review 21-4-2012 december

7/23/2019 Review 21-4-2012 December

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/review-21-4-2012-december 1/28

V OL UME

2 1

NO.4

DE C E

MB E R

2 0 1 2

THE JOURNAL OF

THE ASIAN ARTS SOCIETYOF AUSTRALIA

TAASA Review



E D I T O R I A L

Josefa Green, Editor

3

T A A S A C O M M I T T E E

This is the last TAASA Review for 2012, andit is again a general issue offering a range ofarticles which will hopefully be of interest toour members and which demonstrates therichness of our Asian cultural resources herein Australia.

Two major exhibitions have just or areabout to open. In Brisbane, the 7th AsiaPacic Triennial of Contemporary Art(APT7) celebrates the 20th anniversary ofthis inuential, trail blazing event whichtakes over the entire Gallery of Modern Artand much of the Queensland Art Gallery

until April 2013. In this issue, Russell Storerprovides an insight into the key ideas drivingAPT7 and takes us through some of the mainworks which will be on show.

On show only in Sydney at the AustralianMuseum is Alexander the Great: 2000 years

of treasures , a major exhibition from theState Hermitage, St Petersburg. Some 400objects of both Asian and European originsillustrate aspects of Alexander’s life andlegacy. Elizabeth Cowell from the AustralianMuseum provides an overview of the themesexplored by this exhibition. It is worth noting

that a large program of events, including aseries of most interesting talks, will be heldin conjunction with this exhibition (see What’s

On for website address).

In our recent TAASA questionnaire, whichmany members have helpfully completed, astrong and abiding interest in Central Asiaand topics related to the silk road(s) wasevident. This issue has quite a strong “innerAsian” focus.

In Bingzhou: Gateway to the Splendid Tang, YinCao’s theme is the vibrant interchange of

culture between China and the large regionsto its west in the period leading up to thegreat Tang empire. Many people believethat Chang’an (modern day Xi’an) was theeastern terminus of the silk road(s) from theHan to the Tang periods. Rather, Yin Caodemonstrates that in the many hundredsof years between these two great Chineseempires, it was Pingcheng in Bingzhou(modern day Datong in Shanxi province),which served as the eastern end of the majorhighways connecting China and the west.

Lyndon Arden-Wong takes us further west in

his scholarly article Monumental Stone Sculpturesof the Central-Eastern Steppes. Based on his PhDresearch and current archaeological work onthe Mongolian plateau, Lyndon describes thestyle, iconography and usage of these largeanthropomorphic Türkic monuments dating

from the 6th to mid 8th centuries. The themeof cross cultural inuence in this vast complexregion is taken up again in this article, whichdescribes the impact of Sogdian and Tanginuences on these sculptures, which were inturn signicantly modied by the Uighurs inthe post Türkic era.

We explore the inner Asian region with twofurther articles. Our regular In the Public

Domain features a spectacular collection ofrugs and trappings woven by the women ofthe Yomut Turkmen nomadic group, recentlydonated to the Powerhouse Museum.

Christina Sumner manages in a relativelyshort space to provide a highly informativeaccount of the history of the Turkmen andtheir remarkable weavings.

A personal account of the region is offered byMargaret White, a new member of TAASA’sManagement Committee (see p25 for herprole). In Travellers’ Choice , she describesher experiences while on a study tour ofTurkmenistan with Friends of the Museums,Singapore in 2011, highlighting their visitto the late Bronze age archaeological site ofGonur Depe.

To vary the diet, this issue offers a number ofarticles on completely different topics. ChiakiAjioka’s article, Colour Woodcut International

on modern printmaking in Japan and thewest, is a thoughtful follow up of the lectureshe gave at the joint AGNSW/TAASA Made

in Japan symposium on 4 August, held inassociation with the AGNSW’s exhibitionKamisaka Sekka: dawn of modern Japanese design.

To cater for our many ceramics enthusiasts,Philip Courtenay has written a piece on Thaibencharong wares, which, as he points out,

are perhaps less well known than the historicceramics of central and northern Thailand.These colourful and elaborately decoratedceramics, somewhat akin to Chinese exportware, were produced primarily for utilitarianpurposes. They are most likely to have beenintroduced in the late 16th or early 17thcenturies, manufactured at the Jingdezhenkilns in China according to Thai requirements.

Finally, Judith Rutherford lends her deepexpertise to a review of a very handsomenew publication Chinese Silks , issue by YaleUniversity Press.

By the time this December issue is distributed,many TAASA members will have enjoyed ourend of year Party held this year at Sydney’sGallery 4A. Best wishes for the festive seasonfrom TAASA!

GILL GREEN • PRESIDENT

Art historian specialising in Cambodian culture

CHRISTINA SUMNER • VI CE PR ES ID EN TPrincipal Curator, Design and Society,

Powerhouse Museum, Sydney

AN N GU IL D • TREASURER

Former Director of the Embroiders Guild (UK)

DY ANDREASEN • SECRETARY

Has a special interest in Japanese haiku and tanka poetry

HWEI-FE’N CHEAH

Visiting Fellow, School of Cultural Inquiry, Australian

National University.

JO CE LYN CH EY

Visiting Professor, Department of Chinese Studies,

University of Sydney; former diplomat

MATT COX

Study Room Co-ordinator, Art Gallery of New South

Wales, with a particular interest in Islamic Art of

Southeast Asia

CHARLOTTE GALLOWAY

Lecturer Asian Art History and Curatorial Studies,

Australian National University, with a special interest

in the Buddhist Art of Myanmar

JO SE FA GR EE N

General editor of TAASA Review. Collector of Chinese

ceramics, with long-standing interest in East Asian

art as student and traveller

MIN-JUNG KIM

Curator of Asian Arts & Design at the Powerhouse Museum

AN N PR OC TO R

Art historian with a particular interest in Vietnam

YU KI E SATO

Former Vice President of the Oriental Ceramic Society of

the Philippines with wide-ranging interest in Asian art

and culture

SABRINA SNOW

Has a long association with the Art Gallery of New South

Wales and a particular interest in the arts of China

TODD SUNDERMAN

Former Asian antique dealer, with a particular interest

in Tibetan furniture

MARGARET WHITE

Former President and Advisor of the Friends of Museums,

Singapore, with special interest in Southeast Asian art,

ceramics and textiles

HON. AUDITOR

Rosenfeld Kant and Co

S T A T E R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

MELANIE EASTBURN

Curator of Asian Art, National Gallery of Australia

QUEENSLAND

RUSSELL STORER

Curatorial Manager, Asian and Pacic Art,

Queensland Art Gallery

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

JA ME S BE NN ET T

Curator of Asian Art, Art Gallery of South AustraliaVICTORIA

CAROL CAINS

Curator Asian Art, National Gallery of Victoria International



rchaeological evidence of contacts between people who lived in China and

the vast regions to its west can be traced asfar back as 2000BCE. Scholars have reachedconsensus that bronze knives and swords,turquoise and glass products found at sitesdating back to the ancient Shang (c.1500– 1050BCE) and Zhou (c.1050 – 475BCE)dynasties were inuenced from the west,either from central or west Asia.

In return, it is believed that by the 2nd century

BCE, Chinese silk had already reached theMediterranean, and the Romans mention the“Seres” or “silk people” in remote east Asia intheir historical records.

These early exchanges of goods betweeneast and west may have happened assimple commodity exchanges. However, by138BCE, the year when Emperor Wudi of theWestern Han dynasty (206 BCE – 8CE) sentenvoy Zhang Qian, we start to have ofcialrecognition of the importance of exploring thewestern region (Xiyu). From this period, wesee the rapid development of the Silk Road.

For the two millennia since, the Silk Road- or rather roads - was the major highwayconnecting China and the west, helping themovement of commodities, technologies,religions and cultures among communitiessettling along it. Chang’an, near present dayXi’an, was the site of the capitals of both theHan and Tang dynasties. As a result, it hasgenerally been considered to be the easternterminus of the great route.

In reality, during the many hundreds of years

stretching between the two unied empiresof the Han and Tang, the Silk Road had itseastern end further to the northeast. Thatterminus was in fact in Bingzhou, the ancientname of modern-day Shanxi province.Located along the middle reaches of theYellow River in northern China, Bingzhou became a thriving hub for merchants fromcentral and western Asia to settle and enjoyits opportunities.

Inside Bingzhou, Pingcheng (present-dayDatong), the rst capital city of the NorthernWei dynasty (386-534), was once the most

famous city at the eastern end of the Silk Road. Jinyang (present day Taiyuan) was also a veryimportant political and military centre for theEastern Wei (534-550), Northern Qi (550-577)

and Northern Zhou (557-581), all dynastiesthat encouraged foreign contacts to the west.

While the Silk Road reached its zenith duringthe Tang dynasty (618-906), its signicance

did not emerge overnight. Instead, its rise wasthe result of intensive interactions between theeast and the west regions of Eurasia duringthe prior Northern dynasties. Archaeologicaldiscoveries in Shanxi Province, particularlyin Datong and Taiyuan, indicate that therewere many people from central and westernAsia travelling to Bingzhou and residingthere during the Northern dynasties period between the 4th and 6th centuries. Indeed,it is not farfetched to claim that Pingchengwas the east terminus of the Silk Road duringthe Northern Wei dynasty until 494 before

Emperor Xiao Wendi moved his capital toLuoyang, Henan Province.

Almost 15 centuries later, in 1988, a farmeraccidently unearthed a silk pocket lled with49 silver coins on the Great Wall near Datong.On one side of each coin is the prole portraitof a Persian Emperor wearing a crown of theSun and Moon; on the other side is a re altarand two priests. The smooth edges of the silvercoins suggest that they had been frequentlyused before being buried. Detailed researchinto the motifs and inscriptions on the coinssuggest that they were made between 457-484,

during the reign of Peroz in Persia, but wererst buried between 489-499, when EmperorXiao Wendi of the Northern Wei dynastymoved his capital from Pingcheng to Luoyang.

Studies of the Northern Wei dynasty -established by the nomadic Tuoba tribe ofthe Xianbei - indicate that the ruling classencouraged commerce from central Asia.Their favourable trade policies may have been

due to shared cultures and customs. Duringthe era when Pingcheng served as the capitalof the Northern Wei dynasty, merchants fromas far as Rome, Persia and Sogdia gatheredthere, making it one of the most cosmopolitancities. The Northern Wei government alsoestablished a direct diplomatic relationshipwith Persia in order to promote trade betweenthe two countries. According to Wei Shu (the historical record of the Wei dynasty),during the Peroz period between 457 – 494,four envoys were sent to Pingcheng, andthe Northern Wei sent envoys to Persia to

exchange goods and develop ties.

Research also shows that the Northern Weidynasty did not produce its own currency.Rather it relied on merchandise, such as silktextiles, and currency from either previousdynasties or foreign ones. Persian Sasaniansilver coins were also popular amongmerchants in the Central Asian communities,such as the Sogdians and the Turks, whomight have been responsible for bringingthem to Pingcheng. Similar coins of thePeroz period have been found along the SilkRoad in the modern-day regions of Shaanxi,

Hebei and Inner Mongolia. Discovered by the builders of the Ming Great Wall, they werereburied for reasons that have been lost totime, resurfacing only in 1988.

4

A

B I N G Z H O U : G A T E W A Y T O T H E S P L E N D I D T A N G

Yin Cao

T A A S A R E V I E W V O L U M E 2 1 N O . 4

PERSIAN SILVER COINS, 2ND HALF OF 5TH CENTURY. 19.5 – 23.2 MM (D). DISCOVERED IN DATONG, SHANXI PROVINCE.

COLLECTION OF THE COUNTY BUREAU OF RELICS. IMAGE COURTESY SHANXI MUSEUM.


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/review-21-4-2012-december 10/2810 T A A S A R E V I E W V O L U M E 2 1 N O . 4

create the memorial complexes/ancestraltemple for him. A stele was erected (the KülTegin inscription of Köshöö Tsaidam) andKül Tegin’s “likeness was cut from stone” (JiuTang Shu 194a.5177).

Thus, these stone statues were commissioned by the Tang Empire and they are almostdirectly analogous with stone sculptures offoreigners on the spirit paths (Ch. shendao)of Tang imperial funerary complexes. TheTang gures possibly represent foreignambassadors from various polities: the variety

of ethnic costumes, grooming and physicalappearance reects the diversity and widepolitical reach of the Tang.

The gures are always male and commonlydepicted standing front-on with both handscrossed before their chest (left over right),whilst some have their hands tucked into theopposite sleeve in front of their chest. A fewsouth and/or southeast Asian gures gesturewith their palms of their hands together. Thecostumes are depicted with a great deal of careand although some carry sheathed knives or

daggers, none carry swords nor wear armour.

The Köshöö Tsaidam gures show the sameattention to detail and proportion but thereare some signicant differences between themand the Tang type. The former depict varyingpostures, some gures are kneeling andperhaps there are female gures represented(Stark 2008: 129). Despite the employmentof Tang artisans, there are signs of continueduse of the old Türkic forms. Although theshoulders and most of the arms are missing,the cross-legged gures from Bilge Khagan’scomplex seem to be holding the posture of

right arm to the chest (possibly holding avessel) and left arm into the lap as with Sher ’sgroup 1. Although it is apparent that the Tanginuence in the memorial complexes is strong,

it has been suggested that perhaps it was theearly Türkic stone sculptures that inuencedthe use of stone gures in Tang funerary sites(Zhang Jianlin 2008: 81-2).

The Second Türkic Khaganate was displaced by the Uighurs, who formed their ownKhaganate (744-840). Though they initiallycontinued many Türkic traditions of thesteppe, the propagation of Manichaeismfrom 762/763 and the changing political andcultural orientation of the Uighurs resulted inchanges to the funerary tradition of the elite.

Monumental anthropomorphic stonegures continued to be produced; their mostprominent iconographical difference fromTürkic period statues is that they grasp theirvessel with both hands at their abdomen.These later statues also face east, howeverthey are not associated with the use of balbalsand stone fences (Kyzlasov 1969: 80-2). Itmay be that the Uighur stone statues werenot associated with funerary cults, whichindicates the transition of ritual cultureduring the period (Hayashi 1996). Certainly,

no anthropomorphic stones have been foundat elite Uighur memorial sites.

This article has aimed to provide a brief overviewof the monumental anthropomorphic stonesfound on the central-eastern steppes, and howtheir style, iconography and usage changed overtime. The Bronze Age yielded the rst examplesin the Mongolian region. It was not until the6th century that the Türkic stone gure culturerevived the use of such sculptures, which spreadinto the heart of Central Asia with the Türks’rapid rise to power. Sogdian inuence is evidenton the sculptures of the early Türks while those

of the Second Türkic Khagante in elite memorialcomplexes show signs of political and culturalexchange with the Tang Empire. The Uighursmodied the ritual by abandoning the use of

balbals and stone fences. In addition, the Uighuraristocracy did not employ anthropomorphicstones in their funerary complexes. The author’sforthcoming study of the anthropomorphicstones’ associated architectures will aim to throw

further light on the meaning and inuences ofpost Türkic sculptures.

Lyndon Arden-Wong is currently completing his PhD

with the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie

University on architectural developments of early

medieval Inner Asia and their relation to the region's

sociopolitical dynamics. One of his most significant

recent archaeological projects has been with the

German-Mongolian excavations at Karabalgasun,

Mongolia. He is President of the Macquarie Asian

Historical Research Society (MAHRS).

REFERENCESErmolenko L.N. 2004. Srednevekovyye kamennyye izvayaniya

kazakhstanskikh stepey (tipologiya , semantika v aspekte voyennoy

ideologii i traditsionnogo mirovozzreniya), Novosibirsk : izd- vo

IAET SO RAN.

Fitzhugh W.W. 2009. “The Mongolian Deer Stone-Khirigsuur

Complex: Dating and Organization of a Late Bronze Age

Menagerie” in Bemmann, J., Parzinger, H., Pohl, E. and

Tseveendorzh, D. (eds.) Current Archaeological Research in

Mongolia, Bonn: Vor- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn.

Hayashi Toshio. 2006. “Sogdian Influences Seen on Turkic Stone

Statues Focusing on the Fingers Representations Eran ud Aneran,

Studies presented to Boris Ilich Marshak on the Occasion of His

70th Birthday, Transoxiania Compareti, M., Raffetta, P., Scarcia and

G., Venezia (eds.) (online edition cited on 20/9/12) http://www.

transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/hayashi.htmlHayashi Toshio. 1996. “Mongoria no ishi hito” Kokuritsu Minzoku-

gaku Hakubutsukan Kenkyu Hokoku, 21-1.

Jacobson, E. 1993. The Deer Goddess of Ancient Siberia, A Study

in the Ecology of Belief , Leiden, New York and Köln: Brill.

Jettmar, K. 1994. “Body-Painting and the Roots of the Scytho-

Siberian Animal Style” in Genito, B. (ed.), The Archaeology of the

Steppes: Methods and Strategies. Papers from the international

symposium held in Naples, 9-12 November 1992. Napoli: Istituto

Universitario Orientale, Series minor 44.

Kyzlasov, L.R. 1969. Istoriya Tuvy v sredniye veka , Moskva :

Moskovskiy Gosudarstvennyy Universitet.

Li Rongxi (trans.) [Hui Li] 1995. A Biography of the Tripitaka Master

of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty, Berkeley:

Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research.

[Liu Xu (ed.)] 1975 Jiu Tang Shu, Beijing: Zhonghua Shuju.

Ozheredov Yu.I. 2009. “Drevnetyurkskiye Izvayaniya v Zavkhane

( k svodu arkheologicheskikh pamyatnikov Zapadnoy Mongolii

)”, Tsybiktarov, A.D., Danilov, S.V., Konovalov, P.B., Tumen, D.,

Erdenebaatar, D. (eds.) Drevniye Kul’tury Mongolii i Baykal’skoy

Sibiri, Ulan- Ude : Izdatel’stvo Buryatskogo Gosuniversiteta.

Sher, Ya. A. 1966. Kamennyye izvayaniya Semirech’ya, Moskva i

Lenningrad : Nauka .

Stark, S. 2009. “Some Remarks on the Headgear of the Royal

Türks” Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology, Vol. 4.

Stark, S. 2008. Die Alttürkenzeit in Mittel- und Zentralasien,

archäologische und historische Studien, Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.

Yatsenko, S.A. 2009. “Early Turks: Male Costume in the Chinese Art,

Second half of the 6th – first half of the 8th c. (Images of ‘Others’)”

Transoxiana Vol. 14 (online edition cited on 20/9/12) http://www.

transoxiana.org/14/yatsenko_turk_costume_chinese_art.html

Zhang Jianlin 2008. “Yaodao yu fa bian - tang ling lingyuan shike

fan qiu xiang zhong di tu jue ren xingxiang” Wang Shuanghuai, Fan

Yingfeng (eds.) Qianling wenhua yanjiu Vol. 4, Xi’an: Sanzou chuban.

ILLUSTRATION OF A POST-TÜRKIC (POSSIBLY UIGHUR, 8TH - 9TH CENTURY) ANTHROPOMORPHIC STONE SCULPTURE

LOCATED ON THE KHEMCHIK RIVER, TUVA . AFTER: KYZLASOV 1969, P. 80, FIG. 26.


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/review-21-4-2012-december 13/2813T A A S A R E V I E W V O L U M E 2 1 N O . 4

ompared with historic Thai ceramics,such as those from central and northern

Thailand, or with the even better knownChinese export wares, Thailand’s historicbencharong wares are practically unknownoutside the country itself and are rarely onpublic view.

Although substantial collections, mainly instorage, in two museums in Oslo, Norway,have been brought recently to the attentionof a wider audience (Bromberg & Håbu

2011) and small numbers of items are heldin museums in Sydney, London and LosAngeles as well as in the National Museumand some private collections in Thailand(Robinson 1982), the only comprehensivepublicly accessible collection is held in JimThompson’s House on the Klong in Bangkok(Warren and Blake 1968; Rooney 2003).This limited exposure is surprising giventhe growing domestic popularity of thesedistinctive ceramics and their increasingemployment as gift-wares especially duringthe Thai new year. However, there is a recentsurge of publications and increasing interest

among collectors and researchers of Asianceramics and a public exhibition of the Oslocollections is planned for 2013.

The term bencharong refers to a class ofcolourful porcelain, or occasionally stoneware,ceramics that occur in a variety of shapessimilar to those of Chinese export wares.They were produced primarily for utilitarianpurposes and their forms are consequentlysimple with gentle contours. The mostcommon items are covered and uncovered bowls, jars of different sizes, plates, stem or

pedestal plates, spittoons, spoons, teapots andtea sets. Their exterior surfaces are completelycovered with design motifs; the interiors arepainted and decorated less elaborately. Thecolour combinations, especially of red, yellow, black, white and green in the earlier wares,gave rise to their descriptive name from theSanskrit panch and rong — ve colours —though other colours, including pink, purpleand blue, were added in later pieces.

Evidence for dating the origins of bencharong wares is scarce. There are virtually no writtenrecords recording their rst introduction and

the large majority have no marks to helpidentify their age. However, evidence frommarks on some pieces and discoveries ofbencharong fragments in the ruins of the old

Thai capital of Ayutthaya where sherds wereused as mosaic pieces on temple decoration,together with comparisons made with datableChinese porcelains, have led to the belief thatthe wares were probably rst introduced in thelate 16th or early 17th centuries and becamepopular in the royal court of Ayutthaya.Most extant pieces are from the late 18th and,particularly, the 19th century when they cameto be widely used by the Bangkok elite. Onefairly certain date is 1730 when famille rose wasperfected in China, so bencharong with pinkcolour cannot be earlier. The late 18th to the

early 20th century is generally recognised asa reasonable range of dates for the productionof classical bencharong ceramics.

There are some differences of opinion overthe location of the production of classicalbencharong wares, notably of the enamellingwhich has been a subject of century-longdebate. As with their dating, no written recordhas been found. It is generally agreed, withslight differences of opinion, that the wareswere made in China at the Jingdezhen kilnsaccording to Thai requirements as to colours,motifs and arrangements of the pattern and

were produced in several stages. Under thesupervision of Thai craftsmen, they weremade by Chinese potters who followed localproduction and ring techniques.

Between the late 18th and early 19th centuries,the Thai court was the exclusive patron ofbencharong. However, by the mid-19th centurythe clientele had expanded and the wares became a luxury commodity for those in theservice of the court and wealthy merchantswho ordered them for their personal use.Later, inferior wares were produced and,although neither as well made nor as nelyexecuted as those made for royalty, theycontinued to follow traditional taste in design.

Ceramics known as Lai Nam Thong wares,

which were imported from China, usually ascustomised special orders for the Thai court,are closely related to the bencharongwares, bothin the type of porcelain used as well as in theirshapes, decorative patterns and uses. Lai Nam

Thong ceramics became particularly popularduring the reign of Rama II (1809-1824) andmost pieces date from the 19th century. Thewares are distinguished, however, by the useof gold either in the background of the designor as part of the decorative pattern itself. Thegold was employed in conjunction with theenamels and added to the piece before, afteror at the same time as the enamels.

The classical design motifs were based onora, mythical animals and deities drawnfrom Buddhism, the Ramakien — Thailand’s

C

B E N C H A R O N G — T H A I L A N D ' S F I V E - C O L O U R C E R A M I C S

Philip Courtenay

PORCELAIN COVERED BOWL WITH METAL RIM, MADE IN CHINA (KILN UNKNOWN) FOR THE THAI MARKET, EARLY 19TH CENTURY,

MOST LIKELY RAMA II PERIOD (1809-1824), 18CMS (D) X 12CMS (H). COLLECTION OF PAUL BROMBERG



national epic derived from the Indian Ramayana— and various folk tales and legends.

Floral designs utilise a range of tropicalSoutheast Asian leaves and owers and,although some items are decorated almostexclusively with ora, stylised plant forms aremore commonly employed as background orframes for deities, animals or birds. A ame-

like leaf pattern symbolic of the unboundame of Buddhism appears frequently as doscrolls of tropical leaves, the lotus ower, andpatterns of twisted stems.

Mythical creatures who inhabit the legendaryHimmapan forest, said to be in the Himalayason the slopes of the fabled Mt Meru, minglewith deities and combined animal or partanimal and part human creatures in thedesigns. The most common beings include:Hanuman, chief of the monkey army; aGaruda , a mythical creature with a human body and birdlike wings, legs and a thick

curved beak; a Norasingh , a semi-deity witha human head, torso and arms combinedwith the hind-quarters of a lion and the tailand hoofs of a deer; a Singh , a mythical lion

with the wings of a bird and a leaf-like tail;a Thepanom , a celestial being usually depictedin a worshipping posture, and a Thewada,

a celestial being typically depicted in aseated position with outstretched arms. TheThepanom and Norasingh motifs are the mostcommon designs on bencharong.

The style and designs of classical bencharong

wares - as distinct from their modern market-oriented replicas - vary approximately with thereigns of successive monarchs with substantialoverlaps but slightly different datings.

During the later part of the Ayutthayakingdom (1665-1767) when the seat of Thaipower was still based on the historic capital before its destruction by the Burmese army, bowls and covered jars, tiered jars and stemplates were the most fashionable forms. Themost popular ornamentation incorporatedThepanom with Norasingh and Thepanom withGaruda separated by a re pattern on a black

background pre-coated with green. Interiorsusually were an opaque green with a oral border design and overlapping lotus on the bottom. However few genuine late Ayutthaya

bencharong pieces survived attrition by war,looting, weather and treasure hunters.

Following Ayutthya’s destruction, the royalcapital was moved for a short period (1767-82) to the then important garrison town ofThon Buri on the right bank of the ChaoPhraya river. However its site was limitedand threatened by erosion. On the decision

of Rama I, the rst monarch of the ChakriDynasty (r. 1782 to 1809), the capital wasmoved to Bangkok in the rst year of hissovereignty.

During the reign of Rama I, the patterns ofthe Ayutthya era’s bencharong wares werepreserved by sending surviving pieces toChina for copying. Such wares includedcovered jars, tiered jars and a particulartype of covered bowl. Interior white glazeson the copies replaced the greens of theearlier pieces. Although earlier designs,such as the Norasingh, Garuda and Thepanom

were retained, many new designs appearedincluding Hanuman , Kinnari (a half-bird, half-woman denizen of the Himmapan forest) andSinghakala (lion face).

PORCELAIN STEM TRAY, MADE IN CHINA (KILN UNKNOWN) FOR THE THAI MARKET, EARLY 19TH CENTURY, MOST LIKELY RAMA II PERIOD (1809-1824), 21.5 CMS (D) X 10 CMS (H). COLLECTION OF PAUL BROMBERG



Some expert opinion suggests that the most beautiful designs made by Chinese pottersappeared during the reign of Rama II (1809-24). They comprised a range of forms includingewers, plates, bowls, covered jars, spittoons,

covered bowls and cosmetic or medicine jars.The vessels were popularly embellished withlotus-petal space designs both on lids andtheir bodies. In the reign of Rama III (1824-51),vessels initially became faceted in shape, withdecoration painted on each panel. Designswere of owers and plants with groups of birds on a white background.

Many designs of Lai Nam Thong wares, whichwere especially popular in the reign of RamaII, have been described as the most attractiveof the Sino-Thai production. A large range were

used in this period and varied from traditionalto innovations composed of birds, butteriessearching for nectar, and a Chinese owerdesign of a peony with small birds and squirrels.

The classical period of both bencharong andLai Nam Thong wares ended in the mid-19thcentury.

During the 1851-1868 reign of Rama IV, the 1855Bowring Treaty, signed between Thailand andthe United Kingdom, opened up trade betweenthe two countries to be followed by othersimilar bilateral treaties with foreign powers.

One consequence of this trade liberalisationwas the import of European, blue-and-whiteChinese and Japanese pottery into Thailandthat resulted in a decline in the popularity ofbencharong and Lai Nam Thong wares.

In the last half of the 19th century some smallscale efforts were made to overglaze blankor blue-and-white Chinese wares in thebencharong style and a few coarse pieces wereeven made entirely in Thailand. Howeverlocally produced items could not compete inprice, quality or taste with imported ceramics

(Shaw, 1987) and the production of bencharong had effectively ended by the rst years of the20th century.

In recent years there has been a substantialexpansion in the market for bencharong wares.Items, including faithful reproductions oftraditional styles, are now being made toorder for gifts and souvenirs, with specialistand online shops (eg Boonyarat, 2010) offeringa wide range of pieces. Customised piecescan be ordered with personalised messageson individual wares. Occasional traditionalpieces may be offered for sale, though aged

pieces are increasingly difcult to source.

Bencharong wares received national publicityin 1980 through a special issue of postage

stamps in Thailand, one of which, showing apair of covered bowls, won the second prizein the stamp contest at the World PhilatelicExhibition in Vienna, Austria, in 1981.

The contemporary interest in bencharong wares has been further promoted by theorganisation of venues for tourists toexperience their manufacture and decorationat rst hand. In August 2010 the TourismAuthority of Thailand launched an eventwhich included an exhibition of bencharong porcelain, a demonstration of its productionand a sale of various bencharong pieces.

Philip Courtenay is a retired academic and occasional

freelance writer, with a special interest in Southeast

Asian ceramics.

REFERENCESBoonyarat Benjarong shop, http://www.benjarong.net/index.php

Bromberg, Paul.2010. A Passion for Bencharong, in Arts of Asia,

vol 40, no.3, pp 149-157

Bromberg, Paul and Anne Håbu. 2011. The Ring Collection of

Bencharong in Arts of Asia, vol 41, no.2, pp 131-139

Rooney, Dawn. 2003. Bencharong in the Jim Thompson Museum

Collection, http://rooneyarchive.net/ceramics/intro-bencharong.

html

Shaw, John C. 1987. Introducing Thai Ceramics also Burmese and

Khmer, Craftsman Press.

Warren, Wiliam and Brian Blake. 1968. The House on the Klong,

Tokyo, privately printed, pp 12, 53 & 68-9

Robinson, Natalie. 1982. Sino-Thai Ceramics in the National

Museum, Bangkok, Thailand and in private collections, Bangkok,

Dept of Fine Arts.

PORCELAIN LIME POT, MADE IN CHINA (KILN UNKNOWN) FOR THE THAI MARKET, MID 19TH CENTURY,

MOST LIKELY RAMA III PERIOD (1824-1851), 5.5 CMS (D) X 6 CMS (H). COLLECTION OF PAUL BROMBERG



style painters to design them. In contrast,a majority of Creative Print artists wereWestern-style modernist artists.

The crucial difference between the two majorgroups of printmakers was the existence ofthe publisher as producer who would havethe nal say in design, blockcutting andprinting, and not the fact that the print was blockcut or printed by someone other thanthe artist. But the Creative Print artists usedthis argument to dene their work against theNew Prints and to question the latter’s artisticintegrity. Underlying their hostility towards

the New Prints was the latter’s success in theforeign market and the question of identitythis entailed: although they professed torepresent contemporary Japanese print, they

were painfully aware that the Western notionof ‘the Japanese print’ was either the pre-modern ukiyo-e or the New Prints.

But it is among the Creative Prints that someuniquely modern expressions are found: twoprints from the 1930s, one by American artistElizabeth Colborne (1885-1948) and the other by Fujimaki Yoshio (1909-1935), demonstratevery personal responses to their environmentin the medium of woodcut. Colborne, underthe impact of the Great Depression, spentthe summer of 1933 in a cabin, hungry andproducing art (Martin 2011: 26). In 1934

Fujimaki, suffering from tuberculosis andpoverty, was capturing aspects of Tokyo withhis unique perspective, before vanishing thefollowing year.

After World War II, the two colour woodcut‘parallels’ met in a new, global environment.Creative Prints were ‘discovered’ by theWest, and as they entered the international biennales, Western artists again studied newly

developed colour woodblock techniques fromindividual artists, and information began toow both ways.

Please note that Japanese names in the text follow

the Japanese system: surname rst.

Dr Chiaki Ajioka is an independent researcher

who is currently exploring Japan-West dialogue in

printmaking and craft. She is a recipient of a Japan

Fellowship 2013 to write on Mingei in the West.

REFERENCES Ajioka Chiaki. HANGA. Japanese creative prints, Art Gallery of

New South Wales, Sydney

Fletcher F. Morley. 1916. Wood-block printing, John Hogg, London

Kono Minoru. 1998. ‘Han no e kara kaiga eno hoga (From plate

pictures to painting)’ in Kindai Nihon hanga no shoso (Aspects of

modern Japanese prints): Chuokoron Bijutsu Shuppan, Tokyo

Nishiyama Junko. 2000. ‘One aspect of Creative Prints: Tomimoto

Kenkichi and his influence’ in

Malcolm Salaman, ‘Wood-engraving for colour in Great Britain’ in

The Studio vol.58, 1913

Martin, David. 2011. Evergreen muse: the art of Elizabeth

Colborne, Whatcom Museum, Bellinghan, Washington

Okazaki Akio. 2003. ‘Arthur Wasley Dow’s address in Kyoto, Japan

(1903)’, in The Journal of Aesthetic Education vol. 37 no.4: 84-93.

Ono Tadashige. Kindai Nihon no hanga: 1971. Sansaisha, Tokyo

Salaman Malcolm. ‘A new school of colour-printing for artists’ in

The Studio vol.55, 1912

Sawatari Kiyoko. 1996. Eyes toward Asia: Ukiyoe artists from

abroad. Yokohama Museum of Art, Yokohama

RED SUN, 1934, COLOUR WOODCUT AND HAND COLOURING AND COLLAGE, FUJIMAKI YOSHIO (1909-1935),

41.7 x 27.9CM (IMAGE), THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF MODERN ART, TOKYO



Diversity also characterises the works ofthe ve Aboriginal Australian artists in theexhibition, from the sublime paintings andcarved poles of Tiwi artist Timothy Cook, tothe enormous scrap-metal narbongs (string bags) of Lorraine Connelly-Northey, toDaniel Boyd’s mysterious paintings andvideo installation, which feature screens ofdots that obscure images which referenceprimitivism and colonialism. These worksreect a key concern of Boyd’s: the erasureof Indigenous knowledge, and the gaps inunderstanding between non-Indigenous andIndigenous cultures. It is a concern shared by

photographer Michael Cook, whose portraitsof Aboriginal models dressed as gures fromfour European colonial powers –English,French, Spanish and Dutch – imagines a past

in which knowledge and understanding wasshared between people, suggesting a possibleway forward for the future.

The recuperation and questioning of historicalmaterial has been an increasingly importantapproach for contemporary artists. Thearchive provides a productive model to workthrough the vast amounts of information thatis now accessible at the click of a button, and tomake connections between disparate objects,people, and sites. As theorist Hal Foster haswritten, archival art carries ‘a will to relate – toprobe a misplaced past, to collate its different

signs… to ascertain what might remain forthe present’ (Foster 2004). Artist-generatedand independent archives have also beenimportant repositories of documents, texts

and images in Asia and the Pacic, often inlieu of ofcial institutions.

To register two decades of the APT, the Galleryapproached four artists and artist groups to

interpret different archives around the region, brought together in the project ‘The 20-YearArchive’.

Singaporean artist Heman Chong drewupon hundreds of texts relating to the APTfrom the Gallery’s Australian Centre of AsiaPacic Art archive to create a multi-channelsound installation. The Hong Kong-basedcollaborative duo MAP Ofce have createdan atlas of that city’s Asia Art Archive, basedon 111 artists with works linked to speciclocations. Raqs Media Collective will present adisplay from the Sarai archive, a research centrethey co-founded in New Delhi in 2000, whileartist Torika Bolatagici, poet Teresia Teaiwaand illustrator Mat Hunkin have generateda new archive, titled ‘{disarmed} imagininga Pacic archive’, which addresses aspectsof militarisation in the Pacic, particularlyin Fiji. The three artists, of different Pacicheritages and living in Australia and NewZealand, suggest the continual ows ofpeoples and cultures across the region, and theintimately intertwined histories we share.

By acknowledging these complex connections,

as well as providing a platform for newcultural links, the APT has been a signicantparticipant in the rapidly changing artisticlandscape of our region. It has encourageda detailed and nuanced appreciation ofAsian and Pacic contemporary art in localaudiences, and charted its movements overtwo decades. APT7 offers a wide-rangingview of the present and fresh perspectiveson the past, while keeping an eye on possiblefuture directions, wherever they may lead us.

Russell Storer is Curatorial Manager, Asian and

Pacific Art at the Queensland Art Gallery / Gallery

of Modern Art.

REFERENCEHal Foster ‘An Archival Impulse’, October, no.110, Fall 2004, pp.3-22.

LIVING TOGETHER IN PARADISE (DETAIL), 2009, NGUYEN MANH HUNG, VIETNAM B.1976,

MIXED MEDIA INSTALLATION, PHOTOGRAPH: NGUYEN THE SON, COURTESY: THE ARTIST

ATLAS OF ASIA ART ARCHIVE (DETAIL), 2012, MAP OFFICE,

EST. 1996, HONG KONG, PROJECT CONCEIVED AND DEVELOPED

DURING MAP, OFFICE RESIDENCY AT ASIA ART ARCHIVE (HONG

KONG) IN 2012, IMAGES COURTESY: THE ARTISTS



Chinese Silks

Edited by Dieter Kuhn, Yale University Press, August 2012

Distributed in Australia by Inbooks

RRP AUS$110.00, hardcover, 572pp

Silk has been an essential component ofChina’s material culture for thousands ofyears. During the Shang and Zhou Dynasties(c.1500 – 475 BCE) silk was considered to beone of the two most treasured gifts exchanged between the aristocracy – the other being jade.

In 1995 the rst international textile conferenceorganised by Diana Collins and the Hong KongTextile Society took place in Hong Kong withWestern scholars and some of China’s leadingacademics, including Professor Bao Mingxin

from Shanghai and Professor Zhao Feng fromthe National Silk Museum in Hangzhou. TheConference ndings identied certain areas forfurther study including the location of earlytextile workshops, the type and construction ofearly looms and the quantity of silk producedduring specic periods.

This new publication deals with all of thoseareas and more. It represents a collaboration between Chinese and Western textile scholarswhich has produced a major reference workin English on the history of China’s silk

industry. Contributing scholars include Chen Juanjuan, Huang Nengfu, Dieter Kuhn, LiWenying, Peng Hao and Zhao Feng, with anintroduction by James C. Y. Watt.

Here is a unique opportunity for textilescholars to tap into all the latest informationfrom archaeological nds in China and alsore-discover signicant textiles from collectionsaround the world. Translating Chinese technicalterms relating to weaving, embroidery andsericulture always presents a challenge and inmany instances this is the rst time that some ofthese terms have been translated.

The Frontispiece with an image of theDiamond Sutra from the Liaoning ProvincialMuseum, Shenyang, dating to the Later Liang

dynasty (916CE) tantalisingly sets up anexpectation of excellence from this publicationand the reader is not disappointed.

The dated tomb excavations from Xinjiang,the Dunhuang Caves, the Han Tomb atMawangdui in Changsha, Hunan andclothing excavated from a crypt which wassealed in 874CE, part of the Famen Monastryin Shaanxi, brought a new dimension tothe study of early textiles. Prior to theseexcavations most of the information relating

to early textiles came from oracle bones,impressions on bronzes and carvings ontortoise shells and earthenware inscriptions.

There is a detailed synopsis of sericulture andsilk weaving from the earliest period to theZhou Dynasty (c.1050 – 475BCE). Silk fabricswere produced in four main categories:domestic households of farmers, workshopsoperated by the State, private professionalweaving households and loom workshopswhich were under the control of nobles andelite members of society.

During the Qin (221-207BCE), Han (206BCE– 220CE), Wei (220-265) and Jin (265-420)periods, state and regional administrationprocesses were established to supervise silkworkshops. Weaving workshops producedthe elaborate clothes for use at Imperialceremonies. The demand for Chinese silkduring this period was such that the RomanEmperors spent the equivalent of 100,000ounces of gold each year on Chinese silks.

The silks of the Sui (581-618), Tang (618-906)and Five Dynasties (906-960) can be classied

into three groups. The rst being the TangDynasty discoveries at Dunhuang by Steinand Pelliot now held at the British Museumand the Musee Guimet, Paris. Secondly, thelate Tang textiles which had been Imperialgifts, excavated at the Underground Palaceof the Famen Monastery Pagoda. The thirdgroup were mainly Buddhist sutra wrappersfrom the Five Dynasty Period, excavatedfrom the Cloud-Cliff Pagoda on Tiger Hill inSuzhou. The dynamic interaction betweenthe Liao (907-1125), Song (960-1279), and Jin(1115-1234) cultures came together and theeconomic and social impact of silk continued:

it was an emblem of the highest social status.

The inuences of the Mongol regime can beseen in the colour palette of Yuan Dynasty

(1279-1368) textiles. There was a preference formonochromes and the most popular shadeswere red, brown and green. Ming dynasty1368-1644) silks reected the prosperity ofthis era. The satins, twills, gauzes and velvetswere often embellished with gold.

Although in the past some scholars have beenless than complementary about Qing Dynasty(1644-1911) textiles, an illustrated example(Plate 9.45 – page 469) of a ceremonial robeembroidered with tiny pearls, coral beads

and peacock feathers shows that signicanttextiles were still being produced, albeit in theImperial Workshops, during that period.

This publication makes a signicationcontribution not only to the study ofChinese silk, weaving and embroidery, butthe references and translations from earlyChinese texts add a wonderful insight into thesocial history of China.

Judith Rutherford AM was President of TAASA from

2001 to 2010 and was the Founder of TAASA’s Textile

Study Group.

BOOK REVIEW: C H I N E S E S I L K S

Judith Rutherford

23

review 21-4-2012 december

Documents