|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7|
Removed Section regarding influence
Removed the part that said Greco-Buddhist art influenced China, Korea, and Japan. East Asian art is NOT influenced by Greco-Buddhist art in any way, and only lightly influenced Theravada Buddhist art. Must more influence comes from Daoism (Zen Buddhism forming from a combination of Daoism and Mahayana) Intranetusa 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
So Buddha's curly hair is reminiscent of Mediterranean hairstyle. I read somewhere that this is due to the Dravidian origin of prince Gautama. So what do you think? Meursault2004 13:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Mersault. How about Physical characteristics of the Buddha or Gautama Buddha? 126.96.36.199 13:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your reply. According to the article Gautama Buddha, he was probably an Aryan (i.e. Indo-European) as he was a kshatriya. Off course, so he was not of Dravidian origin (at least not purely). Meursault2004 15:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Could you add a map showing the gradual extension of these styles for those who don't know exactly were those empires are?
I'd love to include this article - it's exactly the kind of article we need (serious academic topic, much non-Western content, lots of content) but I'm rather concerned that it needs better referencing. There are a few inline refs, but I think such a long article needs more - the sources may be in the general refs, and just need pulling out by someone with those sources available. There is even one section tagged with a cleanup tag (needing refs.), and overall these things make it C-Class, not B. A little bit of work should make it a B, though, then it would be ready to be included in our offline releases, I think. Walkerma (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Impact on Indian Art
The article seems to suggest that deities in India were never depicted in human form before the influence of Greco-Buddhist art. I have two questions regarding that claim:
1. Is that what the article is actually saying? If not, I think some clarification may be needed.
2. If so, is the statement correct? In other words, were there really no Indian depictions of deities in human form previous to the arrival of Greeks and their art in Bactria and northwest India/Pakistan? I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, it just sounds odd to me. Maitreya (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
>Banerjee in "Hellenism in India"