Notice that this Buddha has tightly curled hair. I don't know many Indians or eastern Asians (the groups to whom most Buddhists belong) who have that hair. While I don't think Buddha was African, I think that in this statue, and numerous others, he does have an "Australo-Melanesian" appearance. I am starting to wonder whether he was descended from a people who had preserved the OOA phenotype, like the Andamanese who live on some islands off the South Asian coast. Is this conjecture reasonable, or do curly-haired Indians and East Asians exist that I didn't know of?
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While we are discussing blacks in southern Asia, I have read reports of "Australoids" (Australo-Melanesians and those who resemble them) living in India. As a matter of fact, some in the past argued that the ancient Dravidian-speaking aborigines of India had this phenotype. Contemporary Indians must be the products of mixture between these native "Australoids" and the Indo-European Aryans who migrated into India. It is also known that pygmy "black" people, known as Negritos, live in southeast Asia and some islands (including the Philipines), and they may represent the first human population in that region.
I have started to believe that before the southward migrations of Indo-Europeans and the ancestors of modern East Asians, southern Asia was home to a race of dark-skinned people physically resembling Australo-Melanesians and Negritos. What was the extent of this hypothetical race's range. Perhaps they lived as far north as Southern China (I live in Hong Kong now)! This could be an interesting subject for further anthropologists to study.
posted
Why do the hair vary amongst these blacks of Asia. Some have wavy hair and others have curly hair. Do those Andamanese people and other black Asians still exist? Or is that something of the old.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I dispute the usage of Black as a word to describe them, he could have been dark skin in that area. Corly hair in statues does not mean the person had African like curls though. Better to go with historical description or the oldest statues you can find that have any complexion if anything. A metal statue is not going to give you a definitive answer.
Andamanese still exist. They were the only ones smart enough to have oral history that saved them from the Tsunami. The Buddha, Siddartha Gautama was definitely not Andamanese
Posts: 88 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many have debated if it is a helmet, his hair, etc. Here are some Ghandara statues to add to the dispute.
And some ancient paintings from 500CE
quote:Two common signs of Buddha’s enlightenment are the presence of a lump upon his head and long earlobes. Central Buddhist texts also define more than one hundred physical characteristics of Buddha; these include wide bluish eyes, golden skin, body hair that curls clockwise, 40 teeth (the average person has 32 teeth), and dark curly hair.
posted
Achillobator, this topic was discussed before-- several times I might add.
Al Takruri explained it and I believe such 'curly hair' was a common hairstyle at that time.
The historical Buddha, Siddhārtha Gautama, was a prince of the kingdom of Lumbini in modern day Nepal. As such it highly unlikely that the guy was black or even approaching the type of the Andamanese which is a rather rare type in mainland India. The Andaman Islands, even though a part of India are actually situated in Southeast Asia close to the Malay Peninsula.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Why do the hair vary amongst these blacks of Asia. Some have wavy hair and others have curly hair.
All people are descendant from Black Africans. It is likely that African hair has always varied and that this formed the basis of variation in non Africans.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: All people are descendant from Africans. It is likely that African hair has always varied and that this formed the basis of variation in non Africans.
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Why do the hair vary amongst these blacks of Asia. Some have wavy hair and others have curly hair.
All people are descendant from Black Africans. It is likely that African hair has always varied and that this formed the basis of variation in non Africans.
I disagree with this. If African hair has always "varied" why it don't vary today. Those Asiatic people hair is different from Africans because they are Asiatic and not African. I was asking how did some end up with very curly hair while others are just wavy even though they are from the same ethnicity and same geographical land.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree with this. If African hair has always "varied" why it don't vary today. Those Asiatic people hair is different from Africans because they are Asiatic and not African. I was asking how did some end up with very curly hair while others are just wavy even though they are from the same ethnicity and same geographical land.
posted
^Somalis with straight hair are Asiatic. That Indian girl with that big woofy hair is probably not Indian.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I disagree with this. If African hair has always "varied" why it don't vary today. Those Asiatic people hair is different from Africans because they are Asiatic and not African. I was asking how did some end up with very curly hair while others are just wavy even though they are from the same ethnicity and same geographical land.
Not true. There are indigenous black Africans with curly hair and even wavy hair. Also the Khoisan of South Africa whom YOU apparently see as the true indigenes have a hair form known as 'spiral tuft' which is even thicker than the 'kinky' hair generally associated with most Africans.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: I disagree with this. If African hair has always "varied" why it don't vary today. Those Asiatic people hair is different from Africans because they are Asiatic and not African. I was asking how did some end up with very curly hair while others are just wavy even though they are from the same ethnicity and same geographical land.
Not true. There are indigenous black Africans with curly hair and even wavy hair. Also the Khoisan of South Africa whom YOU apparently see as the true indigenes have a hair form known as 'spiral tuft' which is even thicker than the 'kinky' hair generally associated with most Africans.
Sorry but no one wouldn't know Khosians have "spiral tuft" hair by looking at it. All African hair is short and nappy and don't grow and that is a fact. If Africans have hair that is different that is because they are Asiatic in origins.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Sorry but no one wouldn't know Khosians have "spiral tuft" hair by looking at it.
Actually they can if they know what it looks like. If you don't, oh well.
quote:All African hair is short and nappy and don't grow and that is a fact. If Africans have hair that is different that is because they are Asiatic in origins.
^ Such is your ignorance when it comes to native African features. This whole hair issue has been discussed many times I suggest you ask Africans on this board, especially East Africans like Yonis.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Excuse me for my ignorance you will have to be patient with me. I don't know anything about "hair" being discussed on this forum. I just know that these Afrocentrics like to connect those Asiatic people to Africans and they are not African because the "hair" proves it. Asiatics have straight hair that grows and Africans have nappy hair that don't grow. Just because those people look like they could be related to Africans doesn't make them African in origin. They are still Asiatic people and their hair will always prove you people wrong. A lot of East African tribes are Asiatic in origin so that proves the straight hair.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Legonas, good luck arguing with the likes of her. She is even worse than YOU! She even denies that dinosaurs existed! LMAOPosts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: ^Somalis with straight hair are Asiatic. That Indian girl with that big woofy hair is probably not Indian.
No, they are African, and she is Adivasi. Indigenous Indian.
Okay here it goes, Majority of Somalis are truly African belonging to the Cushitic types of "Africa" however, there are certain tribes that are Asiatic and that is why some Somalis have straight hair. I never heard of a "Adivasi". The indigenous Indians have bone straight jet black hair that girl is just one exception.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ Not my fault that you are deluding yourself into those claims. But unless you have evidence to back those claims your opinion is worthless.
Posts: 88 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bettyboo: Okay here it goes, Majority of Somalis are truly African belonging to the Cushitic types of "Africa" however, there are certain tribes that are Asiatic and that is why some Somalis have straight hair.
Hi Betty, just ignore the mentally ill Legolas while the moderator figures out how to ban his new alias.
* There is no evidence that Somali are divided into tribes who do and do not have straight hair.
** There is no evidence that Africa ever had only 1 texture of hair.
*** It's worth noting that the earliest descendant of tropical Africans - including Australian Aborigine, Melanesian and South Asian have variable hair textures.
**** There is no evidence or theory of hair that can show that varient hair texture began only after African outmigration.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^***** Dinosaurs are NOT a myth. They really existed as evidence of their fossilized remains!
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by legeonas: ^^^^ Not my fault that you are deluding yourself into those claims. But unless you have evidence to back those claims your opinion is worthless.
And, in case you didn't know, the whole ISSUE here on ES is the fact that some will go to great lengths to prove that people with WHITE Eurasian features were ALWAYS dominant in developing culture and civilization, even when evidence exists to the contrary.
Bhudda is no exception.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bettyboo is not worth listening to after what she said about pure blacks in Africa not being able to grow hair. Just keep on believing the stereotypes.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're discussing Buddha here not Europeans. Please desist distracting from the thread's subject heading.
The point? That you have none other than disruptive irrelevant nattering which moderation refuse to put an end to thus reducing this forum to your sandbox for the time being [Dear forum members: please forgive my feeding the troll who should be left to starve shrivel and dissipate by ignoring his golly gee tit tat bullsh it].
The Hellenised Buddha statuary isn't representative of Indian's concept of the Buddha's actual facial type.
Nor is that of the non-Indian subcontinent Asians. Deity, or that which approaches deity, tends to anthropomorphically reflect its worshippers once reduced to idol/icon form.
And, in case you didn't know, the whole ISSUE here on ES is the fact that some will go to great lengths to prove that people with WHITE Eurasian features were ALWAYS dominant in developing culture and civilization, even when evidence exists to the contrary.
Bhudda is no exception.
No one ever said Buddha was 'white'. Eurasian, yes. But as we all know Eurasians come in a variety of features.
Buddha may not have been black, but he is very likely to be no different from the brown Indians seen in that part of the world today.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The Hellenised Buddha statuary isn't representative of Indian's concept of the Buddha's actual facial type.
Nor is that of the non-Indian subcontinent Asians. Deity, or that which approaches deity, tends to anthropomorphically reflect its worshippers once reduced to idol/icon form.
The problem is people fail to realize that the populations of India are diverse with those of a light skin Western/Central Asian look in the Northwest fringes to those with East Asian looks in the Northeast fringes, to various brown peoples in between, and of course black peoples who predominate everywhere else especially in the south.
Now it's possible that Buddha had the East Asian look since he is from Nepal, but since he came from the Shakya dynasty-- a clan of Kshatriyas that came from the Ganges, it is likely he was the common 'brown' type of Indian seen today in southern Nepal and around the Gangetic plain.
Posts: 26286 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: ... he is from Nepal, but since he came from the Shakya dynasty -- a clan of Kshatriyas that came from the Ganges, it is likely he was the common 'brown' type of Indian seen today in southern Nepal and around the Gangetic plain.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The top might be the earliest group of Buddha images from 200 BC. There, the bun isn't worn and his features are really African: full nose and mouth. Woolly hair:
-------------------- The nature of homelife is the fate of the nation. Posts: 2334 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
And, in case you didn't know, the whole ISSUE here on ES is the fact that some will go to great lengths to prove that people with WHITE Eurasian features were ALWAYS dominant in developing culture and civilization, even when evidence exists to the contrary.
Bhudda is no exception.
No one ever said Buddha was 'white'. Eurasian, yes. But as we all know Eurasians come in a variety of features.
Buddha may not have been black, but he is very likely to be no different from the brown Indians seen in that part of the world today.
I would just say he was Asian. The Euro part is debateable. The issue being that ancient portraits of Bhudda are as diverse as those outside of India. It only seems that in more recent times has statuary of Bhudda and other Indian dieties become to reflect a Aryan preference, with most dieties depicted as PURE WHITE and NOT in any shade of brown, like most Indians.
AND, contrary to popular belief, there was more than one buddha and Siddhartha Gautama is not considered the first. The one prior to him was called Dipamkara Bhuddha or the "original Buddha". Anyone who achieves enlightenment independantly, is said to have become a buddha. It is said also that the Dipamkara Bhudda is also often shown as a sitting Buddha with 2 Bodhisattvas.
My opinion is that this shows the antiquity of Buddhist type thought in the ages prior to the official birth of buddhism, within the ancient cultures of India and possibly Africa. This is also possibly why some of the buddhas, as in the Ajanta caves, are depicted with very dark skin, curly hair and white flowing robes, which looks like the attire of ancient Egypt. Not to say that the buddha was African, but we are talking about traditions of thought that lead to enlightenment. Such traditions can be found in ancient Egyptian cosmology and are too many to name.
One is the idea of the ba, the living soul and its transendent properties as it is able fly out from the body and interact with the universe and communes with the primordial radiant life force of the creator.
Another is the concept of the word or divine thought, where the innermost or most sacred parts of a persons mind are connected to the all pervasive mind of the universe, that which exists in infinity and represented by the cosmology of ptah.
Another is the writings referred to as the "ba of Re(ra)" or divine emanations of Ra. Ra being the original concept of the eternal radiant force of the creator's will that is often represented as the divine fire of life and the divine presence of the life force of the creator that pervades the universe. This is the cosmic flame or sacred fire that burns within all things and reflects the infinite radiant power of the god head.
The lotus as a symbol of the sun god, as the center of the lotus is yellow, like the sun and the plant closes at night and opens in the morning. Therefore, it is the plant of Ra, the divine fire or radiant force of god's will/spirit/essence in nature. This plant is said to have emerged from the cosmic ocean and gave birth to ra who is often shown emerging from its petals.
The concept of muliple reflections of the divine presence in nature and the spirit, where many are one or "god has many faces". This can best be seen in the complex array of children/concepts created by the chief dieties of the Egyptian pantheon, Amun, Ra and Ptah.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: We're discussing Buddha here not Europeans. Please desist distracting from the thread's subject heading.
The point? That you have none other than disruptive irrelevant nattering which moderation refuse to put an end to thus reducing this forum to your sandbox for the time being [Dear forum members: please forgive my feeding the troll who should be left to starve shrivel and dissipate by ignoring his golly gee tit tat bullsh it].
The Hellenised Buddha statuary isn't representative of Indian's concept of the Buddha's actual facial type.
Nor is that of the non-Indian subcontinent Asians. Deity, or that which approaches deity, tends to anthropomorphically reflect its worshippers once reduced to idol/icon form.
Only one was hellenized. It still indicated the wavy hair. All the rest of the artistry was not. Nice try.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: The top might be the earliest group of Buddha images from 200 BC. There, the bun isn't worn and his features are really African: full nose and mouth. Woolly hair
Those features are also found among Indian and Nepali peoples. Go look at the Bondo from Orissa Posts: 88 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: Bettyboo is not worth listening to after what she said about pure blacks in Africa not being able to grow hair. Just keep on believing the stereotypes.
I never said anything about "pure blacks" not able to grow hair. That is nothing but your own conscious.
Posts: 2088 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: We're discussing Buddha here not Europeans. Please desist distracting from the thread's subject heading.
The point? That you have none other than disruptive irrelevant nattering which moderation refuse to put an end to thus reducing this forum to your sandbox for the time being [Dear forum members: please forgive my feeding the troll who should be left to starve shrivel and dissipate by ignoring his golly gee tit tat bullsh it].
The Hellenised Buddha statuary isn't representative of Indian's concept of the Buddha's actual facial type.
Nor is that of the non-Indian subcontinent Asians. Deity, or that which approaches deity, tends to anthropomorphically reflect its worshippers once reduced to idol/icon form.
Only one was hellenized. It still indicated the wavy hair. All the rest of the artistry was not. Nice try.
quote:Originally posted by Marc Washington: The top might be the earliest group of Buddha images from 200 BC. There, the bun isn't worn and his features are really African: full nose and mouth. Woolly hair
Those features are also found among Indian and Nepali peoples. Go look at the Bondo from Orissa
Where is Orissa located?
Posts: 271 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
And, in case you didn't know, the whole ISSUE here on ES is the fact that some will go to great lengths to prove that people with WHITE Eurasian features were ALWAYS dominant in developing culture and civilization, even when evidence exists to the contrary.
Bhudda is no exception.
No one ever said Buddha was 'white'. Eurasian, yes. But as we all know Eurasians come in a variety of features.
Buddha may not have been black, but he is very likely to be no different from the brown Indians seen in that part of the world today.
Posts: 318 | From: PA. USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Such is your ignorance when it comes to native African features. This whole hair issue has been discussed many times I suggest you ask Africans on this board, especially East Africans like Yonis.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic