Featherwork in Early and Medieval China.

• Author: Milburn, Olivia
• Position: Report

In the early modern period, Europeans became aware of featherwork traditions from cultures around the Pacific Ocean, both in Latin America and on Pacific islands. At that time, objects decorated with feathers were regarded as fine works of art and hence were enormously prized; as a result, not only were art collectors inspired to spend vast sums of money acquiring them, but they were also considered as suitable diplomatic gifts to be exchanged across cultures between monarchs and other members of the ruling elite. (1) As a result, in the East Asian context, a number of feather artworks from Latin America in particular are known to have been presented to Chinese emperors (the present whereabouts of all these pieces are unknown), as well as to members of the Japanese ruling elite. (2) Later diplomatic visits by members of the Hawai'ian elite seeking help from the Qing dynasty government in preserving their independence are likely to have resulted in exposure to this featherworking tradition; however, items from the Hawai'ian islands have yet to be identified in Chinese collections. (3) Subsequently, due to changing attitudes about what constituted a work of art and an unwillingness to pay for the highest quality of craftsmanship, featherwork entered a nearly terminal decline across the Pacific region. With the revival of interest in indigenous art traditions in modern times, there has been significant research on featherwork derived from Latin America (specifically Mexico and Peru), as well as some Pacific islands, such as Hawai'i and New Zealand. The discovery that such items were used in cross-cultural exchange has resulted in speculation as to the impact that these items may have had in China during the Ming and Qing dynasties. (4) Such speculation ignores the extremely long tradition of featherwork within Chinese culture, with records going back over 2,500 years. This paper is intended to provide an overview of the earliest manifestations of that tradition, as they appear in the texts dating to the preunification period (prior to 221 BCE) through to the medieval period, to the end of the Tang dynasty (618-907 CE).

Chinese records of featherwork will here be divided according to technical criteria. Modern scholars, working closely with experienced featherwork artists in various parts of the world, have developed a deep understanding of the complex techniques used to produce these artworks; however, early and medieval Chinese accounts of these objects are not sufficiently detailed to be able to determine how they were made. Therefore, the technical categorization here will be quite general, dividing these items into three types: flexible base, rigid base, and deconstructionist. In flexible base featherwork, as the name implies, feathers are attached to a surface that allows for movement, a technique whereby feathers can be used for the decoration of clothing or other items that require some flexibility, such as curtains, bedclothes, and so on. Studies of Hawai'ian featherwork, which is thought to have the most highly developed vocabulary on the subject, indicate a complex range of possibilities to achieve the attachment of feathers to a flexible base, ranging from pipili (gluing) to naki'i (interweaving or stitching a thread to which bunches of feathers or individual plumes are attached at regular intervals to a textile background), wili (wrapping), and humu (stitching across the surface of the feather to hold it flat against a cloth base). (5) In rigid base featherwork, the feathers were used to create decorative elements to be applied to furniture, architectural structures, or jewelry--here it is most likely that the feathers were glued (possibly to a paper or fiber base) before being trimmed into the required shape. (6) Finally, in the case of deconstructionist featherwork, a tradition that appears to be unique to China, individual barbs were peeled apart and then spun into thread, after which they were woven into cloth. The remarkable garments produced by this technique combined the beautiful coloring of the original feathers with the quality of waterproofing, making this cloth highly desirable for rainwear to be worn by members of the ruling elite. (7)

Although this paper makes use of comparisons between Chinese and other Pacific featherwork traditions, this is not intended to imply that there is any connection between them. With exceptional care and good luck, it has proved possible to preserve feather artworks for up to five centuries, but there are no written records concerning featherwork from the relevant cultures of the Pacific islands or in Latin America that significantly predate the earliest surviving examples. (8) On the other hand Chinese records preserve accounts of featherwork that are thousands of years earlier, but where it is simply impossible that such delicate and fragile decorative works could have survived. Furthermore, although from the early modern period onward it is entirely possible that presentation of featherwork objects across the Pacific resulted in fruitful exchange between different traditions, during the course of the twentieth century truly vast quantities of featherwork were destroyed. Some of this was the result of accidental loss or poor care, but changing attitudes toward what constitutes acceptable materials for artworks to be made from have also caused neglect or destruction of featherwork, as has the perception that feather artworks showing (or perceived to show) cross-cultural influences are in some way inauthentic or inferior. (9) As a result, many links in the chain connecting ancient and contemporary featherworking traditions may already have been lost, but this serves to render early Chinese descriptions of their own cultural heritage even more valuable.

1. FLEXIBLE BASE FEATHERWORK IN EARLY AND MEDIEVAL CHINESE TEXTS

   The very earliest record of featherwork in the Chinese world--as opposed to the use of plumes, which was recorded much earlier--dates to the account given in the Zuozhuan [phrase omitted] (Zuo's Tradition) of events in the year 530 BCE. This account described King Ling of Chu [phrase omitted] (r. 541-529 BCE), whose title as monarch was not recognized by the Zhou kings of the Central States, out on campaign striking fear and awe into all who saw him dressed in his cloak of kingfisher feathers. The bright color of this garment must have rendered King Ling highly visible, and the enormous expense of acquiring the vast number of feathers required must also have struck all who saw him:

   The Unratified Monarch of Chu went hunting in Zhoulai, and from there he traveled to Yingwei, whereupon he sent the Marquis of Tang, the Viscount of Pan, the Minister of War Du, the xiaoyin Wu, and the lingyin Xi to lead the army to lay siege to Xu, in order to strike fear into [the kingdom of] Wu. Afterwards the Unratified Monarch of Chu traveled to Ganxi, in order to be able to offer support. At that time it began to snow, and the monarch wore a leather hat, a feather robe from Qin, a cloak made of blue kingfisher feathers, leopard-skin boots, and he held a whip as he went out, with his servant Xifu in attendance. The youyin Zige came to see him that evening, and the king granted him an audience, removing his hat and cloak, and setting aside his whip [as a gesture of respect]. [phrase omitted] (10) The great age of this first description of featherwork has added to the difficulty of interpreting it. In particular, scholars of the Zuozhuan have long been divided over whether the futao [phrase omitted] (a term here translated as "feather robe") from Qin was in fact the same garment as the cuibei [phrase omitted] ("cloak made from blue kingfisher feathers"). It is most likely that this description does in fact refer to two different garments, particularly since there are later accounts of Han dynasty emperors wearing kingfisher-feather cloaks. (11) A further difficulty lies in interpreting the rare term futao, which some scholars straightforwardly understand as meaning a feather robe (yuyi [phrase omitted]), while others simply state that the meaning of this term is not known. (12) Furthermore, the text specifies that the royal cloak was made from cui [phrase omitted], which the Shuowen jiezi [phrase omitted] (Explaining Graphs and Analyzing Characters) dictionary glosses as "a blue-feathered small bird" (qingyu que [phrase omitted]). This is contrasted with the fei [phrase omitted]--"a red-feathered small bird" (chiyu que [phrase omitted]). (13) Although the term feicui is usually understood as a binome, meaning "kingfisher," some modern scholars have suggested that two different species of kingfisher might be involved, most likely the common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) and the ruddy kingfisher (Halcyon coromanda). (14) It is therefore possible that some early and medieval Chinese writings intend to distinguish between contrasting red and blue feathers when they speak of objects ornamented with feicui featherwork.

   Kingfishers were consistently treated as an exotic in the Central States in early China and throughout the medieval period. This may reflect overhunting: there are a number of early literary works that reflect on the persecution suffered by these beautiful little birds by those desiring to profit from their feathers; but it may also represent the fact that to this day, kingfisher species--including both the common and the ruddy kingfisher--are very restricted in range in China, being located entirely in coastal provinces and particularly concentrated in the south. (15) As a result, while the feather robe worn by King Ling of Chu is said to have come from Qin, the kingfisher-feather cloak is likely to have been a local product. There are other writings from the same region, such as the "Zhaohun" [phrase omitted] (Summoning the Soul) from the Chuci [phrase omitted] (Songs of Chu), which demonstrate that kingfisher feathers were used to ornament...