北朝筆記 vol.34 美秀博物館：北朝石床屏風，粟特、突厥和白匈奴人在華生活場景重現 - Northern Dynasties Stone Funerary Couch Screens (Sarcophagus), Reconstructing Scenes of Sogdian, Turkic, and Hephthalite Life in China

漢式石榻上的「胡天」祭禮：美秀美術館藏粟特石棺床與 6 世紀的全球化幻鏡

在公元 6 世紀的北朝國都，如鄴城或長安的幽深巷弄裡，生活絕非今日刻板印象中的「封閉」。若能穿越時空，你會發現街道上迴盪著中亞粟特語（Sogdian）的喧嚷，空氣中混雜著漢地酒香與祆祠聖火的乳香。這是一個族群、宗教與權力深度交織的「熔爐」時代，而最能具象化這段歷史的，莫過於曾流散海外、現入藏日本美秀美術館（Miho Museum）的白大理石葬具——美秀石棺床（Shumei Funerary Couch）。

美秀石棺床拼出粟特首领的一生

5:12

這組石棺床如同一台精密的顯微鏡，將 1500 年前的中外交通史濃縮於白大理石屏風之上。然而，關於它的解讀，學界卻存在著一場引人入勝的智力交鋒。以朱安耐（A. L. Juliano）與樂仲迪（J. A. Lerner）為代表的博物館學者，依據面板位置將其編號為 A 至 K；而著名的絲路研究權威榮新江教授則主張，應打破線性排列，回歸粟特薩保（Sabao）家族的連續敘事邏輯。這件文物不僅僅是葬具，更是一份以漢式外殼包裹的中亞靈魂自白書。

跨國婚姻與「薩保」的權力社交圈

在石棺床的後壁（面板 E），一幅奢華的宴飲圖躍然紙上。一位蓄著濃密鬍鬚、體態富態的中亞男子，正與一位高髻、面相清秀的女子對坐對飲。朱安耐教授認為這是一幅跨國通婚的寫照，女性極可能是漢族名門。

這位男子並非尋常賈客，其身份在榮新江教授的論述中被定格為「薩保」。在 6 世紀的政體中，「薩保」一詞源自粟特語 Sartpau，原意為商隊首領，但在北朝至隋唐的官僚體系中，它是朝廷任命的入華胡人聚落長官，兼具世俗統治與祆教宗教首領的雙重職能。

「這幅圖應表現入華粟特人所建立的胡人聚落首領薩保夫婦宴飲圖……展現了當時粟特領袖與當地名門通婚、深耕中原的社交實態。」——榮新江

這種跨族群的婚姻結合，不僅是情感的交融，更是粟特精英階層在異鄉站穩腳跟、進行政商博弈的戰略選擇。

靈魂的歸宿：祆教儀式下的「犬視」與痛悼

若說宴飲是世俗的輝煌，面板 F 則觸及了靈魂最深處。這幅被視為整座石棺床視覺核心的「喪儀圖」，揭示了神祕的瑣羅亞斯德教（祆教）葬俗。畫面中，祭司戴著白色的口罩（padam），以防其呼出的氣息汙穢神聖的火壇。

最令觀者震驚的細節是「犬視」（Sagdid）：一隻小狗立於火壇旁，正凝視著前方。在祆教信仰中，狗的目光具有驅除屍體穢氣、淨化惡靈的神聖魔力。祭司後方的人群，正持刀刺向自己的額頭（剺面），這種極端慘烈的哀悼方式，與中亞潘吉肯特（Panjikent）壁畫中的場景如出一轍。榮新江教授指出，將如此私密的異域葬儀刻於漢式葬具的中心，反映了墓主在適應中國生活的表面下，那顆對母國信仰永恆執著的心。

消失的「扁頭」武士與雨神的化身

石棺床屏風還記錄了 6 世紀中亞劇烈的地緣政治變遷。在面板 A 中，出現了特徵顯著的「扁頭」騎射手——這是威震一時的嚈噠人（Hephthalites）特有的審美或體質特徵。而在面板 I 中，嚈噠王乘象出行，右手握拳並伸出食指，這是伊朗與中亞世界典型的敬禮手勢。

然而，歷史的風雲也刻在了石頭上。面板 C 與 H 展示了長髮分股、束於頸後的突厥人及其圓頂氈帳（yurt）。著名學者馬爾沙克（B. I. Marshak）敏銳地指出，這種嚈噠與突厥圖像的共存，精確地標誌了公元 565 年突厥與波斯聯手滅嚈噠之後的國際版圖，是當時絲路強權交替的寫實快照。

此外，面板 B 中那匹站在大傘下、無人乘騎的馬，曾讓學者困惑。然而，結合馬匹下方出現的魚與水紋，葛勒耐（F. Grenet）與馬爾沙克一致認為，這並非單純的將軍喪葬物，而是粟特人崇拜的雨神（或稱水神）「得悉神」（Tishtrya）的化身。

神祇也愛「流行樂」：四臂女神娜娜與胡旋舞

在面板 J 中，我們遇見了粟特與花剌子模地區最重要的守護神——四臂女神娜娜（Nana）。她手托日月，端坐於獅座之上，俯瞰著「天國」與「人間」的交界。女神下方的樂隊正伴隨著熱烈的旋律，一名舞者在圓毯上飛速旋轉。

這便是大名鼎鼎的「胡旋舞」（Sogdian whirl）。雖然我們常將其與 8 世紀那名重達 400 磅、卻能旋轉如風的將軍安祿山聯繫在一起，但美秀石棺床證明，早在 6 世紀的北齊與北周，這種充滿激情的旋律早已征服了中原的王室與百姓。這種「樂舞娛神」的景象，將中亞的宗教熱情完美地融合進了漢地的喪葬儀式中。

漢式外殼與胡人靈魂：全球化雛形的終極合成

美秀石棺床最令人深思的，是其作為「文化混血兒」的特質。從建築形式上看，它擁有典型的漢式「闕」（chueh）建築、歇山頂與牛車圖像，甚至形制也模仿了中國傳統家具中的「榻帳床」。然而，其雕刻的核心內容，卻是純粹的中亞祆教世界。

這件藝術品證明，當時的粟特移民並非被動地被同化。他們聘請漢地工匠，使用白大理石這種珍貴材料，卻下達了最精準的異域圖像指令。這種「漢式葬具、胡式信仰」的組合，正是早期全球化時代最生動的縮影：一個人在異鄉獲得世俗成功的同時，如何透過藝術與儀式，在死後回歸其民族的根源。

在白大理石上尋找自我的行者

美秀石棺床不僅是考古數據的堆疊，更是一面跨越 1500 年的鏡子。它記錄了那個族群界限模糊、文化深度交織的 6 世紀，也記錄了一群絲路行者在身份認同上的掙扎與融合。

當我們凝視這些刻在石上的面孔——從戴著口罩的祭司到乘象的嚈噠王——我們不免要問：在今日這個同樣全球化的世界中，當我們身處異鄉，該如何定義「我是誰」，又該如何被後世所記憶？或許，我們每個人都在這條無形的絲路上，尋找著屬於自己的那座漢式外殼與胡人靈魂共存的「精神石榻」。

石床屏風

中国・北朝－隋時代

６世紀後半期－７世紀

白大理石

H-62.3 D-6 W-53.4

美秀博物館藏

學界普遍認為，這套石棺床屬於北齊（550–577年）時期，墓主極可能是一位入華粟特人（Sogdian）貴族或薩保（商隊領袖），信仰祆教（Zoroastrianism），在中原地區從事貿易或擔任官職。

據傳出自中國北方的一座墓葬，這些面板與門闕原本立於一座長方形的棺床上（棺床平台現已缺失）。面板構成棺床的兩側與後壁，前方的門闕則框出入口，如圖1.1所示。復原後的棺床與中國北方已發掘的若干葬具床極為相似；最近出土的一例來自甘肅省天水，位於中國西北，該例雖無門闕，但其他已知棺床則有門闕。這些棺床用以承載逝者遺體，其形制與中國傳統家居家具高度相似，尤其是正式的坐榻（床或炕）以及帶頂帳的床榻（榻帳床）。

五至七世紀，中國北方與西北地區的葬俗常將此類棺床作為墓葬陳設的一部分。墓室多為多室結構，模擬生前居所，葬具床置於後室，相當於逝者的臥室。前方的兩根門闕分別象徵兩種不同的建築形式，各有其功能：其一是闕（chueh），即高聳的雙塔，用以標誌墓地入口；其二是中國住宅的門樓式入口。兩根門闕置於棺床前端邊緣，形成象徵性的宏偉入口，界定側壁與後壁所圍出的空間，標誌逝者在死後享有與生前正式坐榻所象徵的尊貴地位。

在美秀棺床的十一塊面板上，皆以浮雕刻畫生動場景，這些題材並非當時中國北方或南方墓葬陳設中常見的典型中國主題與符號，而是充滿異域風情，幾乎全部描繪非漢族群體從事的各種活動。透過對人物面相、髮式、服飾細節以及樂器等物件的精確描寫，我們可辨識出特定的族群或國族身份。目前已知僅另一套石板（傳出自河南北部彰德府），同樣以低浮雕刻畫非漢族群體的宴飲與出行行列。這兩套石刻——舒梅棺床的十一塊白大理石面板，以及傳出自彰德府的石板——皆展現出北朝中葉至六世紀盛行的異域氛圍。兩者還共享波浪狀的葉蔓邊框，以及將人物與建築部分裁切於畫框內的構圖手法。

六世紀的中國處於歷史與藝術極為複雜的時期，政局動盪、文獻匱乏，介於漢朝（前208–公元220年）與唐朝（618–907年）兩大盛世之間。四至六世紀，北方中國完全被中國人稱為「胡虜」的半遊牧民族所佔領，先后有突厥部落、吐蕃群體，以及鮮卑（proto-Mongolian）等。到五世紀末，鮮卑的一支——拓跋氏——統治北方大部，提供相對穩定。

儘管政局不穩，對外關係與貿易仍得以維持，來自中亞的使節、商人與佛教僧侶沿絲綢之路不斷到來。其中商人以粟特人（Sogdians）為主，這一群伊朗語族人民居住在今日土庫曼斯坦、烏茲別克斯坦、塔吉克斯坦一帶，古稱粟特（Sogdiana），重要城市包括潘吉肯特（Panjikent）與阿弗拉西亞布（古撒馬爾罕）。

復原顯示：左側由三塊面板（A–C）組成，後壁六塊（D–I），右側兩塊（J–K）。面板背面以鐵銷與環互相鉤連固定。左側最前端面板A（靠近左門闕1）描繪一場狩獵，四位騎射手射向逃竄的獵物，形象類似薩珊伊朗銀盤上常見的王室騎獵圖，特徵是王冠後飄揚長帶。雖然舒梅面板上有兩位獵手也佩長帶，但其面相與扁頭特徵顯示他們更接近嚈噠人（Hephthalites），這一支匈人系民族於五世紀擊敗薩珊伊朗，並在接下來百年主宰中亞（包括粟特）。類似扁頭形象亦見於嚈噠金屬器。

狩獵場景發生在岩石景觀中，其餘面板皆同，常見花草、樹木與各種動物。有些面板為單一事件統一構圖，有些則分上下兩層，以岩石崖線分隔。

左側中間面板B，上層兩位騎手戴高筒氈帽、雙翻領袍（典型中亞與突厥服飾）；下層一匹無人騎乘的馬立於大傘下，四人立於後，一人跪獻杯。上下場景不僅以岩石與傘分隔，人物朝向亦相反（上向右、下向左）。

無人馬在中國五六世紀墓葬藝術中常見，見於陶俑、壁畫、墓室壁磚及石棺床，常與高級軍官葬俗相關。鮮卑將軍婁叡墓壁畫即有類似馬匹，頸掛纓穗，此特徵亦見於舒梅面板及其他面板。此纓穗似源自粟特或突厥，標誌重要人物之馬，在粟特潘吉肯特與撒馬爾罕壁畫中亦然。

左側最後面板C為營帳場景：大人物坐於圓頂氈帳（yurt，突厥人至今使用的可拆帳篷）內受侍奉，下方騎手狩獵。長髮分股束頸的特徵亦標誌突厥人，撒馬爾罕壁畫中類似長髮人物有銘文標明為突厥。

後壁六塊面板中，左起第一塊D：駱駝負貨，長髮突厥騎手護衛。駱駝是絲路運輸主力，中國同期明器中多見負重駝。上方雲氣左移，呼應六世紀中國圖像中常見的雲紋。

下一塊E：一場婚宴，蓄鬚肥胖的中亞男子與非中亞（很可能漢族）女子坐於中國式榻上對飲，前有樂隊與舞者表演。舞者似為中國所稱「胡旋舞」（Sogdian whirl），此類中亞樂舞自六世紀至唐極受歡迎，來自撒馬爾罕與塔什干的男女舞人廣受喜愛。下左有典型粟特式執壺。

後壁第三塊F分兩層：上層中央一人立於火壇前，戴padam（祆教祭司白面紗），旁有犬（用於sagdid葬儀，犬凝視屍體驅邪）。後方四人跪持刀刺面或額，此自殘哀悼場面與粟特潘吉肯特壁畫著名哀悼場景相似，皆非漢人。

第四塊G：另一場宴飲，應為墓主本人，蓄鬚中亞男子盤腿坐於華麗浮空華蓋下（華蓋頂飾寶珠蓮花，類似中國佛教淨土華蓋），持杯，侍者備食。侍從顯示多種族群特徵。

右側兩塊H與I為出行行列：H為突厥與中亞騎手行列，I為嚈噠人乘象。中央人物（長髮突厥與戴冠嚈噠）頭頂華蓋，右手握拳伸食指（伊朗/中亞敬禮）。

右側第一塊J為雙場面並列：左側兩組騎手相反方向，上為戴高冠非中亞女子向左，下為中亞男子向右，頭頂華蓋，馬頸掛纓穗。類似出行見於傳彰德府棺床。右側場面具末世意義：上層四臂女神Nana（粟特與花剌子模葬儀女神）持日月，坐獅座（此處簡化為獅頭欄杆），下視兩奏樂菩薩立蓮上；下層樂隊伴女舞（似漢式袖舞）。Nana形象廣見粟特與新疆佛教藝術。

最後右側面板K最接近「中國化」：牛車雙輪，高蓋，類似婁叡墓壁畫與佛教洞窟畫，常置墓室入口，與此面板靠近門闕位置相呼應。侍從多非漢相貌。

門闕1與2分別鄰接A與K，具中國建築特徵：雙塔歇山頂、鉤頭、階級式牆體，紅彩描邊。下部浮雕四位中亞與鮮卑男子行列，一人牽無人馬，領頭者持劍高大突出。類似見於彰德府門闕。

墓主身份？F面板祆教sagdid儀式提供關鍵線索。粟特人多信祆教，為絲路主要商人，在中國建立聚落，與鮮卑及漢人通婚。此棺床很可能屬一位在華逝去的粟特人。整體圖像程序連貫：中央F（sagdid）與兩側E（婚宴，可能墓主祖父娶漢女）、G（墓主宴飲）構成焦點，被門闕框住。其他場面反映墓主交往的族群，或參與其葬禮者。B（無人馬）與J（Nana與樂舞）亦涉葬儀。舒梅棺床呈現六世紀中國豐富的族群圖景：中亞僧人、北方遊牧民族、粟特商人等，提供罕見的入華粟特人生活剪影。

The Stone Social Network: 5 Revelations from a Lost 6th-Century Sarcophagus

Introduction: The Silk Road’s Most Surprising "Bed"

In 1992, the appearance of the "Shumei Couch" (now the Miho funerary couch) sent shockwaves through the world of Asian antiquities. Recovered from a tomb in Northern China, this 6th-century masterpiece of white marble panels and gateposts served as a stone "screen" for the deceased. While its structure mimics the quintessentially Chinese chuang(sitting couch) or chazuchuang (canopied bed), the iconography carved upon it reveals a world entirely foreign to the Han tradition. To the specialist, this is more than furniture; it is a portal into the chaotic, cosmopolitan transition between the Han and Tang dynasties—a "stone social network" documenting the lives of Central Asian elites who made China their home.

The "Sabao": The Merchant-Kings Who Governed Between Worlds

The couch’s owner was almost certainly a Sabao, a figure of immense cultural and political weight. In the 6th-century Northern Dynasties, a Sabao was not merely a caravan leader but a court-recognized official tasked with governing immigrant Sogdian colonies and overseeing their religious affairs.

This couch represents the ultimate strategy of cultural hybridity. The deceased utilized a Chinese multi-chambered tomb structure—even employing architectural gateposts known as chueh—to display a fiercely Iranian identity. The chueh, typically used as monumental markers for Chinese elites, here guard a space filled with Zoroastrian imagery. This synthesis was a political necessity: by adopting Chinese mortuary architecture, the Sabao asserted his high status within the imperial bureaucracy while simultaneously using the panels to broadcast his loyalty to his Central Asian roots.

3. The Narrative Debate: Reading the Social Network "Center-Outward"

A significant revelation for historians lies not just in what is depicted, but in the sequence of the story. While early interpretations followed a linear left-to-right path, Professor Rong Xinjiang argues for a "center-outward" reconstruction. In this model, the "social network" is anchored by the central funeral scene (Panel F).

The narrative radiates from this core: the wedding of the Sabao couple (symbolizing lineage and alliance) and the banquet scenes are placed at the heart of the back screen, framed by the gateposts. This reordering transforms the couch from a gallery of random scenes into a coherent biographical and spiritual manifesto, placing the deceased’s religious transition at the literal and figurative center of his world.

The "Sogdian Whirl": From Northern Qi Marriage to Tang Rebellion

Panel E depicts a marriage feast where a Sabao and his wife (likely of Chinese or Xianbei elite stock) toast one another. The focal point is the huxuan, or the "Sogdian Whirl." This vigorous, rapid-spinning dance was a sensation imported from Samarkand and Tashkent.

As a historian, I see this scene as a crucial link in the transition from Northern Qi to Tang culture. The dancer’s mastery of the whirl would later reach its peak of notoriety in the Tang court with the 400-pound general An Lushan, who was famously proficient in the dance despite his massive girth. The presence of this dance on the couch is evidence of how Central Asian music and performance were being integrated into the Chinese social fabric centuries before An Lushan'srebellion would nearly destroy the Tang Dynasty.

The Sagdîd and the Goddess Nana: Navigating the Afterlife

The religious panels provide the most visceral evidence of the Sabao’s spiritual life. Panel F documents the sagdîd (dog-gaze) ritual, where a dog is used to repel the "spirit of defilement" from the corpse.

"A figure stands before a fire altar wearing the padam, the white veil that Zoroastrian priests wear so as not to defile the sacred flame... behind him, men are shown stabbing their own faces with knives—a self-laceration mourning rite famous in Panjikent but utterly alien to Han Chinese sensibilities."

Equally revelatory is Panel J, which depicts the four-armed goddess Nana seated on a lion throne. Holding the sun and moon, Nana was the primary deity of the Sogdian and Khwarezmian funerary cults. Her presence alongside Buddhist-style musicians and lotus pedestals showcases a fascinating syncretism—the Sabao was navigating a world where ancestral Zoroastrian gods and local Buddhist imagery coexisted.

The Mystery of the Riderless Horse and the Amû-Daryâ

The "riderless horse" on Panel B is often mistaken for a standard Chinese military symbol. However, the presence of fish and water motifs at the horse's feet—mirrored in the 4th-century Ghulbiyan cave paintings in Afghanistan—suggests a deeper religious meaning.

Scholars identify this horse as a representation of a deity, specifically the rain god Tishtrya or the river god Vakhsh, the personification of the Amû-Daryâ (the Oxus River). This specific geography grounds the Sabao’s faith in the heart of Central Asia. By weaving these "hidden" religious symbols into a scene that mimicked Chinese mortuary art, the owner preserved his connection to the sacred waters of his homeland while dwelling in the heart of China.

A "Who’s Who" of the 6th Century: Diplomacy in Stone

The couch functions as an ethnographic census of the Silk Road’s dominant powers, shown here in a state of alliance or procession. Through distinct physiognomies and dress, we identify:

• Sogdians: Distinguished by curly hair, double-lapeled coats, and the use of ceremonial ewers for libations.

• Turks: Noted for their long hair divided into strands or braids bound at the neck, and their collapsible domed tents (yurts).

• Hephthalites (White Huns): Identified by their distinct flattened heads (a mark of the Hunnish elite), ribboned crowns reminiscent of Sasanian Iran, and their appearance riding elephants.

This is more than a list; it is a political statement. The Sabao is depicted at the center of a complex network involving Turkic nomads, Hunnish warriors, and Chinese officials—a rare glimpse into the multi-ethnic diplomacy of a pre-Tang world.

Conclusion: A Forward-Looking Legacy

The Shumei Couch is a poignant testament to a people who viewed the "four seas as their home." It captures a moment of extraordinary syncretism where Persian gods, Turkic tents, and Chinese furniture converged in a single tomb. The Sabaosuccessfully navigated the complexities of 6th-century China without surrendering his soul to total assimilation. Today, as we grapple with our own era of globalism, these stones remind us that the Silk Road was never just a trade route for goods—it was a conduit for the very souls of Central Asia to settle and transform the heart of China.

Closing Takeaway: The Silk Road was not merely a path for silk, but a laboratory for the first truly global identity.

Said to have come from a tomb in northern China, these panels and gateposts originally stood on a rectangular coffin platform, now missing. The panels formed the two sides and back, and the towers at the front framed an entrance, as shown in figure 1.1 The reconstructed couch is similar to several funerary couches that have been excavated in northern China; the most recently excavated one was found in Tianshui in Gansu province, in northwest China.2 It does not have gateposts, but other known couches have them.3 These couches were created to support the remains of the deceased, and show a strong resemblance to Chinese domestic furniture, particularly to the formal sitting couch (chuang or kang) and the canopied bed (chazuchuang).4

During the fifth through seventh centuries burial practices in north and northwest China included the use of such couches as part of tomb furnishings. Tombs were often multichambered, recreating living quarters, and the funerary couch was placed in the back burial chamber, corresponding to the bedroom of the deceased. The two gateposts at the front of the couch refer to separate architectural forms, each with its own function. One is the chueh, a pair of high towers that mark the entrance to the burial site, the other, the towered entrance to a Chinese house.5 As the two gateposts are placed on the front edge of the couch they create a symbolic monumental entry into the space formed by the side and back panels, delineating the special status of the occupant in death as the formal sitting couch defined it in life.

Carved in relief on each of the eleven panels of the Shumei couch are lively events that do not draw upon typically Chinese subjects and symbols found on mortuary furnishings in the northern or southern regions at this time. These images are foreign and exotic, depicting almost exclusively non-Chinese ethnic groups engaged in a wide variety of activities.6 Through their precisely rendered physiognomies, hairstyles, details of dress, and objects such as musical instruments, we can distinguish specific ethnic or national identities. To date, there is only one other set of stone slabs from a funerary couch, reputedly found in Zhangdefu in northern Henan province, with imagery carved in low relief devoted to non-Chinese ethnic groups engaged in banquets and processions.7 Both sets of stones, the eleven white marble panels of the Shumei couch and those said to be from Zhangdefu, manifest the exotic environment so pervasive in the Northern Dynasties-region from the mid-fourth through the sixth centuries. Also linking these panels to those from Zhangdefu are the undulating foliate vines that frame each scene and the pictorial device of cropping figures and architecture so that many appear only partially within the frame.8

The sixth century in China is part of an historically and artistically complex period. Unstable and not well documented, it falls between China's two great dynasties, the earlier Han (208 B.C.-A.D. 220) and the later Tang (A.D. 618-906). During the fourth through sixth centuries, north China was completely overrun by seminomadic peoples whom the Chinese called "barbarians." Successive waves included Turk tribes, Tibetan groups, and the Xianbei, a proto-Mongolian people. By the late fifth century, a part of the Xianbei people, the Tuoba, provided more stability by controlling significant parts of northern China.9

In spite of political instability, foreign relations and trade were maintained, and envoys, merchants, and Buddhist monks arrived from Central Asia across the Silk Route. Of the merchants coming from Central Asia, the dominant group seems to have been Sogdians, an Iranian people who lived in the area corresponding today with the Central Asian republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. This area was known in ancient times as Sogdiana and contained a number of important cities, such as Panjikent and Afrasiab, or ancient Samarkand.

Reconstruction of the couch shows that three panels formed the left side (A-C), six panels composed the back (D-I), and two panels the right side (J-K). The panels were attached one to the other by a series of iron pins and loops set into the backs of the stones, which were hooked together.10 The first panel on the left side, A, the one closest to the left gatepost (1) is of a hunt in which four mounted archers shoot at fleeing game. These archers recall numerous images of royal mounted hunters depicted on silver plates from Sasanian Iran.11 Characteristic of these Sasanian royal images are long ribbons that flutter behind the king's crown. Although two of the hunters on the Shumei panel also wear long, fluttering ribbons, their dress and physiognomy distinguishes them from Iranians. In their facial features and flattened head they resemble Hephthalites, a Hunnish people who in the fifth century defeated Sasanian Iran and dominated Central Asia, including Sogdiana, for the next hundred years; figures with similarly shaped heads appear on Hephthalite metalwork.12

The hunt takes place in a rocky landscape, as does every scene in the remaining panels. This landscape often contains flowers and foliage, an occasional tree, and is often populated by a variety of animals. Some of the scenes on a given panel are unified compositions describing a single event, while others depict two distinct events, one above the other. In such cases, the landscape in the form of a rocky ledge serves to separate the events.13

The center relief on the left side, B, shows two horsemen in the upper register. They wear tall, fez-like caps and the double-lapeled coats typically worn by Central Asian and Turk peoples. In the lower register, a riderless horse stands under a large parasol, with four figures behind it, and another figure, on the left, kneels before it and offers a cup up to it. The distinctness of these upper and lower scenes is established not only by a rocky landscape and the parasol, but by the orientations of the two groups: the twp horsemen above move to the right while the riderless horse faces to the left.

Riderless horses are found in Chinese mortuary art, particularly of the fifth and sixth centuries. They are represented by ceramic tombs figurines, in wall-tiles and wall-paintings, and even on stone panels from mortuary couches. In China, this image of the riderless horse is typically associated with the burial of high-ranking officials, usually from the military. An important example appears in a wall-painting from the tomb of the Xianbei general, Luo Rui. That and other horses from his tomb each have a tassel hanging from their necks, a feature shared by the riderless horse on the Shumei panel, as well as by horses in other panels. Such tassels seem to be either of Sogdian or of Turk origin, and are associated with the horses of important people; in addition to the Chinese examples, tassels are worn by horses of important people in the wall paintings at Sogdian Panjikent and Samarkand.

The third and last panel on the left side, C, is an encampment scene. A large figure sits in a domed tent and is served by attendants while a group of riders hunt below. This domed tent is a yurt, the collapsible felt home still used today by Turkic peoples. Not only does the yurt identify them as Turks, their long hair, divided into long strands or braids and bound at the neck, also marks them as these nomadic people. Among the wall-paintings at Samarkand that show foreign delegations appear similar long-haired figures that are identified by inscriptions written directly on the paintings as Turks.

Moving to the six panels that form the back of the couch, the first on the left, D, shows a camel laden with goods, accompanied by long-haired Turks on horseback. Camels were the main means of transport for goods moving back and forth across the Silk Road between Central Asia and China. Their importance is reflected in Chinese mortuary art of this period: numerous mingqi, clay sculptures made specifically to accompany the deceased, are heavily laden camels. Above the camel, clouds move to the left, recalling the widespread appearance of cloud wisps that below across the sky in Chinese pictorial imagery of the sixth century.

The next panel, E, is a marriage feast for a portly, bearded Central Asian gentleman and a non-Central Asian lady, most likely Chinese. They are seated on a Chinese couch or kang toasting each other. As part of the celebration, a troupe of musicians and a dancer perform in front of the couple. This part of this panel is especially important for Central Asian connections. The orchestra and vigorously moving dancer is a recurring image on ceramic pilgrim flasks produced during the sixth through ninth centuries in China during the Northern Qi and Tang dynasties. On the flasks and the relief the dancer seems to perform what the Chinese called huxuan or “Sogdian whirl.” Central Asian music and dance were extremely popular in China from the sixth century through Tang times, and male and female dancers were imported from Samarkand and Tashkent in Sogdiana. They were so popular that a famous general in the Tang emperor’s court was renowned for his ability to dance the Sogdian whirl despite weighing 400 pounds. Another Sogdian connection is the ewer of characteristically Sogdian form that appears in the lower left near the two kneeling servants.

The third panel of the back, F, has two levels: in the center of the upper one a figure stands before a fire altar wearing the padam, the white veil that Zoroastrian priests wear so as not to defile the sacred flame. To his side is a dog, which plays a central role in the Zoroastrian funerary rite called the sagdid. In this rite, the dog is made to look at the body of the deceased, since its gaze is believed to drive away the spirit of defilement. Directly behind the priest is a group of men, four of whom kneel and hold knives to their faces or foreheads. None of these male figures is Chinese, and, indeed, their appearance and the act of stabbing themselves recall a famous scene of mourning from Sogdian Panjikent.

The fourth panel, G, is a second banquet, this one most likely representing the deceased himself. The large figure of a Central Asian sits cross-legged beneath a magnificent floating canopy, which indicated his high status. This canopy with its jeweled and beribboned lotus finial is reminiscent of the elaborate canopies that define the central images in Chinese Buddhist paradise scenes. The man holds a cup and is flanked by servant figures. In front of him, other servants prepare food for the banquet. In contrast to the Central Asian man in the marriage feast, this banqueter is clean-shaven, has curled hair, and wears a different type of hat. Of interest is the variety of ethnic types represented by his servants, distinguished by their clothing, hairstyles, and facial features.

The two reliefs to the right of the banquet scene ? the last two of the back of the couch ? both show processions advancing through the same rocky landscape. One, H, shows a procession of Turks and Central Asians on horseback, while the other, to its right, I, depicts Hephthalites mounted on an elephant. The importance of the central figure in each panel ? a long-haired Turk, and an elaborately crowned and beribboned Hephthalite ? is signified by his placement and a parasol held directly above his head. Each personage has his right hand raised in a fist with index finger extended, a well-known gesture of respect in the Iranian / Central Asian world.

The first panel on the right side of the couch, J ? the one at a right angle to the elephant-rider ? is a double panel with two separate scenes side by side. On the left, two groups on horseback move in opposite directions. At the top, a non-Central Asian lady, wearing an unusual tall headdress, rides toward the left, accompanied by two attendants. Below, riding to the right, is a Central Asian man, also accompanied by two attendants as well as two dogs. One of his attendants holds a parasol over his head, indicating the man’s high status. Another such sign is the tassel that hangs from his horse’s neck; a similar tassel also hangs from the neck of the lady’s horse, showing her importance. A procession similar to that of the male rides appears on several stone panels from the funerary couch from the mid-sixth century that is said to come from Zhangdefu, near what was the capital of the Northern Qi dynasty. The panels from Zhangdefu also depict non-Chinese peoples; but unlike the Shumei panels, the number of ethnic types is limited. However, the main figures in both a Zhangdefu panel and this Shumei panel have much in common: the way they sit on their mounts, their clothing, hairstyle, and even the parasol that is held above them.

The relief carved on the right side of panel J seems to have some eschatological significance as it appears to show two distinct realms: the heavenly and the earthly. In the upper, heavenly realm appears a four-armed goddess, two arms raised to hold the sun and moon, and two arms resting on a parapet decorated with two lions’ heads. She looks down on two acolytes, probably Buddhist bodhisattvas, each of whom plays a musical instrument and stands on a lotus flower. In the lower, earthly realm, musicians accompany a female dancer.

The goddess is to be identified as Nana, whose images are widespread in Sogdiana and in Khwarezmia, to the north, in painting, stucco, woodcarving and metalwork, and where she is specifically associated with the funerary cult. In all her representations she sits on a lion throne or directly on a lion, with symbols of the sun and the moon held in two of her four arms. This image of Nana traveled eastward as well, in the Buddhist art of Chinese Turkestan. In the Shumei relief, the lions’ heads are an abbreviation of Nana’s animal attribute, while one of the deity’s discs retains its red paint to represent the sun; the other probably contained a red crescent moon, which is no longer visible.

Moving down to the earthly realm, the image of a Central Asian orchestra seated on mats and flanking a female dancer probably doing a Chinese “sleeve dance” finds a remarkable parallel in a scene carved on the base of a Buddhist stele from Xi’an in Shenxi province in central China. The Xi’an piece shows the same scene with two different orchestras and two different dancers: on the right, Chinese musicians sit on mats while a female figure performs the sleeve dance, and, on the left, a Central Asian orchestra accompanies a Central Asian male dancer performing the Sogdian whirl. This scene on the Xi’an base, like the panels of the Shumei couch, manifests the exotic elements so pervasive in the Northern Dynasties of China.

The last panel on the right, K, the one closest to the front of the couch and abutting the right gatepost, is the most “Chinese” of all the scenes. Of its subject matter, the two-wheeled cart drawn by oxen is a standard feature in Buddhist cave-paintings and Chinese tombs from the fourth century on. Of particular importance is a painting from the tomb of the high-ranking Xianbei general Luo Rui, which depicts a similar high-canopied cart with attendants and banners. Especially noteworthy is the placement of the cart near the entrance of Luo Rui’s main tomb chamber, paralleling panel K’s placement on the couch right next to a gatepost, at the “entrance” to the couch. Also of note are the similarities of the shapes and decoration of the banners as well as the non-Chinese appearance of the attendants in the Lou Rui painting and this panel.

Panels A and K each about a gatepost, 1 and 2, respectively, and were attached to a hook that protruded from the front of each gatepost. The gateposts display features that are typical of Chinese architecture: double towers with hipped roofs, each topped by a characteristic double hook. Like the gateposts from the Zhangdefu couch, as well as other known examples, the towers are stepped, the taller one flanking the “entryway” and abutted by the shorter one which, in turn, is connected to a shorter section of wall. Architectural details of the tower walls are indicated by red paint. Carved in relief on each gatepost, across the lower portion of the towers and the wall, is a procession of four Central Asian and Xianbei men, one of whom leads a riderless horse. The men wear long belted tunics and boots; all but the groom who leads the horse have their hands covered by their long sleeves. The lead figure on each gatepost is distinguished by his height, placement, and dress. He is taller, stands apart, is framed by the mass of the larger tower, and wears a long sword. This type of procession of men with a riderless horse, as well as the architectural details, are paralleled on the Zhangdefu gateposts.

Who was buried in the tomb that housed this extraordinary funerary couch? The relief with the Zoroastrian funerary rite, the sagdid ceremony, provides an important clue. Sogdians, who were Zoroastrians, were among the major merchants who moved goods back and forth across Central Asia and China. They also established permanent communities in China and intermarried with the local populace which, at that time, consisted of mainly Xianbei and Chinese. Is it possible that this funerary couch was the repository of the bones of some Central Asian, most likely Sogdian, who died in China? When viewed in this light, the arrangement of the stones and the overall program that underlies it present a coherent and poignant story. The sagdid ceremony on panel F and the flanking the banquet scenes on E and G, form the visual focus of the entire couch: not only are they in the physical center of the back, they are framed by the two gateposts, which, when the couch is approached from the front, obscure the other back panels.

As the story unfolds, the marriage scene may refer to the marriage of the tomb owner’s father or grandfather with a local woman, the sagdid ceremony to the rites performed at the tomb owner’s death, and the banquet scene representing the tomb owner as a symbolic participant in the banquet that was held at the time of the funeral.

The two central panels in each of the sides of the couch, B and J (right), also refer to funerary rituals. That on the left, B, with the riderless horse occurs, as already noted, in both Sogdian and Chinese funerary contexts; that on the right, J, showing Nana, has connections with Sogdian and Khwarezmian funerary monuments, while the bodhisattvas and musicians are known from Chinese Buddhist paradise scenes. The other scenes involving hunts and processions of various Central Asian peoples no doubt reflect the peoples with whom the deceased had dealings and may even have attended his funerary rites. These scenes also find their counterpart in the processions of foreign peoples in the paintings at Sogdian Samarkand, which also have funerary connotations.

Before the Shumei funerary couch came to light, little pictorial evidence existed that directly reflected the rich ethnic tapestry that existed in sixth-century China: Buddhist monks traveling from Central Asia and India, nomadic invaders from the north, brisk movements of envoys and merchants from Sogdiana and farther west, and settlements of foreigners in Chinese cities. The Shumei couch has brought these people into sharper focus and has provided a rare glimpse of a Central Asian’s life in sixth-century China.

FAQ

Q1：這件「秀明棺床」（Shumei couch，又稱美秀石棺床或Miho funerary couch，秀明 = 神慈秀明會）是什麼樣的文物？其基本形制與來源如何？

A1：

這是一件北朝晚期（約570年左右，北齊至北周時期）的白大理石石質葬具床，由11塊浮雕面板與2根門闕（gateposts）組成。面板構成棺床的左側（3塊）、後壁（6塊）、右側（2塊），門闕置於前端，象徵墓地入口與住宅門樓。面板以鐵銷與鐵環互相鉤連固定，原置於長方形棺床平台上（平台已佚）。據傳出自中國北方（可能山西太原、河南北部彰德府附近或陝西一帶），20世紀80年代可能非法出土，後流入國際藝術市場，1992年在紐約展出時以“Shumei couch”名義出現，隨後被日本神慈秀明會（Shinji Shūmeikai）收藏，入藏美秀美術館（Miho Museum）。整套石刻由中國匠人雕刻，但主題強烈中亞粟特風格，是研究入華粟特人葬俗與絲路文化交流的經典實物。

Q2：「秀明棺床」名字的來源是什麼？與美秀美術館的關係如何？

A2：

“Shumei couch”（秀明棺床）源自其早期收藏歸屬：Shumei Family Collection（秀明家族收藏，或神慈秀明會收藏）。

• Shumei 是日文「秀明」（Shūmei）的羅馬拼音，指日本宗教團體神慈秀明會（Shinji Shūmeikai），由創辦人小山美秀子（Mihoko Koyama，1910–2003）於1970年創立。

• 1992年紐約展出及早期西方學術文獻中使用“Shumei couch”，反映當時尚未正式入藏美秀美術館，而是屬於秀明家族收藏。

• 美秀美術館（Miho Museum）1997年開館，由小山美秀子資助興建（建築師貝聿銘設計），以其名字“Miho”（美秀）命名。入藏後官方名稱為Miho funerary couch 或 石床屏風，但學界仍偶用“Shumei couch”指其流散史與早期稱呼。榮新江教授等中文文獻常稱Miho美術館藏粟特石棺屏風，註明早期為“秀明收集品”。

Q3：學者對面板排列順序有何不同看法？博物館原方案與榮新江教授的重組有何區別？

A3：

博物館原方案（Juliano & Lerner等）按A-K順序：左側A（狩獵）-B（騎士與無人馬）-C（突厥營帳）；後壁D（駱駝商隊）-E（婚宴）-F（祆教葬儀）-G（墓主宴飲）-H（突厥出行）-I（嚈噠象騎）；右側J（雙場景：出行與娜娜女神）-K（牛車）。

榮新江教授（1999–2003年系列論文）主張依安伽墓等粟特石屏風「從中間向兩邊讀」的敘事邏輯重組：後壁以F（葬儀）為中心，左屏D-A-H-C，後壁B-F-E-G-J1-J2，右屏I-K等，強調鐵銷位置、圖像連貫（如婚宴→繼承→送葬的家族故事）。兩方案均視F面板（sagdid葬儀）為焦點，但榮新江更突出粟特薩保家族生平的連續敘事。

Q4：棺床面板主要描繪了哪些場景？重點解讀最核心的幾幅？

A4：

場景均置岩石景觀中，邊框波浪葉蔓，人物生動。

• E（婚宴）：蓄鬚中亞男子（粟特薩保）與漢族女子坐中國榻對飲，前有胡旋舞與樂隊，粟特執壺——榮新江釋為「入華粟特聚落首領薩保夫婦宴飲圖」。

• F（祆教葬儀）：祭司戴padam守火壇，犬行sagdid，後方持刀刺面哀悼（類潘吉肯特壁畫）——核心祆教葬禮。

• G（墓主宴飲）：潔面捲髮中亞男子坐華蓋下持杯，多族侍從。

• J右（娜娜女神）：四臂娜娜持日月立獅頭欄杆，下方樂舞（袖舞），粟特葬儀娛神。

• B（無人馬）：榮新江釋為供養雨神Tishtrya（馬身有魚、水紋），涉葬儀。 其他包括A（嚈噠騎射）、C（突厥氈帳）、D（駱駝商隊）、H/I（突厥與嚈噠出行）、K（牛車）等，反映絲路多元生活。

Q5：面板中出現哪些族群？如何辨識？

A5：

• 粟特人：捲髮、圓帽、雙翻領袍、執壺、火壇祭司。

• 突厥人：長髮分股束頸、氈帽、yurt帳篷。

• 嚈噠人：扁頭、冠帶飄揚、乘象。

• 漢人/鮮卑：女子高冠、牛車侍從。 榮新江指出，565年突厥滅嚈噠後圖像中兩者並存，反映北朝晚期族群互動。

Q6：這件棺床體現了什麼宗教信仰？有何祆教與佛教元素？

A6：

主要祆教：火壇、padam、sagdid犬、娜娜女神、Tishtrya馬；榮新江強調「樂舞娛神」與中國胡天祭相合。

佛教輔助：華蓋似淨土、菩薩奏樂、蓮座。顯示入華粟特人「漢式葬具、胡式信仰」的融合。

Q7：墓主可能是誰？學者依據為何？

A7：

最可能是入華粟特薩保（Sabao，胡人聚落首領）或家族成員。

依據：中央宴飲與繼承場面符合薩保世襲；完整祆教葬儀；商隊、娶漢女、與突厥/嚈噠聯盟；與安伽（北周同州薩保）、史君、虞弘墓高度相似。榮新江認為屬北齊鄴城或太原附近胡人聚落首領，體現粟特「四海為家」的生活。

Q8：與其他已知粟特石棺床相比有何特點？對理解6世紀中國與絲綢之路有何意義？

A8：

類似安伽墓（西安）、虞弘墓（太原）、天水石榻、彰德府石床，均有宴飲、出行、火壇。但Miho獨有娜娜女神與Tishtrya馬，樂舞更豐富；與彰德府同有門闕與無人馬。

意義：它是晚北朝漢地粟特葬具代表，證明絲路不僅貿易，更是族群、宗教、文化交融。生動記錄粟特商人在華聚落、通婚、任薩保、守祆教，與鮮卑、突厥、漢人共處，為中古中國外來文明、祆教東傳、胡漢互動提供珍貴圖像證據，被視為「6世紀中國族群圖景的罕見剪影」。

English Q&A (Updated Version)

Q1: What is the “Shumei couch” (also known as the Miho funerary couch)? Describe its form and provenance.

A1:

It is a late Northern Dynasties (ca. 570 CE, Northern Qi to Northern Zhou) white marble funerary couch with 11 relief panels and 2 gateposts. Panels form left (3), back (6), right (2) sides; gateposts frame the front entrance. Panels joined by iron pins/loops on a now-missing rectangular platform. Reportedly from northern China (possibly Taiyuan, Shanxi; near Zhangdefu, Henan; or Shaanxi), likely illicitly excavated in the 1980s, entered the art market, exhibited in New York 1992 as “Shumei couch,” then acquired by Shinji Shūmeikai (Shumei Family) and housed in the Miho Museum (Japan). Carved by Chinese artisans but with strong Sogdian themes, it is a landmark for Sogdian burials and Silk Road exchanges.

Q2: What is the origin of the name “Shumei couch”? How does it relate to the Miho Museum?

A2:

“Shumei couch” derives from its early ownership: Shumei Family Collection (Shinji Shūmeikai Collection).

• Shumei romanizes Japanese 秀明 (Shūmei), the name of the religious group Shinji Shūmeikai, founded in 1970 by Mihoko Koyama (1910–2003).

• Used in 1992 New York exhibition and early scholarship before formal acquisition by Miho Museum (opened 1997, named after “Miho” = 美秀, designed by I.M. Pei).

• Official name now Miho funerary couch or Relief Carvings from a Funerary Couch; “Shumei couch” persists in literature for provenance history. Chinese scholars (e.g., Rong Xinjiang) call it Miho Museum Sogdian stone funerary screen, noting prior “Shumei/秀明 Collection” status.

Q3: How do scholars differ on panel arrangement? Museum original vs. Rong Xinjiang’s reconstruction?

A3:

Museum (Juliano & Lerner): A–K sequence — left A (hunt)–B (riders & riderless horse)–C (yurt); back D (caravan)–E (wedding)–F (Zoroastrian rite)–G (deceased banquet)–H (Turkic procession)–I (Hephthalite elephant); right J (procession + Nana)–K (ox-cart).

Rong Xinjiang (1999–2003 papers): Narrative “center outward” like An Jia couch — back centered on F (rite), left D-A-H-C, back B-F-E-G-J1-J2, right I-K; based on pin positions and biographical flow (banquet–inheritance–funeral). Both center on F but Rong stresses coherent Sogdian Sabao family story.

Q4: What scenes are depicted? Highlight core panels.

A4:

Rocky landscapes with vine frames; vivid figures.

• E (Wedding): Bearded Sogdian Sabao & Chinese lady toast on kang; Sogdian whirl dancer/orchestra — Rong: “Sabao couple banquet in Chinese settlement.”

• F (Zoroastrian Rite): Priest with padam at fire altar, sagdid dog, face-stabbing mourners (cf. Panjikent).

• G (Deceased Banquet): Clean-shaven Central Asian under jeweled canopy.

• J-right (Nana): Four-armed Nana with sun/moon on lion parapet; musicians & sleeve-dancer below (Sogdian divine entertainment).

• B (Riderless Horse): Rong: Offering to rain god Tishtrya (fish/water motifs on horse), funerary. Others: Hephthalite hunt (A), Turkic yurt (C), caravan (D), processions (H/I), ox-cart (K).

Q5: Which ethnic groups are shown, and how identified?

A5:

• Sogdians: Curly hair, round caps, double-lapeled coats, ewer, priests.

• Turks: Long braided hair, felt caps, yurts.

• Hephthalites: Flattened heads, ribboned crowns, elephant.

• Chinese/Xianbei: Lady’s tall headdress, ox-cart attendants. Rong notes post-565 Turk-Hephthalite coexistence reflects late Northern Dynasties multi-ethnicity.

Q6: What religious beliefs does it embody? Zoroastrian and Buddhist elements?

A6:

Primarily Zoroastrian: Fire altar, padam, sagdid, Nana, Tishtrya horse; Rong links music/dance to Hu-tian worship records.

Buddhist secondary: Lotus, bodhisattva musicians, paradise-like canopy — shows Sogdian acculturation in China.

Q7: Who was likely the deceased? Scholarly basis?

A7:

Likely a Sogdian Sabao (leader of immigrant Sogdian community) or kin.

Evidence: Hereditary banquet/inheritance scenes; full Zoroastrian program; caravan, local marriage, Turk/Hephthalite ties; parallels with An Jia (Northern Zhou Sabao), Shi Jun, Yu Hong tombs. Rong: From a Hu settlement near Ye (Northern Qi) or Taiyuan, embodying Sogdian cosmopolitan life.

Q8: Comparisons with other Sogdian couches? Broader significance for 6th-century China and Silk Road?

A8:

Shares banquet/procession/fire themes with An Jia (Xi’an), Yu Hong (Taiyuan), Tianshui, Zhangdefu/Anyang couches; uniquely Nana & Tishtrya; gateposts & riderless horse like Zhangdefu.

Significance: Premier example of Sogdian funerary art in Han territory; illustrates Silk Road as conduit for people/culture/religion. Documents Sogdian settlements, intermarriage, Sabao roles, Zoroastrian persistence amid Turks/Xianbei/Chinese interactions — rare pictorial evidence of ethnic diversity and Sino-Central Asian syncretism in 6th-century China.