Ulrich von Schroeder & Joachim G. Karsten
The Silver Jug of the Lhasa Jokhang: a Reply
A Reply to the Article by Amy Heller in Silk Road Art and Archaeology [1]
and in Asianart.com http://asianart.com/articles/heller/index.html
text and photos © asianart.com and the author except as where otherwise noted
July 13, 2009
 Fig. 1 |
In 2003 Amy Heller published an article, where she attributes the famous silver jug with an animal head in custody of the Lhasa Jokhang indisputably to Tibetan craftsmen. She refutes categorically the possibility that Sogdian craftsmen from western Central Asia could have created this masterpiece. [2] During the times of the Tibetan empire (7th to early 9th century), Sogdians who were famous silver- and goldsmith were pursuing their trade in all commercial centres along the silk roads, including those in Eastern China and Tibet. There can be no doubt that foreign craftsmen also rendered their services to the Tibetan nobility, as documented by Sogdian silver objects found in Dulan. On the first page of her article, Amy Heller nevertheless clearly observes that the silver jug is the work of a Tibetan artist – while admitting in the same sentence that the people depicted are non-Tibetans:
“… there are three scenes representing Central Asian people, two lively solo dancers and three men in drunken revelry. The people represented on the jug reflect Tibetan familiarity with their neighbours’ appearance and customs as we will discuss below” [213].
But why would anybody commission a Tibetan artist to portray foreigners – possibly Sogdians – celebrating a dance known as “Sogdian whirl”, when Sogdian craftsmen were available in all commercial centres in Central Asia, China and Tibet. To illustrate the resources of the Tibetans she quotes that
“Early records document Tibetan export of armour and weapons and salt as well. The Tibetans were so skilled in metal craftsmanship that the 3000 meter gorges of the Mekong River were crossed by Tibetan iron-chain suspension bridges by the early 8th century” [215]. “It would appear that the Tibetan’s skill was very competent, whether for smelting iron to construct chain links or making [iron] metal armour, as well as fine metal skills, in both gold and silver, with hammered and repoussé decoration. Historically, we know about Tibetan ewers and metalwork of the period thanks to the Chinese Tang Annals. There is record of a spectacular gift received from Tibet in 641 AD, a goose-shaped golden ewer seven feet high capable of holding sixty litres of wine. In 648, a miniature golden city decorated with animals and men on horseback was presented as a gift”. … … … Quotation of Edward Schafer: “… to judge from the records of tributes and gifts from Tibet to Tang China over and over again list large objects of gold, remarkable for their beauty and rarity and excellent workmanship, the Tibetan goldsmith was the wonders of the medieval world” [217].
To produce iron works such as chains and armour does not necessarily imply that the Tibetans were also great silver- and goldsmiths. Also if Tibetans were really such great craftsmen by the 7th/8th century, why would they have been depending largely on foreign artists for the decoration of their temples, not only during the Yar lung dynasty, but also throughout the ages till modern days? Also, it is the interpretation of the Tang Annals by modern Tibetan scholars that the presented objects were made by Tibetans. The idea that they could have been commissioned from foreigners, such as the Sogdians, does never enter the discussions. The Tang Annals just list the objects as part of the gifts received from such and such, without recording who made them. Whereas Amy Heller’s theory relies on the hypothesis that all those gifts were obviously made by Tibetan silver- and goldsmith, Martha Carter had a more cautious approach: “Clearly the Tibetan court employed metalworkers capable of creating these extraordinary objects.” [3] Especially in the case of the Jokhang jug decorated entirely with themes of non-Tibetan origin, it is somehow difficult or rather impossible to agree with Amy Heller’s conclusion that “this jug is indeed a Tibetan creation”. By this statement she rules out categorically the involvement of non-Tibetan craftsmen. In an attempt to back her theory she continues: “Incidentally, all of the animals identified as the head of the jug [camel, horse, deer, sheep] are native to Tibet” [219].These animals were not native exclusively to Tibet and the areas controlled by the Tibetans during the Yar lung Dynasty. The reader must go through sixteen pages to get the information that Amy Heller identifies the animal head as camel [231]. If the Jokhang silver vessel would have been produced by Tibetan craftsmen, the camel would be the least likely one to have been chosen, but less so for a Sogdian craftsman.
With regard to the costumes of the five drunkards and musicians on the Jokhang jug Amy Heller notes:
“This type of short cape and overlong sleeves are already represented as Tibetan costumes in the mural paintings of the Dunhuang caves painted during the Tibetan occupation of the late 8th to mid 9th century. The man on the Lhasa jug, in typical Tibetan nomad fashion, has one arm hidden inside the long sleeve … The other sleeve hangs loosely at his side, just as Tibetan drape their coats today” [219]. … The other two scenes show men with similar long sleeved robes of thick fabric, who are in the midst of performing the dance known in China as “Sogdian whirl”.
The reader is then nevertheless informed that other people also wore similar costumes:
“Dancers in similar costumes and in this distinctive position were represented in Chinese ceramics. According to the Tang Annals, in 718 when the Sogdians presented their coat of mail, a caravan set out from Samarkand bringing carpets, brass, precious rings, mats, lions and dancers – the female performers of the “Sogdian whirl” [220].
 Fig. 2 |
How can the costumes of the dancers on the Jokhang jar be regarded exclusively as Tibetan, if similar ones are found in Chinese ceramics depicting non-Tibetan performers of the “Sogdian whirl”? Also, why would anybody commission a Tibetan artist to portray non-Tibetan people celebrating a dance known as “Sogdian whirl”, when Sogdian craftsmen were offering their services also in Tibet.
In terms of theme Amy Heller continues:
“Von Schroeder stated that "the ritual function shows an obvious relationship with the Dionysus cult … worshipped as the god of the vine and its cultivation." ”[220]
“On the Lhasa silver jug, in the opinion of the writer, we see scenes of human celebration, rather than worship of deities, a connection with a Bacchus cult seems unlikely. If the silver jug of the Jokhang was originally intended for Dionysian rituals, one would expect that the costumes reflect this, showing a semblance of Greek toga and draperies” [220].
 Fig. 3 |
Instead of quoting Ulrich von Schroeder out of context, Amy Heller should have quoted his description on the next page that the Dionysus or Bacchus cult was characterized by wild dance, thrilling music, and intoxicated excess. There could hardly exist a better description of the bacchanalian scenes represented on the silver jug. The opulent ornamentation with vine foliage (?) in the upper section and between the musicians and the drunkards fits well with this container originally intended for the storage and consumption of wine. The numerous bacchanalian representations on Gandharan stone reliefs clearly have their roots in the excessive cults arising from the worship of Dionysus.[4]
With regard to the crown Amy Heller quotes Ulrich von Schroeder out of context:
"Von Schroeder also observed that “ the musicians have a sun and crescent moon motif on a ribbon in their unruly hair ”, associated with the Sasanian and Sogdian rulers, and suggested that they might be royal dancers."
and she later writes, "In the opinion of this writer, it is unlikely that the dancers were royalty."
This is not quite the same meaning as what has been actually written in von Schroeder's description “On the lower part of the round belly of the silver jar are two representations of musicians in frenzied dance. Shown are two bearded men, possibly princes, playing lutes behind their heads. Their unruly hair is held by ribbons decorated in front with the “sun in the crescent moon”, an emblem of royal status the use of which was restricted. …… The sun in the crescent moon emblem deserves special attention as it indicates a clear connection with Sogdian and Sasanian rulers.”
 Fig. 2 detail |
 Fig. 3 detail |
Since the above passage was written it has become clear to the authors of this reply that the so-called unruly hair is actually part of a crown-like helmet with the sun in the crescent moon motif at the bottom in front. A considerable number of coins and artworks have survived depicting Sasanian and Sogdian rulers wearing helmets or crowns of various shapes decorated with the sun and crescent moon motif. [5] Instead of searching similar examples, Amy Heller chooses to compare them with earlier Sasanian examples where the motif is used as a finial. Is it really too far fetched to associate the non-Tibetan performers of the “Sogdian whirl” wearing crowns with sun and crescent moon motif on the Jokhang jar with Sogdian nobility, perhaps princes? Also, on an important object of this size, it can be assumed that no ordinary person would be depicted.
With regard to the place of manufacture and the style of the work, Amy Heller notes:
“Von Schroeder considered Tajikistan as the place of manufacture for the jug [executed in Sogdian style with Sasanian influence], dating it to ca. the 8th century. Certainly the Central Asian physiognomy points to that direction, but the misunderstanding of the crown would be unlikely if the artisan was from Sogdiana …[221].
We suggest that there was no "misunderstanding of the crown" on the part of the artist, as we describe above.
When it comes to the costumes, Amy Heller’s article becomes really confused with many contradictions and mistakes:
“The costumes of Central Asian and Tibetan during the seventh to mid-ninth century are somewhat similar. Tibetan costumes have been principally documented by [one] wall paintings and Tibetan manuscripts from the Dunhuang caves, but stone and clay [?] Buddhist statues in royal apparel have been recently discovered in Eastern Tibet” [221]. Further down it continues: “Tibetan garments are usually closed to the left …” … Even today Tibetans mostly button their shirts on the upper right shoulder [= closed to the right] [222]. “… [the robes of the two musicians] are draped from right to left” [223].
Amy Heller seems to have based her observation on the one musician illustrated in her article whose robe, as she correctly observes, is closed to the left (fig. 2). Unfortunately she did not include the second musician in her research; otherwise she would have noticed that the robe is closed to the right (not illustrated).
“The painting of Yan li Ben is said to depict a Tibetan envoy according to the colophon of the Sung dynasty, and his garment has round collar, central closure, … … but is the envoy in reality a Tibetan or is he from Sogdiana or [other parts of] western Central Asia?” … The garment of the Tibetans [on the oneknown mural] in Dunhuang usually [sic!] resemble those on the Lhasa jug with loose fit and overlong sleeves. But there are a few exceptions. … … These examples from different regions are not conclusive but tend to confirm that the central closure is not completely absent from Tibetan clothing of the sPu rgyal dynasty” [223].
Amy Heller continues to write down all the exceptions without making any firm statement whatsoever. But the conclusion drawn from her writing seems to be, that Tibetans and non-Tibetan can have tight or loose fitting garments, closed to the right, closed to the left, or have a central closure. From this, Amy Heller concludes:
“But already we can be sure that the people on the Lhasa jug are wearing garments popular in Tibet during the Tibetan empire” [223]. [6]
To back up her attribution of the Jokhang jar as being Tibetan Amy Heller writes:
“Tibetan silver objects recently excavated by archaeologists or found in Tibet seem to bear significant points of comparison with the Jokhang jug. In terms of design and techniques of manufacture, these objects clearly bear the influence of Sogdian workmanship of the seventh to eighth century … [223–24].
Some of the so-called similarities are likely due to the possibility that they are actually Sogdian works. Then towards the end of the article there is postulated once more, as at the beginning, that :
“… the men portrayed on the silver jug of Lhasa show Tibetan familiarity with central Asian physiognomy, but they are portrayed wearing Tibetan robes” [230].
And, as already pointed out above, characterized by being once closed to the left, and once to the right, documenting that there was no strict norm.
With regard to the style Amy Heller notes:
“The Lhasa jug is a transmutation of Sogdian and Chinese designs, yet it may also reflect Nepalese technique, due to the mercury gilding and repoussé. … … this [mercury gilding] may have been the result of restoration work performed in 1946.” [231].
Does the meaning of Chinese design relate to the Chinese lute copied from Western Central Asian prototypes such as those used by the Sogdians? Does the reference to Nepalese technique relate to the time of the manufacture in the 8th century, or to the possible re-gilding in 1946, or both ?.
Amy Heller then concludes:
“Although this study is in no way exhaustive, in consideration of the workmanship and the marked affinities of the Lhasa jug with other Tibetan vessels, it is proposed to concur with the opinion that this jug is indeed a Tibetan creation, manufactured during the sPu rgyal dynasty” [231].
 Fig. 4 |
But Amy Heller fails to address one important question: Why would Tibetans make a large silver jar depicting foreigners resembling Chinese representations of Sogdians performing the “Sogdian whirl”, a dance not native to Tibet? Artists usually represent scenes “in such a way that its equipment, dress, ornaments and outward form be in agreement with the country”. [7] The outward form and technical features fit within the range of the various methods applied by Sogdian artists, while there is nothing exclusively Tibetan. Martha Carter summed it up like this: “Very probably, the silver- and goldsmiths who assembled at the tsanpo’s court and at regional centres of Tibetan rule were a multi-ethnic mixture of local, Sogdian, Turkic, Chinese, and perhaps even Iranian artisans. Out of these influences was created the style of early Tibetan metalwork”. [8] If not made locally in Tibet, the Jokhang jar could also be part of war loot obtained in one of the military campaigns in the areas adjoining Western Tibet, such as the Tarim Basin in Central Asia. Also if Tibetans were really such great craftsmen by the 8th century, why would they have been depending largely on foreign artists for the decoration of their temples, not only during the Yar lung dynasty, but also throughout the ages till modern days? So much with regard to Amy Heller’s’ statement that this jar is indeed, i.e. without a doubt Tibetan. Would anybody attribute this silver jar to Tibetan artists if it had been discovered not in Tibet but somewhere else?
After devoting twenty-four pages to an article concerning the Jokhang silver jar it would have been courteous to the reader to include large illustrations of all scenes, including also one of the second dancer. The three miniature black & white illustrations are certainly not giving credit to this masterpiece of silverwork, and work to inhibit the reader from forming an opinion. (please note this does not apply to the on-line version of Heller's article, which has sumptuous illustrations from Ulrich von Schoeder - asianart.com editor.) The article of Amy Heller is not easy to read. How can something be exclusively Tibetan and at the same time occur in other cultures? Much of the text has nothing to do with the subject and only augments the perplexity of the reader confronted throughout with contradictory statements. What else can one expect if the result of a so-called research is predetermined from the start? Too often one is going completely astray with conclusions based on comparing different cultures. [9]
It is the opinion of the two authors of this reply that the Jokhang jar has not been made by Tibetans but rather by Sogdian or other foreign silversmith from Western Central Asia about in the 8th century. This object could have been manufactured in Tibet, but it could also have been made elsewhere.