A Technical Study of Chinese Buddhist Sculptures: First Insights into a Complex History of Transformation through Analysis of the Polychrome Decoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artifacts pertaining to Buddhist culture are often studied in relation to their circulation from India throughout the rest of Asia; however, many traveled to Europe during the last few centuries as trade commodities and pieces for the art market, losing any devotional purpose in favor of a specific aesthetic sensitivity that was typically adapted to Western taste to appeal to collectors. This article presents a technical study of seven polychrome wooden sculptures from the Museo d’Arte Orientale (MAO) in Turin, Italy. Originally from China, these objects are generally attributed to the late Ming–early Qing dynasties (16th–18th centuries) based merely on stylistic and iconographic considerations. Scientific analysis sought to expand the available knowledge on their constituting materials and fabrication techniques, to address questions on their authenticity, to assess their state of preservation, and to trace the history of transformations they have undergone while transitioning from devotional objects to private collection and museum artwork. By delving into the sculptures’ intricate paint stratigraphy, the results were also key to guiding treatment choices. The outcomes of this study were featured in the MAO exhibition “Buddha10. A Fragmented Display on Buddhist Visual Evolution” (October 2022–September 2023).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".