Page 65 - JCAU-7-2

Journal of Chinese
Architecture and Urbanism Ting or Chinese pavilion

9780199674985-e-7023?rskey=MRbtp2&result=5448).
This particular characterization converges with its definition
in Ciyuan (辞源; The Origin of Words), which states that
ting refers to “a small architecture with a roof but without
enclosing walls” (He et al., 2015, p. 210). Both definitions
likely capture the typical imagery of ting as it appeared in
private gardens during the Ming (1368 – 1644) and Qing
(1644 – 1912) dynasties. For a contemporary audience,
these descriptions might also evoke images of modern
roadside civic kiosks or amusement park pavilions—single-
story open structures designed for brief stop-offs.
Figure 1. The Chinese Pavilion is on the grounds of the Drottningholm
From the perspective of architectural historians, Palace Park, part of the Royal Domain of Drottningholm World Heritage
however, an immediate acceptance of these definitions of Site. Source: Photo by Arild Vågen (https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File: Kina_slott_October_2016_01.jpg)
ting could be misleading for English readers unfamiliar
with its broad range of historical associations. In early
Chinese history, the semantic implications of the Chinese “Stele Pavilion,” an open structure housing memorial
character “亭” (ting) varied significantly from its modern steles dedicated to Confucius in Qufu, Shandong. Simply
counterpart. These linguistic and cultural origins deserve applying the term “pavilion” to both examples creates
further attention to accurately interpret “ting” as a historical unnecessary confusion and diminishes scholarly precision.
building type within traditional Chinese architecture, In search of a historically accurate translation of
rather than relying on vaguely portrayed literary imagery. ting, this article reviews the chronology of both the
architectural form and function of ting from the pre-Qin
Coining an English translation of ting is not a new
phenomenon. Terms such as “pavilion,” “kiosk,” “gazebo,” period (before 221 BCE) to the Ming and Qing dynasties,
and even the Romanized name “ting” have been used when the semantic meaning of this term ultimately
th
since the 18 century, when architect William Chambers stabilized as a simple open structure in private gardens.
By thoroughly examining the correspondence between
traveled to China and published his descriptions and various translations of ting in previous scholarship and the
illustrations of Chinese architecture in English. However,
the meanings and connotations of these translations in history of ting, this article argues that coining a singular
English scholarship are further complicated by the history English translation of ting fails to capture the semantic
complexity of its historical evolution. Therefore, scholars
of Western building types and their associated stereotypes. should exercise caution when using a single term in English
For example, the term “pavilion” has been used to describe literature to represent ting. This article highlights the
drastically different architectural forms in the East and
West. The Chinese Pavilion in the Drottningholm Palace significance and benefits of employing “thick translations”
Park, Sweden, an 18 -century structure built in the in the form of paratexts and footnotes, which offer context
th
specificity and interpretability after translation. However,
chinoiseries style, exemplifies this disparity. Taking the future efforts are required to negotiate a particular thick
form of a multi-story architectural compound with two translation of ting that consolidates its semantic breadth as
wings (Figure 1), it serves today as one of the Swedish
Royal Palaces. Its architectural composition is comparable an archetypal building type in global architectural history.
to other multi-story Swedish royal buildings of the same 2. From the pre-Qin period (before 221 BCE)
era, such as Gustav III’s Pavilion at Haga. However, this to the Han (202 BCE – 220 CE) dynasty: A
structure bears little resemblance to contemporaneous
“pavilions” or ting in China, which were single-story, military facility with considerable height
open structures commonly found in private gardens. This The origins of the Chinese character for ting are a topic of
ambiguity extends to the work of the 20 -century Chinese debate. In Chinese oracle bone scripts, several characters
th
architectural historian Liang Sicheng (1901 – 1972), who possibly representing ting cannot be clearly differentiated
used “pavilion” as a translation for two drastically different in meaning (Guo, 2012). Wang Xiantang (1896 – 1960)
types of ting. For example, he translated Linshui tingxie grouped these characters with other oracle bone scripts
(临水亭榭) as “Water-front Pavilion,” referring to an that may refer to various forms of elevated architecture,
open structure depicted in Han tomb carvings that were construing their meanings based on the characters’
designed for resting near water (Liang, 1984). In another formal compositions (Wang, 1985). During the Qin
example, he translated Kongmiao Beiting (孔庙碑亭) as dynasty (221 – 207 BCE), characters resembling the

Volume 7 Issue 2 (2025) 2 https://doi.org/10.36922/jcau.4107