Yuan: Chinese Architecture in a Mongol Empire 0691240167, 9780691240169

Citation preview

Yuan

Yuan

Chinese Architecture in a Mongol Empire Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt

Princeton University Press Princeton and Oxford

To Maeva and her future cousins

Contents

VIII Preface XI

Family Tree of Chinggis Khan

 2 Introduction:

Mongol Lords, Chinese Architecture, Visions of Empire

Chapter One: Wall-Enclosed Spaces  Spaces of the Empire: Envisioned, Political, Seasonal, Pleasurable Four Capitals Walled Enclosures before Khubilai Mongolia and Eastern Russia South of Mongolia  10

 66  Chapter

Two: The Century before the Mongol Century Jin Song Chapter Three: Official Yuan Construction Virtuous Tranquility Hall Observatory in Dengfeng Cloud Terrace at Juyong Pass Ren Renfa’s Sluice Three Pavilions Two Towers 104

Chapter Four: Halls to the Gods and of the Populace Yonglegong Guangsheng Monastery Hancheng More Yuan Buildings in North China Yuan Buildings in Southeastern China Yuan Buildings in Southwestern China Yuan Wooden Halls Summarized Stone, Metal, and Brick 116

162  Chapter

Five: Architecture of Death, Private Life, and Popular Life Architecture of Death Architecture of Private Life Stages Gardens  hapter Six: Muslim, Tibetan Buddhist, C Manichaean, and Christian Architecture Chinese Monasteries for Muslim Prayer Muslim Burial in Yuan China Tibetan Pagodas in Chinese Monasteries Temple to Mani Churches 188

210  Chapter

Seven: Rock-Carved Architecture and Freestanding Stone Longshan Feilaifeng Baosheng Monastery Arzhai and Gansu Rock-Carved Architecture in Northwestern Iran Yangqunmiao 224  Chapter

Eight: Yuan-Period Construction East of China Koryŏ Architecture Japan’s Buddhist Monasteries 232  Conclusion:

A Revisionist History: Chinese Architecture, Mongol Patrons, European Observers, East Asian Archaeologists

236 Notes 267 Bibliography 306

Character Glossary

315

Photo and Illustration Credits

316 Index

Preface

My introduction to the world of the Mongols came early in my career and formally, and at an extraordinary moment in the study of China. As a first-year graduate student in the fall of 1974, I walked into Francis Cleaves’s seminar on Yuanshi, the late fourteenth-century Chinese text that records the history of the Mongol-ruled dynasty named Yuan. The least prepared of my cohort that day, not only in sinology, but never having been to Asia and not having heard of H. H. Howorth (1842– 1923) or Constantin D’Ohsson (1779–1851), whose multivolume nineteenth-century histories were the background reading, I became enraptured by the implications of Mongol rule of China, specifically its impact on art and architecture. That same semester, I saw treasures from Khubilai’s great capital Daidu in the exhibition of archaeological discoveries from the People’s Republic at the Smithsonian Institution, a major event in the formal return of US-Chinese diplomatic relations. I realized what was on the horizon for a student beginning a career in Chinese art at that time: these newly excavated artifacts would rewrite China’s art history. The challenges of entry into the world of Mongolology impressed me at least as much. The standard Chinese sources for studying the art of most Chinese dynasties were just a part of what would be required to discuss art of the Mongol empire. Research in China seemed to be on the horizon, but research in Mongolia was neither possible nor imminent. Still, for a student of Yuan it was extraordinary times. The 1970s was a decade of intense interest in the Mongols. Sitting alongside me at the Harvard-Yenching Library in 1974– 1975 were Morris Rossabi and the late John D. (Jack) Langlois, both on sabbatical and eager to talk about all things Yuan. Jack Langlois’s Yuan Workshop at Princeton in the summer of 1975 and conference at Kennebunkport in 1976 that resulted in China under Mongol Rule forged collegial relationships and friendships that endure today. The speaker who influenced me the most was Herbert Franke, who asked me how architecture would fit into his explication of Yuan legitimation. The 1970s also was a decade of high interest in Yuan art in the United States, one that had been inaugurated by the landmark exhibition Chinese Art under the Mongols at the Cleveland Museum of Art in 1968. A stream of books and dissertations that would come to completion in the next two decades were underway at Berkeley under James Cahill, at Princeton under Wen Fong, and at Kansas under Li Chu-tsing. As a student of Chinese architecture and archaeology, I was surrounded by Yuan painting.

Like most students of China in the 1970s, I studied language in Taiwan and in Japan, so that upon my return to the United States in 1977, the only Chinese architecture I had seen was from the late eighteenth or nineteenth century or in Japanese versions. Seeking a dissertation topic in 1977, it was logical to turn to the period that intrigued me the most, and to a subject that I could complete in the library. I found my way to “Imperial Architecture under Mongolian Patronage: Khubilai’s Imperial City of Daidu.” When I finished in 1981, I had not stood in Beijing, much less seen the ruins of Khubilai’s city there, but China had opened, and Xu Pingfang, an excavator of Daidu, had visited Harvard, guided me verbally through that site, and shared information about its excavation. I also knew that if Daidu was no longer remote, Khara-Khorum in Mongolia, Shangdu (Xanadu) in Inner Mongolia, and the Yuan cities and towns and Buddhist and Daoist monasteries in mountains and valleys across China that found their way into my dissertation still were. I knew that the book I would eventually write on Yuan architecture would examine those buildings and remains alongside the texts that had guided my research in the 1970s. As I traveled in China year by year beginning in 1983, I saw and photographed Yuan buildings at every opportunity. In the 1980s and 1990s, books on some periods of Chinese architecture, such as Liao (907–1125), for which only nine wooden buildings survived in a total of three provinces in North China, could be finished. For the Yuan period, my database of architecture grew with each trip. Yuan buildings in China numbered in the hundreds and stood in every province and autonomous region, across Mongolia, and west of both countries. In addition to the large number of buildings from which I would select those worthy of discussion in a book, another aspect of the study of Yuan architecture distinguished it from other periods whose buildings I had studied. Yuan is the first time Europeans saw and described Chinese architecture. Marco Polo is one of more than twenty Christian or Muslim clerics and merchants whose descriptions can be compared with actual buildings as well as with Chinese descriptions of them. Four opportunities between 2005 and 2013 indicated that it was time to begin writing this book. The first was a six-day period in August 2005 when I saw Khubilai’s city Shangdu in Inner Mongolia, Khaishan’s (r. 1308–1311) city Zhongdu in Hebei, the Yuan-period house in Shanxi, and Yuan halls in Shanxi and Hebei. Accessibility and transportation were no longer impediments to the study of architecture anywhere in China. The

Preface

second was in 2006 when I was given the opportunity to participate in planning meetings for the Metropolitan Museum of Art exhibition, The World of Khubilai Khan, Chinese Art in the Yuan Dynasty. That same year, Penn had the rare opportunity to exhibit six Yuan paintings from a private collection. Looking carefully at the highest-quality objects made in Yuan China convinced me that there was a narrative focused on architecture in which painting and sculpture could be integral. My first attempt at this was an essay, published in 2009, for the conference on Yuan painting held at Penn in conjunction with the exhibition. My research began with tomb architecture but ended up a study of murals and inscriptions. The years 2006 to 2012 brought me to Yuan architecture and artifacts in Gansu, Xinjiang, Sichuan, and Yunnan, and along eastern China from Guangdong to Inner Mongolia. By then I had stood among the ruins or inside the frameworks of more than a hundred Yuan cities or structures. The fourth opportunity came in 2013 when I finally crossed the grasslands of Khentii province and stood at the meeting point of the Onon, Kherlen, and Tuul Rivers. Between then and December 2019, I made eleven more trips during which I saw Yuan-period buildings or remains in China, Korea, Japan, and Mongolia. Two planned trips to Russia in 2020 could not be realized because of Covid-19. I was able to focus research on Yuan architecture in spring 2007 when I was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study and again in spring 2008 with the support of the National Endowment for the Humanities. I began writing in 2014. From then until the completion of this manuscript, my research trips were supported by two Director’s Field Grants from the Penn Museum, the Metropolitan Center for Far Eastern Art, and the Research Foundation of the University of Pennsylvania. Focused periods of research and writing were supported by a Dean’s Fellowship at Penn during spring semester of 2017, followed by an Ailsa Mellon Bruce Senior Fellowship at the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts. Through nearly four decades of research and teaching, I have given dozens of lectures or conference talks about Yuan architecture, and I have taught seminars entitled “Chinese Art under the Mongols” every few years. Papers in four of those seminars led to dissertation topics and then books on some aspect of Yuan architecture. Books by Aurelia Campbell, Yu Leqi, Zhang Jianwei, and Lala Zuo are cited in notes in chapters 4 and 5. My colleagues at Penn have been as supportive and encouraging as the students. Christopher Atwood and Paul Goldin read the manuscript in

its near-final form. I thank both of them for finding mistakes and for countless questions that improved this book from beginning to end. In addition to them, I thank, in alphabetical order, many who have traveled with me, exchanged emails about this project, answered questions that in some cases only they could, or continue to inspire my work on Yuan architecture, even if they are no longer here: Thomas Allsen, Petya Andreeva, Birgitta Augustin, Laurie Barnes, Michal Biran, Sheila Blair, Jonathan Bloom, Virginia Bower, Yonathan Brack, Michael Brose, Ursula Brosseder, Paul Buell, James Cahill, John Chaffee, Annie Chan, Chang Qing, Chen Wei, Francis Cleaves, Thomas Coomans, Nicola Di Cosmo, Karl Debreczeny, Dong Xinlin, Ruth Dunnell, Patricia Ebrey, Mark Elliott, Erdenebold Lkhagvasuren, Joseph F. Fletcher, Jr., Herbert Franke, Fu Xinian, Fukuda Miho, Oleg Grabar, Zsuzsanna Guláci, Guo Daiheng, Valerie Hansen, Robert Harrist, Maxwell Hearn, Bryce Heatherly, Susan Shishan Huang, Kang In-Uk, Alexander Ivliev, Ronald Knapp, Nikolay Kradin, John Langlois, Lothar Ledderose, Denise Leidy, Lin Meicun, Boxi Liu, Liu Chang, Victor Mair, Bryan Miller, Tracy Miller, Frederick Mote, Tatsuo Nakami, Ts. Odbaatar, Ah-Rim Park, Hyunhee Park, Qin Dashu, Qu Lian, Sijie Ren, David Robinson, Morris Rossabi, Svetlana Sarenceva, Eiren Shea, Noriyuki Shiraishi, Sun Zhixin, Tanaka Tan, Eugene Wang, Wang Guixiang, James Watt, Wei Jian, Roderick Whitfield, Xu Pingfang, Mimi Yiengpruksawan, Jingyi Zhou, and Zhuge Jing. In the fall of 2022, when it was certain that this book would go to press before I would be able to return to China for missing photographs, Zhang Jianwei and Zhuge Jing found those images for me, courtesy of their colleagues in China. I thank Bai Ying, Li Lindong, Peng Minghao, Yu Lina, and Zhao Yuanxiang for making it possible for this book to have on-site images of every building I was not able to see myself, and Jianwei and Jing for being truly wonderful colleagues. Outstanding graduate students helped me bring this book to completion: I thank Qiu Jun Oscar Zheng for checking the notes, bibliography, and Chinese character list, Xinwei Kyra Yao for checking the bibliography, Ran Yan for making architectural drawings, charts, and maps, Nikita Kuzmin for checking Russian spellings in the bibliography, and Dotno Pount for checking Mongolian spellings. Constance Mood and Christal Springer of Penn’s Fine Arts Image Collection enhanced the digital images, with much of the work done from home computers during Covid-19. Finally, I thank Michelle Komie for her commitment to this book from our first conversation about it, Annie Miller, Karen Carter, and

ix

Preface 

Anita O’Brien for seeing it through to publication, and Steven Sears for conscientious attention to each illustration. No trip I make nor the countless hours I spend in my office could happen without the unflagging support of my family, now three generations. It is an overwhelming privilege to be able to dedicate a book to that third generation.

English names, such as Virtuous Tranquility Hall rather than Dening Hall or Deningdian, and Three Purities Hall rather than Sanqing Hall or Sanqingdian. Some of my choices are more idiosyncratic. Although Mongolian is the grammatically correct adjective for a phrase like Mongolian rule, I often popularize it as Mongol rule or Mongol empire. Division of syllables of Chinese Romanized titles and institutions has changed in the years I have been writing. The current trend is to join characters into as few words as possible. Whenever possible, I limit these joinings to three syllables, even though a four-syllable title or name would be logical; occasionally four-syllable joinings are appropriate. I use Chang’anzhi tu rather than Chang’an zhitu or Chang’anzhitu, Quyangxian zhi instead of Quyang xianzhi or Quyangxianzhi, and huaxiangshi mu rather than huaxiangshimu, but Zhibuzuzhai congshu. It also is currently standard to capitalize only the first word of a research institute or excavation team in a bibliographic reference. I capitalize the equivalents of proper nouns in English, such as Zhongguo Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo.

A Note on Names, Places, Spellings, and Organization As an empire that stretches from the Black Sea to the Eastern Sea, places and people are often referred to by more than one name, and usually in multiple spellings in European languages. In part this is because scholars contribute to the study of the Mongols in so many languages. It is also because the enticement of the material has brought forth so much popular writing, and spellings in those writings appear frequently enough to become the norm. Not every scholar will agree with some of my choices here. In making these choices I sifted through the variations in names and spellings and selected a single spelling for every name and every place. I have tried to use the preferred system of scholars of China for Mongolian names, so that Khubilai, not Qubilai, and Khara-Khorum, not Qara(-)qorum, are used. For Romanized names of words, I use Pinyin for Chinese, McCuneHepburn for Korean, McCune-Reischauer for Japanese, modified Library of Congress for Mongolian and Russian, and the spellings used in the Cambridge History of Iran for Persian. Names of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Europeans are in English equivalents in cases in which those names are frequently found in English-language literature; examples are William of Rubruck rather than Willem van Rubroeck and John rather than Giovanni of Montecorvino. When possible, I provide the current location of places, so that sites in the Chaghatay khanate often are in Kazakhstan, and Ilkhānate sites might be in West Azerbaijan. Most buildings are given in their Chinese names with the structural type in English rather than the Chinese suffix, such as Daming Hall, not Damingdian, and Guangsheng Monastery rather than Guangshengsi. I switch to all Chinese syllables, such as Damingdian, for variety when a building is discussed many times in the same section. Therefore both Hall and dian are found parenthetically following Daming in the character glossary. A few widely published building complexes are referred to exclusively in Chinese, such as Yonglegong rather than Yongle Daoist Monastery. Chinese names are translated into English for well-known buildings that are often published with

x

Family Tree of Chinggis Khan

I Chinggis (1162–1227)

Jochi (1182–1227)

Batu (d. ca. 1255

II Ögedei (1186–1241) (r. 1229–41) III Güyük (1206–48) (r. 1246–8)

Chaghatay (d. 1242)

IV Mönkge (1209–59) (r. 1251–9)

V Khubilai (r. ca.1260– 94) Jingim (1243–85)

Khans of the Golden Horde

XI Aragibag (1320–28) (r. 10–11. 1328)

Tolui (d. 1232)

Arigh-Böke (d. 1266)

I Hülegü (r. 1256–65)

II Abaqa (1234–82) (r. 1265–82)

VI Baydu (1255/56–95) (r. 1295)

VI Temür (1265–1307) (r. 1294–1307)

Gammala (1263–1302)

Darmabala (1264–92)

X Yisün Temür (1293–1328) (r. 1323–8)

VII Khaishan (1281–1311) (r. 1308–11)

VIII Ayurbarwada (1285–1320) (r. 1311–20)

XII Tugh Temür (1304–32) (r. 1328– 2.1329 reascended, r. 1329–32)

XIII Khoshila (1300–29) (r. 1329)

IX Shidebala (1302–23) (r. 1321–3)

XIV Irinjibal (1326–32) (r. 10-12.1332)

XV Toghön Temür (1320–70) (r. 1333– 68|70)

Taraqai (1218–95)

IV Arghün (1258–91) (r. 1284–91)

V Gaikhatu (c. 1224–95) (r. 1291–5)

VII Ghāzān (1271–1304) (r. 1295–1304)

VIII Öljeytü (1282–1316) (r. 1304–16)

IX Abu Sa' id (1205–35) (r. 1316–35)

III Tegüder (ca. 1246–84) (r. 1282–4)

Yuan

Chinese Architecture in a Mongol Empire

Introduction Mongol Lords, Chinese Architecture, Visions of Empire

The approximately 150-year period whose architecture is the subject of this book begins before the death of Chinggis Khan (1162–1227) and ends shortly after the fall of Yuan China to the Ming dynasty in 1368. It is the age of Khubilai Khaghan (1215–1294) as well as his grandfather Chinggis, and of Marco Polo. By the end of the thirteenth century, the empire forged by Chinggis and enlarged by his sons and grandsons was the largest ever achieved in Eurasia. It also was the first time in history when China was part of a much larger empire and the emperor of all of China was not of Chinese descent. As the twelfth century turned into the thirteenth, at least twelve polities, some of them at times referred to as tribes,1 populated lands today located in Inner Asia, a region bounded roughly by Siberia in the north, China in the south, Korea and beyond to the northeast, and the Black Sea in the west. Also around the year 1200, the man born Temüjin somewhere near the meeting point of the Onon, Kherlen, and Tuul Rivers in Mongolia, who would be known as Chinggis Khan, was about thirty-eight years old. Before his death in 1227 in today’s Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Chinggis would engage in battle with, conquer, and unite most of the peoples of this vast region: his own group, the Mongols who populated southern Siberia and eastern Mongolia; Tatars, who moved across the same lands and farther south and east; Kereyit in central Mongolia, including the three rivers near which Chinggis was born and westward to the Gobi Desert; Merkit along the Selenge River; Oirat to their west; Naiman in northwestern Mongolia; Mongols along the Onon and Kherlen Rivers and Lake Baikal; Önggüd in western Inner Mongolia around present-day Höhhot; Kyrghiz in southern Siberia, north of Mongolia and Kazakhstan; Khwārazm in Iran and places to the north, east, and west, including the cities Samarkand and Bukhara; Qara-Khitai in southern Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and western Xinjiang; the remnant of the Qarakhanid rulers who had been absorbed by the Qara-Khitai and Khwārazm earlier in the twelfth century; Kipchak in Eastern Europe, western Russia, Kazakhstan, and Siberia; Western Xia in Ningxia, Gansu, and Inner Mongolia; Jurchen in North and Northeastern China, Manchuria, and into Primorye; and Song China to their south.2 When Chinggis died a quarter of the way into the thirteenth century, the central capital of the Jin dynasty, Zhongdu, today beneath Beijing, had fallen, in 1215; Qara-Khitai had fallen, in 1218; and Khwārazm had fallen, in 1221. As Chinggis suffered, whether from illness, a fall from a

horse, or some other cause that would lead to his death in their territory, Western Xia fell. Chinggis’s trusted military leader Mukhali (1170–1223) would continue the attacks on Jin until his own death.3 Chinggis’s childhood and rise, conquests, and rule under his successor are narrated in The Secret History of the Mongols, which is dated around 1252.4 An event recorded in The Secret History that took place around the year 1219, just before the invasion of Khwārazm, would alter world history. Knowing the Mongol practice of fighting to the death and regrouping under the victor, and seeing tension between his two oldest sons, led Chinggis to decide his succession. His three oldest sons by his first wife, Börte, swore they would carry out his wishes.5 They again swore their promise on Chinggis’s deathbed. The oldest son, Jochi (d. 1227), would rule lands that came to be known as the Golden Horde, an appanage that included former Kievan Rus and would extend to Hungary and Poland by the 1220s and 1230s. Jochi’s death before his father’s left those lands to Chinggis’s grandson, Jochi’s second son, Batu (d. ca. 1255). The Golden Horde functioned largely autonomously after 1251, enduring as smaller and weaker hordes until the late fifteenth century and finally ceasing to exist by the time of the Russian Revolution. The appanage of second son Chaghatay (1183–1241) was centered in Transoxiana, including northern Iran and most of Central Asia. He was succeeded by his young grandson and then by Khaidu (1235–1301), another great-grandson of Chinggis, and the khanate would be at war with Khubilai for most of the second half of the thirteenth century. After the 1330s the Chaghatay Khanate would be largely Muslim. It would fall to Timur (Tamerlane, 1336–1405) by the end of the fourteenth century. The third son, Ögedei (1186–1241), was Chinggis’s successor. At some time before the end of the 1220s, it is believed, the concept of empire, indeed of world empire, became a Chinggisid vision. Some use directives conveyed to early European visitors to Mongol camps as evidence; others use contact leading to conquest of sedentary civilizations of Rus or Jin-ruled China as major motivating forces that suggest this understanding.6 The drive toward empire could not have been realized without three other successful factors. The concept of ulus, literally realm, or people under one rule, was the first.7 Sometimes translated as appanage, the word used here, beginning under Chinggis lands were awarded to relatives of the ruler. The lands and their guardians were subject to the ruler. Sometimes walled and sometimes with palatial architecture, appanage cities in central Mongolia,

Map 1. Mongol-period cities and towns discussed in this book

Introduction 

Transbaikalia, and Inner Mongolia, and those built latest, in China, are discussed in chapter 1.8 Second, successful succession had to be achieved. It became official at a khuriltai, a gathering at the heartland of the empire of relatives and followers who had to formally agree on a deceased ruler’s successor.9 Lifted to the throne by his older brother Chaghatay, younger brother Tolui (1191?–1232), and Chinggis’s younger brother Temüge, all three until then rivals for the position, Ögedei became khaghan, great khan, the Mongolian title used for the chief ruler of the Mongols and, once in China, for the emperor of the Yuan dynasty. Princes-of-the-blood would thereafter be khans, leading to the English designation khanate as an alternate name for the appanage of royalty. As a youngest son, Tolui, according to Mongol practice, would receive the lands closest to his father’s birthplace. Tolui would be the father of two khaghans. In terms of architecture, the most important occurrence of Ögedei’s khaghanship was the ideology of a capital city as the command center of an empire. It is possible that Chinggis used the city known as Khara-Khorum, today Kharkhorin in central Mongolia. Under Ögedei it would function as a capital (figure 1.13). Through Ögedei’s reign, 1229–1241, Mongol campaigns to the west, east, and south were aggressive and successful. The Kipchak steppe, Russian principalities, and parts of Poland and Hungary (the lands of Jochi’s successors); much of the Korean peninsula; and the final conquest of the Jin dynasty were achieved. Tolui and the military leader Sübe’etei (1176–1248) would be important in the first and third, the latter a victory that opened the way for conquest of Song China. Also during Ögedei’s reign, a decision argued by an advisor well-educated in Chinese ways would save many sedentary lands. Yelü Chucai (1189–1243), a Khitan whom Chinggis had met near Samarkand, convinced Ögedei that the tax potential from North China would be much more valuable than turning the conquered Jin lands into grazing ground.10 Some twenty-five years later, when the center of Mongol power was in China and it was clear the government could not run without a bureaucracy, the khaghan would continue to selectively seek advice from men like Yelü Chucai. The turn to a Khitan was consistent with Mongol policy, which viewed the population of their empire in four groups: Mongols at the top, next Semu, then peoples from North China, broadly defined to include Jurchen, Khitan, and Koreans as well as northern Chinese, and at the bottom, southern Chinese, the South a special target of animosity because that region did not fall until

1276. Too few Mongols were available or wanted to actively run a Chinese state. Semu, peoples primarily from the West, were selected for service rather than Chinese whenever possible. Tanguts, Tibetans, Uyghurs, Türks, Persians, Arabs, and Italians were Semu.11 Yelü Chucai is credited with convincing Ögedei of the merits of Confucian rule even in the 1230s. For instance, Ögedei gave permission to hold a civil service exam whereby officials for his government could be identified according to the Chinese system. Approximately one thousand men passed the exam in 1237. Few would end up serving the khaghan.12 Instead, in 1239 Ögedei turned the job of chief tax collector in North China to a different Semu, the Muslim merchant Abd al-Rahmān, and two years later, to another Muslim. In 1241 the Mongols saw the Danube River, and by spring 1242 they were near Vienna. Warnings of the gravity of their threat had reached the Hungarian king from the Dominican friar Julian in 1237. Different from the situation under Chinggis, however, no one had sworn to Ögedei that his wishes about succession would be carried out.13 When he died in 1241, word was carried on horseback across the empire. Mongol armies turned back toward Mongolia for a khuriltai. The church in Rome interpreted the retreat, when conquest of Europe had seemed imminent, as a sign from God. Still, Pope Innocent IV (1195–1254) determined to send missions with papal communications to the Mongols. John of Plano Carpini (1185–1252), joined by Benedict the Pole (ca. 1200–ca. 1280), followed the land route taken by Julian of Hungary in the mid-1230s. Lawrence of Portugal was to travel farther south, and friars Ascelinus and Andrew were to take a third route.14 Ögedei’s oldest son, Güyük (1206–1248), would succeed him, but not until 1246. The third khaghan would reign only two years. John of Plano Carpini was at Shira Orda, the great tent made of the brocade called nasīj that was said to hold one thousand people, just southwest of Khara-Khorum, when Güyük became khaghan in front of several thousand people.15 The pope’s letter was delivered. Güyük did not become a Christian.16 In the 1250s papal missions and others from the West would see Güyük’s successor Möngke (1209–1259), who had come to power by a coup, and his growing capital at Khara-Khorum. Friar William of Rubruck (1220–1293) reached Khara-Khorum at the end of December, having left the camp of Möngke’s cousin Batu three and a half months earlier. William had an audience with Möngke on January 4, 1254. He spent about six months at the khaghan’s camp or in Khara-Khorum. During this time

4

Introduction

he met the French artisan Guillaume Boucher, who had been taken captive by the Mongols in Hungary. Boucher made a silver automaton in the shape of a tree with lions at the base from which flowed fermented mare’s milk (kumys), mead, rice wine, and grape wine for the enjoyment of the Mongol court.17 Boucher was a legitimate artisan and perhaps rare among those working in the capital. Much-quoted accounts of the early decades of the Mongol conquest state that when destroying a town and its population, the Mongols spared clergy, believing their God-given talents could prove useful, and spared artisans whose creative talents were innate, if not God-given, and could enhance their building programs. Some who were not of these professions are said to have self-identified. A craftsman who survived the massacre of Baoding, in Hebei, part of the campaign that would topple Jin, wrote: “Only the artisans were spared. . . I joined their group, pretending that I was an artisan, and there were many others who did likewise. There were some who wanted to screen us as to our abilities, but they were stopped by one who said: ‘Everyone who can pull a saw is an artisan. It is your choice whether to allow these people to live.’ . . . All who pretended to be artisans were thus enabled to survive.”18 A strong interest in religions has led some to assess the Mongols as ecumenical. Tolerance, or at least limited interference in the religious practices of the many faiths of their empire, probably better describes the attitude of the khaghans toward religion. It is a fact that in addition to the native belief in a power called teng(ge)ri, Mongol rulers since the generation of Chinggis sought meetings with clerics of the religions with which they came into contact. Their motives ranged from information gathering to a quest for methods of enhancing and prolonging life. Chinggis summoned the Daoist master Qiu Chuji (Changchun) (1148–1227) to his camp in the Altai Mountains for this purpose sometime around 1223.19 In May 1254 a debate among Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims was held at Möngke’s court. Buddhists and Daoists debated again in 1258, this time with Khubilai presiding.20 Chinese Buddhists, Tibetan Buddhists, Brahmans, Daoists, Muslims, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Manichaeans were all part of the Mongol empire. Architectural complexes in which each of these faiths prayed stood in conquered lands and were built after Mongol rule took hold across the empire. Often Mongols married women of these religions. Tolui’s wife Sorkhakhtani Beki (d. 1252) (mother of Möngke, Khubilai, Hülegü [1218–1265], and Arigh-Böke [d.

1266]), for instance, was born into the Church of the East and followed its doctrines through her life. One interpretation of jasaq, not exactly a legal code, but more the transmitted law by which the Mongols were governed, views institutionalized tolerance of religions as a tenet.21 Khara-Khorum was a city with Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, Daoist monasteries, mosques, and houses of worship of Catholics and the Church of the East. Whether the cities that clustered around Khara-Khorum or the appanage centers from Chinggis’s through Möngke’s reigns, discussed in chapter 1, had architectural spaces for so many religions is still unknown. Some of China’s cities that would fall to the Mongols had places for religious life and cemeteries for Muslims, Brahmans, and Manichaeans. Those that were maintained or enlarged in the Yuan dynasty are discussed in chapter 6. Möngke had lofty ambitions in the 1250s. They involved two of his younger brothers. For his agenda of conquest of China, including its Southwest (today Yunnan province), his younger brother Khubilai was put in charge around 1253. Six years later he would succeed Möngke as khaghan. Once the Dali kingdom in China’s Southwest was secure enough to be left to Uriyangkhadai (1201–1272), the son of Chinggis’s general Sübe’edei, who would continue the campaign into Southeast Asia, Khubilai focused on North China, part of the appanage awarded to him by Möngke, where he already was receiving advice from Chinese advisors about governing China. When rumors of Khubilai’s desires for aggrandizement reached Möngke, Khubilai returned to Mongolia, and Möngke led part of the successful attack on Sichuan in western China. Khubilai then refocused his attention on China. In the same decade, the third brother, Hülegü, was charged with bringing West Asia under Mongol rule. By 1257–1258 the ‘Abbasid Caliphate fell to Hülegü, who was halted by the Mamluks at ‘Ain Jalut in Egypt in 1259. By the time of Möngke’s death in that year, the conquest of the Korean peninsula was not quite achieved. Succession this time was bellicose, protracted, and ultimately not as successful as Khubilai probably hoped. Just as the retreat from Europe for the khuriltai that brought Möngke to power may have saved Europe, Khubilai’s return to Mongolia for this purpose may have given Song China another twenty years of survival. Arigh-Böke resisted Khubilai’s succession until his death in 1266. By that time Hülegü was the ruler of the Ilkhānate (1260–1335), territory centered in Iran that would be ruled by Hülegü’s successors until it began to dissolve in the 1330s. The Ilkhānate had a degree of autonomy from the Mongol empire

5

Introduction 

that Khubilai would center in China. In 1295 the Ilkhānate ruler Ghāzān converted to Islam. Architecture in provinces of today’s northwestern Iran that has direct relation to Chinese architecture is discussed in chapter 6. The Mongol empire was at its greatest expanse under Möngke.22 Khubilai received the title khaghan at Shangdu, the city that would be the second Mongol capital, where in the late 1250s he built a capital befitting a ruler of China with a design proposed by his trusted Chinese advisor Liu Bingzhong (1216–1274) (figure 1.16). In the 1260s, even as Khubilai’s capital Shangdu was underway, construction of monuments of Chinese statehood such as an Ancestral Temple were initiated at his greatest architectural achievement, named, literally, great capital, dadu, and pronounced Daidu.23 Liu Bingzhong also would propose the design on which it is based, a plan described in a text of the Zhou dynasty (figure 1.24). Many of the buildings considered of primary importance for the multimillennial history of China rose during Khubilai’s ascendency. The front gate and three halls behind it at the Daoist monastery Yonglegong in southern Shanxi were begun in 1247, while Möngke was still khaghan, and completed in 1262 (figures 4.1–4.7). Their interiors would be decorated in the next century (figures 4.8–4.11). Khubilai commissioned five observatories; two were completed. The one in Dengfeng, Henan, retains a building dated to 1279 (figure 3.4). Lhakang Chenpo, the main hall of Sa skya Monastery, about one hundred kilometers west of Shigatse, was built in 1268. Two years later Virtuous Tranquility Hall, the largest surviving building from the Yuan dynasty, was built for imperial sacrifices to the Northern Peak in Quyang, Hebei (figures 3.1–3.3). In 1279 the White Pagoda was constructed under the direction of Anige, a Nepali brought to Daidu during Khubilai’s reign (figure 6.13). The observatory in Dengfeng where Muslims from the Ilkhānate worked, the architecture of Tibetan-Nepalese Buddhism in Daidu, and continued construction of mosques before and after the fall of Southern Song in 1279 raise the question of change, specifically the impact of building systems from outside China on Chinese construction under Mongolian rule. By the end of the book, one of the important observations will be that the Chinese timber-frame system and brick pagodas changed little, even though Semu probably were among the craftsmen. Further, even though the Hanlin Academy, which historically had employed China’s leading scholars and officials, was restored in 1260, some Chinese who had hoped to live as

court officials fled southeast.24 They came to be known as “leftover subjects” (yimin), a population in self-imposed exile with little skill other than the education that qualified them for work in a Confucian bureaucracy. To a certain extent Khubilai addressed his succession during his life. In 1273 he awarded the appanage that included present-day Xi’an in Shaanxi to Manggala (d. 1278), his third son by his wife Chabui (Chabi) (d. 1281), who became Prince of Anxi. The next year, Khubilai appointed his oldest son Jingim (1243–1285) crown prince and gave Manggala lands that extended to Ningxia and the gold seal that entitled him as Prince of Qin. Khubilai’s attitude toward traditional Chinese values and religion perhaps can be described as practical. He invited two hundred men representing Confucianism to participate in debates at Shangdu, where he declared Buddhists the winners. Yet Khubilai had Confucian classics translated into Mongolian, and he established a bureau to write the history of the Liao, Jin, and Song dynasties, as well as the histories of previous Mongol rulers, according to Chinese practice.25 No architectural treatise was issued at his court or during the Yuan dynasty; we shall see that the Song building standards (Yingzao fashi), produced at the Northern Song court in 1103 and twice revised in the Song dynasty, were the basis for official construction across China in the Yuan dynasty. Khubilai’s court produced a legal code. He had his imperial preceptor, the Tibetan Buddhist ‘Phags-pa (1235–1280), design a script for the Mongolian language, which was presented to the khaghan in 1269 and was named for its creator. Khubilai extended the Grand Canal northward. In the 1270s Mar Yahbh-Allaha (Rabban Sawma) (1245–1317), an ordained monk of the Church of the East, was in Daidu, leaving in 1275–1276 for the West.26 Khubilai outlived Jingim. Again succession had to be won. The khuriltai was held at Shangdu in April of 1294. Jingim’s second son, Temür Öljeytü (1265–1307), became the next khaghan. Temür Öljeytü was not the expansionist Khubilai had been. His main military achievement was a limited peace with the Chaghatay khanate. Five significant buildings are associated with his reign. Little Copper Hall on Mount Wudang was made in 1307 (figure 4.58). The white pagoda at Tayuan Monastery on Mount Wutai was built in 1301 (figure 6.15). Two dated wooden pavilions, Ciyunge in Dingxing, Hebei, of 1306 (figures 3.9 and 3.10), and a stele pavilion at the Confucian Temple in Qufu, dated 1302, also survive from this reign. John of Montecorvino,

6

Introduction

the archbishop of Khanbaligh (Khan’s city, the Mongolian name for Daidu), built churches in Daidu in 1299 and 1305.27 The contest for succession after Temür’s death may have been the cause for construction of one of the most controversial monuments of Yuan China, a mausoleum in Guyuan, Hebei province (figures 6.7 and 6.8). The possible occupant is Manggala’s son, a grandson of Khubilai, whom Khaishan (1281–1311) would execute to eliminate competition for the throne. Khaishan would rule as eighth khaghan for only four years. During that time, he built the fourth and last Yuan capital, the central capital Zhongdu, north of Zhangjiakou and near Guyuan (figures 1.34–1.37). Khaishan also awarded his younger sister Sengge Ragi (ca. 1283–1331) the appanage Yingchang, about 150 miles northeast of Shangdu (figures 1.55–1.57), and he initiated construction for Tibetan Buddhism on Mount Wutai in Shanxi province. Khaishan was peacefully succeeded by his younger brother Ayurbarwada (1285–1320), who had supported Khaishan’s reign. Khaishan’s agreement with his brother, however, that his own son would succeed Ayurbarwada was not honored. Ayurbarwada’s son Shidebala (1302–1323) became the ninth khaghan. Four khaghans would rule during the next sixteen years. As many important buildings survive from this short period as from the reign of Khubilai. Two stand at Guangsheng Lower Monastery in Hongdong, Shanxi, the Buddha hall rebuilt in 1309 after an earthquake six years earlier and the Dragon King Hall rebuilt sixteen years after the earthquake (figures 4.13–4.15). In addition to being largely unaltered buildings of the Yuan dynasty, they are evidence that during this period a Buddhist hall and a Daoist hall could stand in adjacent precincts of the same religious complex. The main hall of Yong’an Monastery in Hunyuan, Shanxi, was built in 1315 (figure 4.31). In Zhejiang province, the Buddha halls at Yanfu Monastery and Tianning Monastery were constructed in 1317 and 1318, respectively (figures 4.41, 4.42, and 4.45–4.47). In 1320 the main hall of Zhenru Monastery was built in what is today Shanghai (figure 4.43 and 4.44). Shengyou Mosque in Quanzhou was built in 1310 (figure 6.1), and Phoenix Mosque in Hangzhou was built in 1314–1320 (figure 6.4). The civil service exams were reinstated in 1315, but they would not have a continuous history through the rest of the dynasty. Implementation of Chinese policies, especially concerning taxation, and the policies promoted by a man named Temüder (d. 1322) who had served the Mongols since Khubilai’s reign and urged aggressive taxation of China under Ayurbarwada, may

have played a part in the very short reign of Shidebala. Shortly after Temüder died of natural causes, Shidebala appointed Xiao Baiju (1298–1323), an opponent of Temüder, to the position of grand counsellor. On September 2, 1323, Xiao Baiju and the khaghan were murdered about thirty kilometers south of Shangdu on the journey back to Daidu for the winter. Shidebala promoted Buddhism as well as Confucian ideas of statecraft. He personally made pilgrimage to Mount Wutai, sent monks abroad to acquire scriptures, and had Buddhist texts written in gold ink. By this time Confucian temples, which had been standard in any Chinese city through history, were present in many cities of the Mongol empire. Shidebala ordered a Buddhist monastery built in every prefecture. It was to be larger than the existing Confucian temple.28 Yisün Temür (1293–1328), who had Shidebala killed, also would reign only five years. A grandson of Jingim, he had been in line for the throne for several decades. Upon his death at Shangdu, fierce fighting broke out between two brothers, a dispute that was as deeply one of steppe versus sown as those of eighty, seventy, and twenty years earlier. Between 1328 and 1330, the battle involved three men, Khoshila (1300–1329) and his younger half-brother Tugh Temür (1304–1332), both sons of Khaishan, and the powerful minister El Temür, who had served their father. Before succession was decided, the child Aragibag (1324–1328) was enthroned, Tugh Temür assumed the throne, Khoshila, the more legitimate ruler, assumed the throne, Khoshila was murdered, and Tugh Temür became the khaghan in 1330. He died in 1332. On his deathbed, perhaps reckoning with the fact that he had taken the throne from Khoshila, he declared that a son of Khoshila should be the next khaghan. That son, Irinjibal (1326–1332), died fewer than two months into his reign. Toghōn Temür, another son of Khoshila, became khaghan in 1333 at the age of eleven. He would be the last emperor of the Yuan dynasty. The most important monument of Toghōn Temür’s reign is Cloud Terrace at Juyong Pass of the Great Wall, about sixty kilometers north of the center of Daidu (figure 3.7). Its Tibetan Buddhist imagery and inscriptions in six different languages were carved in 1345. Yanghe Tower in Zhengding, Hebei, was built in 1357. It is well-recorded in drawings but does not survive. John of Marignolli (ca. 1290–1360) reached Beijing in 1342, stayed several years, and spent time in Quanzhou and Xiamen before leaving China in 1347.29 Churches he built during Toghōn Temür’s reign are no longer extant. The minaret of Huaisheng Mosque in Guangzhou also is dated to Toghōn Temür’s reign

7

Introduction 

(figure 6.2). Tombstones record the presence of Muslims and Christians in Daidu, Quanzhou, Xiamen, and Yangzhou during the final Yuan reign. As with the demise of any dynasty, many factors explain the fall of the Yuan. It has been argued that the beginning of the end was under Khaishan, who spent excessive amounts on construction and social programs, such as famine relief, that historically supported China’s population, but without additional conquest or other new sources of revenue, the dynasty could not sustain itself.30 The bubonic plague that swept westward across Europe is now known to have spread eastward as well. Insufficient taxation, the printing of paper currency without a metal standard to back it, colder than normal winters, the flooding of the Yellow River in 1344, the famine of 1342–1349 which, according to Yuanshi, led to cannibalism across North China, 31 and drought made it possible for successful rebellions in the South, and for the leader Zhu Yuanzhang (1328–1398) to rise from one of them and found the Ming dynasty (1368–1644). When Ming victory was imminent, Toghōn Temür fled to Shangdu and then to Yingchang, where he died in 1370. Yingchang fell to the Ming that year. The remnant of the Mongols moved northwest to Khara-Khorum, which was attacked by Ming armies in 1380. Some refer to the period 1368–1388 as Northern Yuan. Others view the endurance of Northern Yuan in Mongolia as several hundred years, until the rise of Later Jin (1616–1636), a polity founded by descendants of the Jurchen from whom the Manchus would rise to establish the Qing dynasty (1644–1912).32 This very basic history is intended to provide the names and events by whom and around which architecture was built, and to introduce some of the most important buildings of the period as well. The early decades, up to and during Khubilai’s reign, were the period when the majority of cities and towns were constructed. They are the subjects of the first chapter. The second chapter offers background for those cities and all the buildings that follow. It covers architecture the Mongols are likely to have seen in the conquest of China, both in the North under Jin rule and in the South after the Jin conquest of the North, as well as fundamental principles of the Chinese construction system used in both North and South. Examination of those principles and their long duration clarifies why only this introduction is guided by chronology: major distinctions in architectural style in China have more to do with patronage and status of the structure than with date. In chapter 3 we examine four superlative buildings constructed by imperial patrons and

a few others that can be described as civic architecture. None of the buildings highlighted in chapter 3 is religious. Chapter 4 is about architecture of the two religions that were native to China before the Mongols ruled there, Daoism and Buddhism, as well as temples of popular religion. Chapter 5 begins with tombs. The majority of tombs are Chinese, for corpses of the Mongol emperors were returned to Mongolia for burial at unmarked locations. To this day, none has been found. The study of tombs thus is where the book is able to turn to popular and personal architecture. The chapter probes more deeply into vernacular or popular construction through residences and gardens. It also investigates buildings for performance, which, although performances often were for the gods, could also accommodate popular audiences. Chapter 6 is about architecture of Tibetan Buddhism, which is usually patronized by the ruling family, and of Muslims, Christians, and Manichaeans. Here one can assess whether architecture of foreign faiths caused change or even had an impact on the Chinese building system. Rock-carved architecture is the subject of chapter 7. Stone remains from a ritual site also are examined here. Chapter 8 turns briefly to Korea and Japan to show that, as in the earlier times under Chinese dynasties, Chinese-style construction was present east of China in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. One of the most important aspects of Yuan architecture is that it offers the earliest opportunity to see so much architecture built by and for men and women whose names will never be known, those who patronized and stood in countryside temples, watched performances, and made decisions about what would surround them for all eternity. This information joins the intrigue of Mongol rulers and imagined scenarios of decision making that led to the buildings in which khans, Chinese, and West Asians sometimes stood together. Construction could neither begin nor be completed without patronage. No building of any significance—walled city, palace, large religious complex, or ceremonial site—could be built at any time in premodern China without government sanction, whether imperial, provincial, or more local. Land and materials for architecture had to be purchased, and human labor had to be paid or volunteered to build it. In the end, on-site inscriptions, contemporary texts,33 court documents, local records, from those produced at court for Ming or Qing Beijing that include information about Daidu to those for villages across China,34 excavation reports, and deeper surveys by seismic detection or drone should be consistent with

8

Introduction

the standing buildings and excavated sites of the Yuan period. Among all of them, the best documentation is for cities and architecture built by and for khans. A straightforward question that has been asked before still is addressed: What are the buildings that define Yuan architecture? This question is answered very differently from in the past. Today a book on Yuan architecture draws from dozens of cities, hundreds of freestanding structures, dozens of cave-temples, and hundreds of tombs, in contrast to three capitals, approximately twenty-five well-documented buildings, a just-emerging body of material on cave-temples, and a handful of tombs discussed in Chinese scholarly literature about Yuan architecture thirty years ago.35 Yuan is the first period for which one must select so carefully what to include and what not to include in a book of several hundred pages. Although the canon of Yuan architecture in an accurate narrative is decidedly different from the one in any previous study, other old questions of architectural history, periodization and evolution among them, cannot be ignored. Previous studies of Yuan architecture ask: Is Yuan the last phase in a sequence of non-Chinese construction, defined as Liao (Khitan)Jin (Jurchen)-Yuan (Mongol)? Is it more accurate to view Yuan as the termination of China’s great native architectural tradition, as seen through Song architecture and the treatise that guided imperial construction, Yingzao fashi? Or is Yuan an initial, short phase, the take-off point for Ming-Qing architecture, which has been categorized as a “period of rigidity”? Does this age of Mongol rule alter later Chinese construction? If ever there was a time when Chinese architecture should have changed, shouldn’t it have been when China was part of a pan-Asian empire ruled by Mongols? The pages that follow are guided by the physical evidence of architecture in today’s China and Mongolia that is reliably dated from the 1220s through 1360s. They will explain that it was Chinese architecture that Mongol and non-Mongol patrons built in the Yuan dynasty.

9

CHAPTER ONE

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

The Mongols first saw Chinese architecture on horseback. This clear and direct statement does not carry the meaning that the Mongols stormed across the grasslands until they came to a walled city, which they leveled to the ground, whose booty they took, and whose population they slaughtered or enslaved, even though films and illustrated books often include such a scene. The statement is not true even if one softens it to this: the Mongols first encountered Chinese architecture in the conquest of sedentary peoples to their south. The true statement is that long before plowed fields or granaries or armories came into view, Mongols saw ceramic-tile roof eaves, carved stone, and occasional pagodas, if no longer attached to or part of larger building complexes, then amid the remains of walled enclosures. The twelfth- and thirteenth-century peoples of Mongolia from whom rose the leaders and shapers of the Mongol empire surely saw Chinese architecture on horseback or while grazing, but the experiences occurred in Mongolia. They saw remains of eighth- and ninth-century Uyghur walled towns in Arkhangai and tenth- to twelfth-century walled towns of the Khitan from Arkhangai eastward to today’s border with Heilongjiang and Russia (figure 1.1). The walls bore signs of Uyghur, Khitan, and Jurchen construction, use, rebuilding, or augmentation. Pieces of statues that were surely Buddhist and countless shards and coins were testament to the migration and occupation of peoples from as far east as Korea and as far west at Kyrgyzstan.1 If a thirteenth-century Mongol found his way beneath a mound on the grasslands, he could have seen a brick tomb that might contain gold, silver, bronze, textiles, figurines, and coins he could hold in his hands, and whose walls might be covered with paintings (figure 1.2).2 The enceintes and subterranean tombs across eastern and central Mongolia challenge and force us to reassess paradigms of steppe and sown, or nomadic and sedentary, through which the Mongol conquest of people such as the Chinese is understood as a clash of civilizations. The use and construction of walled settlements and eventual use of cities suggest a pragmatic approach to conquest, settlement, and empire. Mongol horsemen saw glorious inhabited cities far south of Arkhangai. They destroyed or devastated some of Asia’s most magnificent cities: Alamūt, Aleppo, Baghdad, Bamiyan, Bukhara, Ghazna, Gurganj, Hamadan, Khara-Khoto, Khojend, Kiev, Lahore, Liegnitz, Merv, Mosul, Nishapur, Rayy, Samarkand, and Zhongdu of the Jin dynasty among them. Building systems other than China’s were in each of these cities except the Jin capital Zhongdu, where Mongol conquerors saw

structures elevated on platforms, supported by wooden frames into which complicated bracket sets interlocked at the tops of pillars, covered by tile roofs, and positioned in the centers of or around four-sided courtyards. Although much of the Jin city was destroyed, one part of their city, discussed below and in chapter 2, was saved. When it suited the Mongol grand plan, architecture might be spared, or it might be torn down only to have similar architecture constructed above it. China would provide the urban and architectural models for the cities that would rise under Mongol rule across Mongolia and to its south and east. Those cities and their architecture are the focus of this book, in addition to a few exceptional structures or sites in Iran exhibiting features that could only have been built through Chinese influence.

Spaces of the Empire: Envisioned, Political, Seasonal, Pleasurable No map used by a Mongol in the conquest of Eurasia survives. Perhaps maps were hand-drawn, or perhaps conquest proceeded according to scouting reports. The Mongol empire was mapped at least twice during the Yuan dynasty.3 Shilin guangji (Extensive record of a forest of affairs) is an illustrated, encyclopedic work first published by Chen Yuanjing (ca. 1200–1266) of Fujian province during the Southern Song dynasty (1127–1279). The earliest extant editions of this book are Yuan-period: a 1330–1333 printing by a private library in Jian’an, Fujian, that exists in several twentieth-century reprints; a less complete version published in Jianyang, Fujian, in 1340; and a version dated 1325 that survives in a reprint of 1699 in Japan.4 Nine maps in the section of Shilin guangji called diyu (geography) are followed by lists of geographical features such as islands, lakes, and rivers, and divisions of the empire.5 Examples are zhou (equivalent to provinces), bu (divisions of zhou), dao (divisions of bu), jing (capitals), and lu (circuits).6 The Great Wall is indicated on five of the maps, two of them showing all of China, two focused on the Northeast, including today’s Liaoning, and one that includes Shaanxi and the territory of Western Xia. Figure 1.3 is labeled “Da Yuan hunyi zhitu” (Map of the great Yuan), Da Yuan being the name Khubilai proclaimed for his dynasty in 1271. The map was first printed sometime after 1308, for the Yuan central capital Zhongdu, the city established by Khubilai’s great-grandson Khaishan, is plotted. A second of the maps on which the Great Wall is shown illustrates North China from

1.1. Remains of Wall of Karabalghasun, Uyghur period or later

1.2. Detail, tomb in Bayannuur, Bulgan province, Türk period, probably second half of seventh century

Shangdu Circuit

Zhongdu Circuit

1.3 Great Yuan Empire map. Shilin guangji, 1330s edition, 236. Zhonghua shuju reprint.

Shangdu

Daidu

1.4 North China map, from Liaoyang in the East to Shaanxi in the West. Shilin guangji, 1330s edition, 237. Zhonghua shuju reprint.

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

today’s Liaoning in the East to Shaanxi in the West (figure 1.4). It is one of the maps in Shilin guangji that uses double lines to encircle cities. Two cities receive this attention in figure 1.4— Daidu, here called the new city of the imperial capital (huangdu xincheng), and the capital, Shangdu. Other large cities, such as Chengdu and Bianliang, similarly are encircled with double lines on maps of the regions that include them. Bianliang, also known as Bianjing, was the capital of Northern Song (960–1127) and would become the Jin southern capital; later it was known as Kaifeng, One assumes the double lines designate importance. Besides the double-line enclosures, other features of the Shilin guangji maps are basic: single lines are territorial borders, mountains are shown frontally in layers, water is indicated by parallel lines in half-moon or more mountainlike formations, double-lines are waterways, and the Great Wall is a prominent series of upside-down, T-shaped parapets.7 One of the most compelling identifiers in Shilin guangji maps are bell-shaped structures with conical roofs. Believed to be portable architecture, or tents, they contrast timber-framed structures with straight sides and flat or slightly curved roof ridges (figure 1.5). The portable buildings are especially intriguing because the Jurchen were not tent-dwellers, and yet the buildings appear in the illustration of their central capital. The architectural diversity in this courtyard (at the bottom center of figure 1.5) within a multiple-courtyard setting whose main structures are along a north-south line, whose most important building is the central focus of the two-page image and (except for a pavilion in its own oversized courtyard in the top left) is a symmetrical set of spaces, captures a fundamental principle of Chinese space: layers of walls define China while individuality, from private family life to residence in a tent, can be concealed behind those walls.8 Between 1311 and 1320, Zhu Siben (1273–1333) mapped China in a work entitled “Yutu” (Terrestrial map). It does not survive, but it was the basis for Luo Hongxian’s (1504–1564) sixteenth-century Guangyutu (Extensive terrestrial atlas), the oldest extant comprehensive atlas of China. Zhu Siben mapped based on his travels, and therefore, he writes in his preface, he was not able to investigate the lands to the southeast, which one assumes to be today’s Vietnam and other parts of Southeast Asia, nor the lands north and west of Mongolia. It is unclear if he traveled in Mongolia, even though he included two maps, eastern and western, as well as a map of what he calls the Western Regions (Xiyu).9 Zhu’s maps were all drawn on graticules, but

1.5 Jin central capital, predecessor to Daidu, showing portable architecture in central front courtyard at bottom of illustration. Shilin guangji, juan 2/4a–b, 1330s edition, 305. 1.6 Western Mongolia map, showing major rivers and desert, Luo Hongxian, Guangyutu. Fuchs, The Mongol Atlas, plate 48.

13

Chapter One

the individual squares of the surface are not modules (figure 1.6).10 Luo’s maps, first published in 1561 in Zhejiang province, are believed to use a more sophisticated grid system. Mapping of the Yellow River and its sources had begun under Jurchen rule. Progress was made during the Yuan dynasty, but the project was not completed until the Qing period.11 No Yuan map plots the more than fifty walled enclosures documented to date by physical or archaeological remains. Joining the spaces to written records, one observes political, seasonable, and pleasurable purposes of Mongol-period walled spaces, for Yuan China was an empire with many centers: capitals, princely towns, seasonal retreats, and cities that had flourished in Song China. The capitals were by nature political. Princely towns were centers of appanages awarded to princes-of-the-blood or wives, daughters, granddaughters, and sisters of khans; some were strategically positioned, and all could be power bases. Seasonal centers were places where khans stayed for long or short periods outside the capitals. Some were xinggong (traveling palaces), the Chinese word for places of leisure outside the capital where government affairs could take place.12 The Yuan government maintained the pre-Yuan Chinese cities, many of them in southeastern China, because of goods they produced and tax potential. The southeastern cities often had large populations.

In 1235 Friar Julian of Hungary and other Dominicans had journeyed eastward beyond today’s Moscow in search of converts as well as information about the Mongols. Friar Julian would make a second mission. Neither had much success. In 1241 Mongol armies swept across Poland and Hungary. In 1242 they were within a few kilometers of Vienna. News of Ögedei’s death, in December 1241, forced Mongol leadership to return to the steppe for the khuriltai that would determine his successor. The Persian historian ‘Ala-al-Dīn ‘Atā-Malek Juvainī (1226– 1283) was in Khara-Khorum for a little more than a year from 1252 to 1253. He writes that artisans had been brought there from Khitai and from the lands of Islam, although where precisely in China or the Islamic world is not specified, and quickly built a city with four gates. He refers to the area inside the gates as a garden with a palace inside it and throne inside the palace, so one assumes the architecture stood in extensive, open grassland. Juvainī never uses the word “wall.” 16 By the time of his visit, Möngke (r. 1251–1259) was khaghan. Flemish Franciscan William of Rubruck’s account of his audience with Möngke a few years later takes place inside permanent architecture. Rubruck calls the place a palace and gives the important information that it was enclosed within a high wall and next to the city wall. “And the palace is like a church,” he writes, “with a middle nave and two sides beyond two rows of pillars, and with three doors to the south.” What he saw inside indeed has become legendary: “a great silver tree, and at its roots are four lions of silver, each with a conduit through it, and all belching forth white milk of mares. And four conduits are led inside the tree to its top, which are bent downward, and on each of these is also a gilded serpent, whose tail twines round the tree.” After describing the different drinks that flow from the conduits, he describes the angel at the top that, when humans blow on pipes concealed inside the tree, places the trumpet to its mouth, emitting a sound that alerts servants to refill liquor bowls.17 Upon arrival in Kharkhorin today, and at several points in the city, one sees replicas of this tree. Its fame is due as much to the craftsman Guillaume Boucher, the French goldsmith taken captive by the Mongols in Hungary, as to the complicated automaton itself. Friars John, Benedict, Julian, and William, Juvainī, and Boucher were names researchers and explorers had with them in the nineteenth century. In 1817 Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat (1788–1832) speculated on the location of Khara-Khorum.18 Iakinf (Hyacinth) Bichurin (1777–1853) mentioned the site in

Four Capitals From the 1240s through the 1360s the Mongols ruled from four capitals. Three were internationally known at that time and have been legendary ever since. Khara-Khorum Khara-Khorum was the first. Today Kharkhorin in Övörkhangai province, Friar John of Plano Carpini was within a day’s journey of Khara-Khorum in August 1246 when he was present as Güyük assumed the title of khaghan. Accompanied by Benedict the Pole, who had joined him in Breslau, the Franciscan John carried a letter from Pope Innocent IV, who was well aware of how close the Mongols had come to western Europe.13 The only architecture described by Friar John are three tents, the most spectacular of them Shira Orda. It was supported by pillars covered with gold plates and held together with golden nails.14 Europeans had made contact with the Mongols with limited success for ten years before then. Their missions to the Mongols up to this time can be described as primarily reconnaissance.15

14

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.7 Plan of Khara-Khorum showing Erdene Zuu in pink rectangle to the south. Radloff, Atlas der Alterthümer der Mongolei, plate 36.

1829.19 Already at this time, the monastery Erdene Zuu was the focal complex of Khara-Khorum. It was logical that exploration and excavation occurred there at the end of the century. A. M. Pozdneyev (1851–1920), accompanied by N. M. Yadrintsev (1842–1894), was there on October 6, 1892.20 Finding inscriptions that would later piece together as the Sino-Mongolian Stele of 1346, Pozdneyev suspected he was in Khara-Khorum.21 Two years later H. Leder found a sword among treasures that had been collected at Erdene Zuu, leading him to believe in the proximity of Khara-Khorum and Erdene Zuu.22 Vasilii Vasil’evich Radlov (Wilhelm Radloff) (1837–1918) published the first plans of KharaKhorum between 1892 and 1899 based on his expedition of 1891 (figure 1.7).23 Through the nineteenth century, those who saw and did limited probing at Khara-Khorum continued to use Father Antoine Gaubil, S.J.’s (1689–1759), Histoire de Gentchiscan, a work drawn from his translations of Chinese sources.24 In 1893 Henri Cordier (1849–1925) used Gaubil’s research as the starting point of a study of Khara-Khorum.25 Wladyslaw Kotwicz (1872–1944), who had studied with Pozdneyev in St. Petersburg, was in Khara-Khorum in 1912. He seems to have been the first, at least in writing, to query whether what he saw was dated to the thirteenth–fourteenth centuries. Finding fragments of the same stele as Pozdneyev and Radlov, Kotwicz was certain about one point: the inscription was the earliest use in Mongolian of the name Khara-Khorum for this place.26 Kotwicz further wrote that based on his reading of the

inscription, three types of Buddhist architecture were noted: suburghan, which he translated as either chaitya or stupa, süme, which he translated as temple, and keyid, which he translated as monastery. Nicholas (Nikolaus) Poppe (1897–1991), who was there in 1926, found enough fragments of Sino-Mongolian inscriptions to assemble four nearly complete texts. A year before Poppe’s visit, Paul Pelliot (1878–1945) had done an initial investigation of the Chinese and Mongolian inscriptions in which the name Khara-Khorum occurred.27 In 1933 Dmitrij Demanovich Bukinich led a Soviet-Mongolian expedition that conducted selective probing and produced a few maps. His important contribution to the study of KharaKhorum was that a focal building theretofore identified as both Ögedei’s palace and a Buddhist temple in all likelihood was a temple; his supposition was not confirmed until the twenty-first century.28 The major Soviet excavation of the twentieth century, in 1948–1949 under the directorship of Sergey Kiselev, did not agree with Bukinich.29 Kiselev’s team uncovered objects that he identified as Chinese from the Tang dynasty (618–907), arguing that Buddhists had inhabited the site at that time. The Kiselev report deemed Khara-Khorum a commercial and handicraft center, as well as a military camp, during the time of Chinggis, but its walled city and halls were not built until the reign of Ögedei (r. 1229–1241). A child’s wooden coffin with an emblem restricted to use by blood relatives of the khans was believed to be further evidence of occupation under Ögedei. Excavation yielded

15

Chapter One

building foundations that appeared to follow the Chinese gong 工 plan, named for the similarities between the character and the architectural arrangement. This scheme of three main halls, the front and back of which are longer across the front and either are joined by a corridor or have a smaller building midway between them, has a continuous history in China for three millennia, from ca. 1000 BCE through the plan of the Three Great Halls of the Forbidden City.30 Kiselev found enough evidence to postulate that the main hall of the main building complex was supported by regularly spaced pillars lodged into stone bases. He also published one of two stone tortoises, bases for imperial Chinese stele since the last centuries BCE, that often are poster images of Kharkhorin (figure 1.8).31 Excavated roof decoration included ceramic dragons. Animal-faced stone architectural members also were found. Architectural components, mural fragments, Cizhou ware, and blue-and-green porcelains all pointed to Chinese sources (figure 1.9).32 Reconstruction plans of the 1948–1949 excavation include inner walls of a palace-city within an outer wall, the enclosure of the outer city by a moat, and four corner towers of the outer wall. The evidence led Kiselev to suggest that every building had a Chinese-style roof.33 The dominance of a Chinese architectural system was more a general assumption by excavators in Mongolia at the time than based on the kind of definitive data that is required today for architectural reconstruction. Goods of non-Chinese origin also were found (figure 1.10). The non-Chinese objects were deemed evidence of the multinational population in Khara-Khorum under Mongolian rule described by Juvainī and William of Rubruck. Seventy years of research and excavation have clarified much that was mapped by Radlov, proposed by Kiselev, and surmised by late nineteenth- to early twentieth-century textual scholars. Since the 1950s researchers have been able to compare excavations with fragments of stele inscriptions seen by Pozdneyev and Radlov and studied by Kotwicz. What became known as the Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1346 was translated by Francis Cleaves (1911–1995) in 1952. His study confirmed much of what Kotwicz had proposed.34 The Chinese inscription on the stele was written by Xu Youren (1287–1364). It was published in three later Chinese sources.35 Using those sources and Yuanshi, five dates found in both the Chinese and Mongolian versions came to guide subsequent research: (1) Chinggis established KharaKhorum in 1220; (2) Khara-Khorum was walled, Wan’angong, described on the leaf of Guangyutu shown in figure 1.6, was

1.8 Stone tortoise base, Kharkhorin, Övörkhangai. 1.9 Porcelain excavated by Kiselev in 1948–1949 at Khara-Khorum. Chinggis Khaan Museum, Ulaanbaatar. 1.10 Porcelain, probably made in Persia, excavated by Kiselev in 1948–1949 at Khara-Khorum. Chinggis Khaan Museum, Ulaanbaatar.

16

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

built, and Buddhist architecture was begun during the Ögedei reign; (3) Möngke completed that Buddhist architecture in 1256, including erecting futu;36 (4) repairs to futu occurred in 1311; and (5) expansion and repair took place again in the period 1342–1346. In addition to Wan’angong, four buildings or complexes are named in the inscription: Zhihuansi, Mingrendian, Dagesi, and Xingyuanzhige. Zhihuansi is the Chinese translation for Jetavana Monastery, which was given to the historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama. Use of the name indicates basic literacy in Buddhist doctrine and history. One may extrapolate more: imperial sanction under Toghōn Temür for construction and perhaps even the ruler’s self-identification in the lineage of great royal patrons of Buddhist architecture. Knowing that his ancestor Ayurbarwada (r. 1311–1320) had sent men with experience in construction to Khara-Khorum to oversee the repairs of 1311,37 Toghōn Temür authorized spending more than 260,000 in paper currency on repairs.38 At the least, the inscription establishes that during this reign, the Yuan court was funding renovation in Khara-Khorum at a high level. The hall Mingrendian possibly is further confirmation of Toghōn Temür’s involvement from afar. Mingrendian is also the name of a building in the third of the capitals, Daidu, discussed below.

of a building façade, usually translated as bay, is a two-dimensional space that is assumed to extend behind a façade to the next set of interior pillars. Jian is a module with no absolute length. Bay will be used instead of jian in the rest of the book. As for the name, Dagesi, Great Pavilion Monastery, the first character, da, is standard. Many an important building or complex has “great” as the first character of its name. The character si indicates that the name refers to a building complex. Until the early CE centuries in China, si referred to a government office.42 The word came to be used in a Buddhist context by the third century, when it refers to a building complex where monks dwell, vihara in Sanskrit.43 By the Tang dynasty, si is used far beyond governmental or Buddhist architecture: qingzhensi is a mosque; Bosisi, literally Persian si, refers to both worship space for Zoroastrians and Church of the East Christians (that formed in the Aramaic-speaking regions east of Rome in the early CE centuries).44 By the Song dynasty, qingzhensi also is the Chinese word for synagogue.45 Whereas si when used alone can refer to a variety of building complexes, ge (Jap.: kaku), which translates as pavilion, is more precise: it must be multistory.46 Extant pavilions in East Asia do not have more than three stories, but just as this one is described as having five, the central pavilion at Shangdu, discussed later, may have had four. By the tenth century in China, the ge was increasingly important. Extant ge, such as Foxiangge (Buddha’s Fragrance Pavilion), also known as Dabeige (Pavilion of Great Lament), at Longxing Monastery in Zhending, Hebei province, first built in 971, rose twenty-four meters; it is the back hall in figure 2.36. Also by the tenth century, tall ge competed with Buddha halls and pagodas as the focal points of monasteries. All three types of buildings housed images, and all three could be the centrally located, dominant structure on the main building line of a monastery.47 Dule Monastery in Ji county of Hebei of 984 and Fengguo Monastery in Yi county, Liaoning, of 1019 also had ge on the main building line.48 Dagesi is named in the inscription of 1346 as the predecessor of Xingyuanzhige. The character zhi in this name is the clue that a monastery completed in 1311, which had been founded as futu, or with a pagoda, under Möngke, in all likelihood expanded to a monastery of which a focal, multistory structure was one part: the name translates as the ge of (zhi) (the religious complex) Xingyuan. Dagesi then probably should be translated as Monastery of the Great Pavilion.

Dagesi The most extraordinary structure in Khara-Khorum may not have been Guillaume Boucher’s tree, but rather a massive, four-sided building named futu in Xu Youren’s inscription.39 According to Xu, the futu had a five-story ge that rose three hundred chi above it. It was seven-jian-square, with Buddhist statues arranged on each side in accordance with specifications in sutras. The entire structure was covered with gold, emitting a dazzling radiance. The cornices (decorative, molded appendages) diminished in perimeter from wall to ceiling. Lacquer and stucco were among the decorative materials. The length of a chi changed with time; it was approximately thirty-five centimeters in the Yuan dynasty.40 Three hundred chi is an impossible height, but this kind of exaggeration in a description of a pagoda is not unusual in Chinese records; the pagoda at early sixth-century Luoyang’s most magnificent monastery, Yongningsi, is said to have risen the equivalent of one hundred meters.41 The high number probably indicates that the futu was the tallest building in Khara-Khorum and one that dominated the landscape. Jian, the interval between two pillars

17

Chapter One

Monastery in northern Hebei and Mongol royalty. In 1254 a Mongolian Buddhist master became an abbot at the monastery in Hebei, bringing with him golden garments to bestow on the bodhisattva inside Dabeige. The Buddhist master also repaired sutras and met with Buddhist devotees. The next year Arigh Böke, the youngest brother of Möngke, Khubilai, and Hülegü, donated funds to repair Dabeige and the Guanyin inside it.50 There is no proof that Arigh Böke ever saw Longxing Monastery. Still, a building this extraordinary could have attracted verbal attention beyond Zhending. Nothing like it except, perhaps, Xingyuanzhige, has been excavated or described from the 1250s in central Mongolia. Even if the broad and tall Dabeige in central Hebei was a source of inspiration for Xingyuanzhige, it cannot be called the model. The process of building a ge in a place where there is no evidence of a preexisting one requires translation.51 While the seven-bay sides in combination with documentation that a monk came here from Mongolia and patronage by a relative of the khaghan are compelling evidence of knowledge of a monastery in Zhending, the site confirms that a fundamental principle of Chinese construction was ignored, and thus either architectural translation, another source, and/or local decisions gave way to the structure. A Chinese hall or pavilion almost always has an odd number of bays across the front, of which the central bay is the widest. The side bays may be an even number, in which case the central two usually are the widest. In addition, the lengths of bays should decrease symmetrically from the center outward, so that the end bays of a building are the narrowest.52 Xingyuanzhige had a plan whose bay sizes alternate between large and small across all four sides. In her study of the excavation site, Christina Franken draws from several buildings that aided her understanding of what the structure might have looked like.53 Although it is a seventeenth-century building, the assembly hall (tsogchin) at the monastery Erdene Zuu is one of them (figure 1.12).54 Seeking comparisons among Chinese pavilions and pavilion-like buildings, Ciyun Pavilion in Dingxing, Hebei, dated 1306 and about 250 kilometers northeast of Zhending in the direction of KharaKhorum, is the only extant ge of Yuan China (figures 3.9 and 3.10). The pavilion-like Ten Thousand Buddhas Hall at Zhihua Monastery in Beijing, established in 1443, comes to mind because it is squarish and multistory.55 In these two structures, the central bay is the widest and other bays are of more uniform size. Ge probably is the structural type in the Chinese architectural

1.11 Plan of Xingyuanzhige, excavated at Khara-Khorum, Övörkhangai, between 2000 and 2006. After Bemmann, Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia, 539.

Xu Youren’s inscription relates that Xingyuanzhige is a seven-bay-square structure. Remarkably, this length is confirmed by excavation. The seven-bay structure thus has received much deserved attention.49 Beginning where Kiselev had worked, excavators confirmed, first of all, that there is no evidence of Kiselev’s supposition of a pre-Mongol-period site. This meant that murals he found probably date to the thirteenth century, and earlier artifacts, such as Song-period ceramics and mirrors, would have been transported to here. The seven-bay-square structure was 38 meters on each side, elevated on a 2-meter foundation, and enclosed by a wall made of unglazed brick that rose 1.60–1.80 meters on each side. Working outward from what Kiselev had identified as a stupa, archaeologists found four pilasters, one beyond each of its corners, and another three perimeters of granite pillar-bases; one circular base was probably a replacement. The pillars are believed to have supported a timber frame. Reliquary deposits were confirmed between the corner pillars and first perimeter of columns. Corner passageways led from this row to the corner of the next perimeter, the enclosure of unglazed brick tile (figure 1.11). The many ceramic roof tiles found at the site point to a Chinese-style roof. A survey of extant, squarish ge, specifically of seven bays across the front, from before the fourteenth century yields only the Dabeige at Longxing Monastery, mentioned earlier (see figure 2.36). It had been built to contain a seventy-three-chi (approximately twenty-four-meter) image of the bodhisattva Guanyin. Rarely can one suggest a building as a possible example of what something that survives only as a ground plan might have looked like. Here there is another association between Longxing

18

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.12 Tsogchin (Assembly Hall), Erdene Zuu, Khara-Khorum, Övörkhangai, eighteenth century with later repairs. Central of three buildings in photograph.

system that has the greatest number of features similar to the structure in Khara-Khorum. Like the assembly hall at Erdene Zuu, eighteenth-century architecture in China, including a pavilion, may be relevant in positing a structure similar to the great pavilion Xingyuanzhige.56 Dasheng Pavilion, built in 1755 at Puning (Universal Peace) Monastery in Chengde, Hebei, is three stories but, because of its exterior roof eaves, presents as a five-story building. Dasheng Pavilion is one of many politically motivated buildings constructed by the Qianlong emperor (r. 1735–1796) at his resort city Chengde, in this case to mark the final defeat of the Zünghar ruler of the Oirats, who came to Chengde to pay homage to him and whose homeland-style architecture was built by Qianlong at his resort to symbolize that those who worshipped in this building were now part of the Qing domain.57 Its model was at the monastery Samye in central Tibet, founded in the second half of the eighth century and believed to be Tibet’s oldest monastery. Today no building there dates earlier than the 1980s. According to records, the focus of Samye was a squarish, multistory building with a golden roof, elevated on a high platform and enclosed by a stucco wall.58 Extant architecture of the sixteenth century and later in northeastern Tibet and contiguous parts of today’s Inner Mongolia, Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan, such as the assembly hall at Ta’ersi (Kumbun) in Xining, Qinghai, is of this type.59 Excavators note an emphasis on corners at the Xingyuanzhige site, specifically a granite pillar that rises at each corner. This, too, is seen at Ta’ersi and may be an earlier example of carved, marble building corners used at the second Mongol capital Shangdu (figure 1.19). The feature is illustrated in Yingzao fashi.60

There is little doubt the structure uncovered inside the walls of the monastery Erdene Zuu, near pieces of the stele of 1346, is Xingyuanzhige. Its parts may have been gilded like the reconstructed version of the prayer hall one sees today at Samye Monastery. Whether the positions of interior images and paintings correspond to those of the mandala laid out inside the main hall of this monastery is harder to prove, but possible. The continued use of an already sanctified site by later sacred architecture, here Dagesi by the monastery Erdene Zuu, is a practice in many civilizations. The palace that Kiselev proposed was on this site in fact is northeast, outside the current walls of Erdene Zuu, near the southeastern side of the walled city whose boundaries Radlov closely approximated. One may never know if Toghōn Temür commissioned architectural detail as specific as gilding of Xingyuanzhige, or how his official Xu Youren learned about its features. Qianlong may or may not have seen himself in the lineage of Khara-Khorum’s patron Toghōn Temür, but he without a doubt viewed his role as emperor of China both as a patron of monuments to glorify the gods of Tibetan Buddhism and as someone whose patronage included Khara-Khorum. The most ambiguous four characters in Xu Youren’s inscription as it relates to architecture are zhong san qi men, literally, double three its gates. The combination of four characters is so puzzling that after consulting his colleagues William Hung and Yang Lien-sheng, Francis Cleaves proposed four possible configurations of the ground plan. My reading based on extant architecture suggests that the characters refer to the number of entrances on each side of the Pavilion of Xingyuan, either two or three, perhaps with three on the side of the main entry and two on the other sides; or perhaps, following Yang’s translation

19

Chapter One

court, which was then translated into Mongolian, reflects the literary, sometimes hyperbolic, style of Chinese court prose. It cannot be ignored, but its accuracy, even after thorough scholarly examination and based on as extensive of knowledge of architecture as one has, would be conjecture without excavation.61 Literary information survives for many sites or buildings discussed in this book, but the most accurate information comes from physical remains. Beyond the ge and palatial remains, other details of Rubruck’s account as well as the shape of Khara-Khorum’s wall are confirmed by excavation. Radloff’s map of 1891 has proved extraordinarily accurate (figures 1.7 and 1.13). The wall was about 1,320 by about 850 meters at its greatest extent, for a total perimeter of about 4,520 meters and an area of 1.33 square kilometers, and the city extended as much as 7 to 8 kilometers beyond these walls. The city did have the long north-south and east-west streets mentioned by Rubruck, more accurately described as northeast-southwest and northwest-southeast, that ran from outer wall to outer wall, with a wall gate where each street ended.62 The Orkhon River ran to the west. Craftsmen’s quarters were just south of the intersection of the two main roads, confirming Rubruck’s, Juvainī’s, and Marco Polo’s descriptions.63 Recent research also has confirmed a Muslim cemetery and has proposed reconstructions of the Muslim or Christian architecture mentioned by Friar William.64 Shangdu (Xanadu), All That Coleridge Described and More By comparison with Khara-Khorum, the second Mongol capital, Shangdu, was more closely connected to China. Chinese court officials, scholars, and literate men waxed eloquently about this city. It was labeled on maps in Shilin guangji (figures 1.3 and 1.4). As with Khara-Khorum, specific dates and rulers are associated with its early years: the rulers are Möngke and Khubilai. Also like Khara-Khorum, its walls were built during the Mongol period, but there is no physical evidence, not even shards, of a preMongol-period urban history. Different from Khara-Khorum, a Chinese official is associated with Shangdu’s design. In 1251, shortly after he became khaghan, Möngke put Khubilai in charge of the lands from which he would launch the final conquest of China. Khubilai had seen North China and probably knew something about its ways before the 1250s. He came to his task with an advisor of almost unique talents, Liu Bingzhong, whose Buddhist, Daoist, and Confucian education would combine with his ability in scientific learning. Khubilai

1.13 Proposed reconstruction of Khara-Khorum, Övörkhangai, showing roads in and out of the city.

of zhong as double, three entrances (on each side), each of them either two stories or with double-door panels. None of the above sheds light on the three architectural forms in the Mongolian inscription translated by Kotwicz. Suburghan cannot be both chaitya, which originates in South Asia as a rock-carved space and transforms into a freestanding structure in China and stupa; in all likelihood it is a stupa, the original futu. Süme, the second term, may translate as temple, that is, an individual temple for deities, but it might also translate as multitemple monastery. If “temple” refers to one structure that contains images, keyid, the third term, would then be monastery. One need not belabor the point being made here. The Chinese inscription written by an official at Toghōn Temür’s

20

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

tasked Liu, as mentioned in the introduction, to present designs for Shangdu, and later for Daidu. Located about twenty kilometers southeast of Zhenglanqi, today in Inner Mongolia, beginning in 1263 the place theretofore known as Kaipingfu would be referred to in Chinese as Shangdu, literally upper capital. Why it was called shang, upper, is not certain. The pre-Yuan North or Northeast Asian empires Parhae, Khitan, and Jurchen all had a five-capital system, the northern capital of which was named Shangjing, sometimes translated as upper capital. In all three cases, it is both the northernmost and the preeminent capital. This is true even though premodern Chinese maps often show the direction today referred to as north at the bottom. Through the history of Parhae, Liao, Jin, and Yuan, the shang capital was sometimes the most important but never preeminent through the duration of the dynasty or empire.65 Khara-Khorum and Shangdu would not be part of a five-capital system. Through the nineteenth century, Shangdu received much the same kind of attention as Khara-Khorum. In the thirteenth century it was visited and described by Marco Polo and Friar Odoric of Pordenone, who was there in 1320. Rashīd al-Dīn wrote about the city without firsthand knowledge. Three Yuan officials, Wang Yun (1227–1304), Yu Ji (1272–1348), and Zhou Boqi (1298–1369), had traveled with khaghans between the main capital Daidu and Shangdu; Yu Ji and Zhou Boqi wrote about it.66 Pozdneyev was there in 1892 as part of the expedition that brought him to Khara-Khorum. Shangdu is unique among all Yuan cities because of Samuel Coleridge’s (1772–1834) famous poem about the place he called Xanadu. In his preface of October 1797, to “Kubla Khan: or, a Vision in a Dream: A Fragment,” the British poet tells the reader that he was inspired to write upon waking from a dream. Coleridge had fallen asleep while reading a book written in 1613 by the British missionary Samuel Purchas (1577? –1626) about the history, religions, and places of the world told through travel stories. Purchas’s book included a short description of a palace built by Khubilai on “well-watered, flat ground” where the khan could hunt and enjoy himself and “in the midst whereof was a sumptuous house of pleasure, which may be moved from place to place.” Literary criticism challenges much of this story as apocryphal, questioning whether Coleridge would have had access to Purchas’s work, and whether it would have been the 1613 edition, which some believe was already scarce in the late eighteenth century.67 Nevertheless, the exoticism of Kubla Khan’s

pleasure-dome on the sacred river Alph, with infinite caverns and yet enclosed by walls and towers, with gardens and an incense-bearing tree, has captured Western imagination ever since.68 The incense-bearing tree may have been inspired by some account of Guillaume Boucher’s tree at Khara-Khorum, but the architecture of pleasure and walls and gates around Xanadu are corroborated by others who saw the city, as well as by much later archaeology. Purchas had learned about the intriguing movable palace and other details of Xanadu by reading Marco Polo’s account of his travels across Eurasia. This movable palace was “built of cane. . . . It is gilded all over and most elaborately decorated inside. It is supported by lacquer columns on each of which is a gilded dragon, the tail of which is attached to the column while the head supports the architrave of the hall, and the claws also are stretched out to support the architrave. The roof is formed of canes [bamboo] covered with varnish [glaze] so strong and excellent that no amount of rain will rot them. The canes are a good three palms in width and 10–15 paces in length. Each piece is made of two hollow tiles and every one is nailed down to prevent the wind from lifting it. The whole palace is built of these canes.  . . . [It] is so devised that it can be taken down and put up again with great celerity; and it can all be taken to pieces and removed withersoever the emperor may command. When erected, it is braced (against mishap from the wind) by more than 200 cords of silk.69

Polo’s Ciandu (Shangdu) also had a vast palace of marble cunningly worked out and of other fair stones, which with one end has its boundary in the middle of the city, and with the other with the wall of it. The halls and rooms and passages are all gilded and wonderfully painted with pictures and images of beasts and birds and trees and flowers and many kinds of things. . . . Round this palace is a wall . . . enclosing a compass of 16 miles and inside the park are fountains and brooks and beautiful meadows.70

A description this detailed remains as hard to ignore today as it was for Purchas or Coleridge.71 At the turn of the twentieth century, Shangdu was much more accessible to Europeans and Americans than was KharaKhorum. Explorers came in search of the ruins of Khubilai’s

21

Chapter One

1.14 Seated figure, Shangdu, Inner Mongolia, 1256 or later. Harada and Komai, Jōto, plate 61.

1.15 Seated figures, outside storage unit, Shangdu, Inner Mongolia, 2003

city. Stephen W. Bushell (1844–1908), physician to the British legation in Beijing from 1868 to 1899, who would eventually buy for the Victoria and Albert Museum and write books on Chinese art, was there in 1872.72 In 1903 C. W. Campbell was there.73 American geographer Lawrence Impey reached Shangdu in 1925.74 Japanese researchers also were exploring this part of Mongolia in the first decades of the twentieth century, not because of the enticement of Xanadu but rather because of its potential as a prize excavation site. Kuwabara Jitsuzō spent six weeks in the region with Shi Yeren and others when he was a foreign student in China in 1908. The report published three years later includes a few pages of discussion and photographs of remains of the south gate of the palace-city.75 Torii Ryūzō (1870–1953), who would be best known for his fieldwork at Liao sites, was in eastern Mongolia for ten months in the same year. The results of his short time in Shangdu became three pages of his report of 1911 on the region.76 Harada Yoshito (1885–1974) and Komai Kazuchika (1905–1971) would write several articles about the city in 1937; their report, of research sponsored by the government-based Far Eastern Archaeological Society, was published in 1941.77 The team had spent only a week at the site.

Through the twentieth century, pictures from that expedition would imprint the visual image of Khubilai’s first capital with enticing descriptions similar to those of Polo, Purchas, and Coleridge’s writings that had drawn the curious to the grasslands of Chahar in the previous two centuries (figure 1.14). Twenty-first-century remains of those images may be equally captivating (figure 1.15). Especially when it is called Xanadu, this place is synonymous with one of Earth’s most exotic locations. Different from Khara-Khorum, Shangdu is oriented just seven degrees east of north-south and thus probably was intended to follow the age-old Chinese principle of north-south orientation. It was a three-walled city, a feature of Chinese imperial planning since the sixth century.78 The nearly square outer wall was between 2,220 and 2,225 meters on each side; 4–6 meters of its height survive. The wall was made according to the Chinese rammed-earth (hangtu) technique, in use in China several millennia before the Mongol period. There were seven fortified openings in the wall, some straight-edged and others curved. Two pierced every side but the west, where there was only one. The two on the east and the eastern access point on the south were starting points of streets to the second walled enclosure,

22

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.16 Plan of Shangdu, Inner Mongolia, begun 1256. After Yuan Shangdu, vol. 1, fig. 2.

1. Huayansi 2. Qianyuansi 3. Auxiliary buildings of Qianyuansi (?) 4. Confucian temple 5. Kaiyuansi

which shared its eastern and southern boundaries with the outer wall. The second wall was named huangcheng, literally imperial city, and translated here as imperial-city when it refers to the second of three concentric enclosures. Historically in China, huangcheng includes offices of the government and is considered an administrative city. Like the outer wall, the imperial-city wall was made of rammed-earth, faced with stone. Also like the outer-city wall, huangcheng rose 4–6 meters and was 6–8 meters thick. Huangcheng was slightly longer north-south than east-west, the longer two walls measuring 1,410 and 1,415 meters and the shorter walls, 1,395 and 1,400 meters, respectively. Every gate but the northern one was joined by a street that led into the city. The southern east and west wall gates opened to a thoroughfare that crossed huangcheng in its entirety. The innermost enclosure was gongcheng, palace-city. It was about 605 meters by about 542 meters and about 10 meters wide at the base, narrowing to 5 meters at the top. About 5 meters of its height remain. The most formal entrance to the Shangdu palace-city was from its southern side via the thoroughfare that began at a part of the outer wall that was shared by huangcheng and continued northward to cut the southern portion of gongcheng roughly in half. East and west streets of gongcheng were positioned as continuations of

streets of huangcheng, although excavation did not identity east and west gates of the gongcheng wall. The east and west streets of the palace-city ended at an open area where the south-north thoroughfare ended (figure 1.16). Figure 1.16 is from the two-volume excavation report on Shangdu published in 2008 that is considered authoritative. The wall positions are remarkably close to where both Lawrence Impey and Harada and Komai drew them. Chinese archaeologists had reconfirmed Harada and Komai’s plan in 1973. Excavation almost every year between 1990 and 2003 made it possible to plot more than fifty structures in the city and identify more than one hundred tombs.79 If not in 1256, then subsequently, this capital was a Chinese imperial city. Palace-City By all accounts, Da’ange (Great Peace Pavilion) was the most important building in the palace-city (figure 1.17, #1). It is the only structure noted on the map of this part of Mongolia in Luo Hongxian’s Guangyutu (see figure 1.6). Da’ange is where the khaghan sat on his throne, held court, issued proclamations, met with officials and foreign visitors, and dealt with religious affairs.80 Wang Yun wrote that Da’ange soared 220 chi, which

23

Chapter One

1.17 Plan of palace-city of Shangdu, Inner Mongolia. After Yuan Shangdu, vol. 1, fig. 4.

1. Da’ange 2. Muqingge 3. Shuijingdian 4. Xiangdian 5. Imperial Preceptor Temple

converts to just under 70 meters.81 The height is possible. The designation ge indicates only that it had multiple stories. The tallest extant timber structure, a pagoda built in Shanxi’s Ying county in 1056, is 67.31 meters, more than 50 meters of which is the timber frame.82 Begun in 1266 and completed in 1271, Da’ange was the central structure in the palace-city.83 The date is as important as the location. Although writing nearly seventy-five years later, Zhou Boqi said that Xichun Pavilion of Bianliang, the Northern Song capital that fell to Jin in 1127, had been dismantled so that its pieces could be used in Khubilai’s Da’ange.84 In 1152–1153 Jin had moved buildings and parts of the former Song capital to their central capital, Zhongdu, the name used by the Mongols from 1215 to 1272 for the city that would become Daidu.85 If Zhou is correct, the move of a building directly to Shangdu confirms both that the entire Northern Song capital had not been destroyed by Jin, who used it for their southern capita, and perhaps even more

significant, the statement indicates that the builders of Shangdu viewed their city in the lineage of Chinese capitals. A seventy-meter pavilion also should indicate that Khubilai or those who advised him did not plan to abandon Shangdu after Daidu was built. History confirms this. Khubilai would receive the formal surrender of Southern Song at Shangdu, not Daidu, in 1279.86 In 1294 China securely in Mongol hands and Daidu having been the capital for all of Khubilai’s reign, his grandson and successor Temür ascended the throne in Da’ange at Shangdu.87 Most of his successors would formally succeed to the throne there as well. Decoration of Da’ange continued after the lives of Khubilai and his immediate successor. The court painter Wang Zhenpeng (ca. 1280–c. 1329) is said to have worked there.88 A tower at the crossroads of a city’s two most important thoroughfares is yet another indication that the plan of Shangdu was based on Chinese precedent. This position had been reserved

24

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

for a multistory structure since the Han dynasty (figure 1.18).89 It would again be important at Yuan Daidu. Excavation indicated that a smaller building may have stood on the thirteenth-century foundation at Shangdu, perhaps a post-Yuan structure used for Tibetan Buddhist ritual.90 Excavation also concluded that Da’ange was a timber-frame building and one of the Shangdu buildings in which marble corner insets with five-claw dragons, peonies, chrysanthemums, and lotuses were installed. Examples survive (figure 1.19). Evidence of a wooden framework supports Zhou Boqi’s description.91 Rashīd al-Dīn also was aware that Shangdu was centered on a structure at the crossroads. He writes, “They also built a smaller palace . . . in the center of the town and have constructed a road from the exterior to that interior one so that he [the khaghan] can enter the [interior] qarshi [palace] by that private thoroughfare.”92 In 2010 Wang Guixiang proposed a reconstruction of Da’ange.93 He took two facts as starting points: Xichun Pavilion from the Song capital Bianjing had indeed survived the Jin occupation of that city and was moved to Shangdu, as Zhou Boqi had written in his poem, and Da’ange had to be a building befitting the purposes of imperial audience and enthronement. Both premises point to a structure whose details exhibited the highest building standards of Song China, as expressed in the construction manual Yingzao fashi.94 A five-bay square, four-story structure with two-bay projections on the two sides was proposed. If no interior columns were eliminated, the building was supported by fifty columns, as a Song text describes the placement of pillars in Xichunge. No text specifies that the central bay of the front and back sides was widest, the most standard arrangement of a five-bay structure. Wang’s reconstruction posits that all five bays were 24 chi, or 7.56 meters. He proposes that Da’ange had four stories with three mezzanine levels. If a comparison can be made with Xingyuanzhige at Khara-Khorum, it is that a multistory building was the most spectacular structure at the first two Mongol capitals. Muqingge, also known in contemporary accounts of Shangdu as Muqingdian (hall), spanned about 130 meters along the north wall of the palace-city (figure 1.17, #2). Its thirty-two faces present as a central structure with projections at the two front sides. The central area was on the highest foundation. That height may be the source of Zhou Boqi’s line that the ge in the north, lofty like a peak, was named Muqing.95 The inverted-U shape recalls the arrangement of Hanyuan Hall of the Tang palace-complex

1.18 Ge at the crossroads, relief sculpture from Eastern Han tomb, Sichuan. Chengdu University Art Museum. 1.19 Marble corner inset, excavated at remains believed to be Da’ange, palace-city, Yuan Shangdu, Inner Mongolia.

25

Chapter One

Daminggong in the capital Chang’an, the building in which the emperor held audience and enacted rituals equivalent to those of Shangdu’s Da’ange. The Tang building is assumed to have had multistory towers known as que projecting in front of each side.96 The lofty projections may be the source of the designation ge. The inverted-U shape also is used in Wumen (Meridian Gate), the entrance to the Forbidden City in Ming and Qing times and to the Palace Museum today. We shall see it at the entrance to the Daidu palace-city, discussed below. The most unusual feature of the Muqing structure is that there is no evidence of an entry. In 1937 Japanese excavators found a Tibetan Buddhist temple here. Its date could not be determined. The Muqingge structure may have been built at the same time as the palace-city wall to which it is adjacent, in the first ten years of city construction when Da’ange also was built. The first record of Muqingge, however, is in 1321 when Xiao Baiju, grand-councilor-of-the-left and, as we read in the introduction, one of the most trusted advisors of Shidebala, reported a plot to the ruler in that hall.97 The next record is in the first lunar month of 1353 when the structure was rebuilt under Toghōn Temür. At that time it is said to have had several hundred bays of interconnected rooms.98 Following those repairs, according to Xijinzhi (Record of Xijin [the Beijing region]), Muqingge, recorded as opposite Da’ange, was a three-part, mountain-shaped hall whose sides towered in the clouds.99 The exotically named Shuijingdian (Crystal Hall) described by Marco Polo, as mentioned earlier, also is described in one of Zhou Boqi’s poems. Zhou writes: “Icy magnificence, snowy wings spreading out from east to west, the jade seat rises as an eight-sided wind.” According to both Zhou and Sa Dula, the khaghan banqueted and conducted government business in this hall, including making official appointments.100 No text states where it was. One knows only that Shuijing Hall was in the Shangdu palace-city.101 Because of the word “crystal” in its name, archaeologists have suggested its ruins may be approximately one hundred meters northeast of Da’ange (figure 1.17, #3). The mound beneath this site is three meters high, the second highest after the one under Muqingge. It measures thirty-eight by twenty-eight meters. A circular foundation of fifteen meters in diameter is near the center. Water remains there today. Xiangdian (Fragrant Hall) is recorded in Yuandianzhang (Statutes of the Yuan) as a building that stood behind Da’ange in 1313.102 Yuanshi says it was repaired in 1325.103 Excavators suggest

it is behind Da’ange to the east, and that the two buildings may have been connected (figure 1.17, #4). The position suggests it could have been a private prayer chapel for the khaghan and his family. Zhou Boqi also wrote a poem about Xiangdian in which he describes paintings of dragons on the walls.104 Xiang may be a reference to the Buddha’s fragrance, used in the same context as other xiangge, such as Daxiangge, the tenth-century pavilion at Longxing Monastery in Hebei.105 Other hall names are mentioned in writings but have not been found in stele inscriptions. Renshou Hall, Ruisi Pavilion, Hongxi Hall, and Chongshou Hall are named by Zhou Boqi but not described and of unspecified purpose.106 Zhou’s choices of dian (hall) or ge for a structure are not clear. Nor are they consistent with designations for buildings in Wang Shidian’s (d. 1359[?]) Jinbian (Forbidden cities), in which he writes that the Renshou and Ruisi structures were tents.107 Wang Shidian’s inclusion of Shangdu and six of its buildings in his history of Chinese imperial cities and their buildings is more evidence that Khubilai’s first capital was believed to be in the lineage of Chinese imperial cities. So far, only the locations of Da’ange and Muqingdian are considered certain. Yet the fundamental Chinese principle of foursided enclosure (the courtyard) is confirmed in every sector of the Shangdu palace-city. No gong-configurations are confirmed. Nor is it possible to determine if the focal building of a courtyard, even if its elevation platform, pillar placement, bracket sets, and roof are intact, was residential, religious, ceremonial, or for another purpose, for the Chinese timber frame is adaptable. One has to ask whether permanent architecture would have been for any purpose other than government, ceremony, or religion, and if the Mongol ruler and his family lived in impermanent architecture inside the privacy of Shangdu’s walled enclosures. Like the tall building at the crossroads, impermanent architecture inside walls anticipates Daidu. Imperial-City Building complexes also were outside the palace-city but in the imperial-city. In 1937 Japanese archaeologists identified the remains of two of them, Huayansi and Qianyuansi, in the northeast and northwest corners of the imperial-city, respectively.108 Huayansi, or Avatamsaka Monastery, was, as its name informs us, Chan Buddhist. When it was built, a spring is said to have bubbled beneath it, so that excessive expense went into preparing the foundation. Ten years of repairs and

26

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.20 Airview of remains of Huayan Monastery, huangcheng, Shangdu, Inner Mongolia. Yuan Shangdu, vol. 2, colorpl. 62.1.

expansion occurred under Ayurbarwada. Shidebala had a workforce of 3,500 conscripted laborers build a front hall in 1321.109 In the same year, he built a golden pagoda with a reliquary at Shangdu.110 Two years later, 6,200 conscripted laborers repaired Huayansi.111 Huayansi occupied about 300 meters east-west by 200 meters north-south. Its main buildings north and south of each other were enclosed in a central area of 164 meters north-south by 92.5 meters east-west (figures 1.16, #1, and 1.20). The front of the main buildings had a roughly cruciform plan, approached from the center by a short staircase known as tadao and perhaps with a corridor behind, a narrow passageway that led to but did not join a back hall. This is the closest arrangement to the gong plan in Shangdu. Remains east and west of the main buildings probably were the standard structures of a major monastery, such as eating halls and dormitories for monks. Tricolor-glazed sculpture and earthenware statues were found here in 1937, marble ao-headed pieces were found in 1973, and more marble architectural pieces were found in later excavations.112 Qianyuansi has a founding date of 1274. It is said to have been based on the Daidu monastery named Da Huguo Renwangsi, constructed by the Nepali Buddhist Anige, whose pagoda design in Beijing is discussed in chapter 6. Because of the association with Anige, it is assumed that Tibetan Buddhism was practiced at Qianyuansi and that the plan of the Shangdu monastery may shed light on other monasteries designed by Anige. In 1319 Ayurbarwada gave ten thousand in paper currency for repairs.113 This was followed by funds for repairs by Yisün Temür in 1325 and by Toghōn Temür in 1347.114 Qianyuansi was a two-courtyard, wall-enclosed monastery, 265 meters north-south by 132.5 meters east-west, approached from the south (figure 1.16, #2). A nearly square structure, 45 by 40 meters and elevated on a 4-meter foundation, was close to the

center of the southern courtyard. Stele pavilions were symmetrically placed to the right and left in front of it. The back hall contained a cruciform structure, also with small, symmetrically positioned halls in front to its right and left. Auxiliary buildings or perhaps monks’ quarters may have been west and south of the enclosure or in a larger area to the northeast (figure 1.16, #3). Japanese archaeologists had known where to search for Huayansi and Qianyansi because since the Yuan dynasty eight monasteries had been associated with the design for Shangdu presented by Liu Bingzhong. Born in Liaoning, Liu was descended from a family that had served Liao and Jin as officials. He met Khubilai in 1239 at Khara-Khorum when he accompanied the Chan Buddhist master Haiyun (1203–1257), who had received an invitation from Khubilai to come as a spiritual advisor. Haiyun’s was the first Chan delegation from China to accept an invitation from Khubilai. Liu is said to have had a strong Classical Chinese education, adhered to Confucian values, maintained a deep commitment to Buddhism, and had experimented with Daoism.115 Khubilai is said have been impressed by Liu’s knowledge. When Haiyun returned to China because of old age, Liu stayed in Mongolia. He became one of Khubilai’s closest advisors, eventually holding a position equivalent to grand counsellor. Through his recommendation, other Chinese with traditional educations came into Khubilai’s service, including some who would work with Liu at observatories. In 1256, when Khubilai tasked Liu with the design for this city from which he would complete the conquest of China, Liu proposed a plan with eight monasteries, whose positions would represent the eight fundamental trigrams of Yijing (Book of Changes).116 Assuming the monasteries were placed at the four cardinal directions and the four corners, Japanese archaeologists believed they had found the temple complexes in the northeastern and northwestern corners in 1937 and thus associated them with the trigrams gen

27

Chapter One

and qian, respectively. Twenty-first-century excavation both confirmed those locations and revealed the information about their plans presented here. Because Shangdu was built anew, the verification of eight monasteries is exceptionally important. Such explicit symbolism from ancient China had never before been so clearly invoked in the plan of a Chinese imperial city. Khubilai, a non-Chinese aspirant to the Chinese throne, was the first known builder of a capital based on a text whose origins were in the first millennium BCE. Confucianism had an architectural presence in Shangdu almost from the beginning: Khubilai ordered construction of a Confucian temple in 1261. Repaired in 1267 and expanded in 1313 and again in the 1330s, the temple was set in the southeastern corner of the imperial city, a location identified through a stele and other written descriptions (figure 1.16, #4). By the 1330s Shangdu also had a Kuizhangge, presumably a multistory building because it is named ge, whose counterpart in Daidu, discussed below, was a center of Confucian learning and the arts and a repository of the imperial painting collection.117 Roughly symmetrically placed remains of about 119 by 57 meters in the southwestern corner of the imperial-city are identified as Kaiyuansi (fig 1.16, #5), a monastery for the practice of Tibetan Buddhism. Already a powerful monastery under Khaishan, Kaiyuansi was presented with a land allotment by Ayurbarwada about twice what he gave to Huayansi. Shangdu also had temples to Laozi and a temple to Lü Dongbin, the patriarch of Quanzhen Daoism, founded in 1277 in the southwestern part of the imperial-city. It was roughly symmetrical to the Confucian Temple, and temples to the city god and the Three Legendary Emperors.118 All of them, except the temple to Lü Dongbin, who became popular in the thirteenth century, would be expected in a pre-Yuan Chinese city and would exist at Daidu. ‘Phags-pa, whom Khubilai had appointed guoshi (state preceptor) in 1260, is best known as the Tibetan monk who designed the script named after him at Khubilai’s request in 1269. He subsequently became dishi (imperial preceptor), the person responsible for the education of imperial princes. In 1320 Shidebala, a devout Buddhist, ordered the construction of a ‘Phags-pa hall in every prefecture, no doubt based on the concept of temples to Confucius that had proliferated in China long before. According to Yuanshi, in 1321 a mosque was destroyed in Shangdu so that a Temple to the Imperial Preceptor could be built in its place.119 It was repaired two years later, at the same time as Huayansi,

in the aftermath of destruction due to political turmoil.120 In the Taiding reign period (1323–1328) of Yisün Temür, an image of ‘Phags-pa was placed in every imperial preceptor temple.121 Knowing the Imperial Preceptor Temple was in the southwestern part of the palace-city, archaeologists believe it was the three-courtyard complex that extended about 128 meters eastto-west with a main hall with a U-shaped altar in the middle courtyard (figure 1.17, #5). Building foundations were uncovered outside the imperial-city yet inside Shangdu’s outer wall, but they were rare. This expanse of land, fully half the outer walled area, was primarily parkland. Known as the western inner (xinei) because it was inside the outer wall to the west of the imperial-city, and with a sector called north parkland (beiyuan) due north of the imperial-city, this is the area described by Marco Polo as follows: Fountains and rivers of running water and very beautiful lawns and groves enough. And the great Kaan keeps all sorts of not fierce wild beasts which can be named there, and in very great numbers, that is harts and bucks and roe-deer, to give to the gerfalcons to eat and to the falcons, which he keeps in mew in that place, which are more than two hundred gerfalcons without the falcons. And he always goes himself to see them in mew at least once every week. And the great Kaan often goes riding through this park which is surrounded with a wall and takes with him one tame leopard [actually a cheetah] or more on the crupper of his horse, and when he wishes he lets it go and takes one of the aforesaid animals. . . . And he does that often for his pleasure and for amusement. And certainly this place is so well kept and adorned that it is a most noble thing of great delight.122

Polo’s description of Yuan Shangdu as a summer hunting resort together with Coleridge’s image of Yuan Shangdu as Khubilai’s pleasure dome and names of impermanent structures in Wang Shidian’s above-mentioned writings support an image of Mongols as lords of the grasslands. Three walls, the symbolic façade of Chinese imperial urbanism, and the symbolism of eight points of religious architecture around the palace-city challenge this image. In the late 1250s and early 1260s, Shangdu was the crucial setting for the Mongol drive into China. Permanent architecture would be maintained and continue to rise thereafter, for even as Mongol rulers returned annually for several months of hunting, they held court, and their officials, thousands of whom traveled north with them, administered

28

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

the affairs of government in this summer capital for the duration of the empire. The biographies of the khaghans in Yuanshi record activity from coronations to occasional royal murders in or around Shangdu. In the 1990s not only did archaeologists confirm that Shangdu was a full-service city for rulers and those who supported the activities of the government, physical evidence confirmed shops, artisans, domesticated animals, residential architecture, restaurants, hostels, and granaries, and postal roads coming in and out. Much of the evidence for the sedentary aspects of life came from excavations in four districts known as guan where population that did not live in the walled city worked and resided, and from tombs. Tomb architecture at Shangdu is discussed in chapter 5. The four guan are neither named nor described as such in premodern literary sources, but one does read of horse, sheep, and cattle markets, which led archaeologists not only to search for them but to understand how a city like Shangdu functioned, that is, where the population who must have been there yearround lived, worked, and were buried. The eastern guan extended about 2,000 meters north-south by 1,300 meters east-west east of the outer walls it shared with the imperial-city and outer city. It is believed to have been largely residential, with large courtyards that may have served officials as well as small housing units and storehouses. The southern guan spanned about 1,500 meters east-west by 800 meters north-south south of Mingde Gate, south of the southern entrance to the outer and imperial-cities. Architectural remains are divided into three groups in the west and one in the east. Nearly one hundred objects were excavated in the southern guan, most of them pottery, porcelain, iron, and stone that would have been used in daily life. The shapes of vessels suggest restaurants and tea shops were here. West guan shows evidence of markets as well as residences and government offices. North guan stretched about 2,500 meters east-to-west approximately 2 kilometers north of Shangdu’s outer wall, as far west as the north side of the west guan. In addition to the quartering of troops, granaries were here. Every excavated area with architecture formed around courtyards.123 Finally, Shangdu is associated with a legend, and Liu Bingzhong seems to have been behind it.124 Liu is said to have told Khubilai that a dragon occupied a pond at the proposed construction site, and that the dragon would have to be exorcised before building could commence. When the site was checked just before construction was to begin, the dragon had disappeared. Still, an iron rod with a triangular Buddhist pennant was erected

west of the city, presumably to keep the dragon in check. A stone with two circular holes and an iron rod excavated west of the city on Hadengtai Hill have been proposed as the pole and its base erected by Liu Bingzhong.125 A ceremonial flagpole where a festival was performed is described in a poem by Zhou Boqi and in Yuanshi.126 Daidu, the Ultimate Yuan Capital The capital built by and for Khubilai Khan was 28,600 meters in perimeter, more than six times the length of the outer wall of Khara-Khorum and more than two and a half times the size of Shangdu’s outer wall, so much of which contained parkland. The Mongolian name of Daidu was Khanbaligh (Khan’s city), emphasizing the direct association with Khubilai and all future Mongol rulers. Although more of Shangdu’s outer wall survives than Daidu’s and the open space in and around Shangdu makes it easier to excavate, the locations of every wall piece, gate, street, four-sided-enclosed neighborhood, and building in Daidu are better documented and have been known much longer than their counterparts at Shangdu or any earlier or later Mongol city; documentation is as specific as the number of bays in buildings. Daidu is further distinguished among cities where the Mongols built by its almost continuous urban history since the second millennium BCE. Except for three decades at the end of the fourteenth century and several decades in the first half of the twentieth century, cities on or around Daidu have been the primary capital of China from the twelfth through the twentyfirst century. Khubilai’s great capital was built as the supreme expression of Chinese rule by a foreign empire that stretched beyond Asia. Its plan is the reason the plan of Beijing in the Ming and Qing dynasties and the global megapolis where political decisions of China are made today are as they are. Khubilai khaghan’s legacy is the city of Beijing. As part of a global empire, Yuan China has been a case study through which to ask whether those involved in art-making, whether architecture or other arts, were as global. Specifically, one asks if non-Chinese artisan names mean non-Chinese construction techniques, or if those with Persian or Arabic names, for instance, who worked at Daidu worked in Chinese techniques. These questions about the Yuan labor force are directed at Daidu as opposed to earlier capitals because this city is the farthest south among Yuan capitals and because of the amount of permanent architecture constructed there. Daidu’s location also has meant that publications based on excavations are produced

29

Chapter One

The second source is Gugongyi lu (Record of remains of the imperial palaces), a firsthand account published in 1396, approximately twenty-five years after Xiao Xun wrote it. Xiao was an official in the Board of Works, the Chinese government bureau responsible for court construction. According to the preface, he was sent north “in the early years” of the Ming dynasty as part of a delegation from the first Ming emperor Hongwu (r. 1368–1398). They were charged with destroying Khubilai’s imperial city, referred to in the name of the text as gugong, “former palaces,” which included palaces as well as other Yuan imperial institutions. Xiao Xun was to record what remained before destruction. For reasons that are unclear, Xiao gave his manuscript to his friend Wu Jie, who copied it in 1396, the date assigned to it, and published it privately. There are two known versions, one in Zhu Yizun’s compilation of records of Beijing, Rixia jiuwen (Annotated writings of the capital, a daily record), of 1688, and one in Zhibuzuzhai congshu (Collected writings from Know Your Deficiencies Studio), edited and published by Bao Tingbo in 1776. The latter version is the one used here.132 Yu Ji, one of the most influential among 113 officials who served in the above-mentioned scholar’s academy Kuizhangge established in 1329 under Tugh Temür to promote Confucian learning at Shangdu, also described Daidu.133 A chapter of his Daoyuan xuegulu (Record of studying the past in Daoist Garden) is devoted to it.134 Qing court-sponsored studies of the city, such as Shuntianfu zhi (Record of Shuntian prefecture [of which Beijing was part]) and the above-mentioned Rixia jiuwen, also have sections on Daidu.135 By the Qing period, foreign accounts, not just Marco Polo’s and missionary descriptions but works by China scholars, had been published. Some of the authors also were clergy, such as Emil Bretschneider (1833–1901), who wrote Archaeological and Historical Researches on Peking and Its Environs (1879); Alphonse Favier (1837–1905), author of Peking: histoire et description (1897); and Joseph Edkins (1823–1905), who wrote Description of Peking (1898).136 These works would be followed by countless books about Beijing.137 One begins with Marco Polo because he is an important reason Daidu is so widely known and because he also had been in Shangdu. He was in China from around 1271 to around 1292, much of that time in Daidu, which he calls Cambaluc, or, depending on the translator, a variant of that spelling, from the Mongolian Khanbaligh. Polo’s writing confirms that he was

1.21 Heyi Gate, Daidu, Beijing, in 1960s. Kaogu, no. 1, (1972), plate 8.

by archaeologists, architectural historians, and scholars of China’s major, national, Beijing-based research institutions.127 Almost every accessible square meter inside the fifty-four wards of Daidu has been studied.128 Palaces, ritual structures, religious architecture, markets, residential lanes and alleys (hutong), mansions, kilns, drainpipes, decorative architectural details, and ceramics have been uncovered.129 A gate of Daidu survived into the twentieth century; a small section of its wall survives today (figure 1.21).130 Daidu receives more attention than any other city discussed in this book, and yet coverage is more selective than for any other city. In addition to Yuanshi, which provides information about architecture in biographies of emperors and officials as well as in other sections such as those devoted to geography, Wang Shidian’s Jinbian, in which information about Shangdu’s buildings is found, local records, encyclopedias, and three fourteenth-century treatises describe buildings of Daidu in detail. Tao Zongyi (1316?–1396?) wrote a chapter about the buildings in Khubilai’s palace-city in a miscellany (random notes/jottings), a literary genre known as biji, compiled in 1366 with the title (Nancun) Chuogenglu (Record while resting from the plow by Nancun [“Southern Village,” Tao’s sobriquet]). Tao never saw the capital. The written sources he used for this chapter are not known, yet details he mentions have guided discussions and reconstructions of Yuan architecture ever since. In addition to the chapter on the buildings of Daidu, Tao’s work includes a chapter on the architecture of Bianliang.131

30

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

inside the capital and some of its buildings and had opportunities to observe Khubilai.138 Important information from Marco Polo’s account is that the khaghan spends three months of the year in Daidu (December, January, and February); Daidu is a city of three concentric walls; Khubilai’s palace is on the eastern side of the city (where the sun is high at midday); the outer wall of the city is eight miles on each side and surrounded by a moat; troops are stationed inside that wall; the middle wall is six miles on each side with three gates in each wall, the middle ones for the khaghan, and four corner towers; the innermost wall is one mile on each face, also with four corner towers and four gates; arsenals and equestrian equipment are inside the second wall and inside the innermost wall; passage into and out of the city is hierarchical, with a central entry for the khaghan, those on either side for officials, and those farthest from the central passageway for others. Hierarchical use of space is a feature a European might record but a Chinese official might take for granted, especially in a system in which centrality had been reserved for the most important member of society for millennia before then, and symmetrically positioned entries or exits similarly had been associated with a proximate relation to the ruler. Marco Polo also writes of Khubilai’s palace. He notes that it is one story, standard in Chinese construction even for the most eminent structures but a feature that would surprise someone who had seen European castles. Polo notes that the main hall is raised on a high podium, of about ten palms, approached by marble stairs from each side, and surrounded by a covered arcade, another standard feature of Chinese architecture since the Bronze Age. Polo describes the arcade as a walkway around the palace enclosed by a balustrade supported by columns. Gold, silver, and blue decorate the interior walls that portray beasts and birds and narrative tales. It is not clear if the decoration was painted or in relief. The roof, Polo says, is high and gold. The main hall could feed six thousand men seated at the same time and was one of some four hundred rooms in the complex. The other buildings had ceramic-tile roofs that shine in red, green, and azure. He notes that roofs last for many years. The longevity of ceramic tile roofs is likely to have been another feature that impressed a thirteenth-century Italian. Polo also writes that the khan’s private chambers are behind the banquet hall. All records and excavation confirm that the hall of audience of the Daidu palace-city was in front of the private chambers,

another spatial arrangement with millennia of history before the Yuan period. Polo also writes of parkland where animals roam, yet with raised, paved streets so that boots do not get muddy. A fishpond is a source of food and pleasure for the khaghan. A hill also stands in this part of Daidu to which trees that Khubilai has seen or heard about are brought and planted. Finally, Marco Polo makes a few comments about the layout of the Daidu outer city. He tells us that major north-south and east-west streets run across it, so straight that one can see from gate to opposite gate, or end to end. Their lengths, of course, would have made it impossible for him to experience them in full extent, but since Daidu was divided into wards, he is likely to have seen some long, wide streets that bounded wards. Polo writes there are three gates in each wall of the outer city, but in fact the north wall had only two; probably he never walked or rode along Daidu’s north side.139 He further writes that the wards are gated, opened at dawn and closed in the night, and about the tower at the city center, which holds the bell that is rung to keep time. A city whose space is regulated by bounded wards and whose time is regulated by a bell or drum rung or struck, respectively, in a tower at the center, Daidu followed patterns of Chinese urbanism as old as the Han dynasty (figure 1.18).140 Evidence that Polo had knowledge of Mongol custom is his comment that no blood is shed when criminals are punished.141 The Franciscan John of Montecorvino (1247–1328) arrived in Daidu in 1294, carrying a letter from Pope Nicholas IV for Khubilai, who had just died. The friar stayed in China until his own death more than thirty years later. His letters of 1299 and 1305 that reached Rome are about missionary activities. Friar John was appointed archbishop of Khanbaligh, but his major achievements were the conversion, far west of Daidu and before arriving at the capital, of the Önggüd ruler George (Giwargis) (d. 1298) from the Church of the East to Roman Catholicism and the establishment of two Catholic churches in Daidu. The second was a “stone’s throw” from the gateway of the khaghan’s palace. They were about four kilometers apart.142 John of Montecorvino also established a church in Quanzhou in Fujian province. Odoric of Pordenone (1286–1331) reached Daidu around 1325 and stayed for about three years. He came by way of Quanzhou, Fuzhou, Hangzhou, Nanjing, and Yangzhou, from where he came up the Grand Canal to the capital. Odoric notes a convent and three Churches of the East in Yangzhou. He does not describe

31

Chapter One

1.22 Plans of Liao Yanjing (1), Jin Zhongdu (2), and Daidu (3) superimposed on Ming-Qing Beijing.

them, but the tombstone of Catherine (Katarina) Vilioni, daughter of an Italian merchant, confirms the Catholic community there.143 Odoric never writes that he had an interview with the khaghan, but he describes more of the capital than does John of Montecorvino. Odoric is the only European to describe Daidu as two cities, about half a mile apart: Khanbaligh, a city conquered by the Mongols, and Daidu.144 Khanbaligh and Daidu are two names for the same city. What Odoric saw were Daidu and remains of the Liao or Jin capital that predated it. He probably was not aware of Daidu’s earlier history. Like Polo, Odoric erroneously writes that Daidu had twelve outer wall gates, each about two miles from the next.145 He knows that Daidu is triply walled, that the khaghan lives inside the innermost wall, and that storehouses and population other than the ruling family are inside the second wall. Odoric notes that no building stands in isolation, but rather each is part of a complex. This is another example of a fact that is likely not to make an impression on someone familiar with the Chinese building tradition, since Chinese buildings had been constructed in and around courtyards since the second millennium BCE. Rather, it is the kind of detail that confirms Odoric’s record is based on firsthand observation. Odoric also accurately writes about a hill with architecture on it inside the palace area and surrounded by water. Known as Wanshoushan, this near-island distinguishes Daidu from early Chinese capitals and from the other three Mongol capitals. As we shall see, the island that had been dug by Jin would be a focal point in Yuan Daidu. Odoric tells his reader that the khaghan hunts here. He further states that the building in which the khaghan dwells is elevated about “two paces” above ground level and has twenty-four gilded interior columns and animal skins hung on the walls.146 Assuming a perimeter of wall columns beyond those inside, if the hall had a complete column grid it was eight columns by six, or seven bays by five, which would be the dimensions of an eminent hall. The animal skins are important, for this decoration of a grasslands tent was concealed behind the sets of Chinese walls. A Song palace would have had hanging scrolls or murals. A huge stone vessel adorned

with gold and pearls in this hall contained drink from which anyone could partake in a golden goblet; peacocks flapped their wings when someone clapped. It must have been an automaton, an equivalent of Guillaume Boucher’s great fountain at KharaKhorum or perhaps of the incense-bearing vessel at Shangdu. When Odoric was present at festivals, he writes, the khaghan’s wife, other women, relatives, and thousands of attendants and musicians were also present. John of Marignolli was in Sarai in the winter of 1339–1340 when it was the palace of Özbeg (1282–1341), a descendant of Chinggis’s son Jochi of the Golden Horde.147 From there he went to Almaliq (Huocheng) in western Xinjiang, the location of a Mongol princely city discussed briefly below and of a mausoleum discussed in chapter 6. John writes that he rebuilt a church and convent in Almaliq. No remains have been uncovered. Seven Catholics had been executed there a year earlier. Mongol royalty in Almaliq would convert to Islam shortly afterward. John of Marignolli arrived in Daidu in 1342 with presents from the pope that included an extraordinary horse.148 The presentation was honored in a poem by official Ouyang Xuan (1283–1357) and painted by court painter Zhou Lang; a Ming (1368–1644) version of the painting is in the Palace Museum, Beijing.149 John of Marignolli was appointed archbishop of Khanbaligh, the only other Yuan-period archbishop, as far as is known, besides John of Montecorvino. The later John also writes that Daidu had more than one church. He leaves no details of the church, its neighborhood, or the city, nor does he write about Quanzhou, from which he left China by sea in December 1347. Rashīd al-Dīn and Juvainī also wrote about Daidu. Neither is known to have stood in the city. Since the purpose here is not to refute their descriptions, I note only that information about Daidu is available in their writings. In 1260 Khubilai entered the city the Jin had designated as their central capital Zhongdu in 1153, which had fallen to the Mongols 1215; Jin Zhongdu is discussed at length in chapter 2 (figure 2.4).150 The Jin capital encompassed the Liao southern capital (Nanjing), sometimes called Yanjing, Yan being the name of a Zhou state that had included this area. Liao began

32

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

construction around 938 using halls that remained from the first decades of the tenth century following the fall of Tang in 907 (figure 1.22). The Liao outer wall, whose northern face became part of the Jin Zhongdu north wall, its gates, locations of major streets, and palaces are confirmed by excavation. The most magnificent extant Liao building the Mongol ruler would have seen in 1260 is the thirteen-story pagoda of Tianning Monastery, built in 1119–1120, of which the 55.38 meters that remain today still dominate its neighborhood of Beijing (figure 1.23).151 At least two of Chinggis’s generals were awarded residential estates in the former Jin capital after 1215. The system of determining their size was by bowshot, a practice that would be used across the empire at least through the time of Khubilai.152 According to Yuanshi, standing at the site of their victory, Chinggis told Zhaba’er Huozhe (Jabar Qoje) that he deserved much credit for the fall of the Jin capital. The khan instructed him to shoot his bow to determine the extent of the lands awarded.153 Chinggis told the general Chinqai (Zhenhai), who had been wounded by an arrow but continued fighting in the siege of Zhongdu, to shoot four arrows to determine the four boundaries of the lands of his reward. Chinqai shot from the top of Dabei Pavilion in the Buddhist monastery Sheng’ensi, located in an area that would be in the southwest of Daidu.154 The distance of a bowshot is calculated at 300–500 meters.155 Tall Jin pagodas stood at Jietaisi and in the pagoda forest at Yinshan (figure 2.33) when Zhongdu fell to the Mongols in 1234. The Mongols would add their own structures at Yinshan. Lugou (Reed Gully) Bridge, built 1189–1192, better known today as Marco Polo Bridge because the Venetian described it, also remained.156 The Mongols also would also have known about the tombs of Jin emperors in the hills to the southwest, south of Fangshan, although the enormous necropolis did not in any way alter their practice of sending the corpses of royalty to Mongolia for burial in unmarked locations (figure 2.18). Among preexisting architecture, buildings on the island begun by Jin in 1161, the same year as their royal necropolis, had the greatest impact on the design of Khubilai’s city. Named Qionghua (Hortensia) because eating that flower was believed to bring immortality, the island would become known as Wanshoushan; it is discussed below. Qionghua Island and land from an imperial garden were given to Qiu Chuji, the Buddhist monk who left from the Jin capital in 1220 to accept Chinggis’s invitation to meet him in the West. Upon his return to what was still Jin Zhongdu in 1224,

1.23 Pagoda, Tianning Monastery, Beijing, 1119–1120, 55.38 meters. Wikimedia.

Qiu was given the island and the gardens, on which he founded a Daoist monastery that survives today.157 Khubilai ordered construction of a temple to his ancestors (zongmiao) in 1264.158 It was completed two years later, in the tenth lunar month of 1266, by which time it was known as Taimiao (figure 1.24, #55).159 In 1265 the Bureau of Palace Construction had been established. A year later Khubilai officially ordered construction of his new capital. In the same year a throne was completed for installation at Guanghan Palacecomplex on Qionghua Island (both the hall and island discussed more below), and additional repairs were made on architecture that survived from the Jin palaces. Khubilai thus appropriated potent architecture of the Jin and built the symbolic hall of Chinese kingship in the city that was to be his great capital before he designated or occupied it. The year 1267 may be considered the official beginning of Yuan Daidu. In the fourth lunar month of that year, construction of the outer wall began; in the eighth lunar month, construction of the imperial-city wall commenced; and before the end of the year, more building occurred on the island. In just eighteen months, the outer walls were completed. Yude Hall (figures 1.24, #35, and 1.25, #28) was standing by 1269. In 1271 more than twenty-eight thousand workers were brought to the capital to work on the imperial-city. By that year, pillars of the

33

1.24 Plan of Daidu, Yuan period, showing three walls, gates, major streets, wards, and major buildings. Kaogu, no. 1 (1972): 20.

1. Jiande Storehouse

20. Imperial Garden

39. Daming Hall

58. Yunxian Altar

2. Guangxi Storehouse

21. Houzai Gate

40. Chongtian Gate

59. Taiyishen Altar

3. North Secretariat

22. Xingsheng Palace Back Garden

41. Chishan Platform

60. Xingguo Monastery

4. Bell Tower

23. Xingsheng Palace-Complex

42. Workers’ Supervision Office

61. Southern Secretariat

5. Drum Tower

24. Da Yongfu Monastery

43. Gongchen Hall

62. City-God Temple

6. Center Pavilion

25. Altars of Soil and Grain

44. Chongzhen Wanshou Palace

63. Bureau of Punishments

7. Center marker

26. Scenic spot

45. Sheep pen

64. Shuncheng Storehouse

8. Da Tianshou Wanning Monastery

27. Hongren Monastery

46. Grass and sand

65. Haiyun and Ke’an Twin Pagodas

9. Daochao Storehouse

28. Qionghua Island

47. Bureau of Academicians

66. Daqingshou Monastery

10. Second Surveillance Precinct (Office)

29. Ying Island

48. Raw Provisions Storehouse

67. Office of the Grand Historian

11. District Manager of Daidu (Office)

30. Wansong Laoren Pagoda

49. Fuel Storage Field

68. Wenming Storehouse

12. Confucian Temple

31. Prince’s Palace

50. Saddle and Reins Storehouse

69. Bureau of Ritual

13. Bolin Monastery

32. West Front Garden

51. Military Equipment Storehouse

70. Bureau of the Military

14. Chongren Storehouse

33. Longfu Palace-Complex

52. Kitchen Workers’ Chambers

15. Secretariat

34. Longfu Palace Front Garden

53. Magistrates’ Chambers

16. Chongguo Monastery

35. Yude Hall

54. Military Guard Chambers

17. Heyi Storehouse

36. Yanchun Pavilion

55. Ancestral Temple

18. Wanning Bridge

37. Xihua Gate

56. Da Shengshou Wan’an Monastery

19. Houzai Back Gate

38. Donghua Gate

57. Storehouse

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

Taimiao were already decaying. Construction continued at the ancestral temple in 1281 and 1284. In 1272 the bell and drum towers had been erected in the capital and repairs were made on the outer wall. In the same year, the name Daidu was first used. Daminggong, the main building complex of the palace-city (figure 1.24, #39, and 1.25, #10), is first mentioned in 1273; Khubilai held audience there in the first lunar month of 1274, an intercalary month. In 1281 the Taimiao was torn down and rebuilt anew. An order was given to complete Daminggong in 1282. By 1284 ten thousand men from the imperial body guard were assigned to work on the capital. They were joined by regular soldiers a month later. In 1285 construction continued on the island and Yude Hall complex. Building took place at the palace-complex Longfugong (figure 1.24, #33) in 1287. From 1287 through 1289 the gates of the outer wall were completed and named. In 1291 housing for officials was built south of the imperial-city. More halls of Longfugong were built in that year and in 1294. In 1294, the year of Khubilai’s death, which occurred in Zitan Hall, the quarters of the former crown prince were moved to Longfu palace-complex, where he, now the new khaghan, was presented with jade tablets and held court. Ceremonies were held at Yanchunge complex (figure 1.24, #36, and 1.25, #24) in 1307 and 1308. The emperor and princes held court in Xingsheng palace-complex (figure 1.24, #23) in 1310. In 1309 the emperor and concubines were on Qionghua Island (figure 1.24, #28) to gaze at the moon. In 1320 a back hall was built at the Yanchun Pavilion complex. In 1321 housing was built for officials. In 1322 and 1323 the imperial-city was repaired. In 1326 the Guanghan Hall complex was roofed. Some 870 flowers were planted on Qionghua Island in 1327. In 1353 an impermanent hall was replaced with a permanent one.160 This chronological but somewhat random list offers a glimpse of the kind of information available about Yuan Daidu in Yuanshi. At least 145 dates associated with buildings are found in primary sources.161 The first modern attempts to describe Yuan Daidu were undertaken by Zhu Qiqian (1872–1964), sometimes in conjunction with Kan Duo (1875–1964). Zhu was a Qing official who remained influential in China even as he survived the changing governments during his long life. He is best known in architectural history for his discovery of a version of Yingzao fashi in a library in Nanjing in 1918 and subsequent publication of it the next year, an act that initiated modern scholarly research on the Song architectural treatise. Zhu established and largely funded both the Society for Research on Chinese Architecture

(Zhongguo Yingzao Xueshe) in Beijing and its journal.162 In his capacity as minister of the interior for the Republic, in 1915 he had been put in charge of the repair or restoration of certain gates and old buildings in Beijing, including some in the Forbidden City.163 These publications guided research on Daidu and Beijing into the second half of the twentieth century, by which time excavation offered the kind of information that is used in this book. Daidu came about the same way as Shangdu. Khubilai charged Liu Bingzhong to propose a design. For this larger city, Liu turned to the prescription for Wangcheng, “ruler’s city,” in the “Kaogongji” (Record of scrutinizing crafts) section of Zhou(guan)li (Rituals of Zhou), a treatise on the organization and administration of government in the Zhou dynasty. The city described in “Kaogongji” was said to have been designed in the mid-eleventh century BCE for the Duke of Zhou by his brother-in-law.164 The key passage is: The jiangren (master-builder) builds the state, leveling the ground with the water by using a plumb-line. He lays out posts, taking the plumb-line (to ensure the posts’ verticality), and using their shadows to determine a mid-point. He examines the shadows of the rising and setting sun and makes a circle which includes the mid-points of the two shadows. The jiangren constructs the state capital. He makes a square nine li on each side; each side has three gates. Within the capital are nine north-south and nine east-west streets. The north-south streets are nine carriage tracks in width. On the left (as one faces south [to the east]) is the Ancestral Temple (Taimiao), and to the right are the Altars of Soil and Grain. In front is the hall of audience and behind are the markets.165

These lines confirm four fundamental principles and distinctions of Chinese imperial planning: a Classical text is its source; it is prescriptive, and so clearly prescriptive that a craftsman can follow the rules; a capital has concentric walls; and an imperial city has a center. Officials of every Chinese ruler since the Zhou dynasty knew about Wangcheng. Through history, scholars have sought to show the connections between China’s most important imperial cities and this passage, even in instances when none exists.166 The capital built in China for and sanctioned by the Mongol Khubilai Khaghan was the first to follow the Zhouli prescription so closely. Indeed, even if other cities were built with the intent

35

Chapter One

1. Chongtian Gate

18. Bell Tower

2. Chongtian Gate-Tower

19. Drum Tower

3. Chongtian Gate-Tower

20. Storage rooms

4. Xinggong Gate

21. Rooms for kitchen stewards

5. Yuncong Gate

22. Rooms for wine stewards

6. Donghua Gate

23. Yanchun Gate

7. Xihua Gate

24. Yanchun Pavilion

8. Houzai Gate

25. East Side Hall of Yanchun Pavilion

9. Daming Gate 10. Daming Hall 11. Rijing Gate

Complex 26. West Side Hall of Yanchun Pavilion Complex

12. Yuehua Gate

27. Xiangge

13. Arcade connecting front and back halls

28. Yude Hall Complex

of Daminggong 14. Sleeping chamber with side rooms of Daming Hall 15. Xiangge

of a layout based on the “Kaogongji” passage, Daidu is the only city where the intent is verified. Not only did Liu Bingzhong confirm that he sought to implement it, the layout is uniquely and physically confirmed by a midpoint.167 A stone engraved with the words zhongxin zhi tai (center marker) was excavated at Daidu in the late 1960s (figure 1.24, #7).168 It stood slightly west of Center Pavilion (zhongxinge) (figure 1.24, #6). If Daidu followed the stipulations for Wangcheng so intentionally, why was there no twelfth gate? Scholars since the Yuan dynasty have sought to understand what even Marco Polo, who had no knowledge of “Kaogongji” or previous Chinese imperial planning, had logically assumed. No text offers a convincing explanation, but by the late Yuan period scholars knew one was necessary. At that time one begins to see Daidu referred to as Nazhacheng, and an association between this name and Liu Bingzhong: “The city of Yan [Daidu] was designed by Liu Taibao [Bingzhong]. There were eleven wall-gates in order to symbolize Nazha’s [Nehza’s] three heads, six arms, and two feet.”169 Drawing from all the records mentioned, later studies, and excavation, I describe the city whose beginnings were an auspicious day in the first lunar month of 1267.170 The city built by and for Khubilai was a walled city within a walled city within a walled city. Mountains to the north and west and hills to the east insulated the capital from its surroundings. Water was crucial to the conception of the capital and placement of its architecture. The entire outer wall, dacheng, was surrounded by water, which flowed into the city at eighteen points. One main channel entered the west outer wall at Heyi Gate (figure 1.21) as Gaoliang River, widened to Jishui Pool (tan), and flowed east of the imperial-city and on to the south outer wall as Tonghui Canal, which connected a waterway that flowed around the Jin outer city wall. Gaoliang, Jishui, and Tonghui waters provided most of the water for the city. Three waterways also flowed into and filled the artificial pond Taiyechi, farther south.171 All waters were restricted to imperial use. Guo Shoujing (1231–1314/1316), sometimes described as a hydraulic engineer and in any case an official in Khubilai’s employ who worked on largescale construction projects, including observatories discussed in chapter 3, often receives credit for designing the stone drainage system beneath Daidu around 1292/1293.172 Repairs were made in 1342.173 Heyi Gate would survive for six hundred years. An inscription on its wengcheng (L-shaped defense barbican that abutted its outer portion) is believed to read 1362. Repairs were made in 1381 and 1436.174

29. Live products storage 30. Firewood storage 31. Sheep pen 32. Lingxing Gate

16. Civil Officials’ Tower or Bell Tower 17. Military Officials’ Tower or Drum Tower

1.25 Reconstruction drawing of palace-city of Daidu, Yuan period, in ca. 1294.

36

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

The 28,600-meter (17.77-mile) outer wall was a nearly perfect quadrilateral. This dimension is confirmed in Yuanshi.175 Some 147,590 households lived in the city and surrounding area (Dadulu [circuit]), whose population was 401,350 in 1284.176 Major north-south and east-west streets emerged from each gate, each about twenty-five meters wide. They and smaller streets divided the city into wards, whose number, as noted, is not certain. Wards were blocked by waterways and the second walled enclosure, huangcheng. About 4.8 kilometers on each side, six gates provided entry to huangcheng, two at the north and south and one on the east and west. The south gate was named Lingxing (figure 1.25, #32) but the others were known as hongmen, literally, “red gate.” The north gate was known as Houzai (back) Hongmen (figure 1.24, #21 and figure 1.25, #8). Hongmen appears to be a name exclusive to Daidu.177 The innermost wall, around the palace-city (gongcheng), was about 900 meters north-south by about 800 east-west, 3480 meters in perimeter, had three southern entries, the U-shaped central one named Chongtian Gate (figure 1.25, #1), and one entrance at each of the other sides (figure 1.25, #4 and #5). In contrast to the outer two walls, which were made of pounded earth, gongcheng was brick. It was begun in the eighth moon of 1271 and completed during the third moon of the next year. The most prominent thoroughfare in Daidu ran northward from the central gate of the south outer wall to the central gate of the south wall of the imperial-city, through the centers of the main building compounds of the palace-city, through the center of the garden at the back of the palace-city, through the north central gate of the palace-city, and northward to the center pavilion above the center marker. The area between the south walls of the outer and imperial-cities was T-shaped, the stem of the T named qianbulang (thousand-pace corridor) and close to seven hundred paces in length, and the cross part named gongting guangchang, or palace-place. Both the shape and names had long histories in earlier Chinese imperial city plans. Ten paces behind this dramatic approach were three white marble bridges, the eastern for passage toward the imperial-city, the western for passage from it, and the central traversed only by the khaghan. Referred to as curved bridges (zhouqiao) by Xiao Xun, he wrote: “All are carved with figures of dragons, phoenixes, and auspicious clouds, and they shine with the brilliance of jade.” Pieces of marble excavated at Daidu are the kind of decoration described in a passage about the imperial city like this one (figures 1.26 and 1.27). Xiao continues, “Beneath

the bridges are four marble ao whose heads majestically rise above the surrounding water. Thousands of tall willows whose verdant luxuriance can be espied even from the distant lake of the western palaces surround the bridges.”178 Excavation supports the presumed locations of three of the bridges that provided access to Daidu from the south. One was due south of the south center outer wall gate Lizhengmen. Named Longjin Bridge, it led to the south entrance to the wengcheng in front of Lizheng Gate. The second and third bridges crossed Jinkou and Jinzha Rivers on either side of Longjin Bridge. The second bridge was named Wan’an Bridge or Zhou Bridge; the name of the third is unknown. The bridges anticipate the sets of bridges on either side of the approach to the main central axis of Ming-Qing Beijing.179 By 1296 a guard tower was erected south of the Daidu bridges, and from it an official notified the city of the rising and setting of the sun.180 Pivot of the Four Quarters Centrality in a Chinese imperial city is much more profound than a palace in the center of a four-walled enclosure with an ancestral temple, sacrificial altars to soil and grain, and markets around it. In 1971 Paul Wheatley used the name Pivot of the Four Quarters to emphasize the importance of centrality, orientation to the four cardinal directions, axiality, and other fundamental concepts of Chinese urban and smaller-scale planning described in Rituals of Zhou and earlier or contemporary Chinese texts.181 Fifty years ago, however, only initial excavation had occurred at Zhou-period Luoyang, the city whose design was said to be the first implementation of Wangcheng. Wheatley did not know that the Daidu center marker was being excavated as he wrote. In 1993 a Shaanxi research team found that a straight line could be drawn northward from Ziwugu (valley), through the south central gate of the Western Han (206 BCE–9 CE) capital Chang’an, along the longest street in the capital that extended northward from that gate, between Changle and Weiyang Palaces on the eastern and western sides, respectively, of the southern part of the city, between the two tombs of Changling that belonged to the founding emperor Liu Bang (Han Gaozu) (256–195 BCE) and his wife, through the north city wall, and onward to a huge, bowl-shaped depression believed to be the location of the shrine Tianqici.182 The distance between Ziwu Valley and the depression was seventy-four kilometers. Further research determined that the line could be extended almost eight times that distance, joining the Han commandery Hanzhongjun,

37

Chapter One

1.26 Detail of ramp leading to building of imperial-city. Excavated at Daidu, Beijing. Capital Museum (Shoudu Bowuguan).

1.27 Panel inserted into balustrade or elevation platform. Excavated at Daidu, Beijing. Capital Museum (Shoudu Bowuguan). Kaogu, no. 6 (1972), plate 11.2.

on the Yangzi River, to the commandery Shuofangjun, today in Inner Mongolia, at the northern bend of the Yellow River. The water of Ziwu Valley is believed to have provided a symbolic southern shield for the city, with the assumption that mountains shielded Chang’an somewhere to the north. A cross axis could be plotted to connect the remains of Xianyang, capital of the First Emperor of Qin, just north of Han Chang’an, and Suizhong on the Liaoning coast to the east, where the First Emperor had erected a stele to mark the eastern terminus of his empire. It is likely that Han Chang’an and Qin Xianyang embodied a vision of the ruler’s city as the pivot of the four quarters.183 On smaller scale, a circular stone bisected by perpendicular lines that guided construction to its four walls was excavated at Yangling, the tomb of the fourth Han emperor Jingdi (188–141 BCE).184 At least one more stone with these markings had been found at a Han imperial tomb by 2017.185 The locations of both funerary complexes are believed to have followed the vertical line on the stone northward. It should also be noted that more than five hundred kilometers north of the axial line through Han Chang’an was Tongwan, a capital of the state of (Da) Xia (407–431), which also had a capital in Chang’an.186 The placement of a later imperial

city on the axis initiated during construction of an earlier one is the decision the Ming would make in 1402 in its layout of Beijing. The archaeological evidence that confirmed Han Chang’an as a pivot of space that extended to the Yellow River, Yangzi River, and Eastern Sea was unknown when Daidu’s center marker was excavated. Research published in 2019 indicates that not only did Daidu have a midpoint but that it was the pivot of four quarters similar to the extent that Han Chang’an was. Daidu’s center marker was positioned at the intersection of north-south and east-west axes, the north-south imaginary line running just east of the bell and drum towers (figure 1.24, #4 and #5) and extending north to Shangdu, precisely to Da’an Pavilion (figure 1.28).187 Khubilai’s capital thus also was an implementation of the ideology of the imperial city as the pivot of four distant quarters. Palace-city The khaghan’s entrance to the palace-city was an invertedU-shaped gate with five passageways. Chongtian Gate had a central gate-tower (figures 1.24, #40, and 1.25, #1) and threestory tower at each end of the front (figure 1.25, #2 and #3). The structure was comparable to that of Wumen (Meridian

38

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.28 Plan of Daidu showing its location at the pivot of four quarters, Yuan period. Ao and Zhang, Zhongguo jianzhu shilun jikan 17 (2019): 220.

Gate) of the Forbidden City today, but it may have been more heavily decorated. According to Tao Zongyi, Chongtian Gate had crimson doors, cinnabar-colored vertical posts and painted walls, and ceramic roof tiles and was gilded. There were two other gates on the south side of the palace-city (figure 1.25, #4 and #5). Each other wall had one gate (figure 1.25, #6, #7, and #8). The two main palace-complexes were Daming (figure 1.25, #10), completed in 1273, with a gate of that name in front (figure 1.25, #9), a hall complex that took the gong-plan, and Yanchunge (figure 1.25, #24), presumably with at least one tall structure because of the suffix ge, also in the gong-plan. Both were directly behind Chongtian Gate. Daminggong was where the khaghan held audience, coronations occurred, and imperial birthdays and the New Year were celebrated. Both Daming and Yanchun complexes were enclosed by pillar-lined covered arcades.188 As at the entrances to the outer city south wall and the palace-city, only the emperor entered through the central Daming Gate (figure 1.25, #9). Xiao Xun describes the khaghan’s hall of audience:

dragons coil in the center. Red mullioned windows with gold leaf attached to the intervening spaces are on all four sides. A screen of red and gold in the shape of the character shan 山, meaning mountain, stands on a dais in the center of the hall. It has the luster and resonance of jade. A golden imperial couch is on either side of the dais, and on either side of them are tigers which, by some mechanical device, are capable of life-like motion.189

Three details of Xiao’s description are worth further attention. First, the automata recall the fountain in Mongke’s hall of audience at Khara-Khorum and the stone vessel at Shangdu described by Friar Odoric. These devices clearly were valued by the khaghans and prominently displayed. Second, a few pieces of marble, from ramps, balustrades, or perhaps floors, uncovered during excavation at Daidu confirm the descriptions of carving. Figure 1.26 is an example. Third is the description of the ceiling as luding. Xiao uses the word five times, all in reference to ceilings: in Daming Hall, where one looks up and sees a pair of coiling golden dragons; in Yanchunge’s main structure, where, when one looks up, he sees bracket arms coming together in the luding as well as golden dragons in the center of a well-like basket; in the ceiling of a side hall named Xuanwenge in Xingshenggong complex, discussed below; in a view in which a luding appears as multiple layers; and in a small pavilion with multiple sets of eaves and a luding with phoenix wings.190 Tao Zongyi similarly uses luding 盝頂 to describe a lantern, or caisson ceiling. He also uses lu (廬頂 [hut or tent]) in descriptions of rooms of the Daidu palace-city. Tao’s luding 廬頂 are small and box-like, one of them described as flat like a trunk (qiding ruo si zhi ping).191 Yuanshi refers to luding at least seven times.192 Five of these seven passages refer to buildings in Shangdu. In every case

Daming Hall is elevated on a base ten chi in height. In front is a stairway of three sets of stairs. A marble balustrade carved with figures of dragons and phoenixes encloses the hall. Each vertical post of the balustrade rests upon an ao whose head protrudes beyond the edge of the terrace. Every exterior pillar of the hall is four-sided, about five to six chi in width, and decorated with raised flowers, golden dragons, and clouds. The pillar bases are white marble, decorated with dragons and clouds, on top of which are carved decoration raised three to four chi high. The ceiling above is divided into sections. Looking up one sees a luding (盝頂) [caisson, or canopy, ceiling] and bracket sets. A pair of

39

Chapter One

the character is lu 廬 and the usage is a flat-roofed, or box-like structure, the roof possibly made with natural materials. It is believed here that the two names are not related. Tao Zongyi’s luding 廬頂 are the structures described in Yuanshi, which names them luding 廬頂, with a flat top that could be made of impermanent materials. Xiao Xun’s and Tao Zongyi’s luding 盝頂 are cupola ceilings of a form that more often is called zaojing in descriptive writing about architecture. One finds luding 廬頂 in the mid-eighteenth-century work by Jin Zhizhang and Huang Kerun, Koubei santingzhi, a text that will be important in understanding a building discussed in chapter 6. A 240-chi pillar-lined arcade, 25 chi in width and 50 chi in height (figure 1.25, #13), behind Daming Hall connected the front structure to more private buildings behind it. This back section comprised a five-bay main chamber with two smaller side rooms of three bays north-to-south (figure 1.25, #14) and a three-bay xiangge, probably where women slept (figure 1.25, #15).193 The rooms on either side of #13 were 140 chi by 50 chi and 70 chi high. Tao Zongyi provides a few more details. The bases of the circular pillars of the back hall were marble decorated with azure stone. The floor was made of veined stone. Woven mats lay on it. Pillars were cinnabar with golden dragons coiling around them. The hall had a ceiling whose interstices were painted gold and decorated with stone. A red balustrade whose posts were capped with gilt-bronze led to the throne. Seven couches decorated with imperial symbols were in this back building of the Daming Hall complex. Mats sewn in white and gold were on the couches. There were places to the ruler’s right and left for the empress, officials, and the imperial bodyguard during banquets. Although Tao never stood in the hall, Xiao Xun confirms his description. He writes of a small, gold and red flat couch and a ceiling whose square panels were decorated with multicolor clouds, golden dragons, and phoenixes. Xiao describes the walls as covered with white silk on which landscapes were painted in gold and azure. Clothing was stored behind panels that were placed between the painted portions of the walls. Windows at the front of the hall were painted red, onto which gold was pasted. Xiao also writes that jade decorated the walls, although how and where is not clear. Window coverings were made of yellow oiled paper; in winter they were replaced with oiled animal skins. Those in the xiangge were ermine. Xiao makes the point that skins were replaced annually. Since no known pre-Yuan record describes the use of animal-skin window coverings in

winter, one surmises this was a Mongol addition to Chinese palatial architecture. Tao Zongyi also writes of a huge, lacquered wooden wine jar with a silver band on the outside in the front of the back area of Daminggong. A large ivory wine table, a jade jar, jade chimes, a piped instrument named sheng, and jade lutes also were in this room. Finally, there was a clepsydra from which a man raising a jade tablet in both hands emerged every quarter-of-an hour when water filled, causing him to move. The side halls had covered aisles in front and behind. Thirtyfive chi across the front, seventy-two chi in depth, and thirty chi in height, one was made of fragrant red sanderswood. Dragons spouting perfume were suspended on both walls. White jade ornaments and lacquer the color of green moss also decorated the walls.194 Five-bay towers that may have contained a bell and a drum like those on either side of the arcade that enclosed the Yanchunge complex, or that may have been dedicated to civil and military officials, were built into the enclosing covered arcade (figure 1.25, #18 and #19). Buildings with twenty rooms of storage were arranged in two north-south rows to the west (figure 1.25, #20). Lodging for kitchen workers and wine stewards was to the east. About sixty wine stewards, twenty men who made sure the supply was adequate, twenty in charge of other liquids, and another twenty in charge of food worked in these buildings. The extent and level of detail in the two descriptions lend themselves to theoretical reconstructions. Using the texts cited earlier and extant buildings discussed in chapters 3 and 4, in 1993 Fu Xinian proposed reconstruction drawings of several buildings from the Daidu palace city (figure 1.29).195 The triple-layer platform is not explicitly described in the texts. Reconstruction is based on buildings in the Ming-Qing Forbidden City and extant architecture such as Virtuous Tranquility Hall (figure 3.1) and Three Purities Hall of Yonglegong (figure 4.1). The dimensions of Daminggong and the other building complexes reconstructed in Fu’s study are according to measurements taken during excavation in combination with written records. Yanchunge complex, directly behind Daminggong, was of the same gong-configuration but had one as opposed to two gates on the north face of its enclosing covered arcade (figures 1.24, #36, and 1.25 #24). Entered by Yanchun Gate (figure 1.25, #23), its main structure was a ge. Yanchunge was 150 chi east-west, 90 chi north-south, and 100 chi in height. The structure had three sets of roof eaves. Pine trees, a Chinese symbol of eternity long

40

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.29 Theoretical reconstruction of Daming palace-complex, Daidu, Beijing. Fu, Fu Xinian jianzhushi lunwenji, 348.

before the Mongol period, grew in front of it.196 The floor of the main room of Yanchunge was made of veined marble, polished with walnut oil, so that, according to Xiao Xun, it shone like a mirror.197 The couch in the hall was elevated on a jade platform with a wine basin in front of it. Four smaller couches of red and gold were inside. Yanchunge’s height is confirmed by a line in the description about a staircase beginning at the eastern end and winding around the other sides three times before reaching the top level. The staircase was dark, but the railings were painted with golden dragons and clouds. Couches were placed along the interior walls of the upper story. The stairs that led up to it were flanked by a cinnabar-colored railing, into which gilt-bronze was inlaid. Silk paintings of flying dragons and dancing phoenixes hung on the walls. The Buddha was worshipped in a west side chamber. The word xiangge is used for it.198 Xiangge had a cedarwood couch covered with gold cushions. Black sable skins hung from the walls. Finally, there was a small cedarwood screen in the shape of the character shan. In the twelfth lunar month of 1320, a bronze Buddha was placed in Yanchunge, perhaps by Ayurbarwada to pray for his health, for he died shortly afterward.199 Like Daminggong, Yanchunge was flanked by east and west side halls, each three bays with front and back aisles (figure 1.25, #25 and #26). They measured thirty-five chi east-west by seventy-two chi north-south. In 1334 Buddhist monks and nuns were summoned to make ritual implements here. The hall burned almost immediately afterward, and the clergy was accused of blasphemy.200 Bell and drum towers also were joined to the Yanchunge enclosure, which measured 172 bays and had a tower at each corner (figure 1.25, #18 and #19). Yudedian (figures 1.24, #35, and 1.25, #28) was the last complex in the Daidu palace-city. Its name, Jade Virtue, may refer to the white jade screen in the shape of a mountain, jade couch, the white jade (or marble) dragons, clouds, and flowers that were attached to pillars and bracket sets, or all of them. Curtains

rather than animal skins hung from the interior walls, and a crimson balustrade was in front of the hall.201 Officials were appointed and discharged here. On March 29, 1269, for example, Khubilai summoned officials to Yudedian for public disgrace; in 1303 a yeke bodyguard of first rank was appointed here.202 Khubilai died in this complex, in the building named Purple Sanderswood Hall, in 1294.203 In 1329 Tugh Temür had Buddhist ceremonies for Khubilai performed there.204 Houzai Gate (figures 1.24, #21, and 1.25, #8), the north central exit from the palace-city, was joined by a feilang, also known as feiqiao, a covered arcade on either side that slanted from ground level upward. The word fei, meaning “flying,” is chosen to describe the upward direction of the ramp.205 A dancing platform enclosed by a balustrade was in front.206 An imperial garden was directly north of the palace-city. Water to irrigate the plantings was channeled in from Taiye Pond. The khaghan sometimes participated in a ritual in which he used farm equipment, a symbolic act to show his desire for a good harvest. Ming and Qing emperors would perform similar ceremonies in the Hall of Middle Harmony in the Forbidden City.207 Residential Palaces Two residential palace-complexes were north and south of each other outside the palace-city to its west, but within the imperial-city. Longfugong was known as the eastern palace when it was built as the residence of the crown prince in 1274 (figure 1.24, #33). The palace was east of a garden. This was a change in the imperial city-planning system, for the crown prince’s residences had been east of and adjacent to the emperor’s residence for many centuries before the Yuan dynasty.208 Here it was located on the eastern part of this larger residential sector, but nevertheless west of the residence of the ruler. Khubilai’s infamous finance minister Ahmad Fanākatī was assassinated in Longfugong on April 10, 1282.209 The complex had only one main

41

Chapter One

gong-shaped sector, with residential space behind it. On April 30, 1294, shortly after Khubilai’s death, Longfugong became the residence of the empress dowager, with housing for concubines in the back. It was at this point that the name Longfugong came into use.210 In the same year the renowned painter and calligrapher Zhao Mengfu (1294–1322), at that time employed by the court, painted the name Guangtian on the main hall, whose dimensions were ninety-eight chi in width and seventy chi high.211 A Buddha image was placed in this hall in December 1320, another act of piety that may have been related to the impending death of Ayurbarwada. Xiao Xun writes that the hall was extremely bright, with walls covered in white silk on which dragons flew and phoenixes danced.212 Xingshenggong was due north of Longfugong (figure 1.24, #23). Construction began in the third lunar month of 1308, during the reign of Khaishan.213 This initial phase of construction was completed on May, 18, 1309. Officials who would be in charge of the complex were named on June 13 of that year. Its eight gates, three at the south, one in the north, and two on the other sides, were known as hongmen, the name used for gates of the palace-city wall. Xingsheng Hall, the main structure of Xingshenggong, was enclosed by a covered arcade, with three gates on its south, each directly behind a hongmen of the Xingsheng palace-complex, and two side gates. The south central entrance of the arcade was five bays in width and had two sets of roof eaves. Xingsheng Hall was a rare nearly square building, one hundred chi (seven bays) across the front and ninety-seven chi deep, “slightly smaller than Daming Hall,” according to Xiao Xun. 214 It was enclosed by a balustrade of white stone with dragons, phoenixes, kingfishers, golden peng (birds), horses, and lions carved on its posts. A covered arcade connected the front part of Xingsheng Hall to a five-bay sleeping chamber behind it. Like the sleeping chambers of the palace-city, this building had two side chambers and a back xiangge, each of which was three bays across the front. Xingsheng Hall had vermilion mullioned windows on all four sides, and its floor was made of veined stone. Mats of fine animal hair were on it. There were enough couches inside for princes-of-the-blood, officials, and guards of the residence to be seated in rows on the left and right of the hall during banquets. Mats and cushions were on some of the couches. The interior pillars were the color of cinnabar and decorated with gold. Dormitories for officials and guards were within the Xingshenggong enclosure.

Rooms for cold storage and for wine also were inside the compound.215 Kuizhangge was built in the third moon of 1330 northwest of the main palaces of Xingshenggong. Its precise location remains unknown. Tao Zongyi describes the pavilion as “tall, bright, open, and comfortable.”216 The hall spanned three bays northto-south. The same name was used for the pavilion at Shangdu, mentioned earlier, that probably was begun at the same time. Its height and purpose, a center for literary gatherings, suggest comparisons with the tallest building at the Confucian Temple in Confucius’s birthplace in Qufu, which served as a library. Constructed in the Song dynasty in 1018, Kuiwenge still stood in the Yuan period when small stele pavilions were added to what would be a total of thirteen behind it.217 Tugh Temür, for whom the Daidu Kuizhangge was built, is said to have attended literary gatherings in this hall in which he sat facing south, treasures to his right and left, with scholars and officials in the central bay to his south, and more treasures in the southern bay.218 Paintings and calligraphy were stored and studied here.219 Further, Tugh Temür is said to have been so enamored with the ambiance that audiences, presentations of memorials, and ceremonies usually conducted in the palace-city were often held here. In addition to Yu Ji (1272–1348), the renowned scholar-calligrapher Ke Jiusi (1290–1343), who had tutored Shidebala, was among Tugh Temür’s companions in Kuizhangge. Ke was one of the officials responsible for the imperial art collection, including authentication.220 Prior to Tugh Temür’s reign, the children of Mongol royalty seem to have been educated in Xueshiyuan (Scholars’ Courtyard), located amid storage halls near the center of the west side of Xingshenggong. This second structure associated with Confucianism inside the Xingsheng compound is evidence of the relationship between the court and traditional Chinese learning, one that not everyone in the government supported. Kuizhangge survived twenty years after Tugh Temür’s death, in large part due to the efforts of the official Kangli Naonao (Kuikui) (1295–1345), who maintained the painting and calligraphy collections.221 In 1340–1341 the hall became Xuanwenge.222 By this time, Yu Ji and Ke Jiusi were dead. Kuizhangge thus marks a moment in Yuan history when court, collections, and architecture came together in a Confucian institution. Finally, in addition to luding and xiangge, wo’erduo is a structural type of the Yuan period mentioned in Tao’s or Xiao’s description of the palace-city. Wo’erduo was portable. 223

42

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

Sometimes translated as tent, wo’erduo provided residence in the manner of the steppe. At Daidu, wo’erduo had names. The famous tribute from the Franks of heavenly horses, immortalized in the above-mentioned painting by Zhou Lang, occurred at the wo’erduo named Cirendian.224 Zongmaodian (Coir Fiber Hall), described by Xiao Xun as a building in which zong (coir fiber) was used in place of ceramic tile, is one of the structures of the Daidu palace-city that surely was made of impermanent material.225 The descriptions present the Daidu palace-city and imperial-city as spectacular as what one envisions for Chang’an of Tang and for Bianliang of Northern Song, and knows of MingQing Beijing, yet with features such as impermanent architecture and animal skin wall decorations that recognized that the patrons and occupants were Mongols.

Khubilai and Chabui (1227–1281) commissioned Three Great Monasteries in Daidu: (Da) Huguo Renwangsi, (Da) Shengshou Wan’ansi (figure 1.24, #56), for celebration of the khaghan’s birthday, consecrated in 1279, both discussed in chapter 6, and (Da) Xingjiaosi, consecrated in 1283. Buddhist sutras were read at the first two in 1316.232 Khubilai also was the patron of Chengnansi of 1280, Xuanwen Hongjiaosi, and a single temple in Zhuozhou, Hebei.233 Da Huguo Renwangsi is believed to have been the city’s most important monastery. The remains of Khubilai’s imperial preceptor Danba (1230–1303), who had come to China with ‘Phags-pa, were moved there after his death. Da Shengshou Wan’ansi (figure 1.24, #56), known since the Ming dynasty as Miaoyingsi, is the most important Beijing monastery where a Yuan building stands today. In 1329 Tugh Temür had a Buddhist ceremony performed there for Khubilai.234 Portraits of Khubilai and Chabui were enshrined there in Shenyu Hall. Enshrining imperial portraits in royal monasteries had been a tradition of the Chinese court since the eighth century.235 Under Temür Öljeytü, royal monasteries were built not only in Daidu and Shangdu, but also beyond the capital, including on Mount Wutai. The plans of other monasteries in Daidu are known from records. Da Chongen Fuyuan Monastery, built under Khaishan in 1308, had a central Buddha hall with a smaller hall behind it, both in line with the front gate. The monastery also had four corner towers. No pagoda is recorded. Puqing Monastery is known through a stele carved by Zhao Mengfu. The main hall, Zhengjuedian, was directly behind the entry, known as Three Gates, perhaps a reference to the number of openings in it or the three bodhisattvas, Mañjuśrī, Samantabhadra, and Guanyin, enshrined inside. Symmetrical pairs of pagodas and Buddha halls were behind Zhengjue Hall. Pavilions joined the side enclosure of the monastery south of Zhengjue Hall and north of the pairs of pagodas and halls. A symmetrical pair of small halls was at the back wall of the monastery.236 Yuanshi and Yu Ji give attention to the monastery Hushengsi, built in 1329 by Tugh Temür. The monastery had five structures on its main axis, from south to north, a gate, front hall, back hall, Shenyu Hall, and Shouxi Hall. The front hall enshrined images and the back hall enshrined the Five Wisdom Bodhisattvas. Sutras were kept in east and west halls. A pond on which floated a pair of circular pavilions, one of which enshrined an image of Guanyin and another for the emperor, was behind these buildings. The two back halls along the

Religious Complexes in the Capital Not only did the Mongols see monumental pagodas that survived from Liao and Jin when they conquered Jin Zhongdu (figure 1.23), they added pagodas to those from the Jin period at Yinshan (figure 2.33), and they built monasteries.226 One probably would not describe Daidu as a religious city, certainly not one on par with earlier Chinese capitals such as Luoyang in the Northern Wei period where 1,367 religious institutions are recorded,227 but more than ninety Buddhist or Daoist monasteries, in addition to institutions of the state such as a Confucian temple and shrines to local deities such as a city-god temple, are recorded in the same contemporary and later records used to reconstruct palatial architecture.228 Some temple complexes in Beijing today retain Yuan histories, if not architecture. Baiyunguan (White Cloud Daoist Monastery), in Xicheng district, had been founded in 739. It is where Daoist Qiu Chuji returned following his meeting with Chinggis. The Temple to the Eastern Peak was begun with the support of Ayurbarwada. It is further discussed in chapter 4. Bolin Monastery on the east side of Beijing was founded in 1347. Its earliest architecture is from the eighteenth century. Chongguo Monastery, founded in 1127, is today Huguosi. Stele carved in 1312 and 1351 and east and west Tibetan-style pagodas remained in the 1930s (figure 1.30).229 Daidu also had a Confucian Temple, founded in 1302.230 The Beijing Confucian Temple is on the same site. A stele dated 1307 remains from the Yuan period. A city-god temple, begun by Khubilai in 1270, survived into the twentieth century on the site of the Yuan complex.231

43

Chapter One

1.30 Stele, dated 1351, Huguo Monastery, Beijing, photographed in 1930s. Liu Dunzhen, “Beijing Huguosi,” plate 6.

1.31 Plan of Wanshoushan Island complex, Daidu, Yuan period. After Zhu and Kan, Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan, 1, no. 2 (1932), after 30.

main building line were for imperial retreat.237 One thinks of ponds in Pure Land contexts, but perhaps the purpose of this pond was to emphasize the importance of water, for water, as much as any other force, determined the initial position of Daidu, and perhaps, based on the Dragon Rock Legend, also of Shangdu.

at Daidu. When he was at Shangdu, boats that supported the bridge were removed. Not only does this constructed landmass predate the Yuan conquest, it was the reason Daidu was sited as it was. It remains part of Beijing today, now known as the Lake District west of the Forbidden City. The complex that had been known as Qionghua Island when it was part of the Jin central capital was the only part of that city kept intact when construction began on Khubilai’s capital. Daidu, literally, was built around it. Its existence is the only justification for the separation of the Longfu and Xingsheng palace-complexes from the palace-city. The fact that Marco Polo does not write about the island or its architecture may indicate that it was so restricted that he did not know about it. Qionghua Island was configured as a large, central peak flanked by two smaller hills, a three-dimensional form of the Chinese character shan 山 (mountain). According to legend, stone for the artificial mountain came from both north and south. The northern source was said to be mountains at the border of the “northern desert” in the Mongolian homeland. Tao Zongyi recounts the story that the Yuan official Hede’er told him in Zhejiang province. Hede’er said that according to old men of the Jin, there was a mountain of great form and power at the boundary of the northern desert. Geomancers said this mountain possessed wangqi, the ether of rulership.239

Wanshoushan Water also had been a driving force in the design Jin Zhongdu. The union of water with land and ritual that brought about Qionghua Island was central to the Jin and Yuan designs.238 The body of water that divided the Daidu imperial-city into two parts and joined waterways that ran along the inside or outside of the imperial-city wall, and then joined other water that flowed in and out of the city, was named Taiyechi (pond). Bridges connected the palace-city and land on which Longfu and Xingsheng palace-complexes were built to the artificial hill named Wanshoushan (figure 1.24, #28) and a circular landmass (figure 1.24, #29) joined by a narrow strip to its south known as White Marble Bridge (Baiyushiqiao) (figure 1.31). The circular island joined the palace-city by a wooden bridge, 22 chi in width and 120 chi long, and the residential palaces by a wooden suspension bridge, also 22 chi wide but 472 chi long. The wooden bridge was accessible only when the emperor was in residence

44

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

Knowing that its power could sway victory to the Mongols, the Jin offered tribute, saying they only wanted this mountain in return. The Mongols laughed, saying the Jin could have it. The Jin then sent large numbers of soldiers there to dig out the mountain, transporting it piece-by-piece on carts to their central capital (Zhongdu, to become the Yuan capital Daidu), where they used it to build a mountain on a lake with architecture and plantings on it. Its power did not deter the Mongols, however, who came to possess the artificial mountain after they took the Jin central capital.240 The Song source was equally potent: it was the enormous artificial mountain known as Genyue in the Northern Song capital Bianliang that had been built between 1111 and 1117 by the Huizong emperor (r. 1100–1126). Sometimes referred to as Northeast Marchmount, gen is one of the original eight of the sixty-four trigrams of the Yijing (Book of Changes), and yue (marchmount) is a most sacred peak.241 Gen is a symbol of male fertility. After moving the stone for genyue, the Huizong emperor produced numerous male children.242 Through his reign, exotic and unusual stones were brought to him, especially from the Southeast, for placement on the mountain.243 Materials had been transported there via the Flower and Rock Network of the Song dynasty. In February 1127, about a month after the fall of Bianliang to Jin, the local population began to loot the mountain that had become a symbol of the Huizong emperor’s wanton lifestyle. In some cases, they tore down buildings and used the timber for firewood. After Jin took Bianliang as their capital, they used parts of the mountain to reinforce the north city wall. They also moved rock from the mountain to Qionghua Island, just as they dismantled screens, doors, and walls from the Northern Song palaces for use in Jin palaces.244 In other words, not every piece of the mountain was moved to become Qionghua Island. Wang Mingqing (1127–ca. 1215) was one of the first to write about the significance of the rock from which Wanshoushan was formed:

did not move. Someone informed the emperor (Huizong), saying: “This is a supernatural thing. It is fitting to display its uniqueness.” The emperor wrote his imperial inscription: “Auspicious clouds, ten thousand aspects, wonderful rock.” And thereupon hanging his golden girdle over it, the rock was moved. In an instant, half the men of the province carried it into the garden.245

Khubilai began repairs on the island on March 6, 1264, about the same time work began at the Taimiao and before construction of his palaces.246 Repairs were made again in 1271, at which time the island came to be called Wanshoushan. Tao Zongyi calls it Wanshoushan in his discussion of the buildings of the imperial city, but Wansui (ten thousand years) shan in his introductory chapter to Chuogenglu.247 Portions of Jin construction seem to have survived to the end of the fourteenth century. Xiao Xun writes that the foundation of an old palatial hall and a stone platform on which Jin lords played weiqi were at the foot of the mountain.248 Guanghan Palace was the most important building on Wanshoushan. It may have survived from the Jin period.249 Rising at the top of the centermost peak, it was 120 chi (seven bays) by 62 chi and 50 chi in height. Xiao Xun writes: “Winding around several stairways with balustrades along the sides, one climbs up to Guanghan Palace, on all of whose sides are crimson and gold mullioned windows decorated with gold leaf.” He says that the two sides and back of the hall were made of fragrant wood, with thousands of pieces of auspicious golden clouds inlaid in the ceiling, all converging in a coiling golden dragon. Tao Zongyi also writes that the windows were crimson and gold decorated with gold leaf and adds that the pillars were cinnabar-color, atop which proudly coiled dragons, that the ceiling had a zaojing, and the floor was veined stone. Xiao and Tao both write that the hall contained jade and gold flowers, a screen, and a platform on which were four couches and gold and red chairs, as well as a miniature jade hall, jade imperial couch with gold inlay, and seats for officials to its right and left. Xiao writes of a wine table with mother-of-pearl inlay, with a golden wine jar on top.250 A piece of mother-of-pearl depicting a hall with a double-eave hip-gable roof was excavated among the ruins of Houyingfang (mansion) (figure 1.32). Excavators reported an image of a woman and the character guang 廣, giving way to the belief that buildings from Guanghan Palace are depicted in figure 1.32. 251 Perhaps this object was part of the table described earlier. Or perhaps this passage from Xiao’s description is

In the Zhenghe reign period (1111–1117), they built genyue of diverse flowers and strange stones transported from the Southeast. One could not name their forms. Unexpectedly, a great stone was offered from Lingbi prefecture; more than 20 zhang in height and of the same circumference, it was borne by boat to the imperial capital. Water-Gate Tower was destroyed in order to bring it in. One thousand men tried to raise it, but the stone

45

Chapter One

1.32 Piece of lacquer inlaid with mother-of-pearl and name Guanghan Hall on a piece of cloth attached to the back, excavated at Houyingfang, Daidu, Beijing. 37 cm at longest point. Wenwu, no. 1 (1972), fig. 1.

1.33 Wine bowl with five-claw dragon and clouds, nephrite, 70 cm high, 135 cm in diameter. Excavated on Wanshoushan, Daidu, Beijing.

portrayed on the fragment: “Outside the hall is a lutai (a platform on which the emperor observed the morning dew) surrounded by a marble balustrade. To its side is an iron pole several hundred chi in height from which hang three golden gourds (for collecting dew) held in place by iron chains.” 252 The piece is about thirty-seven centimeters across at its longest extent. The delicacy of layering and inset required to produce the magenta and green it displays are extraordinary in and of themselves. It is yet more extraordinary because its subject is a two-story structure whose upper level boasts two sets of broadly sloping roof eaves, the upper hip-gable, with lattice windows on four sides, the side lattices different from those on the front, enclosed by a balustrade, and supported by a lower level with front corner towers that is accessible from a front covered arcade. The uppermost roof has owl’s tail decorations on the ends of the main ridge and the suspended fish (xuanyu) on the gable end. A decorative vapor, perhaps even qi (ether), of the wangqi associated with the Wanshoushan, passes from the front to the back of the building and beyond to chrysanthemums and other flora, until the beginning of another green ceramic-tile roof where the piece has broken. It is, of course, unknown if the graceful eaves and cloud patterns behind them were made by someone who had seen the actual building. The colors and the floral and other scrolling patterns as well as elevation, stairs, and prominent eaves suggest the structure had features befitting an imperial pleasure island where rituals were enacted. Sun Meng suggests the patterns are similar to those on the walls of a tomb excavated in Wutonghua hamlet, Wengniuteqi (see figure 5.14).253 In 1966 a Yuan-period silver plate excavated in Jintan, Jiangsu province, and today in the Zhenjiang Museum, was identified as portraying Guanghan Hall. Again the main structure has two sets of roof eaves, and again vapors emerge from it.254 Paintings may exaggerate details of the hall as much as the mother-of-pearl

fragment does. Perhaps the paintings are based on descriptions rather than the structures themselves, and the descriptions may be as imaginary as the paintings based on them. Nevertheless, the image of Guanghan Palace was one of the most powerful architectural images of Daidu. Two lacquer boxes dated to the Yuan period, one in the Tokyo National Museum and one in Okayama Prefectural Museum of Art, also have representations of architecture that include a structure with two sets of roof eaves and balustrades, and ethereal vapors emanating around them. The subject of both has been identified as Guanghan Palace, not only because of the vapors but in the case of the piece in the Tokyo National Museum also because a hare points to the elixir of immortality in the representation while mist emerges from the mouth of a toad.255 The toad-and-hare, often portrayed in the moon, joins the vapors in imagery associated with Guanghan Palace. In 1265 a huge, dark jade wine bowl was placed in Guanghan Hall by imperial order (figure 1.33).256 The date is yet more evidence that Khubilai gave attention to this island before the Daidu palaces were completed. The bowl bears remarkable resemblance to a “great jar more than two paces in height, entirely formed of a certain precious stone called Merdacas (and so fine that I was told its price exceeded the value of four great towns),” described by Odoric of Pordenone.257 In all, more than thirty buildings are recorded on the two islands. One that may have survived from Jin is a lutai. It may be the one set up by the Jin emperor Zhangzong (r. 1190–1208) to subjugate the dragon in a pool below. There were also grottoes on the islands.258 Khubilai and his entourage traveled between Daidu, the primary capital, and Shangdu, which thereafter functioned as a summer capital. The journey took about twenty-three days. Large entourages accompanied him and later khaghans.259 In the early fourteenth century there would be a capital where the khaghans could stop en route.

46

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.34 Plan of Yuan Zhongdu, Inner Mongolia. Yuan Zhongdu, vol. 1, fold-out between 30 and 31.

Yuan, and Koubei santingzhi and Da Qing yitongzhi of the Qing dynasty.262 Scholars familiar with Yuan history knew about the central capital and expected to find it in this region. In 1930 a site was mistakenly identified as Yuan Zhongdu in a publication on Eastern Mongolia by Yanai Watari.263 It is correctly described in the local record of Zhangbei, Zhangbeixian zhi, of 1934, as remains of a large city whose imperial-city had four gates and the boundaries of whose outer wall could not be determined.264 Chaha’ertongzhi, published in 1966, proposed that the area on which Zhangbeixian zhi focused was huangcheng of Yuan Zhongdu.265 In 1981 a middle school teacher from Zhangbei named Yin Zhixian saw the ruins on a visit to his home village, and the next year published an article calling the site Baichengzi of Yuan Zhongdu.266 He subsequently published articles defending the identification as Baichengzi and not Beiyangcheng, a name used in premodern local records. Hebei province accepted Yin’s identification in 1993.267 Although limited excavation occurred in the 1980s, the fiveyear excavation of 1998–2003 based on which figure 1.34 was drawn is considered authoritative. The Zhongdu outer wall was close to rectangular, 2,962 meters on the east and west side, 2,906 meters on the north and 2,881 meters on the south, for a perimeter of about 11.7 kilometers. The imperial-city wall faces, in clockwise order beginning on the east, were 927, 770, 930, and 778 meters; the palace-city’s walls were 603, 542, 608, and 548 meters in the same sequence. Fifty-four building foundations have been found (figure 1.35). All are believed to have been constructed during the four years of Khaishan’s reign. Five are identified as important. Palace 1 was most important. It was a

Zhongdu The seventh Yuan emperor, Khaishan (Külüg Khan) (r. 1307–1311), built Zhongdu, the central capital, fifteen kilometers northwest of today’s Zhangjiakou in northern Hebei province. The region was Xinghe circuit in the Yuan dynasty. Khaishan ordered construction in the sixth lunar month of 1307, just a month after he ascended the throne at Shangdu; building began in the seventh lunar month. In the first moon of 1308, 18,500 military laborers were ordered to work on construction. Khaishan hosted a banquet at Zhongdu in the eighth moon of the year. Although purported to be a place where a khaghan could stop approximately midway between Daidu and Shangdu, Zhongdu was lowered in status when Khaishan died, just four years after construction began. Khaishan’s younger brother and successor Ayurbarwada also halted new building.260 In the four years of construction, three concentric rectangular walls, gates, palaces, and a drainage system were completed. In 1344, when Zhou Boqi saw Zhongdu during a trip from Shangdu to Daidu with Toghōn Temür, he described the city, by then known as Xinghelu (circuit), as in ruins, writing that “the great harness (jian) long has been abandoned.”261 What remained in 1368 was burned in a local uprising. The ruins were in the territory of Toghōn Temür’s Northern Yuan dynasty. Once part of Xuanhua prefecture, today Zhongdu is in the region known as Zhangbei, or north of Zhangjiakou. References to the territory of the Yuan central capital are found in local records such as Beizhenglu (Record of expedition in the north) and Hou Beizhenglu (Later record of expedition in the north), both written less than a century after the fall of

47

1.35 Remains of Yuan Zhongdu, Inner Mongolia 1.36 Palace 1, Yuan Zhongdu, Inner Mongolia. Yuan Zhongdu, vol. 2, plate 247.

1.37 Decorated brick, excavated at Yuan Zhongdu, Inner Mongolia. Yuan Zhongdu, vol. 2, plate 317.

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.38 Khentii province near meeting point of Kherlen, Onon, and Tuul Rivers

gong-shaped structure with a yuetai in front, located near the center of the palace-city (figures 1.34, #1, and 1.36). Marble animal-headed and corner insets, decorated bricks, and ceramic roof tiles were all of the kind found at Khara-Khorum and Shangdu (figure 1.37). The triple-entry main gate of the palace-city, the second important building remains, 87.68 meters east-to-west and with a que on either side, was excavated in front of palace 1 (figure 1.34, #2). The south gate of the imperial-city, also triple-entry, was the third important excavated structure (figure 1.34, #3). The southwest corner tower of the palace-city (figure 1.34, #4) and drainage pipes beneath the imperial-city south gate were the fourth and fifth. The central position of the main palatial complex, frequent use of the gong-plan, and intersection of north-south and east-west streets through the city recall both Daidu and Shangdu. The four cities that have been called capitals were all political centers. The construction of each one is associated with specific rulers: Khara-Khorum with Ögedei and Möngke, Shangdu and Daidu with Khubilai, and Zhongdu with Khaishan; major governmental decisions were made in all of them, the fewest at Zhongdu. The other walled enclosures that spread across the empire took on some of the planning features of the four capitals, but none of them had a hall of audience used by a khaghan.

boundaries and main buildings. Those today in China and Inner Mongolia are discussed in Chinese records and sometimes in European accounts. Only Olon Süme was begun after Khubilai moved his capital to Daidu. Walled enclosures to the north, today in Mongolia and Russia, are more likely to date from the late 1220s through the 1250s, the reigns of Ögedei through Möngke. Walled remains in Kazakhstan and Western Russia, part of the Golden Horde, or in Iran and territory to its east in today’s Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, part of the Ilkhānate, are not discussed below. As mentioned in the introduction, the subject of this book is architecture whose patrons were heavily influenced by Chinese construction. Avraga/Avarga If one site other than Khara-Khorum can be associated with the Chinggisid period or shortly thereafter, it is Avraga, sometimes known in English as Avarga, near the meeting point of the Kherlen, Onon, and Tuul Rivers in Khentii province, in mountains near which some believe the tombs of Chinggis and his successors eventually will be found (figure 1.38).268 It is impossible to know who among those who stayed at Avraga used architectural remains or who would have built them, or indeed, the duration of the stay or if it was a site to which those who used it returned. Noriyuki Shiraishi believes that Chinggis camped here in 1211 and 1216, and that after his enthronement in 1229, Ögedei rebuilt Chinggis’s seasonal residence.269 Rashīd al-Dīn writes that Gamala (1263–1302), Yisün Temür’s father (and thus Khubilai’s grandson), built a temple here. The site called Avraga spans about 1,200 meters east-west by half a kilometer north-south. In 1957 it was already assessed to be of the Chinggisid period.270 Excavation began four years

Walled Enclosures before Khubilai The Mongols moved across space in life and in conquest, probably unaware of the age of architecture or remains in their paths. The cities or sites selected for attention below are identified as Mongol-period by location, through reliable inscriptions, coins, and enough other physical evidence to roughly determine their

49

Chapter One

1.39 Foundation 1, Avraga, Khentii

imperial kiln in Jingdezhen, Jiangxi, are stronger evidence. A measuring stick excavated at Avraga confirms that space was measured in units (figure 1.40).272 The late date of shards in addition to skulls, vertebrae, and rib bones of horses lead to theories that this site was used for shaofan, a ritual described in Ye Ziqi’s Caomuzi that was performed for deceased Mongol khans.273 If so, the early Ming shards may indicate that the ceremony was performed after the end of the Yuan dynasty. Performance of the ceremony during the period of Mongol rule in China, however, might indicate that the Yuan-period khaghans are indeed entombed in this part of Khentii. Olon Süme Olon Süme, in Baotou county of Inner Mongolia, has associations with the Chinggisid period at least as strong as those for Avraga, but not with Chinggis Khan. Its ties are to the Önggüd (Wanggu) and the Church of the East. A Turkic-speaking people, by the twelfth century most Önggüd had converted to Christianity, perhaps under the influence of the Kerait Khanate, who originated in central Mongolia.274 Among the Kerait and at Olon Süme, specifically, were many affiliates of the Church of the East.275 Two Yuan-period dates are firm: 1305, when Olon Süme became Jing’an circuit (lu [a toponymic designation of the Yuan period that can be considered equivalent to a county]), and 1318, when it became Dening circuit. Marco Polo, John of Montecorvino, and Rabban Sawma all were there or nearby.276 Belgian missionary Cesar de Brabander (1857–1919) may have been the first European since Mongol times to report on Christian remains near Baotou in Inner Mongolia.277 Scholars were poised for this kind of discovery: the right evidence might strengthen aspirations for renewed missionary activities, or even support reports of Christians in the area during the six

1.40 Measuring device made of bone unearthed at Avraga, Khentii

later and continues in this century. Avraga presents as a large, focal building inside two rectangular enclosures with additional construction to its east, west, and south (figure 1.39). The Avraga River is a southern boundary. Pieces of an earthen wall have been found to the north. A site rather than a city, one cannot confirm that it was walled to the extent of fully enclosed cities or appanage towns discussed below. Excavated materials include ceramic roof tiles, iron nails, and wooden architectural members. Coins of the Dading reign period (1169–1189) of the Jin dynasty provide a terminus post quem. Radiocarbon testing indicates no earlier than ca. 1155 and no later than 1410.271 The fullest extent of remains thus support post-Khubilai use of the site. Pieces of porcelain from the

50

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.41 Tombstones near Baotou, sketched in 1890 by Cesar de Brabander, Missiën in China en Congo 26 (1891): 411.

centuries since Mongol rule. Brabander sketched six gravestones with crucifixes and lotuses carved on them that he saw about four hours northeast of his mission in Höhhot (figure 1.41).278 He was unable to locate a white cross, the report of which brought him to this location in 1890. A local informed Brabander that the cross and other remains had been carried off by Buddhist monks for use in a monastery. Brabander and other European missionaries stationed in this part of Inner Mongolia in the late nineteenth century seem not to have drawn connections with tombstones and other stone carvings with crucifixes combined with lotuses dated to the Song and Yuan dynasties found in China’s southeastern seaports, particularly Quanzhou, Hangzhou, and Yangzhou, such as figure 6.18.279 They were aware of discoveries of the cross and lotus on relief sculpture in Fangshan, south of Beijing and much closer to Höhhot than the seaports. In 1923 missionary Charles Pieters saw some of the same kinds of tombstones in the cemetery that locals told him was called Shizhuziliang. The next year he opened four graves and found bronze mirrors as well as a 2.5-meter stone pillar on which were carved two crosses.280 By this time, Antoine Mostaert (1881–1971), a Belgian missionary and one of the most important scholars of Mongolia of his generation, and Saeki Yoshirō (1871–1965) were writing about Christian remains. The early twentieth-century missionaries and scholars realized remains could be from Church of the East Christians, at that time often called Nestorians, or from Roman Catholics, and understood that the two faiths shared certain imagery in China.281 The most concentrated physical evidence

of Church of the East from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries is in Olon Süme, located about seventy-five kilometers north of Zhangjiakou.282 The pieces of a stele known as Wangfu Stele were seminal documents in confirming Önggüd members of Church of the East. Using photographs, Chen Yuan (1880–1971) found that the stele inscription referred to Kuolijisi, which he identified as the Sinicized name of the Önggüd King George, father of Zhu’an (John).283 King George’s first wife was a daughter of Khubilai; after her death, he married a daughter of Khubilai’s successor Temür Öljeytü. George died in captivity in 1298 when Zhu’an was nine. Both Marco Polo and John of Montecorvino wrote of meeting King George, Montecorvino claiming in the above-mentioned letter to the pope that he converted George to Roman Catholicism.284 Other missionaries and later scholars would use a King George who died at the end of the thirteenth century and Brabander’s report to build a case for Christian associations of a monument in the same part of Hebei as Zhangjiakou, which is discussed in chapter 6. Egami Namio (1906–2002) excavated at Olon Süme, in 1935, 1939, and 1941. His attempts to return to the site later in the 1940s were unsuccessful. Egami’s map, with a beautiful green enclosure around the city, is still fairly accurate, as is the city’s 45-degree northwest-southeast orientation shown on it.285 So is Egami’s location for the palace-city, approximately 220 by 185 meters in its enclosure. Egami was the first to identify Olon Süme as the primary Önggüd capital.286 He also claimed that he had found the Roman Catholic church in which Montecorvino

51

Chapter One

in the twelfth century and involve Ethiopia and India as well as western Europe and western and eastern Asia.291 Still, Arthur Moule, together with Paul Pelliot the translator of one of the authoritative versions of Marco Polo, as well as the above-mentioned Chen Yuan do not discount the possibility that the John believed to be Prester John was in Olon Süme.292 Again we observe the entanglement of information and interpretation of a Mongol-period city. Speculative as the assessments may appear, beyond the four capitals and these two earliest cities, many Mongol sites do not have even one verifiable inscription to identify them.

1.42 Map of Olon Süme, based on survey of 2010. 2012 Zhongguo Shoujie Aolunsumu wenhua yantaohui, 171.

had preached.287 In addition to the palace-city, Egami believed he had located the office of the ruler’s chief councilor, a second church, which would have been for Church of the East worship, and another large building that he proposed was a library or ancestral shrine. Egami’s map is superseded by surveys of 2010 (figure 1.42). Olon Süme was enclosed by a wall of about 950–960 by 560–580 meters, about 3 meters of whose original height survive today (figure 1.43). Straight, broad streets divided the city into seventeen, four-sided, enclosed spaces. To date, ninety-nine building foundations are among them.288 The wall had a gate at each side, a tower at each corner, and wengcheng that emerged from the outer wall. These sentences could describe numerous Chinese walled cities from many time periods. Some remains in Olon Süme can be specifically associated with the Yuan period. Others are dated to the Jin period. Statuary is among the hardest to date (figure 1.44). The clear evidence of the Church of the East is in the form of tombstones.289 When a site has such a limited excavation history, is the repository of exotica, in this case stones with Chinese as well as Christian motifs, is one of the largest, if not the largest, repository, is associated with a people named Önggüd, is from the Mongol period, has a hiatus of more than sixty years between major excavations, and has a reconstructed history based on a stele whose translators have not seen the actual stone, it cannot but attract theories; and once proposed, they die hard. The Önggüd King George is not the only contributor to Olon Süme’s aura: there is also Prester John. Marco Polo wrote that King George the Christian was a descendant of Prester John. John of Montecorvino’s letter of 1305 makes the same claim. Polo noted that the realm of King George included Muslims.290 Prester John almost certainly is legendary. Stories about his patriarchy over the Church of the East began

Mongolia and Eastern Russia The site known as Doityn-Tolgoi, also known as Doityn-Balgas, in Khontont county of Arkhangai, was identified by Radlov in 1892. He determined it to be the spring seasonal residence of Ögedei.293 Kh. Perlee challenged Radlov’s identification in 1961. E. V. Shavkunov found Chinese ceramics dated to the thirteenth century and roof tiles when he excavated there in 1970. UNESCO sponsored excavations in 1996 directed by Shiraishi.294 Oriented northwest-southeast, a central structure, probably supported by pillars and possibly made in part of stone, is approached by a platform or has a front entryway narrower than the hall itself. The structure and two roughly symmetrical stone foundations on either side are enclosed on three sides by least fourteen stones. Melkhin-Tolgoi, about three kilometers southeast of KharaKhorum, also oriented northwest-southeast but closer to eastwest than Doityn-Tolgoi or Khara-Khorum, has a main structure and smaller one roughly to its east. They are enclosed together by a four-sided earthen wall that is accessible on two sides. The 104-by-74-meter enclosure was identified by the KiselevPerlee expedition in 1949 and published by both archaeologists. Shavkunov also excavated here in 1970. Although Khitan remains have been found, Melkhin-Tolgoi is believed to be a Yuan-period seasonal residence, perhaps used in the spring.295 Its proximity to Khara-Khorum helps build the case that smaller settlements clustered around large ones in Mongolia. The building groups that include Mongol remains at Bayan-gol, fifteen kilometers northwest of Khara-Khorum, and Melkhin-Tolgoi are evidence that walled enclosures with architecture inside them clustered around large urban centers. This feature has been observed in the study of civilizations in early stages of complex urbanism. In China it was first noted

52

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.43 Olon Süme, Inner Mongolia, wall remains, 2018

1.44 Remains of stone statues, Olon Süme, Inner Mongolia, thirteenth to fourteenth centuries, 2018

in excavations in and around the Shang (ca. 1600-ca. 1045 BCE) capital at Anyang.296 Although it was emphasized at the beginning of this chapter that walled enclosures populated the Mongolian grasslands long before the ascendance of the Mongols, and in fact the Uyghur capital Karabalghasun is in the vicinity of Khara-Khorum, Melkhin-Tolgoi and Bayan-Gol are dated to the Yuan period by excavated finds. The growth of smaller enclosed areas around a city the size of Khara-Khorum should be considered a feature of early Mongolian-period urbanism. Bayan-gol was first excavated by Bukunich in 1933 and then by Perlee in 1961, and Shiraishi and Katō were there in 1995–1996.297

Shaazan-Khot, Mongolian for ceramic pieces, is in Övörkhangai province. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, Yuan-period shards with blue, green, and golden glaze were still at the site (figure 1.45). Limited excavation took place in the early twentieth century when excavation was underway at Khara-Khorum. Perlee began digging in 1950, followed by Maidar in 1970, who identified this place as the winter residence of Ögedei, the view put forth by Boyle, who suggested it was a winter palace.298 Joint excavation by the Mongolian Academy of Science and a Japanese team in 1996–1998 indicated a perimeter of 600 meters north-south by 320 meters east-west with long streets forming a T-shape at the north(-east) and dozens of

53

1.45 Remains of glazed shards, Shaazan-Khot, Övörkhangai, 2013

1.46 Remains of stone pilasters and columns, Shaazan-Khot, Övörkhangai, 2013

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.47 Reconstruction plan of city in Khövsgol

1.48 Plan of remains of Kharkhur-Khan, Arkhangai

buildings, among which were stone pilasters and columns (figure 1.46). Orientation is about 30 degrees northeast-southwest, similar to the orientations of Khara-Khorum and Doityn-Tolgoi. The evidence of permanent architecture, including two major buildings in the north center, was such that they have been described as palatial.299 The most expensive ceramics were found in this northern part of the city. The location is reason to consider whether these are the palatial remains south of Khara-Khorum reported by William of Rubruck in December 1253, a “palace” he saw during the reign of Möngke. If so, Shaazan-Khot is where, after the pacification of Dali, in southwestern China, Möngke stopped in the twelfth moon of 1253.300 Möngke also is believed to have used a site under excavation from 2018 to 2022 in Khövsgol. It presents as a city of two concentric walls with a main palatial area in the north center of the inner wall (figure 1.47).301 Kharkhur-Khan in Erdenemandal prefecture of Arkhangai so far is one of the most complex Mongol-period cities in Mongolia.302 Also oriented northwest-southeast, about 38 degrees, and occupying an area of about 1.5 square kilometers, the outer wall had four gates and corner towers (figure 1.48). The orientation and a prominent structure oriented the same way recall the plan of Khara-Khorum. Radlov was here in 1891, followed by S. Palsi in 1909, who posited that architecture was

in Chinese style, but his data was lost in a fire. Maiskii excavated in 1919. Dorjsüren found remains of residential architecture in 1957, the results of which were published by Perlee in 1961. Enkhbat excavated through the 1980s. Matsuda Kōichi excavated in 1994, 1996, and 1998. Excavation is currently underway.303 The site had at least two major periods of occupation, seventeenth–eighteenth century and thirteenth–fourteenth century. Thirteenth- to fourteenth-century remains include courtyard-style architecture, buildings on elevation platforms, at least two examples of buildings in a gong-configuration, ceramic roof tiles, and stone pilasters. Bars-Khot 3 in Tsagaan-Ovoo prefecture of Dornod province, near Mongolia’s border with Heilongjiang, has four sets of remains along an east-west stretch of approximately eighteen kilometers. Perlee excavated here in the 1950s.304 Like the significant walled enclosure at Kharkhur-Khan, Bars-Khot 3 has buildings on line with front and back central wall gates, and a gate in each of the other two enclosing sides. Bars-Khot 3 has a Khitan history; its Yuan-period history is confirmed by glazed roof ornaments, tiles, and other pieces.305 The location and ceramic remains suggest this may have been one of the cities to which Toghōn Temür’s followers fled as the Yuan dynasty was collapsing in the 1360s. Bars (Ba’er) Monastery, where he fled in 1365 before moving eastward to Yingchang, may have been here.306

55

Chapter One

1.49 Plan of remains in Khirkhira, Transbaikalia

Khirkhira and cities in the vicinity in Zabaikalya were used before Khubilai came south to China. Before 1818 the so-called Chinggisid Stone, more accurately named the Yisüngge Stele, had been found about five kilometers north of the Khirkhira River. Some ten years later it was broken during transport to St. Petersburg. The inscription is, so far, the earliest in Mongolian, a written script derived from the Uyghur alphabet that had come into existence in 1204 for the purpose of record-keeping by Chinggis and his administrators. The short inscription states that in the summer of 1224, Yisüngge, the son of Chinggis’s oldest younger brother Jochi-Khasar (1164–ca.1213), shot an arrow 335 fathoms at a gathering of the Mongol “nation.” 307 As we saw earlier, siting by bowshot was used not only in Chinggis’s generation but would also be used by Khubilai. One cannot be sure that Yisüngge’s appanage was determined by the 335-fathom shot. Based on the discovery of the stone, significant excavation in the Khirkhira region in the mid-twentieth century under S. V. Kiselev and in the twenty-first century under N. Kradin, and the biography of Jochi-Khasar in Yuanshi that places his appanage in the vicinity of the Argun River, Khirkhira is seen as a major urban center. Perhaps, using examples in Mongolia discussed earlier, one can view it as an urban cluster.308 Along a stretch of about two kilometers east-west and about seven hundred meters north-south, the remains of nearly 150 building foundations or complexes have been excavated (figure 1.49). They group into walled units along a roughly northeast-southwest line. The size and number of walls suggest that in the generation of Chinggis and his sons, this eastern location

was a center of rising imperial ambitions. If so, there might have been a recentering of Mongol ruling power westward toward Khara-Khorum, a process Nikolay Kradin describes as hinterland becoming heartland.309 He attributes the cause to internal politics, specifically Chinggis’s distrust of Khasar and reduction of Khasar’s appanage to four thousand tents. Kondui The site known as Kondui is 61.7 kilometers west of Khirkhira. It presents as a palace-city, in all likelihood used by those for whom greater Khirkhira was their appanage and Kondui was the administrative town.310 Spassky visited Kondui in 1798 and included it in his 1818 study of Siberian culture, followed by publication by Kuznetsov in 1925. Objects were moved from Kondui to museums in Chita and Nerchinsk in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Kiselev excavated there from 1957 to 1959. Excavation in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries confirms not only that Kondui received imperial patronage but that the resulting architecture relied on Chinese patterns and details. In the mid-twentieth century Kiselev published Kondui as centered on a cruciform-shaped structure elevated on a granite platform with what was likely to be a gate in front, two pairs of side structures between the gate and main building, a small building to the west, a row of three structures farther behind, and a back complex of three buildings or a building with two front projections that presented as large in the center and smaller in front.311 The current plan based on excavation

56

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

1.50 Plan of Kondui, Transbaikalia

shows the cruciform-like complex still to be a focal structure of a much more expansive site whose buildings are north-south aligned. The alignment thus contrasts the orientation of KharaKhorum, Kharkhur-Khan, Olon Süme, and walled enclosures with fewer buildings discussed earlier. Kiselev found the central portion to be a five-by-four-bay hall, the central bays of the front and back the widest and the four side bays more evenly spaced. These features also are confirmed in the recent plan (figure 1.50). The large open center suggested the cao formation, a central space enclosed by an outer cao, a word translated as trough that presents as an arcade. It is the layout of extant Chinese halls since the ninth century, and a form explained in Yingzao fashi.312 Multicolored, glazed, ceramic, roof drip-tiles and end-tiles were important evidence for Kiselev’s strong argument for China-inspired architecture at Kondui, but in fact the placement of pillars into inner and outer cao is equally important. In the 1950s Kiselev would have known the significance of the dozens of animal-faced stone pieces that should have been inserted approximately two meters apart on every side of the balustrade of this structure (figure 1.51), for he had seen them at Khara-Khorum. By now, they have been found not only at all four capitals, but at Yingchang and Kaicheng, both discussed below, as well. The fact that to date these kinds of pieces have not been excavated at Kharkhur-Khan might be determining information that, in spite of the many long streets and numerous architectural foundations, the city is missing crucial evidence that would deem it an appanage of a prince-of-the-blood. If Kharkhur-Khan was not a royal city, then the use of the gong-plan would indicate use of Chinese building patterns without understanding of their significance. At Kondui, the elevation platform and sculptures are granite, whereas marble is used at imperial capitals. The sides of the central hall are five bays. There were lacquer remains. A discovery at Kondui attests to what may occur when ruins are left in isolation. Some of the above-mentioned animal-faced sculptures were reconfigured for use in the Russian Orthodox church in the village of Kondui, for which stone was acquired

1.51 Six animal-faced inserts into the exterior of the Kondui palace complex, Transbaikalia. Kiselev, Drevnemongol’skie goroda, 343.

around 1805 for completion in 1806. In 1801 materials had been removed from the site to build Tsugol Buddhist monastery in Aga.313 Later construction on an earlier site is more standard. A well-known example from the Mongol period is the discovery of Ögedei’s palace beneath the current seventeenth- to eighteenth-century monastery Erdene Zuu in Khara-Khorum.314 At Kondui, more isolated than Khara-Khorum, palace ruins became both a Buddhist monastery and part of a church more than five hundred years after the Mongol period. Alestuy is nine kilometers northeast of Khirkhira.315 Its main structure is 17 meters east-west by 28–32 meters north-south, elevated on a 1.5-meter foundation. Oriented due south, it is believed to be residential. The platform is in a courtyard approximately 71 meters square, oriented about 45 degrees northwest-southeast, that is surrounded by a 0.3-meter enclosure. A rectangular courtyard to the north, 64 meters wide and 33 meters deep, shares the northern wall of the main courtyard. A smaller enclosure is due west. Cooking equipment, parts of a plowshare,

57

Chapter One

Buildings Stele Tombs

Deiger River

1.52 Ceramic animal head, excavated at building 4, Den-Terek, Tuva. Kiselev, Drevnie mongol’skie goroda, 94.

dice, and ceramic tiles, including roof tiles, were excavated here. Roof tiles were identified as Mongol period based on those excavated in greater Khirkhira, including at Kondui, and in Avraga, Narsatui, and Den-Terek, where ceramic animal heads also followed Chinese forms (figure 1.52).316 Remains of Mongolperiod urbanism also have been uncovered at Tavan-Tolgoi in Ömnögovi province.317 This section ends with a site that was identified on the north and south banks of the Delger River (mören) in Arbulag prefecture of Khövsgol province in 1953. The more significant remains were on the north side. The manner of publication was similar to other initial announcements in the 1950s of excavations in Mongolia or southern Siberia or Transbaikalia that had been part of the Mongol empire: a simple sketch map (figure 1.53), discussion of key pieces of evidence, and the stele that provided the most important historical evidence. The publication mentions bluish bricks spread over a distance of about a meter, pieces of both glazed and unglazed roof tiles, relief, and clay and wooden statuary that showed evidence of a fire. Like other reports of sites newly identified in the 1950s, this one made comparisons with Khara-Khorum and speculated that William of Rubruck might have been here. The stele, seventy-eight by

1.53 Remains on north and south banks of Delger River, Khövsgol. Rincen, “L’inscription sinomongole,” 135.

twenty centimeters with a Sino-Mongolian inscription, found at the Delger River site, had been erected on the twenty-fifth day of the third lunar month of summer in 1257 in honor of Möngke by his wife and son-in-law.318 Archaeologists will have to return to remains like those on the Delger River before the history of Mongol cities can be completed. The total number of appanages awarded by the khaghans, to whom, and how much of the empire north of China today was covered with walls are still unknown.

South of Mongolia The remaining cities discussed here are today in China, including Inner Mongolia, and have been excavated by Chinese teams. A princely town eighty-seven kilometers from Transbaikalia and

58

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

Palace-City

a similar distance from the Mongolian border is probably the oldest. Inscriptions connect it to cities in and around Khirkhira and Tuva associated with Yisüngge and Temüge, another of Chinggis’s younger brothers. Khubilai awarded three cities in this region to his children, one in Inner Mongolia and two, both to the same son, in today’s Shaanxi and Ningxia. Another city in Inner Mongolia has yielded some of the most important porcelain of the thirteenth century. A city in Xinjiang has remains that date late in the Mongol period.

1.54 Plan of Heishantou, Inner Mongolia. After Song Di, “Guanyu Heishantou,” Beifang wenwu, no. 4 (2000): 50.

Heishantou The site known as Heishantou, about twelve kilometers northwest of the town of Heishantou in Hailar, Hulunbei’er (Hulunbuir), Inner Mongolia, in the past was part of Heilongjiang.319 Russian and then Japanese archeologists identified it.320 Initial Chinese excavation was in 1975. By the 1990s the Heishantou site was identified as the appanage of two different brothers of Chinggis, Jochi-Khasar and Temüge.321 Consensus since then is that it was Jochi-Khasar’s city. Some believe it stayed in the hands of this family through the Northern Yuan. Located on the Argun (Ch.: E’erguna) River, near the rivers Genhe and De’erbu’er, the city at Heishantou had outer and inner walled enclosures.322 The outer wall is roughly square, its outer faces between 578 and 592 meters for a total perimeter of 2,355 meters, and oriented northwest-southeast like Mongolperiod cities discussed earlier. The western wall bends along water while the other three walls are straighter (figure 1.54). The highest remains are 4 meters. A gate of 9–12 meters in width was near the center of each wall, and there were four corner towers. Four mamian (outer wall battlements that permitted entry into the city) were spaced approximately 100 meters apart along each wall. The city was surrounded by a moat approximately 7 meters in width; today it is still more than a meter deep. An area of 167 by 113 meters that presents as a palace-city was near the center. The identification as a palace-city relies on its position, the centralized gong-shaped mound, and objects excavated in the vicinity: stone pilasters 92 centimeters in circumference and about 75 centimeters in diameter, gold and green ceramic tiles, azure-colored bricks, and ceramic tiles with dragon and floral patterns. The fortified main entry was slightly west of the center of its south wall, with entries also on the two sides. Structural remains in the shape of an ellipse, about 17 meters in perimeter, elevated on a 1.3-meter foundation, were uncovered due west of the palace-city inside the west gate. An enclosed

sector about 122 by 100 meters is in the northeastern corner. Building remains also were found in a few places south of the palace area. Remains of walled enclosures in the vicinity suggest that, like centers of appanages farther north in Mongolia and Transbaikalia, Heishantou, too, may have been part of a cluster. Knowing how many cities clustered around Khara-Khorum, one looks to cities today in Inner Mongolia within approximately one hundred kilometers of Shangdu for evidence of this practice. Xiaohongcheng, which may have been Chagannao’er, was identified and studied in 2002 and 2003. It would have been part of that cluster. Excavation there has been limited.323 Yingchang Yingchang(lu) was the appanage of the Prince of Lu. Its remains are 80 kilometers from the center of Hexingten (Kesheketeng) Banner and 150 kilometers northeast of Shangdu. It was excavated in 1957. Like so many princely towns, Yingchang is on a lake at the confluence of waterways. Today, as 850 years ago, water runs through and around the site in any season (figure 1.55). The city is oriented 10 degrees northwest-southeast. Yingchang’s outer wall is well preserved. Measuring 800 by 650 meters in perimeter, as much as 3 meters of its height still stand. The thickness is about 10 meters at the base and about 2 at the top. Gates are at the north, east, and west sides, and battlements are still visible from the air (figure 1.56). Even during initial excavation in the early 1960s, Yingchang presented as a city planned as a Chinese capital. This was truer as later excavations located additional building complexes and roads inside its walls (figure 1.57).324 The north center of Yingchang, about 200 by just under 300 meters, is identified as a palace-city whose main structures are a gate, three-hall complex behind it, and back gate. A 260-meter-long, 10-meter-wide

59

Chapter One

Palace-City

Architectural Remains Stone Remains Stone-mortar

1.55 Yingchang, Inner Mongolia, November 2017

Stele Tortoise Base

0

60 m

1.57 Plan of Yingchang, Inner Mongolia, published in 2002. Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Nei Menggu dongnanbu hangkong shiying kaogu baogao, 43.

1.56 Yingchang, Inner Mongolia. Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Nei Menggu dongnanbu hangkong shiying kaogu baogao, 209.

avenue leads from the south gate of the outer city to a wide street that crosses the city from east gate to west gate. The palace-city front gate, five bays by one, is just behind but not in line with this north-south avenue. The main halls of the palace-city are defined by marble pilasters and other pillar holes as a wide, squarish hall with a smaller squarish hall joined to it in the front and a separate hall behind it. The front structures were elevated on a platform of about three meters. Four central interior pillars are eliminated from an otherwise complete grid of the five-baysquare main building. Holes indicate the use of four-sided and circular pillars. The back hall, three bays square, has two pillars eliminated from its interior grid. We will see in chapters 2 and 4 that elimination of interior pillars is a feature of palatial and religious architecture of the tenth to thirteenth centuries. The next largest building group was in the northwest corner of the outer city. Approximately 200 meters north-south by 150 meters east-west, it had a front, corridor-enclosed courtyard with front and back gates and two symmetrical structures at the front, symmetrical structures in the open area behind it, and a large, inverted-U-shaped complex at the back. The earthen wall that enclosed it still rises 1.5 meters. A smaller courtyard of buildings was just outside the northeast corner

of the palace-city. Green glazed tiles were found throughout this section of the city. Two other sets of two buildings were excavated on the eastern side of the city, and smaller enclosures in addition to miscellaneous foundations were on the west. A tortoise base, presumably for a stele, also was found in the northwest. A stone lion was found near the pair of buildings along the eastern wall of the northern city sector. Excavators suggested this might have been the location of an official residence. The southern part of the city was divided by orthogonally positioned streets into eight sectors. This area is believed to have been residential. Pieces of two stele are important finds. The one in the southeast corner of the palace-city had entwined dragons at the top and eight characters in two rows on the front that read: “Record of the newly established Confucian School of Yingchang circuit.” Sculptural remains confirm that a pair of stone lions originally stood on either side. Another stone lion, probably one of a pair, was found near the gate to the palace-city. The stele inscription and stone lions indicate the elite status of Yingchang, but the excavation of a marble, animal-headed architectural inset of the kind excavated at the four capitals confirms this was the city of royalty.

60

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

One must turn to remains of another stele, on a hill about forty kilometers east of the city, to confirm this. Originally 1 by 3.25 meters, and about 0.25 meter thick, the tortoise-based stone with entwined dragons at the top was engraved in Chinese characters in the easily readable script known as kaishu (standard script). The 544 characters in twenty-seven lines say that the stone was erected in the sixth lunar month of 1325 to mark repair ordered by the imperial grand princess of Lu Sengge Ragi, who by imperial decree had built anew Longxing Monastery on Mount Mantuo of Yingchang circuit.325 Thirty years earlier, shortly after his accession to the throne, Temür Öljeytü had given funds to Sengge Ragi for the construction of Wangji Monastery in Yingchang.326 According to a stele inscription, the monastery had a main hall enclosed by an arcade with a tower at each corner, and a wall around the entire monastery that included an abstinence cottage as well as storage halls and kitchens for what is assumed to have been a community of monks. Everything was expensively decorated. There was a pagoda west of the monastery, which, because it is described as a place monks came to chant, is likely to have been for the practice of Tibetan Buddhism.327 Other important finds from Yingchang are a 350-kilogram cast-iron cauldron, 0.64 meter high with a diameter of 1.06 meters, and a seal in ‘Phags-pa script dated 1365. Closer to the city, just southwest of the outer wall, about twelve meters of a brick, Tibetan-style pagoda, squarish at the base with a rounded shaft, remained. The base was a combination of stone and brick with traces of lion heads that had once been carved at the four corners. It was heavily damaged in 1967.328 Yingchang has an official founding date of 1270, the year it was ordered that population be moved three hundred li northeast of Shangdu to build a city. In 1285, the year Temür Öljeytü had given funds to Sengge Ragi for the above-mentioned monastery construction, its status was elevated from fu (subprefecture) to lu (circuit).329 In the generation of Chinggis, these lands had been presented to the sons of Dei Sechen of the Hongjila (Qongjirad) family. In 1290 Manzi, the younger brother of Woluochen, inherited the ten thousand households. He was enfeoffed as the prince of Jining, discussed below, and then as prince of Lu. The appanage stayed in the hands of the Hongjila, so the town retained elite status and was known either as Yingchang circuit or as the city of the Prince of Lu. The royal status of Yingchang presumed from the site plan, stele inscriptions, stone lions, animal-headed

inserts, and amount of glazed ceramics is consistent with a comment in the excavation report of 1961 that relatively few goods of daily life were found compared to the number of objects made of expensive materials.330 According to Yuanshi, Yingchang and Quanning circuits together had an estimated population of about 200,000 households, suggesting large numbers of goods.331 Perhaps the nonelite population was in Quanning. Yingchang suffered severe damage in 1354. Toghōn Temür fled there after the fall of Daidu. The above-mentioned seal confirms the presence of the imperial government in the city around the time of the fall of the dynasty. Toghōn Temür died in Yingchang in the fourth moon of 1370. What remained was devastated by armies of the first Ming emperor in 1378. Quanninglu, today in Ongniud (Wengniute) Banner, was enclosed by an earthen wall about a kilometer on each side and with a gate on each side.332 If further excavation becomes possible, it will be evaluated as a possible part of a cluster with Yingchang. Jining The city known as Jininglu is in Bayantala, about twenty-five kilometers east and slightly south of the center of Jining today. It was excavated in 1958.333 A prefectural city in the Jin dynasty, under the Mongols it was enlarged and a wall was added, thus elevating its status to lu. It is believed to have had Buddhist monasteries, a Confucian temple (for civil officials), and a temple to Guan Yu (for military officials), as well as official quarters, shops, markets, and artisan workshops. When first excavated, Jininglu was thought to have been a three-walled city, where, as at Shangdu, walls and gates of the intermediary city, called inner city by excavators, were shared with the outer city. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, it was determined that Jininglu was more similar to Yingchang, with an innermost enclosure in the north center, approached by a street that led to it from the south. The innermost, north-central enclosure is believed to have had been the residential space of the person who controlled Jininglu. The city to its south was divided by nine major and twenty-two smaller streets into foursided sectors (figure 1.58).334 The east gate of the outer wall, which provides access across the city, is the most heavily fortified, with a wengcheng of seventy-five by sixty-five meters. Excavation confirmed that the city is an expanded version of a walled city built by the Jin in 1192, leading some to question if remains believed to be a Confucian temple and a Guan Yu temple might also be

61

Chapter One

territories awarded by earlier Mongol rulers. Khubilai enfeoffed Manggala (d. 1278), his third son by his principal wife Chabui, as Prince of Anxi (Anxiwang) in 1273.338 The title came with a gold seal, a sign of his royal status and power. The next year Khubilai appointed Manggala’s older brother Jingim heir apparent and gave Manggala the title Prince of Qin (Qinwang) and another gold seal, this later one of higher status. Khubilai and Chabui’s oldest son had died as a child; the youngest son also received an appanage but was later disgraced. Anxiwangfu was crucial for Khubilai. His own land until he awarded it to his son, it included parts of today’s Shaanxi, Ningxia, Gansu, some of Sichuan, and some of Tibet, territory that had buttressed Chaghatay’s ulus since the death of Chinggis and by 1270 was in the hands of Ögedei’s grandson Khaidu (d. 1301). It is likely Khubilai felt the need for the presence of his son here. The short life of the appanage in part was because Manggala died only six years after he received it. Manggala’s son Ananda received the titles Anxiwang and Qinwang, but regents were in charge of him and the land. And Ananda’s appanage was smaller than his father’s, Tibet, Sichuan, and Gansu having been lost from it in 1279. In 1287 Ananda gave the Qinwang seal to his older brother, who several years later was forced to return it to Khubilai. When Ananda was executed in 1307, the appanage and accoutrements of the Prince of Anxi were given to Ayurbarwada, the brother of the new khaghan.339 The city endured until 1323. The remains of Anxiwangfu are within Xi’an today and were part of Chang’an in earlier times. A plan is included in Li Haowen’s (jinshi 1321) illustrated version of Song Minqiu’s Chang’anzhi (Record of Chang’an).340 Li’s map shows the city of the Prince of Qin as a perfect rectangle, with a gate at the center of each wall face (figure 1.59). Although the perfect rectangle may be an idealization of the actual placement of wall faces, Polo described the city that he called Kenjanfu (Quenjianfu) as enclosed by a “massive and lofty wall, five miles in compass, well built, and all garnished with battlements.341 Excavation began with a mounded area in 1957.342 Anxiwangfu was enclosed by a rammed-earth wall of between 8.2 and 10 meters in thickness that extended 603 meters north-south and 534 or 542 meters east-west. Orientation was just 3 degrees west of due north. Gates were confirmed only at the south, east, and west, the eastern and western about 14 meters wide and opposite each other; all gates had only one opening, the south gate of 12 meters and the side gates of about 5 meters. A pounded-earth platform of about 2–3 meters, about 185 meters north-south

1.58 Plan of Jininglu, Inner Mongolia. Zhao Libo, “Jininglu,” 56

survivals from Jin times. The only dated inscription is of the year 1312, on a stele found within the second wall, west of its north gate.335 A multiple-walled city, even from a century from which several dozen such cities survive, is important, but Jining is best known for objects excavated in 1967, 1977, and 1984. Ceramics and textiles found there include a few pieces with the characters neifu, indicating they were produced for the court. Textiles also include some with gold thread. The yuhuxianchun (precious vessel in advance of spring) vase, with almost unique red glaze, an azure-glazed inkstone in the shape of a dragon-headed tortoise with the character wang (prince) on it, and a four-color glazed figure of a seated official are among the best known. Glazed objects were found in kiln-like cylindrical brick holes.336 So far, animal-headed marble architectural components have not been found. Jining is best described as a city of wealth and an important commercial and artisan center where imperial goods were produced but perhaps not used by resident royalty. By 1991 Gai Shanlin had identified thirty-nine groups of Mongol-period remains from Jining west to just west of Baotou. Some have major thoroughfares across them. Some have interior walled enclosures. A small city, about five hundred meters square, known as Shajingbianbao (Shajing border fortification), also had major, bisecting roads.337 Two walled cities farther south, both appanage centers, are less well-excavated but have more complicated histories. The first is Anxiwangfu, today part of Xi’an. Anxiwangfu Anxiwangfu, the prefectural city of the prince of Anxi, was the center of a prized appanage. The city was established under Khubilai and thus much farther south than the princely

62

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

by about 90 meters east-west, rose near the center of the city. Although found in isolation, it must have been for the elevation of a palace. In spite of seals of royalty in the possession of Anxiwangfu’s chief resident, no dragon-faced marble inserts have been excavated here. One of the most interesting finds at Anxiwangfu is a bronze magic square in Arabic numerals of six digits in each direction that sum to 111, contained in a stone case.343 The Arabic numbers should be evidence of a Muslim population in the city. The object may support an explanation of why Ananda lost the appanage. Although one idea is that he overreached in his attempt to turn to Korea to enhance his power,344 another reason is that his Muslim affiliation led to his downfall. Ananda is discussed again in chapter 6. It has also been questioned whether the remains of Anxiwangfu are where they were identified in 1958 or whether the excavation site was in fact the territory of an early Ming prince.345 The presence of Yuan tombs with extensive murals in Xi’an suggests a wealthy Chinese population. The tomb at Hansenzhai, dated 1288, is an example.346 Yuan Gui’an’s name is clear in an inscription in his tomb in Xi’an. Yuan was buried in 1295 with seventy-two objects but no murals.347 Anxiwangfu/Qinwangfu in greater Xi’an was only one of Manggala’s appanage capitals. A second city in Anxiwangfu was in Kaicheng, before then known as Yuanzhou, today eighteen kilometers from Guyuan in Ningxia Hui autonomous region. Used primarily as the summer capital of the appanage, it was devastated by an earthquake in 1306. Excavation occurred many seasons between 1989 and 2006, with the most important work in 2003, 2005, and 2006.348 Different from every town or city discussed earlier, the entire outer wall of Kaicheng of the Anxiwang circuit has never been mapped. The idealized Yuan-period plan shows a perfect rectangle with a gate at each side, orthogonally planned streets, and wards (figure 1.60). Remains within an area of about 3,500 meters north-south by between 500 and 1,000 meters east-west cluster in six groups. The clearest evidence of a pounded-earth wall in Kaicheng was at Changchongliang, where 1,600 meters of remains with gates on the south, east, and west walls, the latter two not equidistant from the north or south walls, corner towers, and battlements were found. The south entry is the most prominent. Directly behind is a gong-shaped foundation, presumably a palatial complex. The only other sizable building foundations were east and west of the northern section of the gong formation

1.59 Illustration of the Yuan city at Qin (Anxiwangfu), Xi’an. Li Haowen, Chang’anzhi tu, juan shang/3a–b. 1.60 Excavation plan of Changchongliang site, Kaicheng, Ningxia. Kaicheng Anxiwangfu yizhi kantan baogao, 129.

(figure 1.60). The area known as Beijiashan district 1 includes four moats and a pond. Excavators suggest it might be the place described by Yao Sui (1238–1314) in his inscription on the Yanli Monastery Stele (Yanlisibei) that names both Yangyu Pond (chi) and Lianhua Pond.349 The north central position of a gong-shaped structure and two symmetrically positioned buildings east and west support identification of palatial remains. Objects excavated in this part of Anxiwangfu further confirm Kaicheng as one of the appanage capitals. More objects associated with rulers were uncovered in Kaicheng than at Anwiwangfu in Xi’an. Six animal-headed

63

Chapter One

1.61 Miniature bronze building excavated at Kaicheng, Ningxia. Kaicheng Anxiwangfu yizhi kantan baogao, colorpl. 49.

architectural inserts found here, bluestone and not marble, are carved with detailed horns not seen at Shangdu or Zhongdu. Corner inserts with five-claw dragons in relief, of the kind excavated at Shangdu and Zhongdu, were used, and golden objects remained.350 A highly decorated, multilevel miniature building of bronze, 11.4 centimeters in height, with a roofed portico known as baosha at each side, also was found (figure 1.61).351 Excavators believe it to be the lower part of a pagoda. At this time, figure 1.61 is a rare examples of a Yuan-period mingqi in the shape of a secular building. Other objects from Kaicheng of kinds not found among remains of other Mongol-period cities are a 19.8-centimeter seated bronze image of a bearded male and a 10.8-centimeter bronze weight with a handle, dated by inscription to 1286.352

1.62 Plan of Jingzhoulu, Siziwangqi, Inner Mongolia. After Li Yiyou, “Nei Menggu Yuandai chengzhi gaishuo,” 92.

and west wall, each with wengcheng. The western gate led to a smaller city. This smaller city was not the same as the western location of the Liao central capital but rather abutted a small hill at the southwest corner. The north and south walls of the smaller city each had a gate and wengcheng. The wall also had mamian. Parts of this wall rise as much as four meters today.355 A bronze official seal and stele with an inscription on the back in ‘Phags-pa were found in 1956.356 A Yuan-period, squarish city wall whose faces are between eight hundred and nine hundred meters and up to six meters in height, with a projection of one hundred by fifty meters in the southwest corner, is the remains of Jingzhoulu in Chengbozi village, Siziwangqi (Dorbod banner). A major thoroughfare ran from near the south wall to an east-west street that extended the full width of the city in its north. Smaller streets were parallel to it in the south (figure 1.62). A stele with a Chinese inscription dated to the seventh lunar month of 1307, erected by the prefectural supervisor, was found in the southwestern extension of the city.357 We end with Almaliq, today in Huocheng, 10.7 kilometers northeast of the city center and just northwest of Yining, in Xinjiang near the western border with Kazakhstan. Today part of China, it is the only city of the Chaghatay khanate included here. The site was used by the Qara-Khitai (1124–1218) before Chinggis conquered this region. Almaliq seems to have superseded the Qara-Khitai capital Balasagun in importance during the Mongol period, although there is no physical evidence of a wall. It exemplifies what Michal Biran describes as the “ambiguous relationship” nomadic empires had with the city.358 The site was identified in 1958; it was among four pre-Qing sites excavated under the direction of Huang Wenbi in July and

Other Enclosed Towns Limited excavation revealed the remains of a Yuan city, Xuanning prefecture, Liangcheng, Inner Mongolia, on the route between Datong in Shanxi and Höhhot. Its outer wall, five hundred by three hundred meters in perimeter, had a gate near the center of each side and corner towers. No additional fortifications and no interior buildings were identified.353 The remains of Daninglu, in Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia, the location of the Liao central capital and one of the Jin northern capitals, were excavated in 1959–1960.354 Spanning about two thousand meters east-west, its northern wall was the south wall of the Liao capital’s outer wall. The Yuan-period city extended about 1,500 meters south beyond that wall. A main north-south thoroughfare, five to six meters wide, led from the south gate northward, with commercial areas and residential wards on either side. Architectural remains found on the east side of the northern part of this north-south street are believed to be from a commercial area with both shops and places of manufacture. During the Yuan period, old mamian were rebuilt and new ones were added along the north and south walls. Zhuxia Gate was reused from Liao-Jin times. Two gates were opened on the east

64

Wall-Enclosed Spaces

August of that year.359 It is recorded in histories from the Han onward. Xu Song (1781–1848), the Qing scholar who studied remains in Xinjiang while in exile for abuse of his scholarly office, was here, although he uses different characters from the current ones to name the site.360 Huang estimated that Almaliq extended about five kilometers east-west; he was not able to propose a north-south dimension. The Mongol-period history is based on the travel accounts of Qiu Chuji who passed through both Balasagun and Almaliq on his journey between 1220 and 1222 to meet Chinggis Khan, and Rabban Sawma on his journey from Daidu to Jerusalem between 1266 and 1281. Coins, shards, and stone were found, including several objects with Arabic inscriptions. The only date was AH 727 (1327) on a coin. Three tombstones with crucifixes also were found at Almaliq.361 It has been suggested that a tombstone in the Oriental Museum, Durham University, was from Almaliq.362 The tombstones attest that even though the Chaghatayids may not have built or used walled enclosures, and even if permanent structures do not survive, Christians and Muslims died and were buried here. The major monuments associated with the khaghanate are mausoleums. One of them is discussed in chapter 6. This long chapter has confirmed, first, that in the decades of empire formation the Mongols built or used cities from Heilongjiang in the east to the Ordos in the west. Second, from the 1220s onward, cities included permanent palatial and religious buildings, and in some cases industries such as tile- and brick-making in close enough proximity to support architecture in those cities. Third, urbanism clustered. Fourth, a location designated as a capital and other important cities, Olon Süme, Kharkhur-Khan, Khirkihira, Yingchang, and Jining among them, had orthogonally placed streets and sometimes wards. Correspondences to Chinese urbanism are apparent in cities discussed throughout this chapter. A few features that one is inclined to associate with Mongol cities, especially in Mongolia, also have come up. I have noted that cities in Mongolia and Russia are oriented northwest-southeast, whereas Jining and Anxiwang and the capitals Shangdu, Daidu, and Zhongdu are oriented almost due north-south. One does not yet have enough evidence to generalize that orientation to the intermediary directions identifies North Asian or Northeast Asian urbanism, but future evidence is likely to make it possible to generalize about this point. Almost every city discussed here has a distinct enclosed area with palatial architecture within a larger outer wall. Across the

vast area covered here, one observes in those palatial sectors many examples of gong-plans. The use of ao-headed inserts, often marble, and of roof end-tiles and drip tiles with dragon faces also are important indicators of Chinese-style, royal construction. The blue, green, and golden-glazed tiles uncovered at so many sites perhaps point to decorative preference of a Mongol building aesthetic. The imagery of the vast space with an occasional walled enclosure when Chinggis, Ögedei, Güyük, and Möngke expanded the Mongol empire would have an increasing number of permanent buildings in those enclosures before the Mongols established Shangdu or Daidu. From the reign of Khubilai on, cities were far more than administrative centers or appanage centers, although both functions continued. The structures are less tangible even than the cities in which they stood, for whereas wall pieces survive, freestanding urban architecture remains only as foundations, at best. Decorative remains and portable goods of mother-of-pearl, jade, and precious metals are the best evidence of the extravagance one reads was displayed in palatial halls. Freestanding buildings in some of these cities and beyond are the subject of much that follows. The next chapter, however, looks at cities and buildings the Mongols saw along their routes of conquest before they constructed permanent architecture in China.

65

CHAPTER TWO

The Century before the Mongol Century

In the year 1162, when some believe Chinggis was born in Khentii province, the Song dynasty (960–1279) was thirty-five years into its existence as Southern Song (1127–1279), so named because conquest of North China had forced the Song capital to move southward. After several stops, the site chosen was the city the Song called Lin’an (temporary peace), today Hangzhou. The Song emperor Huizong (1082–1135) had abdicated in January 1126, following the misguided decision to ally with the Jurchen to topple the Khitan, who, although formerly of great concern to North China, were less of a threat to Song in 1126 than the Jurchen. Huizong and several thousand of his court were taken captive by the Jurchen to Heilongjiang. Dying in captivity, his body was later returned to Lin’an. The Khitan dynasty Liao fell to the Jurchen in 1125. Some Khitan migrated westward, forming a new empire known as Qara-Khitai. Their lands included parts of Xinjiang, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, all of which would become part of the Chaghatay khanate. The city Balasagun, which before 1134 had been a QaraKhanid (840–1212) capital, was part of Qara-Khitai. Also by the time of Chinggis’s birth, the Tanguts, who had rebelled against Song in 984, founded Western Xia, in 1038. It comprised Western Mongolia, Northern Shaanxi, Northeastern Xinjiang, Gansu, Ningxia, and Eastern Qinghai. Western Xia had capitals in Northern Ningxia and Western Inner Mongolia. Western Xia fell to the Mongols in 1227. Farther west, the Khwārazmian empire (ca. 1077–1231) ruled lands between the Aral Sea to the north, Karakum Desert to the south, and between Kyzylkum Desert and Ustyurt Plateau from east to west, respectively, lands today in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Iran. During Chinggis’s final decade of life, Eastern Xia would rise, fall, and rise again in Jilin and lands to the northeast, finally collapsing to the Mongols in 1233. The Jurchen dynasty Jin, where we begin, would span territory from northeast of Heilongjiang to Henan province, and west to the lands of Western Xia and Tibet (map 2). Every empire, state, and kingdom mentioned, as well as lands farther west such as parts of the ‘Abassid caliphate (750–1258) and parts of Southeast Asia, including portions of Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, fell to the Mongols in the thirteenth century. Poland and Hungary were besieged. The Mongols saw architecture in all these places, as well as in and around the walled cities that survived in Mongolia from the empires of the Jurchen, Khitan, and Uyghur (744–840). The architecture of China would have a more profound effect on construction in Yuan China than any other building tradition.

Here we look at architecture that stood in their paths of conquest, some of it used by Mongol patrons and some left untouched. Most of the buildings are from Jin and Song. A few earlier buildings are discussed to represent a broader range of architecture in China that might have inspired Mongol construction.

Jin The Jurchen were a Tungusic people, probably originally a branch of the Mohe, who hunted and fished in the forests of northeastern China, northern Korea, eastern Mongolia, and eastern Russia. They lived in the shadow of Parhae (798–926) until that kingdom became part of the Liao empire.1 Many of the Jurchen clans came together under Wugunai (1021–1074) in the eleventh century. His grandson Aguda (1068–1123) led successful resistance against Liao and went on to become emperor of the Jin dynasty in 1115.2 Some aspects of the transformation to rulers of an empire centered in northeastern China were rapid. In 1119 Hailingwang’s brother, Yan, developed a script. This occurred even before the establishment of the first Jurchen capital. Yet neither original nor translated books in Jurchen survive. There are stele inscriptions that range in date from 1127 to about 1228, some of which are in Jurchen as well as Chinese. Nine have been studied.3 The Jurchen would appear in East Asian history again in the sixteenth century. People from their native forests would be called Hou Jin (Latter Jin) in Chinese texts; they are identified as predecessors of the Manchus. The Manchus would use the Mongolian alphabet, not the Jurchen syllabary, for their writing system.4 Chinese writings about the Jurchen are few by comparison to those about the Mongols. As for the Yuan dynasty, there are both a standard history, Jinshi (Jin history), and a kind of addendum, perhaps equivalent to Xin Yuanshi but written during the period of Mongolian rule rather than in the twentieth century. It is called Da Jinguozhi (Record of the great Jin state).5 Two writings offer significant descriptive information about the Jurchen, including limited information about how they lived and their architecture: official Fan Chengda’s (1126–1193) Lanpeilu (Record of grasping the reigns), the account of a journey from the Southern Song capital to the Jin capital at Beijing, and Xu Mengxin’s (1126–1207) Sanchao beimeng huibian (Collected documents about treaties with the North during three dynasties).6 Physical evidence of the Jurchen is extensive. Many of the remains are known through excavation reports: capitals and

Map 2 Locations of cities and sites discussed in chapter 2

Chapter Two

other cities, palatial and religious architecture, and tombs. Many of the buildings are covered with murals, some of which contain detailed representations of architecture, and, as for the Yuan period, ceramics, metalwork, and scroll paintings fill in more details of Jurchen interior space.

continental East Asian empire builders, whether state builders of the Zhou (1046–256 BCE) or builders of non-Chinese states, kingdoms, or dynasties of the Sixteen States (304–439) or Northern Dynasties (386–589), a capital was a prerequisite for conquest and expansion into new lands. No record explains why Parhae, Liao, and Jin had five capitals, nor why the Mongols did not follow this system.

Capitals City building was crucial to Jin empire building. Even under Aguda and his younger brother and successor Wuqimai (1075– 1135), a city in Huining prefecture, today about two kilometers south of Acheng and about thirty-four kilometers south of Harbin in Heilongjiang province, seems to have served as a military base.7 Wuqimai’s successor Hela (r. 1135–1149) elevated its status to Shangjing, upper capital, a name that Liao and Parhae had used for the first of their capitals in a five-capital system.8 The Jin western capital in Datong, Shanxi province, established in 1125 by Wuqimai, and the eastern capital at Liaoyang, Liaoning province, established in 1144 by Digunai, usually known by his title Hailingwang (King Hailing) (r. 1149–1161), were both on sites of former Liao capitals. Ningcheng, in Inner Mongolia, the site of the former Liao central capital, was laid to waste by Jin but then became the Jin northern capital in 1153 when Hailingwang decided to recenter his empire southward. Hailingwang built his central capital the same year, also on the ruins of a Liao capital, both part of Beijing today, and reduced the status of Shangjing to its former prefectural city status, Huiningfu. In 1155 Hailingwang ordered the destruction of the Jurchen imperial cemetery at Shangjing. Yet graves and burial goods would be moved south of his new central capital. In building the central capital, the Jin are reported to have consulted diagrams of the Northern Song capital Bianliang, which became their southern capital. As noted earlier, they moved screens, doors, and walls from Song Bianliang to their central capital.9 The Jin retreated to the southern capital when their central capital fell to the Mongols in 1214. They controlled Bianliang until 1232. In 1173 Wulu (r. 1161–1189) again began construction at Shangjing, which would be an auxiliary capital for the rest of Jin history. Thus a total of six cities were used as Jin capitals. Jin’s is considered a five-capital system, however, for no more than five were used at the same time. There are significant Jin remains at all but the southern capital. Jin wall survives at three. Four had been Liao capitals. A fifth was a former Song capital. Shangjing, the one capital that did not have a Liao or Song history, was near the ruins of a Parhae capital. In the manner of all aspiring

Shangjing Shangjing was located near the native lands of the Wanyan, the family name of the ruling clan. Among peoples who had previously come into contact with China, only Parhae had built cities and monasteries this far northeast. The Jin history of Shangjing can be divided into five phases.10 For its first ten years it functioned as a military base.11 In 1124 construction of a more permanent city began. Lu Yanlun, a man from Linhuang, near Liao Shangjing, in Inner Mongolia, who had been an official under Liao, made designs for official and residential architecture.12 Song official Xu Kangzong recorded what he saw in the city in 1125: several hundred households, several thousand builders, Cuiwei Palace, and Qianyuan Hall.13 This initial phase of construction is confirmed in the annals of Wuqimai in Jinshi, which records that in the third moon of 1125, Qianyuan Hall was the only building in the forbidden city (jingong).14 Wuqimai’s death ten years later occurred in Mingde Palace, suggesting the possibility that Qianyuan Hall was used for governance at that time.15 The years 1135 to 1149 can be considered the period of expansion for Shangjing, the second phase in its history. In 1138 Wuqimai tasked Lu Yanlun, by then the director of imperial manufactories (shaofujian), a government agency that supervised artisan workshops, with further construction.16 At this time the city was referred to as the city in Huiningfu, and Liao Shangjing was referred to in texts as northern capital (beijing). Between 1138 and 1143, buildings of the imperial-city as well as an ancestral temple (Taimiao) and altars to soil and grain were erected.17 In 1146 Hela decided the imperial sectors were too small. He brought in craftsmen from across the empire to expand and build new architecture in imitation of the Song capital Bianjing.18 The third phase is 1157–1161, when Hailingwang dismantled the city and moved parts of it south to his central capital. Little had changed at Shangjing during Hailingwang’s first eight years of rule (1149–1157). He was already focused on constructing his capitals to the south. In 1153 he had lowered the status of

68

Century before the Mongol Century

Shangjing and redesignated the former Liao central capital as Jin’s northern capital, the former Liao southern capital as the Jin central capital, and Song Bianliang as the Jin southern capital. Yet an ancestral temple to Aguda was completed at the original Shangjing in 1165.19 A period of extensive repair and rebuilding under Wulu is the fourth phase. The work included walls and buildings in the imperial city. The final phase in Jin Shangjing’s pre-Yuan history can be labeled as the period of Eastern Xia.20 Roughly coinciding with the Jin reigns of Wudubu (r. 1213–1224) and Ningjiasu (r. 1224–1234), the Eastern Xia ruler Puxian Wannu laid waste to Shangjing in 1215 and 1217. Shangjing was known as Shuidada circuit in the Yuan period. Jin Shangjing fell into obscurity in the Ming and early Qing periods, its remains therefore sometimes confused with those of Parhae. In 1777 Agui (1717–1797) wrote that an outer wall, palace-city, which he referred to as zicheng, and palatial halls remained at the site of Jin Shangjing, but he was not specific about the location.21 Cao Tingjie (1850–1926) was perhaps the first modern scholar to record the location and gather documents about Shangjing, in 1885.22 He referred to the city as Baicheng. Located in contested lands, in the early twentieth century excavations were conducted first by a Russian team, then by Japanese archaeologists, and then by Chinese archaeologists.23 The early excavators mapped the outermost and second walls, palace-city, and a few major roads with remarkable accuracy. By the 1960s Chinese excavation teams checked former measurements and remeasured, with sporadic publications through the 1980s. The 1999–2000 season focused on the palace-city, confirming the main palace hall building line and a new, fifth building inside the walls to the northeast of that line. The most recent excavations and most accurate plans were made in the second decade of the twenty-first century.24 Figure 2.1 is a plan of Jin Shangjing published in 2017. Oriented almost perfectly north-south, it was a moat-surrounded double-city whose northern and southern sections were well-fortified with eighty-nine mamian positioned along exterior walls and five corner towers of between seven and ten meters at the base sides and one to two meters on top.25 Shangjing occupied 6.28 square kilometers, with the entire outer boundary of 10.963 kilometers that divided as 1,553 meters for the north wall, 3,432 meters for the western walls of both cities, 2,148 meters for the south wall, and the three segments on the east accounting for the rest. There were seven outer wall gates: east, north, and west

2.1 Plan of Jin Shangjing, Heilongjiang. After Kaogu, no. 6 (2017), 45.

for the north city and east and two on the south and one on the west for the south city, all heavily fortified. A gate provided access to a road from the south central gate to the north gate that included a bridge over Yunliang River in the north city. A major road also led into the south city from its east gate to the northsouth axial road, and another major road farther north joined the west outer wall where the north and south cities met. The border between the north and south cities was not fortified. The west gate of the Shangjing south wall was excavated in 2014.26 It is due south of the center of the south wall of the imperial sector. Made of rammed earth, it has only one entrance (figure 2.2). Ceramics excavated here date to the mid-Jin, confirming activity during rebuilding under Wulu in 1173. The location of the palace area was correctly identified in the early Japanese excavations to be southwest, within the south city. In an enclosure of about 645 by 500 meters, four halls stood along a north-south line, with a fifth structure to their northeast. This row of buildings seems to have functioned like a palace-city. Government offices were believed to be in the enclosed region on either side and to the north. A century of excavation has not changed the belief that Jurchen elite lived in the south city and workshops and handicrafts were in the north

69

Chapter Two

about 10.2 by 8.2 meters, elevated on a foundation of 1.5–3.0 meters in height, was to its northeast, about 10 meters from the closest point of contact on the north face of the eastern projection (figure 2.3). Dragon-headed architectural decoration; dragon-faced, circular roof end-tiles; and heads of female statues were among the most important finds. Because Shangjing was destroyed and then rebuilt, and because of dated coins found here, excavators believe these are the remains of a ritual structure from 1173 or later.28 Jin Shangjing is most often compared with Liao Shangjing. Each was the initial capital of a polity that emerged in Northeast Asia and became a non-Chinese dynasty, each was called Shangjing by its founders, and each can be described as a double-city.29 It is also compared with later Jin capitals whose plans mark a break from the double-city configuration toward patterns of Chinese imperial planning in which there is only one outer wall. Jin Shangjing is never viewed as a source of Khara-Khorum, and there are no valid reasons for exploring this comparison. In terms of the ideology of the first capital of a so-called conquest dynasty, it seems some conceptual similarities were shared. Khara-Khorum was used as an unwalled power base under Chinggis, with exterior enclosure beginning under Ögedei. Shangjing, too, became increasingly significant as the capital of a future, anticipated empire under its second Jin ruler Wuqimai, who, like Ögedei, walled the city and built palatial architecture. Further, after expansion into China, rulers of both Jin and Yuan repaired monumental architecture at newly designated capitals. Unlike Jin, the Mongols never dismantled architecture at their first capital (Khara-Khorum).

2.2 Excavation site of west gate of south wall of Jin Shangjing (north at top), Heilongjiang. Kaogu, no. 5 (2019): 50. 2.3 Building complex of main structure, small halls, and connecting space, Yagou, near Acheng, Heilongjiang. Kaogu, no. 6 (2017): 47.

city, together with the multinational population responsible for them. In 2002 a cruciform-shaped structure of at least twenty exterior faces was uncovered in Yagou township of greater Acheng, 3.6 kilometers west of the main palatial axis of the Shangjing imperial-city and shorter distances from smaller Jinperiod walled areas known as Banlachengzi and Xiaochengzi. The core structure was probably nine bays across at its greatest extent and five bays deep. It was joined by a narrow arcade to a structure of five bays by two, a standard gate size. An irregularly shaped platform, perhaps circular, is at the center. Orientation is southeast-northwest. Located so close to Shangjing, the site has been suggested as a place for worship, perhaps of the sun, rather than a detached palace.27 A more clearly cruciform-shaped foundation with a nearly circular central area was excavated on the western side of Shangjing in 2015. Oriented close to north-south, the circular interior measures about 12 meters in east-west diameter and about 11.5 meters in the north-south direction. A small, squarish foundation of

Liao to Jin: West, East, and North Neither wall pieces nor a plan of the western or eastern capital of Jin, today Datong and Liaoyang, respectively, is known.30 Nor has there been significant new information since the twentieth century. Pagodas and other architecture that were built or rebuilt and dated Liao-Jin in those cities are discussed later in this chapter. Wuqimai built a temple to his father, the dynastic founder, at the western capital in 1125, an act that may be interpreted as a nod to Chinese imperial traditions. The second date associated with Datong in the Jin dynasty is 1165, when buildings were constructed or repaired.31 New architecture rose at the eastern capital when it was established in 1144.32

70

Century before the Mongol Century

Hailingwang established three more capitals in 1153, the two at the sites of the former Liao capitals and the third at the former capital of Northern Song. The Jin northern capital, at that time called Beijing (northern capital), on the site of the old Liao central capital, later became the Jin prefectural city Dadingfu. Japanese archaeologists knew that this Liao-Jin capital had northern and southern walled enclosures and that it was crossed by two waterways, one in the north and the other at the southeastern corner of the city. These features were not challenged until the second half of the twentieth century. In 1959 and 1960 excavators found evidence of at least four periods of wall building, which they posited were Liao, Jin, Yuan, and Ming. They also found clay and stone Buddhist statuary and identified the locations of several monasteries, including one in the southwestern sector of the city.33 Singlechamber circular and hexagonal tombs that they believed dated to the Liao period also were excavated.34 A report on this city from 1980 retained the plan of twenty years earlier for the outer wall but described the city as having three concentric walls whose dimensions were provided: the outer wall, 4,200 meters east-west by 3,500 meters north-south; the wall inside it, referred to as neicheng, 2,000 meters eastwest by 1,500 meters north-south; and the palace-city inside neicheng, which was about one kilometer square.35 The current plan has been published since the 1990s.36 Late twentieth-century research also suggested an area in the south with five streets running east-west and seven extending north-south, the central one along the main north-south axis of the city. The south gate of the outer wall was the beginning of a street that ran due north to the south gate of the imperial-city wall and then to the south gate of the palace-city, ending at the main palatial hall.

Lying beneath Beijing, Jin Zhongdu has been excavated only by Chinese teams. In 1958 Wang Biwen proposed that earthen wall remains in Fenghuangzui, about three kilometers southwest of Guang’anmen, were from Liao Nanjing or Jin Zhongdu.38 This is still the largest wall portion identified. Smaller sections of the Zhongdu outer wall have been uncovered in Fengtai and Gaoloucun.39 The next year, Yan Wenru published a plan of outer and inner walls with gates and several major streets shown on it.40 A purpose of Yan’s study was to place the Jin central capital in the lineage of Chinese imperial planning as well as to understand it as a Liao-Jin capital. Yan emphasized that primary sources, both about Beijing and the few Jin-specific histories and texts, would need to be confirmed by excavation in order to know what the city really looked like. Excavators returned in 1974.41 Yu Jie’s monograph on the city was published in 1989.42 By 1990 it had been determined that the southeast corner tower of the outer wall was beneath Yongdingmen train station.43 The position of Zhongdu with respect to the Liao southern capital, the location of Lianhua Pond west of the Zhongdu outer wall, and the discovery of a Jin sluice were among the major accomplishments of excavation between 1990 and 1996. The outer wall measurements of Zhongdu, 4,900 meters on the north, 4,510 meters on the east, 4,900 meters on the south, and 4,530 meters on the west, were confirmed during those surveys. These numbers roughly correspond to thirty-three li, the perimeter given in Ming Taizu shilu (Veritable record of the Ming emperor Taizu).44 The outer wall dimension of Liao Nanjing is given as sixteen to seventeen li in Liaoshi. Thirteen Jin outer wall gates are confirmed, four at the north and three at the other sides. Two north-south and three east-west streets crossed the entire city between outer wall gates. If an east-west thoroughfare ran through the palace area or if the palatial halls were on a north-south thoroughfare or just on an interior, private continuation of this avenue is still ambiguous (figure 2.4). It is recorded that Zhongdu had sixty-two wards, a number believed to be plausible.45 The most controversial aspect of the Jin capital is the location of the palace- and imperial-cities. Until the 1990s it was believed that the south gates of both were approached via a boulevard that began at the central gate of the south wall and opened into a T-shape in front of the palace-city. This T was considered an equally significant feature of the plan of Northern Song Bianjing.46 It is now certain that this street was not centrally

Zhongdu The Jin central capital established by Hailingwang on a Liao capital site in 1153 is the only Jin capital that had a direct, physical impact on Mongol imperial planning. Already in 1125 Wuqimai had attacked the Liao southern capital. When Hailingwang proclaimed the move of his primary capital here in 1151, he ordered Zhang Hao, a man of Parhae descent from the Liaoyang region, and others, including Lu Yanlun, to design a plan. Like Lu, Zhang had an official title and biography in Jinshi, but, as observed in chapter 1, how directly involved someone named in the histories was in city building is hard to confirm.37

71

Chapter Two

2.4 Plan of Jin Zhongdu, Heilongjiang. After Song Dachuan, ed., Beijing kaogu faxian yu yanjiu, vol. 2, 303.

1. Danfeng Gate

11. Zhaoming Gate

20. Xuanhua Gate

30. Hongfa Monastery

2. Da’an Gate

12. Xuanhua Palace

21. Yuhua Gate

31. Da Wan’anshou Monastery

3. Da’an Hall

13. Eastern Palace

22. Gongchen Gate

32. Da Wanshou Monastery

4. Xuanming Gate

14. Yuhua Palace

23. Chongxiao Monastery

33. Longquan Monastery

5. Renzheng Gate

15. Taimiao

24. Baoying Monastery

34. Yuhua Hermitage

6. Renzheng Hall

16. Six Ministries

25. Sheng’an Monastery

35. Taiji Daoist Monastery

7. Zhaoming Hall

17. Lodging for foreign envoys

26. Minzhong Monastery

8. Taihe Hall

18. Interpreters Institute (for receiving

27. Guiyi Monastery

9. Qionglin Park

foreign envoys)

10. West Palace

19. Xuanyang Gate

28. Tianzhang Daoist Monastery 29. Haotian Monastery

positioned between the east and west walls of Jin Zhongdu, and a T-shape is certain only if the boundaries of buildings east and west of the stem of the T were as clear as they have been mapped. Key evidence to support the belief that Lu Yanlun consulted diagrams of Bianliang in preparation for construction of Zhongdu is no longer valid.47 The placement of palaces along the same axial line as the main thoroughfare between the north and south walls has been correctly assumed since early excavations. It is now agreed, as shown in figure 2.4, that three hall complexes took the gong-configuration, sometimes, as is confirmed at Zhongdu, with separate front and back gates, as shown in the first two building groups, and that this area was enclosed, perhaps with a wall but perhaps

only with a covered arcade that had a gate or structure at each side and four corner towers. South of this palace area were four official structures arranged in two symmetrical pairs, the ancestral temple (taimiao) on the southeast and the others, official bureaus. The name of every hall and most gates is found in texts. It is uncertain whether this southern area was an extension of the palace area or if it was an imperial-city that fully enclosed a palace-city. A palace for the crown prince, who in pre-Jin China more often resided in an eastern palace, was due west of the innermost enclosing structure, perhaps the source of Longfagong at Daidu. Jin Zhongdu had imperial gardens farther to the west. As figure 2.4 indicates, it is also believed that Liao and Jin shared a palatial axis in the southwest of Liao’s outer city wall.

72

Century before the Mongol Century

Jin realized the profound importance of water in capital building. In 1179 Wulu had an island constructed on the body of water on the western side of the imperial-city, west of the entry to the three gong-shaped palace complexes to and from which water was channeled between the east and west walls. From here water could come to gardens located in the north. The building on the island was called Yuzao Hall, named after the pond around it. South of the entrance to the palaces, water flowed under a bridge, as it does in the Forbidden City between Wu Gate and Taihe Gate today. Jin redirection of water through the palace would determine the location of the Daidu palace-city and would be the reason princely and female residences were west of the water and Qionghua Island. 2.5 Theoretical reconstruction plan of Taizicheng, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, Jin period. After Kaogu, no. 7, (2019): 78.

Cities for Royal Travel, Pleasure, and Ceremony Jin royalty also built seasonal residences, sometimes referred to as nabo, where they stayed during movement across the empire or for personal pleasure. Taizicheng, 140 kilometers northwest of Beijing and about 50 kilometers northeast of the center of Zhangjiakou, in Hebei, is one of the most recently identified.48 It is also one of the most extensive.49 Oriented 22 degrees west of due north, a wall and water surrounded an area of about 400 meters north-south by 350 meters east-west. A second wall ran the entire north-south length of the city about 50 meters east of the wall along the waterway. The main entrance, at the south, had a wengcheng of 38.5 meters north-south by 54 meters east-west projecting beyond it; its southern opening was 4.8 meters. Sixty-seven foundations were uncovered, as well as sections of fourteen roads. Two waterways ran through the city (figure 2.5). Taizicheng presents as a front-and-back-courtyard complex fronted by a south gate. The single opening in the gate is about four meters. It was supported by pillars. The main structure of the southern courtyard complex, 68.7 meters behind the south gate, was about 26.2 meters on all four sides and three bays square. Pillars were eliminated from its interior. The back complex was nearly 100 meters directly behind, about 105.38 meters north-south by 46.7 meters east-west in area. Two slightly smaller courtyards of 81.03 by 33.99 meters were due west. Yet another courtyard, 79 meters north-south by 25.3 meters east-west, was adjacent to the south part of the interior west wall. The many ceramic objects excavated in the vicinity of the building remains included large numbers that would have been attached to buildings, such as roof tiles and chiwen, the

open-mouthed creatures nicknamed “owl’s tails” that attached to the ends of a main roof ridge. Several had dimensions and locations engraved into them that included the characters tianzi, presumably confirming that this complex was royal and instructing builders where to put them. There were also numerous pieces of porcelain and bronze from objects that would have been used on a daily basis. The layout of Taizicheng recalls the formation described in Zhouli (Rituals of Zhou) as qianchao, houqin (hall for governance [chaotang] in front, private chambers behind) that we have observed at the Yuan capitals Daidu and Zhongdu, but not at Shangdu. Another important feature of the Taizicheng complex is that it stands on a 4.9-kilometer axial line defined by mountains, Wangshan in the south and Kaoshan in the north. It is likely that Taizicheng was built after the Jin capital had moved to Zhongdu. Construction of Jin imperial tombs in Fangshan, discussed below, began at the same time. Zhongdu was 140 kilometers to the southeast, and the Jin imperial tombs were about the same distance to the southwest, each on the opposite side of the Taizigong’s main axis. Although its purpose is not recorded in any known text, the location suggests it was a xinggong. Antu, just north of the Changbai mountains in Jilin, may have been a traveling palace, but it also may have been used for ritual. Its ruins were included in a local record of Antu county in 1928.50 In the 1980s the site was named Baomacheng.51 The name, Treasure Horse City, refers to remains of ceramic tile with animal faces found there. Excavation from 2014 to 2017 yielded

73

Chapter Two

2.6 Plan of remains of Baomacheng, Antu county, Jilin, Jin period. Kaogu, no. 7 (2018): 69.

2.7 Plan of Ussuriysk, Primorye, drawn in 1885

a plan with many similarities to Taizicheng: an enclosure of approximately 100 meters east-west by about 175 meters northsouth with only a front (south) gate and a gate and two buildings behind it, all on an axial line, with an additional structure in the southeast. Orientation was just a few degrees east of north (figure 2.6). The gate was 19.2 by 13.9 meters, and the hall behind it was about 22.5 meters across and 15.5 meters wide, with a yuetai of 17.9 by 9.4 meters, or more than two-thirds the area of the hall to which it was the approach. We shall see enormous yuetai in front of important buildings of the Yuan period (figures 3.1 and 4.3). The back hall was 22 by 14.4 meters, with a small approach ramp and no interior pillars. Two small structures of about 6 meters on each side, supported by four pillars, were north of the gate and south of the main hall. A west-facing structure in the southeast was seven bays by four, 18.5 by 12.3 meters, with no interior pillars, and a small, octagonal, stone platform to its northeast. Among the more than five thousand pieces of objects uncovered at the Antu site was a jade tablet inscribed with the characters guichou as well as pieces of human and animal sculpture. Based on the finds, archaeologists identify Baomacheng as a site for rituals to the spirit of Changbai Mountain, which is directly behind the building complex.

Other Walled Enclosures Remains of walled enclosures in Heilongjiang, Jilin, and eastern Russia confirm that beyond the capitals and ritual cities, the Jin divided the space they governed into administrative units used in China long before then: xian, further divided into zhou, further divided into fu, and finally lu.52 We have seen that Yuan employed the same toponyms. Sometimes the architecture in the administrative centers shows evidence of pillar-supported buildings placed along singly important building lines that are enclosed in courtyards, as well as the use of the gong-plan. Both features have such long and widespread histories in China that they are assumed to follow Chinese principles of planning. Compared to the Mongols, there is less evidence the Jurchen awarded appanages to relatives of their Wanyan clan. About half the Jurchen towns in the Russian administrative district (krai) Primorye are on hills, possibly therefore a continuation of the mountain-castle (shancheng) tradition of Parhae and Koguryŏ.53 As among Parhae, some of whose settlements the Jurchen probably used, and among Koguryŏ before them, whose shancheng were centered in Jilin and extended as far south as Liaoning, these settlements are usually irregularly shaped, appearing to be constructed organically to follow topography

74

Century before the Mongol Century

2.8 Stone officials and animal from tomb of Prince “Esikuy.” Vladimir K. Arseniev Museum of the Far East, Vladivostok.

2.9 Plan of Shaiga, Primorye

or merge natural mountain fortification and wall.54 The concentrations of building foundations in Primorye and Heilongjiang are usually not as well-defined as city centers of the Mongolperiod appanages discussed in chapter 1 or those of Taizicheng and Antu. Still, some of the enceintes have one or more major thoroughfares. Few have stele or other ways to confirm dates; Jurchen-period dates usually are based on excavated objects. The cities chosen for discussion here are the best-documented as well as the better-excavated among many of the others. They are considered exemplary of what the Mongols would have seen in Heilongjiang as well as Primorye. The large Jurchen towns of Primorye were identified in the nineteenth century. One often starts with Ussuriysk, which was discovered in 1868.55 A plan was drawn in 1885 (figure 2.7). The inscription on a tortoise-back stele confirmed that the tomb of Wanyan Chong was here, just northeast of two walled enclosures, all indicating that this was an administrative center. Wanyan Chong died in 1136, but the stele could not have been erected earlier than 1162. Sculptures of officials and animals from the tomb of a Jurchen prince in the Museum of the Far East in Vladivostok confirm the use of a spirit path in Primorye (figure 2.8). Shaiga is noteworthy because of a thoroughfare that ran through the city

and regularly placed architecture on either side of it (figure 2.9). The arrangement may anticipate Kharkhur-Khan in Mongolia (figure 1.48). Other walled enclosures of Primorye, such as Krasnoyarsk, by contrast, are smaller, with irregularly shaped walls and fewer interior remains that do not form around courtyards (figure 2.10). A. Ivliev believes the Krasnoyarsk remains may be from the Eastern Xia kingdom.56 Remains in Puyulu, on the south bank of the Wuyur (Wuyu’er) River in Kedong county of Heilongjiang today, more than four hundred kilometers from the closest point of the Russian border, were identified as Liao-Jin by Japanese archaeologists in 1933 and again in 1938.57 The most important piece of evidence was a seal with a name in Jurchen script. It was found in 1947 and has since disappeared. It is believed that the city became important after Hailingwang moved the capital from Shangjing in 1151, or perhaps as late as 1183 when Wulu returned to Shangjing to do some rebuilding. Between 1974 and 1976 and again in 1979, Chinese excavators returned to the site. They found a 2,850-meter, elliptically shaped outer wall of pounded earth layers (figure 2.11). Its thickness was as much as 20 meters at the base and 1.5–3 meters at the top; 3 to 4 meters of height survived. Approximately forty mamian

75

Chapter Two

2.10 Plan of Krasnoyarsk, Primorye

2.11 Plan of Puyulu, Kedong, Heilongjiang, Jin period. Kaogu, no. 2 (1987): 151.

were positioned roughly seventy to eighty meters apart. A moat of about ten meters in width enclosed the entire wall. Gates pierced this wall only at the north and south. They were about ten meters wide, with wengcheng of about thirty-five by seventeen meters in front of each one. The passage through the south gate was supported by four corner pillars and two pillars on each side, all four of which were on stone plinths. An area of about five hundred square meters in the northeast of the enclosure is believed to have been for administration. Individual structures had approach ramps. One of the buildings was five bays by eight, supported by pillars, on pilasters like those that supported the gate, that were about four meters apart. Residential architecture, identified by burned brick, is also believed to have been in this area. The amount of ceramics, bronze objects, and roof tiles led archaeologists to believe Puyulu may have been a Jin handicraft center.58

Four Jurchen towns of quadrilateral shape with gates providing access and, in one case, fortified wall corners remain in Jilin and Heilongjiang. Tahucheng in Jilin near the Heilongjiang border was identified in 1958 and excavated in 1962. Oriented almost perfectly north-south, the four walls extend between 1262 and 1322 meters for a perimeter of 5181 meters. The heavily fortified city had a wengcheng at each of the four gates, all of them positioned near the center of a wall, and sixteen mamian on each side and corner towers. A moat and corner dikes further enclosed the city. The number of roof tiles and other pieces of ceramics, primarily Jin-period and some from Liao, found just in the northwest corner led excavators to believe Tahucheng was an administrative city. Such strict, measured planning is rare in urbanism anywhere in East Asia; Tahucheng is not the only Jurchen example of it.59 The walled town known as Qinjiadun in Huaide county is oriented as strictly north-south, but its

76

Century before the Mongol Century

2.12 Plan of walled city at Pianlian, Lishu county, Jilin, Jin period. Kaogu, no. 11 (1963): 613.

four straight walls, each with a gate fortified by a wengcheng roughly in the center, do not meet at 90-degree angles. Mamian protected other parts of the outer wall. Excavated in 1962, the outer wall is 3,380 meters in perimeter, with all but its southern face intact at that time. There were four corner towers. Large numbers of ceramics were found beneath a mound where roads from the north, east, and west gates met.60 A city uncovered in Pianlian, Lishu county of Jilin, in 1956, for which excavation was completed in 1962, similarly was rectangular. Measuring 4,318 meters in perimeter with a gate in each wall, corner towers, and a major north-south thoroughfare, it was oriented 23 degrees northeast-southwest (figure 2.12). A few pieces of Buddhist statuary were found there.61 The walled enclosure at Balicheng in Zhaodong, Heilongjiang, is most similar to Tahucheng in that it is nearly square. Its walls of about a kilometer each gave way to the name bali (eight li, a li approximately half a kilometer for a four-thousand-meter total) (figure 2.13). Surrounded by a moat, more than seven hundred pieces of objects were found here.62 A gate and wengcheng are in each wall. Different from Tahucheng, however, orientation is 135 degrees. Excavators believe the shapes, sizes, and objects in these walled enclosures indicate they were administrative. Among excavated materials, Liao goods were as numerous as those of Jin. The locations in Heilongjiang and Jilin are important reasons to date them to the Jin period. A roughly quadrilateral city of 1,460 meters in perimeter, fortified by wengcheng at the north and south gates and mamian along the rest of the wall, and with east and west gates, was found in Zhongxing, Suibin, Heilongjiang, in 1973. Walled areas of about two hundred meters in perimeter remained at the northwest, southwest, and southeast (figure 2.14). The

2.13 Plan of Balicheng, Zhaodong, Heilongjiang, Jin period. Kaogu, no. 2 (1960): 36.

77

Chapter Two

2.14 Plan of Zhongxing, Suibin, Heilongjiang, Jin period. Wenwu, no. 4 (1977): 40.

formation suggests it was a military outpost.63 Cities in Ning’an, Heilongjiang, on high ground and near the border with Russia are more similar to the mountain-castles in Russia believed to be inspired by Parhae and Koguryŏ construction.64 These very small cities as well as the city in Zhongxing with three structures outside it are believed to be military fortifications.

The tomb of Wanyan Yan, Prince of Qi, and his wife was excavated in 1988 in Juyuan, about thirty-eight kilometers northwest of Acheng.65 A silver plaque of 48.5 by 17 centimeters in the center of the lid of the inner wooden coffin in which the couple was buried together identified the occupants and date. The prince was about sixty and his wife was about forty at the time of interment. A wooden inner coffin, 2.21 by 1.26 meters at the base and 90 centimeters high, has between seven and twelve wooden planks on all six sides. It was just large enough for the two corpses and their clothing: he was dressed in eight layers of garments and she in nine, with another sixteen articles of clothing inside, including hats, belts, leggings, and boots (figure 2.15). Contrasting the simple space was its decoration: the coffin was lined with a curtain-like frame made of two pieces of cloth adorned with male and female mandarin ducks, a symbol of harmonious marriage. The wooden coffin was inside the stone sarcophagus, which was one of two stone containers placed in a vertical pit, a sharp contrast to the multichamber tombs of Liao and Song or the Yuan tombs whose interiors were covered with murals, discussed in chapter 5.66 In addition to the silver plaque, an inscribed wooden plaque, 66.3 by 23 centimeters, was under the heads of the corpses. The inscription refers to the male as taiwei (commander). The wooden plaque also had the three-character inscription fang yizuo (one house) on the back, perhaps a reference to burial in the same sarcophagus.

Tombs Jin tombs remain across the empire, but they cluster in three main regions, two near the important capitals Shangjing and Zhongdu, and the third in territory farther from the capitals where pre-Jin Chinese building patterns persisted. Consistent with the chronology of capital construction, the tombs of the first group, in Heilongjiang and Jilin, have the strongest ties to native Jurchen practices; those of the second, near Zhongdu, share much with Liao tombs of the region and are sometimes confused with them; and those in Shanxi, Hebei, Henan, and Shandong bear strong evidence of Chinese subjects in wall decoration. Heilongjiang and Jilin No remains of tombs of Jin emperors or their ancestors have been found in the vicinity of Shangjing, leading to the belief that Hailingwang indeed dismantled the first Jin imperial cemetery and moved it piece-by-piece to the vicinity of Zhongdu. Several Wanyan princely tombs survive in Heilongjiang, as do tombs and cemeteries of nonroyal Jurchen in both Heilongjiang and Jilin.

78

Century before the Mongol Century

The family cemetery of Wanyan Xiyin (d. 1140), the man who invented Jurchen script at the request of the emperor Wuqimai, is in Shulan county of Jilin province. One of five tombs built into mountains in a 13.64-square-kilometer area, Wanyan Xiyin’s was opened in 1980. All five tombs in the cemetery had their own spirit paths consisting of pairs of civil and military officials, pillars, tigers, and sheep (figure 2.16).67 The sculpture joins remains of the spirit path of Jurchen royalty in Primorye as evidence of Chinese-style funerary construction for elite Jurchen in the lands of their nativity (figure 2.8). Wanyan Xiyin’s tomb was a single chamber. His remains were in a stone replica of a hipped-roof structure with an octagonal, caisson ceiling (figure 2.17). Twelve tombs, including those of occupants believed to be of high status but not royalty, were excavated outside the above-mentioned walled enclosure in Zhongxing (figure 2.14).68 The assessment of status is based on burial goods that remained in spite of evidence of robbery in tombs 3 and 8. Forming two sets of six tombs each, half large and half small, the larger divided into two groups of three beneath a pair of large mounds and the six smaller graves spread in no obvious pattern to their southeast. Tomb 8 is dated mid- or late Jin because the newest coin found there dates to 1178.69 (The Jurchen began minting currency under Hailingwang.) Tomb 3, the largest, was a rectangular earthen pit with a painted, inner, wooden sarcophagus and an outer stone coffin. It pairs with tomb 4, identified by burial goods as belonging to a female and thus probably the wife of the occupant of tomb 3. Tomb 5 is tentatively identified as belonging to a guard of the tomb 3 occupant because a row of five wooden posts that resembled stakes for tethering horses lined a depression on one side of the tomb. Gold inlay on an object in tomb 8, located between tombs 6 and 7, suggests it belonged to male aristocracy. Tomb 7 is believed to belong to a female and tomb 6 to a male. Tombs 6 and 7 had coins dating to the Liao period. Tombs 6, 7, and 8 are one of the larger groups that shared a mound. Nine of the Zhongxing tombs had wooden coffins. Corpses are buried in tombs 3, 4, and 5. Tomb 3 was the only one with a double coffin. In spite of robbery and deteriorated wood, designs in gold paint as well as red, black, and blue were preserved on the inner coffin. Tomb 5, by contrast, the one associated with the guard, was a simple pit of 4.3 by 2.8 by 0.8 meters. The coffin-less tombs were cremation burials, as were six tombs that had wooden coffins in which cremated remains were placed.70 Cremation before interment is another reason mid-Jin or later is the date associated with the cemetery. Pre-Jin and

2.15 Tomb of Wanyan Yan, Prince of Qi, and his wife, showing stone burial coffin on right and one of the smaller stone containers on left. Acheng, Heilongjiang. Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogusuo, Kaogu Heilongjiang, 242. 2.16 Figure from spirit path in Shulan, Jilin, twelfth century

79

Chapter Two

led archaeologist Jing Ai to conclude that this was a commoner cemetery. Zhongdu Vicinity By 1161 Hailingwang had moved his father’s tomb and those of nine other imperial ancestors from Shangjing to Da Fangshan, today in southwestern part of Beijing (figure 2.18).75 In that year he awarded royal burial to his murdered older brother Hela, building for him Siling, to which the remains were moved from temporary burial in the tomb of an empress dowager at Shangjing. In 1188 Siling was moved about twenty kilometers southwest to Emei Valley near Fangshan. Hailingwang was laid to rest near his father and other ancestors at Da Fangshan, as were his son, who did not become emperor, and Hailingwang’s successor and brother Wulu. By the beginning of the thirteenth century, the first seven Jin emperors, their ancestors, their wives, and some of their children were buried in the hills and valleys of Da Fangshan or Fangshan. Like Hailingwang, the seventh emperor Yongji (r. 1208–1213) never received a “temple name,” nor the designation ling (royal tomb) for his tomb. The next Jin ruler, Wudubu, died near the southern capital and was buried there in a tomb called Deling. Neither the last ruler Ningjiasu nor his successor Chenglin, who reigned about a day in 1234, received a royal tomb.76 It is believed the Jin royal tombs survived Mongolian rule. However, destruction was widespread in the late Ming period. Reconstruction, including a wall around part of the tomb area, took place under Manchu rule, probably inspired by the same emotional or symbolic attachment to their Manchurian forbears that led to the predynastic name Hou Jin and restoration of Jin architecture in northeastern China after 1644. The Ming-Qing history of the Da Fangshan necropolises makes it impossible to be sure if oversized stone sculptures of men and animals found there were from the spirit paths of Jin royal tombs, but it is likely. In spite of uncertainties about the dates of aboveground components of the tombs, such as animal sculpture or an enclosing wall,77 three-colored porcelain dated to the Song dynasty, jade, a silver facemask, and metal wire headgear excavated at the Jin royal cemetery are believed to have been buried with Jurchen royalty. Both the mask and headgear, the latter found in Aguda’s tomb, raise the possibility that Jurchen royalty followed Khitan funerary practices.78 It is unknown if this burial custom was employed in Aguda’s first tomb or others in the cemetery in Shangjing. If so, it is a strong contrast to the burial without facial

2.17 Stone sarcophagus of Wanyan Xiyin, Shulan, Jilin, 1140. Zhonguo wenwu dituji: Jilin fence, 141.

proto-Jurchen peoples are believed to have buried corpses, whether with or without containers, and cremation is viewed as a practice learned from non-Jurchen peoples, perhaps, but not necessarily, directly from Buddhists.71 Cremation burial should be evidence that Jurchen tomb construction continued in the Suibin River Valley after the movement of the main seat of Jin government to Zhongdu. So far, Jurchen script has not been found in a Zhongxing tomb. However, even though the script came into use in 1119, in 1153 Hailingwang denounced the writing system during sweeping Sinification reforms. In spite of this act, the script has been found later than this date.72 The presence of a Chinese inscription does not indicate a date. Twenty-five tombs excavated from approximately seventy in the vicinity of Aolimi, about nine kilometers northwest of the Songhua (Sungari) River near Suibin, are simple pit tombs. Some have wooden coffins and others have stone coffins. No coffin is large enough to hold two corpses. In cases in which husband-and-wife burial is suspected, each spouse has its own grave.73 Among fourteen tombs in Yongsheng, fewer than ten kilometers north of Aolimi, the twelve that have been opened are pit tombs.74 Less complicated and smaller than the Aolimi group, the largest tomb is 3.05 by 1.4 meters and just under a meter into the ground. No stone sarcophaguses have been found. Wooden coffins were tenoned together without metal joiners: iron nails that held together coffins at other Jin cemeteries have not been found. The lack of anything more precious than iron

80

Century before the Mongol Century

covers of Wanyan Yan and his wife. There is no indication the covering of the corpse with a metal mask or wire netting was a predynastic Jurchen custom. Like the implementation of the Chinese building system for detached palaces and altar complexes, the Jin imperial necropolis in which tombs were approached by long spirit paths and marked by mounds also was a continuation of Chinese practices, specifically those of Song. The 160-square-kilometer royal cemetery of Northern Song where seven of the nine emperors, all but the final two, as well as the father of the founding emperor are buried in Gongyi, Henan, about 150 kilometers west of the capital that was taken by Jin as their southern capital, is the most likely model for the royal Jin cemetery of approximately 60 square kilometers.79 Northern Song royal burial practices also seem to have been the model for Western Xia.80 Three Liao emperors also were buried in a royal necropolis, in Qing prefecture of Inner Mongolia near the Liao capital in Ningcheng that became a Jin capital.81 Again we see that Jin followed a Chinese practice, whereas the Mongols, who surely saw the royal cemeteries as they conquered Liao, Jin, Western Xia, and Song, and perhaps earlier Chinese royal tombs, would never follow the imperial Chinese funerary model. Dozens of nonroyal Jin tombs have been excavated in the vicinity of Beijing. Four were found within thirty meters of one another in Beijing’s Fengtai district, adjacent to Fangshan, in 1980 and 1981.82 One contained a stone coffin made of six slabs joined together by corner notches, with a coffin bed inside. Another was an earthen pit tomb with a lacquered wooden coffin. A third, identified by a funerary inscription as belonging to Wugulun Wolun, had cremated remains in a lacquer box on a coffin bed inside a wooden coffin. The fourth was the joint burial of Yuan Zhong and his wife, the princess of the state of Lü, both relatives of the imperial Jin clan. They were buried in a stone inner coffin enclosed by a jade outer coffin, the double coffin format and pit tomb the same as those of Wanyan Yan and his wife, and thus consistent with Yuan’s and his wife’s ranks. This burial had a funerary inscription whose information is corroborated by passages in Jinshi and other historical treatises. Among the objects found in the two Fengtai tombs with identified occupants were an incense burner with the eight trigrams of the Yijing cast across its neck and a coin with the inscription changming fugui on the obverse side and a stork with one straight and one bent leg, head turning back, and a turtle holding a plant in his mouth on the reverse. The eight trigrams, stork, and

2.18 Balustrade along stairs, Jin imperial tombs, Da Fangshan, Beijing

turtle signal familiarity with Chinese goods and presumably ideas.83 The simple pit tombs indicate that burial practices of the Jurchen native region in Heilongjiang were maintained in the vicinity of the central capital. Shi Li’ai, who died in 1143, is buried with his wife in Xincheng county, southwest of Fangshan.84 Approached by a fifty-meter spirit path that led to a mound of about fifteen meters square, the tomb was entered via a diagonal ramp. A central, four-sided room was joined by a corridor to an octagonal room behind it and connected to smaller “ear” chambers on either side. The walls were covered with white lime and painted. Murals include a guard in official dress holding a spear on either side of the entry on the south, and daily life scenes beneath an open curtain on the east and a hanging curtain on the north. A coffin bed appears to be painted at the bottom of the north wall scene. Although Shi Li’ai died fifty-two years earlier, his epitaph, in Chinese, in the four-sided room of his tomb, is dated to 1195. It is believed that the funerary inscription was carved at the time of his death, but perhaps it was in Jurchen script and thus recarved later. The inscription records a degradation of his title in 1157, which would have been a result of policy during Hailingwang’s reign.85 Shi Li’ai’s fourth son, Shi Feng (d. 1122), was buried 29.34 meters to the west in a stone coffin in a simple pit tomb with epitaphs that identified the deceased, The official Shi Zongbi (1114–1175) was moved to a tomb in Tongzhou, east of Beijing, for burial two years after his death. He was buried in a six-piece stone sarcophagus whose parts were

81

Chapter Two

2.19 East wall, single-chamber tomb in Liuhe, Ganquan, Shaanxi, Jin period. Wenwu, no. 11 (2016): 45.

notched together.86 A companion tomb probably belonged to a female. Two Jin tombs found in the Haidian district of Beijing had stone coffins. A wooden coffin may have been inside one of them.87 Numerous undated brick tombs remain in Beijing. A cemetery in Longquanwu, excavated in 2005, contains more than thirty Liao or Jin tombs.88 The majority have a single, circular chamber. Sometimes stone is mixed with brick to help support the underground structure. Most have domed ceilings. Most of the remaining burials goods are unglazed pottery. Comparison with dated tombs, including those mentioned earlier, excavated coins, and location in the vicinity of Zhongdu are important criteria in determining tomb dates. Murals support the identification of single-chamber tombs in the Beijing region as of the Jin period. A tomb in the Beijing western suburb Shijingshan that belongs to Zhao Li, who died in 1143, is of the same plan as Shi Li’ai’s tomb: a long approach to the underground antechamber is followed by an octagonal room. Scenes from the occupant’s life, screens, and the twelve animals that symbolize the Chinese zodiac are painted on the walls. A tomb in Yanqing county has the same plan. Its underground approach is 12.3-meters-long, and the main chamber is 3.5 meters in diameter and 2.8 meters high. Both tombs have columns with bracket sets above them painted at each wall seam.89 Among tombs with murals that contain the same subjects and numerous similar details, the tomb of Han Yi and his wife, in Beijing, and the tombs in the cemetery at Xiabali, Xuanhua, Hebei, have Liao dates.90

of Jin tombs in Shaanxi, Henan, Shandong, and Shanxi. Whereas the label Liao-Jin is used for tombs in the Beijing region because both dynasties had important capitals in this city, in these four northern Chinese provinces, the label Jin-Yuan is more frequent for undated tombs with Jin features, not only because Liao territory did not extend this far south, but because themes such as filial piety stories and performance are common in both Jin and Yuan funerary art.91 Two tombs in Ganquan, Shaanxi, one belonging to Zhu Jun and his wife, surnamed Shao, dated by inscription to 1193 and the other dated 1196, present filial piety stories and other themes that are especially popular in Jin and Yuan times. These and tombs with unidentified occupants in Ganquan are especially rich in the quality of representations, including architectural detail (figure 2.19).92 In Henan, recently uncovered Jin tombs are in Linzhou, Yima, and Luoyang. The large number of Jin tombs in Shandong include those with dates in Gaotang of 1197, in Jinan of 1201, in Zibo of 1210, and undated tombs in Zhangqiu and Ji’nan. The greatest number of tombs and China’s most distinctive Jin funerary spaces are in Shanxi. Tombs with murals have dates of 1135 and 1208 in Tunliu; 1151, 1153, and 1189 in Changzhi; 1157 and 1161 in Datong; 1158 and 1174 in Zhangzi; 1169 in Lingchuan; 1182 in Fenxi; and 1193 in Fenyang; undated tombs are in Fanzhi, Pingding, Fenyang, Jiangxian, Datong, and Xiaoyi.93 Jin tombs in the Pingyang region of southern Shanxi, which includes Linfen, Yuncheng, and Yongji prefectures and the towns of Houma, Jishan, Macun, Xinjiang, Wenxi, and Xiangfen, are a distinctive group.94 Most are entered from ground level via a stepped or inclined diagonal ramp. The entry is usually on the east side of the south wall, but in square tombs the entry is at the center. The entrance is a double-leaf door. The majority of Jin tombs are approached by entry ramps, but

North China beyond Zhongdu All the subjects painted on the walls of the Beijing tombs are painted and carved in brick along with other ones on the walls

82

Century before the Mongol Century

2.21 Ceiling of tomb 2, Wuchi, Yicheng, Shanxi, Jin period. Wenwu, no. 2 (2019): 20.

2.20 Interior of Macun tomb 4, Jishan, Shanxi, Jin period

occasionally southern Shanxi tombs are simple pits. Rooms are usually rectangular but may be octagonal. A single-chamber tomb may have the additional feature of two small corner extensions or niches. The elaborately decorated interiors, especially in which brick is transformed to imitate wooden construction, contrast with the very small inside space (figure 2.20). The decorative features, examples of fangmugou, or the imitation of wooden building components in another material, often go beyond wooden prototypes to flamboyance in excess of surviving timber examples anywhere in China from any period.95 This large database of dated Jin tombs aids in identifying undated burials. Tomb 2 in a cemetery of five tombs in Wuchi village of Yicheng county, Shanxi, is an example of a tomb believed to date to the Jin period. The three ceramic objects in it do not indicate dates.96 The tomb is roughly square but slightly longer in the north-south dimension and thus is entered on the east of the south side. Windows and door studs are standard examples of fangmugou. The ceiling is a spectacular, eight-pointed star superimposed in another eight-pointed star inside an octagon (figure 2.21). The single chamber, decorative carpentry, and ceiling exemplify the extraordinary and creative use of wood or

imitation of it in a constricted space or an uninspired space that is typical of dated Jin tombs. These underground features also are found in freestanding buildings. Freestanding Architecture in North China before 1260 Names of Jin monasteries in the capitals built by imperial patronage are known from textual sources. Wuqimai built a monastery for the Buddhist master Haihui in Zhongdu that was known as Datingshengsi through the reign of Hela and as Dasheng’ansi under Wulu. Hela ordered a different monk, named Haihui (d. 1145), to build the monastery Dachuqingsi in Shangjing. Wulu had the Chan master Xuanming build the monastery Daqingshousi, for which he rewarded him with land and cash; and he had Xiangshansi in Zhongdu repaired and its name changed to Yong’ansi, for which he bestowed more land and money on the monk. Wulu also built the Chan monastery Qing’anchansi in the eastern capital. When his mother became a nun, he added a nunnery on the grounds.97 None of these buildings survives. Other timber-frame Buddhist halls and masonry pagodas do stand from the Jin dynasty. The wooden buildings follow patterns of the several

83

Chapter Two

hundred years before Jin. Masonry pagodas take on many of the same features on the exterior; their structures follow those of Liao or Song.

account, says Yingzao fashi was used to guide its construction. It is assumed that the information in this manual was transmitted from text to master-craftsmen, whether by drawings or verbally, and then to apprentices and other workers, and in the transmission, craftsmen’s vocabulary, such as owl’s-tail (roofend decoration) and camel’s-hump-shaped brace, came into use. A fundamental principle expounded in Yingzao fashi is that Chinese architecture is a ranked system. The use of the term “eminent” to describe a building reflects this ranking system in which high status (eminence) is always more evident than its date. Eminent structures of two different dynasties will have more shared features than eminent and humble buildings of the same century. This is the reason Tang, Liao, Song, Jin, and Yuan buildings of the same status can be compared according to the same criteria in Yingzao fashi. The text distinguishes four types of construction. Diantang is a palatial-style hall; a multistory version is called diange (pavilion with the features of palatial-style architecture). Pillars always provide the major support for a building. Sometimes side walls offer support, but the front and back of a building always rely on the pillars to stand. In diange, multiple levels of columns and bracketing are employed, but there is only one roof frame. Tingtang are halls of lower rank than diantang. Tingtang are conceived in vertical frameworks positioned in sequence. The frameworks are joined by purlins, rafters, and other braces. Yuwu, ordinary buildings, often residential and sometimes without bracket sets, are the third type; and doujian tingxie, pointed-roofed pavilions, are the fourth. The majority of extant pre-Yuan and Yuan buildings are diantang and tingtang. Four other terms are often used to describe timber-frame structures of the Tang through Yuan periods. Tailiang, which can be translated “column-beam-and-strut,” is the type most often used in palatial and religious architecture. The majority of preYuan and Yuan wooden buildings are tailiang. In a tailiang, vertical pillars interlock with horizontal beams and smaller wooden pieces, or struts (figure 2.22). The structure known as chuandou consists of columns and tiebeams, the beams in both the transversal and longitudinal directions. This framework is never used in diantang. It is often found in residential architecture. Two chapters of Yingzao fashi are about damuzuo, large-scale timber framing. This term is used in contrast to small-scale carpentry, xiaomuzuo, the categorization for ceiling design, cabinetry, and altars discussed in six of the chapters. Both damuzuo and xiaomuzuo structures are imitated in brick and stone on the exteriors of masonry construction and in tomb interiors.

Prescriptive Standards of Tenth- to Fourteenth-Century Construction Approximately one hundred timber-frame Jin buildings survive aboveground, among which more than sixty are in Shanxi.98 Every structure has components found in or derived from a much older Chinese building system, as do wooden buildings of Song, Western Xia, and Liao. All of them, beginning with the oldest timber-frame halls that stand in China from the eighth century, are studied alongside Yingzao fashi. The same text is used to study Yuan timber-frame architecture, for the next codification of the court-sponsored building system would not be published until ca. 1727.99 Thirty-four chapters (juan) follow Li Jie’s introduction to Yingzao fashi.100 The first two list forty-nine terms used in Chinese construction, with quotes from literary sources as early as the Zhou dynasty in which the terms are found. The textually grounded section confirms that court scholars compiled the treatise. Yet 3,272 of the 3,555 entries in Yingzao fashi were gathered from oral accounts of craftsmen.101 In addition to the technical vocabulary and references to classical literature, Yingzao fashi includes definitions and discussion of words that can be described as craftsmen’s jargon. Chapters 3 through 16 are about specific architectural components. Chapters 17 through 25 address units of labor, or how much work a skilled artisan should accomplish in a day, with different amounts calculated according to the seasons or other conditions that might affect productivity. Chapters 26 through 28 are about materials other than wood used in construction, such as mortar, plaster, pigments, and glazes, and the proportions of ingredients for making each one. The final six chapters are illustrations, including plans, elevations, and pictures of specific building parts. Evidence for the use of Yingzao fashi in any time period comes primarily from measuring existing buildings and comparing the measurements of and proportional relationships between building parts with stipulations in the text. The discussion of architecture of Song, Jin, and Yuan that follows, and with references to Tang and Liao buildings, will confirm how closely some buildings conform to prescriptions in the text. This is true even though no record of any building, neither stele nor textual

84

Century before the Mongol Century

2.22 Tailiang structural framework

1. Architrave 2. Longitudinal tie-beam 3. Rafter 4. Purlin 5. Strut 6. Transversal tie-beam 7. Beam 8. Column 9. Bay

Principles for the placement of pillars also are specified in Yingzao fashi. The majority of Chinese structures have an even number of columns across the front, meaning there are an odd number of intervals, or bays (jian), between them. Bay is a two-dimensional unit that refers to the space between two columns and the area behind it until the next set of columns. The distance between the columns that define the central bay is the widest across the front of a building. This interval is known as mingjian. The pillars on either side of mingjian are positioned symmetrically. The intervals between pillars decrease symmetrically and proportionately from mingjian outward, so that the bays that flank mingjian are the second longest in a structure, those that flank the flanking bays (in halls large enough for them to exist) are the third longest, and the end bays always are the shortest. The relationships between bays and the heights of pillars also are articulated in Yingzao fashi; they are proportional. “Rise” (shengqi) is a corresponding construction principle whereby the columns that flank mingjian are the shortest across the front façade, and those at the corners are the tallest. All these principles are assumed for buildings in any material. Some of the terminology in this paragraph and the previous two are used in Tao Zongyi’s and Xiao Xun’s descriptions of buildings of Yuan Daidu. A few are used in Xu Yang’s stele inscription about Xingyuange at Khara-Khorum. The principles are the basis for theoretical reconstructions of buildings at all the Yuan capitals. The module (cai), a wooden piece with a height:width ratio of 3:2, is the most important stipulation in Yingzao fashi. In a Song building, this measurement is the cross-section of the bracket

arm or joist. One-fifteenth of the height of the cai is a modular subunit of length called fen. The height of the cai measures fifteen fen, and the width of the cai measures ten fen. Zhi is a subsidiary modular unit of cai. A zhi is six fen tall. The total height of cai plus zhi thus measures twenty-one fen, and this two-piece module is known as zucai, “full standard unit.” The cai-fen system in Yingzao fashi has eight different grades. The six highest grades are for large- and medium-scale architecture. The large measurements of a building, such as width across the front, depth, and column height, and small measurements, such as the cross-sections of bracket-set components, beams, and joists, are controlled by the cai and fen. Yingzao fashi does not specify absolute measurements, only the cai, fen, and proportional relationships. In other words, the number of fen for each component is fixed, but the actual measurement of the fen varies according to the selected grade of wood in use. The eight grades are used to determine the size of a building. The first to third grades are used in large-scale architecture, the fourth to sixth grades in middle-scale architecture, and the seventh and eighth grades for small, pavilion-like buildings. The fen of the eight grades measure between 0.6 and 0.3 cun, cun a small unit of measure that one can think of as corresponding to an inch in the British system. The differences between proportional widths of subsequent grades 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 is equal to 0.05 cun. Like cai and fen, the cun and other units of length in the system prescribed in Yingzao fashi are not specific measurements. They are units that relate proportionately to other units but whose actual lengths may change. Cun also has a proportional

85

Chapter Two

relationship to a longer measurement. It is one-tenth of a zhang. One might think of the relationship as that between inch and foot in the British system. Other proportional relationships also are specified in Yingzao fashi. For example, the distance between bracket sets across the front façade of a building is set at 125 fen, but it may be reduced or enlarged by twenty-five fen and in rare cases more. In diantang of the Song dynasty, the standard bay width is set at 250 fen, twice the distance between bracket sets, but may increase to 375 fen (three times that distance) depending on the placement of bracketing. The building depth is calculated on the basis of the horizontally projected rafter length.102 The modular system also allowed for prefabrication of individual components, on-site assemblage, and simple replacement of single pieces. The main construction tools were zhanggan (one-zhang-long rods). The values of cai and fen were marked as modular units on the long wooden measuring sticks, and some fen numbers of prefabricated components were marked or carved on the rods as well. Craftsmen used mnemonic devices such as rhymes to memorize the relevant fen number for each component. In addition to the module (cai and/or fen), the number of bays across the front and the side of a building, and the number of rafters, which was stipulated as units (intervals between rafters), were prescribed in Yingzao fashi. A building of seven bays by four had eight pillars across the front and back and five pillars on each side, the corner pillars double-counted, so that a sevenby-four-bay building would have twenty-four exterior pillars; a five-purlin building has four rafter-units, one between each pair of purlins. A seven-purlin structure may have as few as two and as many as seven pillars in cross-section, and the installation of a front arcade or porch might yield an additional roof purlin that has no counterpart on the back of the building. Yingzao fashi stipulates eighteen manipulations of columns, beams, and for a tingtang. Roof rafters may be parallel to one another or fanshaped; since all emerge from the main roof purlin, in a parallel formation the rafters closest to the corners are the shortest. Yingzao fashi stipulates four floor plans for diantang or diange (figure 2.23). Prescribed in terms of cao, a character that may be translated “trough” but should be understood as the area defined or enclosed on either side by a row of columns, they are dancao (single-cao) (#1), shuangcao (double-cao) (#2), fenxin doudicao (compartmentalized-cao) (#3), and jinxiang doudicao (concentric-cao) (#4). One observes in figure 2.23 markers for

columns that may be parallel, grouped in fours, and placed at axial positions between columns for the positioning of architraves and joists. The cao formation is not visible on the exterior of a building. In the Tang and Song dynasties, concentric column perimeters, which define cao, are one bay apart, but in the Yuan period, concentric column intervals often have enlarged distances in the front and on both sides so that they are two bays apart. Enough eighth- to fourteenth-century architecture confirms the use of Yingzao fashi that one understands how easy it was for a Mongol or Jurchen or Khitan patron to have the Chinese timber-framing system implemented. The few features that researchers know changed and use to date buildings between the eighth and fourteenth centuries, such as the interval between exterior pillars and the interior pillar row that defines a cao, probably would not have been relevant to a Mongol or Jurchen patron who wanted a “Chinese” building. Another feature that dates a structure is the depth:width ratio of beams. In a Song building it is smaller than this ratio in a Tang building. The diameter:span ratio in a Tang building is smaller than in a Song building. A smaller depth:width ratio indicates a technological advance between Tang and Song because less material could be used. Brackets sets and roofs are exterior features whose rank a patron would have been more likely to recognize. Bracket sets consist of two main parts: dou (block) and gong (arm). The characters combine as dougong, the Qing-period name for a bracket set. Puzuo is the name for bracket set used in Yingzao fashi. Figure 2.24 is an illustration in Yingzao fashi of five formations of bracket set, from four puzuo for use in a humble structure to eight puzuo for an eminent building; the four-puzuo structure, at the top of the right leaf, is shown in frontal- and cross-sections. There are many variations. Blocks and arms are the only components of a four-puzuo set. From five puzuo upward one usually finds, as is the case in the drawing, at least one ang, or cantilever. Another feature in all the brackets in this figure is the cap-block (ludou), the bottom block that is placed on top of the column and usually is tenoned to it. Each of the arms is given a name in Yingzao fashi. The arms that project perpendicular to the building plane are called huagong, literally flower-arm. Those parallel to the building plane are, on the lowest tier, nidaogong (literally, plaster-channel arms); those joined by blocks to the nidaogong are mangong, extended-arms or long-arms; those at the same level but in front of mangong are guazigong, literally melon-arms, like plaster-channel

86

Century before the Mongol Century

2.23 Four plans for building with inner and outer rings of columns, described in Yingzao fashi. Li Jie, Yingzao fashi, juan 31, vol. 2, 796–97.

2.24 Diagram of six formations of bracket sets from four puzuo to eight puzuo. Li Jie, Yingzao fashi, juan 30/18b–19a.

and melon, an example of craftsmen’s terminology, and usually called oval-arms in English; and those highest in the set are linggong, order-arms or lead bracket arms, ling now believed to be an erroneous transcription in some version of the text for its homophone, which would then translate as “single arms.” Linggong sometimes carry longitudinal joists. Bracket sets are found outside as well as inside buildings. Both out and in, they occur at corners, on top of pillars, and on architraves (lan’e), the last a feature that can penetrate pillars or be placed on top of them. In general, bracket sets on the exterior of a building are more complicated than those inside, those at the corners are more complicated than other bracket sets, and those on top of pillars are more complicated than intercolumnar bracket sets. Three features of bracket sets indicate a building’s date. First is the number of sets between columns. The earliest known use of intercolumnar brackets is in the ninth century. As early as

the tenth century, two sets may occur between columns, especially in the central bay of a structure. By the Yuan dynasty, two intercolumnar sets are common across a building façade. By the Qing dynasty, six intercolumnar sets are often used, and as many as eight may be found. Second is the height of the bracket set with respect to the column beneath it. In the Tang dynasty, the height of the bracket set is about one-half the height of the column under it, or one-third the height from the base of the building to the top of the bracket set. By the Qing dynasty, the ratio of bracket set height:column-plus-bracket set is about one-sixth. Third, the enormous bracket sets found in ninth- and tenth-century buildings contain all structurally necessary parts. As bracketing becomes smaller, it also becomes more decorative. Beginning in the Yuan dynasty, one finds purely decorative features such as imitation cantilevers, and by the Qing dynasty, “tails” that project from brackets sets in the form of cantilevers

87

Chapter Two

2.25 Nine types of Chinese roof. Other features of the ceilingless Jin building are shown in Figure 2.27

1. Double-eave hipped roof 2. Single-eave hipped roof

6. Overhanging-eaves roof with ridge-end ornaments

3. Double-eave hip-gable roof

7. Overhanging-eaves roof

4. Single-eave hip-gable roof

8. Double-eave pyramidal roof

5. Hip-gable roof without ridge-end

9. Pyramidal roof

ornaments

are usually decorative. Another feature that occurs by the Ming dynasty is the queti (sparrow’s brace), a beak-shaped brace that abuts the architrave to offer additional support. All buildings discussed in this chapter have functional bracket set components. Their height:height of building from base to top of the bracket set is about one-third to one-fourth. In the Yuan dynasty we shall see nonfunctional bracket elements. Three other features of bracket sets are described in Yingzao fashi. First is shuatou, “mocking head,” a decorative projection at the front end. Another feature that sometimes projects at the front of a bracket set is called jixin, “added heart,” a bracket arm first used in the first half of the tenth century. Jixin support linggong, the uppermost bracket arms. The contrasting formation is known as touxin, “stolen heart,” in which only huagong or ang support the ling bracket arm. The third feature is the diagonal member ang that projects through the bracket set but, as mentioned, beginning in the Yuan dynasty is not always functional. Figure 2.25 shows the nine most common roof types in Chinese architecture. The hipped roof is reserved for the most important Chinese buildings. It appears, for instance, on the Hall of Supreme Harmony in the Forbidden City and, one assumes, is the kind of roof that covered Daming Hall in Yuan

Daidu. A hipped roof with two eaves (#1) signals a more eminent structure than a single-eave hipped roof which, as shown in #2, may be used for a gate. Next in eminence is the roof that combines the hip with gable ends (#3, #4, and #5). Here, too, two eaves are used above a more eminent structure than one eave (#3). When a roof has the decorative corner ends known as owl’s tails, seen in #1, #2, #3, #4, and #6), it is more eminent than the same hips and gables without them (#5). The overhanging-gabled roof follows in eminence, more eminent with decorative roof corners (#6) than without them (#7). In #7, the roof overhang signals a less eminent building than #6 because the overhang in #7 is flush with the building façade. Last is the pyramidal roof, which can be used only above square structures, often pavilions. Two sets of eaves (#8) also indicates the greater eminence than a building with only one roof eave (#9). The terms explained here are used in descriptions of all wooden-frame buildings and some masonry structures through the rest of the book. Extant Halls Chongfusi in Shuo county in northern Shanxi is the most expansive surviving Buddhist monastery with Jin buildings.

88

Century before the Mongol Century

2.26 Fan-shaped bracket set, Sansheng Hall, Shanhua Monastery, Datong, Shanxi, 1128

Like most Buddhist temple-complexes, it was founded much earlier, in 655. The site was an official residence in the Liao dynasty, only to become a monastery again in Jin times. A fundamental principle of Chinese construction is observed here: buildings of the same status can change function. Inside, an official hall can transform into a temple of the same architectural eminence by removing a seat of governance and replacing it with an altar, while the structural support system is not altered. The interior Jin murals with images of deities with ‘Phags-pa letters in their crowns and the same letters on roof tiles confirm that this monastery was used during the period of Mongolian rule. Two Jin buildings remain among ten main structures at this 36,000-square-meter monastery that was affiliated with Pure Land Buddhism.103 Mituo (Amitabha) Hall is a seven-by-fourbay structure elevated on a 2.53-meter platform with front stairs followed by a front approach ramp.104 Dated 1143, it measures 41.23 by 22.70 meters at the base. Two features of Mituo Hall that are not described in Yingzao fashi identify it as Jin-period: fanshaped bracket sets (that project in at least five angles from the building plane in the shape of an unfolded fan) and a sublintel (you’e). The bracket set formation is a signature of Liao and Jin

architecture that is widely used in monastery buildings in the Jin and Liao western capital Datong. It may represent a regional style (figure 2.26). It does not survive in any Yuan building. Other features of the ceilingless Jin building are shown in figure 2.27. (figure 2.27). Another feature of Jin construction that does not occur before the Liao dynasty but will continue in the Yuan period is known as pillar displacement (jianzhu). A seven-by-four-bay structure such as Mituo Hall with a complete column grid would have fifteen interior pillars. This hall has only two. Guanyin Hall, the other Jin structure at Chongfu Monastery, is five bays by three and has no interior pillars. Elimination of pillars is excessive in Mañjuśrī Hall of Foguang Monastery on Mount Wutai, built in 1137. Seven bays across the front and eight rafter-lengths in depth, it has only two pillars standing inside the hall (figure 2.28). Diagonal braces and excessively long lintels aid in the support of the exposed roof frame. Fan-shaped bracket sets are used.105 The main hall of Yanqing Monastery in Shanwen village, twenty-seven kilometers southwest of Wutai, has a fan-shaped bracket set on its front façade, and pillars are eliminated from the interior.106 The Mongols were on Mount Wutai, so it is likely that they saw these buildings.

89

2.27 Interior of Mituo Hall showing sublintel and other parts, Chongfu Monastery, Shuo county, Shanxi, 1143 2.28 Mañjuśrī Hall, Foguang Monastery, Mount Wutai, Shanxi, 1137

Century before the Mongol Century

Daxiongbao Hall of Jingtu Monastery in Ying county, Shanxi, is the oldest dated Jin wooden building. Built in 1124, it is three bays square with a single-eave, hip-gable roof. Bracket sets are simple: four-puzuo formation and not fan-shaped. Standing outside, one would never anticipate the heavenly palaces and storied pavilions (tiangong louge) of the recessed ceiling inside (figure 2.29). This best Jin example of Yingzao fashi’s xiaomuzuo is achieved in a humble hall. The intense elaboration inside a small space is the feature observed in Jin tombs in the Pingyang region (figure 2.20). The western capital Datong is the only Jin capital where wooden architecture survives. Huayan and Shanhua Monasteries both were important in the Liao dynasty, and both include buildings dated Liao, Jin, or Liao-Jin. As noted, building exteriors bear the fan-shaped bracket sets associated almost exclusively with Liao-Jin construction (figure 2.26). A stele carved in 1162 records the destruction during wars between Liao and Jin and subsequent restoration of Huayan Monastery.107 Following severe damage in the period 1111–1118, only five buildings were left. The only one standing today is the sutra repository, dated 1038. The most eminent building that was damaged was Daxiongbao (Great Hero) Hall, which, according to the stele, was “devastated” in 1122. It was rebuilt in 1140 together with pavilions, the bell tower, gates, and side halls. Eight monks are named as participants in the repair, presumably directors and overseers. Five of them died before completion. Wulu visited Huayansi in 1166, when, according to Jinshi, he also saw old bronze images of Liao emperors.108 Daxiongbao Hall of Huayansi is elevated 4 meters, its approach is 32.42 by 18.48 meters, and the hall measures a staggering 53.75 by 29 meters. Its architectural features are close to those of another Liao-period Daxiongbao Hall the Jurchen and Mongols surely saw, at Fengguo Monastery in Yi county of Liaoning, dated 1018, a still enormous but slightly smaller buildings of dimensions 48.2 by 25.13 meters, elevated on a 3-meter-high platform with base dimensions of 55.8 by 25.91 meters, and approached by a platform of 37 by 15 meters. Key structural features of these two buildings are as follows: interior and exterior frames are at least a two-rafter distance apart; pillars of the exterior are shorter than those of the interior, and bracket sets tenoned into the interior are also, respectively, lower; bracket sets of the exterior and interior frames are placed opposite one another; interior columns are separated from exterior columns by beams on three sides and

2.29 Ceiling of Jingtusi, Ying county, Shanxi, 1124

less physically separated in front; braces, rather than bracket sets, are sometimes used on top of interior columns.109 The construction confirms that Jin restoration followed the Liao forms. Remarkably, when the details of the Liao buildings were measured, they were assessed to be hybrid, or combinations of diantang and tingtang features.110 Use of elements of tingtang construction in such enormous buildings confirms that eminence according to Yingzao fashi is based on details and proportions, not absolute measurements. The history of Shanhua Monastery is recorded in a stele of 1176. It had been founded in the Tang dynasty and destroyed during the same wars that damaged Huayansi between 1111 and 1118. Repairs were undertaken between 1128 and 1143 under the direction of a monk named Yuanman. Shanhuasi’s Daxiongbao Hall, too, was rebuilt in its Liao form. It was repaired in the Ming dynasty. Samantabhadra Pavilion was rebuilt in 1154 and again in 1953. The front gate and Sansheng (three Buddhas) Hall are dated to the period of repairs, 1128– 1143. The gate and hall exhibit pillar elimination as well as fan-shaped bracket sets that characterize other Liao-Jin buildings in Datong (figure 2.26). Sansheng Hall also exhibits pillar displacement (yizhu), or the movement of interior columns off the axes indicated by exterior columns. Elimination as well as

91

Chapter Two

2.30 Detail of murals, Mañjuśrī Hall, Yanshan Monastery, Fanzhi, Shanxi, 1167

displacement of interior columns will also characterize Yuan wooden architecture.111 The eastward orientation of Huayan Monastery is considered a feature of its Liao phase of building. The Khitan worshipped the sun during the winter solstice, in a monthly ceremony in preparation for the hunt and for war, and in the ceremony of “recognition of the ruler.” The Khitan also entered banquet halls from the east and faced east during a banquet with Song officials.112 East-west orientation of Liao buildings is retained at monasteries that were used by Jin, such as Huayansi, but it is not certain that Jin temples complexes were initially constructed oriented to the east. That Shanhua Monastery was built facing south, according to Chinese practice, is understood as retention of the orientation of its Tangperiod founding. Mañjuśrī Hall of Foguang Monastery stands on the north side of a west-oriented monastery whose main hall, at the end of the central approach through the complex, is called east hall and faces west. No one has been able to prove that the name was given when the monastery was oriented along an east-west axis. The fact that the Jin detached palaces and altar complex discussed above were not east-oriented suggests that the Jin did not consider eastern orientation as important as did Liao. The southeast orientation of KharaKhorum and other Mongol cities also is not explained by Liao or Jin layouts. Mañjuśrī Hall of Yanshan Monastery, in Fanzhi, is in northern Shanxi in the vicinity of Mount Wutai, Shuo county, Ying county, and Datong. It is five bays across the front, but with extremely narrow end bays, so that its dimensions are only 14.98 by 11.86 meters. It has four interior pillars, all of which

are displaced from axes anticipated by exterior columns. Bracket sets are four puzuo. The humble structure is another example of an exterior that hardly prepares one for the interior, in which murals exhibit extraordinarily detailed representations of buildings. Built in 1153 and repaired during the Yuan dynasty, it has murals whose architectural detail is consistent with the signature and date: court-painter Wang Kui and his workshop in 1167 (figure 2.30).113 Activities of Mañjuśrī, the bodhisattva associated with the sacred Buddhist peak Wutaishan, are the subject of murals on at least one wall.114 Great Achievement Hall at the Confucian Temple in Pingyao, Shanxi, was built in 1163 (figure 2.31). It stands as the focal building along the main axis of a south-facing, four-courtyard complex, following a screen wall, two gates, one of which no longer survives, and in front of a smaller hall, kiosk, and back pavilion with three sets of roof eaves. Service buildings are placed symmetrically on the eastern and western sides of the site. A five-bay-square hall with hip-gable roof, Great Achievement Hall is a rare example of a building with seven-puzuo bracket sets that include two cantilevers. Its pieces measure as a diantang.115 Two Jin stele pavilions, built between 1190 and 1196, stand among a group of thirteen at the Confucian Temple in Qufu, Shandong province (figure 2.32). A Yuan pavilion is also on site, confirming activity there during the period of Mongolian rule.116 Of the approximately twenty dated Jin timber-frame buildings, Mituo Hall of Chongfusi offers the complex manipulation of the timber frame that we will observe in Yuan architecture (figure 2.27).117 The Chinese communities living and dying in Shanxi province under Jin rule enjoyed street theater. Not only

92

Century before the Mongol Century

2.31 Hall of Great Achievement, Confucian Temple, Pingyao, Shanxi, 1163

2.32 Interior of Stele Pavilion, Confucian Temple, Qufu, Shandong, 1190–1196

are stages and actors painted and sculpted on Jin and Yuan tomb walls in Shanxi,118 twenty-four stages dated Jin or Yuan stand aboveground.119 The forms of drama performed on these stages are well studied. Yuanben is the name of the most often performed type, with four or five actors. The name used in South China at the time, zaju, is more common in discussions in Western literature.120 Stage architecture is discussed in chapter 5.

are at Liao monasteries that were restored under Jin rule. The majority are octagonal, but four-sided and hexagonal structures exist. The tallest extant Jin pagodas are about thirty meters, less than half the height of Liao’s greatest achievements in pagoda construction. Whether thirty or more than seventy meters, Jin octagonal masonry pagodas, either with a tall shaft and thirteen layers of closely placed eaves above it, the style known as miyan, or of stories that diminish in height and perimeter from lowest to highest, the style called louge (tower pavilion), were known to the Mongols. One wonders if the Mongols knew about the treasures buried in reliquaries beneath or in masts of some of these pagodas.122

Pagodas As many as thirteen pagodas are dated to the Jin period.121 They stand in Henan, Hebei, Shanxi, Liaoning, Jilin, and Beijing. Most

93

Chapter Two

2.33 Jin and Yuan pagodas, Yinshan Pagoda Forest, Yanshou/Fahai Monastery, Changping, Beijing

Five miyan pagodas dated to the Jin dynasty stand in the pagoda forest known as Yinshan on the grounds of a monastery known as both Yanshousi and Fahaisi in Changping, about sixty kilometers northwest of Beijing, that was founded in 1125 during the reign of Wuqimai and before Hailingwang moved the capital to Beijing (figure 2.33). Two Yuan pagodas survive there as well. The Cloud Terrace at Juyong Pass of the Great Wall that would be carved under Tugh Temür from 1342 to 1345, discussed in chapter 3, and the tombs of thirteen Ming emperors who ruled from Beijing are in the same vicinity. The thirty-three-meter, nine-level pagoda in Zhengding, Hebei, is dated 1166–1189. Two four-sided pagodas built in the 1170s with thirteen layers of closely positioned eaves, thirty and thirty-five meters in height, are in Henan, the former at Tianning Monastery in Qinyang and the latter at Baima (White Horse) Monastery in Luoyang, a temple complex whose history began in the Han dynasty. In 1186 the Jin built Qingshou Monastery in the same district. Octagonal, masonry pagodas were constructed at Qingshou Monastery in the thirteenth century for the Chan Buddhist master Haiyun, who had accompanied his disciple Ke’an and Liu Bingzhong to meet Khubilai at Khara-Khorum in 1239. They were destroyed in 1954. Twin pagodas to them were also built in Daidu (figure 1.24, #65).

buildings that were part of monasteries above or in front of the caves. Little is known about its author, Cao Yin.123 Liangshan in Heyang, Shaanxi, is one of the few locations where Buddhist cave carving occurred anew during the Jin dynasty.124 The assessment is based on an inscription dated 1154, a date also on an image of Mañjuśrī, which is identified as the main image in a cave-temple that is three meters high, four meters deep and seven-eight meters across the front. Two pillars stand in the front, suggesting the conception of the cave to be three bays across. Its walls are covered with myriad Buddhas. Four stone corner pillars also are covered with Buddhist imagery. Inscriptions inside the cave from 1328 and 1507 are believed to be dates of repairs. Bridge Neither the Jin nor the Mongols destroyed bridges. Marco Polo Bridge, so-named because Marco Polo described it, was built from 1189 to 1192. The Chinese name is Lugouqiao (Reed Gulch Bridge). Well-known because it was the setting on July 7–9, 1937, for the first battle of the Second Sino-Japanese War, the bridge spans 266.5 meters and is 9.3 meters wide. Marco Polo Bridge is still the longest multiple-arch bridge in north China. Eleven semicircular, segmented arches support it, the widest, the central one, spanning 21.6 meters. Some of the lions positioned above the nearly five hundred posts of the marble balustrade that lines both sides survive from the Jin period.125

Rock-Carved Architecture Jin patrons also were aware of the centuries-old tradition of rock-carved architecture. This is certain because one of the most important documents for the history of the Yungang caves, located about eighteen kilometers from Shanhua Monastery, is a stele carved in 1147. Often referred to as the Jin Stele, the 2,100-character inscription confirms that both Liao and Jin repaired and reconstructed Buddhist caves at Yungang. The inscription also provides dates and names of freestanding

Song The Mongols saw Song monasteries and pagodas in Jin territory of North China, and by the 1270s they saw the Southern Song capital in Hangzhou that has inspired observers from Marco Polo until today to wax eloquent about West Lake. The purpose

94

Century before the Mongol Century

here is to highlight exemplary Song architecture that Mongols surely would have seen that might have offered visual images powerful enough to affect construction, as well as buildings that confirm the use of Yingzao fashi, which, as mentioned, would guide construction of Yuan buildings in Chinese style. Wooden Architecture The pagoda of Fogong Monastery in Ying county of Shanxi, about a kilometer from Jingtu Monastery, may have been the most spectacular structure seen by conquerors, whether Jurchen or Mongol (figure 2.34). Built in 1056 by the Liao emperor Daozong (r. 1055–1101), this tallest wooden structure in the world was and remains so spectacular that the name Timber Pagoda (Muta) immediately identifies it. The cai of its most eminent bracket sets is 25.5:17, close to a 3:2 ratio. Six components of the pagoda are within the proportional range for diantang prescribed in juan 26 of Yigzao fashi, even though some fall to the lower side of the range. In the case of such a spectacular and complicated structure, it is possible that the human hands that cut the wood or the complexity of the structure gave way to slightly off-size pieces required for stability rather than perfect measurements.126 Among extant architecture, six other Song wooden buildings represent the best of the tradition. The Jin Shrines is an architectural complex twenty-five kilometers southwest of Taiyuan in Shanxi province that commemorates the Zhou dynasty state of Jin. Sage Mother Hall, built between 1038 and 1087, is dedicated to a female spirit associated with rain and the Jin Springs since the Zhou dynasty (figure 2.35).127 It stands among more than thirty structures, one of which, the offering hall (xiandian), was built during Jin rule in 1168. The Jin Shrines developed over time, resulting in the unusual feature of more than one building axis. Sage Mother Hall is a seven-by-six-bay diantang with seven-puzuo bracket sets and two sets of roof eaves. Its framework follows the prescriptions for diantang in Yingzao fashi. The hip-gable roof is atypical for this kind of structure. Its eight-rafter beam, meaning it spans the distance between nine roof purlins, extends the entire width of the hall between the lowest rafter of the front and back sides. This is the longest existing rafter-span in China. Also as stipulated in Yingzao fashi, the central front and back bays are the widest in the building, and columns “rise” from the shortest ones that flank the central bays to the tallest on the outer ends of the outermost bays. Other features we will observe in Yuan timber-frame buildings are chamfered columns, meaning they are narrower in circumference

2.34 Timber Pagoda, Ying county, Shanxi, 1056

at the top than near the center; column batter, meaning that they lean toward the center of the building, with those that lean least flanking the central bay to those that lean most flanking the end bays; penetration of the six front columns that define the central five bays with the architrave; and a beam known as a pupai-tiebeam placed above the architrave. Four Song buildings survive at Longxing Monastery in Zhending, Hebei province, more than at any other single site in China.128 Three stand on the long, north-south building line. Two pavilions are symmetrical to this line at the back (figure 2.36). Foxiangge, associated with the date 971 but significantly repaired in 1944 and in the 1990s, towers at the back. The bronze image of the bodhisattva Guanyin inside was commissioned by the Song emperor after destruction during an attack by Liao. The monastery architecture is thus especially important because of the imperial patronage. Like Timber Pagoda, Foxiang Pavilion

95

2.35 Sage Mother Hall, Jin Shrines, 1038–1087

2.36 Airview of Longxing Monastery, Zhengding, Hebei province, 1052

Century before the Mongol Century

has a mezzanine level, but the statue stands in central space that is open from the floor to the exposed roof frame. Every post and beam is straight, characteristic of North China. Curvature of beams is not discussed in Yingzao fashi. It is a feature that begins in the Tang dynasty and becomes regional. We shall see straight architectural members in North China under Yuan rule and curved beams in contemporary construction in the South. The other two pavilions at Longxing Monastery are shorter, each also with a mezzanine level and an open interior. The Pavilion to Cishi (an alternate name for Maitreya, Buddha of the Future), east of the Longxing Monastery building line, also has exclusively straight wooden members. The Pavilion of the Revolving Sutra Cabinet forms a symmetrical pair on the west. It has a unique curved beam that highlights the sutra cabinet, one of a few scripture containers like this that survives.129 The six-tier bracket sets under its two sets of roof eaves are Song examples of xiaomuzuo. The three-pavilion arrangement also was employed at Xiangguo Monastery, now destroyed, in the Northern Song capital Bianjing.130 Symmetrical pavilions on either side of the main building line near the back of the monastery also are found at Shanhuasi in Datong, discussed earlier, whose buildings date to Liao-Jin. Moni Hall of Longxing Monastery is a unique, cruciform-shaped structure dedicated to the Buddha Śākyamuni. It stands on the monastery axis behind the entry gate and Hall to the Sixth Patriarch (recently reconstructed) and in front of a rebuilt ordination platform that is in front of Foxiangge. Moni Hall is dated 1052, the year recorded on two wooden pieces inside. Seven bays square and with base dimensions of 33.29 by 27.12 meters, the hall rises 22 meters on a brick podium that is 1.2 meters high. A portico projects from the center of each side, extending the longer dimension, east-west, to 43.56 meters and the depth to 34.93 meters. Bracket sets, struts, and braces are consistent with descriptions in Yingzao fashi.131 A feature of the cantilevers, also found at Sage Mother Hall, dates the building to the eleventh century. Their end-tips combine the two varieties of qinmian, or lute-face, and pizhu, or split bamboo.132 The curved tip, or lute-faced cantilever end, is found in another Song diantang, Daxiongbao Hall of Baoguo Monastery in Yuyao, near Ningbo, Zhejiang province, dated 1013. The feature will continue in South China through the Yuan dynasty.133 Four other features distinguish the building in southeastern China. First are three caisson ceilings (zaojing), each in its own

2.37 Interior of Daxiongbao Hall, Baoguo Monastery, Yuyao, Zhejiang, 1013

bay. We shall observe this in Three Purities Hall of Yongle Daoist Monastery, discussed in chapter 4. The presentation seems more striking in the Song hall because its back bays have exposed rafters, whereas at Three Purities Hall the rafters are covered by a ceiling. Second, pillars are known as gualengzhuang (melon-wheel shaped), a form described in Yingzao fashi. The name is another example of craftsmen’s vocabulary used in the Song court–sponsored treatise: melon is a reference to a cross-section of eight lobes, rather than the flat sides of cross-sections of most octagonal columns. The Baoguo Monastery hall is one of the only places in China where the melon-wheel-shaped columns are seen. Other columns of Daxiongbao Hall are shuttle-shaped, tapering toward the top, another Song feature observed at Sage Mother Hall. Third, the bracket sets at Daxiongbao Hall project with a clear perpendicular thrust. Although there are only three sets of bracket arms (huagong), the thrust is decisive. It will have an impact on later construction in Japan.134 Last, Baoguo Monastery’s Daxiongbao Hall has curved, or rainbow-shaped, beams (figure 2.37). Curved beams are used a century and a half earlier in the east hall of Foguang Monastery on Mount Wutai, the location

97

Chapter Two

2.38 Altar, Erxianguan, Xiaonan, Jincheng, Shanxi, 1097 with later repair

2.39 Front façade showing two intercolumnar bracket sets in middle bay and single intercolumnar set in side bays, main hall, Chuzu’an, Dengfeng, Henan, 1125

of the Jin-period Mañjuśrī Hall, and before then in cave 3 at Maijishan in Gansu province. The curved beams, as well as huge bracket sets with three or more tiers of vertically projecting bracket arms, are found a century later at Daxiongbao Hall at Hualinsi in Fuzhou, dated 964, where three cantilevers are used in bracket sets. Extant Song buildings indicate that this feature of sixth-century-to-Tang architecture continues in South China whereas in the North, represented by architecture at the Jin Shrines and Longxing Monastery, beams are straight.135

The majority of remaining Song buildings are small and humble.136 Among them, the main hall of Erxianguan in Xiaonan village of Jincheng is a tingtang with a tiny altar with xiaomuzuo on par with carpentry detail on the ceiling of the Jingtu Monastery main hall (figures 2.38 and 2.29) and the Revolving Sutra Cabinet of Longxing Monastery. The main hall of Chuzu’an (First Patriarch Hermitage), a subtemple of Shaolin Monastery in Dengfeng county, Henan, the famous training ground for monk-warriors at the foot of the sacred central peak Mount Song, is dated by an inscription carved on a stone pillar to 1125.

98

Century before the Mongol Century

2.40 Plan of Lingyin Monastery, Wushan shichatu. Collection of Tōfukuji, Kyoto, Japan, 1248

The building was measured in the 1930s.137 The structure fits the description for a three-bay, six-rafter tingtang in Yingzao fashi, first issued before and reissued after the construction date of this hall. Typical of the Song period, two intercolumnar bracket sets are positioned in the central bay, and only one set is used between other pillars (figure 2.39). The pillars’ height:diameter ratio is 7:1, and the corner pillars “rise” 7 centimeters compared to the heights of the front central bay pillars. The cai is 18.5 by 11.5 centimeters, just under 3:2, with a zhi of 7 centimeters. The details correspond to sixth grade in Yingzao fashi. The four types of bracket sets, above columns, between columns, at corners on the exterior, and inside, are all variants of five puzuo. The roof frame is exposed. A main image hall is among the buildings in all these monasteries. It can be known as Daxiongbao Hall or as dadian (great hall) or zhengdian (main hall). All three names continue to be used in the Yuan dynasty. The hall invariably is on the main axial building line. Every image hall is behind a gate, sometimes known as shanmen, literally mountain gate, and sometimes translated as gate-house because it is more than a simple entryway or pillar-supported opening. Shanmen can be more than one story, five bays across the front, and of diantang construction. In all the monasteries mentioned so far, only four building plans occur. One is traceable to China’s oldest monasteries: a tall pagoda on the central building line as the focus of the monastery. This is the plan of the monastery that houses the Timber Pagoda. Second is the same plan, but with a focal pavilion rather than pagoda. Third is a monastery in which pagoda, pavilion, or both rise on the central axis, but the importance of the tall structure is shared by a Buddha hall in front of or behind it. This is the plan of Longxing Monastery, whose Moni Hall shares importance with Foxiang Pavilion. The fourth plan has a pair of pagodas or pavilions on the sides of the main building line and sometimes two pairs. This is the plan of Shanhua Monastery, and it is incorporated into the plan of Longxing Monastery. A fifth plan comes into use in

South China in the Southern Song dynasty. It is associated with Chan monasteries. Chan, literally meditation, pronounced Zen in Japanese, was present in Tang China but became extremely popular in the Southern Song dynasty when monasteries of the Five Mountains and Ten Monasteries System were built. Five refers to the number of most important monasteries, designated “mountains” because they were located on mountains; ten is the number of secondarily important monasteries. The Southern Song government designated the five building complexes and the monks in charge of them among a group of approximately sixty significant Chan monasteries.138 The five were Wanshou Chan Monastery on Mount Jing, Lingyin Chan Monastery on North Mountain, and Bao’enguangxiao Chan Monastery on South Mountain, all in the vicinity of Hangzhou; and Tiantongjingde Chan Monastery on Mount Taibai and Guangli Chan Monastery on Ayuwang (Aśoka) Mountain, both in Mingzhou, Zhejiang. Of the Ten Monasteries, six were located in Zhejiang, three in Jiangsu, and one in Fujian. Ten of the next tier were in Zhejiang, and nine were in Jiangsu, sixteen spread from Fujian to Guangdong, Jiangxi, Hubei, Anhui, Henan, and Hebei, with eight in Jiangxi. Many Chan monasteries in South China corresponded to a seven-hall plan. In this scheme a building of little importance in earlier monasteries, the abbot’s hall, becomes important. Indeed, the above-mentioned Jin monastery Chongfusi was a Chan monastery with resident monks, but neither the eight-hall plan nor a significant abbot’s hall stood there. In South China, an illustrated text, one used over centuries in China and in Japan but still with regional influence compared to Yingzao fashi, guided construction. Wushan shichatu (Five mountains, ten monasteries illustrated) was issued in 1248. The plan of Lingyin Monastery shows the eight structures: the Shanmen, Buddha Hall, Law Hall, and Abbot's Quarters along the main south-north line, the Buddha hall at the center, or “heart,” with the kitchens, sutra library, bathing halls and latrines flanking the heart like hands and feet (figure 2.40). Individual buildings in the illustrations

99

Chapter Two

have deeply sloping roof eaves of the kind associated with South China (see figure 8.12).139 The same curvature of roof eaves is present in one of the few extant Southern Song religious buildings, Three Purities (Sanqing) Hall at the Daoist monastery Xuanmiaoguan in Suzhou, first built in the Northern Song period and dated to its rebuilding in 1176. Three Purities Hall also has the fourplus tiers of bracket arms and curved beams crossing its front and back bays that characterize Song architecture in South China. The tiers of bracket arms perpendicular to the building plane have been noted at the main Buddha halls of Hualin Monastery in Fuzhou and Baoguo Monastery Yuyao, and at a Japanese building of ca. 1200. I return to this subject in chapter 8. Buildings with these features were not constructed in Jin China or by the Mongols. Pagodas As in Liao and Jin territory, Song pagodas towered above the landscape in North and South China. Many of them could be ascended inside. Also as in the north, beginning in the tenth century, a majority of pagodas were octagonal, but hexagonal and four-sided pagodas also existed. They include both miyan and louge structures. As mentioned, Song and Liao pagodas appear in the same locations in their monasteries. At least eighty-five pagodas survive in Song territory from the mid-tenth century until the fall of Northern Song.140 There is a sharp drop in pagoda construction under Southern Song patronage because the pagoda was not important in Chan monasteries. Song China’s tallest pagoda was built in 1055 at Kaiyuan Monastery in Ding county, Hebei. The eleven story, eighty-four meter, octagonal structure is one of the few surviving Song pagodas commissioned by an emperor. In 1001 the emperor Zhenzong (r. 997–1022) ordered its construction; fifty-four years later it was completed under Renzong (r. 1022–1063). The pagoda is known as Liaodi, Taking Stock of the Enemy, because it is believed to have served as a lookout for Liao invaders coming from the north.141 Liaodi Pagoda is accessible from four sides of the first story. The entries lead to an octagonal interior corridor with four niches on each layer. Staircases spiral through the pagoda, providing access to the top. Sheli Pagoda at Kaifu Monastery in Jing county, Hebei, follows the same exterior and interior forms. Originally built in the Northern Wei period, the 63.85-meter, thirteen-story, brick structure that tapers in perimeter from base to roof preserves its form of 1079. The 57-meter pagoda

at Liurong Monastery in Guangzhou is octagonal and has nine stories. Tiger Hill Pagoda, built in Suzhou between 959 and 961, has seven-stories, is octagonal, and is 47.5-meters high. Wooden pillars, bracket sets, and doorframes are imitated in brick on the exterior. Every story has an interior gallery, and stairs provide access to the top level.142 The pagoda of Ruiguang Monastery, also in Suzhou, built between 1009 and 1030, is octagonal, of mixed brick and wood construction, and with broadly sloping eaves.143 Suzhou’s twin pagodas, known as the luohan pagodas, are seven stories and octagonal and have deeply curving eaves. Built in 982, each is thirty meters high, of which the pagoda is about twenty meters and the iron spire is about ten. The interiors are hollow cylinders with wooden ladder-stairs offering access to every level. A six-story, octagonal pagoda with an unusual exterior was erected at Xiude Monastery in Quyang, Hebei, in 1019. The first story is tall and undecorated, and the second story is half the pagoda’s height, comprising five rows of small pagodas. The pagoda has one entry on the first story, behind which is a Buddha image. The thirteen-story, octagonal Iron Pagoda in the Northern Song capital got its nickname from the glaze of its exterior brick that shines like iron. Every layer and the imitation columns that divide the sides of the 54.66-meter structure are covered with glazed bricks decorated with Buddhist and floral imagery. An actual iron pagoda was constructed at Yuquan Monastery in Dangyang, Hubei, in 1062. The thirteen-story, 17.9-meter-tall, 3,830-kilogram pagoda is an example of the imitation of wood in metal. Every story has bracket sets supporting two sets of roof eaves. Every story also has an entry on four sides, with a Buddha image on the four intermediate sides. The octagonal pagoda at Ganlu Monastery on Mount Beigu, just north Zhenjiang, Jiangsu province, is iron. First built in the Tang dynasty and rebuilt in the Ming, the core of the pagoda and its style are of the period 1078–1086. Every Song pagoda that survived in the north became part of Jin lands, and subsequently of the Yuan empire. Both groups also saw pagoda forests (figure 2.33). The Song pagoda forest at Lingyan Monastery in Changqing, Shandong province, includes a nine-story octagonal pagoda constructed between 1056 and 1063 that stands fifty-four meters. Song pagodas also are included in the pagoda forest at Shaolin Monastery in Dengfeng, adjacent to the above-mentioned Chuzu Hermitage. In the Dengfeng forest, most of the pagodas are funerary, so that the average height among the approximately two hundred structures is fifteen meters.

100

Century before the Mongol Century

The earliest dated Southern Song pagoda is the seventy-six-meter, octagonal pagoda at Bao’en Monastery in Suzhou, built between 1131 and 1162, second in height only to Liaodi Pagoda among Song structures. Combining brick and wood, the many wooden parts have required repair. An arcade makes it possible to walk along the interior of all nine stories, with stairs providing access to each of them. Hangzhou’s most renowned pagoda is the wood-and-brick, 59.89-meter Six Harmonies (Liuhe) Pagoda that faces Qiantang River at Kaihua Monastery. It was built in 1164 but completely rebuilt at the end of the Qing dynasty. Today the pagoda has thirteen exterior stories and seven interior levels; the Song version was seven stories inside and outside. An interior corridor is accessible from each side of each level. Spiral staircases lead to the top story. The pagoda at Xingfu Monastery in Changshu, Jiangsu province, built between 1265 and 1274 when the Mongols already ruled North China, is four-sided and stands more than sixty meters. The two octagonal, five-story, brick pagodas at Kaiyuan Monastery in Quanzhou, Fujian province, were known to the Mongols. They were rebuilt in 1128 and 1238 (figure 2.41).144 Rock-Carved Architecture No equivalent of the Jin Stele of 1147 at Yungang is known to confirm Song work at cave-temple sites. Buddhist caves in Sichuan surely were known to the Mongols. The seventy-onemeter seated Buddha and the representation of parinirvāṇa, the Buddha Śākyamuni at the time of death, both carved at Leshan in the Tang dynasty, would have been hard to miss. Similarly, the five-hundred-meter Buddha Bend at Baodingshan, among tens of thousands of images carved into natural rock in the vicinity of Dazu, about one hundred kilometers northwest of Chongqing, from the late ninth century through mid-thirteenth century, surely was known to the Mongols.145 The Mongols would not add to the Buddhist grottoes in Sichuan, but they would carve new cave sites. I return to this subject in chapter 7. Tombs The Mongols are likely to have seen the Northern Song imperial cemetery. They destroyed the Southern Song royal tombs. The tombs of nine Northern Song emperors, all but the last two, plus the tomb of the father of the founding emperor of Northern Song, are in a 160-square-kilometer area in Gongyi, Henan province, 55 kilometers east of Luoyang and 122 kilometers west of the Northern Song capital Bianjing. Twenty-two

2.41 Zhenguo Pagoda, Kaiyuan Monastery, Quanzhou, Fujian, 1238, 48.24 meters

empresses are buried here, as well, each beneath her own tumulus, with an empress usually northwest of her husband. In addition, following the system of Han, Tang, and Western Xia, more than a thousand auxiliary tombs are in the same area. The Northern Song imperial tombs divide roughly into four groups. The ancestral father, founding emperor, and second emperor are buried farthest south in a southeast-northwest line. The tomb of the third Song emperor is northeast of this group. The fourth and fifth Song emperors are together to the northeast. The sixth and seventh emperors are southeast of all the others. If Mongols saw the Northern Song royal cemetery, they saw facial features of foreigners in the statuary.146 Aboveground, Song tombs also had offering halls. They have been reconstructed based on textual descriptions and the Yingzao fashi.147 Underground, a Song imperial tomb was approached by a very long passageway (mudao), behind which were one or two chambers. When there were two chambers, they were connected by a corridor. They are believed to have been the models for Western Xia imperial tombs, with antechambers and single burial chambers.148 At the urging of Yang Lianzhenjia, who is discussed in chapter 6, Mongol troops destroyed the Southern Song imperial tombs in 1285. The tombs are known through literary sources.149 The first six Southern Song emperors were laid to rest at Shanghuangshan (supreme imperial mountain), which

101

Chapter Two

2.42 Line drawing of interior of back niche of tomb 1, An Bing family cemetery, Huaying, Sichuan, ca. 1222–1223. Huaying An Bingmu, fig. 9.

subsequently came to be known as Cuangongshan (assembled palaces mountain) in Shaoxing, Zhejiang province. In 1142, after Huizong’s death in captivity in 1135, the Jin returned the remains of him and his empress Xiansu, who died in captivity in 1131, to the Southern Song, whereupon they were interred in a tomb named Yongyouling in Shaoxing. Six other Southern Song emperors and empresses are buried at that site. Southern Song empresses and princes also were buried at the foot of Cuangongshan. Spirit paths were never constructed because until the end, the imperial family held hope of return to their capital in Henan province.150 Nonroyal Northern Song tombs have been excavated across China. Of the many in Henan, the three in Baisha, about seventy kilometers southeast of Luoyang, were among the first excavated, in 1951.151 They are still the group with which all subsequently excavated Song tombs are compared. All three tombs are approached by an underground stepped passageway that leads to an antechamber. Tomb 1 has a four-sided chamber in front connected to a hexagonal chamber behind it. Tombs 2 and 3 have only the antechamber, corridor, and hexagonal main chamber. The tombs include replication of timber pieces from floor to vaulted ceiling, with bracket sets that not only follow specifications in Yingzao fashi, but whose painted decoration is consistent

with illustrations of graded colors that decorate architectural members, mullioned windows, roof tiles, and door studs. The interiors of Baisha tombs are covered with murals of the occupant and his family being served and entertained and furnishings that copy those of the Song period. A tomb in Heishangou village, in Dengfeng, dated 1097, one in Luoyang, and several in Licun, all in Henan, are single-chamber and have murals with many of the same themes found in the Baisha tombs.152 Seventyeight Northern Song tombs, dated by ceramics found in them, were uncovered in a cemetery in Sanmenxia between 2002 and 2003.153 Brick ceilings of Northern Song tombs in Luoyang share features with the three wooden caisson ceilings at Daxiongbao Hall of Baoguo Monastery and anticipate Jin tombs in southern Shanxi. Southern Song tombs remain across the expanse of the post1127 empire. The tomb of Huang Sheng, the wife of a member of the imperial family who died at the age of seventeen and was buried in a brick-and-stone tomb just outside Fuzhou, Fujian province, in 1243, and the tomb of the woman Zhou Shi, who was buried in a brick–and-stone tomb in De’an, Jiangxi, in 1274, are well known because of the silk excavated in them.154 Other well-studied tombs have been found in Tonglu, Longyou, Jinhua, Huzhou, Yunhe, and elsewhere in Zhejiang province,155 and in Lu county and Huaiyin of Sichuan.156 The military leader An Bing (1148–1221) was buried around 1222–1223 in a family cemetery in Huaying in which the two wives, a granddaughter, and a fifth, unidentified person also are buried. Stone sculpture, altars, and pilasters survive aboveground. Interior stone relief can be as intensely complex as the interiors of Jin tombs in southern Shanxi (figures 2.42 and 2.20).157 Large portions of aboveground tombs of Southern Song officials, including spirit paths, survived into this century in the vicinity of Ningbo. Remains from twenty-eight tombs that belonged to elite members of society are in Yindong, outside Ningbo.158 Hangzhou The Mongols of course saw Hangzhou. By the time the capital known as Lin’an (temporary peace) fell in 1279, Daidu was inhabited by Khubilai and his government. There is no indication that Hangzhou had any impact on Mongol city construction. In fact, built along West Lake, the plan of the city was more irregular than almost any Chinese capital that came before or after it.159 Some Southern Song imperial architecture has been excavated. The residence of Song

102

Century before the Mongol Century

Ningzong’s (r. 1194–1224) wife, the empress Gongsheng, was a 1260-square-meter complex that included six courtyards of buildings, ponds, wells, and gardens. Excavation confirms that interior pillars were eliminated, conforming to the style observed in North China under Jin rule. 160 The Southern Song ancestral temple (Taimiao), 30,000 square meters, which was begun in 1134, also has been excavated. The main hall; hall for tablets of the four ancestors of the first emperor, his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather; abstinence hall where the emperor prepared prior to ceremonies; and hall where jade tablets and seals were stored have been identified based on textual descriptions. 161 These buildings were among the massive destruction of the Southern Song capital ordered by the Mongols. The Jin controlled lands from Primorye in the northeast to Gansu in the west, and they left physical markers of their presence across this terrain. In spite of the huge territory, the Jin were never a world power. They had a designer of cities, Lu Yanlun, whose biography is in Jinshi, but he does not hold a place as a mover and shaper of Chinese urban history such as Liu Bingzhong’s. Did the Jurchen advisors not urge their leaders to seek a place in history? Did Jin rulers see themselves as successors of Liao, or of Parhae, or did they see themselves in a Chinese historical narrative that followed Tang and Song? Perhaps not. The history of Liao was not written at their court, but rather at Khubilai’s under the supervision of the same official, Tuotuo (Toghtō), who supervised writing the histories of Jin and Song. The Jurchen went much farther south in China than Liao, and their royal tombs in Da Fangshan reflect strong awareness of Chinese imperial tomb construction. Yet unlike Liao tombs, which were strongly impacted by Chinese burial patterns early in their history and near their first capital, Jurchen tombs near Jin Shangjing and in greater Heilongjiang and Primorye scarcely reflect Chinese funerary construction.162 Perhaps Jin rulers did not use architecture to best imperial advantage, and perhaps this was a significant reason Jurchen architecture has such a small place in the Chinese architectural narrative. In fact, an immediate post-Jin Jurchen history was almost impossible because, compared to that of Liao, who endured as Qara-Khitai for another century, the Mongol conquest left the Jurchen nowhere to regroup. Dispersal to the farthest forests of Northeast Asia was the only option for survival in a world

overtaken so fast and forcefully. Their name, as mentioned at the beginning, would be used in Hou Jin. This chapter has primarily focused on Jin cities and buildings because the Mongols surely saw Jin architecture when they entered Zhongdu in 1215. The Mongols of course saw architecture from earlier and later times on the land in and outside China as they conquered. In chapter 4 we shall see that Yuan buildings across the empire follow the standards of Song architecture transmitted in Yingzao fashi, with features we have seen in Jin and Song construction. First, however, I turn to four spectacular examples of Yuan architecture, only one of which is a timber-frame hall.

103

CHAPTER THREE

Official Yuan Construction

The wealth of documentation used to reconstruct Yuan cities and their buildings was the basis for chapter 1. For the capitals Shangdu and Daidu, one knows where palaces, halls of governance, temples to ancestors, altars for imperial sacrifices to the powers that had been sacred in pre-Yuan China, temples to Confucius, as well as religious complexes of Daoism, Chinese Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Islam stood. Sometimes the number of bays, pillars, purlins, and roof types of palaces and imperial temples are recorded. From this chapter on, the focus is on extant architecture. Because so many Yuan buildings survive, and because excellent documentation survives for so many of them, I begin with four spectacular structures whose patrons were the Yuan court. The four may not seem a likely grouping: a temple to a sacred peak, an observatory, an archway at a strategic pass of the Great Wall, and a sluice. They of course are not the only buildings patronized by the Mongol court. They start this discussion of individual structures because they represent the functional as well as structural diversity for which the court was responsible. They also emphasize how far beyond timber-frame temples or masonry pagodas the study of Yuan architecture takes us. The chapter ends with three buildings commissioned by local governments. No structure discussed here was unique to the Yuan period, but a few are the earliest extant example of a type in China. The buildings thus further emphasize that Yuan is the first time for which such comprehensive understanding of architecture in China is possible.

Virtuous Tranquility Hall Virtuous Tranquility (Dening) Hall was built in ca. 1270 as the main structure of the Temple to the Northern Peak complex in Quyang, Hebei. It is one of the most important pre-fourteenthcentury buildings in China (figure 3.1).1 It is also the largest surviving Yuan building, over forty meters across the front and nearly thirty meters in depth.2 Built for imperial sacrifices, it is as close as one comes to the appearance of architecture in the palatial quarters of Daidu. It is chosen as the first Yuan timber building to discuss because it exhibits the highest building standards of Chinese construction according to Yingzao fashi in extant Yuan architecture. Thirteen Chinese mountains are sacred, four Buddhist, four Daoist, and five known as yue, sometimes translated as marchmounts, that transcend all others. The five yue were

designated in accordance with the five directions, the four cardinal directions plus the center. Each has associations with gods that control forces as powerful as life and death, and each has been the site of imperial pilgrimage, some from the time of the First Emperor.3 The sacred eastern peak Mount Tai (Taishan) is the most famous mountain in China. It is where the souls of the deceased are believed to go and from where they can be reborn.4 Mount Song, the sacred central peak, is in Dengfeng, Henan province, the site of the next building discussed in this chapter.5 Mount Hua in Huayin, Shaanxi, is the sacred western peak, and Mount Heng in Hunan province is the southern peak. The sacred northern peak is Mount Heng in Hunyuan, Shanxi. It is the location of the Monastery Suspended in Air (Xuankongsi). Temples for worship of the gods of the peaks do not have to be in the vicinity of the peak itself. According to legend, when Legendary Emperor Shun attempted to make sacrifices to the sacred northern peak Hengshan (in Shanxi), a “flying stone” (feishi) dropped at Damaoshan (in Quyang county of Hebei). Some believe the site of the drop is why a temple was built here. Han emperor Wudi (r. 140–87 BCE) made sacrifices in Quyang. The first construction is recorded in Northern Wei. Rebuilding occurred in 991, probably following destruction by the Khitan in the region, and from 1268 to 1270.6 Oriented southward, Virtuous Tranquility Hall has a huge yuetai (front platform), eighteen meters east-west by twenty meters north-south in front. The yuetai is approached by stairs from the center front and two sides. The stairs, platform, and perimeter of the hall foundation are enclosed by a white marble balustrade whose pillars are capped by lions. Thirty pillars lodged into the platform define a covered arcade around the seven-by-four-bay hall. The structure of the hall is jinxiang doudicao, one of four formations of column network described in Yingzao fashi that we have observed in Jin buildings. Three concentric perimeters of columns characterize this formation (figure 2.23, #4). Exterior pillar-top bracket sets are six puzuo, with three bracket arms that project transversal to the front of the building plus the additional bracket arms that support their sets, the feature known as jixin, and two cantilevers. The upper cantilever is functional and the lower one is “false,” meaning it is decorative and without structural purpose. Decorative cantilevers first appear in the Yuan period; they are shown in section in figure 3.10. Bracket sets found beneath the upper exterior eaves are slightly larger in

Official Yuan Construction

3.1 Virtuous Tranquility Hall, Temple to the Northern Peak, Quyang, Hebei, 1270 3.2 Labeled drawing of bracket sets on front exterior of Virtuous Tranquility Hall, Quyang, Hebei, 1270

every dimension than those above the lower exterior eaves. Two intercolumnar brackets, that is, the pair between those above the columns, are seen in the eleventh century and expected in this Yuan building. Huatouzi (“flower-headed struts,” or arms with decorative patterns) also appear in these bracket sets. Like the cantilevers, huatouzi are slanted, placed in a subsidiary position so that they do not reach the undersides of purlins, but still help bear the weight above them (figure 3.2). The chrysanthemum head (juhuatou) also appears here, on the second and third steps of bracket sets in the back of the hall. The architectural terms used in the previous paragraph are not found in Chuogenglu, Gugongyi lu, or Daoyuan xuegulu. The words are in Yingzao fashi, and the descriptions are in the vocabulary of a contemporary architectural historian. Lines from these three texts, however, through which aspects of the

Daidu palace-city have been reconstructed, especially passages that describe Daming Hall of Khubilai’s palace-city, more closely describe Virtuous Tranquility Hall than any other extant Yuan building except Three Purities Hall of Yongle Daoist Monastery, which begins the next chapter. Xiao Xun, for instance, writes:

105

Daming Hall is raised on a base about five chi high.7 In front [at the south side] is the stairway. . . . Surrounding the hall is a marble balustrade carved with figures of dragons and phoenixes. Each vertical post of the balustrade rests upon an ao whose head protrudes beyond the edge of the terrace. Every outside pillar of the hall is square in shape, about five to six chi in width, and decorated with raised flowers, golden dragons, and clouds, on top of which are carved decoration. ... In the center of the ceiling is a pair of coiling dragons. On all four sides of the hall

Chapter Three

3.3 Balustrade around Virtuous Tranquility Hall, Temple to the Northern Peak, Quyang, Hebei, 1270, showing ao-headed creature inserted into corner and supports for ao along side.

are golden and red mullioned windows with gold leaf attached to the intervening spaces.

The balustrade around the hall and the ao, only a few of which remain, that projected from below it have been found at all four Yuan palaces as well as Kondui and Kaicheng (figures 3.3 and 1.51). The exterior pillars of Virtuous Tranquility Hall are not square, but they are five-to-six chi (155–186 centimeters) high. One does find lattice patterns in doors and mullioned windows, although not decorated with gold leaf. Finally, Virtuous Tranquility Hall has a lattice ceiling with decoration in the intervening spaces and a central caisson with a dragon in it. Today Dening Hall is the last of six structures along a northsouth line at the Temple to the Northern Peak. Two gates and the remains of a third, a pavilion, and an archway are front of it. An illustration in Quyangxian xinzhi (New record of Quyang prefecture), published in 1672, shows seven structures, the number shown on the stele in front of the hall to viewer’s right in figure 3.1.8

Observatory in Dengfeng Like sacrifices to the sacred peaks, setting the calendar was an entitlement of the Chinese emperor. The observatory in Dengfeng, Henan province, was built for this purpose in 1279 (figure 3.4). Buildings for observing the heavens had stood in China for more than two thousand years before Khubilai came to power. A structure known as Lingtai (spirit altar) that was ascended to set the calendar as well as make predictions based on heavenly bodies stood at the capitals of the Zhou and Han dynasties.9 The observatory in Dengfeng is the oldest extant observatory in China. It is also a unique building.

The Dengfeng observatory stands in the shadow of the sacred central peak, Mount Song, whose temple complex for sacrifices to the god of the peak was on the mountain. The observatory is on flat ground below it. One of five observatories planned by Khubilai, the sacred centrality of the location in all likelihood was a reason for the choice of the site. Liu Bingzhong was one of eight Chinese officials involved in the planning. Guo Shoujing, also mentioned in chapter 1, was another. Six others, all educated for officialdom, in which there were few opportunities for advancement in the very limited bureaucracy in the early decades of Mongolian rule of China, are named in records as participants in the project. One had training in mathematics, one had previously participated in calendar reform, one is said to have had experience using astronomical instruments, and one, we are told, retooled in order to work at the observatory.10 Four West Asians who had been astronomers in Iran also worked at this observatory or the one in Daidu, the only other of the planned five that was built during the Yuan dynasty. Nothing of the Daidu observatory remains. Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī (1201–1274) worked for Möngke and then for Hülegü before coming to China. In his capacity as Hülegü’s chief advisor, a position similar to Liu Binzhong’s for Khubilai, Ṭūsī convinced the ruler to build an observatory (Raṣadkhāneh) near Marāgheh, today in East Azerbaijan province of northwestern Iran, in 1259. Naṣīr does not have a biography in Chinese sources, but his life is well documented in Persian sources, including in biographical literature about his colleague Quṭb al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Mas’ūd Shīrāzī (1236–1311), trained in medicine, who came to Marāgheh, probably in 1262.11 Chinese records give more attention to Jamāl al-Dīn, who began his career as an astronomer in Marāgheh and subsequently entered Khubilai’s service. Discussed in both Rashid al-Dīn’s Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh and in Yuanshi, Jamāl is credited

106

Official Yuan Construction

3.4 Platform for Observing Celestial Bodies, Dengfeng, Henan, 1279

with bringing seven astronomical instruments to China in 1267.12 The other two were Shams al-Dīn (d. 1322), trained in mathematics and astronomy, and Mir Muhammad. Both also worked at the Marāgheh observatory and later came to China. The Platform for Observing Celestial Bodies (Guanxingtai), as this building would be known, rises seventeen meters. The structure itself and the process for (achieving a regulated calendar are described in Shoushili (Season-granting system), a work presented to the Yuan court in 1280.13 This treatise and other Chinese sources, including Yuanshi, use the word gaobiao to refer to all five of Khubilai’s intended observatories. Gaobiao can be translated as “tall gnomon.” The word actually refers to one of three key features in the structure, a pole placed in an indentation thirty-six centimeters from the wall that rises nearly the full height of the building. The pole ensured that a metal crossbar positioned in the lower half of a window at the front of the structure and a paved path on the ground in front, the other two features, were perpendicular to it and thus parallel to each other. The sun would cast a shadow on the crossbar and further to the paved stone path, from which measurements of the time, day, and season were determined and the calendar was set. The designation of the building as gaobiao suggests this component was the centerpiece of the Yuan observatory. It is a crucial aspect for comparison with other observatories.

Records that describe the Daidu observatory, completed in 1280, used alongside the building in Dengfeng, make reconstruction possible. Either a wall or a covered arcade enclosed the multiple-courtyard complex of eight major buildings (figure 3.5). Gaobiao was the western of a symmetrical pair on either side of the main structure, which stood at the back, behind a gate, pavilion, and long hall. The space could have been used for a Buddhist or Daoist monastery, a Confucian temple, several courtyards of a palace, or an official complex such as the Northern Song monastery Longxingsi (figure 2.36). Offices for seasonal officials, astrologers, and calendar clerks; buildings or rooms for the observatory director, astronomical observers, water clocks, the supervisor of water clocks, and timekeepers; rooms for the acquisition and provision of instruments and supplies, star maps, the armillary clepsydra, the spherical sky globe, and a model of the sky as a carriage-cover; one or more rooms for models for understanding features of the sky; a room or building for Jupiter; places for astronomy books and computational books for math and astronomy; and an education hall to train students in mathematics were among the buildings. Almanacs were printed in a long, narrow building at the back of the complex. Long buildings to its front sides were for teaching and preparing offerings. The armillary sphere was on a platform on top of the tall building symmetrical to gaobiao.14

107

Chapter Three

3.5 Reconstruction drawing of observatory, Daidu, in 1280

Although the plan of the observatory can be described as generic for a Chinese building complex, at first glance, the surviving building does not suggest Chinese architecture. It is thus important to recognize that no aspect of the brick structure in Dengfeng was beyond the capability of Yuan builders, and its key structural features have long histories in Chinese architecture. Tall brick buildings in the form of pagodas had risen on the Chinese landscape for nearly a millennium before the Mongols came to China. Chinese builders had constructed subterranean brick tombs for even longer. By the late fourteenth century, beamless halls (wuliangdian), buildings made exclusively of brick rather than supported by wooden frames, stood in China.15 To the extent that the building in Dengfeng appears distinctive, it is probably because it was a highly specialized structure for a specialized function. Only with knowledge of earlier Chinese observatories could one be certain that it does not stand in a lineage of similar buildings used to record the sun’s rays and set the calendar. There is no feature that identifies it as West Asia. The Yuan observatory should be viewed as a significant example of the ability of the Chinese architectural system to adapt to any purpose. In the second half of this book, we shall see more examples of buildings whose functions were not native to China that come to be built in China under Mongolian rule. The use of an age-old Chinese plan and brick technology at least as old as the late centuries BCE made it possible for Chinese architecture to be preserved, restored, and built anew by Mongol patrons. Although one might like to see a building as distinctive as the Dengfeng observatory as an example of the infiltration of foreign architecture into China during the Mongol period, there is neither physical nor textual evidence to justify such as claim. A case can be made that the impact of the Chinese observatory on West Asia was at least as great as the influence of a West Asian structure in China. The observatory in Marāgheh also had a library, a famous one, much of which had been removed from Alamūt, today also in Iran, after that city was taken by Hülegü. The librarian came from Bagdad. Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī was

responsible for the transfer.16 The Syrian Christian Bar Hebraeus (1226–1286), who died in Marāgheh, worked in the library. As at Daidu and Dengfeng, instruments for observation were moved to Marāgheh, in this case also from Alamūt.17 Also similar to China, the site at Marāgheh had a school for training observers. This educational function, as a place where educated men gathered, was a long-standing aspect of a Confucian, Buddhist, or Daoist institution in China. The school led J. Samsó to remark that the Marāgheh observatory appears to have been “subsidized in a manner ordinarily reserved for schools, hospitals and libraries [in the Islamic world].”18 The comment is highly significant since in the premodern Islamic world, the most common location for education and libraries, both before and after the Mongol period, was the madrasa, the school of higher learning. Further, Aydin Sayili finds no evidence that an observatory earlier than the one in Marāgheh had a library of any significant size, and yet the next observatory from the period of Mongolian rule in Iran, located just outside Tabriz, commissioned by Ghāzān Khan (r. 1295–1304), who had visited Marāgheh more than once, was built among a hospice, hospital, library, academy of philosophy, fountain, pavilion, two madrasa, and his own mausoleum.19 In other words, the observatory as part of a large-scale educational institution, specializing in instruction in mathematics and the sciences and with a large library, but in a structural complex that would have been used for other purposes, might well have come to Iran from China in the early period of Mongol rule. Even though the purposes of both the Ilkhānid and Yuan observatories have been argued to have been more astrological than astronomical, as in China, a primary purpose of the Ilkhānid observatory was to regulate the calendar. Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī, who had firsthand knowledge of observatories in Iran and China, compiled an astronomical handbook with tables (zīj) in 1272 that included a chapter on the Chinese calendar.20 Like Khubilai, Persian astronomers encountered for the first time a system with more than a millennium of history in which observations of the heavens to set the calendar had been a privilege

108

Official Yuan Construction

of kingship at least since the Han dynasty, and the education of officials occurred in the same building complex as observation of the heavens. In the Han capital Chang’an in the second and first centuries BCE, buildings where these two official pursuits took place were grouped together; some argue it was a composite structure for imperial ritual, education of princes, and observation of the heavens.21 The institution where the heavens are observed and the positions of heavenly bodies are recorded, no matter the architectural structure, has a longer history in China than in Iran. Determination of the influence of China on the Ilkhānid observatory or vice versa would be easier if one could confirm the existence of an earlier observatory in Shangdu. Yang Gongyi (1225–1294), one of the eight Chinese who worked at the Dengfeng observatory, met Khubilai at Shangdu, but not until the 1270s. In 1260 Khubilai established Sitiantai, literally “platform for administration of the heavens,” at Shangdu, but it was a bureau of astronomy. In spite of the character tai (platform) in its name, there is no evidence that it was more than an office.22 The same bureau existed at Jin Zhongdu. In the 1970s Parvīz Varjavānd published a plan based on his on-site investigation of the grounds of the Marāgheh observatory.23 Six circular foundations are prominent, one of them the largest. Today covered by a white dome supported by a metal frame, a narrow strip, similar to the path along which the sun’s rays were measured at Dengfeng, rises above the brick floor. The age of this floor and when the strip was placed are unknown (figure 3.6). It is possible the floor or some of it dates to the late thirteenth century.24 There is no evidence of a gaobiao or metal crossbar. According to Donald Wilber, a slit in the dome, which does not survive, was the aperture for the sun’s rays to project onto a paved surface on the ground.25 Rock-carved caves in Marāgheh are discussed in chapter 7. The best evidence for the impact of West Asian astronomy on China during the period of Mongolian rule is that astronomical instruments were brought to China from the West and that West Asian astronomers worked in the Chinese observatories. These, of course, are devices and men, not architecture. Evidence of the impact of Chinese astronomy in Iran under Ilkhānid rule is the adoption of the Chinese calendar and the names of Chinese who worked there, again, not buildings. We have no evidence that the tall gnomon was developed or used anywhere but China. That its name is the Chinese word for observatory emphasizes that gaobiao is the determining feature of a Chinese observatory in the

3.6 Remains of Observatory, Marāgheh, East Azerbaijan, Ilkhānid period, with later repairs

Yuan dynasty. Ideas that the Yuan observatories are examples of the implantation of foreign architecture on Chinese soil during the Yuan period are unsubstantiated. It is more likely that the structure of a Yuan observatory had an impact on construction in Iran, but that, too, cannot be proved.

Cloud Terrace at Juyong Pass The third monument is Cloud Terrace (or Platform) (Yuntai) at Juyong Pass of the Great Wall, about sixty kilometers northwest of the Daidu palace-city in Changping, the county of Yinshan where Jin and Yuan pagodas stand (figure 3.7). Although this unique archway was inside the Buddhist monastery Yongming Baoxiangsi, it was built by the khaghan for imperial passage beneath it when crossing the Great Wall at Juyong Pass on journeys between Daidu and Shangdu. In the mid-1340s, when Cloud Terrace was completed, Toghōn Temür decided to have religious imagery carved on its underside.26 Cloud Terrace is 28.84 by 17.57 meters at the base, 24.04 by 14.73 meters at the top, and 9.50 meters in height. Since study

109

3.7 Cloud Terrace, Juyongguan of Great Wall, Changping, Beijing, ca. 1345

Official Yuan Construction

of the structure in 1943 by Murata Jirō and Fujieda Akira, the inscriptions in Sanskrit, Tibetan, ‘Phags-pa, Uyghur, Chinese, and Tangut have helped enhance the study of Tangut, the language of the Western Xia. The reliefs of divine kings on the same wall surfaces are among the extant images of Tibetan Buddhist deities through which Yuan Tantric imagery is assessed. Three pagodas that stood on the terrace of the archway were gone by the twentieth-century survey. One had been lost by the early Ming period, and the other two were lost in the reign of the emperor Zhengtong (r. 1427–1464) who decided to put a five-bay Buddha hall there, which he named Tai’an Temple. That hall burned in a fire of 1702 and was never replaced.27 In the early 1960s a group from Beijing University led by Su Bai studied the site as well as records and inscriptions preserved in writings about Beijing, such as Rixia jiuwenkao and Shutianfu zhi. Su not only confirmed the dates Murata had published, he presented the archway as an example of a guojieta (street passage [or overpass] pagoda).28 Because the mid-fourteenth-century structure was said to have been white, Su concluded that the three pagodas, and pagodas above entryways more generally, were chorten, or Tibetan-style structures with bulbous shafts and narrow spires.29 It is believed that Khubilai was the first to commission a guojieta. According to Hongjiaoji (Collection of vast teachings), he had a pagoda built atop Zhangyi Gate in 1294, the year of his death.30 Khubilai had relics that had been gifted to him buried beneath the gate and built a pagoda on top of it. The overpass pagoda at Xuanwen Hongjiao Monastery also is attributed to Khubilai. One at Wofu Monastery in Beijing was built in 1321.31 Gate passage stupas continued to be constructed through the Qing dynasty in both China and Tibet. If the overpass pagoda indeed emerged in China under Khubilai, it is a new architectural form of the Yuan period that is supported by textual and physical evidence. The structural type is introduced here not as “Chinese,” “Mongol,” or “other,” but as one of three buildings of superior workmanship and certain date patronized by the khaghan. Like the Tibetan-style pagoda itself, studied again in chapter 6, the placement of such a pagoda on an archway proclaims Tibetan Buddhism. There is no question Mongol rulers of Chinese were strong patrons of Tibetan Buddhism, as would be some Ming rulers and most Qing rulers, and further that Tibetan Buddhist pagodas appeared in China during the Yuan period. This study will never question the Yuanperiod fervor, especially of some of the khaghans, for Tibetan

111

Chapter Three

3.8 Sluice, Zhidan, Shanghai, 1325

Buddhism, nor their desire to build monuments to it. The four recorded Yuan examples of guojieta and decisions not to restore or preserve them in China after the end of Mongolian rule are the more important points. An overpass pagoda, like other Tibetan Buddhist architecture, represented nonnative Chinese architecture as long as it stood. The presence of the stupas on top was short-lived, whereas the archway at Juyong Pass endures today. The Tibetan Buddhist-style decorative relief sculpture inside the archway also survives, but in the Yuan period it was seen only by someone allowed to pass underneath it.

Stretching 42 meters, with an entrance of 32 meters and an exit of 33 meters, the sluice was found unexpectedly approximately 6.5 meters below ground during a construction project in 2001. Excavation over the next five years revealed the most extensive and intact remains of a sluice in China.33 The hourglass-shaped, stone-paved base has a 6.8-meter-wide central gate that opens and closes. It is supported by stone beams. The sixlayer stone wall on either side is 2.1 meters high and extends 47 meters. The width of the wall is just over 30 meters at the two ends. The tongue-and-groove joints that connect the stones, reinforced with iron, are shown in figure 3.8. Boards connected with tongue-and-groove joints that are reinforced with metal nails line the undersides. Approximately ten thousand wooden piles of four to seven meters in height and thirty centimeters in diameter provided support from underneath for this project that covers about fifteen hundred square meters. The same construction techniques were used in the sluice in Hui’an, Jiangsu, built under the Yongle emperor in 1417.34

Ren Renfa’s Sluice Any biography of the renowned horse painter Ren Renfa (1254– 1328), a native of Songjiang, today in Qingpu district of Shanghai, states that in his capacity as vice-commissioner of the River Conservation Bureau he was in charge of water conservancy on the Wusong, Tonghui, Huitong, and Yellow Rivers and that he wrote a book about water conservancy.32 Ren oversaw construction of six sluices over the Wusong River. Zhidanyuan Sluice was one of them (figure 3.8). Based on his biography, this sluice is dated to 1325, with excavated objects and inscriptions in Mongolian further confirming a Yuan-period date.

Three Pavilions Were it certain that commoners passed beneath Cloud Terrace, one might think of it as civic architecture or as a landmark

112

Official Yuan Construction

3.9 Ciyun Pavilion, Dingxing, Hebei, 1306, with later repair

that served as a hub of social or community activity. Civic architecture has stood in China at least since the Han dynasty. We have noted central landmarks at major crossroads of an urban environment (figure 1.18). Whether single in central marketplaces or paired in Buddhist monasteries, bell and drum towers housed time-keeping devices that marked intervals during the day. In Daidu the bell and drum towers, both erected during Khubilai’s reign, were north and south of each other, respectively, just east of the center marker and pavilion above it. The two towers stood in restored versions in the same places in Ming and Qing Beijing. Today towers and pavilions are locations for town gatherings or for performances across China. Sometimes they are the tallest structures in an urban environment.35 Ciyun Pavilion, dated 1306, stands at the major crossroads of Dingxing, the town at the center of its county (figure 3.9). In the 1930s its position was confirmed at the intersection of streets that emanated from the gate of each of the four city walls. A local record states that a monk rebuilt Dabei Pavilion in the Dade reign period of the Yuan dynasty (1297–1307), the period when Ciyun Pavilion was constructed, but it is unknown if they are the same structure.36 Ciyun Pavilion is about seven meters east-west by six meters north-south, with a large entry at the south and a smaller exit on the north side. The major achievement of this structure is the use of columns from ground level to the lintel of the second story. This is in contrast to pavilions of Liao and Song that are constructed as single-story frames, one on top of the other, with a mezzanine level connecting them. It is a structural achievement currently associated with the Yuan dynasty.

113

The pavilion is three bays across the front and only one bay deep, supported by double columns on the sides and at the corners. As in most timber-frame architecture, the front and back central bays are the widest. Double-column construction is also used at the tenth-century Cishi Pavilion of Longxing Monastery in Zhengding, about 185 kilometers to the southeast.37 The distance between the pair of columns is narrow, but their functions are differentiated. The inner ring support the beams and thus framework above them while the outer ring support the eaves. Columns exhibit rise and batter. Typical of a Yuan building, two bracket sets are placed in the center front bay. The narrow façade does not provide enough room for a complete set in the side bays. Instead, a partial set merges with the corner sets, giving way to one bracket set with scooped bracket arms known as male and female mandarin ducks. This formation is used in Liao-Jin buildings in Datong.38 As at Virtuous Tranquility Hall, the bracket sets have two cantilevers, the upper functional and the lower one false. The underside of the upper cantilever is straight, whereas the decorative end has a sharp jut that defines a tail. The module of the bracket sets is eighteen centimeters high and twelve centimeters deep, with a zhi of seven centimeters. This corresponds to sixth rank in Yingzao fashi. The roof is hip-gable, The lower tier of bracket sets are five puzuo, and the upper tier are four puzuo. The huatouzi employed at Virtuous Tranquility Hall also is found here. Architraves and lintels above them project beyond corner pillars. The architraves have cloud-like decorative ends. Crescent-shaped beams are used at the four corners, an unusual feature in a building in North China. Fastening beams known as panjian reinforce purlins.

Chapter Three

3.10 Side section of Ciyun Pavilion, Dingxing, Hebei, 1306. From Yang Hongxun, Zhongguo gudai jianzhu jishushi, 122.

In 1935 a twenty-four-arm statue of the bodhisattva Guanyin remained inside. The roof frame uses diagonally positioned struts such as are used at Mituo Hall of Chongfu Monastery and Mañjuśrī Hall of Fogong Monastery in the Jin period, and small struts are used between the sides of the chashou (inverted-V-shaped truss) and kingpost to strengthen the frame. The building also employs curved beams to strengthen all four corners (figure 3.10). Two stele pavilions, designated by the suffix ting, stand among the thirteen behind Kuiwen Pavilion (ge) at the Confucian Temple in Qufu, in the same group as the Jin pavilion (figure 2.32). One is dated by inscription to 1302 and the other to 1339. Both are three bays square, with octagonal pillars near the corners on each side, circular pillars at the corners, and four circular pillars inside. Both also have hip-gable roofs, two sets of roof eaves, the lower supported by bracket sets of five puzuo. As at Ciyun Pavilion, more complicated bracketing is used below the upper eaves. Feature for feature, the Yuan pavilions repeat the structure of the Jin pavilions at the Confucian Temple, but the bracket sets are smaller compared to the height of columns beneath them. This ratio is consistent with Yuan compared to Jin

construction. The Yuan pavilions in Qufu also are rare examples of the use of three intercolumnar bracket sets in the central exterior bay of the lower level. This number is possible because the bracket sets are smaller compared to the heights of columns beneath them than those of the Jin pavilions, making more intercolumnar sets possible. Also anticipating Ming construction, in which bracket sets are yet smaller by comparison to the height of the columns under them, both cantilevers are false. A bend rather than a continuous curve at the tip is noticeable on the lower cantilever.

Two Towers I end this short chapter with towers (lou). They are examples of civic structures in towns in North China in the Yuan dynasty. The first is a building that was crucial to the formation of the canon of Chinese architecture in the third and fourth decades of the twentieth century when so much of China’s building tradition remained unknown. It is, further, one that can be known only through photographs and drawings because it has been destroyed.

114

Official Yuan Construction

Yanghelou was a seven-by-two-bay structure that stood above a tall brick terrace with two arched openings for passage along the main street of Zhengding, Hebei, the location of Longxing Monastery.39 It was a local equivalent to Juyongguan. Its roof was supported by eight purlins (a seven-purlin-length roof). Two bracket sets were positioned between the front central columns. Bracket sets were five puzuo of just one step but with two cantilevers, the lower of which was false, and with the added heart (jixin) and huatouzi. The repair date of 1357 in a stele inscription preserved in Zhengdingxian zhi led those who saw it to date the building late Jin to early Yuan.40 A bell tower stands in Xinjiang, Shanxi province. One of three towers, bell in front, drum at the back, and music tower for performances between them, the monastery was founded in 963. An entry in the local record Jiangzhouzhi says it stood in the southeast corner of the garrison town and was repaired in 1294.41 All but the last of the nine buildings discussed here, which is likely to have been part of a monastery, were built by order of the government, whether the khaghan himself or the town in which the structure stands. Virtuous Tranquility Hall probably was seen only by members of the imperial family or the court. Officials saw the observatory. The sluice made possible a hydraulic system that served a region far beyond it. Juyongguan perhaps was public from a distance on the exterior. Yanghe Tower and Ciyun Pavilion were local versions of Juyongguan that should have been open to public passage or assent. The buildings have taken us from sacred imperial space to public space. One was transformed by additional architecture on top of it, relief sculpture, and architecture around it into a religious monument. Only the features of Virtuous Tranquility Hall are found in buildings discussed in the next chapter. I begin with the one most similar to it.

115

CHAPTER FOUR

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

The majority of extant architecture dated between the mid-thirteenth and mid-fourteenth centuries in China is Chinese Buddhist or Daoist. Most of those buildings are timber-frame. There are more than three hundred. About fifty are discussed or mentioned here. Those in cities and towns stood alongside or down the street from Confucian temples and temples to local gods that also are discussed. The buildings studied here range from structural eminence to tiny temples where very local worshippers honored their favorite divinities. Worship spaces whose features imitate wood framing in brick, stone, stucco, and metal are discussed at the end. Only one among all these buildings possesses features seen at Virtuous Tranquility Hall. I begin with it.

Yonglegong The hall stands at Yonglegong, a Daoist temple complex that has been a major focus of research on Yuan architecture since the late 1950s. Four of its Yuan buildings survive (figure 4.1). The importance of Yonglegong is clear from the use of gong, a word whose primary meaning is palace, in its name. Here, at this religious complex, gong indicates status on par with a palace, and it distinguishes the greater eminence of the Daoist complex from guan, also a designation for a Daoist monastery. As described below, the status was granted by the Mongols even before Shangdu was a capital. The eight hundred square meters of Yuan murals in the four halls are as important in the history of Chinese art as the architecture. Two of those buildings contain murals dominated by representations of architecture.1 The Daoist master Lü Dongbin was born in Yongle, also known as Yongji, in southern Shanxi province in 796.2 Lü is one of the group known as the Eight Daoist Immortals and is the patriarch of the Daoist sect Quanzhen, which rose in North China in the Jin dynasty.3 It is a syncretic sect that incorporates elements of Chan Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism into its doctrine.4 After Lü’s death in the ninth century, the site of his house became a shrine to him known as Lügongci (Shrine of Gentleman Lü), where annual sacrifices were made on his birthday, the fourteenth day of the fourth lunar month. As the site expanded, its status rose. It became Chunyang Daoguan, Chunyang another name for Lü Dongbin and Daoguan a Daoist monastery of guan status, lower than one of gong status such as Yonglegong. In 1240 the Quanzhen Daoist Song Defang (1183– 1247) visited the shrine, which he found in a desolate wasteland.

Construction was underway when a fire caused complete destruction in 1244. In the same year Song and his disciples printed Xuandu baozang (Precious canon of the arcane city), an edition of the Daoist canon, just north of Yongji. Three years later the greatest Quanzhen Daoist monastery of its age was begun. It was Yonglegong. By this time the Mongol government had awarded Lü Dongbin the status of xian (immortal), and the complex received gong status. Construction of its three main buildings would last until 1262. Song Defang and the Quanzhen master Pan Dechong (1191–1256) would be buried on the grounds. The history of the monastery is reconstructed through inscriptions on dozens of stele that remain at the site as well as information in local records. Yongjixian zhi of 1886 and Shanxi tongzhi, which was issued in several editions in the Ming period, are the most important records (figure 4.2). Yonglegong was repaired under the Ming emperors Hongwu (r. 1368–1398), Jiajing (r. 1521–1567), and Chongzhen (r. 1627–1644) and the Qing emperors Kangxi (r. 1661–1722), Qianlong (r. 1735–1796), Jiaqing (r. 1796–1820), and Guangxu (r. 1871–1908). The most important repairs were in 1559 under Jiajing, the emperor who extended Beijing southward to include the Altar to Heaven and Altar to Agriculture in its outer wall; in 1689 that included replacement of wooden pieces of many buildings; and in 1890 that included repair on the Hall of the Three Purities, other major buildings, and some murals. Murals in two halls bear craftsmen signatures of 1325 and 1358, the second date nearly a century after construction of that hall. What happened to the four Yuan buildings and a Qing-period gate along a five-hundred-meter north-south axial line through the monastery, several times that number of other buildings, the tombs of Song and Pan, and stelae between the publication of figure 4.2 in 1118 and the 1950s is ambiguous. In spite of active research in southern Shanxi in the first half of the twentieth century, Yonglegong is not mentioned in reports of members of the Society for Research in Chinese Architecture, such as Lin Huiyin (1904–1955) and Liang Sicheng, who identified and studied buildings along the Fen River. Apparently they did not know of a reason to travel to this southernmost part of the province.5 Mizuno Seiichi (1905–1971) and Hibino Takeo (1914–2007), both of whom conducted fieldwork on Chinese architecture in the first half of the twentieth century, published a book on their work in Shanxi province in 1956 that does not mention Yonglegong, even though the town of Yongle is on their map of monuments in southern Shanxi.6

Map 3 Locations of buildings and tombs discussed in this book

4.1 Airview of Yonglegong, Ruicheng, Shanxi. Li Yuming, Shanxi gujianzhu tonglan, 236

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.2 Yonglegong, Yongji, Shanxi. Li Ronghe and Liu Zhonglin, Yongjixian zhi, juan 1/10b–11a, 1886.

The first mention of Yonglegong by modern scholars seems to have been in 1954 in what is considered in the Chinese architecture field a landmark article: Qi Yingtao (1923–1988), Du Xianzhou (1915–2011), and Chen Mingda’s (1914–1997) study of two years of research in Shanxi province.7 This article, with the words xinfaxian, newly discovered, in the title, includes the Buddha hall of Nanchan Monastery in Wutai, Ten Thousand Buddhas Hall of Zhenguo Monastery in Pingyao, and Yonglegong, among other buildings not published by the Society for Research in Chinese Architecture. It would be the first of many publications about buildings in Shanxi through which it would come to be known that the four oldest buildings in China and 70 percent of China’s pre-Ming timber-frame construction are there.8 Yonglegong is not mentioned with more fanfare than any other site. In the late 1950s, plans to build a dam at Sanmenxia on the Yellow River threatened to flood Yongji. Between 1959 and 1963 every piece of every building, some sixty stele, and tombs were moved twenty-five kilometers southeast to Ruicheng. The current location is a few kilometers from a ninth- to tenth-century Daoist temple that is not mentioned in the article of 1954.9

and windows with two intercolumnar bracket sets above them. The side bays have neither doors nor windows and one intercolumnar bracket set. The interior pillars in front of the altar are the widest in diameter, sixty centimeters, the size no doubt an aid in supporting the roof frame, with fifty-five centimeters the diameter of corner pillars, and other exterior pillars and interior pillars fifty centimeters in diameter. The heights of the front columns exceed the width of the central front bay, which is a departure from Yingzao fashi. The exterior columns are shorter than interior columns, in accordance with the prescription for diantang. The cross-section of the building is eight rafter-lengths, meaning there are nine roof purlins. Two crossbeams are four rafter-lengths; the others are two rafterlengths. Rafters join the main roof purlin and two below it, a construction feature of Liao and Jin that economizes the use of wood. A kingpost is employed under the main roof purlin. It supports the upper roof together with the inverted-V-shaped truss. Clamping struts (heta), which keep short columns that join crossbeams in place, are used here. The heights of columns are longer than the width of any bay. This is counter to what is prescribed in Yingzao fashi. Also like Virtuous Tranquility Hall, Three Purities Hall has a hipped roof. The roof slope is 1:3.3, steeper than 1:4 prescribed in Yingzao fashi for an eight-rafter-length frame, but typical of eminent halls of the Yuan period. Bracket sets are six puzuo, with three tiers of arms and two cantilevers, the lower of which is false. The module (cai) is 20.7 by 13.5, which translates to fifth grade out of eight. Bracket sets have shuatou and are jixin (figure 4.4).10 Three zaojing are recessed into the ceiling (figure 4.5). This rare feature has been noted at Daxiongbao Hall of Baoguo Monastery, a Song building discussed in chapter 2. It is a sign of eminence, as are the enormity of chiwen, the open-mouthed ornaments at the ends of the roof ridge that are 1.87 meters high.

Three Purities Hall Three Purities (Sanqing) Hall is seven bays by four (28.44 by 15.28 meters), the same proportions as Virtuous Tranquility Hall, but about two-thirds the actual size (figure 4.3). All but six interior pillars have been eliminated. Like Virtuous Tranquility Hall, Three Purities Hall has a huge yuetai in front, approached from the front and two sides. The columns across the front exhibit “rise,” and they have batter. The batter is noteworthy because the incline is greater than 1 percent. The central bay in front and back is the widest, with diminished bay size toward the sides. Five front bays have lattice doors

119

4.3 Three Purities Hall, Yonglegong, Ruicheng, Shanxi, 1247–1262 4.4 Detail of corner bracket set, Three Purities Hall, Yonglegong, Ruicheng, Shanxi, 1247–1262

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.5 Interior of Three Purities Hall, Yonglegong, Ruicheng, Shanxi, 1247–1262, showing ceiling

Although there is a back door, Sanqing Hall has no windows. Some 403.34 square meters of murals cover its walls. Eight leaders of the Daoist pantheon and their courtiers pay homage to the Three Purities (Jade, Supreme, and Grand) in scenes known as heavenly courts on the walls.11 The walls were signed by craftsmen Ma Junxiang and others from his workshop, from Henan province, in 1325. The signatures confirm that itinerant painter groups decorated the walls.

four pillars are used inside. Interior pillars are fifty-seven centimeters in diameter, corner pillars are fifty-six centimeters, and exterior pillars are forty-eight centimeters. All the measurements are proportionately smaller than those at Three Purities Hall, consistent with a smaller as well as less eminent structure. Yet bracket sets are six puzuo with two cantilevers, like those of Sanqing Hall. The cai is 20 by 13.5 centimeters, only 0.7 centimeter less than that of Three Purities Hall and thus also fifth grade. The lengths of every bracket arm parallel to the building plane exceed the specifications for a structure with a cai of fifth grade in Yingzao fashi. These comparisons indicate that, in fact, almost no building follows the stipulations in Yingzao fashi in every respect. Whether due to economy of wood, craftsmen’s decisions, local signature, or miscalculation, the most eminent structure, defined by its hip roof and size and interior ceilings, in a complex can share features of bracketing with one that in position and other noteworthy ways is less eminent; yet Yuanperiod features, such as two intercolumnar bracket sets in each of the three central bays and one in each end bay across the front, are shared. Cantilevers of the bracket sets above the columns that define the central bay have ends decorated with juhuatou, a period feature noted at Virtuous Tranquility Hall that will appear in Ming-Qing buildings. The central pillars are 4.86 meters high, slightly smaller than the width of a bay, and they are 13 centimeters shorter than the end pillars. These features follow stipulations in Yingzao fashi. Batter is 2 percent in contrast to 1.7 percent at Sanqing Hall. Chunyang Hall has one zaojing, again, appropriately less eminent than the interior of Sanqing Hall, which has three. The zaojing has a lattice ceiling on either side. The back part of the hall has

Chunyang Hall and Chongyang Hall The structural eminence of Virtuous Tranquility Hall and Three Purities Hall is underscored through comparison with the second and third buildings at Yonglegong. They are not humble structures, just buildings that do not uniformly exhibit features associated with most eminent architecture. Chunyang Hall, the second largest hall at Yonglegong, stands behind Three Purities Hall. Chunyang is one of the names of Lü Dongbin, to whom the building is dedicated. The hall is elevated to the same height as Three Purities Hall and thus is approached at ground level from a path that begins at the back of Three Purities Hall. Chunyang Hall does have a yuetai, but it is on level ground. The open-mouthed creatures that decorate the corners of its roof ridge are 2.3 meters high, even taller than those on the ends of Three Purities Hall (figures 4.3 and 4.6). Chunyang Hall is five bays by three, with three bays of paneled doors with lattice windows on the front center. Compared to Three Purities Hall, one bay with door panels is eliminated on each side. Also an eight-rafter-length structure comprising two-rafter and four-rafter beams, the dimensions are 20.35 by 14.35 meters. Like Three Purities Hall, there is a door at the back but no windows. Only

121

Chapter Four

4.6 Chunyang Hall, Yonglegong, 1247–1262

exposed rafters. The roof was repaired in the Qing dynasty, but the original form of hip-gable, less eminent than the hipped roof of Sanqing Hall, was retained. The slope is 1.36, steeper than prescribed in Yingzao fashi, but not Ming-Qing style. An inscription on the ceiling says it was painted in 1339. This is nineteen years earlier than the signature of the workshop of Zhu Haogu on the fourteenth day of the midautumn moon in 1358 on the eastern and western sides of the south wall of the hall.12 Chongyang Hall honors Wang Zhe (1113–1170), the historic founder of Quanzhen Daoism and his seven disciples. Like the alternate name Chunyang for Lü Dongbin, Chongyang is one of Wang Zhe’s alternate names. Forty-nine images on its walls narrate Wang Zhe’s life. If this hall was signed by craftsmen, no signatures survive. Third in line and smallest in size of the three Yonglegong halls, 17.46 by 10.86 meters, Chongyang Hall shares a roof type and bay numbers with Chunyang Hall, yet its cai is 18.5 by 12.5 centimeters, or sixth grade. Again we see the discrepancy between rank and cai observed in comparison of Three Purities and Chunyang Halls. Zhongyang Hall has two interior pillars. Corner pillars rise eleven centimeters compared to the pillars

that define the central bays, and the batter of front pillars is 1.6 percent, less than Sanqing Hall but still in excess of the Yingzao fashi prescription. The building has a completely exposed ceiling (figure 4.7). It is a six-rafter-length building (with seven purlins) whose roof slope is 1:3.51; although purlins are fewer and beams have only two- or four-rafter spans, the beams are by necessity longer than at Sanqing or Chunyang Halls. The two intercolumnar bracket sets and few interior columns characterize the Yuan building that Chongyang Hall is. Smallest of the Yuan halls at Yonglegong and without a ceiling, and elevated by only 153 centimeters compared to 244 for Chunyang Hall and 238 for Sanqing Hall, Chongyang Hall’s cai ranks it as more eminent than the two buildings in front of it. Again, no text explains the structural inconsistencies in a system that is prescribed in so much detail. Perhaps there was a reason to bring additional status to Wang Zhe at a site so heavily tied to Lü Dongbin, but it would be hard to prove this. As we shall see through this chapter, buildings are made by human hands and must stand. In the end, the human eye guides the hand cutting, and joining must produce stability.

122

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

Wuji Gate Wuji Gate, also known as Longhu (Dragon and Tiger) Gate, is the fourth Yuan building at Yonglegong. Standing in front of Sanqing Hall, it is dated 1294. It is of more eminent construction than Chongyang Hall, evidence that, as already noted, a gate can be a diantang.13 A five-by-two-bay structure (20.68 by 9.6 meters) with a hipped roof whose slope is 1:3.5, gradual compared to that of the three buildings behind it, the gate is supported by fourteen pillars, each in an undecorated pedestal. The central bay columns are 4.34 meters high, 24 centimeters taller than the width of the central bay. Corner columns have a rise of 5.7 centimeters. Other than these, all columns, interior and exterior, are the same height. Batter of the exterior columns is 1.84 percent. The gate is elevated 180 centimeters, and the cai is 18.5 by 12.5 centimeters, or sixth grade. With seven purlins, or six rafter-spans, beams span one, two, and three rafters. The V-shaped truss and kingpost and all other parts of the roof frame are exposed. A post crosses the roof frame underside at each corner to improve stability. This feature is not found in the three Yonglegong halls. Bracket sets are five puzuo, with one transversal arm and one cantilever. The cantilever is functional: its tail bears some of the weight of the lowest eaves’ purlin. According to specifications in Yingzao fashi, the capblocks (the lowest blocks of bracket sets) on top of columns are narrow, but their arms are elongated. Perhaps because it is a gate, there is only one intercolumnar bracket set. Fragments of what were originally eighty square meters of murals remain. There are no craftsmen signatures. Subjects are generals, other officers, soldiers, and attendants, who all guard the gate and monastery behind it. Architecture in Murals The walls of Buddhist and Daoist environments, rock-carved from the third or fourth century and timber-frame surviving beginning in the eighth century, usually are decorated; carved brick and stone walls of subterranean tombs date even earlier. The wall images work with the building or cave-chapel and statuary to create a three-dimensional Buddhist or Daoist universe. Occasionally, as at Yonglegong, craftsmen sign their names. Sometimes craftsmen also leave handprints in bricks, some of which were found at Yonglegong. Almost every wooden building discussed in this chapter at one time had murals. A distinction of Yonglegong is the amount of architecture in the murals of Chunyang and Chongyang Halls.

4.7 Interior of Chongyang Hall, Yonglegong, Ruicheng, Shanxi,1247–1262. Shanxisheng Gujianzhu Baohu Yanjiusuo, Shanxi gujianzhu mujiegou moxing, fig. 94.

The subjects of murals in Chunyang and Chongyang Halls are hagiographies of Lü Dongbin and Wang Zhe, respectively. Some of them offer specificity both of place and of architectural detail. This information distinguishes the Yonglegong murals from many other renderings of architecture on temple walls. It underscores the questions one seeks to answer in any painting of architecture: Is there verisimilitude, and does it exist to the extent that one could identify the place or date the structure, or even know which building is painted, without an inscription that provides this information? At Chunyang Hall, locations for scenes often are provided in inscriptions alongside them. Architectural settings punctuate and sometimes frame fifty-two scenes, with trees and other landscape elements enhancing the isolation of each story. Ruled lines are used to paint architectural details such as roof rafters or balustrade components so that the paintings can be called jiehua,14 the category into which fall some paintings by Wang Zhenpeng. Wang, one recalls, also decorated palatial halls at Shangdu, discussed in chapter 1. It is unknown if the murals in Chunyang and Zhongyang Halls were in the manner of Wang Zhenpeng’s murals. His paintings on silk are executed with much finer brushes that produce much narrower lines.15 Neither Ma Junxiang nor Zhu Haogu nor members of their workshops who painted temple interiors in southern Shanxi and Henan are believed to have worked for the court, whereas Wang Kui, to whom murals in Mañjuśrī Hall of Yanshan Monastery, discussed in chapter 2, are attributed (figure 2.29), was a court painter. Inscriptions in Chunyang and Chongyang Halls are presented in cartouches, outlined in black ink, and positioned so that a

123

Chapter Four

4.8 East wall, detail, Chunyang Hall, Yonglegong, Ruicheng, Shanxi, 1358. Yongle Palace Murals, 82.

set of four inscriptions further box in the group of four scenes they describe (figure 4.8). Carefully executed details and sometimes representations of entire buildings are found in secular and religious wall decoration from the Han dynasty onward. In religious representations, whether fifth-century Buddhist worship caves at Yungang in Datong or Mogao near Dunhuang, Gansu, or as late as the fourteenth century, when inscriptions are not present, the literate as well as illiterate viewer had to rely on details such as a man sacrificing himself to feed a tigress and her cubs to identify Mahasattva or the exit from a building by someone on horseback whose head is covered by an umbrella to identify the departure of Siddhartha Gautama from his father’s palace.16 Representations of architecture can show features that help date the images.17 Even in the fifth and sixth centuries, Chinese architecture was a ranked system, although one does not have a treatise like Yingzao fashi to document it.18 By the Tang dynasty, extant buildings of both eminent and humble status make it possible to compare representations of architecture with actual building details and determine the status of a structure.19 Extant architecture also can confirm that representations of specific buildings in paint or relief are inaccurate.20 The architecture in the Chunyang Hall and Chongyang Hall murals is especially detailed. Paintings in Mañjuśrī Hall of Yanshan Monastery, mentioned in chapter 2, are the only other group of images with representations of such specific structural details.21 Architecture and inscriptions in Chunyang and Chongyang Halls raise more general questions about the relation between

narrative imagery and expectations of literacy.22 At Yonglegong, the answer involves the literacy of painters, as well as patrons and audience, for the painters of the Yonglegong halls were artisan-painters, not court painters like Wang Kui. Further, the workshops were itinerant, painting interiors in the southern Shanxi-Henan region whose subjects were both Buddhist and Daoist murals.23 One does not know if workshop painters copied inscriptions or if inscriptions were written on the walls by Daoist clergy, or if the writing would have occurred before or after the stories were painted. If the purposes of the images were to inspire awe in the miraculous power of Lü Dongbin or Wang Zhe, it is all the more interesting that imagery superfluous to the narrative, notably landscape, is painted, and even more intriguing that so much architecture in such great detail is on the walls. At Chunyang Hall, forty of the fifty-two inscriptions make reference to a place, building, or event that one finds in the illustration. The towns or sites mentioned in inscriptions where Lü Dongbin performed miracles or challenged spectators are, in alphabetical order, Changxi (Fujian), Chengdu (Sichuan), Dingzhou (Hunan), Hailing (Jiangsu), Hanshan Monastery (Suzhou), Mount Heng (Hunan), Hengzhou (Guangxi), Mount Hua (Shaanxi), Jinling (Nanjing), Linjin (Shanxi), (Mount) Luofu (Guangdong), Shangqing Monastery, Tianqing Monastery (Qinzhou, Shanxi), Tonglu (Zhejiang), Wuchang (Anhui), Wuzhou (Zhejiang), Chuihong Bridge (Suzhou), and Yongzhou (Hunan). 24 Scenes with recognizable details often involve figures. A cure for blindness, the disgraceful practice of eating dog meat, or Lü’s own identity in the form of two squares, the Chinese

124

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

character lü, are typical. Details that identify these scenes might be Lü Dongbin next to a seated woman whose hand is near her eyes, or slabs of meat hanging as a dog stands nearby. The inscriptions make the images unambiguous. Scenes set in a specific place sometimes include architecture that can be examined alongside existing buildings. Examples are Transformation of Crane Assembly at Jinling, Selling Ink at Wuchang, Journey to Hanshan Monastery (in Suzhou), Transformation of Lifting the Pagoda at Wuzhou, Distributing an Elixir at Chengdu, Composing a Poem at Tianqing Monastery (in Qinzhou), Exterminating Evil at the Palace, Recreation on Mount Luofu, Composing a Poem Wearing Melon Skin at Linjin, Miracle of the Pregnant Nun (on the sacred peak Mount Heng in Hunan), Selling Ink at Dingzhou (in Changde, Hunan), and Diving Transformation at Shangqinggong. The monastery portrayed in the murals whose architecture is best-known today is Hanshansi, on a mountain in Suzhou (figure 4.9). Founded in the sixth century and named for the Chan monk Hanshan, who is said to have lived here with his companion Shide in the Tang dynasty, Hanshan Monastery also is associated with writings of Hanshan known as Hanshan (Cold Mountain) poems and Zhang Ji’s poem written in the Tang dynasty that describes the ringing of the monastery bell.25 Puming Pagoda, which stands at the monastery today, was rebuilt in 1995. It is four-sided and five stories, tapering in perimeter from base to roof. An eleven-story pagoda that tapers similarly is painted in the Chunyang Hall mural. The painting also shows bells suspended from every story, which, although not mentioned in any of the poems, would have resounded along with the main monastery bell to the fisherman in Zhang Ji’s poem. The palace of Song Huizong in which the emperor himself is seated is a subject of two of the murals, the first the performance of an exorcism (figure 4.10), and the second, on the same wall, in which Lü Dongbin, in the guise of another Daoist, transforms dirt into a silver ingot. The hip-gable-roofed structure behind the emperor is surprising: one would expect a hipped roof to cover royalty. The triangular- and diamond-shaped inserts of azure roof tiles are important. This feature is not used in any known Yuan building, nor is it known in Song architecture. It is a feature of Ming-Qing architecture. Although murals have been retouched, it is highly unlikely a painter would change the color of a section of roof tiles. It is equally unlikely that the workshop painters came up with the roof decoration on their own. We may be observing a new fashion in roof decoration, one that began around 1358 when the murals were executed.

4.9 Journey to Hanshan Monastery, east side of north wall, Chunyang Hall, Yonglegong, Ruicheng, Shanxi, 1358. Jin Weinuo and Fan Jin’ao, Zhongguo diantang bihua quanji, vol. 3, 149.

The most grandiose painting of architecture in Chunyang Hall also involves Huizong. Both the emperor and Lü Dongbin are present at the Assembly of One Thousand Daoists. Lü is in disguise. It occurs at a five-entry gateway with a hip-gable roof that joins a building behind it to form a gong-plan (figure 4.11). Chongtian Gate, entrance to the Daidu palace-city, is recorded to have had five entries, as well as a U-shape. This is the arrangement of Wu (Meridian) Gate, entrance to the Forbidden City since the Ming dynasty. A U-shaped gate with five entries is the form painted in the handscroll entitled Episodes from the Life of a Yuan Official in the Nelson Museum, Kansas City (figure 4.12). All reconstructions of buildings at Daidu, including Chongtian Gate and Daming Hall, and the backdrop of the Yuan official in the Kansas City painting have the hipped roof of eminent Chinese construction.26 Knowing that builders were keenly aware of the criteria for structural eminence, the representation of features that are not associated with eminence is one of the most interesting aspects of the Chunyang Hall murals, especially because Yonglegong’s most eminent hall, Sanqingdian, has a hipped roof, and in the murals, buildings associated with Song Huizong do not. Hipgable, overhanging, and pyramidal roof forms are ubiquitous on the Chunyang Hall walls. Thatched roofs are painted when warranted. The conversion of Cao Guoju, an imperial relative, takes place in a building with two sets of roof eaves, the upper

125

4.10 Exterminating Evil at the Palace, west wall, Chunyang Hall, Yonglegong, Ruicheng, Shanxi, 1358. Xiao Jun, Yonglegong bihua, 232. 4.11 Assembly of One Thousand Daoists, west wall, Chunyang Hall, Yonglegong, Ruicheng, Shanxi, 1358. Yongle Palace Murals, 91. 4.12 Episodes from Career of a Yuan Official, detail, Yuan period. Handscroll, ink and color on silk, 39.4 cm by 396.2 cm. William Rockhill Nelson Trust Purchase, 58–10.

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.13 Labeled airview of Guangsheng Lower Monastery, Hongdong, Shanxi. Chai Zejun and Ren Yimin, Hongdong Guangshengsi, 297.

one of the rare hipped roofs in Chunyang Hall. The building has six-puzuo bracket sets, the number used in Hall of Virtuous Tranquility, Sanqing Hall, and Chongyang Hall.27 Like roofs, bracket sets do not always correspond to the eminence of their structure or to the roof above them. Bracketing in figure 4.11 has two cantilevers, but is not the most eminent formation on Chunyang Hall walls. Two intercolumnar bracket sets are appropriately used in most buildings in these Yuan-period murals. Like the detail in bracketing, lattice of door panels, stone patterns on sides of stairs and ramps, alternating colors of floor tiles, shutters and other types of window coverings, fences, balustrades, roof rafters, and tiles are measured and painted true to life. Faces of dragons and other animals in relief and along roof ridges are as individualized as leaves and plants. Perhaps the roof structure of Chunyang and Chongyang Halls was matched in their paintings. Perhaps the muralists liked the additional decorative opportunities of a hip-gable roof. Or perhaps the master-craftsmen or Daoists who guided the painting of architecture did not understand that any roof other than one that was hipped was demeaning to Lü Dongbin. If this is true, then the purpose of the walls was instruction in Lü Dongbin’s and Wang Zhe’s miraculous powers, and the painting, though of high quality, was secondary to the word.

Guangsheng Monastery Other monasteries with halls with hipped roofs and six-puzuo bracket sets surely existed in thirteenth- to fourteenth-century China. By 1291, we are told, there were more than forty-two thousand Buddhist establishments and more than two hundred thousand monks and nuns in China.28 Still, no standing Chinese Buddhist building exhibits the eminent features of Sanqing Hall or Virtuous Tranquility Hall. Guangsheng Monastery is

discussed next because four Yuan buildings stand there. It is the only Yuan temple complex that has received as much attention as Yonglegong. Guangsheng Monastery in Hongdong county, formerly known as Zhaocheng, in Shanxi, is about 225 kilometers northeast of Yongji. It has been studied since the 1930s.29 The monastery divides into three complexes: two are at Lower Monastery, at the foot of a low hill named Mount Huo; the third, at the top of this hill, is called Upper Monastery (figure 4.13). Local records and stele inscriptions take the year 147 CE as the beginning of Guangsheng Monastery. Its architecture is dated from the construction of a thirteen-story Feihong (Flying Rainbow) Pagoda of Upper Monastery in 769. The most important date is September 17, 1303, when an earthquake whose epicenter seems to have been Zhaocheng devastated nine counties in a region of 180 kilometers north-south by 32 kilometers east-west. More than 400,000 people may have been killed, and some 1,400 religious institutions are believed to have been lost.30 Reconstruction began in 1305, the earliest possible date for extant architecture, statues, or murals. Facing Huo Spring to its south, the flat Lower Monastery has three important Yuan buildings: a front hall dedicated to the Buddha Amitabha, a larger back hall directly behind it that was rebuilt in 1309, which is the main hall of the Buddhist monastery, and Water Spirit (Shuishen) Temple dedicated to the Dragon King, a deity associated with water and the spring in front, in an adjacent courtyard to the west. That courtyard is the second part of the lower monastery. Water Spirit Temple was rebuilt in 1319 and dedicated sixteen years to the day after the earthquake. In addition to the two early fourteenth-century buildings, a side hall to the west of the back hall also dates to the Yuan period. As at Yonglegong, every hall had statues; some remain today. The front and back halls and Dragon King Hall had murals. Those of Dragon King Hall are in situ.

127

Chapter Four

4.14 Labeled interior side of Back Hall, Guangsheng Lower Monastery, Hongdong, Shanxi, 1309

Lower Monastery Back Hall The back hall of Guangsheng Lower Monastery is also known as Daxiongbao Hall, a designation, noted earlier, for an important Buddha hall. It stands third in line behind a front gate that may date as early as 1342,31 and the front hall, a five-by-three-bay structure that was destroyed in 1465 and rebuilt in 1472–1476 but is believed to include wooden members from its fourteenthcentury version.32 The rear hall is seven bays by three and measures 27.87 by 16.04 meters. It is elevated on a platform of 1.06 meters with a yuetai of 13.78 by 9.05 meters that projects in front of its three central bays. As a Yuan building, the central bay is the widest, 5.03 meters, with bay widths from the center outward of 3.85, 3.72, and 3.72 meters, respectively, on the front and back. The same-sized bays at the ends and second-from-theends across the front is the first example of a deviation from Chinese building standards found here; one recalls that bays should decrease in width from the center outward. The large central side bays are 7.8 meters, joined by front bays of 3.92 and back bays of 4.32 meters. All but six interior pillars have been eliminated. Four are aligned with the central front and back exterior pillars, but two in the back row are displaced from the lines indicated by exterior pillars.33 Eaves pillars are 5.55 meters tall and 47 centimeters thick, a ratio of 11.8:1. Interior pillars are 5.97 meters high and 55 centimeters in width, a ratio of 10.8:1. Front corner pillars exhibit a rise of 10 centimeters, and pillars have batter. The architrave and a pupai-tiebeam penetrate pillars across the top. Bracket sets are five puzuo with one cantilever and arms that project both perpendicular and parallel to the building plane. There are no intercolumnar sets. The cai of Guangsheng Lower Monastery’s back hall is 23 by 15 centimeters, or a ratio of 15:9.5. This corresponds to third rank. These measurements and rank are consistent with a hall with no ceiling and a roof of overhanging eaves (figure 4.14). A nine-purlin structure, four rafters are used in the front half and four in the back half of the hall. The top two rafters form an inverted-V-shaped truss, and the rafters directly in front and behind them join the four-rafter beams.

Roughly carved braces known as taqian give support under the four-rafter beams, and two-rafter beams join exterior and interior pillars. The limited lengths of timbers and appearance of patching that results, as well as the overhanging gable-style roof, humbler still than the hip-gable roofs above Chunyang and Chongyang Halls, present a surprisingly modest structure for a main hall that goes by the name Daxiongbao. Some believe the combination of features represents a desire to economize; other view it as experimentation by local craftsmen. The appearance of the hall is especially unusual because it is seven bays across the front, the number we have seen so far only at the eminent Virtuous Tranquility and Sanqing Halls. This bay number is inconsistent with the roof, five-puzuo bracket sets, lack of ceiling, and lack of intercolumnar sets. Among extant buildings, the back hall is a rare example of a humbler structure of the Yuan period that has so much interior space, certainly one more economical to build than a hall with a ceiling, more complicated roof, and more bracket sets. The most similar structure from the Jin period is Mañjuśrī Hall of Foguang Monastery (figure 2.28). Both buildings employ lengthwise frameworks that were largely, but not completely, abandoned by the Song dynasty.34 West Side Hall Originally a small hall stood on both sides of the Guangshengsi back hall. This kind of building is known as duodian (ear hall). One was dedicated to the bodhisattva Guanyin and the other to Kṣitigarbha. Only the west hall survives. It is dated by an inscription on a purlin to 1342.35 Three bays across the front and supported by six pillars, the hall stands on a low platform of seventy centimeters in height. Five roof purlins are supported from underneath only by a four-rafter beam and corner pillars beneath it. Bracket sets are four puzuo, with one step and one cantilever. There are no intercolumnar sets. The roof is of overhanging-eaves style. The only unusual feature is a pupai-tiebeam above the architrave. Murals Like the buildings at Yonglegong, the interiors of both the front and back halls of Guangsheng Lower Monastery originally were covered with murals. Only a few fragments remain at the monastery today. Entire walls and smaller pieces of murals were removed and dispersed across North America beginning in the 1920s, leading to controversy about which paintings

128

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

were on which walls of which halls. Removal occurred at least five years before the event that brought the most attention to Guangshengsi, the discovery in 1933 of a Jin edition of the Tripitaka, the version of Buddhist scriptures first written down in the first century BCE. The paintings were gone, in other words, in 1934 when Lin Huiyin and Liang Sicheng studied the buildings of Guangsheng Monastery and Laurence Sickman came in search of murals.36 The first mural associated with Guangshengsi came to the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania in 1926. A second was acquired in 1928. Both purchases were from C. T. Loo (1880–1957).37 In 1932 the Nelson Gallery-Atkins Museum obtained a mural from Loo that also was reported to come from Guangsheng Monastery.38 In 1950 Loo gave a mural of one deity to the Cincinnati Art Museum, saying it came from Guangshengsi. Four years later the Metropolitan Museum of Art acquired a fourth wall-size mural, also said to be from Guangshengsi.39 For the next fifty years, scholars measured the original walls, measured paintings, compared the five above-mentioned murals with wall paintings signed by Zhu Haogu or believed to be from the Yuan period in the Royal Ontario Museum, Palace Museum, Beijing, and in situ in halls of southern Shanxi, including at Yonglegong. Important discoveries of this research were that muralists were itinerant, and the same craftsmen-workshops painted Buddhist as well as Daoist imagery. Yet which images came from which walls of Shanxi monasteries, particularly those of Guangshengsi, could not be resolved. Connoisseurship of style indicated that the four wall-sized murals from Guangshengsi and the Cincinnati mural that seems to fill in a missing piece of one of the University of Pennsylvania paintings, and the paintings in the other museums mentioned above present elements similar enough to be from the same workshops. The date 1309 for the back hall and 1475 for the front hall of Guangshengsi, in the context of hundreds of murals in southern Shanxi from the Yuan and Ming dynasties, are too far apart for paintings so similar. In 2019 Qu Lian argued that the assumption that five murals in the United States came from the same place is largely circumstantial, evidence that more reflects the period of collecting a century ago when even the major dealers, particularly C. T. Loo, who had sold many of the most important murals, had not been to Guangshengsi, and yet this location, named when the first murals were sold to North American buyers, enhanced validity and value. Today one sees murals in situ at more than twenty

monasteries along the route between Guangsheng Monastery and Yonglegong and understands that at least another twenty buildings likely to have had murals were destroyed or heavily damaged in the second half of the twentieth century. Qu argues that murals at the University of Pennsylvania and in Cincinnati are from the Yuan period but are not from Guangshengsi.40 The murals in New York and Kansas City are believed to come from the Lower Monastery. Dragon King Hall of Water Spirit Temple The building known as Dragon King Hall (Mingyingwangdian [Hall to King Mingying, the Dragon King]) is one of three main structures of Water Spirit Temple (Shuishenmiao). The complex is named for the god who protects the flow of Huo Springs in front of the site to ensure necessary water; the Dragon King is an agent in bringing rain.41 References in Jiu Tangshu (History of the earlier Tang) suggest that a temple stood here in the period 785–805.42 Destruction occurred in the twelfth century, giving way to not just reconstruction but expansion, from 1201 to 1208. So close to the collapse of Jin, one assumes this act was part of an effort to get the protective attention of the gods in this part of Jin territory. Jin hopes were dashed when the Mongols destroyed the complex. Reconstruction began in 1234, this time under the direction of Dao Kaimin, a monk at Guangsheng Monastery. A drought in 1278 brought the attention of a new district magistrate to the temple. According to legend, as he vowed to complete construction, rain began to fall. In 1283 the rebuilding and enlargement that had begun in 1234 was completed. Then came the earthquake of 1303. One is certain that the court had an interest in the future of Shuishenmiao at this time. In the tenth lunar month of 1303, Khubilai’s successor Temür sent envoys to make sacrifices to the god of Mount Huo at a nearby temple. Temür sent another envoy four months later. Reconstruction was well underway in 1305. A third mission from the court of Khaishan came in the twelfth moon of 1309. A dedicatory inscription is dated 1319. The new structure was framed and walls were in place in 1316. The murals, intact today, were completed five years later, on the first day of the seventh moon of 1324. Renovations would occur in 1392, 1674, 1677, 1751, and 1857, but the timber details, roof type, and murals are believed to date to the first quarter of the fourteenth century. Dragon King Hall is the third and largest of three buildings on an axial line that runs parallel to Guangsheng Lower

129

Chapter Four

4.15 Dragon King Hall, Water Spirit Temple, Guangsheng Lower Monastery, Hongdong, Shanxi, 1319

4.16 Wang Yangda et al., Painting of monastery, seen from side, on east wall of Dragon King Hall, Water Spirit Temple, Guangsheng Lower Monastery, Hongdong, Shanxi, 1324

Monastery’s Buddhist complex (figures 4.13 and 4.15). The other two are smaller and joined to it by a short set of stairs on the west. Five bays square, but in fact a three-bay hall enclosed by a one-bay covered arcade, Dragon King Hall is elevated on a 2.35-meter platform that is 21.05 meters across the front. A large yuetai, 12.05 by 11.4 meters and 2.15 meters high, rises in front of it. The yuetai is approached by stairs from the front and sides. The hall itself is 18.35 meters across. The central bay is the widest, at 4.95 meters, the bays to its sides are 3.6 meters, and the bays of the corridor on either side of them are 3.1 meters. The plan is of the form jinxiang doudicao (figure 2.23, #4). All but two pillars are eliminated from the interior. The corner pillars rise 7.05 meters and are 40 centimeters in diameter, a ratio of 14.8:1.

The pillars of the front and back eaves are 7.05 meters tall and 40 centimeters in diameter, a ratio of 17.6:1. Side pillars are 7.07 meters tall and 40 centimeters in diameter for a ratio of 17.7:1. The rise is four centimeters across the front and back and two centimeters on the sides. Front and back pillars have a batter of five centimeters, whereas side pillars have a batter of three centimeters. All pillars are on pilasters. Pillars bulge slightly at the middles, not as much as Song pillars but more than those of a Ming building. Dragon King Hall has two sets of roof eaves, the upper forming a hip-gable roof. Two intercolumnar bracket sets are positioned in the central bay, and one is in each side bay of this upper level. One finds an intercolumnar set only in the central bay

130

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

below the lower eaves. The upper-level bracket sets have two cantilevers and are five puzuo; the lower sets have one cantilever and are four puzuo. The cai of the bracket sets beneath the upper eaves is 22 by 14.5 centimeters, a proportion that corresponds to fourth rank. The position of the more eminent sets is consistent with the more complicated formations used in the upper compared to lower level of Virtuous Tranquility Hall. Beams span two, four, and six rafters from uppermost to lowest. The architrave and pupai-tiebeam penetrate pillars across the front and back. These features and the exposed roof frame make up a building of comparable status to Chongyang Hall of Yonglegong and of higher status than the Guangsheng Lower Monastery back hall. A stage stands at the front of Water Spirit Temple, about thirty-five meters in front of the entry gate. It announces an important purpose of the complex. The current structure, rebuilt in 1924, probably was intended to mark the six-hundredth anniversary of the postearthquake reconstruction. A performance at Water Spirit Temple in the fourth lunar month of 1324, which included the actress Zhong Duxiu, is painted and labeled with her name in Dragon King Hall. It has been suggested she was a shaman whose act might have included supplications for rain.43 As noted in chapter 2, performance on stages was common in Shanxi in the Jin and Yuan dynasties. The performance scene is among the murals on the eastern half of the hall signed by Wang Yanda and six others. The western side of the interior is signed by three men, working, it is believed, in competition with Wang’s group. The second group was sponsored by those involved in the South Huo Canal Project, whereas Wang Yanda’s group painted for the North Huo Canal Project.44 Like the name of a performer on the stage, the name of a workshop or painter probably indicates someone who had a reputation among artisans or patrons of religious institutions, such as the mural painters at Yonglegong. The fact that the dragon king is painted on both the east and west walls of his temple probably is evidence of competition between the two groups of painters.45 The Tang emperor, officials playing a board game and with a ball, a bridge crossing, and male and female court attendants are among the other images on Dragon King Temple walls, but only one scene of architecture is painted. The side view of an arcade-enclosed temple complex of eight buildings, one of which is a thirteen-story octagonal pagoda, is behind the dragon king to viewer’s right, on the east wall of the temple (figure 4.16). The strong resemblance between the painted image of the pagoda

and thirteen-story glazed-tile pagoda that is the identifying structure of the Upper Monastery suggests the buildings of the upper level are depicted in Dragon King Hall: a gate and a smaller building are in front of the pagoda, and three main structures plus a side hall, which would present from the side as a fourth structure, stand behind it. Upper Monastery As we observed at Yonglegong, images of architecture tend to be composed of additive, specific (sometimes period-specific and other times rank-specific) components. Among myriad images of architecture in murals, key building components such as elevation platforms, carved marble approaches to buildings, numbers of pillars, bracket set types, and roof types can sometimes be recognized. Sometimes specific pagodas, such as the pagoda at Hanshan Monastery shown in figure 4.9, can identify a painting.46 There is no evidence that any mural in Dragon King Hall was painted later than 1324. Yet the buildings of the Upper Monastery they appear to represent are dated by stele inscriptions and passages in local records to the period 1452–1532, even though some believe the front hall of the Upper Monastery dates to the Yuan period.47 If one could be certain that the complex on top of Mount Huo is the subject of the painting, then in 1324 the monastery above the hill was a grand complex by comparison with the gate and two halls at the Buddhist complex today called Guangsheng Lower Buddhist Monastery; and it included the glazed-ceramic Feihong (Flying Rainbow) Pagoda, whose current version is dated 1515–1527, the third important structure together with Dragon King Hall and the back hall at Guangshengsi. Inscriptions and passages in gazetteers address these questions. Two inscriptions dated 1367 are important. In that year, according to a stele in the front hall of the Lower Monastery, an official performed sacrifices at “Mingyingwang Hall of Guangsheng Monastery.” In the same year the official Xiong Zai composed a poem with the line: “Guangsheng Monastery stands atop Mount Huo.” 48 Only in the Ming dynasty does one read of Upper and Lower Monasteries. Before then, it appears that Buddhist architecture of a single monastery, Guangshengsi, was atop and below the slope. A shrine to Khubilai is recorded at Guangshengsi, but its location is not specified. If there were buildings at the top of Mount Huo at the beginning of September 1303, they should have been subject to the total destruction by the earthquake, and to later rebuilding.

131

Chapter Four

The pre-earthquake monastery, however, not only might be captured on the wall of Dragon King Temple, it might have been mimicked in later construction or reconstruction. At the very beginning of the Ming period, following warfare that included loss of monks and Buddhist population in Zhaocheng, Guangshengsi, was a less important monastery than it had been when Khubilai, his son, and grandson were patrons. Still, the back hall one sees today at Lower Guangsheng Monastery survived wars at the end of Yuan, perhaps, one might believe, because of the potency of Water Spirit Temple. In the Ming dynasty, new groups of Buddhist monks came to the monastery. Many served as guards of Huo Spring and caretakers of the needs of Water Spirit Temple. Inscriptions state that buildings of Upper Monastery were reconstructed beginning in the period 1450–1457. In Yuan China, no religious institution could be built without permission, whether national or local, or without acquisition or gifting of land. The Mongol government were patrons at Temple to the Northern Peak, Yonglegong, and Guangshengsi. This is true even though khaghans were often devout practitioners and patrons of Tibetan Buddhism. Yuan was a period of multiple religions and of court-sponsored religious debates, including a victory by Buddhists in a third debate that in 1281 led to destruction of printing blocks brought to Yonglegong in 1260.49 Because of the supreme importance of water, it is likely that Dragon King Hall in Water Spirit Temple transcended the significance of a mere Daoist or Buddhist temple complex. The local population, Buddhists among them, surely came to its grounds for performances, as they would come to plays on Jin and Yuan stages, most of them also associated with temple complexes, discussed in chapter 5. When first built, Guangsheng Monastery may have been more powerful than Water Spirit Temple, with important architecture above and below the mountain, but by the second half of the Yuan dynasty and in the early Ming period, Chinese Buddhism may have receded. The unique, seven-bay, longitudinally framed hall of the Yuan period may reflect the status of Buddhism in the late Yuan period at Guangshengsi; the glazed ceramic-tile pagoda would them confirm a renewed Ming interest in Chinese Buddhism that had originated in the monastery’s pre-earthquake era. The humble building with overhanging eaves contrasts the importance international scholarship has brought to its murals, and perhaps to several that may not come from there. Buddhists and Daoists did have structures side-by-side in southern Shanxi in Yuan China, but at any given time they

probably were never truly equal. The message of the architecture is that in the Ming dynasty Buddhism had reascended in importance. Because of associations with the imperial family, the presence of eminent architecture, the number of Yuan buildings, and murals, it is easy to argue that the Temple to the Northern Peak, Yonglegong, and Guangsheng Monastery are the most important Yuan building complexes with wooden architecture. Through their eight Yuan buildings, we observe supreme structural eminence, buildings just below that in the ranking system, and decidedly humble architecture. We also observe how informative murals can be about architecture in the Yuan period. None of the three sites tells us about architecture of a town in thirteenth- to fourteenth-century China. For this one turns to Hancheng.

Hancheng More thirteenth- to fourteenth-century architecture survives in the seventy-two lanes and alleys of Hancheng and a few locations just outside the city in Shaanxi province than at any other single place in China. Some of it dates to the Jin period; a few structures were built even earlier.50 Located in eastern Shaanxi at its Yellow River border with Shanxi, about 230 kilometers northeast of Xi’an, the city has 140 buildings that have been designated national treasures or important cultural properties; more than 66 are noted in Hanchengxian zhi.51 Nineteen are dated to the Yuan period, a full 80 percent of Yuan architecture in Shaanxi. Hancheng was never the center of conflagration from warfare, perhaps a large factor in the number of old buildings that survive.52 Hancheng traces its history to the Western Zhou period. It was already a commercial center in the Spring and Autumn period (771–476 BCE). The Han historian Sima Qian (145–ca. 86 BCE) was born in Hancheng. From then through the Qing dynasty, Hancheng is well described as both a Confucian town and a merchant town. The majority of Yuan architecture is of the kind that suggests perhaps wealthy, but nonimperial, patronage. Most of Hancheng’s Yuan buildings are small, three or five bays across the front and four or six rafters in depth. Every surviving Yuan building stands on a platform elevated between thirty and one hundred centimeters, every building’s pillars are three to four times the height of the bracket sets atop them, and every building supports a hip-gable or overhanging gables roof. No

132

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.17 Front and back of figures crouching at end of Yuxiu Bridge, Hancheng, Shaanxi, Jin with later repairs.

4.18 Side view of Sanqing Hall, Ziyuan Daoist Monastery, Hancheng, Shaanxi, 1270, with later repairs

structure has a hipped roof or two sets of roof eaves. The town retains some of its Jin-Yuan layout. Among Jin buildings, an octagonal pagoda of six stories in louge style dates to 1173, nearly one hundred years before Mongol rule. Yuxiu Bridge also was built in the Jin period, but its date is unspecified; it surely was repaired in the Qing dynasty and probably later. Statues of men who crouch at its end may be Jurchen or Mongols (figure 4.17). Sanqing (Three Purities) Hall of Ziyunguan (Daoist Monastery) is dated 1270; like many buildings in Hancheng, it was used as a school in the twentieth century and has been restored. Three bays across the front and fourrafter-lengths in depth, with a yuetai in front, Sanqing Hall has a hip-gable roof. Pillar-top bracket sets are four puzuo with a timu (brace) to help support the roof. There are no intercolumnar sets. Pillars exhibit rise across the front (figure 4.18). The offering hall of Sanshengmiao (Temple of the Three Divinities) was built in 1273 with many subsequent repairs. Five bays by four and measuring 13.80 by 7.20 meters, the hall’s approximate height:diameter ratio of pillars is 285:43 centimeters, or 6.63:1. This ratio indicates a Song-Jin building; in a Yuan structure it can be as high as 8:1.53 Bracket sets across the front of the hall are five puzuo with two cantilevers and perpendicular and lateral arms. Bracket sets across the back and inside are four puzuo with one cantilever. The average height of a bracket set is 97 centimeters. The average height of a pillar is 3.14 meters. The ratio of bracket set height:pillar height is 1:3.4. Beams are two- and four-rafter lengths. The temple to legendary emperor King Yu is dated 1301. Today the complex begins with a stage that was built later than the Yuan period. Behind it are an offering hall and King Yu’s residence. The larger halls were used as a school and restored in the late twentieth century. The offering hall is four bays across the front, unusual in a system in which the central of an odd number of bays is the widest. Its dimensions are 15.20 by 8.10 meters. The hall exhibits pillar elimination, with only two interior columns. Pillars are 2.80 meters with diameters of 48 centimeters, a ratio of just under 6:1, a standard height: diameter ratio in Yuan buildings. The roof has overhanging eaves. Bracket sets are five

puzuo with projecting arms both perpendicular to and parallel to the building plane. The main hall of Guandi (the deified form of Guan Yu) Temple is dated to 1303. All other buildings in the complex were restored in the Qing dynasty. Three bays by four with a roof of overhanging eaves, four-puzuo bracket sets with one cantilever, and pillars on either side of the front central bay that are 2.94 meters high and 42 centimeters in diameter, a ratio of 7.3:1, a Yuan ratio, King Yu Hall is dated by inscription to 1355. It is one of the only Yuan buildings in Hancheng with a lattice ceiling. Its most unusual feature is that it is three bays across the front and five bays across the back, an example of pillar elimination on the exterior (figures 4.19 and 4.20).54 Puzhao Monastery is about ten kilometers northeast of the city. Approached by two sets of stairs, two gates, and a pair of stele pavilions on either side of the approach, its Daxiongbao Hall is one of the spectacular Yuan buildings in the town, although, like most of Hancheng’s old architecture, it was repaired in the Qing dynasty. The assessment that it was constructed in the Yuan period is based on structural details. The hall is five bays by six rafter-lengths with a single-eave, hip-gable roof, and an exposed-rafter ceiling. Bracket sets are five puzuo with arms parallel and perpendicular to the building plane and two cantilevers (figure 4.21). The longest beam is six rafter lengths. Timu and huatouzi are used (figure 4.22). Its main image is Śākyamuni, dated to 1326, and, as we have seen at Guangshengsi, non-Buddhist architecture is on either side. Here the buildings are temples to the earth god and Guandi. The offering hall of Fawangmiao has a founding date of Zhenzong reign period (997–1022), although it was rebuilt. Five bays by four, with a roof of overhanging eaves and four-puzuo bracket sets with one cantilever, there are no intercolumnar bracket sets. The main hall from Jiulang Temple also has no specific date. It is five bays across the front, its sides are six rafter-lengths, and its bracket sets are five puzuo with two cantilevers and arms both parallel and perpendicular to the building plane. There are no intercolumnar bracket sets. A hip-gable roof covers the hall. Front bay lengths from the central one outward are 3.80, 3.20, and 2.9 meters, respectively, for a total length of

133

Chapter Four

4.19 King Yu Hall, Hancheng, Shaanxi, 1355. Zhao Liying, Shaanxi gujianzhu, colorpl. 10 (unpaginated).

4.20 Infrastructural drawing of King Yu Hall, Hancheng, Shaanxi,1355. After Zhao Liying, Shaanxi gujianzhu, 168.

16 meters. The sides are 9 meters. Pillars exhibit rise and batter. All parts of the ceiling are exposed. The diameters of its front façade columns are about one-eighth their height, consistent with the Yuan period (figure 4.23). A record of repair in a stele inscription of 1308 combined with architectural features gives the hall its Yuan date. Hancheng’s Confucian Temple and Temple to the City-God retain Yuan-style features even though the buildings have later replacement parts and stand in complexes reconstructed in the Ming-Qing period. Dang-Jia village, discussed later, is restored in the manner of lanes and alleys of the Ming-Qing period (figure 5.22). Six buildings in Hancheng, first constructed in the Jin or Yuan period, have been moved to one location, all viewable only on the exterior, with a Daoist monastery behind them.

Hancheng is the unique city in China with such a consistent group of Jin-Yuan building components—pillars, beams, braces, six-, five-, and four-puzuo bracket sets, and examples of pillar rise and batter—across so much space.

More Yuan Buildings in North China One of the features scholars use to determine whether buildings in Hancheng are Yuan-period is da’e, meaning “large architrave.” In 1979 Zhang Yuhuan wrote an article about Jin-Yuan architecture in Shanxi in which he presented da’e as its defining feature.55 His study draws from buildings in Shanxi and Henan as well as Hancheng. Da’e is used in King Yu Hall in Hancheng (figure 4.20). Its prominence in construction is shown in a Yuan building

134

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.21 Bracket sets of front façade, Daxiongbao Hall, Puzhao Monastery complex, Hancheng, Shaanxi, Yuan period with later repairs.

4.22 Infrastructural drawing of Daxiongbao Hall, Puzhao Monastery complex, Hancheng, Shaanxi. After Zhao Liying, Shaanxi gujianzhu, 167.

at Qingliang Monastery in Yuncheng, Shanxi (figure 4.24). The use of a large architrave at the Hall of Great Achievement, the focal building of the above-mentioned Confucian Temple in Hancheng, for instance, is the structural piece that has led scholars to declare it Yuan style even though the building parts are all post-Yuan.56 Zhang articulates twenty features that define a Yuan building in Shanxi: shuttle-shaped (suo) columns, or columns that taperoff at the top, a feature that may present as juansha (entasis); interior columns directly support the cap-blocks (ludou) of bracket sets; cantilevers with lute-faced (qinmian) tips; huatouzi (blocklike projections from a perpendicular bracket arm to support the lowest cantilever of a bracket set); wing-shaped bracket arms; struts known as tuojiao, placed at inclines to support purlins; inverted-V-shaped trusses (chashou); dwarf pillars (shuzhu), or

struts in the center of chashou; smaller bracket set components than counterpart pieces in Tang or Song construction; frequent use of four-rafter beams and two-rafter beams (rufu), with three pillars; tiaowo (a slanting beam or cantilever that does not project from the front of a bracket set but rather from the shuatou to carry the weight above it or to balance the bracket set above it); yatiao (a piece of a bracket arm that presses beneath a beam to help support it); mojiao (one-bay-long beams that come in large and small sizes to support corner beams); chuomufang (curtain-mounting joist); smaller cai and zhi (submodule) than in a Song building; pillar displacement; pillar elimination; exposed roof frames; predominance of hip-gable roofs; and goulianda (undulating roofs), which continue over sections of buildings that could otherwise support independent roofs, especially useful in

135

Chapter Four

4.23 Main Hall, Jiulang Temple, Hancheng, Shaanxi, Yuan period with pre-Yuan parts and later repairs

4.24 Structure with prominent da’e across the front, Qingliang Monastery, Yuncheng, Shanxi, Yuan period

preventing rain water from accumulating on a building (figure 4.25). Zhang differentiates three kinds of tiaowo.57 Zhang assesses da’e buildings alongside the Yuan buildings at Yonglegong and Guangshengsi. He also confirms the use of Yingzao fashi in every building he discusses. Further, Zhang provides lists of the most important Jin and Yuan buildings in Shanxi, each of whose key components he studied and measured, and most of whose sections or plans he draws. These lists and drawings are the starting point of research on Yuan buildings in Shanxi still today. Da’e offers a new kind of construction. Thicker than other architraves, this oversized piece of wood that runs between or above columns transversally across a building is the support for the main roof load. This support across the front, and sometimes

inside or along the back of the structure, is a return to a preSong system.58 The support allows for both elimination of interior pillars and their movement off the grid anticipated by exterior columns. The possibility of a large, open interior perhaps is why Jin and Yuan builders in North China were attracted to the longitudinal frame network. In the Ming dynasty, pillar elimination and displacement would be rare, and builders would return to crosswise frames. Zhang seeks a few other ways to assess and differentiate Yuan buildings in North China. One is to distinguish whether the ground plan is closer to rectangular or squarish, for da’e construction is especially useful in a long, narrow structure. The assumption in the 1970s that the seven-bay back hall of Guangshengsi and buildings of Yonglegong were typical probably led to an

136

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.25 Comparison of traditional support system in Daxiong Hall of Puzhao Monastery and the da’e support system in King Yu Hall, both in Hancheng. Shaanxi. After Liu Lin’an, “Hancheng Yuandai mugou jianzhu fenxi,” 292.

undue emphasis on differentiating Yuan wooden halls based on squarish or rectangular ground plans, especially since many in Hancheng were closer to squarish. Zhang also differentiates four varieties of what he refers to as traditional (chuantong) sectional frameworks and five types he identifies as da’e frameworks. Both of his categories afford four- and six-rafter-length (five to seven purlins) options and two and three crosswise pillars. Da’e also offers an eight-rafter-length possibility. The eighteen crosswise frameworks prescribed in Yingzao fashi for tingtang offer as many as six crosswise pillars as well as four- to ten-rafter (five to eleven purlins) construction (figure 4.26). Although the Song method of raising a hall with crosswise framing bearing the main load of the roof did not employ the big architrave, the system could yield an equally deep building. The four basic ground plans described in Yingzao fashi, although with more complete column grids than the long, narrow Jinperiod Mañjuśrī Hall of Foguang Monastery and back hall of Guangshengsi, also could be constructed with da’e and the corresponding longitudinal framework. The forty years of fieldwork across China since Zhang Yuhuan’s highly influential article have identified many more buildings with rectangular ground plans inside and outside Shanxi, but perhaps not as many by comparison to squarish buildings as Zhang anticipated. The twelfth to fourteenth centuries are a period in which Yingzao fashi is used, and yet buildings find other solutions, notably the big architrave, for construction that is not described in the text. It is also a period in which one can identify regional stylistic details such as curved and straight beams that occurred in South as opposed to North China, respectively, after the Tang dynasty. Regional variation is not tied to religious practice. Some features may be aesthetic, such as a penchant for the open interiors with few pillars. The suggestion of an aesthetic preference of the period is because even though Mañjuśrī Hall of 1137 and Guangshengsi back hall

of 1303 are almost unique buildings with long fronts with overhanging gables, the framing arrangement and roof are in the repertoire of pre-twelfth-century builders. Further, decidedly Yuan or Jin-Yuan forms such as the big architrave would have little impact on the multimillennial tradition of timber-framing in China. Among the hundreds of Yuan buildings in North China, about forty, in addition to those at Yonglegong and Guangshengsi and in Hancheng, have dates or are worth further consideration for other reasons. As in earlier times, most of them are in Shanxi.59 Temples to Sacred Peaks Temples to the gods of all five sacred peaks were built across China in the Yuan period. None that survives has features as spectacular or details as close to the imperial building tradition as the Temple to the Northern Peak in Quyang. The majority are for the god of the Eastern Peak. Perhaps this is because that god, the lord of Mount Tai in Tai’an, Shandong, is by some measure the most revered of the five, for he can grant life and death. A Temple to the Eastern Peak, also known as Baishan Temple, occupies 5600 square meters 2 kilometers east of Puxian in Shanxi.60 The earliest record, in Puxianzhi (Record of Puxian), mentions repairs in the Zhenguan reign period (627–649), thus indicating that initial construction occurred earlier. The year 1208 is carved on a pilaster of the offering hall. Destroyed in the earthquake of 1303 that devastated Guangsheng Monastery, the main hall was rebuilt between 1316 and 1318; eighth moon of 1318 is written on a tiebeam. Construction lasted until 1361, a date inscribed on a stone pillar from the enclosing corridor. Although the main hall was repaired six times from the early Ming to 1853, it is considered a Yuan building. It stands on the central axis amid more than sixty other buildings. The hall for sacrifices at the Temple to the Eastern Peak is three bays square, enclosed by a one-bay arcade, and nearly

137

Chapter Four

square; each side, including the arcade, is between 17.90 and 18.08 meters. The hall is elevated on a base of 1.26 meters. It is oriented 15 degrees east of due south. The interior is three bays square, with an enclosing arcade that spans two rafter-lengths (figure 4.27). The middle bay is the widest on each side. The hall is eight rafter-lengths in section, or, a nine-rafter building. A hip-gable roof is used. The one-story building has two sets of roof eaves supported by twenty corridor pillars, twelve that support the hall, and two interior hall pillars. The pillars of the outer ring are lodged into stone plinths and are slightly taller than the pillars of the inner ring. The exterior pillars exhibit rise, from 6.15 to 6.19 meters, with a height:diameter ratio of 11–11.6:1. The two interior pillars are 6.15 meters high, with diameters of 34 centimeters, a ratio of 11.8:1. Bracket sets beneath the lower eaves are simple, four-puzuo sets. As we have observed at other Yuan buildings, the sets under the upper roof eaves are more complicated. They are six puzuo, with one set between every pair of columns. No cantilevers are used. The Temple to the Eastern Peak uses a big architrave in the front and the back. Two beams penetrate corner bracket sets to simulate false cantilevers, the lower one with the pointed tip we have observed in structural cantilevers. Beams of the corridor are two rafter-lengths (rufu). Diagonal posts support the undersides of the covered arcade. Timu support purlins, and braces known as heta join posts above the two-rafter crossbeam. One of the four-rafter beams has an irregular shape. An imperial stele engraved in the calligraphy of Zhao Mengfu stands in the courtyard of the temple today. In 1317 Yu Ji visited a Daoist master at an Eastern Peak temple in Daidu. He saw there statues by Liu Yuan, one of the most renowned sculptors of the Yuan period.61 The temple probably was the one mentioned in chapter 1. Legend records that in 1259 Khubilai sent a messenger to a Daoist master of the lineage of Eastern Han Daoist Zhang Daoling (34–156), founder of the Zhengyi sect, seeking a prophesy for the success of his campaign in China.62 The master, surnamed Zhang, said Khubilai would control China in twenty years. After Khubilai had established himself in Daidu, he sent for Zhang Daoling, who by that time had died. Zhang Zongyan and his disciple Zhang Liusun came instead. Zhang Liusun remained in Daidu to found the Temple to the Eastern Peak. Construction was completed in 1323 under Zhang Lisun’s disciple Wu Quanjie. In 1325 Sengge Ragi, Princess of Lü, came to the temple en route to her appanage in Yingchang. She donated funds for

4.26 Eighteen frameworks for large-scale halls, but not eminent halls, described in Yingzao fashi. Fu Xinian, Chinese Traditional Architecture, 261. 4.27 Line drawing of side section of sacrificial hall, Temple to the Eastern Peak, Puxian, Shanxi, 1318, repaired 1361. Feng Dongqing. “Shanxi Puxian Dongyuemiao,” Wenwu jikan, no. 3 (1993): 25.

138

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.28 Daizongbao Hall, also known as Daiyue Hall, Temple to the Eastern Peak, Beijing, 1319, with many later repairs

construction of residential space behind the hall where the god of the Eastern Peak was enshrined. The rear chamber was joined to the worship hall by an arcade, forming the gong-plan associated with imperial construction. This arrangement survives today. The princess returned to Daidu in 1328 for the coronation of her son-in-law Tugh Temür, at which time she donated additional funds for construction at the Daidu Temple to the Eastern Peak. Major repairs were done in 1447 and 1575, and, following almost complete destruction in 1664 and 1698, in 1700–1702 by Kangxi. After severe damage through the twentieth century, major renovations took place in the final decade of the twentieth century. In addition to Yu Ji’s account and more than one hundred stele inscriptions, from which the dates above were taken, the Temple to the Eastern Peak was described in detail in 1927.63 In the past several decades, much of what was observed in the 1920s has been restored to be as similar as possible to its fourteenth-century appearance. Standing behind a stele pavilion, a temple gate that is now destroyed, another stele pavilion, and a gate to its courtyard, Daizongbao Hall faces south in front of Yude Hall, where statues of the god and goddess of Mount Tai are displayed. The two halls are joined by an arcade, as they were in the fourteenth century, with a pavilion along the main building line at the back corridor of the sixty-thousand-square-meter monastery. Elevated on a platform, the five-bay by eleven-rafter Eastern Peak Hall is twenty-five by nineteen meters, with a hipped roof of green glazed tiles (figure 4.28). The Temple to the Eastern Peak (Taitoumiao) in Hejin, Shanxi, never had buildings even as grand as those at the Temple to the Eastern Peak in Daidu or Puxian. Today 1,333.8 square meters of buildings stand on an area of 7,842 square meters, 129.3 meters east-west by 60.65 meters north-south. The complex

has halls for the gods of the eastern and western sacred peaks. Eastern Peak Hall is one of five buildings dated to the Yuan period (figure 4.29).64 Although Eastern Peak Hall is only three bays square, it is the main structure of Taitoumiao. The 11.49-by-8.44-meter structure, 177.3 square meters in area, is elevated on a platform of 14 by 12.66 meters, supported by twelve perimeter columns with no columns inside, and has a hip-gable roof. Pillars that frame the central bay are 4.5 meters tall, corner pillars are 4.53 meters, showing a rise of 0.03 meter. Pillars have slight batter and are forty centimeters in perimeter, for an average height:diameter ratio of 11:1. Bracket sets are above the pillars, including the corner pillars. They are four puzuo with projections parallel to and perpendicular to the façade. A Temple to the Five Sacred Peaks in Beiyuyuan, Fenyang, Shanxi, also was built in the Yuan dynasty.65 It is one of two Yuan structures among four halls in the unusual arrangement of an east-west line, with a stage in front of them and numerous shrines in this 7200-square-meter complex twenty kilometers southwest of Fenyang. The second Yuan building is a Water Spirit Hall.66 Although Five Peaks Hall is the most important structure in the complex, it is small. The hall itself is three bays by two. It measures 9.86 meters across the front by 8.82 meters in depth, with a front extension stretching 1.96 meters. The roof is overhanging-eaves-style, the kind used at the back hall of Guangsheng Lower Monastery. Front eaves pillars are 3.3 meters high. Bracket sets are five puzuo with only one rise and one cantilever whose tail is sliced in the lute shape observed in North China since the Song dynasty. Bracket sets are about 0.98 meter high, yielding a bracket set height:pillar height ratio of 1:3.4. There are three intercolumnar sets in the front central bay (figure 4.30). Two- and three-rafter-length beams are used

139

Chapter Four

4.29 Line drawing of Eastern Peak Hall, Taitoumiao, Hejin, Shanxi, Yuan period. Li Yumin, “Hejin Taitoumiao Yuandai jianzhu,” 349.

4.30 Frontal section of main hall, Temple to the Five Sacred Peaks, Fenyang, Shanxi, 1306. Liu and Shang, “Fenyang Beiyuyuan Wuyuemiao,” Wenwu, no. 12 (1991): 3.

to support this big architrave hall. The module corresponds to fifth rank in Yingzao fashi.67 An inscription on a tiebeam provides the history of the main hall at the Temple to the Five Peaks. The hall was built in 1151, destroyed in the earthquake of 1303, and rebuilt in 1306. Inscriptions on the east and west interior walls say that statues of the lords of the five peaks were made in 1326. The statues are gone, but more than forty square meters of murals survive. They are likely to have been retouched in the Qing dynasty. Water Spirit Hall is about the same size, three bays by two with a covered arcade, or 9.86 meters by 8.72 meters, with the front extension measuring 1.85 meters. Front pillars are 3.86

meters high, the central bay is 3.46 meters wide, and the side bays are 3.2 meters. Bracket sets are five puzuo, of one step and with one cantilever. They are 0.98 meter high. There is one intercolumnar set between every two pillars across the front. A cloud pattern is carved on the shuatou of the bracket sets. The ceiling is exposed, and there are no interior pillars. An inscription says the hall was rebuilt in 1300. There is no record of serious damage from the earthquake. Many more murals are preserved here than in Five Sacred Peaks Temple. A Temple to the Eastern Peak also survives in Wanrong, Shanxi, a town best known for Feiyun Tower, one of the most important timber-frame towers from the Ming dynasty. Repair

140

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.31 Chuanfazhengzong Hall, Yong’an Monastery, Hunyuan, Shanxi, 1315

records for the gate are dated 1291–1297, once during the Ming dynasty, and once during the Qianlong reign. The seven-bay, six-rafter-length hall with five-puzuo bracket set with two cantilevers, one intercolumnar bracket set between every two pillars, a hip-gable roof, one set of eaves, and exposed ceiling are the features used to assess the gate as a Yuan building.68

height is one-fourth the height of the pillars beneath them. The cai is twenty-one by fifteen centimeters, which is fourth to fifth grade according to Yingzao fashi. There are four interior pillars (figure 4.31). Chuanfazhengzong Hall is distinguished by statues of the Eight Daoist Immortals on the main roof ridge. Inside it has a caisson and ceiling panels decorated with small woodworking details (xiaomuzuo), combined with exposed ceiling rafters. So far caissons with complete ceilings around them have been noted only at Virtuous Tranquility Hall and Sanqing Hall, and a combination caisson-exposed ceiling at Chunyang Hall. The caisson indicates that the status of Chuanfazhengzong Hall is comparable to that of Chunyang Hall of Yonglegong.69 The walls of Chuanfazhengzongdian are covered with murals that are almost untouched since the Ming dynasty. Their content is Buddhist, Daoist, and Confucian. The religious syncretism that characterizes the fourteenth century thus also is present here. The Daoist monastery Huixianguan in Wuxiang, Changzhi, Shanxi, was founded in 1229 during the Jin dynasty. As observed at Water Spirit Temple of Guangshengsi and King Yu Temple in Hancheng, a stage introduces the complex, which is 60 meters north-south by 32 meters east-west, or 1,920 square meters in area, and oriented due south. The space is divided into two courtyards. Halls to Guandi, the Jade Emperor, and the Three Purities (Sanqing) stand behind the stage. The last hall, five bays across the front and six rafter-lengths in depth with a hip-gable roof and interior pillar elimination, was built in the Jin period; halls on both sides were built in the late Ming and Qing periods. Guandi Hall and the stage are Ming additions. Jade Emperor Hall is a Yuan building (figure 4.32). Three bays square and 9.8 by 5.4 meters, it is supported by twelve perimeter columns and has a single-eave, hip-gable roof. There are twelve exterior bracket

More Buddhist, Daoist, and Confucian Construction The majority of Yuan Buddhist, Daoist, and Confucian structures in North China discussed below share building components and often bay dimensions with one another and with structures discussed above or below. They stand in si, guan, and miao. Statuary and inscriptions, like the designation si or guan or miao, distinguish the affiliations of often very similar structures. Yong’an Monastery in Hunyuan, Shanxi, was founded in the Jin dynasty, rebuilt in the Yuan, and repaired in the Ming and Qing periods. Three buildings stand on the northsouth axis, from south to north: a front gate, Hall of Divine Kings, and Transmission of the Law of the True Ancestor Hall (Chuanfazhengzongdian), the most important building, which is dated to a rebuilding in 1315. The hall is five bays across the front and three bays but six rafter-lengths deep with a large yuetai in front. Its dimensions are 25.53 by 15.11 meters. Bay lengths across the front, from the central one outward, are 5.99, 4.74, and 5.03 meters, respectively, the longer end bays, as already noted, unusual in any period; there is no structural reason for this idiosyncrasy. Pillars are lodged into pilasters, and their tops are tapered. One finds two intercolumnar bracket sets in the central bay and one set in the others. Bracket sets are five puzuo with one cantilever and arms emanating perpendicular and parallel to and at 45-degree angles from the building plane. Their

141

Chapter Four

4.32 Jade Emperor Hall, Huixian Daoist Monastery, Wuxiang, Shanxi, 1229, with later repairs. Wenwu, no. 9 (2013): back inside cover.

4.33 Pilu Hall, Xiangyan Monastery, Liulin, Shanxi, Yuan period. Guojia Wenwuju, Zhongguo wenwu dituji; Shanxi fence, vol. 1, 477.

sets, one above each pillar. Each set is five-puzuo formation with two cantilevers. Pillars do not exhibit rise, but there is a slight amount of batter. The hall has an exposed ceiling frame.70 Xiangyan Monastery in Liulin, in western Shanxi, offers a range of architecture that confirms a pre-Yuan and post-Yuan history and includes seven buildings that date to the Yuan period.71 Pilu (Vairocana) Hall is the most important Yuan building here. It is five bays across the front with intercolumnar bracket sets and four rafter-lengths in depth. All but two pillars are eliminated from the interior (figure 4.33). Daxiongbao Hall at Xiangyan Monastery dates to the Jin period. Daxiong Hall of Cisheng Monastery in Wenxian, Henan, stands as one of five buildings in four courtyards along a northsouth axis. It is one of three buildings dated to the Yuan period in

the complex; the other two are the front gate and Heavenly Kings Hall.72 Stele record construction activity in the Five Dynasties period, Song, and Yuan. Three bays across the front and 11.6 by 10 meters at the base, Daxiongbao Hall has a single-eave, hip-gable roof with green, glazed roof tiles. Pillars have rise, and all but two are eliminated from the interior. Those two are placed in bases with lotus-flower decoration. Two intercolumnar bracket sets are in the central bay, and one is in the other bays across the four outer walls. Bracket sets have two cantilevers, one of which is false. The roof frame is exposed. Heavenly Kings Hall stands between the front gate and Daxiong Hall. Three bays square, it is 10.35 by 6.35 meters on a foundation platform of 11.25 by 8.3 meters. The hall has an overhanging-eaves roof and exposed roof frame. Bracket sets are four puzuo, with one cantilever and arms

142

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.34 Miniature structure, granite, Cisheng Monastery, Wenxian, Henan, Yuan period, 62 cm high. Wenwu, no. 2 (1982): 63.

that project only parallel to the building plane. The interiors of Daxiong Hall and Heavenly Kings Hall are covered with Yuanperiod murals. A sixty-two-centimeter-high, four-sided, granite object, known as stone city (shicheng), was found on the grounds of the monastery and is kept there. Each face has a central structure joined to two corner towers. A scene involving a man, sometimes others, and sometimes a horse is in front of or near the archway at the center of each side. Roofs above the entryways and corner towers are single-eave and hipped. Their subjects are identified as scenes from the life of the Buddha (figure 4.34).73 Like the bronze structure found among the ruins of Kaicheng (figure 1.61), a Yuan date is posited primarily due to where it was found. Huiluan Monastery is located in the Mian Mountains outside Jiexiu, in Shanxi province. It is not as well-known as many of the building complexes discussed earlier. Its Daxiongbao Hall is dated, however: 1308 is written on the underside of a tiebeam.74 Huiluan Monastery’s plan is nonstandard. The front part comprises the front gate, Heavenly Kings Hall, and Daxiongbao Hall on a line. A covered arcade that originally joined the two sides of the front gate is gone. Small halls are north, east, and west of Daxiongbao Hall. The monastery has a theater, but different from most Buddhist or Daoist monasteries, it is in the southwest of the main courtyard. The ground rises about three meters behind Daxiongbao Hall, where one finds a courtyard

marked by a gate in front, three-bay sutra hall at the back, and monks’ residences to the east and west. Daxiongbao Hall is five bays across the front, six rafter-lengths deep, and has six-puzuo bracket sets on the front façade with one cantilever and four-puzuo bracket sets on the back, an overhanging roof, and two interior pillars. It is only a little taller than the halls to either side. The hall is assessed as a Yuan-style building with some Yuan parts that, like the rest of the monastery, was rebuilt in the Qing dynasty. Several buildings at Buddhist or Daoist monasteries in Jiyuan, Henan, are considered Yuan even though only one has a date. Liu Dunzhen studied most of them when he did field work in Henan province in the 1930s.75 A stele inscription dates the middle hall of Daming Monastery in Jiyuan to 1327.76 The same inscription records the plan of the monastery at that time: front gate, front Buddha hall, middle Buddha hall, back Buddha hall, and left and right side halls. Facing south, the middle hall is three bays square and measures 11.56 by 10.27 meters. It is a single-eave, hip-gable-roofed building elevated on a stone platform of 14.05 by 12.67 meters with a yuetai in front. Pillars exhibit rise. Bracket sets are five puzuo with one cantilever that is lute-faced at the end and arms in both directions. Two intercolumnar sets are in every bay. Beams are two, four, and six rafter-lengths. There are an architrave and pupai-tiebeam (figure 4.35). Linyuan Gate and Dragon Pavilion at Jidu Temple in Jiyuan also date to the Yuan period.

143

Chapter Four

4.35 Middle Hall, Daming Monastery, Jiyuan, Henan, 1327

Leiyin (Sound of Thunder) Hall at Dinglin Monastery in Gaoping, Shanxi, also is dated 1317. It was identified in 1956.77 Standing second, behind a front gate and in front of Three Buddha Hall and Seven Buddha Hall in a four-courtyard monastery with more than fifty bays of buildings that was largely destroyed by the 1950s, Leiyin Hall is three bays across the front and six rafter-lengths on the sides and has three side pillars. The hall has a front and a back door, yuetai in front, and hip-gable roof. Exterior pillars have rise and batter and are in octagonal stone pilasters. The roof frame is exposed. Bracket sets under the front eaves are five puzuo with one, lute-faced, functional cantilever. An intercolumnar set is used only in the middle bay. Leiyin Hall is a da’e building. The main hall at the temple of Confucius’s disciple Yan Hui (Yanzi) (ca. 521–481 BCE) was built in Qufu in 1317 and repaired in the Ming period and afterward. It is unknown if it replaced an earlier building on the same site.78 The hall for sacrifices to the Duke of Zhou at Yanzi’s temple is a Yuan structure. Five bays across the front and four rafter-lengths in depth, the hipped roof and large yuetai in front signal its importance. Bracket sets are five puzuo with two cantilevers, the lower false, and exposed ceiling rafters are inside. The Shrine to Official Dou of the Eastern Zhou, in Shanglan, about twenty-five kilometers northwest of Taiyuan, was built in

1085 and repaired in 1267. The offering pavilion and main hall are dated to that year. This large complex has a music pavilion, south hall, and bell and drum towers in addition to the two Yuan structures, as well as side rooms that join it in a courtyard behind. The main hall is five bays across the front, three bays deep, and has a single-eave hip-gable roof and a caisson ceiling at the center (figure 4.36). The single-bay-wide offering pavilion has five-puzuo bracket sets with two cantilevers on the exterior. The offering hall joins the main hall in the center front by goulianda roofing. Two Buddhist complexes are on parallel axes to the east.79 According to a stele on site, Qinglong Monastery in Jishan, Shanxi, was founded in 662 and repaired in 1289, 1351, 1575, and 1808. It comprises front and back courtyards that total 6857.9 square meters of space. It is oriented due south. From south to north, the front courtyard begins with a gate, followed by a Luohan Hall and Ten Kings Hall, each three bays across the front with a hip-gable roof symmetrically placed on the east and west, respectively; and a five-bay Heavenly Kings Hall that is connected to the narrow entry hall which leads to the back courtyard. The narrow hall sometimes goes by the name south hall and the main hall behind it is then known as the north hall; each is three bays across the front. Both halls of the back courtyard have a side hall at either side. Murals cover 180 square

144

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.36 Interior showing caisson ceiling, Main Hall, Shrine to Official Dou, Shanglan, Shanxi

4.37 Daxiongbao Hall, Qinglong Monastery, Jishan, Shanxi, ca. 1345

meters of the interiors of these two halls, sometimes known as middle hall and Daxiongbao Hall, the latter an unusual name since it is only three bays across the front and four rafter-lengths deep, with overhanging eaves and pillars eliminated from the inside. The date 1345, written on an interior wall, is the year associated with the murals.80 Because of repairs, Daxiongbao Hall is usually dated 1351. Bracket sets are four puzuo with one cantilever. There is no huatouzi, but there is one intercolumnar bracket set in every exterior bay (figure 4.37). Like Qinglong Monastery, the main hall of Ji Yi Temple in Xinjiang, Shanxi, receives attention as a Yuan building because of its 2,898 square meters of murals.81 Of unknown founding

date but rebuilt in the period 1335–1340, the hall is five bays across the front, six rafter-lengths deep, and has five-puzuo bracket sets with two cantilevers and overhanging roof eaves (figure 4.38). With a stage in the complex, this temple can be compared to Water Spirit Temple in terms of purpose as well as the quality of its murals. The main hall of Guangji Monastery in Wutai, built between 1341 and 1368, receives attention because it is the only Yuan building among Mount Wutai monasteries and because its sculpture is Yuan period. Five bays across the front, six rafter-lengths in depth, and with overhanging eaves and an exposed roof frame, it has a large yuetai in front. Pillars

145

Chapter Four

4.38 Main Hall, Ji Yi Temple, Xinjiang, Shanxi, 1335–1340. Guojia Wenwuju, Zhongguo wenwu dituji: Shanxi fence, vol. 1, 494.

taper at the top and exhibit rise. Bracket sets are only four puzuo (figure 4.39). A stone, octagonal dharani pillar (on which Buddhist sutras or spells are engraved) at the site also dates to the Yuan period.82 Tangdi Hall in Bo’ai, Henan, is a three-bay-square building. When local researchers identified it in 1978, it was a rare structure with such humble features: small in size (10.4 by 9.1 meters); few bays; pillars that exhibit batter and rise (those that flank the central bay are 3.03 meters tall, and the corner pillars are 3.09 meters); pillars eliminated from the interior; pillar-top bracket sets of four puzuo with one cantilever whose end is lute-faced, with huatouzi carved at its underside; two intercolumnar sets in the central bay and one in each of the side bays across the front of the building; bracket arms projecting in two directions; bracket arms, shuatou, and timu shaped like those of the Yuan period; a liaoyantuan (eaves-raising purlin) supporting the eaves’s rafters; the longest purlin six rafter-lengths; the roof truss comprising two diagonal timbers to form an inverted-V; kingpost; heta under it to interface and thus support the structure between four-rafter beams and roof rafters; cai of thirteen by ten centimeters; beams penetrating columns; and ceiling rafters exposed.83 Tangdi Hall had not been found in the 1930s. With only one stele on site, dated 1696, researchers turned to timber-frame buildings in Henan studied by Liu Dunzhen in the 1930s and identified in articles of the 1950s and 1960s to deduce that it was a Yuan building.84 Tangdi Hall is currently dated to the Ming period with later repairs.85 One now knows how numerous humble halls of three bays with four-puzuo bracket sets were in North China in the Yuan period. Other buildings at Buddhist, Daoist, or Confucian complexes with Yuan-period dates in Shanxi are Jiwang Temple in Wanrong,

built in 1271 and repaired between 1335 and 1340; the main hall of Qingliang Monastery in Ruicheng, dated 1303; the five-bay by four-rafter-length main hall of Guanghua Monastery in Taigu, dated 1326;86 the main hall of Sancheng Monastery in Fanzhi, dated 1346; the main hall of Guandi Temple in Dingxiang, dated 1346; the main hall of Chongqing Monastery in Changzhi, dated 1349; the main hall of Erlang Temple in Pingyao; the main hall of Longtian Temple in Jiexiu; the back hall and Śākyamuni Hall at Fusheng Monastery in Xinjiang; Sage Mother Temple in Ji county; the main hall of Taiyun Monastery in Hongdong; and the main hall of Huayan Monastery in Hongdong. The main hall of Jingfu Daoist Monastery in Fufeng, Shaanxi, the main hall of Guanwang Temple in Yuzhou, Henan, dated 1351,87 and the main hall of Qianming Monastery in Shoushan, Henan, also are Yuan buildings.88 According to a stele dated 1512, the main hall of Dadao Monastery in Dingxian, Hebei, survived from a rebuilding in the period 1324–1327.89 Local Construction: Temples to City Gods and Government Halls Five buildings constructed by or for cities or towns survive in Shanxi. Their architectural features are little different from the buildings discussed in the previous section. They are separated here as a means of dividing more than fifty buildings into logical groups. I start with dated structures. The City God Temple in Changzhi (Lu’an), built in 1285 with major repairs several times in the Ming dynasty, is the largest city god temple that remains in China. The complex is 1.2 square kilometers, of which 5,000 square meters are buildings. The hall to the city god is the focus of the three courtyards that follow an approach of more than 200 meters. A narrower offering pavilion is in front of it, a position

146

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.39 Daxiongbao Hall, Guangji Monastery, Wutai, Shanxi, Yuan period.

comparable to the location of the Shrine of the Official Dou in Shanglan. The hall is five bays by six rafter-lengths with an overhanging-eaves roof, and all but four pillars are eliminated from inside. The stone pillars used on the outside are noteworthy. Bracket sets across the front of the hall have three cantilevers; those on the back have two. There are no intercolumnar bracket sets (figure 4.40).90 The hall for prefectural officials in Huozhou, Shanxi, is one of the largest and oldest local government offices in China. Rebuilt in 1304, it was ravaged by fire in 1358. Its main hall, on the central building line of a compound of three parallel axes, is the only Yuan structure that stands. The main hall has an enormous yuetai in front on which stands a baosha that was added in the Qing period. The main hall has a big architrave and five-puzuo bracket sets. Jiangzhou in Xinjiang, Shanxi, also has a prefectural hall dated to the Yuan period.91 The City God Temple in Yuci, Shanxi, was built in 1362 and repaired in 1522–1566 and 1796–1820, according to a stele inscription recorded in Yucixian zhi.92 The enormous, symmetrically laid out complex has a stage and music pavilion. City God Hall and two adjoining wings are the only Yuan buildings today. Five bays by three and six rafter-lengths deep, it has a single-eave, hip-gable roof. Bracket sets are five puzuo with one cantilever. Intercolumnar bracket sets also have a true cantilever. The military guard station in Linjin, Linyi, Shanxi, was built between 1297 and 1307. Its main hall is five bays across the front and three bays deep and has a roof of overhanging gables. Its central bay is the widest, with narrower bays to its side and the narrowest bays on the ends. Pillar-top bracket sets are five puzuo with two cantilevers. It is of big architrave style.

Yuan Buildings in Southeastern China China has viewed itself as North China and South China since earliest times. This understanding presents a China subject to invasions from nomadic and seminomadic peoples that infiltrate and influence civilization in the North as opposed to the South that remains in native Chinese hands until the Yuan dynasty. Period names such as Northern Dynasties, which were ruled by non-Chinese powers, and Southern Dynasties, which were not, and Five Dynasties in the North and Ten Kingdoms in the South, similarly ruled by non-Chinese and Chinese, respectively, are historical rubrics that support this division. Stereotypes of North and South have affected debates about the beginnings of “Chinese” civilization, determined by how early one can date Neolithic cultures along the Yellow River in the North compared to dates of those along the Yangzi River in the South. The South is credited with China’s two most beautiful cities, Suzhou and Hangzhou, the latter the capital of the Southern Song dynasty. Major research that distinguished features of Northern as opposed to Southern Chinese architecture was conducted in the second half of the twentieth century. The work did not negate the use of Yingzao fashi across China. Rather, it sought to articulate features of Northern construction and of Southern construction that were assumed to have been built with knowledge of Yingzao fashi. Fu Xinian in Beijing in the North and Zhang Shiqing in Nanjing in the South have published some of the most influential studies.93 In general, the division in style was shown to occur in the post-Tang period, when South China would build on the Tang tradition with details such as curved beams. Song and Jin buildings, discussed in chapter 2, in general used straighter building pieces. The curved beams as well as sharply sloping roof eaves of architecture in South China during the Northern

147

Chapter Four

4.40 Side view of Main Hall, City God Temple, Changzhi, Shanxi, 1362.

4.41 Main Hall, Yanfu Monastery, Wuyi, Zhejiang, 1317

and Southern Song dynasties would continue in the South in the Yuan period. They would travel to Japan at the same time, a subject discussed in chapter 8. Main Hall of Yanfu Monastery The main hall of Yanfu Monastery in the mountains of Wuyi county of Zhejiang, is dated 1317. Since initial publications about it, the hall has been considered the premier example of Yuan architecture in South China.94 A monastery was established at this site in 937, expanded in the late twelfth century, and further expanded in 1255. Before that expansion, only a pond, Buddha hall, and Hall for Preaching the Dharma stood on the main building line. The current Buddha hall stands in its pre-Song position, now with the front gate farther to the south than in the thirteenth century, the Hall of

Divine Kings in front of it, the remains of a pond between them, and a hall dedicated to the bodhisattva Guanyin at the back. Repairs were made in the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, and extensive renovation occurred in the eighteenth century. The Buddha hall retains enough fourteenth-century features to call it a Yuan building (figure 4.41). Five bays square and nearly square, the building today is 11.70 by 11.75 meters in base dimensions and has two sets of roof eaves. The Yuan structure is 8.49 by 8.52 meters and had only one hip-gable roof. The lower eaves were added in the early Ming period. A pre-Yuan iteration of the building was a ge, but that is probably not the only reason for the two layers of eaves. The module for this building is 15.5 by 10 centimeters, close to a 3:2 ratio and seventh rank, and bracket sets are six puzuo with two cantilevers. There are three intercolumnar bracket sets in the

148

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.42 Interior of Main Hall showing upper portion of timber frame and ceiling, Yanfu Monastery, Wuyi, Zhejiang, 1317

4.43 Main Hall, Zhenru Monastery, Shanghai, 1320

central bay of the building and two in the other bays beneath both sets of eaves across the front façade. No interior pillars are eliminated, but the central bay on each side is so wide that the altar easily fits in the center. The front and back central bays are 4.60 meters, and the side bays are 1.95 meters; the side central bays are 3.70 meters, and the flanking side bays are 2.90 meters in the front and 2 meters behind the central bay, so that even though no pillars are eliminated, the wide central space offers room for an altar. Outside, two sets of roof eaves, the upper hip-gable and the lower hipped, suggest the hall’s eminence. The front columns are 6.40 meters tall and 40 centimeters in diameter, a ratio of 10:0.625. Two three-rafter beams and one two-rafter beam span the three pillars of the side of Yanfusi main hall. Curved beams and braces are the most striking features of the hall (figure 4.42). Pillars are shuttle-shaped, the curvature of beams probably representative of a more general preference for curved shapes. The hall has no ceiling.

whereas the span of the beams above the back bay is only two rafter-lengths. A tiebeam known as suiliangfang is used below the other beams to strengthen the joining of interior and exterior columns. This feature is not described in Yingzao fashi, but it appears in early Ming construction. Zhenru Monastery main hall is believed to be evidence that the suiliangfang appears in the fourteenth century but before the Ming period (figure 4.44). Another unusual feature of the Zhenrusi hall is the position of the main roof ridge: it is not at the center of the structure. Instead, the front exterior columns are five rafter-lengths from the main roof ridge, whereas the back exterior columns are three rafter-lengths from it. The result is that a subsidiary roof frame is supported by two additional purlins beneath those that support the roof so that the exposed ceiling above the central bay can appear symmetrical. The arrangement probably was intended to open as much worship space as possible in front of the images. Liu Dunzhen, who first noted the construction, believed it to be a carryover from earlier building practices in North China.96 This subsidiary roof framing predates the Yuan period. Its use in a nongovernmental building may explain why one does not find instructions for how to install it in Yingzao fashi. This is the oldest extant example in China. Although the feature has been compared to the noyane (hidden roof) that becomes popular in Japan in the twelfth century, the structures of the two are different.97 Another unusual feature is the fan-shaped taqian used at either end of the straight crossbeam. Bracket sets are only four puzuo with one false cantilever. Yet the cai is 13.5:9, a ratio of 3:2, typical of an eminent hall. The two intercolumnar bracket sets at the end bays of the front façade and four in the central bay also suggest eminence. Like the main hall of Yanfu Monastery, curved beams are used here, but they are not so numerous. Zhenrusi main hall was the first Yuan building analyzed by a member of China’s first generation of architect-architectural historians after the establishment of the People’s Republic. Following the end of the War with Japan, Liu Dunzhen

Main Hall of Zhenru Monastery The main hall of Zhenru Monastery was built in Shanghai in 1320 (figure 4.43). The date comes from inscriptions marking the move of the monastery here under the direction of the monk Miaoxin.95 As at the main hall of Yanfusi, beams and braces curve sharply. The plan is exceptional. The hall is three bays square, 13.4 by 13 meters, but from front to back the bays measure 5.3, 5.1, and 2.6 meters rather than a more standard arrangement of a wide central bay and shorter front and back bays. The columns have both entasis and batter, the latter measured at 2.5 percent. Rise is negligible: bay columns are 427.5 centimeters, and corner columns are 429 centimeters. Four exterior columns are made of cypress wood. They are 6.21 meters tall and 40 centimeters in diameter, a ratio of 10:1.55. Cross-shaped holes were found at the bases of columns. This probably means that crowbars were used to move and position them. The lowest beam of the front bay is four rafter-lengths, as are both beams of the middle bay,

149

Chapter Four

4.44 Labeled line drawing, main hall, Zhenru Monastery, Shanghai, 1320. From Shanghaishi Wenwu Baoguan Weiyuanhui, “Shanghai shijiao Yuandai jianzhu, Wenwu, no. 3 (1966): 23.

4.45 Main Hall, Tianning Monastery, Jinhua, Zhejiang, 1317

returned south to Nanjing and focused the rest of his career on architecture in South China. The hall was an opportunity to showcase in detail a building from southeastern China, one that exhibited suiliangfang and evidence of the use of Yingzao fashi. This bid for the importance of architecture in South China had to get the attention of a field whose research on pre-Ming buildings, as Liu may have anticipated, would focus on Shanxi for the next three decades. The understanding of the Zhenrusi building included the belief that it anticipated wooden architecture in South China in the Ming dynasty, and, in support of the 1930s understanding of Yuan construction, that Yuan architecture is transitional, maintaining an allegiance to Yingzao fashi while anticipating Ming. In addition, the hall has fifty-four inscriptions, all dated to 1320. The inscriptions are concealed, mostly on bracket sets and ceiling pieces. They include names of building parts, many of them found in Yingzao fashi. All the inscriptions are on cypress. One thus also can confirm from the Zhenrusi hall that craftsmen had notes on the wooden members to help assemble them. Finally, the use of various types of wood for different places in a building is confirmed here: the four main interior columns are made of expensive cypress. Beams are made of cheaper Korean pine. Both kinds of wood remained in the 1950s. Qing-period repairs used cedar.

some Song components were used in the fourteenth-century reconstruction. The year 1318 written on the underside of a beam gives the hall a specific date. Other buildings, including a front gate, Heavenly Kings Hall, and Dabei Pavilion, were there in 1954 but no longer survive. 99 Oriented 20 degrees west of due north, the main hall is three bays square and a perfect square, 12.72 meters on each side. Like the main hall of Yanfu Monastery, Tianning Monastery’s hall has a complete column grid, which for a three-bay hall requires only sixteen pillars. The wide central bays on each side make the large, open interior space possible. The central bay lengths are wider in the front and back than on the sides, 6.16 and 4.93 meters, respectively. Whereas the front and back side bays are 3.28 meters, the front bays of the sides are 4.65, and the back bays of the sides are 3.14 meters. Bracket sets are six-puzuo formation, with the unusual feature of three intercolumnar sets in the central bays of the front and back and only one set in the front and back side bays, two sets in the front and middle bays of the sides, and one in the narrow back bays of each side. All bracketing has two cantilevers, one of them false, and huatouzi. The side pillars of Tianning Monastery main hall support a roof frame of eight purlins and nine rafter spans. Interior pillars are taller than those on the exterior, consistent with a structure of six-puzuo bracket sets: it is a diantang. The longest beams are three rafter-lengths. Curved beams are used throughout the structure, but none with curves as exaggerated as those of the Yanfu Monastery hall. The hip-gable roof has an exposed frame (figure 4.46). The shuttle-shaped stone plinths used at Yanfusi and elsewhere in southeastern China in the Song and Yuan dynasties also are employed here (figure 4.47).100 The main hall of Xuanyuangong in Yangwan, on a hill on the west side of Dongshan peninsula on Lake Tai, southeast of Suzhou, is considered a Yuan building even though it is heavily restored.101 Initially dedication was to Wu Zixu of the Eastern

Main Hall of Tianning Monastery The main hall of Tianning Monastery in Jinhua, Zhejiang, is about thirty-eight kilometers northwest of Yanfu Monastery and more similar to its main hall than to Zhenru Monastery’s main hall (figure 4.45). Located on high ground at the intersection of the Wuyi and Yiwu Rivers, Tianningsi was begun in the early eleventh century. The hall is the only structure that survives from a rebuilding between 1314 and 1320 recorded in local records of the Qing period.98 Carbon-14 dating of pieces during restoration in the early 1980s showed that

150

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

Zhou, who was worshipped as a river god. In the Republican period, it was rededicated as a temple to the Yellow Emperor (Xuanyuan), one of China’s five legendary emperors. The threebay-square hall that faces Lake Tai to the west is 13.8 by 11.4 meters, the central bay on all four sides measuring 5.6 meters and the widest on its face. Similar to the plan of Tianningsi main hall, there are four interior columns, but placed in line with exterior pillars as they are, a wide central space is open. The central bays of the front and back have four intercolumnar bracket sets, the highest number found at any Yuan building, with two sets in each front side bay. The central side bays have three sets, with one set in each bay that flanks it. These numbers are common in post-Yuan architecture, raising the question of whether the sets date after the Yuan period. All bracket sets have two cantilevers. Those of the intercolumnar sets are both functional, whereas the column-top bracket sets have false cantilevers. The nine-purlin hall has beams of two and four rafter-lengths, those used in the upper portions of the hall believed to be Ming-Qing replacements. Most beams are crescent shaped. The hall has a hip-gable roof. A gate dated 1338 stands outside Suzhou at Yunyan Monastery, an important Chan Buddhist monastery in the Southern Song dynasty that is best known for Tiger Hill Pagoda, which was constructed between 907 and 961. Three bays across the front and two bays on the sides, the gate has two interior pillars and openings at the front and back for passage. Lattice ceilings are installed above either side. All bracket sets are four puzuo, with two intercolumnar sets in the front and back central bays and one set along the top of all other sets. No cantilevers are used.102

Yuan Buildings in Southwestern China Fourteen Yuan wooden buildings were identified in Yunnan, Sichuan, or Chongqing by 2018. Five are dated, the earliest to 1307 and the latest to 1343. Eleven have been surveyed; ten have been carefully studied.103 Of the ten, one is five bays across the front; the others are three bays. The central front bay in every case is the widest. Halls are two, three, and four bays along the sides. Some halls have pillar elimination; only one has pillar displacement. Every hall has some intercolumnar bracketing, always with at least one set in the center front bay. There are never more than three intercolumnar sets in the central bay, and other bays of all four sides may have no sets or one. All

4.46 Bracket sets above interior pillars of Main Hall, Tianning Monastery, Jinhua, Zhejiang, 1317 4.47 Shuttle-shaped plinth, interior of Main Hall, Tianning Monastery, Jinhua, Zhejiang, 1317

151

Chapter Four

4.48 Main Hall, Zhilin Monastery, Jianshui, Yunnan, 1295–1297

4.49 Line drawing of Main Hall, Lifeng Daoist Monastery, Nanbu, Sichuan, 1307. Sichuansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiuyuan, Sichuan gujianzhu, vol. 2, 27.

bracket sets are five or six puzuo. Most bracket sets are jixin. Bracket sets may have functional and false cantilevers. Every bracket set component used in these buildings is described in Yingzao fashi. Similarly, rafter and beam configurations are all described in Yingzao fashi. Architraves may be large, but they penetrate eaves columns whereas big architraves are placed on eaves columns. One might consider buildings with this type of architrave a subtype of big architrave construction.104 Architraves are sometimes crescent-shaped. Column bases are rare or nonexistent. This lack of column bases distinguishes buildings in southwestern China from the standard four layers of base—plinth, upside-down bowl, lip of bowl, and column foot—that are prescribed in Yingzao fashi. The oldest timber-frame structures in southwestern China are in Yunnan. The main hall of Zhilin Monastery in Jianshui is dated to 1295–1297 (figure 4.48). The monastery was begun in the Song dynasty.105 A ceremonial gate (pailou) is the only other early structure. Five bays square, the hall is elevated on a platform of 23 by 20.9 meters. A large yuetai projects in front of it. The four pillars eliminated from the interior and from the central bay on both sides open a large central space for an altar. The ceiling frame is exposed. The roof is hip-gable style, with two sets of eaves. According to a stele of 1450, He Changming directed the late thirteenth-century construction in this place that was lush with foliage. He built a hall, two pagodas, and other buildings, including residences for those associated with the monastery, and had Buddhist statues and painting made. In 1381 Jianshui became the administrative town of its prefecture. Two wall panels with Buddhist painting survive from the Yongle period (1402–1424). Bracket sets and other wooden pieces show signs of Ming and Qing alterations. Zhilin Monastery was extensively repaired when it became the residence of military commander Zhu De (1886–1976) from 1912 to 1915. Zhu subsequently returned it to the Zeng family. An early leader of the Communist Party in China, Zhu De was one of the Ten

Marshals of the People’s Republic. At the time of his death, Zhu was chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.106 The Confucian Temple in Jianshui was built in 1285 and repaired 1298–1301, but one has to look deeply beyond the surface to find vestiges of its Yuan appearance.107 A stele from 1308 survives on-site. The main hall of Lifeng Daoist monastery in Nanbu county is the oldest dated wooden building in Sichuan (figure 4.49).108 Built in the first lunar month of 1307, according to an inscription on a beam, its monastery occupies 1,600 square meters. Small, simple, and in an isolated mountain-top location, the temple complex has been associated with local history from its beginnings. It was founded by a local leader who broke off from the Western Jin dynasty (265–316) and founded the Dacheng kingdom (304–347). As recently as the early twentieth century, locals expanded the site. The small main hall is three bays square (7.90 by 8.05 meters). Pillars are eliminated on either side of the central front bay. The front architrave curves downward at each side. The roof is hip-gable combination. Bracket sets are five puzuo along the front façade, four or five puzuo on the sides, and four puzuo across the back. Three of the front bracket sets are intercolumnar. The cantilever of an interior bracket set that projects upward to join the top of a beam and help support a rafter, a feature known as angting tiaowo, is used here. One- and two-rafter beams and straight and curved beams are used. The interior columns are taller than those of the exterior, a feature noted as characteristic of tingtang construction according to Yingzao fashi. Bracket sets on the interior columns bear the weight of the roof, characteristic of diantang construction. The cai of this building is 17.5 by 12 centimeters, close to a 3:2 ratio and thus a module of high rank. The hybridity is probably a result of construction in this remote region where builders with experience, but perhaps not having worked under a master-carpenter who knew Yingzao fashi, came together.

152

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.50 Main Hall, Hualin Monastery, Huoxing village, Yanting county, Sichuan, 1311

The second-oldest Yuan building in Sichuan is the main hall of Hualin Monastery in Huoxing village, thirty-five kilometers northwest of Yanting (figure 4.50).109 Also in Nanbu, like many Yuan Buddhist structures that survive in Sichuan, its history began in the Tang dynasty. It is recorded in Qing sources and after 1950 was repurposed as a school.110 In 1283, during Khubilai’s reign when the former Song counties Xishui, Xinjing, and Xinzheng were joined into Nanbu, new families entered the region and became patrons of Buddhist monasteries like Hualinsi.111 Dated wooden pieces and other components with writing provide names of families involved in repairs through the centuries. In 2015 infrared photography revealed an inscription dated 1311. This year is considered the date for the hall, although work began in the thirteenth century and continued in every subsequent century. The nearly square hall, 10.98 by 10.95 meters, is three bays square and stands on a two-meter platform. It uses a big architrave as well as a pupai tiebeam. The hall is supported by twelve perimeter pillars, only two inside, and two are eliminated. The front and back center bays are the widest. On the sides, the two front bays are nearly the same length, 3.295 and 3.259 meters, with 2.180 meters the length of the back bay on each side. Additions to this hall are observed in pilasters, which have as many as three layers from different periods. Exterior bracket sets are five puzuo, among which there are several varieties. They include examples with angting tiaowo. Beams span two and four rafter-lengths. However, analysis of twenty-six wooden components and the twenty inscriptions found on the building indicate that pieces of wood date from 1301–1351 at the earliest, and new building pieces were added

as recently as the first half of the twentieth century. The roof is hip-gable with exposed rafters. Feilai Hall is the oldest building at the Temple to the Eastern Peak in Emei, near the sacred mountain of the bodhisattva Samantabhadra (figure 4.51).112 Although first built in the Tang period and repaired in the Ming dynasty and later, it can be studied as a Yuan building based on the date 1298 on a corner beam. Approximately eighteen by thirteen meters, the current structure is dated to 1327 and considered a rebuilding of 933. This is especially important because it is the only five-bay Yuan structure in Sichuan. The five bays, however, are behind an open porch supported by four columns and three bays across the front. The two inner pillars of the front of the porch are displaced from the column rows behind them. A big architrave curves between these two pillars. It is a rare example of an architrave that curves this way. The hall is about 10 meters high, supported on a 1.5meter platform. Columns exhibit rise and batter. One four-rafter beam and otherwise two-rafter beams are used. Exterior bracket sets are six puzuo, with one functional and one false cantilever. The cai is 21.5 by 14 centimeters. The main hall of Bao’en Monastery, eighteen kilometers southeast of Meishan county in Sichuan, is dated by an inscription on a beam to 1327 (figure 4.52). This building has the unusual configuration of three bays across the front and ten rafter-lengths on the sides. The central front and back bays are more than twice the widths of the bays that flank them. The sides, already unusual because they are 13.56 meters in length whereas the front and back sides are 12.72 meters, have front bays of 4.29 meters, with three bays of 3.09 meters behind them. It is one of only ten ten-rafter-length buildings that remain from the Ming or earlier.113 Only four side pillars support this

153

Chapter Four

4.51 Feilai Hall, Temple to the Eastern Peak, Emei, Sichuan, 1327

4.52 Main Hall, Bao’en Monastery, Meishan county, Sichuan, 1333

roof frame. Two interior pillars are eliminated. Pillars exhibit rise. All bracket sets are five puzuo. There are three intercolumnar sets in the front central bay and one set in each of the side bays. Three of the side bays have one intercolumnar set. Bracket sets do not use cantilevers that can be seen from the front. An angting tiaowo bears the weight of the lowest roof purlin. The architrave is large and curves slightly. A pupaifang is under it. Again one observes distinctive features in a building in Sichuan. Still, every one is a variation of a component that can be traced to Yingzao fashi.114 Daxiongbao Hall of Yong’an Monastery is another of the better-documented Yuan buildings in Sichuan.115 It stands in

the village of Yong’an, a remote location forty-five kilometers southeast of Langzhong and some forty kilometers west of Lifeng Daoist Monastery. It is dated to 1333 by an inscription on a four-rafter beam. The single-eave, hip-gable-roofed structure is three bays across the front and eight rafter-lengths on the sides, which divide into three bays plus a front porch (figure 4.53). The central bay on the front and back is the widest; on the sides, the front bay is the widest. It is the oldest building at the 13,000-square-meter monastery that was founded in the Tang dynasty and restored in every dynasty since then. In addition to the long front bay on the two sides, the front porch is an unusual feature of Daxiongbao Hall. It is 1.8 meters

154

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.53 Entry Gate and Daxiongbao Hall behind it, Yong’an Monastery, Yong’an village, Sichuan, ca. 1333. Guojia Wenwuju, Zhongguo wenwu dituji: Sichuan fence, vol. 1, 491.

(five steps) lower at the front than the back. Bracket sets have two cantilevers, and a few have a decorative end that presents like a cantilever. One-, two-, three-, and four-rafter beams are used. Curved diagonal beams connect the second and third roof purlins. The entire roof frame is exposed. Statues and murals are said to have been completed in 1348. Wenchang Hall of Wulong Temple is on the Jialing River about thirty kilometers south of Langzhong. It is dated by a stele inscription to 1333. This building, a gate, stage, and two side halls survive from the 1960s. The three-bay-square Wenchang Hall is 9.8 by 9.5 meters. As at the other halls in Sichuan, one observes idiosyncrasies. With no pillars eliminated, the front bay, approached by stairs, functions like a porch, with stairs behind it that lead to the interior. The two-level base recalls construction at the main hall of nearby Yong’an Monastery, dated to the same year. Curved beams also are used here. Beams span one rafter and four rafters. An intercolumnar bracket set is placed only in the central bay of the hall. It and the bracket sets above the pillars that flank the central bay are four puzuo. Two Yuan buildings are near Lushan, the epicenter of the 2013 earthquake. Qinglong Monastery was built around 1349, the date on a stone at the site. Roof tiles have the dates 1336, 1340, 1351, and 1353. All its buildings but the main hall were destroyed in the 1950s. The main hall is three bays by four, with two interior columns eliminated. The central front bay is about twice the width of the bays that flank it. The four side bays are more evenly sized. The hall has three intercolumnar bracket sets across the front center bay and one in each of the side bays. The building has a curved architrave divided into three sections across the front of the building. Roof rafters also are curved, another unusual feature of the building. The hall uses two-rafter and four-rafter beams and fan-shaped bracket sets. The roof is

hip-gable (figure 4.54).116 Pingxiang Pavilion is the other building in Lushan associated with the Yuan period. Originally it was part of a shrine dedicated to Marquis Jiang Wei of the Shu-Han kingdom (220–280).117 Pantuoshi Hall of Great Temple of Mount Qiqu, about nine kilometers north of Zitong, also has Yuan features and several stele that mention the year 1316.118 Columns are eliminated from the front as well as the interior of the three-bay-square hall, so that the hall has ten exterior and two interior columns. The central bays on the front and back are longer than those that flank them; similarly, the central side bays are longer than those in front of or behind them. Because there are only corner columns on the front, the three bracket sets on the front architrave are intercolumnar. The halls have bracket sets with two cantilevers, one of which is false, and huatouzi, as well as curved beams. Three pillars support the four-rafter-length sides. The hall uses two- and three-rafter beams. The main hall of Dubai Monastery in Tongnan is three bays square, with no columns eliminated. The hall has curved architectural members and angting tiaowo. The hall has been subject to many repairs. The main hall of Guangxiao Monastery in Guangzhou sometimes is considered the oldest wooden building in the province. When it was studied in the 1950s, researchers thought some thirteenth-century elements remained at a building whose monastery dated to the early fifth century, when it had been transformed from a residence. It is now believed that few features survive from before the reconstruction in 1654.119 This section ends with the hall at Guangxiao Monastery for two reasons. If discussion of fifty buildings seems lengthy or even repetitive or tedious, its purpose is to emphasize that enough is known about Yuan timber halls to assess them with

155

Chapter Four

4.54 Main Hall, Qinglong Monastery, Lushan, Sichuan, ca.1349

confidence. The hall from Guangxiao Monastery also confirms that even though researchers comb every region of China for new buildings and continually reassess what has been believed since fieldwork began in earnest in the late 1920s, there are still parts of China where no structure built earlier than the mid-seventeenth century stands. The buildings chosen for discussion further confirm that Virtuous Tranquility Hall and Sanqing Hall at Yonglegong are the only two eminent halls remaining from the period of Mongolian rule.

Yuan Wooden Halls Summarized Surely other eminent halls were built in Yuan China, including buildings in the palace-cities of Daidu, Shangdu, and Zhongdu. Yet the majority of what survives are the most important buildings in their complexes, and they are five bays or fewer across the front, three to five bays in depth, with five puzuo the most frequently used bracket set type, and hip-gable roofs or roofs with overhanging eaves. Features believed to be inherited from Tang architecture, such as curved beams, are still found in South China, from both the Song and the Yuan dynasty, but so far are not known in Jin architecture. The big architrave is used in the North and the South in Yuan China, with occasional curvature in the South. Almost every Yuan building in North or South China, except the two eminent halls, has exposed or partially exposed roof frames. The bracketing, placement of columns, and beam spans all find sources in Yingzao fashi. Whether builders had pages or diagrams from the Song text in front of them or construction was directed by masters who knew the Song building standards, Yingzao fashi guided timber-frame construction in Yuan China. Individual pieces of and complete bracket sets are smaller in comparison to the columns that support them than they were in Song times, and significantly smaller than they were by comparison to Tang bracket sets; they are about

one-fourth to one-fifth the height of the column beneath them. Intercolumnar bracketing is common. Sometimes two sets are used; occasionally there are more. Bracket sets begin to have false, or decorative, cantilevers in Yuan China, and cantilevers that extend into a building to help support beams. An ornamental feature such as a false bracket piece signals an aesthetic choice. Bracket sets would continue to decrease in size and more pieces would become decorative, such that in the twentieth century, bracketing would be a nonfunctional feature used to identify a building as Chinese.120 Sometimes beam-ends protrude beyond columns or out of bracket set, and sometimes those ends merge with shuatou, which are common in Yuan wooden buildings. Shuatou may be patterned and may project far enough to bear some of the weight of the eaves’s purlins. Huatouzi, unknown before the Yuan period, become common and also may be thought of as an aesthetic decorative preference. Braces and clamps, especially taqian and heta, and you’e, all also used in Jin buildings, are found. All three are strengthening devices. Divergences from the Song standards that occur in all regions of China where Yuan buildings survive are the removal of pillars from inside a building to open the interior and the displacement of columns from a grid anticipated by the positions of exterior columns that sometimes results. These are features first observed in Liao halls and continued in Jin construction. Pillars are slenderer than in earlier buildings. The ratio of pillar height:pillar circumference is often 10:1. Rise and batter continue in the Yuan period, but their intervals may not correspond to those in Yingzao fashi. Often rise is steeper than prescribed. Column heights also often exceed the width of bays they define. More beams and struts are positioned diagonally than in the past. Slanting beams may support roof rafters. We also observed diagonal pieces in Jin buildings. Beams may be placed on columns or may penetrate them. Queen posts that join beams may be tenoned and may be further secured by wooden clamps. They

156

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

4.55 Bracket sets, Tianyi Zhenqing Palace, Nanyan Daoist Palacecomplex, Mount Wudang, Hubei, 1314

are used in the front hall of Upper Guangshengsi.121 Sometimes beams cross corners of Yuan buildings to aid in stability. We observe this at the Ciyun Pavilion discussed in chapter 3 and at Wuji Gate of Yonglegong. The use of single pillars from the floor to roof frame, rather than diange construction in which a mezzanine level would be built, also appears at Ciyunge. Single, multistory columns will be the norm in Ming and later wooden pavilion construction. Many Yuan wooden halls are the only pre-Ming survivals at their monasteries. Often it is not possible to know where they were positioned in the Yuan complex.

Stone, Metal, and Brick Buddhists and Daoists also built freestanding architecture in the more permanent materials of stone, brick, and metal in the Yuan dynasty, a practice that has a continuous history since the Han dynasty.122 As noted in chapters 2 and 3, architecture in all three materials takes on features of the Chinese timber frame, notably pillars, bracket sets, and ceramic-tile roofs, a process known as fangmugou. I also noted the existence of beamless halls (wuliangdian) in chapter 3. Stone Halls Four stone buildings remain from the Yuan period: one in Hubei, two in Fujian, and one in Suzhou, Jiangsu province. The first is at a Daoist monastery; the others are Buddhist. The stone hall in Hubei is on Wudangshan (Mount Wudang), the one of the four sacred Daoist peaks dedicated to Zhenwu, a deity capable of exorcism and associated with the martial arts. It stands in Nanyangong, one of the eight gong, also known as gongguan, or Daoist palaces, that join nine Daoist monasteries, thirty-six nunneries, and seventy-two grottoes on the mountain range. The building is cliffside among a group of rock-carved and freestanding structures on the southern slope of its mountain

in the Wudang range. Construction was directed by Zhang Shouqing, who came to Wudangshan at age thirty and completed the building twenty-seven years later in 1314. He gave it the name Tianyi Zhenqinggong, the paradise in which Zhenwu lived when he ascended to the heavens. Tianyi Zhenqing Palace is the largest stone building in China.123 Three bays across the front and three bays deep, at which point the back side merges with cliff wall behind it, it has bracket sets that are five puzuo and include arms that project at 45-degree angles from the wall plane. Beams span one and four rafters and are crescent-shaped (figure 4.55). There are also tiebeams that join columns under the one-rafter beams (shunfuchuan). The hall has a unique stone example of a chandu chuomu (cicada belly joist), the joist decorated with parallel ridges on the underside. It is found in wood at Daxiongbao Hall of Baoguosi in Ningbo, dated 1013, discussed in chapter 2; a third example is observed in a building discussed in chapter 6. In a wooden building, chandu chuomu helps bear the weight of the load above. The main hall of Baofeng Monastery, also known as Baoshan Monastery, stands 1,304 meters above sea level on the south side of the eastern of a three-precinct, fortress-like complex overlooking the town of Dagan in Shunchang county, Fujian (figure 4.56). An inscription on the underside of a roof purlin says it was built on the twenty-eighth day of the seventh moon of 1363.124 The fiveby-four-bay hall is 14.40 by 9.87 meters. The central front bay is the widest, 3.36 meters, those that flank it on either side are 2.56 meters, and the end bays are 2.6 meters. Pillars have entasis, and two interior pillars are eliminated. The height:diameter ratio of pillars ranges from 9.08:1 to 6.67:1. The central portion of the hall is tailiang, whereby the central two-rafter beam is lifted by a strut. Yet the sides are supported only by columns and beams in chuandou style. Beams are crescent-shaped or have more exaggerated curves and span one, two, four, or six rafters. The roof has overhanging eaves. All the other buildings date to the twentieth century.

157

Chapter Four

4.56 Main Hall, Baofeng Monastery, Shunchang, Fujian, 1363

4.57 Stone Hall, Jijian Monastery, Mount Tianchi, Suzhou, Jiangsu, 1357

The stone temple (yan) to Amitābha is one of two stone temples on Mount Qingyuan, north of Quanzhou. The other, dedicated to Ruixiang, dates to the Ming period. The Amitabha temple was rebuilt in 1364, possibly based on a wooden original. One bay square, one story, and with a bulb-shaped projection at the top center, the building is sometimes compared to a pagoda.125 A three-bay stone structure from the Yuan period at Jijian Monastery on Mount Tianchi, about fifteen kilometers northeast of Suzhou, also is dedicated to Amitābha. Statues of Śākyamuni and Bhaiṣajyaguru, bodhisattvas, and guardians also are carved into the hall. It is dated by inscription to 1357.126

The building is unique: it presents as six rooms, three in the front and three behind them, the central rooms the widest with the most elaborated ceilings; the domed, back central room enshrines an image of Amitābha (figure 4.57). The central room is one and a half times the size of the flanking rooms. Stone domes are more challenging to construct than brick domes and thus rarer. The roof is hip-gable combination. The building presents like a Buddhist cave-temple, yet it also presents like a tomb, such as the tomb of Yelü Zhu and his wife, discussed in the next chapter (figure 5.11). At a monastery or cave-temple, the front area is more public, for worshipers, and the back area more likely to contain images or more sacred images; in a

158

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

tomb, reverence for or commemoration of the deceased, often as they were in life, would be in the front and the back area is for corpses. Wooden door and window frames were used inside the stone building at Jijiansi. They all have rotted. Exits from the back bays of the side is an unusual features. Two small Yuan altars also survive here, one dedicated to Maitreya and the other to Amitābha. A small stone pagoda stands in nearby Wuxian. Approximately 10.8 meters high, built in the Southern Song dynasty and rebuilt in 1306, the date assigned to it, it is known as Myriad Buddhas Pagoda because more than ten thousand tiny Buddhist images, each about five by three centimeters in size, are carved on the interior walls. The main image, thirty by twenty centimeters, is on the north wall.127 Little Copper Hall on Mount Wudang The copper hall at Taihegong (Supreme Harmony Daoist Palace) on Tianzhufeng (Heavenly Pillar Peak), the highest peak of Mount Wudang, was built by the Yongle emperor and is one of China’s most famous buildings. It stands on its original site. The structure that came to be known as Little Copper Hall was built a full century earlier, in 1307, and moved in the early fifteenth century to Xiaolianfeng (Little Lotus Peak). Today Little Copper Hall is enclosed by a wooden structure that defines a corridor wide enough for one person between the two buildings (figure 4.58).128 The hall is one bay across the front and two bays deep, 2.65 by 2.61 meters. It stands on a decorated podium and has four door panels with imitation lattice work above and an ovoid decoration below each one. It is covered with a roof with overhanging eaves, along whose ridge are engraved three star groups: Three Purities flanked by the Northern and Southern Dippers. There are no bracket sets; only columns and beams define each side. A crescent-shaped tiebeam is at the top. Five images remain inside. The building is best viewed as interfacing a Buddha hall and an offering shrine. Masonry Pagodas Some twenty pagodas that stand today can be dated to the Yuan period. They are in Beijing and its suburbs, Henan, Shanxi, Hubei, Jiangsu, Yunnan, Shanghai and its suburbs, Zhejiang, and Inner Mongolia. Those that are Tibetan-style or inspired by Tibetan architecture are discussed in chapter 6. Pagodas of Chinese Buddhism remain in both the miyan and louge styles used in China since the fifth century.129 A pair of

4.58 Little Copper Hall, Mount Wudang, Hubei, 1307

Yuan-period, miyan-style pagodas are in the pagoda forest in Changping (figure 2.33). They are evidence of sufficient patronage of Chinese Buddhism to erect such large monuments and to maintain a structural type associated with the Liao and Jin dynasties under Mongol rule. Yuan miyan-style pagodas also still stand at Tianning Monastery in Anyang and at Youxian Monastery in Gaoping, Shanxi. Octagonal louge-style pagodas were built on the XiuwuBo’ai-Jiyuan stretch in northern Henan along the border with southeastern Shanxi during the Yuan period. The pagoda at Yanqing Monastery is in Jiyuan, the same county as the middle hall dated 1327 at Daming Monastery (figure 4.35) and the gate remains at Jidu Temple. Seven stories that diminish in size from lowest to the top, the octagonal pagoda rises about twenty-eight meters. Five rows of eight Buddha niches are carved on each face of the five lower stories for a total of 1,600 images. An entry is on every story of the front side.130 A pagoda at Baiyun Monastery in Nanhui county may be dated to the Yuan period. Twin pagodas at Yunxiang Chan Monastery in Nanxiang, in the Jiading district of Shanghai, begun in 1222 and dedicated in the next decade, under Southern Song rule, are examples of the kinds of pagodas that stood and continued

159

Halls to the Gods and of the Populace

to be constructed in parts of China where Chinese Buddhism was practiced (figure 4.59).131 I end with the duobao-style pagoda on Putuoshan, the sacred island considered one of the five sacred Buddhist peaks, off the coast of Zhejiang (figure 4.60). Three stories, and of the lineage of Yungang and Wu-Yue, the duobao pagoda on Putuoshan is the only example of its type extant from the Yuan dynasty.132 With so many surviving buildings of Chinese Buddhism, Daoism, popular religion, and officialdom, one might get the impression that people lived largely untouched by Mongol rule. In parts of China among populations in which government service was not an expectation, such as mountainous regions of Shanxi or Henan, this may have been true. Features that define Yuan as opposed to Jin buildings have been emphasized, but it remains easier to distinguish architecture in North China compared to that of South China than architecture of the twelfth to thirteenth centuries compared to the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. Defining features of the plan of Yuan religious architecture also remain elusive. Instead, the ubiquitous primary building line and symmetrical placement of buildings with respect to it, dominate, and, we shall see in chapter 6, will continue to dominate the space of religions other than Daoism, Confucianism, and Chinese Buddhism. In the next chapter, we shall see that the Chinese population continued to build tombs with structural features even older than China’s oldest wooden buildings.

4.59 Twin pagodas, Nanxiang Monastery, Nanxiang, Shanghai, ca. 1230 with later repairs 4.60 Duobao (many jeweled) pagoda, Putuoshan, Zhejiang,1335

161

CHAPTER FIVE

Architecture of Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

This chapter begins with burial, our first glimpse into the private life of a nonelite population under Mongol rule. It then turns to residential architecture, starting with multiple-courtyard estates and moving to more humble residences. Next it looks at stages, which, as seen at Water Spirit Temple, were built for performances to the gods but open to popular attendance. The chapter ends with small-scale private architecture and a garden.

Architecture of Death In 2014 a single-chamber, subterranean, stone tomb with a domed ceiling, approached by a diagonal ramp from ground level, was reported in Lougetai, Hengshan county, in Northern Shaanxi.1 Murals remain on every wall and the ceiling. The main scene, opposite the entry, has garnered the most attention: a male wearing headgear of a Mongol sits among five women, all with a Chinese hairstyle of one or two buns, a garment crossing from the figure’s right shoulder to the left and a hip-length cape over it, and hands concealed beneath the sleeves. They are on a single bench, feet elevated on a footrest in front of them. A screen with strict checkerboard patterns that cross from left to right and diagonally, and with curtains hanging from the top corners, is behind them. Six servants are poised to serve them. Utensils of metal, porcelain, and perhaps other materials are on a table between the servants and below those being served. The boundary between the six seated figures and six servants is painted in imitation of wood (figure 5.1). Four musicians, one playing a stringed instrument, one playing winds, and two percussionists are on another wall. An archer draws his bow to shoot a deer while a child cowers beneath the creature. The archer and deer, seated figures, trees small enough to be props, and swirls of ink float in space across the ceiling whose upper and lower boundaries continue to be marked by the simulated wood beneath the focal figures. Most of the scenes are identified as filial piety stories. Tombs with Murals As recently as 2012, scholars believed the male interred in a tomb approximately six hundred kilometers to the northwest in Houdesheng, Liangcheng, Inner Mongolia, was a Mongol (figures 5.2 and 5.4j).2 The primary reasons for the identification were his boots and headgear and those of two males who flank him in the mural. Portrayals of males in tombs more than five hundred kilometers farther east at Yuanbaoshan and

Sanyanjing in Chifeng county are similar (figures 5.3 and 5.4a).3 The preponderance of Chinese objects, from serving pieces to vases on tables to those held by servants and even the carefully molded, oversized bracket set with floral patterns on either side of the imitation-architrave at the center front of the occupant painting in Houdesheng, were not considered a challenge to the assumption that Mongols dressed as Mongols, and therefore Mongols put themselves into Chinese tombs during the Yuan period. Hundreds of Yuan tombs have been opened; about seventy have murals.4 Like temples, Yuan subterranean tomb architecture is standardized, often unremarkable, and in accordance with tomb construction in both North and South China several centuries before the Yuan period. When studied with their contents, particularly murals, tombs present surprising aspects of Chinese civilization under Mongolian rule. The Yuan tomb is an example of how the perception of what a structure tells us may be the opposite of that perception.5 So far, tombs with murals have been found in Hebei, Shanxi, Shaanxi, Shandong, Henan, Gansu, Liaoning, and Inner Mongolia (figure 5.4). The tomb of Feng Daozhen, who was buried in Datong in 1265, was excavated in 1958.6 The overpowering mountains that fill a 2.84-by-3.30-meter wall surface in a single-chamber tomb made a strong impression on a field that had almost no prior knowledge of Yuan tomb murals, for the landscape could be compared to mountains painted in ink on silk or paper from the Yuan period. As it turned out, landscape painting is only an occasional subject in Yuan tomb murals, and the fact that a single image covers an entire wall is rare.7 Yet in 1982, when a tomb excavated in Chifeng county not only had a landscape painting of 103 by 49 centimeters on its wall, but that painting included a male watching geese, one might have assumed landscape was a standard Yuan funerary subject.8 The rectangular chamber, approached by a ramp from the outside followed by an underground passageway that connects the ramp to the burial room, is standard. Single-chamber tombs, whether rectangular, circular, octagonal, or occasionally hexagonal, are standard in the tenth-century, Liao, Song, Western Xia, Jin, and Yuan. Only rarely do Yuan brick tombs have more than two rooms joined by a corridor. A few have side niches.9 From the 1960s through the 1980s, Yuan tombs with images of the interred painted on the walls were excavated in Shanxi, Inner Mongolia, and Liaoning. Male tomb occupants in every case have hats worn by Mongols of the period, either

5.1 Ceiling mural showing tomb occupant and five women with servants below, tomb in Lougetai, Gaozhen, Hengshan, Shaanxi, Yuan period. http://www.kaogu.net.cn/ en/News/Academic_activities/ 2015/0120/48998.html.

5.2 Occupant painting, north wall of tomb I, 210 cm across, 70 cm high, Houdesheng Liangcheng, Inner Mongolia, Yuan period. Xu Guangji, Zhongguo chutu bihua quanji: Nei Menggu, vol. 3, 232.

Chapter Five

5.3 Detail of mural on north wall, tomb at Yuanbaoshan, Chifeng, Inner Mongolia, Yuan period

the wide-brimmed hat or the hat with a flap over the back of the neck.10 Their garments might be belted or might have cummerbunds; men always wear boots. Their wives, seated next to them, often have no feature that distinguishes them from Chinese women. The couple sits at a table or has food served to them. Servants are smaller than the couple, the male servants also wearing Mongolian headgear. Chairs, tables, and vessels for food and drink are painted as they would have been in the previous thousand years of Chinese funerary painting. When architecture is represented, ceramic tile roofs and bracket sets are painted, and representations such as two intercolumnar sets can date a tomb to the Yuan period.11 By the 1970s, tombs with figurines of equestrians wearing the same garments and hats as the males in the murals had been excavated in Shaanxi and Gansu. Some of the tombs were dated. Inscriptions stated they belonged to Chinese families.12 The visual world around the tomb occupants in the form of cultural properties, whether murals or burial goods, was undeniably Chinese, down to the details. Looking at male figures beyond costume, such as the man shown in figure 5.3, one observes slender, delicate hands and long fingernails. He is separated from his wife by a banner with peonies on it. Still, the robes and hats worn by males that fueled theories that Mongols built subterranean tombs for themselves were supported by facts, such as that the designs of Shangdu and Daidu were based on Classical Chinese texts. The women in the paintings who had clothing and hairstyles of Chinese women were believed to be Chinese wives of Mongol husbands.13

The focal mural in a tomb in Dong’er village of Pucheng county, Shaanxi, found in 1998, initially was thought to offer even more irrefutable evidence of the Mongol turn to Chinese tomb building and decoration (figure 5.5).14 The woman wears the boqta, the hat of Mongolian females known in Chinese as gugu.15 Pieces of animal bones used in a Mongolian game are on the floor, in contrast to board games played by occupants in Chinese tombs. Folding chairs, portable like tents, join clothing, headgear, and the game as more evidence that this image and similar ones portrayed Mongols who had chosen to enter all eternity in a Chinese ambiance.16 The name of this male, anda Zhang Buhua, in the inscription at the top center of the screen behind the couple seemed proof that this man was a sworn brother (anda) of Mongol royalty, and his given name Buhua, a sinicized form of the Turco-Mongolian Buqa, meaning “bull,” was yet more proof.17 The contrasting visual attributes of China in the Dong’er village tomb include the standing screen with a landscape painting on it, Chinese porcelain, and Chinese carvedwooden tables. For all eternity is the concept one must justify. One also notes that Mongol royalty from Chinggis to Toghōn Temür without exception were buried in unmarked graves that even today defy seismic and other detection methods in searches through Khentii province, where it has long been assumed they remain. Even assuming the Dong’er village tomb does not belong to royalty,

164

5.4 Plans and some sections of twenty-nine Yuan tombs.

a. Yuanbaoshan tomb, Inner Mongolia

m. Beiyukou tomb, Wenshui, Shanxi

b. S  hi Family tomb 5, Houtaibao.

n. Xiatujing, Xiaoyi, Shanxi

Shijiazhuang, Hebei

o. Liangjiazhuang tomb, Xiaoyi, Shanxi

c. Houyuanji tomb 1, Meng county, Shanxi

p. Dawucun tomb, Linzi, Shandong

d. Yuan family tomb 2, Langmaoshan,

q. He family tomb 3, Hu county, Shaanxi

Ji’nan, Shandong e. W  ang Shixian family cemetery tomb 11, Zhang county, Gansu

r. Wanchengchu tomb, Ji’nan, Shandong s. Wanchengchu tomb, Ji’nan, Shandong t. Sili Street tomb, Ji’nan, Shandong

f. Houyuanji tomb 2, Meng county, Shanxi

u. He family tomb 1, Hu county, Shaanxi

g. Qingye tomb, Zhangqiu, Shandong

v. Saiyinchitahu tomb, Luoyang, Henan

h. Wanchengchu tomb, Ji’nan, Shandong

w. Zhuomacun tomb 2, Changzhi, Shanxi

i. Feng Daozhen tomb, Datong, Shanxi,

x. Zhuomacun tomb 1, Changzhi, Shanxi

1265 j. Houdesheng tomb 1, Liangcheng, Inner Mongolia

y. Dingjiagou tomb 1, Lanxian, Shanxi z. Pan Dechong tomb, Yonglegong, Ruicheng

k. Joint burial tomb, Fuzhou, Jiangxi, 1347

aa. Yuancun tomb 1, Yicheng, Shanxi

l. Houdesheng tomb 2, Liangcheng, Inner

ab. Yangquandongcun tomb, Shanxi

Mongolia

ac. Hansenzhai tomb, Xi’an, Shaanxi

Chapter Five

5.5 Mural on northeast, north, and northwest walls of tomb in Dong’er village, Pucheng, Shaanxi, 1269. Wenwu yu kaogu, no. 1 (2000), front inside cover.

5.6 Line drawing of murals on east, north, and west walls of tomb under Sili Street, Ji’nan, Shandong, Yuan period. Wenwu, no. 3 (2004): 64.

if the interred are Mongols, as identified by their clothing, then some Mongols were buried in Chinese style in locations marked aboveground by mounds. The written word, specifically the presentation of the name in the inscription, is the determining clue to the ethnicity of the man who is called anda Buhua. In an inscription in which a Mongol refers to himself in the Yuan period, he identifies his lineage (oboq). A Chinese always identifies himself by native place, the manner of presentation here. Anda, in this case, is likely to mean, simply, “sworn friend.”18 The female self-identifies as Chinese in the inscription in the same way. She is a person from Hezong named Li Yunxian. More than twenty tombs with significant inscriptions have been excavated subsequent to the discovery of the tomb in Dong’er village. A tomb in Hansenzhai, found in the eastern

suburbs of Xi’an in 2001, does not have an occupant painting but it does have a long inscription (figure 5.4ac). The owner, surnamed Han, and his wife, surnamed Lü, died in 1288 and 1286, respectively. Their tomb location was chosen by divination. The inscription states the purchase price of the land, as one finds in a Chinese tomb inscription before and after the Mongol period, and includes references to auspicious animals and the Lord of the River.19 It is possible these Chinese occupants in the Anxiwang appanage decided not to have themselves portrayed. A tomb excavated in Zhuo county, Hebei, in 2002 has two images believed to be the male occupant in Mongolian dress on its walls, and two inscriptions that identify the interred. The occupant is Li Shujing from Fangyang in Zhuo prefecture, who died in 1331. He had several official appointments, including in Daidu.

166

Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

5.7 Ceiling of Sili Street, Ji’nan, Shandong, Yuan period. Wenwu, no. 3 (2004): 67.

5.8 Males wearing Mongol hats with screen and patterns on curtain similar to those in Sili Street tomb behind them. Shilin guangji, 1330s edition, juan 11.

The father of four sons and two daughters, and grandfather of twelve, he is lauded in the inscription as performing the ceremonies of life and nurturing the masses for thirty years. The tomb is referred to in the inscription as shoutang, a word for a commemorative hall that only someone educated in Chinese would use. His children, who composed the inscriptions, wish that the hall will “echo with auspiciousness.”20 Tombs in Ji’nan, Shandong province, excavated beginning in the late 1990s, that have the cultural properties of China on their walls have shorter inscriptions. They are usually dated JinYuan.21 One sees in the murals architectural details of Jin and Yuan wooden halls discussed in chapters 2 and 4, including big architraves, pupai tiebeams, liaoyan tiebeams, and the bracket-set board known as gongyanbi (figure 5.6) The walls and ceiling of a tomb found beneath Sili Street in Ji’nan are examples. The bracket sets here are four and five puzuo with arms projecting perpendicular to and parallel to the building plane (figures 5.6 and 5.4t). The ceiling hangings and birds, the lobed triangles with floral motifs between bracket sets both across the east, north, and west walls and in details of architecture on the north lower wall, the representation of grains of wood, and the figure looking out a partially open door all are used in Song and Jin painting and in Song and Yuan printed books and have roots in the Han dynasty. Motifs of the domed ceiling that associate this tomb with the Chinese funerary tradition long before the Yuan dynasty are clearer in figure 5.7. The two varieties of hangings imitated in brick are xiuqiu, balls with well-defined centers, four side ornaments, and hangings from the lower three of them; and liusu, tassels that begin as triangles, have rectangles beneath them, and appendages from the bottom corners of the triangle and rectangle so that the form resembles a headless human body. Both imitate shapes of textiles in use since the Tang dynasty.22 They are imitation wall hangings presented in the manner that fangmugou imitates wooden construction on brick, stone, or metal surfaces. In the Sili Street tomb murals, grains are painted into wood, even on columns that are decorated with, one assumes based on extant buildings, cloth coverings. Birds

that turn in flight between the ceiling hangings are painted above archways on Song, Jin, and Yuan ceilings, are woven into textiles, and are painted on silk.23 They are among four varieties shown in flight to guide architectural decoration in Yingzao fashi.24 The patterns on the lower level of the ceiling dome and the more lobe-shaped triangles and trefoils above them are found in Song tombs, in the Dong’er village tomb, and in textiles, notably above the paintings of two khaghans and two empresses in the famous Vajrabhairava Mandala in the Metropolitan Museum.25 The patterns, as well as the hats, poses of figures seated on folding chairs in front of a screen, and smaller servants in front of them, are illustrated in printed books, including Shilin guangji (figure 5.8). A tomb in Budongcun, in Ji’nan, is dated to the Yuan period because of its location and wall decoration. In addition to imitations of tapestry on the ceiling, timber-frame architecture on three walls, and the male occupant wearing a Mongol hat and sitting on a folding chair, one sees horses and grooms on either side of the entry.26 The groom wearing Mongol attire is of interest since, under Mongolian rule, the degradation of Chinese could be represented as men in silken garments functioning as stable boys.27 The Mongol groom could be a clue that the occupant is not a Mongol, and, symbolically at least, that Mongols serve him. Yet the figure looking out the open door, a pose of a tomb occupant or family member in funerary art since the Han dynasty,28 also wears Mongol dress (figure 5.9). In a tomb dated by inscription to 1309 excavated in Hongyu village of Xing county, Shanxi, belonging to a husband and wife named Wu Qing and Jing Shi, respectively, the male occupant sits on a folding chair, wearing the hat of a Mongol (figure 5.10).29 Smaller figures on other walls, perhaps his children and perhaps servants, also wear Mongolian hats. Lattice patterns are carefully painted on doors, grains of wood are painted on beams, and strips of brick are painted in an attempt at three-dimensionality. Four scenes of paragons of filial piety, another theme in Chinese funerary art since the Han dynasty, are identified by labels on the walls.30 The famous poem “Qiusi” (Autumn Thoughts), which alludes to death, is written on a screen behind the occupant painting.

167

Chapter Five

5.9 Line drawing of east, south, and west walls of Budongcun tomb, Ji’nan, Shandong, Yuan period. Wenwu, no. 11 (2005): 54.

5.10 Wu Qing and Jin Shi tomb, Xing village, Shanxi, 1309. Wenwu, no. 2 (2011): 41.

Nothing in a historical record indicates that this couple was important. The poet who composed “Qiusi,” Ma Zhiyuan (ca. 1250–1321/24), was one of the most celebrated poets and playwrights of the Yuan dynasty.31 Born in Daidu, he is famous for the form of drama known as zaju, performed on stages discussed previously and again below, and for the poetic form sanqu. Coming of age as the Mongols swept North China, he was of the generation trained to expect an official career, but who never realized one. Instead, he wrote in self-imposed retirement, similar to famous poets such as Gao Qi (1336–1374) and painters such as Gong Kai and Qian Xuan.32 Handbooks or pages from them, including pages from Yingzao fashi, or knowledge of their ancestors’ tombs are likely sources of the architecture and decoration of Yuan tombs discussed so far. No matter the source, the features are decidedly Chinese. As

in paintings of architecture on the interior walls of Chunyang Hall and Chongyang Hall of Yonglegong, the specificity of architectural features in Yuan tombs indicates intimate knowledge on the part of painters. Among the tombs, so far no craftsmen signatures have been discovered. Painters were probably members of workshops. Like the selection of temples in chapter 4, the tombs discussed here have been chosen from a group of many times this number.33 As for temples, one believes enough tombs have been discussed to draw conclusions even though more Yuan burials surely will be uncovered, perhaps in provinces where Yuan tombs are previously unknown. This shift from using imagery to using the written word to identify the interred is the most remarkable feature of Yuan funerary architecture. It is so remarkable that it is why interior decoration is discussed before structure.

168

Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

5.11 Tomb of Yelü Zhu and his wife, Yiheyuan, Beijing, ca. 1285. Guojia Wenwuju, Major Archaeological Discoveries, 1998, 111.

The murals and inscriptions make it possible to assess funerary architecture more definitively than palatial or ritual architecture under Mongol rule, for which one uses writings, archaeology, and earlier and later buildings to determine what was built and the extent to which it follows norms of Chinese construction. It is important to underscore the fact that as of 2023, no tomb in China or Inner Mongolia is confirmed to have been built for a Mongol.34 The desire of men and women with Chinese names to be represented by the key attributes of clothing and headgear that define a Mongol in a tomb with Chinese details from flowers to ceramics to screens in murals is one of the hardest aspects of Yuan-period funerary art to understand. Perhaps Chinese working under Mongol rule dressed like Mongols in life, and it seemed appropriate to be depicted in that clothing for all eternity. Still, even if Chinese under Mongol rule dressed like the conquerors in daily life, Mongol dress in the afterlife should carry a message of intentionality. Does costume indicate that the expectation was that clothing of the conquerors was necessary to maneuver one’s way in the postmortem world as well as in life? If the Chinese tomb is intended to capture either the idealization of what existed in the life of the interred or aspirations for what the occupants or their descendants wish would have existed or hope will exist at a time when the underground environment might be activated, then perhaps only a circumstance as extreme as Mongol rule could have caused the couples painted on Yuan tomb walls to have taken these measures to clothe over their Chinese identities.

Tombs with Noteworthy Architecture The tombs whose murals are discussed above and many others are remarkably simple. Among twenty-nine tombs, all with patrons who were able to afford murals, only two have more than one room. The plan of the single chamber might be a quadrilateral, circle, hexagon, or octagon. No apparent reason for the choice of shape, such as regional, is evident. Fewer than half of the single-room tombs have a significant ramp that leads to them from ground level (figure 5.4). Five tomb complexes in Daidu have architecture that sets them apart from the large number of single-chamber tombs with domed ceilings. Excavated in 1998, the tomb of Yelü Zhu and his wife has a more complicated plan than any tomb discussed earlier as well as numerous statues, metal objects, and porcelain among its burial goods. The tomb does not have murals. The second son of Yelü Chucai, Yelü Zhu was born in 1221 and died in 1285. Husband and wife are buried on the grounds of the summer palace Yiheyuan.35 Oriented due south, the multichamber brick tomb consists of an entry path, an entry with an archway with imitation timber framing and two funerary inscriptions, and 1.48 meters behind it, the front chamber, east and west side chambers adjacent to it, and a back chamber with two side rooms on the east. Every room is squarish, with a circular domed ceiling (figure 5.11). The main central room is about 2.45 meters on each side and 2.1 meters high. Its east side room is 2 meters by 2.4 meters and 2.23 meters high; the west side room is 2 by 2.3 meters and 2.18 meters high. Coffin beds were in the back of each of the three main rooms. The

169

Chapter Five

wooden sarcophaguses had already rotted. The back room is 1.8 meters behind the front central room, placed for direct passage into it. Entry into it is beneath an archway. A single layer of brick is used for the V-shaped sealing wall that is covered with plaster. The back room is 2.78 by 2.8 meters and 2.9 meters high. A bronze mirror is likely to have been suspended from the fifteen-centimeter hole at the center of the ceiling. Canopies probably were suspended from the iron nails at the center of the east and west walls and four corners. A wooden coffin at the back center of this room had rotted. The vaulted ceilings above the two east side rooms in the back were made of a combination of brick and stone. The easternmost was 3.08 by 1.6 meters and 1.6 meters high. Its east, west, and south walls had stone blocks at the bases, above which were arched ceilings. There was a brick sealing door on the north side. The walls at one time had paintings of cloud and floral patterns as well as birds and animals. The room to its west, between and main back chamber and eastern room, is 2.8 by 1.1 meters and 1.38 meters high. It has stone slabs at the base. Human bones were scattered in all six chambers. The tomb had been robbed early in its history, but more than 180 grave goods remained, including some in silver, 48 figurines, and a jade horse. Yelü Zhu’s remains were in the back main chamber, and his wife Ji Wowen was in the front. Yelü Zhu’s concubines were in the side rooms in the front, and servants are believed to have been in the back rooms on the east. According to the funerary inscriptions, Ji died in the third lunar month and Yelü in the fourth, and they were both interred in the seventh moon of that year. Among Yuan architecture, the most similar space is the freestanding stone structure at Jijian Monastery outside Suzhou, even though only the front central ceiling of the stone temple is domed and the other five are coffered (figure 4.57). Stone tombs also were made in the Yuan period, sometimes with features that imitate wooden architecture. So far, all indications are that Chinese men or women are buried in them. Nine are discussed here. The tombs of Tie Ke (1247–1313) and his father Wotuochi were opened in 1962 and 1963, respectively, in Chongwen district of Beijing.36 Oriented due south, both tombs were built in 1313 and are about eight meters apart. The approximately 2-meter-high mound that once covered them was gone before excavation. Tie Ke’s tomb is 2.6 by 3.9 meters at the base and 1.1 meters high; the walls are made of stone slabs. An archway cut from ground

level into the stone makes passage possible from one chamber to the next. A wooden coffin had been in each of three rooms, his in the center and a wife, one surnamed Ran and the other Zhang, flanking him on each side. The tomb had been robbed. The room on the west was highly damaged, with no evidence of the coffin. Tie’s burial chamber in the center still had remains of a wooden sarcophagus of about 160 by 45 centimeters. The coffin in the east chamber was about 145 by 54 centimeters, below which were three cases and two rings, probably for carrying the coffin. Human bones were found in the east and west rooms. Wotuochi’s tomb, also oriented due south, consists of a large antechamber and narrower burial room behind it. He, too is inside a wooden coffin. According to the funerary inscription, the family was from Kashmir. It had been resettled in the east after the Mongol attack in 1222. Tie Ke was born in Hunyuan, Shanxi. He had an official title, and his father received a title posthumously.37 Zhang Honggang’s (1237–1301) tomb was found in Chaoyang district of Beijing in 1972. It, too, was oriented due south. It was brick with two stone coffins and one wooden coffin, and the funerary inscription was at the entry to the tomb, followed by an entryway with a table for offerings behind it and the two coffins symmetrically placed behind the table. The south-north distance is 3.8 meters, and the main room stretches 4.6 meters, with a meter-high passageway at the front to a large space on the east. Bricks were 29.5 by 14.5-by four centimeters. The floor was paved. The tomb had been robbed, so that only about twenty objects remained. Zhang, his wife, and a concubine are buried inside. The husband and wife were cremated, their remains in the stone containers; the remains of the concubine are in the wooden coffin. The funerary inscription says Zhang had come from the Changbai region (in Jilin) to serve Khubilai. It is thus not surprising that porcelain from a kiln in Dunhua, Jilin, was found in his tomb. The inscription was written by the painter Zhao Mengfu (1254–1322), who had come to Daidu to serve Khubilai.38 Jiuxian Bridge tomb was found near that bridge, in Chaoyang district of Beijing, in 1971.39 A single-chamber, north-southoriented, brick, circular tomb of 1.18 meters in diameter and 0.82 meter high, with an inscription dated 1314 remained.40 The tomb had been robbed. Three stone tombs from a family cemetery beneath Langmaoshan Road in Ji’nan were excavated in 2005.41 Like Tie Ke’s tomb, tomb 3 had three side-by-side chambers, in each of

170

Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

5.12 Chuihua and lions, tomb in Gujiao, Taiyuan, Shanxi, probably Yuan period. Wenwu shijie, no. 5 (2016): 34.

which a person was interred in a coffin. Unlike Tie Ke’s tomb, the Langmaoshan tomb had only three chambers, each the same size, and one alongside the other. Tomb 1 has the date 1280 on a lintel. Tomb 2 had a coin dated 1310, thus an earliest date for it (figure 5.4d). The inscription “Shouchuntang” (Longevity Springs Hall) is carved above the lintel of the entry to tomb 1, and “Yousuitang” (Solemn and Deep Hall) is carved in the same position in tomb 2. The inscriptions again are evidence that these are Chinese burials, the name tang (hall) for a funerary space also used on the walls of the above-mentioned tomb in Zhuozhou. Shoutang, antang (hall of peace), letang (hall of joy), and mingtang (hall of luminosity) are found on the walls of Yuan tombs in Zhaitang in Beijing, Datong, and Jiaocheng county of Shanxi.42 Two tombs in Shanxi are noteworthy for decorative features. A single-chamber, octagonal, stone tomb found in 2007 in Gujiao, Taiyuan, with murals and wall relief, had an intact ceiling with lion heads and chuihua, wooden struts projecting from the underside of a ceiling whose ends are carved like flowers (figure 5.12).43 Chuihua are unknown before the Yuan period and a frequent feature in Ming architecture. The interior of the brick tomb in Taiyuan, found in 2015, is remarkably well preserved. Each wall seam is marked by the end of a framed panel, those that flank the entry depicting males in Mongolian and Chinese attire and the six between them smaller and exhibiting birds and flowers. In addition to 17.38 square meters of murals, the architectural sculpture that imitates the timber frame is extremely specific. The bottom part of the enclosure for each image may be considered a baseboard. Parallel to it at the top of the image are a beam, architrave, and pupai-tiebeam, then four-puzuo bracket sets, and above the bracket sets, a purlin, rafter-head, drip tiles, and the ceiling.44

5.13 Plan of Zhang family cemetery, Wengniuteqi, Inner Mongolia, Yuan period. Wei Jian, ed., Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji, vol. 2, 674.

We end this section with a tomb in South China, the joint burial of Fu Xiyan and his wife in Jiangxi. Excavated in 1963 in Fuzhou, the south-oriented, H-shaped, brick tomb, he on the east and his wife on the west, is dated by two funerary inscriptions to 1347 (figure 5.4k). A translator of Mongolian, Fu Xiyan died in 1347. His wife, née Wang, had died in 1343. The funerary inscriptions were in front of burial goods and behind the remains of coffins on either side of the tomb.45 Tombs in the Vicinity of Shangdu Tombs in Shangdu and about two hundred kilometers to the northeast in Wengniuteqi indicate that non-Mongols in this region buried according to Chinese custom. This has been known since 1921, when a stele dated 1338 from the tomb of Zhu Wentai (1281–1323), a Hongjila official who worked in the Yingchang circuit, was found. No trace of the tomb survives today.46 In 1996 civil and military officials were found among pairs of stone sheep, tigers, qilin, and ceremonial pillars at the approach to the Zhang family cemetery in Wengniuteqi, along with three tortoise bases and stele (figure 5.13). 47 Murata Jirō had found a stele there in 1937. It has the longest inscription known among Yuan funerary steles, 2500 characters on the front and 3000

171

Chapter Five

5.14 Line drawing of detail of eight auspicious objects, west wall, tomb in Wutonghua, Wengniuteqi, Inner Mongolia, Yuan period. Beifang wenwu, no. 3 (1992): 47.

5.15a and b. Civil and military officials, excavated in Beijing in 1997, Yuan period. Beijing Stone Sculpture Museum.

letters of Mongolian on the back. The inscription identifies the family members Zhang Yingrui, whose ancestors had come to this region, three sons, and three grandsons. The stele was carved in 1335 but some of the Zhang family, who were officials of the Yuan court, lived later than that year. A second stele had been carved two years earlier. In 1988 vases, fish, jewels, and other auspicious objects elevated on lotus pedestals had been found in murals on the walls of a tomb in Wengniuteqi (figure 5.14).48 The pair of statues found in Olon Süme cannot be confirmed to be from a spirit path (figure 1.44). Two statues, one civil and one military official, each 310 centimeters in height, uncovered in the vicinity of the Beijing Zoo in 1997, are believed to come from a spirit path.49 So far, no Mongol is known to have painted auspicious symbols inside or erected a spirit path in front of his tomb (figure 5.15). If high-ranking Chinese officials in the service of the Mongols had spirit paths with officials in Chinese dress in Wengniuteqi, decisions to be painted as Mongols in tombs in Inner Mongolia, as well as in Shaanxi, Hebei, and Shandong, are all the more puzzling. Tombs closer to Shangdu confirm that the plans and wall decoration discussed earlier were built in the vicinity of this capital. By the early twenty-first century, close to 1,500 burials had been excavated in Zhenzishan, about eighteen kilometers southeast of Shangdu. The tombs cluster in precincts enclosed by stone walls.50

Tomb 8 is brick. Aboveground it is marked by what is believed to be a stone altar. A pathway underground from the altar, first in stone and then earthen, part of which is stairs, leads to a flat approach to the tomb, the antechamber, and the domed burial chamber. The four walls of the burial chamber are painted, the northern, eastern, and western with figures standing on either side of screens. The imagery is highly effaced. A stone roof, 72.4 by 41 centimeters and 22 centimeters high, was found in the tomb chamber (figure 5.16). It has imitation roof tiles and two sets of roof rafters, the upper circular and the lower squarish. The roofed structure recalls the Jin-period burial of Wanyan Xiyin (figure 2.17). It is unknown what was inside. Tomb 2 is in the same precinct and with the same plan, but there are no traces of murals.51 Other tombs in Zhenzishan are simple pit burials, yet excavated objects include porcelain, jade, bone, gold, silver, bronze, and wood, and many coins. Two precincts of wall-enclosed tombs were opened about seventeen kilometers northwest of Shangdu in Zhenglanqi. Here, too, individual tombs are simple pits, yet objects of porcelain, metal, and expensive materials were found in them.52 Cemeteries with eight and twenty-six tombs were found twelve kilometers northwest of Shangdu, also in Zhenglanqi. They too all are simple pit tombs, some with stone perimeters.53 A boqta was excavated in a tomb in Zhengxiangbaiqi.54 Since we have seen Chinese women wearing boqta in Shanxi and Shandong tomb murals, one cannot assume the occupant is a Mongol.55

172

Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

5.16 Roof of stone structure, tomb DZX 8, Zhenzishan, Shangdu, Yuan dynasty. From Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 2, colorpl. 192.1.

5.17 Page from Xiaoxue excavated in Chandmani Black Mountain, Gobi Desert, Mongolia

Tombs in Mongolia and Transbaikalia In 2011 twenty-six tombs were identified in a stretch of three kilometers in Chandmani Black Mountain in the Gobi Desert of western Mongolia. Among them is a tomb dated to the Yuan period.56 The tomb is oriented 317 degrees northwest-southeast. Covered by a mound of stones about two meters roughly eastwest by three meters roughly north-south, the first object found was the skull of a goat, about forty centimeters below the ground. The actual burial is a pit of 285 by 65 centimeters that is 94 centimeters below ground level. The skeleton of a male, bronze artifacts, ritual objects, and other goods were inside. The most important burial object is a sheet of paper, 16.7 by 16.5 centimeters, on which twenty-six Chinese characters remain (figure 5.17). Six more fragments, some with characters or parts of characters, are on a second sheet. The pages are the final section of the second chapter and the first section of the third chapter of Xiaoxue (Elementary learning), written as an

elementary-level textbook by the Neo-Confucian scholar Zhu Xi (1130–1200) in 1187. The fragments found in the tomb in the Gobi are from the 1187 version. The location of the tomb and 1187 as an earliest possible date are the key evidence for identification of the tomb as Yuan-period. Why Xiaoxue would be one among the handful of items in this very simple tomb, and of course whose tomb it is, are the questions one seeks to answer. The contents of the other twenty-five tombs should offer important information. For now, the burial object is unique among tomb finds associated with the Mongol period and highly significant because it indicates that the interred had studied or intended to study Chinese. If it turns out he is buried in a Chinese cemetery, the understanding of the history of this part of the Gobi Desert in the Yuan or perhaps the Jin period may change. Since the 1960s, clothing believed to date to the Mongol period has been found in rock-carved spaces.57 Burial into natural rock is always highly significant since Mongol royalty are believed to be buried in mountains.

173

Chapter Five

5.19 Remains of Houyingfang, Daidu, Beijing, Yuan period. Kaogu, no. 6 (1972), plate 4.2.

half the graves have sheep bones, believed to have been used in Mongol sacrifices.63 The tombs in Transbaikalia and the Gobi Desert challenge notions that Mongols do not bury underground. So far, no spirit path can be associated with Mongol royalty. The subterranean tombs in Mongolia and Southern Russia, so far, do not have murals. Underground tombs with murals are still believed to contain Chinese corpses. In 2023 Mongol-period tombs are known from the Gobi Desert to Jiangxi.

Architecture of Private Life

5.18 Plan of cemetery 1, Okoshki, Transbaikalia. Kharinsky, “Mongol’skii mogil’nik,” 73.

Seven tombs in Tavan-Tolgoi, in Ongon, Sükhbaatar, found in 2004, have been assigned the date 1130–1250 from radiocarbon testing. Five of the tombs cluster, and two are fifty-eighty meters west of the others. Excavators believe as many as twenty tombs will be uncovered. The dating includes the lifetime of Chinggis Khan and is considered by excavators contemporary to the date assigned to Chandmani Black Mountain tomb, in which the Xiaoxue fragment was excavated.58 This is true even though all seven graves are marked by rings of stones, an identifier of Xiongnu burials dated from the last centuries BCE to the early centuries CE.59 Some believe tombs in this cemetery belong to Mongol royalty, and if not, then to the progeny of marriages between Mongols and Önggüd.60 A pair of seated stone men, now headless, were found at the site. Similar statues are discussed in chapter 7 (figures 7.15 and 7.16). The presence of the sculptures is one of the reasons excavators suggest that Mongol royalty may be buried here. Fewer than 100 kilometers northwest, in Tüvshinshiree, also in Sükhbaatar, three seasons of excavation have uncovered a Yuan-period cemetery.61 The cemetery known as Okoshki 1, excavated about fifteen kilometers northwest of Kondui, is believed to include graves that are contemporary to the Mongol-period town (figure 5.18).62 Those dated to the Mongol period are vertical-pit graves of individuals covered by stone mounds, oriented north-south or northeast-southwest. Grave construction as well as orientation are those of the Chandmani Black Mountain burial. About

As of 2012, five Yuan-period residences had been identified in Daidu. Residential sectors in Hancheng are dated to the Yuan period, and Yuan residences have been proposed in Shanxi. An extraordinary sarcophagus found in a tomb in Gansu is discussed here, as well, as an example of private architecture. Residences in Daidu The largest residential compound that remains from Daidu is Houyingfang, a multicourtyard complex of which part was excavated in 1965 and the rest in 1972. It lies just inside the northern wall of Ming-Qing Beijing (about 2.8 kilometers south of the north wall of Daidu). The original residence was larger than what remains today. The excavated sectors are those that were not destroyed in the early Ming period.64 Houyingfang survives as a complex of three precincts positioned east to west (figure 5.19). The central courtyard is the largest. At its focus is a main hall of three bays across the front (11.83 meters) that divide as a central bay of 4.07 meters and side bays of 3.88 meters. The hall itself was 6.64 meters deep, with a front porch that projected one bay or 4.39 meters. A bay of 2.44 meters projected behind the main hall. The side chambers were 4.90 by 7.71 meters. The complex was elevated on an inverted-T-shaped foundation 80 centimeters in height. Tadao, small staircases that were triangular in section, approached the sides of the front porch. Tadao are described and illustrated in Yingzao fashi and are found in murals of Chunyang Hall (figure 4.8). Dragon patterning on elevation platforms also is seen in the some of the same murals.65 A passage from one side of each

174

Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

5.21 Remans of residential courtyards at Xitao hutong, from west to east, Daidu, Beijing, Yuan period. Kaogu, no. 5 (1973), plate 6.1.

tadao led to a door. The doorways are built on foundations. From them, enclosures led north and south, eventually to turn inward and enclose the side rooms of the main building. The east and west precincts are not symmetrical. The focus of the east precinct is a gong-shaped structure. Its southern section is three bays by one, the three bays each 3.72 meters, and the depth of this room 4.75 meters. The arcade that leads from it to the back room is 3.72 by 6.32 meters. The northern part of the gong also was three bays across. Not enough remains to be certain of its dimensions. The gong-complex is elevated on a foundation. Small halls also were built on the eastern and western sides of the eastern courtyard. The eastern was narrower than the western. The western precinct was approached by a yuetai on whose corners remained stone lions. The rest of its plan could not be determined. Four-sided enclosure of courtyards, orientation to cardinal directions, the gong-plan, gates, and the central bay the widest of a side confirm that Houyingfang was fundamentally Chinese space. The yuetai, tadao, paved brick passageways known as ludao, pilasters, circular and drip roof tiles, and enclosures in the form of walls or covered arcades further confirm this. A door panel with lattice windows in its upper portion, 237 by 70 centimeters and 7 centimeters thick, excavated on-site, is of the kind seen in murals at Chunyang Hall and in tombs (figures 5.20 and 4.11).66 The size, plan, and excavated remains suggest Houyingfang was an aristocratic residence that occupied two hutong in Daidu.67 Residential remains in Xitao hutong, in the vicinity of the Beijing Drum Tower, also spread east-west, 34.6 by 11 meters (figure 5.21). Orientation is 8 degrees west of due north-south. A combination stone-rubble-earthen foundation in the southwest spans 14 meters across by 2.8 meters in depth and is 0.53 meter high. Enclosed by an apron and drainage canal, it has been identified by excavators as the main residential space. North of these remains was a three-bay building of 10.60 by 6.46 meters. Each front bay was about 3.8 meters. Pieces of the enclosing wall, as well as wood and iron nails, were found during excavation. A thirty-centimeter apron was detected on the well-preserved west side. Pillar holes of the back wall were about twenty-five centimeters in diameter. This area has been identified as storage space. A wall of about eighty-four

5.20 Door panel, 237 by 70 by 7 cm. Excavated at Houyingfang, Daidu, Beijing, Yuan period. Kaogu, no. 6 (1972), plate 5.3.

175

Chapter Five

5.22 Airview of Dang-Jia Village, Hancheng, vicinity, Shaanxi, 1331 and later

centimeters in thickness with one entry separated the western and eastern remains. A drainage canal seems to have flowed from between the western and eastern courtyards westward through the southern part of the southwestern courtyard. The eastern courtyard is 9.10 by 2.20 meters. Excavators suggest that the residents of the Xitao hutong complex lived in the northwestern sector and used the southwestern sector for more public or perhaps official space. The kitchens and other service buildings were on the east. Numerous ceramic eaves and drip tiles with animal and other patterns were excavated, as were luxury porcelains, expensive objects in stone, lacquer, bronze, and iron, and a stand for writing brushes.68 Remains of Houtaoyuan complex are about 125 meters east of Houyingfang. It was largely destroyed early in the Ming dynasty. A Yuan date has been determined by architectural components such as pilasters, owl’s tails from the roof, a few fragments of murals, and numerous ceramic tiles. Figurines wearing military dress, one standing at thirty-eight centimeters and a seated one at thirty-six meters, and a winged statue also have been used as evidence of the Yuan date.69 Ceramics with the inscription of a Daidu workshop, excavated within a courtyard-style building complex behind Yonghegong (an eighteenth-century palace-complex that became a Tibetanrite monastery) in Beijing, have led to the belief that the complex belonged to an official of the Yuan court. Remains suggest northern and southern structures with east and west side wings. This plan follows a format known as “one dark and two bright rooms.” 70 The central bay of the three-bay northern structure was 4 meters with a depth of 5.42 meters. Remains found at Middle School 106 in Beijing also are believed to be from a Yuan residence.71

Other Private Houses As mentioned in chapter 4, residential courtyards that may have been built as early as 1331 remain in Dang-Jia village, nine kilometers southwest of Hancheng (figure 5.22). At that time the majority of residents had the surname Dang. Jia became a major surname in the village later. At one time there were 123 residential courtyards, 320 families, and more than 1,400 people.72 Most of the residences used the central bay for ceremonies and the right and left bays for living. The format one bright and two dark rooms was not used. A house in Gaoping county, Shanxi, is dated by an inscription to 1294. It is known as Jizhai (Ji residence) (figure 5.23).73 Repaired remains of later buildings indicate it was part of a courtyard enclosed on three sides. Oriented 15 degrees east of due north, the house is a single room elevated on a sandstone platform of 1,065 centimeters across the front, 1,045 centimeters deep, and about 43 centimeters in height. It is three bays across the front and six rafters deep, with only one pillar in addition to those at the corners on each side. Pillars have entasis but are not chamfered at the tops. The central bay has a two-panel door with lattice windows. There is a double-window whose mullions may be replaced in each side bay. The hall has both an architrave and pupai-tiebeam. Beams are one, two, and five rafters in length. The five-rafter span as well as the decidedly curved crossbeam are as rare as their use in this natural form. We have observed crescent-shaped and more deeply curved beams in South China and occasionally in the North, but the ones used here are unfinished. A piece of the front bracket sets extends to the side pillars to support the front of this beam. The invertedV-shaped truss and kingpost from the main roof purlin to the second purlins below it across the front and back of the building

176

Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

are standard (figure 5.24). We have seen them in small religious halls in North China (figure 4.27), and we shall see them below in stage construction. Bracket sets are placed only across the front, and they are four puzuo; there are no intercolumnar sets. In the late 1990s the quadrilateral-shaped, stone pillar bases were still believed to be original; the lintel, door studs, and door footing where traces of peony designs were visible alongside the dated inscriptions that record the name Jizhai and craftsmen surnamed Feng are more likely to be Yuan period. Even with numerous repairs, Jizhai has more early features of residential architecture than any other structure in China. Other residences in Shanxi have been identified as Yuan based on bracket sets and other features of the upper timber frame.74 In 2007 a main structure with east and west side rooms was found in Yangcheng county. It was proposed that they at one time had been individual buildings that were joined in the Yuan period. The main structure was three bays across the front and four rafter-lengths in depth, with a column-beam-and-strut rather than column-and-beam support system, the latter more often used in vernacular construction. The other three buildings are in Gaoping. One was a second residence of the Ji family, found in 2012. The next year a house that may have belonged to the Jia family was identified. It is dated late Yuan to early Ming. A Yuan entry gate to a house also has been reported. A Sarcophagus in a Tomb in Gansu Burial objects in the shapes of buildings were used in China since the late centuries BCE.75 Burial inside building-shaped sarcophaguses also has a continuous history since the Han dynasty.76 During an excavation that spanned most of the 1970s, a tomb of 180.5 by 55.7 centimeters and 76.2 centimeters high was found in a 30,000-square-meter cemetery in Zhang county of Gansu. Labeled tomb 13, it was dominated by a structure of 156 centimeters on its long sides, 31.5 centimeters across its front end, 28 centimeters across the back, and 78 centimeters high, of which 61 centimeters was the distance from the base to the roof eaves and 52 centimeters from the base to the pupaitiebeam (figure 5.25).77 The trapezoidal base had been used in sarcophaguses during the Northern Dynasties and Tang period.78 The roof was hip-gable, and its bracket sets were singlestep with a single ang, of four-puzuo formation and jixin. The tips of the ang are sliced-bamboo-style, curving perhaps with more embellishment than those of larger wooden buildings, and the shuatou (heads of the bracket sets) are mazha-style, or

5.23 Ji residence, Gaoping, Shanxi, 1294 5.24 Section of Ji residence, Gaoping, Shanxi, 1294. Wenwu jikan, no. 3 (1993): 30. 5.25 Sarcophagus in the shape of a building, wood, tomb 13, Wang Family cemetery, Zhang county, Gansu, 156 by 28–31.5 cm by 78 cm high, Yuan period. Gansu Provincial Museum.

177

Chapter Five

5.26 Corner bracket set of sarcophagus, tomb 13, Wang Family cemetery, Zhang county, Gansu, Yuan period. Gansu Provincial Museum

5.27 Brick sarcophagus in the shape of a building, tomb 11, Wang Family cemetery, Zhang county, Gansu, Yuan period.

locust-head-shaped. A total of twenty-eight exterior bracket sets projected on the four sides, the corner sets significantly more complex than the others, with two ang. Liaoyan beams joined the pupai-tiebeams at the corners (figure 5.26). The height of a bracket set is about one-fifth the height of the plank that serves as a pillar beneath it. The fact that bracket sets are detached from the planks negates their functional purpose, and yet individual components such as ang suggest striking comparisons with architectural components of an eminent hall such as Sanqing Hall of Yonglegong (figures 5.26 and 4.4). The small building can be viewed as seven bays by one. Like most Chinese halls, the object in the Gansu Museum is wider across the front than on the side. The central bay of the wide sides is the widest, but, different from most buildings from the Yuan period or other times in China, the three bays that flank the central bay are all the same size. The central bay on the long sides also appropriately is the most heavily decorated. Positioned as a door, a wooden cutout pointed at the top and curved like butterfly wings, described as tooth-shaped (ya) in Chinese, frames the painting behind it. Two female servants are the subjects of the paintings on the long sides. They are rendered on two wooden planks, joined as seamlessly as possible. The entry to this structure, however, is on a narrow side, here positioned on the east, the side from which the tomb is entered. A female seated on a folding chair is painted in a wooden frame on the back side. The remains of an unidentified female were found inside. Twenty-five of the twenty-seven tombs in this Gansu cemetery are dated to the Yuan period. The earliest belonged to Wang Shixian, who died in 1243. The newest tomb belonged to a fourteenth-generation descendant who died in 1616. Figurines wearing Mongolian dress, mentioned earlier, were from Wang Shixian’s tomb. Wang traced his ancestry to officialdom of the Sui dynasty and was himself an official under Jin rule. His family continued to serve the Yuan government. He, two sons, and one grandson have biographies in Yuanshi.79 The main room in the other Yuan tombs were as large as 2.4–2.6 meters by 1.2–1.3 meters and as high as 5 meters at the

highest point. Ceilings were either eight-sided vaults or truncated pyramids, both types with the unusual feature of a triangular decorative section centered at the joint between ceiling and wall at all four sides. As we have observed so often in Jin and Yuan tomb architecture, a small, nondescript structure can house an extraordinary interior or extraordinary objects or murals. Figure 5.25 would have filled much of its tomb interior. A second of the Yuan tombs in the Wang cemetery, no. 11, had a brick sarcophagus that similarly was the tomb centerpiece (figure 5.4e). Its exterior also imitated wooden architecture (figure 5.27). If the sarcophagus was placed at the center of the tomb 13 burial chamber, passage along either side of it would have been possible, but fewer than twenty centimeters would have stood between it and the chamber entrance or back wall. The almost complete filling of a tomb interior with a sarcophagus also occurred in the period of the Northern Dynasties.80 Because the Wang family female’s sarcophagus has articulation on four sides, it probably was not placed along a wall.81

Stages Whereas multicompound residences and the structure in the Wang family tomb were built for elite members of society, stages could be used by a broader population. Most stages originally were at temple complexes, where performances were for the gods enshrined on temple altars, toward whom the open part of the stage faced, but local people came to watch them. Freestanding stages could be open on one, two, or three sides.82 Performances could also take place on dedicated platforms and in designated parts of larger buildings. Like temples, the majority of China’s oldest stages are in Shanxi.83 The forms of drama performed on the Shanxi stages are likely to have been zaju or yuanben. Zaju were intended for the court. Plays may have been adapted for countryside audiences. The evidence that the performances in Shanxi were zaju is strong. The defining actors of zaju—male lead, female lead, clown, and official, all performed by male actors—are represented in tomb reliefs and sometimes on stages in the reliefs in the same parts of

178

Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

5.28 Stage, Ox King Temple, Linfen, Shanxi, 1283

5.29 Stage ceiling, Ox King Temple Linfen, Shanxi, 1283

southern Shanxi where stages remain.84 Approximately two hundred zaju were performed in Southern Song Hangzhou and at Yuan Daidu. Plays known as yuanben were performed in Daidu’s Jin predecessor Zhongdu and in Bianjing after it became the Jin southern capital. So far, no representation is specific enough for it to be associated with a play.85 More than twenty freestanding, timber-frame, Yuan stages survive in Shanxi.86 Their architecture follows a continuous history of small-scale and pictorial evidence identified as performance on stages beginning in the first millennium BCE and structural evidence beginning in the Song dynasty.87 Lutai, a term used in Han writings such as Shiji that refers to a raised, flat area where sacrifices or other ceremonies take place, is also the Song and Yuan name for high platforms for performances.88 A lutai with incised images of performers on its sides, dated 1157, projects in front of the main hall of a temple to Erlang (second son), a warrior deity associated with engineering.89 Following repairs in 2001, it became a structure with an open front. A one-bay-square dance pavilion at a temple complex dedicated to Erlang in Linfen is dated 1183. A three-bay-square dance pavilion dated to 1211 dedicated to Chengtang survives in Xiajiaocun. Dance pavilions at a temple to Yandi in Gaoping and at a temple to the Northern Peak and a temple to Tangdi, both in Yangcheng, also are dated to the Jin dynasty.90 Most of the stages are no more than several bays across the front or sides. They follow the patterns of two-to-three-bay by two-to-threebay halls studied in chapter 4. Together with the temples, more than fifty thirteenth- to fourteenth-century wooden buildings of the humble variety survive in Shanxi or Henan.

Temple of the Three Kings (Ox, Horse, and Medicine) because all three have been revered here through history. The two stone pillars at the front of the stage also are dated, the west one to 1283 and the east one to 1321.91 The second is believed to have been placed during a repair. Both are lodged into plinths. The back pillars are circular in section and wooden. The stage is squarish, 7.45 by 7.55 meters, elevated on a platform of 1.15 meters.92 Two pillars support the front eaves, two support the back, and one pillar stands between the corner pillars on each side. The stage is open on three sides. An architrave and pupai-tiebeam span all four sides. A penetrating beam joins and passes through the pillars across the front, back, and sides. In spite of the simple structure, there are three interior levels of bracket sets: the bottom layer that supports the eaves, the middle level that interlocks with beams, and the upper level that supports the exposed octagonal ceiling (figure 5.29). All bracket sets are five puzuo, with arms parallel to and perpendicular to the building plain. There are two intercolumnar sets in the front bay and one in the back side bays. Bracket sets have two cantilevers, the lower lute-faced. The tail of the cantilever looks like a huatouzi. The nose of the bracket set takes the shape of a grasshopper head. The cai is 17 by 11.5 centimeters, corresponding to sixth to seventh rank in Yingzao fashi. Rare eighth-rank bracket sets also are present, a structural type, as noted earlier, seen primarily in small-scale carpentry (xiaomuzuo); they are used in this ceiling. The corner bracket sets are made to simulate those with three cantilevers, similar to the ones in Sanqing Hall of Yonglegong. In complexity of structure, one might also draw a comparison to the zaojing of Sanqing Hall, even though the roof frame of the stage is exposed. The roof slope of Ox King Temple stage is 31.5 percent, consistent with a Yuan timber building. Decorative animals at the ends of the main roof ridge were replaced in 1978 during extensive repairs. When it was built in 1283, a stage for dance performances, such as the one constructed at Sage Mother Shrine in Linfen in 1218 and repaired in 1322, was still standing.93 Its ceiling is unknown.

Ox King Temple Stage The oldest Yuan stage in Shanxi is at Ox King Temple, twentyfive kilometers northwest of Weicun in Linfen. It was built in 1283. The stage stands with a main hall, offerings pavilion, east structure, and parts of a covered arcade, all of which were rebuilt after the Yuan period (figure 5.28). Oriented south, the complex is sixty meters north-south by sixty-one meters eastwest. According to a stele of 1898, the site is sometimes called

179

Chapter Five

5.30 Stage, Qiaoze Temple, Wuchicun, Yicheng county, Shanxi, 1324

Other Yuan Stages A stage at the Temple to the Three Brothers (Sanlangmiao) about fifteen kilometers east of Yongji, the original location of Yonglegong, survives from 1322. Some of the wooden pieces, including parts of its roof, were repaired during renovations across the temple complex in the Ming and Qing dynasties, but the platform, pillars, pillar bases, and big architrave are original. The stage stands on a 1.3-meter-high platform. It measures 8.20 meters across the front and 6.50 meters deep, and the central of the three front bays spans 5 meters. The side bays are four rafter-lengths. A platform of 3.95 by 2.85 meters projects in front. Corner pillars are circular, 2.93 meters high, 0.40–0.49 centimeter at the base and 0.36–0.40 centimeter at the top.94 The support known as queti is under big architraves. Five bracket sets are found across the front and back, all five-puzuo formation, and all with decorated noses at the front. All bracket sets have two cantilevers. As at Ox King Stage, the corner brackets are the most complicated and include a bevel, a piece that slants to the inside to help support the interior pillars. The major difference between this stage and the one at Ox King Temple is the lack of a zaojing. Because of the complexity of corner bracket sets and repairs that include names of craftsmen who worked there in the 1876, it is possible that the Yuan structure had more spectacular features. The most recent of four renovations was in 1979. The hip-gable roof and open-mouthed creatures at the ends of the main roof ridge appear to be as they were in the fourteenth century.95 The stage at Qiaoze Temple, dedicated to the Water Spirit, was built in Wuchicun, Yicheng, two years later, in 1324 (figure 5.30).96 Standing on a platform of 13.35 by 13.10 meters, the stage itself is 9.33 by 9.31 meters, the largest Yuan stage to survive. The open front is supported only by corner pillars, but there are

four pillars in the back, two at the corners, and two between them. Two-thirds of the sides are open at the front ends, with pillars marking the place side walls begins. Big architraves are placed on all four sides, forming a kind of crib from which a queti, again, perhaps a post-Yuan addition, project inward from each corner bracket set. Those queti and bracket sets support an octagonal frame above, which is another level of ceiling bracketing from which project eight posts that appear as hubs of the zaojing. Twelve posts, three on each of four sides, are suspended from the lowest frame of the zaojing. The ceiling is on par with the zaojing above Ox King Temple stage. In fact, equally complex zaojing at one time covered many Yuan stages in Shanxi.97 One wonders if the performance areas were open enough or if the audience was close enough to see them. If not, the complicated woodwork of stage ceilings, not visible from the outside, is similar to the concealed, spectacular, small-scale carpentry in humble Jin halls and imitated in tombs, which would have been visible only to performers and, perhaps in this case, was intended to delight the gods as well. Among Yuan buildings, zaojing the quality of those in stages survives only at the Temple to the Northern Peak and Sanqing Hall. Underground, ceilings with zaojing are found in more Jin tombs than Yuan tombs. Qiaoze Temple is recorded in an inscription of 1178 at a complex that traces its history to the Tang period. The stage depicted in the mural in Water Spirit Temple at Guangshengsi would have been built in 1324, the same year as the stage to the Water Spirit at Qiaoze Temple. A dance platform at Water Spirit Temple in Ruicheng, according to an inscription there, was built in 1328. It subsequently became a stage.98 One assumes many more stages for the Water Spirit were built in the earthquake zone of southern Shanxi in 1324 or shortly afterward.

180

Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

5.31 Ceiling of Dance Tower, Sisheng Daoist Monastery, Yicheng county, Shanxi, Yuan period with later repairs

Most of Shanxi’s other Yuan stages were built between 1341 and 1368, during the reign of Toghōn Temür. Sisheng Daoist Monastery in Caogong, Yicheng, had two north-south positioned parallel courtyards, each with a stage or dance platform.99 The structures were the southernmost buildings in their courtyards. Both faced north so that the gods in the main hall and the gods in Daxiongbao Hall and those making offerings to them in the offering hall (xiandian) that faced the stages could see the performance in front of them. Only the dance platform in the narrower, eastern courtyard survives. It is one of the Yuan stages whose original ceiling frame has been preserved (figure 5.31). The main hall, dedicated to the legendary emperors Yao and Shun, to King Yu, and to Tangdi, was built in the Ming dynasty. The larger courtyard with a Daxiongbao Hall and the offering hall was dedicated to Guandi. The entire complex was itself entered at the south corner of the east side, with passage from a corridor in front of it northward to the open courtyards, where drama could be seen between the stages and temples at the north end (figure 5.32). The dance platform, 1.6 meters high and 7.65 by 7.45 meters at the base, has a hip-gable roof supported by four corner pillars, plus two in the back and one at each side; today the sides join buildings. The four corner pillars support architraves and pupai-tiebeams. The six bracket sets across the open front are five puzuo with two cantilevers. The cap-blocks of the bracket sets all appear as if corrugated (serrated), and their shuatou take animal forms. The zaojing is formed from outer and inner tiers of octagonal frames, bracket sets supporting each frame, and posts that join the two frames. A stage was built at Ox King Temple in Jingcun, Hongdong, in 1342.100 It is only half a kilometer from Ox King Temple in Linfen. Only two octagonal corner pillars remain from a dance pavilion that stood there with a main hall and offering hall.

181

Those pillars are 3.3 meters high, 43 centimeters in diameter at the base, and 36 centimeters at the top.101 An inscription on the upper part of the east pillar says it was installed by Zhang Zijing and Feng Zitong of Caocun. The date 1342 is at the base. The stoneworker Wei Yanshen and stone masons named Yang also are recorded. The west pillar has craftsmen names at the base. The pillars are 6.5 meters apart and 7 meters from the front wall of a building that was behind them. One estimates the stage to have been 7.22 meters across the front and 7.68 in depth. The offering hall, 5.25 meters by 5.12 meters at the base, was 25.1 meters from the stage. Dragon King Monastery, built in 1344 in Qinshui, had a stage. All the buildings there were destroyed in the twentieth century.102 Three stone pillars from the front and two from the back indicate the dimensions of the stage were 7.8 meters across the front and 8 meters deep. Its platform was 2.5 meters. The main hall was 17 meters behind it. The date is written on a pillar. A stage was built at Sage Mother Temple of Dianshan Monastery in Shilou in 1347. Inscriptions confirm it was rebuilt in the Ming and Qing dynasties. Today it is 6.5 by 6.35 meters, elevated on a 1.5-meter platform.103 The last dated Yuan stage was at a Temple to the Eastern Peak in Wanrong, built in 1354. It also does not survive. The temple dates to 1162. An undated Yuan stage stands at the Temple to the Eastern Peak in Wangqu, about ten kilometers from the center of Fenyang county.104 Measuring 7.25 meters square and supported by circular wooden pillars at the four corners that are 3.62 meters high, 58 centimeters in diameter at the base, and 50 centimeters in diameter at the top, the stage uses big architraves. The additional pillars on the sides are narrow. Bracket sets have just one cantilever, and, as used at the dance platform at Sisheng Daoist Monastery, an animal head decorates the shuatou. Much of the

Chapter Five

5.32 Plan of Sisheng Daoist Monastery, Yicheng county, Shanxi, Yuan period. Xue, Zhongguo chuantong juchang jianzhu, 63.

5.33 Plans of five Yuan stages in Shanxi province. After Shi Jinming and Willow W. Chang, Theater, Life, and the Afterlife, 31.

a. Linfen, Weicun, Ox King Temple b. Linfen, Wangqu, Temple of the

c. Linfen, Dongyang, Temple of the

d. Yicheng, Caogongcun, Sishenggong

Eastern Peak

e. Yicheng, Wuchicun, Qiaoze Temple

Eastern Peak

hip-gable roof has been replaced, but much of the Yuan-period, wooden zaojing inside the building is original or has replacement parts in the shapes of those used in the Yuan dynasty. Another undated Yuan stage stands at the Temple to the Eastern Peak in Zezhou, about twenty kilometers southeast of Jincheng. The temple complex was there in 1080. All the buildings were repaired in the Ming and Qing periods. Still, the stage is believed to reflect Yuan construction.105 Elevated on a 1-meter-high platform of 8.8 by 9.9 meters at the base, octagonal pillars are at the corners. Architraves are at three of the sides. There are bracket sets above

each corner pillar and three additional sets across the front. The sets are five puzuo with two cantilevers whose tails rise. Cicada heads support the eaves purlins. The latest extant stage with a Yuan date is at the Temple to the Northern Peak in Dongyang, Linfen. According to an inscription of the year 1644 on a stone pillar on the west side of the front of the stage, the two-courtyard complex was built in 1345.106 Repairs occurred in 1523 and 1576. Today the stage survives as a Yuan building, and other structures are from the Qing dynasty. It is one bay square and about eight meters on

182

Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

each side. Peonies, other flowers, and naked youths are carved on the front pillars, which are supported by lotus pedestals. The back pillars are wooden with entasis. Beams meet and cross at the corners. Front and corner bracket sets are six puzuo with cicada-head decoration on the shuatou. The central zaojing is made of three levels of bracket sets. Because a Temple to the Earth Goddess (Houtu) is on-site, the complex is sometimes referred to as Houtu Temple. A stage built in Mianchi in 1265 and repaired in 1310 and a stage for dance performances at Grain King Temple (Jiwangmiao) in Wanrong, built in 1271, are known through inscriptions. Two octagonal pillars, 3.4 meters high and 33 centimeters at the base, remain from a dance platform that stood until the nineteenth century at a temple to Master Boyu in Wanrong, where performances occurred in 1301 and 1309.107 The 1309 date, the year of the rebuilding of Guangsheng Lower Monastery back hall, probably also was in celebration of survival or rebuilding after the earthquake. The kind of information available for stages is similar to what is found in studies of temples. This is not surprising since stages are timber-frame buildings of, in general, smaller scale than temples. Stages are more limited in the range of plans, since the only purpose of the structure is performance. Occasionally structures referred to in texts as xi (stages) were open-air platforms. Most often, however, stages are roofed and supported only by corner pillars in the front, with a complete back wall whose roof frame is supported by two or four pillars and the bracket sets above them, and sides usually having one pillar between the front and back corners. The space between a single side pillar or the side pillar closest to the back wall and the corner pillar of the back wall almost always is filled in by a wall. In some cases, the side wall extends to the front pillars. Sometimes a platform extends in front of the front pillars. In general, performance occurs only in the area in front of the two side pillars, whether the sides are completely or partially walled. Every stage is tingtang construction. Based on the number of back pillars and extent of the sides, the plans of five of the stages discussed here are shown in figure 5.33. All the stages are small, and most are squarish. Only the stage at Qiaoze Temple in Wuchi had sides of more than nine meters (figure 5.33e). No other stage in Shanxi has even one side longer than eight meters. Every stage is elevated on a platform. The two front pillars often are octagonal and often are placed in plinths. Most stages have big architraves across the front and back; some

5.34 Stage with zaju performers, north wall, tomb of Dong Qijian, Houma (tomb 1), Shanxi, ca. 1210

have big architraves on the sides. Brackets sets on architraves are four, five, and six puzuo; corner sets are five and six puzuo, intercolumnar sets are four and five puzuo, bracket sets have one or two cantilevers, sometimes lute-faced, and sometimes the back sides of cantilevers support beams inside buildings. Sometimes queti are used. Some shatou are decorated to resemble grasshopper heads. Several of the stages retain wooden zaojing, which have at least two and sometimes three layers of bracket sets as complicated as seven or eight puzuo. Most stages have hip-gable roofs. The contrast between simple timber frame and explosion of detailed woodwork inside is similar to that observed in the single-chamber, simple spaces with fangmugou decoration of the Jin tombs and the zaojing in the humble main hall of Jingtu Monastery in Ying county, Shanxi, respectively, discussed in chapter 2 (figures 2.20 and 2.29). There is no question that Yingzao fashi was followed in stage construction. Discussions of pre-Yuan stages almost invariably include the one-bay stage on which five zaju actors perform in the tomb of Dong Qijian in Houma, dated by inscription to 1210 (figure 5.34). There has been wide speculation about the intended viewer in this tomb and other tombs in which stages are found. Performance in a tomb not only seems to imply an observer, in Dong Qijian’s tomb, the images of the deceased are directly under the stage: the performance is visible only to someone standing in front of it, perhaps a god, who would also be facing Dong and his wife in this subterranean burial chamber.108 In

183

Chapter Five

5.35 Line drawing of stage, front of sarcophagus of Pan Dechong, Yonglegong, Ruicheng, Shanxi, 1256. After Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 133.

terms of composition, one also looks to figure 2.42, the line drawing of relief sculpture on the back wall of the back chamber of the contemporary tomb of An Bing, dated 1222–1223, in Sichuan province under Southern Song rule. The intensity of decoration in a constricted space characterizes the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries across China. Small-Scale Stages Some of the best examples of relief sculpture from the Yuan dynasty are in a tomb in Wulingzhuang, Xinjiang, dated 1279, a tomb in Diantou, Jishan, dated 1289, and a tomb in Zhaili, Xinjiang, dated 1311, all in southern Shanxi.109 Paintings of zaju actors remain on the walls of a tomb in Xilizhuang, also in southern Shanxi.110 Actors on a stage are portrayed in low relief on the sarcophagus of Pan Dechong, who with Song Defang, as mentioned in chapter 4, was a founder of Yonglegong. Pan and Song and a third person associated with “ancestor Lü Dongbin,” whose identity is unknown, also worked on the rebuilding of Yonglegong in the 1240s and 1250s following destruction in wars between the Mongols and Jin. Their remains were moved to Ruicheng with the rest of the monastery. Pan Dechong’s sarcophagus is in a hall on-site. The stage is engraved on the upper part of the front of Pan’s sarcophagus (figure 5.35). The four performers are zaju actors.111 Architectural components in the scene are specific: not only the two sets of roof rafters but a projection at the side corner of the roofs that is curved and pointed as a bamboo-sliced cantilever tip are here. The higher central roof and lower roofs of

buildings that flank this one-bay structure are as those of the stages described earlier. The adjacent buildings have more complicated under-eave support systems, leaving open the possibility that the performance is open on three sides, with a screen or screen wall behind it. So far, balustrades do not survive at stages, but they are used in representations of stages in relief and in a miniature stage discussed below (figure 5.36). One should not be surprised at the accuracy of architectural components or the extent of representations of architecture on this sarcophagus. The painted walls of the four Yuan structures at Yonglegong similarly portray accurate building detail. The structure on Pan’s sarcophagus is a stage tower (xilou), a word used in inscriptions about structures at Yuan temple complexes. The word lou should mean that the structure is multistory, as it is represented. The stage sculpted above figures of the interred in the Jin-period tomb in Houma (figure 5.34) suggests comparison. Performance is above the interred, represented in relief, in Houma, and the physical remains are below as well as behind the performers on the sarcophagus. One posits that stages were in South China, but so far, the evidence is only small-scale and funerary. A glazed, earthenware xilou, 29.5 centimeters high, 20.5 centimeters across the front, and 10 centimeters deep, was reported in 1979. It was said to have been excavated in Jingdezhen, one of the most important centers of ceramic production in China. It is dated by inscription to 1338 (figure 5.36).112 The funerary object is either a single story with a balcony or two stories. The initial report and later study of the object

184

Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

do not use the word xilou. Rather, they name it louge, the term used to refer to pagodas whose individual stories present one above the next; louge pagodas were mentioned in chapters 1 and 2. Here louge probably was chosen to emphasize the structure, “pavilion with stories,” rather than the representation, which is a performance. The upper balcony has five musicians. Other figures are on porches at ground level. The two tall figures, guards, are 4.9 centimeters; other are no taller than 3.5 centimeters. A hipped roof is the upper of two sets of roof eaves. The front and back of the miniature structure are three bays on both levels, the central bay the widest. The lower-level central bay is as wide as the entire façade of the upper bay. One-baysquare side pavilions also have two sets of roof eaves; the upper ones are pyramidal. From base to roof top, the upper stories of the side pavilions project at approximately the same height as the upper story. Pillars are red-brown, a standard color in architecture of the eminence that would have a hipped roof. Decoration can be described as exquisite: strings of pearls define the balustrade of the lower story and its decoration, as well as a wide space between the two pillars. The upper area presents as a da’e. Roof features also are decorative. All end-tiles above the front and side bays are less than a centimeter in any direction and are made with borders. Seated lions on either side of main roof ridge have open mouths. The corners of four other ridges scroll sharply upward. Projections that curve before their circular ends support the undersides of roof corners. A lotus with leaves out of which rises a lotus blossom decorates the center of the main roof ridge. Four inscriptions provide important information. Seven characters on each side read: “When grain and millet are abundant, the government granary is full” and “When sons and grandsons flourish, good fortune and prosperity are high.” They state what is expected on a funerary object. The long inscription on the back, shown in figure 5.36, is a standard funerary inscription. One learns this is the tomb of the granddaughter of a Jingdezhen official who died in the fifth lunar month and was buried in the Ling family tomb or cemetery in the sixth lunar month of 1338. The most significant inscription comes in nine characters from right to left across the front: South Mountain Precious Image Hamlet Five Valleys Granary. Based on this, two figures on the left side of the inscription are identified as holding baskets for winnowed grain, and the object is described as a granary stage.113 Granaries have a long history as burial objects in China, with many examples from the Han dynasty. The identifying features

5.36 Back side of glazed pottery granary in the form of a stage, 1338, 29.5 cm high, 20.5 cm wide, 10 cm deep, excavated at Jingdezhen, Jiangxi.Jiangxi Provincial Museum. Wenwu, no. 11 (1981), colorpl. 1.

of Han granaries made for the afterlife include two stories, a long, narrow shape, and prominent stairs; architectural details are not fanciful.114 Although stages with balconies, or perhaps of two stories, survive only two-dimensionally from the Yuan period, there are many from the Ming and Qing dynasties, and among them are stages that are part of multipurpose buildings. A stage at Sanjiemiao in Jiexiu, Shanxi, dated to the year of a major repair, 1674, is part of a three-story building where performance was a function of one of the sections.115 There is no evidence that grain storage was another. Why a granary and a stage are joined is hard to explain. Although the multifunctionality of the Chinese timber frame has been emphasized through this book, no granary in China is known to have been ornamented, whereas elaboration is a defining feature of the Jingdezhen object. Extant Yuan stages are ornamented almost exclusively in interior details, notably in ceilings. With figures holding instruments, the piece presents as a theater. Yet the nine-character inscription states the grain-storage purpose, and we began this chapter by emphasizing that the inscription is more significant than a human costume or, in this case, decorative elements, in Yuan funerary art. So far, this is the only stage-granary known. At least one more similar structure, above or from below ground, would be desirable to explain the juxtaposition. For now, one understands the performance aspect of the piece as referencing the

185

Chapter Five

5.37 Porcelain pillow, 17.8 cm high, made at Jingdezhen, Jiangxi. Yuexi Administrative Office of Cultural Relics, Anhui.

importance of stages and drama in Yuan funerary art and the exquisite decorative detail as confirming the wealth of the patron and technical achievements of Jingdezhen kilns. A unique object also can be considered standard in funerary art: it exhibits the possibilities of patronage of a wealthy family such as the Ling, who probably were involved in grain production or sale. In Yuan China, even smaller ceramic stages were made. A 17.8-centimeter-high burial pillow from Jingdezhen, now in a cultural relics office in Anhui, is believed to portray the Queen Mother of the West and the Jade Emperor, in a central, open bay on either side, with members of the Eight Daoist Immortals around them (figure 5.37).116 The single-story object has three bays across the front, the central one wide, and side bays that continue around the corners from front and back. A balustrade, top-to-bottom panels, and patterned rope are prominent among the ornament. The positions of figures are important evidence in understanding the object as a stage. A second funerary pillow excavated in Datong is an object on which actors are identified as performing a specific play known to have been enacted in the Yuan period, Legend of the White Snake.117 Like larger but still small-scale structures such as the sarcophagus from Gansu, the

miniature stages tend both to exaggerate structural details and to turn them into decorative elements. One would like to return to the bronze, miniature structure excavated among the remains of the Yuan palaces at AnxiwangKaicheng (figure 1.61) and the small, four-walled, stone structure at Cisheng Monastery (figure 4.34) for a deeper understanding of burial objects in the shapes of buildings in the Yuan period. Instead, the three that portray performance are high-quality porcelains that equally exhibit the importance of drama in Yuan society. At this time, one concludes that architectural mingqi were rare in the Yuan dynasty compared to earlier times, but performance was a significant genre of the architecture.118

Gardens The only Yuan-period gardens with clear ties to the imperial family were in the capitals. Qionghua Island and parkland in which the princes-of-the-blood probably lived in tents at Daidu and parkland for hunting in the Shangdu outer city were discussed in chapter 1. Shizilin (Lion Forest or Lion Grove) in Suzhou is the sole surviving Yuan example of private landscape construction. It was built late in the dynasty, in 1342, by the

186

Death, Private Life, and Popular Life

Buddhist monk Tianru Weize (1286–1354) and disciples he brought to Suzhou to memorialize his teacher Zhongfeng Mingben (1263–1323). Tianru built the garden north of his monastery on the site of a former Song garden. The name Shizilin is a reference to Lion Crag, on the outskirts of Suzhou, where Zhongfeng had lived. The name also is a reference to the leonine shapes of rocks and to the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (Lion’s Roar of Queen Śrīmālā).119 Largely rockery, the 11,540-square-meter garden is so complex that its formation is often described as a labyrinth. The rocks come from Lake Tai. In 1373 Ni Zan (1301–1374) made a painting of the garden. It was rebuilt in 1589 and again in 1771.

Houying Mansion may have been known to Mongol royalty; perhaps it was a residence of a prince-of-the-blood. Stages also were known. Small-scale burial objects in the shapes of buildings may have been possessed by them, but like houses, mingqi in the forms of architecture were negligible in their impact in Yuan China, and the impact of a garden in Suzhou inspired by a monk’s dwelling or Buddhist scripture and built during the reign of the last Yuan emperor on the Mongol government agenda was probably even less. We have seen here that tombs with detailed mural programs and brick and stone tombs with unique plans were built across China under Mongol rule, and we have seen that tombs also were constructed to the North in today’s Inner and Outer Mongolia, presumably for Chinese patrons. We have seen that multiple-courtyard residential compounds and small houses were built in Yuan China. We have seen, moreover, that, like tombs, Yuan performance architecture is believed to have been for nonroyal members of society. Small-scale architecture and pillows with architectural motifs, most of which survive because they went into tombs, express another aspect of the use of architecture for China’s nonroyal population in private settings. In the next chapter we return to monumental architecture of high impact. Most of the buildings discussed have been long known, but they have not been fully understood.

187

CHAPTER SIX

Muslim, Tibetan Buddhist, Manichaean, and Christian Architecture

Islam, Tibetan Buddhism, Manichaeism, and Christianity were among the religions practiced in Yuan China. Like other faiths that were not native to China, such as South Asian Buddhism, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism, they all entered from the West. Based on the number of foreign religions and relative lack of persecutions, some have tried to argue that the Mongols were ecumenical. This is almost certainly an overstatement. Mongol rulers often were interested in religions. I have noted that they sponsored religious debates and declared winners. If one has to assign a descriptive word to the attitude of Mongol rulers to the many religions practiced across their empire, tolerance is probably accurate.1 Religions from the West and their architecture entered Mongol-ruled China under various circumstances and took varying paths. Muslims had been in China since the seventh century. As mentioned earlier, because of the Mongol policy whereby government posts were to be filled first by Mongols, then by non-Mongol non-Chinese, into which category most Muslims fell, there was a new influx of Muslims to China in the Yuan period, and, different from the Tang and Song dynasties when Muslims in China were mainly involved in mercantilism, Muslims held high positions in the Yuan government.2 Devotees of Church of the East also were in China in the seventh century. We have seen that Church of the East Christianity was practiced in Olon Süme before the Mongols conquered China. One recalls that Roman Catholic monks came to China on diplomatic missions from the pope beginning in the 1220s, and that by the 1250s the pope sent missionaries with goals of establishing churches and gaining converts. Manichaeism had a small presence compared to the other religions discussed here, but it was in western China by the Tang dynasty, especially in the Southeast in the Song dynasty. Mongols practiced Tibetan Buddhism before the invasions of China. There is no question Tibetan Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians were more numerous in Yuan China than in previous periods. This chapter considers their architecture. We shall see that, with the exception of architecture for Tibetan Buddhism, most of which was patronized by the khans, buildings for the practice of non-Chinese religions that had large followings during this period were as they had been in the past. As had occurred for more than a millennium before Mongol rule, the Chinese architectural system accommodated buildings for the practice of foreign faiths.

Chinese Monasteries for Muslim Prayer I noted in chapter 1 that there were mosques in Khara-Khorum and Shangdu, and that Muslim cemeteries are believed to be among the excavated remains of both capitals.3 Although no mosque survives in China without repair during the past seven hundred years, stele inscriptions suggest that mosques were built in Chang’an and other major cities in the Tang dynasty. None of the inscriptions is from the Tang period.4 Here we look only at mosques with important histories in the Yuan period. Shengyou Mosque Shengyousi (Mosque of the Companions) (Masjid al-Ashab) in Quanzhou was founded in 1009–1010. It stands in the city that has been described as “the emporium of the world in the Song dynasty.”5 A port midway up China’s southeastern coast between Hong Kong and Shanghai, Quanzhou (called Zayton in European writings) was a center of international sea trade in the Tang dynasty.6 Christians, Brahmans, Manichaeans, Buddhists, and Muslims lived, practiced their faiths, and died there. Today Quanzhou is the city with the most extensive evidence, much of it epigraphic, of a Muslim presence in Song China, and one of several with a strong Muslim presence in the Yuan period.7 The Shengyousi one sees today is usually dated to 1310. The use of the word “repair” in that year is in the same stone inscription that records the founding date as 1009–1010.8 An arcade, high portico, venerable entry, and new windows are described. They all are present today. Other dates are found in stele inscriptions and local records such as Quanzhoufu zhi (Record of Quanzhou [subprefecture]), which survives in a version of 1612 and one of the Qianlong (r. 1736–1796) period. The year 1131 is in a treatise entitled “Qingjingsi ji” (Record of the mosque), written by Wu Jian in 1350. Wu writes that Shengyousi was one of six or seven mosques in the city at that time and that in 1131 a man from Srivijaya (Siraf) came to Quanzhou and established a mosque. Wu Jian also says that the earlier Shengyousi was not at this location. A stele inscription of 1507 says the mosque was constructed in 1131, rebuilt in 1350, and repaired at the time the stele was recarved. In 1567 more buildings were added. An inscription of 1687 states that the minaret had been destroyed in a typhoon and was not restored. There is neither physical evidence of a minaret nor another written record of it.9 Shengyousi is bounded by a granite wall on its south side. A grand, formal entry, a pishtaq, or brick structure framing

Muslim and Other Architecture

6.1 Shengyou Mosque, Quanzhou, Fujian, c. 1310–1311, with later repairs

three sides of an arched opening, distinct from any existing construction in China before this time, is on its east. The entryway comprises a high, three-part, light-colored-granite sequence of interconnected arches and vaults set in rectangular frames, each component or diameter no more than five meters.10 The first section is a 10-by-3.8-meter ogee-shaped arch joined by a ribbed, semicircular dome divided into eight parts. The façade, including crenellations at the top, is 12.3 meters high and 6.6 meters wide. Higher and lower pointed arches are inset into the side walls beneath the outer ribs. Triangular cornices brace the outer ribs and perpendicularly join walls under them. Beneath this first space, imitation pillars capped by braces that are decorated with a swirling motif support a pointed arch. The second arch repeats several features of the first but is lower, only 6.7 meters in height. The half-dome has five parts, each divided into layers, each layer of diminishing size toward the center, and with undecorated sides. The third vault is a circular dome. It rises 7.5 meters and has a 4.8-meter diameter and a pointed-arched niche set into each side. The framed passageway at the back of the entrance is 4.06 meters high.11 Like the high, venerable portico, the eight windows cut into the granite façade on the west side of the entrance are unique in China. They are large and prominent, occupying 64 percent of the wall surface. The openings are sources of interior lighting and perhaps passage for the cool sea breezes that grace Quanzhou

in the spring and autumn. Still, if there was not a courtyard or additional wall in front of this one, the windows would have permitted someone outside the mosque to watch prayer (figure 6.1). At Buddhist, Daoist, or Confucian monasteries, enclosing walls are solid, and arcades are solid on the exterior. By the nineteenth century the mosque had fallen into disrepair. In 1952 the Chinese government ordered renovation. Limited excavation was undertaken in the late 1980s. Pottery dated to the Song period was found, and there was evidence of wooden construction during the Yuan dynasty.12 The prayer hall is believed to have been thirty meters north-south by twenty-seven meters east-west, entered by the pishtaq, and visible from the eight windows. Nine squarish stone pilasters are still positioned where columns would have stood to support a prayer hall of five by four bays. There is also evidence of an indentation into the east wall toward which a mihrab would have directed prayer. The pishtaq, street-side wall, and crenellations at the top of the entryway are the features not found in any other building discussed thus far. They may reflect or perhaps be based on Chinese mosques that no longer survive, but it is more likely Shengyousi was built from descriptions provided based on memories of mosques to China’s west, pieces that may have been carried across Asia, pictures, or with the help of craftsmen from the west.13 Whatever sources led to this mosque, one assumes the involvement of Chinese craftsmen.14 Segmented arches of

189

Chapter Six

the kind used in the pishtaq were made in brick in Han China.15 As observed in chapter 2, wooden ribbed domes are used in the main hall of Baoguo Monastery near Ningbo in Zhejiang province, dated 1013, and ribbed domes are constructed in brick in Song tombs. The dressed stone of the mosque wall is used at Cloud Terrace at Juyongguan (figure 3.7). Ogee-arched windows are associated with early Buddhist architecture in South Asia and in China. They are used above entries to rock-carved spaces (chaitya), some of them with interior ribbed vaults, in Bhājā and Kārlī, both in Mahārāșțra, dated to the first century BCE and second century CE, respectively, and are carved at Chinese Buddhist cave-temples in Yungang in the fifth century.16 No part of the Shengyousi complex was beyond the capabilities of Chinese builders. According to an essay by Lin Zhiqi (1112–1176), an official and trade commissioner in the Office of Maritime Affairs that had been established in Quanzhou in 1087, and who for a time was the director of customs in Quanzhou, a cemetery for foreigners was built in this city between 1162 and 1163.17 Zhao Rugua (1170–1231) discussed the cemetery in Zhufanzhi (Record of foreigners). He writes that it was located on a hill on the east side of Quanzhou. A local Muslim named Pu Xiaxin charged the community with establishing a Muslim cemetery, and a wealthy merchant named Shi Nawei from Srivijaya gave funds to build it. It was enclosed by a wall, roofed, and kept locked. All the city’s foreign merchants were allowed to be buried there.18 The cemetery has not been found. The roof suggests it was small. The recentering of Song after 1127 with a capital in the Southeast is likely to have brought transplanted Chinese and money to spend on foreign and exotic goods to Quanzhou.19 A record by Zhu Mu known as Fangyu shenglan (Overall survey of topography), written in 1239, states that Quanzhou had two kinds of foreigners, white and black, all residing together in Fanrenxiang (Foreigners’ Alley).20 It cannot be confirmed that the distinction was one of skin color. Perhaps it was one of religious practice or native land. In contrast to life several centuries earlier in the Tang capital Chang’an, where foreigners were separated in wards according to their nationality, the lifestyle of a Muslim community so integrated into this city in the second half of the Song dynasty is noteworthy: Quanzhou was an international city where multiple religions were practiced and where, it seems, practitioners of more than one of them were buried in the same cemetery even before the Mongol

conquest. Nearly two hundred tombstones, funerary steles, and sarcophaguses confirm Quanzhou’s multinational, manyfaithed population. Huaisheng Mosque If any city rivaled Quanzhou as a center of Muslim life in China in the Song dynasty, it was Guangzhou. Guangzhou was one of the first two international Chinese ports for merchants coming to China from the West; the second was Yangzhou, whose Yuanperiod mosque is discussed below. Guangzhou had a Muslim presence in the Tang dynasty, leading to an incident in 758 when Arab and Persian merchants set fire to the port.21 Nevertheless, Guangzhou was the most important international seaport in China until the fall of the Tang dynasty. The Maritime Trade Office that was responsible for taxing imported goods was established in 971.22 It remained there until it was transferred to Quanzhou in the 1070s.23 Laws required that merchant ships dock at Guangzhou upon entering and leaving China. Trade winds necessitated staying in China two winters.24 This period of approximately fifteen months is an important reason mosques in port cities are believed to have serviced a resident Muslim population. Huaishengsi, Flourishing of the Prophet Mosque, is the earliest recorded mosque in Guangzhou. A Yuan stele at the mosque states that its origins were in the Tang dynasty.25 An inscription of 1634 says that Muhammad’s maternal uncle, Saʿd ibn Abi Waqqas (595–664), founded the mosque in 627.26 Saʿd does have a connection with China: he is said to have been part of diplomatic missions there in 616 and 651.27 Yet as an official envoy, he almost certainly went to Chang’an, not Guangzhou. In the 630s he fought in the wars against Persia and then was governor in that country. It is possible both that Guangzhou was the first Chinese city to have a mosque and that a mosque, perhaps Guangzhou’s earliest, existed on the site of Huaishengsi in the Tang dynasty. It is unlikely that Muhammad’s uncle founded Huaishengsi or that a mosque was established in Guangzhou as early as 627. The current plan survives from a rebuilding in 1350, also the earliest possible date of any existing building at the site. The structures of Huaishengsi were restored in 1695 and again in 1935. The prayer hall is dated 1935.28 The most unusual structure of the Guangzhou mosque is the minaret, named Guangta, or Tower of Light, by local residents (figure 6.2).29 It is so prominent that the complex sometimes goes by the name Guangtasi, Mosque of the Guangta. The syllable ta

190

Muslim and Other Architecture

is the Chinese character most often translated as pagoda. By the Tang dynasty, pagodas were standard features of the Chinese landscape. Like the suffix si, which is widely used to designate a mosque as well as a monastery and other Chinese religious complexes, ta as the Chinese name for the minaret is evidence of the Chinese inclination to incorporate architecture of a foreign faith into the innate system of names for religious structures. Four explanations for the name Guang, meaning light or brightness, have been proposed.30 Tower of Light may have served as a beacon for ships coming into the Guangzhou port. Lighthouses were not standard structures in Chinese ports to the extent that they were in West Asia and farther west, but they might have existed in some form.31 Jia Dan (730–805) wrote of huabiao with torches to guide ships in the night.32 Huabiao are cylindrical, ceremonial pillars, none rising as high as forty-five meters, but nevertheless tall in a Chinese architectural setting. It is unknown which lighthouse might have inspired Jia to write this. Joseph Needham suggests Jia saw a lighthouse near Baluchistan.33 The name Guangta is more evidence for this explanation, for it is a direct translation of the Arabic word manara, which becomes minaret in English and can be translated as place of light or fire. In fact, one theory is that the lighthouse is a source for manara.34 A second explanation is that Guangta was as a tower from which the direction of the wind was determined. This possibility is extrapolated from the description of the minaret by Song literatus Yue Ke (1183–1234), grandson of the famous military hero and subsequently legendary figure Yue Fei (1103–1141). Yue Ke wrote in 1192, a year after his father had become governor of Guangzhou, in Tingshi (Bedside table history), an accumulation of anecdotes and thoughts of the kind Chinese court officials penned at this time. According to Yue, it was noticed that a golden rooster on top of the minaret was missing a leg. Locals said that a man had climbed inside the minaret with the intent of stealing the cock. Working in darkness over a three-day period, he managed only to saw off one leg, which turned up for sale in the market place. The tale includes the robber’s explanation that he had descended from the top of the minaret by holding onto two umbrellas during high wind.35 Joseph Needham points to this passage from Yue Ke as evidence of a Chinese attempt at parachuting.36 Yue Ke refers to the structure as lou, writing that it was like no lou he had ever seen. The fundamental definition of lou is a multistory building, and by inference, it is a tall building.37

191

6.2 Guangta, Huaisheng Mosque, Guangzhou, Guangdong, ca.1350 with later repairs

Again we observe an incorporation of standard Chinese vocabulary into the descriptive language of foreign architecture, for there is no evidence Guangta was ever multistoried. The height and interior staircases support the third and probably primary purpose of the tower: a minaret. Although manara is translated as light (guang) in tower of light (Guangta), the primary definition of manara is the tower ascended to call the local Muslim community to prayer. Yue’s description and story in Tingshi are the second oldest references to the tower in Chinese literature. In 1088 Guo Xiangzheng (1035–1113) mentioned the minaret in two poems. He compared it to a great pillar that extends upward to the sky in the center of the foreign settlement in Guangzhou.38 The last purpose is related to its name. The 35.75-meter height is interpreted as a symbol of the light and, by extension, the power of Islam in Guangzhou. This fourth interpretation reinforces the symbolism of the name Huaisheng: sheng, often translated as sage, in an Islamic context is Prophet, and here is a reference to Muhammad. Elevated on a circular platform, the Tower of Light is a brick building faced with white plaster at the southwest corner of the Huaishengsi complex.39 Records of damage in the Ming period raise questions about the 1350 date associated with it, as does the record of unspecified mosque repairs that included the prayer hall in 1935. In all likelihood, the plaster exterior

Chapter Six

was repaired in 1935 and more recently. At whatever point the tower reached its current height, it was visible well beyond the mosque’s boundaries. The gate through which one enters the mosque precinct today was built during the reign of the Kangxi emperor. It is more than twenty meters behind the minaret. This position suggests that there was an earlier gate in front of it, so that if the minaret dates to the rebuilding of the mosque in 1350, it probably is the oldest building in the complex. Among extant premodern Chinese buildings, the circular ground plan is the rarest feature of Guangta. It is widely known that Indian Buddhist stupas were round at the base, and by the time the structures reached the deserts of Xingjiang, in approximately the third century CE, stupas were taller and combined four-sided and circular components. Chinese builders may have attempted circular construction in their early efforts to erect pagodas, but in the Tang dynasty Muslims and others in Chinese cities or the countryside would have seen primarily four-sided pagodas. By the tenth century, octagonal pagodas began to appear.40 Most pagodas were multistory. In the tenth to twelfth centuries, tomb builders of the Liao dynasty seem to have attempted circular tomb chambers, with results that were often closer to octagons than circles.41 The possibility that eight sides were intended to render a circle has to be considered. Still, among extant pagodas through Chinese history, none is a cylinder. Guangta is cylindrical. In contrast to eight- or twelvesided pagodas, there is no imitation of timber framing on the outside. The exterior therefore suggests a desire for a building like the ones used as minarets during the Saljuq period (1038–1194) in Iran.42 The combination of Muslim function and Muslim and Chinese visual precedents seems clear. The interior, too, suggests knowledge of Muslim buildings as well as Chinese construction methods for tall architecture. Yue Ke wrote that there was one entrance and that there were ten stairs on each level of the interior.43 The specific number of stairs leads one to wonder if he had ascended, and if, therefore, he had ties to the Muslim community in Guangzhou, or if he was told about the interior because non-Muslims were not permitted to enter the minaret. Scant photographs and descriptions by those who have gone inside confirm that two staircases spiral through the minaret, and that the narrow exterior windows were positioned in response to need for lighting along stairways of the interior to brighten the way up and down.

Guangta was not the only building in Yuan China with plaster walls. Walls of brick tombs were faced with white lime to provide a painting surface in the early centuries CE in China. The White Pagoda of Miaoying Monastery in Beijing, discussed below, is a tall building with a brick core, white plaster walls, and a circular horizontal section (figure 6.13). Possible precedents for Guangta also are found among louge (storied pavilion)-style pagodas. Two louge-style Song pagodas, both brick and both octagonal—the Liaodi Pagoda of Kaiyuan Monastery in Dingxian, Hebei, dated 1055, and the pagoda of Bao’en Monastery in Suzhou, constructed between 1131 and 1162—are examples of the kind of building that might have inspired the construction of Guangta. Liaodi Pagoda, restored in the 1980s, is eighty-four meters high, with a ceiling above each of its eleven stories. The interior staircases spiral upward around an inner core, creating a space between two brick walls. However, the two interior stairways are not continuous; they stop and start again at each story. Some Chinese pagodas have double spiral stairways, like the minaret, that are intended to make it impossible for someone ascending to run into someone descending. It is equally possible that the double staircase inside the Guangta has a minaret with such stairways as its source.44 The Bao’ensi pagoda stands approximately midway between two of China’s earliest extant mosques, in Hangzhou and Yangzhou. Like Liaodi Pagoda, the Bao’en Monastery Pagoda is constructed with an inner core, in this case one that reaches the ninth story of the seventy-six-meter building. The number of louge-style pagodas extant in southeastern China argues for the influence of this kind of structure on Guangta.45 Records of destruction and reconstruction establish that the Guangta one sees today is not the minaret described by Yue Ke in his tale of the attempted theft of the bird. Fang Xinru’s (1357–1402) Nanhai baiyong describes the minaret but does not mention the bird.46 Guangdong tongzhi (Provincial record of Guangdong) mentions that a golden rooster at the pinnacle fell off in 1387 during a hurricane and that the minaret was rebuilt in 1468.47 The number of exterior windows also is believed to have changed. The second ground-level entry one sees today is believed to have been added in 1959.48 A mosque plan in China could not be more instructive about the resolution of Islamic architecture and Chinese space than Huaishengsi’s (figure 6.3). Oriented southward, the T-shaped approach to worship space is defined by a gate

192

Muslim and Other Architecture

at its beginning and end, standard in any Chinese building complex. Covered arcades extend from the east and west sides of the second gate and then turn northward, terminating in front of two kiosks. An approach to a yuetai is behind the second gate. We have seen yuetai of this size, fifteen meters square, at the approaches to significant buildings such as Virtuous Tranquility Hall and Hall of the Three Purities. Here, congregational space is a possible use of the large platform. Directly behind, but not exactly in line with the yuetai, is the prayer hall. The plan is deceptive to one familiar with Chinese space. To enter for worship, one must walk eastward, turn 90 degrees, and then walk northward, where a gate stands at the entrance to the prayer hall. As in any standard mosque, the mihrab is on the western wall, in the direction of Makkah, opposite the entrance to the prayer hall. The directional change is evident only after one has passed through two gates and ascended the yuetai or walked through a courtyard to its east. The single, crucial feature of Muslim worship does not alter the plan of buildings, nor is it apparent standing in the first courtyard or in front of the yuetai.49 Muslim worship could occur behind the façade of a thoroughly Chinese religious compound with a single alteration, a wall-niche to orient prayer, an accommodation not visible from the outside. Yet since in the fourteenth century, the Muslim community of Guangzhou was secure enough to proclaim its presence with a minaret that projected not only above the low, Chinese-style outer walls of the mosque but far beyond it in the city, the choice of ground plan should not have been due to an intent to conceal worship. In all likelihood, the plan was chosen because the necessary buildings for prayer, education, residence for congregational leaders, and other functions of a mosque could be readily constructed in this Chinese space. As we turn to other mosques, we shall observe how many of their external features are constructed as indistinguishable from Chinese equivalents, from screen walls to gates, lecture halls, halls for ablution, and minarets, inside or around courtyards. The ease of implementing a Chinese architectural overlay meant that only an extraordinary building proclaimed distinction. The Shengyousi pishtaq and the Huaishengsi minaret are the notable examples of an architectural announcement of Islam in China. The Huaishengsi minaret and the Shengyousi entryway also are the exceptional mosque buildings in China that so clearly proclaim the foreign origins of Islam.

6.3 Plan of Huaisheng Mosque, Guangzhou, Guangdong, ca. 1350

Xianhe Mosque and Fenghuang Mosque Yangzhou has a continuous history as an urban center since the first millennium BCE. Wall were built or repaired in the fifth century BCE, fourth to fifth centuries CE, and Tang dynasty when the city was an auxiliary capital.50 By then, Yangzhou had joined Guangzhou as a major port of entry to China for Arab and Persian merchants.51 The Grand Canal played a significant role in Yangzhou’s rise to importance. Situated on the Yangzi River, 1,100 kilometers north of Quanzhou and 1,474 kilometers north of Guangzhou as the crow flies, and farther by ship along the coast from the East China Sea, the canal linked Yangzhou to what would become the Beijing region, thereby connecting the Yangzi and Yellow Rivers. The joining of China’s two greatest rivers inside China offered a land-sea connection between West Asia and southeastern China, for transport from the west along the old Silk Roads or newer routes by land to Chang’an, located on a tributary of the Yellow River, then could continue eastward on the Yellow River to Hebei. From there goods could be sent along the Grand Canal to Yangzhou. Or this route could be reversed. Through the Tang dynasty, when Yangzhou was the headquarters of China’s salt monopoly as well as a hub of trade in tea, gemstones, aromatics, drugs, damask, and tapestry, it also was a

193

Chapter Six

banking center and gold market.52 In 760 several thousand Arab and Persian merchants were killed during the Tian Shengong Massacre, an uprising aimed at the wealthy, foreign merchant population.53 The city recovered, only to be devastated again during the Huang Chao Rebellion in 879. Still, from 989 until the establishment of the Chinese Trade Superintendency in Quanzhou in 1087, Yangzhou was one of two southeastern ports that maintained the second Trade Superintendency office.54 Like Quanzhou, Yangzhou was visited by Marco Polo.55 Rashīd al-Dīn also wrote about it.56 Xianhesi (Transcendent Crane Mosque) in Yangzhou today possesses the memory of a vibrant Muslim community in the Tang, Song, and Yuan dynasties. The oldest physical traces are seven-hundred-year-old plantings. Most of the buildings date to the Ming or Qing dynasties. All were renovated during renovation in 1980.57 The thirteenth- to fourteenth-century history of Xianhesi focuses on a cleric from the western regions named Buhading or Buhaoding, sometimes pronounced Puha(o)ding, a sixteenth-generation descendant of Muhammad who arrived in Yangzhou from Arabia in 1272 and built brick and stone buildings at Xianhesi in 1275.58 Yangzhou’s mosque is different from Huaishengsi and Shengyousi: it resembles a courtyard-style residence of southeastern China, a type that fits comfortably in a city known for its waterscapes and gardens. The street entry through a green door to Transcendent Crane Mosque is no different from that to any religious, large residential, or garden space in Yangzhou. Today, as would have been the case in the thirteenth century, it faces an active shopping street. The architecture develops around a large central courtyard. Additional smaller courtyards join the central courtyard to the west and northeast. The main entrance is near the center of the east side. An educational hall is opposite it at the other end of the enclosure. The large prayer hall occupies most of the northern half of the mosque, from just inside the east wall to the west wall. It consists of a gateway, covered antechamber, worship space, and back chamber known as yaodian, a feature that becomes common in Ming mosques, with the mihrab behind it.59 The interior is divided into five bays that run the depth of the space. Although the main gateway to the mosque is on the east, this entrance does not lead directly to the prayer hall. Instead, one turns northward from the street entrance, follows a corridor that runs along the east wall, and then turns 90 degrees counterclockwise toward the worship space entrance. The prayer hall thus is positioned on a parallel

axis to the entrance and buildings behind it. A third building axis runs parallel along the southern side. Here one finds a small building for ablutions and a structure named Chengxin (Sincere Belief) Hall, whose purpose is not certain but is believed to have been a lecture hall. Three parallel courtyards is an arrangement occasionally found in Buddhist and Daoist monasteries, although in those cases the most important buildings are along the central building line. One explanation for the corridor along the east side of the mosque that leads to the front of the prayer hall is that it spreads like the wing of a crane, thus explaining the mosque’s name.60 Xianhesi’s importance is tied to the tomb of its founder Puhading, who was buried 1275 in a Yangzhou Muslim cemetery. The tomb is still there. Hangzhou was described not only by Marco Polo but also by the Moroccan seafarer Ibn Battuta’s (1304–1377) who writes that Jews, Christians, and Manichaeans lived in the vicinity of Chong’an Gate. He also writes of a Muslim neighborhood but does not describe the mosque.61 According to records and steles, the mosque known as Fenghuangsi (Phoenix Mosque) has a continuous history since the Tang dynasty. Hangsu yifeng (Winds of remaining customs of Hangzhou), a one-chapter treatise by Fan Zushu who wrote in the nineteenth century, describes a Huihuitang (Muslim Hall), in earlier times called Libaitang (Prayer Hall), on the south side of Nanda Street in Wenjin district, enclosed by walls five to six ren (between 10.75 and 12.9 meters) in height where Muslims came to worship.62 A more complete description is provided by Tian Rucheng, a government official who received his jinshi degree in 1526. Tian writes that the Muslim master Alaoding (‘Ala’ al-Dīn) saw to the building of the mosque during the Yanyou reign period (1314–1320), and that during the Yuan dynasty, Semu from Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Fujian, and Guangdong often came there. According to Tian, the Muslim community maintained educational institutions, worshiped facing a wall, and never erected an image of their god. Gardens were part of the mosque.63 The Hangzhou mosque today is about two-thirds its size in the fourteenth century. Entered by a gate on the east so that once inside a worshiper faces the prayer hall and mihrab at its back, it is the oldest mosque in China with this arrangement. In 1929 a five-story minaret, not necessarily the original one, was destroyed and replaced by the gate. The present gate is newer. The back hall of Fenghuangsi is unique among mosque

194

Muslim and Other Architecture

6.4 Three domes of Phoenix Mosque, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, Yuan period with later repairs

architecture in China. It is covered by three domes (figure 6.4). The zone of transition between the four-sided rooms and circular domes is tiered and decorated with honeycomb-like corners, perhaps intended to imitate a muqarnas. Or perhaps it is intended to reference complex corner bracketing of a Chinese wooden building. The three domes, the central one the largest and most elaborate, have a precedent in the main hall of the Buddhist monastery Baoguosi near Ningbo, dated 1013, and Hall of the Three Purities at Yonglegong in Shanxi (figure 4.5). At the mosque, domes may also be part of the implementation of a phoenix shape in the worship hall whose main chamber would be the body of the phoenix, with the largest central dome the head, and whose sides spread beyond the core like the wings of a bird. At least one other Phoenix Hall was built in East Asia prior to the construction of this version of Fenghuangsi. A phoenix whose wings would be mirrored in the lake in front of it was the inspiration for Phoenix Hall (Hōōdō) of Byōdōin in Uji, Japan, which was transformed from a palatial residence to a Buddhist chapel in 1052–1053.64 A specific model for the Phoenix Hall in Japan has never been identified. Its architectural style is known in Japanese as shinden, a construction type that is derived from Chinese palace architecture.65 In fact, the Phoenix Hall in Uji often is compared with Tang palatial architecture at Daminggong in the capital Chang’an.66 The existence of two buildings with the same name, one recorded as modeled after a phoenix and whose architectural sources are without question Chinese, and the second one at a mosque in China, suggests that there may have been more phoenix-shaped buildings in China. Chinese scholars have assessed the date of the Fenghuang Mosque’s central bay to be Song, and the two sides to be Yuan additions.67 Major renovations were carried out in 1670. Major damage occurred

in 1929.68 The present entrance, with two minaret-like towers on either side, was part of new construction in 1953. The mihrab of the Fenghuangsi prayer hall has an inscription dated 1451 at its base. It is considered part of the first repair, in 1451, recorded in Tian Rucheng’s text and stele inscriptions. The second recorded repair was in 1493.69 By the 1990s Fenghuangsi was Hangzhou’s only mosque.70 Hangzhou’s oldest Muslim tomb dates to the Southern Song dynasty. It belongs to Buhatiya’er (Pers.: Bakhtiyar?), a doctor who came from Makkah to teach and practice Arab medicine. Today his cenotaph lies between those of two of his followers in a shrine that was restored in the twentieth century. Other Pre-Fifteenth-Century Mosques Although the four mosques discussed so far have been restored, evidence of their Yuan architecture is stronger than for most mosques in China, including in Fuzhou, a fifth port city in southeastern China. Tradition records a mosque founded in Fuzhou by Muhammad’s uncle in the same year he is purported to have established the mosque in Guangzhou.71 A more reliable claim is that in 936, when Fuzhou was part of the kingdom of Min (909–945), the ruler converted a palace into a Buddhist monastery, and in 1341 that building complex became a mosque.72 That mosque was destroyed by fire in 1541, rebuilt in 1549, 1720, 1757, 1812, 1843, and 1956, destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, and rebuilt in the late twentieth century.73 ‘A la‘ al-Dīn Mosque in Fuzhou is recorded in a funerary inscription dated 1365 that states that the mosque was founded in 1306 by the ancestor of the deceased, who had come from Khwarazm. Other mosques with founding dates in the Yuan period are in Linxia, Gansu, founded in 1273; in Ji’nan (Great South Mosque), Shandong, founded in 1295; in Jining, Shandong, founded in

195

Chapter Six

6.5 Detail of ceiling of Prayer Hall, showing bracket sets and cicada belly brace, Great North Mosque, Qinyang, Henan, 1341–1370 with later repairs

1295; in Qingzhou, Shandong, founded in 1302; in Lin’an, Yunnan, founded in 1312; in Tongzhou (predecessor of today’s Tongzhou Mosque), within the municipality of Beijing, founded 1313–1320; in Songjiang, Zhejiang, founded in 1341; in Tianshui, Gansu, founded in 1343; in Beijing (Great East Mosque), founded in 1346; and in Dingzhou, Hebei, founded in the 1340s. According to a stele of imperial sanction carved in 1742, Datong Mosque was founded in 628. Like other mosques with this kind of inscription, there is neither physical nor textual evidence to substantiate a Muslim presence in the city during the Tang dynasty. The more credible founding date is 1304. Some twenty years later, Datong Mosque received the imperial patronage of Yisün Temür.74 The oldest architecture at Datong Mosque dates to the Ming dynasty. The lacquer detail in the prayer hall, restored in the Ming period, confirms this high level of patronage. The twenty-first-century façade that opens on a newly renovated pedestrian plaza was built during urban renewal that included work at the Liao-Jin period Shanhua and Huayan Monasteries. Yisün Temür also built a mosque in Shangdu.75 He is known as a supporter of Christianity and Buddhism as well.76 Great North Mosque in Qinyang The prayer hall of Great North Mosque in Qinyang is the only fourteenth-century Muslim worship space in China that retains

so much that is original. The fact that it is often ignored in discussions of China’s old mosques perhaps is because it is not located at a port. A stele records that the mosque was founded in the period 1341–1370, with continued construction work from 1368 to 1424. An inscription, however, says the mosque was moved to its current site in 1561 and completed in 1583–1584, and that work was carried out on the prayer hall in 1589.77 A fire occurred in 1628, followed by repair in 1631.78 Damage following an earthquake led to repair in 1887. The most recent repairs were after 1990. Today the mosque is entered via a gate with a turquoise-glazed ceramic-tile roof that was reconstructed in 1799. Turquoise, known in Chinese as kongquelan (peacock blue), is a hue that contrasts with the golden glaze on the roof above the worship hall. Both colors are reserved for China’s elite architecture. In the 1960s a screen wall stood in front of the front gate. A courtyard behind the front gate has service buildings such as offices, lecture halls, and other support buildings for the mosque along its sides. Then comes a second gate, again with a courtyard and buildings that support activities of the mosque on both sides. An enormous, three-part prayer space follows: anteroom or porch, front part of the prayer hall, and back part of the prayer hall with the mihrab at its back. The worship space is extraordinary, three bays across the front, the central bay 3.88 meters wide and those that flank it 2.85 meters wide, typical lengths for a structure of three front bays anywhere in China. However, the building is twelve bays deep. It is common for the depth of the prayer space to be significantly greater than its breadth in Chinese mosques, but this space is excessively deep. Sometimes the long interior is understood as expanded space for a growing congregation. Here, as at other mosques, a continuous roof known as goulianda covers all sections of the interior space. The modular basis for Chinese timber framing of course makes possible the increase or decrease of dimensions in either direction without altering the core structure. In spite of repairs, many features resonate with earlier Chinese construction. First, bracket sets are five puzuo with arms in both directions. This formation of five-puzuo bracketing is found in the majority of buildings discussed in chapter 4. Second, the mosque has a brace with fluted decoration named chandu (cicada belly) that is explained in Yingzao fashi and used in Daxiongbao Hall of Baoguo Monastery in Yuyao and in Tianyi Zhenqing Palace on Mount Wudang, discussed in chapter 4 (figures 4.55 and 6.5).

196

Muslim and Other Architecture

Third, pillars are eliminated from a complete column grid, a standard feature in Jin and Yuan timber-framed architecture that here provides the large, open space for worshipers. Fourth, pillars at Qinyang Great North Mosque have been moved off the axes anticipated by the exterior columns, exhibiting the pillar displacement (zhujian) that also characterizes Jin and Yuan buildings. Finally, one finds cushion braces (queti) that are used across China in Yuan wooden construction. Ceiling rafters are exposed. Through the century of Yuan rule, every mosque was a courtyard-enclosed complex. Every prayer hall had a mihrab and ample space for prostration during prayer, and yet every prayer hall except the one at Shengyousi in Quanzhou was supported by pillars, had a ceramic-tile roof, and was made of exclusively Chinese building components. The bracketing and other wooden components of Yuan-period mosques are described in Yingzao fashi and found in Buddhist and Daoist and Confucian halls of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.

Muslim Burial in Yuan China Since the tenth century, Shi’ite Muslim royalty had been buried in grand structures aboveground in Iran and contiguous lands.79 By the tenth century the buildings often took the form nicknamed dome-on-square, a four-sided structure with a dome on top. Tombs in Huocheng in Xinjiang, Guyuan in Hebei, and Khara-Khoto, in Inner Mongolia, follow these burial traditions. Only one of the interred is known. Tomb of Tughluq Temür Tughluq Temür’s (1329/30–1363) tomb is a domed building on grasslands (figure 6.6). A seventh-generation descendant of Chinggis, Tughluq Temür came to power in lands of the Chaghatay Khanate (Transoxiana) in 1346. He converted to Islam in 1347, and the population of his khanate, some 160,000, converted in 1352. Upon his death in 1363, the western lands of the khanate fell to Temür Lang (Tamerlane), and the Chaghatay Khanate ceased to exist.80 The tomb is in the eastern lands of the khanate, today in Xinjiang province. The tomb measures 15.8 by 6.8 meters, is 7.7 meters high, and is entered on the west, with an interior balcony that is accessible on either side of the entrance. Passage along the balcony leads to three domed spaces on the east side of the second story. The central dome, fourteen meters at its highest point, dominates

6.6 Mausoleum of Tughluq Temür, Huocheng, Xinjiang, 1363. Lu and Zhang, Zhongguo Yiselanjiao jianzhu, 166.

the interior. It is directly above the burials of Tughluq Temür and his son. The purposes of small rooms on the sides of the interior and on the second floor are unclear.81 Tughluq Temür’s daughter is believed to be buried in one of the buildings nearby. The mausoleum of Buyan Quli (d. 1356), also a Chaghatay khan, in Fathabad, Bukhara, Uzbekistan, is a likely architectural source of Tughluq Temür’s tomb.82 Similar mausoleums for two Chaghatay khans who died within seven years of each other are to be expected. Although the mausoleum in Bukhara has two interior rooms, both the single, square chamber beneath a prominent dome and multiple rooms under a dome exist from Bukhara westward to Iran. Tughluq Temür’s tomb is distinguished by the use of glazed and carved tiles only on the front. It is not known why other parts are untiled.83 The tiles are made with the same technique as those on the Buyan Quli Khan mausoleum, and the same colors of white, turquoise, and manganese are used, with the only apparent distinction that in Bukhara the turquoise sometimes runs into white areas. Both mausoleums are in a lineage of tomb construction nicknamed “dome-on-square” that appears in Uzbekistan in the tenth century. The Tomb of the Samanid, dated 943, in Bukhara84 and ‘Arab-‘Ata Mausoleum, dated 977–978, in Tim are examples.85 The closest Chinese counterpart to a four-sided, brick, domed structure was completely covered with glazed tiles. It is the pagoda of Xiuding Monastery in Anyang county, Henan.86 It, too, is unique today, but it confirms that craftsmen were able to build a cubic structure covered with glazed tiles and a domed roof around the year 600. The tombs of Tughluq Temür, Buyan Quli Khan, the Samanid, and in Tim, and the pagoda in Anyang county all have facsimile columns at the four building corners. In China they are a feature always interpreted as an imitation of the timber frame in a nonwooden material. In these four buildings, the columns are nonstructural. They are not found in the mausoleum discussed next.

197

Chapter Six

6.7 Mausoleum, Guyuan, Hebei, fourteenth century?

Tomb in Guyuan, Hebei A dome-on-square structure stands in isolation in Guyuan prefecture, Hebei province (figure 6.7). No contemporary description is known. The first record of this building is in a study of the area known in the eighteenth century as Chaha(‘e)r, a part of Inner Mongolia and contiguous regions, such as northern Hebei, undertaken at the request of the Qianlong court by the official Jin Zhizhang sometime between 1732 and 1741 and preserved in Koubei santingzhi (Record of the three areas of Koubei), published with additions by Huang Kerun in 1758.87 Jin and Huang sometimes refer to the building as Shuzhuanglou (Comb and Makeup Tower). The name is believed to be a reference to the fact that the territory in question was part of the appanage of a woman, Empress Dowager Chengtian (932–1009) of the Liao dynasty, who was awarded the lands in 986. She spent every summer here until her death. The location in Chengtian’s appanage does not mean the building stood in the tenth-eleventh century; there is no Liao building that suggests correspondences nor is it described in any Liao record.88 The Guyuan structure goes by two more names in Koubei santingzhi: Xiliangge, and Xiliangting. Xiliang translates as “west cool.” We have seen in chapter 3 that the suffix ge most often is translated as pavilion. All Yuan ge have four solid walls. Although one finds pavilion as a translation for ting, ting is better translated as kiosk. Ting can be supported exclusively by columns.89 We observe here another convergence of the names of Chinese structural types that have centuries of history and a non-Chinese structure, in this case one with a dome, that needs a name. Although Chinese builders had made brick domes in underground tombs since the late BCE centuries, aboveground

buildings with vaulted brick ceilings are rarer.90 With no Chinese name for dome-on-square, one assumes the unusual exterior projection led to the names ge and ting. Jin and Huang tell us that the building was squarish, brickfaced, and more than two zhang (nearly thirteen meters) in height, with a semicircular dome rising from the center of a flat roof. The text says, further, that the front entry was on the southeast, in other words, southeast-northwest orientation for the building, with a window there and at the back. The building indeed faces southeast and is thirteen meters high and ten meters square. Inside, the walls and ceiling are whitewashed. The vaulted ceiling is made of bricks that are 35 by 5 by 1.75 centimeters. It joins an eight-sided upper wall that interfaces the four main walls. Blind arches and squinches alternate on the upper portions of the eight walls. Imitation pillars of the kind that have for centuries been molded into the walls of Chinese tombs to replicate wooden architecture are at the eight corners (figure 6.8). In Chinese construction, in actual wood or imitation of wood, bracket sets interlock the tops of pillars. Here the simulated bracket sets are set into cornices. One might view these corbel forms as muqarnas, the honeycomb-like elements that project at corners or on ceilings of Islamic structures that were noted inside the prayer hall of Fenghuang Mosque in Hangzhou.91 Missionary Amand Heirman (1862–1900) saw this building in the late nineteenth century and published a notice of it in missionary literature in 1898. He describes it as “imposing . . . a square tower topped by a cupola.” He tells his readers that this is where Khubilai “gathered his herds” and ends by declaring that it is possible that under these ruins the steles and tombstones with

198

Muslim and Other Architecture

6.8 Interior, Mausoleum, Guyuan, Hebei, fourteenth century?

6.9 Dome-on-square structure in Guyuan, Hebei. Impey, “Shangtu, the Summer Capital,” 589.

inscriptions that relate the history of past centuries, perhaps of illustrious Christians, will be found.92 He further mentions that in 1890 Cesar de Brabander (1857–1919) had been told by a “reliable Christian source” that he had seen a white cross of about five feet in height approximately a four-hour journey from the mission in Zhangbei (the county that includes Guyuan), but Brabander himself had never been able to find it. He does not name his source. The existence of the stele to which Heirman alludes is assumed because he found a stone tortoise base on-site. Jin and Huang do not mention it, but since a tortoise had been the ubiquitous support for a stele in imperial China since the Han dynasty (206 BCE—220 CE), and we have observed them at Khara-Khorum and Shangdu, Jin and Huang may have seen tortoise bases that no longer held stele during their survey and not bothered to note them. It is likely Jin and Huang would have recorded a stele and its inscription. Lawrence Impey published information about what is believed to be this building in 1925. Little is known about Impey, leading one author to query if he was a spy.93 Impey gives no information about his photograph, publishing it to illustrate what he saw along his route in search of Xanadu. The building in Impey’s article has the same front façade, upper wall articulation, and dome as the building shown in figure 6.7 but shows considerable damage and no window in the side wall (figure 6.9). This should be important evidence that the structure that stands in Guyuan was restored in the twentieth century, for in spite of the differences between the building in the photograph and the current building, if there had been more than one domeon-square structure in this part of Hebei in the eighteenth, late nineteenth, or early twentieth centuries, Jin, Huang, Heirman, Brabander, another missionary, or Impey should have noticed them. Official government-sponsored surveys since 1950 should have recorded such remains as well. Pan Guxi published about the monument in 2001, calling it “Khubilai’s purple fortress.”94 Wang Beichen saw the building in 1993 and 1995. The four walls and windows are believed to have been as they are today.

At the time of his death in 1996, Wang was working on a paper that was completed and published posthumously by his colleague Lin Meicun, an eminent scholar of Yuan history and archaeology, based on conversations with Wang from his hospital bed during his final illness. One has to wonder what compels someone at the moment of death to finish one more paper. Wang had an idea who was buried here and must have envisioned the implications of his identification if excavation proved him correct. Wang Beichen dismissed associations between the monument and the Liao empress, arguing that this is a Yuan-period building.95 He noted earthen mounds and traces of architecture, including glazed ceramic tiles of gold, blue, and white, about fifty meters north of the building. In 2013 I saw building foundations behind the structure that must have been the mounds Wang described. Ceramic pieces were on display inside the buildings in 2013. Excavation took place between 1999 and 2002. Three side-byside burials, a central male flanked by females, each in a wooden coffin, were found. Brocade with gold decoration and other textiles that must have been from garments for the deceased were among the grave goods. Burials of course confirm this is a mausoleum. Knowing that dome-on-square construction is a form of Muslim mausoleum from Samarkand to Kashgar from the tenth through fourteenth centuries, Wang Beichen proposed that this is the tomb of Khubilai’s grandson, Ananda (d. 1307), Prince of Anxi. Ananda had been given the name of a disciple of the Buddha by his father Manggala (d. 1278), who was Buddhist. Recall from chapter 1 that in 1272 Manggala had been awarded the Anxiwang appanage (figure 1.59) and that Ananda had inherited it when Manggala died. Unlike his father, however, Ananda was a Muslim. As Ruth Dunnell writes, not only do Persian sources emphasize the strength of Ananda’s commitment, he was raised as a Muslim from infancy.96 As a grandson of Khubilai, Ananda was one of the successors in line for the throne when Khubilai’s successor Temür Öljeytü (r. 1297–1307) died. Ananda was a successful general.

199

Chapter Six

His opponents were two brothers, Khaishan (1281–1311) and Ayurbarwada (1285–1320), great-grandsons of Khubilai. They had more support in Daidu than Ananda, and in addition, Ananda would have been the first Muslim ruler of China. Khaishan (r. 1307–1311) succeeded Temür Öljeytü. Ananda was executed by Khaishan in 1307. Shortly thereafter, Ananda’s son lost the title and lands of the Anxiwang circuit. Ayurbarwada (r. 1311–1320) would succeed Khaishan four years later.97 Even if Ananda were not as devout a Muslim as sources suggests, no known Buddhist in the lands that are China, Mongolia, or any region to the west is buried beneath a dome-on-square. Further, one recalls from chapter 1 that an Arabic magic square was excavated in 1955 at the ruins of Anxiwangfu in Xi’an. Wang Beichen no doubt had read the Chinese primary sources and probably was aware of excavated material. He is likely to have known that Rashīd al-Dīn believed Ananda was a devout Muslim. Still, materiality, the dome-on-square form, was what initially brought him to a Muslim as the owner of this tomb. Research into Yuan history brought him to Ananda, who had been in this region and was powerful enough to deserve such a strong, eternal, architectural presence on the grasslands. Finally, Ananda had been executed in Shangdu, just over two hundred kilometers from Guyuan, raising logistical questions about a suggestion that he was buried in Ningxia, more than one thousand kilometers to the west.98 Further support for the identification of the building in Guyuan, Hebei, as Ananda’s tomb is that immediately upon his accession, Khaishan began construction of the central capital, also discussed in chapter 1 (figures 1.34–1.37). It is in the same county as this mausoleum. Officially the site of the new capital was selected so that the ruler had a traveling palace where he could stop en route between Daidu and Shangdu. As we know, upon Khaishan’s death in 1311, the central capital was maintained but was never again as important. It is more likely that, if Ananda was buried there in 1307, Khaishan’s traveling palace so near to the tomb was intended to eclipse the posthumous power of his former rival to the throne, and when Khaishan died, the threat no longer existed. The Guyuan mausoleum also has been identified as the mausoleum of King George the Önggüd, mentioned in chapter 1 in connection with Olon Süme.99 In the second decade of the twenty-first century, pieces of stele with the characters Kuolijisi, the Chinese name for Körgis, the Turco-Mongolian form of Giwargis, were excavated in the vicinity. In 2011, however, Zhou

Liangxiao emphasized that characters in addition to the four Kuo-li-ji-si on the stele indicate that the name refers to a different man with the fairly common name Körgis, a man who died in 1340 during the reign of the last Yuan emperor.100 Other Domes-on-Squares Corner pillars are not present in the mausoleum in Guyuan, but they are present in a building that stands among the ruins of Khara-Khoto (Hei[shui]cheng) (Black City) in Ejinaqi, Inner Mongolia, within the walls of the Western Xia capital (figure 6.10). Since the early twentieth century when Khara-Khoto was studied and photographed, researchers have been aware of this building, but little has been written about it.101 Made of mud-brick, its exterior has been undecorated since the earliest known photograph, by Petr Kozlov in 1908.102 The pishtaq and entryway are prominent, as they are at the dome-on-square mausoleums discussed already. The front of the Khara-Khoto structure could have been faced with ceramic tile, although none was reported by Kozlov or by Stein, who saw the building five years after Kozlov and by which time most of the front portico in Kozlov’s photograph had deteriorated. Kozlov named the building a mosque. Like the belief here that it is a mausoleum, his assumption probably was based on buildings he had seen with domes and ogee-arched entries that he knew were mosques. There is little doubt that the building stood in the Mongol period. The 11,500 objects Kozlov found and transported to St. Petersburg in 1908 and 1909, paintings, Buddhist sculpture, and numerous documents in Tangut, as well as much of the larger Buddhist statuary Kozlov photographed and left behind, date no later than 1227, the year the Mongols ravaged the city.103 Yet the practice of Islam in Khara-Khoto under Western Xia empire cannot be documented. Under Mongol rule, by contrast, powerful Muslims came through Khara-Khoto, and one could have been buried here. Tughluq Temür’s tomb in Huocheng supports a Mongol-period date for the Khara-Khoto building. Further, pages of a Qur’an, marriage contracts, and other documents in Persian found there attest to the presence of Muslims. They, too, are undated, but like the building type associated with Muslim burial, a Persian-reading community in Eastern Inner Mongolia is more likely to have flourished under Mongolian rule than under Western Xia. Numerous dome-on-square structures remain in central Kazakhstan. The building often called Jochi’s Mausoleum in Qaraghandy is an example. Elevated on a low brick foundation

200

Muslim and Other Architecture

6.10 Dome-on-square structure in Khara-Khoto, Ejinaqi, Inner Mongolia

6.11 Tomb of Jochi (?), Qaraghandy, Kazakhstan

of 26 by 26 by 5 centimeters, like Tughluq Temür’s tomb and the building in Khara-Khoto, this structure is entered through a pishtaq. The space behind it is covered by a two-layer dome (figure 6.11). Evidence that this is Jochi’s mausoleum is largely anecdotal. It stands where he is said to have died in a hunting accident.104 Other structures in central Kazakhstan, such as Alasha Khan’s mausoleum, also in Qaraghandy, Ayak-Kamir Mausoleum, TortKara Mausoleum, or Kara-Kul Mausoleum, are verified Muslim tombs.105 Since the middle of the twentieth century, scholar-archaeologists, notably Galina Pugachenkova, have understood the dome-on-square as well as the four-sided mausoleum with a conical roof, represented by the mausoleums associated with Babaji Khatun and Aisha Bibi, both dated to the eleventh to twelfth centuries in the vicinity of Taraz, Kazakhstan, to have developed from tenth-century tombs in Uzbekistan. They have proposed that the sources of the tenth-century mausoleums are mounded tombs on the grasslands.106 Those who study mausoleums in Kazakhstan usually do not conduct research on Chinese architecture. However, the buildings they use to assess a building such as figure 6.11 are the ones cited in this chapter. Russian scholars probably did not know about the Guyuan mausoleum. They are likely to have been aware of Kozlov’s expeditions, but the building in Khara-Khoto is not included in studies of dome-on-square structures in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan. If they knew that a Chaghatayid tomb belonging to Tughlug Temür stood in Huocheng, they probably did not see it. Similarly they did not consider eleventh- to twelfth-century buildings at the Mamilla Cemetery in Israel in their investigations of this structural form.107 It is noteworthy that Aisha Bibi Mausoleum, Ayak-kamir Mausoleum, Kustabaya Mausoleum, Tort-Kara Mausoleum, Kosubai-Kara Mausoleum, and CherapaiMaiikin Mausoleum, all in Kazakhstan, have imitation pillars or other articulation at the corners.108 Found also on Tugh Temür’s tomb, the Khara-Khoto mausoleum, and the pagoda in Anyang, but not on the Guyuan building, the corner pillars do not appear to guide the dating of a dome-on-square mausoleum.

Tomb of Saidianchi Saiyid Ajall Shams al-Dīn ‘Umar al-Bukhari (1211–1279), known in Chinese as Saidianchi Shansiding, came to China in service of the Mongols.109 As his name indicates, he was born in Bukhara. Shams al-Dīn’s grandfather, who was said to be a twenty-fourthgeneration descendant of the Prophet, surrendered himself, his son, and his grandson after the fall of their city. His father entered Chinggis’s elite bodyguard as a hostage. Saidianchi trained for membership in this group at a young age. In 1229, under Ögedei’s rule, he was appointed yeke daruqači (great resident commissioner) of three provinces, and he was promoted several years later. He rose to daruqači (resident commissioner) in the 1230s, this time in more significant regions of the growing empire, and then to yarquči (judge arbitrator) of the former central capital of the Jin dynasty, the city that would become Daidu.110 In 1253 he served Möngke in wars in Sichuan. At about the same time he was put in charge of food and supplies for Khubilai’s troops in Dali, Yunnan province. In the 1260s Shams al-Dīn served Khubilai, first in the Daidu circuit and then in Sichuan. With Sichuan securely in Mongol hands, he moved back to Yunnan, rising to the post of head of the Regional Secretarial Council of western China. Later he was charged with military operations against the Song in Sichuan. In 1273 he returned to Dali as provincial governor. There he implemented flood control and agricultural and educational reform, supported Confucian institutions, and encouraged construction of Buddhist worship spaces even as he built two mosques in this region. Shams al-Dīn established a system whereby taxes from arable lands were used to support schools.111 He spent the last five years of his life working to improve life in Yunnan. The entire city of Kunming mourned his death. Khubilai ordered that Shams al-Dīn’s policies continue under the leadership of his sons. Tombstones in Hangzhou and Quanzhou record the presence of his descendants in those cities. A memorial archway to Shams al-Dīn stands in a restored version in Kunming today. He received the posthumous title Prince of Xianyang (the city near Xi’an).112 Shams al-Dīn was an ancestor of the Ming seafarer Zheng He (1371–1433).

201

Chapter Six

by a dome. By all indications, in China the dome-on-square was a privilege of Muslim royalty.118

Tibetan Pagodas in Chinese Monasteries

6.12 Tomb of Shams al-Dīn, Prince of Xianyang, Kunming, 1906–1909. D’Ollone, Recherches sur les Musulmans chinois, 23.

Three locations have been proposed for Shams al-Dīn’s tomb, two in Kunming and one in Shaanxi. The site known as Tomb of the Prince of Xianyang is in the suburbs of Kunming. It has been a Muslim pilgrimage site since his death. Repaired under the Kangxi and Qianlong emperors in 1692 and 1736, respectively, it was sketched by Henri d’Ollone (1868–1945), a member of the French Legion of Honor who undertook a mission to study nonindigenous peoples of China between 1906 and 1909 (figure 6.12).113 As one sees in figure 6.12, by the time d’Ollone visited, only plinths remained. Repairs were made in 1916 and more recently, but there is no evidence the site or primary structure ever again resembled its original appearance.114 From d’Ollone’s sketches and later ones by Na Weixin, several features of the burial site before the most recent repairs are certain. The cenotaph was little different from the Song or Yuan Muslim cenotaphs in Guangzhou, Quanzhou, and Yangzhou. The stone base was about 4 by 2.5 meters. Above it were layers of stone, each successively smaller in base dimension, capped by a semicircular prism. The current monument has straight sides. Originally the cenotaph was enclosed by a pillar-supported wall or structure of 8 by 6.5 meters at the base, which has today been replaced by a low wall. In death, the tomb of the esteemed governor of the period of Mongolian rule was marked with no more glory than any Muslim beneath a stone grave marker. That this area is preserved in a large city is a testament to Shams al-Dīn’s reputation still today. Pottery found at the site confirms a twentieth-century presence there.115 The alternate tomb site is 12.5 kilometers north of Kunming at Majia’an, a location more closely supported by Shams al-Dīn’s biography in Yuanshi and by Li Yuanyang’s Yunnan tongzhi (Record of Yunnan), both of which state that the tomb is outside the north gate of the city.116 Qing scholars proposed the idea that the corpse was moved from Kunming, where Shams al-Dīn died, for burial at a site in Shaanxi.117 It is not surprising that wherever Shams al-Dīn is buried, there is no indication he was beneath a brick building capped

The designation “Tibetan pagoda” here refers to a structural type first built in Tibet. Like Tibetan Buddhism, the Tibetan pagoda was present in Yuan China. Both were transmitted to China and Mongolia by Tibetan monks, or lamas, patronized by khans and their relatives, and the religion was practiced beyond the royal household.119 As noted in chapter 3, the pagoda structure sometimes called chorten (Tib.: mchod-rten) is associated with Tibetan Buddhism. Elevated on a foundation that may be four, eight, thirty-two, or thirty-six-sided, or of another configuration that supports a circular drum, with a narrower section with straight sides and then a conical upper section that diminishes in circumference toward the top, capped by a circular mast that supports a small chorten, and usually white, the pagoda form is always recognizable. The earliest chorten are believed to have been built in Tibet in the seventh century.120 Like any pagoda, a chorten may contain the human remains or relics of a Buddhist, and in any case, it symbolizes Buddhist death. The thirteen circular plates that often are placed at the top, like thirteen levels of a pagoda with densely placed eaves, symbolize the stages of advancement from mortality to Buddhahood. Chorten sometimes occur in groups of five, a tall, central structure and four others placed symmetrically around it. This form is known as Diamond Throne (Jingangbaozuo) Pagoda. Its earliest Chinese examples are from the early Ming period. White Pagoda of Miaoying Monastery White Pagoda, today part of Miaoying Monastery, has been a defining monument of its city since the Yuan dynasty. In part this is because it stands at just over fifty meters. In part it is because it is one of two white pagodas of its height and shape that survive in Beijing, and approximately four hundred years older than the second one.121 Perhaps most important, White Pagoda is a rare surviving monument commissioned by Khubilai for which he himself chose the site. It projects in Beijing as evidence that the Mongols once ruled China and practiced Tibetan Buddhism there (figure 6.13). The origins of White Pagoda may be traced to 1260, before Khubilai moved his primary capital to Daidu. In that year,

202

Muslim and Other Architecture

Khubilai decreed that a golden stupa be built for the fifth patriarch of the Sa skya (Sakya) sect of Tibetan Buddhism. In the same year he appointed ‘Phags-pa, who, one recalls, had come to China from Tibet with his uncle, a close spiritual advisor. ‘Phags-pa would have the ear of Khubilai and his wife Chabui, design the Mongolian script, and rise to the position of fifth patriarch of the Sa skya sect, then to state preceptor and then imperial preceptor. Khubilai put ‘Phags-pa in charge of construction of a pagoda on this site.122 In 1261 ‘Phags-pa had met Anige (1245–1306) in Tibet. By then the self-appointed supervisor of eighty artisans who would be brought from Nepal to work for Khubilai, Anige had directed construction of the stupa at Sa skya Monastery in Tibet.123 In 1262 ‘Phags-pa arranged an audience for Anige with Khubilai at Shangdu. The Buddhist artisan demonstrated his skill by repairing a bronze statue and subsequently was put in charge of the monastery Zhenguo Renwangsi that was completed in 1270. It no longer survives. Between 1270 and 1274 Anige supervised construction of Da Huguo Renwangsi in Daidu, mentioned in chapter 1. Located on Gaoliang River and commissioned by Chabui, it would be one of the two most important monasteries Khubilai or Chabui patronized in the capital. The Chinese sculptor Liu Yuan, whose statues Yu Ji had seen at the Temple to the Eastern Peak, made images.124 In 1274 Anige also oversaw construction of Qianyuansi in Shangdu, discussed in chapter 1. Da Huguo Renwangsi and Qianyuansi are said to have had the same plan.125 A Tibetan Buddhist monastery in Zhuozhou, Hebei, designed by Anige, also is said to have had the same plan.126 Also in 1274, Khubilai awarded Anige a residence in the southwestern part of Daidu and gave him a Chinese sobriquet. All this was behind Anige in 1279 when he began construction of a Tibetan-style pagoda in Daidu. In 1271 Khubilai had decided to put a new monastery at Baitasi, White Pagoda Monastery, which had been built in 1096 when the city was part of the Liao empire.127 The Liao had a number of baitaisi (white pagoda monastery); one of the most famous survives today in Ningcheng, Inner Mongolia.128 No Liao white pagoda is known to have taken the chorten form. Also in 1271, Khubilai designated the dimensions of the monastery he would call (Da) Shengshou Wan’ansi ([Great] Monastery for the Celebration of the Emperor’s Birthday) (figure 1.24, #56) by shooting an arrow in each of the four directions.129 Anige’s pagoda there was completed in 1288. Eventually portraits of Khubilai and Chabui would be enshrined at the complex.130

6.13 White Pagoda, Miaoying Monastery, Beijing, 1267, with later repairs

Stele that record the history of the Da Shengshou Wan’ansi White Pagoda do not survive, but because it is in Beijing, their inscriptions are collected in the extensive local records about the city.131 The most important inscription was written by the monk Xiangmai, who was present at the consecration of the pagoda in 1279. Herbert Franke studied this inscription and others in 1994 and translated key passages from Xiangmai’s text. Su Bai studied it in 1996, and Xiong Wenbin in 2003.132 The inscription records objects in the reliquary, among which were many statues and scriptures, and the placement of earth from sacred places in India and China inside. It also records statuary outside the pagoda that is not mentioned in any later record. It is noteworthy that neither Anige nor other builders or craftsmen are named in the inscription. The pagoda was repaired in 1344. Brick, hollow inside, and covered with a white-lime plaster, White Pagoda was struck by lightning and destroyed in 1368. The 50.9-meter pagoda that stands today was rebuilt in 1457. In that year, Da Shengshou Wan’ansi was renamed Miaoyingsi, the name still in use. Today as in the Yuan dynasty, the pagoda dominates its monastery. The gate and Buddha hall in front of it, and back gate and

203

Chapter Six

6.14 Aśoka Pagoda, Daixian, Shanxi, 1275

side halls that may not have been part of the monastery in 1279, are all timber-frame structures with hipped or hip-gable ceramic-tile roofs. This core plan (gate, pagoda, Buddha hall, gate, sometimes with the pagoda behind the Buddha hall) had eight hundred years of pre-thirteenth-century history in Buddhist monasteries in China, Korea, and Japan. The imperial monastery Yongningsi, built in Northern Wei Luoyang in 516, the sixth-century Paekche monasteries at Chŏngnimsa and Kŭmgangsa in Puyŏ, and the late sixth-century monasteries Shitennōji in Osaka and Yamadadera in Nara are examples.133 There is no indication that Anige or an advisor resurrected an age-old Chinese plan, as occurred in the designs of Shangdu and Daidu, but there is also no evidence of a monastery with this configuration in Nepal or Tibet that might have guided the construction of Da Shengshou Wan’ansi. Even as it blazoned above most if not all of Daidu, like Guangta and the Daidu observatory, White Pagoda was enclosed in the walls of Chinese construction in a plan with nearly a millennium of history in East Asia (figures 3.5 and 6.2). More White Pagodas Because Miaoyingsi’s White Pagoda dates to the mid-fifteenth century, pagodas that stand from the period of Mongolian rule are important evidence that the rebuilding is likely to have followed the structure of 1279. In 1251 a white pagoda was erected to commemorate the death of Sajia Banzhida, a Tibetan who

had come to the Liangzhou region as an emissary, officially to talk but perhaps to try to make peace with the Mongols. Baitasi, White Pagoda Monastery, today is about twenty kilometers southeast of the center of Wuwei in Gansu province. Already by 1430 when a repair stele was carved, there were more than fifty smaller white pagodas around it. The monastery was destroyed by an earthquake in 1927. The foundation was studied in 1991. Elevated on a four-sided foundation whose serrated faces present as twenty sides, the pagoda was reconstructed in this century. A circular drum topped by a conical section of thirteen levels, round umbrella-like covering, and chatra at the top. 134 A Tibetan-style pagoda, known as Aśoka (Ayuwang) Pagoda, stands in isolation today in Daixian, Shanxi province. The name is a reference to Aśoka (304–232 BCE), king of the Mauryan dynasty (322–185 BCE), who built stupas across India. Their styles are not known. Aśoka Pagoda stands on the site of a wooden pagoda that was erected in 601, destroyed in 845, rebuilt in 1080 and 1102, and rebuilt as a brick, Tibetan-style pagoda in 1275. Approximately 40 meters in height, it is elevated on an oblong-shaped foundation of 1.5-meters high and about 60 meters in perimeter. Imitation lotus petals separate each of its sections. The uppermost section is in the shape of a chorten, with eleven levels that narrow toward the top. The thirteenth-century form was repaired after earthquake damage in the Qing dynasty and refaced very recently (figure 6.14). It was originally the focal building of Yuanguo Monastery, but there is no record of where the pagoda stood in the building complex. Nor is its patron known. Like the pagoda at Miaoyingsi, it is a brick structure faced in white lime.135 A Tibetan-style pagoda was built under Anige’s supervision by Khubilai’s successor Temür in Taihuai, Wutai, Shanxi, in 1301. Standing on flat ground and dominating more than 130 buildings of its 15,000-square-meter monastery, according to Shi Yinguang et al., Qingliangshan zhi (Record of Qingliangshan), it was built by King Aśoka (d. 232 BCE) with a relic of the Śākyamuni inside.136 Today the pagoda dominates an expanded version of the age-old plan used at Miaoyingsi, with a gate, Buddha hall, and pagoda on the main axis, and here with a Heavenly Kings hall and sutra hall, as well.137 The Wutai monastery became Tayuan Monastery when it was expanded in 1407; the pagoda is so prominent that it gave its monastery its name: Monastery of the Pagoda Courtyard. Elevated on a squarish platform, above which is an octagonal platform and then the thirty-six-sided lowest level of the

204

Muslim and Other Architecture

6.15 White Pagoda, Tayuan Monastery, Taihuai, Wutai, Shanxi, 1301

6.16 Shengxiang Pagoda, Wuchang, Wuhan, Hubei, 1343.

pagoda, above which are the circular drum, narrower thirtysix-sided layer, a section of densely placed layers of decreasing perimeter toward the top, a canopy, and then the vase-shaped crown, this white pagoda is the most similar structure to the pagoda at Miaoying Monastery in existence. Its total height is 75.3 meters (figure 6.15). The Tibetan-style pagoda known as Shengxiang(bao) Pagoda or Baoxiang Pagoda (figure 6.16) is on Snake Hill (Sheshan) in Wuchang, Wuhan, Hubei, the same mountain where Yellow Crane Tower (Huanghelou) stands. Dated to 1343, the stone structure rises 9.36 meters. It has been moved from its original position and has been repaired through its history. One assumes that monasteries repurposed under Khubilai became Tibetan-Buddhist and that white pagodas stood in Yuanperiod monasteries across China. Anige supervised image construction for six of the eight monasteries known to have been patronized by Khubilai and for three monasteries patronized by Temür.138 The khan’s and Anige’s successors followed these imperial practices, exacting corvée labor from their armies and mercilessly dealing with those who challenged huge expenditures on imperial religious construction.139

Sangha/Sengge (d. 1291) who by 1275 was in charge of Tibetan and Buddhist affairs in Khubilai’s realm.142 Yang was in charge of the Buddhist affairs of Jiangnan, the region of southeastern China that included the Southern Song capital Lin’an. In 1285 Yang ordered the destruction of the Southern Song royal tombs in Qiantang and Shaoxing. Some 1,700 ounces of gold, 6,800 ounces of silver, 111 jade vessels, 9 jade belts, 152 shells, and 50 ounces of pearls plundered from the wealth of the Southern Song rulers were used to build and restore Buddhist monasteries and to convert palaces and Chinese religious institutions into temples of Tibetan Buddhism.143 It was reported that Yang exhumed the body of a Song emperor, hung it from a tree, burned it, and then reburied it among the bones of horses and cows, but this has never been proved.144 It is more certain that in 1285 Khubilai himself ordered Yang to build a monastery on the site of the former Southern Song Altar to Heaven.145 Although many residents of Hangzhou hated Yang, this kind of appropriation and repurposing of sacred space of a former dynasty by its successors had a long history in China. Northern Wei had used the location of the Eastern Han Mingtang in Luoyang for the site of the imperial monastery Jingmingsi and had chosen a new site for their own Mingtang.146 By the second lunar month of 1288, Yang had used material from the royal tombs to build one pagoda and five monasteries on the foundations of destroyed Southern Song palaces, in addition

Tibetan Buddhist Architecture in Hangzhou Yang Lianzhenjia (act. 1277–1292) was such a monk-official.140 Tangut by birth,141 he was a protegé of the corrupt minister

205

Chapter Six

to his other construction.147 Some court officials challenged Yang’s actions, but Khubilai promoted him. Sangha would be executed, even as Khubilai continued to empower Yang and other clergy to build Tibetan Buddhist religious institutions and enact other ruthless deeds across China in the name of Buddhism. Using Chunyou Lin’anzhi (Lin’an in the Chunyou reign period [1241–1252]) and Xianchun Lin’anzhi (Lin’an in the Xianshun reign period [1265–1274]), among other records, the Lin’anshi Yanjiu Zhongxin (Center for Research on the Southern Song Dynasty) has plotted on maps monasteries, palaces, and other kinds of architecture, such as bridges, mentioned in these records. Approximately five hundred Buddhist or Daoist monasteries as well as more local temples are listed and have been identified, with excavation underway or anticipated where it is possible in the densely populated city.148 The wealth provided for the Mongols from former Chinese religious institutions should have made countless Tibetan Buddhist building projects possible. Following Yang Lianshenjia’s destruction of imperial Song and Chan Buddhist architecture, caves with Tibetan Buddhist imagery would be carved at Hangzhou’s most prominent cave-temple site, Feilaifeng. They are discussed in the next chapter. By the early Ming period, the white pagoda that Yang had erected on the ruins of the Song palaces took on new meanings. Qu You put forward the idea that the pagoda had pacified Song loyalists who had died during the Mongol invasions, and further, that the pagoda possessed supernatural powers that made it possible for Leifeng Pagoda to subdue the spirit of the White Serpent.149 A Buddhist Monastery in Tibet By all accounts, as the sacred ground of their Buddhist faith, the Mongols did not attempt to conquer Tibet nor to building cities there. The landscape was little altered during the period of Mongolian rule except by an occasional addition to a monastery. Among extant monasteries, Lhakang Chenpo, the main hall of Sakya Lamasery where Anige had worked before coming to China, located about one hundred kilometers west of Shigatse, was built in 1268. Xialu (Shalu) Monastery, about twenty-two kilometers south of Xigaze (Shigatse), also has a building history in the Yuan period. Begun in 1087, it was severely damaged by an earthquake in 1329. Rebuilding occurred under the monastery’s eleventh abbot, Butön Rinchen Drup (1290–1364), in 1333. Toghōn Temür was a patron. During this period, Butön Rinchen Drup

catalogued thousands of texts in the monastery’s collection. As a result, Xialu Monastery remained a center of Buddhist learning for centuries.150 The monastery today is believed to retain its thirteenth-century plan. It comprises two parallel, east-west-oriented courtyards, the southern with an open courtyard in front of a rectangular hall with a central antechamber in front and the northern, about the same size north-south and east-west, with a front gate and rectangular hall with a central antechamber. Murals, including some from the Yuan period with figures in secular dress, survive.151 Like Islam, Tibetan Buddhism is grounded in theocracy. More religious leaders from Tibet came to Yuan China than Muslim clerics, but in Ming and Qing times, Sufi imams would come, especially to the region where Gansu, Ningxia, and Qinghai met. Shrines to them would be constructed with timber-frame buildings with ceramic tile roofs.152 Only farther west, in the lands of today’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, along Tibet’s northern border and eastward beyond it, did mosques and mausoleums, often by and for religious leaders from the West and primarily from the sixteenth century onward, identify themselves as Islamic. In general, in Yuan China, except for the mosques in Guangzhou and Quanzhou, only Muslim mausoleums and Tibetan pagodas signaled non-Chinese religions on the landscape.

Temple to Mani Much less is known about Manichaean architecture than that of Tibetan Buddhism or Islam. What is known indicates that in Yuan China, the structures of halls for the worship of Mani used the same building parts as Buddhist and Daoist temples. Manichaeism traces its origins to Gnosticism in the early centuries of Christianity.153 Manichaeans built a monastery in Chang’an in 762. Its name was Dayunguangmingsi, the suffix si the same one used in the name of a Chinese Buddhist monastery and the Chinese name of a mosque to denote a religious institution. There are no descriptions of the Chang’an Manichaean monastery. Following imperial persecution of Manichaeans in Chang’an in 843, the religion flourished primarily in the Uyghur empire.154 Manichaeism returned to China, at least in the city of Quanzhou, in the Song dynasty.155 A destroyed temple associated with the year 1339 is rebuilt outside Quanzhou in Jinjiang, Fujian, today. The only other evidence of Manichaean architecture in China comes from painting.

206

Muslim and Other Architecture

Architecture in Manichaean paintings, that is, paintings that illustrate ceremonies or gods of the religion, dated to the Yuan period, or perhaps a little earlier or later, is important evidence that the structural features of buildings in temple-complexes were Chinese. Nine hanging scrolls, three of them fragmentary, present a knowledge of Chinese architecture as specific as details in Yonglegong murals and in tomb murals.156 The painting known as Manichaean Painting Hagiography 3 has six representations of architecture (figure 6.17). A gong-shaped complex is the most prominent. Worship occurs in this complex, and attributes of eminent construction in addition to the gong form define its importance. The three-part building is elevated on a single platform and enclosed by not only a balustrade but one with decorated panels that appears to be carved marble. One does not see dragons as are found at Daidu, only ornamental motifs that perhaps are more appropriate for elite, nonimperial construction, but the position is that of carved marble panels from Daidu (figure 1.27). The roofs of the front and back halls have two sets of eaves. Bracket sets uniformly have three arms, a feature in all buildings in this painting and in the one described below; this detail may be a signature of a painter or workshop. The second representation of architecture in Manichaean Painting Hagiography 3 is the wall that encloses the gong-shaped complex. It has crenellations as a Chinese wall should, and decorative inserts at the corners that one finds in Yuan palatial halls (figure 1.19). This use of a feature of imperial Yuan architecture suggests that the decoration of panels, similar to those from Houyingfang, on the lower balustrade may have been a painter’s abbreviation rather than an indication of the rank of the hall in the painting. The front gate of this complex, the third representation of architecture, shares features with the fourth. Both are gatehouses, elevated structures that could quarter troops, and in the context of eminent architecture, the kind of structure atop a gate that is appropriate for an entry to the building complex. The gate-houses have single roofs; the one in front of the gong-complex has decorated marble inserts in the lower balustrade portion that are not as clear in the gate-house in the upper left corner of the painting. The other two buildings are shrines, both open in the front. Their blue roofs, in contrast to golden for the gong-complex structures and gate-towers, identify their less eminent status and indicate that the painter knew or was instructed in architectural eminence or lack of it. The three representations of architecture in Sermon on Mani’s Teaching on Salvation, in the Yamato Bunkakan in Nara,

6.17 Manichaean Painting Hagiography 3, hanging scroll, 112.1 cm by 56.5 cm, South China, Yuan period (?). Collection of Matsunaga Eijiro.

also confirm an understanding on the part of the painter that Chinese architecture is a ranked system.157 In it, the most eminent building is at the top center, a seven-bay-wide structure approached by a ramp that is decorated so as to suggest the kind of carved marble approach used at Three Purities Hall of Yonglegong (figure 4.3). The ceramic tile roof with two sets of gracefully sloping eaves is typical of Buddha halls in southeastern China, where Manichaeanism flourished in the Yuan period. One sees such a roof in the Buddha hall of Yanfu Monastery (figure 4.41). The structure in the right foreground is the clearest example in the two paintings of the three-arm bracket formation. The middle arm of a bracket set is positioned close enough

207

Chapter Six

6.18 Tombstone with crucifix, Quanzhou, Fujian. Quanzhou Maritime Museum (Quanzhou Haiwai Jiaotongshi Bowuguan)

to the building façade to see the circular roof rafter above it. The third structure is a frame alone. Here it is unambiguous: pillars, pilasters, cap-blocks of pillars, and beams combine as only those in a Chinese building do. Community after Mani’s Death includes a detail of worshippers in front of an icon of Mani. It also has the only example of two-tier bracket sets among the nine hanging scrolls. The use of these bracket sets at the shrine of Mani is consistent with an indicator of building status: Chinese architecture of high rank, identified by three-tier bracketing, delivers the message that it is the locus of god.158 The architecture in and around which Manichaeism should be practiced is not described in a text. No scripture requires that deities be worshipped in architecture with or without gong-arrangements, two sets of roof eaves, marble insets, balustrades, and three levels of bracket arms. Gates can exist without buildings with decorated roof ridges at the top, as they do in paintings. The architecture in the Manichaean paintings defines an eminent setting, the kind associated with gods and royalty in China. The use of Chinese architecture to build for Islam, Tibetan Buddhism, and Manichaeism is not explained by imperial tolerance of religions. It is explained by Chinese architecture. It is a system that has successfully accommodated almost any religious environment and whose details can be imitated in any material.

Churches The architecture of Christianity was as amenable to columnbeam-and-strut infrastructure as architecture of other monotheistic religions such as Islam or Judaism, but evidence of timber framing in churches survives mainly from the twentieth century.159 More often in China, twentieth-century churches, like those of the seven hundred years leading up to them, are made of materials such as brick; sometimes they support Chinese-style ceramic-tile roofs.160 As far as can be determined, although Christianity was present in Tang Chang’an, the only physical evidence of Christians

before the Yuan dynasty is textual or in stele inscriptions.161 Recall from chapter 1 that Church of the East Christianity as well as Roman Catholicism were present in Yuan China. Egami Namio, one recalls, believed he identified John of Montecorvino’s church in Olon Süme. The identification was based on a plan that he proposed to be cross-shaped with a semicircular antechamber. Decades of excavation since Egami’s have not yielded enough information to confirm this. In 1983 Yang Qinzhang and He Gaoji proposed that pillars they found were from the church built by Andrea of Perugia in Quanzhou.162 This identification was based on records of John of Montecorvino.163 Andrea’s tombstone had been discovered in 1946.164 To date, stele images and inscriptions on steles and tombstones, not just in Quanzhou but in Fuzhou, Yangzhou, and other Mongol-period cities, are the best evidence that churches, rectories, and convents existed in Yuan China (figure 6.18). Approximately sixty steles and tombstones support this belief.165 Researchers continue to search for pieces of churches near any location a stele is found, but with little success. I also noted that John of Montecorvino wrote that he sent clergy to establish a church in Yangzhou. Searches for this church have been undertaken since 1951, when two tombstones were found during the demolition of old city walls. The stones remain the main evidence that enough Christians were in the city to support at least one Roman Catholic church. The tombstone of Catherine, daughter of the Italian merchant Lord Dominic Vilioni and sometimes known as the Virgin of Yangzhou, who died in Yangzhou in June 1342, is one of them.166 The imagery on Catherine’s tombstone has led to the idea that she was the benefactress of a convent.167 The second tombstone belonged to her brother Anthony, who died two years later.168 Churches in Daidu have received the most attention. In part this is because they were in the capital. Tombstones on which the crucifix is carved above a lotus found in Beijing in the first half of the twentieth century, at one time kept at Furen (Fu Jen) University, and then moved to Nanjing Museum, led to searches for church remains. The stones cannot be confirmed to have come from Montecorvino’s church. In part the attention is also because John of Montecorvino provides a few details of a church in a letter to the pope in February 1306 that confirms receipt of a request he had made for bells in a letter a year earlier: the Daidu church had three bells in a tower. It is assumed there was a steeple. Details of a second church, not one with bells, are recorded in Xijinzhi. The text says that Shizisi (Temple-complex of the character shi [十], believed to refer to its cross shape) was in Jinggong ward, which

208

Muslim and Other Architecture

was in the same place as the ward of that name in Ming Beijing.169 According to the text, a bridge was in front of the church. The reference to the bridge led Xu Pingfang to a section of Yongle dadian, the encyclopedic complication produced at the court of the Yongle emperor that was published in 1408. Under the heading “famous bridges,” one reads of a bridge in front of a Christian church.170 Xu highlights the fact that, according to Xijinzhi, there was a shrine where Khubilai paid homage to his mother in Jinggong ward. He then locates the ward as north of the north wall of the Daidu palace-city but south of the drum tower and north of Di’anmen Bridge today. The river in front of it would have been Tonghui. Xu calculates the size of the church grounds as equivalent to two hutong.171 There is no evidence Shizisi refers to a building plan. The name could as well be a reference to the perhaps numerous crosses one saw in and around the church, including on stele and tombstones such as the one shown in figure 6.18 from Quanzhou. Still, perhaps because archaeologists of Mongol-period remains are mindful not only of material associated with John of Montecorvino but also of Friar William of Rubruck’s more famous statement, that Ögedei’s palace at Khara-Khorum reminded him of St. Denis, and associations between St. Denis and French cathedrals whose apses and naves formed cross-shapes, they seek cruciform plans; as noted in chapter 1, they seek them in places like Kondui where there are no connections to Christianity. There is no evidence that Daidu’s churches were framed in wood nor that a church in any part of the Yuan empire was shaped like a cross. Zhenjiang, in Jiangsu province just south of Yangzhou and east of Nanjing, was mentioned in passing in chapter 1 as a city that was not being discussed, but if it were, the reason would be the Christian community there. The port city would again be known as a missionary and foreign settlement in the nineteenth century: Pearl Buck (1892–1973) was the daughter of missionaries in Zhenjiang. In 1330–1332 Yu Xilu compiled a record of Zhenjiang that included information about its Yelikewen (Christian) community.172 Zhishun Zhenjiangzhi (Record of Zhenjiang of the Zhishun reign period [1330–1332]) includes a section entitled sengsi (Religion institutions of Buddhist monks) with an entry on Da Xingguosi, which had been built under the direction of Xielijisi in 1281. We have encountered fairly common names like this among members of the Church of the East in discussion of the mausoleum in Guyuan. In this case, Pelliot transcribed Xielijisi as Sargis. Da Xingguosi was one of seven Yelikewen monasteries in Zhenjiang. In 1311, however, the fate of Yelikewen architecture

in Zhenjiang changed. One-by-one, it seems, church complexes reverted to Buddhist institutions. In the process, an artisan who had worked at a white pagoda monastery (Baitasi) reconfigured “walls and rooms.”173 This last passage is important: no matter the construction materials, in China, religious architecture of any faith in any material can reconfigure as other religious architecture. Just as images of Khubilai and Chabui were enshrined in Shenyu Hall of Da Shengshou Wan’ansi in Daidu, Khubilai’s mother had a shrine on the grounds of the Yelikewen church in Daidu. Sacred ground was always subject to imperial will, especially in the capital. Only the landscape of Tibet was little altered by the Mongols. In China, white pagodas were inside the same walled precincts as Buddhist, Daoist, and Manichaean halls, and probably churches, even if they were built of brick.

209

CHAPTER SEVEN

Rock-Carved Architecture and Freestanding Stone

Daoists and Tibetan Buddhists carved worship spaces into natural rock across the Mongol empire. Tibetan Buddhists returned to old Buddhist spaces where they added new grottoes. Daoists opened a new cave site. Rock-carved architecture also was constructed in Northwestern Iran under Mongol rule. The chapter ends with marble statues from ceremonial sites.

Longshan The Daoist caves are at Longshan, one of the hills on the western side of Taiyuan in Shanxi province. The man in charge of most of the caves was Song Defang, the Quanzhen Daoist mentioned in chapters 4 and 5. The nine grottoes on Longshan, six of which are dated to the Yuan period, were part of the Daoist monastery Haotianguan.1 Eight of the caves have names.2 The caves and their Daoist subjects are recorded in local records beginning in the Ming dynasty.3 Tokiwa Daijō found the site in 1920 and published a report in 1921.4 The caves were vandalized shortly thereafter. Caves 4 and 5 are the oldest and date to the Tang dynasty.5 Caves 1, 2, 3, and 7 were carved by or under the direction of Song Defang. According to a stele of 1262, Song came across the Tang caves when he was traveling in Taiyuan’s western hills in 1234. Two of his disciples carved cave 6 in his honor. Each cave has a slightly different plan. Caves 1, 2, and 3 are small, one on top of the other, a configuration found at the nearby Gugu caves that date to the sixth century.6 All three open on the south side. The ground plan of cave 1 is ovoid with an arched entry and flat ceiling. The entry is 1.58 meters high and 1.2 meters wide. Its main chamber is 3.25 by 3.03 meters and 2.33 meters high. The main image sits in a niche at the center of the north wall, with a nimbus decorated with a flame behind it. Ten figures stand in homage to the central image on either side. Most have lost their heads since they were photographed by Tokiwa’s group in 1920. The figure on the north wall might be Xuhuang, the Transcendent Sovereign. The flanking statues might be patriarchs of Quanzhen Daoism.7 Cave 2 is squarish with curved corners and a ceiling. The largest of the Longshan caves, it is 3.56 by 3.5 meters at the base and 2.66 meters in height. An altar projects from each wall. The three images on the north wall are the Three Purities (Sanqing), the deities to whom the main hall of

Yonglegong is dedicated. Three seated and three standing figures are arranged symmetrically on the east and west walls, all paying homage to the Three Purities. The six seated figures are probably the six sovereigns of the Daoist pantheon, four male and two female (figure 7.1).8 Cave 3 is of the same shape as cave 2 above it but smaller: 2.68 by 3.41 meters at the base and 2.15 meters high. The recumbent figure on the north wall of cave 3 has been identified as Wang Chongyang (1112–1170), the founder of Quanzhen Daoism, to whom Chongyang Hall at Yonglegong is dedicated.9 Cave 7, the last of the caves supervised by Song Defang, opens to the east and has front and back interior chambers. The entry no longer survives. Daises for the seven deities, identified as the Seven Perfected Ones, project along the three walls of the back chamber. The cave is dated by inscription to 1236.10 Like cave 7, cave 6 faces east. Squarish with curved corners, it is 2.6 by 2.89 meters and 2.53 meters high. An inscription states that the cave was carved over a three-year period that ended in 1236. A second inscription, written by Song Defang’s disciple, states that the cave was completed in 1239, in other words, after Song’s death.11 Based on the second inscription and date, it is believed that the statue on the west wall of the cave, opposite the entry, is Song Defang, and that his chief disciples, Qin Zhi’an (1188–1244) and Li Zhiquan (1190–1261), are on the north and south walls, respectively, Qin, to Song’s left, and that the fourth image in the cave, in lower relief on the south wall, is a servant. Song Defang, in other words, takes the focal position, which in Buddhist and Daoist cave-temples through the Tang dynasty usually is given to a deity. In a tomb, this position is for the occupant.12 Under Southern Song, however, Zhao Zhifeng (b. 1159), who guided much of the construction at Dazu caves in Sichuan, was carved in that cave group.13 The sculpture of Song Defang at Longshan is consistent with the practice of carving the supervisor into religious cave sites that becomes more widespread in the Song dynasty. Caves 8 and 9 are on either side of caves 1, 2, and 3, number 8 to the east. Both are squarish with curved corners and have no images. The Longshan cave site is small. Five of its caves were opened within a period of fewer than ten years. All the dates are in in-situ inscriptions. The next two sites examined have more, but not greatly more, Yuan-period caves, but the Yuan grottoes are a small number carved at much larger sites. Both sites represent Tibetan Buddhism under Mongol rule.

Rock-Carved Architecture

7.1 Interior of cave 2, Longshan grottoes, Shanxi, 1235–1236. Zhang Mingyuan, Taiyuan Longshan, colorpl. 5. 7.2 Grotto 10, Feilaifeng, Zhejiang, Yuan period

Feilaifeng

across Asia and landed here. Huili founded Pingyin Monastery in 326. Feilaifeng reaches a maximum height of 169 meters. Limestone with seventy-two natural grottoes, approximately one hundred images, about one-third the total number, and nineteen inscriptions date to the years 1282–1292.14 Many of the Yuan sculptures depict Tibetan Buddhist deities, and many of them and their caves were carved under the direction of Yang Lianzhenjia. Yang supervised construction at Feilaifeng during the same ten-year period when he destroyed the Southern Song palaces, secularized Daoist monks, or converted them

Feilaifeng in Hangzhou has 102 caves and more than 300 sculptures that date from 951 through the beginning of the Ming dynasty. It is part of Lingyin Monastery, around which other Chinese Buddhist monasteries stand and opposite which, on the other side of a stream, is the peak known as Feilai (flying from afar). It is also known as Vulture Peak, both names given in the 320s by the Indian monk known in Chinese as Huili. Huili said the site reminded him of Griddhraj Parvat (Vulture Peak) in India, which, he suggested, might have flown

211

Chapter Seven

7.3 Mahakala, Baocheng cave, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 1322. Xiong Wenbin, Yuandai Zang-Han yishu jiaoliu, 166

to Buddhism, and repurposed Daoist and Chinese Buddhist monasteries as Tibetan Buddhist institutions in the same region of the former Southern Song capital. While the sculptures confirm a Tibetan Buddhist presence in Yuan China, the larger cave site Feilaifeng remained. The incorporation of Tibetan Buddhist space into a traditional Chinese Buddhist cave site, itself part of a Chinese Buddhist monastery, can be likened to the plan of Huaisheng Mosque in which Guangta is surrounded by Chinese Buddhist space, or that of Miaoyingsi in which White Pagoda stands. Caves dedicated to the gods of Chinese Buddhism also were carved in the Yuan period. Caves are either dated by inscriptions or dated to the Yuan period based on the style of sculpture in them. The Tibetan Buddhist sculptures are most recognizable by multiple arms or heads, crowns with individual, spade-shaped projections, and objects such as swords in their hands (figure 7.2). Occasionally, such as in caves 69 and 84, the image may appear beneath a chorten. Chinese Buddhist statues are identifiable by the snail-shell-shaped curls of hair and deities in their crowns. Several examples of the Water Moon Guanyin of Chinese Buddhism are dated to the Yuan period. The structure of a Yuan grotto is hard to distinguish as Chinese Buddhist or Tibetan Buddhist. A few general features are observed. In Yuan caves at Feilaifeng, both the niches and their statues are large. The largest, known as the Vaiśravaṇa (Duowen tianwang) Cave, is 3.1 meters high with statues of 2 meters. Niches are squarish or rectangular with flat or arched ceilings. Lotus pedestals come in several varieties. In general, the drapery of Chinese Buddhist images falls in pleats over the lotus pedestals on which images sit. Tibetan Buddhist images more often are elevated on seats with flat edges or that are squarish, sometimes with beads along the top. Some Yuan grottoes, with both Chinese Buddhist and Tibetan Buddhist imagery, have a T-shaped floor or back wall, so that the head of the main image in a group can be emphasized. Caves with Yuan-dated images or inscriptions, both Chinese Buddhist or Tibetan style, are no. 3, dated 1282; nos. 53 and 92, dated 1288;

no. 89, dated 1289; no. 62, dated 1290; no. 57, dated 1291; no. 32, dated 1291; nos. 75, 98, and 99, dated 1292; and no. 59, dated to Zhiyuan 2X, the effaced character meaning that it was carved after 1283 and no later than 1294.15 Cave 91 has an inscription that is believed to be of the Yuan period but is illegible.16 The clear associations with Yang Lianzhenjia, confirmed by dates, make them the earliest Tibetan Buddhist imagery in China, carved approximately half-a-century before the underside of Cloud Terrace (figure 3.7) or statues that survive from Baocheng Monastery, discussed below.

Baocheng Monastery In contrast to Feilaifeng, three grottoes at Baocheng Monastery in Hangzhou present as a small, triplet group, more similar in scope to the Longshan cave-temples than to Feilaifeng. The Baochengsi grottoes date around the year 1322. According to literary records, the monastery Baochengsi was built by an imperial concubine surnamed Yang between 935 and 944, during rule of the Wuyue kingdom. The next recorded date is 1008–1016. Stone images of Guanyin and the sixteen luohan, images of Chinese Buddhism, could still be seen in the Chenghua reign period (1465–1487). After that, destruction occurred several times. The Yuan-period caves are not mentioned in literary sources until the seventeenth century.17 A record of 1727 mentions numerous repairs during the Yongzheng reign. A repair stele of 1615 records an image of the Tibetan-Buddhist protector deity Mahakala. Until the 1980s, the Mahakala statue was hidden. During a study of Baocheng Monastery undertaken by the Hangzhou city government in that decade, the Mahakala was found to be the central of three deities, flanked by Tantric images of the bodhisattvas Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra (figure 7.3). This grotto was to the right (as one faces the caves) of a larger cave that contained the Buddhas of the Three Realms (Sanshi). Left of the central cave was an unfinished third cave in which no statues survived in the 1980s.

Arzhai and Gansu The red sandstone rock-carved cave site known in English as Arzhai (A’erzhai/Arjai) is in Etuokeqi in the Ordos region of western Inner Mongolia. The site is surrounded by mountains. The first investigation of Arzhai was conducted by the Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Unit in 1956. It was decided

212

Rock-Carved Architecture

7.4 Buddhist caves, Arzhai, Inner Mongolia

that not enough was found to be worth publishing. The same group returned in the 1970s, when the caves were assessed to be Yuan or a little later.18 In 1989–1990 excavators and researchers from four agencies, including the Inner Mongolian Academy of Social Science, investigated the site. This time, Uyghur, Mongolian, and Tibetan inscriptions were found. It was concluded that some caves had been carved in the Western Xia period, or perhaps earlier. An even broader-based group studied the caves in 1993, resulting in several publications. A conference was held at Arzhai in 2008.19 Since the 1990s, one of the most important questions about Arzhai has been whether Chinggis Khan was there. One hundred eight caves were carved, the number a multiple of nine and thus an auspicious number, in imperial as well as Buddhist numerology. Today sixty-five rock-carved caves rise as a unit on a low hill about forty meters high and about three hundred meters across the front (north-south) by fifty to eighty meters in depth (figure 7.4). About forty-three are largely intact. Most of the caves are along the south side. Twenty-six pagodas are carved into the cliff faces, all but one in Sino-Tibetan style (figure 7.5). The Sino-Tibetan pagodas are dated from Western Xia to Ming. They may be funerary for monks who lived at Arzhai. The Chinese, louge-style pagoda is dated to Western Xia.20 Pagodas range in size from six meters to ten centimeters. Remaining sculpture inside the caves is fragmentary. More than two thousand square meters of murals comprising about one thousand scenes survive on the walls. Pottery shards that would have been used by resident monks indicate dates from Northern Wei through mid-Ming.21

7.5 Tibetan-style pagoda on face of Buddhist caves, Arzhai, Inner Mongolia, probably Yuan period

213

7.6 Interior, Cave 28, Arzhai, Inner Mongolia

7.7 Mural, south wall, Cave 28, Arzhai, Inner Mongolia

Rock-Carved Architecture

The extant caves divide into three types: central pillar caves, four-sided caves without central pillars, and multicave groups. The largest extant cave is twenty-five square meters; its ceiling has collapsed. Caves of approximately twenty square meters are about two meters high and usually have an arched niche for a Buddhist image. Murals remain in almost all the larger caves. The smallest caves are about 9 meters square at the base and about 1.5 meters high. Their interiors do not have Buddha niches, but all of them seem to have originally been painted. Almost every cave is entered from the center front. Entryways are either arched or rectangular. Caves 10 and 28 are dated to Northern Wei. They have four-sided central pillars and a Buddha niche at the back wall. Contemporary caves with this plan are found at Yungang in Shanxi, and at Xumishan, Mogao, and Bei Shikusi, all in Gansu.22 Fifty-five caves are dated to Western Xia. The dating is based on comparisons with Western Xia caves at Matisi, Gansu.23 Western Xia cave interiors tend to have Buddha niches on the back wall and side walls, with altars in front of them. All the Arzhai caves with pagodas carved on exterior walls to the immediate left or right of the entrance are believed to date to Western Xia. Caves with a paint color known as “Western Xia mural green” also are dated to that period. Like the Tibetan Buddhist-style pagodas, murals in Western Xia caves have Tibetan Buddhist imagery. Western Xia caves also tend to have lotuses in the center of ceilings, some of them with latticing that also may have murals outside the lotuses. For mural pigments and ceiling styles, Mogao caves and Yulin caves, both in the Dunhuang region, dated to Western Xia are the most important sources of comparisons.24 The few caves that might have been carved in the Yuan period are small compared to the others at Arzhai and do not have statuary. Western Xia and Northern Wei caves do bear signs of later painting, some of it dated to the Yuan period because of pigments, subjects, or style. The most important Yuan murals are discussed here. Cave 28, one of the central-pillar caves that is believed to have been first carved in the Northern Wei period, has been the focus of those who believe Chinggis came to Arzhai. More than fifty figures are among its murals. The main images on the two side walls are bodhisattvas and divine protectors of Tibetan Buddhism as well as the sixteen luohan (figure 7.6). Vaiśravana, guardian king of the North, is on the south wall, the side of the entrance. The painting of greatest interest is under the

deity. The largest, central figure in the scene has been identified as Chinggis, with his four sons to the viewer’s right, wives or daughters flanking him to the right and left, and a sacrificial animal below him. The groups on either side of the sacrifice are identified as Chinggis’s generals, Chinggis’s ministers, and the priesthood (figure 7.7). The mural is argued to affirm passages in The Secret History of the Mongols that indicate Chinggis camped in this region in 1227 with wounds received during attacks on Western Xia, whose territory included Arzhai.25 He would die from those wounds. Murals in cave 31 also include a central male and female, family members, and those paying respect to them on either side.26 Some are skeptical that Chinggis or his sons would have had themselves painted. Although Etuokeqi was in the appanage of Chinggis’s son Tolui, skeptics nevertheless propose that decoration of caves 28 and 31 occurred after the fall of the Mongols to the Ming, during Northern Yuan. The skeptics believe that the recipient of homage in both caves is Altan Khan (1507–1582), a devout Buddhist who took counsel from Tibetan monks and the man who built the capital Köke-Köqa (Höhhot) and monasteries across Inner Mongolia.27 The identification of the image as Chinggis also is related to patronage. Although it is probably unlikely that Chinggis or an immediate relative commissioned this painting, Mongol rulers and their families are portrayed. In 1278–1279 “portraits” of Chinggis and his sons Ögedei and Tolui had been commissioned for worship in an ancestral hall.28 Recall from chapter 5 that the emperor Tugh Temür commissioned the silk tapestry known as Vajrabhairava Mandala, in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, dated 1329–1332, with images of himself and his half-brother Khosila, and from chapter 1 that the nine monasteries sponsored by Khubilai and Chabui at Daidu had halls for the enshrinement of paintings of emperors and empresses. As noted, the portraits of Mongol rulers and their wives known as “Yuandai dihouxiang” (Images of Yuan emperors and empresses) in the Palace Museum, Taipei, are later versions of some of these images. A separate temple group consisting of three structures oriented north-south in an area of about 1,200 square meters was found beyond the main unit of 108 caves. Glazed ceramic tiles, including roof end-tiles with animal-faced decoration, and evidence of burning were found there. A chorten is carved in an exterior face.29 Chorten also are carved on exterior faces of worship caves south of Arzhai in eastern Gansu province. Whereas the

215

Chapter Seven

7.9 Remains of Pagoda at Ta’ersi, Suoyang, Guazhou, Gansu, Yuan period. From Google search of Guazhou Gansu.

7.8 Chorten in relief, Cave 167, Binglingsi, Yongjing, Gansu, Yuan period. Yang Huifu, Gansu guta yanjiu, 115.

chorten on exterior wall faces at Arzhai are representations of the entire pagoda, those on the faces of cave-temples in Gansu most often also are functional: they mark the entry into a niche. The entrance is a squarish or rectangular hole in the chorten shaft. Chorten in relief at Binglingsi in Yongjing include several outside cave 167 that are dated to the Yuan period, although since there are no inscriptions, it is understood that they may have been carved in Western Xia or in early Ming period (figure 7.8).30 Similarly, chorten that surround seven small niches on the exterior face of Huadamenshan are dated Western Xia or Yuan.31 Many chorten, larger than those at Huadamen with central openings in the shaft to allow entrance into the niches behind them, are carved on the façade of Matisi in Sunan Yugu autonomous region; 457 had been identified by 2014.32 Chorten in their own niches on the façades of Buddhist caves also proliferate in Wushan county of Tianshui. Seven dated to the Yuan period fill niches ranging from about two to about five meters high by under a meter deep.33 At the cave-temple site Lashaosi among the Shuilian grottoes in the same county of Tianshui, a chorten similarly fills its niche on the exterior of the caves.34 An unusual niche at the Mutisi caves, also in the same county, presents a

pair of chorten.35 All the cave sites were opened before the end of the sixth century. Remains of freestanding pagodas also survive in Gansu. Four are in the vicinity of East Qianfodong (Thousand Buddhas Cave), among the Dunhuang cave-temples. Five foundations are in a row in Guazhou, formerly Anxi, also among the Dunhuang cave groups. The best-preserved pagodas are at Ta’ersi in Suoyang, Guazhou (figure 7.9). Nine meters of a pagoda likely to date to the Yuan period also rise in Ganzhou, Zhangye.36 Mud-earth pagodas dated to the Yuan period or thereabout stand close to their original heights, 3.35 and 9.6 meters, on two slopes of Sanweishan in Dunhuang.37 A white chorten that stood in Liangzhou, Wuwei, in the Yuan dynasty was rebuilt in 2001.

Rock-Carved Architecture in Northwestern Iran The Marāgheh observatory discussed in chapter 3 rises on high ground overlooking the city. Below the observatory complex but above the town are caves that were noted by anyone who stood there since the early nineteenth century.38 In 1934 André Godard (1881–1965) published a plan showing a narrow entrance on the west, a long, narrow passageway from it northward, and a short path to the central area with rooms on three sides.39 He used the roughly cruciform interior space as evidence to propose that these caves were carved by Hülegü as a church for Bar Hebraeus (1226–1286), who, consecrated in Church of the East Christianity, had come to Marāgheh to use the library compiled by Nasir al-Dīn al-Tūsī and died there.40 Christians, including Hülegü’s wife Doghuz Khatun and Rabban Sawma, worshipped at Marāgheh, but there is no information about where. Worship in caves is not associated with Christian practice since the early centuries of the faith. Ghāzān Khan is said to have built a church in Marāgheh. Nothing is known about its architecture.

216

Rock-Carved Architecture

7.10 Plan of Imāmzāda Ma’sūm caves, ˙ near Marāgheh, East Azerbaijan, thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. After Azad, “Three Rock-Cut Cave Sites,” 220.

7.11 Interior chamber, Imāmzāda Ma’s ūm caves, near Marāgheh, East ˙ Azerbaijan, thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. https://www.tertullian. org/rpearse/mithras/display. php?page=supp_Iran_Maragheh_ VerjuyTemple.

The cave-temples known as Imāmzāda Ma’ṣūm, in Vardjovi, are about six kilometers southeast of Marāgheh, in East Azerbaijan. Eleven interconnected grottoes are entered on the north via eight steps downward from ground level, where a large, four-sided central area whose ceiling has collapsed is joined by a corridor to an intact circular space behind it (figure 7.10) 41 A cave group of four domed spaces joins on the northeast. At least two chambers have intact domes (figure 7.11). In 1973 Parvīz Vardjavānd proposed that Imāmzāda Ma’ṣūm was a Mithraic temple.42 Whether rites believed to have originated in ancient Roman times that were related to the emperor and involved the sacrifice of bulls were practiced in these grottoes has not been proved, but it is the kind of idea, especially when it would have occurred during the period of Mongolian rule, that draws attention. In 1979 Warwick Ball, emphasizing that rock-carved cave architecture is not as rare in Iran as one

might think, provided a list of eighteen important rock-carved sites and compared them with cave-temples in regions contiguous to Iran including Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Ball concluded that Imāmzāda Ma’ṣūm dates to the period of Mongolian rule and is Buddhist.43 Like most rock-cut complexes across the world, Imāmzāda Ma’ṣūm probably was carved over time. Few question activity there during the Mongol period. East Azerbaijan, Zanjan, and Ardabil have long held evidence that foreign goods were in this part of Iran under Mongol rule. Chinese ceramics, especially of the Southern Song dynasty (1127–1279), abound at the Ardabil Shrine.44 Soltaniyeh (Sultāniyya), built anew on a site selected by Arghūn Khan (r. 1284–1291), and the Ilkhānid summer capital constructed at Takht-i Suleiman during the reign of Arghūn’s son Öljeytü (r. 1304–1316), were decorated with large numbers of glazed tiles with patterns inspired by China.45 There is strong

217

Chapter Seven

7.12 “Viar Dragon,” Dāsh Kasan, Zanjan

7.13 Viar Dragon site of Dāsh Kasan, Zanjan. HiPersia.com/en.Armin Hage-files.

evidence of a Buddhist community in these provinces before and during the Mongol period.46 The most compelling evidence of rock-carved caves in northwestern Iran that may have been inspired by China comes from the site known today as Dāsh Kasan in the village of Vi(y)ar, near Soltaniyeh. Relief framed in a rectangular inset of 600 by 160 centimeters is nicknamed the “Viar Dragon” (figure 7.12). Research through the 1990s focused on the style of the dragon, justifying that it could be influenced by Islamic or Medieval European as well as Chinese imagery,47 and on the name of the site, querying if the name might be a shortened form of vihara, the Sanskrit word referring to the group of monastic cells around the courtyard of a Buddhist monastery.48 Most publications showed only the framed image; to its right is a niche that may be described as an iwan (a structural form noted in discussion of Shengyou Mosque), with muqarnas occupying its upper portions. In 2005 a rock fall led to cleaning and opening of more of the site. The Viar Dragon is one of a pair. Although the creature has been called a dragon because, as mentioned, dragons have Persianate significance, the single inset on the west also has been described as a mihrab, for it is on the Makkah side of the site. Decoration of the space that indicates the direction of prayer with a dragon seems unusual. The presence of two creatures in apposition, however, raises the possibility that the pair might be an eastern dragon and western tiger, or representations of

those two creatures interpreted by artisans in Ilkhānid Iran as a pair of dragons (figure 7.13). The dragon on the east and tiger on the west are two of the four sishen, Chinese sacred creatures often known as the four directional animals. The power and pedigree of these symbols have continuous histories from the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) in China and several centuries later in Korea, Japan, and Mongolia.49 Any one of the four can by interpreted as an identifier of its direction; when at least two occur, understanding of their significance as part of the group of four is assumed. The four directional animals often are found on walls of tombs and on roof tiles. The dragon and tiger occur more often than the other two, for they are depicted opposite each other on the walls that line the approach ramps to subterranean tombs. They also bear symbolism of associated colors, elements, and seasons.50 As for the dragon itself, the fact that each one is set into a panel also may be significant. Panels with relief sculpture of dragons were set into balustrades at Yuan Daidu and appear in Yuan paintings of balustrades (figure 1.27). One has no reason to associate the imperial use of dragons in China with the representations in Viar. The wide use of framed dragons to decorate monumental architecture, rather, is the point to emphasize. Stone carvers worked across China to decorate balustrade panels and insets during the Yuan dynasty. They or those who had studied or seen techniques in China could have directed the wall reliefs in Viar.

218

Rock-Carved Architecture

7.14 Sacrificial site 3 during excavation in 1992, Yangqunmiao, Inner Mongolia. Wei Jian, Shangdu, colorpl. 269.1.

Any rock-carved Buddhist space is likely to have niches for meditation and worship; in the Persianate world, a single, indented space in the correct direction might be a mihrab. Dragons alone or dragons paired with tigers are not Buddhist, but they are Chinese. In Viar, the juxtaposition of dragons and muqarnas in rock-carved architecture near other rock-carved spaces argued to be Buddhist and sites where Chinese ceramics have been found exemplifies the entanglement of Mongol-period architecture inspired by China yet constructed so far from a Chinese source. That is, China, Iran, Buddhism, and Islam can all be observed at this site, but rather than converge, each one entangles the others into a single monument. Worship caves at Marāgheh are similarly entangled by the space for scientific study of the heavens above them. A Chinese presence among imagery at a cave-site so close to Marāgheh strengthens the possibility that Chinese craftsmen worked on the observatory as well as the caves beneath and near it. The skill of craftsmen who executed the animal reliefs in Viar is seen in other monuments of the Mongol empire. Some of the best examples are statues from ceremonial sites.

Yangqunmiao A goal of archaeologists and scholars always is to relate the placement of buildings and space to ceremonies. For Yuan architecture, there has been little success. Even for ceremonies at locations where major imperial rites surely took place, such as Wanshoushan in Daidu, what actually occurred there remains elusive. After three years of excavation, archaeologists postulated that the Jurchen site in Antu, Jilin province, discussed in chapter 2, was ceremonial; east-west orientation was a clue. Still, there are no details about the ceremonies to the sun or of any other kind. Researchers continue to seek evidence of connections

between Chinggis Khan and Arzhai, with the hope of linking the mural in cave 28 to ritual performed in front of it. One can only confirm that today Chinggis’s birthday is celebrated at Arzhai. The celebration takes place outside the caves, in May. Yangqunmiao (Sheep Group Temple) in Zhenglanqi, about thirty-five kilometers northwest of Shangdu, to date offers certain evidence of Mongol ritual. The specifics of any ceremony performed there remain unknown. Yangqunmiao comprises four wall-enclosed, rammed-earth platforms, three of which are in a roughly northwest-southeast line, backed by a hill and elevated on a plateau about 1.5 kilometers above the grasslands. A life-size marble statue of a seated male was positioned about three meters from the southern edge of each platform. A stone wall approximately thirty meters on each side enclosed each mound and statue. Four tombs lie to the west, the closest about five hundred meters from one of the platforms. Today on farmland associated with a village that is snow-covered for as many as six months a year, the walled enclosures were targets for looting. The site was excavated between August and October 1992, after which all remains were removed (figure 7.14).51 The quality of statuary is such that one is inclined to suppose carving was done by Chinese craftsmen (figure 7.15). Seated on folding chairs, all four Yangqunmiao statues wear a garment with an inset that drapes down the center of the back. Above the chair rim, the inset has three rows of three flowers, all lotuses and each different. Stems encompass each flower. The drapery pattern is imitated in its lower part, which is framed between the upper and lower sections and pieces that join them on the back center of the folding chair. This lower portion focuses on a chrysanthemum with leaves of different shapes around it. The drapery pattern on the upper part of the statue is reversed on a front breastplate on which the upper right flower is a bud.

219

Chapter Seven

7.15 Side of statue of seated male showing five-clawed dragon on shoulder, side pouch, and finger rings, marble, probably from site 1 or 3, Yangqunmiao, Inner Mongolia, fourteenth century. Now in Shangdu Museum. 7.16 Statue of seated male, marble, probably from site 2, Yangqunmiao, Inner Mongolia, fourteenth century. Now in Shangdu Museum.

The main garment extends to the shoulders, which also are covered with a four-sided pattern, perhaps a Buddhist thunderbolt, enclosed in a circle at the top and mushroom-shaped cloud patterning below it. Five-clawed dragons, a privilege of Chinese royalty, cover the upper back and shoulders and extend to the front of the garments worn by statues from sites 1 and 3. Those two statues have a chrysanthemum on the lower part of the back drapery. Statues from sites 1, 2, and 3 all have small feet with a pattern at the front of the shoes. Each holds a flask, pointed at the bottom and wide at the top, in his right hand. The two whose left hands survive wear a ring on the third or fourth finger. A pouch is suspended to each side of each statue’s garment. These are believed to have held flint for making a fire (figure 7.16). The fourth statue is not complete enough for comparisons of these features. The quality of marble carving is comparable to the quality of decorative elements such as corner insets and ramps used in palaces at Shangdu and Daidu (figures 1.19 and 1.26). The materiality, pose, garments, and surface decoration of the statues are without question those one associates with the khans. The khans, as we have said, did not mark their graves. Studies of Tavan-Tolgoi, one recalls, used such statues to support theories of royal burial. Current scholarly belief is that at least one of the four sets of altars and statues is a shrine or ancestral temple to El-Temür (d. 1333). If any nonroyal deserved statues and altars in 1333, and perhaps even was privileged to decorate with five-clawed dragons, El-Temür is a likely candidate.52 Of Kipchak descent and a grandson of Khubilai’s commander Tutugh (1237–1297), El-Temür had been a commander under Khaishan. He helped Khaishan during the power struggle that made him khaghan, and, although he was not as powerful in 1328 as he had been when Khaishan was alive, upon the death of Yisün Temür in 1328 he was instrumental in restoring the line of descent to Khaishan’s son Togh Temür rather than to a descendant of Yisün Temür: El-Temür was able to get Tugh Temür enthroned in Daidu before the arrival of the new emperor’s older brother Khoshila, who was enthroned briefly and then murdered, probably poisoned, by directive of El-Temür. As long as Tugh Temür lived, El-Temür flourished. He received entitlement as prince and grand preceptor according to the Chinese system and as darkhan in Mongolia and then became manager of the Bureau of Military Affairs and grand academician of the Star of Literature Pavilion. He controlled six units of imperial guards, received an imperial consort as a wife,

220

Rock-Carved Architecture

7.17 Container and objects found at site 3, Yangqunmiao, Inner Mongolia, Jiaqing period or later. Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 2, 292.1.

and saw his brothers and sisters receive imperial appointments and marry into the royal household, respectively.53 If indeed stone statues never were erected to Mongols, it is possible that as a Kipchak, statuary for El-Temür could be justified, and that similarly, the statues in Tavan-Tolgoi bear witness to Önggüd or other blood mixed with that of the Chinggisids. Site 3 contained something not found at the other sites. A three-sided, wooden-plank box, open at the front, was set into a cubic hole with a brick floor and sides of layers of azure bricks, sixty by forty centimeters at the base, thirty centimeters high, and covered with a brick lid. It was positioned between the mound and the statue. A white porcelain Buddha sat on a vase, with two smaller white Buddhas on a platform in front of him. To the sides were four turquoise, porcelain plates, and a tiny vase was in one corner. A Buddhist text written in vermilion was inside a case inside the large Buddha (figure 7.17). The plates are clues to the age of the repository, or at least of one deposit: they date to the Jiaqing reign period (1796–1820). Yangqunmiao raises many questions: Are the statues and altars sufficient evidence to confirm that these are sites of Yuanperiod ceremony, and, of course, what took place? Was the site still used in the Jiaqing period, and by whom? Did Mongols pay homage here in the nineteenth century? If one or more of these statues honors El-Temür and his lineage, and if those in Tavan-Tolgoi honor descendants of the Önggüd, were the faces as generic as the lotuses and other flowers on the garments and decorative inserts? Finally, the powerful Yuan minister Bayan (1281?–1340), who had worked alongside El-Temür to orchestrate the enthronement of Togh Temür in 1328, executed El-Temür’s descendants in 1335, during his own rise to power under the last Yuan emperor, Toghōn Temür. Bayan eventually became Grand Chancellor of the Right, the highest appointment at the Mongol court. Without children to pay homage to their ancestor, how is it, if the altars and statues in Yangqunmiao were built for the disgraced El-Temür, that they survived the duration of Yuan rule? Was a deposit of images in ca. 1800 made to a headless statue? Today one sees men holding a cup in one hand and the other hand on the knee below it, sometimes with the pouch on a sleeve or hanging from a belt, seated in folding chairs or chairs with

backs, in museums across Inner and Outer Mongolia. Only a few, such as one prominently displayed at the Chinggis Khaan Museum of Mongolia in Ulaanbaatar, retain their head (figure 7.18). They are the ones researchers turn to in assessing the concept of portraiture across the grasslands in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Called stone men by most, they have not been definitively studied. Some of the statues were published by V. A. Kazakevich in 1930. Many of the statues published by him remain in situ and are illustrated in the Mongolian Academy of Science publication of 2016 by Ch. Amartuvshin, in which seventy-eight stone men of the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries are identified.54 Statues stand in Govi-Altay, Dornogovi, Dornod, Dundgovi, Ovörkhangai, Sukhbaatar, Töv, and Khentii. Often they are found facing southeast in front of a mound. In those cases, as at Yangqunmaio, the statues are in isolation, and in one instance, in Lamtyn Ikher, in a pair, but different from Yangqunmiao, there is no evidence of walled enclosures. Most of the Mongolian examples are seated, and more of their chairs have backs than fold. In all cases, the cup, sometimes a goblet, is held in the right hand, the left hand is on the knee or an arm of the chair, and most have belts, small pouches, and knives. The same statues may wear garments decorated with floral patterns. A very few dated to the period of the Yuan dynasty show genitalia.55 A few of the statues have braided hair that identifies them as women, and some of the women wear the boqta. Ge Shanlin’s 1999 study of stone men focused on Zhenglanqi, Duolun county, East Ujimqinqi, West Ujimqinqi, and Abagqi.56 This central part of Inner Mongolia borders the Mongolian provinces Sukhbaatar and Dornogovi. In addition to the three stone men that remained near Shangdu, Ge found a stone man about ten kilometers southwest of Shangdu. He found five near a tomb in East Ujimqinqi, and six more among five sites in Zhenglanqi. He found forty-three stone figures in total, the majority male and at least one female. The identifying criteria were the clothing, including headgear, pouches, and decoration on garments and chairs. Ge, who like Wei Jian and Chen Yongzhi, who had studied the stone men of Yangqunmiao in 1994, turns to facial features to argue that the statues are Mongols.57 He uses murals

221

Chapter Seven

from tombs excavated in Chifeng county, several of which are discussed in chapter 5, as evidence for Mongol facial features and clothing (figures 5.2 and 5.3). Perhaps the statues represent Mongols, but the more important information one seeks about the stone men is who erected them, why, and if ceremonies were performed around them. As we have seen in the investigation of tomb murals, representation as a Mongol does not necessarily mean the patron or person represented was a Mongol. The fact that no inscriptions have been found on or near any of the stone men or women is important. Architectural space associated with China, including during the period of Mongol rule, often has an identifying inscription. Aboveground funerary space associated with Chinese royalty or near royalty has a spirit path, and architectural space in China is walled. As mentioned, so far none of the statues found in Mongolia has had these features; walling is in evidence only in the vicinity of Shangdu. Researchers who pursue identification of the Yangqunmiao statues through facial features also compare them with images of males in the 1330s edition of Shilin guangji (figure 5.8). The same scholars also have turned to an image in stone of a seated male, perhaps enthroned, flanked by two women and two horsemen found in Damaoqi, Inner Mongolia, dated to 1301 and said to be of Chinggis’s successor Temür (figure 7.19); and to the set of portrayals of emperors and wives in the Palace Museum, Taipei, referred to in earlier chapters, to convincingly argue a Yuan date. Interpretations of facial features based on thirteenth- or fourteenth-century representations is not a reliable way to determine who is represented by a stone figure from Yangqunmiao or any other location. Whether the stone men were intended to be portraits and if the portrayed are Mongols are even more complicated. Isabelle Charleux’s carefully researched and even-handed studies of stone men present three important facts: thirteenth-century writers, including Rashīd al-Dīn and John of Plano Carpini, describe the worship of images of khans; twentieth-century studies that might be categorized as ethnographic confirm the use of small and large effigies across Mongolia; and paintings of Mongol rulers hung in ancestral temples, a building type and its rituals adopted from China by the Mongols, in the Hanlin Academy, and in ancestral shrines on the grounds of monasteries, including Da Shengshou Wan’ansi (figure 1.24, #56) and Da Huguo Renwangsi in Daidu.58 Yet emphasizing that any stone figure in Mongolia is ongghon, something that possesses the

7.18 Male seated on folding chair. Chinggis Khaan Museum, Ulaanbaatar, Yuan period 7.19 Enthroned male flanked by two women, Damaoqi, Inner Mongolia, 1301. Zhao Fangzhi, Caoyuan wenhua, 244.

222

Rock-Carved Architecture

7.20 Stone men, Erdenemandel, Arkhangai, probably Türk period

spirit of the deceased, Charleux further states that while khans may be worshiped in the form of effigies, they and their wives also may be portrayed as worshipers. The small figures in the bottom corners of Vajrabhairava Mandala in the Metropolitan Museum of Art are examples. Charleux does not believe the stone men are not khans. Stone men of course are portrayals, and more than a hanging scroll or mural that is part of an interior space, or a textile that may be hung or carried outdoors for a ceremony, but otherwise stored, a stone man, even if surrounded by walls on the grasslands, is hard to conceal; it is lost only if destroyed. As powerful as the images may be today, they should have been at least as powerful when they were first erected, whether during the Yuan period or centuries earlier (figure 7.20).59 One cannot know if the sculptural ancestors of the Mongolperiod stone men such as the ones shown in figure 7.20 were worshiped in the thirteenth century, but they definitely existed across Mongolia and Southern Russia. Those dated earliest, usually from the third to first millennium BCE, often have faces and often have antlers that given them the name “deer stones.”60 Stone men proliferate during the period of the Türk khaghanates, roughly the late sixth century to 744.61 Some 684 were recorded in 2016. From the following Uyghur period, eight have been identified to date, in Arkhanghai and Bayan-Olgii, the latter Mongolia’s westernmost province.62 Three may be from the Khitan period, two in Uvs and one in Bulgan. Long before the Mongol period, anyone traversing the Mongolian grasslands is likely to have seen a stone man, and its date is likely to have been Türk period. The Türk did not build tombs, but they did build memorial shrines. Statuary from several survive, including at Bilge Khaghan’s (683–734) memorial in Khöshöö Tsaidam, about forty kilometers north of Kharkhorin in Arkhangai.63 Excavation in Khöshöö Tsaidam in 2001 that yielded more than 1,500 pieces of gold, silver, gems, and architectural remains, as well as inscriptions in stone, is the basis for the reconstruction of Bilge

Khaghan’s memorial. The complex was enclosed by a rectangular wall, ninety-six by sixty meters, which may have been further enclosed by a moat, a feature one associates with Chinese walled construction. Reconstructions of the site include a central gate behind which was a stele on a tortoise back, six pairs of standing or kneeling monumental statues of the kind that could define a Chinese spirit path, a pair of stone animals, a memorial structure, and a back gate, all along one line. The spirit paths and the tortoise-back stele are privileges of Chinese royalty at least since the Han dynasty, and I have noted the use of tortoises to support stele at Khara-Khorum. Two dragons entwine at the top of the two steles known as the Orkhon inscriptions in the museum at Khöshöö Tsaidam today. Spirit paths and entwined dragons almost surely reference China, but other statues of Türk royalty, such as an often-published head wearing a crown with a frontal image of a bird spreading its wings in the Chinggis Khaan Museum, Mongolia, cannot be confirmed to have been part of a spirit-path statue or stone man.64 Ceremonies performed in front of or in proximity to Türk stone men are as elusive as those in front of Yuan-period stone men. The marble carving of the stone statues dated to the Yuan period is deeper and exhibits more fluid lines than incisions on earlier statues. Yet hand-held cups and belts may be inspired by millennia of monumental stone statuary of men and women on the grasslands. Stone men of the Mongol period are part of a continuous history of stone sculpture in North Asia. When erected near Shangdu, they possess workmanship that brings them into Chinese art historical discourse, similar to Chinesestyle buildings patronized by Mongols in the same part of Asia.

223

CHAPTER EIGHT

Yuan-Period Construction East of China

Through seven chapters, we have seen the influence of China in secular and religious architecture above and below ground in China and Mongolia, and occasionally in Russia and Iran, in the period from Ögedei’s rule through the fall of the Yuan dynasty. Only in Inner Mongolia did we observe a site almost certainly designed for Mongol rituals, but in contrast to sites with similar statues farther North in Mongolia and Russia, the location so close to a Yuan capital was walled, and the statues exhibit deeper carving, more-polished finish, and more deeply-carved floral patterns, leading to speculation the statues standing in today’s Inner Mongolia were made by Chinese craftsmen or workmen trained by them. Arzhai may include representations of Mongols on its walls, but as rock-carved Buddhist worship caves, the structures of individual grottoes and the composite site reference China. Here we look at architecture east of China built under the inspiration of Chinese models. We begin on continental Asia with Korea, which was under Mongol control from ca. 1270–1356. China had been a strong influence on the architecture of the Korean peninsula for more than a thousand years prior to the Mongol invasions. Wooden architecture and remains of palatial architecture that survive from the period of Mongol domination equally follow Chinese patterns. We shall note an example of a Tibetan-style pagoda, and see that it came to Korea from China, not directly from Tibet. Japan, too, had been influenced by and intentionally borrowed Chinese urban, palatial, Buddhist, and to a certain extent funerary architecture for as long.1 The Mongols were not able to conquer Japan, but unique forms of Buddhist architecture were built on the islands during the period of Mongolian rule. It, too, is discussed here.

Koryŏ Architecture, ca. 1231–ca. 1356 The Koryŏ dynasty officially came to power in 918. By 936 the three kingdoms of Koguryŏ, Paekche, and Silla, which had risen at the end of the first millennium BCE and been unified by Silla in 668, had emerged again briefly in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. Koryŏ conquered all three as well as part of Parhae to their north. Liao was already on the rise in the early tenth century. Before the end of the tenth century, Koryŏ was at war with Liao. Relations normalized in the early 1020s. Koryŏ’s capital Kaesŏng, which had been destroyed during the wars, was rebuilt. Koryŏ’s second capital was in P’yŏngyang. Koryŏ never went to war with the Jurchen.

Mongol attacks on Korea began under Ögedei in 1231.2 Before the end of the year, the Mongols took Kaesŏng, and Koryŏ moved its capital to Kwanghua Island. Raids, battles, and more aggressive campaigns, failed negotiations, and treachery continued through Güyük’s reign. In 1253, under Möngke, the Mongols forced the king of Koryŏ to move back to the mainland, and the king sent his stepson to the Mongols as a hostage. Five years of bloodshed ended in 1259 when a son of the king of Koryŏ was sent to the Mongols as a hostage and the king agreed to marry a Mongol princess. At least six more Mongol princesses were sent to Koryŏ for marriage to royalty.3 Koryŏ was never part of the Mongol empire, but from the reign of Möngke on, Koryŏ paid tribute to the Mongols, royalty made periodic visits, and princes often resided at the Mongol court.4 Toghōn-Temür’s wife Empress Ki was Korean. In the 1360s Koryŏ began to regain territory as the Mongol empire began to weaken.5 Yet the dynasty would endure only for twenty-four years after the retreat of Toghōn-Temür to Shangdu. Koryŏ fell to Chosŏn (1392–1897) in 1392. Kaesŏng Much of the architecture, especially wooden buildings, that stood in Korea before the Mongol invasions was lost in the thirteenth century. This included buildings in Kaesŏng, briefly a power base of the short-lived Later Koryŏ kingdom around 901 and the location of the Koryŏ capital established by its first ruler Wang Kon (877–943), who had been born there. In addition to the second capital at P’yongyang, Kyŏngju and Hanyang, the latter today Seoul, were important cities during Koryŏ rule. Kaesŏng’s position south of the mountain range Songak was chosen by Wang Kon, we are told, because it was geomantically auspicious.6 An often-published plan of the site from Koryŏ gŏm-shyŏch illustrates this.7 Excavation has made it possible to draw the plan of the palace area known as Manwŏltae, or Full Moon Platform. Following UNESCO’s inscription of Kaesŏng as a World Heritage site, five pieces of city wall and seven buildings were designated as historically important.8 The architecture of Kaesŏng that Mongols destroyed in many ways resembled buildings they saw in China that were dated from the tenth to thirteenth centuries. Manwŏltae began at a gate whose name translates as sacred phoenix, presumably a reference to the phoenix associated with the direction south. A second gate was about sixty meters behind it. Two courtyards followed, the first with one hall whose entrance was directly

Construction East of China

8.2 Tombs of King Kongmin and his wife Noguk, Haesŏn-ri, Kaep’ung, Hwanghae, North Korea, 1372. Google search for King Konmin tomb.

8.1 Plan of palace-city, Manwŏltae, Kaesŏng, Koryŏ period. After Chang Kyŏng-ho, Han’guk ŭi chŏngt’ong kŏnch’uk, 206.

behind the entry to the arcade that enclosed it, and the second directly behind the northeastern corner of the enclosure to the first courtyard. The main structure in this second courtyard took a gong plan. The courtyard ended at a hall that appears to have been divided into three parts. The rest of the buildings were to the northwest, along an east-west line but facing south (figure 8.1). The outer wall of Manwŏltae was begun around 877; two more walls would enclose it. The outermost was constructed between 1009 and 1029, parts of it joining mountains so that the natural protection as well as symbolic geomantic protection were integrated into the city. Although not stated in records, this incorporation of natural mountain and wall follows the precedent of mountain-castles of Koguryŏ and Parhae. The wall between the palace-city and outer wall was not built until 1391–1393, shortly before Koryŏ’s demise. The capital had a school for training officials as well as a private Confucian school, an observatory, and royal mausoleums. Sixteen Koryŏ royal tombs remain in North Hwanghae province, all within about twenty-five kilometers of Manwŏltae. Wang Kon’s and Kongmin’s (r. 1351–1374) are the best preserved; statues from spirit paths as well as funerary mounds remain.

Kongmin and his wife, a Mongol princess he had met when under house arrest in Daidu, are separately buried side-by-side, but the tombs are approached by a single spirit path that consisted of pairs of civil and military officials and animals. Sheep and tigers stand at the corners of the tombs (figure 8.2). Although the stone animals closer to the tomb resemble the Korean tradition of sculpture of the twelve animals of the Chinese zodiac that enclose tombs of Silla, the use of the spirit path follows Chinese tradition.9 Based on what is known, imperial tomb architecture in Kaesŏng somewhat follows that of pre-Mongol China. Song imperial tombs cluster in two large groups in fairly close proximity to each other, whereas Tang royal tombs spread across Shaanxi province. The tomb of each Koryŏ king, sometimes with his wife’s nearby, is somewhat isolated from the others, not as far apart as Tang imperial tombs but not in such close proximity as the Song royal tombs.10 Remains of two Koryŏ-period monasteries have been uncovered in Kaesŏng. Anhwasa was founded on Mount Songak in 930. It included three Buddha halls, a seven-story pagoda, and monks’ quarters. Kwanmunsa was founded forty years later, and enlarged near the end of Koryŏ in 1393. It also had a seven-story pagoda as well as Buddha halls and dormitories. Buddhist Halls outside Kaesŏng Nine timber-frame halls today stand among seven monasteries in North or South Korea from the Koryŏ period. Dated no earlier than the twelfth century, and with 1377 the date of the newest one, they represent construction during the period of the Mongol occupation of Korea. Architectural historians in Korea have studied them according to two styles that generally are not used to differentiate Chinese wooden buildings, for their names are not found in Yingzao fashi. Recent research indicates extremely close correspondences between Koryŏ buildings and those of China as early as the Tang dynasty.11 Kŭngnak Hall, dated to the thirteenth century, at Pongjŏng Monastery in Andong, is Korea’s oldest wooden building (figure 8.3). Three bays by four, with simple, overhanging eaves, a humble structure of this kind could have stood at a small, mountain

225

Chapter Eight

8.3 Kŭngnak Hall, Pongjŏng Monastery, Andong, thirteenth century with recent repainting

temple in China. The late fourteenth-century Taeung Hall at the same monastery, an early Chosŏn building, might have stood in Hancheng. The two intercolumnar bracket sets in the central front bay of Kŭngnak Hall as well as its hip-gable roof identify it as a twelfth- to fourteenth-century East Asian building that is not a diantang. The monastery had been founded around the year 700. Taeung Hall at Sudŏk Monastery in Yesan, a complex that was founded in the second half of the sixth century, is of the structure of Pongjŏng Monastery’s Kŭngnak Hall with three bays across the front, four bays deep, and a simple roof of overhanging eaves (figure 8.4). It is dated by an inscription on a beam to 1308. Pusŏk Monastery’s Muryangsu Hall in Yŏngju, dated 1376, is the best-known Koryŏ wooden building due to its large bracket sets, an inverted-V-shaped truss, curved beams, curved braces, camel’s-hump-shaped brace that serves as a kingpost, two intercolumnar bracket sets, and hip-gable roof (figure 8.5).12 The large, curved tiebeams, truss, and founding date 676 for the monastery have led to comparisons with the east hall of Foguang Monastery on Mount Wutai, dated 857. The shorter, sharply curved beams more logically suggest comparisons with eleventh- to fourteenth-century buildings in China that were not diantang. They are prominent in Yuan buildings of southeastern China, such as the main hall of Zhenru Monastery in Shanghai (figure 4.44). Those decorative features and decorative cantilever tips in Koryŏ buildings at all three monasteries are shown in figure 8.6. The other Koryŏ buildings are Yongjin Hall, dated 1327, and Kŭngnak Hall, built in 1374, at Sŏngbul Monastery in Yŏngch’ŏn prefecture; Yŏngsan Hall at Kŏko Hermitage of Ŭnhae Monastery, built in 1373, also in Yŏngch’ŏn; Powang Hall at Simwon Monastery, also in Yŏngch’ŏn; Powang Hall at Simwon Monastery in Yŏntan, constructed earlier in the fourteenth century and rebuilt in 1374; and the fourteenth-century gate of Imyŏng Guesthouse, first built in 936, in Kangnŭng. Seven Koryŏ buildings are of the style known as jusimpo, referring to pillars with bracket sets placed directly on top of them

8.4 Taeung Hall showing undersides of eaves, Sudŏk Monastery, Yesan, Koryŏ period 8.5 Muryangsu Hall, Pusŏk Monastery, Yŏngju, 1376

(at their hearts). The other two are called dapo, literally many sets.13 “Many” refers to the installation of bracket sets intercolumnarly as well as above columns. Intercolumnar bracketing, as noted in chapter 2, is first observed in Tang architecture in China. In the two examples in Korea, the intercolumnar bracket sets are used in buildings with hip-gable roofs. Among the nine Koryŏ buildings, none has a hipped roof. Those whose roofs are not hip-gable combination are of the simpler Chinese type, overhanging eaves.

226

Construction East of China

8.6 Sections of bracket sets. Redrawn from Yun Chang-sŏp, Han’guk konch’uksa, 293.

1. Kungak Hall, Pongjŏng Monastery 2. Muryangsu Hall, Pusŏk Monastery 3. Taeung Hall, Sudŏk Monastery

The inconsistency with long-standing identifiers of the Chinese ranked system of construction, in addition to the highly decorative bracket end tips shown in figure 8.6 that have no counterparts in China, might be thought to suggest that thirteenth- to fourteenth-century Chinese and Korean buildings have no more in common than wooden frames, bracket sets, and ceramic tile roofs. The consistencies shown by recent research are more noteworthy. In 1985 Wang Guixiang proposed that the square root of 2 times the height of the bracket set was the module employed at the east hall of Foguang Monastery and the main hall of Hualin Monastery in Fuzhou, dated 964, and of Chuzu Hermitage in Dengfeng, Henan, dated 1125 (figure 2.39).14 In 2017 and 2018 Wang Nan expanded on this research to confirm the use of the compass in these three building such that pillar measurements were based on the diameters of circles.15 The use of the square root of 2 times the height of the bracket set as well as of compasses in the construction design of Koryŏ buildings was shown in 2022.16 Equally Chinese-style architecture is seen in Koryŏ Buddhist painting. Among approximately 160 hanging scrolls dated or attributed to the Koryŏ period, 2 titled Royal Palace Mandala”— one in Toyokawa, Aichi, dated to 1312, and the other at Saifukuji in Tsuruga, Fukui, both in Japan—include detailed representations of architecture.17 The palatial settings in the paintings are the ambiance for eminent clergy, and following the age-old understanding that the ranked Chinese architectural system is shared by palatial and religious architecture, the buildings have the two sets of hip-gable roofs, carved balustrade panels, bracket sets of at least six puzuo with at least two cantilevers, and tall chiwen on the corners of main roof ridges found in China’s most eminent architecture (figure 8.7).18 Architecture of similar high rank was observed in the Manichaean paintings discussed in chapter 6 (figure 6.17). Evidence of timber pagodas survives at ten Koryŏ monasteries.19 Reconstructions present them with central pillars and three or five sets of exterior eaves. One dates to the year 1068.20 Like pagodas of Paekche and Silla, the majority of Koryŏ pagodas are stone with an odd number of stories, smooth eaves, and smoothly layered eaves’ undersides. In general the flat layers below the eaves are shorter and fewer than those of Paekche and Silla.21

8.7 Painting of Royal Palace (Royal Palace Mandala). Collection of Saifukuji, Tsuruga, late Koryŏ. Wikipedia.

The five-story stone pagoda at Magok Monastery in Kongju has a Tibetan-style pagoda at the top. Of a form similar to Shengxiang Tower in Wuhan (figure 6.16), the Kongju pagoda is interpreted as evidence of Mongol occupation of Korea (figure 8.8). A reliquary of similar shape with five similarly shaped reliquaries inside it is in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Two of the tiny reliquaries have the names of monks inscribed on them, one an Indian monk who was in Tibet and China before coming to Koryŏ and then went from there to Beijing in 1328, and the second

227

Chapter Eight

8.8 Pagoda, Magok Monastery, Kongju, fourteenth century

8.9 Pagoda, Kyŏngchŏn Monastery, 1368. Korea National Museum, Seoul.

containing the ashes of a Korean monk who studied with the Indian monk in China. The ashes of the Indian monk, who died in 1363, were brought to Kaesŏng, where they reside beneath a pagoda of this shape. A reliquary dated to the fourteenth century in the Samsung-Leeum Museum in Seoul also is of this shape. 22 There is no evidence of chorten-shaped pagodas in Korea before the late Yuan dynasty. In fact, Chinese artisans were brought to Koryŏ by Toghōn Temür’s wife Empress Ki to construct a marble pagoda commissioned by officials for Kyŏngchŏn Monastery. Dated to 1368, the thirteen-meter pagoda is now in the National Museum of Korea and is of Chinese style (figure 8.9). Chinese and Tibetan inscriptions on an eave of the first story record that officials paid for the pagoda, whose purpose was to offer prayers for Toghōn Temür, presumably that the Mongol dynasty would not fall. Tibetan-Buddhism would be shorter lived in Korea than in China, but it was transmitted, at least in architecture, in the fourteenth century. A few Tibetanstyle pagodas would linger into the Chosŏn dynasty, but in general, after the fall of the Mongols, China continued to heavily influence Korean Buddhist architecture, with almost no sign that the Mongols had exerted influence on the peninsula for about a century.23

Japan’s Buddhist Monasteries Japanese Buddhist architecture from ca. 1230 to ca. 1368 is profoundly affected by Chinese construction. Evidence of the impact is well-studied. The Mongols had little to do with this transmission, which was almost exclusively from South China. In Japan, the period of Mongolian rule coincides with the last seventy years of the Kamakura period (1192–1333) and approximately thirty years of the Muromachi period (ca. 1336–1573). It is an age of shogunate rule when the imperial family resides in Kyoto and, beginning in the 1330s, when the new shogun, of the Ashikaga family, moves the capital from Kamakura to Kyoto.24 Zen (Chan in Chinese) is the prevalent form of Buddhism during this century and a half. The Mongols attacked Japan twice, in 1274 and 1281, both times unsuccessfully. Success would have required conquest at sea prior to coastal attack.25 In preparation, Japan built defensive walls in port cities, the most extensive in Hakata on the bay in western Kyushu. Walls and other remains date from this period (figure 8.10). Architectural styles that were transmitted directly from China to Japan between the late twelfth and early fourteenth centuries were mentioned in chapter 2. The style known as Dai Butsuyō reflects tenth- and eleventh-century buildings

228

Construction East of China

8.10 Remains of stone sculpture from Hakata excavations, Kyushu National University campus

in southeastern China: it is distinguished by rows of at least four bracket arms perpendicular to the building plane and curved beams. Karayō is a style defined through buildings of Chan monasteries as well as through the plans of those monasteries. Whereas Dai Butsuyō is closely associated with the Buddhist monk Shunjōbō Chōgen (1121–1206) and thus was in place during Chinggis’s lifetime and long before the Mongols attacked South China or Japan, Karayō buildings stood at Chan monasteries that continued to rise in South China at least until the time of Khubilai. The monasteries were part of the state-sponsored Five Mountains and Ten Monasteries system discussed in chapter 2. Like Dai Butsuyō architecture, construction of Chan monasteries in Japan is associated primarily with one monk, Tettsū Gikai (1219–1309), who drew diagrams of what he saw in China and brought the information to Japan. Born in Inazu, today in Fukui prefecture, Gikai became a disciple of Dōgen, the founder of Sōtō Zen, and moved to Dōgen’s monastery Eiheiji to receive instruction. When Dōgen died in 1253, he was seceded by the monk Koun Ejō (1198–1280). Dōgen had hoped to develop a Chinese-style monastery at Eiheiji, but this goal was not accomplished. With Ejō’s encouragement, Gikai undertook the journey to South China in 1255. Several years later he returned with

drawings of monastery buildings and information on monastic rituals and procedures. His treatise, Wushan shichatu, is believed to have been compiled after his return to Japan. In 1271 Ejō returned to Eiheiji as chief abbot. Gikai took the position upon Ejō’s death in 1280 until 1293. Gikai later designed a Chan monastery at Daijōji in Kanazawa where he stayed until his death. Wushan shichatu records Chan monasteries both before Hangzhou fell to the Mongols and before Yang Lianzhenjia wreaked havoc on Buddhist institutions there. The original document is in Tōfukuji in Kyoto. The plan of Lingyin Monastery in Wushan shichatu is one of the most widely published illustrations in the text (figure 2.40). It shows the positions of the seven most common structures in a Chan monastery of Southern Song China, the Shanmen, Buddha Hall, and Law (Dharma, or Buddha’s Law) Hall along the main south-north line, the Buddha hall at the center, or “heart,” with the sutra library, kitchens, latrines, and bathing rooms flanking the Shanmen like “hands” and “feet.” A side-sectional drawing of the Law Hall of Jingshan Monastery and a frontal elevation of the bell tower from Hedong Monastery also are among the illustrations (figures 8.11 and 8.12).26 The eaves of the bell tower curve deeply, with animal-faced figures at each eave end, large, scaly creatures

229

Chapter Eight

8.13 Shariden, Kenchōji, Kamakura, 1253 8.14 Daxiongbao Hall, Huayan Monastery, Datong, Shanxi, showing repairs of 1370 and 1426–1454

8.11 Side section of Law Hall, Jingshan Monastery, Wushan shichatu, ca. late 1250s 8.12 Frontal section of Bell Tower, Hedong Monastery, Wushan shichatu, ca. late 1250s

projecting upward from their mouths at each end of the main roof ridge, and cusped windows. The cusped windows are used in the relic hall (shariden) of the monastery Kenchōji, a Five Mountains monastery and the oldest Zen training site in Japan. Founded in 1246, its construction was directed by the Chinese Chan monk Lanxi Daolong (Rankei Doryū) (1213–1278) (figure 8.13).27 These windows also are found following a repair of Daxiongbao Hall of Huayan Monastery in Datong, built in 1019 and repaired in 1370 and more extensively in 1426–1454 (figure

8.14). The windows are known as serrated teeth (ya) in Chinese. Their illustration in Wushan shichatu probably confirms Chinese origins and a return to China in the Ming period when Chan Buddhism again flourished, rather than an original Japanese design of the Kamakura period. The opening could have been installed at Daxiongbao Hall during either repair. Whether the Mongol-period Tibetan pagoda influenced Japanese pagodas and how that would have occurred are less certain. Structures known as tahōtō (large, jeweled pagodas) are associated with Tibetan Buddhism, which entered Japan in the early ninth century. The oldest extant tahōtō survives from the year 1194. It developed from the pagoda form known as hōtō (jeweled pagoda), a two-story, circular structure that, according to Japanese understanding, derived from miniature, circular structures with pronounced roofs and sometimes finials. The first story of the tahōtō is circular. The tallest example, at Ishiyamadera in Shiga prefecture, has a circle of pillars supporting the first story (figure 8.15). Smaller tahōtō have only two or four interior supports. Some have no interior pillars. The structural system includes the Japanese feature known as

230

Construction East of China

mokoshi, a one-bay-deep enclosure that extends from the core of a building, and kamebara (turtle belly), so named because it resembles that shape, used beneath the first floor and sometimes beneath the mokoshi level. Tahōtō are covered with white plaster on the exterior, as are chorten. The first story of a tahōtō should be three bays square. Built, like most East Asian architecture, according to modules, in actuality tahōtō range from less than a meter to more than twenty meters per bay length. Also following patterns of Chinese construction, the earliest extant tahōtō are supported by chamfered, four-sided pillars. Later tahōtō employ circular pillars. Complicated bracket sets are used on top of the pillars.28 The search for architectural remains of the Chaghatay Khanate yields wall pieces and brick mausoleums that are likely to date to the period of the Mongol empire, but no wooden remains.29 Taraz in Kazakhstan and Kharshi in Uzbekistan were probably royal cities. Their architectural remains do not indicate Chinese construction. Farther west in the Ilkhānate, the best evidence of Chinese-style architecture was presented in chapter 7: rock-carved caves of Imāmzāda Ma’ṣūm and Dāsh Kasan. Yet farther west, even the most recent excavations at Golden Horde sites so far have not yielded evidence of Chinese timber framing or imitation of it, or ubiquitous features of Chinese-style construction such as roof tiles.30

231

8.15 Tahōtō, Ishiyamadera, Shiga, 1194

Conclusion A Revisionist History: Chinese Architecture, Mongol Patrons, European Observers, East Asian Archaeologists

At the end of a book like this, one must ask what the author has missed and what yet to be found is likely to change what is known now. Are yet-to-be found sites of Eastern Xia or Northern Yuan, for instance, likely to alter the thirteenth- or fourteenth-century architectural history of China? This book could not have been written even in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Excavations since then in Primorye, Transbaikalia, and the Gobi desert have added new cities and monuments to the architectural history of the period of Mongolian rule. The extent to which knowledge of architecture on the grasslands and in the desert changes the previous understanding of Yuan architecture is one of the reasons this book was written. One now conducts research on fifty appanage cities to write the architectural history of Yuan. After this exercise, one might conclude that in the future one may understand Yuan urbanism through the capitals and four or five selected appanage centers, but the survey of fifty is required for such a conclusion. One similarly now makes generalizations about Yuan architecture through hundreds of accessible and surveyed buildings. The importance of a feature such as da’e is refined but not abandoned. One now writes confidently about regional styles, and about detail carved at the ends of bracket arms or cantilevers across China. However, one has yet to find a building that is devoid of components described in Yingzao fashi. This point was believed in the first half of the twentieth century; it is now certain. One would like to be able to extend knowledge of subterranean tombs with murals to places like Guangxi or Yunnan, but it is unlikely that tombs from those places will change the understanding in the 2020s that Chinese, not Mongols, built subterranean tombs and painted their walls. One anticipates it will be several decades before the tomb of a khaghan is discovered. That discovery should be expected to require a new chapter in Yuan and Mongolian architectural history. Were a ritual site as unique as Yangqunmiao to emerge, it might not be as significant as the tomb of a khaghan, but it would require an additional section in a book like this. The old canon of Yuan architecture and cities has changed by the elimination of some buildings and addition of or replacement by new ones. Yuan architectural history in 2023 requires only one black-and-white photograph of a destroyed building: Heyi Gate of Yuan Daidu. Every other no-longer-extant Yuan building published in earlier studies to illustrate a structural type is shown here by a standing building that represents the same kind of structure. One anticipates that Virtuous Tranquility Hall and

Three Purities Hall of Yonglegong will be the only or two of the few structures that represent the highest building standards of Yuan China in 2050; it is unlikely such grandiose architecture remains undiscovered or that similar earlier or later buildings will be redated to the Yuan period. A sluice, deeper understanding of the observatory, and newly opened rock-carved architecture now are all crucial pieces of Yuan architectural history. A newly identified Tibetan-style white pagoda, sluice, rock-carved chapel, or stage may appear, but they are unlikely to alter what is concluded here about each type of building they would represent: the pagoda of Miaoying Monastery, the Zhidan sluice, caves combined with wall imagery at Feilaifeng and Arzhai, and Ox King Temple stage probably anticipate them. Exemplary wooden buildings that are not of the most eminent standards are likely to be repaired, refaced, and perhaps even replaced in coming decades. Deeper study may change some of their dates, such as has occurred for Tangdi Hall in Bo’ai. Research across Korea may identify additional thirteenth- or fourteenth-century buildings. Newly found stele may lead to the dating of some stone buildings as Yuan. A brick structure that simulates a wooden one, or “beamless hall,” earlier than the one in Nanjing that is dated to 1381 of the Ming dynasty, another brick sarcophagus in North or West China, or the discovery of an architectural mingqi in a Yuan tomb may reveal new material to consider in a comprehensive survey. Still, Virtuous Tranquility Hall and the four Yuan buildings at Yonglegong, the puzzling back hall of Guangsheng Lower Monastery, Daxiongbao Hall of Puzhao Monastery in Hancheng, the hall for sacrifices at Temple to the Eastern Peak in Puxian, main hall of City God Temple in Changzhi, Buddha hall of Yanfusi, and Feitian Hall at the Temple to the Eastern Peak in Emei should be expected to remain highly significant Yuan buildings and to confirm what yet unknown Yuan halls will exhibit. The section of this book that is most likely to be different twenty years from now deals with Jurchen architecture. Whereas only a few Song and pre-Song buildings have come to light in the past fifty years, the study of Jin architecture has shifted from a reliance on Japanese excavation reports of the early decades of the twentieth century to on-site exploration with sophisticated technology. A steady stream of new sites have been discovered since the 1990s. Some aspects of the study of architecture have not changed since fieldwork began and are not likely to. Timber-frame architecture was and will be the great majority of Yuan buildings no

Conclusion

matter how many new structures are found. Those buildings, like those of any other material, will stand along north-south construction lines, will have gates in front of them, and will be placed inside courtyards. The influence of Chinese architecture in thirteenth- to fourteenth-century Korea will not be challenged, even if new buildings are found. Nor will it be challenged that khaghans embraced the Chinese imperial building tradition. The word “China” has been used here freely, even though the rulers of Yuan China were Mongols and the borders of their empire were more expansive than in any previous time in history. The two words “Chinese architecture,” however, present a remarkably similar image—foundation platforms, pillar-andbeam support system, bracket sets, ceramic tile roofs—to that of any previous or later time in premodern Chinese history: this study has shown that Yuan architecture shares remarkably with the building systems of its predecessors Song and Jin. I have not investigated Ming architecture here. Were we to continue a century beyond Yuan, we would observe that Yuan building made possible the continuation of a tradition that would endure for another five hundred years. Two of the greatest achievements of Chinese architecture—that it is exportable and that books such as Yingzao fashi facilitate the export—are confirmed by every Yuan-period timber-frame building, as well as those in brick and stone, including those in Mongolia and Russia, with the exception of the Tibetan-style pagoda. This fact underscores the unique place of Tibetan Buddhism in the Mongol empire. Timber-frame construction scarcely touched Tibet, yet Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in Daidu, although dominated by chorten, could be as much a part of a wall-enclosed Buddhist monastery template, with ceramic-tile-roofed halls in the courtyards, as mosques whose prayer halls and auxiliary buildings took on the features of a Chinese Buddhist worship space. Even Yangqunmiao was wall-enclosed. The squarish mausoleum covered by a dome is the sole building type that so far cannot be proved to have been part of a courtyard setting. It is Yuan, and an addition to the Yuan architectural canon. Some questions about Yuan architecture posed forty or fifty years ago can be answered more confidently, and others perhaps deserve to be cast aside. The legitimation question Herbert Franke asked me the first year I thought about Yuan architecture can be addressed with significantly more evidence. One might not use the word “legitimation,” but indeed Chinese cities and buildings strengthened Khubilai’s image as a Chinese ruler: the

White Pagoda about which Franke was writing when I met him in 1975 did not challenge the dominance of Chinese architecture in Daidu or anywhere else in the empire. Men who were considered central to construction fifty years ago, Liu Bingzhong, Anige, and Yang Lianzhenjia who directed construction and those like Tao Zhongyi and Yu Ji who wrote about it, remain so. Guillaume Boucher and his fountain remain intriguing, but they also remain a unique artisan-object pair. “Revisionist” perhaps is a strong word, but surely what is known about Yuan architecture and what it tells us about China and Mongol rule of China are changed. The architecture the Mongols patronized with only a few exceptions was Chinese architecture. Europeans who met Mongols and wrote about them are still necessary to understanding Yuan architecture. Standing on the same sites as a Chinese official, they perhaps observed details someone who had lived in China his whole life would have considered too insignificant to record. In the end, it is the architecture that guides the writing. Every Mongol-period city, site, and structure described by a Chinese or non-Chinese writer from the thirteenth to the late-nineteenth century was often drawn when first surveyed, and photographed as soon as the technology was possible. Research teams, eventually archaeologists among them, returned to those buildings as early as the seventeenth century and as recently as the twenty-first. Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Mongolian, European, American, and joint teams have made possible conclusions about which speculation based on inscriptions and primary sources was published. Chinese architecture, Mongol patrons, Europeans who observed their buildings, seven hundred years of scholarship, early twentieth-century Japanese, and for the past seventy years Chinese archaeologists open the way to write a book like this, but in the end, the buildings, so many of them identified in the past several decades, write the history of Chinese architecture under Mongolian rule.

233

Notes

Introduction 1. I use the word tribe cautiously; see Atwood, “The Notion of Tribe in Medieval China,” and Sneath, Headless State, 65–91. 2. On Inner Asia in the twelfth century, including discussion of the peoples listed here, see Peter Golden, “Inner Asia, ca. 1200,” in Di Cosmo, Frank, and Golden, Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age,” 9–25. 3. For Mukhali’s biography, see Rachewiltz, Chan, and Geier, In the Service of the Khan, part 1, 3–8. 4. The two most important translations are Cleaves, Secret History of the Mongols, and Rachewiltz, Secret History of the Mongols. 5. Börte was kidnapped after she married Chinggis and returned from captivity pregnant. Jochi was the child of this pregnancy, leading to questions of his legitimacy. 6. David Morgan presents this view in “The Mongols and the Eastern Mediterranean.” 7. For this definition I follow Atwood, Encyclopedia, 5. See also Jackson, “From Ulus to Khanate”; Allsen, “Princes of the Left Hand.” 8. One can make comparisons with entitlement as wang, translated as prince or king, in Han and Ming times. Khubilai also would entitle sons to whom he awarded appanages as wang; recipients of the title Anxiwang (prince of Anxi) are discussed in chapter 7. In the Western Han dynasty, wang of Nanyue, Chu, and Liang were powerful. On their tombs, whose burial goods confirm entitlement in the form of imperial seals, see Guangzhou Xi Han Nanyuewangmu Bowuguan, Guangzhou Xi Han Nanyuewangmu; Liang Yong, Xi Han Chuwang; Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Yongcheng Xi Han Liangguo wangling; Yan Genqi, Mangdangshan Xi Han Liangwang mudi. On Ming princes and entitlement, see Clunas, Screen of Kings. 9. These gatherings were not necessarily peaceful. Some interpret the death of Chinggis’s father, Yisügei Ba’atur, in ca. 1171, as the occurrence

that made possible his early rise to power, for he avoided waiting until his father’s death and then battling with his brothers and uncles for his father’s lands. Joseph F. Fletcher described the khuriltai as “bloody tanistry” in class lectures at Harvard in the 1970s. He writes about it in “Turko-Mongolian Monarchic Tradition.” 10. On Yelü Chucai, see Rachewiltz, “Yeh-lü Ch’u-ts’ai”; Rachewiltz et al., In the Service of the Khans, part 1, 136–72. 11. The term semu means peoples of various ethnicities. The usage of se, literally class or kind, might date as early as the first millennium BCE. For a discussion of this term, see [email protected], November 13 and 14, 2007; see also Watari Yanai, Yuandai Meng, Han, Semu. A large number of Semu were Muslim, a population that had been merchants and traders in China since the Tang dynasty. 12. Franke and Twitchett, eds., Cambridge History of China, 379–80. 13. According to Rashīd al-Dīn, Ögedei had chosen his third son, Köchu, who predeceased his father. Ögedei then groomed Köchu’s oldest son, Shiremün, to succeed him. The result of the khuriltai was the elevation of Güyük to khaghan; see Boyle, The Successors, 180–82. 14. Rachewiltz, Papal Envoys, 76–88. 15. Rashīd al-Dīn also records it; see Boyle, Successors of Genghis Khan, 63. On nasīj, the “brocade woven with gold,” see Shea, Mongol Court Dress, 30–32. 16. For the account, see Mandeville and Pollard, Travels; Beazley, On a Hitherto Unexamined Manuscript. 17. For the description of the automatic fountain, see Rockhill, Journey of William of Rubruck, 208. On Boucher, see Olschki, Guillaume Boucher; see also Rachewiltz, Papal Envoys, 133–34. 18. Chü Ch’ing-yüan, “Government Artisans of the Yuan Dynasty,” 235. In Merv in 1221, eighty craftsmen were spared while 700,000

236

were slaughtered; see Saunders, History of the Mongol Conquests, 60. 19. On Qiu Chuji and his visit, see Bretschneider, Medieval Researches, vol. 1, 35–108; Waley, Travels of an Alchemist. 20. On the debates, see Thiel, “Der Streit”; Jagchid, “Chinese Buddhism and Taoism.” 21. Morgan, “Great Yāsa of Chingiz Khān.” 22. And, according to Thomas Allsen, also most powerful at this time; see Franke and Twitchett, Cambridge History, 411. Information in this paragraph is summarized on 390–413. 23. Henry Serruys, “Ta-tu, Tai-tu, Dayidu.” Francis Cleaves accepted the pronunciation Daidu; communication with him in 1978. In citations I use Dadu for the Romanization of the characters. 24. Research of the 1960s and 1970s, notably studies by Frederick Mote (“Confucian Eremitism”) and James Cahill (Hills beyond a River), emphasize the exodus of Chinese literati talent, including the most famous painters, to China’s Southeast from the mid-thirteenth century onward. Jennifer Jay, A Change in Dynasties, suggests that emotionalism about Song loyalism, giving way to hagiography, may lead to exaggeration of the number who actually relocated. 25. Fuchs, “Analecta zur mongolischen Übersetzungsliteratur.” 26. On the journey, see Rossabi, Voyager from Xanadu; Borbone, “A 13th-Century Journey”; Budge, Monks of Kublai Khan. 27. On Montecorvino’s journey, see Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, vol. 3, 45–58; Dawson, Mongol Mission, 222–31; Rachewiltz, Papal Envoys, 160–72. 28. Franke and Twitchett, Cambridge History, 532 29. Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, vol. 2, 209– 69; Rachewiltz, Papal Envoys, 191–201. 30. One of Joseph Fletcher’s understandings of the Mongols was that they could only afford to support relatives as numerous

Notes TO CHAPTER ONE

as Chinggis’s descendants with revenue from continued new conquest, so that once expansion stopped, the disintegration of the empire was unavoidable. On the end of Mongol rule in China, see Atwood, “Empire of the Great Khan,” 171–74. I thank Christopher Atwood for a copy of his forthcoming chapter. On the 1360s–1370s in Northeast Asia, many events during which led to the fall of the Mongol empire, see Robinson, Empire’s Twilight. 31. According to Atwood, it was one of the worst famines in the history of China; see Biran and Kim, Cambridge History, 8, 43–44. 32. On the fall of Yuan and Northern Yuan, see Robinson, Empire’s Twilight, esp. 285–89, and In the Shadow of the Mongol Empire, 29–100. 33. Two Persian sources are examples of firsthand information combined with details filled in from reading or conversations that include information about cities and buildings: Juvaynī’s (1226–1283) and Rashīd al-Dīn’s (1247–1318). Versions and studies of these text relied on here are Rashīd al-Dīn Fadlallāh, The Successors of Genghis Khan; Rashīd al-Dīn Fadlallāh, Jami’u’t-Tawarikh; Kamola, Making Mongol History for Rashīd al-Dīn; and John Andrew Boyle, History of the World-Conqueror for ʻAlāʼ al-Dīn ʻAṭā Malik Juvaynī. The official court history of the Yuan dynasty, Yuanshi, was produced after the fall of the Mongols by the court of the succeeding Ming dynasty. Song Lian (1310–1381) directed the project. 34. On Chinese local histories, see Bol, “The Rise of Local History.” Zhuang Weifeng, Zhongguo difangzhi, is the most comprehensive compilation of gazetteers. 35. Steinhardt, “Toward the Definition of a Yuan Dynasty Hall,” is an example.

Chaper One 1. Excavation and more accurate understanding of the history of Mongolia based on excavation

are almost as intense as they are in China. A. Ochir and Lkh. Erdenebold, Ertnii nuudelchdiin urlagiin dursgal, is an ongoing, multivolume survey of Mongolia’s most important excavated material. On remains excavated in Mongolia from territory that is today Korea, see Kradin and Ivliev, “Deported Nation.” 2. The series cited in note 1 illustrates many examples. On such finds from the seventh century, see Steinhardt, Park, and Erdenebold, “Shoroon Bumbagar.” 3. The “world” was mapped many times before and after the period of Mongol rule, and surely other times during the Yuan period. The best-known map of the Yuan period, which survives only in encyclopedic works of later dynasties, was published in [Huangchao] Jingshi dadian ([Imperial dynasty’s] Compendium for administering the world) of 1330–1331; for an illustration and discussion, see Hyunhee Park, Mapping the Chinese and Islamic Worlds, 101. I thank Hyunhee Park for several helpful discussions on this subject. 4. Here I use the version of Shilin guangji published in Beijing by Zhonghua shuju in 1999. 5. Chen, Shilin guangji, 235–50. Each place associated with each toponym is listed with brief information about it in Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 58–63, 1349–1585. As Li Yiyou notes, the lines between them are sometimes ambiguous. Li, “Nei Menggu Yuandai chengzhi suojian chengshi,” 149. In the Yuan dynasty, lu, translated here as circuit, would take on high status. Daidu, Shangdu, and nine other cities would be lu. 6. On lu in the Yuan period, see Song Lian, Yuanshi, 1347–54. Other toponyms of administrative divisions of an empire and their standard translations are sheng (province), fu (prefecture), zhou (subprefecture), xian (county), zhen (town), and cun (village). On these toponyms, see Wilkinson, Chinese History, 227. 7. Key, or symbols for geographic or structural features, have been used in Chinese maps since

237

the second century BCE. Important examples were uncovered in the tomb of the son of the Marquis of Dai in Mawangdui. On these maps, see Bulling, “Ancient Chinese Maps”; Hsu, “Han Maps and Early Chinese Cartography”; Kuei-sheng Chang, “Han Maps”; Crespigny, “Two Maps from Mawangdui.” 8. For discussion of the principles of Chinese space, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture: A History, 5–6. 9. Fuchs, “Mongol Atlas”; Park, Mapping the Chinese and Islamic Worlds, 165–67; Harley, History of Cartography, vol. 2, book 2, 246; Aoyama, “Gen no chizu.” 10. Harley, History of Cartography, vol. 2, book 2, 124–26. 11. Cao Wanru, Zhongguo gudai dituji, vol. 1, plate 168, 85–89, 202–5. 12. China’s First Emperor, Qin Shi Huangdi, engaged in the practice of traveling outside his capital to observe what was happening in his empire. Some believe the idea originated with Mencius; see Michael Chang, Court on Horseback, 45. 13. On Benedict’s account see Rockhill, Journey of William of Rubruck, 33–39; Dawson, Mongol Mission, 79–84. 14. Rockhill, Journey of William of Rubruck, 22. 15. Raymond Beazley, Texts and Versions of John de Plano Carpini, 1–32; Dawson, Mongol Mission; Jackson, The Mongols and the West, 92–102. 16. Boyle, The History of the World Conqueror, 1:236–37. This passage is the basis for a similar description from the pen of Rashīd al-Dīn, who borrowed much from Juvainī in his history of the world; see John A. Boyle, Successors of Genghis Khan, 61–62. Al-‘Umari (1301–1349) also writes about Khara-Khorum using Juvainī’s work. 17. Rockhill, Journey of William of Rubruck, 207–10. 18. Abel-Rémusat wrote “Recherches sur la ville de Kara-Korum” in 1817. It was published seven years later.

Notes TO CHAPTER ONE

19. Iakinf Bichurin, Istorĭi︠a︡ pervikh, chetyrekh khanov, 250–51. 20. Pozdneyev, Mongolia and the Mongols, vol. 1, 278–79. Nikolai Mikhailovich Yadrintsev (I͡ adrint͡ sev), credited with the finds on this expedition, is equally known for his staunch Siberian separatist writing. See, for example, Sibir’ kak kolonii͡ a. 21. See also Teleki, “Monastic Sites visited by A. M. Pozdneev”; Cleaves, “Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1346.” Cleaves reviews scholarly research of four explorers who found pieces of the inscription. 22. Leder, “Reise an den oberen Orchon.” 23. Radloff, Atlas der Alterthümer. 24. Gaubil, Histoire de Gentchiscan. 25. Cordier, “Situation de Ho-lin.” 26. Tulisow, In the Heart of Mongolia, 375–77. 27. Pelliot, “Note sur Karakorum.” 28. Several of Bukinich’s maps are published in Pohl’s summary of the study and excavation of Khara-Khorum, “Interpretation without Excavation”; see also Becker, “Die altmongolische Hauptstadt.” 29. Kiselev, Drevnemongol’skie goroda. Kiselev’s work was known in China before this book was published; see Kiselev and Ruan, “Jixieliefu Tongxun.” Wei Sun translated the 1965 book as Gudai Menggu chengshi. 30. Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 17, 225. 31. Kiselev, Drevnemongol’skie goroda, 174. 32. Objects excavated at Khara-Khorum by the Kiselev expeditions are in the Khara-Khorum Museum, the Chinggis Khaan Museum of Mongolia in Ulaanbaatar, and the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. The Hermitage collection is published in Elizhina and Elihina, Nasledie Karakoruma v Ermitazhe. 33. Kiselev used Chinese-style architecture from Erdene Zuu that dated to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the palace of Bogd Khaghan (r. 1911–1924) to build his case for Chinese structures at Khara-Khorum; see his Drevnemongol’skie goroda, 144–66. 34. Cleaves, “The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1346.” This is the fourth of the translations and studies of Sino-Mongolian inscriptions by Cleaves. For those of 1362, 1335, and 1338, see Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 12 (1949): 1–33; 13 (1950): 1–131; and 14 (1951): 1–104, respectively. 35. Cleaves, “The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1346,” 2–8. 36. The word futu or fotu has been used for pagoda since the fourth century. It is found, for example, in Chen Shou, Sanguozhi; Shi

Sengyou, Hongmingji; Wei Shou, Weishu; and Daoxuan, Guang Hongmingji and Xu gaoseng zhuan. See Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 287–89. 37. Cleaves, “The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1346,” 20 and nn. 34–39. 38. Cleaves, “The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1346,” 30 and nn. 50–51. Pelliot and Cleaves differ in their interpretation of chijian (by imperial decree), which Pelliot suggests refers to the carving of the stele and Cleaves believes refers to construction of the monastery. I believe Cleaves is more accurate but that the inscription refers to expenditures for renovations, which were by imperial decree. 39. Cleaves, “The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1346,” 38. 40. Wilkinson, Chinese History, 613. For more extensive charts of the length of Chinese units of measurement through dynastic history, see Wu Chengluo, Zhongguo duliangheng shi. 41. Yang Hsüan-chih, Record of Buddhist Monasteries, 16–17. 42. Taiwan Gaoxiongshi, Foguang dacidian, vol. 3, 2414–17. 43. Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 71. 44. Church of the East architecture is discussed later in reference to Olon Süme. 45. Steinhardt, China’s Early Mosques, 27–28, and Chinese Architecture: A History, 65. 46. On the definition of pavilion, see Ma Xiao, Zhongguo gudai mulouge; Chen and Chen, Zhongguo ting, tai, lou, ge; Wang Guixiang, “Lüelun Zhongguo gudai gaocheng. 47. Guo Daiheng, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 255–63. 48. For illustrations, see Steinhardt, Liao Architecture, 36, 97. 49. Hüttel, “Royal Palace or Buddhist Temple?” Japanese-Mongol teams also have worked at this site. See, for example, Shiraishi Noriyuki, “Ri-Meng hezuo diaocha.” For theoretical reconstructions, see Bao Muping, “A Multi-storied Wooden Building in Thirteenth Century Karakorum”; Bao, “Multi-story Timber Buildings”; Wang Guixiang and Alexandra Harrer, “Recovery Research of Xingyuan Pavilion.” 50. Hebeisheng Zhengdingxian Wenwu Baoguansuo et al., Zhengding Longxingsi, 323. 51. On architectural translation, see Akcan, Architecture in Translation; Koehler and Saletnik, “Translation and Architecture.”

238

52. On bay widths, see Chen Mingda, Yingzao fashi damuzuo, vol. 1, 174–75. 53. Franken, Die “Grossse Halle.” Her suggestion of the source of Xingyuanzhige as the Fatang (Dharma Hall), or hall for preaching the Buddhist law, from a monastery in the vicinity of the Southern Song capital at Hangzhou is probably the least likely possibility she proposes; see Franken, 154. Franken uses a reconstruction by Zhang Shiqing based on diagrams in Wushan shichatu (Five mountains, ten monasteries illustrated), the record of Chan Buddhist monasteries of 1248, as the pictorial image behind her proposal. 54. Franken, Die “Grossse Halle,” 56. 55. For illustrations and discussion of Zhihuasi, see Pan Guxi, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 314–17. 56. No fourteenth-century or earlier pavilion survives in Korea. The Silver and Gold Pavilions in Kyoto, built in 1382 and 1397, respectively, are two and three stories, respectively. 57. Dashengge (Great Vehicle Pavilion) of Puning Monastery, dated 1755, was built to house a 24.4-meter image of a bodhisattva. For discussion and illustrations, see Sun Dazhang, Chengde Puningsi, 11–16, 277. 58. On Samye Monastery in the late eighth century, see Yang Jiaming et al., Zhongguo Zangshi jianzhu, 32–38; Su Bai, Zangzhuan Fojiao siyuan, 58–67. 59. On Ta’ersi, see Chen Meihe, Ta’ersi jianzhu; Meng Wei, Ta’ersi. 60. Four-sided marble corner pillars are illustrated in Li Jie, Yingzao fashi, juan 29/8a; vol. 2, 642. 61. This is the subject of Pohl, “Interpretation without Excavation.” 62. Twenty-first-century German-Mongol excavation has been led by Jan Bemmann. I thank Dr. Bemmann for important conversations at Penn and in Princeton in 2018 and 2019, and Susanna Reichert and Bemmann for sharing data with me; see Bemmann and Reichert, “Karakorum”; Bemmann et al., “Mapping Karakorum.” 63. Helmut Roth, Qara Qorum-City; Ernst Pohl, “Excavations in the Craftsmen-Quarter of Karakorum.” 64. Rohland, “Die Nordstadt von Karakorum,“ 138–41, 159–88. 65. See Northeast Asian History Foundation, A New History, 40–41, on Parhae capitals; Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 192–93, on Liao capitals; and Steinhardt, Chinese

Notes TO CHAPTER ONE

Architecture, 195–97, on the six cities used by Jin for their five capitals, all of which are discussed in the next chapter. 66. Zhou was also a renowned calligrapher. For his biography, see Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 187, 4296–97; Wang Deyi, Yuanren zhuanji, 634–36. On his record of the trip between Daidu and Shangdu with Toghōn Temür in 1352, see Li Jie, “Cong Zhou Boqi.” For Zhou’s poems and other writings, see Zhou, Jinguangji. 67. Richard Hitchcock, M L Review 99, no. 2 (2004). 68. One thinks, for example, of Citizen Kane’s retreat, the 1980 film starring Olivia Newton-John, the video game “Xanadu Next” released in 2005, the superhero Madame Xanadu, and numerous hotels and restaurants with this name. J. I. Crump used it in his titles for two books, Songs from Xanadu and Song-Poems from Xanadu, both studies of the Yuan-period poetic form sanqu, even though only one of the poems, in Song-Poems from Xanadu, 115–32, seems to have been directly inspired by Shangdu. Novels inspired by quests for Xanadu include William Dalrymple, In Xanadu; Caroline Alexander, Way to Xanadu. 69. Yule and Cordier, Travels of Marco Polo, vol. 1, 298–301. 70. Moule and Pelliot, Marco Polo, vol. 1, 186. I select Yule and Cordier’s or Moule and Pelliot’s translation of Marco Polo based on a personal preference for their choices of words. 71. All three times I have stood among the ruins of Shangdu, the earliest in 2001 and the most recent in 2017, I have heard tourists ask to see the cane palace and/or the marble palace. As recently as the summer of 2019, I had a conversation with the script writer of a proposed documentary about Shangdu on how best to reconstruct the cane palace. 72. Stephen Bushell, “Notes of Journey.” 73. C. W. Campbell, “A Journey in Mongolia.” 74. Lawrence Impey, “Shang-tu.” We return to Impey in chapter 6. 75. According Ishida Mikinosuke, “Gen no Jōtō,” 81, the report was in Tō Mōko chōsa hōkoku (Excavation report on eastern Mongolia), with photographs of the gate on 539–43. I was not able to confirm this source. 76. Torii, Menggu lüxing, 503–5. 77. Harada and Komai, Jōto. 78. On orientation, the use of rammed earth (hangtu) for walls, names of walled sectors,

and other features of a Chinese imperial city discussed in this paragraph, see Steinhardt, Chinese Imperial City Planning, 5–19. 79. Wei Jian, Yuan Shangdu, is the authoritative study. Other important studies are An Yongde, Yuan Shangdu; Song Daquan, Da Yuan sandu; Ye Xinmin and Chimeddorji, Yuan Shangdu yanjiu wenji and Yuan Shangdu yanjiu ziliao; Chen Gaohua and Shi Weimin, Yuan Shangdu; Jia Zhoujie, “Yuan Shangdu”; Ishida, “Gen no Jōtō.” 80. Primary sources on Shangdu are compiled in Ye Xinmin and Chimeddorji, Yuan Shangdu yanjiu ziliao. Those used most heavily here are Yuan Jue, “Ba Da’angetu”; Yang Yunfu, “Luanjing zayong”; and Zhou Boqi’s poems. 81. Wang Yun, “Xichunge yizhiji.” 82. On the pagoda, see Chen Mingda, Yingxian muta. 83. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 6, 113, records the twelfth lunar month of 1266 as the starting date. Khubilai and his attendant Ashabuhua were in Da’ange sometime before 1293, according to Yuanshi, juan 136, 3296. Because of its size, in the first half of the twentieth century the central building along the north palace-city wall was believed to be Da’ange. Recent excavation confirms that Da’ange was at the central crossroads of the palace-city. 84. Zhou Boqi, Jinguangji, juan 1/20b, 518; Chen and Shi, Yuan Shangdu, 100–107; Yuan Jue, “Ba Da’angetu”; Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 1, 50. 85. Zhu Qiqian and Kan Duo, “Liao-Jin Yanjing,” 56–66, 72–73. 86. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 127, 3112. 87. The events of the fourth lunar month leading up to Temür’s succession are described in Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 18, 381–82. 88. Zhu Qiqian and Liang Qixiong, “Zhejianglu,” Zhongguo yingzao 3, 2, 158. 89. Tanaka Tan, “Jūjiro ni tatsu.” 90. Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 1, 52. 91. In Jinguangji, which refers to it as wooden. The poem is studied in Chen Yuan and Shi Weimin, Yuan Shangdu, 100–107. Wei Jian cites it in Shangdu, vol. 1, 50. 92. Rashīd al-Dīn, The Successors, 276–77. 93. Wang Guixiang, “A Research on the Palace Buildings of Da’ange.” The most important description of Xichunge is Wang Hui, “Xichunge yizhiji” [Record of remains of Xichun Pavilion], written in the Song dynasty but preserved in Li Lian (1488– 1566), Bianjing yijizhi, juan 15, 275–76. Zhou Boqi writes of the move in Jinguangji, juan 1/20b, 518.

239

94. There is no question timber buildings of Yuan China followed the stipulations in Yingzao fashi, written under the direction of court official Li Jie and first issued at the Song court in 1103. We shall see specific evidence of the use of the text in chapters 3 and 4. 95. Zhou Boqi, Jinguangji, juan 1. 96. See Fu Xinian, “Hanyuan Hall.” 97. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 136, 3301. 98. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 43, 907. 99. Xiong Mengxiang, Xijinzhi, 221–22. 100. In addition to Zhou Boqi, Jinguangji, juan 1/21b–22a, Sa Dula writes about it; see “Shangjing jishi wushou,” Yanmenji, juan 6/31b–14a, 92–93. 101. Zhou Boqi, Jinguangji, juan 2/2a–b; Yang Yunfu, “Luanjing zayong,” 6b, 621. 102. Hong Jinfu, Yuandianzhang, juan 59, 1979. 103. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 26, 659. 104. Zhou Boqi “Yong Xiangdian,” Jinguangji, juan 1/21b. 105. Xiangge also were in the Daidu palace-city. 106. Zhou Boqi, Jinguangji, juan 1/20b–22b, for mention of Da’ange, Hongxidian, Ruisege, Shuijingdian, Xiangdian, and Xuanwenge. 107. Wang Shidian, Jinbian, part 2/17b. Ishida Mikinosuke, “Gen no Jōto,” supports this idea. 108. Yoshito and Komai, Jōto; see plates 57–60 for their reconstructions. 109. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 27, 610. 110. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 27, 612. 111. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 28, 618. 112. Ao is a serpentine sea creature whose head resembles a dragon. In literature, ao carry the isles of the immortals on their backs; see Morohashi, Dai Kan-Wa jiten, vol. 12, 13,642 (character 48301). The open-mouthed creatures that project from the lower levels of buildings at Mongol royal cities are described as ao or ao-headed. 113. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 26, 589. 114. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 30, 671; juan 41, 877. 115. Chan, “Liu Ping-chung” (1993); Chan, “Liu Ping-chung” (1967). 116. Chan, “Liu Ping-chung” (1967), 126–28. 117. Since the Daidu Kuizhangge was built in 1330, and Yu Ji, one of its initiators, visited Shangdu, one supposes the building at the northern capital came into existence at about the same time or after the structure with the same name at Daidu. 118. Chen Gaohua and Shi Weimin, Yuan Shangdu, 202–5; Ye Xinmin and Chimeddorji,

Notes TO CHAPTER ONE

Yuan Shangdu yanjiu, 187–91; Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 1, 64–67. 119. Song Lian, juan 27, 611. 120. Song Lian, juan 28, 628. 121. Song Lian, juan 29, 650. 122. Moule and Pelliot, Marco Polo, 185–86. 123. Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 1, 193–264. 124. The legend is alluded to in four fourteenth-century poems; see Chan, “Exorcising the Dragon.” 125. Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 1, 27–28, and vol. 2, plates 47 and 48; Jia Zhoujie, “Yuan Shangdu,” 71. 126. Zhou Boqi, Jinguangji, juan 2; and Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 145, which describes a ceremony at the pole in 1332. 127. Shoudu Bowuguan, or Capital Museum, where the history of Beijing is recounted, exhibits some of the most important finds. 128. The number of wards differs based on whether one reads Yuan yitongzhi or Xijinzhi. For a comparative chart of wards named in texts, see Sun Meng, Beijing kaogushi, 23–25. 129. There is a theory that the word hutong is derived from the Mongolian word for well; see David Kane, The Chinese Language, 191. 130. The gate was torn down during the Cultural Revolution. The remains of the wall are now part of a park. 131. Tao Zongyi, (Nancun) Chuogenglu, juan 21, 250–63. Herbert Franke uses the phrase “private historiography” for the notes compiled in biji; see his “Some Aspects of Chinese Private Historiography in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century.” Tao, Chuogenglu, juan 18, 264–68, is a description of the Song capital, which Tao of course did not see either. 132. This is the Shijie chubanshe 1963 edition. The two versions are not identical. It is not known how many versions were used in the Rixia jiuwen compilation. For more background on the text, see Ying, “Hsiao’s Record,” 27–28. 133. Yu Ji was a driving force behind the academy. See Qiu Jiangning, “Yuandai Kuizhangge”; Langlois, “Yu Chi.” 134. Yu Ji, “Daidu chenghuangmiao bei” (Stele on the city-god temple in Daidu), Yu Ji quanji, 831–32. 135. Xiong Mengxiang, Xijinzhi jiyi; Zhou Jiamei and Miao Quansun, Shuntianfu zhi; Zhu Yizun et al. Rixia jiuwen (kao), juan 38, “Jingcheng zongji,” 598–605; Sun Chengze (1592–1676), Chunmingmeng yulu, juan 64; Sun Chengze, Tianfu guangji; and Ke Shaomin, Xin Yuanshi, all of which are published in

multiple editions. Shuntianfu zhi was published three times, during the Yongle, Wanli, and Kangxi reigns, before the Guangxu edition used here. 136. Bretschneider, Recherches archéologiques et historiques sur Pékin; Favier, Péking; Edkins, Description of Peking. 137. Bredon, Peking, and Arlington and Lewisohn, In Search of Old Peking, are early twentieth-century books that remain important because of firsthand descriptions of buildings that have been significantly altered. 138. Yule and Cordier, Travels of Marco Polo, vol. 1, 356–59, argues convincingly that Marco Polo had met Khubilai. 139. The names of the eleven gates and the fact that guards were stationed in towers above them are recorded in Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 90, 2280. Excavation has confirmed their locations; for Polo’s statement, see Moule and Pelliot, Marco Polo’s Description, 212. 140. On wards in Chinese imperial cities, see Steinhardt, Chinese Imperial City Planning, 9–10, 67, 84–85, 117, 138. 141. Moule and Pelliot, Marco Polo’s Description, vol. 1, 207–14. 142. Zhang Fuhe, Beijing, 5–6. 143. On Catherine of Vilionli, see Rouleau, “Yangchow Latin Tombstone.” 144. Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, vol. 2, 218; for a translation of the account, see Yule, Travels of Friar Odoric; Cordier, Les Voyages; Bressan, “Odoric.” Odoric’s statement may be based on Polo’s account rather than his own observation. 145. Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, vol. 2, 217. 146. Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, vol. 2, 218–19. 147. John of Marignolli’s account is in Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, vol. 3, 177–269. At one time it was believed an Old Sarai and a New Sarai existed, the former established by Chinggis’s son Batu in Astrakhan. Current research supports the existence of only one Sarai. See Egorov, Mongol’skoe igo and Istoricheskaia Geografia Zolotoi Ordy. 148. The gift is the starting point of Arnold, Princely Gifts. 149. On the gift and Marignolli, see Arnold, Princely Gifts, 103–7. Ouyang Xuan’s poem is translated on 103–4; the painting is on 104–5. 150. Discussion of Jin Zhongdu here and in chapter 2 relies heavily on Song Dachuan, Beijing kaogushi: Zhongdu; and Mei Ninghua and Liu Xiaodao, Jin Zhongdu. Primary sources about Jin through which Jin Zhongdu is

240

reconstructed are Tuotuo, Jinshi; Yuwen Maozhao, Da Jinguozhi; Xu Mengxin, Sanchao beimeng huibian; and many of the same sources in which information about Daidu is found. Additional studies of Jin Zhongdu based on archaeology are Wu Wentao, Jin Zhongdu; Yu Jie and Yu Guangdu, Jin Zhongdu; and Yan Wenru, “Jin Zhongdu.” Jin objects excavated in Beijing are on view at Shoudu Bowuguan in Beijing. 151. On the pagoda, see Wang Shiren, “Beijing Tianningsita.” 152. Hok-lam Chan has written extensively on this subject. Here I draw from his “Siting by Bowshot.” 153. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 120, 2960. The passage is translated in Chan, “Siting by Bowshot,” 57. 154. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 120, 2963; see Chan, “Siting by Bowshot,” 58–60. 155. Chan, “Siting by Bowshot,” 60–61, and“The Distance of a Bowshot.” 156. On the bridge, see Tang Huancheng, Zhongguo kexue jishushi, 273–79; Pan Hongxuan, Zhongguo gumingqiao, 77–79; Peng Cheng, Lugouqiao. The bridge became wellknown after July 7, 1937; an incident between Japanese troops and Chinese at the bridge is often considered the official beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War. See Dorn, From Marco Polo Bridge. 157. For his record of the journey, see Arthur Waley, Travels of an Alchemist. 158. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 74, 1831. 159. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 74, 1832. 160. Only information about the most important halls of Daidu is given here. For more information and citations of individual building dates, see Steinhardt, “The Plan of Khubilai’s City,” 207–12. For a more detailed account, see Steinhardt, “Imperial Architecture under Mongolian Patronage,” 14–119. 161. For the list, see Fukuda, Gendai kenchiku, 37–45. 162. Zhu’s support for all aspects of the study of Chinese architecture and the resulting emergence of the field as a modern discipline was profound. See Zhu An, Zhu Qiqian. In addition to Zhu Qiqian’s patronage, much of the success of the Society for Research in Chinese Architecture was due to two men whom he hired, Liang Sicheng (1901–1972) in 1931 and Liu Dunzhen (1897–1968) in 1938. Until 1938 Liang led society-sponsored field expeditions to find old buildings in North China, while Liu engaged in similar activities

Notes TO CHAPTER ONE

in South China from his base at Nanjing University. In 1938, when the society and many of China’s universities and research institutions relocated to southwestern China, Liang and Liu continued fieldwork and textual research together in Yunnan and then Sichuan until 1945. On contributions of these two men to the study of Chinese architecture, see Yang Yongsheng and Ming Liansheng, Jianshu sijie, 1–29, 39–68; Yang Yongsheng and Wang Lihui, Jianzhushi jiemaren, 8–15, 23–28. On Liang, see Guo Daiheng, Gao Yilian, and Xia Lu, Chinese Master Architect. 163. Zhu Qiqian’s major study of the 1930s was Yuan Dadu gongyuan tukao. 164. On “Kaogongji” and for recent translations, see Jun Wenren, Ancient Chinese Encyclopedia; Zengjian Guan and Konrad Hermann, Kao Gong Ji. Edouard Biot translated the text in 1851. 165. Kaogongji, juan 2/11a–12b. My translation relies on all three sources listed in the previous note. 166. He Yeju, Kaogongji yingguo zhidu, is a booklength study that seeks to show the implementation of the description of Wangcheng in every Chinese imperial city, including those in which the palaces are not centered but may be in the north-center of the outer wall. 167. This is the thesis of Steinhardt, “Imperial Architecture under Mongolian Patronage” and “The Plan of Khubilai Khan’s Imperial City.” 168. No date is inscribed on the marker, nor is the year it was excavated known. Hou Renzhi mentions it in “Beijing jiucheng,” 2, saying only that it was found during excavations by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. 169. Chan, Legends of the Building, 65, for the quote, and 63–85, for the Nazha legend in Yuan times. The three heads and six arms evolve to one head and eight arms in the Ming dynasty, whose capital, Beijing, also has two north wall gates. The body of Nazha superimposed on the capital has either three heads or a head and two arms at the south (shown at the top in most premodern Chinese city plans), six arms at the six side gates, and legs at the two north wall gates. In the same late-Yuan investigations of Liu Bingzhong’s design, a layout for Daidu based on eight trigrams of Yijing, the source of Shangdu, is also proposed; see Chan, Legends of the Building, 52–55. The plan is on 54.

170. In-depth modern studies of Daidu are Steinhardt, “Imperial Architecture under Mongolian Patronage” and “The Plan of Khubilai Khan’s Imperial City”; and Chen Gaohua, Yuan Dadu and Yuan Dadu Yuan Shangdu. The date 1267 is on a stele inscription recorded in Yu Ji, “Daidu chenghuangmiao beiming” (Stele on the City-God Temple of Dadu), in Yu Ji quanji, 831–32. The most important buildings were completed around 1273. For discussion of the dates, see Sun Meng, Beijing kaogushi: Yuandai, 17–18. 171. Hou Renzhi, “Beijing dushi fazhan” and “Beijing Jishuihe.” 172. Cai Fan, Yuandai shuilijia Guo Shoujing; Feng Zizhang, Guo Shoujing; Mo Yao, Guo Shoujing; Li Di, Guo Shoujing. 173. Li Hua, “Yuan Dadu.” 174. When photographed during excavation, the damaged inscription looked more like Zhizheng 34, which would be 1374. On this date and the repairs, see Zhongguo Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Yuan Dadu de kancha,” Kaogu, no. 1 (1972): 27. 175. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 58, 1347, which records the dimension as sixty li, or about 30 kilometers, with eleven gates. 176. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 58, 1347. 177. Private communication with Xu Pingfang in 1980. 178. Ying, “Hsiao’s Record, 29; Xiao Xun, Gugongyi lu, 1. 179. Lin Meicun, “Riyueguang tiande.” 180. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 99, 2533. 181. Paul Wheatley, Pivot of the Four Quarters. Zhouli is usually dated to the last two centuries BCE; see Loewe, Early Chinese Texts, 25–29. 182. Qin Jianming et al., “Shaanxi faxian yi Han Chang’an.” 183. The outer boundary of Xianyang has not yet been confirmed by excavation. 184. For an illustration, see Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo Hanling Kaogutui, Zhongguo Han Yangling caiyong, 22. 185. Private communication with an excavator at the annual meeting of Southeast Association for Asian Studies Association, Sarasota, 2017. 186. Chang’an suffered widespread destruction in the wars of 195 (Sima Guang, Zizhi tongjian, juan 59, 1385, and juan 61, 1430–31). In the early fourth century Chang’an was a battleground: Sima Ye (300–318) established himself at Chang’an in 313, but in 316 the city fell to Former Zhao (304–329), then to Later Zhao (319–352), then to Former

241

Qin (351–394) in the 380s when Chang’an was again the capital. In 384 Yao Chang (r. 386–393) established Later Qin at Chang’an. Chang’an became a city of Later Qin (384– 417), but not the capital. In 418 Chang’an fell to Da Xia (407–431), whose main capital would be at Tongwan. On cities during this period, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 18–28. 187. Ao Shiheng and Zhang Jie, “Jiehe shanshui dixing de Yuan Daidu.” Ao and Zhang do not refer to Qin Jianming et al., “Shaanxi faxian yi Han Chang’an.” 188. Information in this paragraph is from Tao Zongyi, Chuogenglu, 298. 189. Xiao Xun, Gugongyi lu, 1. 190. The passages of Xiao’s text and Ying’s translations of them are analyzed in Serruys, “On the Road to Shang-tu.” 191. Tao, Chuogenglu, 301. 192. Serruys, “On the Road to Shang-tu,” 159. 193. Here I follow the definition in Morohashi, Dai Kan-Wa jiten, 44518–41. By this definition, xiang refers to the fragrance of women. Xiangdian, one recalls, also stood in the Shangdu palace-city, where the fragrant hall is believed to have been the women’s quarters. The positions of xiangge as small back appendages to back halls of the Damingdian and Yanchunge complexes of the Daidu palace-city, of the back hall of the front complex of Xingshenggong, and xiangge as an independent structure in the northwest part of the eastern side of Longfugong, may not have been exclusive to women. A private space behind a front, formal space is consistent with the Zhouli dictum of public hall in front and private chambers behind. The khaghan might have entertained women in xiangge of these four palace-complexes. Zhongwen dacidian 45496.284 provides the alternate definition of a pavilion in a religious compound. We have noted the name Foxiangge in discussion of Dagesi in Khara-Khorum. Used in the name of a pavilion in a Buddhist complex, xiang is better translated as incense or fragrance for the Buddha. The khaghan’s xiangge behind his formal chambers at Daminggong and Yanchunge thus also might have been a worship space. 194. Details in this and the two previous paragraphs are drawn from Tao Zongyi, Chuogenglu, 297–98; and Xiao Xun, 1. 195. Fu Xinian, “Yuan Dadu.” 196. Eberhard, Dictionary of Chinese Symbols, 237–38; Williams, Chinese Symbolism, 327.

Notes TO CHAPTER ONE

197. Xiao Xun, Gugongyi lu, 2. 198. Here xiang may be translated as incense. 199. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 27, 608. 200. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 178, 4145. 201. Tao Zongyi, Chuogenglu, 299. 202. Zhu Qiqian and Kan Duo, “Yuan Dadu,” 28. 203. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 17, 376. 204. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 33, 734. 205. This feature probably developed from structures known as feidao, feilang, and mandao. Feidao, another name for gedao, were elevated passageways. These words are found in texts that describe palaces of Western and Eastern Han, such as Zhang Heng’s (78–139 CE) fu (rhapsodies); see Fu Xinian, Chinese Traditional Architecture, 98. Hanyuan Hall and Linde Hall of the Tang Daminggong complex and the pre-840s version of the esoteric Buddhist hall at Qinglong Monastery in Tang Chang’an had ramps that led from ground level to upper portions of the halls. They were known as feilang and mandao, respectively. For illustrations, see Fu Xinian, Chinese Traditional Architecture, 174; Steinhardt, “Mizong Hall,” 30. 206. Chen Gaohua, Yuan Dadu Yuan Shangdu, 42. 207. Zheng Zhihai and Qu Zhijing, The Forbidden City, 20–21. 208. For the location of the eastern palace, where the crown prince resided, see Fu Xinian, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, vol. 2: for the Later Zhao capital at Ye, 52; for Taiji Palacecomplex of Tang Chang’an, 363; for Sui-Tang Luoyang, 369. 209. On Ahmad, see Franke, “Ahmad.” 210. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 18, 385. 211. Tao Zongyi, Chuogenglu, 300, on Guangtian Hall; Shane McCausland, Zhao Mengfu, on Zhao Mengfu. 212. Xiao Xun, Gugongyi lu, 4 213. Yuanshi, juan 22, 497; fifty thousand slabs of money and twenty thousand rolls of silk were paid for the initial construction. 214. Xiao Xun, Gugongyi lu, 4. 215. Xiao Xun, Gugongyi lu, 4, for information in this paragraph. 216. Tao Zongyi, Chuogenglu, juan 2, 44. 217. On Kuiwenge in Qufu, see Pan Guxi, Qufu, 38–43. 218. Tao Zongyi, juan 2, 27. 219. Fu Shen, “Yuandai huangshi shuhua shoucang”; Langlois, “Yu Chi.” 220. On Ke Jiusi, see Cleaves, “The ‘Fifteen Palace Poems.’ ”

221. For Kangli Naonao’s (Kuikui’s) biography, see Yuanshi, juan 143, 3413–16; see also Cleaves, “K’uei-k’uei or Nao-nao?” 222. Tao Zongyi, juan 2, 27. This date is consistent with the fact that Zhou Boqi writes about Wenxuange in the eleventh lunar month of 1340 and first lunar month of 1341 in Jinguangji, juan 1/11a; Qinding Siku quanshu, vol. 1214, 513. 223. Wang Shidian, Jinbian, juan yi 2/17b. 224. Zhou Boqi and Ouyang Xuan use this name for the location of the presentation. See Zhu Qiqian and Kan Duo, “Yuan Dadu gongdian,” 54, n. 136. 225. Xiao Xun, Gugongyi lu, 4–5. 226. For an illustration of the two Yuan pagodas, see Zhang Yuhuan, Zhongguo Fotashi, 207. 227. Yang Hsüan-chih, Record of Buddhist Monasteries, 246. 228. Wang Biwen, “Yuan Daidu siguanmiao yu jianzhi yange biao.” 229. Liu Dunzhen, “Beijing Huguosi canji.” For other old pictures, see Luo Zhewen and Yang Yongsheng, Shichu de jianzhu, 32–33. Today the monastery is largely rebuilt and the focus of an active eating area. 230. For the inscription on the founding stele, see Yu Ji, “Daidu chenghuangmiao beiming,” in Yu Ji, Yu Ji quanji, 831–32. 231. On the city-god temple, see Wang Biwen, “Yuan Daidu siguanmiao,” 135–36. 232. Scriptures were read at (Da) Huguo Renwangsi in the ninth lunar month and at (Da) Shengshou Wan’ansi in the fifth lunar month. I thank Susan Shi-shan Huang for sharing information about sutra reading at monasteries in 1316 that will be published in her forthcoming book. 233. Anning Jing, “Financial and Material Aspects,” 235. 234. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 33, 734. 235. Schafer, “Tang Imperial Icon”; Jing, “Portraits of Khubilai Khan and Chabi”; Li Qianlang, “Beijing Miaoyingsi baita,” Zijincheng 10 (2009): 66–71. 236. For discussion and proposed reconstructions, see Fukuda, “Gendai kenchiku,” 67–78. 237. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 33, 743; Yu Ji, “Daidu chenghuangmiao beiming,” in Yu Ji quanji, 831–32. 238. Kates, “A New Date,” provides references that confirm the existence of Qionghua Island under Jin and suggest it existed at Liao Yanjing. 239. I thank Paul Goldin for suggesting “ether” as the translation of qi.

242

240. Tao Zongyi, Chuogenglu, 15–16; Sun Chengze, Chunmingmeng yulu, juan 64/12b– 13a. Bretschneider translates the story in Archaeological and Historical Researches, 60–61, as does Kates, “A New Date,” 181–82. 241. James M. Hargett, “Huizong’s Magic Marchmount”; Wang Mingqing (1127–1215), Huizhulu, 300–301. 242. Hargett, “Huizong’s Magic Marchmount,” 8, explains that gen also is a symbol of a son, and when the marchmount was erected, Huizong had not yet fathered a son. 243. Hargett, “Huizong’s Magic Marchmount,” 12–13. 244. Zhu, “Liao-Jin Yanjing,” 56–66, 72–73. 245. Wang Mingqing, “Huizhulu,” 300–301. 246. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 5, 96. 247. Tao Zongji, Chuogenglu, juan 21, 302–3, juan 1, 29–30. 248. Xiao Xun, Gugongyi lu, 3. 249. As mentioned earlier, Khubilai installed a throne in Guanghan Hall in 1265 when the island on which it stood was still known as Qionghua. Lin Meicun has argued that the Guanghan Hall in the painting attributed to Wang Zhenpeng in the Shanghai Museum depicts the Jin-period structure; see Lin Meicun, Dachao chunqiu, 119–34. 250. Tao Zongyi, Chuogenglu, 302–3; Xiao, Gugongyi lu, 3. 251. Zhongguo Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Beijingshi Wenwu Guanlichu, and Yuan Dadu Kaogudui, “Beijing Houyingfang Yuandai zhuzhu yizhi,” 24; Sun Meng, Beijing kaogushi: Yuandaijuan, 61. 252. Xiao Xun, Gugongyi lu, 3. 253. Sun Meng, Beijing kaogushi: Yuandaijuan, 61. 254. I thank Mo Zhang for telling me about this piece, which had been uploaded to Weibo by a visitor to the Zhenjiang Museum. 255. I thank Mo Zhang for telling me about the pieces in Japan. They are discussed in a seminar paper on Guanghan Hall imagery in art and literature that she wrote in spring 2022. In this paper she also notes that Emperor Minghuang (r. 712–756) sees a building named Guanghan in a popular tale. On the possible representation of Guanghan Hall on a porcelain pillow, see chap. 5, n. 120. 256. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 6, 109. Today it stands on Beihai, the northern island of three reconfigured by the Ming from the former Wanshoushan.

Notes TO CHAPTER ONE

257. Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, vol. 2, 220– 21. Yule and Cordier postulate that merdacas is a kind of jade admired by the Mongols (vol. 2, 221, n. 1), and they mention that a wooden object decorated with a dragon in clouds described by Tao Zongyi had similar decoration (vol. 2, 220–21, n. 4). 258. Tao Zongyi, Chuogenglu, 303. Tao writes that a coiled dragon with a raised head and ball in his mouth emits water from his mouth inside a grotto. 259. In addition to Zhou Boqi, Huang Jin (1277–1357) and Hu Zhu (1276–ca. 1353) wrote accounts of the journey between Daidu and Shangdu; see Franke and Twitchett, Cambridge History, 562. 260. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 24, 553. 261. See Jia Jingyan, Wudai Song Jin Yuanren bianjiang xingji shisanzhong shuzhenggao, 370. 262. The history of the territory is recorded in Jin Shan, Beizhenglu and Hou Beizhenglu, and Jin Zhizhang and Huang Kerun, Koubei santingzhi, juan 2, 28. 263. Yanai Watari, Mokoshishi kenkyū, 636. 264. Yin Zixian and Zhao Zhong, Zhangbeixian zhi, juan 2, dilizhi, xia, guyi. 265. Liang Jianzhang and Song Zhuyuan, Chaha’er tongzhi, 207. 266. Information in this paragraph is summarized in Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Yuan Zhongdu, vol. 1, 10. On Zhongdu, see also Chen Xiao, “Yuan Zhongdu.” 267. Debate over the history of city site and whether it was in fact first built by Khaishan is the subject of fifteen articles in Wenwu chunqiu, no. 3 (1998): 9–79, 94. 268. Every time I ask archaeologists in Mongolia where they think Chinggis and his descendants are buried, the answer is in mountains in Khentii province, in the vicinity of where the three rivers meet. 269. Citing Yuanshi and Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jamiʻuʾttawarikh as the sources that led him to excavate in this location, Shiraishi argues that Chinggis himself camped here in 1211 and 1216. Citing Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 153, 2610, Shiraishi and Tsogbaatar, “A Preliminary Report,” emphasize that the word xinggong is used in this passage, and that it should refer to the architecture rebuilt by Ögedei. Based on excavation of the 2020s, Shiraishi confirms evidence from the time of Khubilai and later. 270. By Ts. Damdinsu̇ rėn in Mongolyn uran zokhiolyn toĭm. Shiraishi, “Avaraga Site,” accepts this identification.

271. Shiraishi and Tsogbaatar, “A Preliminary Report,” 554–55. 272. I thank Noriyuki Shiraishi for sharing information from ongoing excavations with me. As of August 2022, excavation indicated that the remains referred to as building 1 (figure 1.39) might be a mausoleum, and that palatial, religious, and/or residential architecture was to the south. For more on Avraga, see Shiraishi, “Great Ordu”; Shiraishi, Mongoru teitokushi no kōkogaku, 179–94; Kato Shimpei and Shiraishi, Avraga, 1. 273. Ye Ziqi, Caomuzi, juan 3, 63. 274. On the Önggüd, see Atwood, “Historiography and Transformation.” 275.  On the Church of the East, see A. B. Duvigneau, L’expansion nestorienne; Baumer, The Church of the East; Roman Malek, ed., Jingjia; Baumer, The Church of the East. On the Kerait, see Erica Hunter, “The Conversion of the Kerait”; Isenbike Togan, Flexibility and Limitation. For discussion of Önggüd cities, excavations, and important finds, see Gai Shanlin, Yinshan wanggu. 276. The toponyms are translated variously. 277. Brabander, “De hongersnood in Mongolie,” “Mengelmaren,” and “Midden Mongolia.” 278. I thank Thomas Coomans for finding this image for me, and for sending me copies of Brabander’s writings that, to my knowledge, are not available in the United States. 279. Bibliography on Christian remains in the southeastern Chinese port cities includes Chaffee, Muslim Merchants; Schottenhammer, East Asian Maritime World, East Asian “Mediterranean”; Schottenhammer, Emporium of the World; Schottenhammer, Trade and Transfer; Wu and Wu, Quanzhou zongjiao shike; Samuel Lieu, “Christian and Manichaean Remains,” 189–206; Iain Gardner, “Medieval Christian Remains,” 215–25; and Ken Parry, “Iconography of the Christian Tombstones.” Christians in southeastern China were more often Catholic, and those in North China and Mongolia were more often practitioners of Church of the East Christianity. 280. Charles Pieters, “Mongolie centrale,” 2 parts, 259. 281. Missionary and Mongolian scholar Antoine Mostaert (1881–1971) of Belgium; explorers Henning Haslund-Christensen (1896–1948) of Denmark and Sven Hedin (1865–1952) of Sweden; Chinese archaeologist Huang Wenbi (1893–1966), who at one time was a member of the Sino-Swedish expedition led by Hedin; Erich Haenisch (1880–1966) of Germany;

243

Reginald Johnson (pseudonym Christopher Irving) of England; Owen Lattimore (1900– 1989) and Bettina Lum of the United States; and Henry Martin (1908–1973) of Canada all were at Olon Süme or published materials with Christian imagery from the vicinity of Olon Süme in the 1920s or 1930s. Their contributions and those of others are discussed in Halbertsma, Early Christian Remains, 73–109. 282. For other sites in North China and Inner Mongolia where Christian remains have been found, see Halbertsma, Early Christian Remains, 135–217. 283. Chen Yuan, “On the Damaged Tablets.” Chen’s sources for the text of the stele and biography of King George are Yuanshi, juan 118; Su Tianjue (1294–1352), Yuan wenlei (Categories of Yuan literature), in which the epitaph of King George by Yan Fu is included; and a eulogy composed by Liu Minzhong (1243–1318). 284. Dawson, Mongol Mission, 225. 285. For an illustration, see Yokohama Museum of EurAsian Cultures, Olon Süme, 15. 286. For a history of the Önggüd with long discussion of cities, sites, and excavation finds, see Gai Shanlin, Yinshan wanggu. 287. See Egami, Oron Sumu. Egami’s publications in European languages include “Olon-Sume et la Découverte” and “OlonSume: The Remains.” See also Walther Heissig, Die Mongolischen Steininschrift; F. S. Drake, “Nestorian Crosses and Nestorian Christians”; and Gillman and Klimkeit, Christians in Asia. Saeki Yoshirō published material from Olon Süme between 1916 and 1940. More recent publications are Yokohama Museum of EurAsian Cultures, Olon Süme, and Halbertsma, Early Christian Remains. 288. 2012 Zhongguo Shoujie. See also Li Yiyou, “Nei Menggu Yuandai chengzhi,” 148–49. 289. Objects that could be seen through 2005 are published in Halbertsma, Early Christian Remains. When I was there in 2013, the site was closed. When I returned in 2018, almost everything had been taken to town, where a new museum was under construction. 290. For longer discussion, see Halbertsma, Early Christian Remains, 38–46. 291. See, for example, Robert Silverberg, The Realm of Prester John; Morris Rossabi, Voyager from Xanadu; Peter Jackson, “Prester John Redivivus”; Jackson, The Mongols and the West, 22–23, 102–6. These titles give some indication of Prester John’s legendary status:

Notes TO CHAPTER ONE

Charles Beckingham, Prester John, the Mongols and the Ten Lost Tribes; Gumilev, Searches for an Imaginary Kingdom; Nicholas Jubber, Prester Quest. 292. Moule, Christians in China, 133–34. 293. Boyle, “Seasonal Residences.” 294. Shiraishi, Mongoru teitokushi, 230–36. Shiraishi’s reconstruction is on 232. 295. Shiraishi, Mongoru teitokushi, 236–42. Shiraishi’s reconstruction is on 238. 296. K. C. Chang described it as the Anyang core; see Shang Civilization, 72–73. Excavation in the forty years since Chang wrote has shown the same phenomenon for remains of the earlier period of Shang civilization around today’s Luoyang. On third- and second-millennium BCE cities, some of which exhibit clustering, see Yan Lijie et al., “The Spatiotemporal Evolution of Ancient Cities.” An urban core with additional walled areas as is in evidence in and around KharaKhorum and other cities discussed here is different from periurbanization, a dynamic process that describes modern cities where interface zones join urban and suburban. For an explanation of the process in China, see Abramson, “Periurbanization and the Politics of Development-as-City-Building in China.” 297. Shiraishi, Mongoru teitokushi, 243–49. The walled enclosures and their relation to tomb groups are shown on 244. 298. Boyle, “Seasonal Residences”; Maidar, Arkhitektura i gradostroitel’stvo Mongolii, 22. 299. Shiraishi, Mongoru teitokushi, 254; Shiraishi’s discussion is on 249–67. 300. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 3, 47. 301. I thank Bryan Miller for figure 1.47 and for information about the excavation. 302. Shiraishi, Mongoru teitokushi, 275–87. 303. Jan Bemmann is the director of the excavation. I thank him for conversations about this site in 2019 and 2020 and for sending me a drawing for publication here. 304. Shiraishi, Mongoru teitokushi, 287–93. 305. On the Khitan-period pagoda at Bars-Khot, see Steinhardt, “The Pagoda in Kherlen Bars.” 306. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 46, 970. 307. On the inscription, see Rachewiltz, “SinoMongolica Remota” and “Some Remarks.” 308. As with many cities of Mongolia and south central Russia, scholars were aware of remains and conducted limited excavation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. G. I. Spassky, V. Parshin, and, most important, K. A. Kuznetsov were there.

Kiselev led the first major expedition in the 1950s; see Drevnemongol’skie goroda, 23–58. The so-called Chinggisid Stone is shown on 54. I thank N. Kradin for continued updates and information. 309. Kradin, “Who Was the Builder” and Goroda srednevekov’kh imperii dal’nego vostoka, 299–301. 310. Kondui was excavated by Kiselev; see Drevnemongol’skie goroda, 325–69. Results of recent and ongoing excavations, including work by Minert and Tkachev, are in Kradin, Goroda srednevekov’kh imperii dal’nego vostoka, 306–7, and “Who Was the Builder.” 311. For Kiselev’s plan, see Drevnemongol’skie goroda, 366. The building was not quite cruciform. For the current reconstruction, see Kradin, Goroda srednevekov’kh imperii dal’nego vostoka, 306–7. 312. For an illustration, see Li Jie, Yingzao fashi, juan 31, vol. 2, 796–97. 313. Kradin, “Heritage of Mongols.” The practice of reconfiguring or repurposing religious architecture for that of another religion is widespread. On a church reconfigured into a mosque in Amsterdam, see Beekers and Arab, “Dreams of an Iconic Mosque.” 314. Franken, Die “Grossse Halle.” 315. Kradin et al., “Usad’ba Alestoi”; Kradin et al., “Ispolizovanie dereva v stroitel’e sprenevekov’kh.” 316. Narustuy, in Buryatia, eastern Siberia, is residential. Kiselev excavated Den-Terek in the 1950s; see Drevnemongol’skie goroda, 59–119. 317. On Tavan-Tolgoi, see G. Lkhagvasuren et al., “Molecular Genealogy,” the results of an excavation conducted by National University of Mongolia in 2004 with human remains dated 1130–1250 and gold objects that led to associations with the family of Chinggis Khan. 318. Rincen, “L’inscription sinomongole.” 319. Its wall is noted in Xiqing, Heilongjiang waiji. In 1979 Heishantou was still included in publications about Heilongjiang; see Heilongjiang Wenwu Kaogu Gongzuodui, Heilongjiang, 109–13. 320. Murata Jirō, Manshū no shiseki, 90–93. 321. This point is debated by Song Di, one of the 1997 excavators, in “Guanyu Heishantoucheng” and “Heishantou gucheng.” On Heishantou, see also Zhang Chun, “Heishantou gucheng”; Lin Zhande, “Hulunbei’er kaogu erze”; Zhou Yuanyuan, “Heishantou gucheng.” 322. Heilongjiang Wenwu Kaogu Gongzuodui, Heilongjiang, 112–13; Jing Ai, “Heishantou

244

guchengkao,” reports remains in the vicinity of two walled areas, Kangdui and Xi’erxila. The western remains were the focus of excavation in summer 2012; see Qirigala, “Haila’er E’ergunashi Heishantou.” 323. It is argued to have been a xinggong. See Zheng Shaozong, “Kaoguxueshang”; Guo Fu, “Yuan Chagannao’er xinggong”; Yin Zixian “Yuandai Chagannao’er xinggong.” 324. Li Yiyou, a lead archeologist of Inner Mongolia from the 1950s into the 1990s, published a report on the findings of a team from the Inner Mongolia Cultural Relics Department in 1961; see Li Yiyou, “Yingchanglu gucheng.” The report of Liu Zhiyi, of the Kesheketengqi Culture Office, published in 1984, includes a more detailed map than Li’s. It is confirmed by the air view shown here in figure 1.56; see “Yuan Yingchanglu yizhi.” Later articles, which do not include new maps, are Yu Qianhui, “Yingchang”; Shen Wanli, “Yuandai Yingchang”; and Dai, “Menggu Hongjilabu.” Information about Yingchanglu here is drawn from these reports. 325. For the stele inscriptions and analysis, see Cao Xun, “Yuan Yingchanglu.” On Princess Sengge and her collection, see Marsha S. Weidner, Flowering in Shadows, 61–69; Fu Shen, “Yuandai huangshi shuhua shoucang.” 326. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 18, 393. 327. Liu Minzhong, Zhonganji, juan 14. 328. Yu Qianhui, “Yingchanglu,” 227. 329. On the movement of laborers 300 li northeast of Shangdu, see Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 118, 2920. 330. Li Yiyou, “Yingchanglu,” 533. 331. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 58, 1354. 332. Li Yiyou, “Nei Menggu Yuandai chengzhi gaishuo,” 90. 333. Remains are noted as early as the 1950s; see Nei Menggu Wenwu Gongzuozu, “Nei Menggu faxian.” The first report is Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Gongzuodui, “Yuandai Jininglu.” Zhang Yuhuan, “Yuan Jininglu gucheng,” was written a few years later. Murata Jirō was in this part of Inner Mongolia. He had gone through Yuanshi, Yuan yitong zhi, and Jingshi dadian to identify sites but did not excavate Jining; see Manshū no shiseki, 200–205. 334. Zhao Libo, “Jininglu chengzhi.” 335. Zhang Yuhuan, “Yuan Jininglu gucheng,” 585. 336. They are discussed and published in Li Yiyou, “Tan Yuan Jininglu”; Pan Xingrong,

Notes TO CHAPTERS ONE AND TWO

“Yuan Jininglu,” plates 5 and 6; Ulanchab Wenwu Gongzuozhan, “Chayouqianqi Tuchengzi”; Ta La, “Wenming zhi lu,” 132–37, 140; and Chen Yongzhi, Kaogu zansheng, 274–87. 337. Gai Shanlin, Yinshan Wanggu, 96–141, for discussion; 142–43, for a map on which the sites are located; 144–50, for plans of walled enclosures and tombs. Some of the cities were excavated several decades before this publication; see Li Yiyou, “Nei Menggu Yuandai,” 4. 338. An editorial by Zhang Xun in Kaogu, no. 7 (1960): 56, points out that excavator Ma Dezhi believed the date to be 1272 and Xia Nai believed it to be 1273. The periodical Kaogu officially accepts the date 1273. 339. On Manggala, Ananda, and the Anxi and Qin appanages, see Dunnell, “The Anxi Principality”; Shurany, “Prince Manggala.” The Chinese and Persian sources on the men and appanages are provided in the notes to these articles. A rough map of Anxiwangfu is found in Tan Qixiang, Zhongguo lishi dituji, vol. 7, 17–18. 340. Li Haowen, Chang’anzhi tu, 22–23. 341. Yule and Cordier, The Travels of Marco Polo, vol. 2, 24–25. 342. The initial report is Ma Dezhi, “Xi’an Yuandai Anxiwangfu.” See also Yu Guixiao, “Yuandai Anxiwangfu”; Xin Yupu, “Xi’an diqu Yuandai yizhi.” A magic square with Arabic numerals also was excavated at the Yuan central capital; see Tong Jianhua, “Yuan Zhongdu yizhi.” 343. See Xia Nai, “Yuan Anxiwangfu,” 22, for an illustration. 344. This point is debated in Shurany, “Prince Manggala.” On the Korea connection, see Xi Lei, “Anxiwang Ananda dui Gaoli zhengzhi.” 345. Xin Yupu, “Xi’an diqu Yuandai yizhi.” 346. Xi’anshi Wenwu Baohu Kaogusuo, Xi’an Hansenzhai Yuandai bihuamu; the initial report is Sun Fuxi and Wang Zili, “Xi’an dongjiao Yuandai bihuamu.” The name of the tomb occupant is too effaced to be read in the funerary inscription. 347. Xi’anshi Wenwu Baohu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Xi’an Qujiang Miaojiazhai Yuandai Yuan Gui’anmu.” 348. Ningxia Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Guyuanshi Yuanzhouqu Wenwu Guanlisuo, Kaicheng Anxiwangfu yizhi. 349. Ningxia Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Guyuanshi Yuanzhouqu Wenwu Guanlisuo, Kaicheng Anxiwangfu yizhi, 43–45.

350. Ningxia Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Guyuanshi Yuanzhouqu Wenwu Guanlisuo, Kaicheng Anxiwangfu yizhi, colorpls. 36, 37, 47.2, 47.3. 351. The best examples of baosha are at Moni Hall in Zhengding, Hebei province, dated 1038. Like that building, the base of this smallscale metal structure is twenty-sided. 352. For the male, see Ningxia Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Guyuanshi Yuanzhouqu Wenwu Guanlisuo, Kaicheng Anxiwangfu yizhi, colorpl. 50; for the weight, colorpl. 48; and for the reliquaries, colorpl. 46, #3 and #4. 353. Li Yiyou, “Nei Menggu Yuandai chengzhi,” 151. 354. On the Liao and Jin capitals, see Steinhardt, Liao Architecture, 17–18, and chapter 2 here. 355. Information in this paragraph comes from Zhu Zifang, “Nei Menggu Ningchengxian Damingcheng”; Liao Zhongjing Fajue Weiyuanhui, “Liao Zhongjingcheng zhi faxian.” 356. On the stele, see Nei Menggu Wenwu Gongzuozu, “Jinianlaide Nei Menggu wenwu,” 15–16. 357. Zheng Long, “Yuan Jingzhoulu gucheng”; Wen, “Guanyu Yuandai Jingzhoulu gucheng.” 358. On the Qara-Khitai, who formed as a result of Khitan migration westward after the fall of the Liao empire, see Michal Biran, Empire of the Qara khitai; on the dearth of evidence of Chaghatay urbanism, see Biran, “Rulers and City Life in Mongol Central Asia.” 359. Huang Wenbi, “Xinjiang kaogu.” 360. There are several combinations of characters used for the Chinese name A-li-ma-li. Xu Song’s record is Xiyu shuidaoji. For Xu’s biography, see Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing, 321–22. 361. Coins and stones with crosses are illustrated in Huang Wenbi, “Yuan Alimali gucheng.” 362. T. W. Thacker, “A Nestorian Gravestone from Central Asia.” The museum was known as the Gulbenkian Museum when the article was published.

Chapter Two 1. Russian scholars, notably V. P. Vasilyev, believed the Jurchen originated as a Mohe tribe; see A. P. Okladnikov, The Soviet Far East in Antiquity, 202. 2. For possible predecessors of the Jurchen, as well as history of the Jurchen and the Jin dynasty, see Herbert Franke, “The Jurchen,” in The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, ed. Sinor, 412–23, and Franke, “The Jin Dynasty,”

245

in The Cambridge History of China, ed. Franke and Twitchett, 215–320. On the post-Jin history of the Jurchen, see Janhunen, Manchuria, esp. 101–6. 3. Daniel Kane, Sino-Jurchen Vocabulary, 42–69. 4. Robert Ramsey, The Languages of China; on the Jurchen language, 227; on Manchu, 227–29; on Mongolian, 194–212. 5. Tuotuo, Jinshi; Yuwen Maozhao, Da Jinguozhi. 6. Fan Chengda’s Lanpeilu is studied and translated in part by James Hargett in On the Road in Twelfth Century China. Sanchao beimeng huibian is partially translated in Werner, Die Belagerung von K’ai-feng im Winter 1126/27, and in Franke, “Chinese Texts on the Jurchen.” Franke also translated the first chapter of Jinshi. Some of Franke and Hok-lam Chan’s most important studies of the Jin are published in Studies on the Jurchens and the Chin Dynasty. For background on the Jurchen and Jin, see also Tillman and West, China under Jurchen Rule; Tao Jing-shen, The Jurchen in Twelfth-Century China. 7. Y  uwen, Da Jinguozhi, juan 33, 244, gives a terse account of cities rulers used leading up to the Jin central capital, referred to in Yuwen’s work as Yanjing, a name Liao used and that would be used occasionally thereafter to refer to Beijing. 8. The name Shangjing seems to have come into use before 1138, although it is possible that in some of those documents Shangjing refers to the first Liao capital, which would be destroyed by Jin in 1153, rather than to Jin Shangjing. Sui and Tang (581–907) had multiple capitals but only two main capitals, Chang’an and Luoyang, one of which was the primary capital at any given time during the dynasties. Short-lived dynasties, such as Northern Qi (550–577), had northern and southern capitals. Northern Wei (386–534/35) had three primary capitals, used in sequence. Koguryŏ, which fell to Parhae, similarly had multiple capitals that changed as the kingdom recentered. The five-capital system of Parhae is one of the better studied; see Song Yubin, “Bohai ducheng guzhi yanjiu,” summarized in an English article in Chinese Archaeology 10 (2010): 83–90. The five-capital system of Jin probably initially was based on Liao and Parhae governance practice whereby each capital had a certain amount of control over the surrounding area. As we shall see, more like Tang and Yuan, one Jin capital always was the most important, and the Jin easter n, western, and southern capitals were never as important as the others.

Notes TO CHAPTER TWO

9. Zhu Xie, “Liao-Jin Yanjing,” 65–66, 72–73. 10. On Jin Shangjing, see Jing Ai, Jin Shangjing; Zhu Guozhen, Jinyuan gudu; Zhao Yongjun, “Jin Shangjing chengzhi”; Xu Zirong, “Jin Shangjing Huiningfu.” 11. Yuwen, Da Jinguozhi, juan 33, 244, uses the word zhai. 12. Through the history of Chinese architecture, whether the dynasty is Chinese or non-Chinese, Lu is a rare example of someone named in city design. His work at Shangjing is recorded in his biography; see Tuotuo, Jinshi, juan 75, 1716. 13. Xu writes in 1127, before the final fall of Song; see Xu Mengxin, Sanchao beimeng, juan 20, 141–47. It is translated by Franke in “Chinese Texts on the Jurchen.” 14. Tuotuo, Jinshi, juan 3, 52. 15. Zhao Yongjun, “Jin Shangjing,” 38. This information is in Tuotuo, Jinshi, juan 3, 66. Relevant passages from Songshi, Da Jinguozhi, and Jinshi are quoted in Ding Linuo, Beijing kaogushi: Jindai, 10–20. 16. I use the translations in Hucker, A Dictionary of Official Titles, for titles found in that work. Shaofujian is on 415. 17. Tuotuo, Jinshi, juan 4, 72–75. 18. Yuwen, Da Jinguozhi, juan 12, 98. 19. Tuotuo, Jinshi, juan 33, 788. 20. The Eastern Xia capital was in Yanji, Jilin province, with the state extending east into Primorye. Franke and Twitchett, Cambridge History, refers to the state as Dazhen, 257–59. Some believe the state should be called Dong Zhen, and that xia 夏 was mistaken for zhen 眞 in early records. On the location of the Dong Xia capital, see Liu Changhai, “Dong Xiaguo.” On Dong Xia remains in Primorye, see D. V. Artem’ev, “Dvortsovaia arkhitektura Chzhurchzhen’skikh gorodov Primor’ya.” 21. Agui et al., Manzhou yuanliukao, juan 12, 180–84. 22. Cao Tingjie, “Dongsansheng yu ditushuo.” In Xuxiu siku quanshu, vol. 646, 426. 23. The earliest excavation report is V. Ia. Tolmachev, Drevnosti Manchzhurii, 19–30, who excavated in 1923. Major Japanese excavation reports of this period are Toriyama Kiichi, “Kin no Jōkyōshi” and “Kin no Jōkyōshi no shutsudoin”; Torii Ryūzō, “Jin Shangjingcheng”; Murata Jirō, “Kin Jōkyō ishi noichi mondai” and “Kin Jōkyō ishi tsukō”; Yamada Fumihide, “Hakujōshi yori Kindai kakumei”; Sonoda Kazuki, “Kin no Jōkyōshi.” For a summary of these

excavations, see Susan Bush, “Archaeological Remains of the Chin.” 24. The early Chinese excavation report, Zhou Jiabi, “Jindu Shangjing Huiningfu Baicheng yizhi kaolüe,” was followed by Jin Yufu, Dongbei tongshi, 399–402; Sun Xiuren, “Jindai Shangjingcheng”; Achengxian Wenwu Guanlisuo, “Jindai gudu Shangjing”; and Xu Zirong, “Jin Shangjing Huiningfu yizhi.” Zhu Guozhen, Jinyuan gudu, and Jing Ai, Jin Shangjing, are the two most comprehensive reviews of excavations through the 1980s. See also Li Xiulian, “Manhua Jinchao diyidu”; Yu Zirong, “Jin Shangjing.” 25. Cities, especially imperial cities, with two distinctive parts that are adjacent to each other and share one wall segment, can be called double-cities. On double-cities, see Steinhardt, Chinese Imperial City Planning, 47–50, 89, 123–25, 128–30. 26. Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogusuo, “Ha’erbinshi Achengqu Jin Shangjing nancheng.” 27. Guojia Wenwuju, 2002 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu, 142–46. The source is a passage in Jinshi that refers to Chaoridian, a hall for [court worship of] the sun, and states that in 1138 Hela built a new hall for ceremonies to the sun at this place. 28. Heilongjiang Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Ha’erbinshi Achengqu Jin Shangjing.” 29. The excavation of Liao Shangjing has as long a history as that of Jin Shangjing, but the excavators have been only Japanese and Chinese teams. For a summary of research through the 1980s, see Steinhardt, Chinese Imperial City Planning, 123–25. On later research, see Hao Gao, Liaodai Shangjing; Liu Ximin, Liao Shangjing Qidan jiyi; Tang Cailan. Liao Shangjing wenwu; Wang Yuting, ed., Liao Shangjing yanjiu. For a recent excavation and the currently accepted plan, see Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Nei Menggu Di’er Gongzuotui and Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Nei Menggu Balinzuoqi Liao Shangjing gongcheng.” For the current working plan of Liao Shangjing, see Dong Xinlin, “Liao Shangjing guizhi,” 6. 30. For general information on the Liao(-Jin) western capital, see Chen Shu, Qidan shehui, 95–96 31. For summary information, see Murata Jirō, Chūgoku no teito, 151; Tamura, Chūgoku seifuku ōchō, vol. 2, 147–50. 32. Murata Jiro, Chūgoku no teito, 150; Tamura, Chūgoku seifuku ōchō, vol. 2, 147–50.

246

33. For a report from this period, see Liao Zhongjing Fajue Weiyuanhui, “Liao Zhongjingcheng.” 34. Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Gongzuodui, “Liao Zhongjing.” 35. Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Zhaoniaodameng Wenwu Gongzuozhan, “Liao Zhongjing yizhi.” 36. For the most recent plan, see Dong Xinlin, “Liao Shangjing guizhi,” 11. 37. For Zhang Hao’s biography, see Tuotuo, Jinshi, juan 83, 1862. 38. Wang Biwen, “Fenghuangzui tucheng.” 39. Qi Xin, “Jinnianlai Jin Zhongdu.” 40. Yan Wenru, “Jin Zhongdu.” 41. See Zhao Qichang and Sun Xiu, “Jin Zhongdu.” 42. Yu Jie and Yu Guangdu, Jin Zhongdu. 43. Beijing Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Beijing kaogu sishinian, xx. 44. The dimensions of the Jin Zhongdu wall are not given in Tuotuo, Jinshi. Kubota Kazuo, “Jinchao zi Shangjing Huiningfu zhi,” calculated the wall to have been about thirty-three meters. His source is Ming Taizu shilu. I thank Qiu Jun Oscar Zheng for identifying this source for me. 45. The list is in Yuan yitongzhi, many of which are also listed in Tuotuo, Jinshi; see Zhao Qichang and Sun Xiu, “Jin Zhongdu.” 46. For the maps in question, see Steinhardt, Chinese Imperial City Planning, 132. 47. On support for Lu Yanlun’s use of the Song plan, see Zhu Qiqian and Kan Duo, “Liao-Jin Yanjing,” 65–66, 72–73. 48. A nabo of Liao and Jin is believed to have been found in Qian’an county, Jilin; see Jilin Daxue Kaogu Xueyuan, Jilinsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, and Qian’anxian Wenwu Guanlisuo, “Jilin Qian’anxian Liao-Jin chunnabo.” 49. Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Zhangjiakoushi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, and Chongliqu Wenhua Guangdian he Luyouju, “Hebei Zhangjiakoushi Taizicheng.” 50. Chen Guojun and Kong Guangquan, Antuxian zhi. 51. This is the name used in Antuxian Difangzhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui, Antuxian wenwuzhi. Remains in Antu date to the Bronze Age; see Jilinsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Antuxian Wenguansuo, “Jilin Antuxian.” 52. Lin Xiuzhen, “Dongbei diqu Jindai chengshi.” 53. Shancheng are believed to be a structural type of Koguryŏ that continued to be built by

Notes TO CHAPTER TWO

Parhae; see Wang Mianhou, Gaogouli gucheng, 27–155; Wei Cuncheng, Gaogouli ducheng. 54. For a recent summary of the Jurchen towns, see Kradin, Goroda srednevekov’kh imperii dal’nego vostoka, 203–34; Kradin, “Far-Eastern Gardariki.” 55. Lopatin and Przhevalskii were there in 1868, Kropotkin made a plan in 1889, followed by Federov in 1915, Okladinov in 1953, Khorev and Nikitin in 1983–1985, and N. G. Artem’ev in 1995. The base of the stele and a sketch of the site showing the location of two tombs and two walled enclosures also are published in Hua Quan, “Wanyan Chongmu shendaobei.” For a history of exploration in the area, see P. Kafarov, “Istoricheskiy ocherke Ussuriiskogo kraia”; Zhong Minyan, “1860-nian qian Zhongguo renmin dui Heilongjiang.” 56. Ivliev, “Izuchenie istorii gosudarstva Vostochnoe Sia.” 57. Mikami, “Kin no fu to ro nitsuite.” 58. All these techniques existed in North China before they came to Heilongjiang. The structure of the gate argues for a date after the Jurchen returned north to do rebuilding at Shangjing; see Heilongjiang Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Heilongjiang Kedongxian Jindai Puyulu.” 59. For discussion and illustrations, see He Ming, “Ji Tahucheng.” 60. Chen Xiangwei, “Jilin Huaide Qinjiadun.” 61. Jilinsheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui, “Jilin Lishuxian Pianliancheng.” 62. Zhaodongxian Bowuguan, “Heilongjiang Zhaodongxian Balicheng.” 63. Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Gongzuotui, “Heilongjiangpan Suibin Zhongxing”; Lin Xiuzhen, “Dongbei diqu,” 305–6. 64. Lin Xiuzhen, “Dongbei diqu,” 307–8. 65. His biography is Tuotuo et al., Jinshi, juan 73, 1672–74. For the excavation report, see Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Heilongjiang Acheng Juyuan Jindai Qiguowangmu”; see also Zhu Qixin, “Royal Costumes of the Jin Dynasty”; Zhao Pingchun, Jindai fushi. 66. On Liao tombs, see Steinhardt, Liao Architecture, 241–379. Multiple layers of sarcophaguses is not unique. A stone coffin was found inside a wooden container in Yemaotai tomb 9, Faku, Liaoning; see Liao Architecture, 324–28; for illustrations, see 322 and 323. I thank Liu Xiaodong of the Heilongjiang Institute of Archaeology for giving me permission to publish figure 2.15.

67. For Wanyan Xiyin’s biography, see Tuotuo, Jinshi, juan 73, 1684–86. On the tomb, see Dong Xuezeng, “Wanyan Xiyin ji qi mudi.” 68. Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogusuo Gongzuodui, “Heilongjiangpan.” 69. Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogusuo Gongzuodui, “Heilongjiangpan,” 42. 70. Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogusuo Gongzuodui, “Heilongjiangpan,” 46–49, provides charts of goods found in each tomb. 71. On Jin burial customs, see Jing Ai, “Cong chutu wenwukan”; Jing Ai, “Liao-Jin shidai de huozangmu”; and Li Jiancai, “Jindai Nüzhen muzang de yanbian.” No criteria have been proposed for distinguishing between Jin and proto-Jin burials, or those of Jurchen and their non-Jurchen neighbors. 72. Because decisions at the time of death are personal, something like the use of a certain script does not necessarily identify a tomb occupant or date; see Yan Wanzhang, “Hebei Xinglong Jinmu chutu Qidanwen muzhiming,” on a Jin tomb in which the funerary epitaph was carved in Khitan script. 73. Zhang Daixiang, “Songhuajiang xiayou Aolimi gucheng.” 74. Jing Ai, “Suibin Yongsheng.” 75. Although all historical records inform us of Hailingwang’s thorough destruction of tomb architecture and nonfunerary buildings of the early Jin capital, the occasional discovery in Acheng county of stone and lacquer sarcophaguses, glazed ceramics, carved marble, and gold objects suggests that some remains survived. 76. On the Jin royal cemetery, see Beijingshi Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Beijing Jindai huangling. Information on Jin royal tombs also is found in the biography of each ruler in Jinshi and in Yuwen Maozhao, Da Jinguozhi, juan 33, 247–49. For summaries of the texts, see Xie Mincong, Zhongguo lidai diwang lingqin kaolüe, 119–21; Luo Zhewen, Zhongguo lidai huangdi lingmu, 118–21; Ren Changtai, ed., Zhongguo lingqin shi, 254–61. 77. Luo Zhewen, Zhongguo lidai huangdi lingmu, 120, questions the date of the wall. 78. On the mask, see Ren Changtai, Zhongguo lingqin shi, 261, and for an illustration, Sun Dachuan, Beijing kaogushi: Jindai chuan, 97; and Beijing kaogu faxian yu yanjiu, 1949–2009, vol. 2, 323. The metal wire headgear was excavated in Aguda’s tomb, where excavation occurred in the 1980s and in 2002. For an illustration of the headgear, see Beijingshi Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Beijing Jindai huangling,

247

colorpl. 14.2. According to a Southern Song description of the preparation of the corpse of the second Liao emperor, Deguang (d. 947), his face was covered with a mask of gold and silver and his body was encased in metal wire netting. The Liao Princess of Chenguo and her husband, Xiao Shaoju, jointly buried in 1018, also wore death masks of precious metal and were encased in metal wire suits, as were an unidentified female, buried in a tomb in Haoqianying, and numerous other Khitan; see Francois Louis, “Shaping Symbols of Privilege” and Louis, “Iconic Ancestors.” The engagement of Jurchen rulers in this funerary practice associates them with not only with the Khitan but with even earlier semi-nomadic peoples of North and Northeast Asia; see Steinhardt Liao Architecture, 12, 291, 318–22, and relevant notes to those pages and Steinhardt, “Liao Archaeology”; Wang Zhanjun. Qidan wangchao, 21–23, 39; Li Yiyou, “Lielun Liaodai Qidan yu Hanren muzang” and “Liaodai Qidanren muzang zhidu gaishuo.” Both articles are reprinted in Li’s Beifang kaogu yanjiu, vol. 1. 79. On Northern Song tombs, see Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Bei Song huangling. 80. On the Western Xia royal cemetery, see Steinhardt, “The Tangut Royal Tombs.” 81. On the Liao imperial necropolis, see Tamura and Kobayashi, Keiryō. 82. Huang Xiuchun and Lei Shaoyu, “Bejing Jinmu.” 83. One can never be sure a symbol or motif is understood by someone who uses it, but one assumes that these were recognized as Chinese. If their meanings were understood, the stork and turtle should have been selected because they are symbols of longevity. 84. Hebeisheng Wenhuaju Wenwu Gongzuotui, “Hebei Xinchengxian Beichangcun Jinshi Shi Li’ai,” 650. 85. Franke assesses Hailingwang as a “bloody monster”; see Franke and Twitchett, Cambridge History of China, 239. 86. Liu Qingyi and Zhang Xuande, “Beijingshi Tongxian Jindai muzang.” 87. Qin Dashu, “Beijingshi Haidianqu Nanxinzhuang Jinmu.” 88. Song Dachuan, Beijing Longquanwu; Beijing Liao-Jin Guchengyuan Bowuguan, Beijing Liao-Jin wenwu. 89. Song Dachuan, Beijing diqu Liao-Jin muzang bihua. Murals are extensively published in Xu Guangji, Zhongguo chutu bihua, vol. 10, 36–56.

Notes TO CHAPTER TWO

For more on all the tombs discussed here, see Ding Lina, Beijing kaogushi: Jindai, 100–43. 90. Huang Xiuchun and Fu Gongyue, “Liao Han Yi mu fajue baogao.” On the tombs in Xuanhua, see Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Xuanhua Liaomu; Liu Haiwen, Xuanhua Xiabali II-qu Liao bihuamu. 91. For categorization of tombs, see Deng Fei, Zhongyuan beifang diqu Song Jin muzang. 92. For discussion and illustrations, see Wang Yonggang, “Shaanxi Ganquan Jindai bihuamu”; Xibei Daxue Wenhua Yichan Xueyuan and Ganquanxian Bowuguan, “Shaanxi Ganquan Liuhejuwan Jindai bihuamu”; and Yu Yonggang, “Shaanxi Ganquan Jindai bihuamu.” 93. The number of excavated tombs in China increases monthly. For comprehensive discussion of Song and Jin tombs through 2019, see Deng Fei, Zhongyuan beifang diqu Song Jin muzang; for tombs with murals, 370–77. For a list of Jin tombs with murals published through 2017, see Gabrielle Niu, “Beyond Silk.” Important recent reports, some listed in Deng’s and Niu’s works but mentioned here because publications of the last fifteen years include such high-quality illustrations, are Anyangshi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Henan Anyang Xiaorenjiazhuang Jindai zhuandiao bihuamu”; Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Lingchuanxian Wenwuju, “Shanxi Lingchuan Yuquan Jindai bihuamu”; Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Fenxixian Wenwu Luyouju, “Shanxi Fenxi Haojiagou Jindai jinian bihuamu”; Sanmenxiashi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Henan Yima Kangkoucun Jindai zhuandiao bihuamu fajue jianbao”; Changzhishi Bowuguan, “Shanxi Changzhishi Weicun Jindai jinian caihui zhuandiaomu”; Jinanshi Bowuguan and Jinanshi Kaogusuo, “Jinanshi Song-Jin zhuandiao bihuamu”; Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Changzhishi Bowuguan, “Shanxi Dunliu Songcun Jindai bihuamu”; Wenwu Luyouju and Zhangzixian Wenwu Luyouju, “Shanxi Zhangzi Nangou Jindai bihuamu fajue jianbao”; Luoyangshi Di’er Wenwu Gongzuotui, “Luoyang Daobei Jindai zhuandiaomu”; Zhengzhoushi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Zhengzhou Song-Jin bihuamu; Liu Shanyi and Wang Huiming, “Jinanshi Lichengqu Song-Yuan bihuamu.” 94. On these tombs see Wang Jinxian, Changzhi Song, Jin, Yuan mushi jianzhu yishu and Cui

Yuanhe, Pingyang Jinmu. See also Steinhardt, “A Jin Hall at Jingtusi,” n. 33. 95. On fangmugou, see Wei-cheng Lin, “Underground Wooden Architecture in Brick”; Harrer, “Where Did the Wood Go?”; Yu Lina, “Song-Jin shiqi Henanzhong beibu diqu muzang fangmugou jianzhi.” 96. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Shanxi Yicheng Wuchi Jinmu.” 97. Guo Daiheng, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 255. 98. In 1994 Yang Zirong, “Lun Shanxi Yuandai yiqian mugou jianzhu,” wrote that there were about sixty Jin timber buildings in Shanxi. About one hundred across China is my own number, probably an underestimate. More than half are in Shanxi. On why so much architecture survives in Shanxi, see Steinhardt, “Chinese Architectural History in the 21st Century,” 63. 99. That book is Gongbu gongcheng zuofa (Construction regulations of the Board of Works). Like Yingzao fashi, it is illustrated; see Malone, “Current Regulations.” 100. Information here is factual and basic, found in any introduction to Chinese timber-frame architecture or to Yingzao fashi. See, for example, Chen Mingda, Yingzao fashi damuzuo yanjiu, or Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture: A History, 150–61. 101. Feng Jiren, Chinese Architecture and Metaphor, 8. 102. For a thorough study of the modular system, see Wang Guixiang, Liu Chang, and Duan Zhijun, Zhongguo gudai mugou jianzhu. 103. On Chongfusi, see Shanxisheng Gujianzhu Baohu Yanjiusuo and Chai Zejun, Shuozhou Chongfusi. 104. On Mituo Hall, see Shanxisheng Gujianzhu Baohu Yanjiusuo and Chai Zejun, Shuozhou Chongfusi, 19–40; Chai Zejun and Li Zhengyun, Shuozhou Chongfusi Mituodian. 105. Zhang Yingbao et al., Wutaishan Foguangsi, 140–56. 106. On this hall and for an illustration, see Shanxisheng Shanyeting et al., Wutaishan, fig. 34. 107. The inscription is published in Takeshima, Ryō-Kin jidai, 110–11; it is summarized on 107–14 and in Liang and Liu, “Datong gujianzhu diaocha baogao,” 7–15. 108. Tuotuo, Jinshi, juan 6, 137. These may be the same images Shi Tianlin told Khubilai about; see Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 153, 3619–20. 109. On Fengguosi Daxiongbao Hall, see Jianzhu Wenhua Kaochazu, Yixian Fengguosi; Liaoningsheng Wenwu Baohu Zhongxin and

248

Yixian Wenwu Baoguansuo, Yixian Fengguosi. On the Huayansi hall, see Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen, “Datong gujianzhu diaocha baogao,” 64–76; Chai Zejun, “Datong Huayansi Daxiongbaodian”; Shanxi Yungang Shiku Wenwu Baoguansuo, Huayansi, 8 and plates 4–18; Qi Ping, Chai Zejun, et al., Datong Huayansi, 53–75. 110. Chen Mingda did much of the research that shows the two Daxiongbao halls to be hybrids; see his Zhongguo gudai mujiegou jianzhu jishu, 44–63. 111. On Shanhuasi, see Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen, “Datong gujianzhu diaocha baogao,” 77–136. 112. Wittfogel and Feng, History of Chinese Society, 215, 271; Chai Zejun, “Datong Huayansi Daxiongbaodian,” 41–42. 113. On the monastery and its murals, see Shanxisheng Gujianzhu Baohu Yanjiusuo, Chai Zejun, and Zhang Chouliang, Fanzhi Yanshansi; Chang Le, Yanshansi xiangshi. 114. Shanxisheng Gujianzhu Baohu Yanjiusuo et al., Fanzhi Yanshansi, and Chang Le, Yanshansi xiangshi, like all general literature about the murals to their dates of publication, believed Mañjuśrī is the subject of murals in the hall that bears his name. The theory was challenged by an argument that murals on the east wall represent the female deity Guizimu; see Gao Luyan, “Yanshansi bihua tuxiang suyuan.” 115. To date there is no monograph about this building. It is discussed only in studies of Shanxi architecture, many of which are listed in notes in this chapter and chapter 4. 116. For illustrations and discussion of the pavilions, see Pan Guxi, Qufu Kongmiao jianzhu, 46–47; Shandongsheng Qufushi Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui, Qufu: Kongzi de guxiang, plate 35. For background on Confucian architecture, see Flath, Traces of the Sage. 117. Jin halls include those at Cixiang Monastery in Pingyao of 1123–1134; Wu Zetian Monastery in Wenshui of 1145; Erxian (Two Female Immortals) Daoist Monastery in Gaoping, dated 1156–1161; the Temple to the Eastern Peak in Jincheng of 1161–1189; the offering hall at the Jin Shrines in Taiyuan dated 1168; Daxiongbao Hall of Taiyang Monastery in Jiangxian, Shanxi, dated to the repair of 1170; Great Ultimate Hall at the Temple to the Northern Peak in Jincheng of 1178; the Shanmen at Xianyingwang (Fujun) Temple in Lingquan of 1184; the Hall of the Three Buddhas at Bu’er Monastery in

Notes TO CHAPTER TWO

Yangqu county of ca. 1195; stele pavilions at the Confucian Temple in Qufu, Shandong, dated 1195; the Hall of the Jade Emperor at Taifu Daoist Monastery in Fenyang, dated 1200; and Zheng Hall of Guanwang Temple in Dingxiang of 1208. Undated Jin wooden buildings include Daxiongbao Hall at Yanqing Monastery in Wutai county, Ten Thousand Buddhas Hall at Chongqing Monastery in Zhangzi county, Back Hall of Nanjixiang Monastery, Lingchuan county, and Yuanjue Hall of Baozang Monastery in Fanzhi, all in Shanxi; the Hall of the Three Purities at Fengxiang Daoist Monastery in Jiyuan county, Henan; and several halls dated Jin or thirteenth century in Hancheng, Shaanxi. Jin-Yuan buildings in Hancheng are discussed in chapter 4. 118. Jeehee Hong, Theatricalizing Death. 119. See Ding Mingyi, “Shanxi zhongnanbu de Song-Yuan wutai”; Liu Nianzi, Xiqu wenwu; Liao Ben “Song-Yuan xitai yizhi”; Liao Ben, Zhongguo xiju tushi; Liao Ben, Zhongguo gudai juchangshi; Feng Junjie, Xiju yu kaogu; Xue Linping and Wang Jiqing, Shanxi chuantong juchang jianzhu, 44–89; Chai Zejun, “Pingyang diqu gudai xitai yanjiu”; Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao, 36–150; Xue Linping, Zhongguo chuantong, 22–46, 53–73; and Shi Jinming and Willow W. Chang, Theater, Life, and the Afterlife, in which there is a list of stages in the appendix. 120. On Jin and Yuan forms of drama, see Idema and West, Chinese Theater; J. I. Crump, Chinese Theater in the Days of Kublai Khan. 121. Zhang Yuhuan, Zhongguo Fotashi, 194; Guo Daiheng, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 454–55, recognizes only nine. 122. Three monumental Liao pagodas have highly important reliquaries: Chaoyang North Pagoda, White Pagoda in Qingzhou, and the Timber Pagoda. On the pagodas and their relics, see Wang Jingchen, Chaoyang Beita, and Dong Gao et al., “Liaoning Chaoyang Beita tiangong digong”; De Xin, Zhang Hanjun, and Han Renxin, “Nei Menggu Balinyouqi Qingzhou Baita”; Zhongguo Lishi Bowuguan and Shanxisheng Wenwuju, Yingxian Muta Liaodai dicang; Chen Mingda, Yingxian muta. On Liao pagodas more generally, Wang Guang, Liaoxi guta xunzong; Takeshima Takuichi, Ryō-Kin jidai. 123. The stele is entitled “Da Jin Xijing Wuzhoushan chongxiu dashikusi bei” (Stele commemorating repair to the great rockcarved cave-temples on Mount Wuzhou in

the western capital during the Great Jin). It was transcribed in 1363 and is preserved in Yongle dadian (Great encyclopedia of the Yongle reign), compiled between 1403 and 1408, as well as in later sources with slightly different versions. See Su Bai, “Da Jin Xijing Wuzhoushan chongxiu dashikusi bei”; Joy Lidu Yi, Yungang, 95–98. 124. Li Ling, “Shaanxi Heyang Jindai Liangshan Qianfodong.” The Jin grotto is not well known. Lu Xiuwen, Zhongguo shiku, vol. 2, 276, mentions a single cave, states that the site was begun during the period of Northern and Southern Dynasties, and does not mention the inscription. 125. On Marco Polo Bridge, see Peng Cheng, Lugouqiao and Pan Hongxuan, Zhongguo de gumingqiao, 77–89. 126. On the pagoda, see Chen Mingda, Yingxian Muta. 127. On the Jin shrines, see Tracy Miller, Divine Nature of Power. 128. Hebeisheng Zhengdingxian Wenwu Baoguansuo et al., Zhengding Longxingsi. 129. On revolving sutra cabinets, see Goodrich, “The Revolving Book-Case in China”; for an illustration, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 165. There is also a revolving sutra cabinet at Bao’en Monastery in Pingwu, Sichuan; for illustrations and discussion, see Pingwuxian Wenwu Baoguansuo and Xiang Yuanmu, “Sichuan Pingwu Ming Bao’ensi,” 5–13. 130. Soper, “Hsiang-kuo-ssu”; Xu Pingfang, “Bei Song Kaifeng Da Xiangguosi”; Xiong Bolü, Xiangguosi; Wang Guixiang, “Bei Song Bianjing Da Xiangguosi”; Li Dehua, “Bei Song Dongjiang Da Xiangguosi.” 131. Liang Ssu-ch’eng, A Pictorial History, 77. 132. Miller Divine Nature of Power, 113–17, 207. 133. Guo Daiheng, Donglai diyishan, and Dongnan Daxue Jianzhu Yanjiusuo, Ningbo Baoguosi dadian. 134. The Great South Gate of the monastery Tōdaiji in Nara, Japan, was rebuilt with long bracket arms with sharp vertical thrust between 1199 and 1203. The inspiration for this bracketing was buildings at Chan Buddhist and Daoist monasteries of the early eleventh century in southeastern China. See Zhang Shiqing, Zhongguo Jiangnan Chanzong siyuan, and Zhong-Ri gudai jianzhu damu jishu, 143–70; Tanaka Tan, “Chōgen no zoei katsudo”; Rosenfield, Portraits of Chogen, 117–21; Fu Xinian, Traditional Chinese Architecture, 273–95.

249

135. For illustrations of curved beams in the east hall of Foguang Monastery and Maijishan 3, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 113; and Fu Xinian, Chinese Traditional Architecture, 65, respectively. 136. Among approximately one hundred Northern Song wooden buildings, in addition to those already discussed, the dated ones are Middle Hall of Chongming Monastery in Gaoping, 971; Hall of Divine Kings and Middle Hall of North Jixiang Monastery in Lingchuan county, 978; Front Hall of Youxian Monastery, just south of Gaoping, 990–995; City God Temple, Ruicheng, 1008–1016; Ten Thousand Buddhas Hall, Chongqing Monastery, Zhangzi, 1016; Middle Hall of South Jixiang Monastery, a few kilometers south of North Jixiang Monastery in Lingchuan, dated by stele inscription to 1030; Daxiongbao Hall of Kaihua Monastery, 1073 with murals signed 1096; Ten Thousand Buddhas Hall at Chongqing Monastery in Changzhi, dated between 1016 and 1079; Yuanjue Hall of Faxing Monastery in Zhangzi, dated 1080; Daxiongbao Hall of Yuanqi Monastery in Lucheng, 1087; Śākyamuni Hall of Qinglian Monastery in Jincheng, 1089; the Main Hall of the Daoist Monastery of the Two Female Immortals (Erxianguan) in Jincheng, 1097; Daxiongbao Hall of Longmen Monastery, the location of West Side Hall of 925, from 1098; Sage Mother Hall of Sage Mother Temple (Shengmumiao) in Pingshun, 1100; Tangdi Hall of Chengtang Temple, Jincheng, 1108; Jade Emperor Hall of Yuhuang (Jade Emperor) Temple in Jincheng, 1110; Śākyamuni Hall of Chongshou Monastery in Jincheng, 1119; Chengtang Main Hall of Guandi Temple in Yangquan, 1122; and the Dragon King (Longwang) Hall of Yinggan Temple in Wuxiang, 1123. Many of them are discussed in Miller, “Northern Song Architecture”; see also Chai Zejun, “Shanxi gujianzhu gaishu.” 137. On the hall at Chuzu’an, see Qi Yingtao, “Dui Shaolinsi Chuzu’an dadian de chubu fenxi. ” 138. Colcutt, Five Mountains, xvi–xvii; Zhang Shiqing, Wushan shishantu, esp. 23–30. 139. Zhang Shiqing, Wushan shishantu. 140. See Zhang Yuhuan, Zhongguo Fotashi, 101, 142, for lists of Song pagodas. 141. I thank Paul Goldin for suggesting the translation “taking stock of” for liao. 142. Chen Rong, Suzhou Yunyansita.

Notes TO CHAPTERS TWO AND THREE

143. Zhang Buqian, “Suzhou Ruiguangsita.” 144. Ecke and Demiéville, Twin Pagodas of Zayton. 145. On Buddhist cave-temples in the Dazu region, see Angela Howard, Summit of Treasures; Stephen Teiser, Reinventing the Wheel. 146. Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Bei Song huangling; Paludan, “Some Foreigners in the Spirit Roads.” 147. Feng Jiren, “Lun yinyang kanyu dui Bei Song huangling.” 148. Steinhardt, “Tangut Royal Tombs.” 149. Zhou Bida, Silinglu. 150. Paul Demièville, “Notes d’archéologie chinoise,” 458–67. On the total destruction of Southern Song tombs, see also Anning Jing, “Financial and Material Aspects,” 236–37. 151. Su Bai, Baisha Songmu. 152. Zhengzhoushi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Zhengzhou Song-Jin bihuamu; Xu Guangji, Zhongguo chutu bihua quanji, vol. 5, 127–204; Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Fenyangshi Wenwu Luyouju, and Fenyangshi Bowuguan, Fenyang Donglongguan Song-Jin bihuamu; Changzhishi Wenwu Luyouju and Wang Jinxian, Changzhi Song, Jin, Yuan mushi jianzhu yishu. 153. Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Sanmenxia Miaodigou Tang-Song muzang. 154. Fujiansheng Bowuguan, Fuzhou Nan Song Huang Shengmu; Zhou Youren et al., De’an Nan Song Zhoushimu. 155. Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Zhejiang Songmu. 156. Sichuansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al., Luxian Songmu. 157. Sichuansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Huaying An Bingmu. 158. Yang Gucheng and Gong Guorong, Nan Song shidiao. 159. This irregularity, and the presentation of the city in an idealized image with three concentric walls, one of which was squarish, perhaps to reflect the idealized plan of the Northern Song capital Bianliang published in Shilin guangji, is discussed in Steinhardt, Chinese Imperial City Planning, 138–47 and figs. 126 and 132. 160. Hangzhoushi Wenwu Kaogusuo, Nan Song Gongshengrenlie huanghouzhai yizhi. 161. Hangzhoushi Wenwu Kaogusuo, Nan Song taimiao yizhi. 162. Much has been written about Liao tombs. The best examples to date of the impact of Chinese funerary construction early in Liao history are two tombs in Baoshan, Inner Mongolia, dated 923; see Wu Hung, “Two Royal Tombs.”

Chapter Three 1. Steinhardt, “The Temple to the Northern Peak”; Liu Dunzhen, “Hebeisheng xibu gujianzhu,” 289–93. The date Zhiyuan 5, or 1268, is written on the underside of a tiebeam in the hall, indicating that construction was underway in that year. Zhiyuan 7, or 1270, is the date given in prefectural records: see Han Aiying, Quyangxian zhi, juan 2, 289–91; Dong Tao and Zhou Siyi, Quyangxian zhi, juan 6/31b–36b. 2. To my knowledge, the building has not been surveyed. Exact dimensions are not published. 3. On the five peaks, see Geil, The Sacred 5 of China; Xia Zongyu and Fan Xingyun, Wuyue; Munakata, Sacred Mountains in Chinese Art. 4. Edouard Chavannes, Le T’ai chan; Baker, T’ai shan; Brian Dott, Identity Reflections. 5. Zhengzhoushi Songshan Lishi Jianzhuqun and Shenbao Shijie Wenhua Yichan Weiyuanhui Bangongshi, Songshan. 6. Dong Tao and Zhou Siyi, Quyangxian zhi, juan 6/31b–36b, a version of the gazetteer published in 1904. Liu Shijun, Quyangxian xinzhi, was published in 1672. 7. Rixia jiuwen gives ten chi as the height of the elevation platform of Daming Hall, which is probably more accurate. In the Yuan dynasty, a chi was about 31 centimeters; see Yang Kuan, Zhongguo lidai chidu kao 81, 87, 108. A realistic elevation height for Daming Hall is 310 centimeters. 8. For illustrations of drawings from Quyangxian xinzhi, Quyangxian zhi, and a stele on-site on which a plan of the temple complex is carved, see Steinhardt, “The Temple to the Northern Peak,” 78. 9. Remains believed to be lingtai have been excavated south of the Western Han capital Chang’an and the Eastern Han-Wei capital Luoyang; see Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Xi Han lizhi jianzhu; Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Han-Wei Luoyang nanjiao lingtai yizhi”; Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Han-Wei Luoyang gucheng nanjiao lizhi jianzhu; Jiang Bo, Han-Tang ducheng lizhi. On Han astronomy, see David Pankenier, Astrology and Cosmology in Early China, 17–148. 10. Nathan Sivin, Granting the Seasons, 151–70. The retooling probably is an example of someone who self-identified as an astronomer, as did artisans and clergy mentioned in the introduction, in order to be spared.

250

11. George Lane, The Mongols in Iran, 3. 12. The seven instruments are armillary sphere, triquetrum, sundial for unequal hours, sundial for equal hours, celestial globe, terrestrial globe, and astrolabe. 13. Sivin, Granting the Seasons. 14. Chen Meidong, Zhongguo kexue jishu shi: Tianwenxue, 233. Li Qibin proposes an alternate reconstruction in “Beijing Astronomical Observatory in the Yuan Dynasty,” 66. 15. Caroline Bodolec, L’architecture en voûte chinoise. 16. George Lane, The Mongols in Iran, 3. 17. George Saliba, “The First Non-Ptolemaic Astronomy at the Maraghah School” and “Horoscopes and Planetary Theory: Ilkhanid Patronage of Astronomers.” 18. J. Samsó, “Astronomy and Astrology in alAndalus and the Maghrib,” 787. 19. Aydin Sayili, The Observatory in Islam, 224. 20. Yoichi Isahaya, “Tārīkh-i Qitā in the Zīj-i Īlkhānī. I thank Christopher Atwood for this reference. On Rashīd al-Dīn’s discussion of the Chinese calendar, see Charles Melville, “The Chinese-Uighur Animal Calendar.” 21. That is, in a composite ritual structure where the functions of Mingtang, Biyong, and Lingtai are proposed to have taken place; see Wang Shiren, “Han Chang’ancheng nanjiao lishi jianzhu.” 22. Li Di and Lu Sixian, “Yuan Shangdu Tianwentai yu Alabo tianwenxue zhi chuanru Zhongguo”; Lu Sixian, “Guanyu Yuan Shangdu gongcheng beichiang zhongduan de queshi jianzhu taiqi.” For discussion, see Gai Shanlin, Mengguzu wenwu yu kaogu yanjiu, 266–68. 23. Parviz Vardjavand, “Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles de l’observatoire de Marâqe” and “La Decouverte archaeologique du complexe scientifique”; Vardjavand and Bausani, “The Observatory of Marāghe.” 24. George Lane was told in 2000 that the floor was believed to date to the Ilkhānid period, with later repair. I thank Professor Lane for helpful discussions about the observatory as well as for sending me pictures of the site. 25. Donald Wilber, Architecture of Islamic Iran, 10. 26. Murata Jirō and Fujieda Akira, Chü-yungkuan, vol. 1, 22. 27. Murata Jirō and Fujieda Akira, Chü-yungkuan, vol. 1, 30–34. 28. Su Bai, “Juyongguan guojieta kaogao.”

Notes TO CHAPTERS THREE AND FOUR

29. On chorten, see Snellgrove and Richardson, Cultural History of Tibet, 80–89. This structure is discussed further in chapter 6. 30. Hongjiaoji, in Fozu lidai tongzai 佛祖歷代通載, juan 22, 724. There is no evidence that this was related to his illness at this time. 31. Cao Xun, “Zangchuan Fojiao guojieta he menta,” 19; Su Bai, Zangchuan Fojiao siyuan kaogu, 351–54. 32. For his biography, see Chen Gaohua, Yuandai huajia shiliao huibian, 226–35. On the Ren family tomb in Shanghai, see Shanghai Bowuguan, Shen Ling, and Xu, “Shanghaishi Qingpuxian Yuandai Renshi muzang.” 33. Song Jian and Shanghai Bowuguan, Zhidanyuan and Shanghai Bowuguan Kaogu Yanjiubu, Zhidanyuan are the most comprehensive reports. For other studies, see Xin Wang, “Zhidanyuan Sluice”; Shanghai Bowuguan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Shanghaishi Putuoqu Zhidanyuan”; Song Jian and He Jiying, “Zhidanyuan Shuizha yizhi”; Guojia Wenwuju, “Zhidanyuan Yuandai shuizha”; and Guojia Wenwuju, “Shanghai Putuoqu Zhidanyuan Yuandai shuizha.” 34. Huai’anshi Bowuguan, “Jiangsu Hui’an Banzha yizhi.” 35. This is my personal observation through decades of travel across China. Liu Dunzhen notes the same kind of activity at Ciyunge; see Liu, “Hebeisheng xibu gujianzhu,” 262. 36. Liu Dunzhen, “Hebeisheng xibu gujianzhu,” 262–64; Zhang Yuhuan, Zhongguo gudai jianzhu, 120–23. 37. Double columns also are used in the early second millennium BCE at Erlitou. For a theoretical reconstruction of Erlitou palace 1, see Taibei Shili Meishuguan, Zhongguo jianzhu zhi mei, 50. 38. For an illustration, see Steinhardt, Liao Architecture, 129. 39. It is a feature building in Liang Sicheng’s book in English, A Pictorial History of Chinese Architecture, 96–97. More extensive discussion is Liu Dunzhen, “Hebeisheng xibu gujianzhu,” 27–28, 29, 30. 40. Liu Dunzhen, “Hebeisheng xibu gujianzhu,” 28. 41. Chai Zejun “Shanxi jichuhu jingqiao de gudai louge,” 210–11.

Chapter Four 1. A lthough written in 1963, Du Xianzhou, “Yonglegong de jianzhu,” remains an excellent study of the architecture of the Yonglegong Yuan buildings.

2. By some accounts, this immortal lived 220 years. On Lü Dongbin, see Xiao Tianshi, Lüzu quanshu; Paul Katz, Images of the Immortal. 3. On the Eight Immortals, see Ho, The Eight Immortals; T. C. Lai, The Eight Immortals. 4. On Quanzhen, Daoist sects of Jin-Yuan, and syncretism of religions, see Anning Jing, Daojiao Quanzhenpai; Livia Kohn, “Monastic Rules in Quanzhen Daoism”; Sun Kekuan, Yuandai Daojiao de fazhan. 5. Lin Huiyin and Liang Sicheng, “Jin Fenyang gujianzhu.” 6. Mizuno Seiichi and Hibino Takeo, Sansei kosekishi, 241. 7. Qi Yingtao, Du Xianzhou, and Chen Mingda, “Liangnianlai Shanxisheng xinfaxian de gujianzhu,” 69–72. 8. Yang Zirong, “Lun Shanxi Yuandai yiqian mugou jianzhu.” Writing nearly twenty years later than Yang, Lin Yuan, “Shanxi Wuxiang Huixianguan,” published nearly the same numbers. He writes that more than sixty Song, Liao, and Jin buildings are in Shanxi, and they account for half of the total in China. 9. On Five Dragons Temple, see Jiu Guanwu, “Shanxi Zhongtiaoshannan Wulongmiao.” 10. Du Xianzhou, “Yonglegong de jianzhu,” 7–8; Qi Yingtao, “Yonglegong jieshao.” 11. Sources that include extensive photographs of the murals in the Yuan halls and gate at Yonglegong are Wang Shiren, “Yonglegong de Yuandai jianzhu he bihua”; Wenwu Chubanshe, Yonglegong bihua xuanji; Su Bai. “Yonglegong chuangjian shiliao”; Chūgoku Gaibun Shuppansha, Eiraku-kyu hekiga; Liao Pin and Hou Bo, The Yongle Palace Murals; Xiao Jun, Yonglegong bihua. On murals in Three Purities Hall, see Wang Xun, “Yonglegong Sanqingdian bihua.” On related paintings of heavenly courts, including murals in Virtuous Tranquility Hall and in the Royal Ontario Museum, see Lennert Gesterkamp, The Heavenly Court; Anning Jing, Daojiao Quanzhenpai gongguan. 12. Chunyang Hall is dated by an inscription provided by a two-character combination, but without an imperial reign period. Because of China’s duodenary cycle, the date of 1238 was first proposed; see William White, Chinese Frescoes, 52. Ludwig Bachhofer proposed the year 1298 in “Maitreya in Ketumatī.” On justification of 1358 and the workshop of Zhu Haogu, see Steinhardt, “Zhu Haogu Reconsidered”; Ka Bo Tsang, “Further Observations on the Yuan Wall Painter Zhu

251

Haogu”; Michelle Baldwin, “Monumental Wall Paintings of the Assembly of the Buddha.” 13. An excellent example of an earlier front gate, or Shanmen, that is diantang structure is at Dule Monastery in Ji county, Hebei, dated to 984; see Liang Sicheng; see “Jixian Dulesi Guanyinge Shanmenkao,” 179–92. Confirmation of the structure is found in Ding Yao, Jixian Dulesi shanmen. 14. Wang Huichuan, Yuandai Yonglegong Chunyangdian jianzhu. 15. See, for example, his Vimalakirti and the Doctrine of Nonduality in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. 16. I choose here two of the most frequently portrayed scenes at the Yungang and Mogao caves, in both relief sculpture and paint. Scenes from the life of the historical Buddha Śākyamuni are portrayed in in Yungang cave 6. The hungry tigress is painted in Mogao caves 254 and 428 and on the seventh-century Tamamushi Shrine in Japan, for example. 17. One of the key features that dates a Chinese building from the second century through the seventh century is the inverted-V-shaped brace. It is ubiquitous in all media in which architecture is represented. 18. On literary sources about Chinese architecture before the Yingzao fashi, see Feng Jiren, Chinese Architecture and Metaphor, 14–59. 19. The Tang buildings are: the main hall of Nanchan Monastery, dated 782; the main hall of Five Dragons Temple, dated 831; the east hall of Foguang Monastery, dated 857, and the now controversial main hall of Tiantai Hermitage, formerly dated 808–832. Only the east hall is of eminent construction. On the buildings and for illustrations, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 111–15. Murals with representations of architecture that are dated to the period of the building in which they are painted are in, for example, the Buddha hall at Kaihua Monastery in Gaoping, Shanxi, dated 1073–1096; the main hall of Pilu Monastery, about a kilometer northwest of Shijiazhuang, Hebei, that was built in 1342; and the back hall of Qinglong Monastery in Jishan, Shanxi, repaired in 1351 and whose paintings are dated to a repair of 1385. Each of these halls is the subject of a short monograph edited by Jin Weinuo; see Shanxi Gaoping Kaihuasi bihua, Hebei Shijiazhuang Pilusi bihua, and Shanxi Jishan Qinglongsi bihua.

Notes TO CHAPTER FOUR

20. The painting of Foguang Monastery, whose east hall is one of the Tang buildings, in Mogao cave 61 bears little relation to the building or monastery. On this painting, see Marchand, “Panorama of Wu-t’ai Shan”; Dorothy Wong, “A Reassessment of the Representation of Mt. Wutai.” 21. Zhang Zeduan’s Qingming shanghetu, first painted in the early twelfth century, is most often the comparative example on silk. For illustrations, see Zhang Anzhi, Qingming shanghetu. 22. The word-image pendulum is fundamental to art historical discourse. In European painting, some of the best-studied examples are drawn from medieval Christian painting, with a central question being whether one has to be literate to know the stories; see, for example, Lomas, Corris, and Hunt, Art, Word and Image: 2000 Years of Visual/Textual Interaction; Leslie Ross, Language in the Visual Arts; Mieke Bal, Reading “Rembrandt”; George Berkeley, “ An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision”; Norman Bryson, Word and Image; Foucault, This Is Not a Pipe; W. J. T. Mitchell, Iconology. 23. Zhu Haogu, whose workshop painted the walls of Chunyang Hall, is mentioned in Shanxi tongzhi, yishulu, part 1, juan 158/28a, and in Xianglingxian zhi. Information about Ma Junxiang from Henan so far has not been found in local records. 24. This is based on my own count. Thirty-nine inscriptions make reference to something that is clear in the painting, not necessarily a building; nine inscriptions have a less obvious relationship, usually because a crucial detail that one would expect to be painted is not. Only three bear no relationship between word and image, and one inscription is too affected to read. I presented this research at the annual meeting of the College Art Association in 1982. Paul Katz summarizes stories on the walls of Chunyang Hall in Images of the Immortal, 211–23. 25. On Hanshan and his Cold Mountain poems, see, for example, Paul Rouzer, On Cold Mountain; Hanshan, Cold Mountain; Gary Snyder, Cold Mountain Poems; Robert Henricks, Poetry of Han-Shan. 26. As noted in chapter 1, this is how the gate is reconstructed based on Tao Zongyi’s description; see Fu Xinian, “Yuan Dadu danei gongdian de fuyuan.” 27. For an illustration, see Wenwu Chubanshe, Yonglegong bihua, 52

28. In 1310 the censor Zhang Yanghao reported to Khaishan that two-thirds of the state revenue was allocated to Buddhism. As the state religion, Tibet Buddhism received the strongest government support. See Anning Jing, “Financial and Material Aspects,” 216–17. 29. The first significant modern study was Lin Huiyin and Liang Sicheng, “Jin Fenyang gujianzhu,” based on research in August 1934; Liang visited again in 1936, but his research was lost during war in the next decade. The most in-depth study is Qu Lian, “Antiquity or Innovation?” 30. The earthquake is recorded in Shanxi tongzhi, Pingyangfu zhi, and Zhaochengxian zhi; see Meng Fanxing and Lin Hongwen “Luetan liyong gujianzhu ji fushuwu yanjiu,” who conclude that the magnitude was 8.0 on the Richter scale. 31. Chai Zejun and Ren Yimin, Hongdong Guanshengsi, 50. 32. Chai Zejun and Ren Yimin, Hongdong Guanshengsi, 50–54. 33. I draw information here from Chai Zejun and Ren Yimin, Hongdong Guanshengsi. Lin and Liang drew the building with eight interior pillars, four of which were off-line from the exterior pillars. See Lin Huiyin and Liang Sicheng, “Jin Fenyang gujianzhu,” 45, for their drawing. 34. Qu Lian, “Antiquity or Innovation?” 60–71; Pan Guxi, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 235. On change from lengthwise to crosswise frameworks in Chinese architecture, see Fu Xinian, Chinese Traditional Architecture, 258–67. 35. Lin and Liang, “Jin Fenyang gujianzhu,” 46, notes it as of the same period as the front and back halls. The inscriptions and information are published in Chai Zejun and Ren Yimin, Hongdong Guanshengsi, 63–64. 36. Sickman, “Wall-Paintings of the Yüan Period.”  37. On the Sino-French dealer C. T. Loo, see Lenain, Monsieur Loo. Helen Fernald first published the murals: see her “Chinese Frescos of the Tang Dynasty,” “Another Fresco from Moon Hill Monastery,” and “Two Sections of Chinese Fresco Newly Acquired.” 38. One of the reasons Sickman, by then curator of the Nelson-Atkins Museum in Kansas City, went to Guangsheng Monastery in 1934 was to get information about the source of the Kansas City mural; see “Notes on Later Chinese Buddhist Art.”

252

39. This painting is published in Lippe, “Buddha and the Holy Multitude.” 40. Qu Lian, “Antiquity or Innovation.”  41. For the history of the site and associations with water, see Jinping Wang, In the Wake of the Mongols; Anning Jing, The Water God’s Temple. Because of their shared relation to water, Water God (or Spirit) Temple most often is compared with Sage Mother Hall of the Jin Shrines. 42. Chai Zejun and Ren Yimin, Hongdong Guangshengsi, 67, 75–76. 43. Anning Jing, The Water God’s Temple, 187–93, proposes this purpose, citing studies of the relation between ritual and theater in East Asia noted more than a century ago by Wang Guowei, and later by others. 44. Qu Lian, “Antiquity or Innovation,” 53–59. 45. This is called duihua, painting opposite [each other]. The practice dates to the Tang dynasty and is discussed in Lidai minghuaji. See Huang Miaozi, “Tang-Song bihua.” 46. Tiger Hill pagoda is an example of a frequently painted building that is recognizable, especially when the city Suzhou is associated with a painting in which it is shown. The orange-pink tone Shen Zhou (1427–1509) employs to paint Tiger Hill Pagoda in fifteenth-century paintings such as “Famous Sites of Wu” in the Nelson-Atkins Museum in Kansas City then is repeated by later painters, to identify Suzhou. Wang Hui (1632–1717) and Xu Yang (1712–after 1777), for example, who accompanied Kangxi and Qianlong, respectively, on inspection tours, paint it in their representations of Suzhou. On paintings of inspection tours, especially Wang Hui’s, see Hearn, Landscapes Clear and Radiant. When architecture is depicted in a mural in a temple, one first assesses whether the representation is of the building in which it is painted or one at its monastery. 47. Zhang Yuhuan argues this in Zhongguo gudai jianzhu jishushi, 113–15. 48. Explicated in Qu Lian, “Antiquity or Innovation,” 19–71; for the inscriptions of 1367, see 33–34. 49. On Buddhist-Daoist debates at the Yuan court, see Thiel, “Der Streit der Buddhisten und Taoisten zur Mongolenzeit.” 50. Hancheng’s architecture has been recorded in local records since the Ming dynasty. The most important are Hanchengxian zhi, 1607; Qian Dian (1744–1806) and Fu Yingkui, Hanchengxian zhi, 1818; and Lu Yuyao, Hanchengxian xuzhi. Modern studies are

Notes TO CHAPTER FOUR

Yazhou Luxing Gongsi, Hancheng jixing; He Xiuling, “Hanchengxian suojiande Yuandai jianzhu” and Liu Lin’an, “Hancheng Yuandai mugou jianzhu.” He Xiuling’s and Liu Lin’an’s works are scholarly, with the kind of information an architectural historian seeks. He Xiuling focuses on buildings that had been repurposed, most of them in use in the 1950s as schools. Liu Lin’an does not state it explicitly, but one suspects that his article of 1990 was in anticipation of restoration of buildings because of the recognized potential for tourism. See also Zhang Yuhuan, “Dui Hancheng Yuwangmiao Yuandai jianzhu.” 51. The system of designating buildings and other cultural relics as national treasures or important cultural properties, a less important designation, was put in place in Japan early in the Meiji period (1868–1912). The Chinese system came later and is similar. For a list of China’s national treasures in 2013, see http://www.sach.gov.cn/col/col1650/ index.html, accessed September 2, 2021. 52. Liu Lin’an, “Hancheng Yuandai mugou jianzhu,” 280. As noted, survival of old buildings in Shanxi also may be the good fortune of their isolation from major battles or devastation by weather or fires. 53. Qi Yingtao, Zeyang jianding, 32–42. 54. Zhang Yuhuan, “Dui Hancheng Yuwangmiao,” 71–72 and Liu Lin’an “Hancheng Yuandai mugou jianzhu,” 284 55. Zhang Yuhuan, “Shanxi Yuandai diantang de damu jiegou.” 56. The earliest date on some of the building pieces is 1371, or a few years after the fall of the Mongols. 57. Zhang Yuhuan, “Shanxi Yuandai diantang de damu jiegou,” 71–73. 58. Fu Xinian explains and illustrates this pre-Song system in Traditional Chinese Architecture, 114–22, 258–72. 59. In “Shanxi Yuandai diantang de damu jiegou,” 72, Zhang Yuhuan offers four reasons why so much pre-Yuan architecture survives in Shanxi: (1) from the beginning, Shanxi was a province that had deep reverence for Buddhism and Daoism, built numerous religious buildings, and, because they were in continuous use, repaired old buildings even while adding new ones; (2) Shanxi builders used large pieces of wood and combined them into stable frames, the big architrave-style a case in point; (3) the dry climate meant less rain damage and rotting; (4) few wars began in Shanxi, and many ended

before reaching there. The major publications on Shanxi architecture are Lin and Liang, “Jin Fenyang gujianzhu”; Qi Yingtao, Du Xianzhou, and Chen Mingda, “Liangnianlai Shanxisheng xinfaxian de gujianzhu”; Chai Zejun, “Shanxi gujianzhu gaishu”; Chen Mingda, “Liangnianlai Shanxisheng xinfaxian de gujianzhu (jiexuan)”; Chai Zejun, “Shanxi jichu zhongyao gujianzhu shilue”; Chai Zejun, “Shanxi gujianzhu wenhua zonglun,” 60–89; Zeng Chenyu. Ninggu de yishu hunpo; Ning Jianying, Shanxi wenwu jianzhu baohu. 60. The main studies of the architecture of this building are Feng Dongqing, “Shanxi Puxian Dongyuemiao”; and Chai Zejun, “Puxian Dongyuemiao.” A brief history of the temple complex is in Wu Hui and Wang Zhuzheng, Puxianzhi, 453. See also Li Yuming, Shanxi gujianzhu, 249; Xie Linping, Zhongguo Daojiao jianzhu, 77. For a plan, see Guojia Wenwuju, Zhongguo wenwu dituji: Shanxi fence, vol. 1, 482. 61. Yu Ji, “Liu Zhengfeng su ji,” in Yu Ji quanji, 741–42. 62. According to legend, Zhang Daoling died at the age of 121/122; see Isabelle Robinet, “Zhang Daoling,” in Lindsay Jones, Encyclopdeia of Religion, 9954; Livia Kohn, Daoism Handbook, 264–66. 63. Goodrich and ten Broeck, The Peking Temple. 64. On this complex and preservation of its buildings, see Li Yumin, “Hejin Taitoumiao Yuandai jianzhu.” 65. Liu Yongsheng and Shang Tongliu, “Fenyang Beiyuyuan Wuyuemiao.” 66. According to a stele of the Daoguang period, these two buildings, a Dragon King hall to their east, and a Sage Mother hall to their west, were both repaired in the Yuan period. The side buildings today are post-Yuan, according to Liu Yongsheng and Shang Tongliu, “Fenyang Beiyuyuan Wuyuemiao,” 1. 67. Liu and Shang, “Fenyang Beiyuyuan Wuyuemiao,” 2. 68. Pan Guxi, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 139; Chai Zejun, Chai Zejun gujianzhu, 205. 69. Chai Zejun, “Shanxi jichu zhongyao gujianzhu,” 179. 70. Lin Yuan, “Shanxi Wuxiang Huixianguan,” emphasizes that every building has been subject to numerous repairs, so that even though one observes structural features of Song, Liao, and Jin, the buildings are in those styles, but perhaps not of those dates. The founding date of 1229, Yuan date for

253

Sanqing Hall, and Jin date for Jade Emperor Hall are given in Guojia Wenwuju, Zhongguo wenwu dituj: Shanxi fence, vol. 1, 476, and confirmed in Jiang Zheng, Shanxi gujianzhu ditu, 55–56. 71. Guojia Wenwuju. Zhongguo wenwu dituji; Shanxi fence, vol. 1, 477. 72. Yang Baoshun and Wang Qingchen, “Henan Wenxian Cishengsi”; Guojia Wenwuju, Zhongguo wenwu dituj: Henan fence, 277; Jia Jun, Henan gujianzhu dituji, 291. 73. Yang Baoshun and Wang Qingchen, “Henan Wenxian Cishengsi,” 62–63. 74. Chen Mingda, “Liangnianlai Shanxisheng xinfaxian de gujianzhu,” 37. 75. Liu Dunzhen’s investigations are divided into four articles, all in volume 3 of his collected works: for northern Henan, see 43–109; for more on Henan, 134–73; for Henan, Hebei, and Shandong, 174–200; and Henan and Shaanxi, 209–19. 76. Yang Huancheng, “Jiyuan faxian yizuo Yuandai jianzhu.” 77. Gudai Jianzhu Xiuzhengsuo, “Jin Dongnan Lu’an, Pingshun, Gaoping, he Jincheng,” 39–40. 78. See Yan Yinzuo, Louxiangzhi [Record of Humble Alley], 1601; for an illustration, see Pan Guxi, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 177. 79. Guojia Wenwuju. Zhongguo wenwu dituji; Shanxi fence, vol. 1, 488. 80. Qinglong Monastery and its murals were introduced in Qi Yingtao, Du Xianzhou, and Chen Mingda, “Liangnianlai.” At that time it was believed only the two halls in the back courtyard were Yuan buildings; see 77–79. Wang Zeqing, “Jishan Qinglongsi bihua,” has updated information. On the murals, see Jin Weinuo, Shanxi Jishan Qinglongsi bihua. 81. The murals pay homage to Hou Ji, a minister under legendary emperor Shun who comes to be worshipped as the god of millet, and Bo Yi, a legendary minister and contemporary of Hou Ji who helped him control floods and instructed mankind in hunting, breeding, and animal husbandry. On the murals, see Jin Weinuo, Xinjiang Jiyimiao bihua. 82. I am not aware of a monograph about Guangji Monastery. Information is found in each of the many publications about architecture on Mount Wutai. 83. Liu Xixiang and Xinjiang Diqu Bowuguan, “Henan Bo’aixian faxian Yuandai jianzhu.” 84. Liu Dunzhen, “Henansheng beibu gujianzhu” and “Henan gujianzhu.” 85. Wang Guixiang, Henan gujianzhu, 301.

Notes TO CHAPTER FOUR

86. Qi Yingtao, Du Xianzhou, and Chen Mingda, “Liangnianlai,” 75–76. 87. Wang Guoqi, “Yuzhou Guanwangmiao Dadian.” 88. Dong, “Shoushan Qianmingsi Yuandai mugou jianzhu,” Kejishi wenji 5 (1980): 84–91. 89. Liu Dunzhen, “Hebeisheng xibu gujianzhu diaocha jilie,” 287–88. 90. Xie Linping, Zhongguo Daojiao jianzhu zhi lu, 80; Pan Guxi, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 147–48. The complex has been turned into a hotel. 91. Li Yuming, Shanxi gujianzhu tonglan, 243. 92. Chai Zejun, “Shanxi jichu zhongyao gujianzhu shili,” 181–82; Guojia Wenwuju, Zhongguo wenwu dituji: Shanxi fence, 495. 93. One of Fu’s seminal essays on this subject is translated into English as “Imperial Architecture of Tang through Ming and Its Relation to Other Architecture”; see Chinese Traditional Architecture, 226–52. Architecture of South China, especially in the Song and Yuan dynasties, has been a focus of Zhang Shiqing’s work, as listed in the bibliography. 94. Liang Sicheng was there in 1933, but he mentions the buildings only in the Yuan section of his history of Chinese architecture; see Liang Sicheng quanji, vol. 4, 155–58, including illustrations. It was followed by Chen Congzhou, “Zhejiang Wuyixian Yanfusi.” Zhejiangsheng Gujianzhu Sheji Yanjiuyuan and Huang Zi, Yuandai mugou Yanfusi, is the most important study; it includes measurements of building pieces. Huang Zi’s earlier work on the building is “Yuandai gucha Yanfusi.” See also Xiang Longyuan, Yingzao fashi yu Jiangnan jianzhu, 268–70. 95. Liu Dunzhen studied the building in 1950; see his “Zhenrusi zhengdian.” It was followed by Shanghaishi Wenwu Baoguan Weiyuanhui, “Shanghai shijiao Yuandai jianzhu Zhenrusi zhengdian”; see also Xiang Longyuan, Yingzao fashi yu Jiangnan jianzhu; Zhang Yuhuan, Zhongguo gudai jianzhu jishushi, 116–19. 96. Liu Dunzhen, “Zhenrusi zhengdian,” 96. 97. Lu Bingjie made this comparison in 1996; see “Cong Shanghai Zhenrusi dadian kan Riben Changzongyang.” Mary Parent’s clear explication of the Japanese noyane suggests this is not true. See her The Roof in Japanese Buddhist Architecture, 22, 73, 80, 83–92. Parent explains the several kinds of hidden roofs, some of which cover only part of an interior between the ceiling and roof frame and others that cover entire interiors. The feature is found in Nara-period architecture.

98. Deng Zhongyu, Guangxu Jinhua xianzhi, juan 5/1a; Zhang Jin, Jinhuafu zhi, juan 24/1a. 99. Chen Congzhou, “Jinhua Tianningsi”; Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogusuo Wenbaoshi, “Jinhua Tianningsi dadian”; Xiang Longyuan, Yingzao fashi yu Jiangnan jianzhu, 270–72. 100. For a comparative chart of features in Chinese halls, see Zhang Shiqing, Zhongguo Jiangnan Chanzong siyuan jianzhu, 169. 101. Chen Congzhou put forth the argument for Yuan building components and thus a Yuan date in 1954, which has not been refuted; see his “Dongting Dongshan.” See also Jia Jun et al., Jiangsu Suzhou gujianzhu ditu, 141; Tao Baocheng, “Xuanyuangong zhengdian.” 102. For a brief discussion and illustration, see Jia Jun et al., Jiangsu Suzhou gujianzhu ditu, 122. 103. Lala Zuo surveyed these buildings in the spring of 2008, shortly before the Great Sichuan Earthquake on May 12. That work was part of her dissertation, “From Jiangnan to Sichuan: Yuan Architecture along the Yangzi River,” University of Pennsylvania, 2010. Whereas others had done fieldwork in Southeastern China since the 1930s, she was the first to survey most of the Yuan buildings in Sichuan and Yunnan. In this section I rely heavily on her research, published in Diversity in the Great Unity, 36–52, 69–117. I thank Dr. Zuo for generously answering questions and sending me publications and drawings. The main hall of Hualin Monastery in Yanting was not known when she did her fieldwork. 104. Zuo, Diversity in the Great Unity, 50–51. 105. See Xiong Zhengyi, “Yunnan Jianshui Zhilinsi zhengdian.” This building is discussed in every survey of Jianshui or Yunnan architecture; see, for example Cheng Zhengming and Feng Zhicheng, Yunnan mingcheng, 27; Jiang Gaochen, Jianshui gucheng, 102–13; Zhang Zengji, Yunnan jianzhushi, 168–70. 106. For Zhu De’s biography, see Agnes Smedley, The Great Road. 107. Jiang Gaochen, Jianshui gucheng de lishi jiyi, 122–37; Zhang Zengji, Yunnan jianzhushi, 191–96. 108. See Sichuansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiuyuan, Sichuan gujianzhu, vol. 2, 21–37. 109. Cai Yukun, Zhao Yuanxiang, and Zhang Yu, “Sichuan Yanting xinfaxian.” 110. Cai Yukun et al., “Sichuan Yanting xinfaxian,” 75, whose source is Zhu Fengyun, comp., Nanbuxian yu tushuo (Nanbu county: Geography, maps, discussion), 1849, part of three works by Zhu published together in 1869.

254

111. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 60, 1437. 112. On Feilai Hall, see Zuo, Diversity in the Great Unity, 74–81; Guojia Wenwuju, Zhongguo wenwu dituji; Sichuan fence, vol. 1, 474; Pan Guxi, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 364–67. 113. Ma Xiao, “Sichuan Meishan Bao’ensi,” 84, has a list of one from Liao, three from the Jin period in Shanxi, this building, the much grander Virtuous Tranquility Hall at the Temple to the Northern Peak, and four Ming buildings in South China. 114. Ma Xiao, “Sichuan Meishan Bao’ensi,” makes this point strongly. 115. On Daxiongbao Hall of Yong’an Monastery, see Zhu Xiaonan, “Langzhong Yong’ansi dadian jianzhu”; Bo Cheng, “Sichuan Yuandai jianzhu.” 116. Qing Feng, Sichuan Chongqing gujianzhu ditu, 119–20. 117. Zuo, Diversity in the Great Unity, 101–5, presents the argument for a Yuan date and reasons to challenge this date. 118. Yao Guangpu, “Qiqushan Damiao.” Sichuan wenwu, no. 5 (1991): 76–80. 119. Xu Xu, “Guangxiaosi dadian,” reports on surveys of 1954 and 1955. The hall has enough old pieces to be assessed as the oldest building in Guangzhou but is it not considered a Yuan building; see Li Jing, Guangdong Hainan gujianzhu ditu, 21. 120. Well-known examples of the use of bracket sets in early twentieth-century architecture by Liang Sicheng are at Ren Li Carpet Factory in Beijing and buildings at Jilin University; for illustrations, see, Liang Sicheng, Liang Sicheng quanji, vol. 9, 6 and 13. 121. Zhang Yuhuan, Zhongguo gudai jianzhu jishushi, 115. 122. Offering shrines to ancestors and que, towers that usually were paired at the entrances to cities, palaces, and tombs of royalty and aristocracy so as to function as gateways or eminent markers of the space behind them, are examples; see Wilma Fairbank, “The Offering Shrines of Wu Liang Tz’u”; Chen Mingda, “Handai de shique”; Xu Wenbin, Sichuan Handai shique. On stone architecture, see also Steinhardt, “Shishi.” 123. Zuo, Lala, “Build for the Living.” 124. Lou Jianlong and Wang Yimin, “Fujian Shunchang Baoshansi dadian”; Liu Chang, Fujian gujianzhu ditu, 194–95. 125. Cao Chunping, “Quanzhou Qingyuanshan Mituoyan yu Ruixiangyan”; Liu Chang, Fujian gujianzhu ditu, 342–43.

Notes TO CHAPTERS FOUR AND FIVE

126. Liu Xujie and Qi Deyao, “Jiangsu Wuxian Jijiansi Yuandai shidianwu”; Jia Jun, Jiangsu, Shanghai gujianzhu ditu, 128; Qian Zhengkun, “Jijiansi shiwu.” 127. Jia Jun, Jiangsu, Shanghai gujianzhu ditu, 129. 128. Zhang Jianwei, “Wudangshan Yuandai Xiaotongdian yanjiu”; Zhongguo gudai jinshu jianzhu yanjiu. 129. These two major types of pagoda have continuous histories since the fifth century, when they are found in the Yungang caves. Louge, literally storied pavilion, is a structure that presents as individual stories, one on top of the next; the stories may, but do not always, diminish in perimeter and/or height from lowest to highest. Miyan, densely placed eaves, is a structure with a tall shaft and eaves that are close to one another above it. Miyan pagodas also may taper from base to roof. 130. Zhang Yuhuan draws this structure in Zhongguo Fotashi, 204, but does not provide additional information. Liu Dunzhen photographed a very similar pagoda at Shengguo Monastery in Xiuwu in May 1936. That building is currently believed to be a Song pagoda that was repaired in 1617; see Guojia Wenwuju, Zhongguo wenwu dituji; Henan fence, 198; Jia Jun, Henan gujianzhu ditu, 290. 131. For a list of Yuan pagodas, see Zhang Yuhuan, Zhongguo Fotashi, 214. This pair is not on Zhang’s lists. I thank Aibin Yan for taking me to see them in December 2019. 132. The many-jeweled pagoda is found in the fifth century in relief and painting in Yungang caves and in Mogao caves. The name is used in the Lotus Sutra to refer to Prabhūtaratna. An important example of the form survives in the vicinity of Hangzhou from the Wu-Yue kingdom. It also travels to Japan. On duobaota (Jap.: tahōto), see Ishida Mosaku, Nihon Buttō no kenkyū, and Ishida, Tō, 35–41. On the pagoda on Putuoshan, see Dao Zhenwu and Ding Chengpu, Putuoshan gujianzhu, 91–92.

Chapter Five 1. A s of October 2021, reports about the tomb have been only on the web. One of the detailed sites is http://www.kaogu.net.cn/en/News/ Academic_activities/2015/0120/48998.html, accessed May 16, 2021. The tomb was reported on January 19, 2015, on Xinhuaweng (China News Internet), http://www.news.cn. 2. According to Xu Guangji, ed., Zhongguo chutu bihua quanji, vol. 3, 232. For more on the tomb, see Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenhuating

Wenwuchu and Wulanchabumeng Wenwu Gongzuozhan, “Nei Menggu Liangchengxian Houdesheng Yuanmu”; Zhang Hengjin and Enhe, “Yuandai Menggu guizu muzang bihuade.” 3. On these two tombs, see Xiang Chunsong and Wang Jianguo, “Nei Menggu Zhaomeng Chifeng Sanyanjing Yuandai muzang bihua”; Xiang Chunsong, “Nei Menggu Chifengshi Yuanbaoshan Yuandai bihua mu.” 4. The number seventy is my own assessment. 5. I discuss this subject in “Yuan Period Tombs and Their Inscriptions.” Some of that material is summarized here. Material from tombs not known then is also discussed. 6. Datongshi Wenwu Chenlieguan and Shanxi Yungang Wenwu Guanlisuo, “Shanxisheng Datongshi Yuandai Feng Daozhen, Wang Qing mu.” 7. The second Yuan tomb with a landscape mural was published in 1983; see Xiang Chunsong, “Nei Menggu Chifengshi Yuanbaoshan Yuandai bihuamu,” 43. 8. The subject recalls Qian Xuan’s (1235–1305) Wang Xizhi Gazing at Geese in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a theme recognized by someone with a traditional Chinese education as the calligrapher Wang Xizhi, whose writing style is said to have been inspired by watching geese move across water. 9. In 1984 Xu Pingfang summarized information known at that time about tombs of Yuan China, including those of Christians, in several pages; see Zhongguo Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Xin Zhongguo de kaogu, 607–9. The tomb plans selected for figure 5.4 include some of the most recently discovered and some that have been known for more than fifty years. 10. The same headgear and garments are worn by the khaghans in portrayals of them, including the set in the Palace Museum, Taipei, that in all likelihood was painted after the Yuan dynasty but based on earlier images. On these paintings, see Yu Hui, “Yuandai gongting huihuashi”; Shi Shouqian and Ge Wanzhang, Da Han de shiji, 22–28, 282–89. 11. Four tombs in which male occupants are painted on the walls that were most influential in scholarship through the 1980 are in Yuanbaoshan and Sanyanjing, cited in notes 3 and 7 of this chapter; in Beiyukou, Wenshui, Shanxi (figure 5.4m); and in Fujiadun. On the latter two tombs, see Shanxisheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyinhui and Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Shanxi Wenshui Beiyukoude yizuo

255

gumu”; and Liaoningsheng Bowuguan and Lingyuanxian Wenhuaguan, “Lingyuan Fujiadun Yuanmu,” respectively. Illustrations from all four are in my “Yuan Period Tombs and Their Decoration.” For more on costumes of the period, see Huo Yuhong and Liu Fengxiang, “Chifeng Yuanmu bihua renwu fushi.” 12. The He family cemetery in Shaanxi has funerary inscriptions that confirm this is a Chinese family with a continuous record of government service of more than seven hundred years (figure 5.4q). Death dates on funerary inscriptions are 1314 and 1327. On the tombs, see Xianyang Diqu Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui, “Shaanxi Huxian Heshimu.” On the Wang family tombs in Gansu, see Gansusheng Bowuguan and Zhangxian Wenhuaguan, “Gansu Zhangxian Yuandai Wang Shixian jiazu muzang.” A shrine and a sarcophagus in this cemetery are discussed later (figures 5.25–5.27). Both families have biographies in Yuanshi. Interestingly, figures of males with specific hairstyles and carrying folding chairs, accoutrements of the Yuan period, excavated in 2007 from a site whose tomb was too damaged to fully describe, did not wear Mongol attire; see Guo Jibin. Yuandai Jin Demaomu. 13. Just as Qian Xuan’s painting of Wang Xizhi, mentioned in note 8, informed the interpretation of a mural in the Sanyanjing tomb, an equally well-known work that shaped ideas about Yuan painting was influential in this interpretation. Gong Kai’s Zhong Kui Traveling in the Freer Gallery, in which Zhong Kui, portrayed as a male, is accompanied by his sister, has been interpreted as a representation of Khubilai with a Chinese princess; see James Cahill, Hills beyond a River, 18–19. 14. For the reports, see Hu Lingui, Liu Hexin, and Xu Shou, “Pucheng faxian de Yuanmu bihua”; Wang Xiaomeng, “Shaanxi Pucheng Dongercun Yuandai bihua mu.” 15. Mongol hats have been excavated in some of the tombs. On gugu, see Su Dong, “Yijian Yuandai gugukuan.” 16. The portable folding chair had appeal to nomads and seminomads who could carry it in a cart across the steppe. 17. Dozens of Buhua/Buqa are recorded in Yuanshi and in Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jami al-Tawarikh. I thank Christopher Atwood and the late Tom Allsen for this information.

Notes TO CHAPTER FIVE

18. I thank Christopher Atwood for explaining this aspect of the inscriptions to me. 19. Xi’anshi Wenwu Baohu Kaogusuo, Xi’an Hansenzhai Yuandai bihua mu. The inscription is translated in Steinhardt, “Yuan Dynasty Tombs.” On land contracts, see Hansen, Negotiating Daily Life in Traditional China. 20. On the tomb, see Xu Haifeng et al., “Hebei Zhuozhou Yuandai bihua mu”; for translations of the inscriptions, see Steinhardt, “Yuan Period Tombs and Their Inscriptions,” 154–55. 21. On these tombs, see Zhang Shaohui et al., “Ji’nanshi Silijie Yuandai zhuandiao bihua mu.” Six Yuan tombs are published in Wenwu, no. 2 (1992); see Liu Shanyi and Sun Liang, “Ji’nan jinnian faxian de Yuandai zhuandiao bihua mu”; Liu Shanyi, “Ji’nan Chaiyoujizhuang Yuandai zhuandiao bihua mu”; Qin Dashu and Wei Chengmin, “Shandong Linzi Dawucun Yuanmu fajue jianbao” (figure 5.4p); Liu Shanyi and Wang Huiming, “Ji’nanshi Lichengqu Song-Yuan bihuamu.” 22. On silk hangings in this shape, see Shelagh Vainker, Chinese Silk, 86–94. 23. Turning birds painted above an archway of the Dong village tomb are found in the same location in tomb 1 in Baisha, Henan, from the Song dynasty; see Su Bai, Baisha Songmu, colorpl. 10. A Yuan vase with birds that turn in flight is in the Yamato Bunkakan in Nara. For more examples of birds turning in flight on Yuan ceramics, see Mikami Tsugio and Zahuo Press, Sekai Tōji zenshu, vol. 13, plates 204–6. On figures looking out doors, see Paul Goldin, “The Motif of the Woman in the Doorway.” 24. For illustrations, see Li Jie, Yingzao fashi, juan 33, vol. 2, 926. 25. The lobed pattern is also found in Baisha tomb 1; see Su Bai, Baisha Songmu, colorpl. 2. On the Vajrabhairava Mandala, see Yong Cho, “The Mongol Impact.” 26. Liu Shanjin and Wang Huiming, “Ji’nanshi Lichengqu Song-Yuan bihuamu.” 27. At least, this is how a court-painter represents them. For images of men in scholars’ caps and silken robes attending horses, see Ren Renfa’s (1254–1327) Three Horses and Four Grooms in the Cleveland Museum of Art. Ren is the official in charge of the sluice discussed in chapter 3 (figure 3.8). 28. Goldin, “The Motif of the Woman in the Doorway.” 29. Shanxi Daxue Kexue Jishu Zhexue Yanjiu Zongxin, Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo,

and Shanxi Bowuguan, “Shanxi Xingxian Hongyucun Yuan Zhida ernian bihuamu.” 30. There are countless representations of filial piety scenes in Chinese funerary art. Examples are those on the second-centuryCE Wu family shrines in Jiaxiang, Shandong; on the sixth-century sarcophagus known as Filial Piety Sarcophagus in the Nelson Gallery, Kansas City; and in Jin tombs in Nanlicun, Qinxian, Shanxi; Weichun, Guzhang, Changzhi, Shanxi; Nan Fan hamlet in Xinjiang county, Shanxi; and Liuhequ Wancun, Guanyan, Shaanxi. For discussion and translation of filial piety stories, see Keith Knapp, Selfless Offspring. 31. Lines in the poem mention withered vines, old trees, old roads, western wind, an emaciated horse, setting sun, and heartbreak. In the context of officials who never lived to serve a native Chinese government, one might attach political meaning to them. Written on the encasement of death for someone Chinese, they speak of the reality of the tomb world. One of Ma Zhiyuan’s best-known plays, Yellow Millet Dream, is the story of a dream of Lu Dongin that takes place in Handan during the Tang dynasty. It is the subject of a mural in Chunyang Hall of Yonglegong. For Ma Zhiyuan’s writings, see Fu Liying et al., Ma Zhiyuan quanji jiaozu; for translations, see Pannam, Will the Phoenixes Ever Return? 32. Frederick Mote used Gao Qi’s life and poetry to study self-imposed eremitism in the Yuan dynasty; see his The Poet Kao-Ch’i and “Confician Eremitism in the Yuan Period.” James Cahill, Hills beyond a River, 3–37, develops the same theme in his study of Gong Kai and Qian Xuan, both of whose paintings have been mentioned in notes in this chapter. 33. Dated Yuan tombs, tombs with murals, or tombs with significant burial objects not discussed individually include the tomb of a monk who died in 1296 on the grounds of Baimasi in Luoyang, published in Xu Zhiya and Zhang Jian, “Yuandai Longquan heshangmu”; Luoyangshi Di’er Wenwu Gongzuotui, “Luoyang Yichuan Yuanmu fajue jianbao”; Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo Houma Gongzuozhan. “Houma Qiaocun Jin-Yuanmu”; Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo Houma Gongzuozhan, “Houmashiqu Yuandai muzang fajue jianbao”; Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al., “Shanxi Dunliuxian Kangzhuang Dongyeyuanqu Yuandai

256

bihuamu”; Yuan Jiang et al., “Taiyuan Ganyu Wuyishenghuoqu Yuandai muzang”; Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Gangxian Bowuguan, “Shanxi Gangxian Dingjiagou Yuandai bihuamu”; Li Yixuan and Zhang Gang, “Bazhoushi Renshuicun Yuandai muqun qingli jianbao,”; Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiuyuan, “Shanxi Yicheng Yuancun Yuanmu fajue jianbao” (figure 5.4aa); Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Yangquanshi Wenwuju, Mengxian Wenwu Guanlisuo, “Shanxi Mengxian Houyuanji Yuandai jinianmu” (figure 5.4c and f); and Hu Xinli and Wang Zhengyu, “Shandong Jiaxiangxian Yuandai Cao Yuanyongmu.” 34. Archaeologists continue to seek them. Ongoing excavation in Avraga is exploring whether tombs within the walled enclosure believed to date to the fourteenth century, mentioned in chapter 1, might belong to Mongol royalty. 35. On the Yelü tombs, see Sun Meng, Beijing Kaogushi: Yuandaijuan, 75–78; Guojia Wenwuju, 1998 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, 111–15; Cheng Li, “Yelü Zhu fufu hezangmu.” 36. Beijingshi Wenwu Yanjiusuo, “Yuan Tie Ke fuzimu he Zhang Honggangmu”; Sun Meng, Beijing Kaogushi: Yuan, 78–80 for the Tie tombs, and 80–81 for Zhang’s tomb. 37. For Tie Ke biography, see Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 125, 3074–75; Ke Shaomin, Xin Yuanshi, juan 199, 797–98. 38. On Zhao Mengfu, see Shane McCausland, Zhao Mengfu. 39. Huang Xiuchun and Lei Shaoyu, “Beijing diqu faxian de Yuandai muzang,” 241. 40. Sun Meng compares the inscription to one dated 1298 fin a tomb in Wei county, Hebei; for the report, see Weixian Bowuguan, “Hebeisheng Weixian Yuandai muzang.” The inscription also shares passages about layout according to the four directional animals, with a tomb excavated in Zhuo county, Hebei; on the tomb and for a translation of the inscription, see Steinhardt, “Yuan Period Tombs,” 149–52. 41. Ji’nanshi Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Ji’nan Langmaoshanlu Yuandai jiazumu.” 42. Initially dated to the Liao dynasty, based on clothing and headgear of the figures in murals, the Zhaitang tomb has been redated to the Yuan period; see Feng Enxue, “Beijing Zhaitang bihua de shidai.” The use of these terms in other Yuan tombs is further evidence of the Yuan date.

Notes TO CHAPTER FIVE

43. Tan Zhicui, “Gujiaoshi Hexiacun Yuandai muzang.” 44. Li Zaiqing and Hao Yuexian, “Taiyuan Gangyu Yuandai bihuamu.” 45. Zheng Yinglin and Peng Shefan, “Jiangxi Fuzhou faxian Yuandai hezangmu.” 46. The inscription of nearly two thousand characters is printed in Wengniuteqizhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui, Wengniuteqizhi, 726. It is studied in Wang Dafang, “Wengniuteqi Yuandai ‘Zhu Wentai bei’ beiwen chaojian jianzhu.” 47. Based on this kind of evidence, Xu Jinxiong, “Yuandai mudaoshang de shiwengzhong” raises the question of the date of humansized statuary in the Royal Ontario Museum, specifically whether it might be Yuan. The spirit path at the Zhang family cemetery is important evidence that large stone statuary stood at Yuan-period tombs in Inner Mongolia. 48. On the Zhang family cemetery, see Wang Dafang, “Wengniuteqi Yuandai ‘Zhangshixianyinbei’ yu ‘Zhu Tong xiandebei.’ ” 49. For illustrations, see Mei Ninghua and Tao Xincheng, Beijing wenwu jingcui daxi, 168, 169, and notes on 13. 50. The most comprehensive discussion is Wei Jian, ed., Shangdu, vol. 1, 328–557. The tombs are noted in Jia Zhoujie “Yuan Shangdu.” Other reports that mention Zhenzishan are Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Wulanchabu Bowuguan, and Siziwangqi Wenwu Guanlisuo, “Siziwangqi Chengbuzi gucheng ji muzang”; and Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Jilin Daxue Kaogu Xuexi, “Yuan Shangdu chengzhi dongnan Zhenzishan xiqu muzang.” 51. For discussion and illustrations, see Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 1, 340–48. On Chinese porcelain, coins, and other metalwork in this tomb, see 348–55. 52. Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 1, 586–600. 53. Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 1, 601–45. 54. For an illustration, see Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 1, 661. 55. Other tombs are discussed in Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 1, 666–91. 56. I thank Lhkavasuren Erdenegold for information about this unpublished tomb. 57. Dulgan Bayarsaikhan, “Exploring the Study of Mongolian Clothing,” May 4, 2016, https://theubposts.com/ exploring-the-study-of-mongolian-clothing/. 58. M. Youn et al., “Dating the Tavan Tolgoi Site, Mongolia.”

59. Among thousands of Hunnu (Xiongnu) burials in Mongolia, six sites may serve as the focuses of some of the best-preserved and most spectacular finds: God-Mol 1, 2, and 3 in Arkhangai; Noin-Ula (Noyon Uul) in Töv; Duurlig Nars in Khentii; and Takhiltyn Khotgor in Khovd. 60. Gavaachimed et al., “Molecular Genealogy” 61. Excavation began in 2006, and continued in 2021 and 2022. The final season, in 2023, was underway as this book went to press. Plates with Chinese inscriptions have led excavators to suggest this may be a commoner cemetery. I thank Lkh. Erdenebold for information about the Tüvshinshiree site. 62. Kharinskii et al., “Mongol’skij mogil’nik serediny XIII—nachala XV vv.”; Kharinskii, “Mongol’skie pogrebenija XIII–XIV vv. na territorii Bajkal’skogo regiona”; Kharinskii et al., Ostanki zhivotnyh v mongol’skih zahoronenijah XIII–XIV vv.” 63. Kharinskii provides more evidence of sheep bones found in burials and their association with Mongol customs in “Kosti Barana v Zabaikal‘skikh pogrebeniyakh X–XV vv.” 64. Zhongguo Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Beijingshi Wenwu Guanlisuo, and Yuan Dadu Kaogudui, “Beijing Houyingfang”; Sun Meng, Beijing kaogushi: Yuan, 28–31. 65. See Li Jie, Yingzao fashi, vol. 2, 644, for the illustration of tadao. In figure 4.8, tadao lead to the residential building in the center right of the image and to the smaller structure to its left. For another example of tadao as well as carving on a side elevation panel in Chunyang Hall, see Liao Ping, The Yongle Palace Murals, 85. Adam Kessler, Song Blue and White Porcelain, 181–208, argues that Houyingfang is a Jin residence that was rebuilt in Yuan times. The fact that features like tadao are described in Yingzao fashi is part of his argument. It is believed here, as was the belief of excavators in the 1960s, that Houyingfang is a Yuan residence where pre-Yuan ceramics were excavated, presumably because they were owned by the occupants. 66. It is also found in paintings on silk. See James Cahill, Parting at the Shore, colorpl. 4, for a painting by Sun Chengze entitled Villa by the River. 67. Sun Meng, Beijing kaogushi: Yuandaijuan, 28–29, is a recent discussion that further confirms the Yuan date. 68. Zhongguo Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Beijingshi Wenwu Guanlisuo, and Yuan

257

Dadu Kaogudui, “Beijing Xitao hutong he Houtaoyuan de Yuandai zhuzhu yizhi.” 69. Zhongguo Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Beijingshi Wenwu Guanlisuo, and Yuan Dadu Kaogudui, “Beijing Xitao hutong he Houtaoyuan de Yuandai zhuzhu yizhi,” 284–85. 70. Sun Meng, Beijing kaogushi: Yuandaijuan, 33; Xu Pingfang, Xin Zhongguo de kaogu faxian he yanjiu, 611. On “dark” and “bright” bays in residential construction, or “one opened, two closed” (yiming liang’an), see Knapp, China’s Old Dwellings, 26, 44, 170, 170, 173, 212. 71. Sun Dachuan, Beijing kaogushi, 33 72. Sun Xuxiang, ed., Hancheng Dang-Jiacun; Xu Hao, Yan Zengfeng, and Zhou Xin, “Hancheng Dang-Jiacun”; Jin Lei “Huaxia minzhu kuibao”; Shi Baoxiu and Liu Yuling, Dang-Jiacun. 73. On the house, see Zhang Guangshen, “Gaopingxian Yuandai minzhu.” 74. All four are discussed in “Xianzai Yuandai minzhu.” I thank Chengjun Wu for bringing this article to my attention. 75. One refers to them as mingqi, or numinous objects, a word that can refer to any burial good. Architectural mingqi are especially common in the Han dynasty; see Guo Qinghua, The Mingqi Pottery Buildings. 76. A bronze sarcophagus, 75 centimeters high, 200 centimeters long, and 76.5 centimeters wide, in the Yunnan Provincial Museum is an important Han example; see Xiong Ying and Sun Taichu, “Yunnan Xiangyun Dabona muguo tongguanmu.” Well-published examples of building-shaped sarcophaguses belong to the Sogdian Wirkak (Master Sh) i (d. 580) in Xi’an; the Sogdian Yu Hong (d. 598) in Taiyuan; Princess Li Jingxun (d. 608) in Beilin Museum, Xi’an; Xue Jing (d. 720) in Wanrong, Shanxi; from tomb 3, Daqintala, Keyouzhongqi, Inner Mongolia; from a tomb in Beipaio, Liaoning; and from tomb 7 at Yemaotai. For illustrations of three of them, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 102, 120, 146. 77. For the initial report, see Gansusheng Bowuguan and Zhangxian Wenhuaguan, “Gansu Zhangxian Yuandai Wang Shixian jiazu muzang.” The complete excavation report is E Jun, Wang Shixian jiazumu. 78. The sarcophagus uncovered at Leizumiao in Guyuan, Ningxia, is an example from the Northern Dynasties; see Ningxia Guyuan Bowuguan, Guyuan Bei Weimu qiguanhua. The stone sarcophagus in the Philadelphia

Notes TO CHAPTER FIVE

Museum of Art, accession # 1923-21-493a, b is a Tang example. 79. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 155, 3649–65. 80. The sarcophagus found in a tomb in Zhijiabu, Datong, is an example; see Wang Yintian and Liu Junxi, “Datong Zhijiabu Bei Weimu.” Wu Hung, “A Case of Cultural Interaction,” 35, makes the point that the sarcophagus occupies so much space that it would have been impossible to see the paintings unless it was placed along or almost along a wall, and therefore it was painted only on the front. 81. A similar structure was reported from another tomb in the cemetery in which the Wang family tomb was uncovered in Gansu. It is said to have had windows, decorated door panels, and a wooden tablet with a seated male in it. More damaged than this one, it has not been published. I thank Jason Sun for this information. 82. The complexes were dedicated to Daoist deities or more popular or local gods for whom the performances were enacted while the audience watched. See Wilt Idema, “Shanxi Theater in the Period from 1000 to 1300,” 39. 83. For bibliography on stages, see chapter 2, n. 119. 84. For a list of tombs of Song, Jin, and Yuan in which drama is represented, see Jeehee Hong, Theater of the Dead, 148–50. 85. Scholars have sought to use details in the representations to identify plays but so far have not been successful. Idema and West, Chinese Theatre 1100–1450, and Hu Ji, Jin zajukao, discuss this. 86. The states of preservation of stages range widely. For a map of locations of twenty-four Yuan stages, see Xue Linping, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 53. Ding Mingyi, “Shanxi zhongnanbu,” discusses fifteen of them. Chai Zejun, “Pingyang diqu gudai xitai,” discusses twenty-nine, some of which have Yuan founding dates but survive in later versions. 87. For example, musicians and dancers on or alongside a roofed structure engraved on a bronze vessel from the Eastern Zhou period; a roofed structure with musicians excavated in tomb 302 in Shaoxing, Zhejiang, in 1982; performers under roofed structures on objects from Han tombs in Henan; musicians and dancers in galleries of fifth-century rock-carved caves in Yungang and sixth- to eighth-century Mogao caves. For illustrations, see Xue Linping, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 16–20.

88. For the passages in Sima Qian, Shiji, and Ban Gu, Hanshu, see Xue Linping, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 23. 89. The building is dated by an inscription reported to have been seen but that no longer exists. Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 111. Xue Linping, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 67–68, calls the stage Erlang, two brothers, rather than Sanlang. Erlang is a Chinese god with a third truth-seeing eye, a nephew of the Jade Emperor who assisted Zhou in defeating Shang. 90. For information and illustrations of these Jin stages, see Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 42–79. 91. Wu Rui, “Linfengshi Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai”; Chai Zejun, “Linfen Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai”; Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 87–92; Xue, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 57–59. 92. Studies of the stage agree on the base dimensions. The published height of the platform varies from 1.15 to 1.23 meters. 93. Ding Mingyi, “Shanxi zhongnanbu de SongYuan wutai,” 48; Chai Zejun, “Linfen Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai,” 253. 94. The published dimensions vary. 95. Xue Linping, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 68. 96. Chai Zejun, “Linfen Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai,” 254; Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 100–103; Xue Linping, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 62–65. 97. The offering hall at the Ox King Stage complex in Linfen has such a ceiling, as do the dance tower at the Temple to the Eastern Peak in Dongyang village of Linfen, the dance tower at Temple to the Eastern Peak in Wangqu, Linfen, dance tower at Qiaoze Temple in Wuchi, Yicheng, and dance tower at Sishenggong in Caogong village. For an illustration of each of these zaojing, in the same order, see Feng Junjie, 90, 96, 99, 102, and 106. For wooden lantern ceilings above stages at Temple to the Eastern Peak in Zhidi village of Zezhou county and above the stage at Qingzhenguan in Dongsiyi village, Zezhou county, see Xue Linping, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 67 and 69, respectively. 98. Chai Zejun, “Linfen Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai,” 257; Ding Mingyi, “Shanxi zhongnanbu de Song-Yuan wutai,” 50. 99. Xue Linping, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 63–65; Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 103–6. 100. Chai Zejun, “Linfen Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai,” 257–58; Ding Mingyi, “Shanxi

258

zhongnanbu de Song-Yuan wutai,” 51; Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 139–40. 101. Chai Zejun, “Linfen Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai,” 257–58, gives these dimensions. I use them because Chai measured the structure most recently; Ding Mingyi, “Shanxi zhongnanbu de Song-Yuan wutai,” 51, and Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 89, provide different numbers. 102. Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 140–41. 103. Chai Zejun, “Linfen Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai”; Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 107–9. 104. Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 97–99; Chai Zejun, “Linfen Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai,” 255; and Xue, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 61. 105. Xue, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 65–67. 106. Ding Mingyi, “Shanxi zhongnanbu de Song-Yuan wutai,” 51; Chai Zejun, “Linfen Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai,” 259; Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 92; Xue Linping, Zhongguo chuantong juchang, 60–61. 107. Ding Mingyi, “Shanxi zhongnanbu de SongYuan wutai,” 49–50; Feng Junjie, Shanxi shenmiao juchang, 119–21, 138–39. 108. This is the subject of Jeehee Hong, Theater of the Dead. 109. On these tombs, see Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Shanxi Xinjiang Nanfanzhuang, Wulingzhuang Jin Yuanmu”; Liao Ben, Song-Yuan xiju; and Shanxisheng Wenwu Gongzuo Weiyuanhui Houma Gongzuozhan, “Shanxisheng Xinjiang Sanlicun Yuanmu,” respectively. 110. See Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Shanxi Yuncheng Xilizhuang Yuandai bihuamu.” 111. For identifications of their roles and discussion of this image, see Jeehee Hong, Theater of the Dead, 107–24; for interpretation of the representation as a virtual performance, 125–35. 112. It is one of four stellar pieces of Yuan porcelain reported in Jiangxisheng Bowuguan, Yang Houli, et al., “Jiangxi Fengchengxian faxian Yuandai jinian qinghua.” According to the report, they were found by an assistant in the cultural relics shop in Fengcheng. See also Wang Ning, “Yuandai qinghua xiulihong lougeshi gucang.” On Jingdezhen and other imperial porcelain of the Yuan dynasty, see Li Zhiyan, Virginia Bower, and He Li, eds., Chinese Ceramics, 362–80. 113. Jiangxisheng Bowuguan, Yang Houli, et al., “Jiangxi Fengchengxian faxian Yuandai jinian qinghua,” 73.

Notes TO CHAPTERS FIVE AND SIX

114. For illustrations, see Guo Qinghua, The Mingqi Pottery Buildings, 86–104. The smallscale structures follow details of Han granaries; see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 87. On the Western Han granary in Shaanxi, see Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Xi Han jingshi cang. 115. The stage at in Jiexiu, Shanxi, is an example; on this building, see Qi Yingtao et al., “Liangnianglai,” 81–82; Jiang Boqin, “Shanxi Jiexiu Xianshenlou.” One of the most famous stages that is part of a larger structure is at the Beijing Summer Palace (Yiheyuan), notoriously used by the empress dowager Cixi. 116. Jingdezhen was the location of China’s most important imperial porcelain kilns for most of China’s last imperial millennium. On Yuan porcelain from Jingdezhen, see Li Zhiyan et al., Chinese Ceramics, 344–73. 117. Zhixin Jason Sun, “Dadu: Great Capital of the Yuan Dynasty,” 61–63. As mentioned, scholars, including Wilt Idema and Stephen West, have sought this kind of association in writing about the representation of performance. It has been suggested that the performance on the Jingdezhen stage is the tale “Guanghan Palace,” which would be extremely important, if true, since the mother-of-pearl inlay excavated at Daidu is a representation of Guanghan Hall (see fig. 1.32). For the identification, see Fengchengxian Lishi Wenwu Chenlieshi, “Jiangxi Fengcheng faxian Yuan yingqing diaosu.” 118. Architectural mingqi are produced in the Ming dynasty, probably in greater numbers than survive from Yuan China. So far, Ming architectural mingqi are multibuilding groups in courtyard settings, without clear evidence of stages. On architectural mingqi of the Ming dynasty, see Li Junxia, “Xuchang dengdi chutu de Mingdai sihuyuan.” 119. The reference is in Ouyang Xuan, “Shizilin Pudizhengzongsi” (Records of Orthodox Bodhi Temple in the Forest of Lions), of 1354. On the garden, see Liu Dunzhen, Chinese Classical Gardens, 105–7; Ron Henderson, The Gardens of Suzhou, 54–59. Diana Y. Paul has translated the sutra as “The Sutra of Queen ŚrĪmĀlĀ of the Lion’s Roar,” in the BDKEnglish Tripiṭaka.

Chapter Six 1. A  lthough studies of Chinese society address how open Mongols were to foreign religions, citing the number of princes-of-the-blood and their wives who converted to or supported

institutions of Christianity and Islam, the most accurate description of the Mongol attitude toward religion is tolerance; see Atwood, “Validation by Holiness or Sovereignty.” Others who have address the topic include J. J. Saunders, The History of the Mongol Conquests, 125–27; Peter Jackson, “The Mongols and the Faith of the Conquered”; and Timothy May, The Mongol Empire, 119 156–59, 203–7. 2. Muslims continued to play a dominant role in trade through the Yuan dynasty. On Muslim merchants, see Chaffee, The Muslim Merchants. For more on the policy of hiring Mongols first and Chinese only if no non-Chinese could be found, see Saunders, The History of the Mongol Conquests; May, The Mongol Empire, 191–93, 212, 215, 218. 3. Imperial patronage of Islam varied according to the khaghan. In 1304, for instance, Yesün Temür issued a proclamation to build mosques in Shangdu and Datong; see Franke and Twitchett, The Cambridge History of China, vol. 6, 540; Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 29, 648, 652; juan 30, 678. 4. For example, a repair stele of 1689 records that people had come to instruct others in the teachings of Islam at Kaifeng East Mosque in the southeastern corner of the city in 628. A repair stele of 1742 records the founding of Datong Mosque in the same year. A stele from the Jiajing reign period (1522–1566) at Daxuexixiang Mosque in Xi’an records an imperial decree for its founding in 705. A stele at Taiyuan Old Mosque records it was built anew during the Zhenyuan period (785–805). For the relevant passages from the inscriptions, see Lu Bingjie and Zhang Guanglin, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu, 100, 118, and 64–65, respectively. Further, Zhuxian Mosque, in a village of that name twenty-two kilometers south of the Song capital Bianliang, was established between 976 and 983 and rebuilt in the Ming dynasty (Lu Bingjie and Zhang Guanglin, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu, 101–2; Chen Yuning and Tang Xiaofang, Zhongguo Huizu wenwu, 64); Ox Street Mosque in Beijing was established in 996 (Xie Tianli, Qingzhen guyun); Huajuexiang Mosque in Xi’an and Jianzixiang Mosque in Zhenjiang, near Shanghai, also have founding dates before the end of the Song dynasty; Huajuexiangsi (Mosque on Huajue Lane), also known as Great Xi’an Mosque, is one of the most famous mosques in China. The current mosque was built in 1392 on a site with a history that dates from the eighth century and that had a

259

mosque named Huihui Wanshansi (Muslim Myriad Goodnesses Mosque) that was built between 1260 and 1263. There are no records about its buildings; see Steinhardt, China’s Early Mosques, 120–30. 5. Some of the most eminent Sinologists of the first half of the twentieth century studied the city, its monuments, and its inscription; see Paul Pelliot, “Crétiens d’Asie centrale et d’Extrême-Orient”; Gustav Ecke and Paul Demiéville, The Twin Pagodas of Zayton. For more recent scholarship, see Iain Gardner et al., From Palmyra to Zayton; Samuel Lieu et al., Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire; Hugh Clark, Community, Trade, and Networks and “Muslims and Hindus in the Culture and Morphology of Quanzhou”; Angela Schottenhammer, ed., The Emporium of the World: Maritime Quanzhou. Zayton was a British and American postal name, probably for Quanzhou, before the founding of the People’s Republic of China; see Hans Stange, “Where Was Zayton?” 6. Clark, Community, Trade, and Networks; Billy So, Prosperity, Region, and Institutions in Maritime China; John Chaffee, The Muslim Merchants. 7. A rnáiz and van Berchem, “Mémoire sur les Antiquités Musulmanes”; Pelliot, “Crétiens d’Asie centrale et d’Extrême-Orient”; Ecke and Demiéville, The Twin Pagodas of Zayton; Chen Dasheng and Ludvik Kalus, Corpus d’Inscriptions Arabes et Persanes en Chine; Wu Wenliang and Wu Youxiong, Quanzhou zongjiao shike; Samuel Lieu et al., Medieval Christian and Manichaean Remains from Quanzhou; Gardner et al., From Palmyra to Zayton. 8. For the inscription, see Chen Dasheng, Quanzhou Yisilanjiao shike, 3 (Chinese text) and 4 (English text); Arnaiz and van Berchem, “Mémoire sur les Antiquités Musulmanes de Ts’iuan-tsheou,” 704-05, with discussion on 705–16; Chen and Kalus, Corpus d’Inscriptions Arabes et Persanes en Chine, 63–66, including discussion; Wu Wenliang and Wu Youxiong, Quanzhou zongjiao shike, 15–16, 312. This inscription is one of more than 400 on-site in Arabic, Persian, and Chinese. Chen and Kalus, Corpus d’Inscriptions Arabes et Persanes, translate 180 of them. Wu Wenliang and Wu Youxiong, Quanzhou zongjiao shike, translate 313. 9. The steles and inscriptions mentioned in this paragraph are published and discussed in Wu Wenliang and Wu Youxiong, Quanzhou zongjiao shike, 16–21; Chen Dasheng, Quanzhou Yisilanjiao shike, 11–23.

Notes TO CHAPTER SIX

10. By the early thirteenth century, numerous mosques in Iran and adjacent regions of Central Asia were entered via pishtaqs with pointed archways. The façade of the mosque in Ajmir, India, of ca. 1200, is the type of structure that could have inspired the Shengyousi entrance. 11. Published measurements of the sections of the entryway vary slightly. Here I follow Wu Wenliang and Wu Youxiong, both because theirs is one of the most recent studies and because drawings of the pishtaq and the plan of the monastery are to scale in their study. 12. Fujiansheng Bowuguan, “Quanzhou Qingjingsi.” 13. A row of pointed projections whose insides are squared out that embellishes the wooden maqsura (separated area within a mosque for a ruler or his representative) of Kairouan Mosque is the kind of feature that might have inspired both the top of the Shengyousi entryway and brickwork that at one time topped a wall. The same kinds of crenellations are found in decoration above a mosque in thirteenth-century illustrations of the Maqāmāt of al-Hariri (1054–1122); for examples, see Oleg Grabar, The Illustrations of the Maqāmāt. 14. On the South Asian population and their remains, see John Guy, “The Lost Temples of Nagapattinam and Quanzhou”; Guy, “Tamil Merchant Guilds and the Quanzhou Trade”; Tansen Sen, Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade. 15. For examples of Han vaulting, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 43, fig. 3.15, a–g. 16. For illustrations and discussion, see Susan Huntington, The Art of Ancient India, on Bhājā and Kārlī, 75–77 and 163–66, respectively, and for illustrations from the Yungang caves, see Xia Nai et al., Zhongguo shiku: Yungang shiku, vol. 2, plates 68, 99, 139, 145, 175. 17. The sources about Lin’s official post in Quanzhou are ambiguous. For discussion see Billy So, Prosperity, Region, and Institutions, 53–54. 18. The essay is entitled “Quanzhou dongbanzang fanshanji” (Record of the tombs of foreign merchant tombs in Dongban, Quanzhou); see Lin Zhiqi’s Zhuozhai wenji (Collected essays from a clumsy studio), juan 15/10b–11a. For Lin’s biography, see Tuotuo, Songshi, juan 433, 12861–62; Hirth and Rockhill, Chau Ju-kua, 119, 124. See also So, Prosperity, Region, and Institutions, 53–54.

19. Chaffee, “The Impact of the Song Imperial Clan on the Overseas Trade of Quanzhou.” 20. Zhu Mu, Fangyu shenglan, 260–61. On the black population, see Wyatt, The Blacks of Premodern China, 43–79. 21. As a result, the Guangzhou port was closed to foreign merchants until 792. Ibn Khurdādhbih’s (820–912) description of the sea route from the Persian Gulf to China in Kitāb al-Masālik wa’l-Mamālik (Book of roads and kingdoms) of 885 does not mention Guangzhou. Less than a century later, the Huang Chao Rebellion (874–884) devastated Guangzhou along with cities across China, ultimately leading to the fall of the Tang empire in 907. In his commentary of 916 on Akhbār al-Sīn wa’l-Hind (Notes on China and India), which had been written in 851, Abū Zayd al-Hasan ibn al-Yazīd of Sīrāf writes of the carnage in Guangzhou during which 120,000 died, including Muslims, Jews, and Hindus. Even if the number is exaggerated, there surely were large numbers of foreigners in Quanzhou in the ninth century; see George Hourani, Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean, 62–63. 22. Clark, Community, Trade, and Networks, 49 23. I thank John Chaffee for explaining the difference between the Maritime Trade Office and Superintendency. 24. Clark, Community, Trade, and Networks, 126. 25. Liu Zhiping, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu, 10. For the stele, see Guo Jia, “Chongjian Huaishengtasi.” 26. Chen Zehong, “Guangzhou Huishengsi Guangta,” 42. 27. Ma Haiyun, “The Mythology of Prophet’s Ambassadors in China.” Japanese architectural historian of China Itō Chūta (1867–1954) also accepted the date of 627. Itō saw that date inscribed on a plaque at the Huaishengsi. He noted that there were no other indications of the date (see Itō Chūta, Tōyō kenchiku no kenkyū, vol. 1, 567–68), and further that a date earlier than 640 was “unthinkable.” Itō believed that the tenth century was a likely date for Huaishengsi and that the minaret probably dated to no later than the twelfth century; see his vol. 1, 572–73. 28. Lu Bingjie and Zhang Guanglin, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu, 40. 29. This building is mentioned in two Southern Song (1127–1279) sources: Yue Ke, Tingshi, juan 11, 125–127 and Fang Xinru, Nanhai baiyong, juan 2, 55.

260

30. Liu Zhiping, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu, 13. 31. One of the earliest mentions of a lighthouse in Chinese literature is in a geographical work by Jia Dan (730–805); see Needham, Science and Civilization in China, vol. 4, 3, 661; Wu Chengzhi, Tang Jia Danji bianzhou. 32. Needham, Science and Civilization in China, vol. 4, 3, 661. 33. According to Joseph Needham, who quotes Hirth and Rockhill’s translation of the relevant passage in Jiu Tangshu, juan 43. In the thirteenth century a Chinese author described the Pharos and called it ta. Needham, Science and Civilization in China, vol. 4, 3, 661. 34. Hillenbrand, Islamic Architecture, 132; Bloom, Minaret, 1, 7–10. 35. Yue Ke, Tingshi, juan 11, 125–27. 36. Needham, Science and Civilization in China, vol. 4, 2, 594–95. Parachuting is traced to a first-century BCE tale about China’s legendary emperor Shun, who saved himself from a burning barn by jumping from an upper story with hats made of conjoined straw, lightening the impact of his fall. 37. Morohashi, Dai Kan-Wa jiten, vol. 6, 6234–35. 38. Guo Xiangzheng, Qingshanji, juan 20. 39. Zhong Yuanxiu et al., Zhongguo Yisilanjiao guji jianzhu, 284, records the height as 36.3 meters. Other scholars publish the height as 35.7 or 35.75 meters. 40. The twelve-sided pagoda of Songyue Monastery may have been an attempt to achieve a circular shape with brick. The oldest extant circular pagoda is the Tang-period Chan Master Fanzhou Pagoda in Yuncheng. For illustrations, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 95, 118. 41. For examples of some of the ambiguous plans, see Steinhardt, Liao Architecture, 312, fig. 286, no. 10, and 314, fig. 287, nos. 9 and 10. 42. The minaret at the mosque in Sangbast, datable to ca. 1100, is a possible visual precedent for Guangta. 43. Yue Ke, Tingshi, juan 11, 125. 44. The minaret of Jam in Afghanistan, dated 1171, has a double spiral staircase. 45. For more on Song masonry pagoda construction, see Guo Daiheng, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 452–73; Zhang Yuhuan, Zhongguota, 156–70. 46. Fang Xinru, Nanhai baiyong, 15–16. 47. Chen Changqi, et al., Guangdong tongzhi, juan 229, 716. 48. For discussion and proposed reconstruction drawings of Guangta through its history, see

Notes TO CHAPTER SIX

Zhong Yuanxiu et al., Guangzhou Yisilan guji yanjiu, 284–316. 49. A feature comparable to the yuetai is found at the approaches to the two mosques facing the maidan (plaza) in Isfahan. 50. Luo Zongzhen, “Jiangsu Liuchao chengshi de kaogu”; Nanjing Bowuyuan, “Yangzhou gucheng”; Ji Zhongqing, “Yangzhou guchengzhi.” 51. Clark, Community, Trade, and Networks, 31–32. 52. Edward Schafer, The Golden Peaches of Samarkand, 17–18. 53. Yarshater, The Cambridge History of Iran, 553; Lipman, Familiar Strangers, 26–27. 54. The other was Mingzhou, also a port city that should have had a mosque in the Song dynasty, but of which there are no physical remains; see Clark, Community, Trade, and Networks, 121. 55. Yule and Cordier, The Travels of Marco Polo, vol. 2, 154–57. 56. Rashīd al-Dīn Fadlallāh, The Successors of Genghis Khan, 282. 57. Wu Jianwei, Zhongguo qingzhensi zonglan, 129–30. 58. Akedang’a and Yao Wentian, Yangzhoufu zhi, juan 28, 453. 59. Literally “kiln hall or hole hall,” the yaodian often is brick, like a kiln. It usually is narrower than the prayer space in front of it. 60. Lu Bingjie and Zhang Guanglin, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu, 45. In the most extensive text devoted to the city of Yangzhou, Yangzhou huafanglu (Record of a painted barge in Yangzhou), the author Li Dou writes that the form of the city walls is like a crane, and in the northwestern part of the city, the crenellations of the wall project like the crop of a transcendent crane; see Li Dou, Yangzhou huafanglu, 146. The name thus is more likely to be a reference to the city, so that Immortal Crane Mosque would be synonymous with Yangzhou City Mosque. On the text and the city, see Finnane, Speaking of Yangzhou; Meyer-Fong, Building Culture. 61. Some scholars are skeptical about this and others of Ibn Battuta’s claims. For the traveler’s account, see H.A.R. Gibb, Travels of Ibn Battuta, vol. 1, 50; vol. 4, 773, 871, 894, 900–905, 911. 62. Fan Zushu, Hangsu yifeng, 157–58. 63. Tian Rucheng, Xihu youlanzhi, juan 18, 240. 64. Fukuyama Toshio, Heian Temples, 72–78; Yiengpruksawan, “Phoenix Hall.” 65. On shinden-style architecture, see William Coaldrake, Architecture and Authority, 82–93.

66. For examples of a Tang-period paradise painting with halls that have bilateral symmetry and wing bays, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture (2002), 113, 114. 67. Chen Yuning and Tang Xiaofang, Zhongguo Huizu wenwu, 35. 68. Lu Bingjie, Yisilanjiao jianzhu, 5. 69. For information about the stele, see Lu Bingjie, Yisilanjiao jianzhu, 7. 70. Wu Jianwei, Zhongguo qingzhensi zonglan, 138–39. 71. Lu Bingjie and Zhang Guanglin, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu, 87. 72. Wu Jianwei, Zhongguo qingzhensi zonglan, 150. 73. Chen and Kalus, Corpus d’Inscriptions Arabes et Persanes en Chine, 260–65; plate 87c. 74. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 29, 648. 75. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 29, 648. 76. Franke and Twitchett, Cambridge History, vol. 6, 540. 77. Lu Bingjie and Zhang Guanglin, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu, 104. 78. Liu Dunzhen, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 67–71; Lu Bingjie and Zhang Guanglin, Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu, 102–5. 79. On Muslim burial, see Leor Halevi, Muhammad’s Grave, 1–113, 165–96; Thomas Leisten, “Between Orthodoxy and Exegesis.” 80. Svat Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, 121. 81. Bernard O’Kane, “Chaghatai Architecture and the Tomb of Tughluq Temur,” 284–85, suggests those on the ground floor may have been intended for subsequent family burials and that the others might have been for visits by living family members or Sufis. 82. O’Kane, “Chaghatai Architecture and the Tomb of Tughluq Temur,” 278. 83. O’Kane, “Chaghatai Architecture and the Tomb of Tughluq Temur,” 278–79. 84. On the Tomb of the Samanid, see Hillenbrand, Islamic Architecture, 287–90. 85. On ‘Arab-‘Ata Mausoleum, see Hillenbrand, Islamic Architecture, 288–90. 86. This building has been retiled and reroofed through the centuries, but the structure survives from the early seventh century. Even though details of the tiling suggest West Asian influences, the foursided pagoda has a continuous history in China from the seventh century; see Henansheng Wenwu Yanjiusu, Anyang Xiudingsta. It is certainly possible that other examples of single-story four-sided pagodas from the seventh century or earlier do not survive.

261

87. Jin Zhizhang and Huang Kerun, (Chaha’ersheng) Koubei santingzhi, juan 3, 53. 88. Steinhardt, Liao Architecture, for a survey. 89. Chen Zehong and Chen Ruozi, Zhongguo ting, tai, lou, ge. 90. As mentioned, underground vaulting is achieved in the Han dynasty and before the end of the Yuan dynasty, “beamless” halls were built. 91. They also are used at interior corners in the tomb of Naijm al-Dīn Kubra, dated 1221, in Gurganj, Turkmenistan. 92. Heirman, Missions en Chine et au Congo, no. 115. See also Serruys, “On the Road to Shang-tu.” 93. Again one finds sensationalism regarding the Mongol period. As mentioned in chapter 1, one author speculated that Lawrence Impey, whose photograph is reproduced here as figure 6.9, might have been a spy. John Man justifies his comment in Xanadu, 117f., because the American Geographical Society, which published Geographical Review, in which Impey’s article was published, had no information on him. Sensationalism about the period of Mongol rule begins long before the twentieth century. See Jonathan Spence, The Chan’s Great Continent, 1–18, in which he begins with misconceptions surrounding Marco Polo. 94. Pan Guxi, Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi, 377–78. He in all likelihood was unaware of Wang Beichen’s research. Pan’s illustration appears to be the one published by Impey. He may have seen it in Serruys, “On the Road to Shang-tu, Supreme Capital.” 95. Wang Beichen, Wang Beichen xibei lishi dili, 421–36 (published posthumously). 96. The Persian source is Rashīd al-Dīn’s Jami’u’tTawarikh, in which he writes that Ananda was suckled by a Muslim; see Ruth Dunnell, “The Anxi Principality.” 97. Dunnell, “The Anxi Principality,” 187, calls him a successful but profligate general. Ananda’s enfeoffment with gold seal is recorded in Yuanshi, juan 108, 2735, but as scholars are quick to point out, he never received the additional lands and seal as Prince of Qin that Mangala had; see juan 108, 2735–36. Details of Ananda’s rise and fall are gleaned from the opening pages of Khaishan’s and the opening pages of Ayurbarwada’s biographies in Yuanshi, juan 22, 477–79, and juan 24, 535–36, respectively, summarized in Franke and Twitchett, Cambridge History of China, vol. 6, 505–6; Ke Shaomin, Xin Yuanshi,

Notes TO CHAPTER SIX

juan 114, 30508–16; and secondary studies in Chinese and Japanese, many of which are cited in Dunnell, “The Anxi Principality,” 185, f. 2. 98. Even though the Chinese characters are different, some scholars have confused Guyuan 沽源 in Hebei, seventy-five kilometers from Shangdu, and Guyuan 固原 in southern Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, more than a thousand kilometers from Shangdu, as Ananda’s possible burial site. The territory of southern Ningxia, as noted, had been removed from the family during Ananda’s lifetime. Further, in the Yuan dynasty, the town in Ningxia was known as Yuanzhou, not Guyuan, and the county in which the Yuan-period princely palace that Khubilai awarded to Mangala lay was known as Kaicheng, the city discussed in chapter 1 (figure 1.60). 99. Li Tang put forth arguments that this is the tomb of Giwargis in several publications. See, for example, “Rediscovering the Ongut King George”; see also Maurizio Paolillo, “In Search of King George.” 100. Zhou Liangxiao, “Guyuan Nangoucun yu Kuolijsi kao.” 101. Petr Kozlov is the most important early excavator; for a summary of major excavations of Khara-Khoto, see Kira Fyodorovna Samosyuk, “The Discovery of Khara Khoto.” 102. For an illustration see Piotrovskii, Lost Empire of the Silk Road, 37. 103. According to Samusyuk, 3,500 are in the Hermitage and 8,000 are in the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Piotrovskii, Lost Empire of the Silk Road, 18; for descriptions of important objects, see 106–278. 104. According to The Secret History of the Mongols, Jochi lost his hand and his skull was crushed in a stampede. In 1948 excavators found a dismembered hand and the rest of a corpse below the mausoleum. 105. G. G. Gerasimov, Pami︠a︡ tniki arkhitektury doliny reki Kara-Kengir v T︠ S︡ entral'nom Kazakhstane, discusses only this kind of building; see also Eskander Baitenov, “Medieval Mausoleums of Kazakhstan.” 106. Baitenov, “Medieval Mausoleums of Kazakhstan.” 107. On Mamilla Cemetery, see Ahmad Mahmoud and Anna Veeder, Hidden Heritage: A Guide to the Mamilla Cemetery. 108. Further research may indicate that the strongly articulated corners should be

studied alongside four-sided-marble corner insets used in buildings at Shangdu and elsewhere (see fig. 1.19). 109. Paul Buell, “Saiyid Ajall,” 467–68. 110. For an explanation of these offices, see Buell, “Saiyid Ajall,” 468–71. 111. George Lane, Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule, 32–33; Armijo-Hussein, “Sayyid ʿAjall Shams al-Dīn,” 22–23, 205–8. 112. Buell, “Saiyid Ajall”; Armijo-Hussein, “Sayyid ʿAjall Shams al-Dīn”; Rossabi, “The Muslims in the Early Yuan Dynasty”; Vissière, “Le Sayyid Edjell Chams ed-Din Omar.” 113. D’Ollone’s notes became Les derniers Barbares and Recherche sur les Musulmans chinois. In 1901 he had published De la Côte d’Ivoire after having traveled in Africa. 114. Na Weixin, Yuan Xianyang wang Saidianchi Zhansiding shijia, 147. 115. Na Weixin, Yuan Xianyang wang Saidianchi Zhansiding shijia, 148–49. 116. Na Weixin, Yuan Xianyang wang Saidianchi Zhansiding shijia, 149–50; Bai Shouyi, Zhongguo Yisilanshi, 292–98; Li Yuanyang, Yunnan tongzhi. 117. Na Weixin, Yuan Xianyang wang Saidianchi Zhansiding shijia, 151–52. 118. I write this in part because Saidianchi was from Bukhara, where domed mausoleums had been built, often by Shi’ite Muslims, since the tenth century. Instructions for Muslim burial directly into the ground beneath a simple cenotaph are drawn from hadith (traditions not in the Qur’an but based on what Muhammad said) and are generally followed by Sunni Muslims, who include most Muslims on the Arabian Peninsula. Yet, as Thomas Leisten notes, Sunni Muslims, especially royalty, have been interred beneath glorious mausolea since the ‘Abbasid Khalifate in the eighth century; see Leisten, “Between Orthodoxy and Exegesis.” That Saidianchi, so esteemed in life and honored at death, was buried humbly should be taken as evidence that royalty are beneath the domeon-square structures in Xinjiang and Guyuan 119. On Tibetan Buddhism, see Donald Lopez, Prisoners of Shangri-La. 120. Snellgrove and Richardson, A Cultural History of Tibet, 80. 121. The later pagoda was built on the island Beihai in 1651, was destroyed in 1679, and has been rebuilt many times since then. 122. For ‘Phags-pa’s biography, see Petech, “’P’ags-pa.”

262

123. On Anige, see Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 203, 4545–47; Anning Jing, “The Portraits of Khubilai Khan and Chabi” and “Financial and Material Aspects of Tibetan Art; Heather Stoddard, Early Sino-Tibetan Art, 16–22. 124. On Liu Yuan, see Ma Xisheng. “Zhong-Ni youyi qiaoliang de jiashezhe.” 125. Jing, “The Portraits of Khubilai Khan and Chabi,” 48, whose source is a stele of 1316 published in Cheng Jufu, “Liangguo Minhui,” 316. As noted in chapter 1, Qianyuansi has been excavated. 126. Jing, “The Portraits of Khubilai Khan and Chabi,” 48. 127. Yu Ke, “Guanyu Beijing Miaoyingsi Baita.” 128. The classic work on Liao pagodas is still Takeshima, Ryō-Kin jidai no kenchiku; for a recent, heavily illustrated work, see Jeong Yeongho et al., Chonggyuk Yo’tap; for illustrations of the white pagodas in Qingzhou and Ningcheng, see Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture, 137 and 144, respectively. 129. This is the practice described in Chan, “Siting by Bowshot,” 63–64. 130. Qu Lian, “Antiquity or Innovation,” 9. 131. The steles as well as details of the history of the monastery are in the same records where one finds information about Daidu. They include Xiong Mengxiang, Xijinzhi, 117; Zhu Yizun, Rixia jiuwen; Miao Quansun, Shuntianfu zhi, vol. 2, juan 16, 28b–30a (1012–15). 132. Franke, “The Consecration of the ‘White Stupa,’ ” 155–83, with translation of inscriptions and discussion on 169–81; Su Bai, “Yuan Dadu Shengzhite jian Shijia shelilingtong zhi ta beiwen”; Xiong Wenbin, “Miaoyingsi Baita.” The latter two authors do not use Franke’s work. 133. Steinhardt, Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 295–322. 134. On the monastery, see Su Bai, “Wuwei MengYuan shiqi de Zangchuan Fojiao yiji.” 135. Guojia Wenwuju, Zhongguo wenwu dituji: Shanxi fence, vol. 2, 602. 136. Shi Yinguang et al., Qingliangshan zhi, juan 7, 281. This of course is impossible. 137. On Tayuansi, see Shanxisheng Shanyeting et al., Wutaishan, 51–76; Yang Yutan et al., Wutaishan lüyou zhinan, 31–34; Yang Yutan et al., Wutaishan simiao daguan, 44–52. 138. Anning Jing, “Financial and Material Aspects,” 236. Temür’s monasteries are Wansheng Yougousi in 1295 and 1297, Dong Huayuansi of 1304, and Tianshou Shengshou Wanningsi of 1305.

Notes TO CHAPTER SIX

139. Jing gives statistics and cites examples of extreme treatment of those who disagreed with the khaghan, and corruption of officials and monks who controlled state funds allocated for religious construction; see his “Financial and Material Aspects,” 233–36. Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 21, 462, provides names and places. 140. The destruction is recorded in Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 13, 271–72; and Tian Rucheng, Xi Hu youlanshi, 19. On Yang Lianzhenjia, see Franke, “Tibetans in Yüan China,” 321– 25; Franke and Twitchett, Cambridge History of China, vol. 6, 479–80; Franke, Chinesischer und Tibetischer Buddhismus im China, 75–83; Shao Jianchun and Wu Hongyun, “A Study on the Monk Official Yang Lianzhenjia”; Sun Shaofei “Discussion on Khublai Khan, Yang Lian-zhen-jia and Southern Buddhism”; Fumiko Jōo, “The Literary Imagination of the White Pagoda.” Scholars differ in their opinions of Yang’s motives. Rob Linrothe believes Yang tried to accommodate Tibetan ritual into Buddhist monasteries; see “The Commissioner’s Commissions.” Others believe that this monk, married and living with his family in Hangzhou after Khubilai made him one of three monks assigned to oversee Buddhist affairs in Hangzhou in 1277, was corrupt and ill-intended in every way. Although Yang was charged with criminal activity in 1291, he was pardoned in 1292; see Chen Gaohua, “Luelun Yang Lianzhenjia he Yang Anpu fuzi,” 387; Chen Gaohua, “Zailun Yuandai hexi sengren Yang Lianzhenjia”; Lai Tianbing, “Yuandai Hangzhou Yongfusi, Puningcang feihua yu Yang Lianzhenjia.” 141. Franke, “Tibetans in China,” 321. It is now known that Yang was Tangut. I thank Christopher Atwood for this information. 142. On Sangha, see Franke, “Sangha” and Petech, “Sang-ko,” two parts. 143. These numbers are in Dao Xisheng, “Yuandai Mile bailian jiaohui,” and Yan Jianbi, “Nan Song liuling yishicheng mingji.” On the Southern Song tombs and plunder of the tombs, see Paul Demièvelle, “Les tombeaux des Song meridonaux”; Yan Jianbi, “Nan Song liuling yishicheng mingji.” 144. Franke and Twitchett, The Cambridge History of China, vol. 6, 480. 145. Yuanshi, juan 13, 271–72. 146. Shimokura Wataru, “Nambokuchō no teito to jiin.”

147. Jing, “Financial and Material Aspects,” 236; Song Lian, Yuanshi, juan 13, 271–72; juan 15, 309. 148. The series of publications is entitled Nan Song Ducheng Lin’an Yanjiu (Research on the Southern Song capital Lin’an). Monasteries and their locations are discussed in Du Zhengxian, Nan Song ducheng Lin’an yanjiu: si, guan, miao, an, and ci are listed in vol. 2, 343–87. 149. Fumiko Jōo, “The Literary Imagination of the White Pagoda.” On Leifeng Pagoda, see Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Leifengta yizhi; Eugene Wang, “Transformation in Heterotopia.” 150. David Seyford Ruegg, ed. and trans., The Life of Bu-sTon Rin po che. 151. Su Bai, “Xizang Rigeze diqu simiao,” 87–96; Wang Yi, “Xizang wenwu kanwenji.” 152. Steinhardt, China’s Early Mosques, 212–58. On the religious orders they brought to China, see Fletcher, “The Naqshbandiyya”; Dillon, China’s Muslims, 19–24. 153. On the Gnostics, see Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels; Simone Peterment, A Separate God; Benjamin Walker, Gnosticism. On connections between Gnosticism and China, see Edward Conze, “Buddhism and Gnosis”; Samuel Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China; Lin Wushu, Monijiao ji qi dongjian. 154. Victor Cunrui Xiong, Sui-Tang Chang’an, 239–41; see also Édouard Chavannes and Paul Pelliot, Un traité manichéen retrouvé en China. 155. On the temple site and relief sculpture dated ca. 1339, see Samuel N. C. Lieu, Manichaeism in Central Asian and China, 177–95; Lieu “Christian and Manichaean Remains”; Lieu, “Manichaean Art and Architecture along the Silk Road.” 156. Paintings with architecture known by 2015 are discussed in Gulacsi, Mani’s Pictures, 244–59. On the most recently identified, which is discussed here, see Yutaka Yoshida, “The Discovery of the South Chinese Manichaean Painting.” See also Yoshida, Chūgoku Kōnan Manikyō. I thank Zsuzsanna Gulacsi and Yutaka Yoshida for helpful correspondence about these paintings. 157. For an illustration and discussion, see Gulacsi, “A Manichaean ‘Portrait of the Buddha Jesus.’ ” 158. For an illustration, see Gulacsi, “Mani’s Pictures, 265. 159. On the Catholic church in Dali, Yunnan, built in 1938 and renovated in 1984, see

263

Steinhardt, China’s Early Mosques, 280–82. What is known about the Kaifeng synagogue indicates that its architecture used Chinese materials in Chinese style in courtyard settings. See Steinhardt, “The Synagogue at Kaifeng.” 160. Of the long bibliography about churches in China, see works by Thomas Coomans, such as Building Churches in Northern China; Anthony Clark, China Gothic; W. Devine, Four Churches of Peking; Zheng Yangwen. Sinicizing Christianity; Lianming Wang, Jesuitenerbe in Peking; Alan Sweeten, China’s Old Churches. 161. For a summary of Christianity in Tang China, see Nicholas Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China, vol. 1, 1–42; for confirmation that there is no architectural evidence of Christianity in Song China, 43. Tang is the period of the well-known stele inscription from Chang’an; see Saeki Yoshiro, Nestorian Documents and Relics; Paul Pelliot, “Crétiens d’Asie centrale et d’Extrême-Orient.” 162. Yang Qinzhang and He Gaoji, “Dui Quanzhou tianzhujiao fangjigehui shi.” 163. Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, vol. 3, 45–51. 164. John Foster, “Crosses from the Walls of Zaitun.” 165. Standaert, Handbook of Christianity in China, vol. 1, 44, gives the number sixty. See also Wu Wenliang and Wu Youxiong, Quanzhou zongjiao shike; Samuel Lieu, Medieval Christian and Manichaean Remains; Ken Parry, “The Iconography of the Christian Tombstones”; Wu Youxiong, “Fujian Quanzhou faxian de Yelikewen (Jingjiao)bei”; Wu and Wu, Quanzhou zongjiao shike. 166. The Vilioni tombs also were mentioned in chapter 1. See Rouleau “The Yangchow Latin Tombstone.” 167. Charbonnier, Christians in China, 109–10; for an illustration, see 108. 168. Rudolph, “A Second Fourteenth-Century Italian Tombstone,” 133–36. 169. One recalls from chapter 1 that Odoric described more of Daidu than John of Montecorvino, and that Odoric wrote of two churches about eight li (four kilometers) apart. See Yule, Cathay and the Way Thither, vol. 2, 216–17. For Odoric’s account, see Yule, trans., The Travels of Friar Odoric; Henri Cordier, Les Voyages; L. Bressan, “Odoric of Pordenone.” 170. Yongle dadian, juan 17084, 17085.

Notes TO CHAPTERS SIX AND SEVEN

171. Xu Pingfang, “Yuan Daidu Yelikewen Shizisi kao,” 311. 172. Although the interest in Zhenjiang is far less than in Daidu, Zhenjiangji has aroused similar scholarly attention among those who study Yuan Christianity. The scholar-official Ruan Yuan (1764–1849) was the first to study this text and identify its author; on Ruan, see Betty Peh-T’i Wei, Ruan Yuan. Ruan and friends edited the version published in 1842. Archimandrite Palladius (1817–1878) published important passages in Russian in 1873, followed by an article in English in The Chinese Recorder (1875), 108–13; see also A. C. Moule and Lionel Giles, “Christians at Chen-Chiang Fu.” 173. Moule, Christians in China, 152–55.

Chapter Seven 1. The more that is known about land in front of and above cave-temples, the more freestanding architecture associated with them. The monastery Tongzisi, also in the western hills of Taiyuan, also has freestanding buildings spread across the front of cave-temples. Yungang had monasteries on top of caves 5–6 and 39. Some Yungang cave-chapels had architectural façades, which also are present in Mogao caves. Luo Zhewen was aware of the importance of the Longshan caves in the 1950s: see “Taiyuan Longshan, Mengshan de jichu shiku.” On Tongzisi, see Li Yuqun, “Jinyang Xishan da Fo he Tongzisi.” On architecture in front of Mogao caves, see Pan Yushan and Ma Shichang, Mogaoku kuqian diantang. On architecture above the Yungang caves, see Guojia Wenwuju, 2010 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, 127–30; Zhang Qingjie, “Yungang shiku kuding.” 2. On the Longshan Daoist caves, see Anning Jing, “The Longshan Daoist Caves”; Zhang Mingyuan, Taiyuan Longshan Daojiao shiku; Liu Jiang, “Lun Taiyuan Longshan Daojiao shiku”; Chen Zhao, “Shanxi Longshan shiku gaishuo”; Shi Yan, “Longshan shiku kaocha”; Zhang Mingyuan, “Longshan shiku kaocha baogao”; Lu Xiuwen, Zhongguo shiku tuwenzhi, vol. 1, 137–38; vol. 2, 478–80. 3. Jing, “The Longshan Daoist Caves,” 7–8; Zhang Mingyuan, “Longshan shiku kaocha baogao,” 113–17. 4. His report is translated in Chen Zhao, “Shanxi Longshan shiku gaishuo.” 5. Shi Yan, “Longshan shiku kaocha” and Ge Haijiang and Zhang Wanhui, “Taiyuan Longshan Daojiao shiku diwuku.”

6. On the Gugu caves, see Li Yuqun, “Taiyuan Gugudong yu Wayaocun shiku.” 7. Jing, “The Longshan Daoist Caves,” 11–14, assesses the proposed identifications and argues for this one. 8. Zhang Mingyuan, “Taiyuan Longshan,” 12–20, 171–76; Jing, “The Longshan Daoist Caves,” 14–16, 37–43. 9. Zhang Mingyuan, “Taiyuan Longshan,” 21–32; Jing, “The Longshan Daoist Caves,” 43–44. 10. Zhang Mingyuan, “Taiyuan Longshan,” 39–45. 11. Zhang Mingyuan, “Taiyuan Longshan,” 171–80, includes inscriptions and discussion as well as illustrations of caves 6 and 7. Jing, “The Longshan Daoist Caves,” 44–50, translates and discusses inscriptions in caves 6 and 7. 12. The tomb occupant usually is seated on the back wall of the main chamber of a tomb. For discussion and illustrations, see Yang Kuan, Zhongguo gudai lingqin zhidushi. 13. On the caves at Dazu, see Angela Howard, Summit of Treasures; for images of Zhao Zhifeng or perhaps Zhao and two of his disciples, see 11. 14. The long bibliography on Feilaifeng includes Gao Nianhua, Feilaifeng gaoxiang; Lin Xin and Wang Xiaojing, Feilaifeng; Lai Tianbing, Han-Zang guibao; Feng Jiannan, Feilaifeng; Tang Yuli, Hangzhou Feilaifeng zaoxiang baohu gongcheng; Chang Qing, Feilaifeng and the Flowering of Chinese Buddhist Sculpture; Richard Edwards, “Pu-tai-Maitreya and a Reintroduction to Hangchou’s Fei-laifeng”; Xie Jisheng, Jiangnan zangchuan fojiao yishu; Chang Qing “The Portrait Image of Yang Rinchen Skyabs at Feilaifeng”; Lai Tianbin, “Feilaifeng guojingli zaoxiang tiji ji xiangguan”; Lao Bomin, “Feilaifeng Yang Lianzhenjia zaoxiang”; Lao Bomin, “Guanyu Feilaifeng zaoxiang.” 15. There is no consensus about the number of Yuan caves. Gao Nianhua’s number is used here; see also Xie Jisheng, Jiangnan zangchuan fojiao yishu, preface. 16. Gao Nianhua, Feilaifeng gaoxiang, 20. 17. The monastery is mentioned in the Qianlongperiod Hangzhoufuzhi. Relevant passages from this and other sources are quoted in Su Bai, “Yuandai Hangzhou de Zangchuan mijiao jiqi youguan yij,” and discussed with shorter quotes in Xiong, Yuandai Zang-Han yishu, 162–68. 18. The study “Bayanyao shiku” was published in the internal publication E’erduosi wenwu

264

kaogu wenji [Collected essays on cultural relics and archaeology in the Ordos]. 19. Research up to 1994 is summarized in Wang Dafang, Batujirghal, and Zhang Wenfang, “Baiyanyao shiku.” There followed two books, Batujirghal and Yang Haiying, A’erzhai shiku, and Ban Chongming, A’erzhai shiku bihua, and two international conference volumes: Yang Haiying, ed., Shiruku Rōdo Sōgen no michi ni okeru Arujai, and Ji Siqin, ed., A’erzhai siku guoji xueshu yantaohui. 20. Wang Dafang et al., “Baiyanyao shiku,” 568. 21. Batujirghal and Yang Haiying, A’erzhai, 1, 4. 22. Bao Chongming, A’erzhai, 10, singles out Yungang caves 1 and 2, Xumishan cave 14, Beishiku cave 10, and Mogao caves 154, 157, 159, 160, 435, 248, and 249. Plans and sections of fourteen caves are shown in Batujirghal and Yang, A’erzhai, 12–15. 23. The Matisi north and south caves are two among a group of eight that cluster around Zhangye. Comparisons are made particularly with central-pillar caves; see Ji Yuanzhi, “Zhangye diqu zaoqi shiku.” 24. Wang Dafang et al., “Baiyanyao shiku,” 571. 25. Bao Chongming, A’erzhai, 13, 31–37; Batujirghal and Yang, A’erzhai, 81–84. The range of opinions about the dates of individual caves, impact of Western Xia, and representation of Chinggis as opposed to Yuanperiod and later Mongols were presented at the international conferences. The papers that argue the subject matter and date of cave 31 are in the conference volume Ji Siqin, ed., A’erzhai siku guoji xueshu yantaohui; see Zhang Baoxi and Wei Wenbin, “A’erzhai shiku di 31 ku Guanyin jiunantu”; Yang Yong, “A’erzhai shiku bihua yu Chenqisikan jisi”; Liu Yongzeng, “A’erzhai shiku di 31 ku Bishamontenwang”; Chen Yuning and Tang Xiaofang, “A’erzhai shiku di 31 ku Pishamentianwang.” 26. For illustrations and discussion of cave 31, see Batujirghal and Yang, A’erzhai, 146, 147; Bao Chongming, A’erzhai, plate 100. 27. The Northern Yuan date, especially for those who see Northern Yuan as continuing until the Manchu conquest of Mongolia, opens the possibility that the caves were painted or repainted as late as the sixteenth century and may include images of Altan Khan, who, in contrast to Chinggis, definitely had himself painted. For more on Altan and his relationship with China, see Johan Elverskog, The Jewel Translucent Sūtra and Our Great Qing, 22–23.

Notes TO CHAPTER SEVEN

28. By Khorghosun (Heli Huosun); see Song Lian, Yuanshi, 75, 1876. They do not survive. 29. Bao Chongming, A’erzhai, 155. 30. Cave 167 is a small, horseshoe-shaped grotto (1.40 by 1.25 meters and 1.30 meters high) under cave 168. It is dated ca. eighth century, with later repairs; see Wang Hongtong and Du Doucheng, Binglingsi shiku, 175–76, and for a plan and sectional drawing, 359. For illustrations of the chorten, see Yan Huifu, Gansu guta yanjiu, 114–15. According to Lu Xiuwen, Zhongguo shiku tuwenzhi, vol. 2, 268, the few Yuan-period caves at Binglingsi are small grottoes. 31. For discussion and illustrations, see Yan Huifu, Gansu guta yanjiu, 124–25. 32. Yan Huifu, Gansu guta yanjiu, 131. 33. Yan Huifu, Gansu guta yanjiu, 143–44. 34. Gansusheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Maijishan Shiku Yishu Yanjiusuo, and Shuiliandong Shiku Baohu Yanjiusuo, Shuiliandong, 141–42. 35. Sun Shaofeng and Zang Quanhong, “Gansu Wushan Mutisi shiku.” 36. Yan Huifu, Gansu guta yanjiu, 129–30. 37. Yan Huifu, Gansu guta yanjiu, 138, 142. 38. S. Morier seems to have been the first, in 1818. He was followed by R. Ker Porter, who discusses the site in Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, vol. 2, 496. Subsequently Monteith in 1833, H. Rawlinson in 1841, G. Hoffman in 1880, A. Houtum-Schindler in 1883, S. G. Wilson in 1890, J. De Morgan in 1894, Zugmayer in 1905, Guy Le Strange in 1905, and R. de Macquenem in 1908 recorded visits; see V. Minorsky, “Maragha,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, second ed. (Brill Online), and J. Samsó, “Marsad,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, second ed. (Brill Online), for citations for those who visited the caves before excavation. 39. For Godard’s plan, see Les monuments du Marāgha, fig. 12. For the current plan, see Arezou Azou, “Three Rock-Cut Cave Sites,” 217. 40. Bar Hebraeus was born in Rūm, today in Turkey, the son of a physician. His father treated a Mongol general, after which the family was resettled in Antoich as part of the general’s entourage. Bar Hebraeus became a bishop of the Church of the East, eventually ending up in Marāgheh where he catalogued this library. On Bar Hebraeus, see George Lane, “An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj and His Relations with the Mongols of Persia.” That these were Christian worship caves is supported by John Bowman

and J. A. Thompson, “The Monastery-Church of Bar Hebraeus. 41. Parvīz Vardjavānd published this site in Barassehā-ye Tarikh-ye Irān 7, 5 (1973): 91–100, followed by an article in Kawīsh-i Rasadkhāna-yi Marāgha (Tehran, 1987–1988), 279–83; “The Imām-zadeh Ma’ṣūm” is an English version. See also Arezou Azou, “Three Rock-Cut Cave Sites.” 42. A religion whose rituals by their own definition are mysterious, Mithraism is discussed in David Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries. On Mithraism at Imāmzadeh Ma’ṣūm, see Afshin Tavakoli, “Verjuy Mithra Temple”; Zohre Ali Jabbari and Amir Hossein Farahi Nia, “Analyzing Architecture of Mithraism Rock Temples”; Siamek Hashemi, “Spiritual Life and Life after Death in the Undergrounds of Ancient Iran”; Samad Parvin, Saeid Sattarnejad, and Elham Hendiani, “The Victory of Islam over the Buddhist Religion.” 43. On the interpretation of the caves as Buddhist, see Warwick Ball, “The Imamzadeh Ma’sum at Vardjovi” and “Some Rock-Cut Monuments in Southern Iran.” See also Ball, “Two Aspects of Iranian Buddhism”; Yuka Kadoi, “Buddhism in Iran under the Mongols.” Achaemenid and Sasanian rockcarved caves with relief sculpture include large sites at Naqsh-e Rostam in Fars and Taq-e Bostan in Kermanshah. Most research on Iran’s rock-carved architecture focuses on pre-Islamic sites such as these two. On Ilkhānid caves, see Lionel Bier, “The Masjid-i Sang near Darab.” 44. John Alexander Pope, Chinese Porcelains from the Ardebil Shrine; Margaret Medley, “The Yüan-Ming Transformation in the Blue and Red Decorated Porcelains of China” and “Chinese Ceramics and Islamic Design”; Priscilla Soucek, “Ceramic Production as Exemplar of Yuan-Ilkhanid Relations”; Yuka Kadoi, Islamic Chinoiserie, 39–73. 45. See Tomoko Masuya: “The Ilkhanid Phase of Takht-i Sulaiman,” PhD dissertation, New York University, 1997; Masuya, “Il-khanid Courtly Life” and “Seasonal Capitals with Permanent Buildings in the Mongol Empire” 46. Assadullah Souren Melikian-Chirvani, “The Buddhist Heritage in the Art of Iran” and Melikian-Chirvani, “Recherches sur l’architecture de l’Iran bouddhique;” Warwick Ball, “Two Aspects of Iranian Buddhism;” David Alan Scott, “The Iranian Face of Buddhism;” Richard Bulliet, “Naw Bahār and

265

the Survival of Iranian Buddhism;” and Boris Stavisky, “The Fate of Buddhism in Middle Asia.” 47. Gianroberto Scarcia, “The Viar Dragon” and “The Vihār’ of Qonqor-olong”; Giovanni Curatola, “The Viar Dragon”; Wolfram Kleiss, “Bauten und Seidlungsplätze in der Umgebung von Soltaniyeh.” 48. V. V. Bartol’d (1869–1930) is credited with this idea. 49. The dragon and tiger are the most difficult to differentiate, for the third, the phoenix, is a bird, and the fourth, known as the dark warrior, is an imaginary creature, a tortoise around which two serpentine heads entwine. Tombs of the Korean kingdom Koguryŏ from the fifth to seventh centuries sometimes are named for the four creatures; see Ariane Perrin, “A Reassessment of the Emergence of the Images of the Four Animals of the Cardinals Directions in Koguryŏ Funerary Arts.” In Japan they are painted on the walls of the tombs Takamatsuzuka and Kitora, both in Asuka and dated to the seventh century. In Mongolia, the dragon and tiger only are found in a tomb in Bayannuur, for which many precedents exist in tombs of Chinese princes and princesses buried in the sixth to eighth centuries; see Steinhardt, Park, and Erdenebold, “Shoroon Bumbagar.” 50. These symbols are so powerful they are often considered foundational to the Chinese worldview, with a center and four sides, symbolized by the four animals, four colors, four seasons, and many other associations. For a list of associations, see William T. de Bary, Wing-tsit Chan, and Burton Watson, eds., Sources of Chinese Tradition, vol. 1, 199. 51. On Yangqunmiao see Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Zhenglanqi Wenwu Guanlisuo, “Zhenglanqi Yangqunmiao Yuandai jisi yizhi yu muzang”; Wei Jian, Shangdu, vol. 1, 692–708. When first removed from the site, the statues were at an outdoor location near the ruins of Shangdu. They are now in the Shangdu Museum. 52. This is the belief of excavators. I thank Wei Jian for important discussions about Yangqunmiao. 53. Franke and Twitchett, The Cambridge History of China, 542–49. 54. V. A. Kazakevich, Materialnoi Kaminssii and Namogil’nie statui b Darigange, are early studies that sought to be as comprehensive as possible. Major studies that followed are Wei Jian and Chen Yongzhi, “Zhenglanqi

Notes TO CHAPTERS SEVEN AND EIGHT

Yangqunmiao shidiaoxiang yanjiu”; Ge Shanlin, Mengguzu wenwu yu kaogu yanjiu, 322–55; Wei Jian, “Menggu gaoyuan shike renxiang”; Ch. Amartuvshin and B. BadmaOyu, Mongoliin Khun Chuluu, 198–225. 55. For an illustration, see Amartuvshin and Badma-Oyu, Mongoliin Khun Chuluu, 186. 56. Ge Shanlin, Mengguzu wenwu yu kaogu yanjiu, 322–55. 57. Wei Jian and Chen Yongzhi, “Zhenglanqi Yangqunmiao shidiaoxiang yanjiu,” 622–29. 58. Charleux, “From Ongon to Icon,” devotes much of her article to arguing that the sites are oboo (ovoo), sites of sacrifice, and that the statues are ongghon, possessors of spirits of the dead in front of which sacrifices were performed. See also Charleux, “On Worshipped Ancestors and Pious Donors” and “Chinggis Khan: Ancestor, Buddha or Shaman?” 59. There is no intent in my phrasing to reference David Freedberg’s interpretation in The Power of Images and suggest a sexual connotation to stone men. 60. V. V. Radlov reported on them in 1892. Major studies have been undertaken by V. V. Volkov, Olennye kamni Mongolii; Esther Jacobson, The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia; William Fitzhugh, American-Mongolian Deer Stone Project. 61. For the list, see Amartuvshin and B. BadmaOyu, Mongoliin Khun Chuluu, 230–39. 62. For the list of Uyghur- and Khitan-period stone men, see Amartuvshin and B. BadmaOyu, Mongoliin Khun Chuluu, 239. 63. A Czech-Mongolian expedition was carried out in 1958. On the expedition and further research on the memorial to Türk royalty, see Lucie Šmahelová, “Kül-Teginův památník.” Commemorative shrines to Köl Tegin, Bilge Khaghan, probably Bilge Khaghan’s father-in-law, Toñuquq, and a fourth person were erected during the Türk period in the vicinity of Khöshöö Tsaidam. The Sino-Old Türkic inscriptions discovered in this region of Mongolia in the late nineteenth century, named the Orkhon Inscriptions after the location where they were found, are the basis for much of the history of the Second Türk Khaghanate. 64. For an illustration of the head, see Amartuvshin and B. Badma-Oyu, Mongoliin Khun Chuluu, 226, lower left, second from left and second from bottom.

Chapter Eight 1. The influence of Chinese architecture on Japan is better studied and has been studied longer

than those of Korea. See, for example, Iida Sugashi. Chūgoku kenchiku no Nihon kenchiku ni oyoboseru eikyō. 2. William Henthorn, Korea: The Mongol Invasions, 30. 3. L ena Kim, “Sino-Tibetan Influence on Goguryeo Buddhist Art,” 281. 4. Henthorn, Korea: The Mongol Invasions is a detailed, chronologically written history of Mongol invasions and policy from the reign of Ögedei through 1356, the year of a successful Korean campaign against the Mongols. 5. Henthorn, Korea: The Mongol Invasions, 215. 6. Ki-baik Lee, A New History, 107–8; Pierre Clement, Architecture du paysage en Asie orientale; Hong-key Yoon, Geomantic Relationships. 7. Yun, Han’guk ŭi konch’uk, 275, for an illustration. 8. Kaesŏng Koryŏ kongsŏng. 9. The tombs of King Songdok and Square Tomb in Kyŏngju and have zodiac animals along mound perimeters; see Geun-jik Lee, “The Development of Royal Tombs in Silla” and Edward Adams, Korea’s Kyongju, 141–54. 10. On Song royal tombs, see Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Bei Song huangling; on the more-heavily published subject of Tang royal tombs, see Xie Mincong, Zhongguo lidai diwang lingqin, 89–98. 11. Yun Chang-sŏp, Ha’guk kŏnch’uksa, 269–338, and Chang Kyŏng-ho, Han’guk ŭi chŏngt’ong kŏnch’uk, 214–50, represent twentiethcentury scholarship about Koryŏ architecture. Additional illustrations of the buildings discussed here are found in them. 12. The height of the bracket sets compared to the height of columns beneath them also point to the structure of the east hall of Foguang Monastery in Wutai, Shanxi, dated to 857; for an illustration, see Steinhardt, ed., Chinese Architecture, 115. 13. Cha Ju-Hwan and Kim Young-Jae, “Rethinking the Proportional Design Principles of Timber-Framed Buddhist Buildings.” 14. Wang Guixiang, “√2 yu Tang-Song jianzhu.” 15. Wang Nan, “Guijufangyuan Duxianggouwu” and “Xiangtianfadi.” 16. Cha Ju-Hwan and Kim Young-Jae, “Rethinking the Proportional Design Principles.” 17. On Koryŏ Buddhist painting, see Yukio Lippit, “Goryeo Buddhist Painting.” For images of Koryŏ painting, see https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Goryeo_ Buddhist_paintings, accessed February 23,

266

2021. One is probably an illustration of the Amitayurdhyana Sutra. 18. Detail-by-detail, the bracket sets in these two paintings are similar to buildings in murals of Chunyang or Chongyang Halls of Yonglegong. 19. Yun Chang-sŏp, Han’guk kŏnch’uksa, 339. 20. Yun Chang-sŏp, Han’guk kŏnch’uksa, 339–42; Chang Kyŏng-ho, Han’guk ŭi chŏngt’ong kŏnch’uk, 251–57. 21. For discussion and illustrations, Yun Chang-sŏp, Ha’guk kŏnch’uksa, 341–54; Chang Kyŏng-ho, Han’guk ŭi chŏngt’ong kŏnch’uk, 257–60. 22. For illustrations, see Lena Kim, “Sino-Tibetan Influence on Goguryeo Buddhist Art.” 23. This pagoda is about the same height and suggests comparisons with the Duobao Pagoda southeast of Pujisi on Putuoshan, discussed in chapter 4 (figure 4.60). 24. On this period, see Yamamura, Cambridge History of Japan; and the many writings of Jeffrey P. Mass, including The Kamakura Bakufu. 25. The first attack, in Hakata Bay, lasted barely one day. The second was of longer duration and involved four ports. Both times the Japanese narrative of these events credits kamikaze, divine winds, but in fact typhoons, for the county’s success. The event is portrayed in painting. On the Mongol invasions of Japan, see George Sansom, History of Japan to 1334, 438–50. On the painting and the battles, see Thomas Conlan, In Little Need of Divine Intervention; and Turnbull Hook, The Mongol Invasions of Japan. On remains at Hakata, once a center of trade with Song China, from the period of Mongol invasions, see Cobbing, ed., Hakata; Batten, Gateway to Japan, 132–33. 26. On Southern Song Chan monastery architecture and its transmission to Japan, see the many writings by Zhang Shiqing, especially Wushan shishantu yu Nan Song Jiangnan Chansi, Zhongguo Jiangnan Chanzong siyuan jianzhu, and Zhong-Ri gudai jianzhu damu jishu de yuanliu yu bianqian For a reconstruction of Jingshan Monastery based on drawings in Wushan shichatu, see Zhang, “Nan Song Jingshansi Fatang fuyuan tantao.” 27. On Kenchōji, see Inoue Yasushi and Ryūken Sawa, Koji junrei; on the Shariden, 117–20. 28. On tahōtō, see Itō Nobuo, Mikkyō kenchiku, 45–46. 29. Biran, “Rulers and City Life.” 30. On Golden Horde cities, see Egorov, Istoricheskaia Geografia Zolotoi Ordy.

Bibliography

Abel-Rémusat, Jean-Pierre. “Recherches sur la ville de Kara-Korum.” Histoire et mémoires de l’Institut Royal de France 7 (1824): 234–91. Abramson, D. B. “Periurbanization and the Politics of Development-as-City-Building in China.” Cities 53, 2 (2016): 156–62. Achengxian Wenwu Guanlisuo 阿城縣文物管理 所. Jindai gudu Shangjing Huiningfu yizhi jianjie 金代古都上京會寧府遺址簡介 (Introduction to the remains of Huiningfu, Shangjing, the Jin capital). n.p. n.d.,1980. Adams, Edward B. Korea’s Kyongju: Cultural Spirit of Silla in Korea. Seoul: Seoul International, 1986. Agui 阿桂, Sun Wenliang 孫文良, and Lu Yuhua 陸 玉華. Manzhou yuanliukao 滿洲源流考 (Research on the sources of Manchuria). Shenyang: Liaoning Minzu chubanshe, 1988. Akcan, Esra. Architecture in Translation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012. Akedang’a 阿克當阿 and Yao Wentian 姚文田 (1758–1827). Yangzhoufu zhi 揚州府志 (Record of Yangzhou). Taipei: Chengwen chubanshe, 1974. Alexander, Caroline. The Way to Xanadu. New York: Knopf, 1993. Allsen, Thomas. Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ———. Mongol Imperialism: The Policies of the Grand Qan Mongke in China, Russia, and the Islamic Lands, 1251–1259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ———. “The Princes of the Left Hand: An Introduction to the History of the Ulus of Orda in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries.” Archivum Euraiae Medii Aevi 5 (1985 [1989]): 5–40. Amartuvshin, Ch. [Ч. Амартүвшин], et al. Ertnii nuudelchdiin urlagiin dursgal Эртний нүүдэлчдийн урлагийн дурсгал (Cultural monuments of ancient nomads). Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Ulsyn Shinzklekh Ukhaany Akademi, 2017.

Amartuvshin, Ch., and B. Badma-Oyu [Б. Бадма-Оюу]. Монголын Хүн Чулуу Mongolyn Khün Chuluu (Stone statues of Mongolia). Archaeological Relics of Mongolia. Vol. 5. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Ulsyn Shinzklekh Ukhaany Akademi, 2016. Amitai, Reuven-Preiss, and David Morgan, eds. The Mongol Empire and Its Legacy. Leiden: Brill, 1999. An Yongde 安泳鍀. Yuan Shangdu 元上都 (Shangdu of Yuan). Hö hhot: Nei Menggu Renmin chubanshe, 2011. Anqiuxian Wenhuaju 安丘縣文化局 and Anqiuxian Bowuguan 安丘縣博物館. Anqiu Dongjiazhuang Han Huaxiangshimu 安丘董家 莊漢畫像石墓 (Han stone tomb with images at Dongjiazhuang, Anqiu). Jinan: Jinan chubanshe, 1992. Antuxian Difangzhi Bianxiu Weiyuanhui 安圖 縣地方志编修委員會 Antuxian wenwuzhi 安圖縣 文物志 (Record of cultural remains in Antu county). Changchun: Jilin wenshi chubanshe, 1993. Anyangshi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 安陽市文物 考古研究所. “Henan Anyang Xiaorenjiazhuang Jindai zhuandiao bihuamu fajue jianbao” 河南安陽小任家莊金代磚雕壁畫墓發掘簡報

(Excavation report on a Jin tomb with brick carvings and murals in Xiaorenjia hamlet, Anyang, Henan). Wenwu, no. 2 (2019): 4–15. Ao Shiheng 敖仕恆 and Zhang Jie 張傑. “Jiehe shanshui dixing de Yuan Dadu chengshi shi-zi dingwei yu zhongxin shiju yanjiu” 結合山水地 形的元大都城市十字定位與中心區佈局研究 (On the central position and cross-shaped formation of the city of Yuan Daidu in landscape and terrain). Zhongguo jianzhu shilun huikan 17 (2019): 199–237. Aoyama Sadao 青山定雄. “Gen no chizu ni tsuite” 元の地図について (On maps of the Yuan dynasty). Tōhō gakuhō 8 (1938): 103–52. Arlington, L. C., and W. Lewisohn. In Search of Old Peking. Peking: Vetch, 1935.

267

Armijo-Hussein, Jacqueline Misty. “ ‘Sayyid ʿAjall Shams al-Dīn: A Muslim from Central Asia, Serving the Mongols in China, and Bringing ‘Civilisation’ to Yunnan.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1996. Arnáiz, Gregory, and Max van Berchem. “Mémoire sur les Antiquités Musulmanes de Ts’iuan-tsheou.” T’oung Pao 12, ser. 2 (1911): 677–727. Arnold, Lauren. Princely Gifts and Papal Treasures: The Franciscan Mission to China and Its Influence on the Art of the West, 1250–1350. San Francisco: Desiderata Press, 1999. Artem’ev, A. R. Ocherki po istorii i arkheologii Zabaikal'ia, Priamur'ia i Aliaski (XIII–XIX vv.) (Studies of the history and archaeology of Zabaykalia, Primorye, and Altai, 13th–14th centuries). Vladivostok: Institut istorii, arkheologii i ėtnografii narodov Dal'nego Vostoka Rossiĭskoĭ Akademii Nauk, 2019. ———. “O datirovke Yuzno-Ussuriiskogo gorodishcha” (On the dating of Southern Ussuriysk medieval town). Vestnik DVO RAN, no. 2 (2008): 95–106. ———. “Itogi issledovaniia Krasnoyarovskogo gorodishcha Primorskoy arkheologicheskoy expeditsiey” (The results of the Krasnoyarsk site investigation by the Primorye archeological expedition). In Aktualnye problem arkheologii Sibiri i Dalnego Vostoka, ed. V. A. Lynsha, 270–276. Ussuriysk: Far-Eastern Federal University, 2011. Artem’ev, N. G. “Dvortsovaia arkhitektura Chzhurchzhen’skikh gorodov Primor’ya” (Palace architecture in Jurchen cities in Primorye). Conference proceedings. In (Dialogue of Urban and Steppe Cultures in the Eurasian Space: Historical Geography of the Golden Horde), ed. Sergei Bocharov and Aryet Sitdikov, 25–28. Kazan, Yalta: Kishinev, 2016. Atwood, Christopher P. “The Empire of the Great Khan: The Yuan Ulus, 1260–1368.” In The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire, ed. Michal Biran and Hodong Kim, vol. 1,

Bibliography

107–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023. ———. Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. New York: Facts on File, 2004. ———. “Historiography and Transformation of Ethnic Identity in the Mongol Empire: the Öng’üt Case.” Asian Ethnicity 15, 4 (2015): 514–34. ———. “The Notion of Tribe in Medieval China: Ouyang Xiu and the Shatuo Dynastic Myth.” In Miscellanea Asiatica: Festschrift in Honour of Françoise Aubin, ed. Denise Aigle et al., 593–621. Sankt Augustin, Ger.: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2010. ———. The Rise of the Mongols: Five Chinese Sources. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2021. ———. “The Textual History of Tao Zongyi’s Shuofu: Preliminary Results of Stemmatic Research on the Shengwu qinzheng lu.” SinoPlatonic Papers, no. 27 (2017): 1–70. ———. “Validation by Holiness or Sovereignty: Religious Toleration as Political Theology in the Mongol World Empire of the Thirteenth Century.” International History Review 26, 2 (2004): 237–56. Azad, Arezou. “Three Rock-Cut Cave Sites and Their Ilkhanid Buddhist Aspects Reconsidered.” In Islam and Tibet Interactions along the Musk Routes, ed. A. Akasoy, C. Burnett, and R. Yoeli-Tlalim, 209–30. Surrey: Ashgate, 2011. Bachhofer, Ludwig. “Maitreya in Ketumatī by Chu Hao-ku.” In India Antiqua, a Volume of Oriental Studies for Jean Philippe Vogel on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of His Doctorate, 1–7. Leiden: Brill, 1947. Bai Shouyi 白壽彝. Zhongguo Yisilanshi cungao 中國伊斯蘭史存稿 (History of Islam in China). Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin chubanshe, 1982. Baitenov, Eskander, Ainagul Tuyakayeva, and Gulnara Abdrassilova. “Medieval Mausoleums of Kazakhstan: Genesis, Architectural Features, Major Centres.” Frontiers of Architectural Research 8, 1 (2019): 80–93. Baker, Dwight Condo. T’ai shan: An Account of the Sacred Eastern Peak of China. Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1925. Bal, Mieke. Reading “Rembrandt”: Beyond the Word-Image Opposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Baldwin, Michelle. “Monumental Wall Paintings of the Assembly of the Buddha from Shanxi.’’ Artibus Asiae 54, 3–4 (1994): 241–67.

Ball, Warwick. “The Imamzadeh Ma’sum at Vardjovi: A Rock-Cut Ilkhanid Complex near Maragheh.” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 12 (1979): 329–40. ———. “Some Rock-Cut Monuments in Southern Iran.” Iran 24 (1986): 95–115. ———. “Two Aspects of Iranian Buddhism.” Bulletin of the Asia Institute of Pahlavi University 1 (1976): 127–43. Bao Chongming 包崇明. A’erzhai shiku bihua 阿爾 寨石窟壁畫 (Rock-carved caves and murals at Arzhai). Höhhot: Nei Mengu Renmin chubanshe, 2010. Bao Muping 包慕萍. “Mongoru ni okeru toshi kenchikushi kenkyū: yūboku to teiju no jūsō toshi Fufuhoto” モンゴルにおける都市 建築史研究: 遊牧と定住の重層都市フフホト

(Research on urban and architectural history of Mongolia: nomadism and permanent residency in the elite city Höhhot). Tokyo: Tōhō shoten, 2005. ———. “A Multi-storied Wooden Building in Thirteenth Century Karakorum: A Study on the Architectural Style of the Xingyuan Pavilion.” In International Conference on Ten Years of the World Heritage Site-Orkhon Valley Cultural Landscape: Past and Present, 73–82. Ulaanbaatar, 2015. ———. “Multi-story Timber Building in Thirteenth-Century Karakorum: A Study of the 300-chi Tall Xingyuan Pavilion.” Zhongguo jianzhu shilun jikan 15 (2018): 345–56. Bao Tingbo鮑廷博 (1728–1814). Zhibuzuzhai congshu 知不足齋叢書 (Collected writings from Know Your Deficiencies Studio). Taipei: Shijie chubanshe, 1963. Bary, William T. de, Wing-tsit Chan, and Burton Watson, eds. Sources of Chinese Tradition. 2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Batujirghal 巴圖吉日嘎拉and Yang Haiying 楊 海英. A’erzhai shiku 阿爾寨石窟 (Rock-carved cave-temples at Arzhai). Beijing: Nei Menggu Zizhiqu E’erduosishi Etuokeqi wenwu baohu guanlisuo, 2006. Baum, Wilhelm. The Church of the East: A Concise History. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003. Baumer, Christoph. The Church of the East: An Illustrated History of Assyrian Christianity. London: Tauris, 2016. Bayar, Dovdoin Баяр Довдойн. Mongolchuudyn Chuluun Khörög (XIII–XIV zuun). Монголчуудын Чулуун Хөрөг (XIII–XIV зуун) (Stone statues of the Mongols [13th– 14th century]). Ulaanbaatar: Mongolian Academy of Sciences Institute of History,

268

International Institute for Study of Nomadic Civilization, 2002. ———. Mongolyn Töv Nutag dakh’ Türegiin Khün Chuluu Монголын Төв Нутаг дахь Түрэгийн Хүн Чулуу (Turkic stone statues of Central Mongolia), ed. D. Tseveendorj. Ulaanbaatar: Mongol Ulsyn Shinjlekh Ukhaany Akademiin Tüükhiin Khüreelen, 1997. Beasley, W. G., and William Pulleyblank. Historians of China and Japan. London: Oxford Uiversity Press, 1961. Beazley, C. Raymond. On a Hitherto Unexamined Manuscript of John of Plano Carpini. London: W. Clowes and Sons, 1903. ———. The Texts and Versions of John de Plano Carpini and William de Rubruquis, as Printed for the First Time by Hakluyt in 1598, Together with Some Shorter Pieces. London: Haklyut Society, 1903. Becker, Eva. “Die altmongolische Hauptstadt Karakorum: Forschungsgeschichte nach historischen Aussagen und archäologischen Quellen.” Internationale Archäologie 39. Rahden, Ger.: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2007. Beckingham, Charles. Prester John, the Mongols and the Ten Lost Tribes. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1996. Beekers, Daan, and Pooyan Tamimi Arab. “Dreams of an Iconic Mosque: Spatial and Temporal Entanglements of a Converted Church in Amsterdam.” Material Religion 2 (2016): 137–64. Beijing Liao-Jin Chengyuan Bowuguan北京遼金 城垣博物馆. Beijing Liao-Jin wenwu yanjiu 北京 遼金文物研究 (Research on cultural relics of Liao-Jin in Beijing). Beijing: Yanshan chubanshe, 2005. Beijingshi Wenwu Yanjiusuo 北京市文物研究 所. Beijing jindai huangling 北京金代皇陵 (Jin imperial tombs in Beijing). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2006. ———. Beijing kaogu sishinian 北京考古四十年 (Forty years of Beijing archaeology). Beijing: Beijing Yanshan chubanshe, 1990. ———.“Yuan Tieke fuzimu he Zhang Honggangmu” 元鐵可父子墓和張弘綱墓 (The tombs of Tie Ke and his father and Zhang Honggang’s tomb). Kaogu xuebao, no. 1 (1986): 95–114. Bemmann, Jan, Sven Linzen, Susanne Reichert, and Lkh. Munkhbayar. “Mapping Karakorum, the Capital of the Mongol Empire.” Antiquity 96, 385 (2021): 1–20. Bemmann, Jan, Hermann Parzinger, Ernst Pohl, and Damdinsüren Tseveendorzh.

Bibliography

Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia: Papers from the First International Conference on “Archaeological Research in Mongolia” Held in Ulaanbaatar, August 19–23, 2007. Bonn: Vor- under Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 2009. Bemmann, Jan, and S. Reichert. “Karakorum, the First Capital of the Mongol World Empire: An Imperial City in a Non-Urban Society.” Asian Archaeology 4 (2021): 121–43. Berkeley, George. [1709]. “An Essay towards a New Theory of Vision.” In Berkeley’s Philosophical Writings, ed. David M. Armstrong. New York: Macmillan, 1965. Bi Yuan 畢沅 (1730–1797). Guanzhong shengji tuzhi 關中勝迹圖志 (Illustrated record of famous remains in Guanzhong [the vicinity of Chang’an]). Taipei: Shangwu Press, 1980. Bi Yuan and Fu Yingkui 傅應奎. Hanchengxian zhi 韓城縣志 (Record of Hancheng prefecture). Taipei: Chengwen chubanshe, 1976. Bichurin, Iakinf (Hyacinth). Istorĭi︠ a︡ pervikh, chetyrekh khanov doma Chingisova. St. Petersburg: Pechatano v tipografii Karla Kraĭi︠ a︡ , 1829. Bier, Lionel. “The Masjid-i Sang near Darab and the Mosque of Shahr-i Ij: Rock-Cut Architecture of the Il-Khanid Period.” Iran 24 (1986): 117–30. Biot, Edouard (1803–1850). Le Tcheou-li, ou Rites des Tcheou. 2 vols. 1851. Taipei: Chengwen, 1975. Biran, Michal. The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2008. ———. “Rulers and City Life in Mongol Central Asia (1220–1370).” In Turko-Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life, ed. David Durand-Guédy, 257–83. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Biran, Michal, and Kim Hodung, eds. The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Bisscop, Nicole de. La Chine sous toit. Brussels: Fonds Mercator—Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, 2007. Bloom, Jonathan. The Minaret. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013. Bo Cheng 柏呈. “Sichuan Yuandai jianzhuzhong ‘daxiefu’ jiegou tixi tanxi” 四川元代建築中 「大斜栿」結構體系探析 (Analysis of “large diagonal beams” in Yuan architecture in Sichuan). Sichuan jianzhu 34, 4 (2014):156–58.

Bodolec, Caroline. L’architecture en voûte chinoise: un patrimoine méconnu. Paris: Maisonneuve and Larose, 2005. Bol, Peter K. “The Rise of Local History: History, Geography, and Cuture in Southern Song and Yuan Wuzhou.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 61, 1 (2001): 37–76. Borbone, Pier Giorgio. “A 13th-Century Journey from China to Europe. The Story of Mar Yahballaha and Rabban Saume.” Egitto e Vicino Oriente 31 (2008): 221–42. Bowman, John, and J. A. Thompson. “The Monastery-Church of Bar Hebraeus at Maragheh in West Azerbaijan.” Abr-Nahrain 7 (1967–1968): 35–61. Boyle, John Andrew. The History of the World Conqueror. 2 vols. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1958. ———. “The Seasonal Residences of the Great Khan Ögedei.” Asiatic Journal 16, 2 (1972): 125–31. ———, trans. The Successors of Genghis of Khan. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. Brabander, Cesar de. “De hongersnood in Mongolie.” Missiën in China en Congo 46 (1892): 145–47. ———. “Mengelmaren—Onrust in China: Hongersnood in Kann-soe en MiddenMongolie. ” Missiën in China en Congo 34 (1891): 541–43. ———. “Midden Mongolia—Brief van den E. H. De Brabander.” Missiën in China en Congo 26 (1891): 409–12. Bredon, Juliet. Peking. Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh, 1922. Bressan, L. “Odoric of Pordenone (1265–1331): His Vision of China and South-East Asia and His Contribution to Relations between Asia and Europe.” Jounral of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 70, 2 (273) (1997): 1–23. Bretschneider, Emil (1833–1911). Archaeological and Historical Researches on Peking and Its Environs. Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press and London: Trübner, 1876. ———. Medieval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources: Fragments towards the Knowledge of the Geography and History of Central and Western Asia fro the 13th to the 17th Century. 2 vols. London: Trübner, 1888. Brook, Timothy. The Troubled Empire: China in the Yuan and Ming Dynasties. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. Bryson, Megan. Goddess on the Frontier: Religion, Ethnicity, and Gender in Southwest China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016.

269

Bryson, Norman. Word and Image: French Painting of the Ancien Régime. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Budge, E. A. Wallis. The Monks of Kublai Khan, Emperor of China: Or the History of the Life and Travels of Rabban Sawma and Mar Yahbhallaha III. London: Religious Tract Society, 1928. Buell, Paul. “Saiyid Ajall (1211–1279).” In In the Service of the Khan, ed. Igor de Rachewiltz et al., part 2, 466–79. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz, 1993. ———. “Sübötei (1176–1248).” In In the Service of the Khan, ed. Igor de Rachewiltz et al., part 1, 13–26. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz, 1993. Bulliet, Richard. “Naw Bahār and the Survival of Iranian Buddhism.” Iran 14 (1976): 140–45. Bulling, Annelise G. “Ancient Chinese Maps.” Expedition 20, 2 (1978): 16–25. Bush, Susan. “Archaeological Remains of the Chin Dynasty (1115–1234).” Bulletin of SungYuan Studies 17 (1981): 6–3l. Bushell, Stephen W. “Notes of Journey outside the Great Wall of China.’’ Journal of the Royal Geographical Society 44 (1874): 73–97. Byington, Mark, ed. The History and Archaeology of the Koguryŏ Kingdom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Early Korea Project, 2016. Cahill, James. Hills beyond a River: Chinese Painting of the Yuan Dynasty, 1279–1368. New York: Weatherhill, 1976. Cai Fan 蔡蕃. Yuandai shuilijia Guo Shoujing 元 代水利家郭守敬 (The Yuan engineer Guo Shoujing). Beijing: Dangdai Zhongguo chubanshe, 2011. Cai Yukun 蔡宇琨 , Zhao Yuanxiang 趙元祥, and Zhang Yu 張宇. “Sichuan Yanting xinfaxian de Yuandai jianzhu Hualinsi dadian” 四川鹽 亭新發現的元代建築花華寺大殿 (The main hall of Hualin Monastery, a newly discovered Yuan building in Yanting, Sichuan). Wenwu, no. 11 (2017): 75–90. Campbell, C. W. “A Journey in Mongolia.” China, no. 1 (1904). Cao Chunping 曹春平. “Quanzhou Qingyuanshan Mituoyan yu Ruixiangyan” 泉 州清源山彌陀岩與瑞像岩 (The stone temple to Amiābha and the stone temple to Ruixiang on Mount Qingyuan in Quanzhou). Jianzhushi 19, 2 (2003): 93–97. Cao Tingjie 曹廷傑 (1850–1926). Dongsansheng yu ditushuo 東三省與地圖說 (On three provinces in the east and maps). In Xuxiu siku quanshu 續修四庫全書, vol. 646. Taipei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1967.

Bibliography

Cao Wanru 曹婉如. Zhongguo gudai dituji 中国古 代地圖集 (Atlas of old Chinese maps). 3 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1990–1997. Cao Xun 曹訊. “Yuan ‘Yingchanglu Mantuoshan xinjian Longxingsi ji’ kaoshu” 元應昌路曼陀山 新建龍興寺記考述 (Analysis of “Record of the newly built Longxing Monastery on Mount Mantuo in Yingchanglu” of the Yuan period). Liaohai wenwu, no. 2 (1988): 122–28. ———. “Zangchuan Fojiao guojieta he menta” 藏傳 佛教過街塔和門塔 (Tibetan Buddhist overpass pagodas and pagodas above gates). Zhongguo jianzhu shilun jikan 2 (2009): 18–36 Cha, Ju-Hwa, and Young-Jae Kim. “Rethinking the Proportional Design Principles of Timber-Framed Buddhist Buildings in the Goryeo Era.” religions 12, 11 (2021): 1–30. Chaffee, John W. “The Impact of the Song Imperial Clan on the Overseas Trade of Quanzhou.” In The Emporium of the World, ed. Angela Schottenhammer, 13–46. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ———. The Muslim Merchants of Premodern China: The History of a Maritime Asian Trade Diaspora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. ———. The Thorny Gates of Learning in Song China. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1995. Chai Zejun柴澤俊, ed. Chai Zejun gujianzhu wenji 柴澤俊古建築文集 (Collected essays on Chinese architecture by Chai Zejun). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999. ———. “Datong Huayansi Daxiongbaodian mujiegou xingzhi fenxi” 大同華嚴寺大雄寶殿 木結構形制分析 (Structural analysis of the timber frame of Daxiongbao Hall of Huayan Monastery in Datong). In Zhonghua gujianzhu, ed. Zhang Yuhuan and Guo Husheng, 41–61. Beijing: Zhongguo kexue jushu chubanshe, 1990. ———. “Linfen Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai pouxi” 臨汾魏村牛王廟元代戲台剖析 (Analysis of the Yuan stage at Ox King Temple in Weicun, Linfen). In Chai Zejun gujianzhu wenji, ed. Chai Zejun, 274–83. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999. ———. “Pingyang diqu gudai xitai yanjiu” 平陽地 區古代戲台研究 (Research on old stages in the Pingyang region]). In Chai Zejun gujianzhu wenji, ed. Chai Zejun, 251–73. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999. ———. “Puxian Dongyuemiao” 莆仙東嶽廟 (Temple to the Eastern Peak in Puxian). In Chai Zejun gujianzhu wenji, ed. Chai Zejun, 140–47. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999. ———. “Sanshinianlai Shanxi gujianzhu jiqi fushu wenwu diaocha baohu jilüe” 三十年來山西古建

築及其附屬文物調查保護紀略 (Research notes

on an investigation of old architecture and its associated cultural relics in Shanxi during the past thirty years). Wenwu ziliao congkan 4 (1981): 254–56. ———. “Shanxi gujianzhu gaishu” 山西古建築 概述 (General discussion of premodern architecture in Shanxi). In Zhongguo gujianzhu xueshu jiangzuo wenji 中國古建築學 術講座文集 , 244–98. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986. ———. “Shanxi jichu jingqiao de gudai louge” 山西幾處精巧的古代樓閣 (The genius of old multi-story buildings in Shanxi). In Chai Zejun gujianzhu wenji, ed. Chai Zejun, ed., 200–20. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999. ———. “Shanxi jichu zhongyao gujianzhu shili” 山西幾處重要古建築實例 (Some extant examples of important architecture in Shanxi). In Chai Zejun gujianzhu wenji, ed. Chai Zejun, 148–99. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999. Chai Zejun and Li Zhengyun 李正雲. Shuozhou Chongfusi Mituodian xiushan gongcheng baogao 朔州崇福寺彌陀殿修繕工程報告 (Report on the preservation work of Mituo Hall of Chongfu Monastery in Shuozhou). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1993. Chai Zejun and Ren Yimin 任毅敏. Hongdong Guangshengsi 洪洞廣勝寺 (Guangsheng Monastery in Hongdong). Beijing Wenwu chubanshe, 2006. Chan, Hok-lam 1990. “ ‘The Distance of a Bowshot’: Some Remarks on Measurement in the Altaic World.” Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 25 (1995): 29–46. ———. “Exorcising the Dragon: A Legend about the Building of the Mongolian Upper Capital (Shangdu).” Central Asiatic Journal 55, 1 (2011): 1–32. ———. Legends of the Building of Old Peking. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008. ———. “Liu Ping-chung.” In In the Service of the Khan, ed. Igor de Rachewiltz et al., part 2, 245–69. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz, 1993. ———. “Liu Ping-chung (1216–1274): A BuddhistTaoist Statesman at the Court of Khubilai Khan.” T’oung Pao 53, 1–3 (1967): 98–146. ———. “A Mongolian Legend of the Building of Peking.’’ Asia Major 3, 2: 63–93. ——— “Siting by Bowshot: A Mongolian Custom and Its Sociopolitical and Cultural Implications.” Asia Major 4, 2 (1991): 53–78. Chang, Kuei-sheng. “The Han Maps.” Imago Mundi 31 (1979): 9–17.

270

Chang, Kwang-chih. Shang Civilization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1980. Chang Kyŏng-ho 張 慶浩. Han’guk ŭi chŏngt’ong kŏnch’uk 韓國의傳統建築 (Korean traditional architecture). Seoul: Munye ch’ulp’ansa, 1992. Chang Le 常樂. Yanshansi xiangshi 岩山寺詳釋 (Explanation of Yanshansi). Taiyuan, China: Sanjin chubanshe, 2013. Chang, Michael. A Court on Horseback: Imperial Touring and the Construction of Qing Rule, 1680–1785. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Asia Center, 2007. Chang Qing. “Feilaifeng and the Flowering of Chinese Buddhist Sculpture from the Tenth to FourteenthCenturies.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas, 2005. ———. “The Portrait Image of Yang Rinchen at Feilaifeng of Hangzhou and Its Reception in the Yuan and Ming Periods. In Jiangnan zangchuan fojiao yishu: Hangzhou Feilaifeng shike zaoxiang yanjiu 江南藏傳佛教藝術：杭州飛來峰石 刻造像研究 , ed. Xie Jisheng, 423–60. Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe, 2014. Changzhishi Bowuguan 長治市博物館. “Shanxi Changzhishi Weicun Jindai jinian caihui zhuandiaomu” 山西長治市魏村金代紀年彩繪 磚雕墓 (A dated Jin tomb in Wei village, Changzhi, Shanxi with painted bricks). Kaogu, no. 1 (2009): 59–64. ———. “Shanxisheng Changzhixian Haojiazhuang Yuanmu” 山西省長治縣郝家莊元墓 (A Yuan tomb in Haojiazhuang, Changzhi county, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 7 (1987): 88–92. Changzhishi Bowuguan and Wang Jinxian 王進 先. “Shanxi Changzhishi Zhuomacun Yuandai bihuamu” 山西長治市捉馬村元代壁畫墓 (A Yuan tomb with murals in Zhuoma village, Changzhi, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 6 (1985): 65–71. Changzhishi Wenwu Luguanju 長治市文物旅覽局 and He Dalong 賀大龍. Changzhi Tang-Wudai jianzhu xinkao長治唐五代建築新考 (New research on Tang and Five Dynasties architecture in Changzhi). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2015. ———. Jin dongnan zaoqi jianzhu zhuanti yanjiu 晉東 南早期建築專題研究 (Comprehensive research on early architecture in southeastern Shanxi). Beijing Wenwu chubanshe, 2015. Changzhishi Wenwu Luyouju 長治市文物旅遊局 and Wang Jinxian. Changzhi Song-Jin-Yuan mushi jianzhu yishu yanjiu長治宋金元墓室建築 藝術研究 (Research on the art and architecture of Song, Jin, and Yuan tombs). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2015. Charbonnier, Jean-Pierre. Christians in China: A.D. 600–1200. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007.

Bibliography

Charleux, Isabelle. “Chinggis Khan: Ancestor, Buddha or Shaman? On the Uses and Abuses of the Portrait of Chinggis Khan.” Mongolian Studies 30/31 (2008 and 2009): 207–58. ———. “From Ongon to Icon: Legitimization, Glorification and Divinization of Power in Some Examples of Mongol Portraits.” In Representing Power in Ancient Inner Asia: Legitimacy, Transmission and the Sacred, ed. I. Charleux, G. Delaplace, R. Hamayon, and S. Pearce, 209–259. Bellingham: Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington University, 2010. ———. “On Worshipped Ancestors and Pious Donors: Some Notes on Mongol Imperial and Royal Portraits.” National Palace Museum Bulletin 40 (December 2007): 17–36. Chavannes, Édouard. Le T’ai chan: Essai de monographie d’un culte chinois. Paris: Leroux, 1910. Chavannes, Édouard, and Paul Pelliot. Un traité manichéen retrouvé en China. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1912. Chen Congzhou 陳從週. “Dongting Dongshan de gujianzhu Yangwanmiao zhengdian” 洞 庭東山的古建築楊灣廟正殿 (The old architecture of the main hall of Yangwan Temple in Dongshan, Dongting). Wenwu, no. 3 (1954): 63–68. ———. “Jinhua Tianningsi Yuandai zhengdian” 金華天寧寺元代正殿 (The Yuan main hall of Tianning Monastery in Jinhua). Wenwu, no. 12 (1954): 101–7. ———. “Zhejiang Wuyixian Yanfusi Yuangou dadian” 浙江武義縣延福寺元構大殿 (The structure of the Yuan main hall at Yanfusi in Wuyi county, Zhejiang). Wenwu, no. 4 (1966): 32–38. Chen Dasheng 陳達生. Quanzhou Yisilanjiao shike 泉州伊斯蘭教石刻 (Stone-carved Islamic inscriptions in Quanzhou). Yinchuan and Fuzhou, China: Ningxia Renmin chubanshe and Fujian Renmin chubanshe, 1984. Chen Dasheng and Ludvik Kalus. Corpus d’Inscriptions Arabes et Persanes en Chine. Vol. 1: Province de Fujian (Quan-zhou, Fu-zhou, Xia-men). Paris: Geuthner, 1991. Chen Gaohua 陳高華. “Luelun Yang Lianzhenjia he Yang Anpu fuzi” 略論楊璉真伽和楊暗普父子 (On Yang Lianzhenjia and Yang Anpu, father and son). In Yuanshi yanjiu lungao 元史研究論 稿. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1991. ———. Yuan Dadu 元大都 (Daidu of the Yuan dynasty). Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 1982. ———. Yuandai huajia shiliao huibian 元代畫家史料 彙編 (Collected historical source material on Yuan painters). Hangzhou: Hangzhou chubanshe, 2004.

———.”Zailun Yuandai hexi sengren Yang Lianzhenjia” 再論元代河西僧人楊璉真加. In Zhonghua wenshi luncong 中華文史論叢, no. 2 (2006): 159–80. Chen Gaohua and Shi Weimin 史衛民. Yuan Shangdu 元上都 (Shangdu in the Yuan dynasty). Changchun: Jilin jiaoyu chubanshe, 1988. ———. Yuandai Dadu Shangdu yanjiu 元代大都上都 研究 (Research on Yuan Daidu and Shangdu). Beijing: Zhongguo Renmin Daxue chubanshe, 2010. Chen Guojun (Hongmo) 陳國鈞 and Kong Guangquan 孔廣泉. Antuxian zhi 安圖縣志 (Record of Antu county).Taipei: Chengwen chubanshe, 1974. Chen Meidong 陳美東 and Lu Jiaxi 盧嘉錫, eds. Zhongguo kexue he jishu shi 中國科學 和技術史 (History of Chinese science and technology): Tianwenxue juan 天文學卷 (Astronomy volume). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2003. Chen Meihe 陳梅鶴. Ta’ersi jianzhu 塔爾寺建築 (Architecture of Ta’er Monastery). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1986. Chen Mingda 陳明達. Chen Mingda gujianzhu yu diaosu shilun 陳明達古建築與雕塑史論 (Essays on premodern Chinese architecture and sculpture). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1998. ———. “Handai de shique” 漢代的石闕 (Stone que of the Han dynasty). Wenwu, no. 12 (1961): 9–23; updated in Chen Mingda gujianzhu yu diaosu shilun, 142–55. ———. “Liangnianlai Shanxisheng xinfaxian de gujianzhu” (jiexuan) 兩年來山西省新發現的古 建築 (節選) (Old architecture discovered in the last two years in Shanxi [excerpts]). In Chen Mingda gujianzhu yu diaosu shilun, 28–44. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1998. ———. Yingxian Muta 應縣木塔 (Ying county timber pagoda). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1980. ———. Yingzao fashi damuzuo zhidu yanjiu 營造法 式大木作制度研究 (Research on the system of large-scale wooden construction according to Yingzao fashi). 2 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1981. ———. Zhongguo gudai mujiegou jianzhu jishu: Zhanguo-Bei Song 中國古代木结构建築技術: 戰 國-北宋. (Chinese timber-frame architecture and technology: Warring States to Northern Song). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1990. Chen Rong 陳嶸, ed. Suzhou Yunyansita weixiu jiagu gongcheng baogao 蘇州雲巖寺塔維修加 固工程報告 (Report on the restoration and reinforcement of the pagoda of Yunyan

271

Monastery in Suzhou). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008. Chen Shou 陳壽 (233–297), comp. Sanguozhi 三國 志 (Record of the Three Kingdoms). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973. Chen Shu 陳述. Liao-Jin shi lunji 遼金史論集 (Collected essays on Liao and Jin). Beijing: Shumu wenxian chubanshe, 1987. ———. Qidan shehui jingji shigao 契丹社會經濟史 稿 (Khitan society and economics). Beijing: Sanlian chubanshe, 1963. Chen Xiangwei 陳相偉. “Jilin Huaide Qinjiadun gucheng diaochaji” 吉林懷德秦家屯古城調查記 (Excavation report on the remains of an old city at Qinjiadun, Huaide, Jilin). Kaogu, no. 2 (1964): 79–82, 10. Chen Xiao 陳筱. Kaogu lansheng: Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 60 nian zhongyao kaogu faxian 考古攬勝：內蒙古自治區文物考古研究所60 年重要考古發現 (Major excavation of the last sixty years of the Institute of Culture Relics and Archaeology, Inner Mongolia), 274–87. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2014. ———. “Yuan Zhongdu jianzhu yiyi de kaogu diaocha yu fuyuan” 元中都建築遺跡的考古調查 與復原 (Archaeological survey and restoration of architectural remains of Yuan Zhongdu). Zhongguo jianzhu shilun huikan 9 (2014): 325–57. Chen Yuan. “On the Damaged Tablets Discovered by Mr. D. Marin in Inner Mongolia,” trans. Ying Ts’ien-li. Monumenta Serica 3, 1 (1938): 250–56. Chen Yuanjing 陳元靚 (13th century). Shilin guangji 事林廣記 (Extensive record of a forest of affairs). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1999. Chen Yuning 陳育寧and Tang Xiaofang 湯曉芳. “A’erzhai shiku di 31 ku Pishamentianwang bianxiangtu shidu” 阿爾寨石窟第31窟毗沙門 天王變相圖試讀 (An explanation and reading of the Vaiśravana transformation tableau in cave 31 at Arzhai). In A’erzhai shiku guoji xueshu yantaohui 阿爾寨石窟國際學術研討會, ed. Ji Siqin, 89–92. Höhhot: Nei Menggu Renmin chubanshe, 2008. ———. Zhongguo Huizu wenwu 中國回族文物 (Cultural relics of the Hui). Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin chubanshe, 2008. Chen Zehong 陳澤泓. “Guangzhou Huaishengsi Guangta jianzao niandaikao” 廣州懷聖 寺光塔建造年代考 (Research on the date of the Huaisheng Monastery minaret in Guangzhou). Lingnan wenshi嶺南文史 4 (2002): 42–46, 50. Chen Zehong and Chen Ruozi 陳若子. Zhongguo ting, tai, lou, ge 中國亭臺樓閣 (Chinese

Bibliography

kiosks, platforms, towers, and pavilions). Guangzhou: Guangdong Renmin chubanshe, 1993. Chen Zhengning 程政寧 and Feng Zhicheng 馮志 成. Yunnan mingcheng jianzhu tese jijin 雲南名城 建筑特色集錦 (Masterpieces of historic architecture in Yunnan). Kunming: Yunnan minzu chubanshe, 2002. Cheng Jufu 程鉅夫 (1249–1318). “Liangguo Minhuigong shendao bei” 涼國敏慧公神道碑 (The spirit path stele for Minhui, Duke of State of Liang). In Cheng Jufu, Cheng Xuelou wenji 程雪樓文集 (Collective works of Cheng Jufu), vol. 1, 313–20. Taibei: Zhongyang tushu 1970. Cheng Li 程利. “Yelü Zhu fufu hezangmu jiankuang” 耶律鑄夫婦墓合葬墓簡況 (Introduction to the joint burial of Yelü Zhu and his wife). Beijing wenbo, no. 4 (1998): colorpls. 2–4. Chinese Academy of Architecture. Ancient Chinese Architecture. Hong Kong: Joint Publishers, 1982. Cho, Yong. “The Mongol Impact: Rebuilding the Arts System in Yuan China (1271–1368).” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 2020. Chŏng Yŏngho 정영호 , Ch’oe Insŏn 최인선, Ŏm Kip’yo 엄기표 , and O Hosŏk 오호석. Chungguk yot’ap 中國 遼塔 (Liao pagodas in China). Seoul: Hakyŏn munhwasa, 2019. Choudhury, Najiba. “Seizures and Liquidation Sales in the United States during World War II: Tracking the Fate of Japanese Art Dealership, Yamanaka & Company, Inc.” Journal for Art Market Studies 4, no. 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.23690/jams.v4i2.125. Chü Ch’ing-yüan. “Government Artisans of the Yuan Dynasty.” In Chinese Social History: Translations of Selected Studies, trans. Sun E-tu and John de Francis, 234–46. Washington, DC: American Council of Learned Societies, 1956. Chūgoku Gaibun Shuppansha 中國外文出版社. Eiraku-kyu hekiga 永樂宮壁画 (Yonglegong murals). Kyoto: Bi no Bi, 1981. Clark, Anthony. China Gothic: The Bishop of Beijing and His Cathedral. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2019. Clark, Hugh R. Community, Trade, and Networks: Southern Fujian Province from the Third to Thirteenth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. ———. “Muslims and Hindus in the Culture and Morphology of Quanzhou from the Tenth to the Thirteenth Century.” Journal of World History 6, 1 (1995): 49–74.

Cleaves, Francis Woodman. “The ‘Fifteen Palace Poems’ by K’o Chiu-ssu.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 20 (1957): 391–479. ———. “K’uei-k’uei or Nao-nao?” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 10, 1 (1947): 1–12. ———. The Secret History of the Mongols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. ———. “The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1346.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 15, 1–2 (1952): 1–123. Clément, Sophie, et al. Architecture du paysage en Asie orientale: du fengshui comme modèle conceptuel et comme pratique d’harmonisation bâti-paysage. Paris: École nationale superieure de Beaux-Arts, 1982. Clunas, Craig. Screen of Kings: Royal Art and Power in Ming China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2013. Coaldrake, William. Architecture and Authority in Japan. London: Routledge, 1996. Colcutt, Martin. Five Mountains: The Rinzai Zen Monastic Institution in Medieval Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard East Asia Center, 1975. Conlan, Thomas. In Little Need of Divine Intervention: Takezaki Suenaga’s Scrolls of the Mongol Invations of Japan. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2002. Conze, Edward. “Buddhism and Gnosis.” In Origins of Gnosticism: Colloquium of Messina, ed. U. Bianchi, 13–18. (April 1966). Coomans, Thomas. Building Churches in Northern China: a 1926 Handbook in Context. Beijing: Zhishiquan chubanshe, 2016. Cordier, Henri. “Situation de Ho-lin en Tartarie, manuscript inédit du Père A. Gaubil, S. J.” T’oung Pao 4, 1 (1893): 33–80. ———. Les Voyages en Asie au 14e siècle du bienheureux du frère Odoric de Pordenone, religieux de Saint Francois, publiés avec une introduction et des notes par Henri Cordier. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1891. Cordier, Henri, and Sir Henry Yule. Ser Marco Polo: Notes and Addenda to Sir Henry Yule’s edition, Containing the Results of Recent Research and Discovery. London: Murray, 1920. Crespigny, Rafe de. “Two Maps from Mawangdui.” Cartography 11, 4 (1980): 211–22. Crump, J. I. Chinese Theater in the Days of Kublai Khan. Ann Arbor: Center for Chinese Studies, University of Michigan, 1990. ———. Song-Poems from Xanadu. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Chinese Studies, 1993. ———. Songs from Xanadu. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Chinese Studies, 1983.

272

Cui Qingzhong崔清忠. Shandong Yi’nan Han mu huaxiangshi 山東沂南漢墓畫像石 (Stones with images from a Han tomb in Yi’nan, Shandong). Jinan: Jilü shushe chubanshe, 2001. Cui Yuanhe 崔元和, gen. ed. Pingyang Jinmu zhuandiao 平陽金墓砖雕 (Jin tombs with relief sculpture in Pingyang). Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1999. Curatola, Giovanni. “The Viar Dragon.” Soltāniye 3 (1982): 71–89. Dai Jiayan 戴嘉艷. “Menggu Hongqilabu de lishi huadong yu Yuandai Yingchanglu de shehui zuoyong” 蒙古弘吉剌部的歷史活動與元代應昌路 的社會作用 (On the historical activities of the Mongol Hongjila tribe and the social functions of Yuan-period Yingchanglu). Dalian minzu xueyuan xuebao 2, 3 (2006): 11–13, 34. Dalrymple, William. In Xanadu: a Quest. London: Collins, 1989. Damdinsüren, Ts. Ц. Дамдинсүрэн. Mongolyn uran zokhiolyn toĭm Монголын уран зохиолын тойм (An overview of Mongolian writings). Ulaanbaatar: Ulsyn Khėvlėliĭn Gazar, 1957–1977. Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667). Guang Hongmingji 廣 弘明集 (Universal record). Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1983. ———. Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳 (Biographies of eminent monks, continued), Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Datongshi Wenwu Chenlieguan 大同市文物陳列 館 and Shanxi Yungang Wenwu Guanlisuo 山西雲岡文物管理所. “Shanxisheng Datongshi Yuandai Feng Daozhen, Wang Qing mu qingli jianbao” 山西省大同市元代馮道真、王青 墓清理簡報 (Brief report on the sorting out of the tombs of Feng Daozhen and Wang Qing of the Yuan dynasty in Datong, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 10 (1962): 34–52. Dawson, Christopher, ed. The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955. De Xin 德新, Zhang Hanjun 張漢君, and Han Renxin 韓仁信. “Nei Menggu Balinyouqi Qingzhou Baita faxian Liaodai Fojiao wenwu” 內蒙古巴林右旗慶州白塔發現遼代佛 教文物 (Liao Buddhist cultural relics excavated at the White Pagoda in Qingzhou, Balin youqi, Inner Mongolia). Wenwu, no. 12 (1994): 1–33. Demièville, Paul. “Notes d’archéologie chinoise.” Bulletin de l’École franaise d’Extrême-Orient, no. 2 (1925): 449–67.

Bibliography

Deng Fei 鄧菲. Zhongyuan beifang diqu Song Jin muzang yishu yanjiu 中原北方地區宋金墓葬藝術 研究 (Research on the art of Song and Jin tombs in the northern region of the Central Plain). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2019. Deng Ruiling鄧銳齡. “Yuandai Hangzhou xingxuan zhengyuan” 元代杭州行宣政院 (Governmental precincts of Yuan Hangzhou). Zhongguoshi yanjiu 中國史研究 2 (1995): 85–94. Deng Zhongyu 鄧鐘玉. Guangxu Jinhua xianzhi 光緒金華縣志 (Record of Jinhua during the Guangxu period). Jinzhendong shiyinju金震東 石印局, reprint, 1934. Devine, W. Four Churches of Peking. London: Burns Oates and Waterhouse, 1930. Di Cosmo, Nicola, Allen Frank, and Peter Golden. The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Dillon, Michael. China’s Muslims. Hong Kong: Oxford UniversityPress, 1996. Ding Lina丁利娜. Beijing kaogushi 北京考古史 (History of Beijing archaeology): Jindaijuan 金 代卷 (Jin dynasty volume). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2012. Ding Mingyi 丁明夷. “Shanxi zhongnanbu de Song-Yuan wutai” 山西中南部的宋元舞台 (SongYuan dancing platforms in south central Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 4 (1972): 47–56. Ding Yao 丁垚. Jixian Dulesi shanmen 薊縣獨樂寺 山門 (The shanmen of Dule Monastery in Ji county). Tianjin: Tianjin Daxue chubanshe, 2020. Dong Gao 董高 et al., “Liaoning Chaoyang Beita tiangong digong qingli jianbao” 遼寧朝陽北塔 天宮地宮清理簡報 (Excavation report on the tiangong and digong of the North Pagoda in Chaoyang, Liaoning). Wenwu, no. 7 (1992): 1–18. Dong Li 冬籬. “Shoushan Qianmingsi Yuandai mugou jianzhu” 首山乾明寺元代木構建築 (A Yuan timber-frame building at Qianming Monastery in Shoushan). Kejishi wenji 5 (1980): 84–91. Dong Tao 董濤 and Zhou Siyi 周斯億 (Guangxu period). Quyangxian zhi 曲陽縣志 (Record of Quyang prefecture). 1904. Beijing: Beijing Airusheng shuzihuashu yanjiu zongxin, 2013. Dong Xinlin 董新林. “Liao Shangjing guizhi he Bei Song Dongjing muoshi” 遼上京規制和北 宋東京模式 (On the scale of Liao Shangjing and the standard model of Northern Song Dongjing). Kaogu, no. 5 (2019): 3–19. Dong Xuezeng董學增. “Wanyan Xiyin ji qi mudi” 完顏希尹及其墓地 . In Jilin shiji, ed. Jilinshi

Bowuguan, 34–40. Changchun: Jilin Renmin chubanshe, 1984. Dongnan Daxue Jianzhu Yanjiusuo 東南大學建 築研究所. Ningbo Baoguosi dadian 寧波保國寺 大殿 (The main hall of Baoguo Monastery in Ningbo). Nanjing: Dongnan Daxue chubanshe, 2012. Dorn, Frank. The Sino-Japanese War, 1937–41: From Marco Polo Bridge to Pearl Harbor. New York: Macmillan, 1974. Dott, Brian R. Identity Reflections: Pilgrimages to Mount Tai in Late Imperial China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Asia Center, 2004. Drake, F. S. “Nestorian Crosses and Nestorian Christians in China under the Mongols.” Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 2 (1962): 11–25. Du Xianzhou 杜仙洲. “Yonglegong de jianzhu” 永樂宫的建築 (Architecture of Yonglegong). Wenwu, no. 8 (1963): 3–18. Du Zhengxian杜正賢, ed. Nan Song ducheng Lin’an yanjiu: yi kaogu wei zhongxin 南宋都城靈安研究: 以考古為中心 (Research on the Southern Song capital Lin’an: with a focus on archaeology). 2 vols. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2016. Dunnell, Ruth. “The Anxi Principality: [un] Making a Muslim Mongol Prince in Northeast China during the Yuan Dynasty.” Central Asiatic Journal 57 (2014): 185–200. Durand-Guédy, David, ed. Turko-Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Duvigneau, A. B. L‘expansion nestorienne en Chine d’après Marco Polo. Beiping: Impremerie des Lazaristes, 1934. E Jun 俄軍. Wang Shixian jiazumu chutu wenwu yanjiu 汪世顯家族墓出土文物研究 (Research on excavated objects from the Wang Shixian family tomb). Lanzhou: Gansu Renmin meishu chubanshe, 2018. Eberhard, Wolfram. A Dictionary of Chinese Symbols. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986. Ecke, Gustav, and Paul Demiéville. The Twin Pagodas of Zayton. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. Edkins, Joseph. Description of Peking. Shanghai: Shanghai Mercury Office, 1898. Edwards, Richard. “Pu-tai-Maitreya and a Reintroduction to Hangchou’s Fei-lai-feng.” Ars Orientalis 14 (1984): 5–50. Egami Namio 江上波夫. “Olon-Sume et la Découverte de l’église catholique romaine de Jean de Montecorvino.” Journal Asiatique 240, no. 2 (1952): 155–67. ———. Oron Sumu: Gendai Ongūto buzoku no tojōshi to gasen オロン. スム : 現代オング-ト部族の都

273

城址と瓦塼

(Olon Süme: City remains and ceramic tiles of the Yuan-period Onggüd), with Shunjō Miyake. Tokyo: Kaimei shoin, 1981. ———. “Olon-Sume: The Remains of the Royal Capital of the Yuan-Period Ongut Tribe.” Orient 30–31 (1995): 1–67. Egorov, Vadim L. Istoricheskaia Geografia Zolotoi Ordy v XIII–XIV vv (Historical geography of the Golden Horde in the 13th–14th centuries). Moscow: Nauka, 1985. ———. Mongol’skoe igo na Rusi (The Mongol yoke in Russia). Moscow: LENAND, 2019. Elikhina, Julija V. Nasledie Karakoruma v Ermitazhe ekspeditsia S. V. Kiseleva: 1948–1949 (Karakorum city heritage at the Hermitage: the Kiselev Expedition of 1948–1949), ed. S. Chuluun. Ulaanbaatar: Institute of History of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences, Mongolia, 2018. Elman, Benjamin. Civil Examinations and Meritocracy in Late Imperial China. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013. Elverskog, Johan. The Jewel Translucent Sūtra: Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. Our Great Qing: The Mongols, Buddhism and the State in Late Imperial China. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 2006. Eng, Clarence. Colours and Contrast: Ceramic Traditions in Chinese Architecture. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Fairbank, Wilma. “The Offering Shrines of Wu Liang Tz’u.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 6, no. 1 (1941): 43–86. Fan Chengda 范成大 (1126–1193). Lanpeilu 攬轡 錄 (Record of grasping the reigns). Taibei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1966. Fan Xiaoping 范小平. Sichuan huaxiangzhuan yishu 四川畫像磚藝術 (The art of pictured bricks in Sichuan). Chengdu: Ba-Shu shushe, 2008. ———. Sichuan yamu yishu 四川崖墓藝術 (The art of Sichuan clif tombs). Chengdu: Ba-Shu shushe, 2008. Fang Xinru 方信孺 (1177–1220). Nanhai baiyong 南海百詠 (Chantings of the Southern Sea). Guangzhou: Guangdong Renmin chubanshe, 2010. Fan Zushu 範祖述 (late 19th century). Hangsu yifeng 杭俗遺風 (Winds of remaining customs in Hangzhou). Taipei: Chengwen chubanshe, 1983. Favier, Pièrre-Marie-Alphonse (1837–1905). Péking: histoire et description. Beijing: Imprimerie des Lazaristes du Pé-t’ang, 1897.

Bibliography

Feng Dongqing 馮冬青. “Shanxi Puxian Dongyuemiao dadian kancha baogao” 山西 蒲縣東嶽廟大殿勘察報告 (Report on the main hall of the Temple to the Eastern Peak in Pu county, Shanxi). Wenwu jikan, no. 3 (1993): 21–28. Feng Enxue 馮恩學. “Beijing Zhaitang bihua de shidai” 北京齋堂壁畫的時代 (The date of the tomb with murals in Zhaitang, Beijing). Beifang wenwu, no. 4 (1997): 47–48. Feng Jiannan 馮健男. Feilaifeng 飛來峰 (Feilaifeng). Beijing: Qinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2017. Feng Jiren 馮繼仁. Chinese Architecture and Metaphor: Song Culture in the Yingzao fashi Building Manual. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2012. ———. “Lun yinyang kanyu dui Bei Song huangling yanjiu” 論陰陽勘與對北宋皇陵研究 (The influence of Chinese geomancy on the imperial Northern Song tombs). Wenwu, no 8 (1994): 55–68. Feng Junjie 馮俊傑. Shanxi shenmiao juchang kao 山西神庙剧場考 (Investigation of stages at temples in Shanxi). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2006. ———. Xiju yu kaogu 戲劇與考古 (Stages and archaeology). Beijing: Wenhua yishu chubanshe, 2002. Feng Zizhang 馮子章. Guo Shoujing 郭守敬 (Biography of Guo Shoujing). Beijing: Xinhua chubanshe, 2011. Fernald, Helen. “Another Fresco from Moon Hill Monastery.” Museum Journal 19, 2 (1928): 109–29. ———. “Chinese Frescos of the Tang Dynasty in the Museum: 618–906 A. D.” Museum Journal, 17, 3 (1926): 229–44. ———. “Two Sections of Chinese Fresco Newly Acquired: Belonging to the Great Kuan Yin Wall.” Museum Journal, 20, 2 (1929): 119–29. Finnane, Antonia. Speaking of Yangzhou: A Chinese City, 1550–1850. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Asia Center, 2004. Fitzhugh, William. American-Mongolian Deer Stone Project. Artic Studies Center, Museum of Natural History. Washington, DC: Smithsonian, 2009. Flath, James. Traces of the Sage: Monument, Materiality, and The First Temple of Confucius. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2016. Fletcher, Joseph F. “The Naqshbandiyya in Northwest China.” In Studies on Chinese and Islamic Inner Asia, ed. Beatrice Manz, 1–46. Aldershot, UK: Variorum, 1995.

———. “Turko-Mongolian Monarchic Tradition in the Ottoman Empire.” Harvard Ukranian Studies 3–4 (1979–1980): 236–51. Forte, Antonino. Tang China and Beyond: Studies on East Asia from the Seventh to the Tenth Century. Kyoto: Istituto italiano di cultura and Scuola di sutdi sull’Asia orientale, 1988. Foster, John. “Crosses from the Walls of Zaitun.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1–2 (1954): 1–25. Foucault, Michel. This Is Not a Pipe, trans. James Harkness. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. Franke, Herbert. “Ahmad: Ein Beitrag zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Chinas unter Qubilai.“ Oriens 2 (1948): 222–36. ———. “Chinese Texts on the Jurchen. A Translation of the Jurchen Monograph in the ‘San ch’ao pei meng hui pien.’ ” Zentralasiatischen Studien 9 (1975): 119–86. ———. “Chinese Texts on the Jurchen II. A Translation of Chapter One of the Chin shih.” Zentralasiatischen Studien 12 (1978): 413–52. ———. Chinesischer und Tibetischer Buddhismus im China der Yüanzeit: Drei Studien. Munich: Kommission für Zentralasiatische Studien Bayerische Akademieder Wissenschafter, 1996. ———. “The Consecration of the ‘White Stupa’ in 1279.” Asia Major, 3rd ser., 7, 1 (1994): 155–83. ———. “Sangha.” In In the Service of the Khan, ed. Igor de Rachewiltz et al., part 2, 558–83. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz, 1993. ———. “Some Aspects of Chinese Private Historiography in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century.” In Historians of China and Japan, ed. W. G. Beasley and William Pulleyblank, 115–34. London: Oxford Uiversity Press, 1961. ———, ed. Song Biographies. 4 vols. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Steiner, 1976. ———. “Tibetans in Yüan China.” In China under Mongol Rule, ed. John Langlois, 296–328. Princeon, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981. Franke, Herbert, and Hok-lam Chan. Studies on the Jurchens and the Chin Dynasty. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997. Franke, Herbert, and Denis Twitchett, eds. The Cambridge History of China. Vol. 6: Alien Regimes and Border States, 907–1368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Franken, Christina. Die “Grossse Halle” von Karakorum: Zur archäologischen Untersuchung des ersten buddhistische Tempels der alten

274

mongolischen Hauptstadt. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Reichert, 2015. Fu Liying 傅麗英 and Ma Hengjun 馬恆君. Ma Zhiyuan quanji jiaozhu 馬致遠全集校注 (Commentary on Ma Zhiyuan’s collected works). Beijing: Yuwen chubanshe, 2002. Fu Shen 傅申. Yuandai huangshi shuhua shoucanglüe 元代皇室書畫收藏史略 (History of the Yuan imperial collection of painting and calligraphy). Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2018. Fu Xinian 傅熹年. Fu Xinian jianzhu shilun wenji 傅 熹年建築史論文集 (Collected essays in architectural history by Fu Xinian). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1998. ———. Fu Xinian jianzhu shilun wenxuan 傅熹年建 築史論文選 (Selected essays on architectural history by Fu Xinian). Tianjin: Baihua wenyi chubanshe, 2009. ——— Fu Xinian Zhongguo jianzhu shilun xuanji 傅熹年中國建築史論選集 (Selected essays on Chinese architecture by Fu Xinian). Shenyang: Liaoning meishu chubanshe, 2013. ———. “Hanyuan Hall at Daminggong in Tang Chang’an.” In Traditional Chinese Architecture: Twelve Essays, ed. Nancy Steinhardt, 167–208. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017. ———. “Song Architecture in South China and Its Relation to Japanese Great Buddha-Style Architecture of the Kamakura Period.” In Traditional Chinese Architecture: Twelve Essays, ed. Nancy Steinhardt, 273–95. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017. ———. Traditional Chinese Architecture: Twelve Essays, ed. Nancy Steinhardt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017. ———. “Yuan Dadu danei gongdian de fuyuan yanjiu” 元大都大內宮殿的復原研究 (Research and reconstruction of the palaces of the palace-city of Yuan Daidu). In Fu Xinian jianzhu shilun wenxuan, 341–79. Tianjin: Baihua wenyi chubanshe, 2009. ———. Zhongguo gudai jianzhu shi 中國古代建築 史 (History of premodern Chinese architecture). Vol. 2: Liang Jin, Nanbeichao, Sui-Tang, Wudai jianzhu 三國, 兩晋, 南北朝, 隋唐, 五代建 築 (Architecture of the two Jins, Northern and Southern Dynasties, Sui, Tang, and Five Dynasties). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2001. ———. Zhongguo gudai jianzhu shilun 中國古代建築 十論 (Ten essays on premodern Chinese architecture). Shanghai: Fudan Daxue chubanshe, 2004.

Bibliography

Fu Xinian and Lu Jiaxi 盧嘉錫. Zhongguo kexue jishushi 中國科學技術史 (History of Chinese technology): Jianzhujuan 建築卷 (Architecture). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2016. Fu Yingkui 傅應奎 and Qian Dian 錢坫 (1744– 1806). Hanchengxian zhi 韓城縣志 (Record of Hancheng county). 1784. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1995. Fuchs, Walter. “Analecta zur mongolischen Übersetzungsliteratur der Yüan-Zeit.” Monumenta Serica 11 (1946): 33–64. ———. The “Mongol Atlas” of China by Chu Ssu-pen and the Kuang-yü-t’u. Beiping: Fu Jen University, 1946. Fujiansheng Bowuguan 福建省博物馆. Fuzhou Nan Song Huang Shengmu 福州南宋黄昇墓 (Tomb of Huang Sheng of Southern Song in Fuzhou). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1982. ———. “Quanzhou Qingjingsi Fengtiantan jizhi fajue baogao” 泉州清淨寺奉天壇基址發掘報告 (Excavation report on remains of Fengtian Platform of the Quanzhou mosque). Kaogu xuebao, no. 3 (1991): 353–87. Fukuda Miho. 福田美穂. “Gendai kenchiku no rekishiteki kenkyū” 元代建築の歴史的研究 (Historical research on Yuan architecture). Unpublished paper. Fukuyama Toshio. Heian Temples: Byodo-in and Chuson-ji, trans. Ronald K. Jones. New York: Weatherhill, 1976. Gansusheng Bowuguan 甘肅省博物館 and Zhangxian Wenhuaguan 漳縣文化館. “Gansu Zhangxian Yuandai Wang Shixian jiazu muzang” 甘肅漳縣元代汪世顯家族墓葬 (Excavation of the Yuan tombs of the Wang Shixian family). Wenwu, no. 2 (1982): 1–12. Gansusheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 甘肅省文物 考古研究所, Maijishan Shiku Yishu Yanjiusuo 麥積山石窟藝術研究所, and Shuiliandong Shiku Baohu Yanjiusuo 水簾洞石窟保護 研究所. Shuiliandong shikuqun 水簾洞石窟 群 (Shuiliandong rock-carved cave group). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2009. Gansusheng Wenwuju 甘肅省文物局. Gansu guta yanjiu 甘肅古塔研究 (Research on old pagodas in Gansu). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2014. Gao Luyan 高魯燕. “Yanshansi bihua tuxiang suyuan” 岩山寺壁畫圖像溯源 (Sources of images in the murals of Yanshan Monastery). M.A. thesis, Taiyuan Ligong Daxue, 2018. Gao Nianhua 高念華. Feilaifeng gaoxiang 飛來峰 造像 (On images from Feilaifeng). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2002. Gao Wen 高文 and Gao Chenggang 高成剛. Zhongguo huaxiang shiguan yishu 中國畫像石棺藝術 (Images carved on stone

sarcophaguses). Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1996. Gardner, Iain. “The Medieval Christian Remains from Zayton.” In From Palmyra to Zayton: Epigraphy and Iconography, ed. Iain Gardner, Samuel Lieu, and Ken Parry, 215–28. Türnhout: Brepols, 2005. Gardner, Iain, Samuel Lieu, and Ken Parry, eds. From Palmyra to Zayton: Epigraphy and Iconography. Türnhout: Brepols, 2005. Gaubil, Antoine (1689–1759). Histoire de Gentchiscan et de toute la dinastie des Mongous ses successeurs, conquérants de la China: tirée de l’histoire chinoise, et traduite par le R. P. Gaubil. Paris: Chez Briasson et Piget, 1739. Gavaachimed, Lkhagvasuren, Heejin Shin, Si Eun Lee, Dashtseveg Tumen, Jae-Hyun Kim, Kyung-Yong Kim, Kijeong Kim, Ae Ja Park, Ho Woon Lee, Mi Jin Kim, Jaesung Choi, Jee-Hye Choi, Na Young Min, and Kwang-Ho Lee. “Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen’s Family and Her Possible Kinship with Genghis Khan.” PLOS ONE 11, 9 (2016) PLOS ONE. | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0161622. Ge Haijiang 葛海江 and Zhang Wanhui 張萬輝. “Taiyuan Longshan Daojiao shiku diwuku zhuxiangshen fentanxi” 太原龍山道教石窟第 五窟主像身份探析 (Identification of the main figure in cave 5 at the Daoist Longshan caves in Taiyuan). Wenwu, no. 6 (2021): 93–96. Ge Shanlin 蓋山林. Mengguzu wenwu yu kaogu yanjiu 蒙古族文物與考古硏究 (Research on cultural relics and archaeology of the Mongolian people). Shenyang: Liaoning minzu chubanshe, 1999. ———. Yinshan wanggu 陰山汪古 (The Önggüd of Yinshan). Höhhot: Nei Menggu Renmin chubanshe, 1991. Geil, William Edgar. The Sacred 5 of China. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1926. Gerasimov, G. G. Pami︠a︡ tniki arkhitektury doliny reki Kara-Kengir v T︠ S︡ entral'nom Kazakhstane. Alma-Ata: Kazakhstan Academy of Sciences, 1957. Gerterkamp, Lennart. The Heavenly Court: Daoist Temple Painting in China, 1200–1400. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Gibb, H.A.R. Travels of Ibn Battuta, A. D. 1325–1354. 4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Gillman, Ian, and Han-Joachim Klimkeit. Christians in Asia before 1500. New York: Routledge, 1999.

275

Godard, André. Les monuments de Maragha. Paris: Leroux, 1934. Goldin, Paul. “The Motif of the Woman in the Doorway and Related Imagery in Traditional Chinese Funerary Art.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 121, 4 (2001): 539–48. Goodrich, Anna Swann, and Janet Rinaker ten Broeck. The Peking Temple of the Eastern Peak: The Tung-yüeh Miao in Peking and Its Lore. Nagoya, Jap.: Monumenta Serica, 1964. Goodrich, L. Carrington. “The Revolving BookCase in China.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 7 (1942): 130–61. Grabar, Oleg. The Illustrations of the Maqamat. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Guan Zengjian and Konrad Hermann, trans. Kao Gong Ji: The World’s Oldest Encyclopedia of Technologies. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Guangzhou Xi Han Nanyuewangmu Bowuguan 廣州西漢南越王博物館. Guangzhou Xi Han Nanyuewangmu 廣州西漢越王墓 (Tombs of the kings of Nanyue of Western Han in Guangzhou). Guangzhou: Guangdong lüyou chubanshe, 1987. Gudai Jianzhu Xiuzhengsuo 古代建築修整所. “Jin Dongnan Lu’an, Pingshun, Gaoping, he Jincheng sixian de gujianzhu” 晉東南潞安,平順, 高平和晉城四縣的古建築 (Old architecture in four counties of southeastern Shanxi: Lu’an, Pingshun, Gaoping, and Jincheng). Wenwu, no. 3 (1958): 26–42. Gulacsi, Zsuzsanna. “A Manichaean ‘Portrait of the Buddha Jesus’: Identifying a Twelfthor-Thirteenth-Century Chinese Painting from the Collection of Seiun-ji Zen Temple.” Artibus Asiae 69, 1 (2009): 102–15, 118. ———. Mani’s Pictures: The Didactic Images of the Manichaeans from Sasanian Mesopotamia to Central Asia and Tang-Ming China. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Gumilev, Lev. Searches for an Imaginary Kingdom: The Legend of the Kingdom of Prester John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Guo Daiheng 郭黛姮. Donglai diyishan: Baoguosi 東來第一山 : 保國寺 (Premier monastery from the East: Baoguosi). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. ———. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中國古代建築史. (History of premodern Chinese architecture). Vol. 3: Song, Liao, Jin, Xi Xia jianzhu 宋遼金西 夏建築 (Song, Liao, Jin, Western Xia architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2001.

Bibliography

Guo Daiheng, Gao Yilian, and Xia Lu. Chinese Master Architect: Liang Sicheng. Beijing: Paths International and China Architecture and Building Press, 2019. Guo Fu 郭郛. “Yuan Chagannao’er xinggong shidi kaobian” 元察罕腦兒行宮實地考辨. In Yuan Shangdu yanjiu wenji, ed., Ye Xinmin and Jakhadai Chimeddorji, 108–15. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue chubanshe, 2003. Guo Hao 郭浩. Liaodai Shangjing Linhuangfu kao 遼 代上京臨潢府考 (Research on Liao Shangjing in Linhuang prefecture). Shenyang: Shenyang chubanshe, 2018. Guo Jia 郭嘉 (fl. 1350). “Chongjian Huaishengtasi zhi jibei” 重建懷聖塔寺之記碑 (Stele inscription on the repair of the minaret at Huaishengsi). In Guangzhou Huizu beike bianlianji 廣州回族 碑刻匾聯集 , ed., Guangzhoushi Huizu lishi wenhua yanjiuhui 廣州市回族歷史文化研究會 and Guangzhoushi Yisilanjiao xiehui 廣州市 伊斯蘭教協會, 3–5. Guangzhou: Guangdong Renmin chubanshe, 2020. Guo Jibin 郭繼賓. Yuandai Jin Demaomu chutu wenwu keji baohu jiqi xiangguan yanjiu 元代靳徳 茂墓出土文物科技保護及其相關研究 (Technical preservation and research on objects excavated in the Yuan tomb of Jin Damao). Zhengzhou, China: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 2015. Guo Pei 郭裴 et al. Guangdong tongzhi 廣東通 志, juan 229. In Xuxiu siku quanshu, vol. 673. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1995. Guo Qinghua. The Mingqi Pottery Buildings of Han Dynasty China, 206 BC–AD 220: Architectural Representations and Represented Architecture. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 2010. Guo Xiangzheng 郭祥正 (11th c.), comp. Qingshanji 青山集 (Record of Azure Mountain). Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1983. Guojia Wenwuju 國家文物局. 1998 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian (Major archaeological discoveries in China in 1998). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1999. ———. 2002 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian (Major archaeological discoveries in China in 2002). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. ———. 2006 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian (Major archaeological discoveries in China in 2006). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. ———. 2010 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian (Major archaeological discoveries in China in 2010). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2011.

———. “Heilongjiang Acheng Jin Shangjing Liuxiutun jianzhu jizhi” 黑龍江阿城金上京 劉秀屯建築基址 (Architectural remains at Liuxiutun, from the Jin capital Shangjing, Acheng, Heilongjiang). In 2002 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, 142–46. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. ———. “Shanghai Putuoqu Zhidanyuan Yuandai shuizha” 上海普陀區志丹苑元代水閘 (The Yuan sluice at Zhidanyuan in Putuo, Shanghai). In 2006 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian 中國重要 考古發現 , 171–76. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. ———. “Zhidanyuan Yuandai shuizha” 志丹苑 元代水閘 (Yuan sluice st Zhidanyuan). In 2002 Zhongguo zhongyao kaogu faxian, 152–57. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. ———. Zhongguo wenwu dituji: 中國文物地圖集. Beijing fence北京分冊. 2 vols. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2008. ———. Zhongguo wenwu dituji: Gansu fence 北京 分冊. 2 vols. Beijing: Cihui chubanshe, 2011. ———. Zhongguo wenwu dituji: Henan fence 北京 分冊. Beijing: Zhongguo ditu chubanshe, 1991. ———. Zhongguo wenwu dituji: Shanxi fence 山西分冊. 3 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo ditu chubanshe, 2006. ———. Zhongguo wenwu dituji: Sichuan fence 四川分 冊. 3 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo ditu chubanshe, 2009. Guy, John. “The Lost Temples of Nagapattinam and Quanzhou: A Study in Sino-Indian Relations.” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3 (1993–1994): 291–310. ———. “Tamil Merchant Guilds and the Quanzhou Trade.” In Emporium of the World, ed. Angela Schottenhamer, 283–308. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Halbertsma, Tjalling. Early Christian Remains of Inner Mongolia: Discovery, Reconstruction and Appropriation. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Halevi, Leor. Muhammad’s Grave: Death Rites and the Making of Islamic Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. Han Aiying 韓爱營. Quyangxian zhi 曲陽縣志 (Record of Quyang prefecture). Beijing: Xinhua chubanshe, 1998. Hancheng jixing 韓城紀行 (Record of a journey to Hancheng). Hong Kong: Yazhou luxing gongsi, n.d. Hangzhoushi Wenwu Kaogusuo 杭州市文物考古 所. Nan Song Gongshengrenlie huanghouzhai yizhi: Lin’anchengyizhi kaogu fajue baogao 南 宋恭聖仁烈皇后宅遺址: 臨安城遺址考古發掘報 告

(Remains of the residence of Empress

276

Dowager Gongshengrenlie of Southern Song). Beijing Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. ———. Nan Song taimiao yizhi 南宋太庙遺址 (Remains of the ancestral temple of Southern Song). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Hansen, Valerie. Negotiating Daily Life in Traditional China: How Ordinary People Used Contracts, 600–1400. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. Hanshan 寒山. Cold Mountain: 101 Chinese Poems, trans. Burton Watson. Boston: Shambala, 1992. Harada Yoshito 原田淑人 and Komai Kazuchika 駒井和愛. Jōto: Mōko Doronnōru no okeru Gendai toshi no chōsa 上都 : 蒙古ドロンノールに於ける元代 都址の調查 (Shangdu: excavation of the Yuan capital in Dolonnuur, Mongolia). Tokyo: Tōa kōkogaku kai (Far Eastern Archaeology Society), 1941. Hargett, James M. “Huizong’s Magic Marchmount: the Genyue Pleasure Park of Kaifeng.” Monumenta Serica 38 (1988–1989): 1–48. ———. On the Road in Twelfth Century China: The Travel Diaries of Fan Chengda (1126–1193). Stuttgart: Steiner, 1989. Harrer, Alexandra. “Where Did the Wood Go? Rethining the Problematic Role of Wood in Wood-Like Mimicry.” Frontiers of History in China 10, no. 2 (2015): 188–221. Hashemi, Siamek. “Spiritual Life and Life after Death in the Undergrounds of Ancient Iran.” In Tunnels and Underground Cities: Engineering and Innovation Meet Archaeology, Architecture and Art, ed. Daniele Peila, G.M.B. Viggiana, and Tarcisio Barreto Celestino, 80–89. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2020. Haw, Stephen. Marco Polo’ China: A Venetian in the Realm of Khubilai Khan. London: Routledge, 2006. He Dalong 賀大龍, Yang Haijun 楊海軍, and Wei Weilin 衛偉林. “Shanxi Yangcheng faxian Yuandai minju” 山西陽城發現元代民居 (A Yuan residence uncovered in Yangcheng, Shanxi). Zhongguo wenwubao, October 23, 2013. He Ming 何明. “Ji Tahucheng chutu de Liao-Jin wenwu” 記塔虎城出土的遼金文物 (On Liao-Jin cultural relics unearthed at Tahucheng). Wenwu, no. 7 (1982): 44–49. He Xiuling 何修齡. “Hanchengxian suojiande Yuandai jianzhu jiqi qibentezheng” 韓城縣所 見的元代建築及其基本特徵 (Yuan architecture and its special features in Hancheng). Wenwu cankao ziliao, no. 11 (1957): 54–58. He Yeju 賀葉鉅 . Jianzhu lishi yanjiu 建築歷史 研究 (Research on architectural history).

Bibliography

Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1992. ———. Kaogongji yingguo zhidu yanjiu 考工記營國 制度研究 (Research on the system of building the capital according to “Kaogongji”). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1985. ———. Zhongguo gudai chengshi guihua shi luncong 中國古代城市規劃史論叢 (Essays on the history of premodern Chinese city planning). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe and Xinhua shudian Beijing faxing, 1986. Hearn, Maxwell K., ed. Landscapes Clear and Radiant: The Art of Wang Hui (1632–1717). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2008. Hebeisheng Wenhuaju Wenwu Gongzuotui 河 北省文化局文物工作隊. “Hebei Xinchengxian Beichangcun Jin Shi Li’ai he Shi Fengmu fajueji” 河北新城縣北場村金時立愛和時豐墓發掘記 (Excavation report on the Jin-period tombs of Shi Li’ai and Shi Feng in Beichang village, Xincheng county, Hebei). Kaogu, no. 12 (1962): 646–50, 658. Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo 河北省文物研究 所. Xuanhua Liaomu 宣化遼墓 (Liao tombs in Xuanhua). 2 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2001. ———. Yuan Zhongdu: 1998–2003-nian fajue baogao 元中都:1998–2003年發掘報告 (Yuan central capital: Report on excavations from 1998–2003). 2 vols. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2012. Hebeisheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo, Zhangjiakoushi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 張家口市文物考古 研究所, and Chongliqu Wenhua Guangdian he Luyouju 崇禮區文化廣電和旅遊局, “Hebei Zhangjiakoushi Taizicheng Jindai chengzhi” 河北張家口市太子城金代城址 (Remains of the Jin Taizicheng in Zhangjiakou, Hebei). Kaogu, no. 7 (2019): 77–91. Hebeisheng Zhengdingxian Wenwu Baoguansuo 河北省正定縣文物保管所, Zhang Xiusheng 張秀生, Liu Youheng 劉友恆, et al. Zhengding Longxingsi 正定隆興寺. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2000. Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Gongzuodui 黒龍江省文物考古工作隊. Heilongjiang gudai wenwu 黒龍江古代文物 (Premodern cultural relics in Heilongjiang). Harbin: Heilongjiang Renmin chubanshe, 1979. ———. “Heilongjiangpan Suibin Zhongxing gucheng he Jindai muqun” 黑龍江畔綏濱中興古城 和金代墓群 (A Jin-period wall and tomb group in Zhongxing, Suibin, on the bank of the Heilong River). Wenwu, no. 4 (1977): 40–49. Heilongjiang Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 黒龍 江文物考古研究所. “Haerbinshi Achengqu Jin Shangjing huangcheng xibu jianzhuzhi

2015-nian fajue jianbao” 哈爾濱市阿城區金上 京皇城西部建築址2015年發掘簡報 (Excavation report on architectural remains on the west side of the imperial-city of Jin Shangjing in Acheng, Harbin, during the 2015 season). Kaogu, no. 6 (2017): 44–65. ———. “Heilongjiang Acheng Juyuan Jindai Qiguowangmu fajue jianbao” 黑龍江阿城巨源金 代齊國王墓發掘簡報 (Brief report on the excavation of the tomb of the Jin dynasty Prince of Qi in Juyuan, Acheng, Heilongjiang). Wenwu, no. 10 (1989): 1–10. ———. “Heilongjiang Kedongxian Jindai Puyulu gucheng fajue” 黑龍江克東縣金代蒲峪路古城發 掘 (Excavation of the old Jin city Puyulu in Kedong, Heilongjiang). Kaogu, no. 2 (1987): 151–58. Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogusuo 黒龍江 省文物考古所. “Ha’erbinshi Achengqu Jin Shangjing nancheng nanyuan ximenzhi fajue jianbao” 哈爾濱市阿城區金上京南城南垣西門址 發掘簡報 (Excavation report on the western gate of the south wall of the southern city of Jin Shangjing in Acheng district of Harbin). Kaogu, no. 5 (2019): 45–65. Heilongjiangsheng Wenwu Kaogusuo Gongzuodui 黒龍江省文物考古所工作隊. “Heilongjiangpan Suibin Zhongxing gucheng he Jindai muqun” 黑龍江畔綏濱中興古城和金代 墓群 (A walled city and group of Jin tombs in Zhongxing, Suibin, along the bank of the Heilong River). Wenwu, no. 4 (1977): 40–49. Heirman, A. Missions en Chine et au Congo, no. 115 (August 1898): 105–6. Heissig, Walther. Die Mongolischen Steininschrift und Manuskriptfragmente aus Olon süme in der Inneren Mongolei. Göttingen, Ger.: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966. Henan Bowuyuan 河南博物院. Henan chutu Handai jianzhu mingqi 河南出土漢代建築明器 (Architectural mingqi from the Han dynasty excavated in Henan). Zhengzhou: Daxiang chubanshe, 2002. Henansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 河南省 文物考古研究所. Bei Song huangling 北宋皇陵 (Northern Song imperial tombs). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1997. ———. Sanmenxia Miaodigou Tang-Song muzang 三門峡廟底溝唐宋墓葬 (Tang-Song tombs in Miaodigou, Sanmenxia). Beijing: Daxiang chubanshe, 2006. ———. Yongcheng Xi Han Liangguo wangling yu qinyuan 永城西漢梁國王陵與寢園 (Royal tombs and burial precincts of Liang of the Western Han in Yongcheng). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1996.

277

Henansheng Wenwu Yanjiusuo 河南省文物研究所. Anyang Xiudingsta 安陽修定寺塔 (The pagoda of Xiuding Monastery in Anyang). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1983. Henderson, Ron. The Gardens of Suzhou. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. Henricks, Robert G. The Poetry of Han-shan: A Complete, Annotated Translation of Cold Mountain. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1990. Henthorn, William. Korea: The Mongol Invasions. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Hillenbrand, Robert. Islamic Architecture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1994. Hirth, Friedrich, and William W. Rockhill. Chau Ju-kua: His Work on the Chinese and Arab Trade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, Entitled Chu-fan-chi. 1911. Taipei: Chengwen, 1970. Ho, Kwok Man. The Eight Immortals of Taoism, trans. and ed., Joanne O’Brien. New York: Penguin, 1990. Hong, Jeehee. Theater of the Dead: A Social Turn in Chinese Funerary Art, 1000–1400. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2016. Hong Jinfu 洪金富. Yuandianzhang jiaoding 元典 章校訂 (Statutes of the Yuan, punctuated and collated). 4 vols. Taipei: Zhongyang Yanjiuyuan Lishi Yuyan jiusuo, 2016. Hope, Michael. Power, Politics, and Tradition in the Mongol Empire and the Ilkhānate of Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Hou Renzhi 侯仁之. “Beijing dushi fazhan guochengzhong de shuiyuan wenti” 北京都市發 展過程中的水源問題 (On the question of the water sources for the development of the city of Beijing). Beijing Daxue xuebao, no.1 (1955): 142–68. ———. “Beijing Jinshuihe kao” 北京金水河考 (Study of Jinshui River in Beijing). Yanjing xuebao 30 (1946): 107–34 ———. “Beijing jiucheng pingmian sheji de gaizao” 北京舊城平面設計的改造 (Reconstructing the plan of the old city of Beijing). Wenwu, no. 5 (1973): 1–13. ———. “Guanyu gudai Beijing de jige wenti” 關 於古代北京的幾個問題 (Several questions concerning Beijing of former times). Wenwu, no. 9 (1959): 1–7. ———. An Historical Geography of Peiping. Berlin: Spring-Verlag, 2016. ———. Lishishang de Beijingcheng 歷史上的北京城 (The city of Beijing through history). Beijing: Zhongguo qingnian chubanshe, 1962. ———. “Yuan Dadu yu Ming-Qing Beijing cheng” 元大都與明清北京城 (Yuan Daidu and

Bibliography

Ming-Qing Beijing). Gugong Bowuyuan kan, no. 3 (1979): 3–21, 38. Hou Renzhi and Deng Hui 鄧輝. Beijingcheng de qiyuan yu bianqian 北京城的起源與變遷 (The origins and evolution of Beijing). Beijing: Zhongguo shudian, 2001. Hourani, George Fadlo. Arab Seafaring in the Indian Ocean in Ancient and Early Medieval Times. Rev. and exp. by John Carswell. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. Howard, Angela F. The Summit of Treasures: Buddhist Cave Art of Dazu, China. Trumbull, CT: Weatherhill, 2001. Howorth, Sir Henry H. History of the Mongols, from the 9th to the 19th century. 1927. London: Longmans, 1994. Hsiao, C. C. “Bayan.” In In the Service of the Khan, ed. Igor de Rachewiltz et al., part 2, 584–607. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz, 1993. Hsu, Mei-ling. “Han Maps and Early Chinese Cartography.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 68, 1 (1978): 45–60. Hu Ji 胡忌. Song-Jin zajukao 宋金雜剧考 (Research on Jin zaju). Rev. ed. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2008. Hu Lingui 呼林貴, Liu Hexin 劉合心, and Xu Shou 徐濤. “Pucheng faxian de Yuanmu bihua jiqi dui wenwu jianding de yiyi” 蒲城發現的元墓 壁畫及其對文物鑑定的意義 (Determining cultural properties regarding a Yuan tomb with murals excavated in Pucheng). Wenbo, no. 5 (1998): 78–80. Hu Xinli 胡新立 and Wang Zhengyu 王正 玉. “Shandong Jiaxiangxian Yuandai Cao Yuanyong mu qingli jianbao” 山東嘉祥縣元代 曹元用墓清理簡報 (Brief report on the tomb of Cao Yuanyong of the Yuan dynasty in Jiaxiang county, Shandong). Kaogu, no. 9 (1983): 803–9, 869–70. Hua Quan 華泉 . “Wanyan Chong mu shendaobei yu Jindai de Xupinlu” 完顏忠墓神道碑與金代的 恤品路 (The stele from the spirit path of the tomb of Wanyan Chong and Xupin circuit of the Jin dynasty). Wenwu, no. 4 (1976): 29–33. Huai’anshi Bowuguan 淮安市博物館. “Jiangsu Hui’an Banzha yizhi fajue jianbao” 江蘇淮安板 閘遺址發掘簡報 (Excavation report on the remains of a sluice in Hui’an, Jiangsu). Wenwu, no. 2 (2019): 23–36. Huang Miaozi 黃廟子. “Tang-Song bihua” 唐宋壁 畫 (Tang-Song wall painting). Meishu yanjiu, no. 1 (1980): 22–27.

Huang Wenbi 黃文弼. “Xinjiang kaogu de faxian” 新疆考古的發現 (Uncovering Xiniang archaeology). Kaogu, no. 8 (1960): 8–14. ———. “Yuan Alimali gucheng kao” 元阿力麻里古 城考 (Research on the Yuan city of Almaliq). Kaogu, no. 10 (1960): 555–61. Huang Xin 黄信. “Taizicheng, 820-nianqian Zhongguo huangjia wenhua ruhe yu Alinpike wenhua pengzhuang jiaorong”太子城，820 年前中國皇家文化如何與奥林匹克文化碰撞交 融？(Taizicheng: How Chinese imperial

culture of 820 years ago collided with the Olympics). Zhongguo xinwenshe (January 20, 2022). https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ A43C39pleM-nL7YXE3P86w. Huang Xiuchun 黃秀純 and Fu Gongyue 傅公鉞. “Liao Han Yimu fajue baogao” 遼韓佚墓發掘報 告 (Excavation report on the tomb of Han Yi). Kaogu xuebao, no. 3 (1984): 361–80. Huang Xiuchun and Lei Shaoyu 雷少雨. “Beijing diqu faxian de Yuandai muzang” 北京地區 發現的元代墓葬 (A Yuan tomb excavated in Beijing). Beijing wenwu yu kaogu 2 (1991): 219–48. ———. “Beijing Jinmu fajue jianbao” 北京金墓 發掘簡報 (Excavation report on Jin tombs in Beijing). Beijing wenwu yu kaogu 1 (1983): 55–72. Huang Zi 黃滋. “Yuandai gucha Yanfusi jiqi dadian de weixiu duice” 元代古剎延福寺及其 大殿的維修對策 (Conservation strategy for the main hall of Yanfu Monastery, an old monastery of the Yuan dynasty). In Zhongguo wenwu baohu jishu xiehui di’erjie xueshu nianhui lunwenji 中國文物保護技術協會第二 屆學術年會論文集 (Conference Proceedings of the Second Annual Conference on Conservation Technology in China). Xi’an, 2002. Hucker, Charles. A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1985. Hummel, Arthur. Eminent Chinese of the Ch’ing Period (1644–1912). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print Office, 1944. Hunter, Erica C. D. “The Conversion of the Kerait to Christianity in A.D. 1007.” Zentralasiatische Studien 22 (1989/1991): 142–63. Huntington, Susan. The Art of Ancient India. New York: Weatherhill, 1985. Huo Yuhong 霍宇紅 and Liu Fengxiang 劉鳳祥. “Chifeng Yuanmu bihua renwu fushi yanjiu” 赤峰元墓壁畫人物服飾研究 (Research on garments in murals in Yuan tombs in Chifeng). Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu, no. 2 (2001): 45–50.

278

Hüttel, Hans-Georg. “Royal Palace or Buddhist Temple? On Search for the Karakorum Palace.” In Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia, ed. Jan Bemmann et al., 535–48. Bonn: Vor- under Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 2009. Idema, Wilt. “Shanxi Theater in the Period from 1000 to 1300.” In Theater, Life, and the Afterlife: Tomb Décor of the Jin Dynasty from Shanxi, ed. Shi Jinming and Willow Weilian Hai Chang. Beijing: Beijing Kexue chubanshe, 2012. Idema, Wilt, and Stephen H. West. Chinese Theater, 1100–1450: A Source Book. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Steiner, 1982. Iida Sugashi 飯田須賀斯. Chūgoku kenchiku no Nihon kenchiku ni oyoboseru eikyō 中国建築の日 本建築に及ぼせる影響 (The influence of Chinese architecture on Japanese architecture). Tokyo: Shinkenchikusha, 1986. Impey, Lawrence. “Shangtu, the Summer Capital of Kublai Khan.” Geographical Review 25, 4 (1925): 584–604. Inoue Yasushi 井上靖 and Ryūken Sawa 佐和隆研. Koji junrei: Tōgoku 古寺巡禮：東國 (Old monastery pilgrimages: Eastern provinces). Vol. 3: Kenchōji (Kenchōji). Kyoto: Tankōsha, 1981. Isahaya, Yoichi. “Tārīkh-i Qitā in the Zīj-i Īlkhānī—the Chinese Calendar in Persian.” SCIAMVS 14 (2013): 149–58. Ishida Mikinosuke 石田幹之助. “Gen no Jōtoni tsuite” 元の上都に關すゐ主要文籍解题 (On Yuan Shangdu). Nihon Daigaku soritsu shichijushu kinen rombun shū 1 (October 1960): 271–319. Ishida Mosaku 石田茂作. Nihon Buttō no kenkyū 日 本佛塔の研究 (Research on Japanese Buddhist pagodas). Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 2016. ———. Tō 塔 (Pagodas). Tokyo: Shibundō, 1972. Itō Chūta 伊東忠太 (1867–1954). Tōyō kenchiku no kenkyū 洋建築の研究 (Research on East Asian architecture). 2 vols. Tokyo: Ryūginsha, 1943. Trans. Liao Yizhuang 廖伊莊. Beijing: Zhongguo huabao chubanshe, 2017. Itō Nobuo 伊藤延男. Mikkyō no kenchiku 密教の建 築 (Esoteric architecture). Tokyo: Shibundo, 1978. Ivliev Alexandr L. “Izuchenie istorii gosudarstva Vostochnoe Sia v KNR” (Studying the history of the Eastern Xia state in the PRC). In Novye materialy po arkheologii Dalnego Vostoka Rossii i smeznykh territoriy (New materials on the archaeology of the Russian Far East and neighboring territories), ed. V. D. Lenkov, 8–17. Vladivostok: Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnology, Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1993.

Bibliography

Jabbari, Zohre Ali, and A.H.F. Nia. “Analyzing Architecture of Mithraism Rock Temples.” Journal of History Culture and Art Research 6, 3 (June 2017): 1030–42. Jackson, Peter. “From Ulus to Khanate: the Making of the Mongol States, c. 1220–c. 1290.” In The Mongol Empire and Its Legacy, eds. Reuven Amitai Preiss and David Morgan, 12–38. ———. “The Mongols and the Faith of the Conquered.” In Mongols, Turks, and Others, ed. Reuven Amitai and Michal Biran, 245–90. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ———. The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410. 2d ed. London: Routledge, 2018. ———. “Prester John Redivivus: A Review Article.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 7, no. 3 (1997): 425–32. Jackson, Peter, and David Morgan. The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck: His Journey to the Court of the Great Khan Mongke, 1253–1255. London: Haklyut Society, 1990. Jacobson, Esther. The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Jagchid, Sechen. “Chinese Buddhism and Taoism during the Mongolian Rule of China.” Mongolian Studies 6 (1980): 61–98. ———. Chung-tu, the Central Capital of Yüan Dynasty. In Proceedings of the XXVIII Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Venice, 8-14 July, 1985, Giovanni Stary, ed., 177-94. Jahn, Karl, and Herbert Franke. Die chinageschichte des Rasīd ad-Dīn: Übersetzung, Kommentar, Facsimiletafeln. Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1971. Jay, Jennifer. A Change in Dynasties: Loyalism in Thirteenth-Century China. Bellingham: Western Washington University, 1991. Jenner, W.J.F. Memories of Lo-yang: Yang Hsüanchih and the Lost Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. Ji Siqin 札奇斯, ed. A’erzhai shiku guoji xueshu yantaohui 阿爾寨石窟國際學術研討會 (International research conference on the Arjai caves). Höhhot: Nei Menggu Renmin chubanshe, 2008. Ji Yuanzhi 暨遠志. “Zhangye diqu zaoqi shiku fenqi shilun” 張掖地區早期石窟分期試論 (On the periodization of the early caves at Zhangye). Dunhuang yanjiu, no. 4 (1996): 27–40. Ji Zhongqing 紀仲慶. “Yangzhou guchengzhi bianqian chutan” 揚州古城址變遷初探 (Preliminary investigation of the changes in the old city of Yangzhou). Wenwu, no. 9 (1979): 43–56.

Jia Jingyan 賈敬顏. Wudai Song Jin Yuanren bianjiang xingji shisanzhong shuzhenggao 五代宋金 元人邊疆行記十三種疏証稿 (Thirteen essays on border people in the Five Dynasties, Song, Jin, and Yuan). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2004. Jia Jun 賈珺, Huang Xiao 黄曉, and Liu Shanshan 劉珊珊. Jiangsu Shanghai gujianzhu ditu 江蘇上海 古建築地圖 (Maps and illustrations of old architecture in Jiangsu and Shanghai). Beijing: Tsinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2015. Jia Jun, Wang Xichen 王曦晨, Huang Xiao, Liu Shanshan, Li Minhao 李旻昊, and Shi Zhiyuan 時志遠 . Henan gujianzhu ditu 河南古建築地圖 (Maps and illustrations of old architecture in Henan). Beijing: Tsinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2016. Jia Zhoujie 賈洲傑. “Yuan Shangdu diaocha baogao” 元上都調查報告 (Excavation report on Yuan Shangdu). Wenwu, no. 5 (1977): 65–77. Jiang Bo 姜波. Han-Tang ducheng lizhi jianzhu yanjiu 漢唐都城禮制建築研究 (Research on ritual architecture in the capital, Han-Tang). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. Jiang Boqin 姜伯勤. “Shanxi Jiexiu aoshenlou gujianzhu zhuangshi de tuxiangxue kaocha” 山 西介休祆神樓古建築裝飾的圖像學考察 (An investigation of the iconography of architectural decoration on the structure with creature heads at Jiexiu, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 1 (1999): 56–66. Jiang Dongcheng 姜東成. “Yuan Dadu zhuzhai buju yu jianzhu moshi chutan” 元大都住宅 佈局與建築模式初探 (Preliminary report on the layout and design methods of residential architecture in Yuan Daidu). Zhongguo jianzhu shilun huikan 1 (2008): 204–12. Jiang Gaochen 蒋高宸. Jianshui gucheng de lishi jiyi: qiyuan, gonneng, xiangzheng 建水古城的歷史記 憶: 起源, 功能, 象征 (Historical records of the old city of Jianshui: Origins, function, significance). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2001. Jiang Zheng 姜錚, Xu Yang 徐揚, and Liu Chang 劉暢, eds. Shanxi gujianzhu ditu 山西古建築地 圖 (Maps and illustrations of old architecture in Shanxi). 2 vols. Beijing: Tsinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2018. Jiangxisheng Bowuguan 江西省博物館, Yang Houli 楊後禮, et al. “Jiangxi Fengchengxian faxian Yuandai jinian qinghua youlihong ciqi” 江 西豐城縣發現元代紀年青花釉紅瓷器 (Dated Yuan underglazed red porcelain excavated in Fengcheng county, Jiangxi). Wenwu, no. 11 (1981): 72–74. Jianzhu Wenhua Kaochazu 建築文化考察组. Yixian Fengguosi 義縣奉國寺 (Fengguo Monastery

279

in Yi county). Tianjin: Tianjin Daxue chubanshe, 2008. Jilin Daxue Kaogu Xueyuan 吉林大學考古學 院 , Jilinsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 吉林省文物考古研究所, and Qian’anxian Wenwu Guanlisuo 乾安縣文物管理所, “Jilin Qian’anxian Liao-Jin chunnabo yizhiqunhuo Zangzichu yizhi de diaocha yu fajue” 吉林乾

安縣遼金春捺缽遺址群後鳴字區遺址的調查與發掘

(Survey and excavation of remains in Zangzi of the spring nabo of Liao-Jin in Qian’an county). Kaogu, no. 1 (2022): 60–74. Jilinsheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui 吉林省文物 管理委員會. “Jilin Lishuxian Pianlianchengzhi diao chaji” 吉林梨樹縣偏臉城址調查記 (Excavation report on old city remains of Pianlian, Lishu county, Jilin). Kaogu, no. 11 (1963): 7, 612–15. Jilinsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 吉林省文物 考古研究所 and Antuxian Wenguansuo 安圖 縣文管所. “JilinAntuxian Zhongping yizhi faxian” 吉林安圖縣仲坪遺址發現 (Excavation at Zhongping, Antu county, Jilin). Beifang wenwu, no. 4 (2007): 13–23. Jilinshi Bowuguan 吉林市博物館. Jilin shiyi 吉林史 跡 (Historical remains in Jilin). Changchun: Jilin Renmin chubanshe, 1984. Jin Lei 金磊. “Huaxia minzhu kuibao—Shaanxi Hancheng Dang-Jiacun” 華夏民居瑰寶——陝 西韓城黨家村 (Spiritual treasures of Chinese residential architecture: Dang-Jia village in Hancheng, Shaanxi). Jianzhu 建築 4 (2004): 84–85. Jin Shan 金善 (Youzi幼孜) (1368–1431). Beizhenglu 北征錄 (Record of expedition in the north). Guangzhou: Guangzhou chubanshe, 2015. ———. Hou Beizhenglu 後北征錄 (Later record of expedition in the north). Taibei: Guangwen shuju, 1969. Jin Weinuo 金維諾. Hebei Shijiazhuang Pilusi bihua 河北石家莊毗盧寺壁画 (Murals from Pilu Monastery in Shijiazhuang, Hebei). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2001. ———. Shanxi Gaoping Kaihuasi bihua 山西高平開 華寺壁画 (Murals from Kaihua Monastery in Gaoping, Shanxi). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2001. ———. Shanxi Hunyuan Yong’ansi bihua 山西渾源永 安寺壁画 (Murals from Yong’an Monastery in Hunyan, Shanxi). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2001. ———. Shanxi Jishan Qinglongsi bihua 山西稷山青龍 寺壁画 (Murals from Qinghua Monastery in Jishan, Shanxi). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2001.

Bibliography

———. Shanxi Xinjiang Ji Yimiao bihua 山西新絳 稷益廟壁画 (Murals from Ji Yi Temple in Xinjiang, Shanxi). Beijing: Wenwuchubanshe, 2001. ———. Yonglegong bihua quanji 永樂宮壁畫全 集 (Comprehensive record of Yonglegong murals). Tianjin: Tianjin Renmin meishu chubanshe and Tianjinshi Xinhua shudian faxing, 1997. Jin Weinuo and Fan Jin’ao 范金鰲. Zhongguo diantang bihua quanji 中國殿堂壁畫全集 (Comprehensive collection of Chinese murals). 3 vols. Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1997. Jin Yufu 金毓黻 (1887). Dongbei tongshi 東北通史 (Comprehensive history of the Northeast), 399–402. Taipei: Dalian guofeng chubanshe, 1969. Jin Zhizhang 金志章 and Huang Kerun 黄可潤. 1758. Koubei santingzhi 口北三廳志 (Record of the three areas of Koubei). Taipei: Chengwen chubanshe, 1968. Ji’nanshi Bowuguan 濟南市博物館 and Ji’nanshi Kaogusuo 濟南市考古所. “Ji’nanshi Song-Jin zhuandiaobihuamu” 濟南市宋金磚雕壁畫墓 (Song-Jin tombs with relief sculpture and murals in Jinan). Wenwu, no. 8 (2008): 33–54. Ji’nanshi Kaogu Yanjiusuo 濟南市考古研究所. “Ji’nan Langmaoshanlu Yuandai jiazumu fajue jianbao” 濟南郎茂山路元代家族墓發掘簡 報 (Excavation of a Yuan family cemetery in Langmaoshan, Ji’nan). Wenwu, no. 4 (2010): 36–44. Jing Ai 景愛. “Cong chutu wenwukan Heilongjiang diqu de Jindai shehui” 從出土 文物看黑龍江地區的金代社會 (Jin society in Heilongjiang seen through excavated materials). Wenwu, no. 4 (1977): 27–39. ———. “Heishantou guchengkao” 黑山頭古城考 (Research on the old city at Heishantou). Jilin Daxue shehui kexue xuebao, no. 6 (1980): 77–83 ———. Jin Shangjing 金上京 (Shangjing of the Jin). Beijing: Sanlian, 1991. ———. “Jin Shangjingcheng de guihua ji qita” 金 上京城的規劃及其他 (The plan of Jin Shangjing and related matters). Beifang luncong 北方論叢 6 (1979): 62-67. ———. “Liao-Jin shidai de huozangmu” 遼金時代 的火葬墓 (Liao-Jin cremation burials). Dongbei kaogu yu lishi 1 (1982): 104–15. ———. “Suibin Yongsheng de Jindai pingminmu” 綏濱永生的金代平民墓 (Commoner tombs of the Jin period at Yongsheng, Suibin). Wenwu, no. 4 (1977): 50–55, 62. Jing, Anning 景安寧. “Buddhist-Daoist Struggle and a Pair of ‘Daoist’ Murals.” Bulletin of the

Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities 66 (1994): 119–57. ———. Daojiao Quanzhenpai gongguan, zaoxiang yu zushi 道教全真派宫觀, 造像與祖師 (Monasteries, sculpture, and masters of Quanzhen-sect Daoism). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2012. ———. “Financial and Material Aspects of Tibetan Art under the Yuan Dynasty.” Artibus Asiae 64, 2 (2004): 213–41. ———. “The Longshan Daoist Caves.” Artibus Asiae 68, 1 (2008): 7–56. ———. “The Portraits of Khubilai Khan and Chabi by Anige (1245–1306), a Nepali at the Yuan Court.” Artibus Asiae 54, 1–2 (1994): 40–86. ———. The Water God’s Temple of the Guangsheng Monastery: Cosmic Function of Art, Ritual and Theater. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ———. “The Yuan Buddhist Mural of the Paradise of Bhaisajyaguru.’’ Metropolitan Museum Journal 26 (1991): 147–66. ———. Yuandai bihua: shenxian fuhuitu 元代壁画: 神 仙赴會圖 (Yuan wall painting: pictures of immortals attending meetings). Beijing: Beijing Daxue chubanshe, 2016. Jiu Guanwu 酒冠五. “Shanxi Zhongtiaoshannan Wulongmiao” 山西中條山南五龍廟 (Five Dragons Temple south of the Zhongtiao Mountains in Shanxi). Wenwu cankao ziliao, no. 11 (1959): 43–44. Jones, Lindsey, ed. Encyclopdeia of Religion. 2d ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2005. Jōo, Fumiko. “The Literary Imagination of the White Pagoda and Dynastic Change in Early Ming Hangzhou.” Frontiers of Literary Studies in China 9, 1 (1015): 54–55. https://doi.org/10.3868/ s010-004-015-0003-0. Jubber, Nicholas. The Prester Quest. New York: Doubleday, 2005. Junhanen, Juha. Manchuria: An Ethnic History. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, 1996. Juvaini, ‘Ala’ al-Din, J. A. Boyle, and M. M. Qazvini. Genghis Khan: The History of the World Conqueror. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997. Kadoi, Yuka. “Buddhism in Iran under the Mongols: An Art Historical Analysis.” Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the European Society for Central Asian Studies, ed. Tomasz Gacek and Jadeiga Pstrusinska, 171–80. Newcastle on Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009. ———. Islamic Chinoiserie. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, 2016.

280

Kaesŏng Koryŏ kongsŏng (Koryŏ imperial palace in Kaesŏng). Taejŏn: Kungnip Munhwajae Yŏn’guso, 2009. Kafarov (Palladij). “Istoricheskiy ocherk Ussuriiskogo kraia v svaizi s istoriey Manchzhurii (Historical essay about the Ussuriysk region in the context of Manchurian history). In Zapiski Imperatorskogo Russkogo Geograficheskogo Obshchestva (Notes of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society) 8, 2 (1879): 221–28. Kamola, Stefan. Making Mongol History: Rashid al-Din and the Jami’ al-Tawarikh. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019. Kane, David. The Chinese Language: Its History and Current Usage. Singapore: Tuttle, 2006. ———. The Sino-Jurchen Vocabulary of the Bureau of Interpreters. Bloomington: Indiana University Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1989. Kates, George. “A New Date for the Forbidden City.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 19 (1956): 180–202. Katō Shinpei 加藤 晋平 and Shiraishi Noriyuki 白 石 典之, eds. Auraga iseki: Jingisukan kyūdenshi hakkutsu chōsahōkokusho ヂンギス-カン宮殿址 発掘調査報告書 (Avraga remains: excavation report on the site of the palace of Chinggis Khan) 1. Tokyo: Doseisha, 2005. ———. Avraga 1: Occasional Paper on the Excavations of the Palace of Genghis Khan. Tokyo: Doseisha, 2005. Katz, Paul R. Images of the Immortal: The Cult of Lu Dongbin at the Palace of Eternal Joy. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1999. Kazakevich, Vladimir A. Materialy Komissii po issledovaniju Mongol’skoj i Tannu-Tuvinskoj narodnyh respublik i Burjat-Mongol’skoj ASSR. (Materials of the Commission for the Study of the Mongolian and Tannu-Tuvan People’s Republics and the Buryat-Mongolian ASSR). 15 vols. Leningrad: Academy of Sciences, 1929. ———. Namogil’nye statui v Darigange (Tomb statues in Daringang). Leningrad: Academy of Sciences, 1930. Ke Shaomin 柯紹忞 (1850–1933). Xin Yuanshi 新 元史 (New history of Yuan). 1922. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2018. Kessler, Adam. Song Blue and White Porcelain on the Silk Road. Boston: Brill, 2012. Kharinskii, Artur V. “Kosti Barana v Zabaikal‘skikh pogrebeniyakh X–XV vv” (Sheep bones in burials of A.D. 10th–15th centuries in Transbaikalia). Aktual’nye voprosy arheologii i jetnologii Central’noj Azii: Materialy

Bibliography

mezhdunar. nauch. konf (Current issues of archaeology and ethnology of Central Asia: conference proceedings), 407–15. Ulan-Ude, April 2015. ———. “Mongol’skie pogrebenija XIII–XIV vv. na territorii Bajkal’skogo regiona” (Mongolian graves of 13th–14th centuries AC in the Baikalian region). In Zhongguo Beifang ji Menggu, Baiga’er, Xibailiya diqu gudai wenhua (Ancient cultures of the northern regions, Mongolia, Baikalia, and Siberia), ed. Nei Menggu Bowuyuan and Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenhua Kaogu Yanjiusuo, vol. 2, 531–38. Beijing: Kexue Press, 2015. Kharinskii, A. V., M. Rykun, E. Kovychev, and N. Kradin, “Mongol’skij mogil’nik serediny XIII—nachala XV vv. Okoshki 1 v JugoVostochnom Zabajkal’e: konstruktivnye i antropologicheskie aspekty” (The Mongol cemetery of the mid-thirteenth to early fifteenth centuries, Okoshki 1 in Southeastern Transbaikalia: aspects of construction and anthropology). Genujezskaja Gazarija i Zolotaja Orda: Pamjati G. A. Fjodorova-Davydova (Genoese Gazaria and the Golden Horde: in memory of G. A. Fedorov-Davidov), ed. Sergei Bocharov and Ayrat Sitdikov, vol. 2, 69–106. Kazan: Kishinev, 2019. Kharinskii, A. V., T. U. Nomokonova, E. V. Kob’chev, and N. N. Kradin. “Ostanki zhivotnyh v mongol’skih zahoronenijah XIII–XIV vv. mogil’nika Okoshki I (JugoVostochnoe Zabajkal’e)” (Remains of animals in Mongolian Graves of 13th- to 14th-century burial site of Okoshki I [southeastern Transbaikalia]). In Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya, no. 2 (2014): 62–75. Kim, Lena. “Sino-Tibetan Influence on Goryeo Buddhist Art in Korea.” In Han-Zang Fojiao meishu yanjiu: Di sanjie Xizang kaogu yu yishu guoji xueshu taolunhui wenji (Research on SinoTibetan Buddhist art: proceedings from the third international conference on archaeology and art of Tibetan Buddhism), ed. Xie Xusheng, Luo Wenhua, and Jing Anning, 281–91. Shanghai: Shanghui guji chubanshe, 2009. Kiselev, Sergey V. Drevnemongol’skie goroda (Old Mongolian cities). Moscow: Nauka, 1965. ———. “Drevnie goroda Zabaikalia” (Ancient cities of Zabaikalia). Sovetskaia arkheologiia (Soviet archaeology), no. 4 (1958): 107–19. ———. “Gorod mongol’skogo Isunke na r. Khirkhira v Zabaykal’e” (Town of Yisügei of Mongolia on the Khirkhira River in

Zabakalia). Sovetskaia arkheologiia, no. 4 (1961): 103–27. ———. Gudai Menggu chengshi 古代蒙古城市 (Old cities of Mongolia), trans. Wei Sun. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2016. Kiselev, S. V., and Ruan Xihu 阮西湖. “S. V. Jixieliefu tongxun Yuanshi zai Beijing cuozuo de xueshu baogao” C.B.吉謝列夫通訊院士在 北京所作的學術報告 (Academic report of Academician S. V. Kiselev in Beijing). Kaogu, no. 2 (1960): 50. Kleiss, Wolfram. “Bauten und Seidlungsplätze in der Umgebunb von Soltaniyeh.” Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran and Turan 29 (1997): 341–91. Knapp, Keith. Selfless Offspring: Filial Children and Social Order in Early Medieval China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2005. Knapp, Ronald. China’s Old Dwellings. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2000. ———. Chinese Bridges: Living Architecture from China’s Past. Singapore. Tuttle, 2017. ———. Chinese Houses: The Architectural Heritage of a Nation. Singapore: Tuttle, 2012. Koehler, Karen, and Jeffrey Saletnik, eds. “Translation and Architecture.” Art in Translation 10, 1 (March 2018): 1–142. https:// arthist.net/archive/17623. Kögel, Eduard. The Grand Documentation: Ernst Boerschmann and Chinese Religious Architecture (1906–1931). Berlin: DeGruyter, 2015. Kohn, Livia. Daoism Handbook. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ———. “A Home for the Immortals: The Layout and Development of Medieval Daoist Monasteries.” Acta Orientalia Academie Scientiarum Hungaricae 53, 1–2 (2000): 79–106. ———. “Monastic Rules in Quanzhen Daoism: As Collected by Heinrich Hackmann.” Monumenta Serica 51 (2003): 367–97. Komai Kazuchika 駒井 和愛. “Gen no Jōtō jōshi chōsa” 元の上都城址調査 (Excavated city remains of Yuan Shangdu). Kōkogaku zasshi 27, 9 (1937): 80–81. ———. “Gen no Jōtō narabini Daito no heimen ni tsuite” 元の上都並びに大都の平面について (Yuan Shangdu as it concerns the plan of Daidu). Tōa ronsō 3 (1940): 129–40. ———. “Man-Mo lüxing tan” 滿蒙旅行談 (On travel in Manchuria and Mongolia). Tōhō bunka 2. Komaroff, Linda. Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Komaroff, Linda, and Stefano Carboni. The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and

281

Culture in Western Asia, 1259–1353. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2002. Kozlov, Petr Kuz’mich. Mongolii︠a︡ i Amdo i mertvyĭ gorod Khara-Khoto. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel·stvo, 1923. Kradin, Nikolay N. “Far-Eastern Gardariki: Urban Archaeology of Heritage of Jurchen Empire in Primorye Region of Russia.” Boundaries of Medieval Studies and Limitless Middle Ages 11, 97 (2020): 1–20. ———. Goroda srednevekov’kh imperii dal’nego vostoka (Cities of medieval empires of East Asia). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Vostochnoii Literaturi, 2018. ———. “Heritage of Mongols: The Story of a Russian Orthodox Church in Transbailakia.” International Journal of Historical Archaeology 23, 2 (2019): 430–43. ———. “Who Was the Builder of Mongol Towns in Transbaikalia?” Zolotoord’skoe obozrenie/ Golden Horde Review 6, 2 (2018): 224–37. Kradin, N. N., S. E. Baksheeva, O. V. Bondarenko, E. V. Kovychev, and A. V. Kharinskiy. “Ispolizovanie dereva v stroitel’cte sprenevekov’kh gorodob u Mongolov v vostochnom Zabaiikal’e (XIII–XIV vv)” (Evidence of wooden material utilization in construction of medieval Mongolian towns in eastern Transbaikal, 13th–14th centuries). Povolzhskaya Arkheologiya 36, 2 (2021): 65–78. Kradin, N. N., S. E. Baksheeva, E. V. Kovychev, and A. V. Kharinskiy. “Usad’ba Alestoi Mongol’skovo vremeni v Zabaikalie.” In Fyodorov-Davydov VII Memorial Conference, 2016, 45–48. Kradin, Nikolay N., and Alexander Ivliev. “Deported Nation: The Fate of the Bohai People of Mongolia.” Antiquity 82, no. 316 (2008): 438–45. Kubota Kazuo 久保田和男. “Jinchao zi Shangjing Huiningfu zhi Zhongdu Daxingfu de qiandu jiqi duchengkongjian de bianhua” 金朝自上 京會寧府至中都大興府的遷都及其都城空間的變

化 (Movement of the capital and transformation of city space from Shangjing Huiningfu to Zhongjing Daxingfu in the Jin dynasty). In Shiliao yu changyu: Liao Song Jin Yuanshi de wenxian tuozhan yu kongjian tiyan, 17–42. Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 2021. ———, ed. Shiliao yu changyu: Liao Song Jin Yuanshi de wenxian tuozhan yu kongjian tiyan 史料與場域：遼宋金元史的文獻拓展與空間體驗

(Documents and territory: developing documents and experiencing space in Liao, Song, Jin, and Yuan history). Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 2021.

Bibliography

Kuznetsov, Alexey K. Razvaliny Kondujskogo gorodka i ego okrestnosti (The ruins of the town of Kondui and its surroundings). Vladivostok: Knizhnoe delo, 1925. Lai Tianbing 賴天兵. “Feilaifeng guojingli zaoxiang tiji ji xiangguande Yuandai shijiao du zongtongsuo,” 飛來峰郭經歷造像題記及相關的 元代釋教都總統所 (Inscriptions on the walls of Feilaifeng and related Yuan images). Wenwu shijie 文物世界 1 (2008): 29–33, 40. ———. Han-Zang guibao: Hangzhou Feilaifeng zaoxiang yanjiu 漢藏瑰寶: 杭州飛來峰造像研究 (Sino-Tibetan treasures: Research on imagery at Feilaifeng in Hangzhou). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2015. ———. “Yuandai Hangzhou Yongfusi Puningcang feihua yu Yang Lianzhenjia jiqi xiaoxiang” 元代杭州永福寺普寧藏扉畫與楊璉真伽及其肖像

(On the painting collection at Yuan Yongfu Monastery in Hangzhou and portraits of Yang Lianzhenjia). Zhongguo zangxue, no. 1 (2012): 164–71. Lai, T’ien-ch’ang. The Eight Immortals. Kowloon, Hong Kong: Swindon, 1972. Lane, George. “An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj and His Relations with the Mongols of Persia.” Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 2, 2 (2010): 209–23. ———. Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2008. ———. The Mongols in Iran. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2018. Langlois, John D., Jr., ed. China under Mongol Rule. Princeon, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981. ———.“Yu Chi and His Mongol Sovereign: The Scholar as Apologist.” Journal of Asian Studies 38 (1978): 99–116. Lao Bomin 勞伯敏. “Feilaifeng Yang Lianzhenjia zaoxiang Mingdai zaozhan ‘shuo tanyi’ ” 飛來 峰楊璉真伽造像明代遭斬“說探疑” (An image of Yang Lianzhenjia said to be from the early Ming at Feilaifeng). Dongnan wenhua, no. 1 (1995): 76–81. ———. “Guanyu Feilaifeng zaoxiang ruogan wenti de tantao” 關於飛來峰造像若干問題的探 討 (Discussion of questions about images at Feilaifeng). Wenwu, no. 1 (1986): 62–69. Ledderose, Lothar. Ten Thousand Things: Module and Mass Production in Chinese Art. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. Leder, H. “Reise an den oberen Orchon und zu den Ruinen von Karakorum.” Mitteilungen der Kaiserlich und königlichen geographischen Gesellschaft Wien 37 (1894): 407–36.

Lee, Beun-jik. “The Development of Royal Tombs in Silla.” International Journal of Korean History 14 (2009): 91–124. Lee, Ki-baik. A New History of Korea, trans. Edward Wagner. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. Lehner, Erich, Alexandra Harrer, and Hildegard Sint. Along the Great Wall: Architecture and Identity in China and Mongolia. Vienna: IVAICRA, 2010. Leisten, Thomas. “Between Orthodoxy and Exegesis: Some Aspects of Attitudes in the Shari’a toward Funerary Architecture.” Muqarnas 7 (1990): 12–22. Lenain, Géraldine. Monsieur Loo, le roman d’un marchand d’art asiatique. Arles, Fr.: Éditions Philippe Picquier, 2015. Li Dehua 李德華. “Bei Song Dongjing Da Xiangguosi Sanmenge yu Xianshengge fuyuan tansuo” 北宋東京大相國寺三門閣與資聖 閣復原探討 (A hypothetical reconstruction of the third gate and Zisheng Pavilion at Great Xiangguo Monastery in the Northern Song eastern capital). Zhongguo jianzhu lilun jikan 9 (2014): 171–96. Li Di 李迪. Guo Shoujing 郭守敬 (Biography of Guo Shoujing). Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin chubanshe, 1966. Li Di and Lu Sixian 陸思賢. “Yuan Shangdu Tianwentai yu Alabo tianwenxue zhi chuanru Zhongguo” 元上都天文台與阿拉伯天文學之傳 入中國 (The Yuan Platform for Observing the Heavens in Shangdu and the transmission of Arab astronomy to China). Nei Menggu Minzu shiyuan xuebao (Ziran Kexue ban) 1 (1981): 80–89. Li Dou 李斗 (fl. 1764–1795). Yangzhou huafanglu 揚州畫舫錄 (Record of a painted barge in Yangzhou). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1960. Li Haowen 李好文. 1321. Chang’anzhi tu 長安志 圖 (Illustrated record of Chang’an). Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1983. Li Hua 李華. “Yuan Dadu bei tucheng huayuanluduan chengchiang kantan ji shuiguan yizhi qingli baogao.” 元大都北土城花園路段城牆勘探 及水關遺址清理簡報 (Brief excavation report on earthen wall, gardens, and street segments of Yuan Daidu uncovered north of Beijing). Beijing kaogu 北京考古1 (2008): 179–183. Li Jiancai 李健才. “Jindai Nüzhen muzang de yanbian” 金代女真墓葬的演變 (Changes in Jurchen burial under the Jin). In Chen Shu, ed. Liao-Jin shi lunji 遼金史論集, vol. 4, (1989): 339–49.

282

Li Jie 李傑. “Cong Zhou Boqi ‘Hucongshi qianhouxu’ kan Yuandai huangdi liangdu xunxing” 從周伯琦《扈從詩前後序》看元代皇帝 兩都巡幸 (Looking at imperial progressions between the two Yuan capitals through Zhou Boqi’s retinu poetry). Shaoguan Xueyuan xuebao: shehui kexue 韶關學院學报:社會科學 31, 11 (2010): 9–13. Li Jie 李誡 (Northern Song). Yingzao fashi 營造法 式 (Building standards). 1103, reissued 1145. 2 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2006. Li Jing 李菁 et al. Guangdong Hainan gujianzhu ditu 廣東海南古建築地圖 (Maps of the architectural history of Guangdong and Hainan). Beijing: Tsinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2015. Li Junxia 李軍霞. “Xuchang dengdi chutude Mingdai siheyuanshi taoyuanluo muoxing” 許 昌等地出土的明代四合 院式陶院落模型

(Ming pottery models of courtyard-style architecture excavated in Xuchang and other regions). Huaxia kaogu, no. 3 (2020): 104–10. Li Lian 李濂 (1488–1566). Bianjing yijizhi 汴京遺蹟 志 (Record of remains of Bianjing). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1999. Li Ling 李翎. “Shaanxi Heyang Jindai Liangshan Qianfodong kaocha baogao” 陝西郃陽金代 梁山千佛洞考查報告 (Investigative report on Buddhist cave-temples of the Jin dynasty at Liangshan, Heyang, Shaanxi). In A’erzhai shiku guoji xueshu yantaohui, ed. Ji Siqin, 143–45. Höhhot: Nei Menggu Renmin chubanshe, 2008. Li Qianlang 李乾朗. “Beijing Miaoyingsi baita” 北京妙應寺白塔 (White Pagoda of Miaoying Monastery in Beijing). Zijincheng 10 (2009): 66–71. Li Qibin. “Beijing Astronomical Observatory in the Yuan Dynasty.” In Oriental Astronomy from Guo Shoujing to King Sejong, ed. Il-sŏng Na and F. R. Stephenson, 63–70. Seoul: Yonsei University Press, 1997. Li Qinyuan 李沁園. “Shanxi Hongdong Guangsheng Xiasi Shuishenmiao cehuitu” 山 西洪洞廣勝下寺水神廟測繪圖 (Revised plans of Guangsheng Lower Monastery in Hongdong, Shanxi). Zhongguo jianzhu shilun huikan 12 (2015): 407–16. ———. “Shanxi Hongdong Guangsheng Xiasi Shuishenmiao cehuitu” 山西洪洞廣勝下寺水神廟 測繪圖 (Revised plans of Guangsheng Lower Monastery in Hongdong, Shanxi). Zhongguo jianzhu shilun huikan 11 (2015): 477–87. Li Ronghe 李榮和 and Liu Zhonglin 劉鍾麟. Yongjixian zhi 永濟縣志 (Record of Yongji county). 1886.

Bibliography

Li Tang. “Rediscovering the Ongut King George: Remarks on a Newly Excavated Archaeological Site.” In From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, ed. Li Tang and Dietmar Winkler, 255–66. Vienna: LIT, 2013. Li Tianyin 李天垠. Yuandai gongting zhi lü: Yanzhe huajia Zhu Derun de zuji 元代宮廷之旅: 沿着 畫家朱德潤 的足跡 (Traveling through Yuan dynasty palaces: on the tracks of the painter Zhu Derun). Beijing: Gugong chubanshe, 2015. Li Xiulian 李秀蓮. “Manhua Jinchao diyidu— Shangjing huiningfu” 漫話金朝第一都—上京 會寧府 (Manchuria’s first city: Shangjing at Huiningfu). Zijincheng 紫禁城 , no. 10 (2008): 48–55. Li Yixuan 李一萱 and Zhang Gang 張剛. “Bazhoushi Renshuicun Yuandai muqun qingli jianbao” 霸州市任水村元代墓群清理簡報 (Brief report on uncovering the Yuan tomb group in Renshui village, Bazhou). Wenwu chunqiu, no. 3 (2015): 47–52. Li Yiyou 李逸友. Beifang kaogu yanjiu 北方考古研究 (Research on archaeology of the North). Vol. 1. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1994. ———. “Liao Yelü Congmu shike ji shendao beiming” 遼耶律琮墓石刻及神道碑銘 (Stele and inscriptions along the spirit path and stone carvings at the Liao tomb of Yelü Cong). Dongbei kaogu yu lishi 東北考古與歷史1 (1982): 174–83. ———. “Liaodai Qidanren muzang zhidu gaishuo” 遼代契丹人墓葬制度概說 (Introductory remarks on the burial system of Khitan in the Liao period). In Nei Menggu Dongbuqu kaoguxue wenhua yanjiu wenji 内蒙古東部區考古學文化硏 究文集 (Research essays on archaeology and culture of Northeastern Inner Mongolia), 80–102. Beijing: Haiyang chubanshe, 1991. ———. “Luelun Liaodai Qidan yu Hanren muzang de tezheng he fenxi” 略論遼代契丹與 漢人墓葬的特徵和分析 (Special features and analysis of Khitan versus Han burials in the Liao period). In Zhongguo kaogu xuehui diliuci nianhui lunwejij 中國考古學會第六次年會 論文集 , 187–95. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1987). ———. “Nei Menggu Yuandai chengzhi gaishuo” 內蒙古元代城址概說 (General comments on Yuan city remains in Inner Mongolia). Nei Mengu Wenwu Kaogu (1986): 87–107. ———. “Nei Menggu Yuandai chengzhi suojian chengshi zhidu” 內蒙古元代城址所見城市制

度 (The urban system seen in Yuan cities in

Inner Mongolia). In Zhongguo kaogu xuehui diwuci nianhui lunwenji 中國考古學會第五次年 會論文集 , 143–52. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1985. ———. “Tan Yuan Jininglu yizhi chutu de sizhiwu” 談元集寧路遺址出土的絲織物 (On pieces of silk excavated at Yuan Jininglu). Wenwu, no. 8 (1979): 37–39. ———. “Yuan Yingchanglu gucheng diaochaji” 元 應昌路故城調查記 (Excavation report on the old city Yingchanglu). Kaogu, no. 10 (1961): 531–33, 554. Li Yiyou and Wei Jian 魏堅, eds. Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji 内蒙古文物考古文集 (Collected essays on Inner Mongolian cultural relics and archaeology). Vol. 1. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 1994. Li Yuanyang 李元陽 (Ming). Yunnan tongzhi 雲南通 志 (Yunnan gazetteer). Li Yumin 李玉民. “Hejin Taitoumiao Yuandai jianzhu tezheng” 河津台頭廟元代建築特徵 (Special characteristics of Yuan architecture at Taitoumiao in Hejin). In Shanxi wenwu jianzhu baohu yanjiu wenji 山西文物建築保護 研究文集, ed. Shanxisheng Gujianzhu Baohu Yanjiusuo 山西省古建築保護研究所, 343–49. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2011. Li Yuming 李玉明 et al. Shanxi gujianzhu tonglan 山西古建築通覽 (Panorama of ancient architecture in Shanxi). Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1986. Li Yuqun 李裕群. “Jinyang Xishan da Fo he Tongzisi da Fo de chubu kaocha” 晉陽西山大 佛和童子寺大佛的初步考察 (Preliminary investigation of the big Buddha in Xishan and the big Buddha of Tongzi Monastery in Jinyang). Wenwu jikan, no. 1 (1998): 14–28. ———. “Taiyuan Gugudong yu Wayaocun shiku diaocha baogao” 太原姑姑洞與瓦窯村石窟調查報 告 (Excavation report on the Gugu caves and rock-carved caves in Wayao village, Taiyuan). Wenwu jikan, no. 3 (1995): 47–61. Li Zaiqing 李在青 and Hao Yuexian 郝月仙. “Taiyuan Gangyu Yuandai bihua banqian baohu” 太原剛玉元代壁畫搬遷保護 (Movement and preservation of a Yuan tomb with murals in Gangyu, Taiyuan). Wenwu shijie, no. 5 (2016): 64–70. Li Zhiyan, Virginia Bower, and He Li, eds. Chinese Ceramics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press and Beijing: Foreign Language Press, 2010.

283

Liang Jianzhang 梁建章 and Song Zheyuan 宋哲 元 . Chaha’er tongzhi 察哈爾通志 (Gazetteer of Chahar). Taibei: Wenhai chubanshe, 1966. Liang Qixiong 梁啟雄 and Zhu Qiqian 朱啟鈐. “Zhejianglu” 哲匠錄 (Records of artisans). Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 3, 1 (1932): 123–61; 3, 2 (1932): 126–59; 3, 3 (1932): 91–120; 3, 4 (1933), 82–115; 4, 2 (1933), 60–85; 4, 3–4 (1934): 219–57; 5, 2 (1935), 75–105. Liang Sicheng 梁思成. “Jixian Dulesi Guanyinge Shanmen kao” 薊縣獨樂寺觀音閣山門考 (Research on Guanyin Pavilion and the Shanmen of Dule Monastery in Ji county). In Liang Sicheng quanji, vol. 1, 161–223. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2001. ———. Liang Sicheng quanji 梁思成全集 (Complete writings of Liang Sicheng). 9 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2001. Liang Sicheng and Liu Dunzhen 劉敦楨. “Datong gujianzhu diaocha baogao” 大同古建築調查報 告 (Report on the investigation of old architecture in Datong. Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 4, 3–4 (1934): 1–168. Liang Ssu-ch’eng. Chinese Architecture: A Pictorial History. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984. Liang Yong 梁勇. Xi Han Chuwang yu Chuwangmu 西漢楚王與楚王墓 (Kings of Chü and kings of Chü tombs of Western Han). Nanjing: Hehai Daxue chubanshe, 2016. Liao Ben 廖奔. Song-Yuan xiju wenwu yu minsu 宋元戲曲文物與民俗 (Cultural relics and folk customs of Song-Yuan stages). Beijing: Zhongguo xiju chubanshe, 2016. ———. “Song-Yuan xitai yizhi—Zhongguo gudai juchang wenwu yanjiu zhi yi” 宋元戲台遺跡— 中國古代劇場文物研究之一 (Remains of SongYuan stages: the first of articles on ancient Chinese relics of stages). Wenwu, no. 7 (1989): 82–95. ———. Zhongguo gudai juchangshi 中國古代劇場史 (History of old Chinese stages). Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1997. ———. Zhongguo xiju tushi 中國戲劇圖史 (Illustrated history of Chinese stages). Zhengzhou: Henan jiaoyu chubanshe, 1996. Liao-Jin shi lunji 宋遼金元史論集 (Essays on Liao and Jin history). 17 vols. Various publishers, 1987–2019. Liao Pin and Hou Bo. The Yongle Palace Murals. Beijing: Foreign Language Press, 1997. Liao Zhongjing Fajue Weiyuanhui 遼中京發掘 委員會. “Liao Zhongjing chengzhi fajue de zhongyao shouhuo” 遼 中京城址發掘的重 要收穫 (Important results of excavations at Liao Zhongjing). Wenwu, no. 9 (1961): 34–40.

Bibliography

Liaoningsheng Bowuguan 遼寧省博物館 and Lingyuanxian Wenhuaguan 凌源縣文化館. “Lingyuan Fujiadun Yuanmu” 凌源富家屯元 墓 (A Yuan tomb in Fujiadun, Lingyuan). Wenwu, no. 6 (1985): 55–64. Liaoningsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 遼寧 省文物考古研究所 and Chaoyangshi Beita Bowuguan 朝陽市北塔博物館. Chaoyang Beita: Kaogu fajue yu weixiu gongcheng baogao 朝陽北 塔: 考古發掘與維修工程報告 (Chaoyang North Pagoda: report on archaeological excavation and preservation work). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Lieu, Samuel. “Christian and Manichaean Remains.” In From Palmyra to Zayton: Epigraphy and Iconography, ed. Iain Gardner, Samuel Lieu, and Ken Parry, 189–206. Türnhout: Brepols, 2005 Lieu, Samuel, et al. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1985. ———. “Manichaean Art and Architecture along the Silk Road.” In Art, Architecture and Religion Along the Silk Roads, ed. Ken Parry, 79–101. Türnhout: Brepols, 2008. ———. Medieval Christian and Manichaean Remains from Quanzhou (Zayton), Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum Series Archaeologica et Iconographica. Türnhot: Brepols, 2012. Lin Huiyin 林徽因 and Liang Sicheng. “Jin Fenyang gujianzhu yucha jilüe” 晉汾陽古建 築預查紀略 (Preliminary investigation of old architecture along the Fen River in southern Shanxi). Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 5, 3 (1935): 12–65. Lin Meicun 林梅村. “Riyueguang tiande, Shanhezhuang dizhu: Yuan Dadu Zhong zhouxian guji diaocha” 日月光天德, 山河壯帝 居：元大都中軸線古跡調查 (Virtue of sun and moon, emperor’s residence magnified by mountains and rivers: Excavation of remains along the central axis of Beijing). Wenwu, no. 5 (2021): 56–71. Lin Wushu 林悟殊 . Monijiao ji qi dongjian 摩尼教及 其東漸 (Manichaeism and its eastward flow). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1987. Lin Xin 林欣 and Wang Xiaojing 王小靜. Feilaifeng 飛來峰. Beijing: Tsinghua Daxue, 2018. Lin Xiuzhen 林秀貞. “Dongbei diqu Jindai chengshi de leixing” 東北地區金代城市的類型. In “Zhongguo Kaoguxue Yanjiu” Bianweihui, Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu, 301–8. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986 Lin Yuan 林源. “Shanxi Wuxiang Huixianguan” 山西武鄉會仙觀 (Huixian Daoist Monastery

in Wuxiang, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 9 (2013): 89–96. Lin Zhande 林占德. “Hulunbei’er kaogu erze” 呼倫貝爾考古二則 (Excavation of Hulunbei’er: two places). Nei Menggu shehui kexue (Hanwenban) (Inner Mongolia Social Sciences series [in Chinese]) 122, 4 (2000): 58–62. Lin, Wei-cheng. “Underground Wooden Architecture in Brick: A Changed Perspective from Life to Death in 10th through 13th Century China.” Archives of Asian Art 61 (2011): 3–36. Lin Zhiqi 林之奇 (1112–1176). Zhuozhai wenji 拙齋文集 (Collected Essays from a Clumsy Studio). Qing facsimile. Shanghai Library 上海圖書館藏清影抄南宋刻本, juan 15/ 10b–11a. Linrothe, Rob. “The Commissioner’s Commissions: Late Thirteenth Century Tibetan and Chinese Buddhist Art in Hangzhou Under the Mongols.” In Buddhism Between China and Tibet, ed. Matthew Kapstein, 73–96. Boston: Wisdom Books, 2009. Lipman, Jonathan. Familiar Strangers: A History of Muslims in Northwest China. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997. Lippe, Aschwin. “Buddha and the Holy Multitude.” Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin. New series, 23, 9 (1965): 325–35. Lippit, Yukio. “Goryeo Buddhist Painting in an Interregional Context.” Ars Orientalis 35 (2008): 192–232. Liu Chang, et al. Fujian gujianzhu ditu 福建古建 築地圖 (Maps and illustrations of old architecture in Fujian). Beijing: Tsinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2015. Liu Changhai 劉長海. “Dong Xiaguo Beijing weizhi de zaitantao” 東夏國北京位置的再探 討 (Further discussion of the location of the northern capital of the Dongxia kingdom). Liaohai wenwu xuekan, no. 1 (1997): 65–70. Liu Dunzhen. “Beijing Huguosi canji” 北京護 國寺殘跡 (Remains of Huguo Monastery in Beijing). Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 6, no. 2 (1935): 2–31. ———. Chinese Classical Gardens of Suzhou, trans. Chen Lixian. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993. ———. “Hebeisheng xibu gujianzhu diaocha jilüe” 河北省西部古建築調查記略 (Notes on the investigation of old architecture in western Hebei). Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 5, 4 (1935), 1–55; reprinted in Liu Dunzhen quanji, vol. 2, 261–300. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2007.

284

———. “Henan gujianzhu diaocha biji” 河南古建築 調查筆記 (Diary of investigation of old buildings in Henan). In Liu Dunzhen quanji, vol. 2, 134–73. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2007. ———. “Henansheng beibu gujianzhu diaochaji” 河南省北部古建築調查記 (Notes on investigation of old buildings in northern Henan). In Liu Dunzhen quanji, vol. 2, 43–112. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2007. ———. Liu Dunzhen quanji (Comprehensive essays of Liu Dunzhen). 10 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2007. ———. “Zhenrusi zhengdian” 真如寺正殿 (The main hall of Zhenru Monastery). Wenwu, no. 8 (1951): 91–97. ———. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中國古代建築史 (History of premodern Chinese architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1984. Liu Fengwen 劉奉文. “‘Daoyuan xuegulu’ chengshu ji Yuan-Ming keben kao” 道園學古 錄”成書及元明刻本考 (On editions and YuanMing printings of “Daoyuan xuegulu”). Guji zhengli yanjiu xuekan, no. 4 (2015): 54–59. Liu, G.C.S. “Peri-urbanism in globalizing China: A study of new urbanism in Dongguan.” Eurasian Geography and Economics, 47, 1 (2006): 28–53. Liu Haiwen 劉海文. Xuanhua Xiabali II-qu Liao bihuamu kaogu fajue baogao 宣化下八里 II-區遼 壁畫墓發掘報告 (Excavation report on Liao tombs with murals in area II of Xiabali in Xuanhua). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008. Liu Heping. “The Water Mill and Northern Song Imperial Patronage of Art, Commerce, and Science.” Art Bulletin 84, 4 (2002): 566–95. Liu Jiang 劉江 . “Lun Taiyuan Longshan Daojiao shiku kaizao” 論太原龍山道教石窟開鑿 (On the opening of the Daoist Longshan caves in Taiyuan). Wenwu shijie, no. 2 (2012): 35–40. Liu Lin’an 劉臨安. “Hancheng Yuandai mugou jianzhu fenxi” 韓城元代木構建築分析 (Analysis of Yuan timber-frame architecture in Hancheng). In Zhonghua gujianzhu (Old Chinese architecture), ed. Zhang Yuhuan and Guo Husheng, 280–94. Beijing: Zhongguo kexue jushu chubanshe, 1990. ———. “Zhongguo gudai jianzhu de zongxiang goujia” 中國古代建築的縱向構架 (The vertical timber frame of premodern Chinese architecture). Wenwu, no. 6 (1997): 68–73. Liu Minzhong 留敏中 (1243–1318). Zhonganji 中 俺集 (Record from the Middle Hermitage). Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1983), juan 14.

Bibliography

Liu Nianzi 劉念兹. Xiqu wenwu congkao 戲曲文物叢 考 (Compendium of cultural relics of drama). Beijing: Zhongguo xiju chubanshe, 1986. Liu Qingyi 劉精義 and Zhang Xuande 張先得. “Beijingshi Tongxian Jindai muzang fajue jianbao” 北京市通縣金代墓葬發掘簡報 (Brief report on Jin period burial in Tongxian, Beijing). Wenwu, no. 11 (1977): 9–14. Liu Shanyi 劉善沂. “Ji’nan Chaiyoujizhuang Yuandai zhuandiao bihua mu” 濟南柴油機廠元 代磚雕壁畫墓 (A Yuan tomb with relief sculpture, and murals in Zhaiyoujizhuang, Ji’nan), Wenwu, no. 2 (1992): 17–23. Liu Shanyi and Sun Liang 孫亮. “Ji’nan jinnian faxian de Yuandai zhuandiao bihua mu” 濟 南近年發現的元代磚雕壁畫墓 (Yuan tombs with relief sculpture and murals excavated in Ji’nan in recent years). Wenwu no. 2 (1992): 1–16. Liu Shanyi and Wang Huiming 王惠明. “Ji’ nanshi Lichengqu Song-Yuan bihuamu” 濟南市歷城區 宋元壁畫墓 (Song-Yuan tombs with murals in Licheng district, Ji’nan), Wenwu, no. 11 (2005): 52–71. Liu Shijun 劉師峻. Quyangxian xinzhi 曲陽縣新志 (New record of Quyang prefecture). 1672. Liu Ximin 劉喜民. Liao Shangjing Qidan jiyi Balinzuoqi dang’an guancang Liao Shangjing Qidan yiji he Liaodai chutu wenwu zhaopian jijin 遼上京契丹記憶 : 巴林左旗檔案館藏遼上京契丹 遺跡和遼代出土文物照片集錦 (Records of the

Khitan at Liao Shangjing: Khitan remains of Liao Shangjing in the museum and pictures of excavated objects). Höhhot: Yuanfang chubanshe, 2014. Liu Xixiang 劉習祥 and Xinjiang Diqu Bowuguan 新疆地區博物館. “Henan Bo’aixian faxian Yuandai jianzhu: Tangdidian” 河南博愛縣發現 元代建築——湯帝殿 (A Yuan building found in Bo’ai county, Henan: Tangdi Hall). Wenwu, no. 8 (1980): 93–96. Liu Xujie 劉敘杰 and Qi Deyao 戚德耀. “Jiangsu Wuxian Jijiansi Yuandai shidianwu” 江蘇吳縣 寂鑒寺元代石殿屋 (A stone structure from the Yuan dynasty at Jijian Monastery in Wu county, Jiangsu). Kejishi wenji 1 (1979): 44–47. Liu Yongsheng 劉永生 and Shang Tongliu 商彤 流 . “Fenyang Beiyuyuan Wuyuemiao diaocha jianbao” 汾陽北榆苑五嶽廟調查簡報 (Report on uncovering the Temple of the Five Peaks in Beiyuyuan, Fenyang). Wenwu, no. 12 (1991): 1–15. Liu Yongzeng 劉永增. “A’erzhai shiku di 31 ku Pishamentianwang yu Badayecha Manchaluo tuxiang jieshuo” 阿爾寨石窟第 31窟毗沙門天

王與八夜叉曼茶羅圖像 (An explanation of

Vaiśravana and the Badayecha Mandala in Arzhai cave 31). In A’erzhai shiku guoji xueshu yantaohui, ed. Ji Siqin, 73–80. Höhhot: Nei Menggu Renmin chubanshe, 2008. Liu Zhiping 劉致平. Zhongguo jianzhu leixing ji jiegou 中國建築類型及結構 (Chinese architecture typology and structure). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1957. ———. Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu 中國伊斯蘭教 建築 (Chinese Islamic architecture). Urumqi: Xinjiang Renmin chubanshe, 1985. Lkhagvasuren, G., H. Shin, D. Tumen, J-H Kim, K-Y Kim, et al., “Molecular Genealogy of a Mongol Queen’s Family and Her Possible Kinship with Genghis Khan.” 2016. Open access article PLOS ONE 11(9): e0161622. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161622. Loewe, Michael, ed. Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley, CA: Society for the Study of Early China and Institute of East Asian Studies, 1993. Lomas, David, Michael Corris, and John Dixon Hunt, eds. Art, Word and Image: 2000 Years of Visual/Textual Interaction. London: Reaktion, 2011. Lopatin, In. A. “Nekotorye svedeniya o 49 drevnikh urochischakh v Amurskoj strane.” Arkhiv IIMK RAN 1, 34 (1869). Lopez, Donald. Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2018. Lou Jianlong 樓建龍 and Wang Yimin 王益民. “Fujian Shunchang Baoshansi dadian” 福建 順昌寶山寺大殿 (The main hall of Baoshan Monastery in Shunchang, Fujian). Wenwu, no. 9 (2009): 65–72. Louis, François. “Iconic Ancestors: Wire Mesh, Metal Masks, and Kitan Image Worship.” Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 43 (2013): 71–109. ———. “Shaping Symbols of Privilege: Precious Metals and the Early Liao Aristocracy.” Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 44 (2014): 325–64. Lu Bingjie 路秉傑. “Cong Shanghai Zhenrusi dadian kan Riben Chanzongyang de yuan yuan” 從上海真如寺大殿看日本禪宗樣的淵源 (Origins of the Japanese Zen Buddhist style as seen in the main hall of Zhenru Monastery in Shanghai). Tongji Daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 7, no. 2 (1996): 7–13. ———, ed. Yisilanjiao jianzhu (Islamic architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2005.

285

Lu Bingjie and Zhang Guanglin 張廣林. Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu 伊斯蘭教建築 (Chinese Islamic Architecture). Shanghai: Sanlian shudian, 2005. Lu Hongnian 陸鴻年. Eirakukyū hekiga 永樂宫壁畫 (Yonglegong murals). Kyoto: Binobi, 1981. Lü Jiang 呂江 . “Tang-Song louge jianzhu yanjiu” 唐宋樓閣建築研究 (Research on multistory architecture in Tang and Song). Jianzhushi lunwenji 10 (1988): 22–56. Lu Sixian 陸思賢. “Guanyu Yuan Shangdu gongcheng beichiang zhongduan de queshi jianzhu taiqi” 關於元上都宮城北牆中段的闕式建 築台基 (A que-style architectural foundation at the central portion of the north wall of the Shangdu palace-city). In Yuan Shangdu yanjiu wenji, ed. Ye Xinmin and Chimeddorji, 73–79. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue chubanshe, 2003. Lu Xiuwen 盧秀文. Zhongguo shiku tuwenzhi 中 國石窟圖文志 (Illustrations and essays about Chinese rock-carved caves). 3 vols. Lanzhou: Dunhuang weyi chubanshe, 2002. Lu Yuyao 陸耀遹 (1771–1836). Hanchengxian xuzhi 韓城縣續志 (Records of Hancheng prefecture, continued). Beijing: Airusheng shuzihua jishu yanjiu zongxin, 2009. Luo Feng 羅豐. Hu Han zhi jian: ‘Sichou zhi lu’ yu xibei lishi kaogu 胡漢之間: ‘絲綢之路’ 與西北 歷史考古 (Between Barbarians and Han: The “Silk Roads” and history of the Northwest). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2004. Luo Ping 羅平 and Zheng Zhaozong 鄭紹宗. “Hebei Xinchengxian Beichangcun Jinshi Shi Li’ai he Shi Feng mu fajue ji” 河北新城縣北場村 金時立愛和時豐墓發掘記 (Excavation report on the Jin-period tombs of Shi Li’ai and Shi Feng in Beichang village, Xincheng county, Hebei). Kaogu, no. 12 (1962): 8, 646–50. Luo Zhewen 羅哲文. Luo Zhewen gujianzhu wenji 羅哲文古建築文集 (Collected essays on traditional Chinese architecture by Luo Zhewen). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1998. ———. Luo Zhewen lishi wenhua mingcheng yu gujianzhu baohu wenji 羅哲文歷史文化名城與古 建築保護文集 (Luo Zhewen on the historical culture of cities and historic preservation of architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2003. ———. Luo Zhewen wenji 羅哲文文集 (Collected essays of Luo Zhewen). Wuhan: Huazhong Keji Daxue chubanshe, 2010. ———. “Taiyuan Longshan, Menshan de jichu shiku he yanjiu” 太原龍山、蒙山的幾處石窟和 建築 (Rock-carved caves and architectural

Bibliography

groups in the Longshan and Mengshan ranges of Taiyuan). Wenwu, no. 4 (1956): 50–57. ———. Zhongguo gudai jianzhu 中國古代建築 (Premodern Chinese architecture). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2001. ———. Zhongguo guta 中國古塔 (Old Chinese pagodas). Beijing: Zhongguo qingnian chubanshe, 1985. ———. Zhonghua mingta daguan 中華名塔大觀 (Compendium of famous Chinese pagodas). Beijing: Jixie gongye chubanshe, 2008. Luo Zhewen, Liu Wenyuan 劉文淵, and Liu Chunying 劉春英. Zhongguo mingguan 中國 名觀 (Famous Chinese Daoist monasteries). Tianjin: Baihua wenyi, 2006. ———. Zhogguo minglou 中國名樓 (Famous Chinese towers). Tianjin: Baihua wenyi, 2007. ———. Zhogguo mingqiao 中國名橋 (Famous Chinese bridges). Tianjin: Baihua wenyi, 2006. Luo Zhewen and Yang Yongsheng 楊永生. Shichu de jianzhu失去的建築 (Lost architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1999. Luo Zongzhen 羅宗真. “Jiangsu Liuchao chengshi de kaogu tansuo” 江蘇六朝城市的考古探索 (Investigation of excavation of Six Dynasties cities in Jiangsu). Zhongguo Kaogu Xuehui Diwuci Nianhu lunwenji (Papers from the Fifth Chinese Archaeology Society Meeting). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1985. Luoyangshi Di’er Wenwu Gongzuodui 洛陽市第 二文物工作隊. “Luoyang Daobei Jindai zhuandiaomu” 洛陽道北金代磚雕墓 (A Jin tomb with brick relief in Daobei, Luoyang). Wenwu, no. 9 (2002): 21–29 ———. “Luoyang Yichuan Yuanmu fajue jianbao” 洛陽伊川元墓發掘簡報 (Report on a Yuan tomb excavated in Yichuan, Luoyang). Wenwu, no. 5 (1993): 40–45. Ma Dezhi 馬德志. “Xi’an Yuandai Anxiwangfu kanchaji” 西安元代安西王府勘查記 (Excavation report on the Yuan city Anxiwangfu in Xi’an). Kaogu, no. 5 (1960): 20–23. Ma Haiyun. “The Mythology of Prophet’s Ambassadors in China: Histories of Sa’d Waqqas and Gess in Chinese Sources.” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs 26 (2006): 445–52. Ma Xiao 馬曉. “Sichuan Meishan Bao’ensi Yuandai dadian” 四川眉山報恩寺元代大殿 (The main hall of Bao’en Monastery in Meishan, Sichuan, from the Yuan dynasty). Wenwu, no. 7 (2018), 84. ———. Zhongguo gudai mulouge 中國古代木樓閣 (Old Chinese wooden pavilions and towers). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2007.

Mahmoud, Ahmad, and Anna Veeder. Hidden Heritage: A Guide to the Mamilla Cemetery, Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Emek Shaveh, 2016. Maidar, D. Arkhitektura i gradostroitel'stvo Mongolii: Ocherki po istorii (Architecture of Mongolia: through history). Moscow: Stroĭizdat, 1970. ———. Mongolyn arkhitektur ba khot baiguulalt Монголын архитектур ба хот байгуулалт

(Mongolian architecture and urban planning). Ulaanbaatar: Ulsyn khevleiin gazar, 1972. Malek, Roman, ed., Jingjiao: The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Sankt Augustin, Ger.: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2006. Malone, Carroll. “Current Regulations for Building and Furnishing Chinese Imperial Palaces, 1727–1750.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 49 (1929): 234–43. Man Chuola 滿綽拉. “Yuan Yingchanglu yizhi” 元應昌路遺址 (Remains of Yingchanglu of the Yuan dynasty). Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu 3 (1984): 113–18. Man, John. Xanadu: Marco Polo and Europe’s Discovery of the East. London: Bantam, 2010. Mandeville, John, and A. W. Pollard. The Travels of John of Plano Carpini, and Other Friars, into Tartary, in the Year 1246. New York: Dover, 1964. Mao Xisheng 毛希聖. “Zhong-Ni youyi qiaoliang de jiashezhe: Anige he Liu Yuan” 中尼友誼橋 樑的架設者—阿尼哥和劉元 (Sino-Nepali joint construction: Arniko and Liu Yuan). Beijing shiyuan 2, 155–62. Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 1985. Marchand, Ernesta. “The Panorama of Wut’ai Shan as an Example of Tenth Century Cartography.” Oriental Art 22, 2 (1976): 158–71. Mass, Jeffrey P. The Kamakura Bakufu: A Study in Documents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1976. Masson, M. E., and G.. Pugachenkova. Gumbez Manasa (Gumbez of Manas). Moscow: Gos. Izd-vo arkhitektury gradostroitel’stva, 1950. Masuya, Tomoko. “Il-khanid Courtly Life.” In The Legacy of Genghis Khan,” ed. Linda Komaroff and Stefano Carboni, 75–103. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2002 ———. “The Ilkhanid Phase of Takht-i Sulaiman.” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1997. ———. “Seasonal Capitals with Permanent Buildings in the Mongol Empire.” In

286

Turko-Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life,” ed. David Durand-Guédy, 223–56. Leiden: Brill, 2013. May, Timothy. The Mongol Empire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018. McCausland, Shane. Zhao Mengfu: Calligraphy and Painting for Khubilai’s China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2011. Medley, Margaret. “Chinese Ceramics and Islamic Design.” In The Westward Influence of the Chinese Arts from the 14th to the 18th Century, ed. William Watson, 1–10. London: School of Oriental and African Studies and Percival David Foundation, 1976. ———. “The Yüan-Ming Transformation in the Blue and Red Decorated Porcelains of China.” Ars Orientalis 9 (1973): 89–101. Mei Ninghua 梅寧華 and Liu Xiaodao 劉小島. Jin Zhongdu yizhen 金中都遺珍 (Precious remains of Zhongdu of the Jin). Beijing: Beijing Yanshan chubanshe, 2003. Mei Ninghua and Tao Xincheng 陶信成, eds. Beijing wenwu jingcui daxi: Shidiaojuan 北京文 物精粹大系: 石刻卷 (Gems of Beijing cultural relics series: stone carvings volume). Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 2000. Melikian-Chirvani, Assadullah Souren. “The Buddhist Heritage in the Art of Iran.” In The Westward Influence of the Chinese Arts, ed. William Watson, 56–65. London: School of Oriental and African Studies and Percival David Foundation, 1976. ———. “Recherches sur l’architecture de l’Iran bouddhique.” Le monde iranien et l’Islam 3 (1975): 1–61. Melville, Charles. “The Chinese-Uighur Animal Calendar in Persian Historiography of the Mongol Period.” Iran 32 (1994): 83–98. Meng Fanxing 孟繁興and Lin Hongwen 臨洪文. “Luetan liyong gujianzhu ji fushuwu yanjiu Shanxi lishishang liangci dadizhen de yixie wenti” 略談利用古建築及附屬物研究山西曆史上 兩次大地震的一些問題 (Some questions about old architecture in the light of the two earthquakes in the history of Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 4 (1972): 5–21. Meng Wei 孟維. Ta’ersi 塔爾寺 (Ta’er Monastery). Xining: Qinghai Renmin chubanshe, 1986. Meyer-Fong, Tobie. Building Culture in Early Qing Yangzhou. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003. Mikami Tsugio 三上次男. “Kin no fu to ro nitsuite—Kin no hokuhenni kansuru kōsatsu” 金の蒲與路につ いて―金の北邊に關する一考察

(On fu and lu in Jin—an investigation of Jin’s

Bibliography

northern border). Tōho gakuhō 東方學報 3, 2 (1942): 317–29. Mikami Tsugio and Zahuo Press. Sekai Tōji zenshu: Ryū, Kin, Gen 世界陶磁全集: 遼、金、元 (Ceramic art of the world: Liao, Jin, Yuan). Vol. 13. Tokyo: Shōgakkan, 1981. Miller, Tracy. The Divine Nature of Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Asia Society, 2007. ———. “Northern Song Architecture in Southern Shanxi Province.” Journal of Sung-Yuan Studies 29 (1999): 135–55. Mitchell, W.J.T. Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Mizuno Seiichi 水野清一 (1905–1971) and Hibino Takeo 日比野丈夫. Sansei kosekishi 山 西古迹志 (Record of old remains in Shanxi). Kyoto; Nakamura insatsu kabushiki kaisha shuppanbu, 1956; Ch. trans.: Shanxi gujizhi. Taiyuan: Shanxi guji chubanshe, 1993. Mo Yao 墨瑤. Guo Shoujing 郭守敬 (Biography of Guo Shoujing). Kunming: Chenguang chubanshe, 1998. Morgan, David O. “The Great Yāsa of Chingiz Khān and Mongol Law in the Ilkhānate.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 49, 1 (1986): 163–76. ———. The Mongols. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2007. ———. “The Mongols and the Eastern Mediterranean.” Mediterranean Historical Review 4, 1 (1989): 198–201. Morohashi Tetsuji 諸橋轍次. Dai Kan-Wa jiten 大漢 和辞典 (Great Chinese-Japanese dictionary). 13 vols. Tokyo: Taishūkan Shoten, 1965. Mostaert, Antoine (1881–1971). “À propos de quelques portraits d’empereurs mongols.” Asia Major 4 (1927): 147–56. ———. “Materiaux ethnographiques relatifs aux Mongols ordos.” Central Asiatic Journal 2, 4 (1956): 241–94. Mote, Frederick. “Confucian Eremetism in the Yuan Period.” In The Confucian Persuasion, ed. Arthur Wright, 202–240. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1960. ———. The Poet Kao Ch’i: 1336–1374. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962. ———. “The T’u-Mu Incident of 1449.” In Chinese Ways in Warfare, ed. Edward Dreyer, Algerton Kierman, and John K. Fairbank, 243–72. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974. Mote, Frederick, and Denis Twitchett, eds. The Cambridge History of China, vol. 7: The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644. Part 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Moule, Arthur. Christians in China before the Year 1550. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1930. ———. “Marco Polo’s Description of Quinsai.” T’oung Pao 33 (1937): 105–28. Moule, Arthur, and Lionel Giles. “Christians at Chen-Chiang Fu.” T’oung Pao 17, 1 (1916): 637–86. Moule, Arthur, and Paul Pelliot. Marco Polo. The Description of the World (A composite English translation of the extant texts, with an introduction). 2 vols. London: Routledge, 1938. Munakata Kiyohiko. Sacred Mountains in Chinese Art. Urbana-Champaign: Krannert Art Museum and University of Illinois, 1991. Murata Jirō 村田治郎. Chūgoku no teito 中国の帝都 (Chinese imperial cities). Kyoto: Sōgeisha, 1981. ———. “Kin Jōkyō ishi noichi mondai” 金上京 遺址 の一問題 (Initial questions about Jin Shangjing). Mammō 17, 1 (1936): 114–29. ———. “Kin Jōkyō ishi tsukō” 金上京遺址追考 (Research on remains of Jin Shangjing). Mammō 18, 9 (1937): 110–14. ———. Manshū no shiseki 滿洲の史蹟 (Historical remains in Manchuria). Tokyo: Zauhō kankōkai, 1944. Murata Jirō and Fujieda Akira 藤枝晃. Chüyung-kuan: The Buddhist Arch of the Fourteenth Century A. D at the Pass of the Great Wall Northwest of Peking (in Japanese). 2 vols. Kyoto: Kyoto University Faculty of Engineering, 1955–1957. Na Weixin 納為信. Yuan Xianyang wang Saidianchi Zhansiding shijia 元咸陽王赛典赤・赡思丁世 家 (Generations of the family of Saidianchi Zhansading). Beijing: Jinri Zhongguo chubanshe, 1992. Nanjing Bowuyuan 南京博物院. “Yangzhou gucheng 1978-nian diaocha fajue jianbao” 揚州 古城1978年調查發掘簡報 (Brief report on the 1978 excavation of the old city of Yangzhou). Wenwu, no. 9 (1979): 33–42. Needham, Joseph. Science and Civilization in China. Vol. 4: Physics and Physical Technology. Part 2: Physics and Physical Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. ———. Science and Civilization in China. Vol. 4: Physics and Physical Technology. Part 3: Civil Engineering and Nautics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Nei Menggu Wenwu Gongzuozu. “Jinianlai de Nei Menggu wenwu gongzuo.” 幾年來的內蒙 古文物工作 Wenwu cankao ziliao, no. 4 (1957): 12–17.

287

———. “Nei Menggu faxian de Yuandai yicun jiankuang” 內蒙古發現的元代遺存簡況 (Notes on the condition of Yuan remains found in Inner Mongolia). Wenwu, no. 4 (1957): 33–36. Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 內蒙古文 物考古研究所 and Jilin Daxue Kaogu Xuexi 吉林大學考古學系. “Yuan Shangdu chengzhi dongnan Zhenzishan xiqu muzang fajue jianbao” 元上都城址東南砧子山西區墓葬發掘簡報 (Excavation report on tombs in the western sector of Zhenzishan, southeast of the remains of Yuan Shangdu). Wenwu, no. 9 (2001): 37–51. Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Wulanchabu Bowuguan 烏蘭察布博物館, and Siziwangqi Wenwu Guanlisuo 四子王旗文物管 理所. “Siziwangqi Chengbuzi gucheng ji muzang” 四子王旗城卜子古城及墓葬 (City remains and tombs in Chengbuzi, Siziwang). In Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji, ed. Wei Jian, vol. 2, 688–712. Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Duolunxian Wenwu Guanlisuo 多倫縣文物管 理所. “Yuan Shangduchengnan Zhenzishan nanqu muzang fajue baogao” 元上都城南砧 子山南區墓葬發掘報告 (Excavation report on tombs in the southern area of Zhenzishan, south of Yuan Shangdu). In Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji, ed. Li Yiyou and Wei Jian, vol. 1, 639–88. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 1994. Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Zhenglanqi Wenwu guanlisuo 正藍旗文物管 理所. “Zhenglanqi Yangqunmiao Yuandai jisi yizhi yu muzang” 正藍旗羊群廟元代祭祀遺址輿 墓葬 (Remains of a Yuan sacrificial site and tombs at Yangqunmiao, Zhenglanqi). In Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji, vol. 2, eds., 610–21. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 1994. Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenhuating Wenwuchu 內 蒙古自治區文化廳文物處 and Wulanchabumeng Wenwu Gongzuozhan 烏蘭察布盟文物工作站. “Nei Menggu Liangchengxian Houdesheng Yuanmu qingli baogao” 內蒙古涼城縣後德勝 元墓清理簡報 (Excavation report on a Yuan tomb in Houdesheng Liangcheng county, Inner Mongolia). Wenwu, no. 10 (1994): 10–18. Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Gongzuodui 內蒙古 自治區文物工作隊. “Liao Zhongjing xichengwai de gu muzang” 遼中京西城外的古墓葬 (A group of old tombs outside the western wall of Liao Zhongjing). Wenwu, no. 9 (1961): 40–44. ———. “Yuandai Jininglu yizhi qingliji” 元代集寧路 遺址清理記 (Record of sorting out the remains

Bibliography

of Jininglu of the Yuan dynasty). Wenwu, no. 9 (1961): 52–57. Nei Menggu Zizhiqu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 內蒙古自治區文物考古研究所. Nei Menggu dongnanbu hangkong sheying kaogu baogao 內蒙古 東南部航空攝影考古報告 (Air photographs of archaeological sites in southeastern Inner Mongolia). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2002. Nianchang 念常. Fozu lidai tongzai佛祖歷代通載 (Comprehensive Buddhist writings through the ages). Shanghai: Shanghan guji chubanshe, 1987. Ning Jianying寧建英, ed. Shanxi wenwu jianzhu baohu yanjiuwenji 山西文物建築保護研究文集 (Research essays on preservation of architecture and cultural relics in Shanxi). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2011. Ningxia Guyuan Bowuguan 寧夏固原博物館. Guyuan Bei Weimu qiguanhua 固原北魏墓 漆棺畫 (The lacquer-painted sarcophagus from Guyuan, Ningxia). Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin chubanshe, 1988. Ningxia Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 寧夏文物考古 研究所 and Guyuanshi Yuanzhouqu Wenwu Guanlisuo 固原市原州區文物管理所. Kaicheng Anxiwangfu yizhi kantan baogao 開城安西王府 遺址勘探報告 (Excavation report on remains of Anxiwangfu in Kaicheng). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2009. Niri, Javad Shikari. “Formation of the Mithraic Temples in Northwestern Iran in Comparison with Roman Mithraeums.” Archive of SIS 16 (February 2020). Niu, Gabrielle. “Beyond Silk: A Re-evaluation of Jin Painting (1115–1234).” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pensylvania, 2018. Ohsson, Constantin d’ (1779–1851). Histoire des Mongols: depuis Tchinguiz-Khan jusqu’à TimourLanc. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1824; Boston: Elibron Classics, 2006. Okamura Yuki. “The Japanese Art Dealer Yamanaka Sadajiro: His New York City Period, 1893–1936.” M.A. thesis, Fashion Institute of Technology, 2003. O’Kane, Bernard. “Chaghatai Architecture and the Tomb of Tughluq Temur at Almaliq.” Muqarnas 21 (2004): 277–87. Okladnikov, A. P. The Soviet Far East in Antiquity: An Archaeological and Historical Study of the Maritime Region of the U.S.S.R. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965. Ollone, Henri M. G. d’. Les derniers Barbares: China, Tibet, Mongolie. Paris: P. Lafitte, 1911. ———. Recherches sur les Musulmans chinois (Mission d’Ollone 1906–1909). Paris: Leroux, 1911.

Olschki, Leonardo. Guillaume Boucher: A French Artist at the Court of the Khans. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1946. Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, 1979. Palladius, Archimendrite (1817–1878). See Kafarov. Paludan, Ann. The Chinese Spirit Road: The Classical Tradition of Stone Tomb Statuary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991. ———. “Some Foreigners on the Spirit Roads of the Northern Song Imperial Tombs.” Oriental Art 29, 4 (1983): 377–88. Pan Guxi 潘谷西. Qufu Kongmiao jianzhu 曲阜孔廟 建築 (Architecture of the Confucian temple in Qufu). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1987. ———. Zhongguo gudai jianzhushi 中國古代建築史 (History of premodern Chinese architecture). Vol. 4: Yuan, Ming jianzhu 元明建築 (Yuan, Ming architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2009. Pan Hongxuan 潘洪宣. Zhongguo de gumingqiao 中國的古名橋 (Famous old bridges of China). Shanghai: Shanghai wenhua chubanshe, 1985. Pan Xingrong 潘行榮. “Yuan Jininglu gucheng chutu de yaocang sizhiwu ji qita” 元集寧路故城 出土的窖藏絲織物及其他 (Textiles and other objects stored in pits excavated at the Yuan city Jining). Wenwu, no. 8 (1979): 32–36. Pan Yushan 潘玉閃 and Ma Shichang 馬世長. Mogaoku kuqian diantang yizhi 莫高窟窟前殿堂遺 址 (Remains of halls in front of Mogao caves). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1985. Pankenier, David. Astrology and Cosmology in Early China: Confronting Earth to Heaven. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Pannam, Clifford. Will the Phoenixes Ever Return? The San Qu Verse of Ma Zhiyuan. Ormond, Victoria: Hybrid, 2011. Paolillo, Maurizio. “In Search of King George.” In Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, ed. Dietmar Winkler and Li Tang, 241–55. Munich: LIT, 2009. Parent, Mary N. The Roof in Japanese Buddhist Architecture. New York: Weatherhill and Tokyo: Kajima, 1983. Park, Hyunhee. Mapping the Chinese and Islamic Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Parry, Ken, ed. Art, Architecture and Religion along the Silk Roads. Türnhout: Brepols, 2008. ———. “The Iconography of the Christian Tombstones from Zayton.” In From Palmyra

288

to Zayton: Epigraphy and Iconography, ed. Iain Gardner, Samuel Lieu, and Ken Parry, 229– 46. Türnhout: Brepols, 2005. Parvin, Samad, Saeid Sattarnejad, and Elham Hendiani. “The Victory of Islam over the Buddhist Religion (Reviewing the Inscriptions of the Shrine of Imamzadeh Mulla “Ma’sum” of Maragheh).” Golden Horde Review 8, 4 (2020): 636–46. Paul, Diana Y. “The Sutra of Queen ŚrĪmĀlĀ of the Lion’s Roar.” In BDK English Tripiṭaka. Moraga, CA: Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai and BDK America, 2004. Pelliot, Paul. “Crétiens d’Asie centrale et d’Extrême-Orient.” T’oung Pao, 2d ser., vol. 15 (1914): 623–44. ———. “Note sur Karakorum. ” Journal Asiatique, no. 206 (1925): 372–75. Peng Cheng 彭成. Lugouqiao 蘆溝橋 (Reed gully bridge). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1979. Perrin, Ariane. “A Reassessment of the Emergence of the Images of the Four Animals of the Cardinals Directions in Koguryŏ Funerary Arts.” In The History and Archaeology of the Koguryŏ Kingdom, ed. Mark Byington, 411–36. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Early Korea Project, 2016. Petech, Luciano. “’P’ags-pa.” In In the Service of the Khan, ed. Igor de Rachewiltz et al., part 2, 646–54. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz, 1993. ———. “Sang-ko, a Tibetan Statesman in Yuan China.” Acta Orientalia Hungarica 34 (1980): 193–208 and 38 (1984): 219–20. Peterment, Simone. A Separate God: The Origins and Teachings of Gnosticism. New York: Harper and Row, 1990. Pieters, Charles. “Mongolie centrale: Croix d’un ancien cimitière chretien.” Le Bulletin Catholique de Pékin (1924): 52–46. ———. ”Mongolie centrale: Pierres crucifères. ” Le Bulletin Catholique de Pékin (1924): 248–50. Pingwuxian Wenwu Baoguansuo 平武縣文物保 管所 and Xiang Yuanmu 向遠木. “Sichuan Pingwu Ming Bao’ensi kancha baogao” 四川 平武明報恩寺勘察報告 (Excavation report on Bao’en Monastery of the Ming in Pingwu, Sichuan). Wenwu, no. 4 (1991): 1–19. Piotrovskii, Mikhail. Lost Empire of the Silk Road: Buddhist Art from Khara Khoto (X–XIIIth century). Lugano and Milan, It.: ThyssenBornemisza Foundation and Electa, 1993. Pohl, Ernst. “The Excavations in the CraftsmenQuarter of Karakorum (KAR-2) between 2000 and 2005—Stratigraphy and Architecture.” In Mongolian-German

Bibliography

Karakorum Expedition, vol. 1, Jan Bemmann et al., eds., 63–136. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2010. ———. “Interpretation without Excavation— Topographic Mapping on the Territory of the First Mongolian Capital Karakorum.” In Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia, ed. Jan Bemmann et al., 505–33. Bonn: Vor- under Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 2009. Pope, John Alexander. Chinese Porcelains from the Ardebil Shrine. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1956. Pozdneyev, Aleksei M. Mongolia and the Mongols, ed. John Krueger, trans. J. R. Shaw and D. Plank. 2 vols. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1971. Prazniak, Roxann. Sudden Appearances: The Mongol Turn in Commerce, Belief, and Art. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2019. Pribytkova, Anna Maksimova. Pamiatniki arkhitektury Srednei Azii: Bukhara, Samarkand, Khiva, Merv, Kunia-Urgench (Architectural monuments of Central Asia: Bukhara, Samarkand, Khiva, Merv, Kuni-Urgench). Moscow: Planeta, 1971. Pugachenkova, Galina A. Mavzolei Arab-ata: iz istorii arkhektury Maverannakhra IX-X vv (Mausoleum of Arab-ata: From architectural history of Maverannahr in the 9th–10th c.). Tashkent: Izdvo Akademii nauk Uzbekstoi SSR, 1963. Purtle, Jennifer. “The Far Side: Expatriate Medieval Art and Its Languages in SinoMongol China.” Medieval Encounters 17 (2011): 167–97. Quan Heng 權衡 (14th century). Gengshen waishi 庚申外史 (History of geng and shen), ed. Zhang Haipeng (1755–1816). Taipei: Yiwen yinshuguan, 1965–1970. Qi Ping 齊平, Chai Zejun 柴澤俊, et al. Datong Huayansi (Shangsi) 大同華嚴寺（上寺）(Huanyan Monastery in Datong [Upper Monastery]). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008. Qi Xin 齊心. “Jinnianlai Jin Zhongdu kaogu de zhongda faxian” 近年來金中都考古的重大發現 (Important excavations in recent years at Jin Zhongdu). Beijing wenwu yu kaogu 4 (2014): 14–22. Qi Yingtao 齊英濤. “Dui Shaolinsi Chuzu’an dadian de chubu fenxi” 對少林寺初祖庵大殿的初步 分析 (Preliminary analysis of the main hall of Chuzu‘an, Shaolin Monastery). Kejishi wenji, no. 2 (1979): 61–70. ———. Qi Yingtao gujian lunwenji 齊英濤古建論文集 (Collected essays on traditional architecture

by Qi Yingtao). Beijing: Huaxia chubnshe, 1992. ———. “Yonglegong jieshao” 永樂宮介紹 (Introducing Yonglegong). In Qi Yingtao gujian lunwenji, ed. Qi Yingtao, 14–25. Beijing: Huaxia chubnshe, 1992. ———. Zending jianding gujianzhu 怎樣鑑定古建築 (How to determine age in Chinese architecture). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1981. ———. Zhongguo gudai jianzhu de baohu yu weixiu 中國古代建築的保護與維修 (Preservation and repair of premodern Chinese architecture). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986. ———. Zhongguo gudai jianzhu niandai de jianding 中國古代建築年代的鑑定 (How to determine the date of premodern Chinese architecture). Hong Kong: Shenzhou tushu gongsi chubanshe, 1974. Qi Yingtao, Du Xianzhou 杜仙洲, and Chen Mingda. “Liangnianlai Shanxisheng xinfaxian de gujianzhu” 兩年來山西省新發現的古建築 (Architecture newly discovered during the past two years in Shanxi province). Wenwu cankao ziliao, no. 11 (1954): 1–96. Qian Dian 錢坫 (1744–1806). Hanchengxian zhi 韓城縣志 (Record of Hancheng prefecture). 1818. Xuxiu Siku quanshu, vol. 693. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1995–1999. Qian Renlong 錢人龍. Jinhuaxian zhi 金華縣 志 (Record of Jinhua prefecture). Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1992. Qian Zhengkun 錢正坤. “Jijiansi shiwu ji zaoxiang xiaokao” 寂鑒寺石屋及造象小考 (Research on the structure and appearance of the stone building at Jijiansi). Gujian yuanlin jishu 古建園 林技術, no. 1 (1988): 24–26. Qiao Zhongyan 喬忠延. Shanxi guxitai 山西古戲台 (Ancient Shanxi stages). Shenyang: Liaoning Renmin chubanshe, 2004. Qin Dashu 秦大樹. “Beijingshi Haidianqu Nanxinzhuang Jinmu qingli jianbao” 北京市 海淀區南莘莊金墓清理簡報 (Brief report on the investigation of Jin tombs in Nanxinzhuang, Haidian District, Beijing). Wenwu, no. 7 (1988): 56–66. Qin Dashu and Wei Chengmin 魏成敏. “Shandong Linzi Dawucun Yuanmu fajue jianbao” 山東臨淄大武村元墓發掘簡報 (Brief report on a Yuan tomb excavated in Dawu village, Linzi, Shandong). Wenwu, no. 11 (2005): 39–48. Qin Jianming 秦建明, Zhang Zaiming 張在明, and Yang Zheng 楊政. “Shaanxi faxian yi Han Chang’ancheng wei zhongxin de Xi Han nanbei xiang chaochang jianzhu jixian” 陝西 發現以漢長安城為中心的西漢南北向超長建築基線

289

(A long, axial north-south line through the center of Western Han Chang’an). Wenwu, no. 3 (1995): 4–15. Qing Feng 青鋒. Sichuan Chongqing gujianzhu ditu 四川重慶古建築地圖 (Maps and illustrations of old architecture in Sichuan and Chongqing). Beijing: Qinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2016. Qirigala 吉日嘎拉. “Haila’er E’ergunashi Heishantou Hasa’er gucheng tianye diaocha baogao” 海拉爾額爾古納市黑山頭哈撒兒故城田 野調查報告 (Excavation report on Qasar’s city on the grassland at Heishantou , E’erguna, Haila’er). Chifeng Xueyuan xuebao (Chifeng Academy journal) 33, 12 (2012): 10–11. Qiu Jiangning 邱江寧. Yuandai Kuizhangge wenren qunti yu Yuandai zhongqi wenxue yanjiu 元代 奎章閣文人群體與元代中期文學研究 (Research on the literati group at Kuizhangge and literature of the middle period of the Yuan dynasty). Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2013. Qiu Jingjia 邱靖嘉. “Chongli Taizicheng yizhi yu Jin Taihegong xingfeikao” 崇禮太子城遺址與金 泰和宮興廢考 (Investigation of the remains of the imperial ritual space Taizicheng and the flourishing and abandonment of the Jin Taihe palace-complex). Zhongguo Guojia Bowuguan guankan, no. 11 (2021): 38–49. Qiu Yulan 邱玉蘭 and Yu Zhensheng 於振生. Zhongguo Yisilanjiao jianzhu 中國伊斯蘭教建 築 (Chinese Islamic architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1992. Qu Lian. “Antiquity or Innovation? Architecture, Sculptures and Murals in Southern Shanxi under the Yuan Dynasty.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2019. Quan Heng 權衡 (14th century). Gengshen waishi 庚申外史 (Unofficial history of the [ruler born in] 1320). Xuxiu siku quanshu, vol. 423, 769–94. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1995–1999. Rachewiltz, Igor de. Papal Envoys to the Great Khans. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1971. ———. The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ———. “Sino-Mongolica Remota.” East Asian History 42 (2018): 47–56. ———. “Some Remarks.” East Asian History 42 (2018): 487–91. ———. “Yeh-lü Ch’u-ts’ai.” In Confucian Personalities, ed. Arthur Wright and Denis Twitchett, 189–201. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1962.

Bibliography

Rachewiltz, Igor de, Hok-lam Chan, Chi’-ch’ang Hsiao, and Peter W. Geier. In the Service of the Khan: Eminent Personalities of the Early Mongol-Yuan Period. 2 parts. Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrassowitz, 1993. Ratchnevsky, Paul. “Über den mongolischen Kult am Hofe der Grosskhane in China.“ In Mongolian Studies, ed. Louis Ligeti, 417–43. Amsterdam: Gruner, 1979. Radloff, Wilhelm (Vasilii Vasil’evich Radlov). Atlas der Alterthümer der Mongolei: Arbeiten der Orchon-Expedition. 4 vols. St. Petersburg: Akademie der Wissenschaft, 1892–1899. Ramsey, Robert. The Languages of China. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987. Rashīd al-Dīn Fadlallāh. The Successors of Genghis Khan: Translated from the Persian of Rashīd al-Dīn by John Andrew Boyle. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. Rashiduddin Fazlullah. Jami’u’t-Tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles: A History of the Mongols, trans. and ann. Wheeler M. Thackston. 3 parts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Ren Changtai任 常泰, ed. Zhongguo lingqin shi 中 國陵寢史 (History of Chinese royal tombs). Taipei: Wenjin chubanshe, 1995. Rinc̣ en Yöngsiyebü. “L’inscription sinomongole de la stèle en l’honneur de Mongke Qaghan.” Central Asiatic Journal 4, 2 (1959): 130–42. Robinson, David M. Empire’s Twilight: Northeast Asia under the Mongols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2009. Rockhill, William Woodville, trans. and ed. The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts of the World, 1253–55 as Narrated by Himself, with Two Accounts of the Earlier Journey of John of Pian de Carpine. London: Hakluyt Society, 1900. Rohland, Hendrik. “Die Nordstadt von Karakorum.“ Ph.D. dissertation, ChristianAlbrechts-Universität zu Kiel, 2019. Rosenfield, John. M. Portraits of Chogen: The Transformation of Buddhist Art in Early Medieval Japan. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Ross, Leslie. Language in the Visual Arts: The Interplay of Text and Imagery. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2014. Rossabi, Morris. “The Muslims in the Early Yuan Dynasty.” In China under Mongol Rule, John D. Langlois, ed., 257–95. Princeon, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981. ———. Voyager from Xanadu: Rabban Sauma and the first Journey from China to the West.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010. Roth, Helmut, ed. Qara Qorum-City (Mongolia) I: Preliminary Report of the Excavations 2000/2001. Institute of Pre- and Early Historical Archaeology, Bonn University, 2002. Rouleau, Francis A. “The Yangchow Latin Tombstone as a Landmark of Medieval Christianity in China.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 17, 3–4 (1954): 436–65. Rouzer, Paul. On Cold Mountain: A Buddhist Reading of the Hanshan Poems. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2017. Rudolph, R. C. “A Second Fourteenth-Century Italian Tombstone in Yangchou.” Journal of Oriental Studies 13 (1975): 133–36. Ruegg, David Seyford, ed. and trans. The Life of Bu-sTon Rin po che with the Tibetan Text of the Bu-sTon rnam thar. Rome: Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Orienla, 1966. Sa Dula 薩都拉 (1272–?). Yanmenji 雁門集. Qinding Sigu quanshu, Vol. 1212. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1987. Saeki Yoshirō 佐伯好郎 (1871–1965). Kiekyō hibun kenkyū 景教碑文研究 (Research on Christian stele inscriptions). Tokyo: Tairō shoin, 1911. ———. The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China. Tokyo: Maruzen, 1951. ———. The Nestorian Monument in China. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1916. Saliba, George. “The First Non-Ptolemaic Astronomy at the Maraghah School.” Isis 70, 4 (1979): 571–76. ———. “Horoscopes and Planetary Theory: Ilkhanid Patronage of Astronomers.” In Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, ed. Linda Komaroff, 358–68. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Samosyuk, Kira Fyodorovna. “The Discovery of Khara Khoto.” In Lost Empire of the Silk Road, ed. Mikhail Piotrovskii, 31–47. Lugano and Milan, It.: Thyssen-Bornemisza Foundation and Electa, 1993. Samsó, Julio. Astronomy and Astrology in al-Andalus and the Maghrib. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate/Variorum, 2007. Sanmenxiashi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 三門峽 市文物考古研究所. “Henan Yima Kangkoucun Jindai zhuandiao bihuamu fajue jianbao” 河南 義馬狂口村金代磚雕壁畫墓發掘簡報 (Excavation report on a Jin tomb with relief sculpture and murals in Kangkou village, Yima, Henan). Wenwu, no. 6 (2017): 41–49.

290

Sansom, George. History of Japan to 1334. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1958. Saunders, John Joseph. The History of the Mongol Conquests. London: Routledge, 1971. Sayili, Aydin. The Observatory in Islam. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1988. Schafer, Edward. The Golden Peaches of Samarkand: A Study of T’ang Exotics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963. ———. “The Tang Imperial Icon.” Sinologica 7 (1963): 156–60. Scarcia, Gianroberto Scarcia. “The Viar Dragon.” Soltāniye 3 (1982): 71–89. ———. “ ‘The Vihār’ of Qonqor-olong: Preliminary Report.” East and West 25, 1–2, (1975): 99–104. Schottenhammer, Angela. The East Asian Maritime World, 1400–1800: Its Fabrics and Dynamics of Exchange. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2007. ———. The East Asian “Mediterranean”: Maritime Crossroads of Culture, Commerce and Human Migration. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2008. ———. The Emporium of the World: Maritime Quanzhou, 1000–1400. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ———. Trade and Transfer across the East Asian “Mediterranean.” Wiesbaden, Ger.: Harrasowitz, 2005. Schulte-Uffelage, Helmut. Das Geng-shen wai-shih: Eine Quelle zur Späten Mongolenzeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963. Scott, David Allen. “The Iranian Face of Buddhism.” East and West 40 (1990): 43–77. Sen, Tansen. Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600–1400. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2003. Serruys, Henry. “On the Road to Shang-tu, Supreme Capital.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 33, no. 2 (1979): 153–75. ———. “Remains of Mongol Customs in China during the Early Ming Period.” Monumenta Serica 19: 137–90. ———. “Ta-tu, Tai-tu, Dayidu.’’ Chinese Culture 2, 4 (1960): 73–81. Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo 陝西省考古研 究. Xi Han jingshi cang 西漢京師倉 (Imperial granary of the Western Han). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1990. Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Hanling Kaogutui 漢陵考古隊. Zhongguo Han Yangling caiyong 中國漢陽陵彩俑 (Painted figurines from the Chinese Han tomb Yangling). Xi’an: Shaanxi lüxing chubanshe, 1992. Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Yulinshi Wenwu Yanjiusuo 榆林市文物研究所, and Jingbianxian

Bibliography

Wenwu Guanli Bangongshi 靖邊縣文物管理辦 公室. “Shaanxi Jingbian Dong Han bihuamu” 陝西靖邊東漢壁畫墓 (An Eastern Han tomb in Jingbian, Shaanxi). Wenwu, no. 2 (2009): 32–43. Shaanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiuyuan. 陝西省考古硏究 院. Yuandai Liu Heima jiazumu fajue baogao 元 代劉黑馬家族墓發掘報告 (Excavation report on the tomb of the Liu Heima family of the Yuan dynasty). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2018. Shandongsheng Qufushi Wenwu Guanli Weiyunhui 山東省曲阜市文物管理委員會. Qufu: Kongzi de guxiang 曲阜: 孔子的故鄉 (Qufu, an old Confucian village). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1990. Shanghai Bowuguan 上海博物館, Shen Lingxin 沈 令昕, and Xu Yongxiang 許勇翔. “Shanghaishi Qingpuxian Yuandai Renshi muzang jishu” 上海市青浦縣元代任氏墓葬記述 (Notes on the Ren family tomb group in Qingpu county, Shanghai). Wenwu, no. 7 (1982): 54–60. Shanghai Bowuguan Kaogu Yanjiubu 上海 博物館考古研究部. “Shanghaishi Putuoqu Zhidanyuan Yuandai Shuizha yizhi fajue baogao” 上海市普陀區志丹苑元代水閘遺址發掘 報告 (Exvacation report on remains of the Yuan sluice at Zhidanyuan, Putuo, Shanghai). Wenwu, no 4 (2007): 42–59. Shanghai Bowuguan Kaogu Yanjiusuo 上海 博物館考古研究所. “Shanghaishi Putuoqu Zhidanyuan.” 上海市普陀區志丹苑 (Zhiyuan sluice in Putuo, Shanghai). Kaogu xuebao, no. 2 (1962): 1–28. Shanghaishi Wenwu Baoguan Weiyuanhui 上海 市文物保管委員會. “Shanghai shijiao Yuandai jianzhu Zhenrusi zhengdian zhong faxian de gongjiang mobizi” 上海市郊元代建築真如寺正 殿中發現的工匠墨筆子 (Craftsmen signatures discovered in the main hall of Zhenrusi, Yuan architecture in Shanghai). Wenwu, no. 3 (1966): 16–26. Shanxi Daxue Kexue Jishu Zhexue Yanjiu Zhongxin 山西大學科學技術哲學研究中心, Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, and Shanxi Bowuguan. “Shanxi Xingxian Hongyucun Yuan Zhida ernian bihuamu” 山西興縣紅峪村 元至大二年壁畫墓 (A Yuan tomb with murals dated to 1309 in Yongyu village, Xing county, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 2 (2011): 40–46. Shanxi Yungang Shiku Wenwu Baoguansuo 山西 雲崗十窟文物保管所. Huayansi 華巖寺 (Huayan Monastery). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1980. Shanxisheng Gujianzhu Baohu Yanjiusuo 山西省 古建築保護研究所. Shanxi gujianzu mujiegou moxing 山西古建築木結構模型 (Models of

timber-frame architecture in Shanxi). Beijing: Beijing Yanshan chubanshe, 1989. ———. Shanxi wenwu jianzhu baohu yanjiu wenji 山 西文物建築保护研究文集 (Research essays on preservation of Shanxi buildings of cultural value). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2011. ———. Zhongguo gujianzhu xueshu jiangzuo wenji 中 國古建築學術講座文集 (Lectures and essays on old Chinese architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo zhanwang chubanshe, 1986. Shanxisheng Gujianzhu Baohu Yanjiusuo and Chai Zejun. Shuozhou Chongfusi 朔州崇福寺 (Chongfu Monastery in Shuozhou). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. Shanxisheng Gujianzhu Baohu Yanjiusuo, Chai Zejun, and Zhang Chouliang 張醜良. Fanshi Yanshansi 繁峙巖山寺 (Yanshan Monastery in Fanshi). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1990. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo 山西省考古硏究所. Pingyang Jinmu zhuandiao 平陽金墓磚雕 (Relief sculpture in Jin tombs in Shanxi). Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1999. ———. “Shanxi Jishan Jinmu fajue jianbao” 山西 稷山金墓發掘簡報 (Excavation report on a Jin tomb in Jishan, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 1 (1983): 45–63. ———. “Shanxi Xinjiang Nanfanzhuang, Wulingzhuang Jin, Yuanmu fajue jianbao” 山西新絳南範莊、吳嶺莊金元墓發掘簡報

(Excavation report on Jin and Yuan tombs in Nanfanzhuang and Wulingzhuang, Xinjiang, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 1 (1983): 64–72. ———. “Shanxi Yicheng Wuchi Jinmu fajue jianbao” 山西翼城武池金墓發掘簡報 (A Jin tomb excavated in Wuchi, Yicheng, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 2 (2019): 16–22. ———. “Shanxi Yuncheng Xilizhuang Yuandai bihuamu” 山西運城西里莊元代壁畫墓 (A Yuan tomb with murals in Xilizhuang, Yuncheng, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 4 (1988): 76–78, 90. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Changzhishi Bowuguan長治市博物館. “Shanxi Tunliu Songcun Jindai bihuamu” 山西屯留宋村金代壁 畫墓 (A Jin tomb in Song village of Tunliu, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 8 (2008): 55–62. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Changzhishi Waishi Qiaowu yu Wenwu Luyouju 長治識外 事僑務與文物旅遊局, and Zhangzixian Wenwu Luyouju 長子縣文物旅遊局. “Shanxi Zhangzi Nangou Jindai bihuamu fajue jianbao” 山西長 子南溝金代壁畫墓發掘簡報 (Excavation report on a Jin tomb in Nangou, Zhangzi, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 12 (2017): 19–34.

291

Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo et al. “Shanxi Tunliuxian Kangzhuang Gongyeyuanqu Yuandai bihuamu” 山西屯留縣康莊工業園區 元代壁畫墓 (A Yuan tomb with murals in Gongyeyuan, Kangzhuang, Tunliu, Shanxi). Kaogu, no. 12 (2009): 39–46. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Fenxixian Wenwu Luyouju 汾西縣文物旅遊局. “Shanxi Fenxi Haojiagou Jindai jinian bihuamu fajue jianbao” 山西汾西郝家溝金代紀年壁畫墓發掘簡報 (Excavation report on a dated Jin tomb with murals in Haojiagou, Fenxi, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 2 (2018): 11–22. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Fenyangshi Wenwu Luyouju 汾陽市文物旅游局, and Fenyangshi Bowuguan 汾陽市博物館. Fenyang Donglongguan Song-Jin bihuamu 汾陽東龍觀宋金 壁画墓 (Song and Jin tombs in Donglongguan, Fenyang). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2012. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Lanxian Bowuguan 嵐縣博物館. “Shanxi Lanxian Dingjiagou Yuandai bihuamu (M1) fajue jianbao” 山西嵐縣丁家溝元代壁畫墓(M1)發掘簡 報 (Preliminary report on excavation of tomb 1 with murals in Dingjiagou, Lan county, Shanxi, from the Yuan dynasty). Wenwu, no. 6 (2018): 37–43. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Lingchuanxian Wenwu ju 陵川縣文物局. “Shanxi Lingchuan Yuquan Jindai bihuamu fajue jianbao” 山西陵川玉泉金代壁畫墓發掘簡報 (Excavation report on a Jin tomb with murals in Yuquan, Lingchuan, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 9 (2018): 22–32. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Yangquanshi Wenwuju 陽泉市文物局, and Yuxian Wenwu Guanlisuo 盂縣文物管理所. “Shanxi Yuxian Houyuanji Yuandai jinianmu fajue jianbao” 山西盂縣後元吉元代紀年墓發掘簡報 (Excavation report of a Yuan tomb in Houyuanji, Meng county, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 7 (2020): 33–43. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo Houma Gongzuozhan 山西省考古硏究所侯馬工作站. “Houma Qiaocun Jin-Yuanmu” 侯馬喬村金元 墓 (Tombs of the Jin and Yuan dynasties in Qiaocun, Houma). Wenwu jikan, no. 3 (1996): 84–89. ———. “Houmashiqu Yuandai muzang fajue jianbao” 侯馬市區元代墓葬發掘簡報 (Excavation report on Yuan tombs in Houma). Wenwu jikan, no. 3 (1996): 90–100. Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiuyuan 山西省考古硏究 院. “Shanxi Yicheng Yuancun Yuanmu fajue jianbao” 山西翼城原村發掘簡報 (Excavation report on a Yuan tomb in Yuan village,

Bibliography

Yicheng, Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 7 (2020): 25–32 Shanxisheng Shangyeting 山西省商業廳 et al. Wutaishan 五臺山 (Mount Wutai). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1984. Shanxisheng Wenwu Gongzuo Weiyuanhui Houma Gongzuozhan 山西省文物工作委員會 侯馬工作站. “Shanxisheng Xinjiang Zhailicun Yuanmu” 山西省新絳寨里村元墓 (A Yuan tomb in Zhailicun, Xinjiang, Shanxi). Kaogu, no. 1 (1966): 33–35 and 10–12. Shanxisheng Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui and Shanxisheng Kaogu Yanjiusuo. “Shanxi Ruicheng Yonglegong jiuzhi Song Defang, Pan Dechong, he ‘Lüzu’ mu fajue jianbao” 山 西芮城永樂宮舊址宋德方、潘德沖和“呂祖”墓發掘

簡報 (Excavation report on the tombs of Song

Defang, Pan Dechong, and “Ancestor Lü” at Yonglegong in Ruicheng, Shanxi). Kaogu, no. 8 (1960): 6–9, 22–25. ———. “Shanxi Wenshui Beiyukoude yizuo gumu” 山西文水北峪口的一座古墓 (An old tomb in Beiyukou, Wenshui, Shanxi). Kaogu, no. 3 (1966): 136–38, 141. Shao Jianchun and Wu Hongyun. “A Study on the Monk Official Yang Lianzhenjia in the Yuan Dynasty.” 2020 3rd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Social Sciences and Humanities (SOSHU). London: Francis Academic Press, 507–10. Shavkunov, Ernst V. Kul’tura chzhurchzhjenej-udigje XII–XIII vv. i problema proishozhdenija tungusskih narodov Dal’nego Vostoka (Culture of the Jurchen in the 12th–13th centuries and the problem of the origins of Tungusic peoples of East Asia). Moscow: Nauka, 1990. Shea, Eiren. Mongol Court Dress, Identity Formation, and Global Exchange. New York: Routledge, 2020. Shen Wanli 申萬裡. “Yuandai Yingchang gucheng tan” 元代應昌古城新探 (New investigation of the old city of Yingchang). Nei Menggu Daxue xuebao 38, 5 (2006): 29–34. Shi Baoxiu 石寶琇 and Liu Yuling 劉麗玲. Dang-Jiacun 黨家村 (Dang-Jia village). Xi’an: Xi’an ditu chubanshe, 2019. Shi Jinbo 史金波, Bai Bin 白濱, and Wu Fengyun 吳峰雲. Xi Xia wenwu 西夏文物 (Cultural relics of Western Xia). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1988. Shi Jinming and Willow W. Chang, eds. Theater, Life, and the Afterlife: Tomb Décor of the Jin Dynasty from Shanxi. Beijing: Beijing Kexue chubanshe, 2012. Shi Sengyou 釋僧祐 (445–518). Hongmingji 弘明集. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1987.

Shi Shouqian 石守謙. Da Han de shiji: Meng Yuan shidai de duoyuan wenhua yu yishu 大汗的世紀: 蒙古時代的多元文化與藝術 (Age of the Great Khan: pluralism in Chinese art and culture under the Mongols). Taibei: Guoli Gugong Bowuyuan, 2001. Shi Yan 史岩. “Longshan shiku kaocha baogao” 龍山石窟考察報告 (Report on the investigation of the rock-carved caves at Longshan). Xin meishu, no. 2 (1980): 33–42. Shi Yinguang 釋印光, Xu Zhijing許止淨, and Shi Desen釋德森. Qingliangshan zhi 清涼山志 (Record of Mount Qingliang). In Zhongguo Fosi shizi huikan, 2nd set, ed. Du Jiexiang, vol. 29, juan 7. Taipei: Mingwen chuju, 1980. Shimokura Wataru下倉渉. “Nambokuchō no teito to jiin 南北朝の帝都と寺院 ” (Imperial capitals and monasteries of the Northern and Southern Dynasties). Tōho Gakuin Daigaku ronsō: Rekishi to bunka 40 (2006): 206–10. Shiraishi Noriyuki 白石典之. Chingisu-kan no kōkogaku チンギスカンの考古学 (Archaeology of Chinggis Khan). Tokyo: Dōseisha, 2001. ———. “The ‘Great Ordu’ of Genghis Khan.” In Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, ed. Linda Komaroff. Leiden: Brill, 2013. ———. Mongoru teitokushi no kōkogakuteki kenkyū モンゴル帝国史の考古学的研究 (Research on the archaeology of Mongol cities). Tokyo: Dōseisha, 2002. ———. Mongoru teitoku tanjō: chingisu kan no miyako o horu モンゴル帝国誕生:チンギス・カンの京 を掘る (The birth of the Mongol imperium: uncovering Chinggis Khan’s capitals). Tokyo: Kodansha, 2017. ———. “Ri-Meng hezuo diaocha Mengguguo Halahelin ducheng yizhi de shouhuo” 日蒙合作調查蒙古國哈拉和林都城遺址的收穫

(Gleanings of the joint Japanese-Mongol excavation of remains of the Mongolian city Khara-Khorum). Kaogu, no. 8 (1999): 86–91. ———. “Seasonal Migrations of the Mongol Emperors and the Peri-urban Area of Kharakhorum.” International Journal of Asian Studies 1, 1 (2004): 105–9. ———. “Traces of Life in the Uighur Period Found beneath Erdene Zuu Monastery.” In The International Conference on “Erdene Zuu: Past, Present, and Future,” ed. Matsukawa Takashi and Ochir Ayudai, 94–96. Ulaanbaatar: International Institute for the Study of Nomadic Civilizations (IISNC), 2011. Shiraishi Noriyuki and Tsogtbaatar Batmunkh. “A Preliminary Report on the JapaneseMongolian Joint Archaeological Excavation

292

at Avraga Site: The Great Ordu of Chinggis Khan.” In Current Archaeological Research in Mongolia, ed. Jan Bemmann et al., 549–562. Bonn: Vor- under Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 2009. Shurany, Vered. “Prince Manggala—the Forgotten Prince of Anxi.” Asiatische Studien/ Etudes Asiatiques 71, 4 (2017): 1169–88. Sichuansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 四川省 文物考古研究所, Chengdushi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 成都市文物考古研究所, Luzhoushi Bowuguan 瀘州市博物館, and Luxian Wenwu Guanlisuo 瀘縣文物管理所. Luxian Songmu 瀘縣宋墓 (Song tombs in Lu county). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2004. Sichuansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Guang’anshi Wenwu Guanlisuo 廣安市文物管 理所, and Huayingshi Wenwu Guanlisuo 華 鎣市文物管理所. Huaying An Bingmu 華鎣安丙 墓 (Tomb of An Bing in Huaying). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008. Sichuansheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiuyuan 四川 省文物考古研究院 , Mianyang Bowuguan 綿陽 博物館, and Santaixian Wenwu Guanlisuo, eds. Santai Qijiang yamu 三台郪江崖墓 (Cliff tombs in Qijiang, Santai). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Sickman, Laurence. “Notes on Later Chinese Buddhist Art.” Parnassus 11, 4 (1939): 12–17. ———. “Wall-Paintings of the Yüan Period in Kuang-Shêng-Ssŭ, Shansi.” Revue des Arts Asiatiques 11, 2 (1937): 53–67. Sickman, Laurence, and Alexander Soper. The Art and Architecture of China. First integrated ed. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books, 1971. Silverberg, Robert. The Realm of Prester John. Columbus: Ohio University Press, 1996. Sima Guang 司馬光. Zizhi tongjian 資治通鑑 (Comprehensive mirror for aid in government). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1956. Sinor, Denis, ed. The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Sivin, Nathan. Granting the Seasons: The Chinese Astronomical Reform of 1280, with a Study of Its Many Dimensions and an Annotated Translation of Its Records. New York: Springer, 2009. Šmahelová, Lucie. “Kül-Teginův památník: Turkický kaganát a výzkum československo-mongolské expedice v ChöšööCajdam 1958” (Kül-Tegin Monument: Turkic Qaghanate and research of the first Czechoslovak-Mongolian expedition in

Bibliography

Khöshöö Tsaidam 1958). Ph.D. dissertation, Charles University, Prague, 2014. Smedley, Agnes. The Great Road: The Life and Times of Chu Teh. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1956. Sneath, David. Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Snellgrove, David, and Hugh Richardson. A Cultural History of Tibet. New York: Praeger, 1968. Snyder, Gary. Cold Mountain Poems. New York: Counterpoint, 2013. So, Billy Kee-long. Prosperity, Region, and Institutions in Maritime China: The South Fukien Pattern, 946–1368. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Asia Center, 2000. Song Dachuan 宋大川. Beijing diqu Liao-Jin muzang bihua baohu yanjiu 北京地區遼金墓葬壁畫保護 研究 (Research on the preservation of murals in Liao-Jing tombs in the vicinity of Beijing). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2008. ———, ed. Beijing kaogu faxian yu yanjiu, 1949– 2009 北京考古發現與研究, 1949–2009 (Beijing, archaeological excavation and research, 1949– 2009). 2 vols. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2009. ———. Beijing Longquanwu Liao-Jin muzang fajue baogao 北京龍泉務遼金墓葬發掘報告 (Excavation report on Liao-Jin tombs in Longquanwu, Beijing). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2009. ———. Da Yuan sandu 大元三都 (Three capitals of the Great Yuan). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2016. ———. “Heishantou gucheng jiancheng niandai kao” 黑山頭古城建城年代考 (Research on the date of construction of the old city at Heishantou). Beifang wenwu, no. 3 (2003): 79–81. Song Di 松迪. “Guanyu Heishantou gucheng” 關 於黑山頭古城 (On the old city at Heishantou). Beifang wenwu, no. 4 (2000): 45–51, 76. Song Jian 宋建 and He Jiying 何繼英. “Zhidanyuan shuizha yizhi de fajue yu yanjiu 志丹苑水閘遺 址的發掘與研究 (Excavation and research on remains of a sluice in Zhidanyuan). Shanghai wenbo, no. 1 (2003): 38–43. Song Jian and Shanghai Bowuguan 上海博物館. Zhidanyuan: Shanghai Yuandai shuizha yizhi kaogu baogao 志丹苑: 上海元代水閘遗址考古報 告 (Zhidanyuan: Report on the excavation of remains of the Yuan sluice in Shanghai). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2018. Song Lian 宋濂 (1310–1381). Yuanshi 元史 (History of Yuan). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1976.

Song Yubin 宋玉彬. “Bohai ducheng guzhi yanjiu” 渤海都城故址研究 (Research on the remains of Parhae capitals). Kaogu, no. 6 (2009): 40–49, 113. English summary in Chinese Archaeology 10 (2010): 83–90. Sonoda Kazuki 園田一龜. “Kin no Jōkyoshi Hakujō ni tsuite” 金の上京址・白城に就いて (On Baicheng, Jin Shangjing). Kōkogaku zasshi 29, no. 27 (1939): 411–43. Soper, Alexander. “Hsiang-kuo ssu, an Imperial Temple of the Northern Sung.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 68, 1 (1948): 19–45. Soucek, Priscilla. “Ceramic Production as Exemplar of Yuan-Ilkhanid Relations.” RES 35 (1999): 125–41. Soucek, Svat. A History of Inner Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Spence, Jonathan. The Chan’s Great Continent: China in Western Minds. New York: Norton, 1998. Standaert, Nicholas, ed. Handbook of Christianity in China. Vol. 1: 1635–1800. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Stange, Han. “Where Was Zayton Actually Situated.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 69, 3 (1949): 121–24. Stavisky, Boris. “The Fate of Buddhism in Middle Asia.” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3 (1993/1994): 113–37. Steinhardt, Nancy S. China’s Early Mosques. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015. ———. “Chinese Architectural History in the 21st Century.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 73, 1 (2014): 38–60. ———, ed. and adap. Chinese Architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002. ———. Chinese Architecture: A History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019. ———. Chinese Architecture in an Age of Turmoil, 200–600. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2014. ———. Chinese Imperial City Planning. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1990. ———. Chinese Traditional Architecture. New York: China Institute, 1984. ——— “Eurasian Impacts on the Yuan Observatory in Haocheng.” In Eurasian Influences on Yuan China, ed. Morris Rossabi, 103–24. Singapore: Yusof Ishak Institute, 2013. ———. “Imperial Architecture under Mongolian Patronage: Khubilai’s Imperial City of Daidu.” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1981. ———. “Liao Archaeology: New Frontiers on China’s Frontier.” Asian Perspectives 37, no. 2 (1998): 224–44.

293

———. “The Mizong Hall of Qinglong Si: Ritual, Space, and Classicism in Tang Architecture.” Archives of Asian Art 44 (1991): 27–50. ———. “The Pagoda in Kherlen Bars: New Understandings of Khitan-Period Towering Pagodas.” Archives of Asian Art 66, 2 (2016): 187–212. ———. “The Plan of Khubilai Khan’s Imperial City.” Artibus Asiae 44, 2/3 (1983): 137–58. ———. “Shishi: A Stone Structure Associated with Abaoji in Zuzhou.” Asia Major 19, 1–2 (2006): 241–66. ———. The Synaguge at Kaifeng: Sino-Judaic Architecture of the Diaspora.” In The Jews of China. Vol. 1: Historical and Comparative Perspcectives, ed. Jonathan Goldstein, 3–21. Armonk, NY: Sharpe, 1997. ———. “The Tangut Royal Tombs near Yinchuan.” Muqarnas 10 (1993): 369–81. ———. “The Temple to the Northern Peak in Quyang.” Artibus Asiae 58, 1–2 (1998): 69–90. ———. “Toward the Definition of a Yuan Dynasty Hall.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 44, 1 (1988): 57–73. ———. “Yuan Dynasty Tombs and Their Inscriptions: Changing Identities for the Chinese Afterlife.” Ars Orientalis 37 (2009): 138–72. ———. “Yuan Period Tombs and Their Decoration: Cases at Chifeng.” Oriental Art 36, 4 (1990/91): 198–221. ———. “Zhu Haogu Reconsidered: A New Date for the ROM Painting and the Southern Shanxi Buddhist-Daoist Style.” Artibus Asiae 48, 1 (1987): 5–38. Steinhardt, Nancy S., Ah-Rim Park, and Lkhagvasuren Erdenebold, “Shoroon Bumbagar: A Tomb in Bayannuur, Mongolia.” Artibus Asiae 80, 2 (2020): 167–210. Stodard, Heather. Early Sino-Tibetan Art, 2d ed. Bangkok: Orchid Press, 2008. Su Bai 宿白. Baisha Songmu 白沙宋墓 (Song tombs at Baisha). 1957. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2002. ———. “‘Da Jin Xijing Wuzhoushan chongxiu dashikusi bei’ jiaozhu”《大金西京武州山重脩大石窟 寺碑》校注 (Notes on “Stele commemorating repair to the great rock-carved cave-temples on Mount Wuzhou in the western capital during the Great Jin”). In Zhongguo shikusi yanjiu, 52–88. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. ———. “Juyongguan guojieta kaogao” 居庸關過街 塔考稿 (Research on the overpass pagoda at Juyongguan). Wenwu, no. 4 (1964): 13–29. ———. “Wuwei Meng Yuan shiqi de Zhangchuan Fojiao yiji” 武威蒙元時期的藏傳佛教遺跡

Bibliography

(Tibetan Buddhist remains from the Yuan period in Wuwei). In Su Bai, Zangchuan Fojiao siyuan kaogu, 264–74. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. ———. “Xi’an diqu Tangmu bihua de buju he neirong” 西安地區唐墓壁畫的佈局和內容 (The layout and content of the wall Paintings of Tang tombs at Xi’an). Kaogu xuebao, no. 2 (1982): 137–54. ———. “Xizang Rigeze diqu simiao diaochaji” 西 藏日喀則地區寺廟調查記 (Excavation report on monasteries and temples in the area of Xigaze, Tibet). In Su Bai, Zangchuan Fojiao siyuan kaogu, 87–118. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. ———. “Yonglegong chuangjian shiliao biannian” 永樂宮創建史料編年. Wenwu, no. 4–5 (1962): 80–87. ———. “Yuan Dadu ‘Shengzhi tejian Shijia sheli lingtong zhi ta beiwen’” 元大都《聖旨特建釋 迦舍利靈通之塔碑文》(Stele inscription on Spiritual influence of the Shakya relics built especially on imperial command by Yuan Daidu). In Su Bai, Zangzhuan Fojiao siyuan kaogu, 322–37. ———. “Yuandai Hangzhou de Zangchuan mijiao jiqi youguan yiji 元代杭州的藏傳密教及其有關 遺跡 (Esoteric Buddhism in Yuan Hangzhou and its remains). In Su Bai, Zangchuan Fojiao siyuan kaogu, 365–87. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. ———. Zangchuan Fojiao siyuan kaogu 藏傳佛教寺院 考古 (Archaeology of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. ———. Zhongguo shikusi yanjiu 中國石窟寺研究 (Research on Chinese rock-carved monasteries). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1996. Su Dong 蘇東. “Yijian Yuandai gugukuan” 一件元 代姑姑冠 (A Yuan hat of the gugu type). Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu, no. 2 (2001): 99–100. Sun Chengze 孫承澤 (1592–1676). Chunmingmeng yulu 春明夢餘錄 (Record of dreams of the capital). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1987. Repr. from Qinding Siku quanshu, vol. 868–69. ———. Tianfu guangji 天府廣記 (Compendium of the heavenly prefecture). Beijing: Beijing guji chubanshe, 1982. ———. Yuanchaodian gubian niankao 元朝典故編年 攷. Guangzhou: Guangzhou chubanshe, 2008. ———. Yuanchao renwulüe 元朝人物略 (Dictionary of people in the Yuan dynasty). Yangzhou: Jiangsu Guangling guji yinkeshe, 1988. Sun Dazhang 孫大章. Chengde Puningsi: Qingdai Fojiao jianzhu zhi jiezuo 承德普寧寺 : 清代佛教 建築之傑作 (Puning Monastery in Chenge: A

Masterpiece of Qing Buddhist architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2008. Sun Fuxi 孫福喜 and Wang Zili 王自力. “Xi’an dongjiao Yuandai bihuamu” 西安東郊元代壁 畫墓 (A tomb with murals in the eastern suburbs of Xi’an). Wenwu, no. 1 (2004): 62–72. Sun Kekuan. “Yuan Shangdu kaolüe” 元上都考略 (Summary of research on Yuan Shangdu). In Menggu Hanjun ji Han wenhua yanjiu 蒙古漢軍 及漢文化研究 (Research on Mongol-Chinese military and Chinese culture), 191–98. Taipei: Wenxing shudian, 1958. ———. Yuandai Daojiao de fazhan 元代道教的 發展 (The development of Yuan Daoism). Taizhong: Sili Donghai Daxue, 1968. Sun Meng 孫勐. Beijing kaogushi 北京考古 史 (History of archaeology in Beijing): Yuandaijuan 元代卷 (Yuan dynasty). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2012. Sun Shaofei. “Discussion on Khublai Khan Yang Lian-zhen-jia and Southern Buddhism.” Journal of Zhejiang Sciences University, no. 10 (2015). Sun Wei 孫危, trans. Gudai Menggu chengshi 古代 蒙古城市 (Ancient Mongolian cities). Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2016. Sun Xiaofeng 孫曉峰 and Zang Quanhong 臧全 紅 . “Gansu Wushan Mutisi shiku diaocha jianbao” 甘肅武山木梯寺石窟調查簡報 (Brief report on rock-carved caves of Mutisi in Wushan, Gansu). Dunhuang yanjiu, no. 1 (2008): 27–34. Sun Xiuren 孫秀仁. “Jindai Shangjingcheng” 金代 上京城 (The Jin city Shangjing). In Heilongjiang gudai wenwu 黒龍江古代文物 (Old cultural relics in Heilongjiang), Heilongjiang Wenwu Kaogu Gongzuodui 黒龍江省文物考古工作隊, ed., 67–80. Harbin: Heilongjiang Renmin chubanshe, 1979. Sun Xuxiang, ed. Hancheng Dang-Jiacun 韓城 黨家村. (Dang-Jia village in Hancheng). Guangzhou: Guangdong shijie tushu chuban gongshe, 2008. Sun, Zhixin Jason. “Dadu: Great Capital of the Yuan Dynasty.” In The World of Khubilai Khan: Chinese Art in the Yuan Dynasty, ed. James Watt et al., 41–63. New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2010. Sweeten, Alan. China’s Old Churches: The Historical Architecture, and Legacy of Catholic Sacred Structures in Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei Province. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Ta La 塔拉. Wenming zhi lu: Zhongguo beifang caoyuan gudai wenming lansheng 文明之路:

294

中國北方草原古代文明攬勝 (Cultural Tour:

Spectacular images of the ancient grasslands civilization in northern China). Höhhot: Nei Menggu Bowuyuan, no date. Tabbaa, Yasser. “The Muqarnas Dome: Its Origin and Meaning.” Muqarnas 3 (1985): 61–74. Tackett, Nicholas. The Origins of the Chinese Nation: Song China and the Forging of an East Asian World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Taibei Shili Meishuguan 臺北市立美術館. Zhongguo jianzhu zhi mei 中國建築之美 (The beauty of Chinese architecture). Taipei: Taibei Shili Meishuguan, 1985. Taiwan Gaoxiongshi 臺灣高雄市. Foguang dacidian 佛光大辭典 (Dictionary of Buddhism). 8 vols. Gaoxiong: Foguang wenhua shiye youxian gongsi, 1988. Takeshima Takuichi 竹島卓一. Ryō-Kin jidai no kenchiku to sono Butsuzō 遼金時代の建築と其仏像 (Liao-Jin architecture and its Buddhist sculpture). 2 vols. Tokyo: Ryūbun Shokyoku, 1944. Tala 塔拉, Zhang Haibin 張海斌 , and Zhang Hongxing 張紅星. Baotou Yanjialiang yizhi fajue baogao 包頭燕家梁遺址發掘報告 (Excavation report on remains at Yanjialiang in Baotou). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2010. Tamura Jitsuzō 田村實造. Chūgoku seifuku ōchō no kenkyū 中國征服王朝の研究 (Research on Chinese conquest dynasties). 3 vols. Kyoto: Tōyōshi kenkyūkai, 1964–1985. Tamura Jitsuzō and Kobayashi Yukio 小林行 雄 . Keiryō: Higashi Mongoria ni okeru Ryōdai teitōryō to sono hekiga ni kansuru kōkogakuteki chōsa hōkoku 慶陵 : 東モンゴリアにおける遼代 帝王陵とその壁画に関する考古学的調查報告

(Qingling: Excavation report on Liao imperial tombs in eastern Mongolia). 2 vols. Kyoto: Kyoto Daigaku bungakubu, 1953. Tan Qixiang 譚其驤. Zhongguo lishi dituji 中國歷 史地圖集 (Historical atlas of China). 8 vols. Beijing: Ditu chubanshe, 1987. Tan Zhicui 檀志慧. “Gujiaoshi Hexiacun Yuandai muzang” 古交市河下村元代墓葬 (A Yuan cemetery Hexia village, Gujiao). Wenwu shijie, no. 5 (2016): 33–35, 16. Tanaka Tan 田中淡. “Chōgen no zōei katsudō” 重源の造営活動 (Chōgen’s construction activities). Bukkyō geijutsu, no. 105 (1976): 20–50. ———. “Jūjiro ni tatsu hōji rokaku” 十字路に立つ 報時楼閣 (Ceremonial towers that stand at crossroads). Chyamus, no. 5 (1983): 20–22. Tang Cailan 唐彩蘭. Liao Shangjing wenwu xieying 遼上京文物擷英 (Quintessence of cultural relics from Liao Shangjing). Höhhot: Yuanfang chubanshe, 2014.

Bibliography

Tang Yuli 唐宇力. Hangzhou Feilaifeng zaoxiang baohu gongcheng chengguo xieying 杭州飛來峰造 像保護工程成果撷英 (Results of preservation work on imagery at Feilaifeng in Hangzhou). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2017. Tao Baocheng 陶保成. “Xuanyuangong zhengdian de buluojia kexue baohu” 軒轅宮正殿的不落 架科學保護 (Preservation of the main hall of Xuanyuangong). Dongnan wenhua, no. 7 (2001): 95–96. Tao Jing-shen. The Jurchen in Twelfth-Century China: A Study of Sinicization. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1977. Tao Xisheng 陶希聖. “Yuandai Mile bailian jiaohui de baodong” 元代彌勒白蓮教會的暴 動 (Rebellion of the Maitreya White Lotus Society in Yuan). Shihuo yuekan, no. 1 (1993): 152–55. Tao Zongyi 陶宗儀 [act. 1360–1368]. (Nancun) Chuogenglu (南村)輟耕錄 (Record of resting from the plow [by Nancun (Southern Village)]). Shanghai: Zhonghua shuju, 1959; Taipei: Shijie shuju, 1977. Tavakoli, Afshin. “Verjuy Mithra Temple, the Oldest Surviving Mithraist Temple in Iran.” Iran, Daily Newspaper 2802 (May 16, 2004), 12. Teiser, Stephen. Reinventing the Wheel: Paintings of Rebirth in Medieval Buddhist Temples. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006. Teleki, Krisztina. “Monastic Sites visited by A. M. Pozdneev during His Second Trip to Mongolia (1892–1893).” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 67, 3 (2014): 337–61. Thacker, T. W. “A Nestorian Gravestone from Central Asia in the Gulbenkian Museum, Durham University.” Durham University Journal 59, 2 (1967): 94–104. Thackston, Wheeler, trans. Rashidduddin Fazlullah’s Jamiʻuʾt-tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles: A History of the Mongols. 3 pts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. Thiel, Joseph. “Der Streit der Buddhisten und Taoisten zur Mongolenzeit. ”Monumenta Serica 20 (1961): 1–81. Thilo, Thomas. Klassische chinesische Baukunst: Strukturprinzipien und soziale Funkion. Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1977. Thompson, Lydia. “Yi’nan Tomb: Narrative and Ritual in Pictorial Art of the Eastern Han (25–22) C.E.).” Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1998. Tian Rucheng 田汝成 (16th century). Xihu youlan zhi 西湖游覽志 (Record of travels around West

Lake). Sigu quanshu zhenben wuji. Vol. 585. Taipei: Taiwan yinshuguan, 1974. Tillman, Hoyt, and Stephen West. China under Jurchen Rule: Essays on Chinese Intellectual and Cultural History. Albany: SUNY Press, 1995. Togan, Isenbike. Flexibility and Limitation in Steppe Formations: The Kerait Khanate and Chinggis Khan. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Tokiwa Daijō 常盤大定. “Shanxi Longshan shiku gaishuo” 山西龍山石窟概說 (On the rockcarved caves of Longshan at Shanxi), trans. Chen Zhao 陳昭. Dunhuang yanjiu, no. 1 (2002): 42–46. Tolmachev, Vladimir J. Drevnosti Manchzhurii. Razvaliny Bjej-Chana (Antiquities of Manchuria. The ruins of Bei-Chang). 2 vols. Harbin: OIMK, 1925. Torii Ryūzō 鳥居龍藏 (1870–1953). “Jin Shangjingcheng Fosi kao” 金上京城佛寺考 (Research on Buddhist monasteries at Jin Shangjing). Yanjing xuebao 34 (1948): 107–32. ———. “Jin Shangjingcheng ji qi wenhua” 金上 京城及其文化 (Jin Shangjing and its culture). Yanjing xuebao 35 (1948): 194–204. ———. Menggu lüxing 蒙古旅行 (Travels in Mongolia). Trans. Dai Yue 戴玥 and Zheng Chunying 鄭春穎. From Mōko ryukō, 1911. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2018. Toriyama Kiichi鳥山喜一. “Kin no Jōkyōshi” 金 の上京市 (Jin Shangjing). Mammō 滿蒙 16, 9 (1935): 148–56. ———. “Kin no Jōkyōshi no shutsudohin ni tsuite” 金の上京の出土品について (On objects excavated at Jin Shangjing). Seikyō gakuso 19 (1935): 192–201. Tsang, Ka Bo. “Further Observations on the Yuan Wall Painter Zhu Haogu and the Relationship of the Chunyang Hall Wall Paintings to “The Maitreya Paradise” at the ROM.” Artibus Asiae 52, 1–2 (1992): 94–118. Tseng Lan-ying 曾蘭塋. “Zuofang, getao yu diyuzi chuantong: cong Shandong Anqiu Dongjiazhuang Hanmu de zhizuo henji tanqi” 作坊 格套 與地域子傳統：從山東安丘董家莊漢墓的

製作痕迹談起 (Workshops, repertories, and re-

gional subtraditions: traces of the Han tomb with relief carving in Dongjiazhuang, Anqiu, Shandong) Guoli Taiwan Daxue meishushi jikan 8 (2000): 33–86. Tulisow, Jerzy, et al., eds. In the Heart of Mongolia: 100th Anniversary of W. Kotwicz’z Expedition to Mongolia in 1912, Studies and Selected Source Materials. Cracow: Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2012. Tuotuo 脫脫 (1313–1355), ed. Jinshi 金史 (History of Jin). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1975.

295

———. Songshi 宋史 (History of Song). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1977. Turnbull, Stephen, and Richard Hook. The Mongol Invasions of Japan, 1274 and 1281. London: Osprey, 2013. 2012 Zhonguo Shoujie Aolunsumu wenhua yantaohui 中國首屆敖倫蘇木文化研討會 (Initial research conference on Olon Süme, China, 2012). Proceedings published in Baotou, 2012. Ulanchab Wenwu Gongzuozhan 烏蘭察布文物 工作站. “Chayouqianqi Tuchengzi gucheng diaocha jianbao” 察右前旗土城子古城調查 簡報 (Excavation report of city remains at Tuchengzi, Chayouqianqi). Ulanchab Wenwu, no. 3 (1979). Ulansey, David. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Umari, Ibn Fadlallāh al- (1301–1349). Dartstellung der mongolischen Reiche in seinem Werk Masālik al-abṣār fi mamālik al-amṣār. Paraphrased and with commentary by Klaus Lech. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1968. ———. Masālik el Abṣār fi Mamālik el Amṣār. Trans. and ann. Maurice Gaudefroy-Demombynes. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1927. Vainker, Shelagh. Chinese Silk: A Cultural History. New Brunswick, NJ: British Museum and Rutgers University Press, 2004. Vardjavānd, Parvīz. “La Découverte archaeologique du complexe scientifique de l’observatoire de Maraqe.” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 6 (1979): 527–36. ———. “The Imām-zadeh Ma’sūm Vardjōvi Near Marāgheh.” East and West 25, 3–4 (1976): 2–11. ———. “Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles de l’observatoire de Marâqe.” Le Monde iranien et l’Islam: Sociétés et cultures 3 (1979): 119–24. Vardjavānd, Parvīz and Alessandro Bausani. “The Observatory of Marāghe.” Soltāniye 3 (1982): 125–51. Vissière, Arnold Jacques Antoine. (1908). “Le Sayyid Edjell Chams ed-Din Omar (1210– 1279) et deux sépultures en Chine.” Revue du Monde Musulman 4, 2 (1908): 340–46. Volkov, V. V. Olennye kamni Mongolii (Deer stones of Mongolia). Moscow: Nauchnyĭ mir, 2002. Walker, Benjamin. Gnosticism: Its History and Influence. New York: Harper Collins, 1990. Waley, Arthur, trans. Travels of an Alchemist: The Journey of the Taoist Ch’ang-ch’un from China to the Hindukush at the Summons of Chingiz Khan.

Bibliography

London: Rutledge and Sons, 1931; with many later reprints. Wan Liangtian 萬良田. “Jiangxi Fengcheng faxian Yuan yingqing diaosu xitaishi cizhen” 江西豐 城發現元影青雕塑戲台式瓷枕 (A Yuan ceramic pillow in the shape of a stage excavated in Fengcheng, Jiangxi). Wenwu, no. 8 (1984): 82–84. Wang Beichen 王北辰. Wang Beichen xibei lishi dili lunwenji 王北辰西北歷史地理論文集 (Collected essays on historical geography in northwestern China by Wang Beichen). Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe, 2000. Wang Biwen 王壁文. “Fenghuangzui tucheng” 鳳凰嘴土城 (Earthen wall in Fenghuangzui). Wenwu cankao ziliao, no. 8 (1958): 60–61. ———. “Yuan Dadu chengfangkao” 元大都城坊 考 (Research on the walls and wards of Yuan Daidu). Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 6, 3 (1936): 69–120. ———. “Yuan Dadu siguanmiaoyu jianzhi yange biao” 元大都寺觀廟宇建置沿革表 (Chronological chart of Buddhist and Daoist monasteries and other temples in Yuan Daidu). Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 6, 4 (1937): 130–61. Wang Canchi王燦熾. “Tan Yuan Dadu de cheng qiang he chengmen ” 談元大都的城牆和城 門 (On the walls and gates of Yuan Daidu). Gugong Bowuyuan yuankan, no. 4 (1984): 49-57. ———. “Yuan Dadu Zhonggulou kao” 元大都鐘鼓 樓考 (Research on the bell and drum towers in Yuan Daidu). Gugong Bowuyuan yuankan, no. 85, no. 4 (1985): 23-29. Wang Dafang王大方. “Wengniuteqi Yuandai “Zhu Wentai bei” beiwen chaojian jianzhu” 翁牛特旗元代“竹溫台碑”碑文抄件箋注

(Annotated commentary on the inscription copied from Zhu Wentai Stele from the Yuan dynasty in Wengniuteqi). In Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji, ed. Wei Jian, vol. 2, 684–87. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 2008. ———. “Wengniuteqi Yuandai ‘Zhangshixianyinbei’ yu “Zhu Tong xiandebei’ tantao” 翁牛特旗元代“張氏先塋碑” 與“住童先德碑”探討 (Discussion of Stele of Zhu Tong and the Stele of the Zhang Family of the Yuan period in Wengniuteqi). In Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji, ed. Wei Jian, vol. 2, 673–83. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 2008. Wang Dafang, Batujirgal, and Zhang Wenfang, “Baiyanyao shiku de yingjian niandai ji bihua zhuyao neirong chulun—jianshu chengji-

sihan zai Baiyanyao diqu zhi huodong” 百眼

窟石窟的營建年代及壁畫主要內容初探——兼述

成吉思汗在百眼窯地區之活動 (Initial discussion

of the date of construction and contents of important murals in the rock-carved caves of Baiyanyao: the life of Chinggis Khan in the vicinity of Bayanyao). In Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji, ed. Li Yiyou and Wei Jian, 566–78. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 1994. Wang Deyi 王德毅. Yuanren zhuanji ziliao suoyin 元人傳記資料索引 (Index of biographical records and material of Yuan). Beijing: Zhongua shuju, 1987. Wang, Eugene. “Transformation in Heterotopia.” Orientations (June 1998): 32–40. Wang Gang 王崗. “Yuan Dadu gongdian yingjian ji gongneng lüeshu” 元大都宮殿營建及功能略述 (Summary of palace construction and utilization at Yuan Daidu). Beijing Kexue Xueyuan 3 (2013): 156–61. Wang Guang 王光. Liaoxi guta xunzong 遼西古塔 寻踪 (Comprehensive investigation of pagodas west of the Liao). Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe, 2006. Wang Guixiang 王貴祥. “Bei Song Bianjing Daxiangguosi kongjian yanjiu jiqi Mingdai dadiande keneng yuanzhuang chutan” 北宋 汴京大相國寺空間研究及其明代大殿的可能原狀

初探 (Preliminary investigation of the spatial

layout Great Xiangguo Monastery in the Northern Song capital Bianliang and some conjectures about the original appearance of the Ming main hall). Zhongguo jianzhu shilun jikan 9 (2014): 131–70. ———. “Lüelun Zhongguo gudai gaoceng mugou jianzhu de fazhan” 略論中國古代高層木構建築 的發展 (On the development of old Chinese tall, multi-layered wooden buildings). Gujian yuanlin jishu, part 1: no. 2 (1985): 2–8; part 2: no. 7 (1985): 2–7. ———. “A Research on the Palace Buildings of Da’ange in the Yuan Capital of Shangdu Kaiping.” In Along the Great Wall: Architecture and Identity in China and Mongolia, ed. E. Lehner, A. Harrer, and H. Sint, 61–70. Vienna: IVA-Institute for Contemporary Research in Architecture, 2010. ———. “√2 yu Tang-Song jianzhu zhuyan guanxi” √2與唐宋建築柱檐關係 (The relation between the square root of 2 and the pillars and eaves of Tang-Song architecture). Jianzhu lishi yu lilun 3–4 (1985): 40–47. ———. Wang Guixiang Zhongguo jianzhu shilun xuanji 王貴祥中國建築史論選集 (Selected essays

296

on architectural history by Wang Guixiang). Shenyang: Liaoning meishu chubanshe, 2013. ———. “Yuan Shangdu Kaiping gongdian jianzhu Da’ange yanjiu” 元上都開平宮殿建築大安閣研究 (Research on Da’ange, palatial architecture in Kaiping, Shangdu, of the Yuan dynasty). Zhongguo jianzhu shilun jikan 2 (2009): 37–63 Wang Guixiang and Alexandra Harrer. “Recovery Research of Xingyuan Pavilion Built at a Buddhist Temple in Mongol-era (Yuan) Karakorum.” Zhongguo jianzhu shilun jikan 15 (2018): 357–83. Wang Guixiang, Liu Chang, and Duan Zhijun 段智鈞. Zhongguo gudai mugou jianzhu bilie yu zhidu yanjiu中國古代木构建築比例與尺度研究 (Research on the comparison and measurement of premodern Chinese timber-frame architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2011. Wang Guoqi 王國奇. “Yuzhoushi Guanwangmiao Dadian diaochaji” 禹州市關王廟大殿調查記 (Excavation report on the main hall of the Temple to Guanwang in Yuzhou). Zhongyuan wenwu, no. 1 (1990): 100–103. Wang Hongtong 王亨通 and Du Doucheng 杜斗城. Binglingsi shiku neirong zonglu 炳靈寺石窟内容總 錄 (Comprehensive record of the contents of the Binglingsi rock-carved caves). Lanzhou: Lanzhou Daxue chubanshe, 2006. Wang Huijuan 王卉娟. Yuandai Yonglegong Chunyangdian jianzhu bihua xianmiao 元代永 樂宮純陽殿建築壁畫線描 (Drawings of murals from the Yuan dynasty Chunyang Hall of Yonglegong). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2013. Wang Jianying王劍英. “Xiao Xun Gugong yilu kaobian” 蕭洵《故宮遺錄》考辨 (Research on Xiao Xun’s Gugong yilu). In Beijingshi yanjiu 北京史 研究 , ed. Beijingshi shehui kexueyuan lishisuo 北京市社會科學院歷史所, vol. 1, 128–43. Beijing: Beijing Yanshan chubanshe, 1986. Wang Jingchen 王晶辰 et al., eds. Chaoyang Bei Ta: kaogu fajue yu weixiu gongcheng baogao 朝陽北 塔: 考古發掘與維修工程報告 (Chaoyang North Pagoda: Report on the repair work and excavation) Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2007. Wang, Jinping. In the Wake of the Mongols: The Making of a New Social Order in North China, 1200–1600. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Asia Center, 2020. Wang Jinxian 王進先. Changzhi Song, Jin, Yuan mushi jianzhu yishu yanjiu 長治宋金元墓室建築 藝術研究 (Research on the art of architecture in Song, Jin, and Yuan tomb chambers in Changzhi). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2015.

Bibliography

Wang, Lianming. Jesuitenerbe in Peking: Sakralbauten und transkulturelle Räume, 1600– 1800. Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag, 2020. Wang Mianhou 王綿厚. Gaogouli gucheng yanjiu 高句麗古城硏究 (Research on old cities of Koguryŏ). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2002. Wang Mingqing 王明清 (1127–1215). Huizhulu 揮 麈錄 (Record of whisking ink dry). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1987. Wang Na王娜. “Shaanxi Hancheng jianzhu yichan baohuzhong wenhua shengtai huanjing yanjiu” 陝西韓城建築遺產保護中文化生態環境研 究 (Research on the cultural attitude toward preservation of remains of Hancheng’s architecture in Shanxi). M.A. thesis, Shaanxi Jishu Daxue, 2012. Wang Nan 王南. “Guijufangyuan Duxianggouwu” 規矩方圓，度像構屋 (Rules of square and circle, sculpture sizes in architectural compositions). Jianzhushi, no. 1 (2018): 103–25. ———. “Xiangtianfadi.” 象天法地 (Principles of modeling heaven and earth, rules of squares and circles). Jianzhushi, no. 2 (2018): 77–125. Wang, Ning 王寧. Yuandai qinghua xiulihong lougeshi gucang changxi” 元代青花釉裡紅樓 閣式穀倉賞析 (Analysis of the red undeglaze louge-style stage-granary from the Yuan dynasty). Shoucangjia 收藏家, no. 1 (2010): 81–85. Wang Puzi 王璞子. “Yuan Daducheng pingmian guihua shulüe” 元大都城平面規劃述略 (Account of the plan and scale of Yuan Daidu). Gugong Bowuyuan yuankan 2 (1960): 61–82. Wang Shidian (d. 1359?) 王士點. Jinbian 禁扁 (Forbidden cities). Yingzao jingdian jicheng 4. 3 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2009. Wang Shiren 王世仁. “Beijing Tianningsita santi 1946–1996” 北京天寧寺塔三題 (Three aspects of the pagoda of Tianning Monastery in Beijing 1946–1996). In Jianshushi yanjiu lunwenji (Research essays on Chinese architecture, 1949–1996), ed. Lu Dan, 100–113. Tsinghua Daxue Jianzhu Xixue Congshu. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1996. Wang Shiren. “Han Chang’ancheng nanjiao lizhi jianzhu yuanzhuang de tuice” 漢長安城南郊禮 制建築原狀的推測 (Conjectures on the original appearance of the architectural remains of ritual structures in the southern suburbs of Han Chang’an). Wenwu, no. 9 (1963): 501–15. ———. “Jin Zhongdu lishi yange yu wenhua jiazhi” 金中都歷史沿革與文化價值 (History, development, and cultural value of Jin Zhongdu). Zhongguo jianzhu lishi jikan 8 (2013): 289–300.

———. “Yonglegong de Yuandai jianzhu he bihua” 永樂宮的元代建築和壁畫 (Yuan architecture and murals at Yonglegong). Wenwu cankao ziliao, no. 9 (1956): 32–40. Wang Xiaomeng 王 小 蒙. “Shaanxi Pucheng Dongercun Yuandai bihua mu” 陜西蒲城洞耳 村元代壁畫墓 (A Yuan-period tomb with wall paintings in Donger village, Pucheng county, Shaanxi). Kaogu yu wenwu 考古與文物, no. 1 (2000): 16–21, 48. Wang Xiaonan 王小南. Qidan wangchao (Khitan dynasty) 契丹王朝. Beijing: Huaxia chubanshe, 2015. Wang, Xin, Chen Zhongyuan, Wang Zhanghua, and He, Jiying. “Zhidanyuan Sluice of YuanDynasty, Shanghai Area of Yangtze Delta: Discussion of Its Abandonment.” Frontiers of Earth Science in China 4, no. 4 (2010): 386–92. Wang Xun 王遜. “Yonglegong Sanqingdian bihua ticai shitan” 永樂宮三清殿壁畫題材試探 (Investigation of subject matter in murals of Three Purities Hall, Yonglegong). Wenwu, no. 8 (1963): 19–39. Wang, Y. C. Chinese Intellectuals and the West, 1872–1949. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966. Wang Yi 王毅. “Xizang wenwu jianwenji (er)” 西藏文物見聞記 (Record of information about cultural relics in Tibet [part 2]). Wenwu, no. 8–9 (1960): 52–65. Wang Yintian王銀田 and Liu Junxi 劉俊喜. “Datong Zhijiabu Bei Wei mu shiguo bihua” 大同智家堡北魏墓石槨壁畫 (A Northern Wei painted stone sarcophagus from Zhijiabu, Datong). Wenwu, no. 7 (2001): 40–51. Wang Yonggang 王勇剛. “Shaanxi Ganquan Jindai bihuamu” 陝西甘泉金代壁畫墓 (Jin tombs in Ganquan, Shaanxi, with murals). Wenwu, no. 9 (2007): 26–42. Wang Yun 王惲 (1227–1304). Wang Yun quanji huijiao 王惲全集彙校 (Complete writings of Wang Yun). 10 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2014. ———. “Xichunge yizhiji” 熈春閣遺制記. In Qiujianji 秋澗集 (Notes on autumn). Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1983, juan 38. Wang Yuting 王玉亭, ed. Liao Shangjing yanjiu lunwenxuan 遼上京研究論文選 (Selected research essays on Liao Shangjing). Zhengxie Balinzuoqi: Balinzuoqi weiyuanhui, 2006 Wang Zeqing 王澤慶. “Jishan Qinglongsi bihua chutan” 稷山青龍寺壁畫初探 (Preliminary discussion of the murals at Qinglong Monastery in Jishan). Wenwu, no. 5 (1980): 78–82. Watson, William. The Westward Influence of the Chinese Arts from the 14th to the 18th Century.

297

London: School of Oriental and African Studies and Percival David Foundation, 1976. Watt, James, et al. The World of Khubilai Khan: Chinese Art in the Yuan Dynasty. New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2010. Wei, Betty Peh-T’i. Ruan Yuan, 1764–1849): The Life and Works of a Major Scholar-Official in Nineteenth-Century China before the Opium War. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2006. ———. “Menggu gaoyuan shike renxiang yuanliu chutan” 蒙古高原石雕人像源流初探 (Preliminary discussion of the origins of stone men on the Mongolian grasslands). Wenwu, no. 8 (2011): 55–64. Wei Cuncheng 魏存成. Gaogouli ducheng 高句麗 (Koguryŏ cities). Beijing: Wenwu Press, 2004. Wei Jian 魏堅, ed. Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji 内蒙古文物考古文集 (Collected essays in Mongolian cultural relics and archaeology). Vol. 2. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 1997. ———. Yuan Shangdu 元上都 (Shangdu of Yuan). 2 vols. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 2008. Wei Jian and Chen Yongzhi 陳永誌. “Zhenglanqi Yangqunmiao shidiaoxiang yanjiu” 正藍旗羊群 廟石雕像研究 (Research on stone statues from Yangqunmiao in Zhenglanqi). In Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji, ed. Li Yiyou and Wei Jian, vol. 1, 622–29. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 1994. Wei Shou 魏收 (506–572). Weishu魏書 (History of Wei). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974. Weidner, Marsha Smith. Flowering in Shadows: Women in the History of Chinese and Japanese Painting. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1990. ———. “Painting and Patronage at the Mongol Court of China, 1260–1368.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1982. Weixian Bowuguan 蔚縣博物館. “Hebeisheng Weixian Yuandai muzang” 河北省蔚縣元代墓葬 (A Yuan tomb in Wei county, Hebei). Kaogu, no. 3 (1983): 284. Wengniuteqizhi Bianzuan Weiyuanhui 翁牛特 旗編纂委員會. Wengniuteqizhi 翁牛特旗林業 志 (Record of Wengniuteqi). Höhhot: Nei Menggu Renmin chubanshe, 1993. Wenren, Jun. Ancient Chinese Encyclopedia of Technology: Translation and Annotation of the Kaogong ji (the Artificers’ Record). London: Routledge, 2013.

Bibliography

Wenwu Chubanshe 文物出版社. Wenwu yu kaogu lunji 文物與考古論集 (Essays on cultural relics and archaeology). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986. ———. Yonglegong bihua xuanji 永樂宮壁畫選 集 (Yonglegong murals, selected). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1958. Werner, Sabine. Die Belagerung von K’ai-feng im Winter 1126/27: nach Kapitel 64–69 des San-ch’ao pei-meng hui-pien, kompiliert von Hsü Meng-hsin. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1992. Wheatley, Paul. The Pivot of the Four Quarters: A Prelimminary Enquiry into the Origins and Character of the Ancient Chinese City. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1972. Reprinted as The Origins and Character of the Chinese City. 2 vols. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine, 2008. White, William C. Chinese Temple Frescoes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1940. Wilber, Donald. The Architecture of Islamic Iran: the Il Khanid Period. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955. Wilkinson, Endymion. Chinese History: A New Manual, fifth ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 2018. Williams, C.A.S. Chinese Symbolism and Art Motifs. Rutland, VT: Tuttle, 1974. Wittfogel, Karl, and Feng Chi-sheng. History of Chinese Society: Liao. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1949. Wong, Dorothy C. “The Panorama of Wu-t’ai Shan as an Example of Tenth Century Cartography.” Archives of Asian Art 46 (1993): 27–52. Wright, Hope. Alphabetical List of Geographical Names in Sung China. Paris: École Pratique des Hautes Études, Centre de Récherches Historiques, 1956. Wu Chengluo吳承洛. Zhongguo duliangheng shi 中 國度量衡史 (History of Chinese weights and measures). Shanghai: Shanghai shudian, 1984. Wu Chengzhi 吳承志 and Liu Chenggan 劉承幹. Tang Jia Dan ji bianzhou ru siyi daoli kaoshi 唐 賈耽記邊州入四夷道里攷實 (Investigation of Jia Dan of Tang’s record of routes in border regions in the direction of the four barbarian peoples). Taipei: Wenhai chubanshe, 1968. Wu Hui 巫慧 and Wang Zhuzheng 王居正 (Guangxu period), comps. Puxianzhi 蒲縣 志 (Record of Puxian). In Zhongguo difangzhi jicheng: Shanxifu xianzhiji 中國地方志集成：山 西府縣志輯, vol. 50. Nanjing: Fenghuang chubanshe, 2005. Wu Hung. “Beyond the Great Boundary: Funerary Narrative in the Cangshan Tomb.”

In Boundaries in China, ed. Jonathan Hay, 81–104. London: Reaktion Books, 1994. ———. “A Case of Cultural Interaction: House-Shaped Sarcophagi of the Northern Dynasties.” Orientations (May 2002): 34–41. ———. “Two Royal Tombs from the Early Liao: Architecture, Pictorial Program, Authority, Subjectivity.” In Tenth-Century China and Beyond: Art and VisualCulture in a Multicentered Age. Chicago: University of Chicago, Center for the Art of East Asia, 2008. ———. The Wu Liang Shrine: The Ideology of Early Chinese Pictorial Art. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989. Wu Jianwei 吳建偉. Zhongguo qingzhensi zonglan 中國清真寺綜覽 (Compendium of Chinese mosques). Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin chubanshe, 1995. Wu Rui 吳銳. “Linfengshi Weicun Niuwangmiao Yuandai xitai xiufu gongcheng shuyao” 臨汾 市魏村牛王廟元代戲台修復工程述要 (Discussion of the reconstruction and technology of the Yuan-period stage at Ox King Temple in Weicun, Linfen). Wenwu jikan, no. 1 (1992): 77–81. Wu Wenliang 吳文良and Wu Youxiong 吳幼 雄 . Quanzhou zongjiao shike 泉州宗教石刻 (Religious stone carvings from Quanzhou). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2005. Wu Wentao 吳文濤. Jin Zhongdu 金中都 (Zhongdu of the Jin dynasty). Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 2018. Wu Youxiong 吳幼雄. “Fujian Quanzhou faxian de Yelikewen (Jingjiao)bei” 福建泉州發現的 也裡可溫(景教)碑 (Christian stele excavated on tombs in Fujian). Kaogu, no. 11 (1988): 1015–20. Wu Zhijing 吳之鯨, juren 1609, comp. Wulin fanzhi 武林梵志 (Record of Buddhist monasteries in Wulin). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1993. Wyatt, Don. The Blacks of Premodern China. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010. Xi Lei 喜蕾. “Anxiwang Ananda dui Gaoli zhengzhi shili de liyong” 安西王阿難達對高麗 政治勢力的利用 (On Ananda, Prince of Anxi’s, utilization of Korean political forces). Xibei Minzu yanjiu, no. 1 (2001): 27–36. Xia Nai 夏鼐. “Yuan Anxiwangfu zhi he Alabo shuma huanfang” 元安西王府址和阿拉伯數碼幻 方 (Remains of Anxiwangfu and the magic square with Arabic numerals). Kaogu, no. 5 (1960): 24–26. ———, ed. Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu: Xia Nai xiansheng kaogu wushinian jihui lunwenji 中國考古學

298

研究 : 夏鼐先生考古五十年紀念論文集 (Research

on Chinese archaeology: Collected essays commemorating fifth years of archaeology by Xia Nai ). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986. Xia Nai 夏鼐 et al., Zhongguo shiku: Yungang shiku 中國石窟: 雲岡石窟 (Chinese rock-carved cave-temples: Yungang cave temples). 2 vols. Beijing: Wewu chubanshe, 1991. Xia Zongyu 夏宗禹 and Fan Xingyun 范興雲. Wuyue wenhua huicui 五嶽文化薈萃 (Collected works on Five Peaks Culture). Beijing: Xinhuachubanshe, 1991. Xiang Chunsong 項春松. “Nei Menggu Chifengshi Yuanbaoshan Yuandai bihuamu” 內蒙古赤峰市 元寶山元代壁畫墓 (A Yuan tomb with murals at Yuanbaoshan, Chifeng, Inner Mongolia). Wenwu, no. 4 (1983): 40–46. Xiang Chunsong and Jia Hong’en 賈洪恩. “Nei Menggu Wengniuteqi Wutonghua Yuandai bihuamu” 內蒙古翁牛特旗梧桐花元代壁畫墓 (A Yuan tomb at Wutonghua, Wengniuteqi, Inner Mongolia). Beifang wenwu, no. 3 (1992): 46–48, 113. Xiang Chunsong and Wang Jianguo 王建國. “Nei Meng Zhaomeng Chifeng Sanyanjing Yuandai bihuamu” 內蒙昭盟赤峰三眼井元代壁畫 墓 (A Yuan tomb with murals in Sanyanjing, Chifeng, Zhaomeng, Inner Mongolia). Wenwu, no. 1 (1982): 54–58. Xiang Longyuan 項隆元. Yingzao fashi yu Jiangnan jianzhu 與江南建築 (Yingzao fashi and Jiangnan architecture). Hangzhou: Zhejiang Daxue chubanshe, 2009. Xi’anshi Wenwu Baohu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 西安市文 物保護考古研究所. “Xi’an Qujiang Miaojiazhai Yuandai Yuan Gui’anmu fajue jianbao” “西安 曲江繆家寨元代袁貴安墓發掘簡報” (Excacation report on the tomb of Yuan Gui’an of the Yuan dynasty at Miaojiazhai, Qujiang, Xi’an). Wenwu, no. 7 (2016): 23–42. Xi’anshi Wenwu Baohu Kaogusuo 西安市文物保護 考古所. Xi’an Hansenzhai Yuandai bihuamu 西 安韓森寨元代壁畫墓 (A Yuan tomb with murals at Hanzenzhai, Xi’an). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2004. Xianyang Diqu Wenwu Guanli Weiyuanhui 咸陽 地區文物管理委員會. “Shaanxi Huxian Heshimu chutu daliang Yuandai yong” 陜西戶縣賀氏墓出 土大量元代俑 (A large number of Yuan tomb figurines excavated from tombs of the He family in Hu county, Shaanxi). Wenwu, no. 4 (1979): 10–16. “Xianzai Yuandai minzhu quanbudu zai Shanxi” 現存元代民居全部都在山西 (Yuan residences now all over Shanxi). Taiyuan wanbao 太原晚報 22 (November 5, 2021).

Bibliography

Xiao Jun 肖軍. Yonglegong bihua 永樂宫壁畫 (Yonglegong murals). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2008. Xiao Tianshi 蕭天石. Lüzu quanshu 呂祖全書. Taipei: Ziyou chubanshe, 1967. Xiao Xun 蕭洵 (1396). Gugongyi lu 故宮遺錄 (Record of remains of the imperial palaces). Taibei: Shijie chubanshe, 1963. Xibei Daxue Wenhua Yichan Xueyuan 西北大學文 化遺產學院 and Ganquanxian Bowuguan 甘泉縣博物館. “Shaanxi Ganquan Liuhequwan Jindai bihuamu fajue jianbao” 陝西甘泉柳河 渠灣金代壁畫墓發掘簡報 (Excavation report on a Jin tomb with murals in Liuhequwan, Ganquan, Shaanxi). Wenwu, no. 11 (2016): 40–50. Xie Jisheng 謝繼勝 et al., eds. Han-Zang Fojiao meishu yanjiu: Di’erjie Xizang kaogu yu yishu guoji xueshu taolun wenji 漢藏佛教美術研究: 第 二屆西藏考古與藝術國際學術討論文集 (Reseach in Sino-Tibetan Art: Papers from the Second International Conference on Tibetan Art and Archaeology). Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe, 2006. ———. Han-Zang Fojiao meishu yanjiu: Di’sanjie Xizang kaogu yu yishu guoji xueshu taolun wenji 漢藏佛教美術研究: 2007第三屆西藏考古與藝術

國際學術討論文集 (Reseach in Sino-Tibetan

Art: Papers from the Third International Conference on Tibetan Art and Archaeology in 2007). Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe, 2009. ———. Han-Zang Fojiao meishu yanjiu: Di’sijie Xizang kaogu yu yishu guoji xueshu taolun wenji 漢藏佛教美術研究 : 2012 第四届西藏考古與藝術 漢際學術討論文集 (Reseach in Sino-Tibetan

Art: Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Tibetan Art and Archaeology in 2012). Beijing: Zhongguo Zangxue chubanshe, 2014. ———. Jiangnan zangchuan Fojiao yishu: Hangzhou Feilaifeng shike zaoxiang yanjiu 江南藏傳佛教藝 術：杭州飛來峰石刻造像研究 (Tibetan-Buddhist art in Jiangnan: research on Rock-carved imagery at Feilaifeng in Hangzhou). Beijing: Zhongguo zangxue chubanshe, 2014. Xie Mincong 謝敏聰. Zhongguo lidai diwang lingqin kaolüe 中國歷代帝王陵寢考略 (Research on Chinese imperial tombs through the ages). Taipei: Zhengzhong shuju, 1976. Xin Deyong 辛徳勇 and Lang Jie 郎潔. Chang’anzhi Chang’anzhi tu 長安志 長安志圖. Shaanxi: Sanqin chubanshe, 2013. Xin Wang. “Zhidanyuan Sluice of Yuan-Dynasty, Shanghai Area of Yangtze Delta: Discussion

of Its Abandonment.” Frontiers of Earth Science in China 2010, 4 (4): 386–92. Xin Yupu 辛玉璞. “Xi’an diqu Yuandai yizhi de jige wenti” 西安地區元代遺址的幾個問題 (Some questions about the area of Yuan remains in Xi’an). Kaogu yu wenwu, no. 3 (1990): 61–65. Xiong Bolü 熊伯履. Xiangguosi kao 相國寺考 (Research on Xiangguo Monastery). Beijing: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1985. Xiong Mengxiang 熊夢祥. “Miaoyingsi Baita” 妙應寺白塔 (White Pagoda of Miaoying Monastery). In Yuandai Zang-Han yishu jiaoliu, ed. Xiong Wenbin, 84–92. Shijiazhuang: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 2003. ———. Xijinzhi jiyi 析津志輯佚 (Compiled records from the Xijin gazetteer). Beijing: Beijing guji chubanshe, 1983. Xiong, Victor Cun-rui. Sui-Tang Chang’an: A Study in the Urban History of Medieval China. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Center for Chinese Studies, 2000. Xiong Wenbin 熊文彬. “Cong banhua kan Xixia Fojiao yishu dui yuandai neidi Zangchuan Fojiao yishude yingxiang,” 從版畫看西夏佛教 藝術對元代內地藏傳佛教藝術的影響 (On the influence of Western Xia Buddhist art on Yuan Tibetan Buddhist art). Zhongguo zangxue 中國 藏學, no. 1 (2003): 66–79. ———. “Cong wenxian kan Yuan Dadu de huangjia Zangchuan Fojiaosiyuan jiqi yishu huodong ‘xu’ ” 從文獻看元大都的皇家藏傳佛教 寺院及其藝術活動(續) (Looking at Yuan Daidu from imperial Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and their art). Zhongguo zangxue, no. 3 (2008): 87–93. ———. Yuandai Zang-Han yishu jiaoliu 元代藏汉藝 術交流 (Artistic exchange between Tibet and China in the Yuan dynasty). Shijiazhuang: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 2003. Xiong Ying 熊瑛 and Sun Taichu 孫太初. “Yunnan Xiangyun Dabona muguo tongguanmu qingli baogao” 雲南祥雲大波那木槨銅棺墓清理 報告 (Excavation report on a bronze sarcophagus found in a tomb in Dabona, Xiangyun, Yunnan). Kaogu, no. 12 (1964): 607–14. Xiong Zhengyi 熊正益. “Yunnan Jianshui Zhilinsi zhengdian” 雲南建水指林寺正殿 (The main hall of Zhilin Monastery in Jianshui, Yunnan). Wenwu, no. 7 (1986): 47–49. Xiqing 西清 (act. 18th-19th century). Heilongjiang waiji 黑龍江外記 (Record of remains outside Heilongjiang). Chengdu: Sichuan minzu chubanshe, 2002. Xizang Jianzhu Kancha Shejiyuan 西藏建築勘察 設計院. Guge wangguo jianzhu yizhi 古格王國

299

建築遺址 (Remains of imperial architecture

in Guge). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2011. Xu Bin 徐斌. “Yuan Dadu guihua fuyuan yanjiu congshu” 元大都規劃復原研究叢書 (Review of research and recovery of the plan of Yuan Daidu). Gugong xuekan (2019): 44–55. Xu Guangji 徐光冀, ed. Zhongguo chutu bihua quanji 中國出土壁畫全集 (Comprehensive collection of tomb murals excavated in China). 10 vols. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2011. Xu Haifeng 徐海峰, Liu Lianqiang 劉連強, Li Wenlong 李文龍, and Yang Weidong 楊衛東. “Hebei Zhuozhou Yuandai bihuamu” 河北涿 州元代壁畫墓 (A Yuan tomb with murals in Zhuo county, Hebei). Wenwu no. 3 (2004): 42–60. Xu Hao 徐浩, Yan Zengfeng 閆增峰, and Zhou Xin 周鑫. “Hancheng Dang-Jiacun diyu xingte zhengliaoxin 韓黨家村地域性特徵解析 (Special features of Dang-Jia village of Hancheng). Journal of Landscape Research (2011): 10–12, 17. Xu Jinxiong 許進雄. “Yuandai mudaoshang de shiwengzhong: Jianada Andalüesheng Bowuguanzangpin” 元代墓道上的石翁仲—加 拿大安大略省博物館藏品 (Stone human statues from Yuan spirit roads: examples in the collection of the Royal Ontario Museum). Beifang wenwu, no. 2 (1987): 49–56. Xu Mengxin 徐夢莘 (1126–1207). Sanchao beimeng huibian 三朝北盟會編 (Collected documents about treaties with the North during three dynasties). Shanghai: Guji chubanshe, 1987. Xu Pingfang 徐苹芳. “Bei Song Kaifeng Da Xiangguosi pingmian fuyuan tushuo” 北宋 開封大相國寺平面復原圖說 (Reconstruction and illustrations of the plan of the Great Xiangguo Monastery in Northern Song Kaifeng). In Wenwu yu kaogu lunji, ed. Wenwu Chubanshe Bianjibu, 357–69. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1987. ———. “Guanyu Song Defang he Pan Dechongmu de jige wenti” 關於宋德方和潘德沖墓的幾個問題 (Questions about the tombs of Song Defang and Pan Dechong). Kaogu, no. 8 (1960): 42–45, 54. ———. “Yuan Dadu shumiyuanzhi kao” 元大都樞 密院址考 (Research on the remains of the secretariat of Yuan Daidu). In Qingju Su Bingqi kaogu wushiwunian lunwenji 慶祝蘇秉琦考古五 十五年論文集 , 550–54. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1989. ———. “Yuan Dadu Yelikewen Shizisi kao” 元大 都也裡可溫十字寺考 (Research on the crossshaped temple-complex Yelikewen at Yuan Daidu). In Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu, ed. Xia

Bibliography

Nai, 309–16. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986. ———. “Zhongguo gudai duchengshishang de diwei—jinian Yuan Dadu jiancheng 720 nian” 中國古代 都建史上的地位紀念元大都建城720

年 (The position in the history of Chinese

urban history: commemorating 720 after the building of Yuan Dadu). Beijing shehui kexue, no. 1 (1988): 52–53. Xu Song 徐松 (1781–1848). Xiyu shuidaoji 西域水 道記 (Record of waterways and roads in the Western Regions). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1995. ———. (Yuan) Henanzhi (元)河南志 (Record of Henan from the Yuan dynasty). Taipei: Shijie shuju, 1974. Xu Wenbin 徐文彬 et al. Sichuan Handai shique 四川漢代石闕 (Han que in Sichuan). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1992. Xu Wenshi 許聞詩. Zhangbeixian zhi 張北縣志 (Record of Zhangbei prefecture). Taibei: Xuesheng shuju, 1966. Xu Xu 徐續. “Guangxiaosi dadian” 光孝寺大殿 (The main hall of Guangxiao Monastery). Wenwu, no. 7 (1956): 49–52. Xu Yingzhang 徐英章. “Liaoning Kazuoxian Dachengzi Yuandai shiguo mu” 遼寧喀左縣 大城子元代石槨墓 (Yuan tomb with a stone [outer] coffin from Dachengzi, Harqinzuoqi, Liaoning). Kaogu, no. 5 (1964): 242–44. Xu Zhiya 徐治亞 and Zhang Jian 張劍. “Yuandai Longchuan heshangmu de faxian he Baimasinei de youguan shike” 元代龍川和尚墓 的發現和白馬寺內的有關石刻 (Stone carvings relating to Baima Monastery and the tomb of a monk in Longchuan from the Yuan dynasty). Wenwu, no. 3 (1983): 20, 94–95. Xu Zirong 許子榮. “Jin Shangjing Huiningfu yizhi” 金上京會寧府遺址 (Remains of Jin Shangjing in Huiningfu). Beifang wenwu, no. 1 (1982): 63–67. ———. “Jin Shangjing Huiningfu yizhi—quanguo zhongyao wenwu baohu danwei zhi yi” 金 上京會寧府遺址—全國重點文物保護單位之

一 (Jin Shangjing Huiningfu remains—An

important cultural relic on the no. 1 list for preservation). Heilongjiang wenwu congkan, no. 1 (1982): 63–67. Xue Linping 薛林平. Zhongguo chuantong juchang jianzhu 中國傳統劇場建築 (Chinese traditional stage architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2009. ———, ed. Zhongguo Daojiao jianzhu zhi lu 中國道 教建築之旅 (On the tracks of Daoist architecture in China). Beijing: Zhongguo gongye jianzhu chubanshe, 2007.

Xue Linping and Wang Jiqing 王季卿. Shanxi chuantong juchang jianzhu 山西傳統劇場建築 (Traditional stage architecture in Shanxi). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2005. Xue Tianli 薛天利, ed. Qingzhen guyun: Beijing Niujie libaisi 清真古韻: 北京牛街週禮拜寺 (Tones of an ancient mosque: Ox Street Mosque in Beijing). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2009. Yadrintsev (I͡ adrint͡ sev), Nikolai Mikhailovich. Sibir’ kak kolonii͡ a: v geograficheskom, ėtnograficheskom i istoricheskom otnoshenii͡ a (Siberia as a colony in geographic, ethnographic, and historical terms). St. Petersburg: Tip I. M. Sibiriakova, 1892. Yamada Funihide 山田文英. “Hakujōsi yori Kindai kakumei no kawaro o hakken” 白城より金代刻 銘の碑を発見 (Examining Jin brick carvings from Baicheng). Manshū shigaku 滿洲史學 2, no. 3 (1939): 64. Yamamura Kozo, ed. The Cambridge History of Japan. Vol. 3: Medieval Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Yan Genqi 閻根齊. Mangdangshan Xi Han Liangwang mudi 芒碭山西漢梁王墓地 (The underground tomb of the Prince of Liang of the Western Han at in the Mangdang mountains). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2001. Yan Jianbi 閻簡弼. Nan Song liuling yishi zhengming ji zhu cuangong fahui niandai kao 南 宋六陵遺事正名曁諸攢宮發毀年代攷 (Research on the date of destruction of the six imperial Southern Song tombs). Yanjing xuebao 30 (1946): 28–36. Yan Lijie, Yan Ruixia, Lu Peng, Teng Fei, Wang Xia, Zhang Li, Chen Panpan, Li Xiang, “The Spatiotemporal Evolution of Ancient Cities from the Late Yangshao to Xia and Shang Dynasties in the Central Plains, China.” Heritage Science 9, article 24 (2021). https:// heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/ articles/10.1186/s40494-021-00580-7. Yan Wanzhang 閻萬章. “Hebei Xinglong Jinmu chutu Qidanwen muzhiming kaoshi” 河北興 隆金墓出土契丹文墓志銘考釋 (Research on a funerary inscription in Khitan script excavated in a Jin tomb in Xinglong, Hebei. Dongbei kaogu yu lishi 1 (1982): 116–23. Yan Wenru 閻文儒. “Jin Zhongdu” 金中都 (Zhongdu of the Jin dynasty). Wenwu, no. 9 (1959): 8–12. Yan Yinzuo 顏胤祚. Louxiangzhi 陋巷志 (Record of Humble Alley). 1601. Yang Baoshun 楊寶順 and Wang Qingchen 王清晨. “Henan Wenxian Cishengsi gujian diaocha”

300

河南溫縣慈勝寺古建調查 (Digging into old

architecture at Cisheng Monastery in Wen county, Henan). Wenwu, no. 2 (1982): 58–66. Yang Bin. Between Winds and Clouds: The Making of Yunnan (Second Century BCE to Twentieth Century CE). New York: Columbia University Press, 2009. Yang Gucheng 楊古城 and Gong Guorong 龔國榮. Nan Song shidiao 南宋石雕 (Stone sculpture of Southern Song). Ningbo: Ningbo chubanshe, 2006. Yang Haiying 楊海英, ed. Shiruku Rōdo Sōgen no michi ni okeru Arujai Sekkutsu no rekishi to bunka—Kokusai shinpojiumu, 2007-nen sangatsu 27-nichi: kirokushuシルク・ロード草原の道 におけるアルジャイ石窟の歴史と文化 : 国際シンポ

ジウム : 記録集 (International symposium on

the history and culture of the Arjai rockcarved caves along the grasslands silk road, March 27, 2007: Collected papers). Shizuoka: Shizuoka Daigaku Jinbun Gakubu, 2007. Yang Hongxun 楊鴻勛. Gongdian kaogu tonglun 宮 殿考古通論 (Discourses on palace architecture). Beijing: Zijincheng chubanshe, 2001. ———. Jiangnan yuanlinlun 江南園林論 (Discourses on Jiangnan gardens). Shanghai: Shanghai Renmin chubanshe, 1994. ———. Jianzhu kaoguxue lunwenji 建築考古學論文 集 (Collected essays on Chinese archaeology). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1987. ———. Yang Hongxun jianzhu kaoguxue lunwenji 楊鴻勛建築考古學論文集 (Collected essays on architecture and archaeology by YangHongxun). Beijing: Tsinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2008. ———. Zhongguo gudai jianshu jishushi 中國古代建 築技術史 (History of premodern architecture and technology). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1985. Yang Hsüan-chih (Xuanzhi) 楊衒之. Record of Buddhist Monasteries in Lo-yang, trans. Wang Yi-t’ung. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984. Yang Huancheng 楊煥成. “Jiyuan faxian yizuo Yuandai jianzhu” 濟源發現一座元代建築 (A Yuan building found in Jiyuan). Wenwu, no. 4 (1965): 58–60. Yang Huifu 楊惠福, ed. Gansu guta yanjiu 甘肅古 塔研究 (Research on old pagodas in Gansu). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2014. Yang Jiaming 楊嘉銘, Ren Xinjian 任新建, and Yang Huan 楊環. Zhongguo Zangshi jianzhu yishu 中國藏式建築藝術 (Art and architecture in Sino-Tibetan Style). Chengdu: Sichuan Renmin chubanshe, 1998.

Bibliography

Yang Kuan 楊寬. Zhongguo gudai lingqin zhidushi yanjiu 中國古代陵寢制度史研究 (Research on the premodern Chinese funerary system). Shanghai: Shanghzi Renmin chubanshe, 2003. ———. Zhongguo lidai chidu kao 中國歷代尺度考 (Research on the measurement of chi through Chinese history). Taibei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1968. Yang Lie 楊烈. “Shanxi Pingshunxian gujianzhu kanchaji” 山西平順縣古建築勘查記 (Record of investigation of ancient architecture in Pingshun county of Shanxi). Wenwu, no. 2 (1962): 40–51. Yang Lie, Liaoningsheng Wenwu Baohu Zhongxin 遼寧省文物保護中心, and Yixian Wenwu Baoguansuo 義縣文物保管所. Yixian Fengguosi 義縣奉國寺 (Fengguo Monastery in Yixian). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2011. Yang Qinzhang 楊欽章and He Gaoji 何高濟. “Dui Quanzhou tianzhujiao fangjigehui shijide liangdian qiankao” 對泉州天主教方濟各會史蹟的 兩點淺考 (Two points of research on Christian remains in Quanzhou) Shijie zongjiao yanjiu, no. 3 (1983): 148–51. Yang Xin and Wan-go Weng. The Palace Museum, Peking: Treasures of the Forbidden City. New York: Abrams, 1982. Yang Yiwu 楊奕武, ed. Tushuo Fangshan wenwu 圖說房山文物 (Pictures and discussion of Fangshan’s cultural relics). Beijing: Beijing Yanshan chubanshe, 2005. Yang Yong 楊勇. “A’erzhai shiku bihua yu Chenqisikan jisi” 阿爾寨石窟壁畫與成吉思汗祭 祀 (Murals in the Arzhai caves and offering sacrifices to Chinggis Khan). In A’erzhai shiku guoji xueshu yantaohui, ed. Ji Siqin, 71–72. Höhhot: Nei Menggu Renmin chubanshe, 2008. Yang Yongsheng 楊永生 and Ming Liansheng 明 連生. Jianzhu sijie 楊建築四傑 (Chinese architecture: four geniuses). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1998. Yang Yongsheng and Wang Lihui 王莉慧. Jianzhushi jiemaren 建築史解碼人 (The decoders of Chinese architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 2006. Yang Yunfu 楊允孚. “Luanjing zayong” 灤京雜 詠 (Miscellaneous odes on the capital (on the) Luan [River] [Shangdu]). In Qinding Sigu quanshu, vol. 1219, 617–27. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1987. Yang Yutan 楊玉潭 et al. Wutaishan lüyou zhinan 五臺山旅遊指南 (Pointing the way for travel on Mount Wutai). Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1985.

Yang Yutan et al. Wutaishan simiao daguan 五台山 寺廟大觀 (Compendium of monasteries and temples on Mount Wutai). Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1985. Yang Zirong 楊子榮. “Lun Shanxi Yuandai yiqian mugou jianzhu de baohu” 論山西元代以前木構 建築的保護 (On the preservation of Yuan and earlier timber-frame architecture in Shanxi). Wenwu jikan, no. 1 (1994): 62–67, 58. Yao Guangpu 姚光普. “Qiqushan Damiao” 七曲 山大廟 (The Great Temple on Mount Qichu). Sichuan wenwu, no. 5 (1991): 76–80. Yarshater, Ehsan, ed. The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 3: The Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasanian Periods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Ye Weili. Seeking Modernity in China’s Name: Chinese Students in the United States, 1900–1927. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001. Ye Xinmin 葉新民 and Jakhadai Chimeddorji 齊 木德道爾吉. Yuan Shangdu yanjiu wenji 元上都 研究文集 (Research essays on Yuan Shangdu). Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue chubanshe, 2003. ———. Yuan Shangdu yanjiu ziliao xuanbian 元上 都研究資料選编 (Collected research essays on Yuan Shangdu). Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue chubanshe, 2003. Ye Ziqi 葉子奇. Caomuzi 草木子 (Grasslands record). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1959. Yi, Joy Lidu. Yungang: Art, History, Archaeology, Liturgy. London York; Routledge, 2018. Yiengpruksawan, Mimi. “The Phoenix Hall and the Symmetries of Replication.” Art Bulletin 77, 4 (1995): 647–72. Yin Zixian 尹自先. “Yuandai Chagannao’er xinggong ji Ming’anyi guzhibian” 元代察罕腦兒行 宮及明安驛故址辨 (Remains of Chagannao’er traveling palace and Ming’an postal station). In Yuan Shangdu yanjiu wenji, ed. Ye Xinmin and Jakhadai Chimeddorji, 116–23. Shijiazhuang: Hebei jiaoyu chubanshe, 2003. Yin Zixian and Zhao Zhong 趙仲. Zhangbeixian zhi 張北縣志 (Record of Zhangbei prefecture). Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chubanshe, 1994. Ying Ch’ien-li (Ignatius). “Hsiao’s Record of the Imperial Palaces of Khanbaliq.” Bulletin of the Catholic University of Peking 8 (1931): 27–46. Yokohama Museum of EurAsian Cultures. Olon Süme: Remains of Christendom in Inner Mongolia. Yokohama: Yokohama Museum of EurAsian Cultures, 2003.

301

Yoon, Hong-key. The Culture of Fengshui in Korea: An Exploration of East Asian Geomancy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010. ———. Geomantic Relationships between Culture and Nature in Korea. Taipei: Chinese Association for Folklore, 1976. Yoshida, Yutaka 吉田 豊. Chūgoku Kōnan Manikyō kaiga kenkyū 中国江南マニ教絵画研究 (Research on Manichaean paintings of the Jiangnan region [in Japan]). Kyoto: Rinsenshoten, 2015. ———. “The Discovery of the South Chinese Manichaean Painting ‘Hagiography (3)’ and Its Contents.” Rivista degli Studi Orientali, new series, 92, 1–2 (2019): 209–30. Youn, M., et al. “Dating the Tavan Tolgoi Site, Mongolia: Burials of the Nobility from Genghis Khan’s Era.” Radiocarbon: An International Journal of Cosmogenic Isotope Research 49, 2 (2007): 685–91. Yu Guixiao 餘貴孝. “Yuandai Anxiwangfu ji lu, zhou jianzhi yu zhiguan” 元代安西王府 及路、州建置與職官 (The establishment and duties of the fu, lu, and zhou of Yuan dynasty Anxiwang). Guyuan shizhuan xuebao, no. 4 (1994): 87–91. Yu Hui 餘輝. “Yuandai gongting huihuashi ji jiazuo kaobian” 元代宮廷繪畫史及佳作考 編 (Research on the history of paintings and precious works of Yuan court). Gugong Bowuyuan yuankan no. 3 (2000): 25–35. ———. “Wang Zhenpeng yu Guanghangongtu zhoukao” 王振鵬與廣寒宮圖軸考 (Research on Wang Zhengpeng and the painting of Guanghan Palace). In Qiannian yizhen guoji xueshu yantaohui lunwenji (Proceedings from conference on One Thousand Years of Precious Objects), Shanghai Bowuguan, ed., 620–28. Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 2006. Yu Ji 虞集 (1272–1348). “Dadu chenghuangmiao bei” 大都城隍廟碑 (Stele on the city-god temple in Daidu). In Yu Ji quanji, 831–32. Tianjin: Tianjin guji chubanshe, 2007. ———. Daoyuan xuegulu 道園學古錄 (Record of studying the past in Daoist Garden). Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1983. ———. Daoyuan yigao 道園遺稿 (Remains of ways and gardens). Taipei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1983. ———. “Liu Zhengfeng su ji” 劉正奉塑記 (Record of Liu Zhengfeng and his Sculptures). In Yu Ji quanji, 741–42. Tianjin: Tianjin guji chubanshe, 2007. _____. Yu Ji quanji 虞集全集 (Comprehensive writings of Yu Ji). Commentary by Wang

Bibliography

Tingdian 王頲點. Tianjin: Tianjin guji chubanshe, 2007. Yu Jie 於傑. Jin Zhongdu 金中都 (Zhongdu of the Jin dynasty). Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 1989. Yu Jie and Yu Guangdu 於光度. Jin Zhongdu (Zhongdu of the Jin dynasty). Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 1989. Yu Ke 於柯. “Guanyu Beijing Miaoyingsi Baita de chuangjian niandai” 關於北京妙應寺白塔 的創建年代 (On the date of establishment of the White Pagoda at Miaoyingsi in Beijing). Kaogu, no. 5 (1962): 270–71. Yu Leqi. Painting Architecture: Jiehua in Yuan China, 1271–1368. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong Press, 2022. ———. “Xia Yong and the Jiehua Traditions in Yuan China (1279–1368).” Ph.D. dissertation, University or Pennsylvania, 2019. Yu Lina 俞莉娜. “Song-Jin shiqi Henanzhong beibu diqu muzang fangmugou jianzhu shiliao yanjiu” 宋金時期河南中北部地區墓葬仿 木構建築史料研究 (Research on imitation of wooden architecture in tombs in northern Henan during the Song and Jin dynasties). Zhongguo jianzhu lishi jikan 17 (2019): 65–89. Yu Ping 於平. Beijing wenwu jingcui daxi 北京文物 精粹大系 (Gems of Beijing archaeology). Yuqi juan 玉器卷 (Jades volume). Beijing: Beijing chubanshe, 2002. Yu Qianhui 於潛慧. “Yingchanglu zai Yuandai wanqi suoqi de zhongyao zuoyong” 應昌路在 元代晚期所起的重要作用 (Important functions of Yingchanglu in the late Yuan period). In Zhongguo gudu yanjiu (Research on Chinese cities), 220–29. Hangzhou: Zhejiang Renmin chubanshe, 1985. Yu Suishan. Chang’an Avenue and the Modernization of Chinese Architecture. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2012. Yu Xuecai 喻學才. Lao xitai 老戲台. (Old stages). Beijing: Renmin meishu chubanshe, 2002. Yuan Jiang 原江 , Qiao Yang 喬陽, Feng Gang 馮 鋼, Zhu Haiyu 朱海玉, and Zhu Yunhu 牛雲虎. “Taiyuan Gangyu Wuyishenghuoqu Yuandai muzang fajue jianbao” 太原剛玉五一生活區元 代墓葬發掘簡報 (Excavation report on a Yuan tomb in Wuyishenghuo district, Gangyu, Taiyuan). Wenwu shijie, no. 5 (2016): 10–13. Yue Ke 岳珂 (1183–1234). Tingshi 桯史 (Bedside table history). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981. Yule, Sir Henry. Cathay and the Way Thither: Being a Collection of Medieval Notices of China. 4 vols. London: Hakluyt Society, 1913–1916. ———, trans. The Travels of Friar Odoric: 14th Century Journal of the Blessed Odoric of

Pordenone. Grand Rapids, MI: Erdemans, 2002. Yule, Henry, and Henri Cordier. The Travels of Marco Polo: The Complete Yule-Cordier Edition. 2 vols. New York: Dover, 1993. Yun Chang-sŏp 尹張燮. Han’guk konch’uksa 韓國建 築史 (History of Korean architecture). Seoul: Sŏul taehakkyo ch’ulp’anbu, 1996. Yuwen Maozhao 宇文懋昭 (13th century). Da Jinguozhi 大金國志 (Record of the Great Jin state). Taibei: Taiwan shangwu yinshuguan, 1968. Zeng Chenyu 曾晨宇. Ninggu de yishu hunpo: Jin Dongnan gudai jianzhu kaocha 凝固的藝術魂魄： 晋東南古代建築考察 (Solidifying the art of the soul: investigating premodern architecture of southeastern Shanxi). Beijing: Xueyuan chubanshe, 2005. Zhang Anzhi 張安治. Zhang Zeduan Qingming shanghetu yanjiu 張擇端清明上河圖研究 (Research on Zhang Zeduan’s “Qingming shanghetu”). Beijing: Chaohua meishu chubanshe and Xinhua shudian Beijing faxingsuo, 1962. Zhang Baoxi 張寶璽 and Wei Wenbi 魏文斌. “A’erzhai shiku di 31 ku Guanyin jiunantu” 阿爾寨石窟第31窟觀音救難圖 (An image of Guanyin relieving distress in cave 31 at Arzhai). In A’erzhai siku guoji xueshu yantaohui, ed. Ji Siqin, 54–57. Höhhot: Nei Menggu Renmin chubanshe, 2008. Zhang Buqian 張步騫. “Fuzhou Hualinsi Dadian” 福州華林寺大殿 (The Main Hall of Hualinsi in Fuzhou). Unpublished paper. ———. “Suzhou Ruiguangsita” 蘇州瑞光寺塔 (The pagoda of Ruiguang Monastery in Suzhou). Wenwu, no. 10 (1965): 57–64. Zhang Chun 張春. “Heishantou gucheng” 黑山頭 古城 (The old city at Heishantou). Hulunbei’er wenwu (Hulunbu’ir cultural relics) no. 1 (1991): 17–19. Zhang Fuhe 张複合. Beijing jindai jianzhushi 北京近 代建築史 (History of modern architecture in Beijing). Beijing: Qinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2004. Zhang Guangshen 張廣善. “Gaopingxian Yuandai minzhu—Jizhai” 高平縣元代民居——姬宅 (A humble Yuan house in Gaoping county). Wenwu jikan, no. 3 (1993): 29–33. Zhang Hengjin 張恆金 and Enhe 恩和. “Yuandai Menggu guizumuzang bihuade jiequ” 元代蒙 古貴族墓葬壁畫的揭取 (Uncovering a Mongol elite tomb with murals from the Yuan dynasty). Beifang wenwu, no. 2 (1995): 106–7. Zhang Jianwei 張劍葳. “Wudangshan Yuandai Xiaotongdian yanjiu” 武當山元代小銅殿研究

302

(Research on Little Copper Hall of the Yuan dynasty on Mount Wudang). Jianzhushi 27 (2010): 80–106. ———. Zhongguo gudai jinshu jianzhu yanjiu 中國 古代金屬建築研究 (Research on premodern metal architecture in China). Nanjing: Dongnan Daxue chubanshe, 2015. Zhang Jiatai 張家泰. “Dengfeng Guanxingtai he Yuanchu tianwen guance de chengjiu” 登封觀 星台和元初天文觀測的成就 (Accomplishments of observation and survey of astronomy in the early Yuan and the platform for observation of the stars in Dengfeng). Kaogu, no. 2 (1976): 95–102. Zhang Jin 張藎. Jinhua fuzhi 金華府志 (Record of Jinhua sub-prefecture). Xuantong 1909. Zhang Mingyuan 張明遠. “Longshan shiku kaocha baogao” 龍山石窟考察報告 (Report on the investigation of the Longshan rock-carved caves). Wenwu, no. 11 (1996): 56–70. ———. Taiyuan Longshan Daojiao shiku yishu yanjiu 太原龍山道敎石窟藝術硏究 (Research on the art of the Daoist Longshan rock-carved caves in Taiyuan). Taiyuan: Shanxi kexue jishu chubanshe, 2002. Zhang Qihai 張其海. “Shandong Cangshan Yuanjia yuannian huaxiangshi mu” 山東蒼山元 嘉元年畫像石墓 (A Tomb with pictured bricks with an inscription of 424 in Cangshan, Shandong). Kaogu, no. 2 (1975): 124–34. Zhang Qingjie 張慶捷. “Yungang shiku kuding xiqu Bei Wei Fojiao siyuan yizhi” 雲崗石窟窟 頂西區北魏佛教寺院遺址 (Remains of Northern Wei Buddhist monasteries on topic of the western sector Yungang caves). Kaogu xuebao, no. 4 (2016): 533–62. Zhang Shaohui 張幼輝, Shi Yun 史芸, and Liu Shanyi 劉善沂. “Ji’nanshi Silijie Yuandai zhuandiao bihua mu” 濟 南市司里街元代磚雕壁 畫墓 (A Yuan tomb with relief sculpture and murals on Sili Street, Ji’nan). Wenwu, no. 3 (2004): 61–68. Zhang Shipei 張士佩. Hanchengxian zhi 韓城縣志 (Record of Hancheng prefecture). 1607. Van Pelt Library Microfilm 2075 Reel No. 489. Zhang Shiqing 張十慶. “Jiangnan diantang jianjia xingzhi de diyu tese” 江南殿堂間架形制的地域 特色 (Local characteristics of diantang frameworks in southeastern China). Jianzhushi lunwenji 19 (2003): 47–62. ———. “Nan Song Jingshansi Fatang fuyuan tantao” 南宋徑山寺法堂復原探討 (Discussion of the reconstruction of the Law Hall of Jingshan Monastery of Southern Song). Wenwu, no. 3 (2007): 68–81.

Bibliography

———. “Nanfang shang’ang yu tiaowo zuofa tanxi” 南方上昂與挑斡作法探析 (Analysis of the upper cantilever and tiaowo in South China). Jianzhushi lunwenji 16 (2006): 31–45. ———. “Song-Yuan Jiangnan siyuan de chidu yu guimo” 宋元江南寺院的尺度與規模 (Dimensions and scale of Song-Yuan monasteries in southeastern China). Huazhong jianzhu, no. 3 (2002): 99–100; no. 4 (2002): 96–99. ———. Wushan shichatu yu Nan Song Jiangnan Chansi 五山十刹圖與南宋江南禅寺 (Illustrations of the Five Mountains and Ten Monasteries and Chan Monasteries of Jiangnan in the Southern Song). Nanjing: Dongnan Daxue chubanshe, 2000. ———. “Yingzao fashi de jishu yuanliu jiqi yu Jiangnan jianzhu de guanlian tanxi” 營造法式 的技術源流及其與江南建築的關聯探析 (Technical origins of Yingzao fashi and their relation to architecture in southeastern China). Jianzhushi lunwenji 17 (2003): 1–11. ———. Zhang Shiqing Dongya jianzhu jishushi wenji 張十慶東亞建築技術史文集 (Collected essays on the history of East Asian architecture by Zhang Shiqing). Shenyang: Liaoning meishu chubanshe, 2013. ———. Zhongguo Jiangnan Chanzong siyuan jianzhu 中國江南禪宗寺院建築 (Chinese Chan monastery architecture of Jiangnan). Wuhan: Hubei jiaoyu chubanshe, 2002. ———. Zhong-Ri gudai jianzhu damu jishu de yuanliu yu bianqian 中日古代建築大木技術的源流 與變遷 (Flowing and transformation of wood technique in Sino-Japanese premodern architecture). Tianjin: Tianjin Daxue chubanshe, 2002. Zhang Songbo 張松柏 and Ren Xuejun 任學軍. “Chifengshi chutude Yelikewen cibei” 赤峰市 出土的也裡可溫瓷碑 (The porcelain Church of the East stele excavated in Chifeng.). In Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu wenji, ed. Li Yiyou and Wei Jian, vol. 1, 672–76. Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 1994. Zhang Wenfang 張文芳 and Wang Dafang 王大 方. Zuojin Yuan Shangdu 走進元上都 (Going to Yuan Shangdu). Höhhot: Nei Menggu Daxue chubanshe, 2005. Zhang Wenping 張文平. “Meng-Yuan shidai Wanggu butouxia chengyi tankao” 蒙元時期 汪古部投下城邑探考 (Investigation of Önggüd cities). Caoyuan wenwu, no. 2 (2013): 114–24. Zhang Yibing 張一兵. Mingtang zhidu yuanliu kao 明堂制度源流考 (Research on the origin and development of the Mingtang system). Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2007).

Zhang Ying 張英, Sun Zhongguo 孫忠國, and Zheng Xincheng 鄭新成. “Jilin Fuyu Daijitun Yuanmu di’erci qingli jianbao” 吉林扶餘岱吉屯 元墓第二次清理簡報 (Report on second investigation of the Yuan tomb in Daijitun), Wenwu, no. 11 (1996): 69–79. Zhang Yingbao 張映瑩, Li Yan 李彥, et al. Wutaishan Foguangsi 五台山佛光寺 (Foguang Monastery on Mount Wutai). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2010. Zhang Yuhuan 張馭寰. “Dui Hancheng Yuwangmiao Yuandai jianzhu de taolun” 對韓城禹王廟元代建築的討論 (On Yuan architecture at the Temple of King Yu in Hancheng). In Zhang Yuhuan, Zhang Yuhuan wenji, 71–72. Beijing: Zhongguo wenshi chubanshe, 2008. ———. “Fufeng Jingfugong zhengdian chuantongshi liangjiade fenxi” 扶風景福宮正殿 傳統式梁架的分析 (Analysis of the traditional style beamframework in the main hall of Jingfugong in Fufeng). In Zhang Yuhuan, Zhang Yuhuan wenji, 69–70. Beijing: Zhongguo wenshi chubanshe, 2008. ———. “Lingchuan Longyansi Jindai jianzhu ji Jindai wenwu” 陵川龍巖寺金代建築及金代 文物 (Jin architcture and cultural relics at Longyan Monastery, Lingchuan). Wenwu, no. 3 (2007): 82–85. ———. Nei Menggu jianzhu 内蒙古建築 (Architecture of Inner Mongolia). Tianjin: Tianjin Daxue chubanshe, 2009. ———. “Shanxi Yuandai diantang de damu jiegou” 山西元代殿堂的大木結構 (Large-scale wooden construction in diantang of the Yuan period in Shanxi). Kejishi wenji 1 (1979): 71–106. ———. “Yuan Jininglu gucheng yu jianzhu yiwu” 元集寧路古城與建築遺物 (City remains and excavated objects of Yuan Jininglu). Wenwu, no. 11 (1962): 585–87. ———. Zhang Yuhuan wenji 張馭寰文集 (Collected essays of Zhang Yuhuan). Beijing: Zhongguo wenshi chubanshe, 2008. ———. Zhongguo Fojiao siyuan jianzhu jiangzuo 中國佛教寺院建築講座 (Lectures on Chinese Buddhist monastery architecture). Beijing: Dangdai Zhongguo chubanshe, 2008. ———. Zhongguo Fotashi 中國佛塔史 (History of Buddhist pagodas in China). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2006. ———. Zhongguo gudai jianzhu jishushi 中國古代建 築技術史 (History and development of premodern Chinese architecture). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2000. ———. Zhongguo gujianzhu yuanliu xintan 中國古建 築源流新探 (New studies of ancient Chinese

303

architecture). Tianjin: Tianjin Daxue chubanshe, 2010. ———. Zhongguo ta 中國塔 (Chinese pagodas). Taiyuan: Shanxi Renmin chubanshe, 2000. ———, ed. Zhonghua gujianzhu 中華古建築 (Old Chinese architecture). Beijing: Zhongguo kexue jishu chubanshe, 1990. Zhang Yuhuan and Luo Zhewen. Zhongguo guta jingcui 中国古塔精萃 (The cream of Chinese old pagodas). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe and Xinhua shudian, 1988. Zhang Yuhuan, Peng Hai 彭海, and Liu Baolan 劉寶蘭. Zhongguo gujianzhu wenhua zhi lu: Shanxi, Nei Menggu 中國古建築文化之旅: 山西, 內蒙古 (The road to premodern Chinese architectural culture: Shanxi and Inner Mongolia). Beijing: Zhishi chanquan chubanshe, 2002. Zhang Zengji 張增祺. Yunnan jianzhushi 雲南建 築史 (History of architecture in Yunnan). Kunming: Yunnan meishu chubanshe, 1999. Zhao Fangzhi 趙芳志. Caoyuan wenhua: youmu minzu de guangkuo wutai 草原文化: 遊牧民族的 廣闊舞台 (Grasslands culture: the vast stage of grasslands peoples). Hong Kong: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1996. Zhao Libo 趙立波. “Jininglu chengzhi buju de kaoguxue tansuo” 集寧路城址佈局的考古學探 索 (Investigation of the archaeology of the remains and distribution of Jininglu). Hebei Shifan Daxue xuebao 36, 1 (2013): 54–59. Zhao Liying 趙立瀛. Shaanxi gujianzhu 陜西古建築 (Old architecture in Shaanxi). Xi’an: Shaanxi Renmin chubanshe, 1992. Zhao Pingchun 趙評春 and Chi Benyi 遲本毅. Jindai fushi: Jin Qiguowangmu chutu fushi yanjiu 金代服飾—金齊國王墓出土服飾研究 (Jin clothing and adornment: research on the clothing and adornment in the tomb of the prince of Qi). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1998. Zhao Qichang 趙其昌. “Jin Zhongdu chengfangkao” 金中都城坊考 (Research on the city districts of Jin Zhongdu). In Shoudu Bowuguan guoqing 40-zhounian wenji 首都博 物館國慶四十週年文集 , ed. Shoudu Bowuguan bianweihui 首都博物館編委會, 1–16. Beijing: Zhongguo minjian wenyi chubanshe, 1989. Zhao Rugua/kuo 趙汝适 (1170–1231). Zhufanzhi 諸蕃志 (Barbarian records). Taipei: Taiwan wenxian weiyuanhui, 1996. Zhao Shiyan (1260–1336) 趙世延, Yu Ji 虞集, et al., eds. Jingshi dadian 經世大典 (Dictionary through the ages). 1330–1331. 2 vols. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2020. Zhao Shoutang 趙壽堂, Li Meilin 李妹琳, and Liu Chang. Shanxi gujianzhu ditu 山西古建築地圖

Bibliography

(Maps and illustrations of old architecture in Shanxi). Vol. 2. Beijing: Tsinghua Daxue chubanshe, 2021. Zhao Wanli, comp. Yuan yitongzhi 元一統志 (Comprehensive record of Yuan). Begun in 1294. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1966. Zhao Yongjun 趙永軍. “Jin Shangjing chengzhi faxian yu yanjiu” 金上京城址發現與研究 (Excavation and research on the remains of Jin Shangjing). Beifang wenwu, no. 1 (2011): 37–41. Zhao Zhenwu 趙振武 and Ding Chengpu 丁承樸. Putuoshan gujianzhu 普陀山古建築 (Old architecture on Mount Putuo). Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe, 1997. Zhaodongxian Bowuguan 肇東縣博物館. “Heilongjiang Zhaodongxian Balicheng qingli jianbao” 黑龍江肇東縣八里城清理簡報 (Report on [remains at] Balicheng Zhaodong county, Heilongjiang). Kaogu, no. 2 (1960): 36–41. Zhejiangsheng Gujianzhu Sheji Yanjiuyuan 浙 江省古建築設計研究院 and Huang Zi 黄滋. Yuandai mugou Yanfusi 元代木構延福寺 (The Yuan wooden structure at Yanfusi). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2013. Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogusuo Wenbaoshi 浙江省文物考古所文保室. “Jinhua Tianningsi dadian de gouzao ji weixiu 金華天寧寺大殿 的構造及維修 (Structure and repair of the main hall of Tianning Monastery in Jinhua). Zhejiangsheng wenwu kaogusuo xuekan 1 (1981): 176–83. Zhejiangsheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 浙江 省文物考古研究所. Leifengta yizhi 雷峰塔遺址 (Remains at Leifeng pagoda). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2005. ———. Zhejiang Songmu 浙江宋墓 (Song tombs in Zhejiang). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2009. Zheng Dui 鄭堆 and Deji Zhuoma 德吉卓瑪. Sajiasi 薩迦寺 (Sakya Monastery). Beijing: Zhongguo Dabaike quanshu chubanshe, 2008. Zheng Long 鄭隆. “Yuandai Jingzhoulu gucheng de diaocha” 元代浮州路古城的調查 (Excavation of the old Yuan city Jingzhoulu). Kaogu tongxun, no. 1 (1957): 65–67. Zheng Shaozong 鄭紹宗. “Kaoguxueshang suojian zhi Yuan Chagannao’er xinggong” 考古 學上所見之元旺兀察都行宮 (The Yuan xinggong Chagannao’er as seen through archaeology). In Yuan Shangdu yanjiu wenji, ed. Ye Xinmin and Jakhadai Chimeddorji, 96–107. Beijing: Zhongyang Minzu Daxue chubanshe, 2003. Zheng Yangwen. Sinicizing Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2017.

Zheng Zhihai and Qu Zhijing. The Forbidden City in Beijing. Beijing: Jiu Zhou Publishing House, 2000. Zhengzhoushi Songshan Lishi Jianzhuqun 鄭州 市嵩山歷史建築群 and Shenbao Shijie Wenhua Yichan Weiyuanhui Bangongshi 申報世界文化 遺產委員會辦公室. Songshan lishi jianzhuqun 嵩山 歷史建築群 (Historical monuments on Mount Song). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2008. Zhengzhoushi Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo 鄭州市文 物考古研究所. Zhengzhou Song-Jin bihuamu 鄭州 宋金壁畫墓 (Song and Jin tombs with murals in Zhengzhou). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2005. Zhong Minyan 鍾民岩. “1860-nian qian Zhongguo renmin dui Heilongjiang yi bei, Usulijiang yi dong diqu de kaofa” 1860年前中國人民對黑龍 江以北、烏蘇里江以東地區的開發 (The opening of the regions north of Heilongjiang and east of Ussury River by the Chinese before 1860). Wenwu, no. 4 (1976): 23–28. Zhong Yuanxiu 中元秀, Ma Jianzhao 馬建劍, and Ma Fengda 馬逢達. Guangzhou Yisilan guji yanjiu 廣州伊斯蘭古跡研究 (Research on Islamic remains in Guangzhou). Yinchuan: Ningxia Renmin chubanshe, 1989. “Zhongguo Kaoguxue Yanjiu” Bianweihui “中 國考古學研究”編委會. In Zhongguo kaoguxue yanjiu: Xia Nai xiansheng kaogu wushinian jinian lunwenji 中國考古學研究: 夏鼐先生考古五 十年紀念論文集 (Research on Chinese archaeology: Collection of essays commemorating fifty years of archaology by Xia Nai). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1986. Zhongguo Lishi Bowuguan 中國歷史博物館 and Shanxisheng Wenwuju 山西省文物局. Yingxian Mu ta Liaodai micang 應縣木塔遼代秘藏 (Liao period underground repository of Yingxian timber pagoda). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1991. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo中 國社會科學院考古研究所. Han-Wei Luoyang gucheng nanjiao lizhi jianzhu yizhi: 1962–1992 nian kao gu fajue baogao 漢魏洛陽故城南郊禮制建筑 遗址: 1962–1992 年考古發掘报告 (Architectural remains of ritual structures in the southern suburbs of the old city of Han-Wei Luoyang: report on excavations between 1962 and 1992). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2010, 8–79. ———. Xi Han lizhi jianzhu yizhi 西漢禮制建築遺 址 (Remains of ritual architecture of the Western Han). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 2003. ———. Xin Zhongguo de kaogu faxian he yanjiu 新中 國的考古發現和研究 (Archaeological excavation

304

and research of New China). Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe, 1984. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo, Beijingshi Wenwu Guanlichu 北京市文物管理 處, and Yuan Dadu Kaogudui 元大都考古隊. “Beijing Houyingfang Yuandai juzhu yizhi” 北京後英房元代居住遺址 (Remains of Yuan residential architecture at Houyingfang in Beijing). Kaogu, no. 6 (1972): 2–11. ———. “Beijing Xitao hutong he Houtaoyuan de Yuandai juzhu yizhi” 北京西絛胡同和後桃園的 元代居住遺址 (Yuan residential architectural remains in Xitao hutong and Houtaoyuan). Kaogu, no. 5 (1973): 279–85. ———. “Yuan Dadu de Kancha he fajue” 元大都 的勘查和發掘 (The opening and excavation of Yuan Daidu). Kaogu, no. 1 (1972): 19–28. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Luoyang Gongzuodui 中國社會科學院考古研 究所洛陽工作隊. “Han-Wei Luoyang nanjiao lingtai yizhi” 漢魏洛陽南郊靈台遺址 (Remains of the lingtai in the southern suburbs of Han-Wei Luoyang). Kaogu, no. 1 (1978): 54–57. Zhongguo Shehui Kexueyuan Kaogu Yanjiusuo Nei Menggu Di’er Gongzuotui and Nei Menggu Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo, “Nei Menggu Balinzuoqi Liao Shangjing gongcheng nanmen yizhi fajue jianbao” 內蒙古巴林左旗遼上京宮城南門遺址發掘簡報

(Excavation report on remains at the south gate of the Liao Shangjing palace-city in Balinzuoqi, Inner Mongolia). Kaogu, no. 5 (2019): 20–44. Zhou Bida 周必大 (1126–1204). Silinglu 思陵 錄 (Record of Siling [four Southern Song tombs]). Zhou Boqi 周伯琦. Jinguangji, Hucongji 近光集, 扈 從集 (Approaching brightness collection, imperial progressions collection). Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 1987. Repr. from Qinding Siku quanshu, vol. 1214, 505–51. Zhou Diren 周迪人 et al. De’an Nan Song Zhoushimu 德安南宋周氏墓 (Tombs of the Zhou family of Southern Song in De’an). Nanchang: Jiangxi Renmin chubanshe, 1999. Zhou Jiabi 周家壁. Acheng xian Baicheng kaolüe: Jin gudu Shangjing Huijingfu yiji 阿城縣白城考略： 金故都上京會寧府遺跡 (Preliminary research on Baicheng, Acheng county: the remains of Huiningfu at Shangjing, former capital of Jin). Publisher unknown, 1937. Zhou Jiamei 周家楣 and Miao Quansun 繆荃孫. Guangxu Shuntianfu zhi 光緒顺天府志 (Record of Shuntian prefecture). Beijing: Beijing guji chubanshe, 1987.

Bibliography

Zhou Liangxiao 周良霄. “Guyuan Nangoucun Yuanmu yu Kuolijisi kao” 沽源南溝村元墓 與闊里吉思考 (Research on a Yuan tomb in Nangou village, Guyuan, and Kuolijisi). Kaogu yu wenwu, no. 4 (2011): 99–102. Zhou Xueying 周學鹰. Xuzhou Hanmu jianzhu 徐 州漢墓建築 (Architecture of Han tombs in Xuzhou), 171–76. Beijing: Zhongguo jianzhu gongye chubanshe. Zhou Yuanyuan 周元元. “Heishantou gucheng yizhi” 黑山頭古城遺址 (Remains of the old city at Heishantou). Nei Menggu huabao (May 2005): 32–33. Zhu An 築安. Zhu Qiqian huazhuan 朱启钤畫 傳 (Illustrated biography of Zhu Qiqian). Beijing: Renmin meishu chubanshe, 2015. Zhu Fengyun 朱鳳枟, comp. Nanbuxian yu tushuo 南部縣輿圖說 (Nanbu county: geography, maps, discussion). 1849. Zhu Guochen 朱國忱. Jinyuan gudu 金源故都 (Jin, origins of the old capital). Harbin: Beigang wenwu zashishe, 1991. Zhu Mu 祝穆 (1239). Fangyu shenglan 方輿勝覽 (Overall survey of topography). 3 vols. Taipei: Weihai chubanshe, 1981. Zhu Qiqian. Beijing gongque tushou 北京宮闕圖說 (Illustrated discussion of Beijing’s palaces and gate-towers). Changsha: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1938. ———. Beijing gongyuan tukao 北京宮苑圖考 (Plans and research on palaces and gardens of Beijing). Zhengzhou: Daxiang chubanshe, 2018. ———. Yuan Dadu gongdian tukao 元大都宮殿 圖考 (Plans and research of the palatial architecture of Yuan Daidu). Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1936. Zhu Qiqian and Kan Duo 闞鐸 (1875–1934). “Jin Zhongdu gongdian tukao” 金中都宮殿圖說 (Palaces of Jin Zhongdu). Wenwu cankao ziliao, no. 7 (1955): 69–75. ———. “Liao-Jin Yanjing chengguo gongyuan tukao” 遼金燕京城郭宮苑圖考 (Research and illustrations of the city, garden, and palaces of Liao-Jin Yanjing). Wenzhe jikan 文哲季刊 6, 1 (1936): 49–81. ———. “Yuan Dadu gongyuan tukao” 元大都宮苑 圖考 (Plans and research on palaces and gardens of Yuan Daidu). Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 1, no. 2 (1932): 1-218. Zhu Qiqian and Liu Dunzhen. “Zhejianglu” (Records of artisans). Zhongguo yingzao xueshe huikan 6, 2, (1937): 114–57. Zhu Qixin. “Royal Costumes of the Jin Dynasty.” Orientations (December 1990): 59–64.

Zhu Xiaonan 朱小南. “Langzhong Yong’ansi dadian jianzhu shidai ji gouzao tezheng qianxi” 閬中永安寺大殿建築時代及構造特徵 淺析 (Analysis of the date and structure of the main hall of Yong’an Monastery in Langzhong). Sichuan wenwu, no. 1 (1991): 69–71. Zhu Yizun 朱彝尊 (1629–1709), Ying Lian 英廉 (1707–1783), and Yu Minzhong 於敏中 (1714– 1779). Rixia jiuwenkao日下舊聞考 (Annotated writings of the capital, a daily record). 8 vols. 1788, expanded from Zhu Yizun. Beijing: Beijing guji chubanshe, 1983. Zhu Zuxi 朱祖希. Yuandai ji Yuandai yiqian Beijing chengshi xingtai yu gongneng yanbian 元代及元 代以前北京 城市形態與功能演變 (Development of form and function in Yuan and pre-Yuan Beijing). Guangzhou: Huanan Ligong Daxue chubanshe, 2015. Zhuang Weifeng 莊威鳳 et al. Zhongguo difangzhi lianhe mulu 中國地方志聯合目錄 (Union catalogue of Chinese gazetteers). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1985. Zhuge Jing 諸葛淨. Liao, Jin, Yuan shiqi Beijingshi yanjiu 遼金元时期北京城市研究 (Research on the city of Beijing in Liao, Jin, and Yuan times). Nanjing: Dongnan Daxue chubanshe, 2015. Zuo Lala. “Build for the Living: Stone Buildings of Yuan China.” Frontiers of History in China 10, no. 2 (2015): 264–88. ———. Diversity in the Great Unity: Yuan Architecture and Regional Cultures. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2018.

305

Character Glossary

A Acheng 阿城 A’erzhai 阿爾寨 Aguda 阿骨打 Agui 阿桂 Aichi 愛知 ʿAlaʾ al-Din/Alaoding 阿老丁 Almaliq 阿里馬利克 Amitābha 阿彌陀佛 An Bing 安丙 Andong 安東 ang 昂 angting tiaowo 昂桯挑斡 Anhwasa 安華寺 Anige 阿尼哥 antang 安堂 Antu 安圖 Anxi(wangfu) 安西(王府) Anyang 安陽 ao 鼇 Aolimi 奧里米 Arzhai 阿爾寨 Ashikaga 足利 Ayuwang(shan) (Mountain) 阿育王(山) B Baichengzi 白城 Baisha 白沙 Baishan 白山 Baita(si) (Monastery) 白塔(寺) Baiyunguan 白雲觀 Baiyun(si) (Monastery) 白雲寺 Baiyushiqiao 白玉石橋 Baizhengzi 白城子 bali 八里 Balicheng 八里城 Banlachengzi 半拉城子 Bao Tingbo 鮑廷博 Baocheng(si) (Monastery) 寶成(寺) Baoding 保定 Baodingshan 寶頂山 Bao’en(si) (Monastery) 報恩(寺) Bao’enguangxiao Chan(si) (Monastery) 報恩光孝 禪(寺)

Baofeng(si) (Monastery) 寶奉(寺) Baoguo(si) (Monastery) 保國(寺) Baomacheng 寶馬城 baosha 抱廈 Baoshan(si) (Monastery) 寶山(寺) Baotou 抱頭 Baoxiang(ta) (Pagoda) 寶像(塔) Bayantala 巴彥塔拉 Bayanyao 巴彥窯 Bei Shiku(si) (Monastery) 北石窟(寺) Beigu(shan) (Mount) 北固山 Beijiashan 北家山 beijing 北京 Beiyangcheng 北羊城 beiyuan 北園 Beiyukou 北峪口 Beiyuyuan 北榆苑 Beizhenglu 北征錄 Bianjing 汴京 Bianliang 汴梁 biji 筆記 Bingling(si) (Monastery) 炳靈(寺) Bo’ai 博愛 Bolin(si) (Monastery) 柏林寺 Bosi(si) (Monastery) 波斯寺 bu 步 Budongcun 埠東村 B/Puha(o)ding 補好丁 Buhatiya’er 布哈提亞爾 Byōdōin 平等院 C cai 材 cao 槽 Cao Guoju 曹國舅 Cao Tingjie 曹廷杰 Cao Yan 曹衍 Caocun 曹村 Caogong 曹公 Chagannao’er 察罕腦爾 Chaha(’e)r 察哈爾 Chaha’er xianzhi 察哈爾縣志 Chan/Zen 禪 chandu 蟬肚

306

Chang’an 長安 Changbai 長白 Changchongliang 長蟲梁 Changchun 長春 Changle(gong) (Palace) 長樂(宮) Changling 長陵 changming fugui 長命富貴 Changping 昌平 Changqing 長清 Changyi 常儀 Changzhi 長治 Chaoridian 朝日殿 chaotang 朝堂 chashou 叉手 Chen Yuanjing 陳元靚 Chengde 承德 Chengdu 成都 Chenghua 成化 Chenglin 承麟 Chengnan(si) (Monastery) 城南(寺) Chengtang 成湯 Chengtian 承天 chi 尺 chi 池 Chifeng 赤峰 chijian 敕建 Chinggis 成吉思 Chinqai (Zhenhai) 鎮海 chiwen 鴟吻 Chong’an(men) (Gate) 崇安(門) Chongfu(si) (Monastery) 崇福(寺) Chongguo(si) (Monastery) 崇國(寺) Chŏngnimsa 定林寺 Chongqing(si) (Monastery) 崇慶(寺) Chongshou(dian) (Hall) 崇壽(殿) Chongtian(men) (Gate) 崇天(門) Chongwen 崇文 Chongyang 重陽 Chongzhen 崇禎 Chosŏn 朝鮮 chuandou 穿鬥/逗/斗 Chuanfazhengzong(dian) (Hall) 傳法正宗殿 chuantong 傳統 Chuihong(qiao) (Bridge) 垂虹(橋)

chuihua 垂花 Chunyang Daoguan (Daoist Monastery) 純陽道觀 Chunyou Lin’anzhi 淳祐臨安志 chuomufang 綽幕枋 Chuzu’an 初祖庵 Ciren(dian) (Hall) 慈仁殿 Cisheng(si) (Monastery) 慈勝(寺) Cishi 慈氏 Ciyun(ge) (Pavilion) 慈雲(閣) Cuangongshan 攢宮山 Cuiwei(gong) (Palace) 翠微(宮) cun 寸 D Da Chongen Fuyuan(si) (Monastery) 大崇恩福元(寺) Da Fangshan 大方山 (Da) Huguo Renwang(si) (Monastery) (大)護國仁 王(寺)

Da Jin guozhi 大金國志 Da Qing yitongzhi 大清一統志 (Da) Shengshou Wan’an(si) (Monastery) (大)聖壽萬 安(寺)

(Da) Xia (大)夏 (Da) Xingjiao(si) (Monastery) (大)興教(寺) Da Yuan hunyi zhi tu 大元混一之圖 Da’ange(tu) 大安閣(圖) Dabei(ge) (Pavilion) 大悲(閣) Dacheng 大成 Dachuqing(si) (Monastery) 大儲慶(寺) Dadao(guan) (Daoist Monastery) 大道(觀) dadian 大殿 da’e 大額 Dagan 大干 Dage(si) (Monastery) 大閣(寺) Dai Butsuyō 大仏様 Daidu 大都 Daijōji 大成寺 Daixian 代縣 Daizongbao(dian) (Hall) 岱宗寶(殿) Dali 大理 Damaoqi 達茂旗 Damaoshan 大茂山 Daming(dian)(gong) (Hall) (Palace) 大明(殿)(宮) damuzuo 大木作

Dan 亶 dancao 單槽 Dang-Jia 党家 Dangyang 當陽 Daninglu 大寧路 dao 道 Daoguan 道觀 Daozong 道宗 Daoyuan xuegulu 道園學古錄 Dasheng(ge) (Pavilion) 大乘(閣) Dashita 大石塔 Datong 大同 Daxiongbaodian 大雄寶殿 Dayunguangming(si) (Monastery) 大雲光明(寺) Dazu 大足 De’an 德安 De’erbu’er 得耳布爾 Dei Sechen 特薛禪 Deling 德陵 Dengfeng 登封 Dening 德寧 diange 殿閣 Di’anmen 地安門 Dianshan(si) (Monastery) 殿山(寺) diantang 殿堂 Digunai 迪古乃 Dingjiagou 丁家溝 Dinglin(si) (Monastery) 定林(寺) Ding(xian)(zhou) (county) 定(縣)(州) Dingxiang 定襄 Dingxing 定興 Dingzhou 鼎州 dishi 帝師 diyu 地輿 Dōgen 道元 Dong Qijian 董屺堅 Dong’er(cun) (village) 洞耳(村) Dongshan 東山 Dongyang 東羊 dou 枓 Dou (Chou) (dafu) 竇(犨)(大夫) dougong 枓栱 doujian tingxie 闘尖亭榭 Dubai(si) (Monastery) 獨柏(寺)

307

Dule(si) (Monastery) 獨樂(寺) Dunhua 敦化 Dunhuang 敦煌 Duo Kan 闞鐸 duobao 多寶 duodian 朵殿 Duolun 多倫 Duowen tianwang 多聞天王 E E’erguna 額爾古納 Eiheiji 永平寺 Ejinaqi 額濟納旗 El-Temür 燕帖木兒 Emei (shan) (gu) (Mountain) (Valley) 峨眉(山)(谷) Erlang 二郎 Erxian (guan) 二仙(觀) (Daoist Monastery) Etuokeqi 鄂托克旗 F Fahai(si) (Monastery) 法海(寺) Fan Chengda 范成大 Fan Zushu 范祖述 Fang Xinru 方信孺 fang yizuo 房一座 fangmugou 仿木構 Fangshan 方山 Fangyu shenglan 方輿勝覽 Fanrenxiang 番人巷 Fanyang 范陽 Fanzhi 繁峙 Fawang(miao) (Temple) 法王(廟) fei 飛 Feihong 飛虹 Feilaifeng 飛來峰 Feilai(si) (Monastery) 飛來(寺) feilang 飛廊 feiqiao 飛橋 feishi 飛石 Feiyun(ta) (Pagoda) 飛雲(塔) fen 份 Feng Daozhen 馮道真 Feng Zitong 馮子通 Fengguo(si) (Monastery) 奉國(寺)

Character Glossary

Fenghuang(si) (Monastery) 鳳凰(寺) Fenghuangzui 鳳凰嘴 Fenxi 汾西 fenxin doudicao 分心斗底槽 Fenyang 汾陽 Fogong(si) (Monastery) 佛宮(寺) Foguang(si) (Monastery) 佛光(寺) Foxiangge 佛香閣 Fu Xiyan 傅希岩 Fufeng 扶風 Fukui 福井 Fusheng(si) (Monastery) 福勝(寺) futu 浮屠 Fuzhou (Fujian) 福州 Fuzhou (Jiangxi) 撫州 G Gamala甘麻剌 Ganlu(si) (Monastery) 甘露(寺) Ganquan 甘泉 Ganzhou 甘州 Gao Qi 高啟 gaobiao 高標 Gaoliang(he) (River) 高梁(河) Gaoping 高平 Gaotang 高唐 ge 閣 gen 艮 Genhe 根河 Genyue 艮嶽 gong 工 gong 栱 gong 宮 Gong Kai 龔開 gongcheng 宮城 gongguan 宮觀 Gongsheng (empress) 恭聖(皇后) Gongting guangchang 宮庭廣場 gongyanbi 栱眼壁 Gongyi 鞏義 goulianda 勾連搭 gualengzhu 瓜棱/楞柱 guan 觀 guan (Shangdu) 關 Guan Yu 關羽 Guandi 關帝 guang 廣 Guang’anmen 廣安門 Guangdong tongzhi 廣東通志 Guanghan 廣寒 Guanghua(si) (Monastery) 光化(寺) Guangji(si) (Monastery) 廣濟(寺) Guangli Chansi (Chan Monastery) 廣利(禪寺) Guangsheng (si) (Monastery) 廣勝(寺) Guangta 光塔 Guangtian(dian) (Hall) 光天(殿)

Guangxiao(si) (Monastery) 光孝(寺) Guanwang(miao) (Temple) 關王(廟) Guanxingtai 觀星台 Guangxu 光緒 Guazhou 瓜州 guazigong 瓜子栱 gugong 故宮 Gugongyi lu 故宮遺錄 gugu 固姑 guichou 癸丑 Gujiao 古交 Guo Shoujing 郭守敬 guojieta 過街塔 guoshi 國師 Guyuan (Hebei) 沽源 Guyuan (Ningxia) 固原 H Hadengtai 哈登台 Ha(’e)rbin 哈爾濱 Haidian 海淀 Haihui 海會 Haila(‘e)r 海拉爾 Hailing 海陵 Hailingwang 海陵王 Haiyun 海雲 Hakata 博多 Han Gaozu 漢高祖 Han Yi 韓佚 Hancheng 韓城 Hanchengxian zhi 韓城縣志 Hangsu yifeng 杭俗遺風 hangtu 夯土 Hangzhou 杭州 Hanlin 翰林 Hansenzhai 韓森寨 Hanshan 寒山 Hanyuan(dian) (Hall) 含元(殿) Hanzhongjun 漢中郡 Haotianguan 昊天觀 Harada Yoshito 原田淑人 He 賀 He Changming 何昌明 Hede’er 赫德爾 Hedong(si) (Monastery) 河東(寺) Heishangou 黑山溝 Heishantou 黑山頭 Hei[shui]cheng 黑[水]城 Hejin 河津 Hela 合剌 Heng (Mount) (N.) (Shanxi) 恒(山) Heng (Mount) (S.) (Hunan) 衡(山) Hengshan 橫山 (Shaanxi) Hengzhou 横州 heta 合㭼 Heyang 郃陽

308

Heyi(men) (Gate) 和義(門) Hezhong 河中 Höhhot 呼和浩特 Hongdong 洪洞 Hongjiaoji 弘教集 Hongjila (Qongjirad) 弘吉剌 hongmen 紅門 Hongwu 洪武 Hongxi(dian) (Hall) 洪禧(殿) Hongyu 紅峪 Hōōdō 鳳凰堂 Hou Beizhenglu 後北征錄 Hou Jin 後金 Houdesheng 后德勝 Houma 侯馬 Houtaoyuan 後桃園 Houtu 後土 Houyingfang 后英房 Houyuanji 后元吉 Houzai 厚載 huabiao 華表 Huadamen(shan) (Mount) 華大門 (山) huagong 華栱 Huai’an 淮安 Huaide 懷德 Huaisheng(si) (Mosque) 懷聖(寺) Hualin(si) (Monastery) 華林(寺) Huang Chao 黃巢 Huang Kerun 黄可潤 Huang Sheng 黃升 huangcheng 皇城 huangdu xincheng 皇都新城 Huanghelou 黃鶴樓 Huashan (Mount) 華山 huatouzi 華頭子 Huayan(si) (Monastery) 華嚴(寺) Huayin (county) 華陰(縣) Huaying 華鎣 Hudun 呼敦 Huguo(si) (Monastery) 護國(寺) Huihuitang 回回堂 Huili 慧理 Huiluan(si) (Monastery) 回鑾(寺) Huining(fu) (prefecture) 會寧(府) Huitong 會通 Huixian 輝縣 Huizong 徽宗 Hulunbei’er (Hulunbuir) 呼倫貝爾 Hunyuan 渾源 Huocheng 霍城 Huo(quan) (Springs) 霍(泉) Huo(shan) (Mount) 霍(山) Huoxing(cun) (village) 火星(村) Huozhou 霍州 Husheng(si) (Monastery) 護聖(寺) hutong 衚衕

Character Glossary

Hu(xian) (prefecture) 鄠(縣) Huzhou 湖州 Hwajangsa 華藏寺 Hwanghae 黃海 I Inazu 稲津 Ishiyamadera 石山寺 J Ji Wowen 奇渥溫 Ji Yi(miao) (Temple) 稷益(廟) Jia Dan 賈耽 Jiading 嘉定 Jiajing 嘉靖 Jialing(jiang) (River) 嘉陵(江) jian 間 Jian’an 建安 Jiang Wei (Marquis) 姜維 jiangren 匠人 Jiangxian 絳縣 Jiangzhou 江州 Jiangzhouzhi 江州志 Jianshui 建水 Jianyang 建陽 jianzhu 减柱 Jiaocheng 交城 Jiaqing 嘉慶 Jidu(miao) (Temple) 濟瀆(廟) jiehua 界畫 Jietai(si) (Monastery) 戒台(寺) Jiexiu 介休 Jijian(si) (Monastery) 寂鑑(寺) Jin Zhizhang 金志章 Ji‘nan 濟南 Jinbian 禁扁 Jincheng 晉城 Jin(ci) (Shrines) 晉祠 jing 京 Jing 荊 Jing Shi 景氏 Jingangbaozuo 金剛寶座 Jingcun 景村 Jingdi 景帝 Jingfu(gong) (Daoist Monastery) 景福(宮) Jinggong(fang) (ward) 靖恭(坊) Jingim 真金 Jingming(si) (Monastery) 景明(寺) jingong 禁宮 Jingshan(si) (Monastery) 徑山(寺) Jingtu(si) (Monastery) 淨土(寺) Jing(xian)(county) 景(縣) Jingzhoulu (Siziwangqi) 淨州路 Jinhua 金華 Jining 濟寧 Jining(lu) (district) 集寧(路)

Jinjiang 晉江 Jinkou 金口 Jinling 金陵 jinshi 進士 Jinshi 金史 jinxiang doudicao 金箱斗底槽 Jinzha(he) (River) 金閘(河) Jishan 稷山 Jishui(tan) (Pool) 積水潭 Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 Jiulang(miao) (Temple) 九郎(廟) Jiuxian 酒仙 Jiwang(miao) (Temple) 稷王(廟) Ji(xian) (county) (Hebei) 薊 (縣) jixin 計心 Jiyuan 濟源 Jizhai 姬宅 juan 卷 juansha 卷殺 juhuatou 菊花頭 Juyong(guan) (Pass) 居庸(關) Juyuan 巨源 K Kaesŏng 開城 Kaicheng 開城 Kaifu(si) (Monastery) 開福(寺) Kaihua(si) (Monastery) 開華(寺) Kaipingfu 開平府 kaishu 楷書 Kaiyuan(si) (Monastery) 開元(寺) kamebara 亀腹 Kanazawa 金沢 Kanghwa 江華 Kangli Naonao/Kuikui 康里巎巎 Kangxi 康熙 Kaogongji 考工記 Kaoshan 靠山 Karayō 唐様 Ke’an 可庵 Ke Jiusi 柯九思 Kedong(xian) (county) 克東(縣) Kenchōji 建長寺 Khaidu 海都 Khubilai 忽必烈 khuriltai忽里勒台 Khwārazm 花剌子模 Koun Ejō 孤雲懐奘 Koguryŏ 高句麗 Kŏjo(am) (Hermitage) 居祖(庵) Köke-Köqa 呼和浩特 Köl tegin 闕特勤 Komai Kazuchika 駒井和愛 Kondui 康杜 Kongju 公州 Kongmin 恭愍

309

Koryŏ 高麗 Koryŏdogyŏng 高麗圖經 Koubei santingzhi 口北三廳志 Koun Ejō 孤雲懐奘 Kshitigarbha 地藏 Kuiwenge 奎文閣 Kuizhangge 奎章閣 Külüg Khan 曲律汗 Kŭmgangsa 金剛寺 Kŭngnak 極樂 Kunming 昆明 Kuo-li-ji-si 闊里吉思 Kuwabara Jitsuzō 桑原隲藏 Kwanum(sa) (Monastery) 觀音(寺) Kyŏngchŏn(sa) Monastery 敬天(寺) Kyŏngju 慶州 L lan`e 闌額 Langmaoshan(lu) (Road) 郎茂山(路) Langzhong 閬中 Lanpeilu 攬轡錄 Lanxi Daolong (Rankei Doryū) 蘭溪道隆 Lanxian 嵐縣 Lashao(si) (Monastery) 拉 稍 (寺) Leifeng(ta) (Pagoda) 雷峰(塔) Leiyin(dian) (Hall) 雷音(殿) Leshan 樂山 letang 樂堂 Li Haowen 李好文 Li Jie 李誡 Li Shujing 李淑敬 Li Yuanyang 李元陽 Li Yunxian 李雲線 Li Zhiquan 李志全 Liangcheng 涼城 Liangjiazhuang 梁家莊 Liangshan 梁山 Liangzhou 涼州 Lianhua(chi) (Pond) 蓮花(池) Liaodi(ta) (Pagoda) 料敵(塔) liaoyan(fang) (tuan) (tiebeam) (purlin) 撩檐(枋) (槫) Liaoyang 遼陽 Libaitang 禮拜堂 Licun 利村 Lifeng 醴峰 Lin Zhiqi 林之奇 Lin’an 臨安 Lin’an Yanjiu Zhongxin 臨安研究中心 Linfen臨汾 Ling (family) 凌 Ling’an 靈安 Lingbi 靈璧 Lingchuan 靈川 Lingchuan 陵川 linggong 令栱

Character Glossary

Lingtai 靈台 Lingxing(men) (Gate) 靈星(門) Lingyan(si) (Monastery) 靈岩(寺) Lingyin(Chan si) (Chan Monastery) 靈隱(禪寺) Linhuang 臨潢 Linjin (Shanxi) 臨津 Linxia 臨夏 Linyi 臨猗 Linyuan(men) (Gate) 臨淵(門) Linzhou 林州 Linzi 臨淄 Lishu(xian) (county) 梨樹(縣) Lizheng(men) (Gate) 麗正(門) Liu Bang 劉邦 Liu Bingzhong 劉秉忠 Liu Taibao 劉太保 Liuhe(ta) (Pagoda) 六和(塔) Liulin 柳林 Liurong(si) (Monastery) 六榕(寺) liusu 流蘇 Longfu(gong) (Palace) 隆福(宫) Longhu(men) (Gate) 龍虎 (門) Longjin (Daidu) 龍津 Longquanwu 龍泉務 Longshan 龍山 Longtian(miao) (Temple) 龍天(廟) Longxing(si) (Monastery) 隆興(寺) Longyou 龍遊 lou 樓 louge 樓閣 Lougetai 樓閣台 lu 路 Lu (county) 瀘 Lu魯 (state) (appanage of princess Ragi) Lü 呂 Lü Dongbin 呂洞賓 Lu Yanlun 盧彥倫 Lu’an 潞安 luding 盝頂 luding 廬頂 ludou 櫨斗 Lügongci 呂公祠 Lugou(qiao) (Bridge) 蘆溝(橋) Luofu(shan) (Mount) 羅浮(山) Luohan 羅漢 Luoyang 洛陽 Lushan 廬山 lutai 露臺 Luxian 瀘縣 M Ma Junxiang 馬君祥 Ma Zhiyuan 馬致遠 Macun 馬村 Magok(sa) (Monastery) 麻谷(寺) Maijishan 麥積山

Majia’an 馬家庵 mamian 馬面 Manggala 忙哥剌 mangong 慢栱 Mañjuśrī 文殊師利 Mantuo(shan) (Mount) 曼陀(山) Manwŏltae 滿月臺 Manzi(tai) 蠻子(台) Marāgha 蔑剌哈 Mati(si) (Monastery) 馬蹄(寺) mazha 螞蚱 Meishan 眉山 Meng(xian) (county) 孟(縣) Mergit/Merkit 蔑兒乞 Mianchi 澠池 miao 廟 Miaoxin 妙心 Miaoying(si) (Monastery) 妙應(寺) Min 閩 Mingde(men)(gong) (Gate) (Palace) 明德(門)(宮) mingjian 明間 mingqi 明器 Mingrendian 明仁殿 mingtang 明堂 Mingyingwang(dian) (Hall) 明應王(殿) Mingzhou 明州 Mituo 彌陀 miyan 密檐 Mogao 莫高 Mohe 靺鞨 mojiao 抹角 mokoshi 裳階 Moni(dian) (Hall) 摩尼殿 mudao 墓道 Mukhali 木華黎 Muqing(dian)(ge) (Hall) (Pavilion) 穆清(殿)(閣) Muryangsu(jŏn) (Hall) 無量壽(殿) Muta 木塔 Mutisi 木梯寺 N nabo 捺鉢/缽 Nanbu 南部 Nanchao 南詔 (Nancun) Chuogenglu (南村)輟耕錄 Nanhai baiyong 南海百詠 Nanhui 南匯 Nanjing 南京 Nanxiang 南翔 Nanyangong 南岩宮 Nazhacheng 哪吒城 Neicheng 內城 neifu 內 Ni Zan 倪瓚 nidaogong 泥道栱 Ning’an 寧安

310

Ningbo 寧波 Ningcheng 寧城 Ningjiasu 寧甲速 Ningzong 寧宗 noyane 野屋根 O Ögedei 窩闊台 Olon Süme 敖倫蘇木 Önggüd 汪古 P Paekche 百濟 pailou 牌樓 Pan Dechong 潘德沖 panjian 襻間 Pantuoshi(dian) (Hall) 盤陀石(殿) peng 鵬 ‘Phags-pa 八思巴 Pianlian 偏臉 Pilu 毘盧 Pingxiang(lou) (Pavilion) 平襄(樓) Pingyang 平陽 Pingyao 平遙 pizhu 批竹 Pongjŏng(sa) (Monastery) 鳳停(寺) Powang(chŏn) (Hall) 普光(殿) Pu Xiaxin 蒲霞辛 Pucheng 蒲城 Puming(ta) (Pagoda) 普明(塔) Puning(si) (Monastery) 普寧(寺) pupai 普拍 Puqing(si) (Monastery) 普慶(寺) Pusŏk(sa) (Monastery) 浮石(寺) Putuoshan 普陀山 Puxian 蒲縣 Puxian Wannu 蒲鮮萬奴 Puxianzhi 蒲縣志 Puyŏ 夫餘 Puyulu 蒲與路 Puzhao(si) (Monastery) 普照(寺) puzuo 鋪作 P’yŏngyang 平壤 Q qian 乾 Qian Xuan 錢選 qianbulang 千步廊 qianchao, houqin 前朝後寢 Qianlong 乾隆 Qianming(si) (Monastery) 乾明(寺) Qiantang (River) 錢塘 Qianyuan(dian)(si)(Hall) (Monastery) 乾元(殿) (寺) Qiaoze 喬澤 qiding ruo si zhi ping 其頂若笥之平 qilin 麒麟

Character Glossary

Qin Zhi’an 秦志安 Qing’anchansi 清安禪寺 Qingjingsi ji 清靜寺記 Qingliangshan zhi 清涼山志 Qingliang(si) (Monastery) 清涼(寺) Qinglong(si) (Monastery) 青龍(寺) Qingpu 青浦 Qingshou(si) (Monastery) 慶壽(寺) Qingye 青野 Qingyuan(shan) (Mount) 清源(山) qingzhensi 清真寺 Qingzhou 青州 Qinjiatun 秦家屯 qinmian 琴面 Qinshui 沁水 Qinwang 秦王 Qinyang 沁陽 Qionghua 瓊華 Qiqu (Mount) 七曲(山) Qiu Chuji 丘處機 Qiusi 秋思 Quanning 全寧 Quanzhen 全眞 Quanzhou 泉州 Quanzhoufu zhi 泉州府志 que 闕 Qufu 曲阜 Quyang 曲陽 Quyangxian xinzhi 曲陽縣新志 R Rabban Sawma 拉班掃馬 Ran 冉 ren (measurement) 仞 Ren Renfa 任仁發 Renshou(dian) (Hall) 仁壽(殿) Renzong 仁宗 Rikaze 日喀則 Rixia jiuwen(kao) 日下舊聞(考) rufu 乳栿 Ruicheng 芮城 Ruiguang(si) (Monastery) 芮光(寺) Ruisi(ge) (Pavilion) 睿思(閣) Ruixiang 瑞像 S Sa Dula 薩都拉 Sa skya 薩迦 Saidianchi Shansiding 賽典赤贍思丁 Saifukuji 西福寺 Sajia Banzhida (Sakya Pandita) 薩迦班智達 Saiyinchidahu 賽因赤答忽 Sakya (Lamasery) 薩迦(寺) Śākyamuni 釋迦牟尼 Samye 桑耶寺 Sangha/Sengge 僧伽

Sanjie (miao) (Temple) 三階 (廟) Sanlang (miao) (Temple) 三廊(廟) Sanmenxia 三門峽 Sanqing 三清 sanqu 散曲 Sansheng (miao) (Temple) 三聖(廟) Sanshi 三世 Sanweishan 三危山 Sanyanjing 三眼井 Semu 色目 Sengge Ragi 祥哥剌吉 Shajingbianbao 沙井邊堡 shan 山 Shangdu 上都 Shanghuang(shan) (Mount) 上皇(山) Shangjing 上京 Shanglan 上蘭 Shangqing(gong) (Palace) 上清(宮) Shanhua(si) (Monastery) 善化(寺) Shanmen 山門 Shannan 山南 Shanwen (village) 善文(村) Shanxi tongzhi 山西通志 Shao 少 Shaolin(si) (Monastery) 少林(寺) Shaoxing 紹興 Shariden 舎利殿 Sheli(ta) (Pagoda) 舍利(塔) Sheng’en(si) (Monastery) 聖恩(寺) shengqi 生起 Shengxiang 勝像 Shengxiang(bao) (ta) (Pagoda) 勝像寶(塔) Shengyou(si) (Mosque) 聖友(寺) Shenyu(dian) (Hall) 神御(殿) Sheshan 蛇山 Shi Feng 時豐 Shi Li’ai 時立愛 Shi Nawei 試那圍 Shi Yinguang 釋印光 Shi Zongbi 石宗璧 shicheng 石城 Shide 拾得 Shidebala 碩德八剌 Shiga 滋賀 Shigatse/Xigaze 日喀則 Shiji 史記 Shijingshan 石景山 Shilin guangji 事林廣記 Shilou 石樓 shinden 寝殿 Shitennōji 四天王寺 Shizi(si) (Church) 十字(寺) Shouchuntang 壽春堂 Shoushan 首山 shoutang 壽堂 Shouxi(dian) (Hall) 壽禧(殿)

311

shuangcao 雙槽 shuatou 耍頭 Shuidada(lu) (circuit) 水達達(路) Shuijing(dian) (Hall) 水晶(殿) Shuiliandong 水簾洞 Shuishen(miao) (Temple) 水神廟 Shulan 舒蘭 Shun 舜 Shunchang 順昌 shunfuchuan 順伏串 Shunjōbō Chōgen 俊乗坊重源 Shuntianfu zhi 順天府志 Shuofang(jun) (commandery) 朔方(郡) Shuo(xian) (prefecture) 朔(縣) Shuzhuanglou 梳妝樓 shuzhu 蜀柱 si 寺 sichuanfu 四椽栿 Siddhārtha 悉達多 Sili(lu) (Street) 司里(路) Siling 思陵 Silla 新羅 Sima Qian 司馬遷 Sira Orda 失剌斡耳朵 Sisheng(gong) (Daoist Monastery) 四聖(宮) Sitiantai 司天台 Siziwangqi 四子王旗 Soltaniyeh 蘇丹尼耶 Song Defang 宋德芳 Song Lian 宋濂 Songak(san) (Mountain) 松岳(山) Sŏngbul(sa) (Monastery) 成佛(寺) Songhua(jiang) (River) 松花(江) Songjiang 松江 Sorkhakhtani Beki 唆魯禾帖尼 Sōtō 曹洞 Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra 勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便 方廣經

Sübe’etei 速不台 Sudŏk(sa) (Monastery) 修德寺 Suibin 綏濱 suiliangfang 隨梁枋 Suizhong 綏中 Sun Meng 孫勐 Sunan Yugu (autonomous region) 肅南裕固(族自 治縣)

suo 梭 Suoyang 鎖陽 T tadao 踏道 Ta’er(si) (Monastery) 塔爾(寺) Taeung 大雄 tahōtō 多宝塔 Tahucheng 塔虎城 Tai’an 泰安

Character Glossary

Taibai(shan) (Mount) 太白(山) Taigu 太谷 Taihe (men) (gong) (Gate) (Palace) 太和(門) (宮) Tai(hu) (Lake) 太(湖) tailiang 抬梁 Taimiao 太廟 Tai(shan) (Mount) 泰(山) Taitoumiao 台頭廟 taiwei 太尉 Taiye(chi) (Pond) 太液(池) Taiyuan(si) (Monastery) 太原(寺) Taiyun(si) (Monastery) 泰雲(寺) Taizicheng 太子城 Tangdi(dian) (Hall) 湯帝(殿) Tavan-tolgoi 塔溫陶勒蓋 Tayuan 塔院 Temüder 鐵木迭兒 Temüge 鐵木哥 Temujin 鐵木真 Temür Öljeytü 鐵穆耳完澤篤 Tettsū Gikai 徹通義介 Tian Rucheng 田汝成 Tian Shengong 田神功 Tianchi(shan) (Mount) 天池(山) tiangong louge 天宮樓閣 Tianning (si) (Monastery) 天寧(寺) Tianqi(ci) (Shrine) 天啓(祠) Tianqing(guan) (Daoist Monastery) 天慶(觀) Tianru Weize 天如惟則 Tiantongjingde(chansi) (Chan Monastery) 天童景 德(禪寺)

Tianyi zhenqing(gong) (Palace) 天乙真慶(宮) Tianzhu(feng) (Peak) 天柱(峰) tianzi 天子 tiaowo 挑斡 Tie Ke 鐵可 timu 替木 Timur (Tamerlane) 帖木兒 tingtang 廳堂 Tōfukuji 東福寺 Toghōn Temür 妥懽貼睦爾 Toghtō 脫脫 Tolui 拖雷 Tonghui(he) (River) 通惠(河) Tonglu 桐廬 Tongnan 潼南 Tongwan 統萬 Tongxian 通縣 Tongzhou 通州 Torii Ryūzō 鳥居龍藏 touxin 偷心 Toyokawa 豊川 Tsuruga 敦賀 Tugh Temür 圖帖睦爾 Tughluq Timur 禿忽魯帖木兒 Tunliu 屯留

tuojiao 托腳 Tuotuo 脫脫 Tutugh 圖圖格 Tuul (River) 土拉(河) U Uji 宇治 Ujimqinqi 烏珠穆沁旗 Ŭnhae(sa) (Monastery) 銀海(寺) Uriyangkhadai 兀良哈台 Ussurysk/Shuangchengzi 雙城子 W Wan’an(gong) (qiao) (Palace) (Bridge) 萬安(宮)(橋) wang 王 Wang 王 Wang Kŏn 王建 Wang Kui 王逵 Wang Mingqing 王明清 Wang Shidian 王士點 Wang Shixian 汪世顯 Wang Yanda 王彥達 Wang Yun 王惲 Wang Zhe 王喆 Wang Zhenpeng 王振鵬 Wangcheng 王城 Wangji(si) (Monastery) 罔極(寺) wangqi 王氣 Wangqu 王曲 Wangshan 望山 Wanrong 萬榮 Wanshou (Chansi) (Chan Monastery) 萬壽(禪寺) Wanshoushan 萬壽山 Wansui 萬歲 Wanyan 完顏 Wanyan Xiyin 完顏希尹 Wanyan Yan 完顏晏 Wei Yanshen 衛彥深 Weicun 尉村 weiqi 圍棋 Weiyang(gong) (Palace) 未央(宮) Wenchang(dian) (Hall) 文昌(殿) wengcheng 甕城 Wengniute(qi) (Banner) 翁牛特(旗) Wenshui 文水 Wenxi 聞喜 Wenxian 溫縣 wo’erduo 斡耳朵 Woluochen 斡羅陳 Wotuochi 斡脫赤 Wu Qing 武慶 Wu Quanjie 吳全節 Wu Zhijing 吳之鯨 Wu Zixu 伍子胥 Wuchang 武昌 Wuchi(cun) (village) 武池(村)

312

Wudang(shan) (Mount) 武當(山) Wudi 武帝 Wudubu 吾睹補 Wugulun Wolun 烏古論窩論 Wugunai 烏骨廼 Wuji(men) (Gate) 無極(門) wuliangdian 無樑殿 Wulin fanzhi 武林梵志 Wuling(zhuang) (hamlet) 吳嶺(莊) Wulong(miao) (Temple) 五龍(廟) Wulu 烏祿 Wu(men) (Gate) 午(門) Wuqimai 吳乞買 Wushan shicha 五山十刹 Wushan shichatu 五山十刹圖 Wusong 吳淞 Wutai (shan) (Mount) 五台(山) Wutonghua 梧桐花 Wuwei 武威 Wu(xian) (prefecture) 吳(縣) Wuxiang 武鄉 Wuyi(jiang) (River) 武義(江) Wuyur (Wuyu’er)(he) (River) 烏裕爾(河) Wuzhou 婺州 X Xiabali 下八里 Xiajiao(cun)(village) 下交(村) Xialu/Shalu 夏魯 Xiamen 廈門 xian 仙 Xianchun Lin’anzhi 咸淳臨安志 xiandian 獻殿 Xiangdian 香殿 Xiangfen 襄汾 xiangge 香閣 Xiangguo(si) (Monastery) 相國(寺) Xiangmai 祥邁 Xiangshan(si) (Monastery) 香山(寺) Xiangyan(si) (Monastery) 香嚴寺 Xianhe(si) (Mosque) 仙鶴(寺) Xiansu 顯肅 Xianyang 咸陽 Xiao Baiju 蕭拜住 Xiao Xun 蕭洵 Xiaochengzi 小城子 Xiaohongcheng 小紅城 Xiaolianfeng 小蓮峰 xiaomuzuo 小木作 Xiaonan(cun) (village) 小南(村) Xiaoxue 小學 Xiaoyi 孝義 Xicheng 西城 Xichun(ge) (Pavilion) 熙春(閣) Xielijisi 薛里吉思 Xigaze 日喀則

Character Glossary

Xihu youlanzhi 西湖游覽志 Xijinzhi 析津志 Xiliang(ge) (ting) (Pavilion) (Kiosk) 西涼(閣)(亭) Xilou 戲樓 Xin Yuanshi 新元史 Xincheng 新城 Xinghe(lu) (circuit) 興和(路) xinei 西內 xinfaxian 新發現 Xingfu(si) (Monastery) 興福(寺) xinggong 行宮 Xingsheng(gong) (Palace) 興聖(宮) Xing(xian) (prefecture) 興(縣) Xingyuanzhige 興元之閣 Xining 西寧 Xinjiang (Shanxi) 新絳 Xinjing (Nanbu) 新井 Xinzheng 新政 Xiong Zai 熊載 Xiongnu 匈奴 xiuqiu 繡球 Xishui 西水 Xitao 西縧 Xiude(si) (Monastery) 修德(寺) Xiuding(si) (Monastery) 修定(寺) Xiuwu 修武 Xiyu 西域 Xu Kangzong 許康宗 Xu Youren 許有壬 Xuandu baozang 玄都寶藏 Xuanhua 宣化 Xuankong(si) (Monastery) 懸空(寺) Xuanmiao(guan) (Daoist Monastery) 玄妙(觀) Xuanning(xian) (prefecture) 宣寧(縣) Xuansu 顯肅 Xuanwen Hongjiao(si) (Monastery) 宣文弘教(寺) Xuanwen(ge) (Pavilion) 宣文(閣) xuanyu 懸魚 Xuanyuan(gong) (Palace) 軒轅(宮) Xueshiyuan 學士院 Xuhuang 虛皇 Xumishan 須彌山 Y ya 牙 Yagou 亞溝 Yamadadera 山田寺 yan 岩 Yan Hui 顏回 Yanai Watari 箭内亙 Yanchun(ge) (Pavilion) 延春(閣) Yandi 炎帝 Yanfu(si) (Monastery) 延福(寺) Yang Lianzhenjia 楊璉真珈 Yangcheng 陽城

Yanghe(lou) (Tower) 陽和(樓) Yangling 陽陵 Yangqunmiao 羊群廟 Yangcheng(xian) (prefecture) 陽城(縣) Yangquandong(cun) (village) 陽泉東(村) Yangwan 楊灣 Yangyu(chi)(Pond) 養魚(池) Yangzhou 揚州 Yanjing 燕京 Yanlisibei 延釐寺碑 Yano Jinichi 矢野仁一 Yanqing(si) (Monastery) 延慶(寺) Yanshan(si) (Monastery) 岩山(寺) Yanshou(si)(Monastery) 延壽(寺) Yanting 鹽亭 Yanyou 延祐 Yanzi 顏子 Yao 堯 Yao Sui 姚燧 yaodian 窯殿 yatiao 壓跳 yeke daruqači 也可達魯花赤 Yeheidie’er 也黑迭兒 Yelikewen 也里可溫 Yelü Chucai 耶律楚材 Yelü Zhu 耶律鑄 Yesan 禮山 Yesün Temür 也孫鐵木兒 Yicheng 翼城 Yiheyuan 頤和園 Yijing 易經 Yima 義馬 yimin 遺民 Yin Zhixian 尹志先 Yingchang(lu) (circuit) 應昌(路) Yindong 鄞東 Ying(xian) (prefecture) 應(縣) Yingzao fashi 營造法式 Yinshan 銀山 Yisügei Ba’atur/Yesügei 也速該 Yisüngge (Yisünggü) 移相哥 Yiwu(jiang) (River) 義烏(江) Yi(xian) (county) 義(縣) yizhen 儀真 yizhu 移柱 Yong’an(si) (Monastery) 永安(寺) Yongdingmen 永定門 Yonghegong 雍和宫 Yongji 永濟 Yongjing(xian) (county) 永靖(縣) Yongjixian zhi 永濟縣志 Yŏngju 榮州 Yongle dadian 永樂大典 Yonglegong 永樂宮 Yongming Baoxiang(si) (Monastery) 永明寶相(寺)

313

Yongning(si) (Monastery) 永寧(寺) Yŏngsan(jŏn) (Hall) 靈山(殿) Yongsheng 永生 Yongyouling 永佑陵 Yongzheng 雍正 Yongzhou 永州 Yousuitang 幽邃堂 Youxian(si) (Monastery) 遊仙(寺) you’e 由額 Yu 禹 Yu Ji 虞集 Yuan Gui’an 袁貴安 Yuan Tieke 元鐵可 Yuan Zhong 元忠 yuanben 原本 Yuan(cun) (village) 原(村) Yuandai dihouxiang 元代帝后像 (si) (Monastery) (寺) Yuanguo(si) (Monastery) 願果(寺) Yuanman 圓滿 Yuanshi 元史 Yuanzhou 原州 Yuci 榆次 Yucixian zhi 榆次縣志 Yude(dian) (Hall) 育德(殿) yue 嶽 Yue Fei 岳飛 Yue Ke 岳珂 yuetai 月台 yuhuxianchun 玉壺先春 Yulin 榆林 Yuncheng 運城 Yungang 雲岡 Yunhe 雲和 Yunliang(he) (River) 運糧(河) Yunnan tongzhi 雲南通志 Yunxiang (Chansi) (Chan Monastery) 雲翔(禪寺) Yunyan(si) (Monastery) 雲岩(寺) Yuquan(si) (Monastery) 玉泉(寺) Yutu 輿圖 yuwu 餘屋 Yuxiu(qiao) (Bridge) 毓秀(橋) Yuyao 餘姚 Yuzao(dian) (Hall) 魚藻(殿) Yuzhou 禹州 Z zaojing 藻井 zaju 雜劇 Zen 禪 Zezhou 泽州 Zhaba’er Huozhe 札八兒火者 Zhaili 寨里 Zhaitang 齋堂 zhang 丈

Character Glossary

Zhang 張 Zhang (county) 漳(縣) Zhang Buhua 張不花 Zhang Daoling 張道陵 Zhang Hao 張浩 Zhang Honggang 張弘綱 Zhang Ji 張籍 Zhang Liusun 張留孫 Zhang Shouqing 張守清 Zhang Yingrui 張應瑞 Zhang Zijing 張子敬 Zhang Zongyan 張宗演 Zhangbei 張北 Zhangbeixian zhi 張北縣志 zhanggan 杖桿 Zhangjiakou 張家口 zhaqian鎖陽 Zhangqiu 章丘 Zhang(xian) (county) 漳縣 Zhangye 張掖 Zhangzi 長子 Zhao Li 趙勵 Zhao Mengfu 趙孟頫 Zhao Rugua 趙汝适 Zhao Zhifeng 趙智風 Zhaocheng 趙城 Zheng He 鄭和 Zhending 真定 Zhenhai 鎮海 zhengdian 正殿 Zhengding 正定 Zhengdingxian zhi 正定縣志 Zhenguan 貞觀 Zhengjue(dian) (Hall) 正覺殿 Zhenglanqi 正藍旗 Zhengtong 正統 Zhenguo Renwang(si) (Monastery) 鎮國仁王(寺) Zhenguo(si) (Monastery) 鎮國(寺) Zhengxiangbaiqi 正鑲白旗 Zhenjiang 鎮江 Zhenru(si) (Monastery) 真如(寺) Zhenwu 真武 Zhenzishan 砧子山 Zhenzong 真宗 zhi 栔 Zhibuzuzhai congshu 知不足齋叢書 Zhidanyuan 志丹苑 Zhihua(si) (Monastery) 智化(寺) Zhihuan(si) (Monastery) 祗洹(寺) Zhilin(si) (Monastery) 指林(寺) Zhishun Zhenjiangzhi 至順鎮江志 Zhong Duxiu 忠都秀 zhong san qi men 重三其門 Zhongdu 中都 Zhongfeng 中峯 zhongxin zhi tai 中心之台

Zhongxing 中興 Zhongxinge 中心閣 zhou 州 Zhou 周 Zhou Boqi 周伯琦 Zhou Lang 周朗 Zhou Shi 周氏 Zhouli 周禮 zhouqiao 周橋 Zhu De 朱德 Zhu Haogu 朱好古 Zhu Jun 朱俊 Zhu Mu 祝穆 Zhu Qiqian 朱啟鈐 Zhu Siben 朱思本 Zhu Wentai 竹溫台 Zhu Xi 朱熹 Zhu Xie 朱偰 Zhu Yizun 朱彝尊 Zhu Yuanzhang 朱元璋 Zhufanzhi 諸蕃志 Zhuo(zhou) (county) 涿(州) Zhuxia 朱夏 zicheng 子城 Zitan(dian) (Hall) 紫檀(殿) Zitong 梓潼 Ziwu(gu) (Valley) 子午(谷) Ziyun(guan) (Daoist Monastery) 紫雲(觀) zong 棕 Zongmao(dian) (Hall) 棕毛(殿) zucai 足材

314

Photo and Illustration Credits

Grateful acknowledgment is made to publishers and individuals for permission to reproduce images in this book. Arezou Azad figure 7.10 BAI Ying figure 4.57 Jan Bemmann figures 1.13, 1.48 Angus Cepka figure 6.15 Redrawn by CHEN Wei figures 1.58, 2.5, 3.5 Creative Commons License figures 6.16, 7.9 Lkhagvasuren Erdenebold figures 1.2, 5.17 Fair scholarly use figures 1.3–1.6, 1.18, 1.21–1.24, 1.27, 1.28, 1.32, 1.54, 1.56, 1.57, 1.59–1.61, 2.1–2.3, 2.6, 2.8, 2.11–2.15, 2.17, 2.19, 2.20–2.24, 2.42, 3.5, 3.9, 4.8–4.11, 4.13, 4.16, 4.27, 4.29, 4.30, 4.32–4.34, 4.38, 4.44, 4.49, 4.53, 5.1, 5.2, 5.5–5.15b, 5.19–5.22, 5.24–5.27, 5.32, 5.34–5.37, 6.11, 7.1 7.3, 7.8, 7.9, 7.11, 7.13, 7.19, 8.1, 8.2, 8.7 FU Xinian figures 1.29, 4.26 Money Hickman figure 8.15 V. Ivliev figure 2.7

N. N. Kradin figures 1.49, 1.50, 2.9, 2.10, 5.18 George Lane figure 3.6

William M. Steinhardt figures 1.15, 2.38, 2.39, 3.4, 3.7, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 5.28, 5.29, 7.15, 7.16 SUN Siyuan figure 1.33

LI Lindong figure 4.50 LU Bingjie figures 6.4, 6.6

Uncopyrighted figures 1.7, 1.14, 1.30, 1.31, 1.41, 1.42, 1.51, 1.52, 1.59, 2.40, 3.10, 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.19, 6.9, 6.12, 7.12, 8.11, 8.12

Matsunaga Eijiro figure 6.17

WEI Jian figures 1.16, 1.17, 1.20, 5.13, 5.16, 7.14, 7.17

Bryan K. Miller figure 1.47

XIE Qizhen figure 4.56

William Rockhill Nelson Trust figure 4.12

Drawn or redrawn by Ran Yan figures 1.11, 1.25, 1.53, 1.57, 1.62, 2.4, 2.25, 4.20, 4.22, 4.25, 5.4, 5.33, 7.10, 8.1, 8.6; Genealogy Chart; maps 1, 2, 3

Ahrim Park figures 8.8, 8.9

YU Lina figures 2.20, 2.33, 4.35–4.37, 4.54, 5.30, 5.31

PENG Minghao figures 4.5, 4.40, 4.48

Jianwei Zhang figures 4.15, 4.55, 4.58

Susanne Reichert figure 1.13

ZHAO Yuanxing figure 4.52

Sijie Ren figure 2.36

ZHOU Chunchang figures 1.34, 1.36, 1.37

Noriyuki Shiraishi figures 1.39, 1.40 Nancy S. Steinhardt figures 1.1, 1.8–1.10, 1.12, 1.19, 1.26, 1.35, 1.38, 1.43– 1.46, 1.55, 2.16, 2.18, 2.26–2.32, 2.34, 2.35, 2.37, 2.41, 3.1–3.3, 3.8, 4.14, 4.17, 4.18, 4.21, 4.23, 4.24, 4.28, 4.31, 4.39, 4.41–4.43, 4.45–4.47, 4.59, 4.60, 5.3, 5.23, 5.33, 6.1–6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.10, 6.13, 6.14, 6.18, 7.2, 7.4–7.7, 7.18, 7.20, 8.3–8.5, 8.9, 8.10, 8.13, 8.14

315

Lala ZUO figure 4.51

Index

Page numbers in boldface refer to figures. A ‘Abbasid Caliphate, 5 Abd al-Rahmān, 4 Acheng, 68 Aguda, 19, 22, 28; tomb of, 80 Ahmad (Fanākatī), 41 ‘Ain Jalut, 5 Alamūt, 108 Alaoding, 194 Alestuy, 57 Almaliq, 32, 64–65, 66 Altan Khan, 215 Altars, 224; of Soil and Grain, 68 Ananda, 62, 63, 199–200 An Bing, tomb of, 102, 102, 184 Ancestral temple. See Taimiao anda, 164, 166 Andrew, Friar, 4 Andrew of Perugia, church built by, 208 ang, 86, 88 Anhwasa, 225 Anige, 6, 27 anting tiaowo, 152, 153 Antu, 73–74 Anxi, 6 Anxiwang(fu), 62–64, 63, 166, 199, 200 ao, 27, 57, 66, 105, 106, 106 Aolimi, tombs in, 80 ‘Arab-‘Ata Mausoleum, 197 Aragibag, 7 Ardabil Shrine, 217 Arigh-Böke, 5 artisans, 5 Arzhai, 212–16, 213, 214; cave 28, 214, 215 Ascelinus, Friar, 4 Aśoka Pagoda, in Daixian, 204, 204 automata, 5, 14, 32, 39 Avraga, 49–50, 50 Ayurbarwada, 7, 27, 28, 41, 42, 43, 47, 62, 200 B back hall, of Guangsheng Lower Monastery, 128,

128, 131, 136, 137 Baicheng, 69 Baisha, tombs in, 102 Baiyun Monastery, in Nanhai, pagoda at, 159 Baiyunguan, 43 Balasagun, 64, 65, 66 Balicheng, 77, 77 Baocheng Monastery, 212–13, 213 Bao’en(si) (Monastery), near Meishan, 153, 154; in Suzhou, pagoda of, 101, 192 Baofeng Monastery, 157–58, 158 Baoguo Monastery, 97, 97, 100, 102, 119, 157, 190, 195, 196 Baomacheng, 73–74, 74 Bar Hebraeus, 108, 216 Bars-Khot 3, 55 batter (of columns), 95, 113, 119, 121, 122, 123, 128, 130, 134, 139, 142, 144, 146, 149, 153, 156 Batu, 2 Bayan, 221 Bayan-gol, 52, 53 Bayannuur, tomb in, 11 bay system. See jian beamless hall. See wuliangdian Beijiashan, 63 Beijing, 29 beijing, in Jin dynasty, 68, 70 beiyuan, 28 (Hou) Beizhenglu, 47 Benedict, the Pole, 4, 14 Bhājā, 190 Bianjing. See Bianliang Bianliang, 13, 24, 30, 43, 45, 68, 69, 72 big architrave. See da’e Bilge Khaghan, 223 Binglingsi, 216 Bolin Monastery, 43 boqta, 164, 172 Börte, 2 Boucher, Guillaume, 5, 14; silver tree of, 14, 21 Brabander, Cesar de, 50–51, 51, 194 bracket sets, 86–88, 87 Budongcun, tomb in, 167, 168 Buha(o)ding, 194

316

Buhatiya’er, 195 Butön Rinchen Drup, 206 Buyan Quli, mausoleum of, 197 C cai, 85 cai-fen system, 85 caisson ceiling. See zaojing cao (formation), 57, 86, 87 Catherine, of Vilioni, tombstone of, 31, 208 center marker, 36 Center Pavilion, 36 Chabui, 6, 43 Chadmani Black Mountain, tomb in, 173 Chaghatay, 2 chaitya, 190 chamfered columns. See shuttle-shaped columns Chan monasteries, 99–100, 99 chandu (chuomu), 157, 196 Chang’an, of Western Han, 37–38 Chang’anzhi, 62 Changbai (mountains), 74 Changchongliang, 63 chashou, 114, 135 Chengde, 19 Chenglin, 80 Chengtian, 198 Chen Yuanjing, 10 Chinggis, 33, 49, 213, 215 Chinggisid Stone, 55–56 chiwen, 73, 119 (Shunjōbō) Chōgen, 229 Chongfu(si) (Monastery), 88–89, 90 Chongtian(men) (Gate), 37, 38, 125 Chongyang(dian) (Hall), 122–23, 123, 127, 131, 168 chorten, 111, 202, 203, 203, 204, 204, 205, 212, 213, 215–16, 216; in Gansu, 216, 216 chuandou, 84 chuihua, 171 Chunyang Hall, 121–22, 122, 123, 141, 168 (Nancun) Chuogenglu, 30 chuomufang, 135 Church of the East, 17, 50, 51, 52

Chuzu’(an) (Hermitage), Main Hall of, 98–99, 98, 100, 227 Cirendian, 43 Cisheng Monastery, 142–43 Cishi Pavilion, 96, 97, 113. See also Longxing Monastery City God Temple, in Changzhi, 146–47, 148; in Yuci, 147 Ciyun(ge) (Pavilion), 6, 18, 113–14, 113, 114, 157 Cloud Terrace, 7, 109–12, 110–11, 190, 212 Coleridge, Samuel, 21 Confucian Temple, 7; in Beijing, 43; in Jianshui, 152; in Pingyao, Great Achievement Hall of, 92, 93; in Qufu, stele pavilions at, 92, 93 cremation burial, 79–80 cross-shaped plan, 209 Crystal Hall. See Shuijing (Hall) cun, 85–86 curved beams, 97–98, 97 cusped windows, 230, 230 D Da’an(ge) (Pavilion), at Shangdu, 23–25, 24 dadian, 99 Dadingfu, 71 da’e, 134–35, 136, 136, 137, 137, 138, 185 Da Fangshan, tombs in, 80–81, 81 Dagesi, 17–18 Dai Butsuyō, 228–29 Daidu, 6, 8, 12, 29–46, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 44, 46; huangcheng of, 37; gongcheng of, 37, 38–41 Da Jinguozhi, 66 Damaoqi, pictures stone from, 222 Daminggong, 35, 39, 41, 105 damuzuo, 84 Danba, 43 dancao, 86 Dang-Jia Village, 134, 176, 176 Daninglu, 63 Dao Kaimin, 129 Daoyuan xuegulu, 30 dapo, 226 Dasheng(ge) (Pavilion), at Puning Monastery, 19

Daxiongbao(dian) (Hall), 99 Dazu, rock-carved caves at, 101 debates, religious, 5, 6, 132 Delger River, remains at, 58, 58 Den-Terek, 57–58, 58 dharani pillars, 146 Diamond Throne Pagoda, 202 diange, 84, 86 diantang, 84, 86, 91, 92, 95, 99, 119, 123, 150, 152 Digunai, 68. See also Hailingwang Dinglin Monastery, 144 dishi, 28 Dōgen, 229 Doghuz Khatun, 216 Doityn-Tolgoi, 52 dome-on-square, 197, 197, 198, 198, 199, 200–2, 201 Dong’er(cun) (village), tomb in, 164, 166 Dong Qijian, tomb of, 183–84, 183 dou, 86 dougong, 86 doujian tingxie, 84 Dragon King Hall, at Shuishenmiao, of Guangsheng Lower Monastery, 127, 129–31, 130, 180 Dragon King Monastery, in Qinshui, 181 Dragon [and] Tiger Pagoda, 117–18 Dubai Monastery, in Tongnan, 155 Dule(si) (Monastery), 17 duodian, 128 E Eastern Peak, temple to, in Beijing, 43, 138–39, 139; in Emei (see Feilaifeng); in Hejin, 139, 140; in Puxian, 137–38, 138; stage at, in Wangqu, 181, 182; in Wanrong, 141–42; in Zezhou, 182 Eastern Xia, 66, 69, 75 Eight Daoist Immortals, 116 (Koun) Ejō, 229 El Temür, 7, 220–21 Erdene Zuu, 14–15, 15, 19, 19 Erxianguan, in Jincheng, 98, 98

317

F Fan Chengda, 66 Fan Zushu, 194 fangmugou, 83, 83, 157, 167 Fang Xinru, 192 Fangyu shenglan, 190 Fanrenxiang, 190 Fangshan, 33, 51, 73. See also Da Fangshan fan-shaped bracket sets, 89, 89 Fawangmiao, Offering Hall of, in Hancheng, 133–34 Feihong Pagoda, 127, 131 Feilaifeng, 211–12, 211 Feilai Hall, in Emei, 153, 154 feilang, 41 feiqiao. See feilang fen, 85 Feng Daozhen, tomb of, 162 Fengguo(si) (Monastery), 17; Daxiongbao Hall of, 91 Fenghuang Mosque. See Phoenix Mosque Fenghuangzui, 71 Fengtai, 71 fenxin doudicao, 86 five-capital system, 21, 68 five sacred peaks, 104 Five Sacred Peaks, Temple to, in Fenyang, 139, 140 Foguang(si )(Monastery), East Hall, at, 227. See also Mañjuśrī Hall Foxiangge, at Longxing Monastery, 95–97, 96 fu, 74 futu, 17, 20 Fu Xiyan and wife, tomb of, 165, 171 G Gamala, 49 Ganlu Monastery Pagoda, 100 Ganquan, tombs in, 82, 82 gaobiao, 107 Gaoliang River, 36 Gaoloucun, 71 ge, 17, 113, 114, 198 gen, 45

Index

Genyue, 45 George, the Onggüd King, 31, 51, 52, 200 Ghāzān Khan 108, 216 (Tettsū) Gikai, 229 Giwargis. See George, the Onggüd King Golden Horde, 2 gong (of bracket set), 86 gong (Daoist monastery), 116 gong plan, 16, 27, 39, 41, 47, 55, 57, 59, 63, 72, 74, 125, 139, 175, 207, 208 (Gongbu) Gongcheng zuofa (zeli), 227–29, 228, 230, 301, 302, 313 gongcheng, 23 gongguan, 157 Gongsheng, empress, palace of, 103 gongting guangchang, 37 gongyanbi, 167 Gongyi. See Northern Song royal cemetery goulianda, 135 “granary stage,” from Jingdezhen, 184–85, 185 Grand Canal, 193 Great North Mosque, in Qinyang, 196–97, 196 Great Wall, 10, 12, 13 gualengzhuang, 97 guan (Daoist monastery), 116 guan, four at Shangdu, 29 Guanghan Hall, 33, 35, 45, 46, 46 Guangji Monastery, on Mount Wutai, 145–46, 147 Guangsheng Monastery, 7, 127–32, 127, 128, 130, 136; murals, 129–30 Guangta, 190–92, 191 Guangxiao Monastery, 155–56 Guangzhou, 190, 191, 193 Guangyutu, 13–14, 13, 16, 23 Guanxingtai, 107 guazigong, 86 Gugongyi lu, 30 gugu, 164 guichou, 74 Gujiao, tomb at, 171, 171 guojieta, 111, 112 guoshi, 28 Guo Shoujing, 36, 106 Guo Xiangzheng, 191 Guyuan, mausoleum in, 7, 198–200, 198, 199 Güyük, 4, 14 H Hailingwang, 66, 68–69, 71, 75, 80, 81 Haiyun, 27 Hakata, 228, 229 Hall for Prefectural Officials, in Huozhou, 147 Hancheng, 132–34, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137. See also Dang-Jia village Hangsu yifeng, 194

hangtu, 22 Hangzhou, in Southern Song, 66, 102–3 Hanlin Academy, 6 Hansenzhai, 63, 165, 166 Hanshan, 125 Hanshan Monastery, 125, 125 Haotianguan, 210 Heavenly courts, 121 Hedong Monastery, 229–30 Heirman, Amand, 198–99 Heishangou, tomb in, 102 Heishantou, 59, 59 Hela, 68, 80 heta, 119, 138, 156 Heyi(men) (Gate), 30, 36 hongmen, 37, 42 Hongyu village, tomb in, 167–68, 168 hōtō, 230 Hou Jin, 66 Houdesheng, tomb at, 162, 163, 165 Houtaoyuan, 176 Houyingfang, 45, 174–75, 174, 175 Houzai Gate, 37, 41 huabiao, 191 Huadamenshan, 216 huagong, 86, 88 Huaisheng Mosque, 7, 190–93, 191, 193 Hualinsi Monastery, Daxiongbao Hall of, in Fuzhou, 98, 100, 227; Main Hall of, in Yanting, 153, 153 Huang Chao Rebellion, 194 Huang Sheng, tomb of, 101 huangcheng, 22–23 huatouzi, 105, 105, 113, 114, 114, 115, 135, 145, 146, 150, 155, 156 Huayan(si) (Monastery), Daxiongbao Hall of, in Datong, 91, 92, 230, 230; in Shangdu, 26–27, 27 Hudong, tomb in, 82, 82 (Da) Huguo Renwangsi, 27, 43, 203, 222 Huili, 211 Huiluan(si) (Monastery), 143, 144 Huining(fu) (prefecture), 68 Huixiang(guan) (Daoist Monastery), 141–42, 142 Huizong, emperor, 45, 66, 102, 125 Hülegü, 5, 18, 106, 108 Husheng(si) (Monastery), 43 hybrid buildings, or Liao, 91 I Ibn Battuta, 194 Ilkhānate, 5–6 Imāmzāda Ma’ṣūm , 217, 217 Imperial Preceptor Temple, 28 Impey, Lawrence, 22, 199 Innocent IV, Pope, 4, 14

318

intercolumnar bracket sets, 87 inverted-V-shaped brace(s), 44, 81, 81, 85, 87–89, 87, 90, 90, 92, 95, 98, 99, 99, 100, 102, 102, 103, 117, 119, 125 Irinjibal, 7 Iron Pagoda, in Kaifeng, 100; at Yunquan Monastery, 100 Ishiyamadera, 230, 231 iwan, 218 J Jamāl al-Dīn, 106–7 jasaq, 5 Jia Dan, 191 Ji Yi Temple, 145, 146 jian (bay), 17, 85 jianzhu (pillar displacement), 89 jiehua, 123 Jietai(si) (Monastery), 33 Jijian Monastery, stone hall at, 158–59, 158, 170 Jin dynasty, extent of, 66 Jin imperial tombs, 33, 81 Ji’nan, tombs in, 165, 166, 167, 167, 168 Jinbian, 26, 30 Jingim, 6, 62 Jinggong ward, 208, 209 Jingshan Monastery, Law Hall of, 229–30, 230 Jingtu(si) (Monastery), Daxiongbao Hall at, 91, 91 Jingzhou(lu) (circuit), 64, 64 Jining, 61–62, 62 Jinshi, 66 Jinshui Pool, 36 jinxiang doudicao, 86, 104, 130 Jiulang Temple, in Hanchang, 133–34, 136 Jiuxian Bridge, tomb at, 170 jixin, 88, 152 Jizhai, 176, 177 Jochi, 2; mausoleum of, 200, 201 Jochi-Khasar, 56, 59 John, of Marignolli, 7, 32; of Montecorvino, 6–7, 31, 50, 51, 52, 208, 209; of Plano Carpino, 4, 14, 222; son of King George the Onggüd, 51 juansha,135 juhuatou, 105, 121 Julian, Friar of Hungary, 4, 14 Jurchen, 2, 66 jusimpo, 226 Juvaynī, 14 Juyongguan. See Cloud Terrace K Kaesŏng, 224–25 Kaicheng, 63–64, 63 Kaifeng, 13. See also Bianliang Kaipingfu, 21 kaishu, 60–61

Index

Kaiyuan(si) (Monastery), in Quanzhou, pagodas of, 101, 101; in Shangdu, 28 kamebara, 231 Kangli Naonao (Kuikui), 42 “Kaogongji,” 35, 36 Karabalghasun, 11, 53 Karayō, 229 Kārlī, 190 Ke Jiusi, 42 Kenchōji, 230, 230 Kerait, 50 Kereyit, 2 keyid, 15, 20 khaghan, 4 Khaidu, 2 Khaishan, 7, 8, 46, 129, 200, 220 khanate, 4 Khanbaligh, 29 Khara-Khorum, 4, 8, 14–20, 15, 16, 19, 20, 70 Khara-Khoto, mausoluem in, 200–1, 201 Kharkhorin, 4, 16, 16 Kharkhur-Khan, 55, 55, 57, 75 Khirkhira, 55–56, 56 Khoshila, 7, 220 Khöshöö Tsaidam, 223 Khövsgal, 55, 55 Khubilai, 5, 6, 20, 31, 41, 43, 45, 106, 131, 132, 138 khuriltai, 4, 6, 14 Khwārazm, 2 Khwārazmian, 66 King Yu, temple to, in Hancheng, 133, 134, 134, 137 Kipchak, 2 Koguryŏ, 74 Kondui, 56–57, 57 Kongmin, King, tomb of, 225, 225 Koubei santingzhi, 47, 198 krai, 74 Krasnoyarsk, 75, 76 Kuiwen(ge) (Pavilion), 42, 114 Kuizhang(ge) (Pavilion), 28, 30, 42 kumys, 5 Kŭngnak Hall. See Pongjŏng Monastery Kuolijisi, 51, 200 Kwanmun(sa) (Monastery), 225 Kyŏngchŏn(sa) Monastery Pagoda, 228, 228 Kyrghiz, 2 L lan’e, 87 Langmaoshan cemetery, 170–71; tomb plan, 165 Lanpeilu, 66 Lanxi Daolong, 230 Lashao(si) (Monastery), 216 Later Jin, 8 Lawrence, of Portugal, 4

Leifeng Pagoda, 206 Leshan, 101 Lhakang Chenpo, 6, 206 Liaodi(ta) (Pagoda), 100, 101, 192 liaoyan tiebeam, 167 Licun, Song tombs at, 102 Lifeng Daoist Monastery, 152, 152 Li Haowen, 62 Lin’an. See Hangzhou linggong, 87, 88 lingtai, 106 Linyuan(si) (Monastery), 99–100, 99, 229 Lin Zhiqi, 190 Little Copper Hall, 6, 159, 159 Liu Bingzhong, 6, 20, 27, 29, 35, 36, 106 Liurong Monastery Pagoda, 100 liusu, 167 Liu Yuan, 138, 203 Li Yunxian, 166, 166 Li Zhiquan, 210 Longfugong, 35, 41–42, 44, 72 Longquanwu cemetery, 82 Longshan, caves at, 210, 211 Longxing(si) (Monastery), 17, 18, 95–97, 96, 99 lou, 114, 191 louge, 33, 93, 94, 159, 185, 192, 213 Lougetai, tomb at, 162, 163 lu (circuit), 50, 74 lü, 125 luding (box- or trunk-like), 39, 40 luding (ceiling type), 39, 40 Lü Dongbin, 116, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127 ludou, 86, 135 Lügongci, 116 Lugou Bridge, 33 luohan (twin) pagodas, 100 Luo Hongxian, 13–14, 13 Luoyang, Dong tombs in, 102 lutai, 45, 46, 179 Lu Yanlun, 68, 71, 72 M madrasa, 108 Magok Monastery, pagoda of, 227, 228 Ma Junxiang, 121, 123 Male and female mandarin ducks, 113 mamian, 59, 64, 69, 75, 76, 77 manara, 191 Manchus, 66 mangong, 86 Manggala, 6, 62, 63, 199 Mañjuśrī Hall, of Foguang Monastery, 89, 90, 114, 124, 128, 137 Manwŏltae, 224–25, 225 maps, of Yuan empire, 10, 12, 13, 13–14 Marāgheh, 106, 107, 108, 109, 216, 217

319

Matisi, 215, 216 mazha, 177–78 Ma Zhiyuan, 168 Melkin-Tolgoi, 52, 53 Merkit, 2 Miaoying(si) (Monastery), White Pagoda of, 43, 192, 202–4, 203. See also (Da) Shengshou Wan’ansi miḥrāb, 189, 193, 194, 195, 197, 218, 219 Military Guard Station, in Linyi, 147 minaret, 188, 189, 191, 191, 192, 193, 194 Mingde, Gate, in Daidu, 29; Pavilion, in Jin Shangjing, 68 mingjian, 85 mingqi, 64 Mingren(dian) (Hall), 17 Mir Muhammad, 107 Mituo Hall, of Chongfu(si) (Monastery), 89, 90, 114 miyan, 93, 94, 94, 159 Mohe, 66 mojiao, 135 mokoshi, 231 Möngke, 5, 14, 20, 58 Moni Hall, of Longxing(si) (Monastery), 96, 97 Mount Qingyuan, stone temple on, 158 mudao, 101 Muging(ge) (Pavilion), 25 Mukhali, 2 Multisi, 216 muqarnas, 195, 198, 218, 219 nabo, 73 N Naiman, 2 Nanhai baiyong, 192 Narustui, 57 nāsij, 4 Naṣīr al-Dīn Ṭūsī, 106, 108, 216 Nazha(cheng), 36 Nestorianism. See Church of the East Nicholas IV, Pope, 31 Ningcheng, 68 Ningjiasu, 69, 80 Ni Zan, 187 Northern capital, of Jin. See beijing Northern Peak Temple, stage at, in Linfen, 182–83, 182 Northern Song imperial tombs, 101 Northern Yuan, 8, 215 noyane, 149 O oboq, 166 observatory, in Daidu, 107–8, 108; in Dengfeng, 6, 106–9, 107; in Marāgheh, 106, 107, 108,

Index

109, 109; in Shangdu, 109 Odoric, of Pordenone, 21, 31, 32, 39, 46 Official Dou, Shrine to, 144, 145, 147 Ögedei, 2, 4, 49, 52 Okoshki, cemetery at, 174, 174 Olon Süme, 49, 50–52, 52, 53 ongghon, 222–23 Önggüd, 50 orientation, eastward, of Liao architecture, 92 Ouyang Xuan, 32 Ox King Temple Stage, in Hongdong, 181; in Linfen, 179, 179, 182 P pagoda forest, 94, 100 pailou, 152 Pan Dechong, 116, 184; sarcophagus of, 184 panjian, 113, 114 Pantuoshi Hall, on Mount Qiqu, 155 Parhae, 21, 66, 68, 69, 74, 78, 103, 224 parinirvāna, 101 ‘Phags-pa, 6, 28 Phoenix Hall, of Byōdōin, 195 Phoenix Mosque, 194–95, 195 Pianlian, 77, 77 pillar displacement, 135, 156, 197 pillar elimination, 135, 156 pillows, 186 Pingxiang Pavilion, in Lushan, 155 pishtaq, 188–89, 189, 190, 200, 201, 201 pivot of the four quarters, 37–38 pizhu (split bamboo), cantilever tip, 97 Polo, Marco, 21, 28, 30, 31, 36, 44, 50, 51, 52, 62, 194 Pongjŏng(sa) (Monastery), 225–26, 226 Prefectural Officials, Hall for, in Huozhou, 147 Puha(o)ding. See Buha(o)ding pupai tiebeam, 95, 167 Puqing(si) (Monastery), 43 Purchas, Samuel, 21 Pusŏk(sa) (Monastery), 226, 226 Puxian Wannu, 69 Pu Xiaxin, 190 Puyulu, 75 Puzhao(si) (Monastery), Daxiongbao Hall of, 133, 135 puzuo, 86, 87 Q Qara-Khitai, 2, 66, 103 qianbulang, 37 qianchao, houqin, 73 Qianyuan Hall, of Jin Shangjing, 68 Qianyuan(si) (Monastery), 27, 203 Qiaoze Temple, 180, 180, 182, 183 Qinglong(si) (Monastery), in Jishan, 144–45, 145;

near Lushan, 155, 156 qingzhensi, 17 Qinjiadun, 76–77 qinmian, (lute-face), cantilever tip, 97, 135 Qin Zhi’an, 210 Qionghua Island, 33, 44, 45, 186. See also Wanshoushan Qiu Quji, 5, 33, 43, 65 “Qiusi,” 167, 168 Quanming, 61 Quanzhen Daoism, 28, 116, 122, 210 Quanzhou, 7, 8, 31, 190, 206 queenpost, 157 queti, 88, 180 Quṭb al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Mas’ūd Shīrāzī, 106 R Rabban Sawma. See Sawma Rashīd al-Dīn (Fadlallāh), 21, 25, 194, 199, 200, 222 Ren Renfa, 112 Revolving Sutra Cabinet, Pavilion of, 97, 96 “rise,” 85, 95, 156 Rixia jiuwen (kao), 30, 111 roof types, 88, 88 royal cemetery, of Jin, 80–81, 81; of Liao, 81; of Northern Song, 81; of Western Xia, 81 rufu, 135, 138 Ruicheng, 119 Ruiguang Monastery Pagoda, 100 Ruizong, of Tang, 108 S Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, 190 Sa Dula, 26 Sage Mother Hall, of Jin Shrines, 95, 96 Saidianchi. See Shams al-Dīn Samanid, Tomb of the, 197 Samye Monastery, 19 Sanchao beimeng huibian, 66 Sanlangmiao, stage at, 180, 180 Sanmenxia, Song tombs at, 102 Sanqing(dian) (Hall), of Yonglegong. See Three Purities Hall; of Zujun Daoist Monastery, 133, 133 sanqu, 168 Sansheng(miao) (Temple) in Hancheng, 133 Sarai, 32 Sa skya Monastery, 6 Sawma, Rabban, 6, 50, 65, 216 Secret History of the Mongols, The, 2 Semu, 4, 6 Sengge Ragi, 7, 61, 138–39 Shaazan-Khot, 53–55, 54 Shaiga, 75, 75 Shajingbianbao, 62

320

Shams al-Dīn, 201–2; tomb of, 202, 202 shancheng, 74–75 shang capital, 21 Shangdu, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 19, 20–29, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 109, 196 Shangjing, 68; of Jin dynasty, 68–71, 69; of Liao dynasty, 68, 70 Shanhua(si) (Monastery), 88, 91, 99 shanmen, 99 shaofen, 50 shaofujian, 68 Shaolin(si) (Monastery). See Chuzu’an shariden, 230, 230 Sheli Pagoda, of Kaifu Monastery, 100 sheng, 191 shengqi. See “rise” (Da) Shengshou Wan’an(si) (Monastery), 43, 203, 209, 222. See also Miaoyingsi Shengxiang(bao) Pagoda, 205, 205 Shengyou(si) (Mosque), 7, 188–90, 189, 193 Shentong(si) (Monastery), 96 Shi Li’ai, tomb of, 81, 82 Shi Nawei, 190 Shi Zongbi, tomb of, 81–82 Shidebala, 7, 28 Shilin guangji, 10, 12, 12, 13, 13, 20, 167, 167 shinden, 195 Shira Orda, 4, 14 Shizilin, 186–87 Shizisi, 208–9 Shoushili, 107 shoutang, 167 shuangcao, 87 shuatou, 88, 135, 156, 177, 181, 183 Shuidada, 69 Shuijing(dian) Hall, 26 shunfuquan, 157 Shuntianfu zhi, 30, 111 shuttle-shaped columns, 97, 135, 149, 150, 151, 231 shuzhu, 135 Shuzhuanglou, 198 si, 17, 191, 206 Siling, 80 Sili Street Tomb, 166, 167, 167 Sima Qian, 132 Sino-Mongolian Stele, of 1346, inscription on, 15, 16 sishen, 218 Sisheng Daoist Monastery, stages at, 181, 181, 182 Sitiantai, 109 siting by bowshot, 33, 56, 203 Six Harmonies Pagoda, 101 Society for Research in Chinese Architecture, 35 Soltaniyeh, 217 Sorkhakhtani Beki, 5 Song Defang, 116, 184, 210

Index

Southern Song imperial tombs, 101–2 square root of 2, in Chinese and Korean construction, 227 stages, 178–86; in Jiexiu, 185 stone city, 143, 143 stone men, 219, 220, 221–23, 222, 223 Sube’etei, 4 sublintel. See you’e suburghan, 15, 20 Sudŏk(sa) (Monastery), 226, 226 suiliangfang, 149, 150, 150 süme, 15, 20 suo. See shuttle-shaped columns suspended fish. See xuanyu Suspended in Air Monastery, 104 T ta, 190–91 tadao, 27, 124, 174 Ta’ersi, 216, 216; assembly hall at, 19 tahōtō, 230–31, 231 Tahucheng, 76, 77 tai, 109 tailiang, 84, 85 Taimiao, 33, 45, 68, 69, 72; in Southern Song Hangzhou, 103 Taiye(chi) (Pond), 36, 41, 44 Taizicheng, 73, 73, 74 Takht-i Suleiman, 217 tall gnomon, 107, 109 Tangdi Hall, 146 Tanguts, 66 Tao Zongyi, 30 taqian, 128, 149, 156 Tavan-Tolgoi, 58, 220, 221 Tayuan(si) (Monastery), White Pagoda at, 6, 204–5, 205 Temple to the Northern Peak. See Virtuous Tranquility Hall Temüder, 7 Temüge, 4, 58 Temür (Öljeytü), 6, 43, 129, 199, 200 Temür (Öljeytü), 198, 217 teng(ge)ri, 5 Three Purities, 121, 210 Three Purities Hall, of Xuanmiaoguan, 100; of Yonglegong, 119–21, 120, 121, 122, 127, 141, 180, 193, 207, 210 Tian Rucheng, 194 Tian Shengong Massacre, 194 tiangong louge, 91 Tianning(si) (Monastery), in Anyang, pagoda at, 159; in Beijing, pagoda at, 33; in Jinhua, main hall of, 150, 150, 151 Tianru Weize, 187 Tianyi Zhenqinggong, 157, 157

tianzi, 73 tiaowo, 136 Tie Ke and Wutuochi, tombs of, 170 Tiger Hill Pagoda, 100 Timber Pagoda, 95, 95, 99 timu, 133, 138 Timur (Tamerlane), 2 ting, 114, 198 Tingshi, 191 tingtang, 84, 86, 91, 98, 99, 137, 138, 152, 183 Toghōn Temür, 7, 8, 17, 27, 55, 61, 228 Tolui, 4 Tonghui Canal, 36 Tongwan, 38 Transcendent Crane Mosque, 193–94 Tripitaka, 129 touxin, 88 T-shaped approach, to Jin Zhongdu, 71–72 Tughluq Temür, tomb of, 197–98, 197 Tugh Temür, 7, 30, 41, 42, 43, 94, 139, 220 tuojiao, 135 Tüvshinshiree, cemetery at, 174 U ulus, 2 Upper Monastery, at Guangshengsi, 131 Uriyangkhadai, 5 Ussuriysk, 74, 75 V Vajrabhairava Mandala, 167, 215, 223 Viar, 218–19, 218 Vienna, 14 vihara, 17 Virtuous Tranquility Hall, 6, 104–6, 105, 106, 119, 121, 127, 132, 137, 141, 193 W Wan’angong, 16 Wangcheng, 35, 36 Wang Chongyang. See Wang Zhe Wang Family cemetery, sarcophaguses in, 165, 177–78, 177, 178, 186 Wang Kon, tomb of, 225 Wang Kui, 92, 123 Wang Mingqing, 45 wangqi, 44, 46 Wang Shidian, 26, 30 Wang Yanda, 131 Wang Yun, 21 Wang Zhe, 122, 123, 127, 210 Wang Zhenpeng, 24, 123 Wangfu Stele, 51 Wanshoushan, 32, 33, 44–46, 44, 46 Wanyan Chong, 75 Wanyan clan, 68

321

Wanyan Xiyin, 79, 80 Wanyan Yan and wife, tomb of, 78, 79, 81 Water Spirit Temple. See Dragon King Hall wengcheng, 36, 52, 61, 64, 73, 76, 77 Western Xia, 2, 66; mural green, 215; royal tombs, 101 West Hall, 128 White Marble Bridge, 44, 44 White Pagoda, in Wuwei, 204. See also Miaoying Monastery; Tayuan Monastery William, of Rubruck, 4, 14, 55, 209 wo’erduo, 42–43 Wuchi, tomb at, 83, 83 Wudangshan, 157 Wudubu, 69, 80 Wugunai, 66, 68 Wu Jian, 188 Wuji(men) (Gate), 123, 157 wuliangdian, 108 Wulong Temple, Wenchange Hall of, 155 Wulu, 68, 69, 73, 75, 80, 91 Wuqimai, 68, 70, 71, 79, 83, 94 Wushan shichatu, 99, 99, 229, 230, 230 Wutai(shan) (Mount), 7, 43 X Xanadu, 21, 239n68 Xialu(si) (Monastery), 150 Xiamen 7, 8 xian (Daoist immortal), 116 xian (prefecture), 74 xiandian, 95 Xiangdian, 26 xiangge, 40, 41, 42 Xiangguo(si) (Monastery), 97 Xiangmai, 203 Xiangyan(si) (Monastery), in Liulin, 142, 142 Xianhe Mosque. See Transcendent Crane Mosque Xiao Baiju, 7, 26 Xiao Xun, 30 xiaomuzuo, 84, 91, 91, 97, 98, 98, 179 Xiaoxue, 173 Xichun(ge) (Pavilion), 24, 25 Xielijisi, 209 Xijinzhi, 26 Xiliangge, 198 Xiliangting, 198 Xilizhuang, tomb at, 184 xilou, 184 Xin Yuanshi, 66 xinei, 28 Xingfu Monastery Pagoda, 101 xinggong, 14, 73 (Da) Xingjiaosi, 43 Xingsheng(dian)(gong) (hall)(palace-complex), 35, 39, 42, 44

Index

Xingyuan(zhi)ge, 17, 18, 18, 85 Xitao residence, 175–76, 175 Xiude Monastery Pagoda, 100 Xiuding Monastery Pagoda, 197 xiuqiu, 167 Xu Kangzong, 68 Xu Mengxin, 66 Xu Song, 64 Xu Youren, 16, 17 Xuanning, 64 xuanyu, 46 Xuanyuan(gong) (Daoist monastery), 150–51 Xueshiyuan, 42 Y ya (tooth-shaped inset), 178 Yahbh-Allaha. See Sawma, Rabban Yanchunge complex, 35, 40–41 Yanfu Monastery, main hall of, 7, 148–49, 148, 149 Yanghe(lou) (Tower), 7, 115 Yang Lianzhenjia, 101, 205–6, 211–12, 212 Yangling, tomb of Han Jingdi, 38 Yangqunmiao, 219–21, 219, 220, 221 Yangzhou, 8, 31, 193–94 Yan Hui, temple to in Qufu, 144 Yanjing, 32 Yanqing county, tomb in, 82 Yanqing(si) (Monastery), in Jiyuan, pagoda at, 159; Mañjuśrī Hall of, 92, 92; in Shanwen, 89 yaodian, 194 yatiao, 135 Yelikewen, 209 Yelü Chucai, 4, 169 Yelü Zhu, tomb of, 158, 169–70, 169 Yijing, 27, 45 yimin, 6 Yindong, Southern Song tombs in, 102 Yingchang, 7, 8, 59–61, 60 Yingzao fashi, 6, 19, 25, 35, 57, 84–88, 87, 91, 95, 97, 99, 101, 102, 104, 105, 119, 137, 138, 140, 141, 147, 150, 152, 154, 156, 168, 174, 197, 225 Yinshan, 33, 94, 94 Yisüngge, 56; stele. See Chinggisid Stone Yisün Temür, 7, 27, 28, 196, 220 yizhu (pillar displacement), 91–92 Yong’an(si) (Monastery), 141, 141, 154–55, 155 Yongji, 116 Yongji, emperor, 80 Yongjixian zhi, 116, 119 Yongle, 116 Yonglegong, 6, 40, 118–28, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 131, 132, 136, 137, 141, 156, 157, 165, 168, 178, 179, 180, 184, 195, 207, 210, 232. See also Chongyang Hall; Chunyang Hall; Three Purities Hall, of Yonglegong Yongming Baoxiang(si) (Monastery), 109

Yongsheng, tombs in, 80 you’e, 89, 156 Youxian(si) (Monastery), in Gaoping, pagoda at, 159 Yuanbaoshan, tomb in, 164 yuanben, 93, 178, 179 Yuan Gui’an, 63 Yuanshi, 30 Yuanzhou. See Kaicheng Yude(dian) (Hall), 33, 35, 41 yue, 45 Yue Fei, 191 Yue Ke, 191, 192 yuetai, 47, 74, 104, 119, 121, 128, 130, 133, 143, 144, 145, 147, 152, 175, 193 yuhuxianchun, 62 Yu Ji, 21, 30, 42, 43, 138, 203 Yungang, 94, 190, 215 Yunliang (River), 69 Yunyan(si) (Monastery), 151 “Yutu,” 13 yuwu, 84 Yunxiang Chan(si) (Monastery), pagodas at, 159–61, 160 Yu Xilu, 209 Z zaju, 93, 168, 178, 179, 183, 183, 184 zaojing, 40, 45, 97, 97, 119, 121, 121,144, 145, 179, 180, 181, 181, 182, 183 zhang, 85 Zhang Buhua, 164, 166 Zhang Daoling, 138 zhanggan, 86 Zhang Hao, 71 Zhang Honggang, tomb of, 170 Zhang Ji, 125 Zhang Yingrui, tomb of, 172 Zhao Mengfu, 43, 138, 170 Zhao Rugua, 190 Zhao Zhifeng, 210 zhengdian, 99 Zhengding, architecture in, 94, 96, 113, 115. See also Longxingsi Zheng He, 201 Zhenguo Renwangsi, 203 (Zhishun) Zhenjiangji, 209 Zhenru(si) (Monastery), main hall of, 7, 149–50, 149, 150 Zhenwu, 157 Zhenzishan, tombs in, 172, 173 zhi, 85, 113, 135 Zhidanyuan, sluice at, 112, 112 Zhihuansi, 17 Zhilin(si) (Monastery), 152, 152 Zhong Duxiu, 131

322

Zhongdu, of Jin, 2, 10, 12, 24, 32, 32, 33, 43, 44, 45, 71–73, 72, 78, 80, 82, 83, 103, 109, 179 Zhongdu, of Yuan, 7, 10, 12, 47–49, 47, 48, 64, 65 Zhongfeng Mingben, 187 Zhongjing, central capital, of Liao, 71 Zhongxing, 77–78, 78, 79 Zhou, 74 Zhou Boqi, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, 47 Zhou Enlai, 325, 328, 334 Zhou Lang, 32, 43 Zhouli, 35 Zhou Shi, tomb of, 102 Zhou Shi, tomb of, 186 Zhu De, 152 Zhu Haogu, 122, 123, 129 Zhu Mu, 190 Zhu Siben, 13 Zhu Wentai, tomb of, 171 Zhu Yuanzhang, 8 Zhufanzhi, 190 zhujian. See pillar displacement Zhuozhou, tomb at, 166–67, 171; monastery in, 203 zicheng, 69 Zongmaodian (Coir Fiber Hall), 43 zongmiao, 33. See also Taimiao zucai, 85

Copyright © 2024 by Princeton University Press

Editorial: Michelle Komie and Annie Miller

Princeton University Press is committed to the protection of copyright and the intellectual property our authors entrust to us. Copyright promotes the progress and integrity of knowledge. Thank you for supporting free speech and the global exchange of ideas by purchasing an authorized edition of this book. If you wish to reproduce or distribute any part of it in any form, please obtain permission.

Production Editorial: Karen Carter

Requests for permission to reproduce material from this work should be sent to [email protected] Published by Princeton University Press 41 William Street Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Design: OoLB Production: Steven Sears Publicity: William Pagdatoon and Kathryn Stevens Copyeditor: Anita O’Brien Jacket images (front cover): Photograph of Three Purities Hall, Yonglegong, Shanxi, 1247-1262, with later repairs, by and courtesy of William M. Steinhardt; (back cover): Twin pagodas, Nanxiang Monastery, Nanxiang, Shanghai, ca. 1230 with later repairs

99 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6JX

This book has been composed in Atlas Grotesk and Cormorant Garamond

press.princeton.edu

Printed on acid-free paper. ∞

All Rights Reserved

Printed in Italy

ISBN 978-0-691-24016-9 ISBN (e-book) 978-0-691-25335-0

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

British Library Cataloging-inPublication Data is available