Art imitating life...Or is it the other way around?

[Stan S.]

Domesticated Asian cheetahs, Acinonyx jubatus venaticus were wildly used in India to drive out small game animals during the hunt until they became extinct in the early/mid 1900s. A small population still survives in Iran but it is a very much endagered species on a brink of extintion.

Not too many people know that "cheetah" is a derivative of a Hindu word for "spotty". Cheetahs and hawks were the animals traditionally used in India for hunting. Dogs took over in that role only after being introduced by the Europeans and because of the cheetahs decline.

[Stan S.]

And you are correct in pointing out the differences in the paintings. Thank you all! However, there still so many of the same elements that make me think as if these paintings trying to tell the same story rather than just being geneic hunting scenes:

1. Central figure of two men on an elephant's back: The one in the front (must be the Big Kahuna/Jahingir himself) stabbing down with a spear. Note the the elephant harness is virtually the same in both paintings

2. A de-horsed fellow being mauled by a lion while his horse is galloping away (you may not see it but if you blow up the first picture, it is very clear that he is pulling a katar from his sash while having his face ripped off)

3. Another rider attacking from the right and slashing at the lion's back with his tulwar

4. There is a 2nd lion present in both paintings, and it is chasing 2 men up the tree in the upper right corner

5. There is a figure at the top that appears to be calling for reinforcements that approach from the left upper corner

6. Both paintings show additional hunters at the bottom that are ready to jump into the fight

[Emanuel]

Hello,

In European mediaeval illuminations we often find nearly identical scenes in widely different contexts and different places. Consider that at some point some depictions become iconic and subject to considerable copy. Either one of your paintings might have copied one another, or more likely both were interpretations of a common painting. So it's not necessarily that they are two renditions of the same event as seen by different artists, but they are renditions of a common illustrations, perhaps from an important original.

If Indian art and monasticism worked anything like in Europe, then one cultural/political/religious centre would have had an original depiction of this particular event. That depiction was subsequently either studied and copied by artists from other centres, or it was lent out to those centres for further copy and re-interpretation. A few central images and themes would remain, the rest subject to artistic license.

Emanuel

[Richard G]

Off topic, I know, but I hope it gets through.
Several years ago I was at a viewing of "Arts of the Indian and Islamic World" at a major London saleroom. I was admiring a rare Khurassan brass ewer (12th Century, estimate +/- £100K!) with a couple of other people and the saleroom assistant when we were joined by a VERY well and expensively dressed Indian gentleman, I would guess in his mid thirties.
The assistant expounded on the ewer, "and here you can see, inlaid in silver, the prince and his courtiers out hunting; here is the prince; here is his falconer and falcon; here are his salukis and here are his hunting cheetahs".
The Indian gentleman nodded, " very nice, very nice indeed. I have two at home"
The saleroom assistant, "Really? two khurassan ewers ! "
The Indian gentleman, "No, two cheetahs."

A true story.