Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T19:30:23.601Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A note on the inscriptions on two Chinese rugs in the Victoria and Albert Museum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

C. R. Bawden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among the many attractive rugs illustrated and described in H. A. Lorentz's book on Chinese rugs are two pillar rugs, one of which bears a dedicatory inscription in Chinese, the other a dedicatory inscription in Mongol. The rugs apparently form a pair. They are of the same size, the design of each, an encircling dragon, is a mirror image of that of the other, the borders are identical, and the positions of the inscriptions correspond. The shades of colour, too, are the same, indicating contemporaneous manufacture. Yet, on the face of it, the two inscriptions refer to two distinct donations, and they have been so interpreted by the author. The date in the Chinese inscription is the first month of summer in the year i-yu in the reign of Ch'ien Lung, that is 1765, while the date in the Mongol inscription is the first month of summer in the female-blue hen year in the reign of Badarayultu Törö (Kuang Hsü), that is 1885. Mr. Lorentz quotes expert opinion to the eifect that, the dates apart, the two rugs look as if they must have been woven at the same time as each other and be of late date. The inference is, he says, that both were made in 1885. Yet, he says, after describing the Chinese inscription: ‘The puzzle is that the Mongol inscription in the other rug declares that this rug was presented by a different person one hundred and twenty years later!’. He offers an ingenious explanation for this dilemma, suggesting that the second donor, for he is of the opinion that two donations did indeed take place, at an interval of 120 years, caused an earlier rug to be copied, in order that he could present a pair, rather than a single item. The donor's idea would have been, to quote Mr. Lorentz: ‘I herewith submit the copy of a famous rug dedicated in 1765, to which I add another such rug with my own dedication, presenting thus a pair’.

Type
Notes and Communications
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , October 1977 , pp. 586 - 590
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lorentz, H. A., A view of Chinese rugs from the seventeenth to the twentieth century, London and Boston, Mass., Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973.Google Scholar See plate 74 for a partial view of the two rugs in colour, and p. 138 for a black and white photograph in which the inscriptions are fully visible. I am grateful to Mr. Donald King, Keeper of Textiles at the Victoria and Albert Museum, for kindly allowing me to inspect the rugs, and to Mrs. Linda Parry for displaying them. The rugs are numbered T 238 and T 239 and were presented to the Museum in 1928.

2 Lorentz, 140. I have tacitly restored the letter γ where it has been omitted in the printing.

3 For a sketch of the government of an Ordos banner see Mostaert, A., ‘Annonce de la mort de l'empereur Te-tsoung et de l'impératrice douairière Ts'eu-hi aux Mongols de la bannière d'Otoy (Ordos)’, in Franke, H. (ed.), Studia Sino-Altaica, Wiesbaden, 1961, especially p. 146.Google Scholar See also Mostaert, , Dictionnaire ordos, 200aGoogle Scholar, and Serruys, H., ‘A socio-political document from Ordos: the dürim of Otoy from 1923’, Monumenta Serica, xxx, 1972–1973, 533.Google Scholar The five senior officials, or tabun ingken, of a banner, were the two ministers or tusalayči, the akiruyči anggi, and two meyiren-ü anggi. For the conferment of the privilege of wearing the rank-button of a akiruyči, see DO, 181a.Google Scholar

4 See for example Nasanbaljir, Ts. and Natsagdorj, Sh., Ardyn zargyn bichig (Monumenta Historica, iv, 1), Ulan Bator, 1968, 7Google Scholar: Halhyn gün Sampilyn hoshuuny hoshuug zahiragch zangi Daldan tan ‘Daldan, akiruyči anggi of the banner of Güng Sampil of Khalkha’.

5 For dayičing see DO, 132aGoogle Scholar, and Mostaert, : ‘Matériaux ethnographiques relatifs aux Mongols ordos’, Central Asiatic Journal, II, 4, 1956, 242.Google Scholar

6 For uridu tusiyal-un see for example Nasanbaljir and Natsagdorj, 174: ur'd tushaalyn zasgiig bailgasan Wanchinnamjil ‘Wanchinnamjil, formerly banner-prince, dismissed’. The converse, meaning ‘at present in post’ was odoo tushaalyn. Cf. ibid, odoo tushaalyn güngiin zereg tuslagch Sümberel-Ochir ‘the present minister Sümberel-Ochir, with the rank of Güng’.

7 This very rare character is listed with the reading i in Couvreur's dictionary. Mr. Lorentz gives the reading as che. It may be a substitute for another similar character with the same phonetic: such characters have readings which include ko.

8 Brunnert, and Hagelstrom, , Present day political organisation of China, Shanghai, 1912Google Scholar, give six references to chang-ching as the name or part of the name of various offices. However, it is only in the title Kuan-ch'i fu-chang-ching, which is the equivalent of the banner post of meyiren-ü anggi that we find chang-ching preceded by fu. This correspondence is made clear also by Serruys, , art. cit., p. 533Google Scholar, nn. 24 and 25, basing himself on the Li-Fan-pu tse-li.