Art and Architecture in Ladakh

Cross-Cultural Transmissions in the Himalayas and Karakoram

Edited by Erberto Lo Bue and John Bray

LEIDEN | BOSTON

List of Contributors vii List of Illustrations xii

Introduction 1 Erberto Lo Bue and John Bray 1 Ancient Petroglyphs of Ladakh: New Discoveries and Documentation 15 Tashi Ldawa Thsangspa 2 Embedded in Stone—Early Buddhist Rock Art of Ladakh 35 Phuntsog Dorjay 3 Historic Ruins in the Gya Valley, Eastern Ladakh, and a Consideration of Their Relationship to the History of Ladakh and Maryul With an Appendix on the War of Tsede (rTse lde) of Guge in 1083 CE by Philip Denwood 68 Neil and Kath Howard 4 An Archaeological Account of Ten Ancient Painted Chortens in Ladakh and Zanskar 100 Quentin Devers, Laurianne Bruneau and Martin Vernier 5 The Chorten (mChod rten) with the Secret Chamber near Nyarma 141 Gerald Kozicz 6 The Dating of the Sumtsek Temple at Alchi 159 Philip Denwood 7 The Iconography and the Historical Context of the Drinking Scene in the Dukhang at Alchi, Ladakh 167 Marjo Alafouzo 8 The Wood Carvings of Lachuse. A Hidden Jewel of Early Mediaeval Ladakhi Art 191 Heinrich Poell 9 The mGon khang of dPe thub (Spituk): A Rare Example of 15th Century Tibetan Painting from Ladakh 226 Chiara Bellini 10 Chigtan Castle and Mosque: A Preliminary Historical and Architectural Analysis 254 Kacho Mumtaz Ali Khan, John Bray, Quentin Devers and Martin Vernier

11 Lamayuru (Ladakh)—Chenrezik Lhakang: The Bar Do Thos Grol Illustrated as a Mural Painting 274 Kristin Blancke 12 The Lost Paintings of Kesar 298 John Bray 13 Tshogs zhing: a Wall Painting in the New ’Du khang of Spituk (dPe thub) 314 Filippo Lunardo 14 From Benaras to Leh—The Trade and Use of Silk-brocade 329 Monisha Ahmed 15 Conservation of Leh Old Town—Concepts and Challenges 348 André Alexander and Andreas Catanese 16 Revealing Traditions in Earthen Architecture: Analysis of Earthen Building Material and Traditional Constructions in the Western Himalayas 364 Hubert Feiglstorfer 17 Conservation of Architectural Heritage in Ladakh 388 John Harrison

Bibliography 400 Index 428

Kacho Mumtaz Ali Khan, John Bray, Quentin Devers and Martin Vernier

Until the early 19th century Chigtan (Cig gtan or Cig ldan) in the Purig (Pu rig/ Bu rig) region of western Ladakh was a semi-independent principality ruled by a local chief or Jo. Like the rest of Purig, it was originally Buddhist, but the ruling family adopted Islam in the late 16th or early 17th century CE. The region’s oral tradition and its architectural inheritance are therefore of particular inter- est as a meeting point of Buddhist and Islamic cultural influences. Today, Chigtan has long since been eclipsed as a regional centre by the mod- ern town of Kargil. However, it is still widely known as a focal point of Ladakhi culture, famous for the local version of the Kesar epic and for a wider reper- toire of folk stories and songs.1 Chigtan castle is now sadly dilapidated but, even in its present ruinous state, it remains a particularly important example of Ladakhi architecture. The mosque below the castle has hitherto been over- looked almost completely by scholars but, as will be seen below, it contains an important set of wood carvings. The whole complex deserves to be better known. In two earlier articles Neil Howard (1989, 1995) presented a survey of for- tresses scattered across the Indus valley and Zangskar, but he was not able to include Chigtan. This essay expands on this earlier work by presenting a preliminary study of Chigtan’s history and the remains of the castle’s architecture. It draws on photographs and oral evidence collected in the early 20th century and more recently, together with a preliminary inspection of the site as it stands today.

The Chigtan Foundation Myth

Chigtan’s foundation myth was recorded by the Moravian missionary scholar A.H. Francke in the early 20th century, and is still part of the region’s oral tradition today.

1 Herrmann (1991) includes a German rendering of the saga as recited by Rahimulla Takarpa from Chigtan.

Francke (1926:172–175) reports than in 1906 he heard that Chigtan had had its own historical chronicle. It emerged that the original document no longer survived but that the former Jo, who now lived in Kargil, had learnt it by heart and could recite it from memory. Francke duly sent one of his assistants to record the text. According to the chronicle, the founder of the Chigtan principality was called Tsangkhan Malik (lTsang mkhan ma lig), and originally came from Gilgit in what is now northern Pakistan. He carried a walnut stick and planted it in the village of Dargo (Dar go) before going to sleep. When he awoke, the stick had sprouted leaves and, taking this as a good omen, he built a castle there. He had a similar experience in Kuksho (Kug sho), this time with a birch stick, before fĳinally coming to the nearby village of Chigtan. He also built a castle there although, as Francke (1926:174) remarks, this must have been a distant predecessor to the building whose ruins survive today. Francke comments that the founder’s original name was probably simply ‘Tsangkhan’, and that ‘Malik’ might have been added later to make his name sound more Islamic. He records a similar foundation myth for the rulers of Sod (bSod) near Kargil who belonged to the same family and also held a small castle at Pashkyum (Pas kyum/Pas skyum).

Figure 10.1 Chigtan castle in 1909. Photo: Babu Pindi Lal. Courtesy Kern Institute, Leiden University, ms nr.XI. fol.31.

Figure 10.2 Chigtan castle in 2009. Photo: Kacho Mumtaz Ali Khan.

Tsering Malik

According to local tradition,2 the present castle was built on the orders of Tsering Malik (Tshe ring ma lig), who ruled Chigtan at the turn of the 16th and 17th centuries. His hybrid Buddhist/Muslim name suggests that he may have been one of the fĳirst members of the ruling dynasty to embrace Islam, although it is likely that many of the ordinary inhabitants of the region would have remained Buddhist for some generations to come. Even today there is still one Buddhist household in the village, and hybrid Buddhist/Muslim names have been common in the nearby village of Kuksho until recent times (Sheikh 1995:164). The early 20th century historian Hashmatullah Khan (1939) states that Tsering Malik was the younger son of Kho Kho Bazam, the ruler of the combined principality of Sod, Pashkyum and Chigtan.3 Kho Kho Bazam’s elder son

2 The references to the oral tradition in this paper area are as recorded by Kacho Mumtaz Ali Khan. 3 Hashmatullah Khan served in Ladakh as an offfĳicial of the Jammu & Kashmir government in the early 20th century. His work draws heavily on oral traditions, many of which have since been lost. We are grateful to Abdul Ghani Sheikh for this reference.

Urgyal Malik (Ur rgyal ma lig?) was the heir apparent, but he appointed Tsering Malik as the governor of Chigtan. Tsering Malik declared independence with the help of his father-in-law, the Ladakhi King Jamyang Namgyal (’Jam dbyangs rnam rgyal, r. c. 1595–1616), and captured Pashkyum as well as Chigtan, while his brother retained control of Sod. Tsering Malik’s construction—or reconstruction—of the castle may have been intended to provide him with a secure base when making this bid for greater regional power. A somewhat similar account—though difffering in important details— appears in the La dvags rgyal rabs, the Ladakh royal chronicle (Francke 1926:106–107; Petech 1977:33–34). This records that Jamyang Namgyal took Tsering Malik’s side in a conflict with an unnamed neighbouring chief, possibly Urgyal Malik.4 Jamyang Namgyal’s decision proved disastrous because it led to the intervention of Ali Mir, the Makpon (dMag dpon) of Skardu in Baltistan, who defeated him in battle and overran the whole of Ladakh. Jamyang Namgyal was captured and taken to Skardu where, according to legend, he fell in love with the Makpon’s daughter Gyal Khatun (rGyal Khatun). Later he was allowed to marry the princess and to return peacefully to Ladakh.5 Tsering Malik pre- sumably retained or resumed control of Chigtan, although the chronicle does not state this specifĳically. Tsering Malik also appears in two historical songs collected by Francke (1909:64–66). The fĳirst of these refers to the castle and in Francke’s translation runs as follows:

On the boundary of heaven and earth, There is a castle raised by [a] lion If you ask where that is, where that is. It is the youths of middle age in our godly land. If you ask where that is, where that is. It is all the gravel-plains of the beautiful [castle] Shag-mkhar. Let us dance, let us laugh, O companions. Cry out ‘bravo’ before our good lord. Call out ‘bravo’ before our good Lord Tshering malig.

The second of the two songs refers to an alliance between Tsering Malik and a king called Dzeldan Namgyal (mDzes ldan rnam rgyal). ‘Dzeldan’ means

4 Francke suggests that the opposing chief was Khri Sultan of Kartse (dKar tse) in the Suru valley. 5 For a recent study of intermarriages between the ruling families of Ladakh and Baltistan see Halkias (2011).

‘possessing beauty’, and Francke (1909:66) suggests that it is an epithet for Jamyang Namgyal.

Local Legends Concerning the Castle’s Construction

The castle formerly had nine storeys and according to legend was crowned by a revolving wooden cabin at the top. Its main architect is said to have been Chandan, a highly skilled mason and carpenter from Chorbat in Baltistan. Tradition relates that, once the castle was completed, Tsering Malik’s councillors advised him to chop offf Chandan’s hands so that he could not build a similar castle elsewhere. When Chandan heard of the plot, he removed some vital working parts of the revolving cabin so that it tilted to one side. He explained that he could not rectify the problem without a special tool that he had left at home, and he asked Tsering Malik to send 20 young men to fetch it. Tsering Malik duly sent the young men, and they carried a message from Chandan to his daughter-in-law, a particularly intelligent woman whom Chandan had selected after she had passed a series of tests. The message was: “The sky is clear, but there are only a few stars. It is a full moon, but the moon is only half.” The fĳirst part of the message meant that Chandan was in captiv- ity, and was receiving only a thin broth by way of nourishment, without any meat or fat, and the second part meant that he was only receiving a half piece of bread. When Chandan’s daughter-in-law heard the message, she understood that he was in trouble. She asked the youths to fell some poplar trees in order to make the special tool, and managed to get them to stand in such a position that they were all trapped when the trees came down. She then freed one of them and told him to return to Chigtan with a message that the remaining 19 would all be killed unless Tsering Malik released her father-in-law with due honour and reward. Tsering Malik duly complied. Abdul Ghani Sheikh (2005:31–43) notes that similar legend is told in Leh, where the construction of the palace is likewise attributed to a Balti mason called Chandan. According to the Leh version, King Sengge Namgyal (Seng ge rnam rgyal, r. 1616–1642) chopped offf Chandan’s right hand with a view to end- ing his architectural career. However, it seems that even this did not deter him because the legend relates he used his left hand to build further palaces at Hanle (Wam le) and Shey (Shel) in Ladakh and at Rudok (Rud hogs) in what is now Western Tibet.

Later History

Conflicts between Ladakh and Baltistan, as well as dynastic rivalries within Purig itself, were recurrent features of the region’s history in the 17th and 18th centuries (see Schuh 2008). Since Chigtan lies between the two main regional centres of power in Leh and Skardu, it is easy to imagine that it was caught up in these conflicts on more than one occasion, and that the defensive fortifĳica- tions that we can still see in the castle were essential in the fluid and often vio- lent political environment of the time. However, there are few documentary records. One of the few literary references that survives comes from the biography of Stagtshang Raspa (sTag tshang ras pa 1574–1651), the founder of Hemis monastery (Petech 1977:49). According to this text, King Sengge Namgyal invaded Chigtan soon after coming to the throne in succession to his father Jamyang Namgyal. However, the attack was unsuccessful: the Ladakhi leader Gaga Tenpa (Ga ga bTsan pa) was captured with some eighty men, while the nephew and niece of the Chigtan Jo were held hostage in Ladakh. Stagtshang Raspa was asked to mediate, and negotiated an exchange of the captives and a one-year truce. Apparently drawing on the oral tradition, Hashmatullah Khan records what appears to be a separate but related incident from the same period. It seems that Sultan Malik, who had succeeded Urgyal Malik as ruler of Sod, invaded Chigtan, and killed the now elderly Tsering Malik and his son in battle. He then annexed Chigtan and imprisoned Tsering Malik’s grandsons, Adam Malik and Chhozang (Chos bzang?) Malik. The majority of the people of Chigtan were Buddhist and opposed the rule of Sultan Malik: the implication is that he was more ardent in his promotion of Islam than Tsering Malik had been. They therefore appealed to Sengge Namgyal for assistance, but he was preoc- cupied with his domestic afffairs and refused to intervene. However, during the same period a Chigtan am chi (practitioner of Tibetan medicine) managed to cure the queen of Ali Sher Khan in Skardu. When she offfered him a reward, he asked for her husband’s help in restoring Tsering Malik’s descendants to their Chigtan inheritance. Ali Sher Khan duly sent a delegation to Sultan Khan who agreed to restore Adam Malik to Chigtan. Adam died childless and was succeeded by Chozang whose descendants continued to rule Chigtan until the early 19th century.6 A fĳinal reference comes from the last days of the Ladakhi kingdom. In 1834, the Dogra general Zorawar Singh conquered Ladakh on behalf of his master,

6 For further details of the lineage see Francke (1926:173) and Hashmatullah Khan (1939).

Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu. In 1840 Zorawar invaded the region a second time to suppress a Ladakhi rebellion. Some 60 years later, Tsetan (Tshe brtan), a Khalatse villager who had served in the war, dictated his reminiscences (Francke 1926:253). He mentions Rahim Khan, the chief of Chigtan, as one of the rebels who was subsequently captured and taken to Skardu. Tsetan relates that Zorawar had Rahim’s right hand, tongue and ears cut offf in a public muti- lation in front of his army: he took two days to die of his wounds. Hashmatullah Khan identifĳies Rahim as the younger brother of Mohammed Ali Khan, the last ruler of Chigtan, who had likewise been killed while fĳighting the Dogras. Zorawar’s invasions led to the fĳinal defeat of the Ladakhi kingdom and its incorporation fĳirst into the dominions of Jammu and then, after 1846, into the combined princely state of Jammu & Kashmir. The descendants of the Chigtan chiefs retained high social status and in recent times one family member, Kacho Sikandar Khan, achieved renown as a historian and writer.7 However, they lost all formal political power. Their castle now served no practical purpose and was allowed to fall into disrepair. A particularly bleak period came in the 1960s when stones from the building were taken to construct a nearby hospital. The surviving ruins therefore constitute no more than a shell of the original building.

A Preliminary Analysis of the Castle Architecture

The best evidence for the castle’s original appearance now comes from photographs taken in the early 20th century. As recorded in his subsequent report, Francke (1914:99–101) visited Chigtan on behalf of the Archaeological Survey of India in 1909, and he was accompanied by a skilled photographer, Babu Pindi Lal. A comparison between Pindi Lal’s image with a second photograph taken from the same place a century later (Figures 10.1 and 10.2) shows how far the building has deteriorated. In 1909 the roofs and verandas were still in place. Now, they have fallen away completely. The site of the castle is particularly impressive, at the top of a clifff over- looking the Chigtan river, which is a tributary of the Indus some 15 miles to the north. Below the main building, a series of fortifĳications (in the left of the picture in Figures 10.1 and 10.2) follows the ridge down to the valley. The bottom of this ridge and the buildings that stood on top of it were blasted away in the 1970s to permit the construction of a motor road. Behind the main castle

7 See Kacho Sikandar Khan (1987). Kacho Mumtaz Ali Khan, one of the present authors, is Kacho Sikandar’s son.

Figure 10.3 Sketch plan of Chigtan fortifĳications by Martin Vernier and Quentin Devers. The main castle is to the lower left. and out of sight in these pictures (but see the plan above) one can still see the remains of a wall connecting a series of smaller fortifĳications. As noted above, local legend has it that Tsangkhan Khan, the founder of Chigtan, was the fĳirst to build a castle on the site, and his successors no doubt expanded and strengthened the original fortifĳications. As they did so, they would have incorporated earlier structures into later buildings rather than replacing them entirely. The legend implying that Chandan built the entire castle in the course of a single building programme is therefore mis- leading: the castle must be understood as a complex of interconnected buildings, each with its own architectural style. What follows is a preliminary set of observations of the diffferent components, pending more detailed archaeological examination.

The Ruins Behind the Main Castle

At the top of the mountain above the main castle there are the decayed ruins of a large round tower, and this appears to be the oldest remaining part of the fortifĳication complex (Figure 10.4). From this high position there is no more than a limited view into the valley, which curves away on both sides, but there is a clear view of the arid mountains behind through which passes the

Fig ure 10.4 Ruins of the upper tower. Photo: Quentin Devers. trail leading to Kuksho and Dargo, the other two villages traditionally linked with the foundation of Chigtan. From the tower a decayed wall runs downhill towards a second cluster of buildings. This layout is reminiscent of the fortress at Basgo (Ba sgo) where there is a similar confĳiguration consisting of a round tower at the top of a ridge linked to the rest of the complex by a wall, and this too appears to be the earliest part of the complex (Howard 1989:227–237). The second tower (proceeding downhill) is in rather better condition. Its original core, one of whose walls is circular, is made of stone masonry. The structure bears the marks of several successive repairs in stones, bricks and shuttered mud: more detailed on-ground observation will be required to con- fĳirm the precise order in which these repairs and additions took place. The original tower has been partly enclosed by walls made of shuttered mud (Figures 10.5 and 10.6). These features are somewhat reminiscent of the castle at Temisgang (gTing mo sgang) where two outer towers are enclosed on three sides by tall shuttered mud walls (Howard 1989:251–254). Below this tower there are several buildings variously constructed with both masonry and shuttered-mud, in which several diffferent phases of repair both with stones and mud bricks can be observed. A gorge and a steep clifff cut offf the lowest of these buildings from the main castle. However, some of the older inhabitants of Chigtan remember seeing a footbridge linking the castle to the upper buildings.

Figure 10.5 Partly enclosed tower. the original stone tower is just visible inside the shuttered mud walls. Photo: Quentin Devers.

Figure 10.6 The stone tower behind the walls of shuttered mud. Photo: Gerald Kozicz.

Figure 10.7 Rear of the main castle. Photo: Quentin Devers.

The Main Castle

As discussed, the main castle as we see it today is the result of successive phases of constructions, reconstructions and repairs. The main access used to be via a set of stairs that have now collapsed: these were built against the site’s southern flank and led upwards from a gatehouse. Inside the gatehouse there was a tunnel leading to an underground spring, making it possible for the castle to withstand a siege. Such underground access to water is quite common in Ladakh, and is found in places as varied as Bod Kharbu (Bod mkhar bu—see Francke 1914:99), Nyoma (Nyo ma), Stok Monkhar (sTog [s?]mon mkhar) and Padum (dPal ’dum, sPa dum). Babu Pindi Lal’s photographs show that one of the inner buildings—the second from the front—included a striking set of timber lacing: a framework of wooden beams laid out in parallel lines with stones fĳilling the spaces in between. Timber lacing is found all over Ladakh, but usually with fewer beams set between floors. The lacing shown in the photograph, with perhaps fĳive or six beams per floor, more closely resembles the style common to the older mosques and castles of Baltistan (Hughes 2007). Geographically, one of the closest examples is the castle in Kharmang (mKhar mang) on the banks of the river Indus only 60 miles from Chigtan, but now on the far side of the Line of Control between Indian and Pakistani-controlled territory.8

8 For an early 20th century photograph of Kharmang, see de Filippi (1932:32).

Figure 10.8 Timber lacing as seen in 1909. Photo: Babu Pindi Lal. Courtesy Kern Institute, Leiden University, MS No.XI. fol.31.

Timber lacing has both practical and aesthetic appeal: the wooden framework makes the structure more resistant to both earthquakes and decay over time. At the same time, as Babu Pindi Lal’s photographs also show, the beams provide scope for intricate decorative wood carving. Again, the style of carving is reminiscent of similar decorative patterns found in the palaces and mosques of Baltistan (cf. Klimburg 2007:158–164). By contrast the front building with the balconies is more characteristic of Central Ladakh and Tibet. Most of the building is constructed with stone masonry, except for the upper storey which is made with mud bricks. Its slightly tapering walls and more spread-out timber lacings are fĳirmly rooted in Tibetan architectural tradition. It is conceivable that early examples of such constructions might have been built already in the eighth and ninth centuries by the armies of the Tibetan Empire in locations such as Alchi (A lci) and Balu khar (Balu mkhar, near Khalatse) in the Indus valley. One of the earliest such buildings in the wider region that can be dated provisionally with a degree of confĳidence is the ruined castle of Malakartse (Ma lag(?) mkhar rtse) in Zangskar whose con- fĳiguration seems to indicate it was constructed in the same period as the 11th century chorten (mchod rten) on the same site (Linrothe 2010). Similar types of

This is a digital offfprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 266 Khan, Bray, Devers and Vernier construction can also be seen in Wanla (Wan la) and in Hankar (Hang? mkhar) in the Markha (dMar kha) valley, where the wood carving makes it possible to date the building to the same period as the Alchi group of monuments.9 As discussed by Philip Denwood elsewhere in this volume, there is a strong case for dating the Alchi Sumtsek (gSum brtsegs) to the late 11th century. However, the balconies built on the top floor of the Chigtan front building point to a much later date. They are reminiscent of those in the mid-17th century Leh palace, or, to choose an example more comparable in size, at the Zimskhang (gZims khang) palace at Khyagar in the Nubra (Nub ra) Valley. A careful examination of Babu Pindi Lal’s photographs also shows that the building with the closely-laid ‘Balti’ timber lacings seems to have been extended vertically with a diffferent masonry. From the photograph it looks similar to the style of masonry found in most of the walls still visible today at the sides and rear of the main site (Figure 10.7). This points to an extensive reconstruction of the complex in a relatively short time period, and this would be compatible with the view that the castle was substantially reinforced—though not built for the fĳirst time—during the time of Tsering Malik.

A Tentative Chronology

As there is no direct stratigraphic relationship among the buildings in the site as a whole, an exact chronological sequence cannot be drawn out. However, it is possible to discern at least fĳive phases of construction. • The fĳirst and oldest corresponds to the very decayed round tower at the top of the hill behind the main site and the wall descending from it. • The second phase is probably that which saw the construction of the stone core of the tower immediately below the previous one. • A third stage of construction, not necessarily immediately following in sequence, occurred when that tower was supplemented with shuttered mud walls. • A fourth stage took place when the building with closely-laid timber lacings was erected in the main castle complex. • The fĳinal stage seems to have included the construction of the front building with the tapering walls and more spread-out timber lacings, probably together with the walls at the sides and rear of the main complex.

9 For Wanla see Howard (1989:261–264) and for Hankar, see Devers & Vernier, (2011:82–83).

To add to the complexity of this chronology, one has to keep in mind the many repairs of the walls in shuttered mud, using both stone masonry and bricks. A defĳinitive chronology would require a more thorough examination of the site and dating of organic or ceramic materials enclosed in the walls. It is to be hoped that this task will be undertaken in the future.

Chigtan Castle Today

Chigtan castle retains its central place in the local cultural imagination. One example is a competitive game of riddles, where the winning team members imagine themselves taking possession of a progressively grander set of castles, culminating in Chigtan as the grandest castle of all. The winners tease the losers by comparing themselves with the king sitting at the top of the castle with a golden hookah, while the losers resemble dirty men with fĳilthy clothes and hair full of lice. However, while the castle still holds its status as a symbol of power and status, the contemporary reality is very diffferent. Writing about his visit in 1913–1914, the Italian traveller Giotto Dainelli (1932:242) reported that inside the castle “all is desolation and ruin.” He added that one could only guess at the purpose of the various rooms inside the castle because “everything is tumbling down, walls, stairs and ceilings, and threatens to fall on your head.” Today the situation is far worse. The main entrance path has fallen away, so that even entering the main castle complex is a hazardous endeavour. In 2009, the US-based World Monuments Fund placed the castle on its worldwide list of endangered monuments. In 2011 the Leh chapter of the India National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) led by Tara Sharma started work on a preliminary survey of the castle with a view to stabilizing it and conducting essential repairs to prevent further deterioration. The aim is to rehabilitate the site to make it a platform to promote historical conservation. It is to be hoped that this is the fĳirst stage towards the preservation of one of Ladakh’s most important historical monuments.

The Mosque

Below the castle there is a small mosque consisting of a simple rectangular single-storey building in traditional Ladakhi style, about 15 metres long by 10 metres wide. The mosque has a carved wooden doorway at one end, and a mihrab niche to indicate the direction of Mecca at the other. In between, there

This is a digital offfprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV 268 Khan, Bray, Devers and Vernier are two wooden pillars. There is no tower or minaret, and the building’s mod- est style means that it is easy to overlook it. The simple design of the Chigtan mosque recalls the early 17th century Sharif Masjid in Leh, which is in the Tsa Soma (Tshas so ma—‘new garden’) area of Leh, below and to the west of Leh Palace. The Sharif Masjid, which has recently been restored by the Tibet Heritage Fund (THF), is the earliest mosque to be built in Leh (Alexander & Catanese 2008). It is thought that it was constructed during the reign of King Senge Namgyal, the son of King Jamyang Namgyal and his Balti wife Gyal Khatun. The mosque is rather larger than its Chigtan counterpart, and it has a small dome, but it is built in the same style, using traditional Ladakhi building techniques.10 However, we as yet have no secure dating for the Chigtan mosque and it seems that, like the castle itself, it is a composite construction incorporating parts of earlier buildings. The carvings on the door frame and the two pillars are its most striking feature. The frame of the doorway is carved with a ‘lotus’ design which is more usually associated with Tibetan Buddhist architecture. The capitals on the two pillars have even more intricate carvings. The holes below the capitals indicate that they once topped a squarish shaft, and this shows that they have been re-used from an earlier building, possibly the castle itself. In both cases, one side of the capital is more weathered than the other, and this suggests that they might once have been located within a courtyard. The fĳirst capital facing the door (see Figures 10.9, 10.10) shows two birds facing each other on one side, and a floral design on the other. On the bottom left there is a set of star-shaped patterns, and an interlaced pattern with a lily on the right. On the front of the second capital (Figures 10.11, 10.12) there are two hybrid dragon-like creatures of roughly equal size facing each other. On the other side there is a large hybrid dragon with a smaller one to its left. On the bottom there is an interlaced pattern topped by a trident on the left, and a similar interlaced pattern with lily flowers on the right. The two birds in the fĳirst capital might well represent peacocks, their long tails being turned into decorative scrolls to fĳill the sides of the surface. The floral design on the other side difffers stylistically from the other three fronts but is close to the interlaced patterns in three of the four designs on the bottom of the capitals. Three of the four capital fronts are carved according to a central symmetry: the fourth one, with the larger ‘dragon’, is asymmetrical but com- pensates for this with the addition of the smaller ‘dragon’ on the left.

10 The original dome was later incorporated into a mosque in the nearby village of Shey, and has now been reconstructed as part of the restoration.

The designs on the bottoms of the capitals follow a similar mixed programme rather than a uniform one. Three sides have an interlaced flower style with a kind of ‘fleur de lys’ as a central motif. The fourth is more geometrically designed upon a juxtaposed star-like pattern. The execution of the floral designs in the fĳirst capital is also similar to what can still be observed through binoculars of the woodwork of Chigtan castle (see also the woodwork in Figure 10.8). It is likewise reminiscent of the floral interlaced design in the wooden lintel at Hankar in the Markha valley (Devers & Vernier 2011:Figure 39). Similar designs can also be found throughout Ladakh in paintings of various periods, for example in the early 17th century gSer zangs lha khang in Basgo. A similar pair of peacocks is engraved on a wooden capital of the gSer lha khang at Tabo in Spiti (Thakur 2001:133). The hybrid dragon motifs are more surprising as they show features that are reminiscent of the Central Asian steppe cultures’ animal style. These include the spiral lines on the thighs and shoulders as well as the way that the animal’s head is turned and looking over its back. Variations of these stylistic features have been found across Central Asia from ancient Scythia bordering on the Black Sea to western China.

Figure 10.9 Drawings of the fĳirst capital in the mosque by Martin Vernier. The rectangular panels show the bottom of the capital.

Figure 10.10 Simplifĳied line drawing by Martin Vernier showing the patterns in the fĳirst capital.

Figure 10.11 Drawings by Martin Vernier showing the second capital in the mosque.

As discussed in Tashi Ldawa Tshangspa’s paper in this volume, elements of this style can be seen in some of the oldest examples of Ladakhi rock art, notably the petroglyphs in the ‘Domkhar sanctuary’ (Figs 1.11, 1.12), which is a day or a day and a half’s walk from Chigtan, as well as the ‘Tangtse chase’ (Figs 1.13, 1.14) and the Renmudong petroglyphs in Tibet (Figures 1.15, 1.16). In Chigtan itself,

Figure 10.12 Simplifĳied line drawing showing the patterns in the second capital.

Figure 10.13 Carving from the Kammand temple in Himachal Pradesh, dated approximately to the late 14th/early 15th centuries. Photo by Heinrich Poell.

Figure 10.14 Carving from Kammand temple in Himachal Pradesh. Note the deer with its head turned backwards in the bottom centre. Photo by Heinrich Poell. the closest example that comes to mind is the “large wooden board on which is carved a Naga-devouring Garuda” that Francke (1914:99) found in the castle a century ago. However, as Heinrich Poell points out, carvings incorporating a wide range of fantastic animals are also to be found in the wooden temple art of what is now Himachal Pradesh from the 12th/13th centuries onwards.11 As can be seen in Figs 10.13 and 10.14, these include dragons, composite creatures and fĳire-spewing deer, and they are portrayed with spiral lines, stars and other ornamentation on their bodies as well as the backward-bent head that is characteristic of the Central Asian style. In the absence of documentary evidence, we may never be able to iden- tify the precise signifĳicance of these creatures in the mediaeval carvings of Himachal Pradesh and Ladakh. However, in both regions one may infer that they reflect local beliefs in a supernatural world inhabited by a wide range of deities and spirits, some of which may be portrayed in animal form. In contemporary Ladakh one thinks of the ‘lu’ (klu): these are water spirits that are often depicted in human or semi-human form but who may also take on the appearance of fĳish, lizards or snakes (Kaplanian 1981:211–213; 1995:101–108; Dollfus 2003). Another set of insights into traditional Ladakhi cosmology comes from

11 E-mail communication from Heinrich Poell, 13 November 2012. See Poell’s own paper in this volume for a discussion of similar themes in relation to the village temple in Lhachuse.

This is a digital offfprint for restricted use only | © 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV Chigtan Castle and Mosque 273 the wedding songs recorded by Francke (1923:33–35) which refer to snow lions, the king of the birds, a fĳish with a golden eye and a giant tiger. Similar mythical creatures appear elsewhere in the Tibetan cultural world. At the same time the comparison with mediaeval wood carvings from Himachal Pradesh suggests that Ladakhi artists were capable of incorporating—or perhaps in their turn contributing to—artistic styles and motifs from south of the Himalaya as well as Tibet and Kashmir.

Acknowledgements

The original core of this paper was a paper presented by Kacho Mumtaz Ali Khan at the 13th International Association of Ladakh Studies in Rome in 2007. Quentin Devers shared his archaeological knowledge and fĳindings. Martin Vernier analysed and prepared the drawings of the wooden capitals in the Chigtan mosque. John Bray contributed much of the historical analysis and pulled the whole paper together. We gratefully acknowledge advice, informa- tion, suggestions and comments from Neil Howard, Tara Sharma, Abdul Ghani Sheikh and Heinrich Poell, while retaining collective responsibility for all errors of fact and interpretation.