An Indian part-gilt silver-clad ceremonial sceptre or mace with a tiger’s head 1850 - 1900

Unknown artist

WoodGlassSilver
82 cm
Price on request

Zebregs & Röell - Fine Art - Antiques

• About the artwork

  An Indian part-gilt silver-clad ceremonial sceptre or mace with a tiger’s head Northern India or Deccan, late 19th century L. approx. 82 cm (excl. stand) Provenance: Private collection, United Kingdom This remarkable gilt-silver soonta (ceremonial sceptre) also known as choba (ceremonial mace) with a tiger's head stands out as an unparalleled example. It has a wooden base, clad with thick sheet part-gilt silver and has fine details such as teeth and a curling tongue. Especially with the inlaid glass eyes, in combination with the grand sculptural design, it would have been integral to an Indian maharaja’s attire, known as lawajama in North India and biruthus in South India, as referenced by Jackson & Jaffer. They would symbolise authority, power, and sometimes an attribute of various deities, particularly those associated with strength or combat. For instance, the Hindu god Hanuman, known for his immense strength, is often depicted holding a mace (*chob* or gada in Sanskrit). Similarly, the god Vishnu and his avatar Krishna are also frequently depicted with a mace among their other attributes. Courtiers would raise these sceptres wrapped in rich brocades, with the head visible, during processions, signalling their association with the monarch. Alongside fly-whisks and standards, they were indispensable in ceremonial parades, underscoring the ruler's prestige. Terlinden notes that a soonta berdar was tasked with carrying the sceptre. These individuals, proficient in courtly manners, played key roles during audiences, from managing entrances to introducing guests. Their esteemed position often earned them generous rewards, including land grants. See for a depiction of sceptres in use the top right of a painting in the collection of the V&A, titled Processional scene with Amar Singh, ruler of Thanjavur (Tanjore), and Sarabhoji, from circa 1797 (access.no. IM.10-1938) For a very comparable piece, but with an elephant’s head, see the collection of the Indian Museum, Kolkata (access.no. R.10208/S.4596). For other less similar examples, see the V&A Museum London (access.no. 889-1874 & IM.49-1928). Sources: A. Jackson & A. Jaffer, Maharaja: The Splendour of India’s Royal Courts, London, V&A Publishing, 1999 Christiane Terlinden Serra, Mughal Silver Magnificence: 16th-19th century, Brussels, 1987, p. 64
• About the artist

  It might happen that an artist or maker is unknown.

  Some works are not to be determined by whom it is made or it is made by (a group of) craftsmen. Examples are statues from the Ancient Time, furniture, mirroirs, or signatures that are not clear or readible but as well some works are not signed at all.

  As well you can find the following description:

  •“Attributed to ….” In their opinion probably a work by the artist, at least in part

  •“Studio of ….” or “Workshop of” In their opinion a work executed in the studio or workshop of the artist, possibly under his supervision

  •“Circle of ….” In their opinion a work of the period of the artist showing his influence, closely associated with the artist but not necessarily his pupil

  •“Style of ….” or “Follower of ….” In their opinion a work executed in the artist’s style but not necessarily by a pupil; may be contemporary or nearly contemporary

  •“Manner of ….” In their opinion a work in the style of the artist but of a later date

  •“After ….” In their opinion a copy (of any date) of a work of the artist

  •“Signed…”, “Dated….” or “Inscribed” In their opinion the work has been signed/dated/inscribed by the artist. The addition of a question mark indicates an element of doubt

  •"With signature ….”, “With date ….”, “With inscription….” or “Bears signature/date/inscription” in their opinion the signature/ date/ inscription has been added by someone other than the artist

Are you interested in buying this artwork?