Theque(simplified Chinese:Khuyết;traditional Chinese:Khuyết;pinyin:què;Jyutping:kyut3) is a freestanding, ceremonialgate towerin traditionalChinese architecture.First developed in theZhou dynasty(1046–256 BC),quetowers were used to form ceremonial gateways to tombs, palaces and temples throughout pre-modern China down to theQing dynasty(1644–1912).[3]The use ofquegateways reached its peak during theHan dynasty(202 BC – 220 AD), and today they can often be seen as a component of an architectural ensemble (aspirit way,shendao) at the graves of high officials during China's Han dynasty. There are also somequefound in front of temples. Richly decorated, they are among the most valuable surviving relics of the sculpture and architecture of that period.[4]

A stone-carvedque,6 m (20 ft) in total height, located at the tomb of Gao Yi inYa'an,Sichuanprovince, Eastern Han dynasty.[1]Notice the stone-carved decorations of rooftileeaves, despite the fact that Han dynasty stoneque(part of the walled structures around tomb entrances) lacked wooden or ceramic components (but often imitated wooden buildings with ceramic roof tiles).[2]
Eastern Han stone-carved que pillar gates of Dingfang,Zhong County,Chongqingthat once belonged to a temple dedicated to theWarring States periodgeneralBa Manzi

Quein the Han dynasty

edit

It is thought that thequefamiliar to us are stone reproductions of the free-standing wooden and/or earthen towers which were placed in pairs in front of the entrances to the palaces, temples, and government buildings of the period (already known during theQin dynasty). Such free-standing towers, serving as markers of the symbolic boundary of a palace's or temple's premises, had developed from gate towers that were an integral part of a building or a city wall. None of suchquein front of buildings have survived, but images of buildings with such towers in front of them can be seen on extant brick reliefs inHan dynastytombs, such as the one inYinan tombsinYinan County,Shandong).[4]

At the spirit roads, thequealso appeared in pairs, one on each side of the road. During the time of their popularity, thequewere usually the largest and most expensive component of the spirit way; such a tower could cost 4 times as much as astone lion,or 10 times as much as a memorial stele.[4]

The symbolic meaning of a tombquemay have been based on that of thequein front of a palace and building. Here, it would symbolize the passage of the soul into the world of the spirits. A tall vertical structure,quewould at the same time symbolize a link with heaven.[4]

The use ofqueon spirit ways declined after the fall of the Eastern Han. Somequefrom the 3rd and 4th century have been found in Sichuan, but, as Ann Paludan notes, only in the province's more remote and presumably culturally conservative parts. Generally, after the Eastern Han era, the role ofqueon the spirit way was assumed byhuabiaopillars.[5]

Around 30quehave survived to the present day. Most of them are inSichuan;a few inHenanandShandong.According toAnn Paludan,this distribution may be explained by two reasons. First, there may have been more stonequeproduced in these regions in the first place, due to the ready availability of stone and the tradition of stone-working craft; meanwhile elsewhere woodenquewere built, which have not survived. Second, Sichuan has more remote, hard to access areas, which is exactly where many of the Han dynastyquehave managed to survive. The locations around the imperial capitals, where the Eastern Han imperial mausolea were located, saw more intensive level of destruction over the almost 2000 years that have elapsed since that era, and thequeconstructed there did not have a chance to survive.[4]

Many of the Sichuanquewere first made known to the international scholarship byVictor Segalen,who described them during his 1914 expedition.[4][6]

Queafter the Han dynasty

edit

The use ofquein tomb architecture and other contexts declined after the Han dynasty but did not disappear. For example, imperial tombs of theTang dynastyusually featuredque,and remnants can still be seen today. TheQianling Mausoleum,the best preserved example, features three sets of que towers arranged sequentially along the spirit way. They also remained in use in front of temples and bridges. In gateways to the imperial palaces, they remained in use down to the end of the imperial era. Ultimately, they were combined with a more conventional gateway to form a single U-shaped structure, where a conventional gate would be connected, via two "arms" extending outwards, to twoquetowers.

The final two examples of such combinedquegates were found as theMeridian Gates,the southern and main entrances to the imperial palaces ofNanjingandBeijingbuilt during theMing dynasty.Theques in Nanjing were demolished in 1924 to make way for the construction of the Ming palace airfield. The gate in Beijing survives intact. Despite being a single structure, thequeis identified distinctly from the gate. Twoquepavilions with pyramidal roofs mark out thequefrom the rest of the gate house.[3]Outside of China, theMeridian Gate in Huế,inVietnam,has a similar design.

Examples

edit

References

edit
  1. ^Liu, Xujie (2002). "The Qin and Han Dynasties" inChinese Architecture,33–60. Edited by Nancy S. Steinhardt. New Haven: Yale University Press.ISBN0-300-09559-7.p. 55.
  2. ^Steinhardt, Nancy N. (2005). "Pleasure tower model," in Recarving China's Past: Art, Archaeology, and Architecture of the 'Wu Family Shrines', 275–281. Edited by Naomi Noble Richard. New Haven and London: Yale University Press andPrinceton University Art Museum.ISBN0-300-10797-8.pp. 279–280.
  3. ^abHan, Zhao; Li, Ku; Zhang, Lei; Jia, Qiang (2004), "Cổ đại khuyết môn cập tương quan vấn đề (Ancient Que Gates and Related Issues)",Archaeology and Cultural Relics(5),ISSN1000-7830
  4. ^abcdefPaludan, Ann(1991),The Chinese spirit road: the classical tradition of stone tomb statuary,Yale University Press, pp.31–35,ISBN0-300-04597-2
  5. ^Paludan 1991,p. 38
  6. ^"Chine. La grande statuaire", and "Les origines de la statuaire en Chine"
  7. ^Paludan 1991,pp. 50–51