|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The art of Miran: A Buddhist site in the Kingdom of Shanshan |
|
|
|
| Author |
Nakanishi, Yumiko (著)
|
|---|
| Volume | v.62 n.1 Section A |
|---|
| Date | 2000 |
|---|
| Publisher | University of California, Berkeley |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://berkeley.edu/
|
|---|
| Location | San Francisco, CA, US [舊金山, 加利福尼亞州, 美國] |
|---|
| Content type | 博碩士論文=Thesis and Dissertation |
|---|
| Language | 英文=English |
|---|
| Degree | doctor |
|---|
| Institution | University of California, Berkeley |
|---|
| Department | Fine Arts |
|---|
| Advisor | Azarpay, Guitty |
|---|
| Publication year | 2000 |
|---|
| Note | 562p |
|---|
| Keyword | China; Art; Miran; Buddhist; Shanshan |
|---|
| Abstract | The purpose of this dissertation is to re-evaluate the art of Miran (Xinjiang Autonomous Region, China) in a wider context, by examining the architecture, painting, sculpture and Buddhism. Ever since the discovery of the Buddhist paintings by Sir Aurel Stein, the art of Miran has been considered to show a strong influence of Graeco-Roman art.
The variety of architectural plans and building styles found at Miran, suggests a long-term occupation of the site. The architecture of Miran demonstrates a close relationship to that of Sasanian Iran, Swat and Kashmir. Architectural materials, such as bricks, demonstrate similarities to the neighboring sites of Miran, rather than Kushan Central Asia and Iran.
The stylistic and iconographic analysis of the Buddhist paintings of Miran show an eclectic nature, consisting of a variety of elements, not only of Graeco-Roman or Gandharan art, but also of Buddhist and non-Buddhist art of the Kushans and Iran. It also contained local elements. The sculpture, on the other hand, displays a more developed style than the painting.
Historically, the connection between Miran and the periphery of Gandhara can be explained by the dissemination of a Hinayana school of Buddhism, the Dharmaguptakas, into Shanshan after the reign of Kanishka.
The traditional chronology of the art of Miran is also challenged. Although Stein and others have dated the whole site, except for M I, to the third and the fourth centuries AD, the present study shows that it was continuously used until the middle of the fifth century. The painting of M III probably dates from the end of the second to the early third centuries AD, and that of M V, slightly later in style, dates to the latter half of the third century AD. The sculpture from M II and M XV may date from the middle of the fourth to the beginning of the fifth centuries AD. |
|---|
| ISBN | 9780493112329 |
|---|
| Hits | 1238 |
|---|
| Created date | 2005.09.23 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2022.03.25 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
