Attached to Paper Session
Meeting Preference
At the center of this proposal is the Turfan corpus of Manichaean and Buddhist fragments, which includes over 10,000 manuscript and pictorial objects. These texts and art were unearthed in highly fragmentary conditions, but in vast quantities, mostly from under the ruins of mudbrick buildings—such as Ruins α and K of Kocho (Ch. Gaochang), the winter capital of the Uygur Sedentary Kingdom (866-1209 CE)—both of which attest earlier Manichaean and subsequent Buddhist occupancies. Specific details about the interpretation of site of discovery of these artifacts, however, remain problematic. The standard scholarly explanation today is that they derive from monastic libraries. In Turfan Studies, Le Coq (1913) and Grünwedel (1920) noted what they called “library room(s)” from Toyok and Ruins α and K of Kocho. Although a “library” and “manuscript repositories” has been mentioned by Le Coq (1923, pp. 7, 22) and Grünwedel (1906, pp. 55-76 & 1909, 13), not a single complete manuscript was discovered from the Turfan region. Moreover, figments of silk paintings and banners were also yielded by these sites. Therefore, a “library” cannot be confirmed in light of the archeological evidence. At the same time, however, both Le Coq and Grünwedel found evidence for what, I argue can be best compared to sacred waste: Grünwedel remarks on the heterogenous character of the material found together in Ruin α, mixing Manichaean, Buddhist, and secular documents (1906, pp. 55-76 ; and 1909, p. 1). For his part, Le Coq stresses that the bulk of the Manichaean fragments from Ruin K were found not on the floor under the caved in roof of the so-called “library,” but mixed in with the rubble, as if it had been deposited in an attic chamber above the first floor’s ceiling (1923, pp. 7, 22).
The details of the above noted observations fit well with what I am proposing. I argue that at both locations Manichaean material was stored alongside similarly worn and discarded Buddhist artifacts not in libraries, but rather in what better resembles geniza-like repositories. The Hebrew term genizah connotes a repository for timeworn texts and ritual objects. During medieval times, such storage areas were generally located in the attic or cellar of a synagogue. Once they filled up, or when the time was right, a ceremonial burial took place (often with the remains of a pious scholarly Jew). This Jewish analogy seems to be a better fit to explain what was found at these Silk Road sites. My working hypothesis is that the Manichaeans stored sacred waste in manistans from the start of their history in southern Babylonia, as one of many traditions they shared with Babylonian Judaism; but, due to severe persecutions, data about Manichaean storerooms of sacred waste are lost aside from East Central Asia.
During the early 11th century, both sites were rededicated and started to function as Buddhist viharas. The Uygur language foundation stake (carved in the shape of an octagonal cone) found at Ruin α and dated to 1008 CE by Takao Moriyasu (2001, 152) confirms that this site began to be used for Buddhist purposes from that time on. Many Buddhist works of art were also found, dating from the post Manichaean era (11th and 12th centuries), suggesting that their Buddhist occupants were familiar with sacred waste and also reused Manichaean sacred waste. The Manichaean murals attached to their walls also indicate that these structures functioned as manistans. Prior to the early 11th century: a mural fragment at Ruin α (with the upper bodies of 2 male elect) was found still attached to the east corner of the south wall in a room marked “A” in Grünwedel’s floorplan (1909, 58), and a mural fragments from Ruin K, derived from the Western wall of the middle one of the“3 Large Halls.”
The goal of the proposed project is to put forward a theory about how Manichaean texts and art ended up preserved at Buddhist sites of the Turfan region, where the Uygur Buddhist appropriation of Uygur Manichaean centers (Parth. manistan) and artifacts is well documented during the late 10th and the early 11th centuries for Ruins α and K. Both sites attest earlier Manichaean and subsequent Buddhist occupancies, corresponding to the gradual shift in the religious affiliation of the Uygur elite. For example, the Uygur memoir of an elect named Käd Ogul (written after 983 CE) laments the confiscation of the cult-statue with its red brocade canopy from his manistan (Ruin α) for Buddhist reuse; the Uygur foundation-stake of Ruin K (1008 CE) mentions a manistan turned into a vihara, where a mural depicting named members of the local Manichaean church was discovered by Le Coq (1913) and Stein (1921) in two parts (Russel-Smith 2018).
I plan to present evidence for Manichaean and subsequent Buddhist storage of sacred waste at Ruins α and K of Kocho, concerning (1) the deliberate preservation of artifacts despite their unusable condition, as documented for example by the twelve loose bifolia from the first two quires of a liturgical codex (III 53) recovered tied together in an unusable order at Ruin α and (2) the transfer of artifacts to the main manistan, as evidenced for example by a bifolio fragment with a colophon (M 1) written in Kucha in 768 CE, but discovered in Ruin α. In addition, the Manichaeans’ reverence toward pictorial art and the written word, noted in the elect’s confession (III 53, lines 524-532), where scribes request absolution for spilling ink or damaging paper.
Abstract for Online Program Book (maximum 150 words)
This study focuses on Manichaean and Buddhist archeological finds dating from the 9th-13th centuries that were discovered by German and British expeditions (1902-1916) at Kocho (Ch. Gaochang) in the Turfan region (Xinjiang province, PRC) of East Central Asia and are housed in the Asian Art Museum in Berlin, the British Museum in London, and the National Museum in New Delhi. The examples examined derive from Ruins α and K, both of which attest an initial Manichaean and subsequent Buddhist occupancy. Their specific find sites have traditionally been interpreted as “library rooms.” The material evidence supplied by the physical conditions of the fragmentary manuscripts and painted textiles, however, indicates otherwise. This study argues that the objects in question were found preserved as sacred waste in geniza-like repositories that were set up during the Manichaean phase (9th-10th century) and continued to be used during the Buddhist phase (11th-13th century) of these monastic sites.