Manichaeism - New Historical and Philological Studies Open Theology 2015; 1: 293–300
Open Access
Research Article Majella Franzmann
The Epitaph of Mar Solomon, Bishop of South
China, Administrator of Manicheans and
Nestorians
DOI 10.1515/opth-2015-0014
Received June 17, 2015; accepted August 07, 2015
Abstract: The tombstone of the Christian bishop Mar Solomon is an important witness to communities of the
Church of the East and Manichaeans in fourteenth-century China. The epitaph consists of a bilingual inscription
in Chinese and Syro-Turkic. Three major points will be discussed—the identification of Mar Solomon as
administrator of both communities; the use of the term “Manzi” to designate Mar Solomon’s geographical area
of influence; and the significance of the style and languages of the epitaph.
Keywords: Manichaeans; South China; Church of the East; Mar Solomon
Introduction
From 2002-2009, a team of scholars from three Australian universities studied Manichaean and Christian
remains from the Yuan period in the Chinese city of Quanzhou and its surroundings in Fujian Province.1
The first phase of the research in the 2002-2004 period focused on Christian tombstones collected in
the Quanzhou Maritime Museum, either originals or well-produced replicas, both with respect to their
iconography and their inscriptions, the majority of which are in Syro-Turkic (Syriac script and Turkic
language). The research for this paper was concluded during the second phase of the project.2
Tombstones are the most numerous of the religious remains housed in the museum. As one enters the
Epigraphical Gallery of the museum, one first encounters Muslim tombs and headstones with typically
well-executed beautiful Arabic calligraphy. Moving from there to the next corridor, one is confronted
with stones of a different kind, the inscriptions in Syriac script for the most part, and not as beautiful as
the Arabic scripts nor as clearly written; but these are stones that are immediately remarkable for their
iconography—flying angels, angels or angelic figures with wings seated on lotuses, or crosses on lotuses.3
These tombstones are mostly from communities of the Church of the East, commonly known as Nestorians.
Dating of these pieces ranges from 1301-1347, for those where dates can so far be deciphered. They are
1 The team’s research was supported by two Discovery Grants from the Australian Research Council (2002-2004; 2005-2009)
and supplemented by generous funding from the Chiang Ching Kuo Foundation. An interim report on the project appeared in
Gardner et al, From Palmyra to Zayton, and the final report appeared in Lieu et al, Medieval Christian and Manichaean Remains
from Quanzhou.
2 As scholars continue researching Manichaeism in China, the work of the Australian team will need to be revisited in the light
of new finds such as those from Xiapu. On Xiapu, see the helpful bibliography in Kósa, “The Fifth Buddha.”
3 See Lieu et al, Medieval Christian and Manichaean Remains from Quanzhou, 243-262. For earlier work on the iconography of
the tombstones, see Parry, “Angels and Apsaras”; and idem, “Images in the Church of the East.”
*Corresponding author: Majella Franzmann: The University of Sydney, Australia, e-mail: [email protected]
© 2015 Majella Franzmann, licensee De Gruyter Open.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 2:37 AM
294 M. Franzmann
testimony to the presence of communities of Christians in the south-east region of China, especially in the
port city itself during the Yuan dynasty.
At this time the city was known as Zayton, and was an important centre for the Maritime Silk Route
and home to many foreign traders. Marco Polo wrote of it as the port for the “merchants of Manzi” in which
province it was located, a port that even Alexandria could not rival: “And I assure you that for one spice
ship that goes to Alexandria or elsewhere to pick up pepper for export to Christendom, Zaiton is visited by
a hundred.”4 The city figures frequently in his descriptions of trading from southern China (or Manzi as he
referred to it), and it was from there that he left China in the late thirteenth century.
The stone religious remains housed in the Maritime Museum witness to an ethnically diverse,
multicultural, and thus multi-faith population, including both Manichaeans and the Church of the East.
Manichaeans came east partly to escape persecution from a number of sources: the Roman empire, the
Roman church, various persecutions by Sassanian emperors, and Islamic rulers. They also came east to
carry out missionary work, with trading as a means of sustaining that missionary activity,5 and arrived
in China in the Tang period through their success with the mission to the Uighur Turks and Sogdians in
Central Asia. They suffered during the Tang period, especially during the 840s, firstly as a result of a decree
in 843 by the Emperor Wu-tsung that led to the confiscation of their scriptures, the impounding of their
property, the closure of their temples, and the burning of their images. This was followed in 845 by another
decree that abolished all foreign monasteries.6 However, Manichaeism survived in China, mostly in the
south in the coastal regions, and especially in Fukien, aided initially perhaps by the unrest in the country
as the Tang dynasty disintegrated.7
Zayton would have been a suitable location to establish a Manichaean community, given their
association of trading with missionary work.8 The presence of the Manichaeans in the vicinity of Zayton
during the Yuan period is attested by the report of Ho Qiaoyuan about a caoan (thatched nunnery) on
Huabiao Hill in nearby Jinjiang used as a Manichaean temple at this time.9 Ho Qiaoyuan’s report was
validated by the excavation of a Manichaean bowl in front of the temple/shrine in 1979.10
Apart from the shrine and the bowl, there are very few remains known to us of the Manichaean
communities in South China. In the Maritime Museum there are replicas of the Mani statue from the shrine
and of the Manichaean bowl, and a photograph of a Manichaean stone inscription from Hanjiang, Putian
that exactly reproduces the text originally carved on the side of Huabiao Hill near the shrine. The tombstone
of Mar Solomon, while strictly speaking not a Manichaean piece, is nevertheless an important witness to
the Manichaean community in the area.
Like the Manichaeans, the Church of the East came east during the Tang dynasty to the capital of
Chang’an in 635, as the famous Xian monument relates. Although Christians survived persecution under the
Empress Wu Hou for some fourteen years, they later vanished from the historical record in the time of strife
after the fall of the Tang dynasty in 907.11 While it is possible that they vanished completely,12 it may also
be that they remained confined to the outer-lying regions of China, and moved into more populated centres
4 The Travels, 209.
5 On the various persecutions and their movement east, see Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China,
106-15, 192-304, and passim.
6 Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, 303-304; Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, 237-339.
7 On the history of the Manichaeans in South China, see Lieu, Manichaeism in Central Asia and China, 177-196.
8 On the relationship between Manichaean missionary activity and trading, see, e.g., Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman
Empire and Medieval China, 98-101; Klimkeit, Hymnen und Gebete, 23; Klyashtornyj, “Manichaean Monasteries in the Land of
Arghu,” 374.
9 On the Manichaean shrine see esp. Bryder, “... Where the Faint Traces of Manichaeism Disappear”, 201-208, and idem, “Manichaeism as a Link between the Silk Roads on Land and Sea”, 66-67. The shrine is now a protected UNESCO World Heritage site.
10 The original is held in the new Fujian Province Jinjiang Municipal Museum.
11 For a brief history of missions of the Church of the East in Central Asia and in China during the Tang dynasty, see Moffett, A
History of Christianity in Asia, 288-323.
12 For this commonly held view, see, e.g., Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, 302-14. It is unclear why Moffett would favour
one Arab record of 987 CE that relates that there is only one Christian left in China at this time (pp. 302-303) over another from
942 CE that reports Christians and churches in unidentified cities in China (p. 323 n.107).
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 2:37 AM
The Epitaph of Mar Solomon 295
at the beginning of the Yuan period, when the Mongols invaded in 1280 under the leadership of Jenghiz
Khan.13 The Church of the East gained prominence under the Mongols, with Kubilai Khan entrusting the
government of Chenkiang to a bishop of the Church of the East, Mar Sargis, in 1278.14 While Christians of
the Roman church also came to Zayton on their way to the Yuan capital of Kahn-baliq (Beijing), this did not
occur until much later around 1294, when a Franciscan group led by John of Montecorvino visited the city
briefly. Later he consecrated and sent three bishops to Zayton,15 and the (replica) tombstone of one of these,
Andrew of Perugia, inscribed in Latin, can be found in the Quanzhou Maritime Museum.
The tombstone of Mar Solomon (B37 [= Z44]) is one of the eight inscribed stones with Syriac script on
display in the museum.16 The original stone was excavated in 1954 in Jinto-pu outside the Tonghuai gate, and
is now housed in the Fuzhou Provincial Museum. The (replica) stone contains a bilingual inscription, with two
vertical lines of Chinese to the left and two of Syro-Turkic to the right, the Chinese text being much longer and
more detailed than the Syro-Turkic. The stone is basically complete in a single piece, though the text does run
right to the very edge. There is a clear incised border around the epitaph with no ornamentation.
In 1969 the Japanese scholar Shichir Murayama published a transcription and study of this inscription
from a photograph of the original tombstone.17 An enlarged version of the photograph on which he based
his study is on display in the museum. Both the photo of the original in Murayama’s article and the enlarged
version in the museum indicated to the research team that the replica tombstone is a faithful reproduction
of the original. With the exception of the final words of line two of the Syro-Turkic, the text on the stone
replica tallies with what can be discerned in the photo.
The translated text reads as follows:
Chinese text:
To the Administrator of the Manichaeans and Nestorians, etc. in the combined Circuits of Jiangnan,
the Most Reverend Christian Bishop Mar Solomon, Timothy Sauma and others have mournfully and
respectfully dedicated this tombstone in the second year of Huangqing, guichou, on the fifteenth day
of the eighth month.
Turkic text:
This is the tomb of the Most Reverend Bishop Mar Solomon of the Circuits of Manzi. Zauma, the
administrator leading (the mourners?), wrote this on the fifteenth day of the eighth month of the Ox year.
Mar Solomon
Lieu’s earlier work on Manichaeism in Central Asia and China provided some historical background on
Mar Solomon, suggesting that he came from the west to China in the 1280s and that he was the cleric who
led monks of the Church of the East in prayer for Jengkiz Khan’s son, Tului, as reported by the Confucian
scholar Liang Hsiang.18 From the Chinese inscription on the tombstone we are able to date the death (or
burial day) of Mar Solomon to 5th September 1313.
It should be noted that most recently Takao Moriyasu has provided a further study of the tombstone,
concentrating in particular on the meaning of the word yelikewen (translated above as “Christian”) in the
13 For an overview of the history of Christians in China in the Yuan period, see Van Mechelen, “Yuan,” 63-68, 80-82, 84-87, 97.
14 Moule, Christians in China Before the Year 1550, 145.
15 See Corradini, “Italians in Quanzhou during the Yuan Dynasty,” 36.
16 The edition and translation of the text by Majella Franzmann and Samuel Lieu can be found in Lieu et al., Medieval Christian
and Manichaean Remains from Quanzhou (Zayton), 206-209. The tombstone was originally catalogued as 108 in Wu Wenliang,
Quanzhou zongjiao shike. Many scholars assisted Franzmann and Lieu with aspects of the translation: Peter Zieme (BerlinBrandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften), Aloïs van Tongerloo (Catholic University of Leuven), and Nicholas SimsWilliams (School of Oriental and African Studies, London) with the Turkic text; Lance Eccles (Macquarie University) with the
Chinese inscription.
17 Murayama, “Eine nestorianische Grabinschrift.”
18 Lieu, Manichaeism in Central Asia and China, 185-86.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 2:37 AM
296 M. Franzmann
context of his work on the historical background of Manichaean paintings found in Japan.19 While Moriyasu’s
study provides the possibility of a slightly different translation of the Chinese text,20 and proposes that the
term yelikewen might be used for the entire group of both Manichaeans and the community of the Church
of the East, rather than just the latter, the point at issue remains; namely, that both groups are included
together under Mar Solomon’s administration.
The Chinese inscription begins with a description of Mar Solomon’s role: “To the Administrator
of the Manichaeans and Nestorians, etc. in the combined Circuits of Jiangnan, the Most Reverend
Christian Bishop Mar Solomon”. The Syriac has simply: “… the Most Reverend Bishop Mar Solomon
of the Circuits of Manzi”. Two points are immediately noteworthy; firstly, the remarkable title in the
Chinese that includes both Manichaeans (Mingjiao) and the Church of the East (Qinjiao) under the
bishop’s administration; and secondly, the difference in identification of the geographical area covered
under that official position.
We have already dealt with the presence of both religious groups in Zayton at the time, although we
have no knowledge of the number of believers in each group. There is no indication on this stone of the
relative size of each community. That the community of the Church of the East, at least, is more important
than the Manichaean community in the area at this time is attested by Mar Solomon’s official position as
a leader of the community of the Church of the East. However, that both religions come together on this
tombstone is extraordinary, given that in the west at least they were so very often opponents of each other.
How did Mar Solomon become responsible not only for his own community but also for those whom
his community considered heterodox? The situation might be understood partly from an account in Marco
Polo in which we hear that in 1292 when Maffeo and Marco Polo visited Fukien they met a group whom they
identified as Christians and whom they urged to gain official recognition from Kubilai Khan.21 The group
was presented to Kubilai by the head of the Church of the East in China, and after some controversy with
the head of the Buddhists who also wanted to claim them as idolaters (Buddhists), they were put under the
charge of the Church of the East. Clearly, from the official Chinese point of view, both of the groups were
Christian or at least homogeneous enough to therefore require only one overseer (the bishop of the Church
of the East) in an official capacity and responsible to the government.
Paul Pelliot put forward an early hypothesis that the group urged on by Maffeo and Marco Polo to gain
official recognition as Christians were in reality Manichaeans.22 While there is no certainty that this was the
case, the detail of the epitaph does support the idea that several religious groups with some identifiable
common features might be linked together for administrative purposes. That this indeed could happen even
with groups who were in negative relationship, like the Church of the East and Manichaeans, is supported
by Mar Solomon’s epitaph. The situation, however, is not unproblematic as Lieu has pointed out: “[W]
hereas Nestorianism was inseparably linked to resident aliens in China, Manichaeism had by the thirteenth
century become completely Sinicized.“23 Moreover, the Sinicized version of Manichaeism would perhaps be
more easily associated with Buddhism than with the Church of the East.24
Manzi
Both sections of the inscription describe the location of Mar Solomon’s jurisdiction. The Chinese is quite
clear and reads “Jiangnan.” While the Syriac script is not always easy to decipher, it seems possible to read
“Manzi.”25 Why would the Turkic not use “Jiangnan” as well?
19 Moriyasu, “The Discovery of Manichaean Paintings,” 339-60.
20 “[This is the grave of] the Administrator of the Ärkä’ün (Yelikewen) people believing in Manichaeism (Mingjiao), Nestorianism (Qinjiao) and other religions… in all (lit. various) circuits of Jiangnan…, the Bishop Mar Solomon Episqopa...” (355).
21 The Travels, 207-208.
22 Paul Pelliot, “Fugiu”.
23 Lieu, Manichaeism in Central Asia and China, 181.
24 Ibid., 185.
25 I am grateful for the assistance of Dr. Wang Ding with the terms “Manzi” and “Jiangnan” during my research leave in 2001 at
the Turfanforschung Institute of the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 2:37 AM
The Epitaph of Mar Solomon 297
The geographical name of Jiangnan is a term for the land south of the Yangtze River (Jiang). Mathews
gives the literal translation of Jiangnan (or Chiang-nan) as “south of the river,” meaning of course the
Yangzi, or Yangtze river; in other words, the region of South China,26 comprising four provinces—Yunnan,
Jiangzhe, Jiangxi und Huguang—conquered by Kubilai Khan in 1274.
Henry Serruys writes that Manzi, while “originally a name for the southern non-Chinese tribes … came
to be used in Yūan times for the Chinese south of the Yang-tzu.”27 Mathews concurs that when the Mongols
came from the north and drove the Chinese into the southern regions, they named the south Song dynasty
“Manzi.”28 In other words, the term with which the Chinese originally labeled the southern “barbarians”
was used in turn by the Mongols for the Chinese as the Mongols’ own southern barbarians.
It is surprising that the Church of the East would use such an ethnically loaded description of the land
where they were living instead of the more neutral term Jiangnan that we find in the Chinese inscription.
Of course, it could be that they were not even aware of the implications of using the term. “Manzi” is a term
that they may well have heard in relation to themselves as the southern barbarians.
The Arab historian Fadl Allah Rashid Ed-Din appears to think that the term “Manzi” is derived from
an Indian or Persian word for the region.29 Other visitors too seemed to think the term simply a neutral
geographical one. Franke and Twitchett note:
It is nevertheless remarkable that outside observers—Marco Polo is an example—did not realize the basic unity of China.
For the fourteenth-century Europeans, Cathay—a name derived from the Khitan ethnic designation and meaning ‘northern
China’—was a country different from Manzi (southern China), and only in the age of ‘discoveries’ in the sixteenth century
did Europeans become aware that Cathay and Manzi were in reality parts of the greater unity that we now call China.30
Marco Polo uses the term frequently in a neutral way, similar to the way it is used in the epitaph, so it is
hardly surprising that the community of the Church of the East uses it also in this way. For native Chinese,
of course, the distinction between the terms would have been clear, and thus the Chinese version of the
epitaph uses its own neutral term of Jiangnan.
Language and Style of the Inscription
The Chinese text of the epitaph is much longer, more official and more detailed than the Syro-Turkic text.
However, the length of the Chinese text is not due to a process of further embellishment following upon
the translation of the Syro-Turkic. The latter is rather an abbreviated version of the Chinese, and without
the Chinese much of the detail concerning Mar Solomon would be lost to us. The method of dating given in
both inscriptions makes this clear. The date of the inscription/burial in the Chinese reads: “in the second
year of Huangqing, quichou, on the fifteenth day of the eighth month;” that is, 5th of September, 1313. In
comparison to the dating system found on the other eight Syro-Turkic pieces in Quanzhou, which follows
the Seleucid dating formula first and is then supplemented by a variety of other formulae, this piece simply
refers to “the fifteenth day of the eighth month of the year of the Ox.” The real date can only be ascertained
after consulting the Chinese inscription for further information.
The Syro-Turkic section of the inscription is quite different in its formulation from the other eight
Syro-Turkic pieces. There is no typical opening trinitarian prayer formula, and details are included about
the ceremony of the burial, about the person who wrote the dedication, and the official position of the
deceased. However, as with the other pieces, we find the name of the deceased and the date of death or
burial. It is a more official commemorative stone, with a more formal style, which is fitting for someone who
had both a government position and a senior church administrative office. Of all the tombstones with Syro26 Mathews, A Chinese-English Dictionary, 87.
27 Serruys, “Some Types of Names“, 360.
28 Mathews, A Chinese-English Dictionary, 613.
29 Pelliot, Notes on Marco Polo, vol. 1,275: “According to him, the country south of Hitai (= North China) is called by the Hindus
‘Mahacin,’ hence ‘Machin’ in Persian, but ‘Manzi’ by the Chinese and ‘Nangias’ by the Mongols.”
30 Franke and Twitchett, “Introduction,” 21.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 2:37 AM
298 M. Franzmann
Turkic inscriptions, then, this is the most self-conscious in the sense that it addressed the wider audience
of both the Church of the East and Chinese officialdom.
The Turkic uses the term ‫“ ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐܢܝܢܓ‬bishop” for Mar Solomon, a loan word from Syriac. The
Chinese attempts to reproduce the Turkic as closely as possible in transliteration by abisiguba. The extra
descriptor “most reverend,” again a loan expression from Syriac, is rendered ‫ ܡܪܝ ܚܣܝܐ‬in the Turkic and
reproduced in the Chinese transliteration as mali haxiya. That the Chinese has attempted to use the loan
words as correctly as possible should not be taken to mean that the Chinese inscription as a whole is reliant
upon the Syro-Turkic one. We have pointed out the reasons for thinking this above, and it is also clear that
the Chinese has chosen to use the term Jiangnan instead of Manzi independently of the Syro-Turkic, as we
also noted above.
The use of the Syriac terms for the title of Mar Solomon is perhaps indicative of two things—that the
bishop and his designated role within the Syrian region has no real equivalent either for the people of
Central Asia or for the people of China; and/or that the presence of a bishop sent from the originating
communities in Syria or from the Central Asian region has such status that there is no attempt to tamper
with the official title. Wassilios Klein also notes for tombstones of the Church of the East from Central Asia,
that titles are preserved “in the form in which the Syrians brought them.”31
The Syro-Turkic inscription makes the simple statement “this is the tomb,” and adds that the leader
Zauma has written the dedication. The Chinese inscription gives a much more dramatic touch with a short
description of the mournful and solemn dedication of the tombstone by members of the community of
the Church of the East: “Timothy Sauma (Tiemida Saoma) and others have mournfully and respectfully
dedicated this tombstone.” The Chinese only implies that Zauma is the new or interim leader of the
community; the Syro-Turkic makes it explicit, if we are right in our reading of the final line of the text: “the
administrator-in-chief, Zauma, wrote this.”32 Chwolson notes that Zauma is a frequent name with Syrians
and appears seven times in the gravestones from Semiriče.33 This means of course that we may have here
yet another bishop succeeding Mar Solomon who stems from the Syrian region, so that the roots of the
community remain strong.
Conclusion
The use of Syro-Turkic in the inscription, as with other stones in the Maritime Museum, attests to an origin
for at least some members of the community of the Church of the East in Quanzhou from communities in
Central Asia, most of which used both Syriac and Turkic for worship and in their inscriptions.34 Ho Qiaoyuan
relates that Manichaeism too came to the area via Central Asia.35
Above all, it is remarkable that the oversight of Manichaeans and the Church of the East together is
not mentioned in the Syro-Turkic, but rather the latter gives a more limited description of Mar Solomon’s
administration. The stone is large enough to take another line of Syro-Turkic although there is the question
of aesthetics in having two lines each of text. The Chinese should be understood as the more official and
public face of the bishop for all to read. The Syro-Turkic, which would only be meaningful for the community
of the Church of the East itself, demonstrates a reluctance to include the heretics who have been put under
the oversight of the bishop. While the bishop of the Church of the East in Fukien in Marco Polo’s day may
have been keen to have the Manichaeans under his rule, although perhaps not aware of their true identity,
Mar Solomon and his community seem not so happy to do so.
31 Klein, “Syriac Writings and Turkic Language.”
32 That the “Timothy Sauma” identified in the Chinese inscription is one person rather than two is clear from the use only of
Zauma in the Syro-Turkic.
33 Chwolson, Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie (1890), 134. The name also occurs frequently in the 1897
edition, e.g. no. 7, p. 7; no. 19, p. 10; no. 25, p. 11; no. 130, p. 30; no. 201, p. 38; no. 222, p. 41; nos. 230 and 237, p. 42; no. 243,
p. 45; and once for a woman no. 40. p. 13.
34 See esp. Hunter, “The Conversion of the Kerait,” and Klein, Das nestorianische Christentum, 158-76.
35 See Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, 301.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 2:37 AM
The Epitaph of Mar Solomon 299
This must have been a year of some upheaval for the community, with the death of their bishop, Mar
Solomon, who had oversight of the circuits of Manzi—no small personage for the community to lose,
and likely necessitating further negotiation with the government concerning the position of oversight
for Mar Solomon’s successor. Perhaps in the process of renegotiation it may also not have gone well for
the Manichaeans. The stone is an interesting piece in terms of the enculturation of the community and
the political processes that needed to be navigated both by the community of the Church of the East and
by the Manichaeans in a country that was always to some extent wary of foreigners and their influence.
Many centuries earlier, the Tang dynasty had persecuted and expelled foreign religions and their monks,
including Buddhist and Manichaean monks. Suspicion or open hostility to foreign groups or societies came
to a head once again with the overthrow of the Mongol overlords, and the communities must have suffered
as other foreign groups did in the aftermath, as Zayton lost its power, its fortunes waned, and the harbour
gradually silted up.
References
Bryder, Peter. “... Where the Faint Traces of Manichaeism Disappear.” Altorientalische Forschungen 15 (1988): 201-208.
Bryder, Peter. “Manichaeism as a Link between the Silk Roads on Land and Sea.” Pages 63-69 in China and the Maritime
Silk Route–UNESCO Quanzhou International Seminar on China and the Maritime Silk Route II. Fujian: Fujian People’s
Publishing House, 1994.
Chwolson, Daniel. Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjetschie, Nebst einer Belage: “Über das türkische Sprachmaterial dieser Grabinschriften von W. Radloff, mit drei phototypischen Tafeln und einer ebensolchen, von Julius Euting
ausbeargeiteten Schrifttafel.” St.-Pétersbourg: L’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, 1890; Neue Folge,
1897.
Corradini, Piero. “Italians in Quanzhou during the Yuan Dynasty.” Pages 32-40 in China and the Maritime Silk Route–UNESCO
Quanzhou International Seminar on China and the Maritime Silk Route II. Fujian: Fujian People’s Publishing House, 1994.
Franke, Herbert and Denis Twitchett. “Introduction.” Pages 1-42 in The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 6: Alien Regimes and
Border States, 907-1368. Edited by Herbert Franke and Denis Twitchett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Gardner, Iain, Samuel Lieu, and Ken Parry, eds. From Palmyra to Zayton: Epigraphy and Iconography. Silk Road Studies 10.
Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.
Hunter, Erica C. D. “The Conversion of the Kerait to Christianity in A.D. 1007.” Zentralasiatische Studien 22 (1989/91): 142-63.
Klein, Wassilios. “Syriac Writings and Turkic Language according to Central Asian Tombstone Inscriptions.” Hugoye: Journal of
Syriac Studies 5/2 (2002). http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol5No2/HV5N2Klein.html (accessed June 1, 2015).
Klein, Wassilios. Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh. Silk Road Studies 3.
Turnhout: Brepols, 2000.
Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim. Hymnen und Gebete der Religion des Lichts: Iranische und türkische liturgische Texte der Manichäer
Zentralasiens. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1989.
Klyashtornyj, Sergej G. “Manichaean Monasteries in the Land of Arghu.” Pages 374-379 in Studia Manichaica: IV Internationaler Kongreß zum Manichäismus, Berlin, 14.-18. Juli 1997. Edited by Ronald E. Emmerick, Werner Sundermann, and
Peter Zieme. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2000.
Kósa, Gábor. “The Fifth Buddha: An Overview of the Chinese Manichaean Material from Xiapu (Fujian).” Manichaean Studies
Newsletter 28 (2013-2014): 22-30.
Latham, Ronald. The Travels of Marco Polo. London: Penguin Classics, 1958.
Lieu, Samuel N. C. Manichaeism in Central Asia and China. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies 45. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Lieu, Samuel N. C. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. 2 ed. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1992.
Lieu, Samuel N. C., Lance Eccles, Majella Franzmann, Iain Gardner, and Ken Parry. Medieval Christian and Manichaean
Remains from Quanzhou (Zayton). Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum, Series Archaeologica et Iconographica 2. Turnhout:
Brepols, 2012.
Mathews, Robert H. A Chinese-English Dictionary. Rev. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966.
Moffett, Samuel Hugh. A History of Christianity in Asia, Volume I: Beginnings to 1500. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1998.
Moriyasu, Takao. “The Discovery of Manichaean Paintings in Japan and Their Historical Background.” Pages 339-60 in ‘In
Search of Truth’: Augustine, Manichaeism and Other Gnosticism: Studies for Johannes van Oort at Sixty. Nag Hammadi
and Manichaean Studies 74. Edited by Jacob Albert van den Berg, Annemaré Kotzé, Tobias Nicklas, and Madeleine
Scopello. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Moule, Arthur C. Christians in China Before the Year 1550. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1930.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 2:37 AM
300 M. Franzmann
Murayama, Shichir. “Eine nestorianische Grabinschrift in türkischer Sprache aus Zaiton.” Ural-altaische Jahrbücher 35 (1963):
394-396.
Parry, Ken. “Angels and Apsaras: Christian Tombstones from Quanzhou.” The Journal of the Asian Arts Society of Australia 12/2
(2003): 5-7.
Parry, Ken. “Images in the Church of the East: The Evidence from Central Asia and China.” Bulletin of the John Rylands
University Library of Manchester 78 (1996): 143-62.
Pelliot, Paul. Notes on Marco Polo. Vol. 1. Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1959.
Serruys, Henry. “Some Types of Names Adopted by the Mongols during the Yüan and the Early Ming Period.” Monumenta
Serica 17 (1958): 353-60.
Van Mechelen, Johan. “Yuan.” Pages 43-111 in Handbook of Christianity in China, Volume 1: 635-1800. Edited by Nicolas
Standaert. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Wu Wenliang. Quanzhou zongjiao shike (Religious Stone Inscriptions at Quanzhou) Beijing: Kexue chuban she, 1957.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 6/16/17 2:37 AM