Shaping Symbols of Privilege: Precious Metals and the Early Liao Aristocracy

Abstract

Shaping Symbols of Privilege:Precious Metals and the Early Liao Aristocracy François Louis Appreciation by Valerie Hansen New Appreciation François Louis, "Shaping Symbols of Privilege: Precious Metals and the Early Liao Aristocracy," JSYS 33 (2003): 71–109. Given the paucity of Kitan-language sources,1 how can the modern analyst best recover the Kitan point of view? Today we take it for granted that any serious academic study of the Liao must draw upon both classical Chinese and archeological sources. This pioneering article by François Louis about gilt silver vessels and crowns brilliantly illustrates the power of such an approach. This article explicates important archeological finds that most Western scholars barely registered at the time, including the tomb of Yelü Yuzhi 耶律之 (890–941), excavated in 1996, and that of the Princess of Chen 陳國公主 (1001–1018), excavated in 1986. Unusually, the Princess of Chen tomb had not been disturbed.2 Louis's detailed observations and meticulous drawings of objects underpin his analysis. Explaining that the "slovenly manufacture" of the princess's crown "stands in great contrast to the meticulously pierced and finely chased workmanship of [her husband] Xiao Shaoju's crown," Louis concludes that the prince may have worn his crown when alive, but that the princess's was made for burial (p. 123, Figures 9, 10). The two crowns "reflect what everyone today recognizes as a typical Liao style" (p. 121). That style had not yet taken shape in 942 when Yelü Yuzhi was buried. The metal objects in his tomb fall into three distinct groups: Kitan, Chinese, and Chinese-Turkish. Drawing on Chinese-language sources with great skill, Louis highlights the importance of the transfer of the imperial seal from the Later Jin 後晉 (936–947) to the Liao 遼 in 938, which marked the Liao as the legitimate successors to the Later Jin and, more significantly, to their predecessors, the Tang dynasty. In 947 the Liao overthrew the Later Jin and forcibly relocated their imperial craftsmen to the Supreme Capital (Balinzuo Banner 巴林左旗, Inner Mongolia). Louis identifies a conscious effort by artisans to create a "distinct Liao [End Page 91] metalworking tradition" with certain elements adopted from the Chinese, the Xi and Bohai 渤海 peoples, who had all been defeated by the Kitan (p. 73). The tenth century saw the formation of a national Liao style in other media as well. Detailing the items of clothing, jewelry, and footwear, that the emperor and his wife wore at the annual sacrifice to Heaven and Earth at Muye Mountain, the Liao shi 遼史 distinguishes their "national clothing" (guofu 國服) from "Chinese clothing" (hanfu 漢服) (p. 90). The conquered peoples contributed more than motifs: the silver that the Song dynasty sent as annual tribute after the 1005 Treaty of Chanyuan was the main constituent in the Liao metal crowns and vessels. Louis has a remarkable ability to move from analysis of a specific metal objects to the larger topic of Liao national identity. That's what makes this classic article as stimulating to read today as when it first appeared in 2003. [End Page 92] valerie hansen yale university Footnotes 1. Few materials in Kitan survive, and the decipherment is in its very early stages. See Daniel Kane, The Kitan Language and Script (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 2. The Princess of Chen tomb was featured in the 2006 Asia Society exhibit, "Gilded Splendor: Treasures of China's Liao Empire, 907–1125," which has an unusually good website: http://sites.asiasociety.org/arts/liao/ (accessed May 15, 2021). Introduction Between 1987 and 1991 several dozen gold and silver ritual vessels of a purported Liao-period origin appeared on the international art market.1 Most of those utensils carry long Chinese inscriptions explaining that they were commissioned in the 1020s by Liao dignitaries as gifts to an important Yelü 耶律 clan temple associated with minister Yelü Longyun 耶律隆運 (941–1011).2 From a connoisseur's point of view, the vessels may be considered stylistically awkward, iconographically inexplicit, and crafted in a relatively crude manner—especially when compared with the refined and celebrated metalwork produced under the Tang and Five Dynasties.3 Such unflattering artistic [End Page 93] qualities and the serious concerns about authenticity they raise found their reflection in...