Rejected Series: Banquet scene, Lacquer painting on Lute Belly, Shōsōin

c.800-999, Banquet scene from hunting tableau, lacquer painting on belly of lute, Shōsōin, Nara.

This is presented as plate 13 in Werner Bachmann's The Origins of Bowing and discussed on pages 52-531. Bachmann says:

The painting, representing a hunting scene, decorates the sounding-board of a valuable lute (p'i-p'a) preserved in the Shōsōin, the treasure-house at Nara. In the central part, the artist has portrayed a banquet (Plate 13). Between two musicians, squatting on the floor, sits the host, to whom a servant is offering food, and in the right foreground is his guest. One of the two musicians holds a large lute, the strings of which he plucks with a plectrum. The second, as far as one can judge, is playing a slender, long-necked, bowed instrument, propped up on the floor. The bowed instrument answers the description of the rabāb in al-Fārābī's treatise on music, which specifically mentions the great similarity in construction between the rabāb and the long necked lute of Central Asia - the Khurāsān tunbūr. Unfortunately, the evidence of this illustration is by no means incontrovertible. Even from the special enlargement in my possession it is impossible to determine whether or not the object is in fact a musical instrument at all. Whereas the artist responsible for the lacquer painting has reproduced the details of the p'i-p'a with considerable accuracy, the object interpreted as a bowed instrument is treated somewhat casually. Did he wish to imply by this that the instrument in question was a crude, imperfect folk instrument, or did he have no really clear idea of how it looked, having seen it only briefly? Or is it, perhaps, not a musical instrument after all? No source material has yet been found which might give a definite answer to these questions; and we must therefore content ourselves with the hypothesis that this painting may represent one of the earliest illustrations of a bowed instrument. One thing is, however, certain, namely that the illustration originated in Central Asia; and the position in which the instrument is played is illuminating, since it corroborates evidence gleaned from other medieval Eastern sources, and applies to folk instruments widely used today in Turkestan and Uzbekistan. All the various types of bowed instruments native to Central Asia are played in the same position - a gamba - as for instance the aforesaid Chinese lute from the T'ang period (plate 13 [this image]. Apart from the ghichak (gydjak), which resembles the Arab Kamanja, the bowed chordophones of the Central Asia states of today are outwardly similar to the narrow, long necked fiddle shown in this early illustration. In the view of the unchanging, age-old traditions of this region, the agreement between historical sources and ethnological material is of special interest. When the construction and performing technique of these modern Central Asian bowed instruments are studied, it is easier to interpret and understand the earliest known pictorial representations of bowed chordophones, and valuable conclusions follow regarding the origins of bowing.

That is quite a lot of text. There are a number of cognitive errors present. Bachmann's main arguments are that:

  1. He insists that it is an instrument.
  2. He states it conforms to al-Fārābī's description.
  3. He suggests the artist perhaps wasn't familiar.
  4. He suggests the artist perhaps was making a statement.
  5. He states it conforms to the playing position of known instruments.

Point 1. Its an instrument.

Despite saying it may not be, he continues to refer to the object as an instrument throughout. When trying to make sense of the unknown we should start from a blank sheet and progress forward with positive identification. We should not start by leaping in with an identification and then work from there. One of the primary reasons for this approach is to minimise the effect of numerous cognitive biases. For instance, by stating it is an instrument we are now creating an anchor, and everything is measured from that anchor. We then have to justify why it isn't an instrument, when we should be justifying why it is! This leads to progressive errors - notably points 3 & 4 where we now try to excuse the problems caused by the fact we have anchored ourselves on this being an instrument.

Point 2. It conforms to al-Fārābī''s description.

It doesn't. Al farabi tells us about strings on a pear-shaped instrument. This object is clearly not pear shaped, has no strings, no obvious resonator shape, and no obvious belly. No matter how much we rotate the object in our heads we fail to achieve a match with any known iconographic or extant examples. The statement is false.

Point 3. The artist wasn't familiar.

This is one of the standard accusations against artists. It is only ever used to discredit a depiction that does not conform to what the observer wants, and is used to explain why it is 'wrong'. This of course has the underlying assumption that we know best. This particular issue is huge, and would require a book chapter to discuss. Suffice to say that Bachmann has absolutely no evidence that the artist did not know what he was doing. Whilst he praises the artist for a detail depiction of the pipa he rolls out this stock argument for the part of the depiction he isn't happy with.

Point 4. The artist was making a statement for us to interpret.

Again this is one of those vague accusations for which no evidence is produced. In working with over 19000 sources of bowed instrument iconography I do not recognise Bachmann's suggestion as something that artists do. 

Point 5. It conforms to the way instruments are played today.

Whilst it is true that there is a similarity, this is an attempt to bolster the credibility of the assertion that it is a bowed instrument. The fact instruments are played in that manner has no bearing at all on the probability that this is an instrument unless one can prove uniqueness in that action. It is in effect the only evidence that Bachmann puts forward. He claims that this painting corroborates others, but that cannot be so. Corroboration requires positive identification.

I believe there is a very simple explanation. I believe the object is in fact a leg of animal that was presumably caught in the hunt. The leg joint is resting on a bowl/plate on the floor, and is being carved with a knife. This explains all the mysteries, including the shape of the object and fits precisely with the nature of the depicted scene of a hunt feast. 

Rejection Reasons

  • No identifiable features: no strings, no tuning pegs, not a recognisable instrument shape.
  • Bottom of the 'instrument' is placed on a plate/shallow bowl. This is not seen in other bowed instrument iconography from Asia.
  • A person carving the meat from the leg of an animal (presumably caught during the hunt) onto a plate is a more compelling solution.

Conclusion

Bachmann (and others) have mis-identified the object. What is depicted is an animal leg being carved for the feast.

Barry Pearce. 15.Sep.2022 (published 31.Dec.2022)

See other articles in the Rejected Sources series.

 

References

1. Bachmann, Werner, The Origins of Bowing: And the Development of Bowed Instruments Up to the 13th Century, trans. by Norma Deane (Oxford University Press, 1969).

Cite this article:

Pearce, Barry. Bowed Strings Iconography Project, Rejected Series: Banquet scene, laquer painting on lute belly, Shōsōin. (2022) <https://bsip.org.uk/articles/series-rejected/rejected-shosoin-lute>