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 support@jstor.org.

.

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