Research on Alchi

Long History

The Alchi Choskhor and the surrounding village have been central to my research from an early stage. I first visited the village in Lower Ladakh in 1990, where I met both Rob Linrothe and Jaroslav Poncar. During this first research trip, I also lost all my photographs when my camera malfunctioned. Both the meetings and the camera's failure have defined my research. The former established long-lasting friendships and collaborations, and the latter led to my investment in photographic documentation, on which much of my research is based.

While I continued to visit Alchi regularly, my research on its monuments always depended on the generosity of Jaroslav Poncar and Roger Goepper. First, they provided me with the documentation needed to study the Buddha’s life as depicted in detail on Maitreya’s dhoti in the Alchi Sumtsek. Later, they encouraged me to continue working on the monuments of the Alchi Choskhor to complement the Sumtsek publication.

In 1998, I began collaborating with Holger Neuwirth, which resulted in a much more refined understanding of the complex's development. This cooperation also produced plans for the complex that document the condition of 2003.

But advancing scholarship on the site has been a major challenge. In particular, the Dukhang maṇḍalas needed to be explained using sources likely available at the time. Only by drawing on the Tibetan root texts, the translated Indian commentaries, the religious milieu evident in the Alchi inscriptions, and the murals themselves was it possible to gain a closer understanding of the Alchi depictions. But there is still plenty of work to do.

Dating Alchi

A lot of ink has been spilt concerning the date of the Alchi monuments. One would think that the discovery of new information from the inscription in the Palden Drepung Chörten would bring this discussion to a conclusion. Written by Tsültrim Ö, this text not only fully supports Goepper’s attribution of the Sumtsek to the early 13th century but also corroborates his connection to Drigungpa (1143–1217).

One wonders why the dating of Alchi has been such an issue in scholarship. Local resistance to Goepper’s date is more readily understood, as it may be taken to imply that Alchi was once a Drigung school monument. The Drigung school still has a powerful presence in the region, but Likir Monastery, to which Alchi belongs, adheres to the Géluk (དགེ་ལུགས་) tradition.

I now maintain that crediting early monuments from the pre-Géluk period, including Alchi, to the great translator Rinchen Zangpo (958–1055) was and is a clever way to claim a Géluk heritage for them, as the Géluk school regards itself as his continuation. This understanding is already evident in the Red Temple, or Dukhang Dzamlinggyen, in Tholing, where a triad centred on Rinchen Zangpo to the left of the niche is balanced by a triad with Tsongkhapa (1357–1419), the founder of the Géluk school, at its centre.

Alchi was founded by the Dro (འབྲོ་) family, who also held the abbotship. Thus, although Tsültrim Ö declared his devotion to Drigungpa and may even have built the Sumtsek in his memory, this does not mean the monastery ever became a Drigung monastery. To establish that, further evidence is required.

Siddhas, Hierarchs and Lineages: Three Examples for Dating Tibetan Art

This contribution to David Jackson’s catalogue is essentially a revised version of “Art-Historical Aspects of Dating Tibetan Art” (2003). While two of the three examples from the original article are republished, the focus shifts toward the early siddha, hierarch, and lineage depictions and what they reveal about their early usage.

The new example is a small thangka (22.5 × 18 cm) from the Jucker collection, now in the Rubin Museum of Art, depicting six main teachers. Published earlier by Hugo E. Kreijger (Tibetan Painting, London: Serindia, 2001, no. 18) and David Jackson (Patron and Painter, 39–42 and fig. 3.1), the painting is discussed in detail; an appendix contains all inscriptions, including six verses from the conclusion of the Pratimokṣasūtra.

“Siddhas, Hierarchs, and Lineages: Three Examples for Dating Tibetan Art.” In Mirror of the Buddha, Early Portraits from Tibet, edited by David Paul Jackson. New York: Rubin Museum of Art, 2011: 170–203, 214.

Alchi Sumtsek Reconsidered

This article summarises recent research on the oldest monuments within the Alchi monastic complex (chos ‘khor), focusing on the Sumtsek (gSum-brtsegs) and the paintings of the two oldest gateway chörten — the Great Chörten and the Small Chörten.

The main purpose is to make the arguments supporting the later chronology of Alchi monastery, as proposed by Roger Goepper and corroborated by subsequent research, accessible to local scholars.

“Alchi Sumtsek Reconsidered.” In Recent Research on Ladakh 2007, edited by John Bray and Nawang Tsering Shakspo. Leh, Ladakh: J&K Academy for Art, Culture & Languages – International Association for Ladakh Studies, 2007: 61–72.

Alchi and the Drigungpa School of Tibetan Buddhism: the Teacher Depiction in the Small Chörten at Alchi

This study focuses on the teacher depiction in the Small Chörten (chos ‘khor) at Alchi and compares it to a number of roughly contemporaneous Central Tibetan scroll paintings (thangka) attributable to the Drigungpa school. These comparisons allow for identifying most of the figures represented at Alchi despite their unusual style and underdeveloped iconography.

“Alchi and the Drigungpa School of Tibetan Buddhism: the Teacher Depiction in the Small Chörten at Alchi.” In Mei shou wan nian – Long Life Without End. Festschrift in Honor of Roger Goepper, edited by Jeong-hee Lee-Kalisch, Antje Papist-Matsuo, and Willibald Veit. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006: 181–96.

Art-Historical Aspects of Dating Tibetan Art

Three examples demonstrate the possibilities and restrictions of art-historical methods for dating Tibetan art, presented at the international symposium ‘Dating Tibetan Art’ organised by Kunsthaus Lempertz, Cologne, 17–18 November 2001.

The first example uses the teacher depictions in the early 13th-century paintings of Alchi to show how different painting styles relate to each other through historical circumstances, fully supporting Roger Goepper’s dating of the Alchi Sumtsek to 1200 at the earliest. The second studies the lineage depictions of three Cakrasaṃvara thangkas, part of a larger series, locating them in the second quarter of the 15th century at the earliest. The third demonstrates the limitations of stylistic analysis when close comparisons are lacking.

Errata: The plates for the three Cakrasaṃvara thangkas are mixed up — Fig. 7 is the image published as Fig. 9; Fig. 8 is Fig. 7; Fig. 9 is Fig. 8.

“Art-Historical Aspects of Dating Tibetan Art.” In Dating Tibetan Art. Essays on the Possibilities and Impossibilities of Chronology from the Lempertz Symposium, Cologne, edited by Ingrid Kreide-Damani. Contributions to Tibetan Studies, 3. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2003: 25–57.

The Life of the Buddha in the Sumtsek

The figure of Maitreya in the back-wall niche of the Alchi Sumtsek has its dhoṭī decorated with scenes from a Buddha’s last life. The article considers all scenes to establish their narrative sequence, discusses their distribution across the dhoṭī and the principal narrative means employed, and examines the basic narrative sources and philosophical ideas that informed this particular depiction.

Since publication, scene 13 has been reidentified: the person receiving the child is male, representing King Śuddhodana receiving his son rather than the child being entrusted to Māyā’s sister Gautamī.

“The Life of the Buddha in the Sumtsek.” Orientations 30, no. 1 (1999): 30–39.