Some Iconographic Problems in Early Daoist-Buddhist Sculptures in ChinaAuthor(s): Jean M. JamesSource: Archives of Asian Art, Vol. 42 (1989), pp. 71-76Published by: University of Hawai'i Press for the Asia SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111195 .
Accessed: 13/06/2014 08:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
University of Hawai'i Press and Asia Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Archives of Asian Art.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:58:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Brief Notices
Some Iconographie Problems in Early Daoist Buddhist Sculptures in China
Jean M. James The University of Iowa
In an article published in 1984 Ding Mingy i noted that the
question of the origin of Daoist images, whether products of
the interaction between Buddhist and Daoist texts or those of
the influence of Buddhist images on Daoist types, was well
worth studying. In a subsequent article Ding did investigate this question and produced a chronology of images and their
iconographie attributes. But he left the problem of origin un
solved. Wu Hung, however, writing in Artibus Asiae, has of
fered a solution stating that Daoists used Buddhist iconog
raphy, adapting it to their own purposes when cutting the large
figures carved in cliffs at Kongwangshana in Jiangsu, dated to
the second and third centuries a.d. Therefore these early rock
carvings are not in fact Buddhist images but are early Daoist
images that also point to one of the ways in which "the Chinese
received Buddhism?the incorporation of Buddhist elements
by Taoist [sic] art. "
The process of intermingling Buddhist
iconographie elements with indigenous Chinese motifs as
sociated with Chinese deities, especially Xiwangmu,b began even earlier and is evident in Eastern Han (a.d. 25-220) arti
facts and monuments of the second century.1 There are, then,
ample precedents for the sort of intermingling and conflation
of Buddhist and Daoist imagery we see in the later votive
sculptures and stelae dedicated by laymen during and after the
fifth century.
Ding Mingyi's chronology is based on a group of eighteen extant stone figures and two ink squeezes taken from stelae that
no longer exist. Nine of the figures are in museums or temples
in Shaanxi, one is in Tokyo, one in the United States (see Fig.
8), the rest elsewhere in China. Unfortunately, Ding did not
include reproductions of all twenty examples, but we can still
use his conclusions as the basis for a discussion of a much larger
group of small votive stone sculptures in the Field Museum of
Natural History in Chicago, all of which were purchased in Shaanxi province between 1908 and 1910 by Berthold Laufer
for the museum.
The identification of a votive image is usually done by its
inscription, if any, and by the iconographie attributes given to
the figures. But the apparent mingling of Buddhist and Daoist
beliefs in the minds of religious people in China produced inscriptions that refer to both religions. Ding gives the follow
ing examples: on a stele dated to a.d. 424 we find both Bud
dhist and Daoist images; on a 548 stele is written "Three sages of the Great Dao and Sakyamuni"; on a 557 stele "Images of
two worthies, a Buddhist and a Daoist"; on a 562 stele "Images of Sakyamuni, Taishang Laojun,c and all the Bodhisattvas."
On another Daoist stele excavated near Luoyang we find "In
the fourth month of Kaihuangd [582] the Buddhist-Daoist
layman Fang Guanjine respectfully makes a stone image of
Laojun. " Other images dedicated by Buddhists in the late sixth
century mention only the Buddha. Similarly, Daoists of the
late sixth century and subsequently call themselves Daoists,
although some, like Fang Guanjin, use both terms.2 The Field Museum figures amply reflect the combination of both reli
gions in the popular mind in north China, as we shall see. It
does, however, seem clear that the roots of this combination
were not engendered by stone carvers; they are historical, not
art historical.
Many scholars have written at length on the doctrinal and
scriptural comingling of early religious Daoism with Bud
dhism especially during the fifth and sixth centuries a.d.3 Here a brief historical outline will have to suffice.
Daoists during the Eastern Han dynasty adopted Buddhism
rather than rejecting it as foreign and un-Chinese. A commu
nity of Buddhist monks was established in a.d. 65 by a Daoist
ruler of one of the subsidiary kingdoms of the Han empire located in the present-day province of Hebei in the city of
Pengcheng.f In 166 Emperor Huan sacrificed to the Buddha
and to the Daoist deity Huang-Lao, s who was a combined
form of Lao Zi,h the Warring States (403-221 b.c.) sage of
philosophical Daoism, and the mythical Yellow Emperor.4 The sect called the Way of the Celestial Masters, originating in the mid-second century, and led by Zhang Daoling,1 is the first
of the religious Daoist sects; it had a doctrine and scriptures and its chief deity was Laojun,J a deified form of Lao Zi. This sect, and another called the Five Pecks of Rice, spread widely,
but we have no images attributable to either sect. We do have
the images on the cliff at Kongwangshan discussed by Wu
Hung, who, it bears repeating, has identified them as Daoist
figures in adopted Buddhist guises. The formal promotion of
Daoism as a religion the equal of Buddhism took place during the reigns on the first two emperors of Northern Wei (386
534). In 409 the Emperor Ming Yuan Di,k wishing to show his reverence, ordered that statues of the Buddha, the Yellow
Emperor, and Lao Zi be set up "in all corners of the capital" and commanded the monks to "guide the people's customs."
A parallel in art to this even-handed approach can be seen on
a Buddhist-Daoist stele found in Shaanxi, which was within
the Northern Wei realm, and dated to 424. It has two niches,
showing a Daoist priest on the left and a Buddha on the right. On the base are donors shown on each side of a central incense
burner. On the right is a man, on the left, a Daoist nun and
another man.5 The two religions are thus treated as equals. It is interesting that 424 is also the year in which the Daoist
partisan Gou Qianzhi1 (d. 432) received the approval of the Wei emperor, who appointed him Celestial Master and authorized
him to lead the faithful. Later, Tao Hongjingm (452-536) or
ganized a Daoist pantheon including two forms of the deified Lao Zi, Laojun and Taishang Laojun, of the Celestial Masters
sect. In 514 Tao produced a synthesis of Daoist doctrines by
combining the liturgies of two more sects, the Lingbao11 and
the Shangqing.06 Buddhists were persecuted twice during the Six Dynasties
period, once from 444 to 446 by the Northern Wei emperor, and again from 574 to 577 by the Northern Zhou emperor. Later, in the History of the Sui Dynasty (581
? 618) the three
religions?Confucianism is now included?are described as
equals: Buddhism is the sun, Daoism is the moon, and Con
fucianism is the five planets.7 Fervent adherents of Buddhism and of Daoism did do battle
over which religion was superior, but their doctrinal wars were
of little interest to the lay faithful who sought salvation and a
new life in a Western Paradise available to all of them. The
point is made by Z?rcher as follows:
Perhaps we are?as so often happens?handicapped by the fact that we
can only observe Buddhism and Daoism at the very highest level, that
of the religious "professionals" and their written texts?the tops of
two pyramids. We may consider the possibility that at a lower level
the bodies of the two pyramids merged into a much less differentiated
lay religion, and that at the very base both systems largely dissolved
into an indistinct mass of popular beliefs and practices . . . the two
teachings are "two branches springing from a single trunk. "8
71
This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:58:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
This merging of the two religions into a single mass in the
popular mind is clearly evident in the amalgamation of the two
religions in the votive sculptures discussed here, first in their
inscriptions, and second in their iconography, as we shall see.
This combination provides concrete evidence for what
Z?rcher describes as a possibility.
Another factor in the blending of Buddhism and Daoism in the popular mind was the belief that after Lao Zi had departed from China and gone west to preach to the barbarians, his
teaching returned to China as the teaching of the Buddha. This
interesting notion originated in the Han dynasty and was pro moted later on by one Wang Fu,p the purported author of the
Classic of Converting the Barbarians, the Hua hu jing,i around
a.d. 300.9 To some Daoists the Buddha and Lao Zi were the
same person, so an image of one could just as well serve as an
image of the other; not only did the lay faithful not distinguish between the two doctrines, they did not distinguish between
the two deities either. In addition to the 424 stele described by
Ding Mingyi there is another, dated to 557, that also shows a
Daoist figure, a Heavenly Worthy or tianzun/ in the lower left
corner while in the lower right corner is a Buddha. Inscribed
on the stele are the words "Images of the Buddhist and Daoist
Worthies." Ding points out that the two figures are differen
tiated only by the positions of their hands; the Daoist Worthy sits with hands folded in meditation, the Buddha gestures "fear
not" (abhaya mudra) with his right hand and holds his left
palm out and pointing down to indicate the granting of prayers
(vara mudra).10 Otherwise the two figures have the same
haloes, topknots, robes, and lotus thrones.
Carvers of Daoist images borrowed freely from Buddhist
works. The attributes and devices they employed include a
niche that frames the figure or figures, sometimes with one or
two dragons arched across the top; the lotus blossom pedestal; the flame-shaped mandorla sometimes including the flame pat tern on its surface; two attendants; celestial figures above the
niche; lions to guard the throne; and patrons in lieu of atten
dants. The standard Buddhist votive formula for inscriptions was also used. The formula in use in Shaanxi at the time is as
follows: "X day of the X month of the year X of the X reign, the disciple of the Buddha X X-x has a stone image made on
behalf of X. "
The Daoist version in use in Shaanxi runs "In
the X year of reign X the Daoist disciple X X-x makes a stone
image (or a four-sided stele) on behalf of X. "
But there are also
attributes that are specifically Daoist, including a particular
type of hat and garments modeled on those worn by officials; a beard; an object held in the right hand that resembles a leaf
fan but that Ding identifies as a flywhisk or, later, a tally; and
a three-footed railing placed in front of the central figure.11 The sort of costume worn by an official in the fourth century
a.d. can be seen in two figures from the important fourth
century tomb at Dengxian in Henan province (Figs. 1 and 2).
They wear tall hats with a slightly bulging crown, long robes,
and undergarments. The costume worn by Daoist deities is
very similar.
Which brings us to the collection of votive sculptures from
Shaanxi in the Field Museum. These sculptures provide ample evidence for the conflation of the two iconographies and the
adoption of the language of Buddhist inscriptions by Daoists. This combination occurs on sculptures dating to the fifth cen
tury and continues in use until the Tang dynasty (618-907), when Daoists gave up the Buddhist connection. There are
forty-two Daoist works in the Field Museum dating from the
fifth to the eleventh centuries. Twenty-five of them are on
display. It is worth noting that nine of the twenty pieces dis
cussed by Ding Mingyi are also from Shaanxi.
We begin with a Daoist image (Fig. 3). It carries two dates, a.d. 414 and 564; stylistically the earlier date is preferable. The
inscription does not identify the deity, who is presented as a
bearded gentleman with two companions; all of them have the
Daoist attributes of Chinese garb and the flywhisk. Figure 4,
however, is clearly a Buddha whose mustache tells us that he
is Sakyamuni. He has the ushnisa topknot of a Buddha, holds
his right hand outward in the abhaya mudra, and has an un
identifiable object in his left hand. His robe is the simple mon kish garment worn by Buddha figures that lacks the lapels and
belt of a Chinese robe.
The image depicted in Figure 5 is now in a private collection
in the United States. It has been damaged since its publication
by Siren.12 The inscription, now mostly lost, once gave a date
equivalent to 521. The Daoist costume is worn. The main
figure holds the flywhisk/fan in his right hand and touches his
right sleeve, or right foot, with his left hand. But above the
niche are motifs that come out of early Han ( 206 b.c.-a.d.
220) art: the sun on the right with birds shown in flight as seen
from above; the moon on the left with a toad inside, also seen
from above; while across the niche and between the sun and
the moon are two dragons with their necks entwined at a point
above the apex of the niche. This combination of motifs makes
its initial appearance in Chinese art, as far as we know at pre
sent, on the two polychrome silk banners draped on the coffins
in tombs I and III at Mawangdui, Changsha, Hunan (ca. 165 and 168 b.c., respectively). Dragons, sun, and moon appear
frequently in later Han funerary art and are related to the jour
ney of the soul heavenward.13 The inscription mentions only an image made of stone, so we must assume that the main
image is the deified Lao Zi as Laojun or Taishang Laojun rather
than the Buddha.
We come now to a change in style, so something must be
said about style in addition to iconography. The first group,
Figures 3, 4, and 5, displays a linear, angular style that parallels the angular regularity of the post-5 00 figures in the Longmen
style of the Northern Wei (386-534). The shift to a more
massive, chunkier figure type conceived in a more three
dimensional way appears in Figure 6. The style is that of the
later Northern dynasties, especially Qi (550-577) and Zhou
(557-581). Robes now fall in wide folds and curves, faces are
broad, expressions bland, and the Maitreyaesque smile has
vanished. Changes in iconography are also evident. The sun,
moon, and entwined dragons vanish; dragons move from the
front of the piece to the top, where they form a sort of arch
over the top. No longer entwined, they now represent the
vault of the sky. A three-footed railing appears and so does the
free-standing figure. W. Liebenthal has suggested that fifth
century images of the Buddha resemble a Chinese sage.14 There are no illustrations in his article but it is possible he was
looking at the sort of image discussed here. Indeed, by the
eighth century figures of Yuanshi Tianzun,s for example
Figure 11, are perfect models of the dignity, reserve, and high
sense of decorum characteristic of Confucius as he is known
from the classic texts.
Figure 6, dated to 550, has the flywhisk, clothing, and rail of a Daoist deity but the inscription says it is a Buddha dedi cated by a Buddhist. Buddhist markers are there: there are
simple mandorlas behind each figure, the main figure sits on
a lotus throne, his attendants stand on lions, and there is an
incense burner below the base. Figures like this one confirm
the conclusions of Z?rcher and Wu Hung that the Buddha,
Laojun, and/or Taishang Laojun were all one in the popular mind. Obviously the buyer of this piece and its maker were
not bothered by the conflation of two image types that can so
72
This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:58:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
annoy the modern iconographer. We must accept these images as they are and try to understand why they are that way.
Then, on the other side of this iconographie coin, we have
Figure 7. It would be easy to call it a Buddha. Sixth-century Buddhas wear robes with sashes that flow down over their
feet. Like bodhisattvas, these attendants stand on lotus pedes tals and there is a mandorla behind each figure. Two lions flank
an incense burner in proper Buddhist fashion. But the main
image holds a ruyi* sceptre in his right hand, the headgear is a
bulbous version of the tall hat, and on the back is an inscription
saying that this image of Taishang Laojun is dedicated by a Daoist layman
on behalf of future generations, his ancestors, his father, and his mother. The date given is equivalent to 564, and the ruyi is a
purely Chinese object. Another analysis of
Figures 6 and 7 has been published by A. Pontynen, to whose
article the reader is referred.15
Figure 8 is unequivocally Daoist in appearance but its in
scription is unequivocally Buddhist. The date given is equiva lent to 610. The inscription says that a follower of the Buddha,
Zhou Wenming,u had had this image made "on behalf of [his] deceased grandmother who will enjoy the wonders of the
Buddha's Western Paradise and so the whole family will enjoy prosperity.
" It is a truism of Chinese belief, going back to the
Shang dynasty (ca. 1500-1050 b.c.) and by no means eclipsed
by the advent of Buddhism, that contented and well-cared-for
ancestors will provide for the continued good fortune of their
descendants on earth. Zhou Wenming hopes that his grand
mother, happy in Buddha's Western Paradise, will do her
Chinese duty and look out for the welfare of her descendants, a
hope expressed in an inscription placed on a figure of an
autochthonous Chinese deity who is seen as being the same as
the Buddha. Figure 8 is a prime example of the syncretism of
popular religion in China.
Later in the seventh century the Buddhist-Daoist image gave
way when Daoists finally acknowledged that the Buddha and
Lao Zi were not the same after all, and religious Daoism was
fully established as a separate cult. The change is obvious in
art; no one would mistake Figures 9 and 11 for Buddhist
deities.
The deity in Figure 9 is named in the inscription. He is Yuanshi Tianzun, the Heavenly Worthy of Primal Origination, whose image appears no earlier than the Sui dynasty (581-618). His name appears much earlier in texts such as the Bao pu ziw
of Ge Hongw (283-343), and m the texts of Shangqing Daoists whose scriptures have only recently begun to be studied by Western scholars. We should note here that both Siren and
Laufer are probably in error when they identify Daoist figures
dating before 581 as Yuanshi Tianzun. The inscriptions known
to date on figures earlier than 581 do not mention Yuanshi
Tianzun. Instead, they refer to Laojun, Taishang Laojun, or
Tianzun.16
It is clear that all the images of Daoist deities in this early
period look alike. Figures 9 and 11 are identified in their inscrip tions as Yuanshi Tianzun but iconographically they are the same as the earlier Daoist figures shown here. We can explain the merging of Buddhist and Daoist attributes and inscriptions
by the merging of the two religions in the popular mind. But
how do we explain the iconographie nondifferentiation of
Daoist deities, especially when contemporary Buddhist deities
were differentiated? Were Laojun, Taishang Laojun, and Yuan
shi Tianzun also all one in the minds of lay Daoists? Did doc
trinal differences between the various Daoist sects not carry over into images employed by the adherents of these sects? The
answer to these questions will have to come from textual
studies still underway; art historical methods cannot do the job alone.
The inscription on Figure 9 carries a date equivalent to 665. The principal image is Yuanshi Tianzun shown flanked by the donors themselves, a man and his wife. The donor is Wang
Faxin,x who offers this image in the hope of being reborn (a Buddhist idea) in the peaceful and happy land in the west, which for a devout Daoist is on Kunlun Mountain.17 Yuanshi
Tianzun sits behind a railing while holding a flywhisk (that looks like a shovel) in his right hand. Lions guard his throne.
There are no mandorlas or haloes. The stone is carved to curve
outward slightly and so make a rudimentary niche. Wang Faxin and his wife stand on little pedestals
on each side in the
manner of attendant Heavenly Worthies.
In comparison there is Figure 10, also made in 665. It is a
Chinese Buddhist figure rather than a figure drawing on the
iconography of Buddhist images in the Indian mode. Ad dorsed dragons roof the shrine; beneath them is a small shrine
with a Buddha seated inside it. Two apsarases fill in the space above the main niche. The three figures below represent a
Buddha and two bodhisattvas. The Daoist railing is used. The
Buddha raises his right hand in the abhaya mudra. The now
faint inscription lists the names of the members of the family
offering this shrine.
In Figure 11 we have the ideal image of the Chinese sage. This figure probably represents Yuanshi Tianzun. He wears
the small cap of a Tang dynasty official, his expression is be
nevolent, and he is bearded. He sits on a draped platform and
behind a railing which he grasps with his right hand. His left hand, now lost, was raised. The remnant of a mandorla is
behind him. What is left of the inscription yields a date corre
sponding to 709.
Figures 10 and 11 show that there was finally a clear distinc
tion between Buddhist and Daoist images, but that some
Daoist attributes can still appear on Buddhist statues and Daoist
deities can still have Buddhist mandorlas.
Chinese sculptors charged with making Daoist images
began by appropriating what was wanted from Buddhist im
ages and applying it to images based on the idealized form of the Chinese sage. Then they invented a Daoist iconography that produced images recognized by the Daoist faithful as rep
resenting a Daoist deity, be he Laojun, Taishang Laojun, or
Yuanshi Tianzun. By not inventing a system of attributes
specific to each deity the carvers of Daoist images made one
type serve for all. At the same time, these indigenous images
expressed quite clearly the combination or merging of the
early Buddhist and Daoist religions in the popular mind during the formative years of religious, as opposed to philosophical,
Daosim, at a time when formal religion with a doctrine,
priests, and temples was something new.
Finally, during all the
early centuries of the Christian era in China, there were a
myriad unequivocally Buddhist images made for devout Buddhists who never, in any way, confused their gods with
those of the Daoists.
73
This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:58:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig. i. Fig. 2.
Fig. 3
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5
Fig. i. Stamped brick from Dengxian tomb, Henan, fourth century a.d. Figs, i, 2 after Dengxian caise huaxiangzhuan mu (Beijing, 1958),
Fig. 1, pi. 21.
Fig. 2. Tomb figurine from Dengxian tomb, Henan, fourth century. H. 47 cm. After Dengxian caise huaxiangzhuan mu, pi. 58.
Fig. 3. Daoist deity, a.d. 414. Incase, h. 52.1 cm. 121420. Figs. 3
4, 6-11 courtesy Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois.
Fig. 4. Buddha, 421. h. 24.0 cm. 121393.
Fig. 5. Daoist deity, 521. Private collection, h. 47.0 cm. Courtesy of owner.
74
This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:58:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8.
Fig. 9. Fig. io. Fig. ii.
Fig. 6. Buddhist-Daoist deity, 550. h. 42.3 cm. 121419. Courtesy Field Museum of Natural History.
Fig. 7. Taishang Laojun, 564. h. 46.2 cm. 121452.
Fig. 8. Buddhist-Daoist deity, 610. In storage, h. 16.4 cm. 121448.
Fig. 9. Tianzun, 665. In case, h. 28.8 cm. 121524.
Fig. 10. Buddha, 665. h. 59.5 cm. 121615.
Fig. 11. Yuanshi Tianzun, 709. h. 39.0 cm. 121521.
75
This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:58:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Chinese Characters
b ̂ J^
d 1WI
f f>*?
h i!
i 5ft?_pt
j %L% k efBc$ i f&?fef)?.
n X ^
p *-*<%
q fctjim r ̂ #
t *>%
w
Notes
i. Ding Mingyi, A Discussion of Bronze Buddha Statues Exca
vated at Boxing in Shangdong (in Chinese), Wen Wu 1984.5:32-43.
My thanks go to Professor Robert A. Rorex for his helpful, and critical,
comments; Ding Mingyi, From the Placement of Buddhist and Daoist
Images on the Jing du yue Stele of King Wen of Zhou We See How
Daoist Images of the Northern Dynasties Were Made (in Chinese), Wen Wu 1986.3:52-62; Wu Hung, Buddhist Elements in Early Chinese
Art (2nd and 3rd Centuries A.D.), Artibus Asiae 48 (3/4) (1986), quote
p. 303 and passim; see also Yu Weizhao, Notes on the Eastern Han
Images of the Buddha (in Chinese), Wen Wu 1980.5:68-77. 2. Ding, From the Placement of Buddhist and Daoist Images, pp.
57-59; Anonymous, The Wei and Tang Figure Stelae, Wen Wu
1984.5:53; Li Yong amd Liu Jun, Seven Bronze Images Excavated in
Changcheng, Wuxiang County, Shanxi (in Chinese), Wen Wu
1984.4:57-59.
3. See Stephen R. Bokenkamp, Sources of the Taoist Scriptures, in
Tantric and Taoist Studies in Honour of R. A. Stein, M?langes Chinois
et Bouddhiques 21:43 5-485. I am indebted to Professor Paul Kroll for a
copy of this article; Ofuchi Ninji, On Ku Ling-pao ching, Acta Asi?tica
27 (i974):3 3-56; The Formation of the Taoist Canon, in H. Welch and
A. Seidel, Facets of Taoism (New Haven, 1979), pp. 253-268; Gaston
Maspero, Taoism and Chinese Religion (Boston, 1981); Michel
Strickmann, The Longest Taoist Scripture, History of Religions 17(3-4)
(i978):52-82;E. Z?rcher, Buddhist Influence on Early Taosim, T'oung
pao ser. 2, 66 (1980):84-148. This list is not complete; the literature on
this topic is extensive.
4. Maspero, Taoism and Chinese Religion, pp. 401, 406; Hou Han Shu
(History of the Later Han Dynasty), 72/33; see also Anna K. Seidel, La
divinisation de Lao Tseu dans le Taoisme des Han, Publications de l'?cole
Fran?aise d'Extr?me Orient, 1979.
5. James R. Ware, The Wei Shu and Sui Shu on Taoism, fournal of the American Oriental Society 53 (3) (1933): quote p. 334; SeichiMizuno
and Toshio Nagahiro, Yun-Kang: The Buddhist Cave-Temples of the Fifth
Century a.d. in North China (Kyoto, 1956), supplemental vol. 16, p.
52; Ding, From the Placement of Buddhist and Daoist Images, chart
p. 58.
6. Wei Shu 114/1 ib; Michel Strickmann, The Mao Shan Revela
tions: Taoism and the Aristocracy, T'oung Pao ser. 2, 63 (1977):39. 7. Ding, From the Placement of Buddhist and Daoist Images, p. 5 5. 8. Z?rcher, Buddhist Influence on Early Taoism, p. 146.
9. Maspero, Taoism and Chinese Religion, p. 46; A. Pontynen, The
Deification of Laozi in Chinese History and Art, Oriental Art n.s. 322
(2) (1980): 193; E. Z?rcher, The Buddhist Conquest of China (Leyden,
1972), p. 290. 10. Ding, From the Placement of Buddhist and Daoist Images, pp.
52, 54; E. Dale Saunders, Mudra: A Study of Symbolic Gestures in
fap??ese Buddhist Sculptures (New York, i960), p. 53. 11. Li and Liu, Seven Bronze Images Excavated in Changcheng, p.
57; Anonymous, The Wei and Tang Dynasty Figure Stelae, p. 53;
Ding, From the Placement of Buddhist and Daoist Images, p. 57. 12. Osvald Siren, Chinese Sculpture from the Fifth to the Fourteenth
Centuries (London, 1925), pi. 128A and vol. 1, p. 33; see also Saburoi
Matsubara, On the Stone Images of the Northern Wei Dynasty of
China in Fukien Provence (in Japanese), Kokka 753 (1954)^55-366 and fig. 6.
13. Jean M. James, A Provisional Iconology of Western Han Funer
ary Art, Oriental Art n.s. 25 (3) (i9rjg):247-3 57; see also An Iconographie
Study of Two Late Han Funerary Monuments: The Offering Shrines of the
Wu Family and the Multichamber Tomb at Holingor, Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Iowa, 1983.
14. Edward Sch?fer, The Divine Woman (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 1973), passim; Walter Liebenthal, Chinese Buddhism
during the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, Monumenta Nipponica 11
(i955):83
15. Pontynen, The Deification of Laozi, passim. 16. Ding, From the Placement of Buddhist and Daoist Images, pp.
61-62; Anonymous, A Group of Sui and Tang Buddhist and Daoist
Bronze Statues in Pinglu County, Shanxi (in Chinese), Kaogu 1987.1:46; see also note 3.
17. Wu Hung, Buddhist Elements in Early Chinese Art, p. 289.
76
This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:58:01 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions