The Fabric Path

Cultures (art, religion, architecture, languages, etc) have a long history of influencing each other through interactions on various scales and this transmission never fails to catch my eye and stir up a desire for more knowledge.  Through the course of these blog posts I intend to look at such a connection, namely the Hellenistic influences through Bactria, Afghanistan, and Gandhara.  This will be done by using Heracles and Vajrapani as foci. These two characters are intimately linked, to the point where they can be equated.  I ask, why are they tied to each other?  What is this based in?  Where was this based, who took it there, and what happened as a result of this?  I will look at how we can begin to address these questions and what comes from this topic of study.

One of the locations richest in materials relevant to this topic is Hadda. In what is now Afghanistan, Hadda was a Greco-Buddhist site in Gandhara, a region with distinguishable Hellenistic influenced art.  Hadda was about 12km south of what is now Jalalabad on this map (1).  It was destroyed during Afghanistan wars long ago but excavations have left us with many relics from its prime.  

(image 1)

Tens of thousands of sculptures were found at Hadda and amongst them were figures of Vajrapani.  A temple site called Tapa Shotor also held remarkable examples of him.  Statues from these sites are dated back to as early as the 1st or 2nd century CE (2).  Hadda and Gandhara as a whole were under Indo-Greek and subsequently Kushan control between around 250BCE and 5th century CE (3); clearly the Indo-Greek control could account for the transmission of a Greek deity.  Even before Gandhara was ruled by Indo-Greeks, it was briefly occupied by Greeks through Alexander’s conquests.  Alexander the Great’s movement across Bactria cannot go unmentioned when we consider Hellenistic influences – he was everywhere. He will come up briefly later.  It was during the Kushan ruling that Gandhara began to really flourish, as we know through our discussions of Gandharan and Mathuran differences in Buddhist art.  Buddha images appeared in great numbers and in some significant variation.  The Hellenistic Gandharan Buddha images were concentrated around Peshawar in modern day Pakistan and would be near Kabul in the above map (4).  This places us close to the site of Hadda which can then help us to contextualize where we are in relation to what else was happening.  Why is there such a material rich site at Hadda?  What made Hadda different than the rest of Gandhara and resulted in this?  I have found this question difficult, and also found it much easier to collect information on Gandhara rather than Hadda specifically which is somewhat disappointing though there are still sculptures from Hadda to show.  

How is it that Greek gods appear across Asia?  Trade between different peoples obviously results in transmitted thoughts, art, religion and more in addition to material.  This also applies as a region changes between ruling hands. Though the Greeks first came to Gandhara much earlier than the time of the Hadda sculptures, they doubtless had an effect.  Looking back to Alexander the Great’s part in this, a paper by Flood brings up a few interesting points.  Mentioned in this reading is the fact that Alexander was a “self-styled son of the Heraklean tradition” (5, pg 22), and suggests that he was connected to much of the Heraklean themes across India and Central Asia.  Heracles is a relatively popular deity throughout other cultures and makes other appearances so after a bit of thought his place in Buddhism may not be as out of the ordinary as I initially assumed.  Alexander’s portrayal as Heracles was carried with him through his travels and conquests, affecting regions he came into contact with. Heracles’ image was scattered throughout, evidence of which is found in sculptures and on coins (2, pg 113).  It is only natural that this new deity would be introduced to pre-existing religious figures and would have influenced them. It is not entirely apparent if Vajrapani was one of these pre-existing figures or if he was in fact the ‘descendant’ so to say of Heracles and another Buddhist character, such as Indra, as has been suggested (6, pg 367).

Heracles has, at least what I consider to be, very recognizable and memorable iconography.  He is portrayed as bearded, strong, and extremely muscular, in perfect physical form. In Greek sculptures he is often either in an active pose brandishing his weapon while defeating a creature, or standing confidently and powerfully.  Heracles is usually shown with a club as his weapon and a lion’s pelt on his head, around his waist, or with its paws on his chest after being tied around his shoulders. He is almost always nude or at least very scantily clad, though the lion’s pelt does give him some coverage. Interestingly enough, I came across one source that discusses Heracles’ connection with a sea deity (7, pg 122).

(images 2, 3, and 4)

The iconography of Vajrapani is immediately comparable.  He is also depicted as a bearded athlete or warrior though carries no weapon.  He holds the vajra, or thunderbolt; the name Vajrapani literally means thunderbolt-bearer and has been called the god of rain.  He is often shown as having a third eye (in Tibet) and has an angered expression.  Vajrapani is meant to be a symbol of the Buddha’s power and acts as his protector.  He can be seen porting a tiger’s skin or a lion’s skin though is often nude, or more commonly, draped with very little fabric (8, pg 50).

(images 5, 6, and 7)

The similarities between Heracles and Vajrapani are striking and it is no wonder they are equated across Greek and Buddhist art respectively.  What I found to be especially interesting, though likely not relevant, is the mention of Heracles interaction with the sea deity – is this a further link with Vajrapani, seeing as he is the god of rain? I doubt there is anything worth mentioning with that however the subject of water in both of these caught my eye. Clearly there are more obvious cross-overs here.  From the visibly apparent strength of Heracles comes the position of Vajrapani as a powerful figure.  Heracles’ club easily becomes Vajrapani’s lightning bolt and the tiger skin that is sometimes seen around Vajrapani parallels the lion of Heracles.  Putting this pelt aside, the fact that Vajrapani is seen as nude or barely clothed may be one of the most discernible connections between the two. In Buddhist art we often see the Buddha and his followers wearing translucent robes, or robes that are delicately draped across their shoulders, but rarely do we see anyone either nearly or fully nude.  Vajrapani truly stands out in this respect, and his nudity is likely a sign of divinity (5, pg 22).  

On these sculptures:

8.1, 8.2.  This stunning, and very well preserved, sculpture was found in Tapa Shotor, a temple site within Hadda.  The Buddha is flanked by his followers and on the left we can very clearly see Heracles-Vajrapani with this thunderbolt.  It is dated to somewhere between the 4th and 5th century CE (9, 88). In this sculpture we appear to have a more Hellenistic image of Vajrapani; the finely detailed muscles and facial hair are signs of him appearing more Heracles than Vajrapani. Also visible upon focusing on Vajrapani is a lion pelt over his shoulder. 

9.  Again we have a seated Buddha with disciples around him, Vajrapani easily recognizable by his thunderbolt.  In this sculpture Vajrapani looks significantly more Gandharan than in the previous image – his features are softened, he does not appear to be bearded, and he is in a less dominating pose.  Found in Hadda this is dated to 2nd century CE.Why is it that the Tapa Shotor sculpture portrays Vajrapani as more Hellenistic than this one from Hadda when the latter is older?  Is relative dating of art from this period possible based on the appearance of Vajrapani?  I would have thought that as time went on Vajrapani became more Gandharan and less Hellenistic.  I would hazard a guess that this distinction between influences remained somewhat fluid, as art does across time, however I did expect that older images of Vajrapani would have him being more Greek in appearance.  I do not know how to even begin looking at evidence of this however so it is merely a personal thought. 

10.  Vajrapani is seen to the right of Buddha in this relief, dated to late 2nd or early 3rd century CE.  Found in Gandhara this shows the scene of Buddha giving his first sermon in Sarnath.  Vajrapani is clothed in this image and is quite Gandharan in appearance without defined muscles or a cat pelt over him, which is similar to the Gandharan Vajrapani from the last 2nd century piece. 

11.  At this scene of the death of Buddha from the same time as the above Vajrapani is present, again quite Gandharan, but in a curious pose.  Why does he have his arm over his head as such, and is there significance to this?

What can we say about the overall relationship between Heracles and Vajrapani?  These depictions of them make it unclear as to if there was a divide between when one portrayal was stronger or more valid than the other. From this do we conclude that their image is not a static one?  For clarification, I mean that there appears to be little temporal separation between these different depictions and I am unaware if the change from Hellenistic to Gandharan is one-way.  This is likely hard to tell without precise dating of the sources.

1.  Zémaryalai Tarzi. Le site ruiné de Hadda. Afghanistan. Patrimoine en péril. Actes d’une journée d’étude, 24 février 2001, 2001, Paris, France. Centre de Recherches et d’Etudes Documentaires sur l’Afghanistan, pp.60-69, 2001.

2.  HSING, I-TIEN, and WILLIAM G. CROWELL. “Heracles in the East: The Diffusion and Transformation of His Image in the Arts of Central Asia, India, and Medieval China”. Asia Major 18.2 (2005): 103–154. Web.

3.  Muhammad Bin Naveed. “Gandhara Civilization,” Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified July 07, 2015. http://www.ancient.eu /Gandhara_Civilization/.

4.  Czuma, Stanislaw. Kushan Sculpture: Images from Early India. India UP. Web based print source.

5.  F. B. Flood (1989) Herakles and the ‘Perpetual Acolyte’ of the Buddha: Some Observations on the Iconography of Vajrapani in Gandharan Art, South Asian Studies, 5:1, 17-27, DOI: 10.1080/02666030.1989.9628380

6.  Tanabe, Katsumi. “Why Is the Buddha Śākyamuni Accompanied by Hercules/vajrapāṇi? Farewell to Yakṣa-theory”. East and West 55.1/4 (2005): 363–381. Web.

7.  Glynn, Ruth. “Herakles, Nereus and Triton: A Study of Iconography in Sixth Century Athens”. American Journal of Archaeology 85.2 (1981): 121–132. Web.

8.  Getty, Alice. "Vajrapani." The Gods of Northern Buddhism. Dover Publications, 1988. 49-52. Print found online.

9.  Behrendt, Kurt. "Buddhist Artistic Traditions of Afghanistan." The Art of Gandhara in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Yale UP, 2007. Print found online.

First and foremost, let me say I had no concept of the Jewish population in China or anywhere along the silk road.  It is something simply not talked about in any historical education context I have been in, so reading about this was enlightening to me.  It was also quite painful, gaining knowledge about the continual oppression of the Jewish across years and countries.  

The selection by Lena Cansdale regarding the overall presence of Jewish people tells a slightly different story than that by Avrum Ehrlich and Liang Pingan.  In Cansdale’s selection we learn that there was in fact a Jewish population spread across a few locations along the silk route, concentrated at the west end and present through to the east end within China as well.  This reading mentions none of the antisemitism of the time and simply goes into the question of the existence of Jews in the region.  Something that stood out to me was the mention that some of the most concrete evidence of a Jewish population on the silk road was tombstones (25).  Slightly later Cansdale brings up Jewish settlements in China and again talks of evidence in burials (28).  Why are these mentions tied with death?  Aside from the “most convincing evidence” (28) of Arabic literature, why is it that the sources of Jewish history at this time are buried along with the Jewish ?  I wonder why were there not more ‘surface’ sources, so to say, marking the Jewish presence.  In addition to this, the reading suggest that “when travelling along the silk road they did not suffer from being Jewish” (29) though the other piece clearly tells us an opposite story.  How can the discrimination against the Jewish be so overlooked?

Contrasting this, the Ehrlich and Pingan selection covers at length the discrimination the Jewish were subject to.  Though China was apparently tolerant to various religions (176), Judaism must not have been one of these; or was this true only after a certain time?  This reading briefly mentions the downfall of the Kaifeng Jews - according to Mao Zedong, after losing their last place of worship, their last rabbi, and their ritual practices, they should no longer be deemed Jewish.  Is a religion based solely in these things?  I do not believe that a religious population must maintain these three things to retain their identity.  Things get a little iffy perhaps with the last of those three things, because maybe ritual practices are more tied to religion itself than places and higher people, however I have always been of the impression that religion is simply a belief system that is shown in many different ways depending on the people and their tradition.  I do not think that it is at all right to doubt the validity of a people based on how they can or cannot show this belief.  The idea from Mao Zedong that these Chinese people could no longer be Jews because they did not have their own language, religious customs, and living area (177) is illogical.  Again, my opinion is challenged slightly by the religious customs, but I will put that aside.  After all, according to this text the Jewish Chinese still maintained some traditions.   

The struggle for the Chinese Jews to receive official recognition was ongoing, one some scholarly visitors tried to aid and tourists had a part to play in with their attraction of attention to the area.  Despite efforts put out, the Kaifeng Jewish population did not succeed in this.  A research institute being put in place was a positive step, and the academic realm attempting to increase education about Kaifeng certainly helped to keep the history alive however I still wonder why there was so much of an opposition to the recognition by the government.  We must be thankful to those who kept this flame alive throughout the constant discrimination and danger.  It is sad to see the ceaseless oppression of Jewish populations across time and space but at the same time it is a pleasure to find gems of history such as this.

Sources used: 

Cansdale, Lena. "Jews on the Silk Roads." Worlds of the Silk Roads: Ancient and Modern. Macquarie U, 1996. 23-30. Print found online.

I found the Sogdians incredibly fascinating and briefly considered looking into something related to them for my final project before settling on something else.  Learning about this group of people really brings to mind the concepts of identity, ethnicity, and culture, connecting somewhat back to my second post here.  The Sogdians were rather spread out with their city states, practiced multiple religions and ‘conflicting’ funeral rituals (Marshak, 233), had influences from different cultures in their art... who were they really?  A merchant group, as Juliano and Lerner outline, but as we discussed in class, how biased is this view of them?  I do not doubt that they were merchant based necessarily, but I wonder about the opinions other cultures had of them, if they were really seen as money-greedy as a quote from that particular reading implied.

Why did the Sogdians choose to decorate their homes with art so heavily influenced from other cultures?  I am curious if this comes about due to the fact that Sogdiana “capitals” lay on the silk route.  Perhaps it is inevitable that when a group is in contact with those passing through from many other places, some of their culture is left behind.  The conquests that came from interactions with some did not diminish the Sogdian importance, as Lerner says.  If the Sogdian identity was abstract, or at least may appear so to us now, how did they retain it with conquests?  It seems, from what knowledge I gained from this week’s readings, that they were a relatively easygoing people.  

Honestly, within the three selections this week, I can’t see much to pick apart and look at deeper.  I do find Sogdiana, from this superficial view, to be puzzling however do not know much of what to say about them.  I am aware this post is rather lacking, but my main question is of what signifies identity.  Was the Sogdian identity distinct because of their hybridity, and was it this that shaped them?  How did they manage to maintain their identiy through the conquests by other groups?  I am left with many questions and few answers from this week’s readings.  The Sogdians are a people who I would love to study at length in the future.

Sources used:

Learner, Judith. "The Merchant Empire of the Sogdians." Monks and Merchants: Silk Road Treasures from Northwest China. New York: Abrams, 2001. 221-227. Print found online.

Marshak, Boris. "The Sogdians in Their Homeland." Monks and Merchants: Silk Road Treasures from Northwest China. New York: Abrams, 2001. 231-237. Print found online.

As important as it may be to understand the details about Buddhist cave temples in Dunhuang that are given in the Shichang reading, I think the Hansen selection had more relevant content with respect to what we talk about in class.  Reading about the architectural forms, decorations, and uses of the caves was good in order to have background knowledge but in general I found it to be almost too detailed and too specific.  So with that I’ll look at the Hansen reading.

I think they key point to extract from this reading is the reinforced knowledge of multiple Buddhisms being practiced, as opposed to one singular Buddhism transported across Central and East Asia.  Hansen asks “what happens when we consciously put aside the Buddhist canon” (279), but I would almost rather ask what made a certain Buddhism canon in the first place?  The answers to that don’t lie in what we read this week but I still believe it is a question worth asking.  The Buddhists of Kroraina having families, property, even slaves is so contrary to what has been deemed the canon and I wonder why.  With the mention of Kroraina retaining their burial practices even after the arrival of Buddhism, it seems as though they were in an ‘in-between’ state of adopting a non-indigenous religion.  Is this why their Buddhism was so different?  It is hard to imagine a people without their own religion, as it has been so present and so important historically, but if those in Kroraina had not had their own traditions, would the Buddhism that came to them have been practiced more similarly to what we are familiar with?  I have a lot of questions after reading this.  I am not sure if it is two religions’ interactions that motivate one to change, or simply a religion’s interactions with a new people.  I am not even sure if we can reasonably ask this kind of question!  

The Kharosthi documents attract my attention not because of their contents per say, even though the position of the cozbos and the kingdom’s government were worth the read.  The role language plays in any history has always interested me.  Hansen mentions that Kharosthi was used to scribe spoken Gandhari; this caught my eye due to our reading of Gandhara and its part in Buddhist art.  Gandhara also had elements of a less familiar Buddhism even if this was present primarily in their art (or, at least, to the best of my knowledge from this course), for example the heavy Hellenistic influences.  These influences were seen through Greek gods on Kharosthi documents at Niya and Miran’s stupa decorations including Western angels (303).  

Niya is considered the “best documented Buddhist site along the silk route” (306), despite the fact that the Buddhism found there is not necessarily the best understood.  I think this is quite crucial.  I understand more after reading this text how to appreciate Buddhisms rather than Buddhism.  The familiarity of something does not diminish its value, even more so when it is something so deeply historical and not ‘ideally’ documented.  I’ll try to look at other things under this same lens now - try not to make any assumptions and not hold static opinions, thoughts, or outlooks on what I am not well versed in.  

Source used

Both the selections from this week demanded investigation, as they give views about Manichaean and religion in Central Asia that are unfamiliar to me and pique my interest.

Stepping back from looking at the specifics of both these writings, I think that the fluidity of religion is something to focus on.  With the Klimkeit chapters we were given a glimpse into the nature of Manichaeism as a synthesized religion.  From starting in a Jewish-Catholic community to founding something with influences from other religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism, Mani certainly seems to have been a compelling figure.  I wonder where the distinction lies between practicing elements of multiple religions simultaneously and practicing some new hybrid religion.  What stood out to me was the proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah Buddha, something completely alien to me.  Before this I had no idea that these religions had overlap somewhere.  Not only that, but the focus on light by Manichaeism is tied with that of Zoroastianism (as far as my knowledge of Zoroastrianism goes), and the thought that Mani achieved nirvana to enter the realm of light are examples of other somewhat shocking crossovers, to me at least.

Moving to the Lieu selection, after getting past the background of Chuanchou -- which was a pleasure to read though perhaps not what I was looking for after reading Klimkeit’s chapters -- the talk of how religions played into society began to unfold.  I wonder how, with the Tang “purging” of foreign religions, Manichaeism was able to persevere.  Why did it, and more so than Buddhism which was so prevalent in China?  Or perhaps this text focused only on Manichaeism and I am missing part of the story.  The fluidity of Manichaeism if that is the right expression for it showed in the fact that Manichaeans ‘masqueraded’ as Taoists and Buddhists when it was convenient for them to do so.  I suppose this was somewhat justified as, pointed out by Lieu, Mani was sometimes claimed to be a reincarnated form of the Taoist founder.  In addition to this, Manichaean shrines appeared Buddhist and this connects with the above mention of Mani being a part of Buddhist practices.  

This week was somewhat difficult for me to process, because of this mixing of multiple religious ideas into one.  Having never taken a course on religion before this is all quite new to me and I find it confusing when so many ingredients come together, and how we can say they made something distinct.  When a mosaic is created, do we focus the picture as a whole or look at the components of it?  I am not sure where the balance is in this but I am also not sure if it matters.

Sources used: 

Klimkeit, Hans-Joachim. "Mani and Manichaeism." Gnosis on the Silk Road. New York: Harper Collins. 1-24. Print.

I found it interesting in this to read about precisely how structured and organized such an old city was.  The level of restriction and vigilance by the city officials and supervisors does seem like it must have been stifling at times, but likely necessary for the size of the city.  Despite this intense control though, I appreciated reading that there was such a large quarter for foreigners and they were afforded space for trade and to practice their separate religions.  It seems that Changan must have been a fascinating place to visit, what with the distinct districts, multiple types of temples, and trade of goods from Persia to Japan.

The sheer number of temples seen on the map provided surprised me somewhat.  Was it typical of cities to have so many?  Did the people of Changan construct a number reasonable relative to the population, or were there truly many temples?  It seems to me that they were not in excess, per say, but there were definitely a high amount compared to the size of the city in my eyes.  Perhaps it becomes more understandable given the information that the Buddhist monks, at least, were given charge of multiple services to benefit the city folk.

I also wonder why, if this city was planned and organized so meticulously based on the previous concept of the ideal city (with some apparent modification), the buildings were not made to last.  Sure they could be constructed quickly, but if so much effort was made to plan this city why wasn’t equal or greater effort spend ensuring that they would stand for a great period of time?  If the city was first and foremost built as “a testimony to the glory of the emperor” (pg 206) one would expect the emperor would want this testimony to remain present for ages to come.  The reading does not lend any answers to this and it is something I found slightly strange, though perhaps the Chinese minds of the Tang dynasty did not think in this way.

Lastly, it fascinates me to think about the deep, rich history of places such as Changan compared to the relative adolescence of Canada.  To be in modern Xian and know you are standing on the foundation of such a remarkable city must be a wonderful feeling.  I think it is this which attracts me to the field of East Asian studies and effectively to this course.  It is most definitely a romanticization of history, religion, and the ever tenuous “culture” on my part, however if it is what piques my interest I see no problem in this as long as I acknowledge this.

Today I am looking at the selection by Michel Strickmann.

What struck a chord with me in this reading was the talk of cultural and ethnic identity, so I would like to approach that, somewhat connecting to my reflection last week.  Strickmann describes the contact between India and China through Eastern Eurasia as a sharing of “social and cultural history” in the first sentence of this chapter which caught my attention.  He goes on to explain that the exotica appeal of a voyage to Central Asia later led to China developing performance art and storytelling as well as religion (53).  Shortly after he claims that it was upon the Chinese contact of western “barbarians” by virtue of travelling into Central Asia that a “Chinese ethnic identity” began to arise (54).  The mention of these three qualities in such a short span really emphasizes the connection they all have with each other.  

As we discussed the previous Phillips Stevens reading on cultural anthropology in class, the relationship between these three is perhaps hard to define.  We agreed through this discussion that ethnicity and culture both have influences on each other, and it became apparent that culture is a learned difference, merely a social construct.  In the context of this reading, ethnicity is brought up as being constructed.  Strickmann confidently says that it was when the Chinese began to assert themselves over their neighbours that they took interest in their identity.  This assertion is apparent with the description of the westerners as “alien”and barbaric, firmly establishing sinocentric views.  As is the theme throughout this selection, this development of not only ethnic but also cultural identity in an expanding world was occurring simultaneously with the rise of the so-deemed main religions, with the focus on that of Buddhism.

As the Chinese viewed their writing system - and perhaps in extension their meticulous and thorough record keeping - as essential to their ethical identity, the grand task of translation of Buddhist texts served to solidify the connection between ethnics and religion.  The translation brought Buddhism into China and it was later made more personal by the addition of original literature, even scriptural literature (56).  The strict monitoring of scripture intrigued me; the fact that the authorities would go so far as to “filter,” preen and adjust the text was something unbeknownst to me.

It appears obvious that religion and culture should go hand in hand, through the connection between religion and art which I certainly consider a main component of culture.  However it was through this reading and the connection back to the class discussion from a few weeks ago that I now understand how ethnicity can come into play as well.  Do the beginnings of ethnic identity always come from the interactions with other cultures (though I am hesitant to call them that)?  Perhaps more specifically, from the assertion of one over the other?  It will be interesting to see how these three qualities come into play throughout the history that we are studying, even more so than they already have.  I will continually question their connection to each other and their role in the grander scheme of things.     

This week I am choosing to reflect upon the Czuma and Morris reading regarding the different style of Kushan art and sculpture.

One of the immediately interesting aspects of this reading was the fact that these two styles represent a directly visible result of the influence of trade routes across Central Asia and the Mediterranean.  Granted, I should have expected that given the nature of this class.  However, I found it useful to be shown distinct examples of the Greco-Roman inspirations as well as the effects the locations of Mathuran and Gandharan centres had on the art styles.

The author(s) at one point says that the various sculptures, from the Mathuran school specifically, “…provide insights into evolving stylistic and cultural trends” (pg 15), which sparked certain questions in my mind.  Where does this definition of culture come in when there is influence from all around?  More than that, what culture are we talking about, specifically Mathuran or Kushan?  Even further in the document when talking about Gandharan culture, how can this be defined when Gandhara was a “melting pot of cultural currents?” (pg 18).  Having previously discussed what culture really means in lecture, I found myself approaching this quote and the ideas behind it with a different frame of mind than I would have before.

Extending from this, the dynamic play of influence between the Mathuran and Gandharan style is worth noting.  Indeed, Kushan sculpture did not transition from the former style to the latter but in fact both styles continually influenced each other, with one style taking precedence at certain times.  Though the styles peaked at different times, as noted on page 39 of the selection, their effective ranking of one over the other was not static which I found interesting.  The fact that these influences can be seen and tracked through such minute details intrigues me; the way the fabric is draped over the Buddha’s shoulder or shoulders, the texture of this fabric, and the position of the Buddha’s hands or feet.  I did not know prior to this that the study of sculpture and different artistic styles was quite so precise.

Within these two different schools of art, I am curious as to why I personally am more familiar with the Gandharan image of Buddha.  When I think of Buddha I immediately think of such things as the thicker fabric over both shoulders and arms at the same level (pg 30), rather than the thin, revealing fabric.  This was a small distinction to me that I did not know was relevant, and I wonder how the Gandharan style permeated my idea of the Buddha without me even knowing the stylistic differences.  

All in all, this reading made me really think about the distinction of culture and its difficult definition, as well as the tracking of the transmission of cultures, styles, and ideas through materials, which I look forward to exploring more in this course. 

This is how text posts are formatted.  I can also post photos, video, and audio content as well as embed links.

tumblr is able to be seen by those without an account

if someone has an account they can effectively subscribe to this blog and see my posts on their feed

it is a user friendly “social blogging” website that I believe is effective for what this course demands