這件西漢鎏金龍首輈首飾是絕對的王之所屬，尺寸巨大，達到24.2cm，同時代的鎏金器物，無論是熊鎮或是羽人都是尺寸較小，爾這件器物因為是王的馬車裝飾，十分難能可貴。
一方面可以通過這件器物了解到當時的藝術審美，另一方面，也可以窺見西漢奢華的皇家氣派。有趣的是，在敦煌唐代的繪畫中遺存有一件佛陀乘坐牛車時的裝飾，可以還原這件器物在漢代時的環境。
這件器物經過倫敦傳奇古董商埃斯肯納齊的加持，曾多次出版，並收錄在埃斯肯納齊的經手錄《A Dealer’s Hand: The Chinese Art World through the Eyes of Giuseppe Eskenazi》。作為漢代皇族華美的重要例子，這件罕見的龍首，曾參加過兩個重要的展覽，為中華美術在西方的教育持續發光：
牛津, 阿什莫林博物館, 於2002年3月4日-2006年6月22日借展
倫敦, 大英博物館, 於2006年6月22日-2012年12月5日借展
This gilt bronze dragon head carriage decoration of the Western Han Dynasty is an absolute belonging of the king, with a huge size of 24.2cm. The gilt objects of the same period, be it bear weight or wing man, are smaller in size.
It provides an insight into the artistic aesthetics of the time, a glimpse into the lavish royal style of the Western Han Dynasty. Interestingly, a decoration of the Buddha riding in an oxcart was preserved in a Tang dynasty painting at Dunhuang, which restores the context of the object in the Han dynasty.
The object has been published several times by the legendary London antiques dealer Eskenazi, and is included in Eskenazi's handbook, A Dealer's Hand: The Chinese Art World through the Eyes of Giuseppe Eskenazi. An important example of the splendour of the Han imperial family, this rare dragon's head has been featured in two major exhibitions and continues to shine a light on the education of Chinese art in the West:
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, on loan from 4 March 2002 to 22 June 2006
British Museum, London, on loan from 22 June 2006 - 5 December 2012
BENTHALL伉儷珍藏
西漢 銅鎏金龍首車飾
WESTERN HAN DYNASTY (206 BC-AD 8)
成交價：美元 327,600 （約人民幣240萬）
估價：美元 150,000 – 美元 250,000
拍品終止拍賣:
2022年3月25日
西漢 銅鎏金龍首車飾
9 1⁄2 in. (24.2 cm.) long, cloth box
來源
埃斯肯納齊, 倫敦, 2000年
出版
埃斯肯納齊, 《Masterpieces from Ancient China》, 倫敦, 2000年, 編號10
埃斯肯納齊及薛好佩, 《A Dealer’s Hand: The Chinese Art World through the Eyes of Giuseppe Eskenazi》, 倫敦, 2012年, 頁198, 編號58
埃斯肯納齊, 《Early Chinese art from private collections》, 倫敦, 2016年, 編號21
展覽
紐約, Pace Wildenstein, 「Masterpieces from Ancient China」, 2000年3月20日-4月1日
倫敦, 埃斯肯納齊, 「Masterpieces from Ancient China」, 2000年6月5日-7月8日
牛津, 阿什莫林博物館, 於2002年3月4日-2006年6月22日借展
倫敦, 大英博物館, 於2006年6月22日-2012年12月5日借展
倫敦, 埃斯肯納齊, 「Early Chinese art from private collections」, 2016年11月3-25日
拍品專文
非凡西漢鎏金銅龍首形車飾
毛瑞
哈佛大學藝術博物館亞洲部榮譽主任暨佳士得高級顧問
此鎏金車飾出自西漢 (公元前206至公元6年)，外觀富麗精工，其龍首造型更是簪纓門第的身份象徵。龍長鼻，眼如銅鈴，鼻孔僨張，齜牙咧嘴，上唇仰翻，神態威風凛凛，加上雙耳貼項、鬃毛飛揚及S形長角，神龍迎風翱翔之姿栩栩如生；誠然，這一形象終將成為後世的標準龍紋。商代 (約公元前1600至1046年) 及西周時代 (約公元前1045至771年) 的青銅器僅用鑄飾，而戰國時代 (公元前475至221年) 的作品則常以嵌金銀來加強裝飾效果；到了西漢，金飾大行其道，許多青銅器物、器具乃至飾件皆飾鎏金，本季呈獻的珍罕車馬飾件誠為箇中翹楚。它既象徵榮華富貴、權勢家世，更巧妙結合了新興的黃金元素，洵為後代龍紋裝飾的標竿之作，不愧為西漢藝術的集大成者。
此類飾件英文統稱「terminals (端飾)」，中文則名「䡇」(或「軏」)，另外也有「兀飾」之說。這類裝飾原用於包裹、隱藏車馬木轅外沿頂端。馬肩前方的軛套掛在一根叫「衡」的橫木，而衡則掛在轅 (又名「輈」，英文稱之為「tongue」或「shaft」) 的上方，馬奔馳之際，正是靠這組裝置輓車前行。視乎轅的高低及相應的弧度，面朝馬匹者應可看見馬匹之間的鎏金轅首飾，其高度大致與馬的前腿上端齊平。
有一套1930年代中期重構的古車具模型，其轅首也有飾件，藉此可一窺本飾件原本的功用和位置。1 另外，甘肅省敦煌莫高窟第17窟有一幅據銘文斷代為公元897年的唐代 (公元618至907年) 繪畫，此作現藏倫敦大英博物館 (館藏號1919,0101,0.31)，畫中所示的熾盛光佛乘駕牛車，拉車一牛輓於二轅之間。二轅外端均飾金色蓮蕾。
台北故宮博物館藏宋高宗(1127-1162年在位)書女孝經馬和之(活躍於1130-1170)補圖展示了帝皇馬車上車桿有著龍首式之末端。車具的構造與構件的匠作則例一旦確立，動輒襲用數百年，其間變動微乎其微，因此前述畫作雖晚於是次拍賣的漢代轅首飾近千年，但圖中所示應與古代轅首飾的用途相差無幾。2
本品龍頭所在的位置
大英博物館，館藏號1919,0101,0.31
就中國藝術和文化而言，龍是最具感染力的形象之一，自古皆屬祥瑞之徵，龍司水，既主宰江海湖泊，亦能興雲吐霧、呼風喚雨。根據道教早年推崇的二元世界觀，龍主陽，代表天地間雄性的陽剛之氣，與之對應的鳳凰則主陰，象徵雌性陰柔之力。隨着時間推移，龍逐漸演化為帝王象徵，即陽氣之化身，而鳳凰則借指皇后，代表陰柔之美。
龍信仰在中國可上溯至史前時期，是殷商與周代 (約公元前1046至256年) 青銅器的常見紋飾。時至漢代 (公元前206至公元220年)，即本拍品製成之際，龍儼然已是道教四方瑞獸之一，龍代表東方，以青色示之。漢墓對應的四壁泰半繪有「四象」化身，即青龍 (東)、朱雀 (南)、白虎 (西) 與玄武 (北)，代表玄武的神龜多與蛇以盤繞的形象出現。
雖說中國自古以來認為車馬始製於夏朝 (據考約公元前2070至1600年)，但馬車則要待到公元前十三世紀商代 (公元前1600至1046年) 方始出現，很可能還是從外地引入。3 中國車馬最早的考古實證來自1933年河南安陽後岡發現的古墓，該墓斷代為商代武丁時期 (公元前1250至1190年) 的遺址。(安陽古名「殷」，是最後一個商都，即公元前1300至1046年間朝廷之所在。) 從商乃至戰國，車馬一般是指二馬或四馬拉行的單轅雙輪乘具。出土的商代及西周車馬構造雷同，僅於轅的長短、輿的大小、輪軸寬窄或輪輻數目上略有出入。誠然，由於這兩個時期的戰車如斯相近，已足證兩者定然系出一脈。乘坐車馬者通常有車伕和弓箭手，間或還會有一名持矛或戈的士兵。
起初，車馬乃是行獵與標示身份的乘具，軍事上顯然僅用作升高的流動指揮台，亦無證據顯示它曾廣泛運用於作戰。但公元前1046年周朝滅商之後，車馬的作戰用途迅速普及；實際上，在周興商亡的過程中，戰車很可能還扮演了關鍵的角色。
從公元前八至五世紀，戰爭中大規模運用車馬的情況可謂空前絕後，但戰國末年卻銷聲匿跡，這主要可歸因於弩、長矛和戟日漸普及，加上騎射手與騎兵部隊的出現，兩者的實戰功用均勝於戰車。即便如此，車馬在秦 (公元前221至206年)、漢 (公元前206至公元220年) 二代仍用作將帅的指揮台。當然，車馬作為地位標識的重要性依然不減，最佳例證莫過於秦始皇 (生卒年為公元前259至210年，公元前221至210年在位) 陵墓出土的青銅車馬。雖說本拍品或曾用於裝飾漢代豪門望族的車馬，但其主人很可能是一名地位顯赫的西漢將領。
商王武丁的車馬
本品龍首可能處於的位置，輈首飾。
安陽的出土文物顯示，商代車馬業已配置青銅飾件，其用途與其說是裝飾，倒不如說是某種標誌和護身之物。4 河南安陽小屯M20號車馬坑出土的飾件，皆鑄成兇猛的獸首造型，與商代酒器青銅觥前方的猛獸遙相呼應。5 管狀轅首飾在西周之前屢經沿革，就此可證諸陝西省張家坡的出土文物，本拍品正是由此演化而來；
話雖如此，這類飾件泰半採用商器的猛獸回首造型。至於戰國的華美青銅飾件，其動物類別更易辨識，並且鑲嵌金銀，河南輝縣固圍村魏國墓出土的著名鹿形四足獸首飾件便是一例，此物現為北京中國國家博物館藏。6
而最具感染力的作品，當數河南洛陽金村出土的戰國文物，倫敦大英博物館藏鎏金錯銀青銅牛首飾件 (館藏號1934,0216.3) 為其中一例，7 另一例是華盛頓弗利爾美術館藏鎏金包銀青銅龍首飾件 (館藏號F1932.14a-c)，8 本拍品與後者誠可謂一脈相承。
倫敦大英博物館藏鎏金錯銀青銅牛首飾件 (館藏號1934,0216.3)
華盛頓弗利爾美術館藏鎏金包銀青銅龍首飾件 (館藏號F1932.14a-c)
雖說是次推出的鎏金飾件脫胎於戰國先例，但其風格神肖1987年山東昌樂縣東圈村漢墓出土的西漢鎏金龍形飾，9 此乃將之斷代為公元前二至一世紀的有力證據。
本拍品的龍首彎眉高聳、長鼻凸眼，既與出土實例如出一轍，亦酷似埃斯卡納齊2000年3至4月在紐約展出的西漢鎏金銅龍形飾件，而且前述各例的龍首下顎後側無不飾以長鬃，頸項的U形鱗片中央皆飾圓點，形象栩栩如生。10 此外，本拍品的龍首上唇外翻，長耳，眼如銅鈴，眉彎如月，顎後鬃毛飄揚，U形鱗片正中飾一圓點，凡此種種，俱與芝加哥藝術博物館藏的西漢墓葬彩陶有翼神獸不謀而合 (館藏號1997.337)。11
芝加哥藝術博物館，館藏號1997.337
本拍品來自班若翰伉儷 (Jonathan Benthall 與Zamira Menuhin Benthall) 珍藏，出處無懈可擊，展出與出版記錄星光熠熠。班氏乃班雅瑟爵士 (Sir Arthur Paul Benthall，1909至1992年) 之子，他本身是知名的人類學家，1971至1973年出任倫敦當代藝術學院秘書長，1974至2000年則擔任倫敦皇家人類學院院長。
班夫人亦大力襄助藝術，其父為大名鼎鼎的小提琴家梅紐因男爵 (Yehudi Menuhin，1916至1999年)，她曾出任英國素里郡柯本市梅紐因學院校長。2002至2006年期間，本飾件於牛津大學艾希莫林博物館展出，2006年至2012年期間再外借予倫敦大英博物館展出。2000年，本拍品於埃斯卡納齊在紐約和倫敦舉辦的展覽中亮相， 2016年再度現身倫敦，並三度著錄於2000、2012及2016年之圖錄。
傳奇小提琴家梅鈕因
這件鎏金銅轅首飾保存完好，且匠心獨運、鑄工精湛，誠為形神俱妙之作。再者，它系出名門，並屢屢亮相於重量級展覽和著作，誠為難得一見的典藏之作。
1 王振鐸1937年所撰〈指南車記里鼓車之考證及模製〉圖版一及二，轉載於其著作《科技考古論叢》頁1-40及圖版一、二、三 (考古學專刊甲種第二十號) (北京：文物出版社，1989)。
2 這幅水墨設色絹本畫源自甘肅敦煌莫高窟第17窟，圖見Susan Whitfield著作《The Silk Road: Trade, Travel, War and Faith》圖版62 (倫敦：大英圖書館，2004)。
3 有關中國早期戰車的詳情，可參見：Edward L. Shaughnessy所撰〈Historical Perspectives on The Introduction of The Chariot
Into China〉刊載於《Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies》刊號48第1期頁189-237 (1988年6月)；吳曉筠著作《Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity》(英國牛津：Archaeopress，2013)；孫機所撰〈中國古獨輈馬車結構〉，刊載於《文物》1985年刊號8頁25-40 (北京：文物出版社，1985)；林巳奈夫及岡村秀典合著的《中國古代車馬研究》初版 (京都：臨川書店，平成30年 [2018])；劉永華著作《中國古代車輿馬具》(上海：上海辭書出版社，2002)。
4 關於中國早期車馬飾件的資料，可參閱吳曉筠論文〈商至春秋時期中原地區青銅車馬器形式研究〉，全文載於2002年出版的《古代文明》卷一頁180-277，內文可瀏覽www.academia.edu。
5 劉永華所撰〈先秦時期的獨輈車〉卷貳，全文收錄於劉氏2002年著作《中國古代車輿馬具》頁20圖2-18；另可參見吳曉筠撰於2002年的頁203圖15及頁237圖42 (2)。
6 中國科學院考古硏究所編著的《中國田野考古報告集》第1冊之《輝縣發掘報告》第1版 (北京：科學出版社，1956) 卷首彩圖及頁78圖版50。
7 Jessica Rawson著作《Chinese Bronzes: Art and Ritual》(倫敦：大英博物館出版社，1987) 頁90-91及彩色圖版圖錄編號37。
8 Thomas Lawton著作《Chinese Art of the Warring States Period: Change and Continuity, 480–222 BC》頁64編號25 (華盛頓特區：史密森尼學會弗利爾藝術博物館，1982)。
9 《考古》1993年第6期頁525-533所載〈山東昌樂縣東圈漢墓〉，詳見頁531圖12、13，另可比對圖版7編號5。
10 埃斯卡納齊有限公司出版的《A Selection of Early Chinese Bronzes》圖錄編號6 (倫敦：埃斯卡納齊有限公司，2006)。
11 Elinor Pearlstein所撰〈Tomb Figure of a Winged Beast〉，全文發表於《Museum Studies: Notable Acquisitions at The Art Institute of Chicago, Museum Studies》2004年卷30第1期頁32-33，圖見頁94 (芝加哥：芝加哥藝術博物館)。
PROPERTY FROM THE COLLECTION OF JONATHAN BENTHALL AND ZAMIRA MENUHIN BENTHALL
A MAGNIFICENT AND VERY RARE LARGE GILT-BRONZE ‘DRAGON HEAD’ CHARIOT TERMINAL
WESTERN HAN DYNASTY (206 BC-AD 8)
Price realised
USD 327,600
Estimate
USD 150,000 – USD 250,000
Closed:
25 Mar 2022
A MAGNIFICENT AND VERY RARE LARGE GILT-BRONZE ‘DRAGON HEAD’ CHARIOT TERMINAL
WESTERN HAN DYNASTY (206 BC-AD 8)
The dragon head is cast with an upturned snout and flared nostrils above the mouth which is open to reveal prominent teeth and a long tongue. A single S-shaped horn curves over the back of the head onto the neck. The head is finely incised with concentric wavy lines on the muzzle, and the horn and neck are incised with scales.
9 1⁄2 in. (24.2 cm.) long, cloth box
PROVENANCE
Eskenazi Ltd., London, 2000.
LITERATURE
Eskenazi Ltd., Masterpieces from Ancient China, London, 2000, no. 10.
Giuseppe Eskenazi with Hajni Elias, A Dealer’s Hand: The Chinese Art World through the Eyes of Giuseppe Eskenazi, London, 2012, p. 198, no. 58.
Eskenazi Ltd., Early Chinese art from private collections, London, 2016, no. 21.
EXHIBITED
New York, Pace Wildenstein, Masterpieces from Ancient China, 20 March - 1 April 2000.
London, Eskenazi Ltd., Masterpieces from Ancient China, 5 June - 8 July 2000.
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, on loan from 4 March 2002 - 22 June 2006.
London, British Museum, on loan from 22 June 2006 - 5 December 2012.
London, Eskenazi, Ltd., Early Chinese art from private collections, 3 - 25 November 2016.
A Superb Western Han Gilt-Bronze Chariot Terminal
By Robert D. Mowry
Alan J. Dworsky Curator of Chinese Art Emeritus,
Harvard Art Museums, and
Senior Consultant, Christie’s
Created during the Western Han period (206 BC–AD 9), this handsome gilt-bronze chariot fitting representing the head of a dragon would have emblemized the elevated status of the chariot’s owner. The long snout, large eyes, flared nostrils, open mouth, bared teeth, and out-turned upper lip project the dragon’s immense power, just as the swept-back ears, mane, and S-curved horn suggest forward motion, as if blown by the wind; in fact, this interpretation of the dragon would become the model for dragons of all succeeding periods. Although bronzes of the Shang (c. 1600 BC–c. 1046 BC) and Western Zhou (c. 1045 BC–771 BC) periods relied solely on cast decoration for embellishment, bronzes of the Warring States period (475–221 BC) often employed inlays of gold and silver for decorative effect; by the Western Han, the taste for gold had asserted itself with the result that many bronze vessels, implements, and fittings, were gilt, as evinced by this compelling chariot fitting. Symbolizing wealth, power, and elevated status, fully embracing the new taste for gold, and setting the course for future representation of dragons, this terminal is the quintessential expression of the arts of the Western Han period.
Known as “terminals” in English, fittings of this type are usually termed yue in Chinese, though they are sometimes also called wushi. This terminal originally capped and concealed the outer end of the wooden draught pole yuan of a horse-drawn chariot chema. The yoke, or e, placed over the horses’ front shoulders, would have been hitched to a horizontal crossbar, known as a heng, which was in turn attached to the draught pole—alternatively termed a tongue or shaft in English, and a zhou in Chinese—the ensemble transmitting the horses’ forward movement to the chariot itself. A viewer facing the horses could have seen this gilt bronze terminal between the horses, more or less at the level of the tops of their forelegs, depending upon the height and possible curvature of the draught pole.
A model of an ancient chariot reconstructed in the mid-1930s features a terminal at the end of the draught pole, the model suggesting the original function and placement of this terminal.1 In addition, a Tang-dynasty (AD 618–907) painting from Mogao Cave 17 at Dunhuang, Gansu province, dated by inscription to AD 897 and now in the British Museum, London (1919,0101,0.31), represents the Buddha Tejaprabha (Chinese, Chisheng Guangfu) riding in an oxcart pulled by a single bullock harnessed between the cart’s double draught poles.[ii] Each draught pole has a gold terminal in the form of lotus bud at its outer end. The Classic of Filial Piety, a handscroll in the National Palace Museum, Taipei, with calligraphy by Emperor Gaozong (r. 1127–1162) and illustrations by Ma Hezhi (active c. 1130–1170), depicts the Emperor in a horse-drawn carriage, its draught-pole ends appropriately in the form of dragon heads. (Fig. 1) As chariot and carriage structures and components, once established, changed little over the centuries, such paintings indicate how draught-pole terminals were used in traditional times, even though they may date many centuries later than the present Han-dynasty terminal.2
Among the most powerful emblems in Chinese art and culture, the dragon, or long in Chinese, traditionally symbolized auspicious powers, particularly control over water, including not only rivers, lakes, and oceans, but rainfall, hurricanes, and floods as well. In the early, dualistic view of the world that Daoism would espouse, the dragon came to represent the yang, or male forces of the universe, while its counterpart, the phoenix, or fenghuang, came to stand for the yin, or female forces. In due course, the dragon was adopted as the symbol of the emperor, as the personification of yang forces, just as the phoenix was appropriated as the symbol of the empress, as the embodiment of yin forces.
Chinese belief in dragons stretches back to prehistoric times, and dragons frequently appear as embellishment on bronze vessels of the Shang and Zhou (c. 1046 BC–256 BC) dynasties. By the Han dynasty (206 BC–AD 220), when this terminal was made, Daoists had incorporated the dragon into their scheme of directional symbolism, associating it with the east and assigning it the color azure qing. The walls of Han tombs often include representations of the four directional symbols, or sixiang, on the appropriate walls: the azure dragon (qinglong) of the east, the vermillion phoenix (zhuque) of the south, the white tiger (baihu) of the west, and the black tortoise (xuanwu) of the north, the tortoise often shown intertwined with a snake.
Though Chinese tradition asserts that the chariot was invented during the Xia dynasty (possibly 2070 BC–possibly 1600 BC), the horse-drawn chariot is believed to have been introduced in China in the thirteenth century BC, during the Shang dynasty (c. 1600 BC–c. 1046 BC), probably from without.3 The earliest archaeological evidence of chariots in China comes from a burial site discovered in 1933 at Hougang, Anyang, Henan province and dates to the reign of Shang-dynasty King Wu Ding (r. c. 1250 BC–1190 BC). (Known in traditional times as Yinxu, Anyang was the last capital of the Shang dynasty, the royal court based there between c. 1300 BC and c. 1046 BC.) From the Shang through the Warring States periods, chariots were typically two-wheeled vehicles drawn by two or four horses harnessed to a single draught pole. Excavated Shang and Western Zhou chariots are typologically uniform, with only such minor differences as length of the draught pole, size of the chariot box, width of the axle, and number of spokes in the wheels. Indeed, the chariots of these two periods are so similar that there can be no doubt as to their filiation. The war-chariot crew consisted of a driver, an archer, and sometimes a third warrior who was armed with a spear or dagger-axe.
The chariot initially was a vehicle for hunting and for projecting status, its military role apparently limited to serving as an elevated, mobile command platform, with no evidence that it was used in battle in significant numbers. After the Zhou conquest of the Shang in c. 1046 BC, however, use of the chariot in warfare became much more widespread; in fact, use of war chariots may have played a decisive role in the Zhou overthrow of the Shang.
Massed-chariot warfare reached its peak between the eighth and fifth centuries BC but had become all but obsolete by the end of the Warring States period due mainly to the increased use of crossbows, pikes, and long halberds and to the adoption of horse-mounted archers and of standard cavalry units, all of which proved more effective in battle than war chariots. Even so, chariots continued to serve as command posts for officers during the Qin (221–206 BC) and Han (206 BC–AD 220) dynasties. And, of course, the role of the chariot as prestige object remained, as evinced by the bronze chariots discovered in the tomb of China’s First Emperor, Qin Shi Huang (259–210 BC; r. 221–210 BC). Although it might have graced the chariot of any wealthy Han figure of elevated stature, this terminal likely originally adorned the chariot of a high-ranking, Western Han military commander.
Excavations at Anyang have revealed that chariots were outfitted with bronze fittings already by the Shang dynasty, likely more for symbolic and tutelary reasons than for decorative effect.4 Fittings recovered from the horse-and-chariot pit in Tomb M20 at Xiaotun, Anyang, were cast in the form of the head of a fierce animal and recall the ferocious faces that appear at the front of some Shang bronze gong wine vessels.5 Foreshadowing the evolution of the present terminal, tubular draught-pole terminals had evolved by the Western Zhou period, as indicated by excavations at Zhangjiapo, Shaanxi province; even so, such terminals typically boast a Shang-style ferocious animal head that turns to look over its back. Sumptuous bronze terminals in the form of more readily recognizable animals and embellished with inlays of gold and silver appeared during the Warring States period, such as the famous terminal—perhaps representing the head of a deer-like quadruped—that was excavated at a Wei-state cemetery at Guweicun, Huixian, Henan province, in 1951 and now displayed in the National Museum of China, Beijing.6 The most compelling Warring States-period examples were unearthed at Jincun, near Luoyang, Henan province, and include both the gilt and silver-inlaid bronze, bull-head terminal in the British Museum, London (1934,0216.3),7 and the gilt and silvered bronze, dragon-head terminal in the U.S. National Museum of Asian Art’s Freer Gallery, Washington, DC (F1932.14a-c),8 which is the direct antecedent of the present terminal. (Fig. 2)
Despite its descent from Warring States-period forerunners, this gilt bronze terminal is remarkably similar in style to the Western Han gilt bronze dragon-form fitting excavated in 1987 from a Han tomb at Dongquan, Changle county, Shandong province,9 confirming its second to first century BC origins. The long snout and bulging eyes set beneath high, arched brows find parallels in both the excavated example and in the Western Han gilt bronze dragon that Eskenazi exhibited in New York in March and April 2000, as do the tufts of fur at the back of the jaw and the U-shaped scales, each with a dot at its center, that enliven the neck.10 And this dragon’s out-turned upper lip, long ears, large eyes under arched brows, tufts of fur at the end of the jaw, and dotted, U-shaped scales also find kinship in those of a Western Han cold-painted, earthenware tomb sculpture representing a winged beast, or chimera, in the collection of the Art Institute of Chicago (1997.337).11
From the collection of Jonathan Benthall and Zamira Menuhin Benthall, this terminal has a distinguished provenance and an esteemed record of exhibition and publication. Noted anthropologist Jonathan Benthall, son of Sir Arthur Paul Benthall (1909–1992), was Secretary of the Institute Contemporary Arts, London, from 1971 to 1973 and served as the Director of the Royal Anthropological Institute, London, between 1974 and 2000. Long a staunch advocate for the arts, Zamira Menuhin Benthall is the daughter of renowned violinist Yehudi Menuhin, Baron Menuhin (1916–1999), and is a former governor of the Yehudi Menuhin School in Cobham, Surrey, U.K. The terminal was exhibited at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford University, from 2002 until 2006 and at the British Museum, London, between 2006 and 2012. And Eskenazi not only exhibited the terminal in New York and London in 2000 and then again in London in 2016, but has published it three times, in 2000, 2012, and 2016, as documented in the catalogue entry.
The powerful design and superb casting combine to make this well-preserved, gilt bronze terminal an engaging and very compelling work of art. Moreover, with an esteemed provenance and a distinguished record of exhibition and publication, this terminal is indeed a rare treasure.
1 See plates 1 and 2 in Wang Zhenduo, “Zhinanche jili guche zhi kaozheng ji mozhi” [Research and modeling of the drum cart and the guide cart], 1937, reprinted in Wang Zhenduo, Keji kaogu luncong [Papers in Technical Archaeology], (Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe), 1989, pp. 1-40 and plates 1-3.
2 The painting, in ink and colors on silk, came from Mogao Cave 17 at Dunhuang. See: Susan Whitfield, The Silk Road: Trade, Travel, War and Faith (London: British Library), 2004, plate 62.
3 For information on chariots in early China, see: Edward L. Shaughnessy, “Historical Perspectives on The Introduction of The Chariot Into China”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, vol. 48, no. 1 (June, 1988), pp. 189-237; Hsiao-yun Wu (also spelled Wu Xiaoyun, also known as Dawn Wu), Chariots in Early China: Origins, Cultural Interaction, and Identity (Oxford, UK: Archaeopress), 2013; Sun Ji, “Zhongguo gu duzhou mache de jiegou” [Structure of the ancient Chinese single-shaft chariot], Wenwu, 1985, vol. 8, pp. 25-40; Hayashi Minao and Okamura Hidenori, Chūgoku kodai shaba kenkyū [The horse chariot in ancient China] (Kyoto: Rinsen Shoten), 1st edition, 2018; Liu Yonghua, Zhongguo gudai che yu ma ju [Ancient Chinese chariot and horse fittings], (Shanghai: Shanghai Cishu chubanshe), 2002.
4 For information on early Chinese chariot fittings, see: Wu Xiaoyun (also spelled Wu Hsiao-yun, also called Dawn Wu), “Shang zhi Chunqiu shidai zhongyuan diqu qingtong chema qixingshi yanzhou” [Typology Study on Chariot Fittings of Early China], Gudai wenming, vol. 1, 2002, pp. 180-277.
5 See: Liu Yonghua, “Pre-Qin single-shaft chariots”, chapter two in Liu, Zhongguo gudai che yu ma ju, 2002, p. 20, fig. 2-18; also see Wu Xiaoyun “Shang zhi Chunqiu shidai zhongyuan diqu qingtong chema qixingshi yanzhou”, 2002, p. 203, fig. 15, and p. 237, fig. 42 (2).
6 See: Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, ed., Huixian fajue baogao [Report on the Huixian excavations], 1st edition, Zhongguo tianye kaogu baogao ji [Reports on Field Archaeology], vol. 1, (Beijing: Science Press), 1956, color frontispiece and p. 78, pl. 50.
7 See: Jessica Rawson, Chinese Bronzes: Art and Ritual (London: British Museum Publications), 1987, pp. 90-91 and color plate, cat. no. 37.
8 See: Thomas Lawton, Chinese Art of the Warring States Period: Change and Continuity, 480–222 BC (Washington, DC: Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution), 1982, p. 64, no. 25.
9 See: p. 531, figs. 12 and 13; also compare plate 7, no. 5 in “Shandong Changlexian Dongquan Hanmu” [Han tombs at Dongquan, Changle county, Shandong], Kaogu, no. 6, 1993, pp. 525-533.
10 See: Eskenazi Ltd., ed., A Selection of Early Chinese Bronzes (London: Eskenazi Ltd)., 2006, n.p., cat. no. 6.
11 See: Elinor Pearlstein, “Tomb Figure of a Winged Beast,” Museum Studies: Notable Acquisitions at The Art Institute of Chicago, Museum Studies, vol. 30, no. 1 (2004) (Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago), pp. 32-33, illustrated on p. 94.
Comments