From the Malay Peninsula to the Shandong Peninsula: The Transmission of Buddha Statues with Tight-Fitting Robe in the Sixth Century
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This well-structured, well-researched article traces a case study of Buddhist sculptures' material culture and its source, genealogy, and trajectory.
The author does an excellent job of tracing the connections and routes of exchange of the three types of Buddhist robes (on budda sculptures), adding clarity to an under-studied field.
I recommend reviewing the article once again and seeing if some paragraphs can be shorter to help the reader deal with the information density. This is a highly descriptive article that would be beneficial.
Another point to consider is maybe giving a paragraph or two about the meaning of all of this in terms of the tradition that this material culture refers to. I am curious whether tight-fitting robes had any significance in terms of what they mean or are the different styles just reflections of the various cultural and geographic contexts and do not have any importance when it comes to Buddhist thought and practice. Is there any specific religious or teleological reason for these different robes?
It could be that these questions can not be answered within the scope of this article, consider this a suggestion- but I believe that it can add to the whole discussion by connecting it to this living tradition.
spelling and grammar should be checked again for minor typos- see for example line 619
Author Response
Point 1: I recommend reviewing the article once again and seeing if some paragraphs can be shorter to help the reader deal with the information density. This is a highly descriptive article that would be beneficial.
Response 1: In section 2, the description of the type A statue has been shortened and rewritten into paragraphs more compact (lines 125-144).
Point 2: Another point to consider is maybe giving a paragraph or two about the meaning of all of this in terms of the tradition that this material culture refers to. I am curious whether tight-fitting robes had any significance in terms of what they mean or are the different styles just reflections of the various cultural and geographic contexts and do not have any importance when it comes to Buddhist thought and practice. Is there any specific religious or teleological reason for these different robes?
It could be that these questions can not be answered within the scope of this article, consider this a suggestion- but I believe that it can add to the whole discussion by connecting it to this living tradition.
Response 2: It is my understanding that tight-fitting robes do not have any significance in terms of Buddhist thought and practice. Its appearance may be related to the traditional sculpture art in ancient India. Buddha statues wearing tight-fitting robes can be traced back to the Indian Mathurā style statues in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD (Quintanilla 2007, fig.173, fig. 262). Mathurā is one of the two earliest sculpture centers in ancient India. As early as the 2nd to 1st centuries BC, the local Brahman statues and Jain statues had gradually developed the characteristics of wearing tight-fitting garments or exposing skin (Huntington 1985, pp. 41-89; Sonya Rhie Quintanilla 2007, fig. 151). The appearance of such light and thin clothes in traditional sculptures may be in relation to the local hot weather.
In addition to the texture (thinness) of the Buddha robe, how it was worn (covering both shoulders or just the left shoulder) is also another factor to distinguish different types. The Mathurā statues in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD mainly wear robes covering only the left shoulder, however, it is worth noting that with the long-term fusion of Mathurā statues and Gandhāra statues which were significantly influenced by Hellenistic art and usually wear robes covering both shoulders, from 4th to 5th century onwards, the coexistence of Buddha statues wearing robes covering both shoulders and just left shoulder had become a common phenomenon in various regions such as the Sarnath India around the 5th century, Southeast Asia and China in the 5th to 7th centuries. It is because the coexistence of several types of Buddha robes has shown consistency across regions from the 5th to 7th centuries that it could be used as a lead to explore the transmission of Buddha statue arts. And the local adaptation is mainly reflected in the change in facial and body features.
Point 3: spelling and grammar should be checked again for minor typos- see for example line 619
Response 3: The typos pointed out by the reviewer have been corrected and the manuscript has been revised by a professional editing service.
The attached file is the revised manuscript.
Reference:
Huntington, Susan L. 1985. The art of ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain. New York: Weatherhill;
Quintanilla, Sonya Rhie. 2007. History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura, CA. 150 BCE-100 CE. Leiden: Brill.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the author for the time and effort put into this submission. Its strength lies in the interesting nature of the topic and the depth of specific research that went into the narrative. Below are some examples of some writing issues that I found while reading. I did not paste them all, so a good grammar review will help this paper.
The detailed examination of transmission routes presented here was a somewhat new area of Buddhism for me. I have read about maritime Buddhism, of course, but have not done as extensive a study as presented here, which will I am sure provide others with a wealth of interesting knowledge.
My biggest suggestion/question has to do with whether any doctrinal factors were at play viz. the transmission routes and our understanding of the three types of Buddha statues? Southeast Asian, Indian, and Chinese Buddhism vary in many ways. Does the author think that the different use of robes (or even ushnisha size—see lines 120-123) and the various transmission routes point to any differences in Buddhist belief or practice? Is it merely iconographical tradition? Perhaps more information/research on the Buddhist traditions of the various geographical areas might help inform the author’s and the reader’s understanding of why the question of transmission routes is relevant and important to investigate in the context of Buddhist studies.
______
SOME GRAMMAR ISSUES TO REVIEW (non-exhaustive)
Based on Chinese literature and stone inscriptions, previous researches have research has initially grasped... (25-26)
However, in the previous studies of using the Qingzhou style statues to explore the transmission routes, there is no separated discussion about individual style of statues but tend to address them as a whole, yet the routes of different styles vary. (44-47)
According to the previous researches research, the foreign style of Qingzhou Buddha statues originated in India... (58-59)
Therefore, this article firstly first sorts out the mainstream standing Buddha styles in Southeast Asia during this...
Section 3:
In the volume four of Lo yang chia lan chi (A Record of 384 Buddhist Monasteries in Lo-yang, 洛陽伽藍記), it is stated that: (384-85). This colon is confusing, as it comes at the end of a paragraph. However, the subsequent paragraph does not seem to be a quotation (but includes a quotation). The author should clarify this as a quotation (by Yang) if it is one.
Although the origin of the three foreign styles is the Indian subcontinent, they are directly derived from the Southeast Asian counterparts which originated from India but localized (unclear) (606-607)
...it is believed that 614 during this period the north-central Malay Peninsula held a key position in the eastward 615 transmission route of Buddhist art via THE sea.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: My biggest suggestion/question has to do with whether any doctrinal factors were at play viz. the transmission routes and our understanding of the three types of Buddha statues. Southeast Asian, Indian, and Chinese Buddhism vary in many ways. Does the author think that the different use of robes (or even ushnisha size—see lines 120-123) and the various transmission routes point to any differences in Buddhist belief or practice? Is it merely iconographical tradition? Perhaps more information/research on the Buddhist traditions of the various geographical areas might help inform the author’s and the reader’s understanding of why the question of transmission routes is relevant and important to investigate in the context of Buddhist studies.
Response 1: It is an interesting yet difficult question. In Buddhist art, the pantheon of beings such as the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara is self-evidently a Mahayana phenomenon, but without inscriptions and context, distinguishing an early figure of the Buddha himself as either a Mahayana or a Theravada image remains a challenge (Jessup and Thierry 1997, p. 147). Therefore, it is difficult to infer whether Buddhist beliefs were at play when it comes to the different types of robes. It is my understanding that the use of different robes and the ways of wearing them have more to do with the local sculpture art.
Buddha statues wearing tight-fitting robes can be traced back to the Indian Mathurā style statues in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD （Quintanilla 2007, fig.173, fig. 262). Mathurā is one of the two earliest sculpture centers in ancient India. As early as the 2nd to 1st centuries BC, the local Brahman statues and Jain statues had gradually developed the characteristics of wearing tight-fitting garments or exposing skin （Huntington 1985, pp. 41-89; Quintanilla 2007, fig. 151）. The appearance of such light and thin clothes in traditional sculptures may be in relation to the local hot weather. From this perspective, at the very beginning, different styles reflections of the various cultural and geographic contexts. However, with the long-term fusion of Mathurā statues and Gandhāra statues which were significantly influenced by Hellenistic art and usually wear robes covering both shoulders, from the 4th to 5th century onwards, the coexistence of Buddha statues wearing robes covering both shoulders and just the left shoulder had become a common phenomenon in various regions such as the Sarnath India around the 5th century, Southeast Asia and China in the 5th to 7th centuries. It is because the coexistence of several types of Buddha robes has shown consistency across regions from the 5th to 7th centuries that it could be used as a lead to explore the transmission of Buddha statue arts.
Point 2: SOME GRAMMAR ISSUES
Response 2: The grammar issues pointed out by the reviewer have been corrected and the manuscript has been revised by a professional editing service.
Point 3: The quotation of Lo-yang ch'ieh-lan chi 洛陽伽藍記
Response 3: The format of the quotation of Lo-yang ch'ieh-lan chi has been changed (see lines 400-417) so that it is clear to the reader that the subsequent paragraph is a translation of a record from the book Lo-yang ch'ieh-lan chi.
Reference:
Jessup, Helen Ibbitson and Zephir, Thierry ed. 1997. Sculpture of Angkor and Ancient Cambodia: Millennium of Glory. Washington D. C.: National Gallery of Art
Huntington, Susan L. 1985. The art of ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain. New York: Weatherhill;
Quintanilla, Sonya Rhie. 2007. History of Early Stone Sculpture at Mathura, CA. 150 BCE-100 CE. Leiden: Brill.
Reviewer 3 Report
“From Malay Peninsula to Shandong Peninsula: The Transmission of Buddha Statues with Tight-Fitting Robes in the Sixth Century”
The topic of this paper, viewing early Southeast Asian Buddha images from the point of view of Chinese art, is a welcome addition to the scholarship in the field. Most analyses of transmission concern relationships between India and Southeast Asia, but very little material evidence is discussed in the Chinese art historical record. The three different styles seen in Qingzhou are clearly described and differentiated, as are the range of sources. The author shows great sensitivity and perspicacity in recognizing and describing the complex situation with regard to the transmission of the styles over time and on multiple occasions.
The reader is left wishing for more information about the Qingzhou Buddhas. How many survive belonging to each of the three styles? Was one of the styles, A, B, or C more prevalent? Are there chronological implications? How did Chinese artists adapt the styles to suit local taste? What were the contexts in which they were established and found?
The arguments for how and from what sources the foreign styles came to Qingzhou are cogent enough, but still are speculative, and the language could be less definitive, especially in the conclusion.
Aside from widespread grammatical problems indicative of a non-native English writer, several points should be clarified.
· Arguments for the dating of the Wat Romlok Buddha and other issues with dating are inappropriately elided. The author attributes the Wat Romlok Buddha, for example, to the second half of the 6th century, though the source cited attributes it more squarely in the 7th century, and possibly slightly earlier. However, the author ties the style to Funan, though the reign of the last king of Funan ended in 539, in the first half of the 6th century. It is possible that the Wat Romlok style was current during the Chenla (or Zhenla, not Chen) period, when the author cites little contact with China. The author should give clear dates for Funan, Chenla, and be clear when dating of evidence is not certain. It would also be interesting to hear the author’s opinion about why the Amaravati-Nagarjunakonda style would be so influential during the 6th century, if it was current only in the 2nd to 3rd century—4th century at the latest. Also, please provide the date of composition of the Lo yang chia lan chi, the title of which should be given in italics in the manuscript.
· It is not certain that classic texts from India were made on palm leaves during the 5th century. The earliest known palm leaf manuscripts we have are from Gilgit and date to the 7th century. Prior to this time, birch bark seems to have been the support for texts, along with cloth or copper plates for inscriptions, but this is something that the author should double check.
· The recurring interchangeability between “robe” and “rope” should be addressed. If “rope” is intended, it is not a good word to refer to the raised pleat lines of the garment.
· Please be consistent and accurate with the use of em-dashes and en-dashes.
· Please change “round-carved” to “carved in the round”.
· Be careful not to say that the Buddha statues were transmitted to Qingzhou; it is the style in which they are carved that was transmitted from Southeast Asia.
· I have heard colleagues mention serious misgivings about the arguments concerning Chinese shipbuilding and consequent changes in routes from John Guy, I believe. The author should make further inquires.
Author Response
Point 1: How many survive belonging to each of the three styles? Was one of the styles, A, B, or C more prevalent? Are there chronological implications?
Response 1: Carved-in-the-round standing Buddha statues of Qingzhou can be found in both a local style and a foreign style, and the distinguishing difference between the two is that the latter type wears thin, tight-fitting robes. Based on the currently published materials, there are three main types of statues of the foreign style, which account for at least half of the total finds. These are as follows: type A—standing Buddha with diaphanous robes draped over both shoulders; type B—standing Buddha with densely pleated robes covering only the left shoulder; and type C—standing Buddha with diaphanous robes covering only the left shoulder (Fig. 1). Of these, the type A statue (Fig. 1-1) comprises the largest number and has the widest distribution. Up to now, none of the standing Buddha statues of the Qingzhou style have been found with inscriptions suitable for accurate dating. Nevertheless, typological studies reveal that type A statues belong to an earlier period than the other two and can be dated to as early as the middle of the 6th century (Meng 2021, pp. 106-109).
The response to these questions has been added in the article (see lines 58-70).
Point 2: How did Chinese artists adapt the styles to suit local tastes?
Response 2: The adaptation of the foreign styles of tight-fitting sculptures by Chinese artists is reflected in two aspects: first is the changes in facial and body features. The eyes become narrower, a rectangle facial outline appears, the head bigger and the legs more rigid. Second is the alteration of robes which can be further divided into two situations. One is the small modification of the three main types (A/B/C) of robes, such as using the corner of the robe to cover the original exposed right shoulder to slightly shield the skin of the right shoulder and right upper arm (See Fig. 1-3; Qingzhou Museum 2021, pp. 162-167); the other is to make the statues wear tight-fitting yet Chinese robes (Shandong Linqu Shanwang Paleontological Fossil Museum 2010, fig.42; Qingzhou Museum 2021, pp. 168-173）.
Point 3: What were the contexts in which they were established and found?
Response 3: Qingzhou-style Buddhist sculptures were found in narrow strips between Jiaobei Mountains 胶北丘陵and Luzhongnan Mountains鲁中南丘陵, which can be divided into the east and west region. The west region is represented by Huimin 惠民 and Wudi无棣, while the east is centered around Zhucheng 诸城, Linqu临朐, and Qingzhou青州. Among them, the biggest finding is the discovery of the hoard at the Longxing Temple site in Qingzhou in 1996 (Xia, 1998. pp.4-5). 616 statues were unearthed, of which 293 are carved in the round. The history of the Longxing Temple can be traced back to the Liu Song Dynasty. In the second year of Yuanjia 元嘉二年 (425)， a building named “Buddhist Hall” was established around this area. In the Northern Qi Dynasty, Lou Dingyuan 婁定遠a governor of Qingzhou commanded to build a temple which in 573 was given the name “Nanyang 南陽”. The name of this temple was changed several times during the Sui and Tang Dynasties. In the 18th year of Kaiyuan 開元十八年 (730) of the Tang Dynasty, it started to be called Longxing Temple, and in the early Ming Dynasty, it was abandoned. There is no historical record regarding the source, carving process, and burying reason of these statues. Only inscriptions mention that when Lou Dingyuan built the Nanyang Temple at the end of the Northern Qi Dynasty, he once built statues of Amitābha, Avalokiteśvara, and Mahāsthāmaprāpta, but now it is impossible to deduce the specific style of these three statues (Su 1999, p. 38).
Point 4: The arguments for how and from what sources the foreign styles came to Qingzhou are cogent enough, but still are speculative, and the language could be less definitive, especially in the conclusion.
Response 4: The language in the conclusion and in the speculative argument made in other parts of the article has been changed into expression less definitive as suggested.
Point 5: The dating of the standing Buddha statue found at the Vat Romlok site
Response 5: Some scholars believe the date of the standing Buddha statue found at the Vat Romlok site (Angkor Borei, Cambodia) to be the 7th century (Jessup and Zephir 1997, pp. 146-147), while others argue that it is 6th century (Kang 2013, p. 24). The characteristics of the Vat Romlok statue are the graceful hip-swayed stance (a gentle version of the Indian Tribhaṅga); the left knee slightly bent; the posture of the arms varied, as suggested by the different forward angles of the two forearms; and the lips are not very thick. The body of the Vat Romlok Buddha is unlike the Wiang Sa Buddha, which is dated between the late 5th century to the first half of the 6th century and is full of motion, and its facial features and posture also display significant differences to a seventh century standing Buddha that was also found in Cambodia. The Buddha of Tuol Preah Theat has a seventh-century inscription on its back (Jessup and Zephir 1997, pp. 149-150). It has locked knees and the rigid stance is quite obvious, and it has thicker lips. Such features originate from the Dvaravati Kingdom in nearby Thailand. The earliest Dvaravati Buddhas date to about the 6th century, but production began primarily in the 7th century (Brown 2014, p. 190). The 7th or perhaps the 8th century is a time when Dvaravati art had already undergone a massive stylistic influence (Griswold 1966, p.64). Based on the above argument, it can be inferred that the Vat Romlok standing Buddha dates from the second half of the 6th century.
The response to this question has been added in the article (see note 2)
Point 6: The author should give clear dates for Funan, and Chenla, and be clear when the dating of evidence is not certain.
Response 6: Fu-Nan is dated to the 1st to mid-7th century) (Yao 2016, p. 278, note. 32), and Chenla 6th century to early-15th century based on the following argument. Fu-Nan kingdom existed from the 1st to mid-7th century. In the second half of the sixth century, Fu-Nan was defeated by Chenla (6th century to early 15th century) (Chen 1992. pp. 690-715) and lost control of part of its territory. Nevertheless, the rule of Fu-Nan did not end, as Chinese historical records reveal that during the period of Wude 武德 (618-626) and Zhenguan 貞觀 (627-649), Fu-Nan still sent envoys and tribute to the Tang Dynasty (Du 1988, p. 5094, Ouyang 1975, p. 6301). Therefore, Fu-Nan lasted until the mid-7th century (Yao 2016, p. 278, note. 32). However, this defeat forced Fu-Nan to move its capital from Vyadhapura to Naravaranagara, which according to Coedes, is the present-day site of Angkor Borei (Coedes 2018, p. 118).
The response to this question has been added in the article (see note 1)
Point 7: It would also be interesting to hear the author’s opinion about why the Amaravati-Nagarjunakonda style would be so influential during the 6th century if it was current only in the 2nd to 3rd century—4th century at the latest. Also, please provide the date of composition of the Lo yang chia lan chi, the title of which should be given in italics in the manuscript.
Response 7: Why Amaravati-Nagarjunakonda style was still so influential during the 6th century is a question that puzzles me as well. To address the transmission route of certain Buddhist statue styles, I examine a wide range of material cultures and this phenomenon becomes clear as I point out in the article. Nevertheless, now I don’t have an answer to the reason behind it. I think it would require a large amount of work, looking into inscriptions and examining local cultural and geographical factors, which is beyond scope of this article but will be my next research topic.
Point 8: It is not certain that classic texts from India were made on palm leaves during the 5th century. The earliest known palm leaf manuscripts we have are from Gilgit and date to the 7th century. Prior to this time, birch bark seems to have been the support for texts, along with cloth or copper plates for inscriptions, but this is something that the author should double-check.
I have heard colleagues mention serious misgivings about the arguments concerning Chinese shipbuilding and consequent changes in routes from John Guy, I believe. The author should make further inquiries.
Response 8: The advice about the palm leaf manuscripts is very pertinent. Because it is only used as complementary evidence, in order to be more rigor I have deleted the relevant content in the article. Thank you for drawing my attention to this. Other quotes from John Guy are mainly pictures from the book he edited. If it is an argument, I have reviewed relevant studies and included other scholars in the footnote.
Point 9: typos, grammar issues, and the more accurate expression such as round-carved” to “carved in the round, not to say that the Buddha statues were transmitted to Qingzhou; it is the style in which they are carved that was transmitted from Southeast Asia.
Response 9: All of the mistakes pointed out by the reviewer have been corrected and the manuscript has been revised by a professional editing service.
Reference:
Brown, Robert L. 2014. Dvāravati Sculpture. In Lost kingdoms：Hindu-Buddhist sculpture of early Southeast Asia. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. pp. 189-191.
Coedes, George喬治·賽代斯. 2018. Dongnanya de Yinduhua Guojia東南亞的印度化國家. Beijing: The Shangwu Yinshuguan.
Chen, Xujing, 陳序經. 1992. Chen Xujing Dongnanya Gushi Yanjiu Heji · Shang volume陳序經東南亞古史研究合集·上卷. Taibei: The Shangwu Yinshuguan.
Griswold, A. B. 1966. Imported Images and the Nature of Copying in the Art of Siam. Artibus Asiae. Supplementum 23: 37-73.
Jessup, Helen Ibbitson and Zephir, Thierry ed. 1997. Sculpture of Angkor and Ancient Cambodia: Millennium of Glory. Washington D. C.: National Gallery of Art.
Kang, Heejung. 2013. The Spread of Sarnath-Style Buddha Images in Southeast Asia and Shandong, China, by the Sea Route. KEMANUSIAAN: The Asian Journal of Humanities 2: 39-60.
Qingzhou Museum青州市博物館. 2021. The Hoarded Buddhist Sculptures at Longxing Temple Site in Qingzhou (The Buddha sculptures carved in the round· Volume 1)青州龍興寺遺址窖藏佛教造像·圓雕佛像（卷一）. Beijing: Wenwu Chubanshe.
Meng, Shuangqiao孟霜橋. 2021. Beiqi Fojiao Fengge Yangshi Laiyuan Yanjiu--Yi Hebei, ShangdongJiaocang Cailiao wei Zhongxin (The study on Origin of Buddha statues styles of the Northern Qi—Centering around Findings Excavated from the Hoard Pits in Hebei and Shandong Province) 北齊佛像風格樣式來源研究——以河北、山東窖藏材料為中心. Doctor’sthesis, Sun Yat-sen University.
Shandong Linqu Shanwang Paleontological Fossil Museum山東臨朐山旺古生物化石博物館, ed. 2010. Linqu Fojiao Zaoxiang Yishu臨朐佛教造像藝術. Beijing: Kexue Chubanshe.
Su, Bai宿白. 1999. Longxingsi Yange — Qingzhoucheng yu Longxingsi Zhi Er龙兴寺沿革——青州城与龙兴寺之二. Wenwu文物9: 37-42.
Yao, Chongxin姚崇新. 2016. Shilun Fu-nan yu Nanchao de Fojiao Yishu Jiaoliu--Cong Dongnanya Chutu de Nanchao Fojiao Zaoxiang Tanqi試論扶南與南朝的佛教藝術交流——從東南亞出土的南朝佛教造像談起. Yishushi Yanjiu藝術史研究 18: 269—297.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The article requires some further, now minor, edits.
line 10: use en-dash for date span
line 45: move footnote reference number outside the period
line 269 “robe” not “robes”
lines 286 and 287: preference should be First and Second, not Firstly and Secondly
lines 296 and 312: should be “farther” not “futhrer”
line 313: add “have” in: …reported to have come…
line 324: “statues” not “status”
line 330: add “a” before “high ushnisha” and replace “that with “which”
line 331: gilt bronze, not gold bronze
line 369-70: The Routes of Buddhist Monks Traveling from India through Southeast Asia to China in Historical Records
“Northern Dynasties” is not a geographical region; it’s best to remain parallel.
Line 376-77: Replace Northern Dynasties with China
Line 378: remove “the” before Ko-ying
Line 541: Dynasty
Line 544: Buddhist art of the Southern Dynasties
Line 547: via regions governed by the Southern Liang Dynasty or something that is a geographical designation
Line 556: add “that” before “occurred”
Line 576: add “that” before “originated”
Line 594: and instead of an
Line 596: to the territories of the Southern Chen Dynasty (a dynasty is not a place)
Line 602: suggest: Wei Shou would not need to risk exile in order to obtain…
Line 605: add “on the creation of” before “Buddha statues”
Line 609 to 610: Suggest: This article mainly discusses the transmission routes of the foreign styles seen in Buddha statues of Qingzhou carved in the round during the 6th century.
The important thing to clarify is the transmission of styles, not the transmission of statues.
Line 610 to 612: Although the origin of the three foreign styles can be traced to the Indian subcontinent, the Qingzhou Buddha images seem to incorporate local modifications found in their Southeast Asian counterparts.
Lines 623 to 624: “…may be due to the ships’ from Southeast Asia no longer visiting…” or “…may be due to the fact that ships from Southeast Asia were no longer visiting…”
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
All of the minor issues pointed out by the reviewer have been corrected.
