Recent Acquisitions of Tibetan and Mongolian Arms and Armor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (part...

Recent Acquisitions of Tibetan and Mongolian Arms and Armor in the Metropolitan Museum of art, Part 2

By Donald J. La Rocca

The first part of this article examined six distinctive objects that entered the Museum's coll-ection in 2006 and 2007, too late to be included in the 2006 exhibition Warriors of the Hima-layas: Rediscovering the Arms and Armor of Tibet or its accompanying catalogue.1 The present article will review further acquisitions that were made between 2008 and 2013, plus a few other objects that have remained unpublished up to now. The majority of the items discussed here can be arranged loosely into five small groups: edged weapons, armor, archery equip-ment, firearms and accessories, and equestrian equipment. Following these, a votive print, will be examined for its use of arms and armor as iconographic symbols.The first piece is a very unusual ax head (2008.158), which probably originated in Tibet or Mongolia, where axes are most frequently found either as ritual objects or iconographic attri-butes of various deities, rather than as actual weapons (fig. 1).2 Fighting axes existed in Cen-tral Asia, the Himalayas, and China, but they do not appear to have been common. This ax head is made of forged, chiseled, and mercury-gilded iron, having a symmetrical and slightly curved blade, pierced cheek, and a square socket that extends into a long and slightly down curved beak.3 It is solidly built and fairly heavy, weighing 1354 g (2 lbs. 15 oz.). The blade has three concentric borders: a smoothly polished outer border, a sunken central border, and an inner „pearl“ border consisting of a band of recessed circles. Chiseled in low relief in the center of the cheek, within the inner border, is the head of a dragon or makara with a cluster of four round petals coming from its mouth. The center of each petal is hollowed out and probably once held a stone or jewel. Hooked iron pins around the center of each petal appa-rently served as bezels and may be working-life modifications. The rear of the dragon/makara head overlaps the back of the border, closest to the socket, and ends in a cloud or wave pattern. The socket is pierced vertically with an oval opening for the missing haft. Two transverse iron

1

Fig. 1: Ax head, probably Tibetan or Mongolian, ca. 13th - 16th cen-tury (?); iron and gold. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2008 (2008.158).

25.11.2013

pins on either side of the socket probably once secured the haft in place. This is corroborated by a small trace of wood around the shank of one of the pins on the inside of the socket. The beak extends seamlessly from the rear, or poll, of the socket and is faceted with flat and con-cave flutes that converge in a point at its extremity. Gilding at one time covered most of the ax head, excluding the cutting edge and the polished border around the edges of the socket and the facets of the beak. When viewed from above it is evident that the head is slightly inclined to the left in relation to the socket, indicating that it was designed to be wielded by a right-handed person. As stated above, nearly all known axes from a Tibetan or Mongolian context are either purely ritual objects or simple tools. In contrast, this example was made not only as a practical wea-pon, but has pierced and chiseled decoration, traces of extensive gilding, and was once embel-lishment with stones or jewels. Its qualities as a weapon are indicated by its weight and mass, the extremely solid nature of its construction, and the offset head. This combination of elabo-rate decoration with extreme functionality suggests it was made for an individual of high rank who was personally active in military affairs. Given the lack of comparative material, assigning a date to the ax head is very difficult. I have dated it provisionally to the thirteenth to sixteenth century because that is the time frame in which several of the more recently recognized rare and important pieces from Tibet originated. It could, however, be significantly older. Stylistically, the form of the pearl border, the makara-like dragon, and the four-petal motif could be as early as the seventh to eighth centuries.4 A very similar ax head in a private collection is the only closely comparable example that is known to exist currently, further emphasizing their rarity. Complicating the question of dating is the fact that mercury gilding directly on iron is extremely rare on Asian objects and, based on a survey of extant examples, seems not to have been used before the nineteenth century in Asia.5 Its presence on the ax head, however, could mean that the technique was known in the Himalayan region at an early date, largely forgotten, and then rediscovered much later. Equally rare and interesting is an all steel dagger and sheath (2004.75a, b) decorated overall with silver damascening (fig. 2). The total length of the dagger when in the sheath is 30.5 cm (12 in.). The hilt and the blade appear to be made from a single piece of steel. The single edged blade curves slightly towards the cutting edge and appears to have been ground down or somewhat reshaped from repeated sharpening. The base of the tubular hilt tapers so that about one quarter of its length seats within the top of the sheath. The ground of both hilt and sheath is mat black and entirely covered with a fine crosshatching pattern to receive the silver damascening; the blade is polished bright. The decoration of the sheath begins at the top with a narrow horizontal band filled with a pattern formed by interlocking Y motifs, known as the armor pattern in Chinese art; below this there is a slightly wider band with a dragon or chi-lin figure; running down the body of the sheath there is a series of five lotus and other blossoms arranged one above the other, the space between the blossoms being filled with foliate tendril scrolls. The hilt was originally decorated with similar blossoms and tendrils, but they are mostly lost due to corrosion except at the base of the hilt where it has been protected by the top of the sheath. The flat back edge of the blade is damascened with a simple repeating undulating scroll pattern. The combination of form and decoration found in this dagger appears to be unique. The style, technique, and execution of the decoration are characteristically Yuan or early Ming, compa-ring very closely with examples of Chinese and Tibetan ironwork thought to date from about the fifteenth century. The form of the dagger, on the other hand, has no known parallels in

2

Donald J. La Rocca

China or Tibet. The closest extant example is a dagger or short sword in the Kremlin Armou-ry (inv. no. 6527) that belonged to Prince Adrei Ivanovich.6 It is dated 1513, decorated with an Arabic inscription, and at 57.3 cm (22 1/2 in.) in length is nearly twice as long as the present example. Representations of two daggers that seem very similar to the Museum's example in both form and scale can be seen in two Mughal paintings of ca. 1600, one showing a captured Uzbek and the other a captured Turkman warrior.7 Based on its style and decora-tion, therefore, the Museum's dagger appears to be a precursor to these examples. It represents a previously unrecognized type, strongly influenced by Yuan and Ming decorative motifs and techniques, but probably originating in Mongolia or one of the Mongol khanates of central Asia or the Middle East sometime during the fourteenth or fifteenth century.

3

Recent Acquisitions of Tibetan and Mongolian Arms and Armor in the Metropolitan Museum of art

Fig. 2: Dagger and sheath, probably Central or West Asian, ca. 14th - 15th century; iron and silver. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Kenneth and Vivian Lam Gift, 2004 (2004.75a, b).

4

Donald J. La Rocca

The next item, generously donated to the Museum in 2004 by Bashir Mohamed and Rifaat Sheikh El-Ard, is a Chinese baton or bian (2004.205), which is distinguished by its elaborate-ly decorated hilt (fig. 3). Dating from the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), it was probably made between the mid-eighteenth and the early nineteenth century. It is uncertain if Chinese batons of this type, often called sword breakers, were intended as defensive weapons, perhaps analo-gous to Japanese hachiwara, or for exercise and training. There are two basic types, differenti-ated by their shafts: those with straight sided shafts are called jian, and those with shafts that resemble a length of segmented bamboo are called bian (literally „whip“). Both types almost always have very sturdy and purely functional hilts. In contrast to this, the Museum's examp-le has a hardstone grip and a vajra-like guard and pommel made of parcel gilt silver (fig. 4). The top and base of the grip are surrounded by a collar of stylized lotus petals formed by tur-quoise and coral set in a framework of gilt silver filigree. Both the guard and pommel feature three gilt silver prongs, each in the form of a stylized dolphin or makara head with arched extensions that may represent fins or a spray of water. A fourth prong is missing from both the guard and pommel. A very similar pair of batons is found in the Palace Museum, Beijing, suggesting that originally the Metropolitan Museum's example was also part of a pair.8 The sole piece of armor in the present group is a Tibetan helmet (2008.354) probably dating from the sixteenth to seventeenth century, which, although plain and undecorated, is none-theless a very good example of the classic eight-plate type (fig. 5).9 The helmet bowl is made up of eight overlapping plates and a plume finial, all joined by leather laces. The bowl com-prises four outer and four inner plates, overlapping in an alternating over and under pattern. The outer plates have two cusps on each side with rounded points, and a raised medial ridge. Each outer plate is pierced by eleven lacing holes. The inner plates are smooth and have fifteen

Fig. 3: Baton (bian), Chinese, Qing dynasty, 18th - 19th century; iron, silver, gold, turquoise, coral, and agate. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Bashir Mohamed and Rifaat Sheikh El-Ard, 2004 (2004.205).

Fig. 4: Detail of hilt of Chinese baton (2004.205).

5


lacing holes each. A sequence of lines is chiseled or incised in the center at the base of each plate, numbering from one to eight, to show the order in which the plates should be assem-bled. The plume finial has a central knop with a pair of raised horizontal lines above and below, and a funnel-like top. Its round base is pierced with four pairs of lacing holes. The components of the helmet are laced together correctly, but some of the laces are relatively recent replacements. The Metropolitan Museum of Art's collection of Tibetan and related helmets is one of the most extensive and varied in the world. However, until the purchase of this example in 2008, the eight-plate form was poorly represented by only two examples; one in mediocre condition (36.25.53a), and the other incomplete and composite (36.25.86). Although lacking the usual neck guard of pendant iron lamellae, helmet 2008.354 is distinguished by its well-matched and properly fitting components, which give it an overall graceful form that is lacking in many other examples. The luster of the iron, indicating the purity of the alloy, and the smooth curves of the plates suggest it is a relatively early example, probably no later than the seven-teenth century. Very few intact and complete helmets of this type have appeared on the mar-ket during the past ten to fifteen years, the majority being composite, in compromised con-dition, or entirely modern. The Museum's collection of Tibetan archery equipment consists of bow cases, quivers, deta-ched arrowheads, and now, thanks to the generosity of Jeremy Pine and Tashi Tsering, a group of twelve war arrows (2012.147.1-.12; see fig. 6).10 Complete Tibetan arrows, consisting of arrowheads still joined to their original shafts, are relatively rare. Most of what survives is in national collections in Great Britain (primarily the Royal Scottish Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum), but these appear to be relatively late in date and are largely for target shooting, hunting, and ceremonial use. Based on the style of their arrowheads, the group considered here appears to consist entirely of war arrows, which, due to their plainness and intended use, were much less likely to have been preserved.The arrows consist of an iron arrowhead on a hollow shaft of reed or bamboo. Each arrowhead is secured to the top of its shaft with a binding of reed or split cane. The nock at the opposi-te end is cut directly into the shaft, reinforced by another binding of reed or split cane imme-diately above the nock. Remains of feathers (fletching) are found on 2012.147.3, .5, and .9.

Fig. 5: Eight-plate helmet, Tibetan, 16 - 17th centu-ry; iron and leather. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2008 (2008.354).

6

Donald J. La Rocca

The arrowheads themselves are small and slender. Those on arrows 2012.147.1 and .4 have long waisted sockets that swell into short quadrangular points (fig. 7). The others all have short flaring sockets and quadrangular heads that draw to an acute point (fig. 8). All of the shafts have longitudinal splits in the top third to half, damage that is probably a natural occurrence due to aging. Arrowheads (mde'u) and arrows (mda') appear to be discussed in only one historical Tibetan text: The White Lotus Bouquet of Elegant Descriptions (legs bshad padma dkar po'i chun po), written by sngags 'chang (mantra holder) Humkaradzaya at an unknown date, but perhaps in the 18th century.11 A translation of the most relevant passage follows (with alternate versions cited in brackets).

In other arrowheads the iron should be equally pliable and hard, and it is best if the iron comes together at the extreme end in a strong sharp point. The intended uses of other individual types will be given in detail. Against heavy cloaks and armor the (arrowheads called) black beak (nag mchu) and small black (nag bran) are best. To destroy iron facemas-ks [B/C) against facemasks and iron helmets] the solid bodkin (gzhung thur khong med) type is best. Against the pale eastern shield a non-hollow (shong med) arrowhead is understood as the best method. In the three months of summer the best feathers for fletching arrows come from waterfowls. This is because in the summer months the feathers are flexible and not damaged by dampness. In the three months of winter the best are the wing feathers of white-tailed eagles. This is because in the winter months the uniform signs of wetness (on the waterfowl feathers) are undesirable. Reeds from Kongpo (for the shafts of the arrows) are thin and light and are best for distance arrows. These do not waver in midf-light and will travel far. Reeds from Tsang are filled up and thick and therefore best for strength. They are difficult to break or scrape.12

Fig. 6: Twelve arrows, Tibetan, 16th - 18th century; iron, reed or bamboo, and feathers. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Jeremy Pine, 2012 (2012.147.1-.12).

7


In addition to the names of arrowheads cited in the passage above, other Tibetan names for arrowheads included in the same chapter are: hawk beak (khra mchu), leaf (ldeb), small leaf (ldeb chung), wide and blunt (rgya ma rtse med), flesh splitter (sha 'brad), war arrow (dgra mda'), pig's tongue (phag lce), dog's tongue (khyi lce), and kholok (kho log) or golok (go log). In an effort to have a fuller representation of the many forms of arrowheads that were used for sport, hunting, and war on the Tibetan Plateau, the museum acquired a group of fourteen associated arrowheads (2011.502.1-.14) ranging in probable date from about the fifteenth century to the nineteenth century. All consist of an iron head with a tang and four retain the upper portion of their arrow shafts.13 The eight smaller arrowheads (2011.502.1-.8) may date from the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries and are said to have come from Ngari, in Western Tibet (fig. 9). The broadhead types (2011.502.1 and .2) are probably intended for war or hunting; the bodkin types (2011.502.4, .5, and .7) are purely war arrows, as are most likely the two barbed heads (2011.502.3 and .6); while the more spatulate head (2011.502.8) could be for target shooting

Fig. 7: Detail showing heads of arrows (2012.147.1-.4).

Fig. 8: Detail showing heads of arrows (2012.147.5-.8).

Fig. 9: Arrowheads, probably Tibetan, ca. 15th - 17th century (?); iron. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift 2011 (2011.502.1-.8).

Fig. 10: Arrowheads, probably Tibetan and Chinese, ca. 18th - 19th century; iron, reed, bark, and sinew. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift 2011 (2011.502.9-.14).

8

Donald J. La Rocca

or hunting. The six later arrowheads (2011.502.9-.14), dating from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries, appear to be for Qing hunting arrows, except for two (2011.502.12 and .13), which could be for hunting or military arrows (fig. 10). The one (2011.502.13), due to its crudeness, may be a late Tibetan or Mongolian copy of a Qing arrowhead.The next piece in the archery category is thought to be a Tibetan or Mongolian archer's bracer (2010.21; see fig. 11) dating from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century. If not a bracer, it is certainly some form of defensive armor. Measuring only 11.7 x 7 cm (4 ⅝ x 2 ¾ in.), it consists of a flat oval of hard leather that narrows at the center to give a bilobate form and has a slightly turned-down outer edge. Two holes, one on either edge in the center at the narro-west point, presumably are for a missing leather lace or strap to secure it to the wearer's

Fig. 11: Archer's bracer (?), Tibe-tan or Mongolian, 15th - 17th century; leather, shellac, gold, and pigments. The Metropolitan Muse-um of Art, Purchase, Funds from various donors, by exchange, 2010 (2010.21).

Fig. 12: Hand-held prayer wheel, Tibetan, 19th-20th century; jade, copper alloy, turquoise, glass, and paper. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Her-mes Knauer, in memory of Conrad P. A. Knauer, 2013 (2013.430a-b).

9


forearm. The surface is coated overall with a deep reddish-black shellac or varnish over a layer of reddish-orange shellac. In the center there is an oval area incised with the traditional sty-lized armor pattern, consisting of Y motifs interlocking to form a dense lattice pattern, with traces of gold leaf. This is surrounded by a plain reddish-black inner border and a slightly recessed border with traces of gold leaf. The outer edges have a border consisting of a wavy double line of reddish-orange shellac. The reverse is plain, with traces of the reddish-orange under layer of shellac showing through in spots. The materials, motifs, and the decorative technique using a form of shellac to simulate lacquer compare closely to examples of Tibetan or Mongolian leather armor (bse khrab), bow cases, and quivers.14 In a remarkably novel and possibly unique combination of the arts of war and peace, a jade archer's ring was repurposed to become the central drum of a small handheld Tibetan prayer wheel (ma ni lag skor) (2013.430a-c; see fig. 12).15 The archer's ring has been fitted with a band around its circumference and end caps at the top and bottom. These fittings are made of a copper alloy, decorated with filigree, and set with turquoise and glass stones, converting the ring into a closed drum that is mounted on a central axle. The shaped tube that covers the axle is made of green glass and appears to be adapted from a cigarette holder. When in use a prayer wheel is spun or rotated clockwise to release the power of the prayers or other auspi-cious writings that are placed within the drum, in this case a page from a biography of the Tibetan saint, Milarepa (mi la ras pa, 1052-1135). The page is a xylograph, printed from a woodblock in the rectangular format of a traditional Tibetan loose-leaf book, or dpe cha (fig. 13). A small ring on the band encircling the drum would have held a short chain ending in a counterweight, which facilitated the spinning motion of the drum. It is possible to speculate that by creating this diminutive prayer wheel from an archer's ring and a cigarette holder, its original owner wished to symbolize a pious vow or the renunciation of worldly practices such as archery and smoking. If this were the case then the choice of an auspicious text about Milarepa for inclusion within the prayer wheel would have been apt, since the saint was vio-lent and vengeful in his youth, but repented and became an enlightened being later in life.

Fig. 13: Recto of xylographic folio page from interior of prayer wheel, Tibetan, probably 18th-19th century; paper and ink. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Hermes Knauer, in memory of Conrad P. A. Knauer, 2013 (2013.430c).

10

Donald J. La Rocca

The Tibetan matchlock muskets surveyed in Warriors of the Himalayas ranged from plain wor-kaday guns to finely decorated examples. Of the latter, one miniature musket (cat. no. 103) was created to be used as a votive object or in some other religious or ceremonial context. Although cruder in its construction and decoration, a small Mongolian or Siberian snaphaunce gun (acc. no. 2005.34) was probably made for similar purposes (fig. 14). However, it is also possible that this gun was made as a scaled down version of a full sized firearm for a small boy. The gun is 41.3 cm (16 1/4 in.) in overall length. Its smooth bore .50 caliber (12.7 mm) barrel has a slightly flaring octagonal muzzle, two moldings, rear leaf sight, and front bead sight. The center of each molding is overlaid with a strip of brass and the front sight consists of a brass bead. The top of the barrel is selectively crosshatched and damascened with silver decoration consisting of scrollwork and a central quatrefoil rosette flanked by a pattern of straight lines and circles. The barrel is attached to the plain wooden stock by two simple barrel bands made of thin copper strips. On the underside of the fore-stock there is a rectan-gular protrusion pierced with a transverse hole for the attachment of the two prongs or horns (missing) that would serve as a gun-rest. The lock is a Russian style snaphaunce, recognizable by its prominent external mainspring that engages the toe of the cock and by the cocking ring, a loop on the rear of the top jaw of the cock.17 The lock is secured to the stock by a single transverse rivet, which passes through the center of the lockplate and is peened over the wood on the opposite of the stock. There is no sideplate. The highly unusual and rudimenta-ry trigger/sear mechanism consists of a slim bar that is attached at one end to the cocking ring. The lower part of the bar passes through a staple on the side of the stock and the bar is notched to engage the staple. The barrel is the best made element of the gun and, based on it form and decoration, could date from seventeenth century to the nineteenth century. The simple workmanship of the lock makes its date indeterminate, but this style of Russian lock generally dates from the seventeenth century. The stock could be late nineteenth or early to mid-twentieth century. The next item relating to firearms is a scissor type bullet mold (2009.105) that probably dates from the late seventeenth to the late nineteenth century and comes from Tibet, Nepal, or Bhutan (fig. 15). This form of bullet mold appears to be otherwise unknown in the Himala-yas. It is modeled after the pincer or tong type of bullet mold that was used in Europe from the early sixteenth century, becoming increasingly common and remaining the principal form

Fig. 14: Miniature snaphaunce gun, Mongolian, 17th - 19th century; iron and wood. The Metropolitan Muse-um of Art, Fletcher Fund, 2005 (2005.34).

11


of bullet mold for European firearms until the middle of the nineteenth century. The standard bullet mold from the Himalayan region is a two-piece mold made from a small square or rectangular block of soapstone, or a similar material, with half round recesses carved in the facing side of each half for casting round musket balls.18 It is referred to in Tibetan as mdel par or rde'u par. Such stone molds were the primary form of bullet molds in Asia through the nineteenth century and were still actively being used in Tibet during the early twentieth century. On this example the head, or mold proper, is made in two halves that extend into two arms, which cross over each other and pivot in the manner of pincers or scissors. The rivet on which the arms pivot has an incised brass washer. The two halves of the head form a square with rounded edges and a short tapering socket, from which the arms extend. The lower third of the arms are turned outward and back on themselves to form closed loops. The inner face of each half of the head is flat with a central hemispherical recess with the sprue (a funnel-like cavity) at the top and single vent set at an angle. On the flats of the proper left half there are two pegs (one missing) and on the right two corresponding holes, which would keep the halves properly aligned when closed. The bullet mold is made entirely of iron, with the head and socket clad overall in sheet brass. There is what may be a number or letter character inci-sed on the outside of the proper right half of the head. The socket has a beaded edge and is engraved with stylized lotus petals in the manner of a lotus throne, which is often used to form the base of Buddhist sculptures.Given that this is the only known example of a Himalayan bullet mold of this form, it could be argued that, rather than bullets, it was intended for the production of traditional Tibetan medicinal pills, also known as precious jewel pills (ril bu or rin chen ril bu), which are made of herbal and precious substances and are usually blessed to increase their efficacy in treating various ailments. However, the shape of the sprue opening at the top of the mold and presence of a vent running diagonally from the cavity of the mold indicate that it was designed for casting molten metal. This coupled with its remarkable similarity to European bullet molds make it reasonably certain that it was designed solely for casting lead bullets. Tibetan bullet pouches (mdel shubs or mde'u shubs) were usually carried in conjunction with a powder flask or priming flask and a fire-steel. Sometimes all of these accessories, along with powder chargers, were worn together, suspended from a bandolier.19 Bullet pouches are made

Fig. 15: Bullet mold, Himalayan, 17th - 19th century; iron and brass. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Kenneth and Vivian Lam Gift, 2009 (2009.105).

12

Donald J. La Rocca

of leather and have two principal shapes: an asymmetrical pouch that has one long straight side and one short curved side; and a pouch that resembles an inverted broadleaf or spade shape. Some of the asymmetrical pouches have limited decoration in the form of stitched borders and leather appliqués. Other than the present example (2004.341a, b), however, the spade shaped pouches are made of plain leather and are undecorated (fig. 16). In addition to the bosses, this pouch is also unusual for its sliding lid, a feature otherwise unknown on Tibe-tan bullet pouches. It is made of dark and fairly stiff leather. There are twelve dome-shaped iron bosses, damascened in gold and silver, attached along the seams at the edges of the front of the pouch (seven bosses on the top and five on the bottom). Five of the bosses on the top are pierced and decorated with lotus petals and cloud or ju-i motifs. The solid bosses are decorated with the whirling emblem (dga’ ‘khyil). A loop, made of a flat strip of leather, is stitched to the neck of the bottom half of the pouch. The loop passes through an opening in the center of the top half or lid of the pouch. The lid can be slid up and down along the loop to open or close the pouch (fig. 17). As with other Tibetan bullet pouches, the neck of the pouch has to be squeezed between the thumb and fingers to create an opening that allows the bullets to be poured out. The damascened iron bosses relate very closely to fittings of the same type found on Tibetan horse trappings.20 The similarity is great enough to suggest that this pouch may have been made as part of a matching set that also included elaborate horse tack or other accoutrements.21

Fig. 16: Bullet pouch, Tibetan, probably 16th - 17th century; leather, iron, gold, and silver. The Metropoli-tan Museum of Art, Purchase, Bernice and Jerome Zwanger Gift, 2004 (2004.341a, b).

Fig. 17: Bullet pouch (2004.341a, b) with lid in raised position.

13


Equestrian equipment from Tibet is often noteworthy for the variety of its materials, decora-tive techniques, and iconography. This is particularly evident, in vastly differing levels of elaboration and quality, on saddles, bridles, tack, stirrups, and horse armor.22 The majority of surviving Tibetan shaffrons are purely functional pieces of horse armor, with minimal, if any, decoration. One of the few outstanding exceptions to that rule is this example (2008.291), a frontal plate with hinged poll plate from the center of a shaffron (fig. 18). Originally, it must have been part of an extremely elaborate set of horse armor belonging to a high-ranking Tibe-tan or Mongolian nobleman. It is the only known example decorated in this style, with dra-gons amid scrollwork, pierced, chiseled, and engraved on a thick iron ground, and damasce-ned in gold and silver (fig. 19). The same materials, techniques, and motifs are often seen, but usually executed on a thinner iron ground, on Tibetan saddle plates, ritual objects such as censures, and other iron luxury items, including pen cases, cup cases, and the reinforcing iron straps found on the principal doors of important temples and monasteries. Perhaps its closest parallel in scale, depth, and sheer mass is the fragment of a cross-strap from a temple or mona-stery door in the Smithsonian.23 Of the roughly one dozen Tibetan shaffrons known to exist the majority are very plain, with little or no decoration. One of the best and most complete examples of this undecorated type is in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.24 Others have hin-ged poll and nose plates pierced with very crude scrollwork, and some have simple trim or accents in sheet copper, including one in the Victoria & Albert Museum.25 Prior to the appea-rance of this frontal and poll plate, the only known Tibetan shaffron with truly notable deco-ration was another in the Metropolitan Museum, which, however, is worked in a completely

Fig. 18: Frontal plate and poll plate from a shaffron, Tibetan, 16th - 17th century; iron, gold, and silver. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2008 (2008.291).

Fig. 19: Detail from center of shaffron frontal plate (2008.291).

14

Donald J. La Rocca

different manner, being richly decorated with a textile-like pattern in gold and silver damas-cening on its flat iron plates.26 This frontal and poll plate is not only an extraordinary object, very beautiful and finely made, but is also one that significantly expands our knowledge of Tibetan horse armor. The practice of adorning Asiatic saddles with gold or silver plates originated among the nomads on the steppes of Central Asia in the fourth or fifth century. Saddle plates made of pierced iron, however, and decorated with gold or silver damascening, do not occur for appro-ximately another thousand years. The fact that they are found mainly in Tibet, and also in China, suggests that pierced iron saddle plates were an innovation of Tibetan or Mongolian craftsmen during the Yuan dynasty. One very early and unusual pierced iron pommel plate (2010.336), for the front, or pommel, of a saddle, shows distinct Mongol influence (fig. 20). It is finely crosshatched and damascened overall in silver with highlights in gold and is slight-ly concave in profile. The ground of the plate is pierced with a dense array of thin leafy ten-drils or branches with scattered flower blossoms, including stylized peony designs. Narrow horizontal borders divide the ground into one large upper field and two small lower fields. The upper field features a tiger in the center, which is being attacked from either side by a horseman. The rider on the right thrusts a long spear at the tiger. The rider on the left turns in the saddle to shoot an arrow back at the tiger over the crupper of his horse. Both riders have Asiatic features and wear Mongolian style hats and belted ankle-length tunics that fasten up the center of their torsos. Gold highlights are found on the riders' hats and belts, the horses' ears, eyes, and tack, the saddle fenders, the tiger's ears, and in the center of some flower blos-soms. The two smaller lower fields fill the remainder of the plate and feature a crouching deer-like animal and a flower blossom respectively. There is a narrow border around the edges of the plate, pierced with thirteen small holes for the nails to attach the plate to a saddle tree. The reverse of the plate is undecorated.

Fig. 20: Pommel plate from a saddle, Tibetan or West Asian, 13th - 15th century; iron, gold, and silver. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2010 (2010.336).

Fig. 21: Cantle plate from a saddle, Tibetan or Chi-nese, 16th - 18th century; iron, gold, and silver. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Gift, 2008 (2008.122).

15


The pierced foliate ground and damascening technique of this plate relate closely to the work on various Tibetan ceremonial saddles. However, unlike most Tibetan examples, it is made from a relatively thin sheet of iron that is pierced and engraved, rather than from thicker iron that is pierced and then chiseled in low relief. It is also important to note that it is the only known saddle plate featuring human figures or a secular scene of any kind, in this case a tiger hunt. While not found in Tibetan art, very similar hunting scenes do occur frequently on early 14th century Persian metalwork, particularly candlesticks, from the Ilkhanate, a state founded by the Mongols in Persia in the thirteenth century. The combination of Tibetan materials and techniques, designs from Ilkhanate metalwork, and the Mongolian headdresses and features of the hunters, point to this saddle plate having been made in the thirteenth or fourteenth century, possibly as late as the fifteenth century, either for a Mongol patron in Persia or in Tibet, taking Ilkhanate designs as its inspiration.27 Despite the conjectural nature of its date and place of origin, this saddle plate is important for its unique iconography and also because it demonstrates the adaptation of forms, styles, and techniques generated by the Mongols in their steady drive westward across Central Asia and towards the Middle East.On some saddles the plate covering the cantle (the rise at the rear of the seat) is made in two halves. A top quality example of that practice is seen in this plate (2008.122), which comes from the right half of the cantle of what must have been an extremely luxurious ceremonial saddle, made in either Tibet or China for the Tibetan market in the sixteenth to eighteenth century (fig. 21). It is made from a single piece of iron intricately pierced, chiseled, and damascened overall in gold with silver highlights. The design consists of five undulating dragons on a dense and finely pierced scrollwork ground. The main field has two larger five-claw dragons and is separated by a row of beads from a narrower field with three smaller dragons. The dragons are damascened in gold with silver highlights on the faces and horns. The upper layer of the scrollwork is damascened in gold, while the lower layer is damascened in silver. In a subtle touch that adds to its overall richness, the beads are alternately damasce-ned in gold and silver. The plain narrow border along the outer edges is heavily damascened in silver. At the top edge, where the two halves of the cantle would meet at the center, there is the right half of a symmetrical lotus motif. The most recent and complex item in this survey is a complete saddle (2008.81a) that is distinguished by elaborate mounts consisting of intricately modeled gilt copper plates set with turquoise (fig. 22). The saddle belonged to Yuthok Tashi Dundrup (g.yu thog bkra shis don grub, 1906–1983), a Tibetan nobleman and government official, who had it made in Derge around the time that he became governor general of Eastern Tibet (mdo smad spyi khyab) in 1942.28 The prominent use of turquoise (g.yu) in the decoration it very likely an allusion to the owner's family name, Yuthok (g.yu thog, literally „turquoise roof“). The saddle demons-trates beautifully the long tradition of finely made and ornately decorated ceremonial saddles that flourished in Tibet from at least the early fifteenth century until the mid-twentieth cen-tury, near the end of the period at which Tibet was still an independent, pre-industrial, and theocratic society. Derge (in present-day Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province, China), where the saddle was made, was a renowned center for decorative metal-work.29 The saddle is very important for its great quality, for being one of the few extant ceremonial saddles for which the original patron can be identified, and as an excellent and verifiable example of late Derge metalwork in the sde dge gser tshag style.30

The saddle consists of a four-part wooden saddletree fitted with six pierced and gilt copper saddle plates of exceptionally fine quality mounted on the pommel, cantle, and front and back

16

Donald J. La Rocca

end-boards; and a brocaded silk saddle cushion attached by four pierced and gilt copper bosses. The saddle plates are decorated with large undulating dragons on a pierced scrollwork ground, backed with red silk. In the center of the pommel plate there is a flaming wish-ful-filling jewel motif above a mask (tzi pa tra or kirttimukha) and flanked by a pair of four-clawed dragons with a pearl or jewel in each paw (fig. 23). The jewels of the forepaws are made of flat disks of turquoise set in shallow bezels, while those of the rear paws are part of the copper repoussé. There are additional inset turquoise disks at the center top and bottom of the pom-mel plate and at either side, for a total of eight (one of which is missing). The borders of the plate are decorated with a narrow band of dragons, phoenixes, and auspicious symbols on scrollwork. The cantle has the same design and motifs, but in different proportions, and seven inset turquoise disks. The four end-board plates are each decorated with a single undulating upright dragon on a scrollwork ground, with borders matching the pommel and cantle plates. The saddle cushion is covered with a Japanese silk fabric, possibly karaori (lit. Chinese weave), that has a repeating pattern of pairs of white and red birds (possibly Mandarin ducks) alter-

Fig 22: Saddle made for Yuthok Tashi Dundrup, Tibetan, ca. 1942-46; copper alloy, gold, tur-quoise, wood, textile, and leather. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and Kenneth and Vivian Lam Gifts; funds from various donors, by exchange; Laird and Kathleen Landmann and Bernice and Jerome Zwanger Gifts; and funds from various donors, 2008 (2008.81a).

Fig. 23: Detail of pommel plate of saddle (2008.81a).

17


nating with roundels containing a lion in blue and yellow, all on a pale green ground with a reticular pattern in gold stripes.31 The reverse is lined with plain blue cotton. Each of the four cushion bosses is decorated with a central medallion having a frontal dragon, its head in the center of the boss, and a narrow border of dragons and phoenixes, all on a pierced scrollwork ground. The Tibetan words sbrang sga are written in pencil in dbu med script on the bare wood of the saddletree on the top of the pommel and the cantle, beneath the saddle cushion. Lite-rally meaning „honey saddle,“ this probably indicates that the saddle tree is made of honey wood (sbrang shing). The accompanying tack for the saddle is also said to have come from Derge at the same time as the saddle. It includes a pair of stirrups, bridle, crupper, two tassels, and a breast collar (fig. 24). The stirrups (2008.81b, c) are made of cast, pierced, and gilt copper (fig. 25). Each one has a pair of large dragonheads cast in high relief and partially pierced. The arms are decorated with a vase and floral stalk motif and the rectangular treads are pierced in the center with the coin motif.The bridle (2008.81d) comprises a snaffle bit linked by square iron fittings to leather straps that are faced with silk brocade (fig. 26). The straps have five rectangular fittings of pierced iron damascened overall in gold and decorated with undulating dragons on a scrollwork

Fig. 24: Saddle and matching set of tack made for Yuthok Tahsi Dundrup, Tibetan, ca. 1942-46; iron, copper alloy, gold, turquoise, wood, textile, and leather. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Purchase, Arthur Ochs Sulz-berger and Kenneth and Vivian Lam Gifts; funds from various donors, by exchange; Laird and Kathleen Land-mann and Bernice and Jerome Zwanger Gifts; and funds from various donors, 2008 (2008.81a-h).

18

Donald J. La Rocca

Fig. 25: Stirrups, Tibetan, ca. 1942-46; copper alloy and gold (2008.81b, c).

Fig. 26: Bit and bridle, Tibetan, ca. 1942-46; iron, gold, leather, and textile (2008.81d).

Fig. 27: Crupper, Tibetan, ca. 1942-46; iron, gold, leather, and textile (2008.81e).

Fig. 28: Tassel socket, Tibetan, ca. 1942-46; iron, gold, and textile (2008.81f).

19


ground. These fittings and the corresponding pierced iron fittings on the crupper and breast collar appear to be a matched set. Based on their quality and style, the fittings may date from the eighteenth or nineteenth century and were remounted for the Yuthok commission in the 1940s. If contemporary with the commission, however, they demonstrate that the quality of Derge pierced ironwork remained very high even in this late period.32

The crupper (2008.81e) is designed to attach to the rear pair of end-boards of the saddle, extend over the horse's rump, and loop under its tail (fig. 27). The rectangular fittings on the crupper straps are made of pierced iron damascened overall in gold and each is decorated with a single dragon on a pierced scrollwork ground. The central fitting is a raised box-like boss decorated with a frontal dragon in the center. The square pad beneath the central boss is faced with blue silk that is brocaded with a repeating pattern of English words, possibly from Bri-tish India.33 The crupper straps are faced with silk matching that of the bridle and breast collar. The two rear straps are joined to the semicircular tail bolster by flat rings. Three silk lappets extend from the outer edge of the bolster. The lappets are covered with red silk bro-caded in silver thread with foliage designs and stylized Chinese characters meaning „double happiness,“ usually associated with weddings or conjugal bliss. The two tassels (2008.81f, g) would have been suspended from beneath the horse's chin and from the center of the breast collar. The tassel sockets are bell-shaped, fitted with a swivel ring at the top, and, like the other fittings, made of pierced iron damascened overall in gold (fig. 28). The upper third of each socket has the form of a stylized lotus throne, and the lower portion is decorated with undulating dragons on a scrollwork ground. A long tassel of red strings hangs from each socket.The breast collar (2008.81h) is a red leather strap made in three jointed sections, faced with silk brocade matching that of the bridle and crupper, and decorated with five rectangular fittings of pierced iron, also matching those on the bridle and crupper (fig. 29). There is a fixed loop at one end of each fitting that engages a ring between the sections of the strap. The buckle and the rings are damascened in gold, like the fittings.Arms and armor figure prominently in Tibetan art and iconography as the accoutrements of many Tibetan deities, the Dharma Kings, and various guardian figures.34 Depictions of indi-vidual weapons or elements of armor sometimes also appear in the borders or lower registers of depictions of wrathful or protective deities, generally symbolizing the taming or destruc-tion of negative emotions or various types of evil by different aspects of Buddhist teachings and compassion.35 While they are often hard to pick out among the lively arrangement of designs in many Tibetan thangkha paintings, a representative selection of individual weapons and armor is clearly shown in this woodblock print (fig. 30).36 Probably produced in Tibet or Mongolia in the nineteenth century, the print is a single dpe cha page and comes from an uni-dentified book that may have discussed the rituals and objects involved with propitiating wrathful deities.37 The three items on the left, from left to right, are a lasso or snare (zhags pa), ritual dagger (phur pa), and sword of wisdom (shes rab ral gri). At the center top there is a skull crown (thod skam rigs rgyan) of the type that would adorn the headdress of a wrathful deity. Beneath this is a stylized armor (khrab) for the arms, torso, and hips. Near the top of the armor is a circle representing a polished metal disk known as a „heart-mirror“ (thugs gsal me long) or „mind-mirror“ (thugs kyi me long). In its center is the seed syllable kyai, which is an attribute of the guardian deity Begtse and possibly indicates that all of the elements on the page are accoutrements of Begtse.38 Often such heart-mirrors also were part of the ceremonial trap-pings worn by oracles when channeling deities.39 At the end of the sleeve on the right side of

20

Donald J. La Rocca

the armor is a tadpole-like emblem that represents lungs and a heart (glo snying), which were frequently depicted among the offerings to wrathful deities.40 The first weapon to the right is a spear (mdung) with a yak-tail tassel (mdung 'dzar) and a long flowing banner (mdung dar). Next to this is an arrow (mda') and a bow (gzhu), which together may symbolize wisdom and compassion. At the far right is another spear, in this instance with a short triangular pennon below the spearhead and a flowing banner beneath that, perhaps representing one of two types of spears used by oracles and called rten mdung or btsan mdung. The relative flood of Tibetan and related arms and armor that appeared on the art market in the early 1990s has slowed to a trickle. Nevertheless, as the objects in this and the previous article show, the individual items that occasionally surface still have the potential to signifi-cantly expand and enhance our knowledge and appreciation of this endlessly fascinating subject.

Fig. 29: Breast collar, Tibetan, ca. 1942-46; iron, gold, leather, and textile (2008.81h).

Fig. 30: Woodblock print, Tibetan or Mongolian, ca. 19th century. Private collection.

21


Notes

1 See Waffen-und Kostümkunde, 2008 Heft 2, pp. 19-32. The exhibition Warriors of the Hima-layas was held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art between April and July of 2006. For the catalogue see Donald J. La Rocca, with essays by John Clarke, Amy Heller, and Lozang Jamspal, Warriors of the Himalayas: Rediscovering the Arms and Armor of Tibet (New York, New Haven, and London, 2006).

2 On this point see Warriors of the Himalayas, cat. no. 89, p. 185.3 I am grateful to Mark Wypyski, Research Scientist, Metropolitan Museum of Art, for

analyzing the ax and confirming the presence of mercury in the gold (personal communi-cation, April 17, 2008).

4 I am grateful to James Watt and Jeremy Pine for their opinions on the possible early dating (personal communication, May 6, 2008 and March 26, 2010).

5 On the question of the use of mercury gilding directly on iron objects in Tibet see Warri-ors of the Himalayas, p. 15, cat. no. 19, p. 85, and cat. no. 124, p. 234-5.

6 See Yuri Miller, Russian Arms and Armour (Leningrad, 1982), pl. 35.7 These are illustrated in Susan Stronge, Painting for the Mughal Emperor: The Art of the Book,

1560-1660 (London, 2002), pls. 80-81. 8 See Armaments and Military Provisions: The Complete Collection of Treasures of the Palace Muse-

um (Hong Kong, 2008), no. 278, p. 260. Described as: „Iron whip in pestle shape, Qing dynasty, length 104 cm, Qing Court collection. A whip made of iron. Its main body is corrugated like a bamboo stalk. The top and the bottom of its handle are made of iron in the shape of Mount Sumeru, and are decorated with curving dragons. The handle appears like a vajra, a Buddhist ritual instrument. Its middle part is an iron rod wrapped around with fitted wooden material.“ I am very grateful to Dr. Shi-yee Liu of the Metropolitan Museum of Art for providing the preceding translation.

9 For a discussion of Tibetan eight-plate helmets see Warriors of the Himalayas, catalogue numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 8.

10 For an overview of Tibetan archery equipment and examples in the museum's collection see Warriors of the Himalayas, especially pp. 187-197.

11 The three reprinted versions of this text that have been consulted are: A) Tashi Tsering, ed. Brtag thabs padma dkar po'i 'chun po: A Reproduction of an Incomplete Manuscript of a Verse Work on the Appraisal and Appreciation of Omens, Precious Objects, Weapons, and Other Possessi-ons, by Snags-'chan Hum-ka-ra-dza-ya, Delhi, 1979 (pp. 65-66); B) legs par bshad pa padma dkar po'i chun po: A Treatise Describing the Qualities and Criteria for Appraisal and Appreciati-on of Omens, Precious Objects, Weapons, and Other Possessions…reproduced from a rare manuscript belonging to Jokhang Lama Gyaltsen, Gangtok, 1981 (pp. 108-110); and C) chab spel tshe brtan phun tshogs, ed. bzo rigs nyer mkho bdams bsgrigs (A Compilation of Selected Texts on Important Crafts), Lhasa, 1990 (pp. 243-245). The translation of the excerpt cited here is my own.

12 mde'u gzhan rnams lcags gnyen [C mnyen] ngar snyoms zhing/ thar [C mthar] thon lcags 'gril [B 'khril/C mkhregs] rno ba bzang ba lags/ gzhan ma [B/C yang] so so'i dgongs [C dgos] pa zhib par bya/ ber dang khrab la nag mchu nag phran [C na mchu na bran] bzang/ gdong lcags rlog [B gdong dang lcags rmog/C gdong lcags rmog] la gzhung thur khong med [C kho bde] bzang/ skya shar phub la shong med rtog thabs bzang [B shong med stag 'thom 'byung/C gshong med rtog thom bzang]/ dbyar zlum gsum la chu bya mda' sgro bzang/ de ni dbyar dus gnyer [C mnyen] zhing sher

22

Donald J. La Rocca

[C gsher] mi 'jig [B/C 'dzin]/ dgun zla gsum la thang dkar sgro bshog bzang/ 'di ni dgun dus bshad [B sher/C shed] (gsher) snyoms rje [B rdzas/C sjis] (rjes) mi 'dod/ long skug [B kong snyug/C kong smyug] srab cing yang na [B yangs pa/C yang ba] rgyang la [B ma] bzang/ de ni bar du mi g.yo ring du 'gro/ rtsang skug [B gtsang snyug/C rtsu smyug] khengs shing sha rgyas tshabs [B tshab/C mtshams] la bzang/ 'di ni bsil (gsil) zhing zhar [B/C gzhar] ba dka' ba yin.

13 Based on images of these shafts Peter Dekker commented (personal communication, Octo-ber 10, 2011) that „the wooden shafts were usually wrapped in sinew, which in turn was covered by bark. For this purpose they used different kinds of bark, mainly birch, peach or cherry. The black ones are black dyed peach bark; the reddish ones are usually Tibetan cherry, or prumus serrula. Functionally, the sinew shrinks when it dries, tightening the shaft's hold on the tang. The membrane of the bark in turn helps to regulate the moistu-re content in the sinew. It should not be too dry, but certainly not too wet because the glue will start to fail when wet for too long. The tanged construction is much stronger than a socketed one, where the force of the impact is concentrated right behind the head, which is prone to snapping.“ I am grateful to Mr. Dekker for this and other comments relating to these arrowheads.

14 For examples see Warriors of the Himalayas, particularly the chapters on leather armor and archery equipment.

15 This prayer wheel was generously lent to the exhibition, Warriors of the Himalayas (Metro-politan Museum of Art, April 5 - July 2, 2006) by the late Conrad P. Knauer. Unfortuna-tely, it was not added to the exhibition in time to be included in the catalogue. Mr. Knauer was given the prayer wheel by his son, Hermes Knauer, who acquired it in New York in the mid-1980s from James F. Carr.

16 Warriors of the Himalayas, pp. 198-209.17 For examples of this lock type see Leonid Tarassuk, Russian Pistols in the Seventeenth Centu-

ry (London, 1968), pp. 14-15 and figs. 12-15, and 17; and Howard L. Blackmore, Guns and Rifles of the World, (London, 1965), p. 32 and plates 158-159. I am also grateful to Philip Tom for his thoughts on this gun (personal communications, 2004).

18 For an example see Warriors of the Himalayas, cat. no. 109. 19 See Warriors of the Himalayas, cat. nos. 46, 106, 107, and 110.20 Compare especially two Tibetan bridles in the MMA (acc. no. 2005.73a, b and 1998.292)

and a group of detached harness bosses (acc. nos. 2002.17.1 - 19). See Warriors of the Hima-layas, cat. nos. 134, 135 and 133 respectively.

21 A pouch of similar form and construction, with a lid of almost identical shape, was inclu-ded in an Islamic art sale at Christie's in London, April 27, 2004, lot 100. It was catalo-gued as „a painted leather purse, probably Safavid Iran, 17th century.“

22 See Warriors of the Himalayas, especially the sections on horse armor and other equestrian equipment, pp. 96-115 and 214-251.

23 Ibid., inv. no. E420071, cat. no. 11424 Ibid., acc. no. 1997.242d, cat. no. 2825 Ibid., inv. no. IM.73-1910, cat. no. 2926 Ibid., acc. no. 2004.402, cat. no. 27, pp. 100-101.27 I am very grateful to James Watt and Stefano Carboni for looking at this saddle plate and

offering their opinions about its style and possible date range.28 Yuthok Tashi Dundrup held the post from 1942-46. At various times he was also an army

general (mda' dpon), a judge (khrims dpon), and one of four senior cabinet ministers (bka'

23


blon) of the traditional Tibetan government. For details of his life and career see The House of the Turquoise Roof, written by his first wife, Dorje Yudon Yuthok (Ithaca, New York, 1995); and yab gzhis g.yu thog sa dbang dam pa bkra shis don grub mchog gi sku tshe'i byung ba che long tsam ma bcos lhug par brjod pa bzhugs so (Biographical Account of Yabshe Yuthok Sawang Tashi Dhondup), written by his second wife, Tsering Dolkar Yuthok (g.yu thog tshe ring sgrol dkar) (Dharamshala, 2002). I am very grateful to Tsering Dolkar Yuthok and her daughter, Tsezom Yuthok, for providing me with a copy of the second book and for con-firming many facts about the history of the saddle. I am also indebted to Yangchen Lakar for putting me in touch with members of the Yuthok family and for much useful infor-mation.

29 Concerning the reputation of Derge as a center for fine metalwork see John Clarke, „A History of Ironworking in Tibet: Centers of Production, Styles, and Techniques,“ Warriors of the Himalayas, pp. 21-33, see esp. p. 29; and William Woodville Rockhill, „Notes on the Ethnology of Tibet: Based on the Collections of the United States National Museum,“ Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution…for the Year Ending 1893: Report of the U.S. National Museum, pp. 665-747, see esp. pp. 692, 695-6, 705, 712-3, 716-7, and 740.

30 Literally „Derge pierced gold,“ usually referring to pierced, chiseled, and gilt ironwork, or, as in this case, gilt copper. For another important saddle with a known owner see the saddle made in Derge in the 1930s for Surkhang Wangchen Tseten when he served as governor of eastern Tibet (Metropolitan Museum of Art, accession no. 2005.427.1; War-riors of the Himalayas, cat. no. 126, pp. 242-243; but note that the acc. no. is cited incor-rectly as 2005.48.1).

31 I am grateful to Joyce Denney for suggestions about the textile components.32 The form, workmanship, design, decoration, and quality of the iron fittings are almost

identical with those on the corresponding elements of tack that accompany the nearly contemporary Surkhang saddle mentioned above, specifically the tassel sockets (2005.427a, b); bridle (2005.427.7); breast collar (2005.427.9); and crupper (2005.427.10).

33 The pad on the crupper (2005.247.6) of the Surkhang saddle (2005.427.1) mentioned above also incorporates an unusual western textile: the underside of the pad is covered by a square of printed cotton with the design of bikini-clad women amid palm trees.

34 On this subject see Amy Heller's essay, „Armor and Weapons in the Iconography of Tibe-tan Buddhist Deities,“ Warriors of the Himalayas, pp. 34-41.

35 For an overview the symbolism see Robert Beer, The Encyclopedia of Tibetan Symbols and Motifs (Boston, 1999), especially chapter 10, „The Wheel of Sharp Weapons,“ pp. 232-310.

36 For an example of a Tibetan thangka painting including several of these elements, see Vaishravana and the Nine Dralha Brothers (Newark Museum, no. 72.159) illustrated in Valrae Reynolds et al., From the Sacred Realm: Treasures of Tibetan Art from the Newark Muse-um (Prestel Verlag, 1999), pp. 206-207.

37 I am grateful to E. Gene Smith for this suggestion (personal communication, October 27, 2009).

38 The connection with Begtse was pointed out to me by Amy Heller (personal communica-tion, May 30, 2013). In addition to Dr. Heller's essay in Warriors of the Himalayas cited above, for further discussion of the iconography and attributes of Begtse see her article, „Historic and Iconographic Aspects of the Protective Deities Srung-ma dmar-nag,“ in

24

Donald J. La Rocca

Shoren Ihara and Zuiho Yamaguchi, eds., Tibetan Studies: Proceedings of the 5th Siminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Narita, 1989, pp. 479-92 (Narita, 1992).

39 See, for instance, René de Nebesky-Wojkowitz, Oracles and Demons of Tibet (Graz, 1975), p. 411.

40 See Beer 1999, p. 311-313.41 See Nebesky-Wojkowitz 1975, pp. 414-413.

List of figures

Fig. 1-29: Metropolitan Museum of Art, New YorkFig. 30: Private collection (photograph by author)

Zusammenfassung

Die Abteilung für Waffen und Rüstungen im Metropolitan Museum of Art hat eine der umfangreichsten und vielfältigsten Sammlungen von Harnischen, Waffen und Pferdegeschirr aus Tibet und Umgebung. Der Sammlung war 2006 die große Ausstellung und der Katalog Warriors of the Himalayas: Rediscovering the Arms and Armor of Tibet gewidmet. Der Fortgang der Forschung sowie die Erweiterung der Sammlung nach dieser Ausstellung war Thema des ersten Teils dieses Beitrags in der Waffen- und Kostümkunde 2008 (Heft 2, Seite 19-32). Der vorliegende Artikel setzt diesen mit einer Sichtung der Objekte fort, die das Museum in den Jahren 2008 bis 2013 erwarb. Behandelt werden typische, teils eigentümliche Waffen, eine Sammlung von Kriegspfeilen, Rossharnische, dekorierte Sattelplatten vom 13. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert und ein vollständiges Set von Sattel und Geschirr aus den vierziger Jahren des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts.

Recent Acquisitions of Tibetan and Mongolian Arms and Armor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (part...

Documents

Transcript of Recent Acquisitions of Tibetan and Mongolian Arms and Armor in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (part...