Little Chinese Bronze Figure - Ming or even Tang Period???

Hi,
I bought this little figure. Its hollow base is filled with some modern black material to stabilize it. It has an older label stating it it Tibet and 14th century, but I am sure it is Chinese. First I thought it could be late Ming, but the cap the figure is wearing seems to be typical for the Tang dynasty, and also the stange base reminds me of bases I have seen on Tang period ceramic figures. Has anybody an idea?
Thank you, Mat

P.S.: The Antiques dealer did not believe too that it is Tibetan, but had no idea what it is...

 

My first thoughts matched yours when opening the images -- Chinese, late-Ming. But I'm no expert and if I were you, I'd have it evaluated by one.

 

If u want good info here post pic of the bottom and dimensions. Just looking at the two photos I'd guess it is late 20th/early 21st C. No signs of age that I can see-good artificial patinas come in a bottle and are hard to tell from real ones, and the casting itself does not look like it was done in the manner of the older Asian bronzes.

 

Thank you both! Springfield, I tried to make some better photos. As you can see the bottom is filled up with this black mass ( in an attempt to stabilize/restore it, IF it is antique). Can you see any signs that show that it is a fake?
Thank you again,
Mat

 

And height is 12.5 cm...

 

Thanks, much better pix. I'm no expert, still learning myself. The patina looks better close up but I can't tell if the bronze losses are casting defects or corrosion or something intentional to make it look like corrosion losses. Probably needs hands-on exam to tell. The headgear/hairdo might be Japanese. I can't find anything like it! The most unique thing seems to be the base/pedestal portion, so if u can find another like it u will be heading the right direction. The broken arms (inside them) may reveal something about the casting technique.

So up close in the new pix I can see that this object is completely different from about anything I've seen and u will need to look for other bronzes with some detail or details in common.

 

Great images Mat and thanks posting them.

From these images, your item does appear to have some good age, but I don't believe any of us here are qualified enough in the field of Asian art to provide you with a definitive answer regarding age. The only thing I can add is he does look to be wearing typical Tang Dynasty garb and is probably an attendant of some sort. My initial thoughts when seeing your original posted images were -- Chinese, late-Ming Period, but of course the figure could be of a much earlier period or possibly later.....sorry, I'm unable to help you further.

 

If this is assumed to have been made in China, I wonder when such humanoid statuettes first went into production there? Early Chinese Bronze object use-categories include those related to solid food and liquids, and also include bronze tools, weapons, incense burners, and musical instruments. I haven't noticed many or any small non-deity human forms in bronze that I know were made before say 1900.

One feature of this object that might help date it is the fact that it was cast hollow-you can see that the broken arms are filled with something other than bronze. When did that practice begin? When I see small bronze ancient Chinese objects in museums, I've always thought they were cast solid unless they had a function that required they be hollow.

 

Great piece. I have a few Chinese bronze vase pieces I need to do more research on myself (and I'm by no means well versed in bronze or Asian antiques), but just a thought? I was thinking that the tag on yours may be correct...sort of?

Perhaps yours is Tibeto-Chinese or Sino-Tibetan? Some of the large auction houses have bronzes referred to as such. Maybe not so much humanoid as some kind of Guardian/God?

Hollow cast may not be so uncommon. This album has several that are hollow cast and identified as Tibet, though most are gilt copper or brass. Maybe the Tibeto-Chinese pieces made were of similar construction (hollow) but bronze? http://www.tibetmuseum.info/e/Album...ulptures_of_the_Alain_Bordier_Foundation.html

With the sleeve flares, reminds me of Wei Tuo (or one of the divine protectors). *shrugs* No beard, so that lets out some of the others. There were a whole host of Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and Dharma protectors that cross over between cultures. It's enough to drive you mad when doing research. LOL

I'll be watching... it's an interesting piece!!

 

Most everyone here knows this already but objects like this always raise two separate issues:

1. What geographic area and time period the item was intended to represent.

2. When and where it was actually made.

In many posts, people are really discussing issue #1, but don't say so, and readers may assume they are discussing issue #2, normally much harder reconcile.

 

Thank you all for your ideas! I will begin with the suggestion that the figure could be Tibeto-Chinese. As far as I know this term refers to art that was made in China, but depicts subjects of Tibetan Buddhism and is made in a style strongly influenced by Tibetan art. This has occurred in various periods of Chinese history. I attach a picture of a tiny example I have, from Qing dynasty, maybe 18th (or 19th) century.



Nuff_Said, yes, the garb of the figure looks like Tang to me, too. But as you know Chinese have repeated older iconography again and again, so it could be later of course. I see some significant similarity in general appearance to a late Ming figural joss stick holder ( see here: http://www.nickpitcher.com/view_item.php?item_id=741). It shows the same "flying" sleeves of the garment. Also the base is somewhat similar. However, the faces show diffenences in style. Maybe that could be a possible period for my piece.
From Tang Dynasty, there are not many example of figural bronzes that are not religious, but they exist. One example I have found is the depiction of a sogdian dancer (see on the bottom of this page: http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/sugd/trade.htm ). The garment, as already said, certainly is typical for tang dynasty. (
Also for the base I can find similar shapes in Tang dynasty ceramic figures ( http://www.thecultureconcept.com/ci...nware-height-133-5-cm-and-135-5-cm-gansu-prov ; https://crockerchina.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/sam_0899.jpg ). They show these "columns" under the feet of the figures, and in some examples there is also a hole in the middle ( http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/21772/lot/8263/ ). Also the heavy, "fat" face of my figure looks more like Tang than Ming to me.
So, to resume, as far as I can get, it is possible that tat the figure could be from Ming, but also from Tang Dynasty, IF it is authentic. Springfield, another characteristic of the casting technique is that the piece os made of at least three parts. The base, the feet with the underside of the garment and the rest of the body were cast separately and joined afterwards. Also there are remains of gilding (on the face, see detail picture).
Seeing the examples that I show for comparison, what is your opinion?

 

Thanks for the educational links. The two bronzes at first and last link represent a musician and a dancer, both are characters that would have been seen entertaining emperors. So the Imperial courts probably had these objects made-there was no other way they'd have been made centuries ago, IMO. If yours is old then I'd suspect it was also made to represent some recognizable figure seen around the Court with a readily-identifiable function, maybe whatever if anything the arms once held would have revealed that.

It looks to me like the major pieces of the figures shown in the links were cast solid, even though one base has some relief at the bottom. The flute-player was cast in two pieces, base and figure. I'm guessing that pieces made for the courts were cast solid even if cast in more than one piece. Reasoning is that hollow cast was harder to get a quality piece-since harder to ensure the molten bronze filled all parts desired. Hollow cast was used to save a little bronze in each casting so the pieces could be sold more cheaply, but the courts wouldn't worry about that small cost and the artists making figures for the courts were worried about getting top quality castings. And when such objects were being acquired by the courts, there was zero consumer demand for nonfunctional bronze objects.

Above is all my speculation, not verified facts, but I do think a valid question is whether hollow casting would have been used for such items prior to the advent of massive souvenir production in the last century.

 

Here's an article on various casting and hybrid techniques used to create bronze objects. I hadn't heard of the hybrids before I saw this article but it makes sense that a lot of different methods were used in various areas and at various times.

http://www.asianart.com/exhibitions/antwerp/essay.html

 

Mat, I have nothing further to add to this thread other than my previous thoughts above. I wish I did, but I don't.

I have a couple issues of my own when it comes to bronze figures. Had the small (1.9 centimeters) pair below evaluated by a number of different experts in the field and not one could come-up with a definitive answer in regards to age, origin or use...

 

I can't see the recess very well on the golden boys but see if a pencil fits in the hole so it stands at an angle convent to grasp when needed. "The angle of the dangle..." Wonder if they were risqué figures given positioning of the hands?

 

Lol!

Thanks, Spring, for your thoughts. They aren't standing taking a piss, thery're seated (or squatting) with their hands resting on their knees or legs.

 

Thanks for added pix. Hmmm maybe they face each other and there's some kinda stick between 'em that fits in at either end. ?? I don't think that odd-shaped hole would be there with no function since if the guys were simply decorative, they'd be easier to make and better looking without the hole.

 

Thank you both again! If I find out something definite about my figure, I will post it here. Nuff_Said, I have no idea what your figures are, but I also believe they are functional in some way...

 

Thank you both for your thoughts on this item and I do apologize for taking so long to reply.

I guess for now they'll just go down as mysterious unknown functional bronze figures and placed back on the TBD (to be determined) shelf. Again, thanks for your time and thoughts.