Is The Buddha’s Hair A Sign Of African Origin¿

Ever since I began learning more about African history, I would often run into some claims about the African origin of Buddha. Admittedly, the evidence presented didn't seem convincing enough. However, I couldn't ignore the arguments about the Buddha's hair and how it was displayed in sculpture. Recently, I've had the time to dig deeper into this peculiar history and found some interesting things. So today, I wanted to try to answer the question of the Buddha's hair in response to the African origin theories. By supporting this channel on Patreon, you're helping in the creation of these videos and contributing to this content. On Patreon, you can find more in-depth courses on African history. Also, your support helps this channel grow, improving production quality and future animated projects. And with a word from my sponsors, there's a new social media platform dedicated to educating and uplifting our people. No longer do we have to be censored for speaking our truth. OBT Social is black owned and operated, and a place where you can post your businesses and even monetize your content. You can visit the website at obtsocial.com. Links to everything in the description box below. To begin, this video is an attempt to understand the history of the Buddha in relation to how his hair was depicted in sculpture. I thought this topic might be of interest because of how prevalent it is within the African diaspora. Some of us are simply curious, while others are absolutely convinced of African parentage. I tried my best to gather the information available to understand the artistic expression of Buddha's hair from a proper historical lens. That being said, if anyone from this particular culture, religion, or worldview can provide additional insight or correction, it would be greatly appreciated. Let's begin. It's largely assumed that Afro-descended people, specifically in North America, were the first and only people to advance the idea that the Buddha was of African origin. Ironically, this was not the case. The African diaspora simply echoed a narrative that had already been presented, perhaps even popularizing it in the 21st century. A European scholar by the name of William Jones was the first in the English-speaking world to connect Buddha with the African continent. He formed his opinion largely based on what he referred to as the patent Ethiopic features of the Buddha statues. Later, Robert Percival acknowledged the similarity between the Buddha's features and African people, and yet another European in 1810 named Edward Moore admitted that the Buddha not only had woolly hair but, and I quote, thick Ethiopian lips. Unfortunately, the eye test especially in the 18th and 19th centuries garnered a lot of validity, and the African origin or influence theory remained difficult to scholastically shake off, despite the clear opposition. I think if we're honest, as an outsider looking in, it's very easy to presume African phenotypical origin upon first glance at most Buddha statues. To be blunt, most of these statues can reasonably be mistaken for an Afro-descended person. The only question is, is it true? The strongest argument for an African origin or an African influence for the Buddha no doubt includes the features of several Buddha statues themselves. Moreover, the fact that some indigenous people in Asia resemble Afro-descended communities around the world helps to champion the African origin theory all the more. In truth, these people and their indigenous status on the Asian continent is an unassailable reality. This seems to be the strongest argument for an African Buddha, if you will, and I think if we leave it at that, it'll be enough for anyone in the diaspora to readily accept. However, digging deeper into the history of Buddha paints a completely different story. As mentioned previously, for many people in the African diaspora, the Buddha passes the eye test as it relates to potential African origin. Even interpretations of Buddhist literature leave room for some to place Buddha in an African context. The Pali Canon is one of the oldest written texts on the Buddha. In it, Buddha is described as having curled hair, but if read carefully, it's difficult to justify our traditional view of African influence to the Buddha's hair. Over the centuries, the physical characteristics of the Buddha depicted in statues and paintings came to reflect aspects of local ethnicity, and the only written description of him which appears in the Digha Nikaya, which is translated as Collection of Long Discourses, from the Pali Canon. It recorded that the Buddha had curled, untangled hair, a topknot or ushnisha, as if crowned by a flower garland. Another section reports he had luxuriant hair, tied up on the top of the head. It's tempting to assign the phrase curled, untangled hair with kinky curls, and it may even be understandable to take that at face value in favor of some African genetic disposition. But once we see the earliest depictions of the Buddha, it becomes more evident what the ancient text was saying. Some of the earliest depictions of Buddha come from Gunhara, and these early sculptures reveal a very different hair type, more in alignment with the ancient text. As we can see from this image, the Buddha's hair is not tightly curled but long and wavy, a sort of curled, untangled look as mentioned before. Another variation of the early Buddha sculptures presents him with having the so-called kaparda coil, which was hair being curled into a single coil like a snail shell. This hairstyle was not foreign to the region in any sense, as we even see this curled, untangled look amongst Indians today. At Mathura, also, the earliest Buddha heads have the kaparda coil. The hair is curled into a single coil like a snail shell, in the manner of the current type of ascetic coiffure. The next development took place in about the middle of the 2nd century AD, when the hair was depicted as short curls like snail shells with a bump or protuberance at the top of the skull. Attempts to understand the transition from curled, untangled look to tight curls can be difficult, but one scholar tells us that, artistically, over the centuries, curled, untangled hair came to be interpreted as neat rows of moderate to tight snail-like curls, curling left to right, often with a widow's peak and, of course, the topknot. The size of the curls would vary with the geographical region and school of art. In 1821, John Davy, so intrigued by the African origin theory, pressed the local people of Sri Lanka about what they thought, and this is what they had to say. On the matter of the Buddha's hair, they say it was like their own, and that the object of artist is not to represent curly, woolly hair, but hair cut short, as Buddha was when he became priest. So according to the people themselves, the Buddha's hair, of course, in the later models, was an artistic expression of hair that is cut short. I find this information to be very interesting because I've never been presented with it in discussions or presentations about Buddha's hair, nor in the past have I ever seen images of his long, wavy hair, depictions that are actually older and seem to be more in alignment with the religious texts. Well, I'm all out guys. I'm curious if anyone from the diaspora has seen the early depictions of the Buddha statues or if this historical lens has shed some more light for you on the topic. Let me know in the comment section below. If you like these videos and want to help in its continued development, consider supporting the home team on patreon.com. The link is in the description box below. Know thyself, remember your ancestors. Peace.