Page 48 - 2019 September 13th Christie's New York Important Chinese Works of Art

Fig. 1 A greyish-green jade dragon head from the Qujiang Fig. 2 A map of the Qujiang imperial pleasure
imperial pleasure park, Tang dynasty (AD 618-907). Xi’an park and the Daming Palace in the Tang capital
Museum Collection. Image courtesy of Chongqing Publishing Chang’an (modern-day Xi’an).
Group. Photographer unknown.
圖二 唐長安城地圖上曲江池及大明宮位置示意。
圖一 唐 青玉龍首 發現於曲江池唐代御苑遺址 西安博物院藏

A FITTING ORNAMENT FOR IMPERIAL FURNITURE AND CARRIAGES
What prompted this extravagant expenditure of valuable material? As the frst scholar to publish the Junkunc jade dragon head in the
1950s, Salmony resisted the suggestion that the jade dragon head might have been part of architectural structures, a natural impulse
on initial encounters with large sculptural carvings in stone. Jade would be too precious for prolonged exposure to the elements in
built structures. This role would be far better served by fttings made of metal, stone, or more commonly, earthenware. A magnifcent
architectural ornament in typical Tang three-color-glazed earthenware presents an ideal match for the Junkunc dragon head as imposing
4
sculpture, but not in material rarity and value. (Fig. 5) It was recovered from the site of Huaqingchi, a hot-springs resort at Lintong,
east of Xi’an, another leisure refuge for the amusement of the Tang Emperor Xuanzong and his favorite concubine Yang. This tradition
of decorating imperial architecture with monumental dragon fttings in metal, stone, or glazed earthenware continued well into the
subsequent Yuan-Ming-Qing periods, where ample examples are still visible on buildings in the Forbidden City today. 5
If large jade fttings like the Junkunc dragon head were not architectural fttings, what functions did they serve? Salmony suggested
that it was the jade counterpart of metal fttings for “horizontal poles of chariots, and other pieces of movable equipment”. The drilled
6
perforations on the Junkunc and Qujiang dragon heads would allow pins to secure them over a wooden element inserted into the trench.
The curved top and rough interior of the trench under the Qujiang dragon head suggest that it ftted over a member with a rounded top;
the fat top of the Junkunc trench might have ftted over a squared wooden member (or it might have been squared of during reworking
of damage). They could have been terminal ornaments for imperial furnishings on carriages and sedans, used mostly for military and
pleasure expeditions, or for the emperor’s private leisure quarters and resorts. A Song-Liao jade dragon head ftting with an extended
7
tubular socket (L17.4 x W9.8 cm) in the Tianjin City Art Museum might have served this purpose. A large Yuan-dynasty jade dragon
head ftting in the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. shows two deeply drilled depressions on the
underside and a small hole at the end of the mane to attach a decorative streamer, suggesting a diferent sub-structure that demanded a
diferent method of attachment. (Fig. 6)

與唐代宮廷相關的大型玉飾件亦見1979年大明宮遺址出土的 泉勝地，又是供唐玄宗及楊貴妃休憩遊玩的另一去處。這種
一件玉鷹首 (圖4)。其造型立體感強， 雕工有勁，但玉色暗 用大型的龍形金屬、石雕或粗釉陶飾件來點綴皇室建築的
綠，材質較差。大明宮是唐太宗在位時 (公元627至649年) 於 傳統，一直延續至元明清三代，相關的實例在紫禁城內仍隨
3
5
長安古城東北隅興建的宮殿 。 (圖2)落成之後，備受歷代君 處可見。
王青睞，以此作為處理朝政之所，惜唐末896年毀於戰火。唐
蔣氏玉龍首這類大型玉雕若非建築配件，那到底是作何用
代宮殿遺址出土的玉雕中，大小與蔣氏玉龍首相若近似的僅
途呢？薩爾莫尼建議它是「輿衡及其他活動裝置」的金屬飾
此一件。這一發現再次證明，大型玉雕與唐代宮廷生活建築
件之玉石變奏。 蔣氏及曲江池龍首均有底槽和鑽孔，可用
6
淵源甚深。 若據此兩件出土的大型玉配件將蔣氏玉龍首推
插銷將之固定於木構件上。曲江池龍首的凹槽頂部呈弧形，
定為唐代作品，庶幾無誤矣。
內部未經打磨，可見其接合件上圓下方；而蔣氏玉龍的凹槽
帝輦玉具 為平頂，故其接合件可能是方形 (或是在修舊時始磨成方槽)
選材如此不惜工本，其原因何在呢？學者薩爾莫尼五十多年 。兩者或許是宮廷輿輦的配飾（輿輦主要是作行軍和巡遊
前研究蔣氏玉龍首時，並沒有像一般初見大型石雕便理所 之用）；或是皇帝在內宮和行宮的家居配件。天津博物館藏
當然地視之為建築構件。玉之罕貴，根本不適宜用於建築樓 宋-遼玉龍首帶長管狀套 (長17.4 X 寬9.8厘米)，也可能是此用
宇，長年受寒侵暑煎。此用途以金屬、石雕或更常見的陶製 途。 在華盛頓賽克勒美術館，也有一件元代大型玉龍首飾，
7
品理想得多。就此可參考普遍常見的唐三彩龍首形陶建築飾 其下方鑽二個深管形槽，鬃末有一小孔，以繫結飾帶，可見根
件，雕工之遒勁不下蔣氏玉龍首，但材質之珍罕則遠遠不及 據不同的配構方法，接合方式也會相應調整 (圖6)。
。 (圖5) 此三彩龍首來自臨潼華清宮遺址，為西安東郊的溫
4