50 Field Museum of Natural History — Anth., Vol. XIII. 



Ta Ts'in is the peculiar name hitherto unexplained in its origin by 

 which the Roman Orient was known to the Chinese, a subject ably 

 and thoroughly discussed by -Prof. Hirth in his book "China and the 

 Roman Orient" on the basis of all available documents. The "Ta 

 Ts'in temples or churches ". are first mentioned in Chinese records for 

 the year 631 when the magus Ho-lu arrived frorii Persia at Si-ngan fu, 

 and an imperial edict ordered to establish in the capital a temple of 

 Ta Ts'in.i 



In the year 745 an edict was issued that the Manichean churches 

 heretofore called "Persian temples" should throughout the empire 

 change this designation into "temples of Ta Ts'in." ^ The tenor of 

 this edict leaves no doubt that the Manicheans are understood: for the 

 purpose of the imperial order is to do justice to the true name of their 

 religion; their places of worship had heretofore been called "Persian" 

 for the mere reason that they had hailed from Persia, but the foundation 

 of their -religion was Christian and had originated in Ta Ts'in, in Syria. 

 I am therefore inclined to think that also in the above text the "Temple 

 of Ta Ts'in" should be identified with a Manichean church. If this 

 document can be looked upon as authentic we here have the interesting 

 fact, which I believe was not known before, that the Manicheans, 

 probably in the first part of the eighth century, had extended their 

 settlements to far-off Sze-ch'uan, and the point at issue in this connec- 

 tion is that they must have brought over to Sze-ch'uan a large quantity 

 of precious stones, among these se-se or balas ruby. In this case it 

 should rather be positively asserted that the turquois is out of the ques- 

 tion. The mere idea that the Manicheans should have employed 

 turquois, and especially in combination with genuine pearls and precious 

 jades, for the decoration of their churches, seems absurd. Precious 

 stones played a significant part in the religious system and symbolism 

 of the Manicheans, and as their reHgious notions centered around the 



Orient) and concludes that the founders of the temple have therefore been indeed 

 men from the country of Ta Ts'in. It will be seen from the P'ei wen yun fu (Ch. 93 

 B, p. 85) that under the word se-se a passage from the History of the Liao Dynasty 

 {Liao shi, chapter on Rites) is quoted to the effect that " Jo-han selected an auspicious 

 day to practice the ceremony of sS-se, in order to pray for rain." This word s^-si 

 has nothing to do with the jewel in question, but is a word of the Tungusic language 

 of the Khitan, seseli (explained as such in Liao shi, Ch. 116, p. 4 b), meaning a cere- 

 mony of rain-prayer, in which no stone at all is employed but a willow at which a 

 lance is thrown by the emperor, the princes and ministers. The ceremony is fully 

 described in the second chapter of the Liao shi (see H. C. v. D. Gabelentz, Geschichte 

 der grossen Liao, p. 31; further Liao shi, Chs. 27, p. 3; 55, p. i b; 56, p. i b). The 

 K'ien-lung scholars identify the Khitan word with Manchu sekseri {KHn ting Liao shi 

 yii kiai, Ch. 10, p. i). 



1 Chavannes, Le Nestorianisme (Journal asiatique, 1897, p. 61). 



* This edict has been translated by Chavannes {L c, p. 66) and Paul Pelliot 

 (Bulletin de l' Ecole frangaise d' Extreme-Orient, Vol. Ill, 1903, p. 670). 



