From India to China: The Origin and Transmission of the Han Dynasty’s Column–Arch–Buddha Motif from a Pan-Asian Perspective

Abstract

The artistic exchange during Buddhism’s early transmission represents a vital field within Silk Road art studies. When Buddhist art first entered China during the Eastern Han Dynasty (25–220), many artistic elements originating from Indian and Central Asian traditions manifested via a highly fragmentary mode of dissemination. As a result, prior scholarship on Buddhist art in the Han Dynasty has predominantly focused on case studies of individual motifs such as Buddha images, lotus patterns, lions, and elephants. These studies form an essential foundation for the present research. This paper observes that Buddha images from the Han period were not always disseminated as isolated icons but were frequently closely associated with octagonal columns and arches/lintels. Tracing their origins reveals a connection to the “column–arch–Buddha” narrative motif found in the architectural art of Indian and Central Asian Buddhism. This motif extended eastward through the Western Regions (Xiyu 西域, present-day Xinjiang 新疆) and ultimately reached the core territories of the Han Empire, undergoing various transformations—including deconstruction, reassembly, and translation—in the process. Understanding these combinatory modes and their underlying intent is crucial for comprehending the essential nature of the early interaction and fusion between Buddhist art and Han Chinese civilization.

1. Introduction

Research on images of Buddha has long been central to Buddhist art studies. Regarding archeologically discovered Han Dynasty Buddha images, scholars such as Richard Edwards, Yu Weichao, Wu Hung, Irizawa Takashi, and Wen Yucheng have conducted detailed cross-cultural comparative analyses. They unanimously recognize these images as evidence of early cultural exchange between China and the civilizations of India and Central Asia, explicitly identifying their religious nature as fused with indigenous Chinese immortal beliefs of Daoism.1 Other scholars, including Marylin Rhie, He Zhiguo, Hu Wenjun, Zhang Haiping, and Liu Yi, have undertaken typological and chronological studies of Han-Jin period Buddha images, outlining the evolutionary trends and dissemination patterns of Han-era iconography (Rhie 1999; He 2017; Hu and Zhang 2019, pp. 122–39; Liu 2025, pp. 75–93). The 2021 discovery of two bronze Buddha images in a looted Han tomb at Chengren Village, Xianyang, reignited scholarly attention, though the dating of these statues remains controversial due to tomb disturbance.2

Equally significant are Indian Buddhist cultural elements within Han tomb architecture. Scholars investigating the transition from vertical pit tombs to horizontal chamber tombs have simultaneously highlighted a major shift from wooden to stone construction in Han funerary architecture. They argue this transformation may reflect influences from Indian, West Asian, and Central Asian artistic traditions (Thorp 1979; Wu 1995; Rawson 1999, 2010, 2012). Recently, Li Chen and Chen Xuan further examined Western impacts on Han stone tomb origins, noting features such as cliff-tomb structures, lion statues in tomb courtyards, stepped ceilings, lotus caissons, and fluted columns. These elements, traced to Iranian, Hellenistic Central Asian, and Indian stone-construction traditions, reveal profound integration of foreign cultures with Han tomb architecture (Chen Li 2017, pp. 700–17; X. Chen 2019, pp. 93–101; 2021, pp. 200–23). Additional scholars have observed unique architectural components such as arched structures and octagonal columns in Han tombs, attributing their origins to Mediterranean and Indian sources, though systematic empirical research remains insufficient (Chang 1991, p. 293; A. Yang 2017, p. 25; Quan and Li 2019, pp. 69–78).

Existing scholarship on Han Dynasty Buddha images and stone tomb architecture has significantly advanced our understanding of Buddhist cultural elements during this period, forming a crucial foundation for this study. However, the initial transmission of Buddhism from India and Central Asia to China occurred under unique historical circumstances. Combined with regional variations in local religious beliefs across China, the processes and methods of Buddhist artistic dissemination were marked by considerable fluidity. Consequently, the mature and systematic Buddhist artistic traditions of India and Central Asia frequently underwent what might be termed “adaptive divergence” upon entering China, manifesting as fragmentation, deconstruction, or recombination.

For instance, motifs such as Buddha images, lotus patterns, and elephants often appear as isolated elements in Han Dynasty tomb murals or on “money trees,” lacking the narrative context of Indian Jātaka tales or episodes from the Buddha’s life. This distinctive pattern of early transmission has naturally directed scholarly attention toward analyzing individual motifs. Focusing specifically on Buddha images, our re-examination of excavated Han Dynasty Buddhist artifacts and their archeological contexts reveals that these images were disseminated not merely as independent icons; crucially, they were often integrated with octagonal columns and arched lintels, collectively forming a coherent pictorial narrative—the “column–arch–Buddha” architectural motif.

This motif originated in the Buddhist architectural art of India and Central Asia, spreading eastward through the Western Regions and reaching the heartland of the Han Empire, where it underwent processes of deconstruction, reassembly, and local reinterpretation along its transmission route. Overlooking this significant thread would impede a holistic understanding of the contexts, routes, and modes of Buddhist artistic transmission during the Han Dynasty. Therefore, clarifying this combinatory mechanism and its underlying intent is essential in order to fully comprehend the nature of the early interaction between Buddhist art and Han civilization.

2. Buddhist Elements in Octagonal Columns in the Han Dynasty and Their Indian Origins

The establishment of the “Silk Road” by the Han Dynasty facilitated official trade with the Western world, enabling Buddhism’s introduction to China. Buddhist art, employed for religious propagation, arrived concurrently. However, in this nascent phase, Buddhist artistic elements—such as Buddha images, lotus-patterned caissons, octagonal columns, elephants, and lion motifs—often appeared dispersed or in isolation across Han tombs and sites in different regions. This contextual complexity complicated interpretations of their religious and cultural significance.

Among these elements, the connection between Han-era Buddha images and octagonal columns is relatively explicit. Recent scholarship discussing Sino-Indian Buddhist artistic exchange during the Han Dynasty has begun addressing octagonal columns. However, analyses remain confined to isolated cases, primarily the Tomb of the King of Nanyue in Guangzhou and the Yinan Han Tomb in Shandong, with no systematic study having yet being undertaken (A. Yang 2017, p. 25; Quan and Li 2019, pp. 69–78). This section thus initiates a systematic examination of octagonal columns, tracing their origins to Indian prototypes and analyzing their transmission phases and semantic transformations.

Tracing the historiography of Chinese octagonal columns, Victor Segalen first noted their presence in 1914 during his survey of Sichuan cliff tombs. His focus, however, remained on the tombs’ Western origins (Egypt, West Asia, Persia), proposing they “originated from the extreme West, not China (Segalen 1930).”3 Segalen did not scrutinize the columns themselves. Later, in 1929, Osvald Sirén documented an octagonal column at the Xiaotangshan Stone Shrine in Shandong (Figure 1), noting that “Two simple capitals from the neighboring Wu Family Shrines are square with four sloping sides, closely resembling the plainest Roman-style capitals (Sirén 1930).” As more Han-era octagonal stone columns emerged, potential cross-cultural material exchanges embedded within them gradually came to light.

Octagonal columns from the Han Dynasty are primarily found in two distinct architectural contexts: palatial sites and tombs. The earliest known examples, exclusively from palatial contexts, were unearthed at the King of Nanyue’s Palace complex in Guangzhou in the Western Han. A total of nineteen columns were recovered, comprising five large structural columns, each standing 165 cm high (Figure 2a), and fourteen smaller balustrade columns, with a maximum preserved height of 61 cm (Figure 2b). All these columns are plain and devoid of decoration, though a few bear the incised Chinese character “two”二 (Quan and Li 2019, pp. 70–71).

In funerary architecture, octagonal columns have been discovered both above and below ground, with notable concentrations in the regions of Southern Shandong–Northern Jiangsu, Hubei, and Sichuan. The only surviving above-ground examples are the three columns at the Xiaotangshan Stone Shrine in Changqing, Shandong. Subsurface specimens are more numerous and widely distributed. In Shandong Province, these include six plain columns in the front chamber of the Dashenliuzhuang Tomb in Ju 莒 County (Figure 3a); one column each in the front and central chambers of the Yinan Beizhai Tomb, the latter carved with auspicious motifs and Buddha images (Figure 3b); plain columns curated by the Wu Family Shrines Stone Carving Museum in Jiaxiang; and two fragmented columns—one plain, one ornamented—held in the Linyi City Museum (Figure 3c,d).

Further significant examples are found in Jiangsu Province, such as three columns in the central chamber of the Baiji Tomb in Xuzhou (Nanjing Bowuyuan 1981, pp. 137–50), with additional columns featuring auspicious motifs housed at the Xuzhou Han Stone Relief Museum (Figure 4). A particularly notable specimen from Lianyungang is an octagonal column in the front chamber of Changli Reservoir Tomb M1, carved with Buddha images and fish patterns (Figure 5). In Hubei Province, a pair of octagonal columns was situated beneath the courtyard wall of a pottery pagoda model from the Caiyue Tomb in Xiangyang (Figure 6). Additionally, cliff tombs in Pengshan, Sichuan Province, yielded octagonal columns in Tombs M530 and M500, alongside engaged columns at the rear door of the chamber in Tomb M40 (Tang 1993, p. 51).

Based on the research of Quan Hong and Li Zaoxin, octagonal columns were initially introduced to China through maritime trade with India as early as the second century BCE. It appeared in the southern coastal region around Guangzhou before gradually spreading inland to the southwest and north (Quan and Li 2019, pp. 69–78). However, the pattern of their use during the Eastern Han Dynasty reveal greater complexity. When Buddha images appeared in conjunction with octagonal columns, as seen in the Yinan Han Tomb (Figure 7), Yang Aiguo suggests this likely reflects a more direct transmission from India alongside Buddhism itself, rather than a secondary diffusion from the southern coast (A. Yang 2017, p. 35).

Indeed, archeological evidence confirms Buddhist associations with octagonal columns beyond the Yinan example, extending to sites such as the Changli Reservoir Tomb M1 in Lianyungang, Jiangsu, and the pottery Buddhist stupa-tower from the Caiyue Tomb in Xiangyang, Hubei. A closer examination of these specific cases reveals distinctive Buddhist depictions.

At the Yinan Tomb in Shandong, the octagonal column in the central chamber features shallow intaglio carvings showing Queen Mother of the West (Xiwangmu) and King Father of the East (Dongwanggong) in celestial realms surrounded by auspicious beasts. Among these, two figures with halos and hands clasped in añjali mudra have been identified as early Han Buddha images (Zeng et al. 1956, p. 66). The Changli Reservoir Tomb in Jiangsu presents an octagonal column adorned with various auspicious motifs, including a standing figure holding robe folds with its left hand while raising its right hand in abhaya mudra (the fear-not gesture), as shown in Figure 5. From the Caiyue Tomb in Hubei comes a significant 104 cm pottery pagoda that skillfully blends indigenous multi-story architecture with distinct Indian Buddhist elements (Figure 6). This structure features a disk-shaped chattravali (umbrella spire) topped by seven diminishing harmika rings and a crescent moon finial at its apex, representing China’s earliest known “multi-story stupa-tower.” Notably, a pair of octagonal columns flanks the courtyard entrance of this architectural model. Given these spatially and temporally varied contexts, the hypothesis that all Han octagonal columns arrived exclusively through maritime routes before diffusing northward demands careful qualification.

Furthermore, the foreign origins of octagonal columns in Han architecture were clearly evident. Such columns were alien to indigenous Chinese architectural traditions, which predominantly employed wooden circular columns in pre-Han times. While isolated pre-Han examples exist, such as a 17 cm high Warring States bronze house model from Lion Hill (Shizishan) Shaoxing, featuring a seven-centimeter ornamental octagonal column crowned by a large-tailed dove and engraved with S-shaped cloud patterns (possibly serving a totemic function, Figure 8) (Zhejiangsheng wenwu guanli weiyuanhui 1984; Mu 1984, pp. 30–35), no credible archeological evidence connects these early manifestations to the stone octagonal columns of the Han period. The emergence of octagonal columns in China appears directly linked to the proliferation of stone construction during the Han era (A. Yang 2017, p. 28), with the Shaoxing bronze column showing no documented developmental connection to the Han stone examples.

In the Western Regions, octagonal columns constituted a distinctive feature of ancient Indian stone architecture, preceding their appearance in China.4 These columns frequently appear in Buddhist chaitya caves and stupa complexes. The earliest known example, dating to the Ashokan period (303–232 BCE), comprises 27 octagonal wooden columns surrounding a circular shrine at the timber stupa site on Bijak-ki-pahari Hill in Bairat, near present-day Jaipur, Rajasthan (Chongfeng Li 2014; Quan and Li 2019, p. 73). Among the more renowned instances are the balustrade columns at the Great Stupa of Sanchi (Figure 9a) and the interior columns of Cave 12 in the Bhaja Caves (3rd–2nd century BCE). Significant examples also include the hall columns in Caves 9 and 10 at Ajanta (Figure 9b), the façade columns of Karla Cave 8 (Figure 9c), as well as the twelve columns in the Durga Lena Caves (early 1st century BCE) and those within the chaitya hall of Bedsa Cave 7 (1st century BCE) (Wang 2017, pp. 71, 73, 75; Quan and Li 2019, pp. 72–73).

Though smaller than Indian prototypes, Han octagonal columns share striking similarities in craftsmanship, material, and form—notably the tapered design (narrowing toward the top) seen in columns from Xiaotangshan, Yinan, Ju County, Linyi, and Lianyungang (Figure 1, Figure 3 and Figure 5). This parallel is epitomized at Sanchi, where Ashokan pillars are explicitly carved as tapered octagonal columns crowned by lions and dharma wheels (Figure 10a). Simpler examples include two 4.6 m tapered octagonal columns supporting the screen wall at Karla Cave 8 (Figure 10b) and columns in the Bhājā Caves (Figure 11). Critically, both Han and Indian octagonal columns were integrated with Buddha images and stupa architecture, underscoring their shared Buddhist cultural origins.

3. The Han Dynasty “Column–Arch” and the Indian “Column–Arch–Buddha” Architectural Motif

If the combination of octagonal columns with Buddha images and stupas in Han architecture visibly demonstrates the explicit influence of Indian Buddhist culture, then the introduction of arched components reveals a more subtle permeation of Indian Buddhist architecture into Han funerary art. This dual influence highlights the multidimensional and complex nature of early cultural exchange between the two civilizations.

In Han tomb architecture, the “column–arch” structure served to connect both adjacent chambers laterally and the chambers with the ceiling above. As Li Chen’s systematic research indicates, Han stone-carved tomb ceilings exhibited at least six distinct forms, encompassing flat roofs, truncated pyramid roofs, domed vaults, barrel vaults, caisson roofs, and stepped roofs. Among these, the first two types involved relatively simple techniques closely related to indigenous wooden joinery structures, suggesting possible local invention. The latter four types, however, required a series of complex new construction technologies and were unlikely to have been independently developed locally, instead representing new forms influenced by external factors (Chen Li 2017, pp. 12–14). Li Chen’s perspective proves highly illuminating, particularly his detailed analysis of caissons and stepped ceilings, though his study leaves the arched forms relatively unexplored. The following section will therefore focus on analyzing the genealogical connection between the “column–arch” structure in Han stone tomb architecture and its counterparts in Indian Buddhist architecture.

During the Eastern Han, the Shandong-Jiangsu region witnessed an abrupt innovation: the use of stone columns integrated with monolithic stone arched beams curved into a semicircular profile. Based on the author’s investigation, five documented cases are known, featuring four distinct column types: square, octagonal, hexadecagonal, and round:

(1)

Dashenliuzhuang Tomb, Ju County (Shandong): Two sets of tapered octagonal columns supporting twin arches in the front chamber (plain surfaces) (Figure 3a).

(2)

Wubaizhuang Tomb (Shandong): Hexadecagonal columns paired with twin arches (eastern and western pairs) in the front chamber, both carved with high-relief motifs (Figure 12).

(3)

Wubaizhuang Tomb (Shandong): Square columns supporting a single arch in the central chamber. Columns depict high-relief tigers and bears; the arch interior features carved lion heads (Figure 13a).

(4)

Xuzhou Han Stone Relief Museum (Jiangsu): Twin-arch structure adorned with auspicious beast imagery (Figure 13b).

(5)

Zhangguanzhuang Tomb, Linyi (Shandong): Twin-arch in the front chamber decorated with auspicious beasts (Figure 14).

The earliest arched structures emerged in masonry buildings in two distinct forms: horizontal-load-bearing corbelling (also termed “false arches”) without lateral thrust, and the more complex real arch with circular profiles, with the latter generally evolving from the former. The earliest known structures employing arched design principles are concentrated in West Asia, the Mediterranean basin, and India, as seen in the following:

(1)

Parabolic vaulted structures depicted on Assyrian reliefs at Nineveh (Figure 15a);

(2)

Corbelled roofs at India’s Harappa site (c. 2000–1500 BCE);

(3)

Corbelled Lion Gate lintel at Mycenae citadel (Figure 15b);

(4)

Corbelled dome of the Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae (Figure 15c).

Real arches with semi-circular profiles remained rare until they were perfected by Roman imperial architecture, exemplified by the tiered arcades of the Colosseum, triumphal arches, and the monumental arches of the Pont du Gard aqueduct near Nîmes, France. These structures universally derived from Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders (Figure 16).

Since the second half of the Western Han period, brick-vaulted arches and domed constructions have proliferated in tombs across the Henan region. Mainstream academic consensus holds that these innovations drew inspiration from external architectural traditions (Chang 1991, p. 293; 1992, pp. 117–24). While brick-vaulted structures bear formal similarities to monolithic stone arched beams in Shandong, their construction techniques differ fundamentally. Regarding stone arch structures specifically, any combination with columnar forms, regardless of type, invariably reveals direct or indirect foreign influence. Based on the author’s observation, the combination of octagonal columns with arched beams/gates correlates closely with traditional elements in Buddhist architectural design from India and Central Asia.

The combination of octagonal columns and arches appears to be an Indian innovation. As early as the Sunga Empire (c.187–175 BCE), Buddhist cave temples at Bhaja featured octagonal columns supporting monumental arches (Figure 11). Unlike brick or stone masonry, these arches were carved directly into the bedrock, extending deep into the mountain with interior semicircular domes. Alexander Soper considers this dome with circular features to be a product of the influence of dome architecture from the Hellenistic era, which symbolized heaven (Soper 1947, pp. 225–48). However, in the Indian caves, the arch is the only way for practitioners to enter the inner part of the caves for Buddhist worship and practice. The outer top of the arches is carved with striking features that resemble the tips of the leaves of a Bodhi tree, and the inner side of the arches is carved with octagonal columns on both sides of the wall. At the end of the tunnel, there is a support or stupa dedicated to the Buddhist relics for the monks. Here, the integrated “column–arch–stupa” structural motif is clearly manifested. Wu Hung once noted structural parallels between the inner courtyard of the Bhaja Grottoes and the rear chamber design of the Liu Sheng Tomb, the Prince Jing of Zhongshan 中山靖王 (r.154–113 BCE) in the Western Han Dynasty. He proposed that the arched passageways and coffin-surrounding tunnel layout in the Indian caves might have influenced the Chinese tomb (Wu 1995, p. 133). While this comparative insight offers a valuable cross-cultural perspective, subsequent scholarship has highlighted complexities in tracing direct influence, suggesting alternative interpretations for the formal resemblances (Chen Li 2017, pp. 700–17).

Grottos featuring the octagonal column–arch–stupa triad also include Ajanta Cave 9–10 (2nd century BCE–1st century CE; Figure 9b) and Karlī Cave 8 (c. 60 BCE–180 CE; Figure 9c). This constituted a dominant architectural model during Buddhism’s aniconic phase. These caves further feature relief carvings and architectural furnishings derived from stupa facades. As Hellenistic art fused with early Indian Buddhist traditions, the use of Greek Corinthian columns supporting arches emerged, becoming ubiquitous in stupa complexes and relic caskets. At Taxila in Gandhara, the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius (ca. 200–180 BCE) founded the Greek city Sirkap, which was later rebuilt under the Kushan Empire during the first century CE. John Marshall’s excavations revealed a Greek-style temple with double-headed eagles in this city, centered around a stupa (Figure 17). The stupa’s surviving base displays Indo-Greek reliefs flanked by three niches on each side of the central staircase, each niche featuring corbel-arched profiles and partitioned by Corinthian columns. Adjacent to the stairs stand hybrid niches: one combining a Greek temple motif (pronaos + pediment), another with a Mathurā-style ogee arch, and a third bearing double-headed eagle (Falser 2015). Stupa remains at Afghanistan’s Mes Aynak site, datable to Kaniṣka’s reign (c.127 CE), show tiered pedestal walls with apparent freestanding arches/niches.5 Columns rendered in shallow relief flank these niches, which are purely decorative, rather than structural, mirroring the decorative pilasters of the 1st-century Roman Colosseum and provincial Roman monuments in Gaul, akin to those framing arches on North African and Syrian triumphal monuments.

Around the turn of the Common Era, the establishment of the Kushan Empire and its rulers’ patronage of Buddhism catalyzed the rise in Buddha image worship and production in Northwest India and Central Asia. Between arches and columns, Buddha statues or ascetic figures began to appear alongside traditional stupas (Figure 18). Over time, Buddha image worship even surpassed the original veneration of stupas. The advent of Buddha images solidified the “column–arch–Buddha” narrative motif in Kushan Buddhist art, gradually evolving into a classic religious artistic schema. Its columnar forms expanded beyond traditional octagonal designs to incorporate Hellenistic styles, such as Corinthian columns. This motif profoundly influenced Han Dynasty tomb stone-carving architecture and later Chinese Buddhist cave art.

This motif was also found in the Tarim Basin region of Xinjiang. During 1900–1901, Sven Hedin discovered a wooden decorative panel at a Buddhist site near Ruoqiang County (ancient Loulan 樓蘭), west of Lop Nur, which featured Corinthian columns integrated with an arch framing a Buddha image (Figure 19). This can be regarded as a standard, classical exemplar of the “column–arch–Buddha” artistic model. Later, Aurel Stein unearthed a highly congruent architectural example at the same site: the surviving base of a stupa at the Miran Site No. 2 Temple retains Hellenistic Ionic columns and Buddha images (Figure 20), preserving nearly the original appearance of Gandharan Buddhist art. Regrettably, the arches that once connected the upper parts of the columns had long since collapsed and disappeared.

The Loulan site witnessed prolonged occupation. Previous studies, based on Chinese wooden slips and paper documents discovered at the site, dated its primary activity to between the 4th year of the Jiaping 嘉平 era of Cao Wei (252 CE) and the 18th year of the Jianxing 建興 era of Former Liang (330 CE). However, recent excavations and research conducted by Hou Can’s team suggest that the site was originally established during the Han Dynasty, initially serving as the capital of the Loulan kingdom. Following the relocation of the capital to Shanshan, the site was repurposed as a major garrison town and later became the administrative seat of the Western Regions Chief Official (Xiyuzhangshi 西域長史) during the Wei-Jin period (220–420 AD) (Hou 2001, pp. 66–72). This research opens new possibilities for the site’s chronology.

Within the historical context of Buddhism and Buddhist art entering the heartland of the Central Plains via the Western Regions (Xinjiang) and the Hexi Corridor during the Han Dynasty, it is reasonable to postulate that such architectural and iconographic forms likely existed in the local area during this period. These elements may have been introduced to the Central Plains by envoys, Buddhists, and merchants, potentially providing new sources of inspiration for the emerging transformation of stone tomb architecture in the Han Dynasty. Nevertheless, more definitive chronological conclusions must await the publication of new materials and further investigation.

4. Fragmented Transmission and Reinterpretation of the “Column–Arch–Buddha” Motif in Han China

As established, octagonal columns, arches/lintels, and Buddha/stupa image were intrinsically linked in India and Central Asia, serving as systematic visual vehicles for Buddhist doctrine, typically integrated as decorative elements in stupa complexes. The wooden carvings and architectural remnants from Loulan confirm this motif spread smoothly through the Western Regions west of the Hexi Corridor. However, its transmission into the mature Han civilization faced significant barriers.

Architectural forms, being immobile, hindered direct transfer. During the initial introduction of Buddhism to Han China, craftsmen possessed a limited understanding of Western Regions Buddhist art. Consequently, when these foreign elements were transplanted into Han tomb architecture, they were often arbitrarily fragmented, disassembled, or distorted to suit local needs, divorced from their original contexts and functions, as is shown in Figure 5 and Figure 7. In Figure 7, Yinan Tomb features an octagonal column carved with an early Buddha image displaying a halo. In Changli Reservoir Tomb, the octagonal column bears a Buddha image with its right hand forming the abhaya mudra (fear-not gesture) (Figure 5).

Yet both columns support Han-style horizontal beams, not arches. Moreover, these rare standing Buddha images contrast sharply with the typical cross-legged seated Buddhas of Han China (Figure 21). Similar cases appear at the nearby Kongwangshan Cliff Carvings: standing Buddhas (designated X2, X50, X81) (Zhongguo Guojia Bowuguan Tianye Kaogu Yanjiu Zhongxin et al. 2010, pp. 45, 71) wear Central Asian attire, uniformly forming the abhaya mudra (Figure 22). These derive from specific foreign prototypes, sharing strikingly similar iconography with classic standing Buddhas on Kushan coins (Figure 23).

In Dashen Liuzhuang Tomb, Juxian, and Wu Baizhuang Tomb, Linyi, integrated column–arch structures appear without a Buddha image (Figure 24 and Figure 25). This reflects the Han attitude toward Buddhist art: “not driven by pious faith, but by curiosity about its forms or esthetic appeal.” Consequently, “Buddhist architectural elements adopted into Han art either became meaningless ornamentation motifs or were repurposed with new meanings” (Miao 2007).6 The column–arch complex at Dashen Liuzhuang exemplifies “meaningless ornamentation,” featuring plain stone surfaces devoid of narrative imagery, merely mimicking foreign forms. Conversely, examples at Wu Baizhuang and Xuzhou (Figure 12b) were “repurposed with new meanings.”

Wu Baizhuang’s twin-arch structure bears celestial scenes of the Queen Mother of the West (Xiwangmu 西王母) and King Father of the East (Dongwanggong 東王公) on its eastern/western facets (Figure 25) (Linyi Shi bowuguan 2018, pp. 176–83). Its western lintel arch interior displays lion heads (Figure 12a), repurposing this Western motif for tomb-guarding apotropaic functions. The Xuzhou arch displays auspicious creatures such as crouching tigers, winged dragons, and feathered tigers (Figure 12b). Here, the arch’s symbolism transforms entirely, possibly evolving into a celestial gateway (Tianmen 天門, a Daoist eschatological portal), representing passage to transcendental realms.

Notably, Wu Baizhuang Tomb features an exceptionally rare concentration of fourteen artistic motifs prominently showcasing activities of Hu people (Huren 胡人) (Western non-Han peoples).7 These include the following:

Two high-relief carvings of Hu figures, scenes of elephant-taming, camel-riding, stag-charioting, goat-riding, and drumming (Zhu 2017, p. 70). Particularly significant are two depictions of non-Han individuals (distinctive high noses, pointed hats, tunics, and boots) dancing with Han Chinese (Figure 26). A similar set of images also appeared in the stone carving images unearthed in the neighboring Qufu Jiuxian 舊縣 (Shandongsheng Bowuguan and Shandong Sheng wenwu kaogu yanjiusuo 1982, plate 72). The motif of depicting scenes from daily life indicates that the interaction and communication between Hu people and Han artists may have been a norm in the area, where both sides taught and learned from each other. Ruan Rongchun proposed that the two high-relief sculptures of Hu figures in the tomb were related to the “Hu monks” of the Yangtze River basin in southern China (Figure 27) (Ruan 1997, p. 87). However, he did not provide more explicit evidence connecting them to Buddhist practitioners at that time. Now, by examining the “column–arch” structure in the tomb’s architecture, while we cannot immediately confirm whether Buddhists participated in the tomb’s construction, it can be definitively stated that the distinctive “column–arch” elements from Indian architecture influenced this tomb’s design and production, whether directly or indirectly.

5. Conclusions

As discussed above, it becomes evident that the “column–arch–Buddha” architectural motif, originating from Indian and Central Asian Buddhist art, evolved from the pre-figural “octagonal column–arch–stūpa” combination. With the rise in Buddha image worship, it gradually developed into a dominant paradigm. During this evolution, columnar forms diversified from the early singular octagonal type to incorporate varied Hellenistic styles. The transmission of this motif into Han China exhibited distinct phases and regional variations.

First, octagonal columns were introduced via maritime routes during the mid-Western Han period, reaching the Nanyue Kingdom (present-day Guangzhou region). During the Eastern Han period, the transmission pathway shifted to overland routes, entering the Central Plains through the northwestern corridors of Buddhist dissemination. Second, their forms underwent significant simplification—for instance, Hellenistic decorative capitals or Indo-Persian style lion finials were omitted—while their scales tended to become smaller (most Han octagonal columns measure under two meters in height). Notably, the octagonal columns in the pottery pagoda from the Caiyue Tomb in Xiangyang clearly demonstrate the distinctive cultural significance of Buddhist architecture. In contrast, octagonal columns from other Han sites, although occasionally carved with Buddha images (as seen in examples from Yinan and Lianyungang), remained superficial imitations of Central Asian prototypes, depicting standing postures with the right hand forming the abhaya mudra. Their meaning drifted beyond Buddhist doctrine, instead being assimilated into the indigenous system as “immortal-Buddhas” (Xianfo 仙佛), integrated into traditional Chinese narratives of auspicious omens and celestial beings (Irisawa 1992, p. 65; Wen 2000, p. 43; Hu and Zhang 2019, pp. 131–34).8

Furthermore, the function of arched gateways in Han tombs underwent a radical transformation: they no longer symbolized barrel-vaulted prayer halls or arched monastic cells used for Buddhist practice, nor did they retain their original religious spatial significance. Instead, they evolved to serve two primary purposes: first, to enhance the tomb’s visual hierarchy by expanding the overhead space and incorporating exotic decoration; second, through depictions of paradisiacal imagery such as the Queen Mother of the West, they were transformed into the “Celestial Gate” (Tianmen 天門), a symbolic portal to the immortal realm.

Based on a comparative study of the “column–arch–Buddha” architectural schema between Han China and India, we can summarize their key relationships and distinctions in (

Table 1. Comparative analysis of the “column–arch–Buddha” architectural schema in Indian prototypes and Han mortuary adaptations.

Structural Elements	Indian Prototypes (an Integrated Whole)	Han Mortuary Adaptation (a Modular Assemblage)
Octagonal columns	Lion capital	Either plain surfaces or auspicious motifs
Arched beams	Symbolism of ritual niches	Celestial Gate metaphor
Buddha statues	Ritual worship	Syncretic figures

) below.

These distinctive Western exotic elements, while seemingly scattered, were in fact concentrated in the Xuzhou Inspectorate (Xuzhou Cishibu 徐州刺史部)—the Eastern Buddhist center of that era. Historically, this was precisely where Liu Ying, the Prince of Chu 楚 in the early Eastern Han Dynasty (in the 8th year of the Yongping era, 65), first embraced Buddhism and patronized foreign Śramaṇa, endowing the region with exceptionally favorable conditions for Buddhist development (Fan 2007, p. 418).

However, the initially fragmented transmission of early Buddhist art underwent significant transformation during the subsequent Northern and Southern Dynasty periods. As Chinese monks journeyed westward in search of Dharma and foreign clerics came east to preach, Buddhism experienced unprecedented growth in China. Alongside this expansion, the “column–arch–Buddha” architectural motif appeared with increasing frequency and clarity in Chinese Buddhist cave temples and monastic architecture. The Hellenistic Ionic and Persian-inspired column–arch–Buddha imagery found in the Dunhuang and Yungang grottoes serve as exemplary evidence of this development (Figure 28).

Furthermore, the octagonal column form gained substantial imperial patronage during the Sui (581–618) and Tang Dynasties (618–907) and saw widespread application in numerous Buddhist temples (and even Nestorian Christian sites). Examples include the extant Tang Dynasty octagonal sutra pillar (jingchuang 經幢) from a Nestorian site in Luoyang and two octagonal sutra pillars within Lingyin Temple in Hangzhou. These were typically erected as large, free-standing stone sutra pillars at temple entrances or in front of main halls, with scriptures carved onto their surfaces to facilitate recitation and Dharma propagation by devotees, thereby becoming vital instruments for the transmission of Buddhist culture.

In conclusion, the selective adaptation and creative reinterpretation of the “octagonal column–arch–Buddha” motif during the Han Dynasty reveal the complex and non-monolithic nature of early civilizational exchange along the Silk Road. By identifying and tracing this architectural motif, our study offers a fresh perspective for understanding the initial dialog between Buddhist art and Han mortuary traditions. Simultaneously, it encourages a more nuanced approach to researching early Buddhist artistic exchange, one that pays close attention to the diverse contextual settings of specific motifs, thereby enabling a more comprehensive appreciation of its varied manifestations.

Nevertheless, the trans-temporal, cross-cultural, and multi-ethnic characteristics of early Buddhist transmission, combined with the current limitations of archeological evidence, mean that the specific mechanisms and developmental trajectories of Buddhist art in different regions remain topics that merit further investigation. Progress in this area will depend not only on the discovery of new archeological materials but also on the adoption of innovative research approaches. The introduction of interdisciplinary methodologies and intercultural comparative frameworks, in particular, holds significant potential for deepening our understanding of the pathways and processes through which early Buddhist art was transmitted.