Syriac Language and Script in a Chinese Setting: Nestorian Inscriptions from Quanzhou, China†
Majella
Franzmann
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
George A. Kiraz
James E. Walters
TEI XML encoding by
html2TEI.xsl
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute
2007
Vol. 10, No. 2
For this publication, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
license has been granted by the author(s), who retain full
copyright.
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/article/hv10n2franzmann
Majella Franzmann
Syriac Language and Script in a Chinese Setting: Nestorian Inscriptions from Quanzhou, China†
https://hugoye.bethmardutho.org/pdf/vol10/HV10N2Franzmann.pdf
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies
Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute,
vol 10
issue 2
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies is an electronic journal dedicated to the study
of the Syriac tradition, published semi-annually (in January and July) by Beth
Mardutho: The Syriac Institute. Published since 1998, Hugoye seeks to offer the
best scholarship available in the field of Syriac studies.
Syriac Studies
Syriac inscriptions
tombstones
Church of the East
Nestorian
Quanzhou
South China
File created by XSLT transformation of original HTML encoded article.
This article provides an overview of the
Syriac language and script found on 14th century Nestorian
tombstones from Quanzhou in South China. Syriac script is used
for the most part on the tombstones for writing inscriptions in
Turkic language. The article deals with the formation of the
Syriac script, Syriac formulae that appear in some
inscriptions, Syriac loan words in Turkic, the use of an extra
letter within the Syriac script to capture a specific Turkic
pronunciation, and the transliteration of Syriac titles into
Chinese in the bilingual inscription for Mar Solomon, Bishop of
South China.
[1] At the
Conference of the American Oriental Society in 2001 in Toronto,
Wassilios Klein presented an overview of the Syriac language
and script of Central Asian tombstones from Biškek and
Tokmak.
W. Klein, Syriac Writings and Turkic Language
according to Central Asian Tombstone Inscriptions, in:
Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 5/2 (2002), [
] (accessed 20/7/2004).
In concluding the overview, he made reference to
the Turkic-language inscriptions in Syriac script from Quanzhou
in China, which at that stage had not been edited in full.
While a sample of these inscriptions have been edited and
translated since then by members of the Australian research
team that has been working on them since 2001,
L. Eccles, M. Franzmann, and S. Lieu, Observations
on Select Christian Inscriptions in the Syriac Script from
Zayton, in: From Palmyra to Zayton: Epigraphy and
Iconography, edited by I. Gardner, S. Lieu, and K. Parry,
Turnhout 2005 (Silk Road Studies 10), 247-78. I wish to
acknowledge the teamwork with my colleagues on the
inscriptions, with generous assistance from Prof. Peter Zieme
and Prof. Aloïs van Tongerloo, which lies behind this
paper. See other recent work, for example, in M. Franzmann and
S.N.C. Lieu, A New Nestorian Tombstone from Quanzhou: Z47,
Epitaph of the Lady Kejamtâ, in: Jingjiao. The Church
of the East in China and Central Asia, edited by R. Malek
and P. Hofrichter, Sankt Augustin 2006 (Institut Monumenta
Serica), 293-302; Niu Ruji, Nestorian Inscriptions from China
(13th – 14th Centuries), Jingjiao, 209-242; and
Niu Ruji, A New Syriac-Uighur Inscription from China (Quanzhou,
Fujian Province), in: Journal of the Canadian Society for
Syriac Studies 4 (2004), 60-65.
there is as yet
no similar overview of the Syriac language and script from the
inscriptions as Klein makes available for the Biškek
area. This article proposes to fill that gap to enable a more
comprehensive view of the extent of Syriac development across
Central Asia and into China. It will also enable an evaluation
of Klein’s summary statement about the Quanzhou
inscriptions: “In any case, they are of a completely
different character to the Central Asian
tombstones.”
See K. Parry, The Iconography of the Christian
Tombstones from Zayton, From Palmyra to Zayton,
229-246; K. Parry, Angels and
Apsaras: Christian Tombstones from Quanzhou, in: The
Journal of the Asian Arts Society of Australia 12/2
(2003), 4-5; and K. Parry, Images in the Church of the East:
The Evidence from Central Asia and China, in: The Church of
the East: Life and Thought, edited by J.F. Coakley and K.
Parry, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of
Manchester 78/3 (1996), 143-162.
Only the script will be analysed. Of course
there is a very limited amount of Syriac language as opposed to
script, so that comparisons with Klein’s material is also
thereby limited. The iconography of the tombstones has been the
subject of articles by my colleague Ken Parry.
[2] There
are currently nine inscribed stones in Syriac script on display
in Quanzhou: eight are in the Quanzhou Maritime Museum (108,
[Wu 84]; 109, [Wu 82]; 110, [Wu 79]; 111, also KJ008, [Wu
78.1-2]; 130, also KJ006, [Wu 76.1 –2]; 131, also KJ016;
138, also KJ007, [Wu 77.1-3]; 271, also KJ029, [Wu 108]), and
the ninth is a new find, first viewed by the Australian
research team in 2002 in the Quanzhou Southern-Style Historical
Buildings Museum, and now on display in the Quanzhou City
Museum.
All the inscriptions dated so far belong to the
early to middle 14th century CE, almost all within
the dating timeframe of 1250-1342 given by Klein for the major
finds of tombstones from Biškek and Burana under
analysis in his overview (although the stones in Almalyk date
up to the 1370s).
Letters formed in Syriac
[3] Several
features which Klein noted about the formation of Syriac
letters in the Central Asian material hold true for the
Quanzhou inscriptions:
the letters are in Estrangelo, with fairly
consistent ligature of the taw-alaph, and with some
considerable variation in the formation of the alaph.
However, other features which Klein found are not present: the
rish and daleth retain the diacritic point
although with the weathering of the stones it is sometimes
difficult to judge what is a diacritic mark and what a simple
pockmark, and there is no great tendency to connect letters
beyond what is normally found.
[4] The
variation in the formation especially of the alaph
even within the same inscription is quite striking. The
samek is also problematical, but this lies more in the
degree to which the letter leans towards the right rather than
the actual formation of the letter. While there is variation
amongst all the letters in the inscriptions to some extent, as
would only be expected with a variety of hands, the variation
in the formation of the alaph is the most
noticeable.
[5] Klein
described the Central Asian variant alaph as
follows:
The high line slanting towards the right is also common in
other inscriptions, but the small check-mark underneath usually
goes towards the right from the bottom of the vertical line, or
crosses the vertical line. Here it runs upwards towards the
left, so that the letter takes the form of a check-mark
(√).
[6] Klein
also notes that this variant as well as the usual form appear
together. The Quanzhou inscriptions sometimes reveal the same
feature. Inscription 108, lines 1 and 6, for example, exhibit a
tendency to the check-mark formation of the alaph as
described by Klein. However there is also a perfectly normally
formed initial alaph in line 12. The greatest
difference in formation of the initial aleph is found
in the bilingual inscription, 271. In this inscription, the
second word of line 1 (ܐܝܠܠܐܪܢܝܢܓ)
and the first word of line 2 (ܐܘܘܕ) both have an intial
alaph that appears to correspond with Klein’s
examples, and yet the initial alaph for the seventh
word in line 1 (ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐܢܝܢܓ)
is normally formed.
[7] While
weathering and other damage to the stones makes reading the
Syriac script difficult, the situation is not improved by some
inscriptions in which the Syriac letters are poorly formed
rather than showing a variant formation. The greatest problem
is with the variation in relative size of letters where this
may make reading difficult: the difference between
yodh and nun, or even between yodh
and lamedh. The relative sizing of yodh and
chet does not really present a difficulty since the
chet is generally consistently very small and it
appears only in the Syriac formulae, not at all in the Turkic.
A good example of the difficulty with yodh and
nun is found in 108, line 8, where the nun is
written smaller than the yodh in the wordܡܝܢܓ, and yet three lines
earlier the yodh in ܦܝܠܝܦܘܣ
is much smaller in relation to the lamedh. In 131,
line 4, however, exactly the opposite occurs where the first
yodh in the word ܦܝܠܝܦܘܣ
is almost as high as the following lamedh.
[8] When it
comes to the question of relative size, the formation of the
Syriac letters may be a problem for stonemasons who have no
knowledge of the letters. But the difficulty with the Syriac
seems unlikely to be the problem of the (Syriac) illiteracy of
the stonemasons themselves, as Klein suggests. That they are
adept at their art is amply indicated by the stones with Arabic
script in the Quanzhou Maritime Museum. It seems more probable
that the fault lies with the poorly written script by the one
commissioning the work from which they are copying, attesting
to a possible loss of facility with Syriac script within the
community.
Syriac Liturgical/Prayer Formulae
[9]
Introductory formulae on the majority of the stones are in
Syriac language. This is the only appearance of Syriac language
per se, apart from loan words and other items that will be
discussed below.
These opening formulae are much more elaborate
than those from Semiriče and Biškek as recorded by
Klein.
[10] Of
the seven inscriptions which include a complete opening
section, apart from the rather official Chinese/Syro-Turkic
bilingual, five open with a formula that shows very little
variation:
130
ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ
ܘܒܪܐ
ܘܪܘܚܐ
ܕܩܘܕܫܐ
In the name of the Father and the Son (and) the Holy
Spirit.
138
ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ
ܘܒܪܐ
ܘܪܘܚܐ
ܕܩܘܕܫܐ
In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit.
131
ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ
ܘܒܪܐ
ܘܪܘܚܐ
ܕܩܘܕܫܐ
ܠܥܠܡܝܢ
In the name of the Father and the Son (and) the Holy
Spirit forever.
New piece
ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ
ܘܒܪܐ
ܘܪܘܚܐ
ܕܩܘܕܫܐ
ܠܥܠܡܝܢ
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit, forever.
108
ܒܫܡ ܐܒܐ
ܘܒܪܐ
ܘܪܘܚܐ
ܕܩܘܕܫܐ
ܠܥܠܡܝܢ
ܐܡܝܢ
In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit forever amen.
The formulae are all correct grammatically and
orthographically in the stones so far edited or translated.
Perhaps if more Syriac language had been used, there may have
been evidence of faults in this regard as Klein found on the
Central Asian stones.
Syriac Names
[11] We
have no knowledge as yet of the ethnic make-up of the
communities in Quanzhou in the 14th century,
although we know that some of the community were descendants of
those who came from Central Asia; in 130, lines 5-9, we read of
the deceased Usha Tasqan,
the son of Tutmiš Ata,
“from the city of Chotcho”. All the names so far
deciphered on the inscriptions are Turkic, Syrian, or biblical,
and there is no way of knowing if any of these are names taken
by Chinese converts to Christianity. It would not be
unreasonable to consider that there may have been Chinese
converts among the community. Chwolson notes the grave of a
Chinese believer, Terim, in Semiriče.
[12]
There are biblical names, though only for one or two of the
deceased identified so far—in a badly damaged end of 108,
it may be possible to read “Paulus”, and the
bilingual is for Bishop Mar Solomon. Apart from this, the first
name of the one who dedicates Mar Solomon’s tomb is
Timothy. Biblical names also appear in a separate list of Old
Testament patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in 109, lines
16-17.
[13]
Names that are frequent in Klein’s material, and in
Chwolson’s before him, are also found here. Thus in the
new piece, line 17, we read the name of the deceased as
Kejamtâ(ܩܝܡܛܐ lit. = the
resurrection). The name occurs ten times in Chwolson’s
inscriptions.
Zauma is the second name of the one who
dedicates Mar Solomon’s tomb, Zauma being another version
of Sauma (“fast”)
(bilingual, line 2). It occurs some 15 times in
Chwolson’s inscriptions
Chwolson (1890, 134) notes that the name
occurs seven times in his data and is a frequently used Syrian
name; see also Chwolson (1897), no. 7 (p. 7), no. 19 (p. 10),
no. 25 (p. 11), no. 40, a woman’s name (p. 13), no. 201
(p. 38), no. 230 (p. 42), no. 237 (p. 42), no. 243 (p. 45).
Syriac Titles
[14] The
bilingual inscription uses the title “most reverend
bishop”. The title of bishop
ܐܦܝܣܩܘܦܐܢܝܢܓ
is a loan word from the Syriac which itself is a loan word from
the Greek (episkopoV).
The term is reproduced as closely as possible in
transliteration in the Turkic and Chinese (episqopa-nïng
and abisiguba). The extra descriptor “most
reverend” is again reproduced as exactly as possible in
the Turkic and Chinese transliteration (mari hasya and Mali Haxiya). There is clearly no attempt
to find a Turkic or Chinese equivalent for “most
reverend”; the title of Bishop includes with it the
further qualification “most reverend”, so that it
is all of one piece. The use of the Syriac here is indicative
of perhaps 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. Klein also notes that titles are preserved “in the
form in which the Syrians brought them”.
Klein, Syriac Writings and Turkic Language,
#5.
[15]
Apart from the words for “bishop” and “most
reverend”, there is only the loan word ܩܒܪܐ
(“tomb”) in the inscriptions.
Syriac Transcription of Turkic
[16] The
inevitable differences in Syriac spelling of Turkish words is
noted by Klein, as well as the difficulties in using Syriac for
the Turkic phonemes that did not all have some corresponding
symbol in Syriac.
Ibid., #19.
Similarities are obvious with
Klein’s material, and one small example will suffice to
show them—108, lines 4-11.
For the text in full, see Eccles, Franzmann
and Lieu, Observations, 260-261.
The Syriac letter
ﺤ has been used here to indicate
where an adapted letter has been used to designate the guttural
as in the khan, as discussed below.
4
ܡܩܕܘܢܝܐ
ܦܐܠܝܥ
mqdwny’
p’ly‘
m(a)q(e)donya balïq
5
ܠܝܥ
ܦܝܠܝܦܘܣ
ܟܐܢ
ly‘
pylypws X’n
-lïg(g)
pilipos xan
6
ܐܘܥܠܝ
ܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܘܣ
’w‘ly
’lksndrws
oglï
al(e)ks(a)ndros
7
ܐܝܠܝܓ
ܟܐܢ
ܣܐܟܝܫܝ
’yly‘ X’n
s’XyŠy
ilig xan saqïšï
8
ܝܝܠ
ܡܝܢܓ
ܐܠܛܝ
yyl myng
’lty
yïl mïng altï
9
ܝܘܙ ܐܘܢ
ܐܠܛܝ ܛܐ
ywz ’wn
’lty t’
yüz on altï-ta
10
ܛܐܒܥܐܨ
ܣܐܟܝܫܝ
t’b‘’S
s’XYŠy
tabgac
saqïšï
11
ܠܘܘ
ܝܝܠ
lww
yylY...
loo yïlï ...
Translation
[17] In
the year 1616 of the reckoning of Alexander the Great King, son
of King Philip from the province of Macedonia, in the Year of
the Dragon of the Chinese reckoning...
[18]
Similar to the inscriptions investigated by Klein, the
yodh is used here for both i and ï, normally
distinguished as front and back vowels; and the alaph
also is used for the vowel i in the word ilig.
Waw is used for o as well as ü, as Klein notes
also. Gamal is interchangeable with
‘ayn, as is beth with pe, also
as noted by Klein. Finally the same use of the sadhe
for the Turkic sound c is found in line 10.
Klein, Syriac Writings and Turkic Language,
#20.
[19]
Finally one must note the same use of the adapted letter to
designate the guttural as used in the word khan. Klein
characterises it as a special symbol “created based on
the Syriac k and supplemented by a diacritic check-mark”.
He argues that it cannot be the Arabic kaf, although
it looks rather similar in its formation, which has a final
form and is not connected as this letter is both to the left
and the right.18 In fact, in the Quanzhou inscriptions
there are no instances of the letter joining to the right.
Chwolson had already suggested that this is a letter created by
Syriac speakers. That it is not the Arabic is made more likely
by the fact that the Arabic ق generally transcribes the
Turkic k and ﮐ transcribes the Turkic K.19
[20]
Klaus Beyer notes that the Nestorian final kaf and the
sogdian-uigur non-final k/g look a little like a number 5 and
he suggests that it is this kaf that is used here as a
symbol for a special turkic-uigur consonant or double consonant
(e.g. tk)
which is not found in East Syriac and which is close to the
Turkic k.
Prof. Klaus Beyer, personal correspondence,
26.6.04. Prof. Beyer also considers it highly unlikely that
this is an Arabic letter.
Syriac Dating
[21]
Klein comments that the Central Asian inscriptions use the
Turkic dating system with reference to the twelve-year animal
cycle as well as the Seleucid dating system used by Syrian
Christians. He adds: “It is striking that only the
Turkic-language tombstones add the information that it is the
era of Alexander, and that the inscriptions on Chinese
territory generally do not include this dating and the
resulting association with Syria”.
Klein, Syriac Writings and Turkic Language,
#8.
However, in the
majority of the Quanzhou inscriptions, immediately after the
opening formula, the dating of the burial/death begins with
just such a reference to the calendar/reckoning (ܣܐܟܝܫܝ) based
on the reign of Alexander (111 and 130) or of Philip and
Alexander (108, 131, and the new piece). Where the name of
Alexander only occurs, the title of King/Khan is ascribed to
him (ܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܘܣ
ܟܐܢ111 and 130). Where the names of
Alexander and Philip occur, Philip is given the title of King
(ܦܝܠܝܦܘܣ
ܟܐܢ) and Alexander is the Great King
(ܐܠܟܣܢܕܪܘܣ
ܐܝܠܝܓ
ܟܐܢ; 108, 131, and the new piece). It
is unusual to include Philip in the formula; his name appears
only once in a Syro-Turkic Nestorian inscription from Central
Asia which reads “in the year of King (Khan) Alexander,
son of Philip of Macedonia”.
Cf. Č. Džumagulov, Yazyk
syro-tjukskix (nestorianskix) Pamjatnikov fsKirgizii,
(Frunze, 1971), 91, text line 1.
[22] In
conclusion, the Syro-Turkic inscriptions from Quanzhou show
some similarities with Klein’s material from Central
Asia, although the former inscriptions are generally longer and
more elaborate. Perhaps what is most surprising in the material
presented above is the final section regarding the dating
formulae. Together with the preservation of the Syriac forms
for the titles of Mar Solomon, this evidences a very strong
link with the originating Syriac communities and their
tradition. However, despite the clear desire to keep that link
strong, the inscriptions also attest to an inevitable and
regrettable loss of proficiency with the Syriac script
itself._______
Notes
† An earlier version of this paper was
presented at the 9th Symposium Syriacum in Kaslik, Lebanon in
2004. I wish to acknowledge the teamwork that lies behind this
paper that draws on a selection of the Syro-Turkic texts from
Quanzhou which have been edited and translated by Prof. Sam
Lieu, Dr. Lance Eccles and myself, with generous assistance
from colleagues, Prof. Peter Zieme and Prof. Aloïs van
Tongerloo.
3 See K. Parry, The Iconography of the Christian
Tombstones from Zayton, From Palmyra to Zayton,
229-246; K. Parry, Angels and
Apsaras: Christian Tombstones from Quanzhou, in: The
Journal of the Asian Arts Society of Australia 12/2
(2003), 4-5; and K. Parry, Images in the Church of the East:
The Evidence from Central Asia and China, in: The Church of
the East: Life and Thought, edited by J.F. Coakley and K.
Parry, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of
Manchester 78/3 (1996), 143-162.
4 Klein, Syriac Writings
and Turkic Language, #29.
5 The first number
mentioned is the current number given in the museum. Numbers in
square brackets are taken from Wu Wenliang, Quanzhou
zongjiao shike (Religious Stone Inscriptions at Quanzhou),
Beijing 1957. Stone 131 is not found in Wu; see pl. 7, fig. 3.5
in Wu Yuxiong, Fujian Quanzhou faxian di Yelikewen (Qingjiao)
bei (On the Nestorian tombstone discovered in Quanzhou,
Fujian), in: Kaogu (1988/11), 1015-1020, pls. 7-8,
1018. The research team is aware that many of the stones are
well-produced replicas, and continue the search for those
originals that have survived.
6 Klein, Syriac Writings
and Turkic Language, #2. The team’s preliminary tentative
dating is as follows:
130
1301
108
1305
131
1307(?)
271
1313
new piece
1313
111
1347
7 See ibid., #23-28.
8 Klein (ibid., # 9-10)
gives a good overview of the use of Syriac language in Central
Asia and the relative knowledge of Syriac.
9 The name is uncertain,
but is read as Tasqan in Niu Ruji, Quanzhou xuliya-weiwuer
shuangyu jingjiaobi zai kao shi (A re-examination and
translation of the mixed Syriac-Uighur language Inscription
from Quanzhou), Minzhu Yuwen (1999/3), 33.
10 Inscription no. 24
in D. Chwolson, Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinschriften aus
Semiretschie, Neue Folge, St.-Pétersbourg 1897, p.
11.
11 See the similar use
of the list of Old Testament matriarchs, Sara, Rebecca, and
Rachel, in the Epitaph of Elizabeth of Yangzhou (a bilingual
Syro-Turkic/Chinese inscription), line 9. A photograph of the
rubbing of the inscription appears in Wang Qinjin, Yuan yanyou
sinian jelishiba mubei kaoshi, in: Kaogu (1989/6),
553-554 and 557.
12 In D. Chwolson,
Syrisch-Nestorianische Grabinscriften aus Semiretschie,
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 1890 (Mémoires
de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de
St.-Pétersbourg, VIIe série, Tome XXXVII, No. 8):
inscriptions 50,2 (the girl Kejamtâ, p. 86), 50,23 (the
believer Kejamtâ, p. 91), and 98,1 (the believer
Kejamtâ, p. 31); in D. Chwolson (1897): inscriptions 31
(the believer Kejamthâ, [but spelled ܩܝܡܬܐ
according to Chwolson], p. 12), 67 (the girl Pazak
Kejamthâ, p. 18), 112 (the believer Kejamthâ, p.
27), 211 (the believer Kejamthâ, p. 39), 261 (the
believer Kejamthâ, p. 47), 264 (Kejamthâ, p. 47),
and 294 (the little girl Kejamthâ, p. 49).
18 Ibid., #21.
19 Chwolson (1890), 143, fn. 1.