从新角度探讨5-7世纪龟兹壁画中吐火罗王国的佛教女性头饰The Headdress of Mythological Female Figures in the Buddhist Mural Paintings of the Tocharian Kingdom of Kucha（5th-7thCentury）——Another Point of View

The females depicted in the Buddhist mural paintings of the ancient Tocharian kingdom of Kucha（also called Kizil,koutcha.5th-7th）can be divided in two distinctive types：firstly,female donors representing contemporary local supporters of the Buddhist order,and secondly,mythological figures representing persons from Buddhist legends,such as goddesses,queens,princesses,or courtesans.Both types generally differ not only in their garments but also in their headdresses.While the female donors are represented wearing indigenous fashion of the Kucha people1，the appearance of female mythological figures is completely different and without any analogy to the local fashion.The headdresses of mythological females in particular are very diverse and generally highly elaborate.

Since no textual sources on headdresses of mythological figures were transmitted,it is only art history which can help to evaluate which kind of headdress the artists attribute to mythological figures.An art-historical examination of female headdresses in the Buddhist art of Kizil has already been undertaken by Inoue（2015）.In his study,the author describes different types of headdresses of female mythological figures and traces their origin back to the art of Gandhara.

In the current paper,however,I would like to introduce another point of view concerning what the original shape of some headdresses might have looked like,and I would like to discuss from which region these types of headdress could have been transmitted.

The headdresses of the mythological female figures are by far more glamorous than those of the female donors.There is one main type of female headdress that appears in paintings of the First Indo-Iranian style（Fig.1）.This type is composed of a bun which is apparently worn on the back of the head and fixed by enclosing strings of pearls which are braided with the plait of hair in the back.The strings of pearls are held together by a kind of clasp that is set next to a large central ornament placed directly over the forehead.According to Inoue（2015），this main headdress type originated in ancient Gandhara（Fig.2）.There are some similarities to the art of Gandhara,such as the back of the head being covered by a fabric,some long curls falling onto the shoulders,and a central floral ornament above the forehead decorating a laurel wreath in the Gandharan example.

However,if we compare representations of a subject that is known to the art of Kucha as well as to the art of Gandhara,differences between both artschools become obvious.An example is the popular representation of Queen Māyāgiving birth to prince Siddhartha who later became Buddhaśakyamuni（Fig.3）.One obvious difference between both art schools is the rendering of Queen Māyā’s garment.While in the Kuchean example,she is shown in a sheer transparent garment which only covers the lower part of her body,in the Gandharan relief it is a comparatively heavy garment which covers her whole body.Moreover,the female headdresses are different in the two schools of art.In the Gandharan example,the ladies wear a laurel wreath with a flower ornament which is either placed in the centre or slightly laterally.In the Kuchean example,however,apart from the fact that the ladies do not wear a laurel wreath at all,the flower is not the central ornament but placed to one side of the central ornament.

This type of headdress generally appears in the paintings of Kizil Cave 76（PfauenhÖhle,Peacock’s Cave；Fig.4）.It is characterised by four main features：（1）a multi-row string of pearls that encloses the entire headdress and is braided with the plait of hair in the back,accompanied by centrally placed jewels above the forehead which are crowned by a semi-circular ornament；（2）a bun covered with a patterned textile；（3）a decorative floral ornament attached to one side of the central ornament；（4）two pendants hanging from the headdress—one attached to the hair bun and the other to the decorative flower ornament.Sometimes the ladies additionally wear a large scarf over their head whose ends fall around their elbows.

The female headdresses in the paintings of Kizil Cave 76 differ in their composition from other female headdresses of the First Style paintings of Kizil.Compared to paintings of Kizil Cave 207（Fig.5），for example,the headdresses might be interpreted as misunderstood representations.One might assume that the painters misunderstood the floral element that in the painting from Kizil Cave 207，apparently functions as a clasp for the framing strings of pearls,by rendering it into a floral ornament in Kizil Cave 76，seemingly made of textile,instead of the strings of pearls,a pendant emerges.The fact that in the paintings from Kizil Cave 76，the hair bun appears not to be at the back of the head as in the paintings from Kizil Cave 207 but slightly laterally offset could be explained with painters'missing sense for perspective.The bun is shown in a perspectively correct manner,located right behind the central ornament,the paintings from Kizil Cave 207.In the paintings from Kizil Cave 76，however,it is shown next to the central ornament,giving the impression that the bun is worn not at the back of the head but laterally.

However,what if it's not actually a case of faulty perspectival rendering by the painters?What if the viewers were wrong in the assumption that the painters were not able to render perspective?

Sometimes it is advantageous to take a different point of view in seeing something,since the image we see is created by our brain based on our knowledge and our past experiences.As such,first of all,we tend to see things how we assume them to be.This is even more true for two-dimensional objects such as paintings.Until now,we have assumed that the bun is placed symmetrically on the back of the head behind the central ornament.However,if we assume that the painters were able to render perspective,then the headdress would be an appealing asymmetrically worn arrangement.

Asymmetrically worn female headdresses are known from Kuchean paintings,thus for instance from Kizil Cave 118（HippokampenhÖhle,Cave of the Hippocampi；Fig.6）.To the right of the main figure of King Māndhātar2，as seen by the viewer,a lady is depicted offering the king her breast to suckle him.According to Hiyama（2012），this is certainly an allusion to the name of King Māndhātar which,according to the legend,derives from Sanskrit words that were spoken by all ladies who saw the king when he was a small child.They said“mām dhāatu”which means“Let him suck me！”3

The lady who offers King Mandhātar her breast wears something on the left side of her head that is reminiscent of a small cap.A somehow similar,asymmetrically worn headdress can be found in a painting from Kizil Cave 84（SchatzhÖhle B,Treasure Cave B），although in this case the composition is much more complex and includes dangling strings of pearls（Fig.7）.A closer look reveals the composition of this headdress.It is a little hair knot which is tied together with a small string and surrounded by a broad ring possibly made of textile.

A female headdress that is reminiscent of this kind of composition is known from the Swat region（Fig.8）.In the relief,it is clearly visible that it is a laterally worn plait of hair framed by an ornamental ring.It is important tonote that although the Swat region geographically belongs to Gandhara,the art of this region is much closer to Central India than to the typical Hellenistic art of Gandhara.Indeed,the tradition of asymmetrical worn headdresses is well known in the art of the Indian subcontinent and was already very popular during the śuga period from the 2ndto the 1stcentury B.C.E.4

Headdresses worn in two parts were also in fashion in India during the śuga period.In a couple of terracotta figures from Kaushambi,a lady is shown in frontal view wearing a bun surrounded by small flowers on the left side of her head,and three large flowers in her hair on the right side.5The whole composition is framed by two parallel running strings of pearls which are further decorated with one flower on each side.

There are other examples of two-part headdresses from the Suga period where the two parts clearly differ in size.An East Indian terracotta from Bengal[Fig.9（1）]shows a female in frontal view wearing a small bun covered by a patterned textile on the left side of her head and possibly pins wrapped by an ornamental band on the right side.Here too,the entire composition is framed by parallel running strings of pearls.

In some points,the Bengal terracotta is similar to Queen Māyāfrom Kizil Cave 76[Fig.9（2）].Not only do both figures stand in a similar posture,they also wear similar dresses with a multi-row girdle consisting of small plates.Moreover,the headdresses of both ladies share some features.They consist,in one part,of a bun covered by a patterned textile while the whole composition is framed by a multi-row string of pearls.

The tradition to arrange women's hair in two parts of different size is equally known from the Swat region.One example from Butkara（Fig.10）shows a lady in frontal view wearing a small hair knot on the right side of her headand a bigger knot,covered by patterned textile,on the left side.Similar to the painting from Kizil Cave 76，the lady wears a scarf over her head,with the ends falling around her elbows.

As we have seen,the tradition of asymmetrically worn two-part headdresses was well-known in ancient India and could have influenced the art of Kucha via the Swat region.However,there still is one feature that cannot be explained by the examples of Indian art that we have seen so far.This feature is the pendants dangling from the headdress.

Representations of women's headdresses which in terms of pendants,might be comparable to the headdresses of the ladies from Kizil cave 76 can be found in the so-called Begram ivories6.The style of the ivory objects discovered in Begram is very close to the art of Mathura in Central India and Amaravati in South India.For this reason Tissot（2006）assumes that the ivory objects were imported from these regions.As a matter of fact,such small portable objects are very suitable for spreading pictorial motifs.

In some respects,the headdresses of the ladies of the Begram ivories（Fig.11）are quite similar to those of the ladies from Kizil Cave 76.Both headdresses are asymmetrically arranged with a laterally worn bun covered by patterned textile,and both are provided with two pendants.In the Begram ivories,one of the two pendants hangs down in a loop from the hair bun and might be of textile or hair,while the second one hangs down from the other side of the head and might represent a small branch of an Aśoka tree.In this respect,the headdresses are similar to those worn by the ladies from Kizil Cave 76.On one side of the head,there is a bun with an attached pendant,and on the other,a botanical pendant or flower with an attached pendant.What is lacking in the Begram ivories is the central ornament and the framing string of pearls.However,there may have existed similar Indian depictions with a central ornament which served as a model but is no longer preserved today.

The idea of an asymmetrically composed headdress with lateral parts also exists in the paintings of the Second Indo-Iranian style.In an example from Kizil Cave 80（Fig.12），the lady wears an angular cap on the right side of her head and a small bun on the left side.A bigger bun is worn on top of her head in front of which a central ornament with a flower on top is placed.The same type can be found depicted in a number of other caves in Kizil only the the angular cap is sometimes replaced by a roundish bun,as for instance in Cave 199（Fig.13）.

On the whole,there are differences in the representation of female headdresses in the First Style paintings from Kizil.For example,in Cave 207，the dominating bun of the headdress is unmistakeably depicted on the back of the head,whereas in Cave 76，it is painted on one side of the head.The reason for this distinct rendering is not necessarily the painters'inability to render perspective.It is more probable that the painters used different models for their paintings.The female headdress in paintings from Kizil Cave 207 seems toderive from representations of females in the Graeco-Buddhist art of Gandhara.This is especially indicated by the small tuft of hair on the back of the head.

The female headdress in paintings from Kizil Cave 76，however,seems to derive from representations of females in ancient Indian art.This is especially indicated by the asymmetrical composition which is known to Indian art since at least the 3rdcentury B.C.E.and was still in vogue in India in the 5thcentury C.E.as can be seen in paintings from the Buddhist cave temples in Ajanta in Central India7.

Bibliography

[1]Albanese,M.Das antike Indien：von den Ursprüngen bis zum 13.Jahrhundert[M].Cologne：Muller，2001.

[2]Ebert,J.The Dress of Queen Svayamprabhāfrom Kuča：Sasanian and Other Influences in the Robes of Royal Donors Depicted in Wall Paintings of the Tarim Basin.In：Schorta,R.（ed.）：Central Asian Textiles and their Context in the Early Middle Ages[J].Riggisberg：Abegg-Stiftung,Riggisberger Berichte 9，2006，101-116.

[3]Faccenna,D.Sculptures from the Sacred Area of Butkara I（Swat,W.Pakistan）[M].Roma：Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato,Libreria dello Stato,Reports and memoirs,Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente,Centro Studi e Scavi Archeologici in Asia 2，1964.

[4]Grünwedel,A.Altbuddhistische Kultstätten in Chinesisch-Turkistan：Bericht über Archäologische Arbeiten von 1906 bis 1907 bei Kuca,Qarašahr und in der Oase Turfan[M].Berlin：Reimer,KÖniglich Preussische Turfan-Expeditionen，1912.

[5]Grünwedel,A.Alt-Kutscha：Archäologische und religionsgeschichtliche Forschungen an Tempera-Gemälden aus Buddhistischen HÖhlen der ersten acht Jahrhunderte nach Christi Geburt[M].Berlin：Elsner,VerÖffentlichungen der PreuBischen Turfan-Expeditionen，1920.

[6]Haque,E.Chandraketugarh：A Treasure-House of Bengal Terracottas[M].Dhaka：The International Centre for Study of Bengal Art,Studies in Bengal Art Series 4，2001.

[7]H iyam a,S.K izil Sekkutsu dai 118 kutsu（Kaibakutsu）no Hekiga Shudai：Mandataru ou Setsuwa wo Tegakarini（The Wall Painting of Kizil Cave 118：The Story of King Māndhātar as a New Identification）[J].Journal ofArt History，2010：168，358-372（in Japanese），6-7（English Summary）.

[8]Hiyama,S.A New Identification of the Murals in Kizil Cave 118：The Story of King Māndhātar[J].Journal of InnerAsianArt andArchaeology 5，2012：145-170.

[9]Inoue,M.Women's Headdress Depicted in Mural Paintings of Kizil：New Perspectives on the Silk Road.Silk Road：Meditations.2015 International conference on the Kizil Cave paintings,collection of research papers[C].Shijiazhuang：Hebei Fine Arts Publishing House，2015.

[10]Kurita,I.Gandharan Art.2 Vols,Ancient Buddhist Art Series[M].Tokyo：Nigensha Publishing，2003.

[11]Le Coq,A.von.Die buddhistische Spätantike in Mittelasien IV：Atlas zu den Wandmalereien.Graz：Akademische Druck-und Verlagsanstalt,Ergebnisse der Kgl.Preussischen Turfan Expeditionen[M].Berlin：Fines Mundi GmbH Saarbrucken，1974.

[12]Mehendale,S.The Begram Carvings：Itinerancy and the Problem of“Indian”Art.In：Aruz,J.and Fino,E.V.（eds.）Afghanistan：Forging Civilizations Along the Silk Road[M].New Haven：Yale University Press，2012.

[13]Tissot,F.The Art of Gandhara：Buddhist Monk'sArt,on the North-West Frontier of Pakistan[M].Paris：Libraired'Amerique et d'Orient，1986.

[14]Tissot,F.Catalogue of the National Museum of Afghanistan：1931-1985[M].Paris：UNESCO Publishing,Art,Museums and Monuments Series，2006.

[15]中国新疆壁画艺术编辑委员会，中国新疆壁画艺术克孜尔石窟[M].乌鲁木齐：新疆美术摄影出版社，2009.