“Lions and Elephants in Tibet, Eighth to Ninth Centuries”

Neither lions nor elephants are native to Tibet, yet these animals are represented in Tibetan art during the eighth to ninth centuries as a consequence of flourishing cultural and economic exchanges between Tibet and her neighbours during this period. In their natural habitat in India, the lion traditionally symbolizes royalty, power and strength and the mighty elephant is the regal vehicle par excellence. In Buddhism, the lion became the symbol of Shakyamuni’s royal birth as well as his valour; one speaks of the “lion’s roar” of the Buddha’s teachings, and the taming of the wild elephant is an analogy to the taming of the undisciplined mind. Thus certain aspects of Buddha may be seated on thrones supported by pairs of lions, while statues of elephants and lions served as guardians at the entrance to monasteries. The representations in India closely copied the physical reality of the lion yet sometimes there is a touch of fantasy, such as the addition of wings on lions.1 As Buddhism spread beyond the Indian subcontinent, so did the mythology of lions and elephants. These foreign representations may be anatomically inaccurate yet they convey the salient features of both creatures. In this article, my primary focus will be the physical description of these animals in the art of the sPu rgyal dynasty (mid-seventh to mid-ninth centuries), where to date, in addition to a stone stele with a lion carved on its top and an elephant at its base, archaeological investigations of Tibetan tombs have revealed three pairs of lion statues: at the royal necropolis in ’Phyong rgyas, central Tibet, at Dulan, in northeast Tibet near Kokonor, and at Khrom chen, near Lhatse in southwest Tibet.2 First, to attempt to understand the raison d’etre of the Tibetan tomb lion statues, it will be helpful to situate them within the context of Tibetan burial systems during the imperial period. We will return to the lion-elephant stele below. Comparison of the tombs situated in the vast territory of the sPu rgyal Empire reveals the following factors to be consistent in all regions investigated: 1) Spatial organization of a principal tomb surrounded by ancillary tombs and trenches for animal sacrifice; in Dulan and Khrom chen, there were trenches for animal sacrifice in front of the principal tomb as well as smaller satellite tombs.3 2) Construction materials of rammed earth alternating in layers with cut stone, as well as unbaked bricks alternating in layers with cut stone, in both cases reinforced with wooden beams at roof or ceiling juncture. 3) Construction techniques of underground tomb-chambers within the mound, as well as upper chambers. The mound is most often trapezoid in shape, occasionally spherical. Significantly, other than these tombs, underground chambers are absent in ancient Tibetan architecture.4 4) The combination of a stone stele rdo ring (T. “long stone”) and two statues of stone lions appear near the most important tombs in those necropoli which appear to be linked to political authority.5 In addition to the placement of rdo ring at such tomb sites during the dynastic period, Tibetans carved inscriptions on rdo ring to stipulate the conditions of treaties or to celebrate the foundation of temples and monasteries. I am grateful to Professor Pa Tshab Pasang Wangdu, a Tibetan colleague at the Tibetan Academy for Social Sciences, Lhasa, who has brought to my attention the rdo ring stele with its lion and elephant carvings, which I also present here. While the majestic, monolithic lion of the Tibetan royal necropolis at ’Phyong rgyas (Fig. 1a and b) has considerable renown, this is not the case for the lion sculptures of Dulan and Khrom chen (Figs. 2-5). The lion’s seated posture and the curve of its tail between its left rear leg and flank are stylistic conventions common to all of the tomb lions, also to be found on a pair of lions represented on a textile bearing an inscription in Tibetan language related to sPu rgyal dynasty burial customs.6 However the facial features and especially the manes of the Dulan and Khrom chen lions are very different from the bulging eyes and the mane of stylized rows of incised modelled curls of the ’Phyong rgyas lion.7 I will therefore summarize these two grave sites and their stone lions, and conclude with discussion of the stone stele and its sculpted animals.