Monastic Fingerprints Tracing Ritual Practice in the Rock ... 2017.pdfGiuseppe Vignato The rock...

Indo-Asiatische Zeitschrift 20/21 % 2016-17: 22-38

Monastic Fingerprints – Tracing Ritual Practicein the Rock Monastery of Qizil through

Archaeological Evidence

Giuseppe Vignato

The rock monasteries of the ancient kingdom of Ku…a(China, Xinjiang) were monastic settlements planned tosatisfy the physical and spiritual needs of larger or smallercommunities of monks. A systematic study of the mainrock monasteries has revealed that each of them re-sponded to the threefold needs of the residential com-munity: to provide living facilities, worship spaces andareas specifically planned for meditation. The percentageof decorated caves in each monastery varies, but they areabout a third of the total number. It was in these decoratedcaves that most of the ritual activity took place. The in-vestigation of the nature and form of the rituals performedin the caves is a topic for specialists of Buddhist doctrineand historians of religions, but archaeology can also con-tribute to this understanding. Rituals, as any other humanactivity, have left their mark on the caves.1)

The study of the remaining material elements whichcan contribute to a reconstruction of the rituals requires athorough archaeological investigation of the relevantfeatures in the rock monasteries across the ancient Ku…akingdom. The site layout, its configuration into districtsand groups, the boundaries between them, and the archi-tecture connecting different units can suggest ritual pathsand be a source of data for the study of rituals. The in-vestigation of this large amount of material is part of anongoing research project by the author and cannot be tho-roughly investigated in this short paper. This presentationfocuses on a few relevant features within the main cham-ber of central pillar caves of Qizil and on the study of the

wooden furniture and objects unearthed in the antecham-ber of Qizil Cave 76 (Pfauenhöhle), presently in the col-lection of the Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin.Hopefully, this analysis will show how physical remainscan facilitate our understanding of the ritual practices thatoccurred in these caves.

At the arrival of the 3rd German Turfan Expedition(1905) most of the caves which are attributed to theearliest caves of Qizil District One (Caves 75 to 77 and90-10 to 90-24)2) were covered with debris, as the con-temporary photographs show (Fig. 1). The explorers hadthe debris cleared from the caves in the upper reaches, butthose in the lower reaches went undetected and were onlycleared in 1990. The clearing of the antechamber of Cave76 in 1906 revealed a large number of wooden objectswhich were summarily described by GRÜNWEDEL (1912:87). He supplied a simplified map of the cave (Fig. 2) andindicated the location of the larger objects. One has theimpression, however, that his text was not written in situ,but at a later period, relying on the photographs taken atthe time of excavation. Small wooden objects, not seen inthe photographs, were not located by GRÜNWEDEL, and itis impossible to say whether some of the larger objects ar-ranged in an orderly way and photographed after they hadbeen removed from the archaeological context were un-earthed in this location. Text and photographs seem toindicate that von LE COQ cleared the cave and made a listof the unearthed materials; GRÜNWEDEL appended thislist in a footnote to his text describing the antechamber ofCave 76 on the basis of the photographs. The firsthandinformation is therefore scanty, especially in regard to thelocation of statuary and smaller wooden objects. Thephotographs and the appended list have enabled the

1) Besides fulfilling requirements of the daily life of the monasticcommunity, some of the large monasteries might have beenthe setting for periodical Buddhist festivals in which the laitytook part; in those moments the large areas in front of thecaves were fully utilized. 2) HOWARD/VIGNATO 2015: 32.

Monastic Fingerprints – Tracing Ritual Practice in the Rock Monastery of Qizil through Archaeological Evidence 23

Fig. 1 Qizil District One: prospect and plan. PhotographB 0796, taken before Cave 76 was excavated, © StaatlicheMuseen zu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst

Fig. 2 Plan of Qizil Cave 76. AfterGRÜNWEDEL 1912: 86, fig. 194a

following provisional classification of the wooden ob-jects: structural elements (parts of the doorframe andcasing of a door), furniture (chest, table[?] and steppedtable, lathed legs, wooden drawer), ritual objects (basesfor statuettes, painted board with mountains, gilded halo,and small stand) and a significant number of statuettes.Because of its importance, the firsthand material is fullypresented here (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6). GRÜNWEDEL’s succincttext reads:

“In the antechamber [of Cave 76], right and left of thedoorway giving access to the main chamber, werefound curious antiquities. In the spot marked by num-ber 4 (Fig. 2), located between the side wall’s cornerand the half wall next to the door, there was a four-legged, approx. 68 cm high table delicately ornate;close to the spot marked by number 4, along the right

wall, there was a narrow long bench. Here were foundseveral wooden cultic figures (footnote). On the otherside of the doorway, were the step-shaped remains ofa table used either for display or for offerings, whoseinterstices were filled with rubble, which consequent-ly formed the table’s body, while the table’s originalwooden parts, especially the small and large spindledwooden legs (kha¶vå¼ga), lay detached for the mostpart in the debris, while its other wooden sectionswere destroyed by humidity (Fig. 5). Here were alsofound some small, nice wooden Buddha figures, adecayed tiny wooden stupa, and so forth. In addition,against the left wall on the spot marked by number 3(Fig. 2), was leaning a long wooden structure withthick mortise joints, the frame of which was fourtimes taller than wide and was covered by thickplanks. Possibly it was a wing of the old door.”3)

3) GRÜNWEDEL 1912: 87 „Vorhalle. R. und L. neb. d. Tür, welchein die Cella führt, fanden sich merkwürdige Altertümer. In derEcke von W. 4 und der Türwandhälfte ein etwa 68 cm hohesTischchen auf vier Füßen mit zierlicher Ornamentik, daran an-schließend vor W. 4 ein schmales langes Bänkchen Fig. 196.Hier wurden eine Anzahl hölzerner Kultfiguren gefunden (Anm.1). Auf der anderen Seite der Tür fand sich ein stufenförmigerRest eines Schau- oder Opfertisches, dessen Zwischenräume mitSchutt ausgefüllt waren, so daß dieser den Körper bildete, wäh-rend die alten Holzteile, besonders größere und kleine gedrehteHolzfüße (Kha¶va

_nga) meist abgelöst davon im Schutt lagen,

andere Holzteile waren durch Feuchtigkeit zerstört Fig. 197.Auch hier fanden sich schöne kleine hölzerne Buddhafiguren,ein kleiner stark vermoderter Stûpa aus Holz usw. Daneben vorW. 3 lehnte ein langer Holzbeschlag, dicke Ansen, welche einenviermal mehr langen als hohen Rahmen bildeten, der mit dickenBrettern belegt war. Vielleicht handelt es sich hier um einenFlügel der alten Tür.“

24 G. VIGNATO

Fig. 3 Antechamber of Qizil Cave 76 during excavation, frontal view. Photograph B 0795 © StaatlicheMuseen zu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst

Fig. 4 Antechamber of Qizil Cave 76 during excavation, right side. Photograph B 0794 © Staatliche Museenzu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst


Fig. 5 Antechamber of Qizil Cave 76 during excavation, left side. Photograph B 0799 © Staatliche Museenzu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst

Fig. 6 A long and a short leg of the ‘step-shaped remains of a table used either for display or for offerings’.On the right a stand for exposition of the relics. Photograph B 0798 © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Museumfür Asiatische Kunst

26 G. VIGNATO

The footnote in the text above seems to refer to a list of thesmaller wooden objects probably compiled by LE COQ.

“While cleaning the cave Mr. von Le Coq found thefollowing antiquities: in the antechamber right of thetable and by the doorway: wooden Buddha with a base,wooden Bodhisattva (found close to the table), woodenBuddha (by the door); to the left of the antechamber:wooden Buddha, wooden base, board with ornaments,painted board, painted board with mountains, gildedhalo; to the right of the antechamber: stucco head ofBuddha, two stucco heads, seated wooden figure,wooden base, Buddha figures, top of a table, legs 27½cm high; by the door of the main chamber: five wood-en figurines, wooden stupa spire.”4)

In Qizil, wooden objects were found in a few caves, butCave 76 held the largest number of them. The cave wascarved in a high position on the cliff, safe from floodingand out of reach of animals. Taking into consideration thelocation of the cave and the placement of the objects, itappears that the cave was used as a safe deposit for holyobjects, possibly at the time of the abandonment of thesite.5) In other words, the ‘curious antiquities’ unearthedin Cave 76 did not necessarily belong to it, but mostlikely came from several caves across the site and wereplaced for safe keeping in this cave. This was certainlysuccessful as it kept the objects safe until the arrival ofthe German Turfan Expedition of 1906; afterwards, someof them were brought to another secure place – the Berlinmuseum – where they were classified and described.6) The

following analysis of some of these objects is done withthe aim of understanding their ritual use.

Table or chest?GRÜNWEDEL’s description of the objects starts with a“four-legged, approximately 68 cm high table delicatelyornate”. It was found in the inner right corner of the ante-chamber. Its location and measurements indicate that itwas the chest in the photograph (Figs. 3, 4). It is unclearwhy GRÜNWEDEL calls this object a table. The photo-graph was taken when this piece of furniture was in theoriginal context and its location is certain, judging fromthe visible compacted stratum of debris below it. Thefunction of a chest is that of safe-keeping for perishablematerials – books, ritual robes or ritual implements. Thisparticular object was not taken to Berlin and consequentlyit cannot now be studied in more detail.

PalanquinsGRÜNWEDEL’s “narrow long bench” might correspond tothe “top of a table, legs 27½ cm high” in the list of ob-jects found by von LE COQ. It was a piece of furniture setalong the left wall (Figs. 3, 4). In truth, both descriptionsseem to indicate the base of an artifact which includedalso the ‘painted board with mountains’, found to the leftof the antechamber. The two pieces were correctly as-sembled but awkwardly restored in the Museum für Asia-tische Kunst, Berlin (III 302a-d; Fig. 7). The lower sec-tion consists of three thick wooden boards joined by dow-els forming a 116 by 52 cm base standing on four plainlegs (Figs. 3, 4). The sliding front and side edges weredecorated with three rows of inverted lotus petals; thestraight rear edge was unadorned. It seems that this furni-ture would have been set against a wall, offering a frontalview. There are four mortises carved into the lower face,these would have held the tenons of the legs. The fronttwo legs, seen in the original in situ photograph, werebroken off, their tenons are still inside the mortises. Thetwo rear legs are in the Berlin museum (III 237a,b) andfit perfectly into the respective mortises (Fig. 8). Smallholes were drilled along the front edge (three holes) andsides (two holes) of the base. The dowels installed inthem joined the now missing vertical boards to the base(Fig. 9). The (decorated) boards on the three sides con-cealed the undecorated legs, which were left plain and

4) GRÜNWEDEL 1912: 87, footnote 1 „In der Höhle fand Herr VonLeCoq die folgenden Altertümer während der Räumung: Vor-halle am Tisch R. und in der Tür: hölzerner Buddha mit Sockel,Bodhisattva aus Holz (am Tisch gef. [for gefunden = found],Buddha aus Holz (Tür), Vorhalle L.: Buddha aus Holz, Sockelaus Holz, Brett mit Verzierungen, bemaltes Brett, bemaltesBrett mit Bergen, vergoldeter Heiligenschein; Vorhalle R.: Bud-dhakopf aus Stuck, zwei Köpfe aus Stuck, sitzende Holzfigur,Sockelchen von Holz, Buddhafiguren, Tischplatte, Beinhöhe27½ cm, an der Tür der Cella: fünf hölzerne Figürchen, höl-zerne Stûpaspitze.“

5) There were other similar deposits of holy objects in Qizil, suchas the so-called ‘library cave’, and other wooden objects werealso found in other caves. One has to keep in mind that inQizil all the wooden structures and objects within the caveswere systematically taken out, probably to be reused in archi-tecture or to be burned. The reason why these wooden archi-tectural elements and objects have been preserved is that theywere buried under the debris in an early period.

6) BHATTACHARYA 1977: 36ff. All the objects unearthed from Cave76 are mentioned in the text and their museum classification

number is indicated. The number starts with the Roman numberIII, followed by Arabic numbers.


Fig. 7 ‘Narrow bench’ and ‘painted board with mountains’assembled in the museum, III 302. Photograph © StaatlicheMuseen zu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst/ Jürgen Liepe

Fig. 8 Lower face of the ‘narrow bench’, with the rear legsinserted in the mortises. Photograph © Staatliche Museen zuBerlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst/ Ines Buschmann

Fig. 9 Lower face of the ‘narrow bench’, photograph anddrawing showing the structural marks. © Staatliche Museen zuBerlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst/ Ines Buschmann

not, as in other cases, lathed and painted. The groovescarved into the upper face of the base would have held the‘painted board with mountains’. The board resembled anarch with a large niche at its center; it was formed ofseveral thick boards joined together. Deep intersectinggrooves were carved into the façade of the board and theresulting rhombic areas were chiseled so as to assume theshape of a regular mountainous pattern, creating a strongthree-dimensional effect. The main niche likely held asmall Buddha seated in meditation; this would have com-pleted the facsimile of the rear wall of a central pillarcave, a representation of the Indrasailaguha scene. To un-derstand its function its underside needs to be examined.Between the side boards and the legs on each short sidethere is a 6 cm wide space through which long poles

could be slotted through horizontally. This would thenhave allowed the structure to be lifted and carried. Thisobject was most likely a small and light palanquin thatfour people could carry on their shoulders, with a statueslightly more than 50 cm tall inside the niche at the centreof the ‘painted board with mountains’.

On to the other side of the doorway, on the left side ofthe antechamber, a large much damaged piece of furniturewas set against the main wall. GRÜNWEDEL described theobject as a ‘step-shaped remains of a table used either fordisplay or for offerings’. If GRÜNWEDEL’s description ofthe objects was based on the photographs, we can scruti-nize these same photographs (Figs. 3, 5). After the furni-ture was set into the place in which it was found by LECOQ, partly covering the side casing of the door whichgave access to the main chamber of Cave 76, silt startedpouring down and filling the lower half of the antecham-ber. Silt filled every empty space, immersing the ‘steppedtable’ and causing the wood to decay. Upon drying, the siltkept the shape of the piece of furniture – the outside wasremoved during excavation, and what is seen in the photo-graphs is the dried silt which retains the original form ofthe furniture. Some remains of the rotten wooden boardsforming the furniture and the lathed legs are visible in thephotographs. Although much damaged, the better pre-served rear legs were brought to Berlin (III 227a,b), andhave been correctly described by BHATTACHARYA as

28 G. VIGNATO

Fig. 10 The rear legs of the ‘step-shaped remains of athrone used either for display or for offerings’; III 227a,b.Right: Photograph B 0798 © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,Museum für Asiatische Kunst

Fig. 11 ‘Step-shaped table’. Digital image by Chen Hao

‘lathed part of furniture’7) (Fig. 10). Fragments of a shorterleg front lay on the floor (Fig. 3), possibly the one succes-sively photographed near a taller one (III 227a; Figs. 6,10).8) The upper and rear sections of this piece of furniturewere quite damaged and are very unclear in the photo-graphs. GRÜNWEDEL hypothesized about the possiblefunction of this piece of equipment and defines it as atable for display or offerings. However, this ‘steppedtable’ may well have been a second palanquin. Its dimen-sions are similar to the one described above, but it wasclearly intended to support a larger statue, possibly a me-ditating Buddha with its mandorla (Fig. 11).

The two pieces described above were probably twodifferent types of palanquin. The one preserved in theMuseum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin, is a portable minia-ture reproduction of the rear wall of the main chamber ofa central pillar cave, as if the whole cave with the medi-tating Buddha within the niche could be symbolicallyparaded. The ‘stepped table’ was a more elaborate palan-quin, with lathed legs and a back support. Such a palan-quin was constructed so as to parade a larger statue, suchas the statue from the main niche of a central pillar cave.9)

Such processions with statues are recorded in contempo-rary texts.10)

Doors, doorframe and scattered objects Among the objects in the antechamber was a structurewith horizontal boards solidly joined to two side beams,interpreted by GRÜNWEDEL as the wing of a door. Onlypart of this door, reinforced at its end and in the middlesection, is visible in the photograph. Its width might havebeen approximately 70 to 80 cm, while its height, indi-cated as four times the width, was approximately 300 cm(Fig. 5).11) The text does not mention the lower part of thedoorframe, the well preserved threshold and the lowerhalf of the large side casings which are visible in the pho-tographs (Fig. 3).

Although succinctly described, the location of theabove-mentioned objects is consistent with the objects in

7) BHATTACHARYA 1977: 199, figs. 247 and 248 on p. 379.8) BHATTACHARYA 1977: 199.9) There is considerable evidence to indicate that the statues in

the main niches of the central pillar cave were moveable.

10) Image processions were was a common practice in the Westernregions, possibly coinciding with the main Buddhist festivals.A vivid description of the festival in Khotan at the beginningof the 5th century is given by Fa Xian; see BEAL 1869: 179.Palanquins are present in Gandharan reliefs, their function beingthat of transportation. They are often seen in the scene of Mayawith the infant Siddhartha been transported from Lumbini toKapilavastu and in the scene of Yasodhara being brought toSiddhartha. In any case, the palanquin is a ceremonial objectassociated with high rank. For a Gandharan image of the waythe palanquin was carried, see ZWALF 1996: fig. 156. I thankAnna Filigenzi for this information.

11) In Qizil very few parts of doors remain; apparently used in mo-nastic cells, made of vertical planks of solid wood, a construc-tion technique different from the present one. This might be theonly door of a painted cave recorded, although the partial viewof the object does not allow for a definitive identification of thestructure as a door.


Fig. 12 Large mandorla, gilded wood decorated with a plainborder and flames occupying the field; III 55. Photograph ©Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst/Jürgen Liepe

Fig. 13 Qizil Cave 171, rear wall of the main chamber. Aboveand on the sides of the niche are the remains of few rhombic claytiles forming a relief mountainous landscape. The dark brownpaint on the sides of the niche is bole. On its main wall weremandorla and aureole. Note the row of st÷pas on the outer wallof the left corridor. After XINJIANG WEIWUER ZIZHIQU GUANLIWEIYANWEI et al. (1997) Zhunguo Shiku, Kezier Shiku 3: fig. 2

the photographs; conversely, the location of smaller ob-jects and statuettes, not visible in the photographs, remainsvague. Since GRÜNWEDEL does not specify which woodencultic figures were found ‘on top of the narrow longbench’, and which were ‘on top of the step-shaped remainsof a table’, it is impossible to reconstruct the context inwhich the pieces were found. Some pieces were notmentioned, such as a small piece of furniture on top of the‘narrow long bench’, namely a well carved drawer withside slides used to insert it into a larger piece of furniture– a table or chest of drawers – presently in the Berlin mu-seum (Figs. 3, 4). The museum owns also other ‘curiousantiquities’ listed in the footnote of GRÜNWEDEL’s text;the only information of their approximate location is thatthey were to the right or left of the antechamber.

Mandorla Among the object mentioned in the note is a remarkablepiece, a slightly concave and ovoid mandorla of largedimensions (112 cm wide), constructed with five planksjoined together with wooden dowels (III 55; Fig. 12). Thedécor on the front consists of a narrow undecorated bor-der and the field entirely decorated with flames incised onthe wood, covered with a coat of white material, and then

gilded.12) Only a central lower section, corresponding tothe place covered by a seated Buddha, was left undec-orated. A small hole was drilled into its centre whichwould have permitted the mandorla to be connected to astatue by means of a dowel. The reverse of the mandorlais unadorned.

The whereabouts of this spectacular piece is unknown.GRÜNWEDEL mentions a gilded mandorla in the footnotetranslated above, but does not describe the piece, nor does

12) The scientific research is not performed yet, but the white ma-terial is likely gesso, probably made of slaked plaster, gypsumor chalk and animal skin glue or oil. There might be traces ofa red luster above the gold leaf. I thank Birgit Schmidt for thisobservation.

30 G. VIGNATO

Fig. 14 Small Buddha seated in dhyånåsana with plain haloand mandala, unearthed in the antechamber of Qizil Cave 76;III 8134. Photograph © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Museumfür Asiatische Kunst/ Jürgen Liepe

Fig. 15 Small Buddha seated in dhyånåsana with plainmandorla and aureole, damaged, unearthed in the antechamberof Qizil Cave 76; III 8151. Photograph © Staatliche Museen zuBerlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst/ Jürgen Liepe

it appear in the photographs. The match between the piecementioned and the one presently in the museum cannottherefore be verified. The mandorla was first cataloguedin 1972 on the occasion of the opening of the Museum fürIndische Kunst.13) Turfan was indicated as the place oforigin, followed by a question mark. In her study, BHAT-TACHARYA suggested that the piece was from Qizil, thenew identified location still followed by a question mark.She based the identification on the fact that “identicalflame-decorations can be seen on those of the Buddhafrom Qizil, carved on wood”.14)

This paper not only supports BHATTACHARYA’s attri-bution of the piece to Qizil, but would go further.15) Thismandorla would have been attached to a statue of a medi-tating Buddha set in the main niche of a Qizil central pil-lar cave. A typical main niche in Qizil central pillar caveswas fully decorated. In most cases its rear wall showedthe painting of an elongated mandorla and a circular nim-bus, while the sides and soffit were gilded (Fig. 13). Themajority of the wooden statuettes representing a seatedBuddha unearthed from the antechamber of Cave 76 alsohave a similar mandorla and nimbus. It may be assumed

13) I kindly thank Caren Dreyer for this information.14) The above description of the large mandorla relies on BHATTA-

CHARYA’s description (1977: 69, note 49). She dates it to the6th-7th century.

15) In fact in the museum there are several minute wooden carvedstatues of the Buddha collected in Qizil. They show a Buddhawith such a large mandorla embellished with a similar decora-tion (III 7408, III 8150, see Figs. 16, 17). Conversely, thereare very few wooden objects from Turfan and a mandorla withsimilar decoration has not been found in that region.


Fig. 16 Buddha seated in dhyånåsana on a double-cushionedthrone against an elliptical mandorla decorated with a plainborder and flames occupying the field, unearthed in the ante-chamber of Qizil Cave 76; III 8150. Photograph © StaatlicheMuseen zu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst/ Jürgen Liepe

Fig. 17 Buddha seated in dhyånåsana on a double-cushionedthrone against an elliptical mandorla decorated with a plainborder and flames occupying the field, unearthed in the ante-chamber of Qizil Cave 76; III 7408. Photograph © StaatlicheMuseen zu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst/ Jürgen Liepe

that they are accurate miniature representations of thestatue in the main niche of a central pillar cave (Figs. 14,15). Some of these small statues have a large mandorladecorated with a flaming pattern, very similar to this largegilded mandorla (Figs. 16, 17). Of all the Qizil central pil-lar caves available to survey, only Cave 206 has a largeand round mandorla painted on the back wall of its mainniche. In a clear photograph taken during the 3rd GermanTurfan Expedition, it can be seen that the side walls andsoffit of the niche were already detached, but the largeovoid nimbus painted in a dark colour on the main wallis clearly visible. This niche is ca. 140 cm wide and thesize of the mandorla painted on the main wall correspondsto that of the wooden mandorla in the museum. The

mandorla had two tenons in the lower straight section,which were inserted into a wooden base; the connectionbetween these two elements was reinforced by the statueof the Buddha which was similarly dowelled in place.Therefore the main image of Cave 206 was a meditatingBuddha seated on a thick base with the large gildedmandorla, nowadays in Berlin, behind it (Fig. 18).

In Qizil not only the Buddha and his mandorla, butalso the sides and soffit of most of the niches were gilded.Gilding was very common, the precious gold comple-menting the expensive colours used for the décor of thecaves. Gilding was used for the dress of the Buddha, butit reached its apex in the main niche and the image itcontained, the centre of the iconographic program of the

32 G. VIGNATO

Fig. 18 Qizil Cave 206, main chamber. Left: the cave at the time of the German Turfan Expedition; photograph B 1444, © Staat-liche Museen zu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst. Right: the virtual reconstruction with the halo (Fig. 12) in the original place

whole cave. As mentioned in the example of Cave 206, inmost cases the main statue was a seated Buddha with alarge mandorla. Interestingly, where there is a mandorlaon the main wall of such niches it is painted rather thangilded in contrast with the gilded sides and soffit. In thisway, once the statue with its mandorla was set in place,the cave’s limited light was reflected by the sides andsoffit of the niche onto the statue (Fig. 12).16)

The main walls of the central niches in central pillarcaves are entirely painted. This is in stark contrast withthe sculptures set along the side walls, which were se-cured to the wall through pegs and sealed on the sideswith clay. In this case neither the back of the statue northe wall behind it was painted. This indicates that whilethe statues on the side walls were immoveable and per-manent features, the statue in the main niche was not. Itcould be taken out of its niche with relative ease. Thepainted mandorla and nimbus on the rear wall of the nichewould then have underlined the sacred nature of the lo-cation once the Buddha statue was removed from thecave.17) However, once the Buddha statue was placedback in the niche, the painted background would have

been completely covered by the image’s mandorla andnimbus. In almost all central pillar caves in Qizil, themain statue could be taken out of the niche and carriedout of the cave, possibly as part of a ritual.18)

Floors and altars The gesso flooring of the central pillar caves can shedlight on how people moved within these caves. The floor-ing in front of the main niche, wherever extant, showsmarks that indicate that this area was cordoned off by alight railing made of wood, which was inserted into thefresh gesso, a fact noticed also by GRÜNWEDEL (Fig. 19).19)

16) The gold leaves have been systematically scratched out in thepost-monastic period, and what remains now is a thick darkbrown substance with overlapping marks of 10 x 8 cm uniformrectangles. It seems that these were the overlapping sides ofthe gold leaves. No scientific analysis has been carried out onthis brown substance, which appears to have served as an ad-hesive for the gold leaf, the bole.

17) I have already described different solutions devised for the in-sertion and removal of the statues in the main niches in centralpillar caves (HOWARD/VIGNATO 2015: 65-68).

18) The fact that the main statue could be removed and carried outraises questions about the material it was made of. Clay was thecommonly used medium for the making of sculpture, reinforcedby an armature of wood or bunched reeds; indeed some clayimages were found in the caves, mainly heads, and were takenfrom Qizil to Berlin. Their size might correspond to that of apresumed main Buddha in the main niche. But clay statues can-not be moved without running the risk of breaking them. Amore likely material for the main statue was wood, light andresilient. In this case, most of the clay heads in museum col-lections probably belong to secondary statues.

19) The issue has been discussed in HOWARD/VIGNATO 2015: 67.GRÜNWEDEL mentions that in Qizil Cave 4 he found remainsof a wooden fence or pedestal, and that the framed area wasused for depositing offerings for the cult image such as flowersand incense burners. „Unmittelbar vor der Nische markiert sichim zementierten Fußboden der Cella ein in den Zement ein-gelassener fast quadratischer Holzrahmen, wie es scheint derRest einer Umzäunung oder eines Gestelles zum Aufstellenvon künstlichen und wirklichen Blumen, Räucherbecken undAschenbehälter zum Abbrennen von Räucherkerzen und Wohl-gerüchen vor dem Kultbild.“ (GRÜNWEDEL 1912: 44). In Cave 7he found remains of the wooden railing embedded in the floor:


Fig. 19 Qizil Cave 60; in the central area, in the shadow, the marks of the balustrade in the gesso flooring. PhotographB 0627, © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst

Fig. 20 Lathed wooden fragments of railings with tenons andmortises as to assemble them with other pieces; from Qumtura(III 7801) and unrecorded sites (left, III 8930a,b,c; right III7801b). After BHATTACHARYA 1977: figs. 222-226

Several fragments of lathed wood found in Qizil and inother sites likely belonged to such railings (Fig. 20). Theflooring enclosed by the railing has, in many cases, kepttraces of the original paint, usually firebrick paint – an in-dication that the area was not meant to be walked upon.The function of this enclosed area can be conjectured onthe basis of the traditional layout of Buddhist temples.Wooden tables or altars are usually set in front of the mainimage to provide a place for devotees to place offering andother ritual implement. These pieces of furniture mightbe among those found in the antechamber of Cave 76 (suchas GRÜNWEDEL’s delicately ornate table). They might have

held oil lamps or incense burners, their use in the caves canbe inferred by the layers of soot accumulated on thepaintings.20)

„... auch das quadratische Feld vor der Nische fehlte nicht. Hiersind die Reste des Geländers, in einen schönen Freskobodeneingelassen, noch erhalten.“ (ibid.: 48). In Cave 60 (GrößteHöhle) GRÜNWEDEL found remains of a wooden railing similarto that of Cave 4: „Vor der Statue war, wie die Reste beweisen,eine Holzbarriere (Fig. 170 C) wie in Höhle A der KamingruppeS. 44, Freskobodenhöhle S. 48 usw. Natürlich ist dies Holz-geländer längst gestohlen.“ (ibid.: 79). I thank Ines Konczak-Nagel for these indications.

20) Soot is a topic not to be treated lightly. Some of the paintingsin the museum are covered with soot, and the scientific exami-nation of the components of the soot layer is part of an ongoingresearch. The scientific analysis is complicated by the presence

34 G. VIGNATO

Fig. 21 Fragments of the body of a miniature wooden st÷pa,unearthed in Qizil (III 7416a,b,c). Photograph © StaatlicheMuseen zu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst

Fig. 22 Qizil Cave 13; III 8860. Photograph © StaatlicheMuseen zu Berlin, Museum für Asiatische Kunst/ Jürgen Liepe

Ritual implements for the cult of relics? Parts of miniature wooden st÷pas were found in Qizil andother sites across the ancient kingdom of Ku…a, indicatingthat these miniature wooden st÷pas were quite common.The problem is that the pieces belonged to several st÷pas,and insufficient fragments of a single piece have survivedto permit the reconstruction of a complete st÷pa. In theMuseum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin, there are threepieces belonging to one st÷pa that give us an idea of whatthese st÷pa models looked like (III 7416 a,b and III 7417;Fig. 21). The fragments belong to the body of the st÷pa;they were cut from of a thin board of hard wood, 15 cm inheight, carved and painted. The pieces present 45 degreessliding vertical sides, indicating that they were assembledso as to form a right angle. The upper and lower sides ofthe three boards were inserted into grooves carved into athick base and top boards, as we can infer from their un-decorated top and bottom ends. Once assembled, the bodyof the st÷pa presented a niche on each side.21) There areseveral pinnacles of similar st÷pas with harmikå and chat-tråvalï in the museum, but unfortunately they all comefrom different st÷pas (III 7740, from Tumshuk). An ap-proximation of the general appearance of these miniaturewooden st÷pas can be derived from the st÷pa painted

along the corridors of several central pillar caves (Fig. 22).At the centre of each painted st÷pa there is a niche whichheld either a meditating Buddha or a cinerary urn. It islikely that the niches of these small wooden st÷pa modelshad a similar content. Considering that the object hadniches in the four sides, it is most likely that a relic wasplaced at the centre of such miniature st÷pas so to beeasily seen from every side.

One of the implements seen in the photographs wentunmentioned by GRÜNWEDEL (Fig. 6, right). It remainsunclear whether the piece was found in the antechamberof Cave 76, since in the photograph it is already removedfrom the archaeological context and set on top of a boardto be photographed together with two lathed legs of the‘step-shaped table’. The photograph shows that the backsection of the object was damaged, and the two rear legswere gone; a thick piece of wood has been set underneathit to keep it level. Its dimensions can be inferred by themetre stick in the same photograph; it was a small object,slightly more than 30 cm long, less than 20 cm deep and

of PVAc used on the museum fragments in the late 1970s/early1980s. I kindly thank Birgit Schmidt for this information. Theimpossibility of identifying the elements in the soot is a strongdrawback for the study of rituals in a cave.

21) BHATTACHARYA 1977: 252-253. She interprets them as frag-ments of chaitya doors.


Fig. 23 Stand for the display of relics, unearthed in Qizil,unrecorded; the only available material is this detail fromphotograph B 0798, © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Museumfür Asiatische Kunst

Fig. 24 Stand for the display of relics. Digital image by Chen Hao

Fig. 25 Relief from Takht-ï-bahaï, Pakistan. Indian Museum,Kolkata, inv.no. G59/A 23265. Photograph © WHAV BI95 170,1

approximately 17 or 18 cm high. The dovetail joints con-necting the truncated pyramidal upper part to the baseindicate that it was completely made of wood, the basestanding on short, lathed legs. The soft lines of the uppersection suggest that the object was covered with stucco ora similar material. The shape and the treatment of the up-per part of this small object exclude the possibility of itsfunction as a stool (Figs. 23, 24). A provisional identifica-tion could be that this unusual object would have held aritual object. This function is similar to the small piecesof furniture seen in Gandharan reliefs, used for the adora-tion of the påtra or bowl. An example of it is present in arelief kept in the Indian Museum, Kolkata (G59/A 23265)where the påtra is set on a “four legged backless throne,covered by a drap”, indicating a low platform used toexhibit the relic (Fig. 25).22) The display of relics was avital practice in the Western regions, and from the above

two reconstructed pieces of ritual furniture it can be as-sumed that this practice was also common in the rockmonasteries of Ku…a.

Wooden statuettesThe wooden statuettes unearthed in Qizil Cave 76 showvery interesting features. In the museum 15 statuettes ofthe Buddha and other celestials are assigned to this cave.They seem to be a miniature reproduction of the completerepertory of statuary used in the caves. These include aBuddha standing within a niche (III 7409) or on a base(III 8137, III 8148, III 8149, III 8152 = Fig. 26), seated inmeditation with a body mandorla (III 7408 = Fig. 16, III8150 = Fig. 15), and most commonly with mandorla andnimbus (III 8134 = Fig. 15, III 7413, III 7414, III 8045,III 8151 = Fig. 15), or seated in European fashion (III8135, Fig. 27). There are also figures seated with theirlegs crossed at the ankles (III 8147 = Fig. 28, III 8146).The statuettes of the Buddha seated in meditation arequite standardized. Judging from the shape and propor-tions of the mandorla and nimbus painted on the mainwall of the niches of central pillar caves, they seem to befaithful miniature replicas. The standing Buddhas, espe-cially those in abhayamudrå, appear to be replicas of thecolossi within the monumental image caves.23) Sizablestatues with their legs crossed at the ankles were foundboth in Qizil and Qumtura.24) In other words, the wooden

22) Publ.: KLIMBURG-SALTER 1995: cat. 170. BEHRENDT (2004: 61-65) discusses the practice of exhibiting relics using both textualevidence, namely the record of Chinese pilgrims, and relief repre-sentations. I thank Anna Filigenzi for this piece of information.

23) HOWARD/VIGNATO 2015: 75-87.24) Figures with their legs crossed at the ankles are seen in Qizil

Cave 215A and Qumtura in front of Cave 63), as respectively

36 G. VIGNATO

Fig. 26 Buddha standing on a ped-estal in front of an elliptical mandorlaand a round halo, unearthed in theantechamber of Qizil Cave 76; III8152. Photograph © Staatliche Muse-en zu Berlin, Museum für AsiatischeKunst/ Jürgen Liepe

Fig. 27 Buddha seated in pralamba-pådåsana (throne added in the restora-tion), without mandorla and halo, un-earthed in the antechamber of QizilCave 76; III 8135. Photograph © Staat-liche Museen zu Berlin, Museum fürAsiatische Kunst/ Jürgen Liepe

Fig. 28 Crowned male figureseated in European position withlegs crossed at the ankles, unearthedin the antechamber of Qizil Cave 76;III 8147. Photograph © StaatlicheMuseen zu Berlin, Museum für Asia-tische Kunst/ Jürgen Liepe

statuettes seem to faithfully reproduce all types of statuaryoriginally inhabiting the caves. This congruity is funda-mental for the study of Ku…a sculpture; they add a signi-ficant corpus of new material to the scant data previouslyavailable. This namely consists of the installation markswithin the caves and fragmentary statuary collected inseveral museums. Among the recovered wooden objectswere also fragmentary pieces such as bases for statues(III 7387) and parts of small wooden models of st÷pas(III 7384), boards with a painted Buddha (III 8662), ahand, the fragment of a statue (III 7420), and a fragmentrepresenting a dragon or makara head (III 7522).

Crown beamsThe main chambers of Qizil Caves 175 to 193 all presenta significant architectural feature. For the most part thesecaves are central pillar caves, carved into the upper sectionof the Gudong cliff. All exhibit two small holes carved incorresponding positions at the apex of the rear and frontwalls, just below the crown of the ceiling. The holes wereintended for the insertion of a round beam, a few centi-metres in diameter, which crossed the main chamber justbelow the ceiling (Figs. 29, 30).25) The wooden beam

seen in two in situ photographs (B 651, B 1848). The identi-fication of these statues was the result of a study carried outwith Caren Dreyer.

25) Crown beams in Ku…a have different functions. The most com-mon type has structural function, that is, it helps sustain and dis-tribute the weight of the ceiling, while at the same time it offersgrip to the ceiling plaster. Beams of this type were embeddedin a deep groove, covered with plaster and painted over; theycould not be seen from the outside. In the cases described abovethe wooden beams were below the plaster, inserted before thepainting was carried out, and in full sight.


Fig. 29 Main chamber of Qizil Cave176; note the traces of the beam cross-ing the main chamber lengthwise justbelow the ceiling. Detail of photographB 1268, © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin,Museum für Asiatische Kunst

Fig. 30 Qizil Cave 188, front wall of the main chamber. The hole on top was meantfor the insertion of the beam crossing the chamber lengthwise. After XINJIANG WEIWU-ER ZIZHIQU GUANLI WEIYANWEI et al. (1997) Zhunguo Shiku, Kezier Shiku 3: fig. 55

across the main chamber was probably intended as adevice for the hanging of ritual implements.26) We haveno indication concerning the kind of object that was used,but we can assume the presence of silk banners (unfortu-nately none have been found in Qizil) or of other lightritual items which could be easily hung and removed. Thepresence of these beams further indicates that some im-plements were meant not as a permanent feature of thecave – in which case they could have a dedicated placewhere to place or fasten them, but were hung according torequirement and were probably interchangeable accordingto the rituals being undertaken.

ConclusionsCentral pillar caves in Ku…a are formed of three consecu-tive areas: the antechamber, the main chamber and the rearareas. When studying the ritual use of the cave these threesections should be considered as parts of a single unit. Inthis short paper, however, the focus has been kept on the

main chamber. The uniformity of the structure and décormight dismay the art historian, but it facilitates the archae-ologist’s search for patterns. In fact, several recurring fea-tures of the main chamber and their relevance to the ritualpractice in the cave can be outlined. The main niche’ssides and soffit, in most cases gilded, reflected the dimlight of the cave onto the meditating Buddha and hismandorla, both of which were also fully gilded. This ac-centuated the visual impact of the primary image in thecave. The fact that the main statue was not anchored with-in the niche, but could be placed in the niche and taken outwith relative ease is significant from a ritual perspectiveas it raises the possibility that the main image with itslarge mandorla was carried out in a ‘procession of ima-ges’, using palanquins similar to the two found in the ante-chamber of Cave 76 and as mentioned in contemporarytexts. Railings enclosed an area in front of the main nichewhere a ritual table or an altar could be placed – largewooden furniture of the type unearthed in the antechamberof Qizil Cave 76 might have originally stood within thescreened off space. Offerings and ritual implements, suchas lamps and incense burners, could have been placed ontop of the furniture, likely responsible for the layer of sootcovering the paintings in most caves. Other ritual objectscould be stands for the exhibition of ritual objects or mini-ature wooden st÷pas, elements that could be associatedwith the rite of the exhibition and worship of relics. Theanalysis and interpretation of the recovered furniture and

26) In Simsim several domed square caves present a peculiar carv-ing at the apex which enabled the insertion of a wooden peg –still in place in some cases – which had a similar function. Onthe transversal barrel-vaulted ceiling of the main chamber ofSimsim Cave 26 five hemispheric cavities with a similar pegin their apex were hewn. In all these cases, we can assume thata ritual object was hanging from the ceiling.

38 G. VIGNATO

of the marks on the walls and floor of the main chambersuggest that the central pillar cave was not simply a placefor the ritual circumambulation of the pillar. Other ritualsalso took place in it, such as the worship of relics. Addi-tionally, the procession of images could have been initi-ated and concluded in the main chamber of a central pillarcave. Hanging banners, silk table cloths, lamps and in-cense could all have been part of the paraphernalia usedduring the rites, together with ritual texts, all materials thatcould be deposited in chests like the one excavated in theantechamber of Cave 76.

The central pillar cave can be interpreted as the locuswhere the Law of the Buddha was eternalized by carvinga permanent physical space out of the rock and decoratingit with statues and wall paintings. At the same time, theseeverlasting spaces served as a receptacle for fleeting ri-tuals, ephemeral re-enactments of the Law. The centralpillar caves in Qizil were therefore the place where thetemporal dimensions of eternity and the passing momentmet, where stillness was broken by the actions and chant-ing of rites, where the orderly arrangement of icons wastemporarily altered by the introduction of paraphernalianeeded for the rite. These opposite dimensions need to bekept in mind when studying the cave. It could be said thatthe main function of the central pillar cave was the ritual,and therefore it reached its full potential during the per-formance of the rite, during which the cave’s statuary andthe paintings served as a background to the ceremonialobjects and ritual.

Archaeology cannot re-enact the rituals that took placewithin a cave, and not even accurately name them. It canhowever analyse the relevant marks voluntarily or invol-untarily left in the cave to reconstruct the arrangement ofimplements and the way in which monks moved aroundwithin it. Most of the ritual objects are lost, but the tenta-tive interpretation of the few wooden objects unearthed inthe antechamber of Qizil Cave 76, together with some ofthe typical features of the main chamber of the centralpillar caves, shed light on the forgotten rituals performedin the caves themselves.

AcknowledgementsIn July-August 2016 I was granted a short term CAHIMfellowship (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin/KHI in Florence) atthe Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Berlin. This paper couldnot be written without consulting the museum’s deposits andarchives. This paper is a token of gratitude to the personnelof the above-mentioned institutions.

BIBLIOGRAPHYBEAL, Samuel (1869) Travels of Fah-Hian and Sung-Yun, Bud-

dhist pilgrims from China to India (400 A.D. and 518 A.D.).London (2nd edition 1964).

BEHRENDT, Kurt A. (2004) The Buddhist Architecture of Gan-dhara. Leiden.

BHATTACHARYA, Chhaya (1977) Art of Central Asia, with spe-cial reference to wooden objects from the Northern SilkRoute. Delhi.

GRÜNWEDEL, Albert (1912) Altbuddhistische Kultstätten in Chi-nesisch-Turkistan. Bericht über archäologische Arbeiten von1906 bis 1907 bei Ku…a, Qarašahr und in der Oase Turfan.Berlin.

HOWARD, Angela Falco & Giuseppe VIGNATO (2015) Archaeo-logical and Visual Sources of Meditation in the AncientMonasteries of Ku… a. Leiden.

KLIMBURG-SALTER, Deborah E. (1995) Buddha in Indien. Diefrühindische Skulptur von König A¸oka bis zur Guptazeit.Ausstellungskatalog Wien. Milano.

WHAV: Western Himalaya Archives Vienna. See Fig. 25.XINJIANG WEIWUER ZIZHIQU GUANLI WEIYANWEI, BAICHENG

XIAN KEZIER QIANFODONG WENWU BAOGUANSUO, BEIJINGDAXUE KAOGUXI, eds. (1997) Zhunguo Shiku, Kezier Shi-ku 3. Beijing. See Figs. 13 and 30.

ZWALF, Wladimir (1996) A Catalogue of the Gandhara Sculp-ture in the British Museum. London.

Deutsche Zusammenfassung

Die ursprüngliche rituelle Nutzung der Höhlen in Kizil istein weitgehend unerforschtes Feld, das mehr wissenschaft-liche Aufmerksamkeit verdient, mit dem Anspruch einerinterdisziplinären Zusammenarbeit. Zwar kann die Archä-ologie ihren Beitrag dazu leisten, indem sie die Hinterlas-senschaften vergangener Kulturen erfasst und deutet, dochvermag sie es nicht, einst praktizierte Rituale zu benennenoder diese gar bildhaft zu (re)inszenieren.

Auf Grundlage historischer Fotografien, die währendder dritten deutschen Turfan-Expedition (1905-07) bei derFreilegung von Höhle 76 in Kizil aufgenommen wurden,sowie anhand schriftlicher Auswertungen GRÜNWEDELswurde diese Studie durchgeführt. Das Museum für Asia-tische Kunst in Berlin verfügt zudem über eine Auswahlmitgebrachter Reliquien in sehr gutem Erhaltungszustand,die erste Voruntersuchungen ermöglichten. Die rekontex-tualisierende Verortung ritueller Objekte und hölzernerGegenstände innerhalb der Haupthalle einer Pfeilerhöhlezeigt, dass dort verschiedene Rituale stattfinden konnten.

Birgit Schmidt


Portrait of the Royal Patronage in Kizil Cave 60 (Größte Höhle)

Satomi Hiyama

1. IntroductionA mural fragment kept in the Asian Art Museum in Berlinwith the inventory number III 1070 (height 55 cm, width68 cm, Fig. 1) was removed from Kizil Cave 60 (GrößteHöhle) by the third Turfan expedition in 1906.1) Regis-tered in the museum’s inventory after the Second WorldWar,2) this fragment was first published in China in2015.3) Despite the heavy damage on its surface, twofigures drawn with a refined brush stroke can be clearlyrecognized in this mural.

Remarkably, the distinguished fashion of these figuresand the cartouche placed beside them indicates their pos-sible identity as royal patrons. The aim of this paper is todraw attention to two of less known aspects of KucheanArt History; namely, the possible existence of the portraitof the royal patronage in the First Indo-Iranian style paint-ings of Kucha, and the importance of Kizil Cave 60(Größte Höhle) in understanding how the actual Buddhistmonastic life was operated in the Kizil Caves.

2. DescriptionFirst, let’s try to describe all recognizable features of themural fragment III 1070 to better understand what therepresentation can tell us. The drawing made by theauthor (Fig. 2) may provide help in recognizing the fadedoutlines.

(1) Brush Stroke Style and Colouring: Two figuresvisible in this mural painting are drawn in the so-calledFirst Indo-Iranian painting style,4) characterized by refinedrawings picturing subtle facial expressions, and natu-ralistic modelling of the body highlighted by the delicatecolouring. The brush strokes closely resemble those ob-served in Kizil Cave 207 (Malerhöhle, Fig. 3) and Kum-tura Cave GK 22 (Zweite Kuppelhöhle der zweitenSchlucht, Fig. 4); the delicate drawing technique observedin their faces even displays the highest class of the artisticquality among the First Indo-Iranian style paintings.5)

(2) Composition: This mural fragment obviously be-longs to the upper part of the whole composition con-taining the representation of two figures, who face eachother. The figure on the right side is represented withmultiple haloes. The head of this figure is positionedhigher than the other figure on the left, who has only asingle halo, visually expressing the higher status of theright figure than the other.

What draws special attention is the presence of a hori-zontal cartouche placed next to the head of the right fig-ure, which is directly above the head of the left figure. InKuchean iconographical convention, cartouches do notappear in narrative representations, but are most typicallyappended to the portraits of actual donors. In Kizil Cave207 (Malerhöhle), for example, the cartouches are ar-ranged directly above each portrait of four painters,containing inscriptions referring to their profession as1) Although the museum’s inventory lacks information about itsacquisition period, the record by GRÜNWEDEL proves that its

removal from the right side wall of Kizil Cave 60 was under-taken in 1906 (Cf. GRÜNWEDEL 1912: 79 „Auf der and. Seite bwar in halber Höhe, etwa 2 m v. Eing., noch der Rest einesschönen Bildes erhalten, wie es scheint mit Spuren syrischerSchrift. Dieser Bilderrest ist jetzt im Museum.“).

2) The mural fragments from East-Turkestan kept in Berlin, whichare registered with the inventory number 1 to around 1000, werefirst inventoried after the Second World War.

3) Cf. ZHAO et al. 2015: fig. 25 (without explanation of its icono-graphical content).

4) For the stylistic classification of the Indo-Iranian style paint-ings in Kucha, see WALDSCHMIDT 1933: 24-30.

5) The same kind of the navy pigment is used for colouring thecloth of one of the donors portrayed in Kizil Cave 118 (Hippo-kampenhöhle, also painted in the First Indo-Iranian style, Inv.-No. III 8658). This fragment has not yet been published in col-our (a monochrome drawing is available in GRÜNWEDEL 1912:fig. 231).


AUTOREN / CONTRIBUTORS 2016-2017

Robert ARLT, M.A., geboren 1986 in Dresden; 2014 Ab-schluss des Studiums der Kunstgeschichte Südasiens undder Sozial- und Kulturanthropologie an der Freien Univer-sität Berlin; 2016 Masterabschluss im Fach Religion undPhilosophie in Asien an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universi-tät, München; Forschungsschwerpunkte im Bereich derfrühen buddhistischen Kunst Süd- und Zentralasiens; pro-moviert z.Z. im Rahmen des DFG-Forschungspojektes „DieStupa-Anlage von Kanaganahalli: kunstwissenschaftlicheund religionsgeschichtliche Auswertung der Darstellungenauf dem rituellen Umschreitungsweg“ am Institut für Indo-logie und Tibetologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität,München, wo er auch Kunstgeschichte Süd- und Zentral-asiens unterrichtet.

Dr. Bernd AUGUSTIN, born 1947 in Hamburg, dissertationon epidemiological research in South Marocco; since 1968regular travels in the Islamic world and India for studyingthe geography, history and art of the region, concentratingmainly on architecture and applied arts, especially metal andstonework; numerous lectures and articles on particulartopics concerning these subjects.

Ursula BICKELMANN-ALDINGER, art historian; born in Hei-delberg, Germany; study of Indian and European art and ar-chaeology in Vienna, Bonn, and Heidelberg; post-graduateresearch scholarship in Paris; art dealer in Strassbourg(France), guest curator; guest editor with Marg Publications,Mumbai; author of monographs on the artist Jyoti Sahi and

the painter Rabindranath Tagore; essays on modern and con-temporary art in India, Europe, and Israel, published indifferent journals in Germany and India; lectures at the uni-versities in Berlin and Cologne as well as at the Birla Aca-demy, Kolkata, in 2010; member of the scientific advisoryboard of the Deutsch-Indische Gesellschaft; lives in Heidel-berg.

Univ.-Prof. i.R. Dr. Adalbert J. GAIL, geboren 1941; 1968Promotion an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Mün-chen; 1972-73 Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter am Museumfür Indische Kunst Berlin; 1978 Habilitation für IndischePhilologie und Indische Kunstgeschichte an der FreienUniversität Berlin; 1974-2006 Professor für Indische Kunst-geschichte an der FU Berlin; Dekan am Fachbereich Alter-tumswissenschaften der FU von 1989 bis 1991; seit 1995Professor an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Karls-Uni-versität Prag; 2006-14 Lehraufträge an der FU Berlin; seit2015 Angkor-Forschung: „Hinduismus - Pantheon und Iko-nographie“.

Dr. Michael HENSS, promovierter Kunsthistoriker (Uni-versität Bonn und Wien), seit 1972 wohnhaft in Zürich. Ab1980 zahlreiche Tibet-Aufenthalte und Feldforschungen;1981 Gründung und Leitung eines Restaurierungsprojektesin den Klöstern von Ladakh; 1983-2016 Leitung der aufAsien spezialisierten Fachbuchhandlung ASIATICA in Zü-rich; Jury-Tätigkeit als Asien-Experte an den Kunstmessenin Zürich, Basel und New York; über 100 Fachpublikationenzur asiatischen und insbesondere tibetischen Kunst; 2005-06

Autoren / Contributors 2016-2017 123

Ko-Kurator der Ausstellung Die Dalai Lamas in Zürich undRotterdam. Weitere Schwerpunkt-Interessen: Ikonografie,Restaurierung, technische und Materialanalysen zur Skulpturund Malerei Asiens; Buchveröffentlichungen: Tibet - DieKulturdenkmäler (1981), Kalachakra. Ein tibetisches Ein-weihungsritual (6. Aufl., 2002), Mustang (3. Aufl., 1999),Buddhist Art in Tibet. New Insights on Ancient Treasures(2008), The Cultural Monuments of Tibet (2 vols., 2014)

< [email protected]>

Dr. Satomi HIYAMA, born 1985 in Ibaraki, Japan; studiedArt History, Archaeology, Indology and Comparative Cul-tural Studies in Tokyo, Munich, Peking and Berlin; 2010-14Research Fellow in the Museum für Asiatische Kunst, Ber-lin; 2014 PhD at the Freie Universität Berlin; 2015-16 Post-doc at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München and theKunsthistorisches Institut, Florenz; currently SPD ResearchFellow at the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science /Ryukoku University, Kyoto; specializing on Buddhist wallpaintings in Central Asia.

Dr. Gerald KOZICZ, geboren 1966 in Graz; beschäftigt sichseit mehr als fünfzehn Jahren mit Themen der Architekturund Kulturgeschichte des westlichen Himalayas; derzeit Pro-jektleiter eines vom österreichischen Fonds zur Förderungder wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FWF) geförderten Pro-jekts über Nagara-Architektur am Institut für Architektur undMedien der Technischen Universität Graz.

Reinhard REICHSTEIN, geboren 1956; Studium der Phar-mazie in Münster/Westfalen und der Romanistik und Philo-sophie in Berlin. Neben der Erwerbsarbeit verschiedene Auf-sätze zu germanistischen Themen. Frühe Indien-Begeiste-rung durch Filme von Satyajit Ray im Kino Arsenal in Ber-lin. Seit fünfzehn Jahren intensive Beschäftigung mit derKultur Indiens und Nepals.

Dr. Nicolas REVIRE, born 1977 in Paris, France. Since 2003lecturer at the Faculty of Liberal Arts, Thammasat Univer-sity, Bangkok, Thailand; 2016 PhD at the Université Paris3-Sorbonne nouvelle, France; he specializes in the Buddhistart and archaeology of South and Southeast Asia with a re-search focus on pre-modern Thailand; general editor of a col-lective volume titled Before Siam: Essays in Art and Archae-ology (Bangkok, 2014).

Prof. Dr. Giuseppe VIGNATO, born in 1962 in Gambellara,Italy; studied Archaeology at the School of Archaeology andMuseology of Peking University; 2005 PhD dissertation onthe rock monastery of Kizil; since 2007 teaching Mediterra-nean and Roman Archaeology, Xinjiang Buddhist Archae-ology, Silk Road Archaeology at the Peking University; pub-lished several articles on the archaeology of the rock monas-teries of Kucha and a monograph in Chinese; co-authoredwith A.F. HOWARD a monograph in English.

Indo-Asiatische ZeitschriftMitteilungen der Gesellschaft für indo-asiatische Kunst

20 / 21 . 2016–2017

Inhalt / Contents

Vorwort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

“Kinsman of the Sun”: An Early Buddha Image in the Asian Art Museum, Berlin, and Solar Symbolism

Nicolas Revire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Die Rückkehr der Verehrer des Buddha – The Safety of Indian ArtRobert Arlt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Monastic Fingerprints – Tracing Ritual Practice in the Rock Monastery of Qizil through Archaeological Evidence

Giuseppe Vignato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Portrait of the Royal Patronage in Kizil Cave 60 (Größte Höhle)Satomi Hiyama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Die Nidhis und Vai¹rava½a in der Bildkunst von Alchi (13./14. Jh.)Gerald Kozicz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Buddha – Sammler öffnen ihre Schatzkammern. 232 Meisterwerke buddhistischer Kunst aus 2.000 Jahren. Ein Nach-Wort. Zur Ausstellung und Katalogpublikation der Völklinger Hütte (Saarbrücken), 25. Juni 2016 – 6. März 2017

Michael Henss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

„Diwan-i-Khas“ – das Haus des Einsäulenthrones von Fatehpur SikriReinhard Reichstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Beside Koh-i-Noor and the Timur Ruby – The Diamond Dagger of Maharaja Sher Singh in his Royal Portrait by August Schoefft

Bernd Augustin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Der Tårakåmaya-Krieg und Angkor WatAdalbert J. Gail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Lesefrüchte aus: Maurice COLLIS, Into Hidden Burma. An Autobiography (1953) . . . . . . 116

SAYED HAIDER RAZA (22 February 1922 – 23 July 2016)Ursula Bickelmann-Aldinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Autoren / Contributors 2016-2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Mitglieder der Gesellschaft für indo-asiatische Kunst 2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Impressum / Imprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Date post:	14-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	7 times
Download:	0 times

Monastic Fingerprints Tracing Ritual Practice in the Rock ... 2017.pdfGiuseppe Vignato The rock...

Documents