscript fragments. Given the fairly developed state of Syriac palaeographical study, this task should not be excessively difficult. Perhaps more accurate dating of the Syriac fragments may also help in dating the Christian fragments in Sogdian or Uyghur, especially if common scribal hands can be identified. If any of the Syriac Psalters can be dated before the 12th century, they could be helpful in clarifying textual variants at an early stage, since there are only two early manuscripts used in the critical edition of the Peshiṭta Psalter which reflect the East Syriac tradition: 6t1 and 8t1.510 Most of the exclusively East Syriac Psalter manuscripts used in the critical edition (including the earliest ones – 12t1, 12t3 and 12t4) may well be later than many of the Syriac Psalters from Turfan.511 Certainly, there is more to be learned from study of the Turfan Psalters which, along with other extant liturgical fragments, testify to a highlyorganized monastic community which was faithful to the beliefs and practic509

Comparison with the headings preserved in BLOEMENDAAL, 1960 will also be important. Respectively, a 6th century manuscript in the British Library containing the Psalms and Odes, written in the West Syriac script, but with East Syriac headings, and an 8th century manuscript from St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mt. Sinai, also containing the Psalms and Odes, again a West Syriac text but with some East Syriac marginal readings. 511 All 12th century manuscripts from the British Library or the Chaldean Patriarchate, Baghdad, containing the Psalms and Odes. Other East Syriac Psalter manuscripts are significantly later: 4 from the 13th century, 3 from the 16th century, and 3 from the 17th century. Again, see the list in WALTER, 1980, vii-xxix. 167 510

es of the Church of the East, despite being located thousands of kilometres to the east of the Church’s Mesopotamian and Persian heartland. Bibliography ANDREAS, F. C., 1910. “Bruchstücke einer Pehlewi-Übersetzung der Psalmen aus der Sassanidenzeit”. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 869-872. ANDREAS, F. C. & Kaj BARR, 1933. “Bruchstücke einer Pehlewi-Übersetzung der Psalmen”. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 91-152. ASMUSSEN, J. P., 1964. “The Pahlavi Psalm 122 in English”. Dr. J. M. Unvala Memorial Volume. Bombay: Kaikhusroo M. JamaspAsa, 123126. BADGER, George P., 1852. The Nestorians and Their Rituals, Vol. II. London: Joseph Masters. BANG, W., 1926. “Türkische Bruchstücke einer nestorianischen Georgpassion”. Le Muséon, Vol. 39, 41-75. BENVENISTE, E., 1938. “Sur un fragment d’un psautier syro-persan”. Journal Asiatique, Vol. 230, 458-462. BERLIN-BRANDENBURG ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES, 2007. Turfan Studies. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. BLOEMENDAAL, W., 1960. The Headings of the Psalms in the East Syrian Church. Leiden: E. J. Brill. BORBONE, Pier Giorgio, 2006. “Peshitta Psalm 34:6 from Syria to China”. Text, Translation, and Tradition: Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden, Vol. 14), W. Th. van Peursen & R. B. ter Haar Romeny (ed.). Leiden: Brill, 1-10. BROCK, Sebastian P., 2006. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Gorgias Handbooks, Vol. 7). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. BUDGE, Ernest A. Wallis (ed.), 1893a. The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas Bishop of Margâ A. D. 840, Vol. I: The Syriac Text, Introduction, etc. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. BUDGE, Ernest A. Wallis, tr., 1893b. The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas Bishop of Margâ A. D. 840, Vol. II: The English Translation. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. 168

BURKITT, F. Crawford, 1921-1923. “The Early Syriac Lectionary System”. Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 10, 301-338. BURKITT, F. Crawford, 1925. The Religion of the Manichees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. D’AIUTO, Francesco, 2008 [2009]. “Un antico inno per la Resurrezione”. Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, Vol. 45 (N.S.), 3-135. DARMO, Thoma, 1960. Ktaba da-Qdam wad-Batar wad-Ḥudra wad-Kashkol wad-Gazza w-Qala d-‘Udrane ‘am Ktaba d-Mazmure, Vol. I. Trichur, Kerala: Church of the East. DARMO, Thoma, 1961. Ktaba da-Qdam wad-Batar wad-Ḥudra wad-Kashkol wad-Gazza w-Qala d-‘Udrane ‘am Ktaba d-Mazmure, Vol. II. Trichur, Kerala: Church of the East. DARMO, Thoma, 1962. Ktaba da-Qdam wad-Batar wad-Ḥudra wad-Kashkol wad-Gazza w-Qala d-‘Udrane ‘am Ktaba d-Mazmure, Vol. III. Trichur, Kerala: Church of the East. DAUVILLIER, Jean, 1953. “Byzantins d’asie centrale et d’extrême-orient au moyen age”. Revue des Études Byzantines, Vol. 11, 62-87. DE BLOIS, François, 2006. “Du nouveau sur la chronologie bactrienne posthellénistique : l’ère de 223-224 ap. J.-C.”. Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 991-997. DICKENS, Mark, 2009. “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts from Turfan”. Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, Vol. 9, 22-42. DIETTRICH, G., 1909. “Bericht über neuentdeckte handschriftliche Urkunden zur Geschichte des Gottesdienstes in der nestorianischen Kirche”. Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (Philologisch-historische Klasse), 160-218. DUAN, Qing, 2001. “Bericht über ein neuentdecktes syrisches Dokument aus Dunhuang / China,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 85, 84-93. GIBB, H. A. R., tr., 1929. Ibn Battuta: Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-1354. London: George Routledge & Sons. GIGNOUX, Philippe, 1968. “L’auteur de la version pehlevie du psautier seraitil nestorien?” Mémorial Mgr Gabriel Khouri-Sarkis. 1898-1968. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 233-244. GIGNOUX, Philippe, 2001. “Une croix de procession de Hérat inscrite en pehlevi”. Le Muséon, Vol. 114, 291-304. GIGNOUX, Philippe, 2008. “Pahlavi Psalter” [Electronic Version]. Encyclopaedia Iranica (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/pahlavi-psalter). 169

GILLMAN, Ian & Hans-Joachim KLIMKEIT, 1999. Christians in Asia before 1500. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. HAMILTON, James & NIU Ruji, 1994. “Deux inscriptions funéraires turques nestoriennes de la Chine orientale”. Journal Asiatique, Vol. 282, 147164. HANSEN, Olaf, 1941. “Berliner soghdische Texte I: Bruchstücke einer soghdischen Version der Georgspassion (C1)”. Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, No. 10, 1-38. KLEIN, Wassilios, 1999. “Das Orthodoxe Katholikat von Romagyris in Zentralasien”. Parole de l’Orient, Vol. 24, 235-265. MACLEAN, Arthur John, 1894. East Syrian Daily Offices. London: Rivington, Percival [repr: Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003]. MAI, Angelo (ed.), 1838. Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e vaticanis codicibus edita ab A.M., Vol. X. Rome: Typis Collegi Urbani. MARÓTH, Miklós, 1985. “Ein Brief aus Turfan”. Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 12, 283-287. MARÓTH, Miklós, 1991. “Eine unbekannte Version der Georgios-Legende aus Turfan”. Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 18, 86-108. MATEOS, Juan, 1959. Lelya - Ṣapra: Essai d’interpretation des matines chaldeenes (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 156). Rome: Pontificio Institutum Orientalium Studiorum. MÜLLER, F. W. K., 1907. “Neutestamentliche Bruchstücke in soghdischer Sprache”. Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 260-270. MÜLLER, F. W. K., 1913. “Soghdische Texte I”. Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jahrgang 1912. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, No. II, 1-111. MÜLLER, F. W. K., 1915. “Ein syrisch-neupersisches Psalmenbruchstück aus Chinesisch-Turkistan”. Festschrift Eduard Sachau, Gotthold Weil (ed.). Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer, 215-222. NASRALLAH, J., 1976. “L’Église melchite en Iraq, en Perse et dans l’Asie centrale”. Proche Orient Chrétien, Vol. 26, 16-33, 319-353. PAYKOVA, A. V., 1979. “The Syrian Ostracon from Panjikant”. Le Muséon, Vol. 92, 159-169. PIGOULEWSKY [PIGULEVSKAYA], N., 1935-1936. “Fragments syriaques et syro-turcs de Hara-hoto et de Tourfan”. Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, Vol. 30, 3-46. 170

RECK, Christiane, 2008. “A Survey of the Christian Sogdian Fragments in Sogdian Script in the Berlin Turfan Collection”. Controverses des chrétiens dans l’Iran sassanide (Studia Iranica - Cahier 36), Christelle Jullien (ed.). Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 191-205. RYAN, James D., 1998. “Christian Wives of Mongol Khans: Tartar Queens and Missionary Expectations in Asia”. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 8 (Ser. 3), 411-421. SCHNEIDER, H. (ed.), 1972. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta version, Part IV, fascicule 6: Canticles or Odes. Leiden: E. J. Brill. SCHWARTZ, Martin, 1967. Studies in the Texts of the Sogdian Christians. Dissertation: Near Eastern Languages, University of California, Berkeley. SCHWARTZ, Martin, 1974. “Sogdian Fragments of the Book of Psalms”. Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 1, 257-261. SCHWARTZ, Martin, 1982. Studies in the Texts of the Sogdian Christians (revised version). Dissertation: Near Eastern Languages, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Nicholas, 1990. “Bulayïq”. Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. 4, 545. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Nicholas, 2004. “A Greek-Sogdian Bilingual from Bulayïq”. La Persia e Bisanzio (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 201). Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 623-631. SKJAERVØ, O., 1983. “Case in Inscriptional Middle Persian, Inscriptional Parthian and the Pahlavi Psalter”. Studia Iranica, Vol. 12, 47-62, 151181. SPRENGER, Norbert, 1976. Konkordanz zum Syrischen Psalter (Göttinger Orientforschungen, I Reihe: Syriaca, Band 10, Teil 8). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. SUNDERMANN, Werner, 1974. “Einige Bemerkungen zum SyrischNeupersischen Psalmenbruchstük aus Chinesisch-Turkistan”. Mémorial Jean de Menasce, Philippe Gignoux & A. Tafazzoli (ed.). Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 441-452. SUNDERMANN, Werner, 1975. “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers „Soghdischen Texten I“, 2. Teil”. Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 3, 55-90. SUNDERMANN, Werner, 1981. “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers „Soghdischen Texten I“, 3. Teil”. Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 8, 169-225. 171

SUNDERMANN, Werner, 1994. “Byzanz und Bulayïq”. Iranian and IndoEuropean Studies: Memorial Volume of Otakar Klíma, Petr Vavroušek (ed.). Praha: Enigma Corporation, 255-264. TAFT, Robert, 1986. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: the Origins of the Divine Office and its Meaning for Today. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. WALTER, D. M. (ed.), 1980. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta version, Part II, fascicule 3: The Book of Psalms. Leiden: E. J. Brill. WELLESZ, Egon, 1919. “Miscellanea zur orientalistischen Musikgeschichte. Die Lektionszeichen in den soghdischen Texten”. Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft, Vol. I, 505-515. WRIGHT, William, 1894. A Short History of Syriac Literature. London: A. and C. Black [repr: Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2001]. YAKUP, Abdurishid, 2002. “On the Interlinear Uyghur Poetry in the Newly Unearthed Nestorian Text”. Splitter aus der Gegend von Turfan: Festschrift für Peter Zieme anläßlich seines 60. Geburtstags, Mehmet Ölmez & Simone-Christiane Raschmann (ed.). Istanbul-Berlin: Şafak Matbaacılık, 409-417. ZIEME, Peter, 1974. “Zu den nestorianish-türkischen Turfantexten”. Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der altaischen Völker: Protokollband der XII Tagung der Permanent International Altaistic Conference 1969 in Berlin (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 5), Georg Hazai & Peter Zieme (ed.). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 661-668.

172

7 SYRO-UIGURICA II: SYRIAC PASSAGES IN U 338 FROM TURFAN Mark DICKENS University of Alberta Original publication information: “Syro-Uigurica II: Syriac Passages in U 338 from Turfan,” in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, Vol. 16, Issue 2 (2013), pp. 301-324. Introduction512 The Church of the East, based initially in the Sassanid Persian capital of Seleucia-Ctesiphon and subsequently in Baghdad, the capital of the ʿAbbasid Caliphate, had a presence in Central Asia for well over a millennium, from the 2nd century to the 14th century CE.513 Although reconstructing the history 512

This is the second of three articles dealing with interactions between the Syriac and Uyghur languages and scripts in texts from the Turfan Collection, drawing on my participation in the AHRC-funded Christian Library of Turfan project, on which see the footnote below. The titles are inspired by the three “Syro-Sogdica” articles published by Nicholas SimsWilliams in the 1980’s, listed in the bibliography below. Two companion articles, entitled “Syro-Uigurica I: A Syriac Psalter in Uyghur Script from Turfan” (see bibliography for full details) and “Syro-Uigurica III: Enochic Material in a Christian text from Turfan,” will be published separately. I would like to acknowledge my indebtedness to Prof. Peter Zieme (Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften), for his input on the Uyghur portions of U 338 and to Mar Awa (Bishop of California, Assyrian Church of the East), for his identification of the Syriac material in the liturgical sources. Without their input, this article would not have been possible. I am also thankful to Dr. Erica C. D. Hunter, Prof. Nicholas Sims-Williams and another anonymous reviewer for various observations and comments which helped to improve the article. Thanks also to the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preussischer Kulturbesitz and the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften for access to and permission to reproduce images of U 338. All images are copyright Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. Low resolution images of the U signature numbers (Uyghur language, in both Uyghur and Syriac script) are available from http://www.bbaw.de/forschung/turfanforschung/dta/index.html. For U 338, see http://www.bbaw.de/forschung/turfanforschung/dta/u/dta_u0015.html and http://www.bbaw.de/forschung/turfanforschung/dta/u/dta_u0016.html, where the original side numbers are retained. 513 For good overviews of the history of Christianity in Central Asia, see Ian Gillman and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Christians in Asia before 1500 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999) and Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Christianity, iii. In Central Asia and Chinese 173

of this presence is a challenge given the overall paucity of extant sources, we are fortunate to have a limited number of Christian texts and inscriptions from Central Asia, as well as references scattered throughout late antique and medieval literary sources in Arabic, Armenian, Chinese, Greek, Latin, Persian, Syriac and Turkic. Undoubtedly the richest treasure trove of indigenous Christian texts from Central Asia is contained in the Turfan Collection, housed in three separate locations in Berlin: the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, the BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, and the Museum für Asiatische Kunst (formerly Museum für Indische Kunst). The collection contains approximately 40,000 manuscript fragments in 22 languages and 20 scripts, brought back by the four Prussian Turfan expeditions (1902-1914), which provide invaluable information on the religious and secular life of the residents of Turfan (located at a junction of two branches of the Silk Road in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China). The majority of manuscript fragments from Turfan are Buddhist or Manichaean, reflecting the two most important religions flourishing in Turfan during the Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho (ca. 860-1284), established in the wake of the overthrow of the Uyghur Empire in 840.514 However, there are also approximately 1100 Christian fragments in Syriac, Pahlavi, Sogdian (Syriac and Sogdian script), New Persian (Syriac script) and Uyghur Turkic (Syriac and Uyghur script),515 most found at the site of what must have been a Christian monastic complex in the town of Bulayïq, near Turfan.516 Turkestan,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. 5 (1991), 530-534. The proceedings of the first three triennial conferences dedicated to “Research on the Church of the East in China and Central Asia” also contain a wealth of interesting articles on the subject: 1) Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter, eds., Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006); 2) Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang, eds., Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 1) (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2009); 3) Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler, eds. From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in Central Asia and China (Orientalia – Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 5) (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2013). 514 The Uyghurs were one of the Turkic tribal groups which were part of the First and Second Türk Empires (552-659, 682-742). After their participation in the overthrow of the Second Türk Empire, they established their own Empire. All these states were located in Mongolia. 515 Approximately 450 Syriac, 550 Sogdian in Syriac script, 50 Sogdian in Sogdian script and 50 Uyghur (in either Syriac or Uyghur script), as well as a handful of fragments in Pahlavi (Middle Persian) and New Persian. Many of these fragments are in fact bilingual or even multilingual, so that, for example, the total number of fragments wholly or partially in Syriac rises to nearly 500. These Christian texts have been catalogued for the first time by a research project funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK and headed up by 174

Amongst the extant Uyghur Christian fragments are several that give evidence of the interaction between Syriac, the liturgical language of the Church of the East, and Uyghur, the lingua franca of the Turfan oasis. This article will examine a Christian Uyghur text containing Syriac passages. 517 Description and Discussion of the Manuscript U 338 (original signature number T II B 41, No. 1), is a small prayer booklet formed of 5 sheets, resulting in 10 folios and 20 sides,518 each side measuring 6.3-6.4 cm high by 7.0-7.3 cm wide, with the thread binding still intact. The binding is very rudimentary and consists of two threads running through two holes located on the centre fold of each sheet, one 0.9 cm below the upper edge and the other 0.8 cm above the lower edge. The two threads are then tied off on the upper and lower edges of the booklet. This can be observed clearly on the folios containing sides 6-7 and sides 16-17, a fact which

Dr. Erica C. D. Hunter. One catalogue of Christian Sogdian and New Persian fragments in Syriac script has already been published: Nicholas Sims-Williams, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 18,4: Mitteliranische Handschriften, Teil 4: Iranian Manuscripts in Syriac Script in the Berlin Turfan Collection (Stuttgart: VOHD, 2012). The following two catalogues will appear shortly: 1) Erica Hunter and Mark Dickens, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 5,2. Syrische Handschriften. Teil 2: Texte der Berliner Turfansammlung. Syriac Texts from the Berlin Turfan Collection; 2) Peter Zieme. Altuigurische Texte der Kirche des Ostens aus Zentralasien. [See Addenda et Corrigenda in this volume for final publication information on all three volumes] The few Christian fragments in Sogdian script or Uyghur script will be included in catalogues being prepared by Dr. Christiane Reck and Dr. Simone Raschmann, respectively. 516 See Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Bulayïq,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. 4 (1989), 545. 517 This text, U 338, will be included in both of the aforementioned catalogues by HunterDickens and Zieme. Other fragments that exhibit interaction between Syriac and Uyghur include the following: 1) nine folios from a Syriac Psalter written in Uyghur script (SyrHT 20-27; MIK III 58 – see Dickens and Zieme, “Syro-Uigurica I” in the bibliography below); 2) an as-yet unidentified folio of Syriac written in Uyghur script (So 20131); 3) a Syriac passage in an Uyghur “magical” text (U 328 – to be published by the current author as “SyroUigurica III: Enochic Material in a Christian text from Turfan”); 4) an unidentified fragmentary text containing Syriac alternating with Uyghur script on the reverse of a prayer in Uyghur script (U 323); 5) various fragments with Syriac (and sometimes Sogdian in Syriac script) on one side and Uyghur script on the other, often seemingly unrelated to each other (SyrHT 154; SyrHT 322; U 5545; U 7252); 6) Syriac liturgical texts (some with Sogdian rubrics) with graffiti or over-writing in Uyghur script, including some Syriac in Uyghur script (SyrHT 83-84; SyrHT 124; SyrHT 287); and 7) a Syriac fragment containing an Uyghur name (SyrHT 161). Several of these are mentioned in Mark Dickens, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts from Turfan,” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, Vol. 9 (2009): 22-42 [See Chapter 4 in this volume]. 518 Technically called a quinternion. 175

is of importance in reconstructing the original order of the texts in the booklet, as discussed below. Each side has a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 6 lines, with most sides containing 4 lines. The text in black ink consists of Syriac in Estrangelo script, Uyghur in Uyghur script and Uyghur in Estrangelo script. It has been written in two different hands, one for the Uyghur text in both scripts (including two lines of Syriac embedded in this part of the booklet) and one for the longer Syriac text, which extends over 8 sides. The Syriac text is written in a smaller and neater hand than the Uyghur text, which is written in a rather untidy hand; there are numerous smudges and ink stains. The booklet has no rubrics, illustrations or other notable features. The Uyghur text of the booklet, along with a provisional discussion of the Syriac portions, has been published by Peter Zieme, who suggests that the booklet was probably designed primarily for private use.519 The purpose of this article is to supplement Zieme’s contribution by focussing on the overall structure of the booklet and finalizing the reading of the Syriac portions. As Zieme has noted, the booklet can be divided into the following sections (numbering of the sides reflects the original pencil numbering on the individual folios and therefore the numbering on the Digitales Turfan-Archiv website, based on the current folding of the booklet): 1. side 1, line 1 to side 5, line 1: Uyghur prayer in Syriac script, including two lines in Syriac; 2. side 5, line 2 to side 7, line 6: Uyghur colophon in Uyghur script;520 3. side 8, line 1 to side 15, line 4: Syriac prayer; 4. side 16, line 1 to side 19, line 4: Uyghur prayer in Uyghur script; 5. side 20, lines 1-4: Uyghur prayer in Syriac script.

This apparent order of sides 1-20 presumably reflects the way the booklet was folded when it was found. Thus, the booklet appears to consist of 2 unequal quires (sides 1-12 and sides 13-20) stitched together, so that side 1 ap-

519

Peter Zieme, “Notes on a bilingual prayer book from Bulayık,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 1), ed. Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2009), 170. 520 The text and translation of the colophon are included in an Appendix at the end of this article. On the colophon, see Zieme, “Notes,” 170-172. One correction needs to be made: the name of the scribe’s father, Yonan, is not “a shortened form of Yoḥanān, the Syriac form of John” (Zieme, “Notes,” 172, repeated in Dickens, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts,” 30), but is rather the transliteration in Uyghur of ‫ܝܘܢܢ‬, the Syriac form of Jonah. My thanks to Nicholas Sims-Williams for alerting me to this. 176

pears to be the recto of the first folio of the first quire, while side 20 appears to be the verso of the last folio of the second quire.521 However, analysis of the booklet’s physical structure (especially the binding) and contents shows that the original order of sides has been obscured by the way the booklet was folded when it was found. The fact that the thread binding is tied off on the two folios containing sides 6-7 and sides 16-17, along with examination of the crease lines on both folios, clearly indicates that they were the outer and inner folios respectively of the booklet when it was stitched together. These physical facts are corroborated by the literary structure of the text. As Zieme has shown, portions of the Uyghur prayer in Syriac script, which actually begins on side 20 and continues on sides 1-5, are paralleled in the Uyghur prayer in Uyghur script found on sides 16-19, although both versions of the prayer include material that the other does not have.522 This suggests that side 1 should follow side 20. Add to this the curious fact that the colophon occurs in the middle (according to the current ordering of the sides), on sides 5-7, and it becomes clear that the original literary order of the text was as follows: 1. side 8, line 1 to side 15, line 4: Syriac prayer; 2. side 16, line 1 to side 19, line 4: Uyghur prayer in Uyghur script; 3. side 20, line 1 to side 5, line 1: Uyghur prayer in Syriac script, including two lines in Syriac; 4. side 5, line 2 to side 7, line 6: Uyghur colophon in Uyghur script.523

From the perspective of composition, this order has the following advantages: 1. It begins with a prayer in Syriac, the liturgical language of the Church of the East, which would impart both prestige and potency to the contents of the rest of the booklet. 2. It suggests that the scribe with the smaller, neater hand wrote first, followed by the one with the larger and less careful hand, possibly indicating a master-disciple or teacher-child relationship between the two. 3. It alternates between Syriac script and Uyghur script (either an intentional stylistic choice or perhaps just a coincidence). 4. It accounts for the fact that the Uyghur prayer which begins on side 20 naturally continues on side 1.

521

I use recto and verso here to mean first side and second side, respectively, not with the original Latin meaning of recto, “on the right side” (referring to the Western order of pages). 522 See the Transcription and Comparison section in Zieme, “Notes,” 177. 523 My thanks to Erica C.D. Hunter, who subsequently re-examined the booklet after I initially queried the order of the text and confirmed that the text originally began on side 8. 177

5. It ends with a colophon, the natural place where one would expect to find this element.

However, this proposed re-arrangement involves the booklet starting on a verso side (side 8) and ending on a recto side (side 7, which is clearly the outer folio, as noted above). How can this be? The most likely explanation is that the scribe began writing on the verso side 8, intentionally leaving recto side 7 blank, possibly to add a title later (since sides 6-7 comprised the original outer “cover” of the booklet). When the scribe finished his task on the top of side 5, he added the colophon which, rather than merely filling up the rest of sides 5-6, ran over onto the “front cover” side 7. This may be due to the fact that the colophon is written in the larger untidy hand noted above, suggesting that it was the work of an apprentice, in contrast to the neater hand of the “master scribe” who wrote the Syriac prayer which begins the booklet; the latter, writing in a smaller hand and with more experience, perhaps would not have run over onto the front cover, leaving room for a title page. At some later point, the booklet was left folded with sides 20 and 1 (located on separate sheets) on the outside, resulting in the current numbering of folios.524 Indeed, the type of thread binding used enables the booklet to be cycled through and left open at any page. This use of the booklet is possibly hinted at in an Uyghur phrase found at the end of the colophon on side 7: munï täg beš kata bitip ävdä ogul kïz okïtïp äšidmäki bolzun amin, “Writing like this five times, may a boy [or] girl be heard reciting [it] in the house, Amen.”525 If the text was meant to be recited and copied “five times,” perhaps it was intended to be read in a cyclical fashion, similar to the use of a rosary? 526 Two other points raised by Zieme are worth noting here. First, the use of the term ‫ܐܪܝܟܐܟܘܛܐܠܪ‬, ärikäkütlär (sides 4-5), the plural form of the term ärkägün or ärkä’ün, a term of uncertain origin used to describe Christians under the Mongols and transliterated in Chinese as Yelikewen, enables us to

524

I am indebted to Erica C.D. Hunter for these suggestions, along with the observations below about the inner and outer folios of the booklet, which confirm the re-arranged order of the text as the original order. 525 Here and elsewhere in this article, although they may differ slightly in form, my translations from Uyghur are informed by those found in the aforementioned article on U 338 by Peter Zieme, to whom I am grateful for suggestions and corrections to improve my translations. For the full text and translation of the colophon, see the Appendix to this article. 526 Zieme, “Notes,” 170 suggests that it might also be “a school exercise book,” an idea which does not preclude its use as a religious text, since spiritual training and education are not considered antithetical to each other in the East Syriac tradition. Ultimately, however, the meaning of this phrase in the colophon is enigmatic, so that no definite conclusions can be reached regarding the way in which this booklet was intended to be used. 178

date the text to the 13th or 14th centuries.527 Second, the Buddhist practice of merit transfer mentioned by the scribe in the colophon – buyanï atam yonanka tägzün (side 6), “May its merit reach my father Jonah”528 – illustrates the influence of the surrounding Buddhist culture on Christian culture in Turfan.529 Longer Syriac Passage As noted above, the long Syriac passage begins on side 8 (original side 1,) and runs up to side 15 (original side 8):530 ‫) [ܡـ]ܪܝܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܚܝܠܬܢܐ‬8-1( ‫ ܩܕ‬531‫) ܕ[ܝܠܟ] ܗܝ ܥܕܬܟ‬8-2( ‫ ܪܒܐ‬533‫) ܝܫܬܐ ܘܒܚܫܗ‬8-3( 535 ‫ ܐܙܕܒܢܬܐ‬534‫) ܕܡܫܝܚܐ‬8-4( 537 ‫ ܕܡܪܥܝܬܟ ܡܢ‬536‫) ܥܢܐ‬9-1( 538 ‫) ܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܕܪܘܚܐ ܕ‬9-2(

532

527

“In China at that time Christians of all confessions were called Yelikewen, the phonetic rendering of the Mongol term Ärkä’ün. This was then connected to [i.e. scholars have proposed a connection with – MD] the Greek, with the accusative form άρχήγόύ of the nominative άρχήγός, archon, which means ‘chief,’ ‘leader.’” Christoph Baumer, The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2006), 219. Note however Paul Pelliot’s skepticism about this connection in Paul Pelliot, Notes on Marco Polo, Vol. I (Oeuvres Posthumes de Paul Pelliot) (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1959), 49. 528 Zieme, “Notes,” 178. 529 On the practice of merit transfer, see George J. Tanabe, Jr., “Merit and Merit-making,” Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Vol. 2, 532-534. At the same time, as an anonymous reviewer pointed out, “The reference to Buddhist merit transfer is interesting, but of course Syriac Christianity has its own and not so very different ideas about accumulating merit for deceased family members. To what extent the phraseology in Uygur very explicitly refers to the Buddhist practice or might indicate a fusion of Syriac and Buddhist concepts, is difficult for me to assess.” 530 The text is compared with the edition published in J.E.Y. Kelaita, ed., Taksa d-kahne d‘edta d-madnha (The Liturgy of the Church of the East) (Mosul: Assyrian Press of the Church of the East, 1928), 12-13. 531 Kelaita: ‫ܥܕܬܐ‬. 532 Word split between lines. 533 Kelaita: ‫ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܝ ܕܒܚܫܗ‬. 534 Kelaita: ‫ܕܡܫܝܚܟ‬. 535 Kelaita: ‫ܐܙܕܒܢܬ‬. Final ‫ ܐ‬is perhaps a slip of the pen. ̈ 536 Kelaita: ‫ܥܢܐ‬. 537 Kelaita: ‫ܘܡܢ‬. 179

539

‫) ܩܘܕܫܐ ܗܘ ܕܐ‬9-3(

‫ ܒܪ ܟܝܢܐ ܕܐܠ‬540‫) ܝܬ(ܘ)ܗܘ‬9-4( ‫) ܕܐܠܗܘܬܟ ܡܫܒܚܬܐ‬10-1( 543 ‫ ܕ̈ܪܓܐ ܕܣܝܡـ‬542‫) ܡܬܝܒܝܢ‬10-2( 545 ‫ ܕܟܗܢܘܬܐ ܫܪ‬544‫) ܬܐ‬10-3( 546 ‫) ܝܪܬܐ ܒܡܪܚܡܢܘܬܟ‬10-4( 547 ‫) ܡܪܝ ܐܫܘܝܬܟ‬11-1( 548 ‫) ܠܒܨܝܪܘܬܗ [ܕܟـ]ܝܢܢ‬11-2( ̈ ‫) ܕܢܗܘܐ‬11-3( 549 ‫ܗܕܡܐ ܝܕܝܥܐ‬ 541

‫ ܪܒܐ‬550‫ܒܓܘܫܡܐ‬ ‫ ܘܢܫܡܫ‬551‫ܕܥ[ܕ]ܬܟ‬ ̇ 552‫ܥܘܕ[̈ܪ]ܢܐ ̈ܪܘܚܢܐ‬ 553 ‫ܠܢܦܫܐ‬ ‫ ܐܢܬ‬555‫ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬554‫ܬܐ‬ 556 ‫[ܗܟـ]ܝܠ ܡܪܢ ܘܐܠܗܢ‬ ]‫ܫܡܠܐ ܥܡܢ ܛܝܒܘܬ[ܟ‬ 557 ‫ܘܐܫܦܥ ܒܐܝܕܝܢ‬ 538

)11-4( )12-1( )12-2( )12-3( )12-4( )13-1( )13-2(

Word split between lines. Word split between lines. 540 Kelaita: ‫ܕܐܝܬܘܗܘ‬. Unclear if ‫ ܘ‬is written here. 541 First three letters of first word on next line: ‫ܕܐܠܗܘܬܟ‬. 542 Kelaita: ‫ܡܬܝܗܒܝܢ‬. 543 Word split between lines. 544 Kelaita: ‫ܕܣܝܡܝܕܐ‬. Misspelling possibly due to confusion between dentals /d/ and /t/ in Uyghur. Dental confusion in the Uyghur portions of the booklet, whether in Syriac or Uyghur script, is noted in Zieme, “Notes,” 170. 545 Word split between lines. 546 Kelaita: ‫ܘܒܡܪܚܡܢܘܬܟ‬. 547 Kelaita: ‫ܐܫܘܝܬܗ‬. 548 Kelaita: ‫ܕܟܝܢܢ ܚܠܫܐ‬. ̈ 549 Kelaita: ‫ܝܕܝܥܐ‬. 550 Kelaita: ‫ܒܓܘܫܡܗ‬. Ink stain results in ‫ ܓ‬resembling ‫ܥ‬. 551 Kelaita: ‫ܕܥܕܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܝ‬. 552 Kelaita: ‫̈ܪܘܚܢܝܐ‬. 553 Word split between lines. 554 ̈ Kelaita: ‫ܠܢܦܫܬܐ‬. ̈ 555 This word is partially obscured by an ink stain. Kelaita: ‫ܕܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬. 556 The lower part of the text on this line is missing. Kelaita: ‫( ܡܪܝ‬om. ‫)ܘܐܠܗܢ‬. 180 539

559

‫ܘܪܚܡܝܟ‬

558

‫) ܡܘܗܒܬܐ‬13-3(

‫ ܢܗܘ[ܘ]ܢ ܥܠܝܢ‬560‫) ܘܚܢܢܟ‬13-4( 562 ‫ [ܗ]ܢܐ ܕܟܒܬ‬561‫) [ܘܥܠ] ܥܡܟ‬14-1( ‫ ܡܪܝ‬564‫ ܗܒܠܢ‬563‫) ܠܟ܀‬14-2( ]‫) ܒ[ܚܢܢܟ] ܕ[ܟܠ]ܢ ܐܟܚ[ܕ‬14-3( 566 ]‫ ܟܠ[ܗ]ܘ[ܢ‬565‫) ܫܘܝܬܝܬ‬15-1( ‫ [ܢܫـ]ܦܪ‬568‫ ܕܚܝܝܢ‬567‫) ܝܘܡܬܐ‬15-2( ̈ 569 ‫ܒܥ[ܒܕ]ܐ‬ ‫) ܠܐܠܗܘܬܟ‬15-3( 571 ]‫ ܕܡܢܝܚ[ܝܢ‬570‫) ܛܒܐ‬15-4( “O Lord God Almighty, yours is your [sic, lege the] holy church and by the great passion of the Messiah the sheep of your flock were purchased. Through the grace of the Spirit of Holiness, he who is of one essence with your glorious Godhead, the delights of ordination to the true priesthood are given. In your mercy, my Lord, you have made worthy you [sic, lege those] of deficient nature to be recognized members of the great body of your church and to minister spiritual liberation to the souls of the believers. Therefore, our Lord and our God, fulfil in us your grace and pour forth the gift through our hands and may your mercy and your compassion be upon us and upon this ̈ Kelaita: ‫ܒܐܝܕܝܢ‬. 558 Kelaita: ‫ܡܘܗܒܬܟ‬. 559 Kelaita: ‫ܘ̈ܪܚܡܝܟ‬. 560 Kelaita: ‫ܘܚܢܢܐ ܕܐܠܗܘܬܟ‬. 561 The text is largely lost on this side due to abrasions on the paper. Kelaita: ‫ܥܡܐ‬. 562 Kelaita: ‫ܕܓܒܝܬ‬. Again, misspelling possibly due to confusion over velars /g/ and /k/ in Uyghur. 563 Splattering of dots here, where Kelaita has instructions to the priest in rubric. 564 Kelaita: ‫ܘܗܒܠܢ‬. 565 Kelaita: ‫ܫܘܝܐܝܬ‬. 566 The left side of the page is in deteriorated condition due to abrasions. 567 ̈ Kelaita: ‫ܝܘܡܬܐ‬. 568 ̈ Kelaita: ‫ܕܚܝܝܢ‬. 569 Ending on this word obscured by an ink blob. 570 ̈ Kelaita: ‫ܛܒܐ‬. 571 Kelaita: ‫ܕܙܕܝܩܘܬܐ ܕܡܢܝܚܝܢ ܘܡܪܥܝܢ ܠܨܒܝܢܐ ܡܫܒܚܐ ܕܡܪܘܬܟ‬, “of righteousness who are pleasing and acceptable to the glorious will of your lordship.” The final word is obscured due to abrasion, but is most likely ‫ܕܡܢܝܚܝܢ‬, “who are pleasing.” My thanks to Mar Awa for confirming this reading. 181 557

your people, whom you have chosen for yourself. Grant us, O my Lord, in your compassion, that all of us together in like manner all of the days of our lives may be pleasing to your Godhead, [along] with your blessed servants who are pleasing.”572 My thanks are due to Mar Awa, Bishop of California for the Assyrian Church of the East, for identifying the source of this passage, thus making it possible to reconstruct it, despite the frequent abrasions which obscure the text in places: “The prayer is from the East Syrian Euchologion. It is the prayer of the imposition of hands, an inclination prayer just before the dismissal of the catechumens (which still exists in our rite, the only apostolic Church that still retains to this day the very archaic dismissal of catechumens)… It is slightly different in a few words here and there from the text we have in the Kelaita 1928 Assyrian takhsa.”573 Shorter Syriac Passage In addition to this, two lines of Syriac are embedded into the Uyghur prayer in Syriac script on side 3 (original side 16). The following quotation from the prayer (side 20, line 1 to side 5, line 1 = original side 13, line 1 to side 18, line 1) illustrates how the Syriac phrase in question is used to describe the Christians:574 [20] y(ä)mä bo biziŋ ätözümüzni tirig äs(ä)n [1] tuttačï üzütümüzni kutgartačï h(a)n(ï)m(ï)z mšyh’ (‫[ )ܡܫܝܚܐ‬2] t(ä)ŋriniŋ sävigi taplagï köŋli üzä [3] ‫ ܥܡܡܐ ܦܪܝܩܐ ܓܢܫܐ ܫܒܝܚܐ‬tep at üzä asïl- [4] mïš küü üzä külälmiš alkïšlïg är{i}käkütlär-kä “And through the love, affection (and) heart of our Lord (Khan) Messiah God, the keeper of these our bodies alive (and) healthy (and) the 572

Compare the English translations in K.A. Paul and George Mooken, trans., The Liturgy of the Holy Apostles Adai and Mari, Together with the Liturgies of Mar Theodorus and Mar Nestorius and the Order of Baptism (Trichur, 1967), 13; Lawrance Namato, trans., The Order of the Holy Qurbana according to the Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, the Blessed Apostles (Modesto: Assyrian Church of the East, 2009), 29. 573 Personal correspondence, 8 January, 2010. Throughout, “East Syrian” and “East Syriac” are used as adjectives to refer to the Church of the East. A euchologion is a Christian service book containing liturgies, prayers, and other rites. Although originally this prayer was only said over catechumens preparing for baptism, it is now said over the whole congregation, since the vast majority of church members are baptized. The Takhsa (‫ܛܟܣܐ‬, from Gr. τάξις, “order”) and the Ḥudra (‫ܚܘܕܪܐ‬, “circuit”) are the main liturgical texts of the Church of the East. The Takhsa text currently used by the Church is Kelaita, Taksa d-kahne. 574 Although the whole text is in Syriac script, the Uyghur is given in transliteration (taken from Zieme, “Notes,” 177), but the Syriac is left as is, for the sake of contrast. 182

saviour of our souls,575 (there is) blessing for the Christians, (who are) lifted up by the good name (and) praised by the reputation (of) ‘a redeemed people, a glorious race (or congregation).’” There is some uncertainty about the proper interpretation of the Syriac phrase, already discussed in Zieme’s article. 576 The first word, ‫ܥܡܡܐ‬, should be the plural form, “peoples, nations,” but the absence of the plural marker seyame and the fact that the following adjective ‫ ܦܪܝܩܐ‬is in the singular suggests that the writer (obviously not a native speaker of Syriac) intended it to be taken in the singular sense (the correct form would, of course, be ‫)ܥܡܐ‬. The second word, ‫ܦܪܝܩܐ‬, is either the word “redeemed,” correctly spelled, or a spelling mistake for ‫ܒܪܝܟܐ‬, “blessed” (resulting from the dual confusion in Uyghur between both /b/ and /p/ on the one hand and /k/ and /q/ on the other). However, in the absence of a good reason for the latter interpretation (and in light of a possible scriptural source discussed below), it should probably be taken at face value as ‫ܦܪܝܩܐ‬. The third word, ‫ ܓܢܫܐ‬is a spelling mistake for either ‫ܓܢܣܐ‬, “race, nation” (due to confusion between /s/ and /š/ in Uyghur) or ‫ܟܢܫܐ‬, “congregation, assembly” (due to confusion between /k/ and /g/ in Uyghur). Either word is possible in the context; ‫ ܓܢܣܐ‬provides a better parallel to ‫ܥܡܡܐ‬ (or ‫ )ܥܡܐ‬in the first part of the phrase, although ‫ ܟܢܫܐ‬fits a possible scriptural source, as discussed below. The final word, ‫ܫܒܝܚܐ‬, “glorious” is clear and unproblematic. As Zieme points out, the spelling mistakes probably result from the text being written down by ear, as a result of dictation.577 Commentary Several observations can be made on these two Syriac texts included in U 338. The longer passage written on sides 8-15, which originally began the prayer booklet, is a standard prayer from the liturgy of the Church of the East. Again, its position at the beginning of the booklet would be consistent with the prestige that Syriac retained in the Turfan Christian community, 575

My thanks to the anonymous reviewer, who noted that “the literal translation… is closer to the phrase from the lakhumara prayer from the liturgy, cf. in the late 19 th c. Anglican translation: “Thou Lord art the Quickener of our bodies, and Thou art the Saviour of our Souls [d-a(n)tu mnaḥmānā d-paġrā, w-a(n)tu pārqānā d-napšātan] (it is repeated several times in the liturgy, in some variations).” See Arthur John Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices (London: Rivington, Percival, 1894; reprint: Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003), 3. 576 Zieme, “Notes,” 172-173. 577 Zieme, “Notes,” 172. I am also grateful for feedback from Mar Awa on this phrase, reflected in my comments above (personal correspondence, 23 June, 2010). 183

even at times (such as in the Mongol era) when most of its members probably could no longer read the Syriac script.578 However, why was this prayer in particular chosen? Given the wording of the prayer, were those using this booklet possibly preparing for ordination to the priesthood? Were they children studying in a school based in the monastery or were they adults? We may never know the answers to these questions. What is clear, however, is that the Uyghur prayer, in its two forms, has nothing to do thematically with the Syriac prayer. Given that the text can be dated to the Mongol era, when we assume that knowledge of Syriac was dwindling in the community, it is likely that those reciting the booklet had minimal understanding of the Syriac they were reading. Also evident, based on the various spelling and grammatical errors, is that the scribe who wrote out the long Syriac passage was not well-versed in the language (even if he was, as suggested above, the “master”). The differences from the text as it is used currently in the Church of the East can be categorized as follows: 1. Standard textual variants found in Syriac manuscripts;579 2. The result of scribal sloppiness;580 3. The result of expansion or contraction of the text in subsequent years, as various words and phrases have been alternately added or removed;581 4. The result of adding or changing pronominal endings;582

578

This point is graphically brought out by the Syriac Psalter written in Uyghur script mentioned in an earlier footnote. Members of the Christian community in Turfan towards the end of the Mongol era could no longer read Syriac script; in order to be able to recite the Psalms, the text had to be transliterated into Uyghur script. See Dickens and Zieme, “Syro-Uigurica I” in the bibliography below. See also the discussion of the status of the different languages in the Turfan community in Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and Tun-huang Manuscripts,” in Turfan and Tun-huang, the Texts: Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route (Orientalia Venetiana IV), ed. Alfredo Cadonna (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1992), 49-51, 54. 579 Examples include 1) the omission of initial ‫ܘ‬, “and” (9-1, 10-4, 14-2) or the relative pronoun marker ‫ܕ‬, “that” (8-3); 2) the formation of genitive relationships without the pronominal ending ‫( ܗ‬11-4) and 3) the use of a synonym which is similar in form ( ‫ ̈ܪܘܚܢܐ‬vs. ‫̈ܪܘܚܢܝܐ‬, both meaning “spiritual,” in 12-2). 580 Examples include 1) the omission of the plural marker seyame (11-3, 12-2–12-3, 13-2, 13-3, 15-2, 15-4) and 2) replacing ‫ ܐ‬/ā/ with ‫ ܬ‬/t/ due to their similarity in form (15-1). 581 Examples of what the text looked like before its subsequent expansion include 1) the omission of “catholic” from the phrase “(holy) church” (8-3, 12-1); 2) the omission of “weak” from the phrase “of deficient nature” (11-2) and 3) the use of “your compassion” instead of “the compassion of your divinity” (13-4). The reverse process (contraction of the text) can be observed in the change from “our Lord and our God” in the Turfan text to “my Lord” in the text used today (12-4). 184

5. Probable evidence of writing down the text by ear, resulting in phonologically-based orthographic errors. These include the omission of silent ‫ܗ‬ /h/,583 the addition of ‫ ܐ‬to carry the first vowel in the plural ending -ātā584 and the aforementioned confusion between the dentals ‫ ܬ‬/t/ and ‫ ܕ‬/d/ 585 and the velars ‫ ܓ‬/g/ and ‫ ܟ‬/k/.586

Also noteworthy is the fact that there are no instructions to the priest in rubrics, as are found in the modern text, not surprising given that the booklet was apparently not used in a liturgical setting (where such rubrics are frequently employed).587 The shorter passage, consisting of just four words, “a redeemed people, a glorious race (or congregation),” sounds like a catch phrase used by the Christians to describe themselves.588 As suggested by Zieme, its origins may ̈ lie in Psalm 72:17: ‫ ܘܟܠܗܘܢ ܢܫܒܚܘܢܝܗܝ‬.‫ܥܡܡܐ‬ ‫ܢܬܒܪܟܘܢ ܒܗ ܟܠܗܘܢ‬, “Let all nations be blessed in him and let all of them praise him.” However, if the second word is indeed ‫ܦܪܝܩܐ‬, “redeemed,” then a more likely scriptural source is I Peter 2:9: ‫ܐܢܬܘܢ ܕܝܢ ܫܪܒܬܐ ܐܢܬܘܢ ܓܒܝܬܐ܇‬ ̈ ‫ ܬܣܒܪܘܢ‬.‫ ܟܢܫܐ ܦܪܝܩܐ‬.‫ ܥܡܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ‬.‫ܕܡܟܗܢܐ ܠܡܠܟܘܬܐ‬ ‫ܬܫܒܚܬܗ ܕܗܘ ܕܩܪܟܘܢ ܡܢ‬ .‫ܚܫܘܟܐ ܠܢܘܗܪܗ ܡܝܬܪܐ‬, “But you are a chosen generation of the priesthood for the kingdom, a holy nation, a redeemed congregation, that you may declare the praises of him who called you from darkness to his excellent light.” This second text has the advantage of containing three of the words from the catch phrase: ‫ ܟܢܫܐ‬,‫ ܥܡܐ‬and ‫ܦܪܝܩܐ‬. The fourth word is found in a grammatical variant, ‫ܬܫܒܚܬܗ‬, “the praises of.” One even wonders if the original phrase should have been ‫ܥܡܐ ܩܕܝܫܐ ܟܢܫܐ ܦܪܝܩܐ‬, “a holy nation, a redeemed congregation,” found in this verse. Another advantage of I Peter 2:9 over Psalm 72:17 as the source for this passage is that the former is clearly referring to the Church, whereas the latter refers to “the nations” in general.

582

Examples can be found on lines 8-4, 12-1, 13-3, 14-1. Some of these changes are grammatically incorrect, such as those on 8-2: “Yours is your [instead of “the”] holy church”; and 11-1: “you have made worthy you [instead of “those”] of deficient nature.” 583 Line 10-2. 584 Lines 12-2–12-3. 585 Line 10-3. 586 Line 14-1. 587 Line 14-2. 588 I am not aware of the use of this specific phrase elsewhere in the Church of the East, but would welcome suggestions from other scholars who know the literature better than I. 185

Conclusion This text clearly demonstrates the way that Uyghur Turkic Christians at Turfan were connected with both the liturgical traditions of the Church of the East rooted in Mesopotamia and Persia and the surrounding Turkic culture. They recited both standard liturgical prayers in Syriac, prayers shared with their co-religionists in the Middle East which are still uttered in services of the Church of the East today, and prayers in their own tongue, as an acknowledgment of the need to make their faith intelligible to those around them, even to the extent of including common cultural practices such as merit transfer. In so doing, they acknowledged both their roots in Syriac Christianity and the cultural milieu in which they lived and thus managed to navigate a middle path between the extremes of cultural irrelevance on the one hand and religious syncretism on the other. Appendix – Text and Translation of the Colophon589 Side 5, line 2 to side 7, line 6: ud yïl ram ay üč otuzka mn bäküz bitidim buyanï atam yonanka tägzün amin amin tep munï täg beš kata bitip ävdä ogul kïz okïtïp äšidmäki bolzun amin “(In the) year of the Cow/Ox, the first month, on the 23rd (day), I Bacchus wrote (this). May its merit reach my father Jonah. Saying “Amen, Amen” and writing like this five times, may a boy (or) girl be heard reciting (it) in the house, Amen.” Bibliography Baumer, Christoph. The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2006. Dickens, Mark. “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts from Turfan.” Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, Vol. 9 (2009), 22-42. Dickens, Mark and Peter Zieme. “Syro-Uigurica I: A Syriac Psalter in Uyghur Script from Turfan,” in Scripts Beyond Borders. A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the Euro-Mediterranean World (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, Vol. 62), ed. J. den Heijer, A. B. Schmidt and T. Pataridze. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, forthcoming. Gillman, Ian and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit. Christians in Asia before 1500. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999. 589

The transcription of the Uyghur text into Latin script is taken directly from Zieme, “Notes,” 177-178. Again, my translation differs slightly from that in Zieme, “Notes,” 178. 186

Hunter, Erica and Mark Dickens. Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 5,2. Syrische Handschriften. Teil 2: Texte der Berliner Turfansammlung. Syriac Texts from the Berlin Turfan Collection. Stuttgart: VOHD, forthcoming. Kelaita, J.E.Y., ed. Taksa d-kahne d-‘edta d-madnha (The Liturgy of the Church of the East). Mosul: Assyrian Press of the Church of the East, 1928. Maclean, Arthur John. East Syrian Daily Offices. London: Rivington, Percival, 1894; reprint: Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003. Malek, Roman and Peter Hofrichter, eds. Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica). Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006. Namato, Lawrance, trans. The Order of the Holy Qurbana according to the Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, the Blessed Apostles. Modesto: Assyrian Church of the East, 2009. Paul, K.A. & George Mooken, trans. The Liturgy of the Holy Apostles Adai and Mari, Together with the Liturgies of Mar Theodorus and Mar Nestorius and the Order of Baptism. Trichur, 1967. Pelliot, Paul. Notes on Marco Polo, Vol. I (Oeuvres Posthumes de Paul Pelliot). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1959. Sims-Williams, Nicholas. “Syro-Sogdica I: An Anonymous Homily on the Three Periods of the Solitary Life,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47 (1981), 441-446. Sims-Williams, Nicholas. “Syro-Sogdica II: A metrical Homily by Bābay bar Nṣibnāye ‘On the final evil hour’,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica 48 (1982), 171-176. Sims-Williams, Nicholas. “Syro-Sogdica III: Syriac Elements in Sogdian,” in A Green Leaf: Papers in Honour of Professor Jes P. Asmussen (Acta Iranica 28), ed. Werner Sundermann, Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin & Faridun Vahman. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988, 145-156. Sims-Williams, Nicholas. “Bulayïq,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. 4 (1989), 545. Sims-Williams, Nicholas. “Christianity, iii. In Central Asia and Chinese Turkestan,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. 5 (1991), 530-534. Sims-Williams, Nicholas. “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and Tun-huang Manuscripts.” In Turfan and Tun-huang, the Texts: Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route (Orientalia Venetiana IV), ed. Alfredo Cadonna, 43-61. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1992. 187

Sims-Williams, Nicholas. Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 18,4: Mitteliranische Handschriften, Teil 4: Iranian Manuscripts in Syriac Script in the Berlin Turfan Collection. Stuttgart: VOHD, 2012. Tanabe, George J. Jr. “Merit and Merit-making,” in The Encyclopedia of Buddhism, Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2003, 532534. Tang, Li and Dietmar W. Winkler, eds. From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in Central Asia and China (Orientalia – Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 5). Wien: LIT Verlag, 2013. Winkler, Dietmar W. and Li Tang, eds. Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 1). Wien: LIT Verlag, 2009. Zieme, Peter. “Notes on a bilingual prayer book from Bulayık.” In Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia – Patristica – Oecumenica, Vol. 1), ed. Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang. Wien: LIT Verlag, 2009, 167-180. Zieme, Peter. Altuigurische Texte der Kirche des Ostens aus Zentralasien.

188

8 SCRIBAL PRACTICES IN THE TURFAN CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY Mark DICKENS, University of Alberta Original publication information: “Scribal Practices in the Turfan Christian Community,” in Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, Vol. 13 (2013), pp. 32-52. Geographical and Historical Background590 Turfan is located 195 km by road south-east of Urumqi, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China,591 in a large oasis in the Turfan Depression, just north of the Lop Desert, itself on the north-eastern edge of the Tarim Basin and the Taklamakan Desert. Historically, the region of Turfan, with its capital of Gaochang (Kao-ch’ang, equivalent to Turkic Qocho), lay at the junction of two branches of the trade route network we now call the Silk Road; one branch led south-east to the Gansu Corridor and north-west to the Ili Valley, while the other branch headed south-west to Kashgar.592 Turfan was one of several small city-states rimming the Tarim Basin which at various times came under Chinese control, were incorporated into larger non-Chinese poli590

I am particularly grateful to the following scholars for information and suggestions which helped to improve this article: Renate Nöller (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und prüfung), Simone Raschmann (Turfanforschung, Berlin), Christiane Reck (Turfanforschung), Nicholas Sims-Williams (SOAS, London) and Peter Zieme (Turfanforschung). All images in this article are copyright Depositum der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. Low resolution images of the Syriac fragments are available on the website of the International Dunhuang Project: http://idp.bl.uk/ (type SyrHT in the Search box). Other than the MIK fragments, images of the fragments in the other signature numbering systems mentioned in this article (M, n, So and U) are available on http://www.bbaw.de/bbaw/Forschung/Forschungsprojekte/turfanforschung/de/DigitalesTurfa nArchiv. The n fragments have also recently been added to the German IDP website: http://idp.bbaw.de/. Select Erweiterte Suche on the left side menu and then under 1. Pressmark angeben, select ist identisch mit and enter the exact number (e.g. n 24, with the space) to find the image (my thanks to Nicholas Sims-Williams for this information). 591 Chinese names are given in Pinyin, occasionally followed in parentheses by the former Wade-Giles system of transliteration, where this is commonly used in secondary literature. For Pinyin, note the following rough pronunciation equivalents in English: c = “ts,” q = “ch,” x = “sh,” z = “dz,” zh = “j” or “ch.” 592 For a helpful map and general information on the Turfan Collection, see the booklet at http://www.bbaw.de/bbaw/Forschung/Forschungsprojekte/turfanforschung/en/turfanstudies. 189

ties or achieved limited autonomy. From the 2nd century BCE on, Turfan was subject to the Han dynasty of China, the nomadic Xiongnu (Hsiung-nu), the Chinese Wei kingdom and Jin dynasty, the nomadic Rouran (Juan-juan), the Gaoche (Kao-chü) clan of the Tiele Turkic confederation, the First Türk Empire, the Chinese Tang dynasty and the Tibetan Empire, before it came under the influence of the Turkic Uighurs. Originally a constituent tribe of the First and Second Türk Empires (552659, 682-742 CE), the Uighurs overthrew the ruling Türks and established the Uighur Empire in Mongolia (744-840 CE). In alliance with the Chinese Tang dynasty, they helped to recover the Tarim Basin from the Tibetans, occupying Turfan in 803 CE. Manichaeism, the state religion of the Uighur Empire, was introduced to Turfan at this time, although the majority religion of the area remained Buddhism. When the Uighur Empire was overthrown by the Turkic Kyrgyz in 840, many Uighurs fled south from Mongolia to Turfan, where they established the Uighur Kingdom of Qocho (866-1284), which dominated the northern Tarim Basin for several centuries until it submitted to the Qarakhitai Khanate in 1130 and then to the Mongols in 1209. From their initial Manichaeism, most Uighurs gradually converted to Buddhism during their time in Turfan (subsequent conversion to Islam did not take place until the fifteenth century). There was also an important Christian minority in the Uighur Kingdom, the subject of this article [Fig. 8-1].593 Although we do not know conclusively how or when Christianity came to Turfan, it is most reasonable to assume that Sogdian Christians (both merchants and missionaries) played a significant role in the process.594 As I have speculated elsewhere,595 it is not unlikely that the origins of the Christian community in Turfan… may very well be linked with the period of anti-Buddhist persecution in Tang dynasty China, which peaked in the year 845 and resulted in the closing of thousands of Buddhist monasteries and the enforced defrocking of hundreds of thousands of Buddhist monks and nuns. In the process, adherents of other ‘foreign’ religions, primarily Christians, Manichaeans and Zoroastrians, also suffered persecu593

On the history of Turfan, see G. Zhang and R. Xinjiang, “A Concise History of the Turfan Oasis and Its Exploration,” Asia Major, Third Series 11:2 (1998), 13-36. 594 On the role of the Sogdian language in Turfan, see N. Sims-Williams, “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and Tun-huang Manuscripts,” in Turfan and Tun-huang, the Texts: Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route, Orientalia Venetiana IV, ed. Alfredo Cadonna (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1992), 43-61. 595 See M. Dickens and P. Zieme, “Syro-Uigurica I: A Syriac Psalter in Uyghur Script from Turfan,” in Scripts Beyond Borders. A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the EuroMediterranean World, ed. J. den Heijer, A. B. Schmidt and T. Pataridze (Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming). 190

tion and their religious institutions were forcibly closed throughout China… Located as it was between the xenophobic campaign of religious persecution in Tang China to the east and the steady advance of Islam into Central Asia in the west, Turfan perhaps offered a rare opportunity for various religions to flourish that were endangered elsewhere.

The recent discovery of the Luoyang Pillar, which in part chronicles the history of Sogdian Christians living in Luoyang (the eastern capital of the Tang dynasty) in the ninth century, underlies the important role that they played in Tang dynasty Christianity before 845.596 The Turfan Expeditions and Collection The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were a period of intense exploration of Central Asia, with expeditions led by the British under Marc Aurel Stein (1862-1943), the Danes under Arthur Sørensen (1880-1932), the Finns under Carl Gustav Mannerheim (1867-1951), the French under Paul Pelliot (1878-1945), the Germans under Albert Grünwedel (1856-1935) and Albert von Le Coq (1860-1930), the Japanese under Otani Kozui (18761948), the Russians under Pyotr Kozlov (1863-1935), Sergei Oldenburg (1863-1934) and others, and the Swedes under Sven Hedin (1865-1952). The most extensive and significant discoveries in Turfan were made by the four German Turfan Expeditions between 1902 and 1914, which resulted in thousands of archaeological items, including manuscript fragments, wall murals and various artefacts, being brought back to Berlin.597 The Berlin Turfan Collection contains about 40,000 manuscript fragments, ranging from partially-intact remnants of codices to tiny scraps with no more than a few letters on them, in more than 20 languages, including Arabic, Bactrian, Chinese, Khitan, Khotanese, Mongolian, Parthian, Middle and New Persian, Prakrit, Sanskrit, Sogdian, Syriac, Tangut, Tibetan, Tocharian and Uighur Turkic—a testimony to the multiethnic and multilingual nature of the area. Not surprisingly, given the religious history of the area, most texts are Buddhist or Manichaean. The fragments are currently kept in three locations: the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, the 596

See L. Tang, “A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription of Luoyang: Text Analysis, Commentary and English Translation,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Orientalia – Patristica – Oecumenica 1, ed. Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2009), 109-32. 597 On the history of these expeditions in Central Asia and the resultant collections in museums around the world, see http://idp.bl.uk/pages/collections.a4d. On the Turfan expeditions in particular, see A. von Le Coq, Buried Treasures of Chinese Turkestan: an Account of the Activities and Adventures of the Second and Third German Turfan Expeditions, tr. Anna Barwell (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1928). 191

Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Preußischer Kulturbesitz and the Museum für Asiatische Kunst (formerly Museum für Indische Kunst). The majority are kept between glass plates (with numerous small fragments grouped together under Sammelplatten), except for the few extant booklets and partial codices. Most fragments have the original signature numbers given to them at the time of the expeditions (e.g. T II B 66, No. 10) and all have been given new numbers according to their language, as discussed below. Christian Texts from Turfan In addition to the many Buddhist and Manichaean fragments, a significant number of Christian texts were discovered during the Second (19041905) and Third (1905-1907) German Turfan Expeditions. Most of these were found in the ruins of a former monastery of the Church of the East, located at Shui-pang near the site of Bulayïq (ten km north of Turfan), but some were also found in other nearby locations, including Qocho, the ancient capital of the Uighur Kingdom. Unfortunately, many fragments in the Turfan Collection held in Berlin were lost during World War II due to various causes; there are now just over 1090 Christian manuscript fragments (whether booklets, bifolia, individual folios, part folios or small scraps torn from original folios) in the following languages and scripts: Syriac, Sogdian in both Syriac script and Sogdian script, New Persian in Syriac script, Uighur Turkic in both Syriac script and Uighur script and Middle Persian in Pahlavi script.598 598

These Christian fragments have been catalogued by The Christian Library at Turfan research project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), based in the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London and led by Dr. Erica C. D. Hunter, principal investigator. The Syriac fragments are catalogued in E.C.D. Hunter and M. Dickens, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 5,2. Syrische Handschriften. Teil 2: Texte der Berliner Turfansammlung. Syriac Texts from the Berlin Turfan Collection (Stuttgart: VOHD, forthcoming) [See Addenda et Corrigenda in this volume for final publication information]. The Sogdian and New Persian fragments in Syriac script are catalogued in N. Sims-Williams, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 18,4: Mitteliranische Handschriften, Teil 4: Iranian Manuscripts in Syriac Script in the Berlin Turfan Collection (Stuttgart: VOHD, 2012). The Sogdian script fragments are included in C. Reck, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 18,3: Mitteliranische Handschriften, Teil 3: Berliner Turfanfragmente christlichen Inhalts und Varia in soghdischer Schrift (Stuttgart: VOHD, forthcoming) and the Uighur script fragments in S. Raschmann, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 13,22: Alttürkische Handschriften, Teil 14: Dokumente, Teil 2 (Stuttgart: VOHD, 2009). The full texts and translations of the Uighur fragments in Syriac script and Uighur script are given in P. Zieme, Altuigurische Texte der Kirche des Ostens aus Zentralasien (forthcoming) [See Addenda et Corrigenda in this vol192

Calculating the number of Christian fragments from Turfan is difficult, since all such calculations must be based on signature numbers, not on intact folios (let along complete manuscripts), given the fragmentary nature of the collection. Thus, both the 61-folio codex MIK III 45 [Fig. 8-2] and a small fragment containing only a few letters each count as only one “fragment.” Moreover, a number of the Christian fragments are bilingual (e.g. SyriacSogdian lectionary fragments) or written primarily in one language, with extracts from a second language inserted (e.g. Syriac liturgical texts with rubric instructions to the priest in Sogdian).599 Thus, the numbers given for individual languages and scripts will not add up to the total number of Christian fragments when compiled in a table, as I have done to arrive at the following statistics. With these caveats in mind, there are a total of 481 catalogue entries for fragments that are at least half Syriac, including ten Syriac folios written in Uighur script (but not including about thirty fragments in Sogdian, New Persian or Uighur containing Syriac phrases or short quotations). Catalogue entries for Sogdian and New Persian fragments in Syriac script total 460 and four, respectively. There are furthermore fifty-five Sogdian Christian fragments in Sogdian script, twenty-five Uighur Christian fragments in Syriac script, eighty-two Uighur Christian fragments in Uighur script and thirteen fragments from the Pahlavi Psalter. The total number of Christian fragments is 1092. The majority of Christian fragments are in Syriac, Sogdian (an extinct Eastern Middle Iranian language) or a combination of the two, indicating the important roles played by the former as the liturgical language of the Church of the East and the latter as the primary trade language of the Silk Road and mother tongue of the Sogdians, who were key players in spreading various religions, including Christianity, along the trade network. The Christian fragments use the following signature numbering systems: SyrHT for Syriac ume for final publication information]. Summary articles on the Christian fragments in Sogdian and Uighur script have been published by C. Reck, “A Survey of the Christian Sogdian Fragments in Sogdian Script in the Berlin Turfan Collection,” in Controverses des chrétiens dans l’Iran sassanide, Studia Iranica - Cahier 36, ed. Christelle Jullien (Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 2008), 191-205 and S. Raschmann, “Traces of Christian communities in the Old Turkish documents,” in Studies in Turkic philology: Festschrift in honour of the 80th birthday of Professor Geng Shimin = 突厥语文学研究— 耿世民教授 80 华诞纪念文集, ed. Dingjing Zhang and Abdurishid Yakup (Beijing: Minzu University Press, 2009), 408-25. On Sogdian Christian literature in general, see also the excellent survey in N. Sims-Williams, “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” in The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran, History of Persian Literature XVII, ed. Ronald E. Emmerick and Maria Macuch (London: I. B. Tauris, 2009), 266-87. 599 See M. Dickens, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts from Turfan,” Journal of the CSSS 9 (2009), 22-42 [See Chapter 4 in this volume]. 193

fragments, M for Manichaean fragments, MIK for fragments in the former Museum für Indische Kunst, n (for nestorianisch), designating Sogdian fragments in Syriac script, So for Sogdian script fragments and U for Uighur fragments, whether in Syriac or Uighur script. In each of these numbering systems, some fragments have been mislabelled, so that, for example, one finds Sogdian and Uighur Christian fragments labelled SyrHT, Syriac fragments labelled n or So, and New Persian Christian fragments labelled M.600 Christian Text Genres A number of different genres are represented amongst the Christian fragments from Turfan.601 In what follows, although all the relevant languages are considered, the percentages given are for the Syriac fragments (here defined as all fragments that are at least half in Syriac). The core liturgical texts are nearly all in Syriac (some with rubric instructions in Sogdian), with a small number of supplementary texts that would be used in a liturgical setting (such as creeds) in Sogdian or occasionally Uighur. The biblical texts (primarily Psalters and lectionaries) are in either Syriac, one of the Iranian languages (Sogdian, Middle Persian or New Persian) or bilingual SyriacSogdian/New Persian. As one departs from the biblical and liturgical centre of the literature of the Church of the East, more and more texts are translations from Syriac into Sogdian (or occasionally Uighur), particularly ascetical literature, commentaries, homilies and hagiographies (precisely the sort of texts one would expect to be read in a monastic community, including frequent references to the Desert Fathers). Perhaps not surprisingly, one finds prayer texts (including prayer booklets and prayer-amulets) represented in Syriac, Sogdian and Uighur. As for texts written by Christians that are not primarily theological or ecclesiastical (miscellanea or “secular” texts, for lack of a better description), there are very few in Syriac, somewhat more in Sogdian and a fair number in Uighur, undoubtedly reflecting the fact that the latter was the dominant language in Turfan, no matter what the ethnic composition of a given religious community. Thus, when we reach the periphery of texts in use by the Turfan Christians (those furthest from the biblical and liturgical centre), the majority are those composed in or translated into Uighur.

600

For further general information on the Christian fragments in the Turfan Collection, see the Introductions to Hunter and Dickens, VOHD 5,2 and Sims-Williams, VOHD 18,4. 601 Only a sample of the many articles written on these fragments is included in these notes. For complete bibliographies of the relevant literature, see the aforementioned catalogues. 194

Biblical texts account for 22% of the Syriac material. Most of the Psalter material is Syriac (we have fragments from eighteen Syriac Psalters), but there are also remnants from one Middle Persian (Pahlavi) Psalter, two Sogdian Psalters and one bilingual Syriac-New Persian Psalter, as well as one Old Testament Syriac fragment not from the Psalter (Prov. 9:14-10:12), on the back of which is written a draft letter. Of particular interest amongst the Psalters are remnants of a Syriac Psalter in Uighur script.602 There are fragments from three Syriac lectionaries, four or five bilingual Syriac-Sogdian lectionaries, one Sogdian lectionary (with Syriac rubrics and incipits), four Syriac gospels and possibly one bilingual Syriac-Sogdian gospel.603 Liturgical texts account for 43% of the Syriac material, including fragments from twenty-eight Syriac Ḥudras, three Syriac Ṭaksas and eight Syriac liturgical texts with Sogdian rubrics (as noted above, primarily instructions to the priest),604 some containing Ḥudra material, others containing Ṭaksa material; it is in fact unclear whether the Ḥudra and the Ṭaksa had been separated into two distinct texts at the time that the Turfan manuscripts were written. Most of these Ḥudra and Ṭaksa fragments show differences from the current editions of these texts used by the Church of the East, including the presence of offices that are no longer extant, presumably reflecting the fact that they pre-date major revisions of the liturgical texts that took place prior to the codification of the current form of the text in the sixteenth century.605 In addition to the many Syriac liturgical texts, there are a small number of Sogdian and Uighur texts that would be used in an ecclesiastical context, including 1) a Sogdian translation of the hymn Gloria in excelsis Deo,606 2) 602

See Dickens and Zieme, “Syro-Uigurica I.” On the Psalters and other biblical fragments from Turfan, see M. Dickens, “The Importance of the Psalter at Turfan,” in From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores. Studies in East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Orientalia – Patristica – Oecumenica 5, ed. Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2013), 357-80 [See Chapter 6 in this volume] and M. Dickens, “Biblical Fragments from the Christian Library of Turfan, an Eastern Outpost of the Antiochian Tradition,” in Perspectives on the Antiochian School of Biblical Exegesis, ed. Vahan Hovhanessian (Bern: Peter Lang, forthcoming) [See Chapter 9 in this volume]. 604 For an example, see S.P. Brock, and N. Sims-Williams, “An early fragment from the East Syriac baptismal service from Turfan,” OCP 77 (2011), 81-92. 605 For an example of a Ḥudra from Turfan, with specific reference to the date of the current Ḥudra text, see E.C.D. Hunter, “The Christian Library from Turfan: SyrHT 41-42-43 an early exemplar of the Hudrā,” Hugoye 15:1 (2012), 293-343, especially 302. 606 See N. Sims-Williams, “A Sogdian Version of the «Gloria in Excelsis Deo»,” in Au Carrefours des Religions: Mélanges offerts à Philippe Gignoux, Res Orientales VII, ed. Rika Gyselen (Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 1995), 257-62. 195 603

remnants of a Uighur creed,607 and 3) a folio containing a Sogdian hymn and translation of the Nicene Creed.608 Also of importance for the celebration of the liturgy are the calendrical fragments (crucial in determining the date of Easter and other “movable feasts” dependent on Easter, notably Lent and Pentecost) that have turned up amongst the Christian material, including eleven fragments from calendrical tables employing Syriac letters to represent numbers (many of them with Sogdian texts on the reverse) and several other calendar-related texts.609 Prayer texts comprise 7% of the Syriac material, but are found in all three languages, as noted above; thus there are at least six Syriac prayer booklets or amulets,610 five Sogdian prayer texts and three Uighur prayer texts, including U 338, a booklet with Syriac sections and extracts.611 On the edge of what might be considered prayer texts are two Uighur Christian texts concerned with divination and predictions: U 328 and U 320.612 Hagiographies and leg607

See P. Zieme, “Das nestorianische Glaubensbekenntnis in einem alttürkischen Fragment aus Bulayiq,” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, N.F. Vol. 15 (1997/1998), 173-80. 608 See F.W.K. Müller, “Soghdische Texte I,” Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jahrgang 1912. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, II (1913), 84-88; N. Sims-Williams, “A Christian Sogdian hymn in Sogdian script,” in Grigory Bongard-Levin Memorial Volume, forthcoming. 609 See M. Dickens and N. Sims-Williams, “Christian Calendrical Fragments from Turfan,” in Living the Lunar Calendar, ed. Jonathan Ben-Dov, Wayne Horowitz, and John M. Steele (Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow Books, 2012), 269-96 [See Chapter 5 in this volume]. 610 See E.C.D. Hunter, “Syriac, Sogdian and Old Uyghur manuscripts from Bulayïq,” in The History behind the Languages. Essays of Turfan Forum on Old Languages of the Silk Road (Yuyan beihou de lishi: xiyu gudian yuyanxue gaofeng luntan lunwenji = 语言背后的历史 － 西域古典语言学高峰论坛论文集), ed. Academia Turfanica (Xinjiang Tulufanxue yanjiuyuan = 新疆吐鲁番学研究院) (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe = 上海古籍出版社, 2013), 85-87 and E.C.D. Hunter, “Traversing time and location. A prayer-amulet of Mar Tamsis from Turfan,” in From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores. Studies in East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Orientalia – Patristica – Oecumenica 5, ed. Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2013), 25-41. 611 See P. Zieme, “Zu den nestorianisch-türkischen Turfantexten,” in Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der altaischen Völker: Protokollband der XII Tagung der Permanent International Altaistic Conference 1969 in Berlin, Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 5, ed. Georg Hazai and Peter Zieme (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1974), 662-64; P. Zieme, “Notes on a bilingual prayer book from Bulayık,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, Orientalia – Patristica – Oecumenica 1, ed. Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2009), 167-80; M. Dickens, “Syro-Uigurica II: Syriac Passages in U 338 from Turfan,” Hugoye 16: 2 (2013), 93-116 [See Chapter 7 in this volume]. 612 See P. Zieme, “Türkische Zuckungsbücher,” in Scripta Ottomanica et Res Altaicae. Festschrift Barbara Kellner-Heinkele, Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 56, ed. Ingeborg Hauenschild, Claus Schönig and Peter Zieme (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 196

ends comprise a relatively small portion (2%) of the Syriac material; there is one bifolium from the Legend of Mar Barshabba, the semi-legendary founder of Christianity in Merv,613 and eight fragments from the Syriac Legend of St. George. Significantly, there are also Sogdian and Uighur versions of the latter, each different from the other.614 In addition to St. George, there are many Sogdian hagiographical texts, including the lives of Sergius and Bacchus, Mar Barshabba, Serapion and John of Dailam.615 There are fewer Uighur hagiographies; other than St. George, there are only fragments of the Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla and, until it went missing during World War II, a Uighur Christian version of the Legend of the Magi.616 Homilies, commentaries and general ascetical literature occur frequently amongst the Sogdian Christian texts,617 but rarely in Syriac, save two fragments from a “Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew.”618 Amongst the Sogdian material of this nature, one of the more interesting is a Christian polemic against the Manichaeans.619

2002), 379-95; W. Bang, “Türkische Bruchstücke einer nestorianischen Georgpassion,” Muséon 39 (1926), 53-64. 613 See F.W.K. Müller and W. Lentz, “Soghdische Texte II,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1934), 504-607, 559-564 (Syriac original), 522528 (Sogdian translation). See also N. Sims-Williams, “Baršabbā,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica 3 (1988 [1989]), 823. 614 See M. Maróth, “Eine unbekannte Version der Georgios-Legende aus Turfan,” Altorientalische Forschungen 18 (1991), 86-108 (Syriac); O. Hansen, “Berliner soghdische Texte I: Bruchstücke einer soghdischen Version der Georgspassion (C1),” Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 10 (1941), 138 (Sogdian); Bang, “ Türkische Georgpassion,” 64-75 (Uighur). 615 See Müller and Lentz, “Soghdische Texte II,” 520-522; N. Sims-Williams, “Christian Sogdian Texts from the Nachlass of Olaf Hansen I: Fragments of the Life of Serapion,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 58 (1995), 50-68; N. Sims-Williams, “An early source for the Life of John of Dailam. Reconstructing the Sogdian version,” in Nameye Iran-e Bastan, forthcoming. 616 See P. Zieme, “Paulus und Thekla in der türkischen Überlieferung,” Apocrypha: International Journal of Apocryphal Literatures 13 (2002), 53-62; F.W.K. Müller, “Uigurica I,” Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse II (1908), 4-10. 617 Many examples in N. Sims-Williams, The Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2, Berliner Turfantexte XII (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1985). 618 See M. Maróth, “Ein syrischer Dialog zwischen einem Juden und Christen aus Turfan,” Christian Texts from Turfan, ed. Erica C. D. Hunter, forthcoming. 619 See N. Sims-Williams, “A Christian Sogdian polemic against the Manichaeans,” in Religious themes and texts of pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia, Beiträge zur Iranistik 24, ed. Carlo G. Cereti, Mauro Maggi & Elio Provasi (Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2003), 399-408. 197

Miscellanea comprises only 5% of Syriac material, specifically two fragments from the aforementioned draft letter, two fragments from a pharmaceutical recipe book,620 several fragments from lists of names and several more from scribal exercises. There are proportionally many more “miscellaneous” examples from the non-Syriac texts, including 1) two fragments of a New Persian pharmacological text written in Syriac script, giving recipes for different medicinal oils, as well as information on the ailments they are good for,621 2) remnants from a Sogdian version of the Wisdom of Ahiqar,622 3) a collection of riddles in Sogdian,623 4) a Uighur Christian wedding blessing,624 and 5) numerous official and personal documents in Uighur script with references to Christian names or ecclesiastical positions. 625 Finally, probably 10% of the Syriac material is still potentially identifiable, but has not yet been identified, while a further 10% is likely unidentifiable, due to the small size of the fragments involved and their damaged state. Reference has already been made to the Church of the East, which held the ecclesiastical monopoly in Turfan and indeed all along the Silk Road from Iran to China. The East Syriac provenance of the Christian material from Turfan is made abundantly clear by the content of the extant texts, particularly the liturgical texts, and the East Syriac pointing that is often used to indicate vocalization. However, there are two texts which some have suggested might have a Melkite connection: the aforementioned draft letter to an

620

See M. Maróth, “Ein Brief aus Turfan,” Altorientalische Forschungen 12 (1985), 283-87; M. Maróth, “Ein Fragment eines syrischen pharmazeutischen Rezeptbuches,” Altorientalische Forschungen 11 (1984), 115-25. 621 See N. Sims-Williams, “Early New Persian in Syriac Script: Two Texts from Turfan,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 74:3 (2011), 353-74; N. SimsWilliams, “Medical texts from Turfan in Syriac and New Persian,” in The History behind the Languages. Essays of Turfan Forum on Old Languages of the Silk Road (Yuyan beihou de lishi: xiyu gudian yuyanxue gaofeng luntan lunwenji = 语言背后的历史 － 西域古典语 言学高峰论坛论文集), ed. Academia Turfanica (Xinjiang Tulufanxue yanjiuyuan = 新疆 吐鲁番学研究院) (Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe = 上海古籍出版社, 2013), 12-19. 622 To be published by Nicholas Sims-Williams. 623 See W. Sundermann, “Der Schüler fragt den Lehrer: Eine Sammlung biblischer Rätsel in soghdischer Sprache,” in A Green Leaf: Papers in Honour of Professor Jes P. Asmussen, Acta Iranica 28, ed. Werner Sundermann, Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin and Faridun Vahman (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), 173-86. 624 See P. Zieme, “Ein Hochzeitssegen uigurischer Christen,” in Scholia: Beiträge zur Turkologie und Zentralasienkunde, ed. Klaus Röhrborn and Horst Wilfrid Brands (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), 221-32. 625 See examples in Raschmann, “Traces of Christian communities.” 198

unnamed Byzantine official and two fragments from a Psalter in Sogdian script with Greek incipits in rubric.626 Writing Materials As above, the focus in this section is on the Syriac fragments, although reference will be made to Christian fragments in other languages when relevant. All of the Christian fragments from Turfan are written on paper. This is primarily due to Turfan’s location in a traditional zone of Chinese influence, in contrast to the Middle East, where vellum was used until paper-making technology was transferred westward after Chinese paper-makers were captured at the Battle of Talas in 751. Indeed, the vast majority of texts from Turfan, whatever the language, were written on paper, although a small number were written on palm leaves, birch bark, wood, silk, parchment or stone (in particular, the Manichaean manuscript fragments from Turfan include some on parchment).627 Did members of the Christian monastic community at Turfan ever have vellum manuscripts brought from the Middle East to copy? No Christian texts on vellum have been found at Turfan, so the answer to this question will likely never be known. A research project is currently underway to document the writing materials used in manuscript fragments from Turfan and Dunhuang. Although the findings have not yet been published, an initial report indicates that “bark paper made of paper mulberry fibres” and “rag paper based on ramie and hemp fibres” make up “a significant proportion of Turfan and Dunhuang manuscripts.”628 There are also a few examples amongst the Uighur manuscripts 626

See Maróth, “Ein Brief”; N. Sims-Williams, “A Greek-Sogdian Bilingual from Bulayïq,” in La Persia e Bisanzio, Atti dei Convegni Lincei 201 (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), 2004, 623-31; N. Sims-Williams, “A New Fragment of the Book of Psalms in Sogdian,” in Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient: Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. D. Bumazhnov, E. Grypeou, T.B. Sailors and A. Toepel (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 461-66. On the larger question of the Melkite presence in Central Asia, see K. Parry, “Byzantine-Rite Christians (Melkites) in Central Asia in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages,” Modern Greek Studies, Australia and New Zealand 16 (2012), 91-108. 627 My thanks to Nicholas Sims-Williams for this information on Manichaean fragments (personal correspondence, July 7, 2013). 628 The joint project, which analyzed Chinese, Manichaean, Sanskrit, Syriac, Sogdian, Tocharian and Uighur manuscripts, is being conducted by Renate Nöller of the Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing (BAM), Berlin and Agnieszka Helman-Wazny of the University of Hamburg, Asia Africa Institute. For details, see R. Nöller and A. HelmanWazny, “The Materials of Turfan and Dunhuang Manuscripts: Analysis of Paper, Pigments and Dyes,” IDP News, No. 41 (Spring 2013), 6-7, available at http://idp.bl.uk/downloads/newsletters/IDPNews41.pdf, from which the quotations in this 199

from Turfan of the use of dark blue paper made from indigo, written on with yellow ink made from orpiment, but none of these are Christian texts.629 Not surprisingly, most texts were written in black ink, with rubrics and certain punctuation marks in red ink. However, a number of the Christian texts (in both Syriac and Sogdian scripts) appear to be in brown ink. The aforementioned research project has determined that “manuscripts with Uighur on one side and Chinese on the other side were written with black carbon inks… most of the red inks used, including those on stamps, show a mixture of cinnabar with red lead.” It is not yet clear what the apparently brown inks in some of the Christian manuscript fragments were made from, as they have not yet been analyzed.630 Fragment Formats and Dimensions The condition of the Syriac fragments from Turfan ranges from those that are largely intact to those that were subjected to willful vandalism at some point prior to their discovery. There are remnants of several bound codices, although no covers have survived. Pre-eminent amongst these codices is a 61-folio Syriac liturgical book (MIK III 45), to which other fragments can be joined to form what is known as Ḥudra D [Fig. 8-2].631 Amongst partial remnants of smaller booklets (again without covers) are two Psalters: Psalter C (SyrHT 72) and Psalter E (SyrHT 71), consisting of only nine and four folios respectively [Fig. 8-3]. There are also many bifolia, as well as many individual folios, which seem to have been torn from their bindings; some are intact, but many are ripped in half horizontally, vertically or diagonally or have corners torn off. Finally, there are numerous small fragments (some with margins, some without) and several long strips torn horizontally or vertically from folios. Occasionally, it is possible to make a join between two or more pieces, but many fragments remain as orphans and the process of reconstructing folios, let alone original manuscripts, is laborious. section of the article are taken. It is not yet clear to what extent the project findings can be generalized to all of the Turfan material. 629 See particularly U 3831 and U 3832 on the Turfanforschung website. 630 On writing materials, pens and inks in Syriac manuscript production, see W.H.P. Hatch, An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts (Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1946), 3-11. 631 In accordance with the practice of the anonymous compiler of a type-written hand-list of the Syriac fragments from Turfan, Hunter and Dickens, VOHD 5,2 refers to individual Psalters, Lectionaries, Gospels, Ḥudras and Ṭaksas by capital letters, e.g. Psalter E, Lectionary A, Ḥudra C and so on. For a more in-depth explanation, see the Introduction to this catalogue. The transcription and translation of Ḥudra D, with a particular focus on MIK III 45, is the focus of another AHRC project currently being led by Dr. Erica C. D. Hunter. 200

Of the fragments in Syriac script, the tallest is n222, a long skinny strip (39.5 x 1.0 cm) that may have originally been a bilingual Syriac-Sogdian lectionary, although there is not enough extant to verify this. The tallest original manuscript with intact folios was the bilingual Syriac-Sogdian lectionary E3,632 whose one remaining folio, n190, measures 30.0 x 22.5 cm. By contrast, the shortest Syriac manuscripts with intact folios were Ḥudra Q (MIK III 111), measuring 6.5 x 12.0 cm—the only example of a horizontal “landscape” format found amongst the Syriac materials so far [Fig. 8-4]—and Prayer Booklet G (U 338), measuring 6.5 x 7.5 cm. Other liturgical, lectionary and Psalter texts range between these dimensions. In general, manuscripts with smaller dimensions were presumably for personal use, whereas larger ones were used in group situations, whether in the liturgy or in non-liturgical contexts in the monastery. Most of the texts with smaller dimensions were prayer booklets or amulets . Psalters are either smaller or medium-sized. Lectionaries, hagiographies and ascetical literature range from medium to large format. The identical dimensions and matching thread holes of the Legend of St. George (SyrHT 95) and the Christian-Jewish Dialogue (SyrHT 94), with intact folios of both measuring 17.5 x 10.5 cm, suggest that they were both part of a florilegium [Fig. 8-5]. Nearly all Syriac texts from Turfan contain only one column per page,633 although SyrHT 230, the one extant folio of Psalter P, has two columns per page, and U 7252, a folio possibly from the same original manuscript as the Sogdian Psalter (discussed below) has 6 columns. Column 1 contains Syriac letters from ‫ ܐ‬to ‫ܝܛ‬, representing the numbers 1-19. Columns 2 and 3 contain the same numerals, written plene in Sogdian and then Syriac (both in Syriac script). Column 4 contains a listing of words which do not correlate to the numerals in columns 1, 2 or 3; these were possibly used as mnemonic devices. Column 5 lists the Syriac letters ‫ܨ‬, ‫ܩ‬, ‫ܪ‬, ‫ܫ‬, ‫ ܬ‬and the word ‫ܐܠܦ‬, representing the numbers 90, 100, 200, 300, 400 and 1000. Finally, Column 6 spells out the equivalent Syriac numerals to the numbers in column 5. The folio thus appears to have been a means for Sogdian speakers to memorize the Syriac numbers, essential for reading many Syriac texts used in a monastic setting.634

632

Reconstructed manuscripts beginning with a capital E refer to the cataloguing scheme in Sims-Williams, VOHD 18,4. 633 On columns in Syriac manuscripts, see Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, 1314. 634 See Dickens, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts,” 30-32. 201

Manuscript Rulings and Repairs Thin grey and red rulings occur in a number of the Syriac fragments, but most are not ruled.635 There are several different ruling options. The aforementioned Syriac Psalter in Uighur script (SyrHT 20-27, MIK III 58) has one side margin ruled in grey (probably thinned down black ink), whereas a number of manuscripts, including Ḥudra K (SyrHT 32, SyrHT 33, SyrHT 37, SyrHT 40, SyrHT 179) and Ḥudra E (SyrHT 41) have one side margin ruled in red ink (single or double lines). Psalter F (SyrHT 90 & 91, SyrHT 92, SyrHT 93, SyrHT 172, SyrHT 173), along with two of the Syriac-Sogdian lectionaries (E3 and E6), have both side margins ruled in grey; Psalter F in particular elongates the ends of each line to reach the ruled margin [Fig. 8-6]. There are also numerous examples of both side margins and horizontal lines being ruled in grey or red, including Psalter C, Psalter E, Psalter N, Lectionary B, Ḥudra Q and Ḥudra BB. Cells in the aforementioned calendrical tables are ruled in either black or red ink (SyrHT 67-70, SyrHT 273, So 15850, U 3858).636 There are two prominent examples—both probably from the same original manuscript, a Sogdian Psalter in Sogdian script—where the text block (all four margins) is ruled in black. The first example is the aforementioned U 7252, which probably initially had a blank verso before that side was written on in Uighur (both Syriac and Uighur script). The second example (see above) is MIK III 59, containing part of a hymn and the Nicene Creed, both in Sogdian. In the latter, the text is in Sogdian script, but there are rubrics in Syriac script, first in Sogdian and then in Syriac itself, identifying the text as ‫ܛܪܣܐܩܝܐܝ ܘܪܢܝ‬, “The faith of Christianity” and ‫ܡܗܝܡܢܝܢܢ ܒܚܕ‬, “We believe in one” (the Syriac abbreviation for the Nicene Creed). On both the recto and verso of this folio, two names (those of the owners?) are written in Sogdian script: Yuhanis (Syr. ‫ )ܝܘܚܢܝܣ‬and Khatun, a Uighur word (derived from Sogdian) for “lady, wife of a lord.”637 A final technical aspect to consider is the prevalence of patching with paper strips and the re-use of fragments (again, focussing on Syriac examples). Repair strips or patches are visible on many fragments, usually on the inner margin, a reminder of the value of paper and the need to repair it to ensure 635

On rulings in Syriac manuscripts, see Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, 14-17. Images of all the calendrical fragments can be found in Dickens and Sims-Williams, “Christian Calendrical Fragments.” 637 See the footnote above on these two texts found in MIK III 59. On the word khatun, see G. Clauson, An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 602. An image of this text can be found in Müller, “Soghdische Texte I,” Taf. II. 202 636

ongoing use.638 Examples include the following folios from Ḥudra A: SyrHT 35 and SyrHT 56 & 57. There are also numerous examples of the re-use of paper, where unrelated texts have been written on the blank sides of folios or texts have even been cut to serve a non-literary use. Thus, SyrHT 3 and n296 are two adjacent folios of a Chinese Daoist text, on the back of which (the originally blank verso) a Syriac liturgical text with Sogdian rubrics was later written; subsequently, they were either left as two folios or possibly glued together as a single folio of double thickness [Fig. 8-7]. A different example of re-use is evident in SyrHT 83 and SyrHT 84, another Syriac liturgical text with instructions to the priest in Sogdian, subsequently overwritten in large letters in both Syriac and Uighur (in Uighur script).639 Perhaps most interesting, but certainly not unique amongst Silk Road finds,640 is n348, a Sogdian prayer containing a Syriac phrase; the fold lines suggest that it initially served as a book wrapper, but the actual shape of the fragment clearly shows that it was subsequently used as a shoe insole [Fig. 8-8]. Dating None of the Christian manuscript fragments from Turfan have dates according to the Seleucid era.641 In fact, other than a few references in Sogdian or Uighur Christian texts to the 12-year animal cycle used for dating in the Chinese and Turkic calendrical system, such as “the year of the Ox” found in U 338,642 there are no other dates to be found in the Christian texts. One fragment of a Sogdian calendrical text (n288) mentions “Former Teshri of the Tiger year” and, after a lacuna, “the number (of the year of the Greeks) was...” but, frustratingly, the actual date is missing.643 Further palaeographical analysis and radio-carbon testing is needed, but a few Syriac texts have been tentatively dated, based on palaeography, notably 1) SyrHT 1, a frag638

Sims-Williams, Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2, 16 suggests that, in the case of the Christian Sogdian manuscript C2, “a narrow strip of paper [was] glued along the central fold of each double-sheet.” More study of the Syriac fragments is required to determine if this is the case with any of the Syriac fragments. 639 See Raschmann, “Traces of Christian communities,” 417-18. Images of SyrHT 83 are included in Dickens, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts,” Fig. 2-3 = [Fig. 4-2] & [Fig. 4-3] in this book. 640 The high value of paper along the Silk Road meant that it was not thrown out, but was recycled, not only so that texts in other languages could be written on blank sides, but also to be cut and used in clothing or footwear, on which see V. Hansen, The Silk Road: A New History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 3-4, 83-84, 94, 137, 151-152. 641 On the dating of Syriac manuscripts, see Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, 1820. 642 See Dickens, “Syro-Uigurica II,” 318. 643 See Dickens and Sims-Williams, “Christian Calendrical Fragments,” 277. 203

ment of a pharmaceutical recipe book, dated by Miklós Maróth to the ninth or tenth century644; 2) SyrHT 2, the aforementioned draft letter, dated by Maróth to the tenth century;645 3) SyrHT 41-43, three bifolia from Ḥudra E, initially dated by Eduard Sachau to the eleventh or twelfth century and subsequently by Erica C.D. Hunter to the mid-thirteenth century;646 4) SyrHT 95 and seven other fragments, remnants of the Legend of St. George, dated by Maróth to the tenth or eleventh centuries647 and 5) MIK III 45, the 61-folio core of Ḥudra D, dated by Sachau to the ninth or tenth century and compared by Hieronymus Engberding with British Library Add. 12138, dated to 899 CE.648 Comparison with the plates in William Hatch’s Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts may help to assign approximate dates to more of the Syriac fragments from Turfan, but even here one must be careful, since similar writing styles may indicate one of two possible options: 1) the Turfan scribes were aware of scribal practice in the Middle Eastern heartland of Syriac Christianity and therefore wrote the same way that their co-religionists to the west did; or, 2) these scribes were merely copying exemplars from the Middle East that were considerably older, thus perpetuating earlier scribal styles that were no longer in vogue to the west. Some of the Uighur Christian texts have been dated by Peter Zieme to the Mongol Yuan era (the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries), based on the occurrence of certain words, specifically SyrHT 27, a folio from the aforementioned Syriac Psalter in Uighur script, which contains Persian, Tibetan and Turkic words in a Uighur colophon (discussed below), and U 338, a small Uighur prayer booklet with Syriac sections, based on the occurrence of the term ärkägün to refer to Christians. 649 According to Nicholas SimsWilliams, the Sogdian Christian texts (none of which contain any dates or references to historical events) can be roughly dated to the ninth or tenth centuries, based on palaeographical comparison with other (non-Christian) Sogdian texts. Therefore, we can probably date the corpus to between the ninth and fourteenth centuries (thus, from the late Tang dynasty to the late Yuan dynasty); perhaps not coincidentally, this is the period when the Uighur 644

Maróth, “Ein Fragment,” 115. Maróth, “Ein Brief,” 283. 646 E. Sachau, “Litteratur-Bruchstücke aus Chinesisch-Turkistan,” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1905), 969; Hunter, “Christian Library,” 335. 647 Maróth, “Eine unbekannte Version,” 86. 648 Sachau, “Litteratur-Bruchstücke,” 973; H. Engberding, “Fünf Blätter eines alten ostsyrischen Bitt- und Bußgottesdienstes aus Innerasien,” Ostkirchliche Studien 14 (1965), 123. 649 On this term, see Dickens, “Syro-Uigurica II,” 309, n. 16. 204 645

Kingdom of Qocho flourished as an independent polity in the area. If the fragments can be dated as early as suggested above, then they are amongst the earliest Syriac texts extant on paper, which is not surprising given their origins in a region dominated by paper long before its popularity in the Middle East, as noted above.650 Palaeography Nearly all of the Christian fragments are written in what is essentially the Estrangela form of Syriac, with certain letters influenced by what would later evolve into the East Syriac script, resulting in what William Wright called “Nestorian Esṭrangelâ,” described by Hatch as “not unlike that found in some Esṭrangelâ manuscripts of the same period. Nestorian vowels are sparingly used [ca. 600]… [but] much more numerous in a text… copied in the third quarter of the eighth century.”651 There are no examples in the Turfan corpus of the distinctive “Nestorian” or East Syriac script found in later manuscripts, not surprising, since it only superseded the “Nestorian Esṭrangelâ” style in the Middle East in the thirteenth century652 and may not have reached Turfan until the final days of the Christian community there, probably sometime in the fourteenth century. However, there are a few places where letters resemble the Serta style of Syriac. This is not unheard of, since, as Hatch notes, both Estrangela and Serta forms of the following letters can be found in “Nestorian” texts: aleph, daleth, he, waw, mim, semkath, rish and taw.653. Indeed, dual forms of all of these occur in the Turfan corpus, with the exception of daleth and rish, where we only find the Serta forms. In the vast majority of cases, he also appears in the closed Serta form, but occasionally the open Estrangela form is used (e.g. MIK III 110) [Fig. 8-9]. Final semkath in names or Greek loan-words often has a vertical tail (e.g. SyrHT 78). In contrast to the above examples of dual usage of both Estrangela and Serta forms in “Nestorian” texts, Hatch asserts that such texts only use the Estrangela forms of final kaph, final mim, qaph and shin, and the Serta form of final nun.654 Indeed, the Christian texts from Turfan only use the Estrangela forms of final mim, qaph and shin. However, we find both forms of final kaph and final nun. Of particular interest in these texts is the formation of two letters: lamad, the top of which often ends in a “bulb” or angles either 650

As Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, 7 notes, “the earliest known example of a Syriac text written on paper” dates from 932. 651 Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, 28. 652 Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, 28. 653 Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, 31-38. 654 Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, 35, 38-39. 205

forward or back, forming a hook; and pe in some Syriac texts, which seems to have been influenced by ‫ݏ‬, the adapted pe used for the sound /f/ in Sogdian texts written in Syriac script. Also distinctive, and indicative of the role that Uighur-speakers played in copying Syriac manuscripts, is the (presumably unintentional) substitution of the Uighur letter mīm for the Syriac letter ‫ ܡ‬in the word ‫ ܡܫܒܚܝܢܢ‬in SyrHT 204 [Fig. 8-10]. Punctuation and Vocalization The punctuation used in the Christian texts from Turfan ranges from single dots (black or red) through double horizontal or double vertical dots (all black or all red), triple horizontal dots (all black or all red), triple vertical dots (black-red-black or red-black-red) and triple diagonal black dots, to quadruple dots, either black-red-black or red-black-red;655 the latter two options are frequently used to flank headings in the text or marginalia and in some cases the red dots are elongated into “flames,” usually to flank marginalia, evident in three different Ḥudras: Ḥudra J (e.g. SyrHT 31), Ḥudra F (e.g. SyrHT 327) and Ḥudra L (e.g. SyrHT 149) [Fig. 8-11]. More complex versions of quadruple dots, sometimes to flank marginalia, are evident in the following fragments: SyrHT 47, SyrHT 186, SyrHT 256 and SyrHT 298. As noted above, East Syriac pointing is used to mark vocalization on many texts. The following points are found in the texts (here following the common names used to designate East Syriac vowel signs): ptaḥa (‫ = )ܒ‬a; zqapa (‫ ܵܒ‬or ‫ = )ܒ‬ā; zlama pšiqa (‫ = )ܒ‬e; zlama qašya (‫ = )ܒ‬ē; assaqa (‫= )ܝـ‬ i, ē (or a vowel in between); ḥbaṣa (‫ = )ܝـ‬ī; rwaḥa (‫ = )ܘ‬o and alaṣa or rbaṣa (‫ = )ܘ‬u. Of these, the markings for zlama pšiqa (e) and zlama qašya (ē) seem to be particularly prominent.656 However, the frequency of vocalization requires more study to see if this might give clues to possible pronunciation issues for the non-Syriac speakers using these texts. Were there some vowels which required specific notation to ensure proper pronunciation by those reading the texts or were scribes merely copying the vowel signs found in their manuscript exemplars? Two texts that feature frequent examples of vo655

42.

656

On punctuation in Syriac manuscripts, see Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts,

The vowel names and their phonetic values are taken from J. B. Segal, The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac, London Oriental Series, Vol. 2 (London, New York & Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1953), xi, 152-53, supplemented by T. Arayathinal, Aramaic (Syriac) Grammar, Vol. 1. Mannanam, India: St. Joseph's Press, 1959. [Reprint, Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007], 7-8. It should be noted that the phonetic values of some of these diacritics have changed over time, particularly zlāmā pšiqā, assāqā and ḥbāṣā (all of which designate various palatal vowels), as is made clear in Segal, Diacritical Point, 25-32. 206

calization are SyrHT 45 & 46, the Syriac Legend of Mar Barshabba [Fig. 812], and SyrHT 72, the aforementioned booklet containing nine folios from Psalter C. Other East Syriac Pointing There are no instances of quššaya or rukkaka, but seyame is commonly used, although it is frequently missing in places where it ought to have been included. However, this is not uncommon in Syriac manuscripts, so it may not be an indication of anything other than scribal sloppiness. Curiously, there are several instances of seyame being used in non-plural words, often ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܝܘܠܝܛܐ‬, ‫ܝܫܘܥ‬, ‫ܡܨ̈ܪܝܢ‬, ‫)ܨܝܕܢ‬. Its occurrence in the names (e.g. ‫ܓܝܘܪܓܝܤ‬, ̈ name ‫ܝܘܠܝܛܐ‬, Julitta, may be an example of Sogdian language interference in Syriac scribal techniques, since the Sogdian Christian manuscripts often use seyame to indicate the vowel -ē on a final aleph in a non-plural word (obviously originating in the fact that the most common Syriac plural form involved the final aleph taking the vowel -ē). However, the practice seems to have been generalized in the names listed above (George, Julitta, Jesus, Egypt, Sidon) beyond just words with a final aleph, and in some of these ̈ words we would expect the vowel -i, not -ē (e.g. ‫ܝܫܘܥ‬ seems to indicate the West Syriac pronunciation Yešuʿ, not the East Syriac Išoʿ). As with the standard use of seyame to mark plurals, this Sogdian use of the sign to indicate vocalization does not require its placement on any specific letter.657 Quite common is the use of a line above letters to indicate abbreviations, ̄ ̄ such as ‫ ܬܫܒܘ‬for ‫ ܐܝ̄ ;ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ‬for ‫ ܐܝܩܪܐ‬and ‫ ܬܘ‬for ‫( ܬܘܕܝܬܐ‬e.g. SyrHT 66 and SyrHT 221).658 Other forms of pointing are commonly found, including the East Syriac forms of certain pronouns (e.g. ‫ܗܘ‬, ‫ ;)ܗܝ‬forms of the verb ‫( ܗܘܐ‬e.g. ‫ܗܘܐ‬, ‫ܗܘܘ‬, ‫ܗܘܝ‬, ‫ܗܘܬ‬, ‫ܗܘܝܬ‬, ‫ܢܗܘܐ‬, ‫ܬܗܘܐ‬, ‫ )ܐܢܗܘ‬and diacritics used to differentiate homographs (e.g. ‫ܥ ̇ܘܠܐ‬, awla, “wicked” vs. ‫ܥ ̣ܘܠܐ‬, ula, “embryo, fetus”), or the plural forms of homographs (‫ܥܒܕܐ ;ܥܘܠܐ‬, ‫ܐܢܝܢ‬, ‫)[ܢ]ܦܫܝ‬. Examples can be seen on SyrHT 72, fol. 1, 4 and 6 [Fig. 8-3].

657

My thanks to Nicholas Sims-Williams for this information about the Sogdian usage of seyame (personal correspondence, Aug. 1, 2013) 658 See Brock and Sims-Williams, “Early fragment” for examples. For an image of SyrHT 66, see Dickens, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts,” Fig. 1= [Fig. 4-1] in this book. 207

Rubrics and Marginalia Rubrics occur on most fragments, characteristically to indicate a heading or the beginning of a new section of the text. In the Psalters, rubrics are often used for one or more of the Psalm numbers, the Psalm headings or the canons of Mar Aba (again, SyrHT 72 provides good examples of these rubrics) [Fig. 8-3]. In lectionaries, rubrics are used to indicate the day and the biblical book from which the reading is taken; in liturgical texts, they are used to mark sections of the service or to give instructions to the priest, especially in Syriac liturgical texts with the instructions in Sogdian. An interesting counterexample, where red ink predominates, is M 7340, a folio from the New Persian pharmacological text in Syriac script mentioned above. Marginalia are used to alert the reader to new sections in the text, particularly in the biblical or liturgical texts. Thus, they may duplicate in the margin rubric headings in the text intended to help the priest or deacon find his place. These marginalia are usually written vertically in black ink, most often with quadruple dots flanking each side (black-red-black or red-black-red). As noted above, sometimes the red dots on the sides are elongated into “flames.” An example in a biblical text is SyrHT 123, containing John 3:21-36 from Gospel A, where ‫ ܀܀ܓ܀܀‬in the outer margin indicates the beginning of ‫( ܨܚܚܐ‬section) 3 of the Gospel of John in the Peshitta text (these biblical sections do not correspond to the chapter divisions familiar to most Western readers). For the use of marginalia in Psalters, see SyrHT 72, fol. 3 and 5. Several Sogdian Christian texts, including n24 (a Sogdian translation in Syriac script of Dadishoʿ Qaṭraya’s Commentary on the Fifteenth Homily of Abba Isaiah), have Syriac numerals in the margin corresponding to Sogdian ordinal numbers in rubric in the text. In some Sogdian texts, the marginalia mixes Sogdian (in Syriac script) and Syriac, such as n489, containing excerpts from the Apophthegmata Patrum, where a marginal note reads ‫܀ ܨܢ ܡܡܠܠܐ‬ ̈ , “From [Sogdian cn]659 ‘The Discourse of the Old Men.’”660 ‫ܕܣܒܐ ܀‬ Quires and Verso Marks Although no complete codices survive amongst the Christian texts from Turfan, evidence of the quires that they contained can be seen in a few folios from the extant remnants of booklets with stitching thread intact (particularly noticeable in the two Psalter booklets SyrHT 71 and SyrHT 72) [Fig. 8-3]. On other folios, particularly bifolia, stitching holes are plainly visible (e.g. 659 660

In Christian Sogdian, the Syriac letter ‫ ܨ‬is transcribed as c and pronounced as /č/. See Sims-Williams, Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2, fol. 60. 208

SyrHT 78, SyrHT 80, SyrHT 94 and SyrHT 95) [Fig. 8-5]. Quires in Syriac manuscripts were generally formed from four or five sheets, resulting in eight or ten leaves/folios after they were folded, with quire numbers placed at the bottom of the page, usually at the end of each quire, but occasionally at both the beginning and end of a quire.661 Based on his work on the Sogdian Christian manuscript C2 (now designated E27), Sims-Williams has calculated that, where there are enough extant folios to reach a conclusion, the quires at Turfan typically consisted of five sheets (ten leaves/folios). However, it seems that the system of quire marks was different from that generally used for Syriac manuscripts, a fact first observed by Werner Sundermann and later clarified by Sims-Williams: “the first page of the MS was not numbered, the letter ‫ ܐ‬being placed on the last page of the first quire and the first page of the second… ‫ ܒ‬on the last page of the second and the first of the third quire… ‫ ܓ‬on the last page of the third quire and the first page of the fourth…”662 As both Sundermann and Sims-Williams noted, this arrangement can be seen on two adjacent folios from Psalter C—SyrHT 72, fol. 4v and 5r—both of which are marked with ‫ ܀ܦ܀‬in the lower right and lower left corners [Fig. 8-13]. Sims-Williams comments that these quire marks on Psalter C are “striking confirmation of the existence of such a system of numbering quires at the Bulayïq scriptorium… to order the quires correctly the binder merely had to match pairs of identical symbols. Since the monks of Bulayïq may not all have been literate in Syriac, the system suggested might therefore have had a real advantage over the usual method, which required that the binder be acquainted with the order of the Syriac alphabet.”663 Quire marks (or at least the punctuation on either side) are visible elsewhere on Psalter C,664 as well as a number of other Syriac and Sogdian texts.665 Several folios from liturgi661

On quires in Syriac manuscripts, see Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, 22-24. Sims-Williams, Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2, 15-16 (with the Latin transliterations of the Syriac letters in the original here replaced with the letters in Syriac script), with reference to previous discussion in W. Sundermann, “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers „Soghdischen Texten I“, 2. Teil,” Altorientalische Forschungen 3 (1975), 85-90. 663 Sims-Williams, Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2, 15. 664 SyrHT 72, fol. 2r, 3r (not adjacent) and SyrHT 348. 665 Syriac examples include Psalter D (SyrHT 191), Lectionary B (SyrHT 300), Gospel B (SyrHT 325), Ḥudra F (SyrHT 81, SyrHT 85, SyrHT 145, SyrHT 231, SyrHT 327), Ḥudra O (SyrHT 156), Taska A (SyrHT 194, SyrHT 195) and a possible monastic profession (SyrHT 76). Christian Sogdian examples include E5, a Sogdian lectionary with Syriac rubrics (n154, n162, n160, n161) and four compilations of miscellaneous texts: E26 (n145, n104?, n114); E27, formerly C2 (n494, n489, n493, n36); E28 (n367, n257, n334) and E29 (n196). 209 662

cal texts have blank sides, presumably the beginning or end of quires, upon which additional notes have been written, sometimes in Syriac, but often in Sogdian or Uighur. Examples can be found on select folios from Ḥudra D (MIK III 45) and Ḥudra H (SyrHT 122, SyrHT 124, SyrHT 287).666 Verso marks are also evident on many of the Christian fragments from Turfan. One mark in particular occurs quite commonly on the verso side of many (but not all) fragments from certain Syriac texts. It appears to be a cross preceded by the word ‫ܚܝܐ‬, “living, alive, life-giving” (perhaps to indicate “the life-giving cross”?) and is found in the following remnants of manuscripts (sample folios in parentheses): Lectionary A (SyrHT 48 & 49), Psalter G (SyrHT 96), Ḥudra F (SyrHT 82, SyrHT 107, SyrHT 150, SyrHT 227), Ḥudra J (e.g. SyrHT 75), Psalter N (SyrHT 181), Service book E12 (SyrHT 88) and the Legend of Mar Barshabba (SyrHT 45 & 46). It also occurs on some Sogdian Christian fragments in Syriac script, specifically the lectionary E5 (n153, n158, n162, n165) [Fig. 8-14]. Musical Recitation Accents and Other Distinguishing Marks Recitation accents designed to indicate the melody for chanting the text are found on nearly thirty fragments, most from lectionaries, whether Syriac, Syriac-Sogdian or Sogdian (all in Syriac script). These accents were discussed as early as 1919 by Egon Wellesz.667 They can be seen on folios and fragments originally belonging to Syriac Lectionaries A and B (e.g. SyrHT 48 & 49, SyrHT 241), Syriac-Sogdian Lectionaries E1, E2, E3, E4 and E6 (e.g. n190, n201, n212) and Sogdian lectionary E5 (n153) [Fig. 8-15]. A number of other marks were employed by the Turfan scribes, including: 1) a black X at the end of lines (e.g. SyrHT 1); 2) a black St. Andrew’s cross with four red dots (e.g. SyrHT 35); 3) line fillers (e.g. SyrHT 62, n122); 4) floral designs or embellishments (e.g. SyrHT 80, SyrHT 223, SyrHT 259) and 5) a verso mark consisting of three dots (representing the Trinity?) (SyrHT 202) [Fig. 8-16]. Scribal Errors and Corrections There are many instances in the Christian fragments from Turfan of errors that have been subsequently corrected, with corrections written either above the line or in the margin. Typical examples can be seen on the following fragments: SyrHT 28, SyrHT 42, SyrHT 43, SyrHT 61, SyrHT 65, SyrHT 666

See Dickens, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts,” Fig. 6= [Fig. 4-6] in this book. E. Wellesz, “Miscellanea zur orientalischen Musikgeschichte. Die Lektionszeichen in den soghdischen Texten,” Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft, I (1919), 505-15. 210 667

75 and SyrHT 82. Scribal errors and corrections are particularly interesting (and even amusing, given the content) in the Christian-Jewish Dialogue (SyrHT 94). Rubrics indicate when the Jew and Christian are speaking, but the original scribe has mixed the two up in places—side (a), right, ll. 15-16 and side (a), left, l. 24 to side (b), right, l. 1—resulting in the Christian asking the questions and the Jew giving the answers. A subsequent reader has crossed out ‫ ܟܪܣܛܝܢܐ‬and replaced it with ‫( ܝܗܘܕܝܐ‬or vice versa) wherever the original scribe got confused about who had the questions and who had the answers [Fig. 8-17]! A comparison of the extant Psalters with the Peshitta text has turned up a host of uncorrected spelling errors that clearly confirm the scribes were not native Syriac speakers (depending on the date of these texts, they were either Sogdian or Uighur speakers). Three examples from SyrHT 91 and SyrHT 92, folios belonging to Psalter F, will serve to make the point: 1) ‫( ܒܒܪܬܐ‬bbarta, “with a daughter/egg”) instead of ‫( ܒܒܪܕܐ‬b-barda, “with hail”); 2) ‫( ܠܬܗܘܡܐ‬lathuma, “to the abyss”) instead of ‫( ܠܬܚܘܡܐ‬latḥuma, “to the border”); 3) ‫( ܚܟܡܬܐ‬ḥekmtā, “wisdom”) instead of ‫( ܚܡܬܐ‬ḥemtā, “anger, wrath”). In many cases, these errors suggest that, when some scribes were copying the exemplars, they relied as much on their memorized knowledge of a frequently recited text as they did on careful reading of the text being copied. Given that the Psalter in particular was recited in monastic communities many times throughout the year, it is not surprising that scribes would have such texts memorized and, unless they were well-trained, that they could easily make spelling errors based on phonologically-similar letters (e.g. ‫ ܕ‬and ‫ ܬ‬or ‫ ܚ‬and ‫ܗ‬, both examples of sounds typically confused in writing by Uighur speakers) or orthographically-similar words (e.g. ‫ ܚܡܬܐ‬and ‫)ܚܟܡܬܐ‬.668 Whether or not these spelling errors can answer the question of where the texts were copied—in Turfan itself or possibly in Sogdiana (modern-day Uzbekistan and Tajikistan)—is a matter that will require more research to address. Illustrations There are very few illustrations in the Christian texts from Turfan, particularly amongst the Syriac material. Crosses are visible on SyrHT 99, a pray668

Other examples of uncorrected spelling errors can be found in Dickens, “Importance of the Psalter,” 370-72. The same phenomenon is discussed in Dickens and Zieme, “SyroUigurica I.” 211

er-amulet, and on SyrHT 152, a very small unidentified fragment which may also be a prayer-amulet. Both are typical East Syriac crosses, ending in “pearls” on the tips. The former, more crudely drawn, is mounted on what appears to be a lotus flower flanked by clouds, iconography reminiscent of the cross at the top of the Xi’an stele (traditionally referred to as the “Nestorian Monument”), as well as some of the Mongol-era Christian gravestones found in Quanzhou, China (medieval Zaytun).669 The cross on SyrHT 152 is evidence of more careful penmanship, with each arm of the cross divided in half and additional pearls drawn in the quadrants between the four arms [Fig. 8-18]. Perhaps the most interesting illustration in the Syriac material is contained in SyrHT 386, a single folio with fold-lines (suggesting it may have been used as an amulet?) on which Psalm 148:1-3 is written in reverse order, with the first line at the bottom and subsequent lines written above it (includ̈ “his angels,” which is divided between two lines, ing the word ‫ܡܠܐܟܘܗܝ‬ starting on l. 4 and ending on l. 3).670 Around a pre-existing hole in the paper, someone has drawn on the reverse side a face with hair on top and what appear to be the upper and lower ear lobes on each side (there are no facial features of course, since this is where the lacuna is located). When the folio is folded over along the existing fold lines, the hole frames two letters upsidedown (‫ )ܘܗ‬which are suggestive of an eye and a nose.671 A more developed illustration can be found on U 5179, a fragment in Uighur script mentioning the Apostle Matthew which has a Uighur face complete with a hat and beard (as well as ears that look very similar to those on SyrHT 386) drawn on one side [Fig. 8-19]. Colophons and Scribal Hands There are, unfortunately, almost no colophons in the Christian texts from Turfan, certainly none that give clear Seleucid dates, as noted above.672 The only places in which scribes identify themselves are in marginal notes and in most cases these are in different hands from those that wrote the manuscripts in question, so it is unclear if they were indeed scribes or just bored monks 669

On the latter, see S.N.C. Lieu et al, Medieval Christian and Manichaean Remains from Quanzhou (Zayton), Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum: Series Archaeologica et Iconographica II (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012). 670 The full text is given in Dickens, “Biblical Fragments.” 671 Determined by manipulating a double-sided photocopy of the image, not the actual fragment! 672 A good discussion on Syriac manuscript colophons is found in Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, 17-18. 212

who decided to write down something for posterity. Interestingly, there are at least two fragments on which “John the sinner” has added a marginal note. On the verso of U 5545 (the recto contains a Uighur text in Uighur script), along with four partially illegible lines in Syriac script (seemingly in a combination of Syriac and Sogdian), we read at right angles to the above ‫ܝܘܚܢܢ‬ ‫ܚܛܝܐ ܡܠܬܐ (؟) ܟܬܒܬ‬, “John, the sinner—I wrote the word/sentence (?).” Meanwhile, on SyrHT 287, the originally blank verso side of a folio from Ḥudra H (perhaps the end of a quire), is written, first in Syriac, ]‫[ܝܘܚܢܢ‬ ‫ ܥܠܝ‬.‫ܚܛܝܐ ܨܠܘ‬, and then Syriac transliterated into Uighur, ywxn x[ty]’ sl’w ’ly, “John, the sinner—pray for me.”673 There are also two texts showing evidence of interaction between Syriac and Uighur which have colophons or colophon-like portions. As noted above, SyrHT 27, one of the folios of the Syriac Psalter in Uighur script, contains three lines in Uighur (not Syriac) as follows: bo nišan m(ä)niŋ ol, “This nišan [Persian] is mine”; bo lači mäniŋ ol, “This lači [Tibetan] is mine”; bo tamga mäniŋ ol, “This tamga [Turkic] is mine.” Beside each line is an individual’s personal mark (the nišan, lači and tamga referred to), although it is unclear who the individual in question is. No date is connected with the extant folios of this text.674 The second text of interest is the small bilingual SyriacUighur prayer booklet U 338; as noted above, it contains a colophon mentioning the “year of the Cow/Ox, the first month, on the twenty-third (day),” but without a Seleucid date, it is impossible to know which of the years of the Cow/Ox is being referred to.675 There are a number of very distinctive scribal hands found amongst the Christian fragments from Turfan. One of the most appealing hands is found in the reconstructed Sogdian Christian manuscript E24 (in Syriac script), containing three hagiographical texts: the Legend of the Discovery of the Cross by Helena (n181, n179, n188, n184, n185, n183), the Martyrdom of Sergius and Bacchus (n182) and the Legend of Mar Barshabba (n180, n186, MIK III 44, n189)676 [Fig. 8-20]. Another singular hand is that of Ḥudra C (SyrHT 65, SyrHT 187), which contains instances of the letter ‫ ܦ‬possibly influenced by the Syro-Sogdian letter for /f/ (‫)ݏ‬, as noted above [Fig. 8-10]. One of the most elegant scribal hands is that found in Ḥudra D, particularly MIK III 45, also discussed above [Fig. 8-2]. Two other Syriac scribal hands that stand out 673

See Dickens, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts,” 32-33. As Hatch, Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts, 17 notes, the “deprecatory epithet” ‫ ܚܛܝܐ‬is commonly used by Syriac scribes. 674 For images of these Psalter fragments, see Dickens and Zieme, “Syro-Uigurica I.” 675 Again, see Dickens, “Syro-Uigurica II,” 318. 676 All published in Müller and Lentz, “Soghdische Texte II.” 213

are those found in the Legend of Barshabba in Syriac, extant in only one double folio (SyrHT 45 & 46) [Fig. 8-12], and in the single extant folio of Psalter G (SyrHT 96) [Fig. 8-21]. An important question that will take some in-depth comparison of the fragments to answer concerns which scribal hands were involved in writing manuscripts in two or more of the three primary languages used in the Turfan Christian community (namely Syriac, Sogdian and Uighur). Certainly, there are similarities among various scribal hands that need to be analyzed across the three languages. In addition to texts which are clearly the work of Sogdian or Uighur scribes (such as bilingual texts or those with spelling errors that help to identify the mother tongue of the scribe), identifying Syriac texts that were written by scribes who also copied or wrote Sogdian or Uighur texts would help to further narrow down the possible provenance of the Syriac texts in question. Those copied by Uighur scribes would almost certainly have been written in Turfan or one of the other communities along the northern branch of the Silk Road where Uighur was spoken, while those copied by Sogdian scribes could potentially have been written anywhere that Sogdian Christian communities were found along the Silk Road, from Sogdiana to China proper. Syriac texts that betray no evidence of a non-Syriac speaker/writer, and which were not demonstrably written by scribes who also wrote Sogdian or Uighur Christian texts, will require more sleuthing to determine provenance. This may prove difficult, given the discussion above about whether or not writing styles that are similar to dated Syriac hands are an indication of a common date of origin or the copying of earlier manuscripts that were perhaps a century or more out of date, in terms of scribal practice. Conclusion The Christian manuscript fragments from Turfan have much to teach us about the status of Christianity in a monastic outpost of the Church of the East, far from the Syriac-speaking heartland in the Middle East. Surrounded by a very different culture than that of their co-religionists to the west, they managed to retain many of the distinctive features of Syriac scribal practice, producing manuscripts for use in ecclesiastical and other settings. Fragmentary as they are now, the codices that Sogdian and Uighur-speaking monks produced include probably the earliest Syriac texts on paper, including liturgical texts that pre-date textual reforms responsible for the current form of the Ḥudra and the Ṭaksa. For scholars interested in comparing representative texts of the various genres found at Turfan with those found elsewhere in the Syriac-speaking world, there is abundant material awaiting analysis. 214

Many of the questions stirred up by the Turfan material are as yet not fully answered: How much of the Christian material was written in Turfan and how much was written elsewhere, whether in Central Asia or the Middle East? Can palaeographic analysis provide more definitive dating for any of the texts? What can various clues, especially vocalization and spelling errors, tell us about the native language(s) of the scribes copying these texts and how they pronounced Syriac? What do the different scribal hands involved tell us about the development of Syriac scribal technique outside the heartland of the Church of the East, including the evolution of the Estrangela script? Which signs used by the Turfan scribes were innovations or preserved scribal practices lost elsewhere? And perhaps most important of all, what insights can these texts give us into the daily life of members of the monastic community, as well as other Christians living in Turfan?

215

9 BIBLICAL FRAGMENTS FROM THE CHRISTIAN LIBRARY OF TURFAN, AN EASTERN OUTPOST OF THE ANTIOCHIAN TRADITION Mark DICKENS, SOAS (London)677 Original publication information: “Biblical Fragments from the Christian Library of Turfan, an Eastern Outpost of the Antiochian Tradition,” in The School of Antioch: Biblical Theology and the Church in Syria (The Bible in the Christian Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 6), ed. Vahan Hovhanessian (Bern: Peter Lang, 2016), pp. 19-40, 87-97. Introduction The modern-day city of Turfan (or Turpan), is located at 42˚52’ N, 89˚12’ E, approximately 160 km SE of Urumchi, the capital of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in western China, which is in turn bounded to the north by Mongolia, to the south by Tibet and to the west by Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. Situated on the northern perimeter of the Tarim Basin and the Taklamakan Desert, the Turfan Oasis was an important staging post at the junction of two branches of the trade route now called the Silk Road which crisscrossed Central Asia, linking the Chinese Empire to the east and the Persian, Byzantine and later Arab Empires to the west. As a result, Turfan also played a key role in the political, cultural and religious history of the area, particularly amongst the Turkic peoples. After the rise and fall of the First and Second Türk Empires (552-630, 682-742) in what is now Mongolia, the Turkic Uyghurs established their own Uyghur Empire in 744, also centred in Mongolia. They in turn were toppled by the Kyrgyz in 840 and the Uyghurs scattered, fleeing south to form several smaller states. One of these states, the Uyghur Kingdom of Qocho, established in the Turfan Oasis ca. 860, lasted more than 400 years, until the Mongols finally absorbed it into their empire in 1284. During those four centuries, Turfan was an extremely important cultural and religious centre in Central Asia. The Uy677

I am grateful to the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preussischer Kulturbesitz and the BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften for access to and permission to reproduce images of the relevant fragments. All images are copyright Depositum der BERLINBRANDENBURGISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN in der STAATSBIBLIOTHEK ZU BERLIN - Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Orientabteilung. 216

ghurs, who had adopted Manichaeism as their state religion in 763 during the height of their political power, continued to practice that religion in Turfan, although their movement southwards from Mongolia brought them into increasing contact with Buddhism, the dominant religion in Central Asia east of the Tien Shan Mountains at the time. By the Mongol era, the majority of Uyghurs had adopted Buddhism (their eventual conversion to Islam was not completed until the 15th century). Between 1902 and 1914, four Prussian archaeological expeditions to Turfan brought back a wealth of manuscript fragments and other artefacts to be deposited in Berlin.678 40,000 fragments in 20 scripts and 22 languages are now divided between the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, the Oriental Department of the State Library of Berlin and the Museum for Asian Art. Not surprisingly, most manuscript remnants are from Buddhist or Manichaean texts, but a significant minority (somewhat over 1100), brought back by the Second and Third Prussian Turfan Expeditions (1904-1907), are Christian, most of which are written in the Syriac script, dating from the 9th to the 13th/14th century. These fragments are the subject of The Christian Library at Turfan Project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council of the United Kingdom and based in the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.679 Christian Manuscripts from Turfan680 With the possible exception of a few fragments which may originate in the Melkite (Orthodox) community in Tashkent,681 the Christian library from 678

On these expeditions and the resultant Turfan Collection, see Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Turfan Studies (Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2007); Albert von le Coq, Buried Treasures of Chinese Turkestan (trans. Anna Barwell; London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1928) and Mary Boyce, A Catalogue of the Iranian Manuscripts in Manichaean Script in the German Turfan Collection (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, Veröffentlichung Nr. 45), (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1960): ix-xxvii. 679 The project team consists of Dr. Erica C. D. Hunter (project leader), Prof. Nicholas SimsWilliams, Prof. Peter Zieme and the present author. I wish to express my thanks to the other project team members for information and corrections contributed to this article. 680 On several of the Turfan fragments discussed in this paper, see also Mark Dickens, “The Syriac Bible in Central Asia,” in The Christian Heritage of Iraq (ed. Erica C. D. Hunter; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009), 92-120; Mark Dickens, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts from Turfan,” JCSSS 9 (2009): 22-42 [See Chapter 4 in this volume]; Mark Dickens, “The Importance of the Psalter at Turfan,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on “Research on the Church of the East in China and Central Asia” (ed. Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang; Wien: LIT Verlag, forthcoming) [See Chapter 6 in this volume]. 217

Turfan primarily reflects the eastward missionary expansion of the Church of the East (commonly but erroneously referred to as the “Nestorian” Church), which carried the Antiochian exegetical and hermeneutical tradition into Central Asia, China and Mongolia. Although reconstructing the history of this tradition in these areas is particularly difficult, due to the scattered nature of textual and archaeological witnesses, the Christian manuscripts in the Turfan Collection in Berlin shed valuable light on how this stream of Christianity interacted with local languages and cultures.682 Indeed, the Turfan corpus constitutes the easternmost extant library of any medieval Christian community, with manuscript fragments in Syriac, Middle Persian, Sogdian, New Persian and Old Turkic. These represent a broad spectrum of genres, including biblical and liturgical texts, ascetic and hagiographical works, and prayer booklets, all indicative of the monastic nature of the community in Bulayïq in the Turfan Oasis from which they originated.683 A few Christian manuscript fragments have been recovered from two other sites in western China, Dunhuang (Gansu Province) and Qarakhoto (Inner Mongolia), but they cannot compare in quantity to the sheer volume of the Turfan material.684 Although many of the Christian texts un681

Notably two fragments from a Sogdian Psalter with Greek headlines and possibly a letter mentioning Byzantine dignitaries, all described below. Possible connections between Turfan and Byzantine Christianity are discussed in Werner Sundermann, “Byzanz und Bulayïq,” in Iranian and Indo-European Studies: Memorial Volume of Otakar Klíma (ed. Petr Vavroušek; Praha: Enigma Corporation, 1994), 255-64. 682 On the 97 fragments in Syriac from Turfan brought back to St. Petersburg by N. N. Krotkov at the same time as the Prussian Turfan Expeditions were taking place, see E. N. Meshcherskaya, “The Syriac Fragments in the N.N. Krotkov Collection,” in Turfan, Khotan Und Dunhuang (ed. Ronald E. Emmerick et al.; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1996), 221-27. These fragments are currently uncatalogued and unpublished. 683 On the monastery complex of Bulayïq where most of the Christian materials were found, see Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Bulayïq,” Encyclopaedia Iranica 4:545. On the initial discovery of Christian manuscripts at Bulayïq, see von le Coq, Buried Treasures, 100-01. On the nature of Christianity in Turfan, see Wolfgang Hage, “Das Christentum in Der Turfan-Oase,” in Synkretismus in den Religionen Zentralasiens (ed. Walther Heissig and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1987), 46-57 and Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and Tun-Huang Manuscripts,” in Turfan and Tun-Huang, the Texts: Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route (ed. Alfredo Cadonna; Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1992), 43-61. 684 On Christian materials from Dunhuang, see Nicholas Sims-Williams and James Hamilton, Documents Turco-Sogdiens du IXe-Xe siècle de Touen-houang (Corpus Inscriptorum Iranicarum, Part II, Vol. III) (London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1990), 51-61, 63-76 and Wassilios Klein and Jürgen Tubach, “Ein Syrisch-Christliches Fragment aus Dunhuang/China,” ZDMG 144 (1994): 1-13, 446. On the very few Christian finds from Qara-khoto, see N. Pigoulewsky, “Fragments Syriaques et Syro-turcs de HaraHoto et de Tourfan,” ROC 30 (1935-1936): 3-46 and Peter Zieme, “A Cup of Cold Water,” 218

covered at Turfan have been published, a considerable number still require either initial publication or more in-depth scholarly analysis. Of the 1100+ Christian fragments, slightly more than 450 are Syriac, while approximately 550 are Sogdian in Syriac script, 50 are Sogdian in Sogdian script and 50 are Uyghur (in either Syriac or Uyghur script). In addition, there are a handful of Middle Persian and New Persian Christian fragments. Many of these Christian fragments are in fact bilingual or even multilingual, so that, for example, the total number of fragments wholly or partially in Syriac rises to somewhat over 500. The languages involved reflect the cultural background of not only the Church of the East itself, but also this region of Asia that it had expanded into. As Nicholas Sims-Williams has pointed out, Syriac was always the primary liturgical language in Bulayïq, but initially Middle Persian and then Sogdian were employed for Bible readings and certain other parts of the liturgy. At some point, Uyghur seems to have eclipsed Sogdian as the primary lingua franca in the community. Thus, non-liturgical and non-literary texts were increasingly written in Uyghur, although Sogdian continued to be the most popular language in which ascetical texts were read, judging from the manuscript remains.685 Thus, a large portion of the Christian manuscript fragments from Turfan are in Syriac, the primary literary and liturgical language of the Church of the East.686 Most of these are liturgical and biblical fragments, which together probably account for 95% of the Syriac material. A number of other genres are also represented, albeit minimally, including calendrical tables, hagiographies, and prayer booklets or amulets. However, very little of the material has been published in the century since the manuscripts were brought back to Berlin. The exceptions are the following: 687 in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (ed. Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter; Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006), 341-45. 685 Sims-Williams, “Sogdian and Turkish Christians,” 49, 50-51, 54. 686 These will all be included in the catalogue of Syriac fragments from Turfan being compiled by Erica C. D. Hunter and the present author. For an earlier overview, see Miklós Maróth, “Die Syrischen Handschriften in der Turfan-Sammlung,” in Ägypten, Vorderasien, Turfan: Probleme der Edition und Bearbeitung Altorientalischer Handschriften (ed. Horst Klengel and Werner Sundermann; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991), 126-28. 687 Signature numbers in bold are those currently in use. Those in parentheses are the original numbers recorded by the Turfan expeditions, which are frequently found in the literature. The new signature numbers generally reflect the language or script of the fragments, although each group includes some which have been mislabeled. M = Manichaean fragments; MIK = Museum für Indische Kunst (former name of the Museum für Asiatische Kunst); n = “Nestorian” fragments (Sogdian in Syriac script); So = Sogdian script fragments; SyrHT = Syriac fragments; U = Uyghur fragments (in Uyghur or Syriac script). 219

1. Several folios from two separate Ḥudras:688 SyrHT 41 (T II B 7 No. 1a)689 and MIK III 45 (T II B 26);690 2. Part of the Legend of Mar Barshabba, the legendary founder of the church in Merv: SyrHT 45 & 46 (T II B 9 No. 3);691 3. A pharmaceutical recipe: SyrHT 1 (T II B 17 No. 4);692 4. A letter, seemingly to a Byzantine official: SyrHT 2 (T II B 18 No. 1b and T II B 62 No. 1a);693 5. Fragments of a previously unknown version of the Legend of St. George: SyrHT 95, 359-362, 364-365 (T II B 31, No. 2 & 3, T II B 51, T II B 53 and T II B 66 No. 45);694 6. A dialogue between a Jew and a Christian: SyrHT 94 (T II B 50).695 Sogdian was an Eastern Middle Iranian language spoken in Sogdiana (modern-day Uzbekistan and Tajikistan), as well as in the Sogdian Diaspora that stretched eastward into China (the Sogdians were inveterate traders and controlled much of the commerce on the middle portion of the Silk Road). The corpus of Sogdian Christian material from Turfan, written in both Syriac and Sogdian scripts, encompasses biblical, liturgical, ascetical, hagiographical and secular texts and has been described several times.696 Many individ688

The Ḥudra is the main liturgical text of the Church of the East, containing the cycle of services for the whole liturgical year. 689 Eduard Sachau, “Litteratur-Bruchstücke aus Chinesisch-Turkistan,” SPAW (1905): 96770, translated in P. Y. Saeki, The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China, 2nd ed. (Tokyo: Maruzen Company Ltd, 1951), 340-43. 690 Folios 1-5 translated in Hieronymus Engberding, “Fünf Blätter eines Alten Ostsyrischen Bitt- Und Bußgottesdienstes Aus Innerasien,” OstStud 14 (1965): 121-48. Folios 20v-21r edited in Sachau, “Litteratur-Bruchstücke,” 970-73 and translated in Saeki, Nestorian Documents, 343-47. 691 F. W. K. Müller and W. Lentz, “Soghdische Texte II,” SPAW (1934): 559-64. Merv was an important centre in Sassanid Persia’s eastern province of Margiana (modern-day Turkmenistan). 692 Miklós Maróth, “Ein Fragment eines Syrischen Pharmazeutischen Rezeptbuches,” AoF 11 (1984): 115-25. 693 Miklós Maróth, “Ein Brief aus Turfan,” AoF 12 (1985): 283-87. 694 Miklós Maróth, “Eine Unbekannte Version der Georgios-Legende aus Turfan,” AoF 18 (1991): 86-108. To these fragments published by Maróth can be added SyrHT 381 (T II B 53 No. 8), not included in his publication. 695 To be published soon by Miklós Maróth. 696 J. P. Asmussen, “The Sogdian and Uighur-Turkish Christian Literature in Central Asia before the Real Rise of Islam: A Survey,” in Indological and Buddhist Studies: Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. De Jong on His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. L. A. Hercus et al.; Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, 1982), 11-29; Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Die ChristlichSogdischen Handschriften von Bulayïq,” in Ägypten, Vorderasien, Turfan (ed. Horst Klengel and Werner Sundermann; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1991), 119-25; Nicholas Sims-Williams, 220

ual works have been published, including the following (excluding biblical texts, which are addressed below):697 1. A Sogdian version of the Legend of St. George: n1-n11 and other fragments (T II B 30, T II B 66, T II B 67);698 2. A large manuscript, labelled C2, containing hagiographical, homiletic and ascetical texts;699 3. Part of a “Book of Life,” commemorating the dead: n396 (T II B 40);700 4. A collection of riddles on biblical subjects: n349-n353 (T II B 22, T II B 57);701 “Christianity, IV. Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” Encyclopaedia Iranica 5: 534-35; Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” in The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran (ed. Ronald E. Emmerick and Maria Macuch. London: I. B. Tauris, 2009), 266-87. On the Christian fragments in Sogdian script, see Christiane Reck, “A Survey of the Christian Sogdian Fragments in Sogdian Script in the Berlin Turfan Collection,” in Controverses des Chrétiens dans l’Iran sassanide (ed. Christelle Jullien; Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 2008), 191-205. 697 All Christian materials from Turfan in either Sogdian or New Persian in Syriac script will be included in a catalogue being compiled by Nicholas Sims-Williams as part of The Christian Library at Turfan Project (hereafter referred to as Sims-Williams, Catalogue). Christian fragments in Sogdian script will be catalogued by Christiane Reck in Mitteliranische Handschriften, Teil 3, a forthcoming volume of the cataloguing project of the Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen [See Addenda et Corrigenda in this volume for publication information on these volumes]. 698 Olaf Hansen, “Berliner Soghdische Texte I: Bruchstücke einer Soghdischen Version der Georgspassion (C1),” APAW 10 (1941): 1-38; Ilya Gershevitch, “On the Sogdian St. George Passion,” JRAS (1946): 179-84; E. Benveniste, “Fragments des Actes de Saint Georges en version sogdienne,” JA 234 (1943-1945): 91-116. 699 Edited initially in Olaf Hansen, “Berliner Soghdische Texte II: Bruchstücke Der Großen Sammelhandshrift C2,” AWLMJ (1955): 821-918 and subsequently with major corrections in Nicholas Sims-Williams, The Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2 (Berliner Turfantexte XII), (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1985). For specific parts of this manuscript, see also Nicholas Sims-Williams, “A Sogdian Fragment of a Work of Dadišo‘ Qatraya,” AsMaj 18 (N.S.) (1973): 88-105; Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Syro-Sogdica I: An Anonymous Homily on the Three Periods of the Solitary Life,” OCP 47 (1981): 441-46; Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Syro-Sogdica II: A Metrical Homily by Bābay Bar Nṣibnāye ‘On the Final Evil Hour’,” OCP 48 (1982): 171-76; Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Traditions Concerning the Fates of the Apostles in Syriac and Sogdian,” in Gnosisforschung und Religionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Kurt Rudolph Zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Holger Preißler and Hubert Seiwert; Marburg: Diagonal-Verlag, 1994 [1995]), 287-95. 700 Martin Schwartz, “A Page of a Sogdian Liber Vitae,” in Corolla Iranica: Papers in Honour of Prof. Dr. David Neil Mackenzie on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on April 8th, 1991 (ed. Ronald E. Emmerick and Dieter Weber; Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1991), 157-66. 701 Werner Sundermann, “Der Schüler Fragt den Lehrer: Eine Sammlung Biblischer Rätsel in Soghdischer Sprache,” in A Green Leaf: Papers in Honour of Professor Jes P. Asmussen 221

5. A translation of the hymn “Gloria in excelsis Deo”: n192 (T II B 66, T III B);702 6. A history of Mar Serapion: n284 and other lost fragments (T III B);703 7. A history of Mar Awgen: n443, n167, n426, n235, n368, n169 (T II B 60, T II B 65, T II B 66);704 8. A Christian polemic against the Manichaeans: n145 (T II B 8).705 Middle Persian, the language of Sassanid Persia, was gradually replaced by New Persian in the centuries following the Arab conquest of Iran and Central Asia. Although these languages were primarily used to the west of the Tien Shan Mountains (in Iran proper and the Iranian-speaking areas of Central Asia), the Turfan documents suggest that both also had a limited presence in Chinese Central Asia. The only Christian text in Middle Persian is the so-called Pahlavi Psalter, described below. New Persian texts in Syriac script are limited to one and a half folios from a bilingual Syriac-New Persian Psalter, also described below, and two remnants of a pharmacological text: M 7340 (T II Toyoq) and n175 (T II B 69 + T II B 14). There are also a limited number of Christian texts in Old Uyghur, one of several Turkic languages that evolved out of Old Turkic (indeed, Old Uyghur can be considered a dialect of Old Turkic). These texts are written in both Syriac and Uyghur script and have been described on several occasions.706 Important texts that have been published so far include: (ed. Werner Sundermann, Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin and Faridun Vahman; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), 173-86. 702 Nicholas Sims-Williams, “A Sogdian Version of the «Gloria in Excelsis Deo»,” in Au Carrefours des Religions: Mélanges offerts à Philippe Gignoux (ed. Rika Gyselen; Buressur-Yvette: Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 1995), 257-62. 703 Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Christian Sogdian Texts from the Nachlass of Olaf Hansen I: Fragments of the Life of Serapion,” BSOAS 58 (1995): 50-68. Serapion (d. ca. 362) was bishop of Thmuis in Lower Egypt and an important proponent of Nicene Christology. 704 Werner Sundermann, “Ein Soghdisches Fragment der Mār Eugen-Legende,” in Splitter aus der Gegend von Turfan: Festschrift Für Peter Zieme Anläßlich Seines 60. Geburtstags (ed. Mehmet Ölmez and Simone-Christiane Raschmann; Istanbul-Berlin: Şafak Matbaacılık, 2002), 309-31. Mar Awgen (Eugenius) was the founder of coenobitic monasticism in Mesopotamia and is highly revered in the Church of the East. 705 Nicholas Sims-Williams, “A Christian Sogdian Polemic against the Manichaeans,” in Religious Themes and Texts of Pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia (ed. Carlo G. Cereti, Mauro Maggi and Elio Provasi. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2003), 399-408. 706 See Asmussen, “Sogdian and Uighur-Turkish Christian Literature,” 11-29 and SimoneChristiane Raschmann, “Traces of Christian Communities in the Old Turkish Documents,” in Studies in Turkic Philology: Festschrift in Honour of the 80th Birthday of Professor Geng Shimin (ed. Dingjing Zhang and Abdurishid Yakup; Beijing: Minzu University Press, 2009), 408-25. All Uyghur Christian texts will be included in an edition being compiled by Peter 222

1. A unique Central Asian version of the Legend of the Magi: *U 9175 (T II B 29);707 2. An oracle book or collection of apocryphal sayings, including a noncanonical quotation from Luke: U 320 (T II B 1);708 3. A passage from the Legend of St. George: MIK III 194 (T II B 66);709 4. A wedding blessing: U 7264 (T III Kurutka);710 5. A fragment from a Creed: U 5537 & U 5538 (T II B 17);711 6. A prayer booklet with passages in both Syriac and Uyghur: U 338 (T II B 41).712 Zieme as part of The Christian Library at Turfan Project and catalogued by Simone Raschmann in a forthcoming volume of Alttürkische Handschriften in the cataloguing project of the Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen [See Addenda et Corrigenda in this volume for publication information on these volumes]. 707 Unfortunately, the original manuscript went missing in the aftermath of World War II. The text has been published and translated several times, including F. W. K. Müller, “Uigurica I,” APAW (1908): 5-10; W. Bang, “Türkische Bruchstücke einer nestorianischen Georgpassion,” Mus 39 (1926): 43-53; С. Е. Малов, Памятники древнетюркской письменности Монголии И Киргизии. (Москва-Ленинград: Издателство Академии Наук СССР, 1951), 131-38. See also Kahar Barat, “Old Uyghur Christianity and the Bible,” AmAsRev 5, No. 2 (1987): 18-22 and Aloïs van Tongerloo, “Ecce Magi ab Oriente Venerunt,” in Philosophie-Philosophy Tolerance (ed. A. Théodoridès. Brussels: Louvain la Neuve, 1992), 57-74. 708 Albert von le Coq, “Ein Christliches und ein Manichäisches Manuskriptfragment in Türkischer Sprache aus Turfan (Chinesisch-Turkistan),” SPAW (1909): 1205-08; Bang, “Türkische Bruchstücke,” 53-64; Anthony Arlotto, “Old Turkic Oracle Books,” MonSer 29 (1970-71): 693-96. 709 Albert von le Coq, “Türkische Manichaica aus Chotscho III,” APAW (1922): 48-49; Bang, “Türkische Bruchstücke,” 64-75. 710 Peter Zieme, “Ein Hochzeitssegen uigurischer Christen,” in Scholia: Beiträge zur Turkologie und Zentralasienkunde (ed. Klaus Röhrborn and Horst Wilfrid Brands; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1981), 221-32. 711 Peter Zieme, “Das nestorianische Glaubensbekenntnis in einem alttürkischen Fragment aus Bulayïq,” UAJ N.F. 15 (1997/1998): 173-80. 712 Peter Zieme, “Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book from Bulayık,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (ed. Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang. Wien: LIT Verlag, 2009), 167-80. The present author is concurrently preparing an article on the Syriac portions of this booklet [See Chapter 7 in this volume]. Other Uyghur Christian fragments are addressed in Peter Zieme, “Zu den Nestorianisch-Türkischen Turfantexten,” in Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der Altaischen Völker: Protokollband Der XII Tagung der Permanent International Altaistic Conference 1969 in Berlin (ed. Georg Hazai and Peter Zieme. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1974), 661-68 and Peter Zieme, “Zwei Ergänzungen zu der Christlich-Türkischen Handschrift T II B 1,” AoF 5 (1977): 271-72. 223

Antiochian Christianity at Turfan Based on the evidence of the extant Christian texts from Turfan, including orthographic errors in many of the Syriac language fragments, it is clear that the Turfan Christians were predominantly Sogdian and Uyghur speakers,713 although the presence of a few Persian texts suggests that that language may also have been spoken by some in the community. Whether or not there were any native Syriac speakers at any time in Turfan is unclear. Given the extensive ecclesiastical network throughout Central Asia,714 it is not unlikely that those who initially carried Christianity to Turfan were from Central Asia themselves, although we can only speculate about their ethnicity.715 However, despite the eastward direction of the Church’s mission, the Turfan documents clearly show a westward orientation in terms of theological influence. Whether the Peshitta version of the Bible, the standard liturgical texts of the Church of the East, the hagiographical materials translated into Sogdian or the prayer booklets containing amuletic material, the vast majority of the Turfan Christian texts have clear antecedents in the Middle Eastern heartland of the Church. It is only when we come to the Uyghur Christian materials that we start to encounter some indications of influence from the multi-religious environment at Turfan, such as the use of the Buddhist concept of merit transfer by the Uyghur scribe who wrote the prayer booklet U 338.716 Nevertheless, other than a few texts like this, there is no widespread 713

This is discussed in more depth in Sims-Williams, “Sogdian and Turkish Christians.” See also Dickens, “Multilingual Christian Manuscripts.” 714 See Jean Dauvillier, “Les Provinces Chaldéennes ‘de l’Extérieur’ au Moyen Age,” in Mélanges Offerts Au R. P. Ferdinand Cavallera (Toulouse: Bibliothèque de l’Institut Catholique, 1948), 260-316 and Erica C. D. Hunter, “The Church of the East in Central Asia,” BJRL 78 (1996): 129-42. 715 We do not know when Christianity first came to Turfan, whether before or after the Uyghurs established their Kingdom there. As noted above, the Christian texts from Turfan are usually dated between the 9th and 13th/14th centuries, although an in-depth study of all the dating indicators, such as palaeography, has yet to be done. 716 Zieme, “Notes on a Bilingual Prayer Book,” 172. On other interactions between Christianity, Buddhism and Manichaeism hinted at in the Turfan documents, see Ian Gillman and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, Christians in Asia before 1500 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 258-62; Christiane Reck, “Die Bekehrung einer Christin zum manichäischen Glauben? Probleme bei der Interpretation eines fragmentarischen Textes,” in Inkulturation des Christentums im Sasanidenreich (ed. Arafa Mustafa and Jürgen Tubach; Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2007), 55-70; Christiane Reck, “Ein Kreuz zum Andenken. Die buddhistischen soghdischen Fragmente der Berliner Turfansammlung,” in Aspects of Research into Central Asian Buddhism: In Memoriam Kōgi Kudara (ed. Peter Zieme; Turnhout: Brepols, 2008), 277-98. 224

evidence of syncretism and certainly none of the “heresy” which the mislabelled “Nestorian” Church is so often accused of.717 Perhaps the clearest indication of the “orthodoxy” of the Turfan Christians can be found in MIK III 59 (T II B 17 + T II B 28), a Sogdian version of the Nicene Creed found at Turfan: We believe in one God, the Father, who upholds everything, the Creator of all things that are seen and unseen. [We believe] in one Lord God, and in Jesus [Christ], the only son of God, [the firstborn] of all beings, who… in the beginning was not created but begotten by the Father, [true God] of the true God… by whose hand the [aeons] were fashioned and everything was created, he who for the sake of men and for our salvation descended from the heavens and clothed himself in a body by the Holy Spirit, and became man and entered the womb; who was born of Mary, the virgin, and [who] suffered agony and [was] raised on the cross [in] the days of Pontius Pilate; and [was buried] and ascended and sits on the right hand of the Father and is ready to come (again) to judge the dead and the living. And [we believe] in the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit, who went forth from the Father, the Holy Spirit who gives life, and in one Holy Apostolic Christian Church.718 As the above creed indicates, and given the theological roots of the Church of the East, there is an understandably strong Antiochian component within this overall orientation back to the Middle Eastern homeland of Christianity. This includes an acknowledgement of the theological debt to both the Greek Doctors and the Syrian Doctors in the Antiochian tradition. Thus, we find in SyrHT 80 (T II B 42 No. 1a, part of an original manuscript currently designated as Ḥudra “F”) the following passage from the Martyrs’ Anthems 717

Amongst the Christian fragments are a number that are amuletic or talismanic in nature, including two that can be connected together: SyrHT 99 (T II B 53 = 1687) and SyrHT 330 (1863), discussed in Erica C. D. Hunter, “Traversing time and location. A prayer-amulet of Mar Tamsis from Turfan,” in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on “Research on the Church of the East in China and Central Asia” (ed. Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang; Wien: LIT Verlag, forthcoming). On U 328 (T III Kurutka), an Uyghur Christian text that includes incantational material, see Peter Zieme, “Türkische Zuckungsbücher,” Scripta Ottomanica Et Res Altaicae. Festschrift Barbara Kellner-Heinkele (ed. Ingeborg Hauenschild, Claus Schönig and Peter Zieme; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2002), 390. The present author is concurrently preparing an article dealing with a Syriac passage in this text. 718 Sogdian text and German translation: F. W. K. Müller, “Soghdische Texte I,” APAW 1912 (1913): 84-87. English translation: Gillman and Klimkeit, Christians in Asia before 1500, 252-53. 225

̈

̈ (‫ܥܘܢܝܬܐ ܕܣܗܕܐ‬ , ‘onyāthā d-sahdē) for the Friday before the Rogation of the Ninevites (a three-day fast in the tenth week before Easter) which celebrates the Doctors of the School of Nisibis, the flagship theological school of the Church of the East: ‫ ܥܠ ܫܬܐܣܬܐ ܕܫܪܪܗ ܕܫܡܥܘܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܒܢܘ ܫܪܝ̈ܪܐ‬719‫ܐܩܝܡ ܥܠ‬ ‫ܕܝܕܘܪܘܤ ܘܬܐܕܘܪܘܤ ܥܡ ܢܣܛܘܪܝܤ ܘܐܦܪܝܡ ܪܒܐ ܥܡ ܡܪܝ ܢܪܣܝ‬ ‫ ܥܡ ܝܘܚܢܢ ܘܐܝܘܒ ܘܡܝܟܐܝܠ ܝ̈ܪܬܐ‬720‫ܘܡܪܝ ܐܒܪܗ ܡ‬ 721 .‫ܕܩܘܫܬܐ‬

He set upon.722 Upon the foundation of the truth of Simon Peter (Cephas) built the orthodox Diodore and Theodore with Nestorius, and the Great Ephrem with Mar Narsai and Mar Abraham with John, Job and Michael, the heirs of truth.723 This text (along with others in the East Syriac liturgy) shows the unapologetic appreciation of the Church of the East for Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius himself, although it should be noted that the Church has never referred to itself as “Nestorian.” That term has only been used by its theological opponents or those of other faiths, such as the Muslims, for whom the Christological disputes of the 4th century were irrelevant.724 In this anthem, the three Greek Doctors of the Antiochian tradition are followed by important Syrian Doctors connected with Nisibis. Ephrem the 719

The full text in the Ḥudra [Thoma Darmo, Ktaba da-Qdam wad-Batar wad-Ḥudra wadKashkol wad-Gazza w-Qala d-‘Udrane ‘am Ktaba d-Mazmure, Vol. I (Trichur, Kerala: Church of the East, 1960)] is ‫ܐܩܝܡ ܥܠ ܫܘܥܐ ̈ܪܓܠܝ‬. Underlined portions are in rubric. 720 The printed edition of the Ḥudra has ‫ܘܡܪܝ ܢܪܣܝ ܘܡܪܝ ܒܪܨܘܡܐ ܙܘܓܐ ܒܪܝܟܐ ܥܡ‬ ‫ܐܒܪܗܡ‬, “and Mar Narsai and Mar Barsauma the blessed companion, with Abraham.” 721 Darmo, Ktaba da-Qdam wad-Batar, Vol. I, 446. My thanks to Sebastian Brock for identifying the source of this text in the printed edition of the Ḥudra. 722 Abbreviated form of the full title: He set my feet upon the rock (Ps. 40:2). Underlined portions are in rubric. 723 Compare translation in Arthur John Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices (London: Rivington, Percival, 1894), 125. As noted above, the printed Ḥudra text includes Mar Barsauma, “the blessed companion” (of Mar Narsai) between the references to Mar Narsai and Abraham, but this name is not included in SyrHT 80. Barsauma was the Metropolitan of Nisibis at the time that the School of Nisibis was re-founded in the late 5th century. 724 On the historical Christology of the Church of the East and the inappropriate use of “Nestorian” to describe the Church, see Sebastian P. Brock, “The Christology of the Church of the East in the Synods of the Fifth to Early Seventh Centuries: Preliminary Considerations and Materials,” in Aksum, Thyateira: A Festschrift for Archbishop Methodios of Thyateira and Great Britain (ed. George Dion Dragas; London: Editorial Committee, 1985), 125-42 and Sebastian P. Brock, “The ‘Nestorian’ Church: A Lamentable Misnomer,” BJRL 78 (1996): 23-35. 226

Syrian (d. 373) taught at the School of Nisibis before the Persians captured the city in 363, forcing the school to relocate to Edessa. After the School of Edessa was closed by Emperor Zeno in 489 because of its “Nestorian” tendencies, forcing scholars to flee to Nisibis in Persian territory, Mar Narsai re-founded the School there. Abraham of Beth Rabban was the third head of the School in Nisibis (after Elisha bar Quzbaye) and was in turn succeeded by John of Beth Rabban in the mid-6th century. Job the Persian translated various theological works into Persian in the 6th century and Michael Badoqa (the Expositor) was a student of Ḥannana of Adiabene, head of the School in the late 6th century.725 Another indication of the Antiochian theological perspective can be found in SyrHT 279-284 (T II S 25 No. 1), several folios from a small booklet containing a prayer to the Virgin Mary which refers to her frequently as ‫( ܒܬܘܠܬܐ ܩܕܝܫܬܐ ܐܡܗ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ‬btholtā qdhishtā ameh d-mashiḥā), “the Holy Virgin, Mother of Christ,” the Syriac equivalent of Christotokos.726 Not surprisingly, the term ‫( ܐܡܗ ܕܐܠܗܐ‬ameh d-alāhā), “Mother of God,” equivalent to Theotokos, is nowhere to be found in the Turfan materials. However, those in the Alexandrian tradition are not entirely neglected, as the Desert Fathers, including a number of Coptic saints, are mentioned with reverence in the East Syriac liturgy, not to mention the frequent references to them amongst the aforementioned hagiographical and ascetical works translated into Sogdian. One such Syriac reference can be found in SyrHT 178 (T II B 66 No. 22, part of an original manuscript designated as Ḥudra “D”):

̈ ‫ܚܝܘ ܥܠ ܐܪܥܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܐܒܗܬܐ‬ ‫ܝܚܝܕܝܐ ܦܘܠܘܣ ܘܐܢܛܘܢܝܣ ܘܡܩܪܝܘܣ‬ ‫ܐܦ ܐܪܣܢܝܣ ܘܐܘܓܪܝܣ ܘܐܘܓܝܢ ܘܐܫܥܝܐ ܘܡܪܩܘܣ ܘܐܡܘܢܝܣ‬ ̈ ‫ܥܡ ܦܟܘܡܝܣ ܘܫܪܟܐ‬ ‫ܕܩܕܝܫܐ܀‬

725

My thanks to Mar Awa, bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East in California, and various members of the Hugoye Discussion List (Thomas Carlson, Sergey Minov, Steven Ring, and David Taylor) for assistance in identifying some of the individuals in this passage. On these leaders of the School of Nisibis, see William Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London: A. and C. Black, 1894), 33-37, 58-59, 114-115; Arthur Vööbus, History of the School of Nisibis (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 266/Sub. 26) (Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO, 1965), 57-121, 134-222, 278-79; Jean-Maurice Fiey, “Diptyqes nestoriens du XIVe siècle,” AnBoll 81 (1963): 390-392; Sebastian P. Brock, “The Nestorian Diptychs: A Further Manuscript,” AnBoll 89 (1971): 182-83. 726 SyrHT 337 also contains a reference to ‫( ܡܪܝܡ ܐܡܗ ܕܡܫܝܚܐ‬Maryam, ameh dmashiḥā), “Mary, the Mother of Christ.” 227

The solitary fathers (i.e. anchorites) lived on the earth: Paul, Anthony and Macarius, also Arsenius, Evagrius, Awgen, Isaiah, Mark and Amun with Pachomius and the rest of the holy ones.727 The ascetics mentioned here are St. Paul the Anchorite (d. ca. 341), St. Anthony the Great (d. 356), St. Macarius of Egypt (d. 391), St. Arsenius of Scete (d. 445), Evagrius Ponticus (d. 399), Mar Awgen (Eugenius), the founder of coenobitic monasticism in Mesopotamia (d. ca. 379), Abba Isaiah of Scete (late 4th cent.), Mark the Monk (5th cent.), St. Amun of the Nitrian Desert (d. 357), and St. Pachomius, the founder of coenobitic monasticism in Egypt (d. 348).728 Biblical Fragments from Turfan The importance of the biblical text in a monastic community that was continually celebrating the liturgy needs no explanation. Thus it is no surprise to find a significant number of biblical fragments from Turfan. However, due to their fragmentary nature and later dating (9th-13th/14th centuries), they are neither the most complete nor the earliest manuscripts of the Peshitta text and so are of less value in tracking variations in the text.729 With one exception, biblical texts from Turfan can be divided into Psalter fragments, Gospel fragments and lectionary fragments. Having described the Turfan Psalter texts in-depth elsewhere,730 after a brief summary of them here, I will focus on the non-Psalter texts. Whereas the West Syriac (Syrian Orthodox and Maronite) tradition has used several different translations of the Bible, including the Syro-hexaplar version of the Old Testament and the Philoxenian and Harklean versions of the New Testament,731 the only Bible translation consistently used in the East Syriac tradition is the Peshitta and this is clearly seen in the biblical fragments from Turfan. Not surprisingly, the composition and organisation of the Peshitta differs somewhat from other translations.

727

This exact passage is not included in Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices. My thanks to Sergey Minov for clarifying the identity of some of the individuals in this passage. See also lists in diptychs from the Church of the East discussed in: Fiey, “Diptyqes nestoriens,” 394 and Brock, “Nestorian Diptychs,” 183. 729 On the dates of extant Peshitta manuscripts, see Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Gorgias Handbooks, Vol. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 42-47, 49, 122-24. The Turfan fragments thus fall into the Textus Receptus stage in the development of the Peshitta text. 730 Dickens, “Importance of the Psalter.” 731 On which, see Brock, The Bible, 18-20, 27-29, 35-37. 228 728

Manuscripts of the Peshitta Old Testament usually include the Deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) books, although some contain additional books such as 3 and 4 Maccabees, 4 Ezra or the Apocalypse of Baruch. 732 Occasionally additional Psalms (Ps. 151-155) are included.733 Thus far, neither the Deuterocanonical books nor the extra Psalms have been found amongst the Turfan fragments. The numbering of the Psalms also differs from that of both the Masoretic text (hereafter MT) and the Septuagint (hereafter LXX). Ps. 114 and 115 in the MT are combined into Ps. 114 in the Peshitta, leaving the Peshitta Psalm numbers one behind the Hebrew numbers up to Ps. 147 in the MT, which is divided into Ps. 146 and 147 in the Peshitta; thus, the last three Psalm numbers are the same in both traditions.734 Psalm numbers in Syriac Psalters are either spelled out or given with letters from the Syriac alphabet, each of which has a numerical equivalent.735 The Psalter in the East Syriac tradition (including the Odes, described bë (sg. hulālā, pl. hulālē). low) consists of 21 major divisions called ‫ܗܘܠܠܐ‬ Each hulālā is further divided into several smaller sections called ‫ܡ̈ܪܡܝܬܐ‬ (sg. marmithā, pl. marmayāthā), each of which contains several Psalms. Most East Syriac Psalters also include the following additional components: 1. Headings or titles: derived from the commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Psalms (and therefore different from the headings in the MT or LXX), these occur after the Psalm numbers, usually in rubric. 2. Prayers: relating to the subject of the next Psalm or group of Psalms, these are inserted at the beginning of each new hulālā or marmithā, after the heading and the word ‫( ܨܠܘܬܐ‬ṣlothā), “prayer,” in rubric; the prayers themselves are in black ink. 3. Farcings or canons: relating to the subject of each Psalm and attributed to Patriarch Mar Aba I (540-552), these short sentences are inserted after the first verse or between the first and second half of the first verse, usually in rubric. 4. Odes or canticles: the following Psalm-like passages from elsewhere in the Old Testament are included at the end of most East Syriac Psalters: Exod. 15:1-21 (the First Song of Moses); Deut. 32:1-43 (the Second and Third Songs of Moses); Isa. 42:10-13; 45:8 (the Song of Isaiah). 732 733 734 735

See Brock, The Bible, 43-44, 114-17. See Brock, The Bible, 142-43. For a handy table, see Brock, The Bible, 138. ‫ܐ‬-‫ =ܛ‬1-9, ‫ܝـ‬-‫ = ܨ‬10-90, ‫ = ܩ‬100. 229

Syriac Psalters We are fortunate to have fragments from a wide range of Psalters amongst the Turfan materials, both in Syriac and in other languages.736 Thus far, remnants of 15 Syriac Psalters have been identified. Following the lead of the anonymous compiler of a typed hand-list of the Syriac fragments in the Turfan Collection, who identified some of the fragments from Psalter “C,” Psalter “D” and Psalter “E,” the original manuscripts have been identified as Psalters “C” through “Q.”737 The Psalters can be summarized as follows (individual fragment signature numbers and contents are given in Appendix I): 1. Psalter “C”: nine folios stitched together in booklet form plus four separate fragments, with headings, canons, prayers, quire marks and indication of new marmayāthā. 2. Psalter “D” [Fig. 9-1]: 12 fragments in a very distinctive hand, with headings and canons (but no prayers), quire marks, Psalm numbers and indication of new marmayāthā. 3. Psalter “E”: four adjacent folios stitched together in booklet form plus a small fragment that can be joined to one of the folios, with headings, canons, prayers, Psalm numbers and a distinctive mark in the upper right verso corner of each folio. 4. Psalter “F”: 15 fragments in another distinctive hand with each line consisting of exactly one colon of the biblical text (sometimes necessitating the omission of extraneous words at the end of each line), canons and prayers, but no headings. 5. Psalter “G”: one folio in yet another distinctive hand, again consisting of exactly one colon of the text per line, resulting in omitted words at the end of most lines, but without headings, canons or prayers. 6. Psalter “H”: one folio with only one colon per line, all lines ending in ‫ ܀‬and many lines ending with ‫( ܗܠܠܘܝܐ‬Hallelujah) as a spacefiller.

736

As noted above, these (along with examples of Psalmic material from elsewhere in Central Asia) are described in more detail in Dickens, “Importance of the Psalter.” 737 Nicholas Sims-Williams, at the “Christian Manuscripts from Turfan” workshop in Berlin, March 27-28, 2009, plausibly suggested that the compiler began with Psalter “C” in recognition of the previously identified Pahlavi Psalter and Syriac-New Persian Psalter, described below, which were perhaps considered Psalters “A” and “B.” 230

7. Psalter “I” [Fig. 9-2]: one folio with only one colon per line, all lines ending in ‫ ܀‬and many lines ending with ‫ܗܠܠܘܝܐ‬, with canons and prayers, but no headings. 8. Psalter “J”: two fragments, including a double-folio, with only one colon per line and all lines ending in ‫܀‬, resulting again in omitted words, with canons and prayers, but no headings. 9. Psalter “K”: five fragments with headings and a cross visible in the upper right corner of one folio, but no canons or prayers. 10. Psalter “L”: two fragments from the same original folio. 11. Psalter “M”: one small fragment in an attractive hand.738 12. Psalter “N”: eight fragments, with headings, but no canons or prayers. 13. Psalter “O”: six fragments, with headings, but no canons or prayers. 14. Psalter “P”: part of one folio, arranged in two columns and, like Psalter “G,” without headings, canons or prayers and with words missing at the end of each line. 15. Psalter “Q”: one fragment, with headings, but no canons or prayers. Another distinctive Psalter from Turfan consists of nine folios from a small booklet, written in Syriac transliterated into Uyghur script: SyrHT 2027 and MIK III 58 (T II B 10). Obviously prepared to help Uyghur-speaking monks to recite the Syriac liturgy, it includes, in addition to six folios containing Psalms, three folios with hymns by Syriac authors (such as Ephrem the Syrian) known as ‫( ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ‬sg. teshboḥtā, pl. teshbḥāthā), also used extensively in the liturgy.739 Finally, there are also excerpts from the Psalms in texts that are clearly not Psalters. One such text is SyrHT 386 (T II D20i 5+6) [Fig. 9-3]. Ps. 148:1-3 is written in reverse order in a rough hand on one side, while on the reverse side someone has drawn a circular doodle around a hole in the paper, embellished with what looks like hair and ears, similar in appearance to illustrations of Uyghurs on other fragments in the Turfan Collection.740 The biblical text is as follows:

‫ ܫܒܚܘ‬1 738

Not enough remains to determine if Psalters “H,” “L” and “M” originally had headings, canons or prayers. 739 This text will be published by Peter Zieme and the present author. 740 Initially identified by Erica C. D. Hunter as Psalmic material. For a drawing of a Uyghur face with head-dress, see the Uyghur Christian fragment U 5179 (T II B 62/512), discussed in Peter Zieme, “Zwei Ergänzungen.” 231

‫ܫܒܚܘܗܝ ܫܡܫܐ ܘܣܗܪܐ‬ ‫܀ ܫܒܚܘܗܝ‬741‫ܟܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܫܒܚܘܗܝ ܟܠܗܘܢ ̈ܡܠܐ‬ ‫ܫܒܚܘܗܝ ܒܡ̈ܪܘܡܐ‬ ‫ܫܒܚܘ ܠܡܪܝܐ ܡܢ ܫܡܝܐ‬

2 3 4 5 6

1. Praise… 2. Praise him, sun and moon 3. -els.742 Praise him 4. Praise him, all his ang5. Praise him in the heights 6. Praise the Lord from the heavens Non-Syriac Psalters In addition to the Syriac Psalters, the following Psalters in other languages have also been identified: 1. Pahlavi Psalter: 12 folios743 written in Pahlavi script, containing portions of Ps. 94-99, 118 (= MT Ps. 119) and 121-136 (= MT Ps. 122-137) and generally translated from the Peshitta, although showing the influence of the MT or LXX in places.744 2. Sogdian Psalter 1: 15 fragments745 written in Sogdian script (including the Sogdian version of the Nicene Creed mentioned above), containing portions of Ps. 5-6, 19-20, 23-24, 28-30, 32, 33, 50, and 51,

741

̈

Continuation of the word begun at the end of l. 4: ‫ܡܠܐܟܘܗܝ‬, “his angels.” 742 See note above on ll. 3-4 of the Syriac text. 743 The Pahlavi Psalter fragments do not have special signature numbers, since they are unique in the Turfan Collection, but are referred to by folio number, e.g. Bl. 1. 744 See F. C. Andreas, “Bruchstücke einer Pehlewi-Übersetzung der Psalmen aus der Sassanidenzeit,” SPAW (1910): 869-72; F. C. Andreas and Kaj Barr, “Bruchstücke einer Pehlewi-Übersetzung der Psalmen,” SPAW (1933): 91-152; J. P. Asmussen, “Pahlavi Psalm 122 in English,” in Dr. J. M. Unvala Memorial Volume (Bombay: Kaikhusroo M. JamaspAsa, 1964), 123-26; Philippe Gignoux, “Pahlavi Psalter,” Encyclopaedia Iranica Online, available at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/pahlavi-psalter. 745 For a complete list of all fragments identified so far with their signature numbers, see Reck, “Survey of the Christian Sogdian Fragments,” 192-193, 198. 232

translated from the Peshitta with the first verse of each Psalm in both Syriac and Sogdian.746 3. Sogdian Psalter 2: 2 fragments747 written in Sogdian script, containing Ps. 33:1-4, 8-10 and Ps. 34:7-9, 14-16, which follow the Peshitta in places and the LXX in others, with the opening words of each Psalm in a Greek headline in the upper margin.748 4. Syriac-New Persian Psalter: 2 fragments749 written in Syriac script, containing Ps. 131:18-132:1; 133:1-3; 146:5-147:7 (= MT Ps. 132:18133:1; 134:1-3; 147:5-18), translated from the Peshitta with each colon of the text given in Syriac, followed by New Persian.750 Apart from the Psalter remnants, there is only one other Turfan fragment containing an Old Testament text, the exception noted above. On the back side of T II B 18 No. 1b, one of the two fragments that make up SyrHT 2 [Fig. 9-4], the Syriac letter mentioned above, is the Peshitta text of Proverbs 9:14-10:12, written in black ink in a hand similar (or perhaps identical) to that in which the letter is written in brown ink. The different texts on the reverse side of the two fragments suggest that they were miscellaneous scraps of paper that the scribe used for writing his letter (which is likely a template or draft version). Thus, the Proverbs text probably pre-exists the letter, but it is impossible to speculate further without other folios or fragments from the original biblical manuscript.751 If indeed 746

In addition to Reck, “Survey of the Christian Sogdian Fragments,” see Martin Schwartz, “Studies in the Texts of the Sogdian Christians” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1967), 126-44; Martin Schwartz, “Sogdian Fragments of the Book of Psalms,” AoF 1 (1974): 257-61; Martin Schwartz, “Studies in the Texts of the Sogdian Christians (Revised Version),” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1982), 158-207. 747 So 12955 (MIK III 56) and So 12950(2). 748 See Nicholas Sims-Williams, “A Greek-Sogdian Bilingual from Bulayïq,” in La Persia E Bisanzio (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2004), 623-31; Reck, “Survey of the Christian Sogdian Fragments,” 193. As noted above, these fragments suggest a possible origin in or at least connection with the Melkite Christian community in Tashkent, on which see Jean Dauvillier, “Byzantins d’Asie centrale et d’Extrême-orient au Moyen Age,” REB 11 (1953): 62-87. 749 MIK III 112 (T II B 57) and SyrHT 153 (T II B 64). 750 See F. W. K. Müller, “Ein Syrisch-Neupersisches Psalmenbruchstück aus ChinesischTurkistan,” in Festschrift Eduard Sachau (ed. Gotthold Weil; Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer, 1915), 215-22 and Werner Sundermann, “Einige Bemerkungen zum SyrischNeupersischen Psalmenbruchstücke aus Chinesisch-Turkistan,” in Mémorial Jean De Menasce (ed. Philippe Gignoux and A. Tafazzoli; Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1974), 441-52. 751 As Sims-Williams, “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” 277, n. 36 notes, “the other [side], which was perhaps originally the blank page at the beginning or end of the quire, was later used for the draft of a Syriac letter.” 233

the letter originated in the Melkite community in Tashkent, this might explain why it is the only non-Psalter text from the Old Testament found in Turfan. It is also impossible to tell if the text was originally part of an Old Testament manuscript or an Old Testament lectionary. Although the calendars of East Syriac lectionary readings published by Maclean and Diettrich (based on later manuscripts and printed books) do not include Proverbs, the 6th century Syriac lectionary published by Burkitt (BL Add. 14528) gives Proverbs 9:1-10:26 as the reading for Easter Day.752 Syriac New Testament Fragments The canon of the Peshitta New Testament differs from that of the Catholic and Orthodox traditions, in that the books of 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation are not included.753 In addition, the General Epistles follow the Gospels and Acts and are in turn followed by the Pauline Epistles, ending with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The New Testament books are divided up into sections, each called a ‫( ܨܚܚܐ‬sg. ṣḥāḥā, pl. ṣḥāḥē), which are somewhat longer than the chapters in the division of the text used in the West. Thus, in Matthew, ‫( ܨܚܚܐ ܐ‬section 1) begins at 1:1, ‫( ܨܚܚܐ ܒ‬section 2) begins at 2:19, ‫( ܨܚܚܐ ܓ‬section 3) begins at 5:1 and so on. Although section numbering begins again at ‫ ܐ‬for each of the Gospels, Acts is grouped together with the General Epistles and the Pauline Epistles are also grouped together.754 These sections are used to designate readings in Syriac lectionaries. Since the biblical fragments from Turfan containing New Testament passages are rarely more than one or at the most two folios and often little more than a fragment, it is sometimes difficult to determine whether or not a fragment containing a New Testament text is from a lectionary. Thankfully, some fragments include the lectionary headings in rubric, but others give no clue, due to the minimal text they contain. The lectionary fragments come from either gospel lectionaries or Pauline epistle lectionaries; no texts from either

752

Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 284-86; G. Diettrich, “Bericht über neuentdeckte handschriftliche Urkunden zur Geschichte des Gottesdienstes in der nestorianischen Kirche,” NKGWG (1909); F. Crawford Burkitt, “The Early Syriac Lectionary System,” PBA 10 (1921-1923): 310, 328. As Burkitt notes, this reading is also found in BL Add. 14443, from the 6th/7th century. 753 These books were translated into Syriac in the 6 th century, after the Peshitta translation was finished, and are included in modern printed editions of the Syriac Bible. 754 Matthew = 22 sections; Mark = 13 sections; Luke = 23 sections; John = 20 sections; Acts and General Epistles = 32 sections; Pauline Epistles = 55 sections. 234

Acts or the General Epistles have been discovered so far.755 Following the system of identifying the Syriac Psalters, the Syriac Lectionaries are designated “A,” “B” and possibly “C.”756 Lectionary “A” [Fig. 9-5] (which appears to be in the same hand as Lectionary “B,” Psalter “C” and Psalter “K”) was presumably a lectionary of Pauline epistles, based on the extant fragments: 1. SyrHT 48 & 49 (T II B 11 No. 11) is a double folio containing the following readings: a. Romans 1:24-25, end of the reading for the First Monday in Lent; b. Romans 1:26-2:6, reading for the First Tuesday in Lent; c. heading for the reading for the First Wednesday in Lent; d. Romans 5:12-21, end of the reading for the Second Sunday in Lent; e. Romans 7:1-7, beginning of the reading for the Second Friday in Lent.757 2. SyrHT 373 (T II B 53 No. 8) is a small fragment containing the following readings: a. Romans 15:9-11, from the reading for the Sixth Friday of Lent; b. Romans 11:17-18, from the reading for Palm Sunday.758 3. SyrHT 380 (T II B 53 No. 8) is another small fragment containing the following reading: a. Romans 12:13-16, from the reading for either Tuesday in the Rogation of the Ninevites or the Fifth Sunday in Lent; b. 1 Corinthians 12:19-20, from the reading for Pentecost.759 4. n438 (T II B 60) is an unidentified small fragment. 5. SyrHT 370 (T II B 53 No. 8) is another unidentified small fragment. Lectionary “A” has two interesting features. The first it shares with Lectionary “B” and the bilingual lectionaries described below, namely the use of accents to aid the reader in chanting the biblical text, appearing as large dots 755

On lectionaries in the Syriac tradition, see Brock, The Bible, 50-51, 134-37. See also the following on fragments of a Syriac lectionary found at Dunhuang: Klein and Tubach, “Syrisch-Christliches Fragment” and Hubert Kaufhold, “Anmerkungen zur Veröffentlichung eines Syrischen Lektionarfragments,” ZDMG 146 (1996): 49-60. 757 Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 288. 758 Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 289. 759 Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 289. 235 756

above or below each line, quite distinct from vocalization and other diacritic marks.760 The other feature of interest on SyrHT 48 & 49 is the following marginal note in Sogdian script located on the lower margin of one folio, which has been read by Nicholas Sims-Williams as ’yny pwsty ... “This book ...” Since it is located on the last side of the double folio, it presumably continued onto a now lost folio, perhaps continuing “belongs to N.” Lectionary “B” [Fig. 9-6] is represented thus far by only one folio, reconstructed from four separate fragments – SyrHT 241 (T II B 67b), SyrHT 277 (T II D 114), SyrHT 300 (T III B) and n327 (T II B 66) – which together contain Luke 1:1-21, from the reading for the First Sunday of Advent, a reading also found in n212, the only representative of E4, a Syriac-Sogdian gospel lectionary discussed below.761 This reconstructed folio is a typical challenge for those attempting to decipher the Turfan materials, so many of which have been torn to pieces, apparently deliberately. There are three Syriac fragments which are probably from original gospel manuscripts rather than gospel lectionaries: 1. Gospel “A”: SyrHT 123 (T II B 58 No. 1b), containing John 3:21-36 – since ‫ ܓ‬in the margin clearly marks the beginning of a new section of the biblical text at 3:22 and what would be a new reading in the lectionary (but without any rubric indicating this), it is almost certainly not from a lectionary.762 2. Gospel “B” [Fig. 9-7]: SyrHT 324 & 325 (T III T 297), containing Matthew 16:5-6; 17:1-3 – the first reading is not included in the lectionaries as published by Maclean, Diettrich and Burkitt.763 3. Gospel “C”: SyrHT 326 (1858), containing Mark 6:27-33, 36-41 – since the reading for the Feast of St. John the Baptist is only Mark 760

See Gudrun Engberg, “Ekphonetic [Lectionary] Notation,” Grove Music Online, available at http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/08680, especially section 1. Syriac, Pehlevi and Soghdian. The recitation accents on the Syriac-Sogdian lectionary fragments are discussed in Egon Wellesz, “Miscellanea zur orientalistischen Musikgeschichte,” ZM I (1919): 505-15. 761 Indeed, the extant Syriac rubric on n212 has helped in the reconstruction of the rubric on three of the four fragments. Interestingly, unlike both n212 and the four fragments making up this folio from Lectionary “B,” published examples of the East Syriac lectionary readings for the First Sunday in Advent begin at verse 5, not verse 1: Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 287; Diettrich, “Bericht,” 164. 762 Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 287. 763 Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 287; Burkitt, “Early Syriac Lectionary,” 331. Diettrich does not include a summary table of readings, but this passage cannot be found anywhere in his article. 236

6:14-30, this cannot be from a lectionary.764 Like many of the Turfan fragments, there are scribal errors, including two cases of haplography. It is unclear whether SyrHT 383 (T II B 53), containing John 7:4-6, 8-10 is from a lectionary (in which case, Lectionary “C”) or a Gospel (in which case Gospel “D”). If it is from a lectionary, the reading is from the Fourth Thursday in Lent.765 Syriac-Sogdian New Testament Fragments Amongst the Christian Sogdian materials in Syriac script, remnants of the following five lectionaries and a sixth text (which is from either a gospel lectionary or a gospel manuscript) have been identified (individual fragment signature numbers and contents are given in Appendix II):766 1. E1: a Syriac-Sogdian gospel or possibly gospel lectionary (three fragments); 2. E2: a Syriac-Sogdian gospel lectionary (three fragments); 3. E3: another Syriac-Sogdian gospel lectionary (one fragment); 4. E4: another Syriac-Sogdian gospel lectionary (one fragment); 5. E5 [Fig. 9-8]: a Sogdian gospel lectionary with Syriac rubrics indicating the lections (multiple fragments); 6. E6: a Syriac-Sogdian Pauline epistle lectionary (ten fragments). Thus we have four or possibly five Sogdian gospel lectionaries and one lectionary of Pauline epistles. As noted above, these lectionaries all have the 764

Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 287; Diettrich, “Bericht,” 164. Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 287. 766 The numbers used, E1-E6, follow the system in the draft version of Sims-Williams, Catalogue, which the author has kindly shared with me. Although they are not likely to change, interested readers should consult the final version of the catalogue for full details of these lectionary fragments. These fragments have been transcribed, translated and discussed in F. W. K. Müller, “Neutestamentliche Bruchstücke in Soghdischer Sprache,” SPAW (1907): 260-70; Müller, “Soghdische Texte I”; Werner Sundermann, “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers „Soghdischen Texten I“, 1. Teil,” AoF 1 (1974): 217-55; Werner Sundermann, “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers „Soghdischen Texten I“, 2. Teil,” AoF 3 (1975): 55-90; Werner Sundermann, “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers „Soghdischen Texten I“, 3. Teil,” AoF 8 (1981): 169-225. See also the commentaries in Louis H. Gray, “New Testament Fragments from Turkestan,” ExpTim 25 (1913-1914): 59-61; Anton Baumstark, “Neue soghdischnestorianische Bruchstücke,” OrChr 4 (N.S.) (1915): 123-28; F. Crawford Burkitt, The Religion of the Manichees (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1925), 119-25; Curt Peters, “Der Texte der Soghdischen Evangelienbruchstücke und das Problem der Pešitta,” OrChr 33 (1936): 153-62. 237 765

recitation accents used to assist in cantillation of the texts. In addition, n222 (C45), a long narrow strip of uncertain contents, with only 1-2 characters visible on each line, may represent yet another bilingual lectionary fragment. As Nicholas Sims-Williams has observed, certain final letters suggest Sogdian words, whereas other letters and diacritic points suggest Syriac words. Dots that appear to be recitation accents would also suggest that this fragment comes from a lectionary, although any further identification is highly unlikely.767 In addition to the recitation accents, another interesting aspect of these lectionaries is the fact that some fragments include readings not contained in the lectionaries published by Maclean, Diettrich and Burkitt. This presumably reflects the fact that the Turfan lectionaries are somewhat later in date than those consulted by Burkitt (most of which are 6th/7th century), but significantly earlier than those consulted by Diettrich (who used a 17th century manuscript) and Maclean (who used a lectionary printed by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission at Urmia in 1889). Thus, the texts from Turfan reflect a stage in the development of the text midway between “the earliest liturgical monument of Syriac Christianity that is preserved in approximate completeness” and the current fixed form of the lectionary.768 Elsewhere, Burkitt noted a number of Turfan lectionary readings that are not found in either BL Add. 14528 or Cambridge UL Add. 1975, a 16 th century lectionary he used as a separate reference,769 including: 1. Luke 16:2-15 (n153 = T II B 12);770 2. Luke 19:15-27 (*T II B 39);771 3. Matthew 25:31-46 (n164 = T II B 66; *T II B 39), the reading for the commemoration of Mar Barshabba according to the rubric;772 4. Matthew 16:24-17:7 (n164 = T II B 66, T II B 17 and T II B 62), the reading for the commemoration of Mar Sergius and Mar Bacchus;773 767

Information from the draft version of Sims-Williams, Catalogue. Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, xxx; Diettrich, “Bericht,” 162; Burkitt, “Early Syriac Lectionary,” 305, 324. 769 See Burkitt, Religion of the Manichees, 120-24. 770 Following Baumstark, “Neue soghdisch-nestorianische Bruchstücke,” 125, this is identified in the draft version of Sims-Williams, Catalogue as “presumably the end of the Gospel for the 5th Friday of Lent.” 771 Following Baumstark, “Neue soghdisch-nestorianische Bruchstücke,” 126 and Burkitt, Religion of the Manichees, 124, this is identified in the draft version of Sims-Williams, Catalogue as “probably for a saint’s day.” 772 In the lectionaries published by Burkitt and Diettrich (6 th and 17th centuries, respectively), this is the reading for the Commemoration of the Departed (Burkitt, “Early Syriac Lectionary,” 331; Diettrich, “Bericht,” 165). 238 768

5. Luke 13:3-4 (n152 = T II B 66);774 6. Luke 12:35-39, 42-44 (n165 = T III B 52 and n413c = T III B);775 7. John 5:19 (n165 = T III B 52).776 Perhaps most noteworthy is the inclusion of a lectionary reading for Mar Barshabba, traditionally commemorated as the one who brought Christianity to Merv, the jumping off point for subsequent missions of the Church of the East into Central Asia and other points to the north and east. The fact that he is not included in extant East Syriac lectionaries from the Middle East presumably reflects the limitation of his “sphere of influence” to just Central Asia.777 New Testament verses or passages also occur in Turfan texts that are neither gospels nor lectionaries. One such example is a prayer amulet, composed of two fragments: SyrHT 99 (T II B 53 = 1687) and SyrHT 330 (1863), which begins with a quotation from John 1:1-5, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…” a typical opening statement on Syriac prayer amulets intended to impress both the wearer and any malevolent beings intent on bringing harm with the power of the word of God and hence the efficacy of the amulet written to protect the wearer from harm.778 Another example is ‫ܒܝܪܚܐ ܫܬܬܐ ܐܫܬܠܚ ܓܒܪܝܠ‬, 773

Listed under “Days for which no special lessons are appointed in the lectionary” in Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 282. The same reading occurs as part of that for the Commemoration of the Syrian Doctors (Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 287; Diettrich, “Bericht,” 165) or Tuesday in the Week of Rest after Easter (Burkitt, “Early Syriac Lectionary,” 331). 774 Following Baumstark, “Neue soghdisch-nestorianische Bruchstücke,” 125, this is identified in the draft version of Sims-Williams, Catalogue as “presumably part of the Gospel for the 2nd Friday of Lent.” The same reading also occurs as part of that for the Sixth Sunday of the Apostles (Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 287; Diettrich, “Bericht,” 168) or Rogations in general (Burkitt, “Early Syriac Lectionary,” 333). 775 Luke 12:35-50 is given in BL Add. 14528 as the reading for Monday in Holy Week (Burkitt, “Early Syriac Lectionary,” 333), but the Turfan text reflects a different occasion, since it ends at verse 44 and is immediately followed by the next “unidentified” reading beginning with John 5:19, on which see the following note. 776 Subsequently suggested by Nicholas Sims-Williams as “an alternative reading for… the Commemoration of the Dead,” based on the inclusion of this verse in that reading as cited in Maclean, East Syrian Daily Offices, 287 and Burkitt, “Early Syriac Lectionary,” 334. For more complete discussion of these “unidentified” lectionary readings, the reader is directed to Sims-Williams, Catalogue. 777 See discussion of this figure in Nicholas Sims-Williams, “Baršabbā,” Encyclopaedia Iranica 3:823. On the importance of Merv to the Church of the East, see Hunter, “Church of the East in Central Asia.” 778 See footnote above, under Antiochian Christianity at Turfan, regarding this amulet and its publication in Hunter, “Traversing time and location.” 239

“In the sixth month, Gabriel was sent…” the beginning of Luke 1:26, written on the reverse of T II B 62 No. 1a, one of the two fragments making up SyrHT 2, the aforementioned letter. Written in a different hand from that of the letter, its appearance as marginalia prompts one to wonder if the writer was listening to a sermon during the Advent season while he penned this line on a back of scrap paper, later to be re-used by the author of the letter. Conclusion The Christian manuscript fragments from Turfan are a rich treasure trove of information on how a community in the Antiochian theological tradition conducted itself far from the original homeland of that tradition. The fragments in Syriac, Sogdian and Uyghur shed light on how the Turfan Christians both maintained ties with their theological roots and related to the surrounding culture. The texts reveal a westward theological orientation in the context of the overall eastward direction of the Church’s mission to Central Asia and China. Although evidence of interaction with the surrounding Buddhist and Manichaean milieu can be detected, the documents do not give evidence of widespread syncretism in the Christian community. Indeed, the texts are largely what one would expect to find in a monastic community in the Church of the East. Amongst the Christian texts are a significant number of biblical fragments, mostly from Psalters and lectionaries. They affirm the central role that the Bible has always played in the liturgy of the Church of the East, particularly in monastic communities. The presence of Psalter texts in not only Syriac, but also Middle Persian, Sogdian and New Persian, as well as extracts from the Psalms in Syriac in Uyghur script, testifies to the importance of hearing and understanding the biblical text in both the liturgical language of the Church and the various languages spoken throughout Central Asia during the medieval period. The same can be said of the lectionaries containing New Testament material, extant in both Syriac and Sogdian. Unfortunately, the fragmentary nature of the Christian texts from Turfan makes it difficult to speculate much on why certain texts, especially non-Psalter books of the Old Testament, are not found amongst the biblical fragments. Other questions hinted at in the biblical fragments, such as possible relationships between the Turfan Christians and the Central Asian Melkites, also remain unanswered for the time being. Certainly, there is still considerable scope for scholars to analyse the Christian texts from Turfan, including the biblical fragments. Scribal errors could potentially reveal how the Syriac texts were pronounced by native speakers of Sogdian and Uyghur. Comparison of the Syriac lectionary texts 240

(particularly the recitation accents) with contemporary examples found in the Middle East may shed more light on how these texts were chanted in the liturgy at this time. Perhaps too, a study of the jottings and graffiti written on the Christian fragments, whether biblical or otherwise, would reveal something of how those in the monastic community interacted with the text. Although the remnants are relatively few in number, they can also help to fill out our knowledge of the evolution of the lectionary system in the Church of the East, including local variants found in Central Asia. Finally, biblical quotations or allusions in non-liturgical texts, such as prayer amulets, remind us that the biblical text was also used outside of the liturgy, in the context of day-to-day life. Appendix I: Syriac Psalter Signature Numbers779 Psalter “C”  SyrHT 72, ff. 1-2 & SyrHT 348 = Ps. 72:18-74:1  SyrHT 72, f. 3 = Ps. 117:23-118:4 (= MT Ps. 118:23-119:4)  SyrHT 228 & SyrHT 379 = Ps. 137:7-138 title, 2-8 (= MT Ps. 138:7139 title, 2-8)  SyrHT 79 = Ps. 140:1-141:2 (= MT Ps. 141:1-142:2)  SyrHT 72, ff. 4-5 = Ps. 143:5-144:17 (= MT Ps. 144:5-145:17)  SyrHT 72, ff. 6-9 = Ps. 145:9-150:4 (= MT Ps. 146:9-150:4) Psalter “D”  SyrHT 129 = Ps. 72:8-73:4  SyrHT 377 = Ps. 74:21-23; 75:8-10  SyrHT 180 = Ps. 87:1-88:12  SyrHT 119 = Ps. 89:12-20, 23-33  SyrHT 224 (I) = Ps. 89:35-42, 48-53; 95:4-7; 96:1-2  SyrHT 64 = Ps. 89:46-47; 90:2  SyrHT 157 = Ps. 92:8-13; 93:1-5  SyrHT 239 = Ps. 94:12-15, 23-95:1 779

All references from the Psalms give the numbering according to the Peshitta, with MT equivalents in parentheses where relevant. Verse numbers are according to the MT and therefore differ from those found in Western translations of the Bible, since the former often count the heading as verse 1, whereas the latter do not. 241

   

SyrHT 224 (II) = Ps. 95:4-7; 96:1-2 SyrHT 63 = Ps. 95:9-10; 96:5-8 SyrHT 308 = Ps. 103:2-4, 14-16 SyrHT 191 = Ps. 118:133-142, 146-153 (= MT Ps. 119:133-142, 146-153)

Psalter “E”  SyrHT 71 = Ps. 22:8-26:3 Psalter “F”  SyrHT 14, 15 & 17 = Ps. 66:13-15; 67:5-6  SyrHT 174 = Ps. 73:25-27; 74:4-7  SyrHT 90 = Ps. 78:26-45  SyrHT 91 = Ps. 78:46-64  SyrHT 93 = Ps. 79:9-80:12  SyrHT 92 = Ps. 84:3-85:5  SyrHT 172, SyrHT 175 & n418 = Ps. 85:6-12; 86:1-8  SyrHT 173, SyrHT 176 & SyrHT 177 = Ps. 90:2-7, 9-16  SyrHT 367 = currently unidentifiable Psalter “G”  SyrHT 96 = Exod. 15:15-21; Isa. 42:10-13; 45:8 Psalter “H”  SyrHT 62 = Deut. 32:31-40 Psalter “I”  SyrHT 108 = Ps. 10:12-12:3 Psalter “J”  SyrHT 113 = Ps. 14:7-16:5; 18:35-50  SyrHT 164 = Ps. 18:51-19:2; 19:4-7 242

Psalter “K”  SyrHT 120 = Ps. 35:7-17, 22-36:3  SyrHT 121 = Ps. 36:7-37:2, 7-16  SyrHT 220 = Ps. 37:20-23, 34-38  SyrHT 357 = Ps. 38:9-12; 39:2-3  SyrHT 358 = Ps. 141:5-8 (= MT Ps. 142:5-8); 143:15-144:4 (= MT Ps. 144:15-145:4) Psalter “L”  SyrHT 98 & SyrHT 203 = Ps. 118:32-49, 63-80 (= MT Ps. 119:3249, 63-80) Psalter “M”  MIK III 110 = Ps. 24:3-4; 25:3-6 Psalter “N”  SyrHT 382 = Ps. 22:26-30; 23:6-24:4  SyrHT 4-7 + SyrHT 295 = Ps. 65:8-66:4; 66:7-67 heading  n301 = Ps. 83:8-14; 84:3-8  SyrHT 181 = Ps. 84:10-85:3; 85:12-86:5 Psalter “O”  SyrHT 313 = Ps. 22:21-24, 27-29  SyrHT 312 = Ps. 23:1-3, 23:6-24:2  SyrHT 314 = Ps. 24:7-9; 25:2-5  SyrHT 333 & SyrHT 315= Ps. 25:10-12, 18-21  SyrHT 378 = Ps. 101:2-3; 102:1 Psalter “P”  SyrHT 230 = Ps. 9:20-10:14; 10:17-11:1 Psalter “Q”  SyrHT 342 = Ps. 2:7-11; 3:9-4:4 243

Uyghur Psalter  SyrHT 23 = Ps. 11:6-13:3  SyrHT 26 = Ps. 13:3-14:7  SyrHT 20 = Ps. 14:7; 99:1-100:1  SyrHT 22 = Ps. 101:1-8  MIK III 58 = Ps. 86:11-87:7  SyrHT 21 = Ps. 87:7-88:15 Appendix II: Syriac-Sogdian Lectionary Signature Numbers E1 = Syriac-Sogdian gospel or possibly gospel lectionary780  n177 = Matthew 1:5-7  n178 = Matthew 1:10-13  n213 = Matthew 6:20-23, 29-32 E2 = Syriac-Sogdian gospel lectionary  n214= John 14:28-30; 16:4-7  n223 & n224 = Matthew 19:10-11, 17-18 E3 = Syriac-Sogdian gospel lectionary  n190 = Luke 2:10-20; Matthew 2:1-3 E4 = Syriac-Sogdian gospel lectionary  n212 = Luke 1:1-4 E5 = Sogdian gospel lectionary with Syriac rubrics781  n166 = Luke 1:44, 55-56  n149 = John 1:19-28, 29-35 (Syriac rubrics)  n413d = John 1:51-2:3; 2:9-11  n150 = John 3:18-21, 26-27 780

The uncertainty is due to the fact that one side of the fragments n177 and n178 is blank (apart from some later scribbles in Arabic script), suggesting the beginning of a new gospel codex, beginning with Matthew 1. 781 Not including fragments published in Müller, “Soghdische Texte I” which are now lost. 244

                

n151 & n409 = Matthew 5:30-33, 38-41 (Syriac rubrics on n151) n152 = Luke 13:3-4; Matthew 20:17-19 n153 = Luke 16:2-15; John 9:39 (Syriac rubrics) n154 = Matthew 24:24-26, 32-33 n156 = Luke 24:19-32 n157 = Luke 24:32-35; John 15:18-21 n158 = Matthew 10:14-15, 16-33; John 20:19-25 (Syriac rubrics) n413a1 = Matthew 10:19-20, 27 (joins with n158) n413a2 = John 20:19, 25 (Syriac rubrics, joins with n158) n413b = John 14:11-12; 16:19 n159b = small fragment from now lost folio containing John 17:2426; Luke 24:36-47 n162 = Luke 10:34-42; 6:12-17 (Syriac rubrics) n160 = John 9:9-23 n161 = John 9:23-38 n163 = Matthew 13:17-19, 24-25 (Syriac rubrics) n164 = Matthew 25:45-46; 16:24-17:6 (Syriac rubrics) n165 & n413c = Luke 12:35-39, 42-44; John 5:19 (Syriac rubrics)

E6 = Syriac-Sogdian Pauline epistle lectionary782  n201 = Galatians 3:25-4:6  n200 = Titus 3:2-7; Romans 11:13-15  n202 = Romans 11:18-20, 22-23  *T II B [Y] & n203 = 1 Corinthians 5:7-8; 11:23-25  n204 = 1 Corinthians 1:24-25, 27-28  n398 = 1 Timothy 2:9-10, 14-15  n205, n206 & n411 = 1 Corinthians 12:13-21

782

Again, not including fragments published in Müller, “Soghdische Texte I” which are now lost. 245

10 MORE GRAVESTONES IN SYRIAC SCRIPT FROM TASHKENT, PANJIKENT AND ASHGABAT Mark DICKENS University of Alberta, Canada Original publication information: “More Gravestones in Syriac script from Tashkent, Panjikent and Ashgabat,” in Winds of Jingjiao: Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia-Patristica-Oecumenica, Vol. 9), ed. Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler (Wien: LIT Verlag, 2016), pp. 105-129. General Introduction This paper is a follow-up to the one I gave at the 2006 Salzburg Conference on Christianity in China and Central Asia (published in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia), where I discussed four Syriac gravestones on display at the National Historical Museum of Uzbekistan, in Tashkent (hereafter, “the Tashkent Museum”).783 When Alexei Savchenko kindly sent me images of the four stones I discussed at that time (slides I had taken when I visited the museum in 2003 were unfortunately not clear enough to decipher the inscriptions), he also included images of seven other stones (which I had not seen in 2003) kept in storage at the Tashkent Museum, as well as one stored at Tashkent State University (now called the National University of Uzbekistan).784 In addition to these eight stones, he later sent me images of two other stones – one kept in Panjikent, Tajikistan and the other in Ash783

DICKENS, 2009 [See Chapter 2 in this volume]. My thanks to all those acknowledged below who provided information and feedback which has helped to improve this paper in its final published form. I am particularly grateful for the very helpful input of Andrew Palmer on various matters related to Syriac grammar and orthography. 784 After subsequently receiving a copy of МИНАСЯНЦ, 2013, I discovered that there are two other gravestones in the Tashkent Museum which I do not have images of: 1) Inv. № 312\5, which is very similar in iconography to Gravestone 9 below with the cross and inscription (seemingly containing only two words) in relief, and 2) Inv. № 312\13, which has a pearltipped cross similar to Gravestones 2 and 3 with five lines in Syriac script. Unfortunately, I am unable to read more than a few words in the images of these gravestones contained in the article. 246

gabat, Turkmenistan – which will also be discussed in this paper. I am most grateful for his generous sharing of these images. In addition, I would like to thank Pier Giorgio Borbone for sending me helpful information from his database of gravestones in Syriac script from Central Asia and China and Christopher Atwood for valuable information on names in use during the Mongol Empire. Introduction to the Gravestones Much has been written about the Christian gravestone corpus from Central Asia and China; for a basic overview, please refer to my aforementioned article in the Hidden Treasures volume. Here I will just mention a few salient points about these gravestones which form the bulk of extant Christian inscriptions from Central Asia and China. Christian gravestones in Syriac script have been found in four geographical regions, three of which are currently in China: 1) in and around the city of Quanzhou on the south-east coast;785 2) in Inner Mongolia, in the former territory of the Öngüt Turks;786 and 3) near Almaliq, Xinjiang. The fourth location is the “Seven Rivers” (Turkic Yeti Su, Russian Semirechye) region of what is now southern Kazakhstan and northern Kyrgyzstan, specifically the area around the large lake called Issyk-Köl, “Hot Lake.” With the exception of the first stone (and possibly the ninth stone) described below, the gravestones discussed in this article probably came from the Semirechye/Yeti Su region.787 About 610 gravestones were discovered by Russian settlers in Semirechye beginning in 1885; most of these were published by the Semiticist Daniel Chwolson of St. Petersburg in several articles and monographs (18861897).788 In all, Chwolson published 568 stones dated 1200/01-1344/45 CE, most of which were in Syriac (about 30 were Turkic in Syriac script). Shortly after, beginning in 1902, more gravestones were discovered near the medieval city of Almaliq, located in the Ili River Valley, just inside the Chinese side of the current border separating Kazakhstan and China (roughly 500 km ENE from where the Yeti Su stones were discovered); 21 of these (along with two more stones discovered in the vicinity of Issyk-Köl), dating from 1301/02 to 1371/72, were published by Semiticist Pavel Kokovtsov from St.

785

See LIEU ET AL, 2012. See HALBERTSMA, 2008. 787 I use these two terms interchangeably throughout this paper. 788 CHWOLSON, 1886; CHWOLSON, 1890; CHWOLSON, 1897. All but three stones from CHWOLSON, 1886 were included in CHWOLSON, 1890. Similarly, all stones from Chwolson’s 1895 publication in Russian (ХВОЛЬСОН, 1895) were included in CHWOLSON, 1897. 247 786

Petersburg (1906-1909).789 A large number of stones ended up in the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, although many were also distributed to museums throughout the Russian Empire (and later the Soviet Union), not to mention a smaller number that ended up in France, England and Finland. Apparently, about 500 were destroyed in a fire in a museum in Almaty, Kazakhstan in 1939. One of the current challenges is to determine exactly which stones are still extant and where they are currently located, not an easy task. Gravestone 1 [Fig. 10-1] Location: Tashkent Museum: Inventory № 312\8.790 Dimensions: 24.5 x 19 x 4.5 cm Publication: Коковцов, 1906, № 9 (pp. 196-197) Text and Translation:

‫ܥܢܕܬ ܨܛ(ܫ)ܝ‬ ‫ܒܬܘܠܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܫܢܬ ܐܬܪܟ‬ ‫ܠܝܘܢ (◯) ܩܘܦܐ‬

1 2 3 4

ČT(Š)Y the virgin departed in the year 1620 of the Greeks [1308/09 CE]… monkey Commentary: This stone, which originates in Almaliq (as its initial publication by Kokovtsov makes clear), is easily the most attractive of those described in this article, despite the diagonal crack running from the upper left to the lower right. The incised border on this gravestone is not common in the corpus; as Kokovtsov notes, there is a similar (relief) border on another one of the stones he published.791 The cross rests on a lotus flower, a feature not uncommon in the Semirechye corpus and very common in the Quanzhou corpus.792 Kokovtsov’s comments indicate that this stone was already cracked when he received images of it over 100 years ago: “We were unable to make 789

КОКОВЦОВ, 1906; КОКОВЦОВ, 1907; КОКОВЦОВ, 1909. All inventory numbers and dimensions are taken from МИНАСЯНЦ, 2013. I did not have this information available for the stones I discussed in DICKENS, 2009. They are: Gravestone No. 1 = Inv. № 312\12, 29.5 x 21.5 x 8 cm; Gravestone No. 2 = Inv. № 312\11, 23 x 16 x 4 cm; Gravestone No. 3 = Inv. № 312\9, 29 x 20 x 9 cm; Gravestone No. 4 = Inv. № 312\10, 28 x 15 x 7.5 cm. 791 КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, № 11; see p. 197 and Таб. XII. 792 See the excellent discussion by Ken Parry of the iconographic features on the Quanzhou gravestones in LIEU ET AL, 2012, 243-262. 248 790

out the last line of the inscription on the images available to us due to the uncertainty of some letters, as well as the presence of large cracks in the stones in this place, which destroyed at least two letters.”793 Minasyants’ survey of gravestones in the Tashkent Museum notes that the gravestones (or at least some of them) described in Kokovtsov’s 1906 article “were transferred to the Museum of the Turkestan Circle of Lovers of Archeology, and then put in the Tashkent Public Museum,”794 which explains how this stone later ended up in the Historical Museum in Tashkent. Like many of the Christian gravestones from Yeti Su, this one uses two systems of dating: the Seleucid era (beginning on 1 October, 312 BCE) and the 12-year animal cycle used by the Chinese, Turks and Mongols. Here 1620 SE corresponds to 1308/09 CE795 and the Sino-Turkic date is the year of the Monkey. The word at the beginning of l. 4 ( ‫ )ܠܝܘܢ‬appears to be an abbreviä , “of the Greeks”796 – it is also found on another stone from tion for ‫ܠܝܘܢܝܐ‬ Almaliq, published by Niu Ruji.797 This word is followed by the crack in the stone, but it is unclear whether any letters were originally written where the crack cuts through this line (it is too short for ‫ܛܘܪܟܐܝܬ‬, “in Turkic,” as we find in Gravestone 3, l. 3, below). Kokovtsov read the year as ‫( ܐܬܪܢܟ‬1670 SE = 1358/59 CE),798 but the number 70 in Syriac is usually indicated by one letter ‫ ܥ‬not two ‫( ܢܟ‬50 + 20), so this would be unusual, although there are places in the corpus where such “unorthodox” dating formulas are used.799 Kokovtsov suggested in his comments on this stone that “in the date, the penultimate letter is not clear in the image and possibly also reads 1650.”800 He further read the last three letters of the last word as ‫ܣܘܛ‬, but the word is clearly ‫ܩܘܦܐ‬, “monkey.” Thus, neither of Kokovtsov’s proposed dates, 1670 or 1650 SE, will work, since the year of the Monkey did not fall in those years. During the early 14th century, the year of the Monkey fell during the following Seleucid era years: 1607/08, 1619/20, 1631/32, 1643/44. The only year from this list that can possibly fit letters visible in the image is SE 793

КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, 196. МИНАСЯНЦ, 2013, 622. 795 SE = Seleucid Era, CE = Common Era, BCE = Before Common Era. 796 My thanks to J. F. Coakley for this plausible suggestion, which makes more sense than Kokovtsov’s that the word was Turkic ‫ ܟܘܢ‬kun, “day” (КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, 196-197). 797 NIU, 2008, 60-62: ‫ܥܢܕ ܘܢܦܩ ܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ ܗܢܐ ܝܡܥܘܪ ܩܫܐ ܩ ܒܫܢܬ ܐܬܪܢܕ ܠܝܘܢ‬, “Yamghur the Priest departed and left this world in the year 1654 [1342/43 CE] of the Greeks.” 798 КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, 196. 799 e.g. CHWOLSON, 1890, № 60; CHWOLSON, 1897, 56. 800 КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, 196. 249 794

1620 (‫)ܐܬܪܟ‬. We can further narrow the date range to sometime between 1 October, 1308 (beginning of SE 1620) and 30 January, 1309 (end of the year of the Monkey). Kokovtsov read the name on this stone as ‫ܨܛܫܐ‬, Čatšā; the first two letters (‫ )ܨܛ‬are clear on the image, but the last two letters are less so, as indicated in the tentative reading above. Following the standard practice in Middle Persian (and later Turkic) alphabets based on Aramaic, the Syriac letter ‫ܨ‬ stands for the sound /č/. Although Syriac ‫ ܛ‬is typically used for /t/, it can also represent /d/. Čatšā was included in Baske’s Preliminary Index to Rásonyi’s Onomasticon Turcicum,801 but this is seemingly based solely on Kokovtsov’s reading, since the name is not included in Rásonyi and Baske’s final Onomasticon Turcicum.802 The visible letters ‫ ܨܛ(ܫ)ܝ‬suggest the following options listed in the Onomasticon Turcicum (with the Turkic ethnicity and attested date in parentheses): Čadey (Kazak, 19th cent.); Čadïš (Siberian Tatar, 1598); Čatay (Bashkir, 1776, 1777); Čatï (Kazak, 19th cent.). 803 Whatever the correct reading is, the name seems to be unique in the gravestone corpus. Syriac ‫ܒܬܘܠܬܐ‬, “virgin” is not common in the gravestone corpus, only occurring on this stone and one other recorded by Kokovtsov.804 As he notes, a young “girl” is usually indicated by Syriac ‫ ܛܠܝܬܐ‬or ‫ܥܠܝܡܬܐ‬, suggesting that the female in question was past puberty and therefore of marriageable age. However, whether she was a younger woman who was not yet married or an older woman (as Kokovtsov suggests) who was perhaps a consecrated virgin in the church is unclear.805 The formula beginning with the verb ‫ܥܢܕܬ‬, “departed” is in contrast to the usual phrasing of “In the year Y, this is the grave of N.” Whereas the latter is standard on the Yeti Su stones, the former is more common on the Almaliq stones, as in the other gravestone of a virgin discussed by Kokovtsov: ‫ܧܐܛܘܢ ܒܬܘܠܬܐ ܥܢܕܬ ܘܢܦܩܬ ܒܫܢܬ‬ ‫ܐܬܪܥܚ‬, “Khatun the virgin departed and left in the year 1678 [1366/67 CE].”806

801 802 803 804 805 806

BASKI, 1986, 36. RÁSONYI & BASKI, 2007, 193. RÁSONYI & BASKI, 2007, 185, 193. КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, № 2. КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, 192. КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, № 2.

250

Gravestone 2 [Fig. 10-2] Location: Tashkent Museum: Inventory № 312\7. Dimensions: 26.5 x 20 x 9 cm Publication: Хвольсон, 1895, № 4; Chwolson, 1897, № 69 (deciphered by Wilhelm Radloff, image in Таб. II); Малов, 1959, 79-80; Джумагулов, 1971, 97-99 Text, Transcription and Translation: ]sic[ ‫ ܐܠܟܣܕܪܘܣ‬1

‫ ܧܐܢ ܣܐܦܝܫ ܡܝܢܓ‬2 ‫ ܐܠܛܝـ ܝܘܙ‬3 ‫ ܝܓܝܪܡܝـ ܐܘܨ ܐܪܕܝـ‬4 ‫ ܛܘܪܧܨܐ ܝܝܠ‬5 ‫ ܣܝܨܧܐܢ ܐܪܕܝـ‬6 ‫ ܦܘ ܩܒܪܐ‬7 ‫ ܡܢܓܘ ܛܐܫ ܛܐܝـ ܧܘܦܘܙ‬8 ‫ ܨܝـ ܢܝܢܓ ܛܘܪܘܪ ܝܐܛ‬9 ‫ ܦܘܠܣܘܢ‬10 Aleksandros qan saqïš(ï) miŋ altï yüz yïgïrmï üč ärdï, türkčä yïl sïčqan ärdï. bu qäbra mangu-tāš-tāy qobuzčïnïŋ turur, yad bolsun. (According to) the calculation of Alexander Khan it was one thousand six hundred twenty three [1311/12 CE], it was the Turkic year of the Mouse. This is the grave of Mangu Tāš-tāy the qobuz player. May he be remembered. Commentary: The cross on this stone has three “pearls” on each end-piece, a popular design on the gravestones in this corpus. It is the only gravestone in Tashkent written completely in Turkic; thus it exhibits different terminology and different formulae from the others, as discussed below. As with the first stone, the year is given in both dating systems: 1623 in the “calculation of Alexander Khan” (1311/12 CE) and “the Turkic year of the Mouse.” Again, we can date it more exactly to sometime between 31 January, 1312 (beginning of the year of the Mouse) and 30 September, 1312 (end of SE 1623). Of particular note is the final phrase yad bolsun, “May he be remembered,” very common

251

amongst the Christian gravestones in Turkic, whether from Semirechye,807 Almaliq,808 Inner Mongolia809 or Quanzhou and nearby Yangzhou.810 The name on the stone, Mangu Tāš-tāy, is Turkic for “like an eternal stone,” a good Turkic name but also appropriate for a Christian.811 Radloff understood ‫ܛܐܝـ‬, -tāy as merely part of the proper name, without commenting on it,812 whereas Jumagulov, noting the fact that Mangu Tāš occurs elsewhere in the corpus without the ending -tāy,813 considered it to be the Turkic suffix -dāy, “like” and translated it as “a/the qobuz player like Mangu Tāš.”814 However, this is awkward; why would the deceased not be named himself (as in all other gravestones), rather than being compared to another named musician? Thus, it is more probable that all three elements together comprise the name on the gravestone. Both Mangu, “eternal” and Tāš, “stone” occur frequently in the corpus, often in conjunction with another name.815 Gravestone 2 is the only one I know of in the corpus that mentions a musician, although two others refer to the deceased as having voices that resembled musical instruments: Shliḥa, the famous expositor and teacher, whose “voice was lifted up like a trumpet” (‫)ܪܡ ܩܠܗ ܐܝܟ ܫܝܦܘܪܐ‬816 and Čakuš the priest, whose “voice was lifted up like a harp” (‫)ܪܡ ܩܠܗ ܐܝܟ ܟܢܪܐ‬.817 In contrast, the deceased commemorated by Gravestone 2 was more than just 807

CHWOLSON, 1890, № 11,3; № 19,1; № 21,1; № 28; № 34,2; № 48,4; CHWOLSON, 1897, № 46, ; № 74; № 243; КОКОВЦОВ, 1909, № 1; № 2; DŽUMAGULOV, 1968, 477-478. 808 КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, № 11. 809 NIU, 2006, 220-222. 810 GENG, 2006, 248-250; LIEU ET AL, 2012, B19, B20, B21. 811 See references to Christ as the cornerstone rejected by the builders in Matt. 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; I Pet. 4:2-8. 812 CHWOLSON, 1897, 19. 813 e.g. CHWOLSON, 1890, № 89. 814 ДЖУМАГУЛОВ, 1971, 98. By contrast, SAUVAGET, 1950, 35 and RÁSONYI, 1953, 341 both suggest that the -tāy element in names represents the Turkic word for “a one- or twoyear-old foal” (CLAUSON, 1972, 566), but this seems unlikely in this case and that of Gravestone 5 below. 815 The name Mangu is spelled variously in the corpus (‫ܡܝܢܓܘ‬, ‫ܡܝܢܓܟܘ‬, ‫ܡܢܓܘ‬, ‫)ܡܢܓܟܘ‬: CHWOLSON, 1890, № 17; № 49; № 56,16; № 69; № 84; № 89; № 111; № VIII; CHWOLSON, 1897, № 22; № 117; № 122; № 146; № 163; № 258; № 280; KLEIN, 2000, № 17. The name Tāš is invariably spelled ‫ܛܐܫ‬: CHWOLSON, 1890, № 49; № 49,1; № V; CHWOLSON, 1897, № 22; № 122; № 146; № 163; № 243; № 248; № 263 (the occurrence of ‫ ܛܐܝܫ‬in CHWOLSON, 1890, № VIII may be a misreading). See also RYBATZKI, 2004, 279280, 283-284. 816 CHWOLSON, 1890, № 27. 817 CHWOLSON, 1897, № 159. 252 1

a “musician,” as Radloff translated the Turkic word qobuzchi. He was specifically the player of a qobuz, a two-stringed fiddle (or more properly, bowed lute) played with a horsehair bow, traditionally popular amongst the more nomadic Kirghiz, Kazakh and Karakalpak peoples of Central Asia and associated with the recitation of oral epics and shamanic rituals. Interestingly, the qobuz is mentioned in another Turkic Christian text, an Uyghur wedding blessing from Turfan written in Syriac script and published by Peter Zieme,818 where we find the following passage, speaking of the bride and groom: “As extraordinarily good friends and excellent comrades, fitting together like glue and wood, may they constantly help each other. As the qobuz [fiddle] and the gičak [spike fiddle] play together, as the čïmquq [cymbals?] and the čïngïrčaq [handbells?] sound together, may their relatives by marriage work together, and may there be eating, drinking and rejoicing!” When I spoke on this text at a conference several years ago in the United Kingdom, I was informed by Saida Daukeyeva, at that time an ethnomusicology doctoral student from Kazakhstan, that a qobuz and a gičak would not normally be played together, which led me to question the wisdom of the author of the wedding blessing.819 However, when I mentioned this another time that I was speaking about Christian texts from Central Asia, someone commented that this was in fact a perfect description of marriage (and even more so in-law relationships, as the text discusses), if two instruments that were not normally played together had to learn how to harmonize with each other! There is a strong spiritual dimension to qobuz playing, noted frequently in 19th and 20th century accounts of shamanic rituals involving the instrument; “Belief in the magic powers of the qobyz as offering protection from evil and misfortune, as a means of maintaining equilibrium in the universe, and as a medium between the human and spiritual worlds permeated the original context of its performance.”820 We have no idea whether the qobuzchi mentioned on our gravestone used his talents in a Christian context, whether playing in some sort of capacity in gatherings of the Christian community or keeping busy as a performer at weddings (still the main source of income for Central Asian musicians), but he was obviously well known enough as a musician to be commemorated as such on his gravestone.

818

ZIEME, 1981. For an excellent introductory article on the qobuz, see DAUKEYEVA, 2012, available at https://soas.academia.edu/SaidaDaukeyeva. 820 DAUKEYEVA, 2012, 189. 253 819

Gravestone 3 [Fig. 10-3] Location: Formerly in the Tajikistan National Museum, Dushanbe, Tajikistan: Item BP-201/5. Now in the Museum of Ancient Panjikent (Panjikent, Tajikistan), where it was brought for safe-keeping as a result of the Dushanbe Museum being ransacked for valuables during the Tajikistan Civil War (1992-97).821 Dimensions: 29 x 23 cm (thickness measurement not available) Publication: Chwolson, 1897, № 77 Text and Translation: 822

‫ܒܫܬ ܐܠܦܫܬܡܐ‬ ‫ܥܣܪܝܢ ܫܬܐ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܫܢܬ ܐܪܢܒܐ ܛܘܪܐܟܐܝܬ‬ 823 ‫ܛܒܝܫܐܢ ܗܢܘ ܩܒܪܗ‬ ‫ܕܢܚܐ ܪܝܫܥܝܕܬܐ‬ ‫ܒܪܗ ܡܪܩܘܣ ܩܫܝܫܐ‬

1 2 3 4 5 6

In the year one thousand six hundred twenty six [1314/15 CE]. It was the year of the Hare, in Turkic “tavišghan.” This is the grave of Denḥa, the head of the church, the son of Marqos the priest. Commentary: Like Gravestone 2, the cross on Gravestone 3 has three “pearls” on each end-piece. There are at least three spelling errors in the date formula. The initial word, missing the nun (‫)ܢ‬, should be corrected to ‫ܒܫܢܬ‬, “in the year”; ‫ ܛܘܪܐܟܐܝܬ‬should be corrected to ‫ܛܘܪܟܐܝܬ‬, “in Turkic” and ‫ ܛܒܝܫܐܢ‬is usually spelled ‫ܛܐܒܫܟܐܢ‬, Turkic for “hare,” on the gravestones. Also of note is the use of the masculine form of Syriac numbers, where the feminine form would be correct, here (‫ܫܬܐ‬, “six”) and on Gravestones 4 (‫ܚܕ‬, “one”) and 6 (‫ܬܫܥܐ‬, “nine”); this error is explained by the fact that Turkic languages do not have grammatical gender.824 The date 1626 SE corresponds to 821

Alexei Savchenko, personal correspondence, June 6, 2013. See the discussion under Gravestone 4 below regarding the typical misspelling of the word “hundred” as ‫ܡܐ‬, rather than the correct ‫ܡܐܐ‬. 823 Here and on Gravestones 4-8, the phrase ‫ܗܢܘ ܩܒܪܗ‬, “this is the grave of” does not follow standard Syriac grammar, since the name that follows is not preceded by the particle ‫ܕ‬ in order to correctly indicate possession. For a more general description of ways in which these inscriptions depart from expected Syriac orthography, see KLEIN, 2002. 824 The numbers must agree with the feminine noun ‫ܫܢܬ‬, “year.” Regarding errors on the gravestones related to grammatical gender, see KLEIN, 2002. 254 822

1314/15 CE. “The year of the Hare” is given in both Syriac ( ‫ )ܐܪܢܒܐ‬and Turkic (‫)ܛܒܝܫܐܢ‬, as on a number of the gravestones in this corpus. As before, we can narrow down the date to sometime between 31 January, 1315 (beginning of the year of the Hare) and 30 September, 1315 (end of SE 1626). The Syriac name ‫ܕܢܚܐ‬, Denḥa (“manifestation, Epiphany”) is very common in the corpus, while ‫ܡܪܩܘܣ‬, Marqos is somewhat less so. 825 Whereas his father Marqos was a priest, Denḥa is described as ‫ܪܝܫܥܝܕܬܐ‬, “the head of the church,” a term that is found on another inscription in the Semirechye corpus (where it designates both the deceased and his father as ‫)ܪܝܫܥܝܕܬܐ‬,826 as well as Syriac memorial inscriptions dating from the 8th12th centuries in the ruins of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Mar Addai in the village of Heşterek in the Tur ‘Abdin region (modern-day Mardin province, Turkey).827 Andrew Palmer has interpreted this word as equivalent to the English term “rector,” representing here “the senior member of a college of three or four priests.”828 Perhaps this position in the Central Asian Christian community can be contrasted with that of ‫ܪܝܫܚܘܒܐ‬, “the head of charity,” found on another gravestone in the Tashkent Museum,829 indicating a division of labour between clerics responsible for leadership of local congregations and those who administered alms to the poor and needy. Gravestone 4 [Fig. 10-4] Location: Tashkent Museum: Inventory № 312\3. Dimensions: 30 x 21.5 x 10 cm Publication: Klein, 2000, № 41 (Pl. 71) 825

Denḥa: CHWOLSON, 1890, № 3; № 75,2; CHWOLSON, 1897, № 15; № 45; № 61; № 74; № 123, № 160; № 283; № 290; № 305; № 308; KLEIN, 2000, № 12; Marqos: CHWOLSON, 1897, № 221; № 236; № 318. 826 ДЖУМАГУЛОВ, 1987, 44-45: ‫ܒܫܢܬ ܐܬܪܐ ܗܘܐ ܐܪܢܒܐ ܗܢܘ ܩܒܪܗ ܓܘܪܓܝܣ‬ ‫ܪܫܝܕܬܐ ܒܪܗ ܐܢܛܘܢ ܪܫܥܕܬܐ‬, “In the year 1602, it was (the year of) the Hare. This is the grave of Giwargis (George), the head of the church, son of Anton, the head of the church.” 827 POGNON, 1907, 192-197 (№ 96, l. 3; № 97, ll. 2, 8; № 99, ll. 2, 7; № 100, l. 3; № 101, l. 3, 5; № 102, l. 2; № 103, l. 4; № 106, l. 5; № 107, l. 6). These inscriptions are dated 1083 SE (771/72 CE) 1414 SE (1102/03 CE), 1287 SE (975/76 CE), 1477 SE (1165/66 CE), 1308 SE (996/97 CE), 1353 SE (1041/42 CE), 1307 SE (995/96 CE), 1385 SE (1073/74 CE) and 1224 SE (912/13 CE). See also PALMER, 1987, 64. 828 PALMER, 1990, 220-221. My thanks to Andrew Palmer for alerting me to the existence of these inscriptions (personal correspondence, June 2, 2014). 829 DICKENS, 2009, 38-40. 255

Text and Translation:

)‫ܒܫܢܬ ܐܠܦ ܫܬܡܐ(ܐ‬ ‫ܘܬܠܬܝܢ ܚܕ ܗܘܐ ܫܢܬ‬ ‫ܩܘܦܐ ܗܢܐ‬ ‫ܩܒܪܗ‬ ‫ܐܪܣܠܐܢ‬ ‫ܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬

1 2 3 4 5 6

In the year one thousand six hundred and thirty one [1319/20 CE]. It was the year of the Monkey. This is the grave of Arslan the believer. Commentary: In his survey of the gravestones currently in the Tashkent Museum, Minasyants notes that two gravestones with Syriac inscriptions were uncovered at the beginning of the 20th century in Tashkent, in the courtyard of Colonel S. D. Asfendiarova on Starogospitalnoy Street. Since these would not have been included in the publications of either Chwolson or Kokovtsov, one of them may be this stone (although there are four other candidates: Gravestones 8-10 below and Gravestone No. 3 from my earlier publication830). The upper and two side arms of the cross have “Maltese” cross ends, while the lower arm has the three “pearls” seen on many of the crosses in the corpus. The date 1631 SE corresponds to 1319/20 CE. Combining this with the reference to the year of the Monkey allows us to place the date of death sometime between 31 January, 1320 (beginning of the year of the Monkey) and 30 September, 1320 (end of 1631 SE). Klein reads the number 600 as the correctly spelled ‫ܫܬܡܐܐ‬, but it might also be the orthographic variant ‫ ܫܬܡܐ‬frequently found on these stones (e.g. Gravestones 3 and 5); for yet another variant spelling, see Gravestone 6 below. The name, ‫ܐܪܣܠܐܢ‬, Arslan (Turkic for “lion”) is an exceedingly popular name in the gravestone corpus.831 On this stone, the standard description of non-cleric males is used: ‫ܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬, “believer” (see also gravestones 5 and 6 below).

830

DICKENS, 2009, 36-38. CHWOLSON, 1890, № 8; № 9; № 11,4; № 34; №36; 42,3; № 48,4; № 75; CHWOLSON, 1897, № 22; № 45; № 58; № 87; № 93; № 107; № 132; № 166; № 232; KLEIN, 2000, № 14. Arslan is often compounded with other names. See also KLEIN & TABALDIEV, 2009, 88; RYBATZKI, 2004, 275. 256

831

Gravestone 5 [Fig. 10-5] Location: Tashkent Museum: Inventory № 312\4. Dimensions: 27.5 x 22.5 x 7 cm Publication: Хвольсон, 1895, № 9; Chwolson, 1897, № 105 (image in Таб. II) Text and Translation:

‫ ܒܫܢܬ ܐܠܝܦ‬1 ‫ ܫܬܡܐ‬2 *‫ ܐܬܪܠܚ‬3 832 ‫ ܛܘܪܟܨܐ (ܐ)ܝܠ‬4 *‫ ܦܪܣ ܗܘܐ‬5 ‫ ܗܢܘ ܩܒܪܗ‬6 ‫ ܐܘܪܘܓ ܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬7 ]lege ‫ ܘܒܬܪܗ [ܘܒܪܬܗ‬8 ‫ ܛܘܙܛܝـ‬9 ‫ ܪܚܡ ܛܝܠ‬10 * ll. 3, 5 are inscribed upside down on the lower part of the stone In the year one thousand six hundred, 1638 [1326/27 CE], it was the Turkic year of the Tiger.833 This is the grave of Urug the believer and his daughter Tuz-tāy the compassionate. Commentary: As Chwolson noted in his original reading of this stone, the order of the lines is not immediately clear, due to two lines being written upside down on the lower part of the stone. Thus, l. 1 is above the very simple cross; l. 2 is to the far left of the cross (above l. 4); l. 3 is the fifth line below the cross (upside-down); l. 4 is immediately to the left of the cross (below l. 2); l. 5 is the fourth line below the cross (upside-down); l. 6 is immediately to the right of the cross (above l. 7); l. 7 is on the far left of the cross (below l. 6); l. 8 is the first line below the cross; l. 9 is the second line below the cross; and l. 10 is the third line below the cross. The inscription begins with the words one thousand six hundred spelled out (note the non-standard “phonetic” spelling of the word ‫)ܐܠܝܦ‬. For some reason, the scribe then switched to the system of using letters to represent 832 833

Or possibly ‫ܛܘܪܧܨܐ‬. Underlined text is in Turkic.

257

numbers;834 1638 SE corresponds to 1326/27 CE. Unlike Gravestones 3 and 6, which give the Turkic animal-name using Syriac phrases – ‫ܛܘܪܐܟܐܝܬ‬ ‫ܛܒܝܫܐܢ‬, “in Turkic tavišghan” or ‫“ ܗܢܐ ܛܘܪܟܐܝܬ ܦܐܪܣ‬this is bars in Turkic” – Gravestone 5 uses a Turkic phrase ‫ ܛܘܪܟܨܐ (ܐ)ܝܠ ܦܪܣ‬turkča yil bars, ending in the Syriac past tense copula ‫ܗܘܐ‬, yielding “it was the Turkic year of the Leopard.” Chwolson’s reading of ‫(ܐ)ܝܠ‬, “year” differs from the usual way of spelling this common Turkic word in Syriac script (cf. ‫ ܝܝܠ‬on Gravestone 2), but it is hard to tell from the image if indeed there is an initial aleph. As Chwolson notes, the dual dating system of 1638 SE and the “year of the Tiger” allows us to narrow the date down to between 1 October, 1326 (beginning of 1638 SE) and 30 January 1327 (end of the year of the Tiger). This gravestone seems to commemorate a father and his daughter; the name of the former, ‫ܐܘܪܘܓ‬, Urug, is Turkic for “seed” (and by extension “progeny”). Chwolson rightly notes that the word ‫ܒܬܪܗ‬, “after him” is an error, correcting it to ‫ܒܪܬܗ‬, “his daughter”; this word is preceded by the letter ‫ܘ‬, “and,” although the loop seems to double as part of the final ‫ ܗ‬on l. 6.835 Chwolson was unsure whether to read the second name on l. 9 as ‫ ܛܘܙܛܐ‬or ‫ ;ܛܘܪܛܐ‬I would suggest ‫ܛܘܙܛܝـ‬, Tuz-tāy, Turkic for “like salt.” The ending -tāy, “like” is commonly used in Turkic names (as seen in Gravestone 2 above) and “like salt” would be an appropriate name for a Christian, calling to mind the phrase from the Sermon on the Mount, “You are the salt of the earth.”836 Curiously, although not common in the gravestone corpus, Urug seems to be a name used by both males and females. 837 Thus, this stone uses ‫ܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬, the male term for “believer,” but the female equivalent ‫ ܡܗܝܡܢܬܐ‬is used on the only other example in Chwolson’s works.838 The third example from the corpus, found in Kokovtsov’s works, is probably male, as the double name ‫ ܐܘܪܘܓ ܛܐܡܘܪ‬suggests; ‫ ܛܐܡܘܪ‬Temur,

834

See also CHWOLSON, 1897, № 36, № 48. Chwolson suggests that these lines should be translated as “the believers Urug and his daughter Tuzta” but the word ‫ܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬, “believer” is lacking the plural seyame marker. 836 Matt. 5:13. 837 RÁSONYI & BASKI, 2007, 821-822 does not add any information on gender of the name, beyond the gravestone data discussed here. My thanks for this information to Peter Zieme, who suggests that the name should indeed be male (personal correspondence, June 9, 2014). 838 CHWOLSON, 1890, № 50: ‫ܐܘܪܘܓ ܡܗܝܡܢܬܐ‬. An image of the stone can be found in ДЖУМАГУЛОВ, 1987, 119. 258 835

“iron” is typically a masculine name.839 Tuz is slightly more common than Urug in the corpus.840 Chwolson considered the final line as incomprehensible, but I propose to read it as a modifier, describing Tuz-tāy as ‫ܪܚܡ ܛܝܠ‬,

which I understand to be a transliteration of Persian ‫رمحدل‬, raḥm-dil, 841 “compassionate” (still used as an adjective in various modern languages, including Urdu and Uzbek, particularly in translating the attribute of God found in the phrase ‫الرحيم‬, ar-raḥīm, “the Merciful” from the Muslim Bismillah formula). This would not be unusual for the gravestone corpus, which has other Persian loan-words in it, a reflection of the inroads that Persian had made in Central Asia in the previous centuries.842

Gravestone 6 [Fig. 10-6] Location: Tashkent State University, Faculty of History, Department of Archaeology. Dimensions: 26 cm x 20 cm (thickness measurement not available) Publication: Klein, 2000, № 11 (Pl. 41) Text and Translation:

‫ܒܫܢܬ ܐܠܦ ܫܬ[ܡـ]ܐܐ‬ ‫ܐܪܒܥܝܢ ܬܫܥܐ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܫܢܬ ܢܡܪܐ ܗܢܐ‬ ‫ܛܘܪܟܐܝܬ ܦܐܪܣ‬ ‫ܗܢܘ ܩܒܪܗ ܗܝܢܕܘ‬ ‫ܡܗܝܡܢܐ‬

1 2 3 4 5 6

In the year one thousand six hundred forty-nine [1337/38 CE]. It was the year of the Tiger; this is “bars” in Turkic. This is the grave of Hindu the believer. 839

КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, № 10: there are no other words on this stone other than

‫ܛܐܡܘܪ‬.

‫ܐܘܪܘܓ‬

840

CHWOLSON, 1890, № 80,1; CHWOLSON, 1897, № 86; № 94; № 177; № 239. The gender of this name is indicated by its typical combination with female names and/or titles like ‫ܛܝܪܝܡ‬, ‫ ܧܘܫܛܢܨ‬and ‫ܐܫܐ‬. However, the gender of some instances of the name is unclear, due to its combination with typically male names like ‫ܦܠܓܐ‬. 841

In this compound word, the first element

842

‫ رحم‬is of course Arabic.

A good example can be found on one of the gravestones published in DICKENS, 2009, 2832: ‫( ܐܝܣܦܗܣܠܐܪ‬ispah-salār), representing Persian ‫اسپهساالر‬, “military leader” or “commander-in-chief.”

259

Commentary: As Minasyants notes, this gravestone was originally found in 1919 at the village of Bir-bulak (roughly 30 km south of Bishkek), which explains why it was not published by either Chwolson or Kokovtsov.843 The ends of all four arms of the cross are Maltese-style. Klein reads the last number in the date as ‫“ ܫܬ‬six” but it is clearly ‫ܬܫܥܐ‬, “nine”; 1649 SE corresponds to 1337/38 CE. Factoring in the reference to the year of the Tiger gives a date between 31 January, 1338 (the beginning of the year of the Tiger) and 30 September, 1338 (the end of 1649 SE). Again, the animal-cycle year is given in both Syriac and Turkic.844 The name ‫ܗܝܢܕܘ‬, Hindu deserves special comment. It is found (along with the more common spelling ‫ )ܗܢܕܘ‬on several gravestones from Yeti Su845 and occurs in Chinese on a gravestone from Yangzhou of “Elizabeth the wife of Xindu from Dadu (Peking).”846 Syriac ‫ܗܢܕܘ‬, from Sanskrit सिन्धु, refers to the Indus River and, by extension, the country of India.847 It is not a common name in Syriac; apart from the gravestone corpus, most of its few occurrences seem to date from after the withdrawal of the Church of the East into northern Mesopotamia in the wake of Timur’s invasion of Iraq in the late 14th century. Thus, two deacons of the Church of the East named “Hendi” or “Hindi” are recorded ca. 1572 and ca. 1787.848 More significantly, two patriarchs of the short-lived Diyarbakir Line (or Amid Patriarchate) of the Uniate Chaldean Church were named Lazar Hindi (Joseph IV, 1757-96) and Augustine Hindi (Joseph V, 1802-27).849 Indeed, the family name Hindi is still found in the Middle East, especially amongst Muslims, usually indicating ancestors who either came from India or were involved in trade there. As a personal name in Arabic, Hind (‫ )هند‬is female, but the Syriac name seems to be always used for males. The name apparently has a long history in the Middle East, occurring on “seven incantation bowls [which] all name the

843

МИНАСЯНЦ, 2013, 622, citing МАССОН, 1978, 53. Note the variation in spelling Turkic bars, “leopard” between ‫ ܦܪܣ‬on Gravestone 3 and ‫ ܦܐܪܣ‬on this stone. 845 CHWOLSON, 1890, № 50,9; № II; CHWOLSON, 1897, № 114; № 120; № 145; № 146; № 192. 846 GENG, 2006, 255; LIEU ET AL, 2012, 171-174. 847 PAYNE SMITH, 1879-1901, Vol. I, col. 1026. 848 WILMSHURST, 2000, 70, 159. 849 WILMSHURST, 2011, 332-333. 260 844

same male client, one Mahperoz son of Hindo,” (mpyrwz br hyndw); the Persian name Mahperoz suggests a date during the Sassanid era (224-651).850 The Central Asian occurrences of this name are not restricted to the gravestone corpus however; a bilingual Sino-Mongolian inscription dating from 1362, during the reign of the last Yuan emperor, Toghan-Temür (13331370), is dedicated to “His Excellency Hsin-tu (Hindu)” (忻都). In recognition of his son Oron’s service to the Mongols, Hindu was posthumously granted the title of “prince.” It is clear from both the Chinese and Mongolian text that Hindu’s family were not Mongols, but rather ethnic Uighurs who served in the Mongol administration after having previously served the Ïduq Qut, the ruler of the Uighur Kingdom of Qocho, based in Turfan, one of the locations where we have abundant evidence of a strong Christian presence.851 Geng also suggests that the Hindu mentioned in the Yangzhou stone could possibly be identified with Xindu (Pinyin equivalent to Wade-Giles Hsin-tu) the son of Dashiman (d. 1317), a Qarluq Turk who served as a high official under four successive Mongol emperors, beginning with Kublai Khan (12601294). Dashiman’s son Xindu served as general commandant of Shangdu under the emperor Ayurparibhadra (1311-1320).852 The Qarluqs were almost certainly the Turks who converted to Christianity in the late 8th century and received a metropolitan bishop from Patriarch Timothy I (780-823),853 so it is not unreasonable to conjecture that Dashiman and his son Xindu/Hindu were Turkic Christians.854 How can we connect all this onomastic data? Contra Mingana, who suggested that ‫ ܣܐܙܝܟ ܗܝܢܕܘ‬found on two gravestones855 was a reference to “Sāzīk the Indian” and evidence of “constant intercourse between the different Christian peoples of Central Asia and the Far East,” 856 it seems likely that the name ‫ ܗܝܢܕܘ‬originated at the latest in Sassanian times as an indica850

HUNTER, 2002, 259, 261, 271, 273. I am grateful to the following members of the Hugoye discussion group for information I have incorporated into this discussion: Thomas Carlson, Sergey Minov and Salam Rassi (personal correspondence, August 19-21, Sept. 3, 2013). 851 CLEAVES, 1949, 16-20, 24-27, 30-38, 83-94. 852 GENG, 2006, 253-254. 853 See DICKENS, 2010 [See Chapter 3 in this volume]. 854 This Dashiman appears to be different from the Christian Dašman mentioned in ENDICOTT-WEST, 1989, 135-138, who is described as a Kereyid (Kerait) Mongol who died in 1304. 855 CHWOLSON, 1897, № 145 & 146. 856 MINGANA, 1925, 335. In contrast to Mingana’s assertions that the gravestones give evidence of a multi-ethnic cosmopolitanism, it is clear from the names on the stones that the vast majority of the Christian community were Turkic. 261

tion of some form of connection with India, presumably through trade and commerce. The name was probably brought by the Persian-speaking Church of the East to Central Asia at some point. Whether or not the few who bear that name in the gravestone corpus had connections themselves with India is impossible to determine, but they were clearly not of Indian ethnicity (if they were, the ethnonym ‫ ܗܢܕܘܝܐ‬or ‫ ܗܢܕܘܝܬܐ‬would have been used).857 Presumably the name spread to the Uighur Christians, resulting in its occurrence amongst a number of Uighur elites during the Mongol Yuan dynasty. Gravestone 7 [Fig. 10-7] Location: Ashgabat National Museum of History, Archaeology Department: Item N-310. Whereas there were originally two gravestones in the Ashgabat Museum, one of them vanished during the regime of former Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov (1991-2006). Thanks for the survival of Gravestone 7 are due to Nurgozel Beshimova, Head of the Archaeology Department of the Ashgabat Museum. The image reproduced in this article was taken by Vladimir Artemyev.858 Dimensions: 27.5 x 18.5 x 0.6 cm Publication: Chwolson, 1897, № 262; Массон, 1978 Text and Translation:

‫ ܗܢܘ ܩܒܪܗ‬1 ‫ ܦܝܬܝܘܢ ܛܠܝܐ‬2 This is the grave of Pethion, the young boy. Commentary: This stone and the other stone from Ashgabat, now missing, were discussed by M.A. Masson in his 1978 article. The missing stone, deciphered by

857

Examples of genuine ethnonyms in the corpus include 1) ‫ܝܘܚܢܢ ܩܫܐ ܛܐܒܓܐܨ‬, “Yuḥannan the Tavgach priest” (CHWOLSON, 1890, № 3,1), where Tavgach could mean “Chinese,” “Uighur” or “Turk” (CLAUSON, 1972, 438); 2) ‫ܛܪܝܡ ܨܝܢܝܬܐ‬, “Terim the Chinese (woman)” (CHWOLSON, 1897, № 24); 3) ‫ܒܢܘܣ ܩܫܐ ܐܘܓܘܪ‬, “Banus the Uighur priest” (CHWOLSON, 1897, № 97); 4) ‫ܝܘܚܢܢ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ ܐܪܡܢܝܐ‬, “Yuḥannan the Armenian bishop” (CHWOLSON, 1897, № 100); and 5) ‫ܛܐܛܐ (ܛܐܛܐܪ؟) ܡܘܓܘܠܝܐ‬, “Tata (Tatar?) the Mongol” (CHWOLSON, 1897, № 268). However, most such “gentilic” forms in the corpus indicate residents of two other cities in Central Asia: Almaliq ( ‫ ܐܠܡܐܠܝܓܝܐ‬or ‫ ܐܠܡܐܠܝܓܝܬܐ‬in CHWOLSON, 1890, № 98; № 99; № 3,3; № 3,5; № 11,1; № 11,2; CHWOLSON, 1897, № 261) and Kashghar (‫ ܟܫܟܪܝܐ‬in CHWOLSON, 1897, № 211). 858 Alexei Savchenko, personal correspondence, June 6, 2013. 262

the Soviet scholar A.V. Paykova, had the inscription “Алка Периодевт.”859 The drawing of this lost stone in Masson’s article indicates that the inscription was probably ‫ܐܠܩܐ ܣܥܘܪܐ‬, although the second word is poorly formed (this stone was not included in any of Chwolson’s works).860 Thus Алка renders the name ‫ܐܠܩܐ‬,861 which may represent the imperative form of the Turkic verb alka- “to praise.”862 The ecclesiastical title, rather than ‫ܦܪܝܕܘܛܐ‬, from Greek periodeutes (referring to “a visiting priest acting as the bishop’s representative in visiting villages and monasteries”863) is ‫ܣܥܘܪܐ‬, “visitor,” which at certain times and places in the Syriac tradition has been conflated with ‫ ܦܪܝܕܘܛܐ‬and/or ‫ܟܘܪܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐ‬, from Greek chorepiscopos (referring to “one who ruled over village churches in the place of a bishop”864), while at other times the three terms have referred to quite separate offices. All three terms are used on the Semirechye gravestones, but it is unclear what, if any, overlap there may have been between them.865 The iconography of Gravestone 7 is similar to that of Gravestone 4; the upper and two side arms of the cross have “Maltese” cross ends, but the lower arm has the three “pearls.” The name ‫ܦܝܬܝܘܢ‬, Pethion recalls a 5th cent. Persian hermit martyred under Yazdegerd II.866 I am not aware of any other occurrences of this name in the gravestone corpus. There is nothing to identify this young boy any further; since ‫( ܛܠܝܐ‬which has a broad definition ranging from “an infant, very young child” to “a lad, servant” 867) is contrasted in the corpus with ‫ܥܠܝܡܐ‬, “a young man over eighteen years of age,”868 we can assume that Pethion was probably less than eighteen years old. We might wonder if he died in 1649 or 1650 SE (1337/38 or 1338/39 CE), when the plague swept through the area, resulting in many gravestones from that year, as discussed below.

859

МИНАСЯНЦ, 2013, 620, citing МАССОН, 1978, 55. For more on these two stones from Ashgabat, see KLEIN, 2000, 225-226. Abb. 75 on p. 429 of this volume reproduces the drawing found in МАССОН, 1978, 52. 861 Cf. CHWOLSON, 1897, № 316. 862 CLAUSON, 1972, 138. It is not uncommon for Syriac ‫ ܩ‬to represent /k/ in Turkic words. 863 PAYNE SMITH, 1903, 460. 864 PAYNE SMITH, 1903, 210. 865 On which, see CHWOLSON, 1890, 125, who notes four chorepiscopi, one periodeutes and eight visitors (not including the 1897 volume, of course). See also my brief discussion of these terms in DICKENS, 2009, 38. 866 PAYNE SMITH, 1879-1901, Vol. II, col. 3340. 867 PAYNE SMITH, 1903, 174. 868 PAYNE SMITH, 1903, 60. 263 860

Gravestone 8 [Fig. 10-8] Location: Tashkent Museum: Inventory № 312\2. Dimensions: 43 x 33 x 9.5 cm Text and Translation:

‫ ܗܢܘ ܩܒܪܗ‬1 ‫ ܐܒܪܗܡ‬2 ‫ ܒܪܗ ܐܝܣܚܩ‬3 This is the grave of Abraham, the son of Isaac. Commentary: Apparently, this stone has not previously been published; therefore it is possibly one of the two stones uncovered in Tashkent at the beginning of the 20th century noted above. Like Gravestones 4 and 7, the upper and two side arms of the cross have “Maltese” cross ends; however, the lower arm is concave, not convex. Both Abraham and Isaac are popular Syriac names (in contrast to the biblical order of the patriarchs, note that Isaac is the father here!); the former is more popular than the latter in the corpus.869 Abraham is also the name of the deceased commemorated on a gravestone from Olon Süme, Inner Mongolia, inscribed in three scripts: Syriac, Uighur and Chinese.870 Gravestone 9 [Fig. 10-9] Location: Tashkent Museum: Inventory № 312\6. Dimensions: 30.5 x 16 x 12.5 cm Text and Translation:

)‫ ܝܫܘܥ(؟‬1 )‫ ܐܘ(؟‬2 Jesus (?) alas (?) Commentary: Since this stone has not been published before, it is also possibly one of the two stones uncovered in Tashkent at the beginning of the 20th century. The simple cross on a base is in relief, as is the minimal text. The stone is undated and the name is hard to read, so there is little to say about its content; the word on line 2 is speculative, but the Syriac word ‫ܐܘ‬, “alas” would not be out of place on a gravestone. Not surprisingly, the name Jesus is quite 869

Abraham: CHWOLSON, 1897, № 21; № 34; № 83; № 92; № 185; № 306. Isaac: CHWOLSON, 1897, № 298. See also RYBATZKI, 2004, 274. 870 NIU, 2006, 217-220; NIU, 2008, 67-72. 264

common in this corpus.871 In contrast to the majority of incised gravestones in the corpus, far fewer are carved in relief like this one and these are normally of higher quality. It is unusual for a relief stone to have so little text, suggesting that this stone may have been begun but not properly finished. This raises the question of its provenance, since other examples of relief gravestones in the corpus are typically from Almaliq872 and, as noted above, some of the stones from that location described in Kokovtsov’s 1906 article found their way to Tashkent. Finally, given the rudimentary nature of the stonecarving and the possibility that the name was unfinished, perhaps as a result of ruining the stone (relief carving is less forgiving than incised carving when mistakes are made), other possible interpretations of the intended name include ]‫ܝܘܒܝ [ܝܘܡܝ؟‬, 873 ‫( ܝܘܚܢܢ‬John), ‫ܝܘܫܡܕ‬, 874 or ‫( ܝܥܩܘܒ‬Jacob), all found in the corpus. Gravestone 10 [Fig. 10-10] Location: Tashkent Museum: Inventory № 312\1. Dimensions: 34 x 25 x 5.7 cm Commentary: Since this gravestone lacks an inscription, it has thus far not been published to my knowledge; therefore it too is possibly one of the two stones uncovered in Tashkent at the beginning of the 20th century. The “cross potent” has T-shaped arms at the ends.

Concluding Observations These ten gravestones constitute a typical representation of the corpus from Semirechye and thus exemplify the sort of demographic and cultural information that can be gleaned from the corpus. Of the ten, one lacks an inscription, eight of the deceased are male and one is female (Gravestone 1). Of the nine with inscriptions, one is entirely in Turkic (Gravestone 2), while the 871

CHWOLSON, 1890, № 16,1; № 18,1; № 19; № 38,2; № XXXVIII; CHWOLSON, 1897, № 9; № 59; № 230; № 269; KLEIN, 2000, № 1. See also RYBATZKI, 2004, 277-278. 872 See for example КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, № 11 (Таб. XII); КОКОВЦОВ, 1907, № 1 (Таб. I), № 2 (Таб. II). 873 CHWOLSON, 1897, № 49. 874 CHWOLSON, 1890, № 8; № 16; № 49,10; № 50,10; № 50,13; № 75,1; № XII; CHWOLSON, 1897, № 61; № 62; № 132; № 196; № 222; № 266; № 267; № 284. Peter Zieme has argued convincingly in a paper given at the Toyo Bunko (March 2, 2013) that this name stems from Sogdian *yw-šmd, “Sunday,” an equivalent of the Syriac name ‫ܚܕܒܫܒܐ‬, “Sunday.” 265

rest are in Syriac. In addition to names, several of the gravestones include titles of interest; the deceased include a virgin (probably indicating her formal status as a dedicated virgin in the church), a musician (whether or not he played in an ecclesiastical context is unclear), a “head of the church” (himself the son of a priest), three “believers” (indicating adults without ecclesiastical positions) and a young boy. The stones also reflect the typical mixture of names found in the corpus, stemming from both the Syriac tradition (Denḥa, Marqos, Hindu, Pethion, Abraham, Isaac and Jesus) and the surrounding Turkic culture (ČT(Š)Y, Mangu Tāš-tāy, Arslan, Urug and Tuz-tāy). Also of interest are the three different formulae used in the inscriptions. The vast majority of stones in the Yeti Su corpus use a variation of the following Syriac formula: In the year [Seleucid era date]. It was the year of the [name of animal year in Syriac (from 12-year animal cycle)], in Turkic [name of animal year in Turkic]. This is the grave of [personal name and ecclesiastical title or designation as a believer, youth or child]. By contrast, inscriptions that are entirely in Turkic follow a slightly different template: (According to) the calculation of Alexander [followed by optional title] it was [Seleucid era date], it was the Turkic year [name of animal year]. This is the grave of [personal name and possible title]. May he/she be remembered. A third variant in wording is also evident in some of the stones from Almaliq (including Gravestone 2 above) which sometimes begin with the following formula or an abbreviation of it: ‫ܥܢܕ ܘܢܦܩ [ܥܢܕܬ ܘܢܦܩܬ] ܡܢ ܥܠܡܐ‬ ‫ܗܢܐ‬, [Name] departed and left this world…875 This wording is also used on the aforementioned memorial inscriptions in the Syrian Orthodox Church of Mar Addai in Heşterek.876 Gravestones 1-6 contain dates according to both the Seleucid era and the 12-year animal cycle. Seleucid dates are given spelled out in full (Gravestones 2, 3, 4, 6), using the alphabetical equivalents of numbers (Gravestone 1) or a combination of the two (Gravestone 5), while years in the animalcycle use only the Syriac word (Gravestones 1, 4), only the Turkic word (Gravestones 2, 5) or the two together (Gravestones 3, 6). Like some other stones in the corpus,877 Gravestone 5 inserts the Turkic phrase ‫ܛܘܪܟܨܐ‬ ‫(ܐ)ܝܠ ܦܪܣ‬, “the Turkic year of the Tiger” into an otherwise Syriac commemorative text.

875

КОКОВЦОВ, 1906, № 2, 8; КОКОВЦОВ, 1907, № 1, 2. POGNON, 1907, 191-197 (№ 95, l. 1); (№ 97, ll. 4-5); (№ 98, l. 2); (№ 100, l. 2); (№ 106, l. 2); (№ 107, l. 4), etc. 877 CHWOLSON, 1890, № 97; № 11,3; № 49,6; CHWOLSON, 1897, № 105, 106, 113, 214, 240. 266 876

The six gravestones with dates encompass a 30 year period between autumn 1308 and summer 1338. During this time, the Mongol Chaghatay Ulus where these Turkic Christians lived (whether in Yeti Su or Almaliq) was ruled by eight khans, most of whom had short reigns: Nalighu (1308-1309), Esen-Buqa (1309-1318?), Kebeg (1318?-1327), Eljigidei (1327-1330), Töre Temür (1330-1331), Tarmashirin (1331-1334), Buzan (1334-1335) and Changshi (1335-1338).878 It was a very significant period for the Turkic Christians, during which Pope Benedict XII corresponded with Khan Changshi,879 but more importantly the Islamization that had restarted with the conversion of Tarmashirin to Islam began to pick up pace. The years 1649-50 SE (1337/38 and 1338/39 CE) were also marked by the ravages of plague in Central Asia (the same Black Death which devastated Europe beginning in 1346), acknowledged in many of the gravestones in the corpus.880 Around the same time, probably in 1339, a Catholic bishop and six other friars who had established a Franciscan mission in Almaliq, the Chaghatay capital, were martyred, as recorded by John Marignolli.881 Shortly after this period, in 1347, the Chaghatay Ulus disintegrated into several smaller polities (Qara’una, Moghulistan and Mawara’un-nahr), a situation which facilitated the rise to power of Timur (1336-1405). Thus, in many ways, these gravestones represent the swan-song of Syriac Christianity in Central Asia. Bibliography ATWOOD, Christopher P., 2004. Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. New York: Facts on File Publications. BASKI, Imre, 1986. A Preliminary Index to Rásonyi’s Onomasticon Turcicum (Materials for Central Asiatic and Altaic Studies 6). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. CHWOLSON, Daniel, 1886. “Syrisch Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, Vol. VII (Ser.), No. XXXIV (Tom.), No. 4, 1-30. CHWOLSON, Daniel, 1890. “Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, Vol. VII (Ser.), No. XXXVII (Tom.).

878

ATWOOD, 2004, 626. MOULE, 1917, 15, 18. 880 CHWOLSON, 1890, 81-91; CHWOLSON, 1897, 31-38. 881 MOULE, 1917, 4-5. The original Latin text can be found in VAN DEN WYNGAERT, 1929, 510-511. 267 879

ХВОЛЬСОН, Д., 1895. “Сирійско-тюркскія несторіанскія надгробныя надписи XIII и XIV стольтій, найденныя въ Семиръчьъ,” in Восточныя Замътки, 115-129. CHWOLSON, Daniel, 1897. Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. Neue Folge. St. Petersburg: Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences. CLAUSON, Gerard, 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CLEAVES, Francis Woodman, 1949. “The Sino-Mongolian inscription of 1362 in memory of Prince Hindu,” in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 12, 1-133. DAUKEYEVA, Saida D., 2012. “The Kazakh Qobyz: Between Tradition and Modernity,” in Music of Central Asia: An Introduction, ed. by Theodore Levin & Elmira Köchümkulova. Bishkek: Aga Khan Trust for Culture & University of Central Asia, 188-200. DICKENS, Mark, 2009. “Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 1), ed. by Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang. Wien: LIT Verlag, 13-49. DICKENS, Mark, 2010. “Patriarch Timothy I and the Metropolitan of the Turks,” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 20, 117-139. DŽUMAGULOV, Četin, 1968. “Die syrisch-türkischen (nestorianischen) Denkmäler in Kirgisien,” in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientsforschung, Vol. 14, 470-480. ДЖУМАГУЛОВ, Ч., 1971. Язык Сиро-Тюркских (Несторианских) Памятников Киргизии. Фрунзе: Академия наук Киргизской ССР. ДЖУМАГУЛОВ, Ч., 1987. Эпиграфика Киргизии, выпуск 3. Фрунзе: Академия наук Киргизской ССР. ENDICOTT-WEST, Elizabeth, 1989. “Merchant Associations in Yuan China: The Ortoγ,” in Asia Major, Vol. 2, No. 2, 127-154. GENG, Shimin, 2006. “Reexamination of the Nestorian Inscription from Yangzhou,” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 243-255. HALBERTSMA, Tjalling, 2008. Early Christian Remains of Inner Mongolia: Discovery, Reconstruction and Appropriation (Sinica Leidensia 88). Leiden: Brill. 268

HUNTER, Erica C. D., 2002. “Manipulating Incantation Texts: Excursions in Refrain A,” in Iraq, Vol. 64, 259-273. KLEIN, Wassilios, 2000. Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh (Silk Road Studies III). Turnhout: Brepols. KLEIN, Wassilios, 2002. “Syriac Writings and Turkic Language according to Central Asian Tombstone Inscriptions” [Electronic Version], in Hugoye, Vol. 5, No. 2. KLEIN, Wassilios & Kuvatbek Tabaldiev, 2009. “Zwei neu gefunden syrische Grabsteine aus Kyrgyzstan,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 1), ed. by Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang. Wien: LIT Verlag, 87-90. КОКОВЦОВ, П.К., 1906. “Христіанско-сирійскія надгробныя надписи изъ Алмалыка,” in Записки Восточнаго Отдъленія Императорскаго Русскаго Археологическаго Общества, Vol. 16, 0190-0200. КОКОВЦОВ, П.К., 1907. “Несколько новыхь надгробныхъ камней съ христіанско-сирійскіми надписями изъ Средней Азіи,” in Известия Императорской Академіи Наукъ (Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg), Vol. I (VI Série), 427458. КОКОВЦОВ, П.К., 1909. “Къ сиро-турецкой эпиграфикь Семирьчья,” in Известия Императорской Академіи Наукъ (Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg), Vol. III (VI Série), 773796. LIEU, Samuel N. C., Lance Eccles, Majella Franzmann, Iain Gardner & Ken Parry, 2012. Medieval Christian and Manichaean Remains from Quanzhou (Zayton) (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum: Series Archaeologica et Iconographica II). Turnhout: Brepols. МАЛОВ, С. Е., 1959. Памятники Древнетюркской Письменности Монголии и Киргизии. Москва-Ленинград: Издателство Академии Наук СССР. МАССОН, М.Е., 1978. “Происхождение двух несторианских намогильных галек Средней Азии,” in Общественные науки в Узбекистане, Vol. 10, 50-55. МИНАСЯНЦ, В.С., 2013. “Намогильные камни-кайраки с крестами и сирийскими надписями, хранящиеся в Археологическом фонде 269

Государственного музея истории Узбекистана АН РУЗ,” in Христианский Восток (Xristianskij Vostok), Vol. 6 (12), 615-628. MINGANA, Alphonse, 1925. “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: A New Document,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol. 9, No. 2, 297-371. MOULE, A. C., 1917. “The Minor Friars in China I,” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 49, 1-36. NIU, Ruji, 2006. “Nestorian Inscriptions from China (13th-14th Centuries),” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 209-242. NIU, Ruji, 2008. Shizi lianhua : Zhongguo Yuandai Xuliyawen Jingjiao beiming wenxian yanjiu 十字蓮花 : 中國元代敘利亞文景教碑銘 文獻研究. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe. PALMER, Andrew, 1987. “A Corpus of inscriptions from Tur ‘Abdin and environs,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 71, 53-139. PALMER, Andrew, 1990. Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier: The Early History of Ṭur ‘Abdin (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PAYNE SMITH, Jessie, 1903. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Oxford: Clarendon Press [repr: Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999]. PAYNE SMITH, Robert, ed. 1879-1901. Thesaurus Syriacus (2 vols). Oxford: Clarendon. POGNON, Henri, 1907. Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la région de Mossoul. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. RÁSON I, Lászlo, 1953. “Sur quelques catégories de noms de personnes en turc,” in Acta Linguistica Hungarica, Vol. 3, 323-352. RÁSON I, Lászlo & Imre BASKI, 2007. Onomasticon Turcicum: Turkic Personal Names (2 vols) (Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 172/I & II). Bloomington: Indiana University. RYBATZKI, Volker, 2004. “Nestorian Personal Names from Central Asia,” in Studia Orientalia, Vol. 99, 269-291. SAUVAGET, Jean, 1950. “Noms et surnoms de Mamelouks,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. 238, 31-58. VAN DEN WYNGAERT, Anastasius, 1929. Sinica franciscana, Volumen 1: Itinera et relationes Fratrum Minorum saeculi XIII et XIV. Firenze: Apud Collegium S. Bonaventurae. 270

WILMSHURST, David, 2000. The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East 1318-1913. Leuven: Peeters. WILMSHURST, David, 2011. The Martyred Church: A History of the Church of the East. London: East & West Publishing. ZIEME, Peter, 1981. “Ein Hochzeitssegen uigurischer Christen,” in Scholia: Beiträge zur Turkologie und Zentralasienkunde, ed. by Klaus Röhrborn & Horst Wilfrid Brands. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 221-232.

271

11 YAHBALAHA THE TURK: AN INNER ASIAN PATRIARCH OF THE EASTERN CHRISTIANS Mark DICKENS St. Joseph’s College, University of Alberta, Canada Patriarchal Lists of the Church of the East Sometime in the 13th century, “Mar882 Solomon, the Metropolitan of Prath Mayšan, that is, Baṣra” ( ‫ܡܪܝ ܫܠܝܡܘܢ ܡܝܛܪܦܘܠܝܛܐ ܕܦܪܬ ܡܝܫܢ ܕܗܝ‬ ‫)ܗܝ ܒܨܪܗ‬, an important prelate in the Church of the East, wrote a work called “the Book of Gleanings (Extracts) that is called the Bee” ( ‫ܟܬܒܐ‬ ̈ ),883 an eclectic mixture of information gleaned ‫ܕܠܘܩܛܐ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ ܕܒܘܪܝܬܐ‬ from earlier sources in a manner similar to that of a honeybee collecting nectar from flowers. The only date we can attach to Solomon’s life is 1222, when the Christian Arabic compendium called The Book of the Tower (Kitāb al-Majdal) tells us that he (‫ )شليمون مطران البصرة‬was present at the consecration of the Catholicos-Patriarch Sabrishoʿ (IV) bar Qayyoma (r. 1222-1224),884 leader of the Church of the East, a church which, by the early 13th century, had already spread throughout much of what would soon be the Mongol Empire. ̈ Chapter 51 of Solomon’s Book of the Bee consists of a list of ‫ܫܡܗܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̇ ‫ܕܫܠܝ ̈ܚܐ ܐܕܝ ܘܡܐܪܝ‬ ‫ܬܚܠܘܦܐ‬ .‫ܕܩܬܘܠܝܩܐ ܡܕܢ̱ ̈ܚܝܐ‬, “the names of the Easṭ ̣ 882

Mar (Syr. ‫ )ܡܪܝ‬a term that occurs frequently in this discussion of the life of Yahbalaha the Turk, means essentially “lord, owner, master”; when applied to an ecclesiastical official as a title of respect, it is usually translated as “My Lord, Sir, Saint” (Payne Smith, Jessie, 1903. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 298). 883 The Syriac title is taken from the Syriac text of the Book of the Bee: Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, ed. & tr., 1886. The Book of the Bee. Oxford: Clarendon Press. All translations from Syriac are my own, but published translations, where available, are referenced in the footnotes below. 884 Gismondi, Enrico, ed. & tr., 1896-1897. Maris Amri et Slibae. De Patriarchis Nestorianorum. Commentaria, Pars Altera (Amri et Slibae). Rome: C. de Luigi, pp. ١١٦ (text) / 67 (translation). My thanks to Thomas Carlson for identifying this source. The Maronite writer Joseph Simon Assemani (1687-1768) tells us this information without referencing the Kitāb al-Mājlis: Assemani, Joseph Simon, 1721. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, Tom. II. Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, p. 453, No. 75. 272

ern Catholicoi, the Deputies of the Apostles Addai and Mari.” The list includes 79 names and it is clear that successive scribes have continued it past the time of Solomon himself. Number 74 in the list reads ‫ܡܪܝ ܝܗܒܐܠܗܐ‬ ‫ܛܘܪܟܝܐ ܐܬܩܒܪ‬ ̣ , “Mar Yahbalaha the Turk was buried…”885 What is distinctive about this entry is the fact that the text mentions the ethnicity of Yahbalaha (whose Syriac name means “God has given” and was almost certainly pronounced “Yahwalaha,” as it is to this day in Syriac-speaking communities). None of the other patriarchs are distinguished in such a way, begging the question, “Why was it significant that Yahbalaha was a Turk? Why did the scribe feel the need to mention this?” Solomon of Baṣra is certainly not the only Syriac writer to single out the fact of Yahbalaha’s Turkic background. Another list of the “Eastern Catholicoi,” typically included in the collection of ʿonyāthā (“anthems, hymns”) attributed to George Warda,886 notes the following under entry 73:

‫ܘܡܪܝ ܝܗܒܐܠܗܐ ܓܒܝܐ ܕܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܒܓܢܣܗ ܛܘܪܟܝܐ ܘܐܢܝܚ ܠܥܡܐ‬ 887

.‫ܡܫܝܚܝܐ ܐܝܟ ܕܦܪܐ ܠܪܘܚܐ ܚܝܐ‬

And Mar Yahbalaha the elect, who was of the Turkish race, and he refreshed the Christian people as he bore fruit for the Spirit of Life.888 Bar ʿEbroyo Listen also to what the Syrian Orthodox maphrian889 and scholar Bar ʿEbroyo (1226-1286, often referred to as Bar Hebraeus in the literature) had 885

Text: Budge, 1886, p. ‫ ܩܠܗ‬/ translation: Budge, 1886, p. 119. Contained in Vat. Syr. 184 (called Codex Amidensis VII by Assemani), ff. 244-246; Vat. Syr. 567, ff. 250-252; Cambridge Add. 1982, ff. 228-230; Mardin Chald. 41, ff. 260-262; Berlin Ms. Or. Quart. 1168,7, ff. 490-493 and Sachau 188. My thanks to Grigory Kessel, Anton Pritula and Steven Ring for their help in identifying this text (personal correspondence, Sept. 29-Oct. 2, 2018). The text is discussed in Tamcke, Martin, 2005. “Remarks concerning Giwargis Warda's ‘Onita about the Catholicoi of the East,” in The Harp (SEERI), Vol. XVIII, p. 121. For further discussion of this patriarchal list in hymnal form, see Pritula, Anton, 2015. The Wardā: An East Syriac Hymnological Collection (Göttinger Orientforschungen. Reihe I: Syriaca, Band 47). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 5, 78, 95-96, 112. As both authors note, there is debate over whether this text was written by Warda or is a later addition to the collection given his name. On the Cambridge manuscript, see Wright, William, 1901. A catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts preserved in the library of the University of Cambridge, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259-260. 887 Text: Assemani, 1721, p. 390 / translation: Assemani, 1721, p. 391. 888 Given that the text is replete with fulsome praise of the enumerated patriarchs, we might take what the author has to say here about Yahbalaha III with a pinch of salt. 273 886

to say about Yahbalaha, first in his Civil Chronicle (also called the Chronicon Syriacum) and then in his Ecclesiastical Chronicle (also known as the Chronicon Ecclesiasticum). In the Chronicon Syriacum (1286, continued up to 1297 by his brother), Yahbalaha’s ethnic origins are in fact somewhat veiled, being implied mainly by association with his fellow monk Rabban Bar Ṣawma, whom we will discuss more in-depth below:

And so Arghun himself sent Rabban Bar Ṣawma, the Uighur monk – who had come with the Catholicos Mar Yahbalaha from the countries of the Great Khan – to the Pope as ambassador.891 Here only Rabban Bar Ṣawma’s ethnicity is identified – he is an Uighur monk, a member of perhaps the most important Turkic group during the Mongol empire. The Uighurs had inherited imperial power on the steppe from the Türks (also known as the Kök-Türks), resulting in the Uighur Empire being established in what is now Mongolia from 744 to 840, when they were in turn overthrown by another Turkic group, the Kirghiz. After the downfall of their empire, the Uighurs were scattered southward to various locations, with the majority settling along the northern branch of the Silk Road trade network. Those Uighurs who did so established their capital in the Turfan oasis, located on the northern rim of the Tarim Basin, from which they ruled their newly-founded Uighur Kingdom until they submitted to Mongol rule in 1209, after which many Uighurs played important roles in the Mongol administration and army. Particularly important was the fact that the Uighurs were a highly literate group with an alphabet, from which the Mongols developed their own script. Also significant for our story is the fact that the Uighurs 889

The term maphrian “is used to designate the prelate who holds the second rank after the Patr[iarch]. in the Syr[ian]. Orth[odox]. Church” (Brock, Sebastian P., Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz & Lucas Van Rompay, 2011. Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, p. 264). 890 Text: Bedjan, Paul, ed., 1890. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Syriacum. Paris: Maisonneuve, p. 578 / translation: Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, tr., 1932. The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj, the son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, being the First Part of his Political History of the World, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 492. 891 Arghun was the Mongol Il-khan of Persia; the Great Khan at the time was Qubilai Khan. The Il-khan was a subordinate khan who ruled the former ‘Abbasid domains under the ultimate authority of the Great Khan, whose throne was initially in Qaraqorum and then, after 1264, in Khan Baliq (Beijing). 274

were a religiously diverse group. Although the majority were Manichaeans or Buddhists, there was a sizable Christian minority, as the Uighur Christian documents from Turfan clearly show.892 However, we will see below that whether or not Rabban Bar Ṣawma (or indeed Mar Yahbalaha) was truly an Uighur has been disputed by scholars. Bar ʿEbroyo (and his brother Bar Ṣawma, who continued Bar ʿEbroyo’s work after the death of the latter) gives us considerably more information about Mar Yahbalaha in his Chronicon Ecclesiasticum (1286, continued up to 1496 by various writers):

‫ ܒܦܘܩܕܢ ܩܘܒܠܝ‬.‫ܘܡܛܠ ܕܟܕ ܚܝ ܗܘܐ ܡܪ ܕܢܚܐ ܬܪܝܢ ܕܝ̈ܪܝܐ ܝܓܘ̈ܪܝܐ ܐܬܘ ܗܘܘ ܡܢ ܨܝܢܢ‬ ‫ ܘܟܕ ܡܛܘ ܠܗܠܝܢ ܐܬ̈ܪܘܬܐ ܐܠ ܐܫܟܚܘ ܐܘܪܚܐ‬.‫ ܕܢܐܙܠܘܢ ܢܣܓܕܘܢ ܒܐܘܪܫܠܡ‬.‫ܩܐܢ ܪܒܐ‬ ‫ ܨܝܕ ܡܪ ܕܢܚܐ ܘܗܘ ܡܪ ܕܢܚܐ ܡܛܠ ܕܐܠ ܢܐܙܠ ܗܘܐ ̇ܗܘ ܒܪ‬.‫ܘܐܬܪܐ ܠܡܐܙܠܬܐ ܐܬܥܟܪ‬ ̄ ‫ܡܝܛܪܘ‬ ‫ܩܠܝܓ ܣܐܢܗ ܠܨܝܢܢ܆ ܐܣܪܚ ܠܚܕ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܬܪܝܢ ܕܝ̈ܪܝܐ ܝܓܘ̈ܪܝܐ ܐܘܟܬܝ ܬܘ̈ܪܟܝܐ‬ ‫ ܗܝܕܝܢ‬.‫ ܘܟܕ ܡܛܝܒܝܢ ܗܘܘ ܕܢܗܦܟܘܢ ܐܠܬܪܗܘܢ ܥܢܕ ܡܪ ܕܢܚܐ‬.‫ܠܨܝܢܢ ܘܝܗܒ ܠܐܗܐ ܫܡܗܗ‬ ̈ ̄ ‫ܡܠܢܟܐ܆‬ ‫ܕܐܬܝܘ ܗܘܐ ܒܪ ܓܢܣܗܘܢ ܐܡܪ ܡܛܠܬܗ ܕܝܗܒ ܠܐܗܐ ܠܡܠܟ‬ ‫ܐܡܝܪܐ ܐܫܡܘܛ‬ ̈ ̄ ‫ܒܓܕܕܝܐ ܠܟܗܘܢ ܨܒܘ ܒܗ‬ ‫ ܐܦ ܓܝܪ‬.‫ܩܬܘܠܢܝ‬ ‫ܕܠܗ ܠܡ ܒܥܝܢ ܟ̈ܪܛܣܝܢܐ ܕܢܗܘܐ ܠܗܘܢ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܐܝܟܢ ܕܗܘ ܢܦܩ‬.‫ܠܡܓܘܠܝܐ ܒܓܢܣܐ ܘܠܫܢܐ ܢܬܥܕܪܘܢ ܡܢܗ‬ ‫ܐܟܡܢ ܕܒܝܕ ܩܪܝܒܘܬܗ‬ ̈ ‫ܦܘܩܕܐܢ ܡܠܟܝܐ ܕܗܘ ܢܬܩܬܠܩ ܘܟܢܫ‬ ‫ܐܦܝ ̄ܣ ܐܝܟ ܥܣܪܝܢ ܘܐܪܒܥܐ ܘܢܚܬܘ ܠܣܠܝܩ‬ ̄ ‫ ܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܗܐܢ ܡܪܝ ܝܗܒ ܠܐܗܐ ܐܦܢ ܡܚܝܠ ܒܝܘܠܦܢܐ‬.‫ܩܬܘܠܢܝ‬ ‫ܘܩܛܝܣܦܘܢ ܘܐܣܪܚܘ‬ ‫ ܘܚܘܒܐ ܣܓܝܐܐ‬.‫ ܘܕܚܠܬ ܠܐܗܐ ܫܟܝܚܐ ܒܗ‬.‫ܘܣܦܪܐ ܣܘܪܝܝܐ ܐܐܠ ܓܒܪܐ ̇ܗܘ ܛܒܐ ܒܟܝܢܗ‬ 893 ̈ .‫ܘܠܒܢܝ ܥܡܢ‬ ‫ܚܘܝ ܠܢ‬ And when Mar Denḥa894 was alive, two Uighur monks came from China by command of the great Qubilai Khan to go worship in Jerusalem. And when they reached these countries, they were unable to find a way and the country was prohibited to pilgrimage. (They stayed) 892

See Zieme, Peter, 2015. Altuigurische Texte der Kirche des Ostens aus Zentralasien (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 41). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. 893 Text: Wilmshurst, David, ed. & tr., 2016. Bar Hebraeus: The Ecclesiastical Chronicle (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 40). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, p. 463 / translation: Wilmshurst, 2016, p. 462. See also Abbeloos, Jean-Baptiste & Thomas Joseph Lamy, ed. & tr., 1877. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, Sect. 2 = Vol. III. Louvain & Paris: E. Peeters & Maisonneuve, col. 451-454. 894 The Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East, about whom, see below. 275

with Mar Denḥa and that Mar Denḥa – so that his enemy Bar Qaligh might not go to China – consecrated one of these two Uighur, that is to say Turkish, monks metropolitan for China and Yahbalaha was his name. And when they were preparing to return to their country, Mar Denḥa departed.895 Then the Amir Eshmut, who was a son of their race, spoke about Yahbalaha to the King of Kings,896 saying “The Christians desire that he would be their Catholicos”. Indeed, also all of the Baghdadites preferred him, as one by whom, through his affinity to the Mongols in race and language, they might be helped. And on account of this, a royal decree came out that he should be made Catholicos. And he gathered 24 bishops and they went down to SeleuciaCtesiphon and consecrated him Catholicos. But this Mar Yahbalaha, although weak in Syriac learning and writing, was a good-natured man and the fear of God was found in him and he showed great love to us and to the people with us. A number of facts are made clear in this passage. Yahbalaha and his companion Rabban Bar Ṣawma (curiously not named in the Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, unlike in the aforementioned Chronicon Syriacum) are Uighur, i.e. Turkish, monks. By Turkish we do not mean inhabitants of Turkey, but rather those of Turkic ethnicity, in this case hailing from the Central Asian heartland of the Turkic peoples. Again, whether or not they were Uighurs will be examined below, but Bar ʿEbroyo obviously considered that they were from that Turkic group. Moreover, when the text mentions the two monks coming from China, we must not think of that merely in terms of the land traditionally inhabited by the Chinese people, but rather as referring to the whole territory ruled by the Great Khan in Beijing, including the Mongolian homeland and parts of Siberia to the north. Indeed, according to Bar ʿEbroyo, it was the Great Khan Qubilai himself who had sent the monks westward on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem, a pilgrimage that circumstances barred them from successfully fulfilling. But destiny had other plans for them. As a result of their arrival shortly before the death of Patriarch Denḥa I (r. 1265-1281) and the fact that they shared ethnic and linguistic roots with the ruling Mongols, the two monks were unwittingly in the right place at the right time. Although, as we will see below, Rabban Bar Ṣawma was the senior of the two monks, it was his disciple who was destined for the highest office in the Church of the East. Initially appointed metropolitan bishop for China by Mar Denḥa – in reaction to the pride of Simon Bar Qaligh, whom Denḥa had pre895 896

A euphemism for “died.” A title of the Mongol Il-khan.

276

viously consecrated to that position – Mar Yahbalaha was subsequently elevated, after Denḥa’s death, to the throne of Catholicos Patriarch. And Bar ʿEbroyo tells us in his text that this appointment was the result of the wishes of all the people of Baghdad – not just the Christians – as well as the decree of the Il-khan Abaqa (r. 1265-1282). Regarding the latter aspect, it is interesting to see the role that the Amir Eshmut played in advocating for Yahbalaha to Abaqa. This individual, the meaning of whose Turkic name is unclear, 897 was, according to Bar ʿEbroyo’s Civil Chronicle, , “an ambassador… (who) was a great and honorable man from the race of the Uighurs and he travelled on the monastic way… and Eshmut was the governor of the , “Amir Eshmut the UiAmir,”898 also referred to as 899 ghur monk.” Also significant is the contrast of Yahbalaha’s strength in the knowledge of the Mongol ethos with his weakness in matters relating to the Syriacspeaking world, the world of the church which he now led. However, as the passage notes, the former trumped the latter in considering what sort of person should lead the Church of the East at this critical time when Mongol power was going from strength to strength. And as Bar ʿEbroyo brings this short narrative to an end, he notes approvingly that, despite any deficiencies in knowledge that he may have had, Mar Yahbalaha was strong in the things that matter: goodness, the fear of God and love. Further evidence of the generally positive relationship between these two men representing branches of Syriac Christianity which had not always been friendly towards each other can be found in the description of Mar Yahbalaha’s actions after the death of Bar ʿEbroyo in July 1286 in the city of Maragha, as described by the brother of the latter, who continued his ecclesiastical chronicle:

̄ ̇ ‫ܒܗܘ ܙܒܢܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܐܬܝܘ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܒܗ ܒܡܪܐܓܗ‬ ‫ܘܡܛܠ ܕܡܪܝ ܝܗܒ ܠܐܗܐ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܐ ܡܫܒܚܐ‬

‫ ܘܢܦܩ ܢܩܘܫܐ ܘܐܬܟܢܫܘ ܠܟܗ‬.‫ܡܕܝܢܬܐ ܦܩܕ ܕܐܠ ܢܦܘܩ ܐܢܫ ܠܫܘܩܐ܆ ܐܦܐܠ ܢܦܬܚ ܚܢܘܬܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܟܕ‬...‫ܚܣܝܐ ܕܠܘܬܗ ܘܣܘܓܐܐ ܕܩ̈ܪܝܘܐܢ ̈ܪܒܐ‬ ‫ ܫܕܪ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܐ‬.‫ܥܡܐ ܠܩܠܬܝܐ ܕܡܦܪܝܢܐ‬ 897

Rás nyi, Lászl & Imre Baski, 2007. Onomasticon Turcicum: Turkic Personal Names (2 vols) (Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 172/I & II). Bloomington: Indiana University, p. 270. 898 Text: Bedjan, 1890, p. 535 / translation: Budge, 1932, p. 456. 899 Text: Bedjan, 1890, p. 554 / translation: Budge, 1932, p. 472. 277

̈ ̈ ‫ܫܡܠܝܘ ܢܣܛܘ̈ܪܝܢܐ‬ ‫ܨܠܢܘܬܗܘܢ ܘܠܘܝܘܗܝ ܐܝܟ ܙܕܩܐ ܛܟܣܘܗܝ ܠܦܓܪܗ‬ ‫ܘܝܘܢܝܐ ܘܐ̈ܪܡܢܝܐ‬ ̇ ‫ܩܕܝܫܐ ܒܡܕܒܚܐ ܙܥܘܪܐ ܕܒܗ ܡܨܐܠ ܗܘܐ ܘܡܩܪܒ ܩܘܪܒܢܐ ܟܠ ܟܡܐ ܕܡܬܛܝܒ ܗܘܐ‬ ‫ܒܗ‬ 900

.‫ܒܡܪܐܓܗ‬

And because Mar Yahbalaha the praiseworthy Catholicos was there at that time in the city of Maragha, he commanded that no person should go out to the market-place nor unlock a stall. And the sounding-board went out and all the people were gathered together to the cell of the maphrian. The Catholicos sent the bishops who were with him and a multitude of large candles… And when the Nestorians, Greeks and Armenians had performed their prayers – and his funeral as a righteous ritual – (they laid) the holy body in a small sanctuary, that in it (a man might) pray and make an offering, as often as (he might) be found in Maragha. The amazing thing about this story is that it is the Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East, not the leaders of the Syrian Orthodox Church, taking the initiative to do all that is necessary in order to give the deceased maphrian a proper burial and to ensure that he is honoured in death as he was in life. It is also noteworthy that Mar Yahbalaha is able to gather together representatives of various different confessions to properly lament and memorialize Bar ʿEbroyo, no small feat in an atmosphere where all too often the different Christian sects were in conflict with each other over various aspects of doctrine and practice. Other Syriac and Christian Arabic Texts Yet another Syriac text also mentions Mar Yahbalaha’s Turkic origins, this time in the context of memorializing him. It is a memrā (‫)ܡܐܡܪܐ‬, a “discourse, sermon, homily, treatise” that follows the colophon in a gospel manuscript that can be dated to 1295 and was formerly kept in the village of Karamlish.901 It was written to commemorate Mar Yahbalaha laying the foundations of the Church of John the Baptist in Maragha. Amongst its lines can be found the following statement which again acknowledges the ethnic origins of the Patriarch:

.‫ܡܪܝ ܝܗܒܐܠܗܐ ܡܫܒܚܐ‬ 900

Text: Wilmshurst, 2016, p. 471 / translation: Wilmshurst, 2016, p. 470. See also Abbeloos & Lamy, 1877, col. 473-476. 901 On the village, see Brock et al, 2011, p. 242. 278

.‫ܦܛܪܝܪܟܝܣ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ‬ .‫ܩܬܘܠܝܩܐ ܢܨܝܚܐ‬ ̈ .‫ܕܓܙܝ ܪܘܚܐ‬ ‫ܓܐܙܒܪܐ‬ .‫ܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܬܪܐ ܛܘܪܟܝܐ‬ .‫ܐܝܬܝܗ ܐܝܬܝܐ ܡܬܘܡܝܐ‬ .‫ܘܐܘܬܒܗ ܥܠ ܗܢܐ ܟܘܪܣܝܐ‬ .‫ܒܬܕܡܘܪܬܐ ܕܬܗܪܐ ܡܠܝܐ‬ .‫ܘܐܠܒܫܗ ܐܦܘܕ ܐܝܩܪܐ‬ .‫ܘܐܣܛܠ ܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܘܗܕܪܐ‬ .‫ܘܥܒܕܗ ܥܠ ܟܠ ܝܩܝܪܐ‬ .‫ܘܪܚܝܡܐ ܬܘܒ ܘܡܝܩܪܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܡܠܟܐ ܐܝܬܝܘ ܠܗ‬ ̈ .‫ܕܫܢܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܡܠܟܬܐ ܩܘ̈ܪܒܢܐ‬ ‫ܐܦ‬ ̈ .‫ܘܫܠܝܛܢܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܡܝ̈ܪܐ‬ 902

̈ .‫ܡܫܬܥܒܕܢܐ‬ ‫ܣܓܕܘ ܠܗ ܐܝܟ‬

Mar Yahbalaha, praiseworthy Patriarch of the East, glorious Catholicos, steward of the treasury of the Spirit; he, however, whom the Eternal Being brought (from) the Turkish country and set upon this throne by a miracle of wondrous provision and clothed (with) the ephod of honour and the stole of praise and glory and made dignified and loving, good and excellent above all. And kings have brought him gifts and queens offerings and amirs and princes have bowed down to him like those in subjection. Like all panegyrics, this passage is full of effusive hyperbole, but what is striking is that, sandwiched between proclaiming the titles of the Patriarch 902

Text: Vosté, Jacques-Marie, 1929. “Memra en l’honneur de Iahballaha III,” in Le Muséon, Vol. 42, p. 172 / translation: Vosté, 1929, p. 174. 279

and extolling his character, we encounter the conviction that a miracle has brought him to the place where he now sits on the throne. God himself has brought him from the land of the Turk (‫ )ܛܘܪܟܝܐ‬in order to raise him up to this place of glory and honour, a place where monarchs befriend him and, even more, do obeisance to him, presumably a reference (albeit inflated) to the close relations that Mar Yahbalaha had with several Mongol rulers. In addition to these Syriac texts, Yahbalaha’s ethnicity is also mentioned in a couple of Christian Arabic texts. Thus, an unidentified scribe who continued a list of patriarchs of the Church of the East initially assembled by Eliya Jawharī, the metropolitan of Damascus (writing sometime after 903)903 has as the second last entry ‫ایابالها الرتکی‬, “Yābālāhā the Turk.” As with the list in the Book of the Bee, his is the only one of the 76 names that is clarified with an ethnonym.904 More significant is an entry in the Christian Arabic Kitāb al-Majdal, “Book of the Tower,” a work that is frequently referred to in the literature under the name(s) of ʿAmr ibn Mattai, Mari ibn Sulaymān and/or Ṣalibā ibn Yuḥannā. The Kitāb al-Majdal was probably originally written in the 11th century, with a subsequent shorter continuation completed in the early 14th century905 – it is in the latter that we find the section on Mar Yahbalaha, which begins as follows:

‫۞ ایابالها الثالث ۞ هذا االب کان شااب مليع الصورۃ خمنجر اللحیۃ مث عمر فی الکرسی حتی‬ ‫صار شينحا هيواب وهو من الرتک من ابلد اخلطا ورد من بلده فی خدمة القان املعظم وکان سبب‬ 906

903

‫جميه الی هذه االرض الجل زایرة بيت املقدس‬

Fiaccadori, Gianfranco, 1984. “On the Dating of Īliyā al-Ğawharī’s Collectio canonica,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 68, pp. 213-214; Fiaccadori, Gianfranco, 1986. “Īliyā alĞawharī, Īliyā of Damascus,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 70, pp. 192-193. 904 Text and translation: Assemani, 1721, p. 392. 905 On this work, see the following excellent overview: Holmberg, Bo, 1993. “A reconsideration of the Kitāb al-Mağdal,” in Parole de l’Orient, Vol. XVIII, pp. 255-273. 906 Gismondi, 1896-1897, pp. ١٢٢-١٢٣ (text) / 71 (translation). The Arabic text with a different Latin translation can be found in Hilgenfeld, R., ed. & tr., 1896. Jabalahae III, Catholici Nestoriani, vita, ex Slivae Mossulani libro, qui inscribitur 'Turris', desumpta. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, pp. 10 (text) / 11 (translation). Compare also the French translation (without accompanying Arabic text) in Siouffi, M., 1881. “Notice sur un patriarche nestorien,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. VII (Ser.), No. XVII (Tom.), p. 90 and the English translation in Montgomery, James A., tr., 1927. The History of Yaballaha III, Nestorian Patriarch, and of his Vicar Bar Sauma. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 20-21. 280

Yābālāhā the Third. This father was a young man, full in appearance, with a beard shaped like a dagger; his throne flourished until he became old and revered. He was a Turk from the land of Khitai907 and he came from his own country in the service of the Great Khan. And this was the reason that he came to this land: to visit the Holy House.908 The text proceeds to describe the life of Yahbalaha, from the time that he and his aforementioned companion Rabban Bar Ṣawma arrived in the Middle East on their pilgrimage from China up to the patriarch’s death on 13 November, in the year 1629 “of the Greeks” (i.e. the Seleucid era), corresponding to 1317 CE. Along the way, details are given of Yahbalaha and Rabban Bar Ṣawma’s interactions with the aforementioned Il-khan Abaqa and patriarch Mar Denḥa, as well as Yahbalaha’s elevation in the church hierarchy, when he was consecrated as the metropolitan of Tangut, a reference to the territory of the Tangut people, formerly the Xi Xia or Tangut Empire (10381227), located in the modern Chinese provinces of Gansu, Ningxia, Shanxi and Shaanxi. After Mar Denḥa died, Yahbalaha was greeted with cries of “Behold, our Catholicos and our patriarch!” More than 20 bishops and metropolitans consecrated the new patriarch, who went on to outlast seven rulers of the Mongol Il-khanate (which had conquered the former ʿAbbasid Caliphate in 1258): Abaqa/Abagha Khan (r. 1265-1282), Sultan Aḥmad (r. 1282-1284), Arghun Khan (r. 1284-1291), Geikhatu Khan (r. 1291-1295), Baidu Khan (r. 1295), Ghazan Khan (r. 12951304) and Sultan Öljeitü (r. 1304-1316). Yahbalaha died early in the reign of Sultan Abu Saʿid (r. 1316-1335).909 This section of the Kitāb al-Majdal on Yahbalaha III (the last patriarch discussed in the text)910 ends by noting that he was the 72nd patriarch of the Church of the East – not including seven patriarchs whose names were struck from the list due to having assumed patriarchal power “by fraud and force” – after which the author gives us a list of

907

Stemming from the Khitan people who formed the Liao dynasty (907-1125), Khitai (English “Cathay”) is usually understood to refer to the northern parts of China. 908 Here, a reference to Jerusalem. 909 Spelling of names and date ranges for reigns are taken from Atwood, Christopher P., 2004. Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. New York: Facts on File Publications, p. 625. 910 His patriarchal name was used by two previous leaders of the Church of the East: Yahbalaha I (415-420) and Yahbalaha II (1190-1222). 281

27 metropolitans in the Church of the East, presumably at the time of writing, during the early 14th century.911 The History of Mar Yahbalaha We come now to the most important text for the history of Yahbalaha the Turk, The History of Mar Yahbalaha, Catholicos of the East, and of Rabban Ṣawma, Visitor-General. On first appearance, it seems to have been written after the death of the patriarch in 1317, but Jean Maurice Fiey has argued convincingly that it was actually composed in 1312.912 Much has been written about this book, but only a fraction of it can be discussed in this article. For more detailed information, the reader is referred to the various translations and studies made from the Syriac text discovered by Paul Bedjan in 1887.913 Before recounting the basic elements of the story, we might note a rather significant statement made by the Syriac translator – the text was translated from a now-lost Persian original – contained in the dedicatory statement which begins the work: 911

For the Arabic text, see Gismondi, 1896-1897, pp. ١٢٢-١٢٧; Hilgenfeld, 1896, pp. 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20. For Latin and French translations, see Gismondi, 1896-1897, pp. 71-73; Hilgenfeld, 1896, pp. 11, 13, 15, 17, 19; Siouffi, 1881, pp. 90-96. 912 Fiey, Jean-Maurice, 1988. “Le Grand Catholicos turco-mongol Yahwalaha III (12811317),” in Proche-Orient Chrétien, Vol. 38, pp. 209-210. 913 Bedjan’s text was published twice: 1) Bedjan, Paul, ed., 1888. Histoire de Mar Jabalaha, Patriarche et de Raban Sauma (1st ed.). Paris: Maisonneuve; 2) Bedjan, Paul, ed., 1895. Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, d’un prêtre et de deux laïques, nestoriens (2nd ed.). Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. The most important translations and studies are 3) Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, tr., 1895. Histoire de Mar Jabalaha III, Patriarche des Nestoriens (1281-1317) et du moine Rabban Çauma. Paris: Ernest Leroux; 4) Montgomery, James A., tr., 1927. The History of Yaballaha III, Nestorian Patriarch, and of his Vicar Bar Sauma. New York: Columbia University Press; 5) Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, tr., 1928. The Monks of Kûblâi Khân, Emperor of China. London: Religious Tract Society; 6) Pelliot, Paul, 1973. Recherches sur les chrétiens d’Asie centrale et d’Extrême-Orient [Vol. 1] (Oeuvres Posthumes de Paul Pelliot). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, pp. 239-288; 7) Fiey, Jean-Maurice, 1988. “Le Grand Catholicos turco-mongol Yahwalaha III (1281-1317),” in Proche-Orient Chrétien, Vol. 38, pp. 209-220; 8) Borbone, Pier Giorgio, 2000. Storia di Mar Yahballaha e di Rabban Sauma: Un orientale in Occidente ai tempi di Marco Polo. Torino: Silvio Zamorani editore. The latter work was translated into French as 9) Borbone, Pier Giorgio & Alexandre Egly, tr., 2008. Un ambassadeur du Khan Argun en Occident: Histoire de Mar Yahballaha III et de Rabban Sauma (1281-1317). Paris: L’Harmattan. A second Italian edition, which includes the entire Syriac text, has also been published: 10) Borbone, Pier Giorgio, ed. & tr., 2009. Storia di Mar Yahballaha e di Rabban Sauma. Cronaca siriaca del XIV secolo. Moncalieri: Lulu Press. A handy summary of the text can be found in Moule, A. C., 1930. Christians in China before the year 1550. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, pp. 94-126. 282

By the power of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, I begin to write “The History of the Father of Fathers and the Master and Chief of Pastors, Mar Yahbalaha, Catholicos-Patriarch of the East and of Rabban Ṣawma, the Visitor-General of the Eastern Turks.” Our Lord, assist me and lead me to the completion (of the work), in your mercy. Amen. Thus, even here in the title, at the very beginning of the work, the Turkic context of its protagonists is acknowledged, a point that is further expanded on in the translator’s preface:

Today the Turks have bound their necks to the yoke of divine lordship and have trusted and firmly believed the word of the Lord with their whole heart. The story is thus told within the broader framework of devout Christian Turks. The actual narrative begins with the parents of Ṣawma:

There was a certain freeborn believer who feared God… whose name was Sheban917 the Visitor. He lived in the city called Khan Baliq, that is to say the royal city that is in the land of the East. Although Sheban – whose Turkic name is also found amongst the Oghuz and Turkmen during the 13th century918 – and his wife Qyamtha were initially unable to have children, they eventually had a son, whom they named Ṣawma. He grew up as a zealous and knowledgeable Christian who took monastic vows around the age of twenty and went to live in the mountains about a day’s journey from Khan Baliq (Beijing), the capital of the Yuan dynasty in 914

Text: Bedjan, 1895, p. 1 / translation: Budge, 1928, p. 120. Text: Bedjan, 1895, p. 2 / translation: Budge, 1928, p. 123. 916 Text: Bedjan, 1895, pp. 3-4 / translation: Montgomery, 1927, p. 27; Budge, 1928, p. 124. 917 ܵ ‫ ܹܫ‬, Shēbān in Bedjan’s text. This name is vocalized as ‫ܐܒܢ‬ 918 Rás nyi & Baski, 2007, p. 688. See the discussion on this name in Pelliot, 1973, pp. 247249. 283 915

China, where he had grown up. The story then switches to the origins of the future patriarch:

There was in the city of Koshang, in the country of the East, a believing and righteous man, pure and without fault, who served God continually in his church and conducted himself properly in his (God’s) laws, by the name of Bayan-el the Archdeacon. And he had four sons, the youngest of which was called Marqos. Like Ṣawma, our second protagonist was born920 into a Turkic family, to a father with a decidedly non-Syriac name. The pronunciation of Syr. is unclear, but if it is Bayan-el as I propose, it would be Turkic in origin, meaning “rich folk, rich people, rich country.”921 Marqos turned out to be a zealous young man who also desired to be a monk and so made the fifteen day journey to where Ṣawma lived an ascetic lifestyle in a mountain cave. Sometime after Marqos received the monastic tonsure from the local metropolitan, the two monks set their hearts on making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. They departed from Khan Baliq, heading east by way of Marqos’s hometown ). This is generally considered to have been somewhere in of Koshang ( the territory of the Önggüt (or Önggüd) Turks, who lived in what is now Inner Mongolia and who had converted to Christianity at some point.922 More

919

Text: Bedjan, 1895, pp. 9-10 / translation: Montgomery, 1927, p. 30; Budge, 1928, p. 130. 920 Based on a later statement that Marqos/Yahbalaha was in his 37 th year of age when he became patriarch in 1281 (text: Bedjan, 1895, p. 38 / translation: Montgomery, 1927, p. 46; Budge, 1928, p. 156), it is assumed that he was born ca. 1245. 921 Although the proposed composite name is not found in Rás nyi & Baski, 2007, the two elements are: “Bayan” on p. 105 and “El” on pp. 252-253. See also the discussion in Pelliot, 1973, p. 251. 922 For more on the Önggüd/Önggüt, see Atwood, 2004, pp. 424-425. On their conversion, see Atwood, Christopher P., 2014. “Historiography and transformation of ethnic identity in the Mongol Empire: the Öng’üt case,” in Asian Ethnicity, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 514-534. On their Christianity, see Borbone, Pier Giorgio, 2008. “Syroturcica 1. The Önggüds and the Syriac Language,” in Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock, ed. by George A. Kiraz. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, pp. 1-17. 284

specifically, it was likely either Olon Süme923 or “the southern political center of the Önggüts”924. Interestingly, the two monks attracted the attention of , “the sons-in-law of the King of Kings, the Khan: Kunbuqa and Ay-buqa.” 925 These two Önggüt princes have classical Turkic names, meaning “sun-bull” and “moon-bull” respectively.926 We may note in passing that the reference to Koshang only establishes the Önggüt origins of Marqos. The text is unclear regarding the exact Turkic group that Ṣawma belonged to. Although it has been suggested that he was probably also an Önggüt,927 we cannot rule out the possibility that he was indeed an Uighur, as Bar ʿEbroyo obviously believed. As Paul Pelliot notes, Ṣawma’s father Sheban shares his name with individuals in the Chinese dynastic History of Yuan (Yuanshi) who are identified as either Uighur or Önggüt; Pelliot goes so far as to suggest that “the name is in all likelihood Uighur in origin.”928 From Koshang, the two travelling companions made their way westward via various locations along the Silk Road network, in a journey that likely ); Khotan ( took place ca. 1277-1279: the aforementioned Tangut ( sic) and Kashgar ( ) along the southern route of the Silk Road; Talas ( ) on the western side of the Tien Shan mountain range; Khorasan ( ) in eastern Iran and finally Maragha ( ) in north-western Iran, where they met Mar Denḥa, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the

923

Borbone, Pier Giorgio, 2015. “Les «provinces de l’extérieur» vues par l’Église-mère,” in Le christianisme syriaque en Asie Centrale et en Chine (Études syriaques 12), ed. by Pier Giorgio Borbone & Pierre Marsone. Paris: Geuthner, p. 138. On Christian gravestones and other artifacts discovered in the area, see Halbertsma, Tjalling, 2015. Early Christian Remains of Inner Mongolia: Discovery, Reconstruction and Appropriation, 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. 924 Paolillo, Maurizio, 2006. “A Nestorian Tale of Many Cities,” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, p. 373. For an extensive discussion of the name, including possible Chinese reconstructions, see Pelliot, 1973, pp. 251-255, 259261. 925 Text: Bedjan, 1895, p. 15 / translation: Montgomery, 1927, p. 33; Budge, 1928, p. 135. 926 Rás nyi & Baski, 2007, pp. 392, 171-172, 14. See discussions in Moule, 1930, p. 99, n. 8; Pelliot, 1973, p. 261 (with a more extensive discussion of the family tree of the various Önggüt princes on pp. 261ff). An earlier discussion of “Kün-buqa and Aï-buqa” and their broader family can be found in Pelliot, Paul, 1914. “Chrétiens d’asie centrale et d’extrêmeorient,” in T’oung Pao, Vol. 15, pp. 629-635. 927 Borbone, 2009, p. 135. 928 Pelliot, 1973, pp. 247-248. See also Moule, 1930, p. 94, n. 2. 285

East.929 Shortly after arriving, ca. 1280, Marqos received his appointment from the patriarch as a metropolitan bishop, but unlike The Book of the Tower, it is not to the province of Tangut, but rather “to the flock of Khitai and Öng” (referring to Northern China and Önggüt territory, in fact very close to the Tangut region).930 As discussed above, when Denḥa died in 1281, the Önggüt monk turned metropolitan Yahbalaha was elected the first and only Turkic patriarch of the Church of the East, an office he would hold until 1317.931 Of specific interest to our theme is a point made very clearly by the author of The History of Mar Yahbalaha, echoing what we have already seen Bar ʿEbroyo say in his Chronicon Ecclesiasticum about Marqos/Yahbalaha being “weak in Syriac learning and writing.” Indeed, the History states very plainly:

The rationale for his election was that the kings who possessed the oars of administration of the whole inhabitable world were the Mongols and there was none at all who was expert in their way of life and their manner of life and their language, apart from him. And when they said these things to him, he excused himself from their discourse and alleged, “I am lacking instruction and ecclesiastical teaching. And the member of my tongue is disabled; how can I become this? For I do not even know your Syriac language, that which is a universal necessity.” 929

Text: Bedjan, 1895, pp. 14-20 / translation: Montgomery, 1927, pp. 33-36; Budge, 1928, pp. 135-140. 930 Text: Bedjan, 1895, pp. 28-29 / translation: Montgomery, 1927, p. 41; Budge, 1928, p. 148; see also Dauvillier, Jean, 1948. “Les Provinces Chaldéennes ‘de l’Extérieur’ au Moyen Age,” in Mélanges offerts au R. P. Ferdinand Cavallera. Toulouse: Bibliothèque de l’Institut Catholique, pp. 302-304; Moule, 1930, p. 103, n. 16. 931 Text: Bedjan, 1895, pp. 32-38 / translation: Montgomery, 1927, pp. 43-46; Budge, 1928, pp. 151-156. 932 Text: Bedjan, 1895, p. 34 / translation: Montgomery, 1927, p. 44; Budge, 1928, p. 152153. 286

There is no avoiding the fact that Yahbalaha’s knowledge of all things Mongol is viewed by those responsible for electing him to the patriarchal throne as an undeniable benefit. Where normally ignorance of Syriac would almost certainly disqualify a candidate from leading the Church of the East, in this case, it is seen as a negotiable item which can be dispensed with in light of the strengths of his knowledge of the Inner Asian culture and language of the new masters of so much of the known world. When Marqos was made a metropolitan by Denḥa I, Rabban Ṣawma was appointed visitor-general. Although not specifically mentioned in the text, the fact that the two monks were appointed to these positions concurrently and that Marqos’ new seat was in China strongly suggests that Rabban Ṣawma was also meant to carry out his position back in the land of his birth; hence, the reference to him in the dedicatory statement as “Visitor-General of the Eastern Turks.” However, after Yahbalaha became patriarch, he and Arghun Khan sent Rabban Ṣawma on a diplomatic mission to Europe (1287-1288).933 Amongst his many adventures was an interrogation by cardinals in Rome, during which the following exchange took place:

They said, “It is a marvel that you are a Christian and a deacon of the patriarchal throne of the East and you come in the embassy of the king of the Mongols.” He said, “Know, O fathers, that many of our fathers have gone to the lands of the Mongols, Turks and Chinese and have taught them, and today there are many Mongol Christians.” 933

On which, see Richard, Jean, 1957. “La mission en Europe de Rabban Çauma et l’union des églises,” in Oriente ed Occidente nel medio evo: Convegno di scienze morali storiche e filologiche, 27 maggio - 1 giugno 1956. Milan: Fondazione Alessandro Volta, pp. 162-167; Laurent, Marie-Hyacinthe, 1958. “Rabban Ṣaumā, ambassadeur de l’Il-Khan Argoun, et la cathédrale de Veroli (1288),” in Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, Vol. 70, pp. 331-365; Brock, Sebastian P., 1969. “Rabban Ṣauma à Constantinople (1287),” in Mémorial Mgr Gabriel Khouri-Sarkis (1898–1968), ed. by François Graffin. Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste, pp. 245-253; Klein, Wassilios, 1995. “Rabban Sauma in der Kirche der Hll. Apostel zu Konstantinopel (1287),” in Syrisches Christentum weltweit: Studien zur syrischen Kirchengeschichte. Festschrift für Wolfgang Hage, ed. by Martin Tamcke, Wolfgang Schwaigert & Egbert Schlarb. Münster: LIT Verlag, pp. 220-233. 934 Text: Bedjan, 1895, p. 57 / translation: Montgomery, 1927, p. 56; Budge, 1928, p. 174. 287

Here we find an interesting juxtaposition between the incredulous cardinals who cannot fathom how a Christian can be in the service of the Mongols and the visitor from China who informs them that the Christians of the East have been busy making disciples of Mongols, Turks and Chinese. Once again, we see the inescapable Mongol-Turkic context in which Rabban Ṣawma and Yahbalaha operated. Western Sources Before concluding this essay, we might consider how Mar Yahbalaha was portrayed by those outside the Syriac-speaking community. Two examples will suffice. The first is from the Armenian History of the Province of Syunik by Stephen Orbelian (1297). In Chapter 71, he describes how, after having been consecrated a metropolitan bishop in the Armenian Apostolic Church in 1286, he and his party went to meet Arghun Khan, who “ordered us to stay with him, to consecrate a church in his palace, which the great pope of Rome had sent to him. There we found the Catholicos Nestor, with 12 bishops. Together with them we consecrated the church with great pomp.”935 As the translator Brosset notes, “It should be translated as ‘Nestorian,’ even though the adjective form is missing here.”936 Thus, for Orbelian, Yahbalaha is the Nestorian Catholicos and no more. The second example comes from the Itinerarium of Riccoldo da Monte di Croce, a Dominican missionary who visited Baghdad in 1290/91, preaching against “Nestorianism” in one of the churches there. He mentions only “their patriarch,” being far more concerned with recording the fact that “we demonstrated before all our Catholic faith and their error.”937 The Dominican is even less concerned with who the patriarch is, obsessed as he is with winning the theological battle that he came to fight with “these miscreants [who] prefer the glory of people and the world than that of God.”938 The Seal of Mar Yahbalaha We finish this study on Mar Yahbalaha with a look at the document that adorns the cover of this book [Fig. 11-1], a letter containing the great seal of the patriarch. The Vatican archives contain two such letters: this one, sent by 935

French original in Brosset, M., tr., 1864. Histoire de la Siounie par Stéphannos Orbélian, Vol. I. Saint-Petersburg: Eggers et Cie, p. 266. 936 Brosset, 1864, p. 266, n. 1. 937 French original in de Backer, Louis, tr., 1877. L’Extrême-Orient au moyen âge. Paris: Ernest Leroux, pp. 323-324. 938 de Backer, 1877, p. 324. 288

Yahbalaha III to Pope Boniface VIII in 1302939 and a second, longer one sent to Pope Benedict XI in 1304.940 In these letters, the patriarch made various “professions of Catholic faith” which should be understood not as a genuine desire for union with Rome but rather as a plea for help addressed to potential Christian allies during a time when the Church of the East facing increased hostility and persecution in the Mongol Il-khanid realm.941 The letter begins with the following text in Syriac (which may well be in the patriarch’s own hand, although there is no evidence for or against this supposition):

:‫܀ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ ܘܒܪܐ ܘܪܘܚܐ ܕܩܘܕܫܐ‬ ‫ܝܗܒܐܠܗܐ ܕܒ̈ܪܚܡܘܗܝ‬ ‫ܐܟܣܢܝܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܕܡܫܝܚܐ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܐ ܦܛܪܝܪܟܝܣ‬ ̈ ̇ ‫ܣܠܘܬܟ‬ :‫ܬܒܥ ܘܫܫ‬ ‫ܕܡܕܢܚܐ‬ ‫ܒܡܪܢ‬ In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the pilgrim942 Yahbalaha, by the mercies of Christ Catholicos-Patriarch of the East, begs your prayers and petitions. In our Lord. Thereafter follows the letter in Arabic from Yahbalaha to Boniface, the lower third of which is covered by the patriarchal seal in red ink. Below this can be read in Syriac the words ‫ܡܪܢ ܥܡ ܟܠܢ ܐܡܝܢ‬, “Our Lord (is) with all of us, Amen.” All in all, the brief Syriac portions of the letter tell us little about the writer; despite using fairly typical expressions of devotion and humility, as befits a cleric in the Syriac tradition, they give us little insight into the type of man he was.

939

Signature A.A. Arm. I-XVIII 1800 (1) in the Vatican Secret Archives. For a description of both letters, including the Arabic text and an Italian translation of each, see Bottini, Laura, 1992. “Due lettere inedite del patriarca Mār Yahbhallàhā III (12811317),” in Rivista degli Studi Orientali, Vol. 66, No. 3-4, pp. 239-256. Latin translations of the 1304 letter can also be found in Chabot, 1895, pp. 249-56; Giamil, Samuel, 1902. Genuinae Relationes inter Sedem Apostolicam et Assyriorum Orientalium seu Chaldaeorum Ecclesiam. Rome: Ermanno Loescher & Co., pp. 4-8. Landron, Bénédicte, 1994. Chrétiens et Musulmans en Irak: Attitudes Nestoriennes vis-à-vis de l’Islam. Paris: Cariscript, pp. 298299 contains a partial French translation. 941 See, for example, the comments in Moule, 1930, pp.123-124. 942 Syriac ‫ ܐܟܣܢܝܐ‬could also be translated as “stranger, foreigner, guest, visitor.” 289 940

Somewhat more interesting is the Syro-Turkic patriarchal seal imprinted over the bottom of the letter, which can be rendered as follows:943 Turkic transcription Syriac script ‫ ܡܢܓܘ ܛܢܓܪܝ ܟܘܝܨܝܢܛܐ‬1 1 mäŋgü täŋgri küčintä ‫ ܡܢܓܟܐ ݎܐݎܐܢ ܝܪܠܝܥܡܙ‬2 2 möŋkä qaγan yarlïγïmïz ‫ ܦܝܙܢܝܢܓ ܐܘܝܨܘܢ‬3 3 bizniŋ üčün ‫ ܫܗܪܐ ܛܐܦܝܢܝܦ‬4 4 šähra tapïnïb ‫ ܐܠݎܝܫ ݎܝܠܦ ܐܘܪܘݎ‬5 5 alqïš qïlïb uruγ ‫ ܐܘܪܘݎܘܡܝܙݎܐ ܦܘܝܐܢ‬6 6 uruγumïzqa buyan ‫ ܦܝܪܣܘܢ ܛܝܦ ܨܠܝܒܐ‬7 7 bersün deb ṣäliba ‫ ܛܐܡݎܐ ܦܝܪܛܝܡܝܙ‬8 8 tamγa berdimiz ‫ܦܘ‬ ‫ ܡܪܝ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܐݎܐ‬9 9 mar qaθoliqaqa bu 944 ‫ ܛܐܡݎܐܢܝ ܟܘܝܙ ܟܐܨ ܐܪܝܦ‬10 10 tamγanï ḥafiz-i-ḥaṣ erib ‫ ܡܪܝ ܚܣܝܐܐܠܪ ܪܒܢܐܠܪ‬11 11 mar ḥäsyalar räbbänlär ‫ ܐܪܟܐܟܘܢܐܠܪ ܡܪܝ‬12 12 ärkäkünlär mar ‫ܣܘܙܣܝܙ‬ ‫ ܩܬܘܠܝܩܐܛܝܢ‬13 13 qaθoliqadïn sözsiz ‫ ܐܛܝݎܣܝܙ ܟܠܡܐܣܘܢܐܠܪ‬14 14 atïγsïz kelmäsünlär ‫ ܦܘ ܛܐܡݎܐܠܝݎ ܦܝܬܝܓܣܝܙ‬15 15 bu tamγalïγ bitigsiz ‫ ܐܘܝܙ ܟܘܢܓܘܠܨܐ ܟܠܓܠܓ‬16 16 öz köŋülčä keliglig ‫ ܪܒܢܐܠܪ ܐܪܟܐܟܘܢܐܠܪ‬17 17 räbbänlär ärkäkünlär ‫ ܝܐܒܝܙ ܡܐݎܐ ܣܐ‬18 18 yaβïz maḥqa sa‫ ݎܝܢܝܦ ܟܐܠܝܙܐܪܝܢ‬19 19 qïnïp kalïzarïn ‫ܐܛܝܡܝܙ‬ ‫ ܛܝܦ ܝܪܠݎ‬20 20 deb yarlïγadïmïz By the power of eternal heaven, (this is) our command, (that of) Möngke Khan. In order that he might keep vigil, offer praise (to God) and give merit for our descendants on our behalf, we have given a cross-seal to the Lord Catholicos. As the exclusive keeper of this seal, may bishops, priests/monks (and) Christians not come without a word (and) without a name/title from the Lord Catholicos. I will always consider priests/monks (and) Christians coming of their own mind945 without the writing of this seal as morally bad and false. So we have commanded. 943

I follow here the readings found in Hamilton, James, 1972. “Le texte turc en caractères syriaques du grand sceau cruciforme de Mār Yahballāhā III,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. 260, pp. 155-170. In a few cases I have amended the Syriac script, the Turkic transcription and/or the translation, based on my own perusal of images of the seal. 944 Arabic ‫حافظ حص‬. 945 The sense here is “those who do things of their own volition, rather than in submission to authority.” 290

The seal is a fitting way to end this consideration of the Turkic context in which Mar Yahbalaha the Turk led the Church of the East. The very fact that the yarliq, “decree, patent, warrant”946 was written in Turkic (albeit in Syriac script, as is the case with a significant number of Christian texts from Turfan)947 is hugely telling.948 The official proclamation by the Great Khan Möngke (r. 1251-1259) declares that what is written on the seal is not just the will of the Patriarch, but indeed of the Mongol Empire that backed the patriarch’s position. Behind that Empire lay the will of heaven itself, here using the Mongol-Turkic term täŋgri, the name of the ultimate sky-God in the native religion of the Mongol and Turkic peoples.949 It is curious that the decree is in the name of Möngke, who died 22 years before Yahbalaha was elected patriarch. In fact, Qubilai Khan (r. 1260-1294) was the Great Khan of the Mongols during much of Yahbalaha’s term.950 Also of interest in the language of the seal is the clear expectation that the patriarch and the church that he represents would intercede on behalf of the Mongol ruler and his progeny. Three activities are singled out: 1) keeping vigil by celebrating the liturgical night office of ‫( ܫܗܪܐ‬known as “Nocturns” in the Latin West); 2) singing praises (“to God” is implied, but not stated) and 3) doing acts that would accumulate merit to be applied to the descendants of the Khan, a distinctive Buddhist practice that is encountered in at least one other Christian Turkic text from Central Asia. 951 Clearly, the Mongol royal family expected to receive benefits from the patriarch in exchange for granting him the authority described in the seal. That authority enabled him to dispatch others in his name to carry a söz, “word” from him. Those thus dispatched, whether bishops, priests/monks or ordinary lay Christians, were not to claim to speak in the name of the patriarch without showing the patriarchal seal as proof of having been sent by him. Those who were not able to show the seal were to be judged as “bad and false.” 946

On which, see Atwood, 2004, p. 264. Again, see Zieme, 2015. 948 Note that the Il-khan Arghun granted Rabban Ṣawma multiple ‫ ܲܝ̈ܪܠܝ ܹܩܐ‬, “yarliqs,” when he sent the Visitor-General on his mission to Europe (Text: Bedjan, 1895, p. 48 / translation: Montgomery, 1927, p. 51; Budge, 1928, p. 166). 949 On which, see Clauson, Gerard, 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 523-524; Atwood, 2004, p. 532. 950 This suggests that the original seal may have been issued to one of Yahbalaha’s predecessors, perhaps Sabrishoʿ V (r. 1226-1256) or Makkikha II (r. 1257-1265), since “at the coronation of a khan, all old jarliqs with the vermilion seal were automatically renewed” (Atwood, 2004, p. 264). 951 Dickens, Mark, 2013. “Syro-Uigurica II: Syriac Passages in U 338 from Turfan,” in Hugoye, Vol. 16, No. 2, p. 309 [See Chapter 7 in this volume]. 291 947

It should be clear by now that Yahbalaha’s Turkic ethnicity was an integral part of his identity, something which was embraced and even celebrated by those who wrote about him in Syriac and Christian Arabic sources. There was no apology or embarrassment associated with his origins far to the east or his cultural affinity to the ruling Mongols. On the contrary, his arrival from the land of Khitai had been God’s gift to the Church of the East. As Fiey notes at the end of his exemplary study on the life of the patriarch, “Yahwalaha was truly the ‘Gift of God’ for his Church in these difficult times. If he himself had known enough Syriac at his consecration, perhaps he would have preferred the name of ‘Makkikha’ (the humble). For us, he remains ‘Yahwalaha the Great.’”952

952

Fiey, 1988, p. 220.

292

Addenda et Corrigenda In preparing this volume, I have attempted to catch any glaring errors or omissions that crept into these articles which were not addressed when they were originally published. As noted in the Introduction, some Syriac fonts and transliteration fonts have been changed, a few headings have been adjusted, and minor corrections affecting grammar, style or general readability have been introduced into the text in various places. Issues related to content are addressed here. The observant reader will notice that there is some repetition in the volume. Given the number of articles dealing with material from Turfan, that is perhaps unavoidable. I beg the reader’s indulgence when they encounter multiple occurrences of phrases like “commonly but erroneously referred to as the ‘Nestorian’ Church.” Speaking of which, the discerning reader will observe that over time I have moved from tolerating and using the adjective “Nestorian” to eschewing it altogether. Another matter that is unavoidable in a collection such as this is the fact that familiarity with the material (and therefore understanding of the issues involved and the ability to articulate them clearly) naturally develops over time, such that later articles build on and clarify earlier ones. An example of this can be seen in references to the number of Christian manuscripts from Turfan, initially estimated at “slightly over 1100” (p. 97), but eventually settling out at 1092 (p. 193). Later articles will necessarily (although perhaps with more repetition than some readers might like) refer to earlier articles in the volume. The reverse is also true; sometimes articles that appear later in this anthology are referred to in earlier articles as “forthcoming” and thus with incomplete bibliographic information. Following is a list of books and articles which are referred to at various places in this volume as “forthcoming,” with updated information on their status at the time of publication of this volume. Brock, Sebastian P. & Nicholas Sims-Williams, 2011. “An Early Fragment from the East Syriac Baptismal Service from Turfan,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, Vol. 77, No. 1, 81-92. Dickens, Mark & Peter Zieme, 2014. “Syro-Uigurica I: A Syriac Psalter in Uyghur Script from Turfan,” in Scripts Beyond Borders. A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the Euro-Mediterranean World (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, Vol. 62), ed. by Johannes den Heijer, Andrea B. Schmidt & Tamara Pataridze. Leuven: Peeters, 291-328. 293

Hunter, Erica C. D., 2013. “Traversing Time and Location: A Prayer-Amulet of Mar Tamsis from Turfan,” in From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 5), ed. by Li Tang & Dietmar W. Winkler. Wien: LIT Verlag, 25-41. Hunter, Erica C. D. & J. F. Coakley, ed. & tr., 2017. A Syriac Service-Book from Turfan: Museum für asiatische Kunst, Berlin MS MIK III 45 (Berliner Turfantexte XXXIX). Turnhout: Brepols. Raschmann, Simone-Christiane, 2009. Alttürkische Handschriften, Teil 14: Dokumente, Teil 2 (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 13,22). Stuttgart: VOHD. Reck, Christiane, forthcoming. Mitteliranische Handschriften, Teil 3: Berliner Turfanfragmente christlichen Inhalts und Varia in soghdischer Schrift (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 18,3). Stuttgart: VOHD. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2011. “A New Fragment of the Book of Psalms in Sogdian,” in Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient: Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by D. Bumazhnov, E. Grypeou, T.B. Sailors & A. Toepel. Leuven: Peeters, 461-466. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2013. “A Christian Sogdian hymn in Sogdian script,” in Monumentum Gregorianum. Сборник научных статей памяти академика Григория Максимовича Бонгард-Левина [Essays in Memory of G. M. Bongard-Levin], ed. by А. И. Иванчик. Москва: Издательство «Граница», 172-177. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2014. “An early source for the Life of John of Dailam. Reconstructing the Sogdian version,” in Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān, Vol. 12, No. 1-2, 121-134. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2014. Biblical and other Christian Sogdian texts from the Turfan Collection (Berliner Turfantexte XXXII). Turnhout: Brepols. [includes a Sogdian version of the Wisdom of Aḥiqar] There are also frequent references to the three volumes that appeared as a result of the oft-mentioned Christian Library at Turfan project (which provided the occasion for my evolving familiarity with the Christian materials from Turfan), but in most cases one or more of these volumes had not yet appeared in publication. Here is the full publication information for all three: Hunter, Erica C. D. & Mark Dickens, 2014. Syrische Handschriften. Teil 2. Syriac Manuscripts from the Berlin Turfan Collection (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 5,2). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. 294

Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2012. Mitteliranische Handschriften: Teil 4. Iranian Manuscripts in Syriac Script in the Berlin Turfan Collection (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 18,4). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Zieme, Peter, 2015. Altuigurische Texte der Kirche des Ostens aus Zentralasien (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 41). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Following are notes on the content of some specific articles in the volume. If an article is not listed below, one can assume that there are no content issues that need to be addressed. Not listed below are various places in this volume (usually in the footnotes) where cross-references to other articles in the volume are inserted in bold in square brackets, e.g. [see Ch. 2 in this volume]. Ch. 2: Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum A few factual errors have slipped into this article. Thus, the statement that “Christian texts found in Turfan” can be dated “several centuries earlier” than the gravestones in question (p. 34) is erroneous, as both the gravestones and the Uighur texts that they are being compared to come from the 13th and 14th centuries (broadly speaking, the Mongol era). The assertion that the Mongol general Kitbuqa was a Kerait Christian (p. 45) is also incorrect; he was a member of the Naiman tribe. Under Gravestone No. 1, I now question the reading of the name as ‫ܦܗܛܣܝܣ‬, PHṬSYS (pp. 41-45). Having re-examined the images, I suspect that the visible letters represent a botched attempt to render the female name ‫ܣܐܢܣܝܣ‬, Sansiz, meaning “countless, innumerable,”953 a name found on several other gravestones in the corpus.954 I also offer here an alternative understanding of the name ‫ܕܘܠܛܐܝܫܝ‬ ‍ DWLṬ’YŠY, found on Gravestone No. 2 (pp. 46-49). My colleague Alexei Savchenko suggests the following (personal communication, Jan 31, 2019): “I am now convinced that Dulta in line 5 of the Tashkent Cat. 206/1 (‘daughter of Shliḥā the priest’ and two more times in the same corpus) comes from the name of a Mongol, later Turko-Mongol tribe which moved out of Mongolia to support Genghis Khan in the early thirteenth century, Kaz. Дулат, Duwlat, ‫دۋالت‬. The tribe settled in the western Tarim basin area and served the Chaghatay khans as hereditary vassal rulers from XIV AD until XVI AD. 953

Rás nyi & Baski, 2007, p. 630. Chwolson, 1890, p. 90, № 50,18 (read incorrectly as ‫ ;)ܣܝܣܪ‬p. 98, № X; Chwolson, 1897, p. 19, № 70; p. 30, № 130 (read incorrectly as ‫ ;)ܣܝܣܢܐ‬p. 36, № 180. 295 954

Eventually they became the most numerous group within the Senior Zhuz (‘horde’), one of the three main territorial and tribal divisions of the Kazakh nation. I believe it should be read as a gentilic, Dūlṭāyshā, with the due change of ch in common Turkic suffixes for sh in Kazakh and other languages within the Qypchaq-Nogay branch, spoken in Semirechye. V. Tenishev et al., “The Qypchaq Group”, A Comparative Historical Grammar of the Turkic Languages. Regional Reconstructions, Moscow 2002, 269-71: Uzb. Uzbekcha, Qozoqcha = Kaz. Өзбекша (Özbeksha), Қазақша (Qazaqsha), etc.” Regarding the reference to “inscriptions… found on… a rock wall located near Urgut” in footnote 2 (p. 25), I have since published these as: Dickens, Mark, 2017. “Syriac Inscriptions near Urgut, Uzbekistan,” in Studia Iranica, Vol. 46, No. 2, 205-260. On the comment in footnote 78 (p. 39): “Although Bar Hebraeus calls them Uighurs… they were actually Öngüt Turks,” see the more nuanced discussion in Chapter 11 of this volume. Ch. 3: Patriarch Timothy I and the Metropolitan of the Turks The statement (on p. 73) that “the first reference we have to a Metropolitan of Kashghar is four centuries later under Patriarch Elia III (1176-1190)” is not correct, as there is an earlier Metropolitan in that city mentioned during the patriarchate of Bar Ṣawmā (1134-1136). Moreover, the assertion “Elia [Jawharī]’s list, co-incidentally compiled in 893” (p. 84) can be corrected to that found on p. 280, namely that Elia was “writing sometime after 903).” Ch. 4: Multilingual Christian Manuscripts from Turfan It should be noted that the system of referring to Sogdian manuscripts in Syriac script from Turfan using initial capital letter N (e.g. N2-N5 for the four Gospel lectionaries) has since been replaced by the system used in SimsWilliams, 2012 (see bibliographic information above), where original (reconstructed) manuscript numbers begin with capital letter E (e.g. E2-E5). For current numbering of the original texts, the reader is directed to Nicholas Sims-Williams’ 2012 catalogue. For that matter, more correct readings of all the texts mentioned in the article can be found in the relevant catalogues. A word is in order regarding the distance between Urumchi/Urumqi and Turfan, given variously as 150 km (p. 96), 195 km by road (p. 189) and 160 km (p. 216). These are of course rough estimates, but the first and third numbers refer to the distance “as the crow flies” and should be replaced by 165 km. The statement that “Christian materials [from Turfan] are generally dated between the 9th and 13th centuries” (p. 98) is slightly misleading and should 296

be amended to “between the 9th and 13th/14th centuries,” as made clear in other articles in this volume (since Christian materials, particularly in the Uighur language, can be dated broadly to the Mongol era, which ended in the mid14th century). A correction must also be made to the description of SyrHT 249 (p. 110), which is not concerned with the deliverance of the Gerasene/Gadarene demoniac, as stated in the article, but is rather a liturgy for Palm Sunday, not found in the current printed Ḥudra. The Sogdian phrase could also be translated as There is none of us … As noted in footnote 330 (p. 110), the fragment can be joined with SyrHT 254; interestingly, across both is written the following marginalia in Syriac: ‫ܠܝܬ ܓܝܪ ܐܢܫ ܡܢܢ ܒܗܘ ܝܘܡܐ ܕܚܝܠܐ ܕܡܦܬܚ‬ ‫ܦܘܡܐ ܠܐ ܥܪܩ ܡܢܗ ܘܡܬܛܫܐ‬, For there is none of us on that day of power from whom eloquence will not flee and hide. I am not currently aware of the source of this quotation, which was presumably translated from the Syriac marginalia to the Sogdian marginalia. For more information, see the relevant entries in Hunter & Dickens, 2014. It goes without saying that several of the other articles in this volume deal with some of the fragments mentioned in this article in a much more in-depth manner (e.g. bilingual biblical fragments, calendrical fragments and the prayer booklet U 338). Ch. 6: The Importance of the Psalter at Turfan A few more Psalter fragments were discovered after this article was written. For an updated list, see Chapter 9 in this volume. Similarly, the latter also has more information on the non-Psalter fragments mentioned in footnote 474 (p. 157) of this article. Ch. 8: Scribal Practices in the Turfan Christian Community In this article (p. 190) and elsewhere in this volume (p. 274), there are references to the submission in 1209 of the Uighur Kingdom of Qocho to the Mongols under Chingiz Khan’s leadership. That was not the end of the Uighur Kingdom, which continued on as a semiautonomous vassal state into the 14th century, by which time the Uighurs were effectively part of the Chaghatayid Khanate. The date of 1284, given in various places in this volume for the end of the Uighur Kingdom, is too simplistic; for a more nuanced discussion, see Christopher P. Atwood, Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (New York: Facts on File Publications, 2004), pp. 563-564. The dating of MIK III 45, the 61-folio liturgical manuscript from Turfan, is given in this chapter as 9th-10th century (p. 204), but recent radiocarbon dating has fixed the chronological range to “between 771 and 884” (Hunter & Coakley, A Syriac Service-Book from Turfan, p. 10). 297

In contrast to the statement “dual forms of all of these [letters] occur in the Turfan corpus, with the exception of daleth and rish, where we only find the Serta forms” (p. 205), there are in fact some examples of the Estrangela form of these two letters found in the Christian texts from Turfan. Ch. 9: Biblical Fragments from the Christian Library of Turfan There were a number of errors that slipped through the editorial process which I have corrected in the text of this article, in order to return it to its original form. One error of my own which I have also corrected in the article is the reference on p. 230 to “15 Syriac Psalters” (“C” through “Q”), instead of the “11 Syriac Psalters” (”C” through “M”) that appeared in the original publication. Note that the number of Syriac Psalters discussed in Ch 8 is 18 (p. 195), which needs to be clarified and corrected to 17 (if one includes the “Uyghur Psalter” and the “Backwards Psalter”). The estimate of 95% of the Turfan material being liturgical and biblical in nature (p. 219) is an inflated figure. The reader is referred to the more accurate percentages found in Ch. 8 (p. 195), which reveal that the two categories together account for only 65% of the material. A more recent translation of the Sogdian version of the Nicene Creed into English (p. 225) can be found in Sims-Williams, Biblical and other Christian Sogdian texts from the Turfan Collection, pp. 31, 33. Ch. 10: More Gravestones in Syriac script from Tashkent, Panjikent and Ashgabat On p. 247, the Turkic for “Seven Rivers” is given as Yeti Su. As noted on p. 26, Zheti Su is also used in some Turkic languages (notably Kazakh and Kyrgyz). The link to the “excellent introductory article on the qobuz” in footnote 819 (p. 253) is no longer relevant. The reader is referred to the following published entry: Daukeyeva, Saida, 2016. “The Kazakh Qobyz: Between Tradition and Modernity,” in The Music of Central Asia, ed. by Theodore Levin, Saida Daukeyeva, and Elmira Köchümkulova. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 287-301.

298

Index Entries which can function as nouns and adjectives cover both. The following entries are omitted, since they occur so frequently in the book: Central Asia; Christian; Sogdian; Syriac; Turfan; Turkic; Uighur/Uyghur. 1 Corinthians, 235, 245 1 Timothy, 245 Abaqa Khan, 277, 281 Abba Isaiah of Scete, 228 ʿAbbasid, 68, 83, 173, 281 abbreviations, 202, 207, 249, 266 ʿAbdisho bar Berikha, 35, 72, 78, 84, 85, 154 ʿAbdisho of Merv, 71 Abraham of Beth Rabban, 226, 227 Acts, 16, 22, 234, 235 Acts of Paul and Thecla, 197 Adar, 125, 132, 143, 144 Addai, 255, 266, 273 Advent, 129, 236, 240 Afghanistan, 38, 78 Ahai, 72 Ahiqar, 198 Ahura Mazda, 127 Alania, 85 Alexander, 132, 251, 266 Alexandria, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20 Alexandrian, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 16, 20, 227 al-Faliq, 35, 37, 73 ʿAli, 80 Almaliq, 26, 29, 30, 31, 34, 37, 39, 40, 72, 73, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 265, 266, 267 al-Maʾmun, 84 Almaty, 29, 248 al-Muʿtaṣim, 75 Alp Qutlugh Bilgä Qaghan, 74 alphabets, 42, 44, 113, 209, 229, 250, 266, 274 Amid Patriarchate, 260 ʿAmr ibn Mattai, 34, 35, 36, 37, 73, 77, 78, 84, 85, 280 Amu Darya, 103 amulets, 194, 196, 201, 212, 219, 224, 239, 241 299

Amun of the Nitrian Desert, 228 Andrew, 4 animal-cycle calendar, 27, 46, 50, 51, 53, 134, 143, 203, 249, 258, 260, 266 animism, 32 An-lu-shan rebellion, 74 Annunciation, 128, 129 anthems, 153, 154, 155, 226, 273 Anthony the Great, 228 Antioch, 3, 4, 10, 11, 20, 152 Antiochian, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 218, 225, 226, 227, 240 Apollinarius, 1, 3, 4, 8, 11, 18 Apophthegmata Patrum, 208 Apostolic Canons, 137 Aq-Beshim, 30, 32, 81 Aqsu, 30 Arab, 68, 74, 83, 216, 222 Arabia, 12 Arabic, 25, 74, 79, 118, 174, 191, 260, 289 Aramaic, 250 Archbishop of Canterbury’s Mission, 238 archdeacons, 33, 284 Arghun Khan, 274, 281, 287, 288 Arian, 2, 5, 6, 18 Arianism, 16 Arius, 1, 8 ärkägün, 112, 178, 204, 290 Armenia, 85, 154 Armenian, 33, 174, 278, 288 Armenian Apostolic Church, 288 Arsenius of Scete, 228 Arts and Humanities Research Council, 99, 217 Ascension, 111, 136, 137 asceticism, 98, 99, 121, 155, 194, 197, 201, 218, 219, 220, 221, 227, 228, 284 Ashgabat, 247, 262 assaqa, 206 Assyria, 66, 68 Assyrian, 47, 53 Assyrian Church of the East, 182 Astana, 98 astrology, 47, 122 Athanasius, 3, 4, 11, 19 300

ātliyā, 46, 47, 48, 51, 53 Atwood, Christopher, 247 Avar, 16 Ay-buqa, 285 Babai of Gebhilta, 155 Babylon, 47 Bactrian, 97, 191 Bactrian era, 156 Baghdad, 66, 68, 173, 276, 277, 288 Bai, 30 Baidu Khan, 281 Baladhuri, 75 Balasaghun, 26, 30, 31, 33 baptism, 71, 103, 154 Bar ʿEbroyo, 47, 71, 76, 79, 80, 273, 275, 276, 277, 278, 285, 286 Bars-köl, 30, 39 Barsoum, Ignatius Ephrem I, 122 Barthold, Wilhelm, 76, 84 Basil of Caesarea, 5, 17 Basmil, 73, 75 Bathsheba, 165 Battle of Talas, 83, 199 Bazaar of Heracleides, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22 Bazin, Louis, 46 Bedjan, Paul, 282 Beijing, 166, 276, 283 Benedict the Pole, 38 Benedict XI, Pope, 289 Benedict XII, Pope, 267 Berlin, 97, 102, 120, 174, 191, 192, 217, 218, 219 Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 97, 120, 174, 191, 217 Besh-baliq, 30, 37 Bible, 1, 3, 14, 100, 103, 118, 150, 152, 219, 224, 228, 240 biblical exegesis, 3 biblical references, 102, 110, 115, 166, 221, 241 biblical texts, 98, 101, 119, 121, 155, 160, 161, 194, 195, 208, 218, 219, 220, 221, 228, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 240, 241 Bidawid, Raphaël, 69 bifolia, 192, 197, 200, 204, 208 bilabial confusion, 164, 183 301

Bilge Kül Kadïr Khan, 80 bilingual texts, 99, 100, 102, 103, 118, 121, 156, 157, 158, 193, 194, 195, 201, 213, 214, 219, 222, 235, 238, 261 bindings, 108, 158, 160, 175, 176, 177, 178, 200, 208, 230 Binkent, 30 Biruni, 76 Bishkek, 26, 33, 260 bishops, 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 48, 51, 70, 71, 72, 73, 79, 106, 182, 261, 263, 267, 276, 278, 281, 288, 290, 291 Black Death, 267 Bögü Qaghan, 74 Boniface VIII, Pope, 289 Book of Governors, 68, 154 Book of Life, 221 Book of Medicines, 122, 133, 143 Book of the Bee, 272, 280 Book of the Tower, 71, 272, 280, 286 booklets, 98, 104, 112, 130, 157, 158, 160, 162, 175, 176, 177, 178, 183, 184, 185, 192, 194, 196, 200, 201, 204, 207, 208, 213, 218, 219, 223, 224, 227, 230, 231 Borbone, Pier Giorgio, 119, 166, 247 Brock, Sebastian, 104 Buddhism, 32, 96, 190, 217 Buddhist, 32, 97, 120, 165, 166, 174, 179, 190, 191, 192, 217, 224, 240, 275, 291 Budge, E. A. Wallis, 122 Bügür, 30, 38 Bukhara, 79 Bulayïq, 97, 98, 100, 109, 121, 127, 137, 141, 150, 174, 192, 209, 218, 219 Burana, 26, 30, 32, 33, 81 Burkitt, F. Crawford, 234, 236, 238 Byzantium, 82, 199, 216, 220 calendrical texts, 111, 122, 123, 127, 130, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138, 142, 143, 145, 146, 196, 202, 203, 219 Caliphate, 68, 74, 75, 82, 83, 84, 173, 281 canticles, 151, 152, 162, 229 Carlson, Thomas, 122, 143, 146 catechumens, 182 cathedral, 79 Catholic, 22, 39, 40, 77, 154, 234, 267, 288, 289 302

Catholicos, 65, 85, 152, 272, 273, 274, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 282, 283, 285, 288, 289, 290 Celestine I, Pope, 8, 9, 12 Ch’ang Ch’un, 38, 47 Chabot, J.-B., 122, 123, 145 Chach, 30, 73, 79, 80 Chaghatay, 31, 32 Chaghatayid, 31, 37, 39, 267 Chalcedon, 13 Chalcedonian, 9, 13, 17, 22 Chaldean Church, 260 Changshi, 267 Chifeng, 166 China, 26, 32, 36, 38, 68, 69, 74, 77, 85, 96, 98, 120, 166, 174, 189, 190, 191, 198, 212, 214, 216, 218, 220, 240, 246, 247, 275, 276, 281, 284, 286, 287, 288 Chinese, 26, 47, 68, 82, 83, 97, 134, 143, 166, 174, 178, 189, 190, 191, 199, 200, 203, 216, 222, 247, 249, 260, 261, 264, 276, 281, 285, 287, 288 Chinese Turkistan, 25, 26, 29, 34 Chingiz Khan, 30, 31, 32, 38 chorepiscopus, 51, 263 Christ, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 105, 116, 154, 225, 289 Christian Arabic, 34, 38, 70, 71, 272, 280, 292 Christian Library at Turfan Project, 99, 217 Christmas, 101, 125, 137 Christology, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 16, 20, 21, 22, 226 Christotokos, 7, 8, 16, 227 Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, 71, 274, 275, 276, 286 Chronicon Syriacum, 71, 274, 276 Chrysaphius, 12 Chu Valley, 26, 29, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 41, 49, 53 Church of the East, 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, 65, 67, 68, 80, 84, 98, 101, 102, 105, 108, 110, 118, 121, 132, 137, 143, 149, 151, 152, 154, 168, 173, 175, 177, 182, 183, 184, 186, 192, 193, 194, 195, 198, 214, 215, 218, 219, 224, 225, 226, 239, 240, 241, 260, 262, 272, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 282, 286, 287, 289, 291, 292 church visitors, 50, 263, 283 churches, 10, 11, 32, 35, 38, 40, 51, 78, 79, 81, 119, 220, 263, 278, 288 Chwolson, Daniel, 27, 28, 29, 44, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 76, 247, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 263 303

clergy, 8, 28, 33, 50, 53, 84, 255, 289 codices, 130, 191, 192, 193, 200, 208, 214 colons, 157, 160, 161, 230, 231, 233 colophons, 112, 117, 122, 138, 176, 177, 178, 179, 186, 204, 212, 213, 278 Colossians, 2 columns, 113, 114, 201, 231 commentaries, 151, 194, 197, 208, 229 communicatio idiomatum, 14, 15, 16 compline, 153, 154 Constantine I, 2 Constantinople, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 20, 152 Coptic, 227 correspondence, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 20, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 78, 80, 84, 106, 108, 113, 195, 198, 204, 220, 233, 234, 240, 288, 289, 290 Council of Chalcedon, 2, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 20 Council of Constantinople, 2, 4 Council of Ephesus, 2, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17 Council of Jerusalem, 22 Council of Nicaea, 2, 5, 16 creeds, 194, 196, 223, 225 crosses, 26, 38, 41, 45, 51, 71, 81, 104, 107, 155, 156, 166, 210, 211, 212, 225, 231, 248, 251, 254, 256, 257, 260, 263, 264, 265, 290 Cuman, 77 Cyril of Alexandria, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 Dadishoʿ Qaṭraya, 208 Dahlem, 97, 102, 117 Damascus, 45, 85, 280 Daoism, 203 Dauvillier, Jean, 69, 79 David, King, 150, 165 deacons, 51, 53, 71, 84, 106, 208, 260, 287 Definition of Chalcedon, 5, 6, 13, 17, 22 Denḥa I, 34, 275, 276, 277, 281, 285, 286, 287 dental confusion, 164, 185 Desert Fathers, 194, 227 Deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) books, 229 DeWeese, Devin, 80 dhimmi, 68 Diettrich, G., 234, 236, 238 dihqāns, 78 Diodore of Tarsus, 3, 226 304

Dioscorus, 12, 13 Discovery of the Cross, 213 divination texts, 122, 123, 143, 196 Dominican, 288 Dunhuang, 165, 199, 218 Dyophysite, 3, 6 East Syriac, 48, 70, 102, 103, 121, 150, 151, 152, 162, 163, 167, 182, 198, 205, 206, 207, 212, 226, 227, 228, 229, 234, 239 East Syriac pointing, 198, 206, 207 Easter, 111, 122, 136, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 196, 226, 234 Eastern Qarakhanid Qaghanate, 80 Eastern Turkistan, 34, 96 Edessa, 152, 227 Edict of Milan, 2 Egypt, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 152, 207, 228 Elia III, 36, 73 Elia Jauhari, 35, 84, 280 Elia of Merv, 70, 71, 72, 84 Elias of Nisibis, 122, 132, 134, 143 Elisha bar Quzbaye, 227 Eljigidei, 39, 267 Elul, 124 Engberding, Hieronymus, 204 England, 29, 97, 248 Ephesus, 8, 10 Ephrem the Syrian, 117, 162, 226, 227, 231 epistles, 9, 65, 100, 234, 235, 237, 245 Eshmut, 276, 277 Estrangela, 27, 41, 176, 205, 215 Eucharist, 105, 153, 154 Euchologion, 182 Eudocia, 8 Eutyches, 3, 4, 12, 13 Evagrius Ponticus, 228 Fangshan, 166 Ferghana, 30, 35, 80 ferial days, 152, 153, 154 festival days, 152, 153, 154 Fiey, Jean Maurice, 282, 292 Finland, 29, 248 First Türk Empire, 190, 216 305

Flavian, 12, 14, 20 florilegium, 201 Former Kanun, 111, 128, 129, 136, 137 Former Teshri, 124, 125, 129, 133, 203 Formula of Reunion, 11 France, 29, 97, 248 Franciscan, 38, 39, 267 Gabriel, Angel, 240 Galatians, 16, 245 Gansu, 96, 189, 218, 281 Gaochang, 189 Gaoche, 190 Gardizi, 75 Geikhatu Khan, 281 Geng Shimin, 261 George of the Öngüt, 45 George Warda, 273 Georgia, 77 German, 27, 97, 191, 192 Germany, 97 Ghazan Khan, 31, 281 Ghinghintalas, 39 Ghuzz, 75, 76 Gloria in excelsis Deo, 195, 222 Gnosticism, 1 Golden Horde, 31 Golden, Peter B., 32, 80 gospels, 9, 16, 20, 100, 101, 116, 195, 208, 228, 234, 236, 237, 239, 244, 278 graffiti, 241 gravestones, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 81, 85, 109, 119, 166, 212, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267 Greek, 3, 4, 14, 17, 18, 47, 53, 77, 102, 133, 156, 174, 199, 203, 205, 233, 248, 249, 263, 278, 281 Greek Doctors, 225, 226 Grünwedel, Albert, 97, 191 Guidi, Ignazio, 70 hagiographical texts, 98, 99, 121, 157, 194, 196, 197, 201, 213, 218, 219, 220, 221, 224, 227 Ḥaliḥ, 77, 78 306

Hallowing of the Church, 129 Hami, 30, 34 Ḥannana of Adiabene, 227 haplography, 237 Harklean version, 228 Harun al-Rashid, 66, 74 Hatch, William, 204, 205 ḥbaṣa, 206 head of charity, 51, 52, 53, 255 head of the church, 254, 255, 266 Hebrew, 47, 53, 150, 151, 155, 160, 229 Hebrews, 2 Hedin, Sven, 191 Helena, 213 Hephthalite, 72, 73, 83 Heraclas, 4 Herat, 85, 155 heresiarch, 1 heresy, 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 16, 21, 225 heretics, 1, 3, 6 Hermitage, 29, 248 Heşterek, 255, 266 Hindi, Augustine, 260 Hindi, Lazar, 260 Hindu, 259, 260, 261, 266 Hinduwāyē, 66, 68 Hippolytus, 5 History of Mar Yahbalaha, 36, 47, 282, 286 History of Yuan, 285 Holy Spirit, 4, 5, 104, 105, 152, 181, 225, 289 homilies, 194, 197, 208, 240, 278 homographs, 207 Hsiung-nu, 190 Ḥudra, 98, 108, 115, 116, 117, 132, 149, 159, 167, 195, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 210, 213, 214, 220, 225, 227 hulālā, 151, 152, 153, 154, 229 Hungary, 77 Hunter, Erica C.D., 204 hymns, 100, 117, 151, 153, 155, 162, 195, 196, 202, 222, 231, 273 Hypatia, 7 hypostasis, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 17, 18, 66, 68 307

hypostatic union, 9, 14, 17, 18 Ibn al-Athir, 79 Ibn aṭ-Ṭayyib, 35, 72, 84, 85 Ibn Baṭṭuta, 39 Ibn Miskawayh, 79 Ïduq Qut, 261 Ili Valley, 30, 73, 189, 247 Ili-baliq, 37 Il-khan, 31, 45, 277, 281, 289 illustrations, 176, 211, 212, 231 incantation bowls, 260 India, 68, 260, 262 Indian, 68, 261, 262 Indus, 260 ink, 38, 105, 108, 132, 143, 156, 160, 165, 166, 176, 200, 202, 208, 229, 233, 289 Inner Mongolia, 26, 119, 166, 218, 247, 252, 264, 284 inscriptions, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 37, 41, 42, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 75, 76, 78, 81, 109, 119, 165, 166, 174, 246, 247, 249, 255, 256, 257, 261, 263, 265, 266 Iran, 31, 78, 100, 155, 198, 222, 285 Iranian, 97, 99, 103, 118, 194, 220, 222 Isfijab, 80 Ishoʿyahb, 72 Isidore of Pelusium, 11 Islam, 31, 39, 68, 78, 79, 80, 83, 97, 190, 191, 217, 267 Islamization, 31, 267 Ismaʿil ibn Aḥmad, 78, 79, 80 ispah-salār, 41, 42, 44, 45 Issyq-Köl, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 247 Japan, 97 Japanese, 191 Jaxartes, 103 Jerusalem, 39, 85, 275, 276, 284 Jesus, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 16, 18, 19, 21, 76, 105, 110, 116, 118, 154, 207, 225, 283 Jew, 211 Jewish, 76, 82, 151 Jewish-Christian Dialogue, 98, 197, 201, 211, 220 jihad, 80, 83 Jin dynasty, 190 Job the Persian, 226, 227 308

John, 2, 16, 20, 110, 116, 208, 236, 237, 239, 244, 245 John Chrysostom, 3, 7, 14 John of Antioch, 10, 11, 12 John of Beth Rabban, 226, 227 John of Dailam, 197 John of Kamul, 34 John of Marignolli, 40, 267 John of Plano Carpini, 38 John the Baptist, 36, 236, 278 Jordan, 107 Joseph of Merv, 72 Juan-juan, 190 Judaism, 74, 82 Jumagulov, Chetin, 29, 252 Kao-ch’ang, 189 Kao-chü, 190 Karabalghasun, 74 Karajigach, 26, 33 Karakhanid, 80 Karamlish, 278 Kashghar, 30, 35, 36, 37, 39, 72, 73, 79, 80, 189, 285 Kazakh, 253 Kazakhstan, 80, 81, 109, 216, 247, 248, 253 Kerait, 31, 45, 71, 72, 80 Khalaj, 75, 77, 78 khan, 30, 31, 32, 131, 182, 251, 267, 274, 276, 281, 285, 291 khanates, 31, 39, 190 Khan-baliq, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 73, 283, 284 khāqān, 70, 84 khatun, 79, 202, 250 Khazanov, Anatoly, 76, 82 Khazar, 74, 76, 82, 83 Khitai, 281, 286, 292 Khitan, 191 Khoja Aḥmad Yassavi, 80 Khorasan, 84, 285 Khotan, 285 Khotanese, 191 khuṭba, 79 Khuzistan Chronicle, 70 Khwarazm, 39 309

Khwarazmshahs, 30 Kimek, 75, 76 Kirghiz, 30, 75, 76, 77, 190, 216, 253, 274 Kitāb al-Majdal, 71, 272, 280, 281 Kitbuqa, 45 Klein, Wassilios, 29, 33, 256, 260 Klyashtorny, Sergey, 77 Kokovtsov, Pavel, 29, 247, 248, 249, 250, 256, 258, 260, 265 Kök-Türk, 274 Koshang, 284, 285 Kozlov, Pyotr, 191 Krasnaya Rechka, 30, 81 Kublai Khan, 36, 261, 275, 276, 291 Kucha, 30 Küchlüg, 30, 31, 32 Kun-buqa, 285 Kyrgyzstan, 26, 80, 81, 109, 216, 247 Labourt, Jerome, 69 laity, 8, 33, 102 language interference, 164, 207 Latin, 4, 5, 10, 43, 122, 174, 291 Latrocinium, 12 Latter Teshri, 128, 129 lectionaries, 98, 100, 101, 103, 107, 118, 159, 193, 194, 195, 201, 202, 208, 210, 228, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245 Lent, 107, 122, 132, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 154, 196, 235, 237 Leo I, Pope, 12, 13, 20 lingua franca, 101, 103, 107, 121, 175, 219 liturgical calendar, 122, 129, 143 liturgical language, 33, 101, 103, 121, 175, 177, 193, 219, 240 liturgical texts, 98, 106, 107, 108, 109, 118, 119, 121, 132, 165, 167, 193, 194, 195, 198, 201, 203, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 224 liturgy, 33, 100, 105, 107, 116, 118, 119, 149, 152, 154, 162, 183, 186, 196, 201, 219, 226, 227, 228, 231, 240, 241 Logos, 3, 4, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21 Logos-anthropos, 3 Logos-sarx, 3 Lop Desert, 189 Luke, 2, 16, 101, 110, 116, 139, 223, 236, 238, 239, 240, 244, 245 Lun-t’ai, 30, 38 310

Luoyang, 191 Luoyang Pillar, 191 LXX, 229, 232, 233 Macarius of Egypt, 228 Maclean, Arthur John, 149, 234, 236, 238 Magi, 99, 197, 223 magic, 71, 253 Maltese cross, 256, 260, 263, 264 Manas, 77 Manichaean, 74, 75, 76, 83, 97, 120, 131, 135, 137, 174, 190, 191, 192, 194, 197, 199, 217, 222, 240, 275 Manichaeism, 74, 76, 82, 96, 190, 217 Mannerheim, Carl Gustav, 191 manuscript patching, 202 manuscript repair, 202 manuscript re-use, 202, 203, 240 manuscripts, 77, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 108, 111, 118, 120, 122, 130, 138, 150, 151, 152, 156, 158, 159, 161, 162, 164, 166, 167, 174, 184, 191, 192, 193, 195, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 217, 218, 219, 221, 225, 227, 228, 229,230, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 240, 278 maphrians, 273, 278 Mar Aba I, 151, 155, 208, 229 Mar Awa Royel, 182 Mar Awgen, 222, 228 Mar Barshabba, 98, 197, 207, 210, 213, 214, 220, 238, 239 Mar Narsai, 226, 227 Mar Sergius, 36, 127 Maragha, 277, 278, 285 Marcion, 1 Marco Polo, 35, 38, 39 marginalia, 107, 111, 119, 159, 160, 206, 208, 212, 213, 236, 240 margins, 107, 110, 124, 135, 156, 200, 202, 208, 210, 233, 236 Mari, 273 Mari ibn Sulaymān, 70, 71, 280 Marius Mercator, 10 Mark, 4, 110, 116, 236 Mark the Monk, 228 marmithā, 151, 152, 153, 159, 160, 162, 229, 230 Maronite, 65, 67, 152, 228 Maróth, Miklós, 204 311

Marqos, 36, 39, 284, 285, 286, 287 martyrdom, 40, 107, 113, 122, 213, 263, 267 martyrs’ anthems, 153, 154, 225 Marvazi, 77 Mary, Virgin, 7, 10, 11, 16, 225, 227 Masoretic text, 103, 150, 151, 229 Masson, M.A., 262, 263 Masʿudi, 79 matins, 117, 153, 154 Matthew, 2, 16, 101, 110, 212, 234, 236, 238, 244, 245 Mawara’un-nahr, 31, 32, 267 Melitene, 122 Melkite, 98, 156, 198, 217, 234, 240 Memnon of Ephesus, 10 memrā, 278 merchants, 71, 72, 82, 83, 190 merit transfer, 112, 179, 186, 224, 290, 291 Merkit, 31 Merv, 70, 72, 85, 197, 220, 239 Mesopotamia, 102, 168, 186, 228, 260 Messiah, 67, 70, 71, 112, 114, 181, 182, 283 metropolitans, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 154, 261, 272, 276, 280, 281, 282, 284, 286, 287, 288 Miaphysite, 3, 6, 13 Michael Badoqa, 226, 227 Michael the Syrian, 77 Middle East, 143, 186, 199, 204, 205, 214, 215, 224, 225, 239, 241, 260, 281 Middle Iranian, 97, 121, 193 Middle Persian, 99, 100, 120, 137, 155, 191, 192, 194, 195, 218, 219, 222, 240, 250 Middle Southeastern Turkic, 32 Middle Turkic, 31, 32, 53 military leaders, 44, 45, 53 missionaries, 68, 72, 98, 190, 218, 224, 239, 240, 267, 288 Moghulistan, 31, 267 monasticism, 98, 110, 111, 113, 121, 149, 152, 154, 155, 163, 166, 167, 174, 190, 194, 199, 201, 211, 214, 215, 218, 228, 240, 241, 277, 283, 284 Möngke Khan, 38, 290, 291 Mongol, 30, 31, 33, 45, 82, 98, 121, 155, 163, 165, 178, 184, 190, 204, 212, 216, 217, 249, 261, 262, 267, 274, 276, 277, 280, 281, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292 312

Mongol Empire, 31, 32, 112, 115, 247, 272, 274, 291 Mongolia, 73, 190, 216, 217, 218, 274 Mongolian, 191, 261, 276 Mongol-Turkic, 166, 288, 291 monks, 6, 7, 11, 36, 38, 39, 47, 65, 68, 102, 108, 109, 110, 113, 115, 118, 119, 154, 155, 162, 190, 209, 212, 214, 231, 274, 275, 276, 277, 284, 285, 286, 287, 290, 291 Monophysite, 2, 12 Monothelite, 65 months, 39, 111, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 136, 139, 140, 143, 144, 186, 213, 240 mosques, 78, 79 Mother of Christ, 7, 227 Mother of God, 7, 16, 227 multilingual texts, 99, 100, 143, 191, 219 Müngüzliq Aq Qarakhān, 80 Museum für Asiatische Kunst, 97, 102, 117, 120, 162, 174, 192, 194, 217 musicians, 252, 253, 266 Muslim, 25, 31, 32, 33, 39, 54, 68, 74, 75, 80, 82, 83, 84, 166, 226, 259, 260 Muʿtadid biʾllāh, 79 Naiman, 30, 31 Nakhshab, 39 Narshakhi, 78 National Historical Museum of Uzbekistan, 26, 40, 246, 249, 255, 256 National University of Uzbekistan, 246 Nau, François, 47, 72 Navekath, 30, 35, 36, 37, 73 Naymark, Aleksandr, 32 Nestorian, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 28, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 77, 84, 98, 205, 212, 218, 225, 227, 278, 288 Nestorius, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 226 New Persian, 53, 99, 103, 118, 119, 120, 137, 155, 157, 166, 174, 191, 192, 193, 194, 198, 208, 218, 219, 222, 233, 240 Nicene Christianity, 4 Nicene Creed, 5, 14, 17, 156, 196, 202, 225, 232 Ningxia, 281 Nisan, 143, 144 Nishapur, 85 Nisibis, 152, 154, 226, 227 Niu Ruji, 249 313

Niyazov, Saparmurat, 262 nocturns, 106, 153, 154, 291 Nöldeke, Theodor, 47 numerals, 102, 114, 115, 125, 132, 134, 201, 208 odes, 151, 152, 153, 154, 161, 162, 229 Odoric of Pordenone, 39 Oghulchak Kadïr Khan, 80 Oghuz, 75, 76, 283 oikumene, 86 Old Turkic, 31, 48, 75, 83, 97, 108, 218, 222 Old Uighur, 25, 32, 34, 76, 97, 98, 222 Oldenburg, Sergei, 191 Olon Süme, 264, 285 Öngüt, 119, 247, 284, 285, 286 orda, 38 Organum, 34 Origen, 3 Orkhon Turkic, 75, 78 orthography, 53, 113, 131, 137, 139, 164, 183, 184, 185, 211, 214, 215, 224, 254, 256, 257, 258, 260 ossuaries, 81 ostraca, 165 Otani Kozui, 191 Otrar, 35, 73, 79 ousia, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19 overwriting, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 114, 203 Oxus, 103 Özbeg Khan, 31 Pachomius, 228 Pahlavi Psalter, 99, 100, 155, 158, 193, 195, 222, 232 Pahlavi script, 120, 155, 174, 192, 232 palaeography, 128, 141, 164, 167, 203, 204, 205, 215 palimpsests, 104 Palmer, Andrew, 255 Panjikent, 165, 246, 254 paper, 126, 128, 132, 199, 200, 202, 203, 205, 212, 214, 231, 233, 240 Parable of the Minas, 139 Parthian, 191 Passover, 144

314

patriarchs, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12, 34, 35, 36, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 83, 86, 122, 151, 152, 154, 229, 260, 261, 272, 273, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292 Paul of Samosata, 3, 4, 16, 20 Paul the Anchorite, 228 Pax Mongolica, 30 Paykova, A.V., 263 pearl cross, 41, 50, 212, 251, 254, 256, 263 Pecheneg, 75 Pelliot, Paul, 73, 191, 285 Pentecost, 8, 136, 137, 196, 235 periodeutes, 50, 51, 263 Persia, 66, 68, 85, 186, 222 Persian, 16, 44, 48, 49, 53, 76, 77, 168, 173, 174, 204, 213, 216, 224, 227, 259, 261, 262, 263, 282 persona, 4 Peshiṭta, 100, 102, 103, 150, 151, 155, 156, 165, 167, 208, 211, 224, 228, 229, 232, 233, 234 pharmacological texts, 99, 103, 198, 204, 208, 220, 222 Philippians, 2 Philoxenian version, 228 Photinus, 16 physis, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 13, 19 pilgrimage, 275, 276, 281, 284, 289 plague, 39, 263, 267 polemical texts, 197, 222 Pontius Pilate, 225 Prakrit, 191 prayer, 7, 98, 112, 115, 121, 122, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 175, 176, 177, 178, 182, 183, 184, 186, 194, 196, 201, 203, 204, 212, 213, 218, 219, 223, 224, 227, 229, 230, 231, 239, 241, 278, 289 priests, 9, 31, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 70, 71, 84, 103, 104, 106, 107, 119, 165, 181, 184, 185, 193, 195, 203, 208, 252, 254, 255, 263, 266, 290, 291 prosopic union, 9, 14, 17, 18, 19 prosopon, 4, 5, 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Proverbs, 195, 233, 234 Prussian, 97, 98, 120, 150, 174, 217 Psalm farcings or canons, 151, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 167, 208, 229, 230, 231 315

Psalm headings or titles, 151, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 167, 208, 229, 230, 231 Psalms, 100, 102, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 159, 160, 162, 165, 229, 231, 240 Psalters, 98, 100, 117, 118, 119, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 194, 195, 200, 201, 202, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 214, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 235, 240, 241, 242, 243 ptaḥa, 206 Pulcheria, 6, 7, 8 punctuation, 160, 161, 200, 206, 209 qaghan, 73, 74, 76, 82 Qamil, 30, 34, 39 Qara Khoja, 39 Qara’una, 267 Qarakhanid, 31, 32, 79, 80 Qarakhitai, 30, 31, 32, 38, 190 Qara-Khoto, 165, 218 Qarashahr, 30 Qarluq, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 261 Qarshi, 39 Qayaliq, 30, 34, 38 Qazwini, 76 Qennešrin, 48 Qipchaq, 75, 77 qobuz, 251, 252, 253 Qocho, 30, 75, 96, 98, 121, 141, 174, 189, 190, 192, 205, 216, 261 Quanzhou, 26, 212, 247, 248, 252 Quddāsh ʿEdtā, 129 quire marks, 159, 160, 209, 230 quires, 176, 177, 208, 209, 210, 213 Qumanāyē, 77 Qurutqa, 98 quššaya, 207 qušṭānč, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 53 Rabban Bar Ṣauma, 36, 39, 274, 275, 276, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, 288 Raschmann, Simone, 108, 113 Rásonyi, László, 48 rbaṣa, 206 recitation accents, 210, 235, 238, 241 Reck, Christiane, 101, 102 316

Riccoldo da Monte di Croce, 288 Richard of Burgundy, 40 riddles, 198, 221 rišḥubā, 51, 52, 53 Robber’s Council, 12 Rogation of the Ninevites, 154, 226, 235 Röhrborn, Klaus, 48 Roman Empire, 2 Romans, 2, 107, 235, 245 Rome, 4, 8, 10, 12, 13, 20, 287, 288, 289 Rouran, 190 rubrics, 102, 103, 104, 105, 109, 156, 176, 185, 193, 194, 195, 199, 200, 202, 203, 208, 211, 229, 234, 236, 237, 238, 244, 245 rukkaka, 207 ruling, 137, 141, 159, 202 Russia, 77, 97 Russian, 26, 27, 28, 29, 191, 247, 248 rwaḥa, 206 Sabellianism, 5 Sabellius, 1, 5 Sabrishoʿ (IV) bar Qayyoma, 272 Sachau, Eduard, 37, 204 Ṣalibā ibn Yuḥannā, 280 Ṣaliba-Zakha, 72 Samanid, 78, 79, 83, 84 Samarkand, 30, 35, 36, 37, 39, 45, 47, 72, 73, 79, 83, 84, 85 Sammelplatten, 192 Sanjar ibn Malikshah, 76 Sanskrit, 191, 260 Šaš, 30 Sassanid, 173, 222, 261 Satuq Bughra Khan, 79 Savchenko, Alexei, 44, 246 Sayram, 80 Schwartz, Martin, 101, 102 scribal corrections, 210, 211 scribal errors, 42, 44, 53, 142, 163, 164, 165, 167, 183, 184, 185, 210, 211, 214, 215, 224, 237, 240, 254, 258 scribal hands, 105, 106, 108, 110, 111, 112, 115, 117, 128, 142, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 166, 167, 176, 177, 178, 212, 213, 214, 215, 230, 231, 233, 235, 240, 289 317

scribes, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 136, 138, 139, 159, 164, 177, 178, 179, 184, 204, 206, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 224, 233, 257, 273, 280 Second Council of Ephesus, 12 Second Türk Empire, 73, 190, 216 Seleucia-Ctesiphon, 68, 173, 276 Seleucid Era, 27, 44, 46, 53, 132, 143, 203, 212, 213, 249, 266, 281 Seljük, 76 Semirechye, 26, 30, 31, 32, 38, 39, 74, 109, 119, 247, 248, 252, 255, 263, 265 Septuagint, 150, 151, 155, 156, 229 Serapion, 197, 222 Sergius and Bacchus, 197, 213, 238 Sergius of Elam, 66, 68 Serta, 205 Severus Sebokht, 48 seyame, 183, 207 Shaanxi, 281 ṣḥāḥā, 234 shamanism, 32, 76, 253 Shangdu, 261 Shanxi, 281 Sheban, 283, 285 Shebaṭ, 132, 143 Shüi-pang, 97, 150 shurāyā, 153 Siberia, 276 sibilant confusion, 183 signature numbers, 157, 160, 175, 192, 193, 230, 237, 241, 244 Silas, 72 Silk Road, 30, 35, 39, 70, 96, 121, 174, 189, 193, 198, 203, 214, 216, 220, 274, 285 Simeon Šanqlawaya, 47 Simon Bar Qaligh, 276 Simon Peter, 226 Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 100, 102, 103, 104, 107, 110, 111, 113, 118, 158, 204, 209, 219, 236, 238 Ṣināyē, 66, 68, 69 Sisinnius I, 6 SOAS, 99, 217 Socrates Scholasticus, 6, 7 Sogdian calendar, 127, 130, 131 318

Sogdian Psalter, 101, 102, 156, 158, 195, 199, 201, 202, 232, 233 Sogdian script, 97, 98, 101, 102, 107, 111, 120, 126, 130, 134, 137, 140, 142, 143, 156, 174, 192, 193, 194, 200, 202, 219, 220, 232, 233, 236 Sogdiana, 73, 103, 211, 214, 220 Solomon of Baṣra, 272, 273 Son of Mary, 18 Song of Isaiah, 152, 161, 229 Song of Moses, 152, 161, 229 Sophronius, 15 Sørensen, Arthur, 191 Soviet Union, 29, 248 St. George, 98, 197, 201, 204, 220, 221, 223 St. Petersburg, 27, 29, 247, 248 Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, 97, 103, 117, 120, 174, 192, 217 Stein, Marc Aurel, 191 Stephen Orbelian, 288 Subbārā, 128, 129 substantia, 5 Sufi, 80 Sultan Abu Saʿid, 281 Sultan Aḥmad, 281 Sultan Öljeitü, 281 Sundermann, Werner, 43, 102, 209 Suyab, 30, 32, 81 Sweden, 97, 191 syncretism, 186, 225, 240 Syr Darya, 35, 73, 103 Syria, 3, 65, 122 Syriac script, 26, 28, 34, 40, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 118, 119, 120, 134, 136, 138, 139, 156, 157, 162, 163, 165, 167, 174, 176, 177, 182, 184, 192, 193, 194, 198, 201, 202, 206, 208, 210, 213, 217, 219, 222, 233, 237, 247, 253, 258, 291 Syriac-New Persian Psalter, 99, 102, 103, 156, 157, 158, 195, 222, 233 Syrian Doctors, 225, 226 Syrian Orthodox Church, 25, 65, 122, 151, 228, 255, 266, 273, 278 Syro-hexaplar version, 228 Ṭabari, 79, 84 Tajikistan, 165, 211, 220, 246, 254 Taklamakan Desert, 96, 189, 216 Ṭaksa, 106, 195, 214 Talas, 30, 79, 80, 84, 285 319

Tamerlane, 31 Tang dynasty, 190, 191, 204 Tangut, 39, 191, 281, 285, 286 täŋgri, 290, 291 Taraz, 78, 79, 80, 81, 84 Tarim Basin, 30, 31, 32, 38, 96, 189, 190, 216, 274 Tarmashirin, 31, 39, 267 tarsa, 38, 75, 76, 80 Tarsakent, 33 Tashkent, 26, 30, 40, 73, 79, 80, 156, 217, 234, 246, 251, 256, 264, 265 teachers, 42, 43, 44, 45, 53, 76, 177, 252 Temple of the Cross, 166 Tertullian, 5 teshboḥtā, 152, 231 text dating, 81, 156, 164, 165, 167, 203, 204, 205, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 217, 228, 238, 247, 250, 255, 261, 278 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 3, 6, 12, 19, 151, 226, 229 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 10, 11 Theodosius I, 2 Theodosius II, 6, 8, 10, 12 Theophilus, 7, 11 Theotokos, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 227 Thomas of Mancasola, 39 Thomas of Marga, 68, 154, 155 Tibet, 69, 84, 216 Tibetan, 68, 69, 83, 190, 191, 204, 213 Tiele, 190 Tien Shan, 30, 36, 96, 217, 222, 285 Timothy I, 35, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 261 Timur, 31, 32, 260, 267 Titus, 245 Tocharian, 97, 191 Toghan-Temür, 261 Tokmak, 26, 33, 81 Tome of Leo, 12, 13, 20, 22 Toquz Oghuz, 74 Toyoq, 98, 222 Transoxiana, 31 Trinity, 2, 5, 18, 210 Tughluq Timur, 31 320

Tuptāyē, 66, 67, 68, 69 Turfan Depression, 189 Turfan expeditions, 97, 98, 120, 150, 174, 191, 192, 217 Türgesh, 73, 74, 75 Turk, 28, 31, 35, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 131, 143, 247, 249, 261, 273, 276, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 287, 288, 291 Ṭurkāyē, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 74, 78, 80, 84, 85 Turkestan Circle of Lovers of Archeology, 249 Turkistan, 35, 73, 78, 85 Turkmenistan, 247 Uighur Empire, 73, 75, 96, 174, 190, 216, 274 Uighur Kingdom, 75, 96, 97, 98, 121, 174, 190, 192, 205, 216, 261, 274 Uighur Psalter, 117, 118, 162, 163, 164, 193, 195, 202, 204, 213, 231, 240, 244 Uighur script, 28, 97, 99, 105, 107, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 155, 162, 164, 165, 166, 174, 176, 177, 192, 193, 194, 195, 198, 202, 203, 204, 212, 213, 219, 222, 231, 240 Urgench, 39 Urmia, 238 Urumchi, 37, 96, 189, 216 Uzbekistan, 39, 40, 103, 211, 220 Uzgand, 80 Valentinus, 1 vandalism, 192, 200, 236 Vatican, 288 velar confusion, 164, 183, 185 vellum, 199 verso marks, 160, 210 vespers, 153, 154 virgins, 7, 248, 250, 266 Visitor-General, 282, 283, 287 vocalization, 198, 206, 207, 215, 236 von Gabain, Annemarie, 73, 74 von le Coq, Albert, 97, 98, 117, 191 wedding blessing, 99, 122, 198, 223, 253 Wei kingdom, 190 Wellesz, Egon, 210 West Syriac, 47, 48, 150, 151, 207, 228 Western Qarakhanid Qaghanate, 80 Western Turkistan, 78 321

William of Rubruck, 31, 34, 38, 39 women, 6, 45, 53, 54, 166 World War II, 97, 192, 197 writing materials, 199 Xi Xia, 281 Xi’an Stele, 68, 98, 212 Xinjiang, 96, 174, 189, 216, 247 Xiongnu, 190 yabghu, 74, 76, 82, 83, 84 Yaghnobi, 134 Yahbalaha III, 36, 154, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292 Yangzhou, 252, 260, 261 Yarkand, 39 yarliq, 291 Yazdegerd II, 263 yelikewen, 178 Yelü Zhilugu, 32 Yeti Su, 26, 74, 81, 85, 247, 249, 250, 260, 266, 267 Yoshida, Yutaka, 134 Yuan dynasty, 204, 261, 262, 283 Yuḥannan, 45, 80, 109, 113, 117 Zaytun, 26, 212 Zhenjiang, 36 Zheti Su, 26, 30, 31, 32, 38, 39 Zieme, Peter, 112, 117, 176, 177, 178, 183, 185, 204, 253 zlama pšiqa, 206 zlama qašya, 206 Zoroastrian, 127, 190 Zoroastrianism, 152 zqapa, 206

322

Comprehensive Bibliography A Aalto, Pentti, 1981. “Central Asiatic Epigraphic and Manuscript Material in Finland,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. 269, 3-10. Abbeloos, Jean-Baptiste & Thomas Joseph Lamy, ed. & tr., 1872. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, Vol. I. Louvain & Paris: E. Peeters & Maisonneuve. Abbeloos, Jean-Baptiste & Thomas Joseph Lamy, ed. & tr., 1874. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, Vol. II. Louvain & Paris: E. Peeters & Maisonneuve. Abbeloos, Jean-Baptiste & Thomas Joseph Lamy, ed. & tr., 1877. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, Vol. III. Louvain & Paris: E. Peeters & Maisonneuve. Amadou, Robert, 1959. “Chorévêques et périodeutes,” in L’Orient Syrien, Vol. 4, 233-240. Anastos, Milton V., 1962. “Nestorius was Orthodox,” in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 16, 117-140. Andreas, Friedrich Carl, 1910. “Bruchstücke einer Pehlewi-Übersetzung der Psalmen aus der Sassanidenzeit,” in Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 869-872. Andreas, Friedrich Carl & Kaj Barr, 1933. “Bruchstücke einer PehlewiÜbersetzung der Psalmen,” in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 91-152. Arlotto, Anthony, 1970-71. “Old Turkic Oracle Books,” in Monumenta Serica, Vol. 29, 685-696. Arayathinal, Thomas, 1959. Aramaic (Syriac) Grammar, Vol. 1. Mannanam, India: St. Joseph's Press [repr: Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2007]. Asmussen, Jes Peter, 1964. “The Pahlavi Psalm 122 in English,” in Dr. J. M. Unvala Memorial Volume. Bombay: Kaikhusroo M. JamaspAsa, 123126. Asmussen, Jes Peter, 1982. “The Sogdian and Uighur-Turkish Christian Literature in Central Asia before the Real Rise of Islam: A Survey,” in Indological and Buddhist Studies: Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday ed. by L. A. Hercus, F. B. J. Kuiper, T. Rajapatirana & E. R. Skrzypczak. Canberra: Faculty of Asian Studies, 11-29. 323

Assemani, Joseph Simon, 1719. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, Tom. I. Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide. Assemani, Joseph Simon, 1721. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, Tom. II. Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide. Assemani, Joseph Simon, 1725. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, Tom. III, 1. Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide. Assemani, Joseph Simon, 1728. Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, Tom. III, 2. Rome: Typis Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide. Atwood, Christopher P., 2004. Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. New York: Facts on File Publications. Atwood, Christopher P., 2014. “Historiography and transformation of ethnic identity in the Mongol Empire: the Öng’üt case,” in Asian Ethnicity, Vol. 15, No. 4, 514-534. B Badger, George P., 1852. The Nestorians and Their Rituals, Vol. II. London: Joseph Masters. Байпаков, Карл М., 1994. “Христианство Казахстана в Средние Века,” in Из Истории Древних Культов Средней Азии: Христианство, ed. by Г. А. Пугаченкова & Ю. Ф. Буряков. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 96-100. Baipakov, Karl M., 2000. “The Silk Route across Central Asia,” in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV, Part Two, ed. by C. Edmund Bosworth & M. S. Asimov. Paris: UNESCO, 221-226. Bang, W., 1926. “Türkische Bruchstücke einer nestorianischen Georgpassion,” in Le Muséon, Vol. 39, 41-75. Barat, Kahar, 1987. “Old Uyghur Christianity and the Bible,” in American Asian Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 12-25. Barthold, Wilhelm, 1901. Zur Geschichte des Christentums in Mittel-Asien bis zur mongolischen Eroberung. Turnhout & Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr. Barthold, Wilhelm, 1968. Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion (E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series, N.S., Vol. 5). London: Luzac & Co. Baski, Imre, 1986. A Preliminary Index to Rásonyi’s Onomasticon Turcicum (Materials for Central Asiatic and Altaic Studies 6). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Baumer, Christoph, 2006. The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. London and New York: I.B. Tauris. 324

Baumstark, Anton, 1915. “Neue soghdisch-nestorianische Bruchstücke,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 4 (N.S.), 123-128. Baumstark, Anton, 1922. Geschichte der syrischen Literatur mit Ausschluss der christlich-palastinensichen Texte. Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag. Bazin, Louis, 1991. Les systè es chronologiques dans le monde turc ancien (Bibliotheca orientalis Hungarica 34). Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Beckwith, Christopher I., 1987. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bedjan, Paul, ed., 1888. Histoire de Mar Jab-alaha, Patriarche et de Raban Sauma (1st ed.). Paris: Maisonneuve. Bedjan, Paul, ed., 1890. Gregorii Barhebraei Chronicon Syriacum. Paris: Maisonneuve. Bedjan, Paul, ed., 1895. Histoire de Mar-Jabalaha, de trois autres patriarches, d’un prêtre et de deux laïques, nestoriens (2nd ed.). Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. Benveniste, Émile, 1938. “Sur un fragment d’un psautier syro-persan,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. 230, 458-462. Benveniste, Émile, 1943-1945. “Fragments des Actes de Saint Georges en version sogdienne,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. 234, 91-116. Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2007, Turfan Studies. Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Bernhard, P. Ludger, 1969. Die Chronologie der Syrer (Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 264). Wien: Hermann Böhlau. Бернштам, Александр Н., 1941. Памятники Старины Таласской Долины. Алма-ата: Казахское Объединенное Государственное Исдательство. Bethune-Baker, J. F., 1908. Nestorius and his Teaching: a fresh examination of the evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bevan, George A., 2007. “The Last Days of Nestorius in the Syriac Sources,” in Journal of the Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, Vol. 7, 39-54. Bidawid, Raphaël, ed. & tr., 1956. Les lettres du patriarche nestorien Timothée I: étude critique avec en appendice la lettre de Timothée I aux moines du couvent de Mār Mārōn (Studi e Testi 187). Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 325

Biran, Michal, 2002. “The Chaghadaids and Islam: the Conversion of Tarmashirin Khan (1331-1334),” in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 122, 742-752. Bloemendaal, W., 1960. The Headings of the Psalms in the East Syrian Church. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Bonin, Charles-Eudes, 1900. “Note sur les anciennes chrétientés nestoriennes de l’asie centrale,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. IX (Ser.), No. XV (Tom.), 584-592. Borbone, Pier Giorgio, 2000. Storia di Mar Yahballaha e di Rabban Sauma: Un orientale in Occidente ai tempi di Marco Polo. Torino: Silvio Zamorani editore. Borbone, Pier Giorgio, 2005. “Some Aspects of Turco-Mongol Christianity in the Light of Literary and Epigraphic Syriac Sources,” in Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, 5-20. Borbone, Pier Giorgio, 2006. “Peshitta Psalm 34:6 from Syria to China,” in Text, Translation, and Tradition: Studies on the Peshitta and its Use in the Syriac Tradition (Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden, Vol. 14), ed. by W. Th. van Peursen & R. B. ter Haar Romeny. Leiden: Brill, 1-10. Borbone, Pier Giorgio, 2008. “Syroturcica 1. The Önggüds and the Syriac Language,” in Malphono w-Rabo d-Malphone: Studies in Honor of Sebastian P. Brock, ed. by George A. Kiraz. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 1-17. Borbone, Pier Giorgio, ed. & tr., 2009. Storia di Mar Yahballaha e di Rabban Sauma. Cronaca siriaca del XIV secolo. Moncalieri: Lulu Press. Borbone, Pier Giorgio, 2015. “Les «provinces de l’extérieur» vues par l’Église-mère,” in Le christianisme syriaque en Asie Centrale et en Chine (Études syriaques 12), ed. by Pier Giorgio Borbone & Pierre Marsone. Paris: Geuthner, 121-159. Borbone, Pier Giorgio & Alexandre Egly, tr., 2008. Un ambassadeur du Khan Argun en Occident : Histoire de Mar Yahballaha III et de Rabban Sauma (1281-1317). Paris: L’Harmattan. Bottini, Laura, 1992. “Due lettere inedite del patriarca Mār Yahbhallàhā III (1281-1317),” in Rivista degli Studi Orientali, Vol. 66, No. 3-4, 239256. Boyce, Mary, 1960. A Catalogue of the Iranian Manuscripts in Manichaean Script in the German Turfan Collection (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 326

Braaten, Carl E., 1963. “Modern Interpretations of Nestorius,” in Church History, Vol. 32, 251-267. Braun, Oskar, 1901. “Der Katholikos Timotheos I und seine Briefe,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 1, 138-152. Braun, Oskar, 1901. “Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I über biblische Studien des 9 Jahrhunderts,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 1, 299-313. Braun, Oskar, tr., 1915. Ausgewählte Akten persischer Märtyrer (Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, Band 22). Kempten & München: J. Kösel. Braun, Oskar, ed., 1915. Timothei Patriarchae I Epistulae I [Text] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 74/Syr. 30). Paris: J. Gabalda. Braun, Oskar, tr., 1915. Timothei Patriarchae I Epistulae I [Trans] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 75/Syr. 31). Paris: J. Gabalda. Bregel, Yuri, 2003. An Historical Atlas of Central Asia (Handbuch der Orientalistik, VIII, 9). Leiden: Brill. Brock, Sebastian P., 1969. “Rabban Ṣauma à Constantinople (1287),” in Mémorial Mgr Gabriel Khouri-Sarkis (1898–1968), ed. by François Graffin. Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste, 245-253. Brock, Sebastian P., 1971. “The Nestorian Diptychs: a Further Manuscript,” in Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 89, 177-185. Brock, Sebastian P., 1985. “The Christology of the Church of the East in the Synods of the Fifth to early Seventh Centuries: Preliminary Considerations and Materials,” in Aksum, Thyateira: a festschrift for Archbishop Methodios of Thyateira and Great Britain, ed. by George Dion Dragas. London: Editorial Committee, 125-142 [repr: Studies in Syriac Christianity: History, Literature and Theology, by Sebastian Brock. Hampshire: Variorum, 1992, Article XII]. Brock, Sebastian P., 1996. “The ‘Nestorian’ Church: a lamentable misnomer,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library, Vol. 78, No. 3, 23-35. Brock, Sebastian P., 2006. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Gorgias Handbooks 7). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Brock, Sebastian P., Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz & Lucas Van Rompay, 2011. Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Brock, Sebastian P. & Nicholas Sims-Williams, 2011. “An Early Fragment from the East Syriac Baptismal Service from Turfan,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, Vol. 77, No. 1, 81-92. 327

Brosset, M., tr., 1864. Histoire de la Siounie par Stéphannos Orbélian, Vol. I. Saint-Petersburg: Eggers et Cie. Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, ed. & tr., 1886. The Book of the Bee. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, ed., 1893. The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas Bishop of Margâ A. D. 840, Vol. I: The Syriac Text, Introduction, etc. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, tr., 1893. The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas Bishop of Margâ A. D. 840, Vol. II: The English Translation. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, ed., 1913. Syrian Anatomy, Pathology and Therapeutics or “The Book of Medicines,” Vol. I: Introduction, Syriac Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, tr., 1913. Syrian Anatomy, Pathology and Therapeutics or “The Book of Medicines,” Vol. II: English Translation, Index. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, tr., 1928. The Monks of Kûblâi Khân, Emperor of China. London: Religious Tract Society. Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, tr., 1932. The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj, the son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, commonly known as Bar Hebraeus, being the First Part of his Political History of the World, Vol. I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burkitt, F. Crawford, 1921-1923. “The Early Syriac Lectionary System,” in Proceedings of the British Academy, Vol. 10, 301-338. Burkitt, F. Crawford, 1925. The Religion of the Manichees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buryakov, Y. F., K. M. Baipakov, Kh. Tashbaeva & Y. Yakubov, 1999. The Cities and Routes of the Great Silk Road (on Central Asia Documents). Tashkent: Sharq. C Cahun, Léon, 1896. Introduction à l’histoire de l’Asie: Turcs et Mongols, des origines à 140 . Paris: A. Colin et Co. Cameron, Averil, 1978. “The Theotokos in sixth-century Constantinople,” in Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 29 (N.S.), 79-108.

328

Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, tr., 1895. Histoire de Mar Jabalaha III, Patriarche des Nestoriens (1281-1317) et du moine Rabban Çauma. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, ed. & tr., 1899-1910. Chronique de Michel le Syrien, Patriarche Jacobite d’Antioche 1166-1199 (4 vols). Paris: Ernest Leroux. Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, ed. & tr., 1902. Synodicon Orientale ou Recueil de Synodes Nestoriens (Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques, Vol. 27). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, 1906. “Éclaircissements sur quelques points de la littérature syriaque: Contribution à l’onomastique syriaque,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. X (Ser.), No. VIII (Tom.), 259-293. Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, ed., 1909. Eliae Metropolitae Nisibeni Opus Chronologicum II [Text] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 62/Syr. 22). Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae. Chabot, Jean-Baptiste, tr., 1910. Eliae Metropolitae Nisibeni Opus Chronologicum II [Trans] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 63/Syr. 24). Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae. Chaffanjon, Jean, 1899. “Rapport sur une mission scientifique dans l’Asie centrale et la Sibérie,” in Nouvelles archives des missions scientifiques et littéraires, Vol. IX, 55-101. Chavannes, Edouard, 1897. “Le Nestorianisme et l’Inscription de KaraBalgassoun,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. IX (Ser.), No. IX (Tom.), 4385. Chesnut, Roberta C., 1978. “The Two Prosopa in Nestorius’ Bazaar of Heracleides,” in Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 29 (N.S.), 392-409. Chwolson, Daniel, 1886. “Syrisch Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, Vol. VII (Ser.), No. XXXIV (Tom.), No. 4, 1-30. Хвольсон, Даниил, 1886 [1887]. “Дополненія и поправки къ статьямъ ‘Несторіанскія надписи изъ Семиръчья’,” in Записки Восточнаго Отдъленія Императорскаго Русскаго Археологическаго Общества, Vol. 1, 303-308. Хвольсон, Даниил, 1886 [1887]. “Несторіанскія надписи изъ Семиръчья,” in Записки Восточнаго Отдъленія Императорскаго Русскаго Археологическаго Общества, Vol. 1, 217-221. 329

Хвольсон, Даниил, 1886 [1887]. “Предварительныя замътки о найденныхъ въ Семиръченской области сирійскихъ надгробныхъ надписяхъ,” in Записки Восточнаго Отдъленія Императорскаго Русскаго Археологическаго Общества, Vol. 1, 84-109. Chwolson, Daniel, 1890. “Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in Mémoires de l’Académie impériale des sciences de St.Pétersbourg, Vol. VII (Ser.), No. XXXVII (Tom.). Хвольсон, Даниил, 1895. “Сирійско-тюркскія несторіанскія надгробныя надписи XIII и XIV стольтій, найденныя въ Семиръчьъ,” in Восточныя Замътки, 115-129. Chwolson, Daniel, 1897. Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie. Neue Folge. St. Petersburg: Imprimerie de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences. Clauson, Gerard, 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cleaves, Francis Woodman, 1949. “The Sino-Mongolian inscription of 1362 in memory of Prince Hindu,” in Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 12, 1-133. Colless, Brian E., 1986. “The Nestorian Province of Samarqand,” in AbrNahrain, Vol. 24, 51-57. Czeglédy, Károly, 1954. “Monographs on Syriac and Muhammadan Sources in the Literary Remains of M. Kmoskó,” in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 4, 19-91. D D’Aiuto, Francesco, 2008 [2009]. “Un antico inno per la Resurrezione,” in Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, Vol. 45 (N.S.), 3-135. Darmo, Thoma, ed., 1960. Ktaba da-Qdam wad-Batar wad-Hudra wadKashkol wad-Gazza w-Qala d-‘Udrane ‘am Ktaba d-Mazmure, Vol. I. Trichur, Kerala: Church of the East. Darmo, Thoma, ed., 1961. Ktaba da-Qdam wad-Batar wad-Hudra wadKashkol wad-Gazza w-Qala d-‘Udrane ‘am Ktaba d-Mazmure, Vol. II. Trichur, Kerala: Church of the East. Darmo, Thoma, ed., 1962. Ktaba da-Qdam wad-Batar wad-Hudra wadKashkol wad-Gazza w-Qala d-‘Udrane ‘am Ktaba d-Mazmure, Vol. III. Trichur, Kerala: Church of the East. 330

Daukeyeva, Saida D., 2012. “The Kazakh Qobyz: Between Tradition and Modernity,” in Music of Central Asia: An Introduction, ed. by Theodore Levin & Elmira Köchümkulova. Bishkek: Aga Khan Trust for Culture & University of Central Asia, 188-200. Dauvillier, Jean, 1948. “Les Provinces Chaldéennes ‘de l’Extérieur’ au Moyen Age,” in Mélanges offerts au R. P. Ferdinand Cavallera. Toulouse: Bibliothèque de l’Institut Catholique, 260-316 [repr: Histoire et institutions des Églises orientales au Moyen Age, by Jean Dauvillier. London: Variorum, 1983, Article I]. Dauvillier, Jean, 1953. “Byzantins d’asie centrale et d’extrême-orient au moyen age,” in Revue des Études Byzantines, Vol. 11, 62-87. Dauvillier, Jean, 1956. “Les croix triomphales dans l’ancienne Eglise chaldéenne,” in Eléona, 11-17 [repr: Histoire et institutions des Églises orientales au Moyen Age, by Jean Dauvillier. London: Variorum, 1983, Article X]. Dauvillier, Jean, ed. 1983. Histoire et institutions des Églises orientales au Moyen Age (Collected Studies Series 173). London: Variorum. Dawson, Christopher, tr., 1955. The Mongol Mission. London: Sheed and Ward. de Backer, Louis, tr., 1877. L'Extrême-Orient au moyen âge. Paris: Ernest Leroux. de Blois, François, 2006. “Du nouveau sur la chronologie bactrienne posthellénistique : l’ère de 223-224 ap. J.-C.,” in Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 991-997. de Goeje, Michael Jan, ed. & tr., 1889. Kitâb al-Masâlik wa’l-Mamâlik, Auctore Abu’l-Kâsim Obaidallah ibn Abdallah Ibn Khordâdhbeh (Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum VI). Lugduni Batavorum: E. J. Brill. de Rachewiltz, Igor, 1971. Papal Envoys to the Great Khans. London: Faber & Faber. Dean, James E., 1934. “The Old Syriac Calendar,” in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 54, No. 2, 129-142. DelCogliano, Mark, 2005. Nestorius, 2nd and 3rd letters to Pope Celestine (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nestorius_two_letters_01.htm). Desreumaux, Alain, 2000. “Stèles syriaques nestoriennes,” in Bulletin des Musees et Monuments Lyonnais, Vol. 2-3, 58-73. DeWeese, Devin, 1990. “Yasavian Legends on the Islamization of Turkistan,” in Aspects of Altaic Civilization III: Proceedings of the Thirti331

eth Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference (Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 145), ed. by Denis Sinor. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1-19. Dickens, Mark, 2009. “The Syriac Bible in Central Asia,” in The Christian Heritage of Iraq (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 13), ed. by Erica C. D. Hunter. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 92-120. Dickens, Mark, 2017. “Syriac Inscriptions near Urgut, Uzbekistan,” in Studia Iranica, Vol. 46, No. 2, 205-260. Dickens, Mark & Peter Zieme, 2014. “Syro-Uigurica I: A Syriac Psalter in Uyghur Script from Turfan,” in Scripts Beyond Borders. A Survey of Allographic Traditions in the Euro-Mediterranean World (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain, Vol. 62), ed. by Johannes den Heijer, Andrea B. Schmidt & Tamara Pataridze. Leuven: Peeters, 291-328. Diettrich, G., 1909. “Bericht über neuentdeckte handschriftliche Urkunden zur Geschichte des Gottesdienstes in der nestorianischen Kirche,” in Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen (Philologisch-historische Klasse), 160-218. Driver, G. R. & Leonard Hodgson, tr., 1925. Nestorius: The Bazaar of Heracleides. Oxford: Clarendon. Duan, Qing, 2001. “Bericht über ein neuentdecktes syrisches Dokument aus Dunhuang/China,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 85, 84-93. Джумагулов, Четин, 1963. Эпиграфика Киргизии, выпуск 1. Фрунзе: Академия наук Киргизской ССР. Džumagulov, Četin, 1968. “Die syrisch-türkischen (nestorianischen) Denkmäler in Kirgisien,” in Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung, Vol. 14, 470-480. Джумагулов, Четин, 1971. Язык Сиро-Тюркских (Несторианских) Памятников Киргизии. Фрунзе: Академия наук Киргизской ССР. Джумагулов, Четин, 1982. Эпиграфика Киргизии, выпуск 2. Фрунзе: Академия наук Киргизской ССР. Джумагулов, Четин, 1987. Эпиграфика Киргизии, выпуск 3. Фрунзе: Академия наук Киргизской ССР.

332

E Egami, Namio, 1966. “On the Form and Decoration of Nestorian Tombstones discovered in East Asia,” in Transactions of the International Conference of Orientalists in Japan, Vol. 11, 22-24. Endicott-West, Elizabeth, 1989. “Merchant Associations in Yuan China: The Ortoγ,” in Asia Major, Vol. 2, No. 2, 127-154. Engberding, Hieronymus, 1965. “Fünf Blätter eines alten ostsyrischen Bittund Bußgottesdienstes aus Innerasien,” in Ostkirchliche Studien, Vol. 14, 121-148. Engberg, Gudrun, 2007. “Ekphonetic [lectionary] notation” [Electronic Version], in Grove Music Online (http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/article/grove/music/0 8680). Enoki, Kazuo, 1964. “The Nestorian Christianism in China in Mediaeval Time According to Recent Historical and Archaeological Researches,” in Problemi Attuali di Scienza e di Cultura: Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul tema: L’Oriente Cristiano Nella Storia Della Civiltà. Rome: Accademia Nationale de Lincei, 45-77. Ethé, Hermann, tr., 1868. Zakarija Ben Muhammed Ben Mahmûd elKazwîni’s Kosmographie, Erster Halbband: Die Wunder der Schöpfung. Leipzig: Fues's Verlag. F Fiaccadori, Gianfranco, 1984. “On the Dating of Īliyā al-Ğawharī’s Collectio canonica,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 68, 213-214. Fiaccadori, Gianfranco, 1986. “Īliyā al-Ğawharī, Īliyā of Damascus,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 70, 192-193. Fiey, Jean-Maurice, 1963. “Diptyqes nestoriens du XIVe siècle,” in Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 81, 371-413. Fiey, Jean-Maurice, 1988. “Le Grand Catholicos turco-mongol Yahwalaha III (1281-1317),” in Proche-Orient Chrétien, Vol. 38, 209-220. Finn, Richard, 2006. Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire: Christian Promotion and Practice (313-450). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foster, John, 1954. “Crosses from the Walls of Zaitun,” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 86, 1-25. Franck, Irene M. & David M. Brownstone, 1986. The Silk Road: A History. Oxford: Facts on File Publications. 333

Franzmann, Majella, 2007. “Syriac Language and Script in a Chinese Setting: Nestorian Inscriptions from Quanzhou, China” [Electronic Version], in Hugoye, Vol. 10, No. 2 (http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol10No2/HV10N2Franzmann.html). Franzmann, Majella & Samuel N. C. Lieu, 2006. “A New Nestorian Tombstone from Quanzhou: the Epitaph of Lady Kejamtâ,” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 293-302. Frend, W. H. C., 1972. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frye, Richard N., tr., 1954. The History of Bukhara. Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America. G Geng Shimin, 2006. “Reexamination of the Nestorian Inscription from Yangzhou,” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 243-255. Geng Shimin, Hans-Joachim Klimkeit & Jens Peter Laut, 1996. “Eine neue nestorianische Grabinschrift aus China,” in Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, Vol. 14 (N.F.), 164-175. Gershevitch, Ilya, 1946. “On the Sogdian St. George Passion,” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 179-184. Gershevitch, Ilya, 1954. A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian. Oxford: Blackwell. Gershevitch, Ilya, 1985. Philologia Iranica. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Giamil, Samuel, 1902. Genuinae Relationes inter Sedem Apostolicam et Assyriorum Orientalium seu Chaldaeorum Ecclesiam. Rome: Ermanno Loescher & Co. Gibb, H. A. R., tr., 1929. Ibn Battuta: Travels in Asia and Africa, 1325-1354. London: George Routledge & Sons. Gignoux, Philippe, 1968. “L’auteur de la version pehlevie du psautier seraitil nestorien?” in Mémorial Mgr Gabriel Khouri-Sarkis. 1898-1968. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 233-244. 334

Gignoux, Philippe, 2001. “Une croix de procession de Hérat inscrite en pehlevi,” in Le Muséon, Vol. 114, 291-304. Gignoux, Philippe, 2008. “Pahlavi Psalter” [Electronic Version], in Encyclopaedia Iranica (http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/pahlavi-psalter). Gillman, Ian & Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, 1999. Christians in Asia before 1500. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Gismondi, Enrico, ed. & tr., 1896-1897. Maris Amri et Slibae. De Patriarchis Nestorianorum. Commentaria, Pars Altera (Amri et Slibae). Rome: C. de Luigi. Gismondi, Enrico, ed. & tr., 1899. Maris Amri et Slibae. De Patriarchis Nestorianorum. Commentaria, Pars Prior (Maris). Rome: C. de Luigi. Golden, Peter B., 1990. “The Karakhanids and early Islam,” in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. by Denis Sinor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 343-370. Golden, Peter B., 1998. “Religion among the Qıpčaqs of Medieval Eurasia,” in Central Asiatic Journal, Vol. 42, 180-237. Горячева, В. Д. & С. Я. Перегудова, 1994. “Памятники Христианства на Территории Кыргызстана,” in Из Истории Древних Культов Средней Азии: Христианство, ed. by Г. А. Пугаченкова & Ю. Ф. Буряков. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 84-95. Gray, Louis H., 1913-1914. “New Testament Fragments from Turkestan,” in Expository Times, Vol. 25, 59-61. Gray, Patrick T. R., 2005. “The Legacy of Chalcedon: Christological Problems and their Significance,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian, ed. by Michael Maas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215-238. Grenet, Frantz, 1984. Les pratiques funéraires dans l’Asie centrale sédentaire de la conquête grecque à l’islamisation (Publications de l’U.R.A. 29, Memoire No. 1). Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique. Grœnbech, Kaare, 1940. “Turkish Inscriptions from Inner Mongolia,” in Monumenta Serica, Vol. 4, 305-308. Guidi, Ignazio, 1893. “Un nuovo testo siriaco sulla storia degli ultimi Sassanidi,” in Actes de Huitième Congrès International des Orientalistes, tenu en 1889 à Stockholm et à Christiania, Section I: Semitique, Soussection B. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 3-36.

335

Guidi, Ignazio, ed., 1903. Chronica Minora: Chronicon anonymum de ultimis regibus Persarum [Text] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 1/Syr. 1). Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae. Guidi, Ignazio, tr., 1903. Chronica Minora: Chronicon anonymum de ultimis regibus Persarum [Trans] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 2/Syr. 2). Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae. H Hage, Wolfgang, 1970. “Das orientalische Christentum in Asien bis zum 14. Jh.,” and “Das römisch-katholische Christentum im Machtbereich der Mongolen (13.-14. Jh.),” in Atlas zur Kirchengeschichte: die christlichen Kirchen in Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. by Hubert Jedin, Kenneth Scott Latourette & Jochen Martin. Freiburg: Herder, 27, 63. Hage, Wolfgang, 1978. “Einheimische Volkssprachen und syrische Kirchensprache in der nestorianischen Asienmission,” in Erkenntnisse und Meinungen II (Göttinger Orientforschungen. Reihe I: Syriaca, Band 17), ed. by Gernot Wiessner. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 131-160. Hage, Wolfgang, 1987. “Das Christentum in der Turfan-Oase,” in Synkretismus in den Religionen Zentralasiens, ed. by Walther Heissig & Hans-Joachim Klimkeit. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 46-57. Hage, Wolfgang, 1997. Syriac Christianity in the East (Mōrān ’Eth’ō 1). Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute. Halbertsma, Tjalling, 2006. “Some Notes on Past and Present Field Research on Gravestones and Related Stone Material of the Church of the East in Inner Mongolia, China,” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 303319. Halbertsma, Tjalling, 2008. Early Christian Remains of Inner Mongolia: Discovery, Reconstruction and Appropriation (Sinica Leidensia 88). Leiden: Brill. Halbertsma, Tjalling, 2015. Early Christian Remains of Inner Mongolia: Discovery, Reconstruction and Appropriation, 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Halbertsma, Tjalling & Jian Wei, 2005. “Some Field Notes and Images of Stone Material from Graves of the Church of the East in Inner Mongolia, China,” in Monumenta Serica, Vol. 53, 113-244.

336

Halévy, J., 1890. “De l’introduction du christianisme chez les tribus turques de la haute-asie a propos des inscriptions de Semirjetschie,” in Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, Vol. 22, 289-304. Hamilton, James, 1972. “Le texte turc en caractères syriaques du grand sceau cruciforme de Mār Yahballāhā III,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. 260, 155-170. Hamilton, James & Niu Ruji, 1994. “Deux inscriptions funéraires turques nestoriennes de la Chine orientale,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. 282, 147-164. Hansen, Olaf, 1941. “Berliner soghdische Texte I: Bruchstücke einer soghdischen Version der Georgspassion (C1),” in Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, No. 10, 1-38. Hansen, Olaf, 1955. “Berliner soghdische Texte II: Bruchstücke der großen Sammelhandshrift C2,” in Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur in Mainz, Jahrbuch, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 1954, Vol. 15, 821-918. Hansen, Valerie, 2012. The Silk Road: A New History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hatch, William Henry Paine, 1946. An Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts. Boston: American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Healey, John, 1983. “A Nestorian gravestone,” in Arts of Asia, Vol. 13, 87. Hilgenfeld, R., ed. & tr., 1896. Jabalahae III, Catholici Nestoriani, vita, ex Slivae Mossulani libro, qui inscribitur 'Turris', desumpta. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. Hitti, Philip Khuri, tr., 1916. The Origins of the Islamic State, Vol. I (Kitāb Futuḥ al-Buldān of al-Balādhuri) (Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Vol. LXVIII). New York: Columbia University Press. Hjelt, Arthur, 1909. “Drei syrisch-nestorianische Grab-Inschriften,” in Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Vol. 1, No. 2, 3-11. Hoenerbach, Wilhelm & Otto Spies, tr., 1957. Ibn aṭ-Ṭaiyib, Fiqh anNaṣrānīya: «Das Recht der Christenheit» II [Trans] (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 168/Ar. 19). Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste L. Durbecq. Holmberg, Bo, 1993. “A reconsideration of the Kitāb al-Mağdal,” in Parole de l’Orient, Vol. XVIII, 255-273. Hopkirk, Peter, 1980. Foreign devils on the Silk Road: the search for the lost cities and treasures of Chinese Central Asia. London: J. Murray. 337

Hunter, Erica C. D., 1989/1991. “The Conversion of the Kerait to Christianity in A.D. 1007,” in Zentralasiatische Studien, Vol. 22, 142-163. Hunter, Erica C. D., 1996. “The Church of the East in Central Asia,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library, Vol. 78, No. 3, 129-142. Hunter, Erica C. D., 2002. “Manipulating Incantation Texts: Excursions in Refrain A,” in Iraq, Vol. 64, 259-273. Hunter, Erica C. D., 2012. “The Christian Library from Turfan: SyrHT 4142-43 an early exemplar of the Hudrā,” in Hugoye, Vol. 15, No. 1, 293-343. Hunter, Erica C. D., 2013. “Syriac, Sogdian and Old Uyghur manuscripts from Bulayïq,” in The History behind the Languages. Essays of Turfan Forum on Old Languages of the Silk Road (Yuyan beihou de lishi: xiyu gudian yuyanxue gaofeng luntan lunwenji = 语言背后的 历史 － 西域古典语言学高峰论坛论文集 ), ed. by Academia Turfanica (Xinjiang Tulufanxue yanjiuyuan = 新疆吐鲁番学研究院 ). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe = 上海古籍出版社, 79-93. Hunter, Erica C. D., 2013. “Traversing Time and Location: A Prayer-Amulet of Mar Tamsis from Turfan,” in From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 5), ed. by Li Tang & Dietmar W. Winkler. Wien: LIT Verlag, 25-41. Hunter, Erica C. D. & Mark Dickens, 2014. Syrische Handschriften. Teil 2. Syriac Manuscripts from the Berlin Turfan Collection (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 5,2). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Hunter, Erica C. D. & J. F. Coakley, ed. & tr., 2017. A Syriac Service-Book from Turfan: Museum für asiatische Kunst, Berlin MS MIK III 45 (Berliner Turfantexte XXXIX). Turnhout: Brepols. J Jackson, Peter, tr., 1990. The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck: His Journey to the court of the Great Khan Möngke 1253-1255. London: Hakluyt Society. Johanson, Lars, 1998. “The History of Turkic,” in The Turkic Languages, ed. by Lars Johanson & Éva Ágnes Csató. London: Routledge, 81-125.

338

K Kaufhold, Hubert, 1996. “Anmerkungen zur Veröffentlichung eines syrischen Lektionarfragments,” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 146, 49-60. Kelaita, Joseph E. Y., ed., 1928. Ṭaksa d-kahne d-‘edta d-madnḥa (The Liturgy of the Church of the East). Mosul: Assyrian Press of the Church of the East. Khazanov, Anatoly M., 1994. “The Spread of World Religions in Medieval Nomadic Societies of the Eurasian Steppes,” in Nomadic Diplomacy, Destruction and Religion from the Pacific to the Atlantic (Toronto Studies in Central and Inner Asia, No. 1), ed. by Michael Gervers & Wayne Schlepp. Toronto: Joint Centre for Asia Pacific Studies, 1133. Klein, Wassilios, 1994. “Christliche Reliefgrabsteine des 14. Jahrhunderts von der Seidenstrasse,” in VI Symposium Syriacum, 1992 (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 247), ed. by René Lavenant. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 419-442. Klein, Wassilios, 1995. “Rabban Sauma in der Kirche der Hll. Apostel zu Konstantinopel (1287),” in Syrisches Christentum weltweit: Studien zur syrischen Kirchengeschichte. Festschrift für Wolfgang Hage, ed. by Martin Tamcke, Wolfgang Schwaigert & Egbert Schlarb. Münster: LIT Verlag, 220-233. Klein, Wassilios, 1998. “Nestorianische Inschriften in Kirgizistan: Ein Situationsbericht,” in Symposium Syriacum VII (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 256), ed. by René Lavenant. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 661-669. Klein, Wassilios, 1999. “Das Orthodoxe Katholikat von Romagyris in Zentralasien,” in Parole de l’Orient, Vol. 24, 235-265. Klein, Wassilios, 2000. Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh (Silk Road Studies III). Turnhout: Brepols. Klein, Wassilios, 2001. “A Christian Heritage on the Northern Silk Road: Archaeological and Epigraphic Evidence of Christianity in Kyrgyzstan,” in Journal of the Canadian Society of Syriac Studies, Vol. 1, 85-100. Klein, Wassilios, 2002. “Syriac Writings and Turkic Language according to Central Asian Tombstone Inscriptions” [Electronic Version], in Hugoye, Vol. 5, No. 2 (http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol5No2/HV5N2Klein.html). 339

Klein, Wassilios, 2004. “Les inscriptions syriaques des républiques d’Asie centrale,” in Les inscriptions syriaques (Études syriaques 1), ed. by Françoise Briquel Chatonnet, M. Debié & A. Desreumaux. Paris: Geuthner, 125-141. Klein, Wassilios, 2004. “A Newly Excavated Church of Syriac Christianity along the Silk Road in Kyrghyzstan,” in Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, Vol. 56 (Symposium Syriacum VII), 25-47. Klein, Wassilios & Christiane Reck, 2004. “Ein Kreuz mit sogdischer Inschrift aus Ak-Bešim/Kyrgyzstan,” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 154, 147-156. Klein, Wassilios & Philipp G. Rott, 2006. “Einige problematische Funde von der Siedenstrasse,” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 403-424. Klein, Wassilios & Kuvatbek Tabaldiev, 2009. “Zwei neu gefunden syrische Grabsteine aus Kyrgyzstan,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 1), ed. by Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang. Wien: LIT Verlag, 87-90. Klein, Wassilios & Jürgen Tubach, 1994. “Ein syrisch-christliches Fragment aus Dunhuang/China,” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 144, 1-13, 446. Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim, 1979. “Das Kreuzessymbol in der zentralasiatischen Religionsbegegnung,” in Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte, Vol. 31, 99-115. Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim, 1993. “Christian Art on the Silk Road,” in Künstlerischer Austausch. Artistic Exchange: Akten des XXVIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Berlin, 15.-20. Juli 1992, ed. by Thomas W. Gaehtgens. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 477-488. Кляшторный, Сергей Г., 1959. “Историко-культурное значение суджинской надписи,” in Проблемы Востоковедения, No. 5, 162169. Kmoskó, Mihály & Felföldi Szabolcs, 2004. Szír írók a steppe népeiről [Syriac sources on the peoples of the steppe] (Magyar Őstörténeti Könyvtár [Library of Hungarian Prehistory], Vol. 20). Budapest: Balassi Kiadó. Коковцов, Павел К., 1904-1905 [1906]. “Христіанско-сирійскія надгробныя надписи изъ Алмалыка,” in Записки Восточнаго 340

Отдъленія Императорскаго Русскаго Археологическаго Общества, Vol. 16, 0190-0200. Коковцов, Павел К., 1907. “Несколько новыхь надгробныхъ камней съ христіанско-сирійскіми надписями изъ Средней Азіи,” in Известия Императорской Академіи Наукъ (Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg), Vol. I (VI Série), 427458. Коковцов, Павел К., 1909. “Къ сиро-турецкой эпиграфикь Семирьчья,” in Известия Императорской Академіи Наукъ (Bulletin de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg), Vol. III (VI Série), 773-796. Корш, Фёдор Е., 1889. “О Турецкомъ языкь Семирьченскихъ надгробныхъ надписей,” in Древности Восточныя, Vol. I, No. 1, 67-72. L Labourt, Jerome, 1904. De Timotheo I Nestorianorum Patriarcha (728-823) et Christianorum Orientalium condicione sub Chaliphis Abbasidis. Paris: Victor Lecoffre. Labourt, Jerome, 1904. Le Christianisme dans l’Empire Perse sous la Dynastie Sassanide (224-632) (2nd ed.). Paris: Victor Lecoffre. Lala Comneno, Maria Adelaide, 1997. “Nestorianism in Central Asia during the First Millennium: Archaeological Evidence,” in Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, 20-69. Landron, Bénédicte, 1994. Chrétiens et Musulmans en Irak: Attitudes Nestoriennes vis-à-vis de l’Islam. Paris: Cariscript. Latham, Ronald, tr., 1958. The Travels of Marco Polo (Penguin Classics). London: Penguin. Laurent, Marie-Hyacinthe, 1958. “Rabban Ṣaumā, ambassadeur de l’Il-Khan Argoun, et la cathédrale de Veroli (1288),” in Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire, Vol. 70, 331-365. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott & Henry Stuart Jones, 1968. A GreekEnglish Lexicon (9th ed.). Oxford: Clarendon. Lieu, Samuel N. C., 2002. “Nestorian Angels from Central Asia and other Christian and Manichaean Remains at Zaitun (Quanzhou) on the South China Coast,” in Walls and Frontiers in Inner-Asian history 341

(Silk Road Studies VI), ed. by Craig Benjamin & Samuel N. C. Lieu. Turnhout: Brepols, 1-17. Lieu, Samuel N. C., 2006. “Nestorian Remains from Zaitun (Quanzhou), South China,” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 277-291. Lieu, Samuel N. C., Lance Eccles, Majella Franzmann, Iain Gardner & Ken Parry, 2012. Medieval Christian and Manichaean Remains from Quanzhou (Zayton) (Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum: Series Archaeologica et Iconographica II). Turnhout: Brepols. Лившиц, Владимир А., 1962. Юридические документы и письма. Чтение, перевод и комментарии (Согдийские тексты с горы Муг. Чтение, перевод, комментарий. Выпуск II). Москва: Издательство восточной литературы. Loofs, Friedrich, 1905. Nestoriana: Die Fragmente des Nestorius. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Loofs, Friedrich, 1914. Nestorius and his place in the History of Christian Doctrine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [repr: New York: Burt Franklin Reprints, 1975]. M Mackerras, Colin, 1972. The Uighur Empire according to the T’ang Dynastic Histories: a study in Sino-Uighur relations, 744-840 (2nd ed.) (Asian Publication Series, Vol. 2). Canberra: Australian National University Press. Mackerras, Colin, 1990. “The Uighurs,” in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. by Denis Sinor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 317-342. Maclean, Arthur John, 1894. East Syrian Daily Offices. London: Rivington, Percival [repr: Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2003]. Mai, Angelo, ed. & tr., 1838. Scriptorum veterum nova collectio e vaticanis codicibus edita ab A.M., Vol. X. Rome: Typis Collegi Urbani. Malek, Roman & Peter Hofrichter, eds., 2006. Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica). Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica.

342

Малов, Сергей Е., 1951. Памятники Древнетюркской Письменности: тексти и исследования. Москва-Ленинград: Издателство Академии Наук СССР. Малов, Сергей Е., 1959. Памятники Древнетюркской Письменности Монголии и Киргизии. Москва-Ленинград: Издателство Академии Наук СССР. Mansuroğlu, Mecdut, 1959. “Das Karakhanidische,” in Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, ed. by Jean Deny, Kaare Grønbech, Helmuth Scheel & A. Zeki Validi Togan, 87-112. Margoliouth, D. S., tr., 1921. The Experiences of the Nations, by Miskawaihi (7 vols). Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Maróth, Miklós, 1984. “Ein Fragment eines syrischen pharmazeutischen Rezeptbuches,” in Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 11, 115-125. Maróth, Miklós, 1985. “Ein Brief aus Turfan,” in Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 12, 283-287. Maróth, Miklós, 1991. “Die syrischen Handschriften in der TurfanSammlung,” in Ägypten, Vorderasien, Turfan: Probleme der Edition und Bearbeitung altorientalischer Handschriften (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 23), ed. by Horst Klengel & Werner Sundermann. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 126-128. Maróth, Miklós, 1991. “Eine unbekannte Version der Georgios-Legende aus Turfan,” in Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 18, 86-108. Maróth, Miklós, forthcoming. “Ein syrischer Dialog zwischen einem Juden und Christen aus Turfan,” in Christian Texts from Turfan, ed. by Erica C. D. Hunter. Марр, Николай, 1894. “Надгробный камень изъ Семирьчія, съ армяанско-сирійской надписъю 1323 г.,” in Записки Восточнаго Отдъленія Императорскаго Русскаго Археологическаго Общества, Vol. 8, 344-349. Martin, Desmond, 1938. “Preliminary Report on Nestorian Remains North of Kuei-hua, Suiyüan,” in Monumenta Serica, Vol. III, 232-249. Martinez, A. P., 1982. “Gardīzī’s Two Chapters on the Turks,” in Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, Vol. 2, 109-217. Massé, Henri, tr., 1973. Ibn al-Faqīh al-Hamadānī: Abrégé du livre des pays. Damascus: Institut Français de Damas. Массон, Михаил Е., 1978. “Происхождение двух несторианских намогильных галек Средней Азии,” in Общественные науки в Узбекистане, Vol. 10, 50-55. 343

Mateos, Juan, 1959. Lelya - Ṣapra: Essai d’interpretation des matines chaldeenes (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 156). Rome: Pontificio Institutum Orientalium Studiorum. McGuckin, John A., 1996. “Nestorius and the Political Factions of FifthCentury Byzantium: Factors in his Personal Downfall,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library, Vol. 78, No. 3, 7-21. Мещерская, Елена & Аза В. Пайкова, 1981. “Сиро-тюркские наскальные надписи из Ургута,” in Культурные взаимодействия народов Средней Азии и Кавказа с окружающим миром в древности и средневековье (тезисы докладов). Москва, 109-110. Meshcherskaya, Elena N., 1996. “The Syriac fragments in the N.N. Krotkov Collection,” in Turfan, Khotan und Dunhuang (Berichte und Abhandlungen, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1), ed. by Ronald E. Emmerick, Werner Sundermann, Ingrid Warnke & Peter Zieme. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 221-227. Millar, Fergus, 2006. A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408-450). Berkeley: University of California Press. Минасянц, Вазген С., 1992. “К истории комплектования археологического фонда Музея истории народов Узбекистана (1876-1917 гг.),” in Времен связующая нить (по материалам музейных фондов). Ташкент: Фан, 3-26. Минасянц, Вазген С., 2013. “Намогильные камни-кайраки с крестами и сирийскими надписями, хранящиеся в Археологическом фонде Государственного музея истории Узбекистана АН РУЗ,” in Христианский Восток (Xristianskij Vostok), Vol. 6 (12), 615-628. Mingana, Alphonse, 1925. “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East: A New Document,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, Vol. 9, No. 2, 297-371 [repr: Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1925]. Minorsky, Vladimir, 1937. “The Khazars and Turks in the Ākām al-Marjān,” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 9, 141150. Minorsky, Vladimir, ed. & tr., 1942. Sharaf al-Zamān Ṭāhir Marvazī on China, the Turks and India (James G. Forlong Fund, Vol. XXII). London: Royal Asiatic Society. Minorsky, Vladimir, 1948. “Tamīm ibn Baḥr’s Journey to the Uyghurs,” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 12, 275305 [repr: The Turks, Iran and the Caucasus in the Middle Ages, by Vladimir Minorsky. London: Variorum, 1978, Article I]. 344

Minorsky, Vladimir, tr., 1970. Ḥudūd al-’Ālam: ‘The Regions of the World’ (2nd ed.) (E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Series, N.S., Vol. 11). London: Luzac & Co. Montgomery, James A., tr., 1927. The History of Yaballaha III, Nestorian Patriarch, and of his Vicar Bar Sauma. New York: Columbia University Press. Moule, Arthur C., 1917. “The Minor Friars in China I,” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 49, 1-36. Moule, Arthur C., 1930. Christians in China before the year 1550. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Müller, Friedrich W. K., 1907. “Neutestamentliche Bruchstücke in soghdischer Sprache,” in Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 260-270. Müller, Friedrich W. K., 1908. “Uigurica I,” in Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, No. II, 1-60. Müller, Friedrich W. K., 1913. “Soghdische Texte I,” in Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Jahrgang 1912. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, No. II, 1-111. Müller, Friedrich W. K., 1915. “Ein syrisch-neupersisches Psalmenbruchstück aus Chinesisch-Turkistan,” in Festschrift Eduard Sachau, ed. by Gotthold Weil. Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer, 215222. Müller, Friedrich W. K. & Wolfgang Lentz, 1934. “Soghdische Texte II,” in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 504-607. Murayama, Shichirō, 1963. “Die syrisch-nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Pailing Miao und Ch’üan-chou,” in Transactions of the International Conference of Orientalists in Japan, Vol. VIII, 22-25. Murayama, Shichirō, 1964. “Eine nestorianische Grabinschrift in türkischer Sprache aus Zaiton,” in Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, Vol. 25, 394-396. Murayama, Shichirō, 1964. “Über die nestorianischen Grabinschriften in der Innern Mongolei und in Südchina,” in Problemi Attuali di Scienza e di Cultura: Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul tema: L’Oriente Cristiano Nella Storia Della Civiltà. Rome: Accademia Nationale de Lincei, 77-80. Murgotten, Francis Clark, tr., 1924. The Origins of the Islamic State, Vol. II (Kitāb Futuḥ al-Buldān of al-Balādhuri) (Studies in History, Eco345

nomics and Public Law, Vol. LXVIII). New York: Columbia University Press. Мусакаева, А. А., 1994. “О Несторианах в Средней Азии,” in Из Истории Древних Культов Средней Азии: Христианство, ed. by Г. А. Пугаченкова & Ю. Ф. Буряков. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 42-55. N Namato, Lawrance, 2009. The Order of the Holy Qurbana according to the Liturgy of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, the Blessed Apostles. Modesto: Assyrian Church of the East. Nasrallah, J., 1976. “L’Église melchite en Iraq, en Perse et dans l’Asie centrale,” in Proche-Orient Chrétien, Vol. 26, 16-33, 319-353. Nau, François, 1896. “Notice sur quelques cartes syriaques,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. IX (Ser.), No. VIII (Tom.), 155-165. Nau, François, 1910. “La cosmographie au VIIe siècle chez les syriens,” in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, Vol. 15, 225-254. Nau, François, tr., 1910. Nestorius: Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas. Paris: Letouzey et Ané. Nau, François, 1910. “Notes d‘astronomie syrienne,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. X (Ser.), No. XVI (Tom.), 209-228. Nau, François, 1913. “Les pierres tombales nestoriennes du Musée Guimet,” in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, Vol. 8 (18), 1-35, 325-327. Nau, François, 1914. “L’expansion nestorienne en Asie,” in Annales du Musée Guimet, Bibliothèque de vulgarisation, Vol. 40, 193-388. Naymark, Aleksandr, 2004. Christians in the Qarakhanid Khanate. Hofstra University. Никитин, А. Б., 1984. “Христианство в Центральной Азии,” in Восточный Туркестан и Средняя Азия: история, культура, связи, ed. by Борис Литвинский. Москва: Наука, 121-137. Niu, Ruji, 2004. “A New Syriac Uighur Inscription from China (Quanzhou, Fujian Province),” in Journal of the Canadian Society of Syriac Studies, Vol. 4, 60-65. Niu, Ruji, 2005. “Nestorian Grave Inscriptions from Quanzhou (Zaitun), China,” in Journal of the Canadian Society of Syriac Studies, Vol. 5, 51-67. 346

Niu, Ruji, 2006. “Nestorian Inscriptions from China (13th-14th Centuries),” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 209-242. Niu, Ruji, 2008. Shizi lianhua: Zhongguo Yuandai Xuliyawen Jingjiao beiming wenxian yanjiu (十字蓮花 — 中國元代敘利亞文景教碑銘文 獻研究). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe. Niu, Ruji, Alain Desreumaux & Pierre Marsone, 2004. “Les inscriptions syriaques de Chine,” in Les inscriptions syriaques (Études syriaques 1), ed. by Françoise Briquel Chatonnet, M. Debié & A. Desreumaux. Paris: Geuthner, 143-153. Nöldeke, Theodor, 1890. “Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie,” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Supplement, Vol. 44, 520-528. Nöldeke, Theodor, tr., 1893. Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik (Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Band 128). Wien: F. Tempsky. Nöller, Renate & Agnieszka Helman-Wazny, 2013. “The Materials of Turfan and Dunhuang Manuscripts: Analysis of Paper, Pigments and Dyes,” in IDP News, No. 41, 6-7. O Орозбак, Сагымбай & Чингиз Айтматов, ed., 1978-1982. Манас (4 vols). Фрунзе: Кыргыз ССР илимдер Академиясы. P Palmer, Andrew, 1987. “A Corpus of inscriptions from Tur ‘Abdin and environs,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 71, 53-139. Palmer, Andrew, 1990. Monk and Mason on the Tigris Frontier: The Early History of Ṭur ‘Abdin (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 39). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Panaino, Antonio, 1990. “Calendars, i. Pre-Islamic Calendars,” in Encyclopædia Iranica, Vol. IV, 658-677. Paolillo, Maurizio, 2006. “A Nestorian Tale of Many Cities,” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Seri347

ca), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 357-373. Parry, Ken, 1996. “Images in the Church of the East: the evidence from Central Asia and China,” in Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library, Vol. 78, No. 3, 143-162. Parry, Ken, 2012. “Byzantine-Rite Christians (Melkites) in Central Asia in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages,” in Modern Greek Studies, Australia and New Zealand, Vol. 16, 91-108. Paul, K. A. & George Mooken, tr., 1967. The Liturgy of the Holy Apostles Adai and Mari, Together with the Liturgies of Mar Theodorus and Mar Nestorius and the Order of Baptism. Trichur. Paykova, Aza V., 1979. “The Syrian Ostracon from Panjikant,” in Le Muséon, Vol. 92, 159-169. Payne Smith, Jessie, 1903. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, founded upon the Thesaurus Syriacus of R. Payne Smith. Oxford: Clarendon Press [repr: Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1999]. Payne Smith, Robert, ed. 1879-1901. Thesaurus Syriacus. Oxford: Clarendon. Peeters, Paul, 1946. “Observations sur la vie syriaque de Mar Aba, Catholicos de l’église perse (540-552),” in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, Vol. V (Studi e Testi 125), 69-112. Pellat, Charles, ed., 1962-1997. Les prairies d’or (5 vols). Paris: Société asiatique. Pelliot, Paul, 1914. “Chrétiens d’asie centrale et d’extrême-orient,” in T’oung Pao, Vol. 15, 623-644. Pelliot, Paul, 1959. Notes on Marco Polo, Vol. I (Oeuvres Posthumes de Paul Pelliot). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Pelliot, Paul, 1963. Notes on Marco Polo, Vol. II (Oeuvres Posthumes de Paul Pelliot). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Pelliot, Paul, 1973. Recherches sur les chrétiens d’Asie centrale et d’Extrême-Orient [Vol. 1] (Oeuvres Posthumes de Paul Pelliot). Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Peters, Curt, 1936. “Der Texte der soghdischen Evangelienbruchstücke und das Problem der Pešitta,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 33, 153-162. Pigoulewsky, Nina, 1935-1936. “Fragments syriaques et syro-turcs de Harahoto et de Tourfan,” in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, Vol. 30, 3-46. Pines, Shlomo, 1968. “The Iranian name for Christians and the ‘GodFearers’,” in Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Hu348

manities II. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 143-152 [repr: Studies in the History of Religion, by Shlomo Pines, ed. by Guy Stroumsa. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1996, [11-20]]. Pognon, Henri, 1907. Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et de la région de Mossoul. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Pritsak, Omeljan, 1951. “Von den Karluk zu den Karachaniden,” in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol. 101 (N.S. 26), 270-300. Pritsak, Omeljan, 1968. “Two Migratory Movements in the Eurasian Steppe in the 9th-11th Centuries,” in Proceedings of the 26th International Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi 1964, Vol. 2. New Delhi, 157163 [repr: Studies in Medieval Eurasian History, by Omeljan Pritsak. London: Variorum, 1981, Article VI]. Pritsak, Omeljan, 1978. “The Khazar Kingdom’s Conversion to Judaism,” in Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 2, 261-281 [repr: Studies in Medieval Eurasian History, by Omeljan Pritsak. London: Variorum, 1981, Article XI]. Pritula, Anton, 2015. The Wardā: An East Syriac Hymnological Collection (Göttinger Orientforschungen. Reihe I: Syriaca, Band 47). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Prokosch, Erich, 1992. “Karamanisch-türkische Grabinschriften II,” in Oriens Christianus, Vol. 76, 158-176. Putnam, Hans, 1975. L’Église et l’Islam sous Timothée I (780-823): Étude sur église nestorienne au temps des premiers abbasides (Recherches publiées sous la direction de l’Institut de lettres orientales de Beyrouth, N. S. B. Orient chrétien, Tom. III). Beirut: Dar el-Machreq. R Ramstedt, Gustaf John, 1913. “Zwei Uigurische Runeninschriften in der Nord-Mongolei,” in Journal de la Societé Finno-Ougrienne, Vol. 30, No. 3, 1-63. Raschmann, Simone-Christiane, 2009. Alttürkische Handschriften, Teil 14: Dokumente, Teil 2 (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 13,22). Stuttgart: VOHD. Raschmann, Simone-Christiane, 2009. “Traces of Christian communities in the Old Turkish documents,” in Studies in Turkic philology: Festschrift in honour of the 80th birthday of Professor Geng Shimin (突厥 349

语文学研究—耿世民教授80 华诞纪念文集 ), ed. by Dingjing

Zhang & Abdurishid Yakup. Beijing: Minzu University Press, 408425. Rásonyi, Lászlo, 1953. “Sur quelques catégories de noms de personnes en turc,” in Acta Linguistica Hungarica, Vol. 3, 323-352. Rásonyi, László, 1962. “Der Frauenname bei den Türkvölkern,” in UralAltaische Jahrbücher, Vol. 24, 223-239. Rásonyi, Lászlo & Imre Baski, 2007. Onomasticon Turcicum: Turkic Personal Names (2 vols) (Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 172/I & II). Bloomington: Indiana University. Reck, Christiane, 2007. “Die Bekehrung einer Christin zum manichäischen Glauben? Probleme bei der Interpretation eines fragmentarischen Textes,” in Inkulturation des Christentums im Sasanidenreich, ed. by Arafa Mustafa & Jürgen Tubach. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 55-70. Reck, Christiane, 2008. “Ein Kreuz zum Andenken. Die buddhistischen soghdischen Fragmente der Berliner Turfansammlung,” in Aspects of Research into Central Asian Buddhism: In memoriam Kōgi Kudara (Silk Road Studies XVI), ed. by Peter Zieme. Turnhout: Brepols, 277298. Reck, Christiane, 2008. “A Survey of the Christian Sogdian Fragments in Sogdian Script in the Berlin Turfan Collection,” in Controverses des chrétiens dans l’Iran sassanide (Studia Iranica - Cahier 36), ed. by Christelle Jullien. Paris: Association pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 191-205. Reck, Christiane, forthcoming. Mitteliranische Handschriften, Teil 3: Berliner Turfanfragmente christlichen Inhalts und Varia in soghdischer Schrift (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, 18,3). Stuttgart: VOHD. Ремпель, Лазарь И., 1957. “Некрополь Древнего Тараза,” in Краткие Сообщения Института Истории Материальной Культуры, Vol. 69, 102-110. Richard, Jean, 1957. “La mission en Europe de Rabban Çauma et l’union des églises,” in Oriente ed Occidente nel medio evo: Convegno di scienze morali storiche e filologiche, 27 maggio - 1 giugno 1956. Milan: Fondazione Alessandro Volta, 162-167. Röhrborn, Klaus, 2000. “Nochmals zu alttürkisch bäg eši,” in Folia Orientalia, Vol. 36, 275-279. 350

Rott, Philipp G., 2006. “Christian Crosses from Central Asia,” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 395-401. Russell, Norman, 2000. Cyril of Alexandria (The Early Church Fathers). London & New York: Routledge. Ryan, James D., 1998. “Christian Wives of Mongol Khans: Tartar Queens and Missionary Expectations in Asia,” in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 8 (Ser. 3), 411-421. Ryan, James D., 1998. “Preaching Christianity along the Silk Road: Missionary Outposts in the Tartar ‘Middle Kingdom’ in the Fourteenth Century,” in Journal of Early Modern History, Vol. 2, 350-373. Rybatzki, Volker, 2004. “Nestorian Personal Names from Central Asia,” in Studia Orientalia, Vol. 99, 269-291. S Sachau, Edward, tr., 1879. The Chronology of Ancient Nations. London: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain & Ireland. Sachau, Eduard, 1905. “Litteratur-Bruchstücke aus Chinesisch-Turkistan,” in Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 964-978. Sachau, Eduard, 1919. Zur Ausbreitung des Christentums in Asien (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Klasse. Jahrgang 1919, Nr. 1). Berlin: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften. Saeki, P. Y., 1951. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China (2nd ed.). Tokyo: Maruzen Company Ltd. Sauvaget, Jean, 1950. “Noms et surnoms de Mamelouks,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. 238, 31-58. Savchenko, Alexei, 1996. “Urgut Revisited,” in Aram, Vol. 8, 333-354. Schneider, H., ed., 1972. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta version, Part IV, fascicule 6: Canticles or Odes. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Schwartz, Martin, 1967. Studies in the Texts of the Sogdian Christians. Dissertation: Near Eastern Languages, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley. 351

Schwartz, Martin, 1974. “Sogdian Fragments of the Book of Psalms,” in Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 1, 257-261. Schwartz, Martin, 1982. Studies in the Texts of the Sogdian Christians (revised version). Dissertation: Near Eastern Languages, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley. Schwartz, Martin, 1991. “A page of a Sogdian Liber Vitae,” in Corolla Iranica: Papers in honour of Prof. Dr. David Neil MacKenzie on the occasion of his 65th birthday on April 8th, 1991, ed. by Ronald E. Emmerick & Dieter Weber. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 157-166. Segal, J. B., 1953. The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac (London Oriental Series, Vol. 2). London, New York & Toronto: Oxford University Press. Sellers, R. V., 1940. Two Ancient Christologies. London: SPCK. Semenov, Grigori L., 1996. Studien zur sogdischen Kultur an der Seidenstraße (Studies in Oriental Religions, Vol. 36). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Шишкина, Г. В., 1994. “Несторианское погребение в Согде Самаркандском,” in Из Истории Древних Культов Средней Азии: Христианство, ed. by Г. А. Пугаченкова & Ю. Ф. Буряков. Ташкент: Главная редакция Энциклопедий, 56-63. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1973. “A Sogdian Fragment of a Work of Dadišo‘ Qatraya,” in Asia Major, Vol. 18 (N.S.), 88-105. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1981. “Syro-Sogdica I: An Anonymous Homily on the Three Periods of the Solitary Life,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, Vol. 47, 441-446. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1982. “Syro-Sogdica II: A metrical Homily by Bābay bar Nṣibnāye ‘On the final evil hour’,” in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, Vol. 48, 171-176. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1985. The Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2 (Berliner Turfantexte XII). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1988. “Syro-Sogdica III: Syriac Elements in Sogdian,” in A Green Leaf: Papers in Honour of Professor Jes P. Asmussen (Acta Iranica 28), ed. by Werner Sundermann, Jacques DuchesneGuillemin & Faridun Vahman. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 145-156. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1988 [1989]. “Baršabbā,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. 3, 823. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1989. “Bulayïq,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. 4, 545. 352

Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1989. “Sogdian,” in Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. by Rüdiger Schmitt. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 173-192. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1991. “Christianity, iii. In Central Asia and Chinese Turkestan,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. 5, 530-534. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1991. “Christianity, iv. Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. 5, 534535. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1991. “Die christlich-sogdischen Handschriften von Bulayïq,” in Ägypten, Vorderasien, Turfan (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 23), ed. by Horst Klengel & Werner Sundermann. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 119-125. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1992. “Sogdian and Turkish Christians in the Turfan and Tun-huang Manuscripts,” in Turfan and Tun-huang, the Texts: Encounter of Civilizations on the Silk Route (Orientalia Venetiana IV), ed. by Alfredo Cadonna. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 43-61. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1993. “The Sogdian Inscriptions of Ladakh,” in Antiquities of Northern Pakistan: Reports and Studies (Rock Carvings and Inscriptions along the Karakorum Highway, Vol. 2), ed. by Karl Jettmar. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 151-163. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1994. “Dādišo‘ Qatrāyā’s Commentary on the Paradise of the Fathers,” in Analecta Bollandiana, Vol. 112, 33-64. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1994 [1995]. “Traditions concerning the fates of the Apostles in Syriac and Sogdian,” in Gnosisforschung und Religionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Kurt Rudolph zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Holger Preißler & Hubert Seiwert. Marburg: Diagonal-Verlag, 287-295. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1995. “Christian Sogdian Texts from the Nachlass of Olaf Hansen I: Fragments of the Life of Serapion,” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 58, 50-68. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 1995. “A Sogdian Version of the «Gloria in Excelsis Deo»,” in Au Carrefours des Religions: Mélanges offerts à Philippe Gignoux (Res Orientales, Vol. VII), ed. by Rika Gyselen. Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du MoyenOrient, 257-262. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2003. “A Christian Sogdian polemic against the Manichaeans,” in Religious themes and texts of pre-Islamic Iran and Central Asia (Beiträge zur Iranistik 24), ed. by Carlo G. Cereti, Mau353

ro Maggi & Elio Provasi. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 399-408. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2004. “A Greek-Sogdian Bilingual from Bulayïq,” in La Persia e Bisanzio (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 201). Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 623-631. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2009. “Christian Literature in Middle Iranian Languages,” in The Literature of Pre-Islamic Iran (History of Persian Literature, Vol XVII), ed. by Ronald E. Emmerick & Maria Macuch. London: I. B. Tauris, 266-287. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2011. “Early New Persian in Syriac script: Two texts from Turfan,” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 74, No. 3, 353-374. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2011. “A New Fragment of the Book of Psalms in Sogdian,” in Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient: Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by D. Bumazhnov, E. Grypeou, T. B. Sailors & A. Toepel. Leuven: Peeters, 461-466. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2012. Mitteliranische Handschriften: Teil 4. Iranian Manuscripts in Syriac Script in the Berlin Turfan Collection (Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland 18,4). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2013. “A Christian Sogdian hymn in Sogdian script,” in Monumentum Gregorianum. Сборник научных статей памяти академика Григория Максимовича Бонгард-Левина [Essays in Memory of G. M. Bongard-Levin], ed. by А. И. Иванчик. Москва: Издательство «Граница», 172-177. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2013. “Medical texts from Turfan in Syriac and New Persian,” in The History behind the Languages. Essays of Turfan Forum on Old Languages of the Silk Road (Yuyan beihou de lishi: xiyu gudian yuyanxue gaofeng luntan lunwenji = 语言背后的历史 － 西域古典语言学高峰论坛论文集), ed. by Academia Turfanica (Xinjiang Tulufanxue yanjiuyuan = 新疆吐鲁番学研究院). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe = 上海古籍出版社, 12-19. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2014. Biblical and other Christian Sogdian texts from the Turfan Collection (Berliner Turfantexte XXXII). Turnhout: Brepols. Sims-Williams, Nicholas, 2014. “An early source for the Life of John of Dailam. Reconstructing the Sogdian version,” in Nāme-ye Irān-e Bāstān, Vol. 12, No. 1-2, 121-134. 354

Sims-Williams, Nicholas & Michael Everson, 2002. Proposal to add six Syriac letters for Sogdian and Persian to the UCS (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N2422): International Organization for Standardization. Sims-Williams, Nicholas & James Hamilton, 1990. Documents turcosogdiens du IXe-Xe siècle de Touen-houang (Corpus Inscriptorum Iranicarum, Part II, Vol. III). London: School of Oriental and African Studies. Siouffi, Nicolas, 1881. “Notice sur un patriarche nestorien,” in Journal Asiatique, Vol. VII (Ser.), No. XVII (Tom.), 89-96. Skjaervø, Prods Oktor, 1983. “Case in Inscriptional Middle Persian, Inscriptional Parthian and the Pahlavi Psalter,” in Studia Iranica, Vol. 12, 47-62, 151-181. Слуцкий, С. С., 1889. “Семирьченскія несторіанскія надписи,” in Древности Восточныя, Vol. I, No. 1, 1-66. Слуцкий, С. С., 1891. “Къ Семирьченскимъ несторіанскимъ надписямъ,” in Древности Восточныя, Vol. I, No. 2, 176-194. Sophocles, E. A., 1900. Greek lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Sprenger, Norbert, 1976. Konkordanz zum syrischen Psalter (Göttinger Orientforschungen, I Reihe: Syriaca, Band 10, Teil 8). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Standaert, Nicolas, ed. 2001. Handbook of Christianity in China, Volume One: 635-1800 (Handbuch der Orientalistik IV, 15/1). Leiden: Brill. Steingass, Francis, 1892. A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary. London: W. H. Allen [repr: London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1930; London: Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1957; Beirut, 1970]. Stevenson, James & W. H. C. Frend, eds., 1987. A New Eusebius: Documents illustrating the history of the Church to AD 337 (2nd ed.). London: SPCK. Stevenson, James & W. H. C. Frend, eds., 1989. Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents illustrating the history of the Church AD 337461 (2nd ed.). London: SPCK. Sundermann, Werner, 1974. “Einige Bemerkungen zum SyrischNeupersischen Psalmenbruchstücke aus Chinesisch-Turkistan,” in Mémorial Jean de Menasce, ed. by Philippe Gignoux & A. Tafazzoli. Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 441-452. 355

Sundermann, Werner, 1974. “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers „Soghdischen Texten I“, 1. Teil,” in Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 1, 217-255. Sundermann, Werner, 1975. “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers „Soghdischen Texten I“, 2. Teil,” in Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 3, 55-90. Sundermann, Werner, 1981. “Nachlese zu F. W. K. Müllers „Soghdischen Texten I“, 3. Teil,” in Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 8, 169-225. Sundermann, Werner, 1988. “Der Schüler fragt den Lehrer: Eine Sammlung biblischer Rätsel in soghdischer Sprache,” in A Green Leaf: Papers in Honour of Professor Jes P. Asmussen (Acta Iranica 28), ed. by Werner Sundermann, Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin & Faridun Vahman. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 173-186. Sundermann, Werner, 1992. Der Sermon vom Licht-Nous (Berliner Turfantexte 17). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Sundermann, Werner, 1994. “Byzanz und Bulayïq,” in Iranian and IndoEuropean Studies: Memorial Volume of Otakar Klíma, ed. by Petr Vavroušek. Praha: Enigma Corporation, 255-264. Sundermann, Werner, 1995. “Soghdisch *xwšt’nc „Lehrerin“,” in Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 48, 225-227. Sundermann, Werner, 1997. “Three fragments of Sogdian letters and documents,” in La Persia e l’Asia centrale da Alessandro al X secolo (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 127). Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 99-111. Sundermann, Werner, 2002. “Ein soghdisches Fragment der Mār EugenLegende,” in Splitter aus der Gegend von Turfan: Festschrift für Peter Zieme anläßlich seines 60. Geburtstags, ed. by Mehmet Ölmez & Simone-Christiane Raschmann. Istanbul-Berlin: Şafak Matbaacılık, 309-331. T Taft, Robert, 1986. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: the Origins of the Divine Office and its Meaning for Today. Collegeville: Liturgical Press. Tallgren, A. M., 1940. “The Mannerheim Archaeological Collection from Eastern Turkestan,” in Across Asia from West to East in 1906-1908, ed. by C. G. Mannerheim. Helsinki: Fenno-Ugrian Society, 1-53 [repr: Oosterhout: Anthropological Publications, 1969]. 356

Tamcke, Martin, 2005. “Remarks concerning Giwargis Warda's ‘Onita about the Catholicoi of the East,” in The Harp (SEERI), Vol. XVIII, 115123. Tanabe, George J. Jr., 2003. “Merit and Merit-making,” in Encyclopedia of Buddhism Vol. 2, 532-534. Tang, Li, 2005. “A History of Uighur Religious Conversions (5th - 16th Centuries)” [Electronic Version], in Asia Research Institute, Working Paper Series, No. 44 (http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/showfile.asp?pubid=518&type=2). Tang, Li, 2009. “A Preliminary Study on the Jingjiao Inscription of Luoyang: Text Analysis, Commentary and English Translation,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 1), ed. by Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang. Wien: LIT Verlag, 109-132. Tang, Li & Dietmar W. Winkler, eds., 2013. From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in Central Asia and China (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 5). Wien: LIT Verlag. Tardieu, Michel, 1999. “Un site chrétien dans la Sogdiane des Sâmânides,” in Le monde de la Bible, Vol. 119, 40-42. Tekin, Talat, 1968. A Grammar of Orkhon Turkic (Indiana University Publications, Uralic and Altaic Series, Vol. 69). Bloomington: Indiana University. Thacker, T. W., 1966-1967. “A Nestorian Gravestone from Central Asia in the Gulbenkian Museum, Durham University,” in The Durham University Journal, Vol. 59 (N.S. 28), 94-107. Turcescu, Lucian, 1997. “Prosōpon and Hypostasis in Basil of Caesarea’s ‘Against Eunomius’ and the Epistles,” in Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 51, No. 4, 374-395. Turner, H. E. W., 1975. “Nestorius Reconsidered,” in Studia Patristica XIII (Texte und Untersuchungen, Band 116). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 306-321. U Uray, Géza, 1983. “Tibet’s Connections with Nestorianism and Manicheism in the 8th-10th Centuries,” in Contributions on Tibetan Language, History, and Culture (Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Bud357

dhismuskunde, Band 11), ed. by Ernst Steinkellner & Helmut Täuscher. Wien: Universität Wien, 399-429 [repr: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1995]. Uthemann, Karl Heinz, 2007. “History of Christology to the seventh century,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 2: Constantine to c. 600, ed. by Augustine Casiday & Frederick W. Norris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 460-500. V van den Wyngaert, Anastasius, 1929. Sinica franciscana, Volumen 1: Itinera et relationes Fratrum Minorum saeculi XIII et XIV. Firenze: Apud Collegium S. Bonaventurae. van Tongerloo, Aloïs, 1992. “Ecce Magi ab Oriente Venerunt,” in Philosophie-Philosophy Tolerance (Acta Orientalia Belgica VII), ed. by A. Théodoridès. Bruxelles: Louvain la Neuve, 57-74. Various, tr., 1987-1999. The history of al-Ṭabarī: Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa’lmulūk (39 vols) (Bibliotheca Persica). Albany: State University of New York Press. Vine, Aubrey R., 1948. An Approach to Christology. London: Independent Press. von le Coq, Albert, 1909. “Ein christliches und ein manichäisches Manuskriptfragment in Türkischer Sprache aus Turfan (ChinesischTurkistan),” in Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1202-1218. von le Coq, Albert, 1919. “Kurze Einführung in die uigurische Schriftkunde,” in Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin. Jahrgang XXII, ed. by Eduard Sachau. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 93-109. von le Coq, Albert, 1922. “Türkische Manichaica aus Chotscho III. Nebst einem christlichen Bruchstück aus Bulayïq,” in Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. PhilosophischHistorische Klasse, No. 2, 1-49. von le Coq, Albert, 1928. Buried Treasures of Chinese Turkestan: an Account of the Activities and Adventures of the Second and Third German Turfan Expeditions, tr. by Anna Barwell. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. [repr: Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985].

358

Vööbus, Arthur, 1965. History of the School of Nisibis (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 266/Sub. 26). Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO. Vosté, Jacques-Marie, 1929. “Memra en l’honneur de Iahballaha III,” in Le Muséon, Vol. 42, 168-176. Vosté, Jacques-Marie, tr., 1931. Synodes (Synodicon Orientale) Collectio Canonum synodicorum d’Ebedjésus de Nisibe (Codificazione Canonica Orientale, Fonti - Fascicolo IV. Discipline Chaldéenne (Chaldéens) I, Droit Ancien). Città del Vaticano: Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana. Vosté, Jacques-Marie, tr., 1940. Ordo Iudiciorum Ecclesiasticorum, collectus, dispositus, ordinatus et compositus a Mar ‘Abdišo‘ Metropolita Nisibis et Armeniae (Codificazione Canonica Orientale, Fonti, Serie II - Fascicolo XV. Caldei - Diritto Antico II). Città del Vaticano: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis. W Waley, Arthur, tr., 1931. The Travels of an Alchemist: The Journey of the Taoist Ch’ang-Ch’un from China to the Hindukush at the Summons of Chingiz Khan. London: George Routledge & Sons. Walter, D. M., ed., 1980. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta version, Part II, fascicule 3: The Book of Psalms. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Wellesz, Egon, 1919. “Miscellanea zur orientalistischen Musikgeschichte. Die Lektionszeichen in den soghdischen Texten,” in Zeitschrift für Musikwissenschaft, Vol. I, 505-515. Wessel, Susan, 2004. Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy (Oxford Early Christian Studies). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiet, Gaston, tr., 1937. Ya‘kūbī: Les Pays (Textes et Traductions d’Auteurs Orientaux, Vol. 1). Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Wilmshurst, David, 2000. The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East 1318-1913 (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 582/Subs. 104). Leuven: Peeters. Wilmshurst, David, 2011. The Martyred Church: A History of the Church of the East. London: East & West Publishing.

359

Wilmshurst, David, ed. & tr., 2016. Bar Hebraeus: The Ecclesiastical Chronicle (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 40). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Winkler, Dietmar W. & Li Tang, eds., 2009. Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia - Patristica - Oecumenica, Vol. 1). Wien: LIT Verlag. Wright, William, 1894. A Short History of Syriac Literature. London: A. and C. Black [repr: Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2001]. Wright, William, 1901. A catalogue of the Syriac manuscripts preserved in the library of the University of Cambridge, Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wüstenfeld, Ferdinand, ed., 1848. Zakarija Ben Muhammed Ben Mahmud elCazwini’s Kosmographie, Zweiter Theil: Die Denkmäler der Länder. Göttingen: Dieterichschen Buchhandlung. Y Yakup, Abdurishid, 2002. “On the Interlinear Uyghur Poetry in the Newly Unearthed Nestorian Text,” in Splitter aus der Gegend von Turfan: Festschrift für Peter Zieme anläßlich seines 60. Geburtstags, ed. by Mehmet Ölmez & Simone-Christiane Raschmann. Istanbul-Berlin: Şafak Matbaacılık, 409-417. Yoshida, Yutaka, 2000. “Sute wen kaoshi = 粟特文考釋 [Studies of Sogdian Texts],” in Tulufan xinchu Moni jiao wenxian yanjiu = 吐鲁番新 出摩尼教文献研究 [Studies in the Manichaean texts recently discovered at Turfan], ed. by Liu Hongliang. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe = 文物出版社, 3-199. Yoshida, Yutaka, 2008. “Review of C. Reck, Mitteliranische Handschriften, Teil 1: Berliner Turfanfragmente manichäischen Inhalts in soghdischer Schrift,” in Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. 51, 51-61. Yoshida, Yutaka, 2009. “Minor moods in Sogdian,” in East and West. Papers in Indo-European Studies, ed. by Kazuhiko Yoshida & Brent Vine. Bremen: Hempen, 281-293. Yule, Henry & Henri Cordier, 1914. Cathay and the Way Thither, Vol. III: Missionary friars—Rashíduddín—Pegolotti—Marignolli. London: The Hakluyt Society. 360

Yule, Henry & Henri Cordier, 1916. Cathay and the Way Thither, Vol. IV: Ibn Batuta—Benedict Goës—Index. London: The Hakluyt Society. Z Zhang Guangda & Rong Xinjiang, 1998. “A Concise History of the Turfan Oasis and Its Exploration,” in Asia Major, Vol. 11 (Third Series), No. 2, 13-36. Zieme, Peter, 1974. “Zu den nestorianisch-türkischen Turfantexten,” in Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur der altaischen Völker: Protokollband der XII Tagung der Permanent International Altaistic Conference 1969 in Berlin (Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients 5), ed. by Georg Hazai & Peter Zieme. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 661-668. Zieme, Peter, 1977. “Zwei Ergänzungen zu der christlich-türkischen Handschrift T II B 1,” in Altorientalische Forschungen, Vol. 5, 271-272. Zieme, Peter, 1981. “Ein Hochzeitssegen uigurischer Christen,” in Scholia: Beiträge zur Turkologie und Zentralasienkunde, ed. by Klaus Röhrborn & Horst Wilfrid Brands. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 221232. Zieme, Peter, 1997/1998. “Das nestorianische Glaubensbekenntnis in einem alttürkischen Fragment aus Bulayiq,” in Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, Vol. N.F. 15, 173-180. Zieme, Peter, 2002. “Paulus und Thekla in der türkischen Überlieferung,” in Apocrypha: International Journal of Apocryphal Literatures, Vol. 13, 53-62. Zieme, Peter, 2002. “Türkische Zuckungsbücher,” in Scripta Ottomanica et Res Altaicae. Festschrift Barbara Kellner-Heinkele (Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 56), ed. by Ingeborg Hauenschild, Claus Schönig & Peter Zieme. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 379-395. Zieme, Peter, 2006. “A Cup of Cold Water: Folios of a Nestorian-Turkic Manuscript from Kharakhoto,” in Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia (Collectanea Serica), ed. by Roman Malek & Peter Hofrichter. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 341345. Zieme, Peter, 2009. “Notes on a bilingual prayer book from Bulayık,” in Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia (Orientalia - Patristica 361

Oecumenica, Vol. 1), ed. by Dietmar W. Winkler & Li Tang. Wien: LIT Verlag, 167-180. Zieme, Peter, 2015. Altuigurische Texte der Kirche des Ostens aus Zentralasien (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 41). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Zimonyi, István, 1990. The Origins of the Volga Bulghars (Studia UraloAltaica, Vol. 32). Szeged: Universitas Szegediensis de Attila József Nominata.

362

Images Chapter 2 Images

Fig. 2-1: Gravestone 1

Fig. 2-2: Gravestone 2

Fig. 2-3: Gravestone 3

Fig. 2-4: Gravestone 4 363

Chapter 4 Images

Fig. 4-2: SyrHT 83, side 1

Fig. 4-1: SyrHT 66, side 1

Fig. 4-4: SyrHT 161, side 1 Fig. 4-3: SyrHT 83, side 2 364

Fig. 4-6: SyrHT 124, side 1

Fig. 4-5: n354, side 2

365

Chapter 5 Images

Fig. 5-2: SyrHT 264, recto

Fig. 5-3: SyrHT 101, recto Fig. 5-1: SyrHT 291, recto

Fig. 5-4a: U 3858, recto

Fig. 5-4b: U 3858, verso

366

Fig. 5-6a: SyrHT 69, recto

Fig. 5-5: SyrHT 70, recto

Fig. 5-7: n295, recto

Fig. 5-6b: SyrHT 69, verso

367

Fig. 5-9a: n354, recto

Fig. 5-8: n288, recto Fig. 5-9b: n354, verso

Fig. 5-10a: SyrHT 67, recto

Fig. 5-10b: SyrHT 67, verso

368

Fig. 5-11b: SyrHT 68, verso Fig. 5-11a: SyrHT 68, recto

Fig. 5-13a: So 15850, recto

Fig. 5-13b: So 15850, verso

Fig. 5-12: SyrHT 273, recto

369

Chapter 6 Images

Fig. 6-2: Sogdian Psalter fragment: So 12950(1) Fig. 6-1: Pahlavi Psalter folio: Ps 06

Fig. 6-3: Syriac-New Persian Psalter fragment: SyrHT 153

Fig. 6-4: Syriac Psalter C folio: SyrHT 72

370

Fig. 6-5: Syriac Psalter F folio: SyrHT 92

Fig. 6-6: Syriac Psalter G folio: SyrHT 96

Fig. 6-7: Syriac Psalter J folio: SyrHT 113

Fig. 6-8: Uyghur script Psalter folio: SyrHT 20

371

Chapter 7 Images

Fig. 7-1: Side 8 (orig. side 1): Syriac prayer

Fig. 7-2: Side 9 (orig. side 2): Syriac prayer

Fig. 7-3: Side 10 (orig. side 3): Syriac prayer

Fig. 7-4: Side 11 (orig. side 4): Syriac prayer

Fig. 7-5: Side 12 (orig. side 5): Syriac prayer

Fig. 7-6: Side 13 (orig. side 6): Syriac prayer

Fig. 7-7: Side 14 (orig. side 7): Syriac prayer

Fig. 7-8: Side 15 (orig. side 8): Syriac prayer

372

Fig. 7-9: Side 16 (orig. side 9): Uyghur prayer in Uyghur script

Fig. 7-10: Side 17 (orig. side 10): Uyghur prayer in Uyghur script

Fig. 7-11: Side 18 (orig. side 11): Uyghur prayer in Uyghur script

Fig. 7-12: Side 19 (orig. side 12): Uyghur prayer in Uyghur script

Fig. 7-13: Side 20 (orig. side 13): Uyghur prayer in Syriac script

Fig. 7-14: Side 1 (orig. side 14): Uyghur prayer in Syriac script

Fig. 7-15: Side 2 (orig. side 15): Uyghur prayer in Syriac script

Fig. 7-16: Side 3 (orig. side 16): Uyghur prayer in Syriac script

373

Fig. 7-17: Side 4 (orig. side 17): Uyghur prayer in Syriac script

Fig. 7-18: Side 5 (orig. side 18): Uyghur prayer in Syriac script + Uyghur colophon

Fig. 7-19: Side 6 (orig. side 19): Uyghur colophon on “back cover”

Fig. 7-20: Side 7 (orig. side 20): Uyghur colophon on “front cover”

374

Chapter 8 Images

Fig. 8-2: Folio from MIK III 45 (Hudra D)

Fig. 8-1: Wall painting from Christian church in Turfan (Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin, photo by MD)

Fig. 8-3: Folio from SyrHT 72 (Psalter C)

Fig. 8-4: MIK III 111 (Hudra Q)

375

Fig. 8-5: SyrHT 95 (Legend of St. George) Fig. 8-6: Elongated final letters on SyrHT 90 (Psalter F)

Fig. 8-7: SyrHT 3 (Chinese Daoist text on L, Syriac liturgical text on R)

376

Fig. 8-9: Estrangelā letter formation on MIK III 110 (Psalter M)

Fig. 8-8: n348 (Sogdian prayer fragment used as insole)

Fig. 8-11: Elongated red dots flanking marginalia on SyrHT 31 (Hudra J)

Fig. 8-12: Vocalisation on SyrHT 45 (Mar Barshabba)

Fig. 8-10: Distinctive formation of ‫( ܠ‬SyrHT 76 & SyrHT 157), ‫( ܦ‬SyrHT 65) & Uighur mīm (SyrHT 204)

Fig. 8-13: Quire marks on SyrHT 72 (Psalter C)

377

Fig. 8-15: Recitation marks (large dots) on n201 (Syriac-Sogdian gospel lectionary)

Fig. 8-16: Various marks on SyrHT 227, SyrHT 80 & SyrHT 202

Fig. 8-14: Distinctive verso marks on SyrHT 38, SyrHT 61 & SyrHT 88

Fig. 8-17: Corrections on SyrHT 94 (Christian-Jewish Dialogue)

Fig. 8-18: Cross on SyrHT 152

Fig. 8-20: Scribal hand on n181 (Legend of the Discovery of the Cross)

Fig. 8-19: Illustration on U 5179 (Uighur Christian fragment) Fig. 8-21: Scribal hand on SyrHT 96 (Psalter G)

378

Chapter 9 Images

Fig. 9-1: Syriac Psalter D: SyrHT 129 Fig. 9-2: Syriac Psalter I: SyrHT 108

Fig. 9-3: “Backwards Psalter”: SyrHT 386

Fig. 9-4: Proverbs text: SyrHT 2

379

Fig. 9-6: Syriac Lectionary B: SyrHT 241

Fig. 9-5: Syriac Lectionary A: SyrHT 49

Fig. 9-7: Syriac Gospel B: SyrHT 324 & 325

Fig. 9-8: Sogdian lectionary with Syriac rubrics: n153

380

Chapter 10 Images

Fig. 10-1: Gravestone 1

Fig. 10-2: Gravestone 2

Fig. 10-3: Gravestone 3

Fig. 10-4: Gravestone 4

381

Fig. 10-5: Gravestone 5

Fig. 10-6: Gravestone 6

Fig. 10-8: Gravestone 8

Fig. 10-7: Gravestone 7

382

Fig. 10-10: Gravestone 10 Fig. 10-9: Gravestone 9

383

Chapter 11 Image

Fig. 11-1: Seal of Mar Yahbalaha 384

orientalia – patristica – oecumenica hrsg. von Prof. Dr. Dietmar W. Winkler (Universität Salzburg) Li Tang; Dietmar W. Winkler (Eds.) Artifact, Text, Context Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia This volume is a collection of papers highlighting recent researches on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia. The topics range from artifacts to texts and their historical contexts, covering the period from the 7th to the 18th century. As the studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central advance, focus has shifted from a general historical survey and textual translation to a more micro and meticulous study of specific concepts and terms and particular names of persons and places. vol. 17, 2020, ca. 276 pp., ca. 34,90 €, br., ISBN-CH 978-3-643-91195-7

Alina P˘atru (Ed.) Meeting God in the Other Studies in Religious Encounter and Pluralism in honour of Dorin Oancea on the occasion of his 70th birthday The present volume unites 44 studies to honor Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea, Romanian-Orthodox theologian and religious studies scholar, well known as a bridge-builder between Eastern and Western Christian Traditions. The manifold studies reflect upon the fundaments of interfaith and inter-confessional openness, offer insightful examples from past and present, or point to the loci where this openness can and should be achieved today. A meaningful collection for all those interested in present day ecumenical theology, in inter-confessional studies or theology of religions. Bd. 16, 2019, 618 S., 64,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-91192-6

Jasmine Dum-Tragut; Dietmar W. Winkler (eds.) Monastic Life in the Armenian Church Glorious Past – Ecumenical Reconsideration Monasticism is a vital feature of Christian spiritual life and has its origins in the Oriens Christianus. The present volume contains studies on Armenian Monasticism from various perspectives. The task is not only to produce historical studies. The aim is also to contribute to and reflect on monasticism ¯ today. Authors come from the Armenian Apostolic Catholicosate of Ejmiacin, the Holy See of Cilicia, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the Armenian-Catholic Church as well as from the Benedictine and Franciscan Orders of the Catholic Church. The experts reflected on the glorious past of Armenian monasticism and agreed to evaluate future challenges ecumenically to give more insight into both past and present Armenian monasticism. Bd. 14, 2018, 224 S., 29,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-91066-0

Andreas Schmoller (Ed.) Middle Eastern Christians and Europe Historical Legacies and Present Challenges Middle Eastern Christians have a long tradition of interacting with Europe. As other minorities they have also “emerged” through relations of European powers with the region. The historical circulation of people and ideas is also relevant for identities of Middle Eastern Christians who have settled in Europe in the past decades. This volume, stemming from an interdisciplinary workshop in Salzburg 2016, brings together both perspectives of entanglement. Bd. 13, 2018, 266 S., 34,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-91023-3

Max Deeg Die Strahlende Lehre Die Stele von Xi’an Die Stele von Xi’an ist zweifellos das historisch aussagekräftigste Monument des frühen Christentums in China. Der Inschriftenstein wird in die Zeit der Tang-Dynastie datiert, einer Blütezeit chinesischer Kultur und imperialer Expansion. Der rechteckige Steinmonolith ist gekrönt von einem Aufsatz, in dem sich der eingravierte Titel der Inschrift findet: Daqin-jingjiao-liuxing-zhongguo-bei, d. h. „Steininschrift über die Verbreitung der Strahlenden Lehre aus Daqin in China“. Der vorliegende Band bietet eine moderne deutsche Übersetzung der sogenannten „Nestorianerstele“ von Xi’an mit ausführlichem historisch-philologischem Kommentar und einer religionsgeschichtlichen Einleitung. Bd. 12, 2018, 304 S., 34,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50844-7

LIT Verlag Berlin – Münster – Wien – Zürich – London Auslieferung Deutschland / Österreich / Schweiz: siehe Impressumsseite

Rüdiger Feulner Christus Magister Gnoseologisch-didaktische Erlösungsparadigmen in der Kirchengeschichte der Frühzeit und des Mittelalters bis zum Beginn der Reformation mit einem theologiegeschichtlichen Ausblick in die Neuzeit Die Erlösung des Menschen durch Jesus Christus hat im Lauf der Kirchengeschichte unterschiedliche Interpretationen erfahren und verschiedene Paradigmen ausgebildet. Es gibt keine kirchliche Erlösungslehre schlechthin. Das kirchliche Lehramt hat sich auf kein spezifisches soteriologisches Konzept festgelegt. Die Theologie, die Erlösung wesenhaft als geschichtliches Ereignis begreift, vermag allein durch das neutestamentliche Kerygma nicht, die gesamte Tiefe und Pluriformität der Erlösung wiederzugeben. Sie hat dafür die Wirkungsgeschichte der Erlösungsbotschaft in den Blick zu nehmen. Das vorliegende Buch widmet sich der Geschichte der Erlösungslehre und zeigt insbesondere gnoseologisch-didaktische Erlösungsparadigmen in der Kirchengeschichte der Frühzeit und des Mittelalters bis zum Beginn der Reformation auf. Bd. 11, 2016, 418 S., 54,90 €, gb., ISBN 978-3-643-50776-1

Dietmar W. Winkler (Hg.) Syrische Studien Beiträge zum 8. Deutschen Syrologie-Symposium in Salzburg 2014 Unter den orientalischen Literaturen ist die syrische Literatur in ihrem Umfang und in ihrer Vielfalt die bedeutendste. Sie umfasst fast ausschließlich christliches Schrifttum und braucht für die patristische Zeit den Vergleich mit dem lateinischen und dem griechischen antiken Schrifttum nicht zu scheuen. Der vorliegende Band dokumentiert zur Publikation ausgearbeitete Beiträge des 8. Deutschen Syrologie-Symposiums, das vom 14. bis 15. März 2014 in Salzburg stattfand. Es ergibt sich ein vielgestaltiger Einblick in die gegenwärtige deutschsprachige Forschung zum syrischen Christentum. Bd. 10, 2016, 372 S., 39,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50743-3

Li Tang; Dietmar W. Winkler (eds.) Winds of Jingjiao Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia Bd. 9, 2016, 448 S., 49,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90754-7

Wolfgang Schmidinger (Hg.) Valentin P. Svencickij – Dialoge Apologie des Glaubens und Wege zu einem spirituellen Leben Bd. 8, 2015, 272 S., 34,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50657-3

Joachim Jakob Ostsyrische Christen und Kurden im Osmanischen Reich des 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhunderts Bd. 7, 2014, 240 S., 34,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50616-0

Diliana Atanassova; Tinatin Chronz (Hg.) SYNAXIS KATHOLIKE Beiträge zu Gottesdienst und Geschichte der fünf altkirchlichen Patriarchate für Heinzgerd Brakmann zum 70. Geburtstag Bd. 6, 2014, 920 S., 89,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50552-1

Li Tang; Dietmar W. Winkler (Eds.) From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia Bd. 5, 2013, 480 S., 44,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90329-7

Grigorios Larentzakis Die orthodoxe Kirche Ihr Leben und ihr Glauben Bd. 4, 3. Aufl. 2012, 256 S., 24,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-50457-9; 29,90 €, gb., ISBN 978-3-643-50516-3

LIT Verlag Berlin – Münster – Wien – Zürich – London Auslieferung Deutschland / Österreich / Schweiz: siehe Impressumsseite

Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte hrsg. von Martin Tamcke Martin Tamcke (Ed.) Scripture’s interpretation is more than making science Festschrift for Prof. Vasile Mihoc The following articles were selected by colleagues of New Testament scholar Vasile Mihoc from Sibiu to honour his contributions to theological scholarship in Romania, which places particular emphasis on the spiritual context of church life as a prerequisite for exegesis. Bd. 62, 2020, 350 S., 59,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-91247-3

Alexandru Prelipcean Romanos’ Renaissance From the beginning to the present. Bibliography about Romanos the Melodist This work brings into light the bibliography, dedicated to St. Romanos the Melodist, considered as ‘the greatest of the poets of the Greek Church and of Christianity’. The bibliography intends to be primarily a useful tool for those who will focus their attention on the life, work and theology of the great Christian hymnographer from the time of Emperor Justinian. Bd. 61, 2019, 82 S., 29,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-91132-2

Abdo Mirza „Barfuß sind wir an den Chabour gekommen, barfuß sind wir gezwungen wieder zu gehen“ Flucht, Vertreibung und Geiselhaft der assyrischen Christen aus Tal Goran (Al-Hassake, Nordsyrien). Persönlicher Bericht des Abdo Mirza und seiner Familie. Berichtet von: Franz-Rudolf Müller Der Band schildert die Erlebnisse des assyrischen Christen Abdo Mirza, der mit seiner Tochter von Terroristen des Islamischen Staates überfallen und in Geiselhaft genommen wurde. Erst durch Zahlung eines hohen Lösegeldes kamen er, seine Tochter und neunzehn andere Assyrer aus seinem Dorf Tal Goran am Chabour im Norden Syriens frei. Insgesamt waren über zweihundert assyrische Christen in der Gewalt der Terroristen. Die meisten wurden „freigekauft“, andere wurden brutal hingerichtet. Abdo Mirza erzählt vom Alltag, den Festen und dem religiösen Leben in seinem Dorf Tal Goran. Tal Goran steht somit stellvertretend für die assyrische Bevölkerung in den anderen christlichen Dörfern am Chabour in der Region Al-Hassake in Nordsyrien. Mit dem Überfall der islamistischen Terroristen endete das Leben in diesen Siedlungen. Bd. 60, 2019, 82 S., 19,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-14320-4

Claudia Rammelt (Hg.) in Verbindung mit Jan Gehm und Rebekka Scheler Pluralität und Koexistenz, Gewalt, Flucht und Vertreibung Christliche, jesidische und muslimische Lebenswelten in den gegenwärtigen Umbrüchen im Nahen Osten Der Nahe Osten als Schmelztiegel verschiedener Kulturen wird gegenwärtig als Krisengebiet wahrgenommen, der von Terror und Gewalt dominiert ist. Millionen von Menschen sind auf der Flucht und die Gesellschaften zerrissen. Das Buch ist das ernsthafte Bemühen Studierender der Theologischen Fakultät der Ruhr-Universität Bochum um Auseinandersetzung mit der vielschichtigen Lage im Nahen Osten. Experten und Menschen aus der Region bringen dabei ihre Einschätzungen und Analysen zur Sprache; vor allem aber kommen Menschen aus den Ländern des Nahen Osten selbst mit ihren Erfahrungen von Flucht und Vertreibung, Krieg und Terror zu Wort. Bd. 59, 2019, 332 S., 29,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-14293-1

LIT Verlag Berlin – Münster – Wien – Zürich – London Auslieferung Deutschland / Österreich / Schweiz: siehe Impressumsseite

Kai Merten Annahme und Ablehnung Menschen mit Behinderungen in Kirche und Gesellschaft in Äthiopien Menschen mit körperlichen oder kognitiven Beeinträchtigungen sehen sich in der äthiopischen Gesellschaft zahlreichen ablehnenden sozialen Reaktionen ausgesetzt. Die Gründe dafür sind hauptsächlich bei negativen Bewertungen dieser Beeinträchtigungen zu suchen. Diese Bewertungen wiederum sind zum größten Teil religiös bedingt. Die Äthiopisch-orthodoxe Kirche widerspricht von ihrer Theologie her allen diesen negativen Bewertungen und verurteilt alle Formen von diesbezüglichen Diskriminierungen. Gleichwohl tut sie in der Praxis zu wenig, um die tatsächliche Ablehnung von Menschen mit Beeinträchtigungen zu überwinden. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden Strategien vorgeschlagen, wie dieses Ziel erreicht werden kann. Bd. 58, 2019, 136 S., 29,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-14242-9

Symeon Tsolakidis (Hg.) Die Chronik von Morea Übersetzt, eingeleitet und mit Anmerkungen versehen von Symeon Tsolakidis Die Kreuzfahrer kamen im Jahr 1204 in das byzantinische Reich, eroberten und plünderten Konstantinopel, die Hauptstadt des Reiches, anstatt Syrien und Ägypten zu erobern. Später nahmen sie innerhalb eines Jahrzehnts verschiedene Provinzen des byzantinischen Reiches ein. Unter ihnen war das Fürstentum von Morea (oder Achaia) in Peloponnes. Die Chronik von Morea, die in vier Versionen überliefert ist (französisch, griechisch, italienisch und aragonesisch), ist die einzige Quelle, die uns die fränkische Herrschaft im 13. Jahrhundert in Peloponnes darstellt. Überdies ist die griechische Chronik eine bedeutende Quelle für die Entwicklung der griechischen Sprache in einem kulturellen Mischgebiet, wo Griechen und Franken koexistierten. Bd. 57, 2019, 344 S., 34,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-14057-9

Christine Chaillot Die Rolle der Bilder und die Ikonenverehrung in den Orientalischen Orthodoxen Kirchen Syrische, Armenische, Koptische und Äthiopische Traditionen. Geleitworte von Prof. Dr. Martin Tamcke und Metropolit Damaskinos der Schweiz Bd. 56, 2018, 144 S., 14,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90993-0

Christine Chaillot The Role of Images and the Veneration of Icons in the Oriental Orthodox Churches Syrian Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian Traditions. Forewords by Dr Sebastian Brock and Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland vol. 55, 2018, 144 pp., 14,90 €, br., ISBN-CH 978-3-643-90985-5

Christine Chaillot Rôle des images et vénération des icônes dans les Églises orthodoxes orientales Traditions syriaque, arménienne, copte et éthiopienne Bd. 54, 2017, 124 S., 14,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-90958-9

Martin Tamcke (Hg.) Partnerschaft, Freundschaft, Dialog Beiträge zum internationalen Symposium am Lehrstuhl für Ökumenische Theologie und Orientalische Kirchen- und Missionsgeschichte der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen vom 20. bis 22. Juni 2015 Bd. 53, 2016, 190 S., 29,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-13427-1

Svante Lundgren Die Assyrer Von Ninive bis Gütersloh Bd. 52, 2016, 176 S., 19,90 €, br., ISBN 978-3-643-13256-7

LIT Verlag Berlin – Münster – Wien – Zürich – London Auslieferung Deutschland / Österreich / Schweiz: siehe Impressumsseite

OPOe 15

Reconstructing the History of the Church of the East in Central Asia

Echoes of a Forgotten Presence

Mark Dickens works at St. Joseph‘s College, University of Alberta (Canada). His research addresses connections between Syriac Christianity and Central Asia in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Echoes of a Forgotten Presence Mark Dickens

This volume contains eleven articles by Mark Dickens, ten of which were published between 2009 and 2016, with the final article appearing in print here for the first time. The articles concern the evidence from which historians attempt to reconstruct the history of Syriac Christianity in Central Asia, particularly that associated with the Assyrian Church of the East, the most important Church in the region for well over a millennium. Three articles deal with important personalities in the history of the Assyrian Church of the East: Nestorius, Timothy I and Yahbalaha III. Two contributions address Christian gravestone inscriptions from Semirechye (Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan). The remaining six are concerned with the large collection of Christian manuscript fragments found at Turfan (China) in the early 20th century, now housed in various locations in Berlin. In particular, the multilingual nature of many fragments, the presence of psalters and other biblical texts in the corpus, the importance of prayer and calendrical fragments in the collection, and evidence of Christian scribal practices from Turfan are all examined.

Mark Dickens

978-3-643-91103-2

LIT

www.lit-verlag.ch

9 *ukdzfe#.y -cx*

orientalia – patristica - oecumenica vol. 15

LIT

LIT