Early in my years of collecting antique singing bowls, beginning in the late 1990s, I discerned types of bowls; multiple pieces made very similarly. In the beginning I only knew of a few types. As the years progressed, I collected more and more distinct types of bowls made with the same shape and decorative motifs.
Each type is distinct, reflecting the time it was made and the skill of the artisans. As my collection grew, I soon had the idea to build a representative collection of all the best types. This was the birth of The Singing Bowl Museum, which I held as an idea for many years. I slowly built the collection, being sure to put aside at least one of every different type of bowl. Since I was also selling the bowls for 21 years through my former company, Himalayan Bowls, I was mindful to put aside the special pieces and to sell only duplicates and less rare examples. I basically kept the best examples for the museum.
All of the singing bowls I collected were well above the norm in terms of build quality, sound quality and condition. The bowls I sold through Himalayan Bowls were generally the later period antiques. The earlier bowls and the most special bowls were reserved for The Singing Bowl Museum. The museum collection today is a large assortment of the best sounding, oldest and most elaborate bowls I ever collected.
Grouping the bowls, filling in missing gaps and dating the early antiques has been very challenging. In fact, it has taken me more than 20 years to understand the collection and develop the history.
From my earliest years assessing antiques, I have taken a conservative approach to dating them. I dated many pieces “16-17th century” that others would date 16th century and may in fact be much older. I place the beginning period for the early singing bowls in the 12th century. This starting point also determines the age of the types following.
In 2022, now that I no longer manage Himalayan Bowls, I have had more time to reexamine the entire Singing Bowl Museum collection. In fact, this is the first time since 2012 that the entire collection has been on display. Examining the bowls today with magnification and measuring devices, I am able to look in more detail and draw new conclusions about the history of these wonderful objects.
Around 2008 I began metallurgical analysis of the singing bowls. I tested hundreds of bowls and other metal objects with the help of a materials laboratory. In 2010, I got informal cooperation from the Archaeological Metallurgists at Oxford University Department of Materials. Dr. Northover and his team took a personal interest in the collection, saying they had never seen so much Himalayan bronze. Their testing with electron microscope revealed two distinct manufacturing methods used to make the singing bowls from different time periods.
The earlier bowls were found to be closely related to bronze decorative bowls from ancient Persia and Khorasan. The decorative motifs found on the early singing bowls also match those bowls from Persia and Khorasan. There is a direct connection between them. They use the same metal, same firing methods, same hammering techniques, same decorative motifs. In The Singing Bowl Book and my other writings, I have assumed that the Himalayan bowls were later than the Persian bowls. Since the Persian bowls are known to be from the 9th-12th century, I place the beginning date for the Himalayan bowls at the end of this period, starting in the 12th century although the true origination may be earlier.
The likely beginning period for the singing bowls is the 12th century, a period which saw increased trade in Nepal from all directions, including the west where the earlier bowls came from. There is, however, a history of technology being invented in Nepal and appropriated by other cultures. It is therefore possible that the bowls were first invented in Nepal and then exported to Persia. The Newari artisans in Nepal were among the best in the world and remain so today. Perhaps they made the earliest bowls. It is an odd occurrence to have two cultures making these bowls since the timeframe is long after the actual bronze age. Assuming the Persian bowls predate the singing bowls, the early Himalayan singing bowls are about 1,000 years old. If the Newari invented them, they could be earlier, from the 8th or 9th century, which is also plausible in the cultural timeline of Nepal. However, such a timeline stretches out the number of bowls produced and does not seem to be supported by the physical bowls we have. The 12th century date seems to be accurate for the bowls in The Singing Bowl Museum collection.
The second period of singing bowl innovation began around the 16th century after a period of seeming dormancy in their production. This second wave technology was found to be metallurgically related to bowls produced in Southeast Asia. As with the Persian bowls, I have also discovered the cultural correlation, having found these bowls in museums and temples in Cambodia and Thailand. The Southeast Asian bowls are virtually identical to the late period Himalayan bowls from the 16-19th century. They are characterized by their thinner shape and quicker manufacturing method, presumably because they were made in larger numbers and possibly reflecting a change in handicraft production, economics or other factors.
The first distinction in dating singing bowls is to acknowledge the early and late period. The bowls from both periods were made from the same alloy, indicating some continuity of craft. However, they were made with different firing and hammering techniques, resulting in different kinds of bowls.
The early bowls are made by folding the metal at the rim. This is the main distinction. Later bowls are not folded but hammered into an even shape. The earlier bowls are generally more symmetrical due to the carefully folded edges.
The folding techniques were lost except for a simplified version used extensively in the large “jambati” bowls, which persisted until the 19th century. The change in the folded rims helps to date the bowls in a few ways: we can see the simplification of the form over time as well as the change when the Southeast Asian construction methods were introduced. Straight sided bowls with no folding are suddenly seen, giving us a clear inflection point for the timeline.
Importantly, the earlier folded rims begin to unfold over time. By examining the unfolding process, I am able to create a reverse timeline which stretches back to the earliest singing bowls.
Further examination reveals more ways to group the bowls. I originally grouped the bowls by their general type, defined by their shape and decorative motifs: the “circle and dot” bowls are clearly different from the “triangle” bowls. These names reflect the engraved designs but also the shape of the bowl. With the exception of lines going around the rim and rings on the inside, every other design is only found on one type of bowl. All the circle and dot bowls were made on one type of bowl, likely by the same workshop. All the triangle engravings are found on one type of bowl, also made by a single workshop. It would seem that engraving was done “in house,” since we do not see a mixing of styles.
How can I know that bowls were made in the same workshop? Since the bowls were hammered over a mold, all bowls made on the same mold share the same profile. With a contour gauge, I can map the profile of each bowl and see which bowls were made on the same mold. Such examination corroborates the previous groupings and indeed tells us that similar looking bowls were made in the same workshop. Different looking bowls were made on a different mold, in a different time or place. By my estimation, time is the main differentiator and each period had one predominant shape of bowl.
The small number of early bowls indicates that there were not many bowl makers. There is one predominant type for each time period, indicating there may have been one main maker doing most of the work and a few smaller makers producing a smaller quantity. The later period when bowls were made more quickly supports the idea that there were few bowl makers. As they were pushed to make larger quantities, the quality diminished.
Starting with the general grouping of early and later periods, each type of bowl has been organized with its counterparts. This makes it easier to group the bowls within a timeline.
From checking the profile of the bowls, I can see that the same mold was used to produce different kinds of bowls on a long timescale, indicating that multiple generations took up the craft. This further helps define a timeline by seeing the bowls of one workshop relative to one another.
Another way to check the bowl maker is to measure the hammer marks. With each type of bowl, where hammer marks are present, I can find one or more distinct marks where the entire halo of the hammer strike is visible. These marks are difficult to find due to the overlapping edges of the hammering. However, some do not overlap and the shape of the hammer can be clearly seen. I can measure the width and length of the hammer mark and also see difference in depth in the marks, indicating either irregularity in the shape of the hammerhead or idiosyncrasies in the way the maker used the hammer. Where an intact halo can be measured, I can compare it to other bowls for additional confirmation that similar looking bowls were made by the same workshop. Likewise, the same makers were able to make different types of bowls because different types of bowls are found with the same profile. Perhaps the change in form indicates generational change as one maker passed on their craft and subsequent generations made new forms.
Metal wear has been one of the primary ways I have dated the bowls since the beginning. As I explain in The Singing Bowl Book, there are many surface features that age consistently. Surface wear, edge wear, unfolding, scratches, pitting all help to determine an approximate date. Such physical evidence does neatly correspond with the other factors.
Oxidation is another helpful clue to the age of the bowls. After looking at the metallurgy, construction methods, decorative motifs and metal wear, oxidation helps to confirm the findings. The oldest bowls also have the heaviest oxidation. It is as simple and direct as that. It takes bronze centuries to become heavily oxidized. The type of crust found on early singing bowls is only found on objects over 1,000 years old. In every case, the bowls that seem to be oldest by other factors also have the heaviest oxidation.
The final test of age is subjective. The bowls feel different and as they get older, the feeling of the bowl in your hands is different. I don't know how to describe it well. It may not be something everyone can detect. I have handled so many thousands of bowls and other objects, I get an intuitive feeling when I touch any piece of bronze. Such intuition is nonverbal and based on years of experience. The best way I can describe it is that the older bowls have a "hollow" feeling. They don't feel like metal anymore. There is a brittleness that can be felt. Part of this may be due to the extreme thinning that happens over time. Most of the very old bowls are also extremely thin on the bottom. Whether the feeling comes from the physical properties like a thin bottom or more molecular properties like the texture of the metal, they do feel different as time goes on.
In making the history of the singing bowls, I have cross examined the various factors to place the bowls in a continuous timeline. The timeline coincides with the known history of Nepal and the history of Buddhism. High points in the timeline of the singing bowls seem to correspond with high cultural times and the production of Buddhist art. One of my new theories is that the early singing bowl production may have ended when Theravada Buddhists were expelled from Nepal in the 14th century.
The next step that I am currently working on is examination of inscriptions found on the bowls. Over the years I have tried to have inscriptions translated with no success. I have shown inscriptions to many experts in Nepal and they all say the same thing: “It’s too old - I can’t read it.”
Now instead of attempting to translate, I am looking for corroboration in the script itself. I am comparing the script to known historic inscriptions, attempting to find a match in the details of the script. While not a definitive date, it may help to confirm or challenge the other dating factors.
After understanding the many factors involved in dating the singing bowls: metallurgy, construction methods, decorative motifs, physical changes, oxidation, cultural connections, I hope this background information helps you enjoy the collection. Look at the close up photos to see the details I mention.
One of the most interesting things is how the sound changes over time. The older bowls have a much more mellow, warm and less metallic sound. This is actually due to changes at the molecular level. The archaeological metallurgists explained it like this: as the metal ages, the molecules slow down. This is what people refer to as “crystallization,” when in fact the crystalline structure is already present. The slowing of the molecules means they come closer to a resting state. The metal is less agitated on a molecular level. It takes hundreds of years for this to happen.
What that means on our subjective experience is a feeling of true peace and calm. If metal takes hundreds of years to slow down, how long does it take a person? Maybe this is how the bowls help us slow down: their mellow vibration does something to our own state of being. Please enjoy the peaceful sounds and experience it for yourself.
Leave a comment