Buddhist sculpture (phurba)

We were looking for a way to contact any of these monasteries in Mongolia, but at the moment we couldn't find anything. They don't have a website, email or phone numbers.

 

I wouldn't expect Mongolian monasteries to have any of those.

Have you contacted the museum yet? They have a website, email and a phone number.

 

The museum does not provide advice on the attribution of objects.

They just might have some archives.

 

A pity.

 

The staff at the Rubin Museum are very helpful.

By the way, I have Lam's contacts, I think I'll get in touch in a few days...

 

I'm adding a photo gallery again. Maybe someone will have some additions and tips.

https://postimg.cc/gallery/hxndWb1

 

As for how the phurba got such defects, it is most likely explained by the fact that Mongolia had more than one cultural revolution during the 20th century.

The most brutal was in 1924 and 1966..."Buddhist monasteries were subjected to destruction, cultural values were destroyed. Lamas, former feudal lords and simply educated Mongols were killed, arrested, humiliated and beaten. Gangs of Red Guards broke into the homes of ordinary Mongols in search of works of "reactionary culture", committed violence and robbery. Mongols were forced by threats and intimidation to curse independent Mongolia and learn Mao Zedong's quotes."

 

You can see from the wear and patina on the breaklines that the damage was done long before the 20th century.

Thanks for posting the photos again, very helpful.

That was in Inner Mongolia, occupied by China, not in Outer Mongolia. Your phurba was found near Arvaikheer, which is in independent (Outer) Mongolia, although formerly a semi-independent People's Republic of Mongolia under Soviet influence and protection.

We can speculate, but even if we stay within the historic and geographic possibilities we will never know what caused the damage.

 

Yes, it's sad.. but I would like to know)

I just received another answer from a Nepalese gallery. They think that the phurba is around the 17th century and may be connected with Zanabazar (judging by how the hands and decorations are made). They said that the phurba is very nice, it's a pity that it has defects. The plasticity of the figure is wonderful.

Regarding the four sides of the blade: four types of activity (pacification, increase, submission, destruction).
Four immeasurable states (loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity).
Four directions
(protection from negativity from all sides). With four blades, it is extremely rare. 99.9% of all phurbas have three sides.

They also say that sometimes people find phurbas too, but these are absolutely not the same quality, they are all ordinary and not old...our significant...

 

I agree. As I said before, the style is Zanabazar imo, and it could well be 17th century

I didn't comment on the style assessment by the experts you consulted before, but frankly I don't see Tibetan or Chinese. I had already given my opinion, which was that this flamboyant style is consistent with Zanabazar.
The thing is, not everyone versed in Vajrayana Buddhism knows Mongolian styles, so they could be grasping at straws when faced with a Mongolian piece.

Agree.

Yours is top quality.

 

Now I'm waiting for an answer from perhaps the most respected specialist in Zanabazar and Mongolian sculpture in general.
I'll see what the specialist says.

In the meantime, I've updated the gallery of photos of the object. Again, maybe someone else will say something)

https://postimg.cc/gallery/C1hSwtC

Thank you all

 

Thank you for the update.
Looks like you are getting closer to the insights you need. I'm looking forward to hear what they say.