The Disputed Um-Mahevara in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art: A Case Study in Reattribution and Reinterpretation

Stephen Markel
Archives of Asian Art, Volume 58, 2008, pp. 87-111 (Article)
Published by University of Hawai'i Press

For additional information about this article

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/aaa/summary/v058/58.markel.html

Access Provided by your local institution at 09/06/10 9:11AM GMT

The Disputed Uma vara in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art: -Mahes A Case Study in Reattribution and Reinterpretation
stephen markel
Los Angeles County Museum of Art

he genesis of this study is a March 2007 Los Angeles Times article1 on an Indian stone sculpture of Uma Mahes vara (Figs. 1, 1A) in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) that had been offered for sale after formal deaccession approval by the museums Board of Trustees.2 An e-mail by LACMAs former Senior Curator of Indian and Southeast Asian Art (19701995), Pratapaditya Pal, protesting the deaccession, had engendered the newspaper article. The e-mail,

which objected to the deaccession on the basis of the sculptures art-historical importance, was sent to the museums Administration and to the Los Angeles Times on 12 March. Subsequently, the proposed deaccession of the sculpture was cancelled to undertake an extensive scholarly investigation of its art-historical complexities. The following discussion presents this investigations analysis and ndings. The appropriateness of the proposed deaccession of

Fig. 1. Uma vara. Date disputed. Uttar Pradesh, India. -Mahes Gray sandstone; h. 96.52, w. 54.61, d. 19.05 cm. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, From the Nasli and Alice Heeramaneck Collection, Museum Associates Purchase. M.72.53.2. Photograph 6 2007 Museum Associates/LACMA.

Fig. 1A. Back of Fig. 1. Photograph 6 2007 Museum Associates/LACMA.

88

ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

the sculpture will not be addressed here; rather this study reviews the sculptures history of attributions and presents evidence for revising Pals dating and geographical attribution of the sculpture, which were central to his argument against its deaccession. A later date and a more precise geographical provenance are postulated, which are based on iconographic and stylistic comparisons with the closest relevant works of art and on recent scholarship on central Indian architectural sculpture.3 Finally, drawing on a new understanding of the sculptures most salient iconographic feature, the distinctive sitting position of Uma , this investigation presents a fresh interpretation of the iconological meaning of this unusual representation of Uma vara. -Mahes It is useful to begin by identifying the sculptures iconography and also by placing it in a scholarly context, both of which help trace the sculptures history of published attributions. The sculpture (accession number: M.72.53.2; h. 96.52 cm) is gray4 sandstone and de iva and his spouse Uma picts the Hindu god S (a.k.a. Pa rvat ). They are seated on their respective bull and lion mounts, with smaller gures below their feet that represent their two sons Ganes a and Kuma ra (riding his peacock mount), the devout, emaciated Bhrn gi, an unidentied male ascetic, and a female ywhisk bearer. This type of composition is known in Sanskrit texts as iva]), Uma vara (Uma -Mahes and the Great Lord [S but is identied in the museums ofcial records by its more familiar name, Shivas Family. The sculpture entered LACMAs permanent collection in July 1972 as part of an exchange that included a number of works, which was predicated on the return of an Indian stone column, previously purchased in 1969, to the well-known New York dealer Nasli Heeramaneck.5 Over the course of the following thirty-seven years, in various LACMA records, sponsored publications, and afliated writings, Pal attributed the Uma vara -Mahes with only minor variation as follows: 1970: Uttar Pradesh, 6th7th century6 1972: Uttar Pradesh, 6th7th century7 1973: Uttar Pradesh, Kanauj (?), 7th century8 1974: Uttar Pradesh, Kanauj, 6th7th century9 1986: Uttar Pradesh (?), circa 60010 2007: circa 600, place of origin unmentioned11 Slightly varying attributions of the Uma vara -Mahes have been published by four other authors: Stella Kramrisch (Markandi, Chanda District, Maharashtra (?), 6th7th century);12 Thomas Donaldson (Uttar Pradesh, 7th century);13 Alice Heeramaneck (Central India (?), 6th7th century);14 and Carlton Rochell (Uttar

Pradesh, circa 600).15 All four authors suggested dates for the sculpture consistent with those of Pal. The authors geographical attribution, Uttar Pradesh, generally agreed with Pals. The one disagreement came from Kramrisch, who proposed Maharashtra as the sculptures place of origin.16 The next step in this investigation is to examine the evidence and arguments for the aforementioned attribution and dating of the Uma vara. Pals earlier, -Mahes slightly varying attributions in 1970, 1972, 1973, and 1974 can be aligned with his 1986 catalogue entry and 2007 to form a general consensus of attribution to Uttar Pradesh (?), circa 600.17 In 2007 he further described the Uma vara as the only monumental -Mahes stone sculpture from the late Gupta period and part of the museums small group of Gupta art.18 Ascribing the sculpture to the celebrated Gupta period imbues it with great importance, but is problematic given South Asian art scholars current recognition of the frequent incongruity between the duration of a political dynasty and an afliated artistic style. Strictly speaking, the Gupta dynasty ruled circa 320550, with the last seventy-ve years being a chaotic, fragmented period disrupted by the incursions of the Hu nas. Ar tistically, however, the sublime gural and architectural modes of the Gupta period proper continued to inspire works across a wide expanse of India throughout the sixth century. Accordingly, the traditional artistic chronology is that The Gupta period as a whole may then be divided into an early Gupta period, extending, depending on the region, well into the fth century, a Gupta period proper, and a late Gupta period beginning in the west perhaps as early as the second quarter of the fth century but considerably later in the east. Works undertaken after the middle of the sixth century are then considered to belong to the post-Gupta period.19 The traditional conception of the post-Gupta style includes works made across northern and central India after the Gupta period, from the mid-sixth century through the tenth century,20 even though the multitude of works lumped together under the rubric is stylistically diverse and was produced under widely disparate patronage. Few Indian art historians still classify South Asian works of art by dynastic or political labels (including numerous labels referring to later, smaller kingdoms).21 Instead, South Asian works of this period are commonly classied according to their specic regional traditions

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

89

Fig. 2. Uma vara. Mid-8th c. -Mahes Nand Chand, Panna District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Sandstone. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 7400.

and chronological manifestations. In these terms Pals assignment of the Uma vara to the late Gupta -Mahes period is outdated. Moreover, even if one accepts, as Pal did, the traditional chronology in which late Gupta art comprises works produced between the mid-fth century and the mid-sixth century, his dating of the sculpture to circa 600 places it in the traditional post-Gupta period. This discrepancy calls into question one of the bases of Pals argument to retain the sculpture. Evidence presented herein for reassigning the sculpture to the Deogarh region, circa 750800, further undermines the notion of a Gupta origin, one of Pals bases for the sculptures importance. During this period

Deogarh (ancient Das a a) was likely subject to rnades Gurjara-Prathara rulers of the political authority of the Kanyakubja.22 In arguing against the deaccession of the sculpture, Pal further asserted that it is the earliest of its kind, or, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times in a much more restricted context, the earliest of its kind at LACMA.23 This claim is problematic, because there exist several iva seated with Uma different iconographic forms of S / 24 Pa rvat ; thus it depends upon which specic form(s) Pal meant by its kind. Nevertheless, despite this claims inherent ambiguity, it is possible to assess both versions of the claim of

90

ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 3. Uma vara. 8th c. Sankar -Mahes garh, Satna District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Sandstone. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 11960.

earliest by focusing on the basic compositional ele iva seated with Uma ments of S /Pa rvat . The sculpture of the Uma -Mahes vara is indeed the earliest represen tation in LACMAs collection of the two deities seated together, regardless of whether one accepts Pals dating of circa 600 or follows the revised dating of circa 750 800 proposed here. In the overall context of South Asian art, again regardless of which proposed date is accepted, the sculpture is certainly not the earliest instance iva seated with Uma of S /Pa rvat . Several earlier examples can be cited: a fourth-century image at Mathura, Uttar Pradesh;25 fth-century images at Nachna-Kuthara, Panna District, Madhya Pradesh,26 and Bhitargaon, Kanpur District, Uttar Pradesh;27 and a mid-sixth-

iva cave-temple at Elephanta century image at the great S (a.k.a. Gharapuri) near Mumbai.28 Signicantly, however, none of the fourth- or fth-century images has the Holy Family tableau represented beneath the divine couple, which is a dening iconographic feature of the present subset of Uma vara image.29 -Mahes iva and Pa At Elephanta the area beneath S rvat 30 playing dice on Mt. Kailasa is damaged, but enough of the composition survives to suggest that it was origi ivas ganas (dwarf followers nally a representation of S Comparisons with iva) tugging at his bull mount. of S analogous scenes at contemporaneous sites, such as at Sondni, Mandasor District, Madhya Pradesh, and the Dhumar Lena Cave (No. 29) at Ellora, Maharashtra,

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

91

Fig. 4. Uma vara. 8th c. Banpur, -Mahes Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh, India. Sandstone. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 53616.

indicate that this was a standard iconography during the sixth century.31 Thus, it is highly unlikely that a Holy Family tableau originally gured in the Elephanta representation. The earliest known representations of Uma -Mahes vara images with a Holy Family tableau depicted along the base are from Nand Chand, Panna District, Madhya Pradesh, dating from the mid-eighth century (Fig. 2);32 Sankargarh, Satna District, Madhya Pradesh dating from the eighth century (Fig. 3); and Banpur, Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh (near Deogarh), dating from the eighth century (Fig. 4). Thus, assuming Pals dating, the LACMA sculpture is indeed among the earliest extant examples in South Asian art of an Uma -

Mahes vara image featuring a Holy Family tableau on its base. But in light of evidence presented below for revising its dating to circa 750800, and thus, the sculpture must be recognized as belonging to the seminal eighth-century group of examples rather than preceding them by at least a century. Having discussed Pals general claims about the Uma varas dynastic afliation and primacy, it is -Mahes now necessary to review the specic works of art that he has proposed as pertinent examples in support of his arguments. Each of his comparisons are examined in the order presented in the catalogue entry in his Indian Sculpture, Vol. 1.33 Then I shall suggest alternative comparative examples that I consider more germane to

92

ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

iva and Uma Fig. 5. Detail of Fig. 1: Heads and upper torsos of the LACMA S . Photograph 6 2007 Museum Associates/LACMA.

the attribution of the Uma vara. Pals rst com -Mahes parison is stylistic; the other three comparisons are iconographic.34 The signicance of this crucial distinction is addressed in detail below. First, for the sake of clarity, Pals argument is quoted here in its entirety: While Kramrisch is correct in commenting on the uniqueness of the image and dating it to the sixth seventh century, her suggested provenance Markandi in Maharashtrais highly unlikely. Apart from the fact that the Markandi temples are ve centuries later, it is very difcult to accept

this work as a stylistic precursor. Moreover, the sculpture generally is not rendered in the style of the monuments of Maharashtra. On the contrary, the elongated faces are somewhat reminiscent of a terra-cotta Siva head found at Ahichchhatra (V. S. Agrawala 194748, pl. XLIV), while Uma may be compared with the similarly seated Mother Goddesses from Madhya Pradesh (Harle 1974, gs. 3032). Parvatis coiffure with coiled bun at the back of the head is worn by female gures in the Gupta-period temple at Deogarh (Williams 1982, g. 204), while the curious cylindrical ear ornament is more commonly found in gures

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

93

from Bihar. Thus, Uttar Pradesh rather than Maharashtra is a more likely source for this intriguing sculpture.35 Pal nds that the elongated faces of the LACMA iva and Uma S (Fig. 5) are somewhat reminiscent of a iva head from Ahicchatra [modern translitterra-cotta S eration], Bareilly District, Uttar Pradesh, which is now in the National Museum, New Delhi (acc. no.: 62.243; iva head is not Fig. 6). The date of the Ahicchatra S specied in Agrawalas excavation report, but may be presumed to accord with material recovered from the sites Stratum III: A.D. 350 to 750.36 In subsequent publications the head was more specically attributed to the fth century37 and recently to the end of the 5th centurybeginning of the 6th century (or c. 490 510).38 On the basis of these attributions, the Ahiccha iva head should be understood as dating at least a tra S century earlier than Pals attribution of circa 600 for the LACMA Uma vara. -Mahes A stylistic comparison reveals signicant differences iva head and the head of the between the Ahicchatra S iva (and that of Uma LACMA S , which for the purposes of this analysis can be regarded as stylistically identical iva head). Although all three heads do indeed to the S ivas face is have elongated faces, the Ahicchatra S more oval and narrows toward the chin more than iva and Uma those of the LACMA S . Its prole is also more pointed, and the nose protrudes farther than on the LACMA faces. More signicantly, moreover, the iva differs substantially in the specic shape Ahicchatra S of its facial features from the LACMA faces. The Ahic ivas forehead is triangular, coming to a prochatra S nounced point at the bridge of the nose, and his brows are incised; whereas the lower border of the LACMA foreheads is continued by the bas-relief brows, and together they form the shape of a compound bow at ivas eyes are narrowly almond rest. The Ahicchatra S in shape, angled upward at the outer corners, and set in stylized deep sockets formed by the bottom of the brow, which melds smoothly into the side of the nose. In contrast, the LACMA eyes are rounder, more nearly horizontal and with half-closed lids, and the sockets of the eyes are naturalistically depicted, replicating a facial skeletal structure rather than being stylized into a con iva has an overly full tinuous plane. The Ahicchatra S lower lip with uplifted corners forming a broad smile, and its chin is set back from the lips front edge. The LACMA faces have full lips with deep dimples at the corners, more nearly horizontal within the facial contours, and their chins extend well past the lips in unnatural block-shaped protrusions.

iva heads differ radically even in the forThe two S mal artistic organization of their ascetic hairstyles ( ja ta iva has a simple tripartite mukuta). The Ahicchatra S ar rangement: two thick braids of hair rise to a point that is clasped by an equally thick circular braid. The ja ta iva is extremely elaborate, mukuta of the LACMA S with numerous thinner braids complexly interwoven. Prominent vertical braids are clasped at the top and bottom by horizontal braids. The circular braid on the top is much less emphasized, being at the back of the

iva Head. Ca. 490510. Ahicchatra, Bareilly District Fig. 6. S Uttar Pradesh, India. Terra-cotta; h. 17 cm. National Museum, New Delhi, 62.243. Courtesy National Museum, New Delhi. From V. S. Agrawala, The Terracottas of Ahichchhatra , Ancient India, Bulletin of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 4 (July 1947January 1948), pl. XLIV, 113a.

94

ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

iva head. Mid-8th c. Kota?, Fig. 7. S Shivpuri District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Sandstone. Archaeological Museum, Gwalior. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 41305.

head and partially hidden behind the front and surmounting components. Although in South Asian art the arrangement and depiction of contemporaneous ascetic hairstyles vary widely, the radical conceptual difference between the ja tamukuta of the Ahicchatra and LACMA suggestive of different geographi iva heads is strongly S cal and/or chronological origins. Thus, upon careful ex iva head must be amination, the terra-cotta Ahicchatra S

recognized as only supercially similar to the LACMA iva head. S iva More closely comparable with the LACMA S head is a stone Siva head dating from the mid-eighth century that is probably from Kota, Shivpuri District, iva head, now in Madhya Pradesh (Fig. 7). The Kota S the Archaeological Museum, Gwalior, was published at least a decade ago.39 Many of its features are remark-

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

95

Fig. 8. Kaumari. Early 5th c. BadohPathari, Vidisha District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Sandstone. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 11813.

iva head. The ably similar to those of the LACMA S iva heads ja Kota S tamukuta is arranged in almost ex iva actly the same manner as that of the LACMA S head. It has the same distinctive complex organization, featuring prominent vertical braids of hair clasped between overlapping horizontal braids at the top and bottom. Looped braids frame the sides of the face. Indeed, the chief difference between the two representations iva is their stylistic treatment. The braids of the Kota S head are atter, slightly thinner, and more uniform iva. Therefore they form than those of the LACMA S a more mannered, rhythmic pattern than those of the iva head. LACMA S

iva Other points of similarity between the Kota S head and the LACMA heads are the rectangular face, bow-shaped relief brows, distinct foreheads that do not merge into the plane of the nose, lips neither overfull nor smiling, half-closed eyes (more visible in the LACMA iva heads also Uma ), and triple neck lines. The two S have locks of hair curling gracefully on the shoulders. Thus, the extremely close similarity in the stylistic treatment of the facial features and the distinctive manner of arranging the ja tamukuta strongly suggests that the the LACMA iva head and Kota S heads share a general geo-chronological origin. There are, however, enough iva heads atter stylistic differences, such as the Kota S

96

ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 9. Ma trka . Early 5th c. Besnagar, Vidisha District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Sandstone. National Museum, New Delhi, 51.101. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 6514.

surface plane and aforementioned emphasis on rhythmic patterns, to indicate that these pieces are probably not from the same exact site or artists workshop. Additional stylistic comparisons will be presented below in order to propose a more precise place of origin. Returning to Pals stylistic comparisons, he compares the unusual posture of the LACMA Uma , who

sits with her legs pendent in the so-called European posture ( pralambapada sana), with the similarly seated Mother Goddesses from Madhya Pradesh,40 and states that the posture of the goddess, sitting imperious with her legs the way they are positioned, goes out of fashion in India after the 6th century.41 The two Mother Goddesses from Madhya Pradesh to which Pal refers

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

97

Fig. 10. Ambika . Late 7th c. Gyaraspur, Vidisha District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Sandstone. Archaeological Museum, Gwalior. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 34141.

belong to two well-known groups of Seven Mother Goddesses (Saptama trka ).42 Both sets of Mother God desses are from the Vidisha District of Madhya Pradesh and date from the early fth century. One is a rock-cut Kaumari from Badoh-Pathari (Fig. 8); the second is an unidentied Mother Goddess from Besnagar, which

is now in the National Museum, New Delhi (Fig. 9). It should also be noted that there are three rock-cut groups of Mother Goddesses in the nearby vicinity of Deogarh, Lalitpur District, at least two of which (from Rajghati and Naharghati) show the goddesses in the European posture.43 The signicance of these sets of

98

ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 11. Gajalaksm . 9th c. Deogarh, Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh, India. Sandstone. Site Museum, Deogarh. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 45320.

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

99

Fig. 12. Figures on doorjamb. Ca. 500 525. Das a vata ra temple, Deogarh, Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh, India. Sandstone. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 43705.

Mother Goddesses to the new iconological interpretation of the LACMA Uma-Mahesvara will be further addressed below. Pals assertion that the European posture used for female deities goes out of fashion in India after the 6th century is controverted by at least two later examples that are, in my view, very close chronologically and geographically to the LACMA Uma vara. They are -Mahes an Ambika from Gyaraspur, Vidisha District, Madhya Pradesh, dating from the late seventh century, now in the Archaeological Museum, Gwalior (Fig. 10),44 and a Gajalaksm from Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh, dat the ninth century, now in the Site Museum, ing from

Deogarh (Fig. 11). In addition, the European posture was used for images in southern India as early as the seventh century and continued for over a millennium.45 It was frequently used for depicting in both stone and iva.46 copper alloy images of Uma while seated with S The kinship of Uma s European posture to those of the Vidisha District and Lalitpur District Mother Goddess images has signicant implications for the reinterpretation of the LACMA Uma vara. -Mahes As Pal also noted, Parvatis coiffure with coiled bun at the back of the head is worn by female gures in the Gupta-period temple at Deogarh47 (Fig. 12). But the hairstyles of the female attendants on the door-

100

ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 13. Caur bearer. 8th c. Kanauj, Farrukhabad District, Uttar Pradesh, India. Sandstone. State Museum, Lucknow. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 49926.

jamb of the Das a vata ra Temple at Deogarh, which dates circa 500525, consist of multiple bands of coiled hair in front of a multisegmented bun, and are much more complex than the single-band bun of the LACMA Uma . Much closer to the hairstyle of the LACMA Uma is that of a Kanauj female ywhisk bearer from style similar to that of the LACMA Uma ; the female ywhisk bearer is from Kanauj, Farrukhabad District, Uttar Pradesh, dating from the eighth century, and currently in the State Museum, Lucknow (Fig. 13). The

Kanauj attendants hairstyle consists of a single band of coiled hair in front of a nonsegmented bun, and is almost identical to the LACMA Uma s hairstyle. Thus, the close similarity in hairstyle between the Kanauj attendant and the LACMA Uma , and the formers eighth-century date, are additional evidence supporting an eighth-century date for the Uma vara. -Mahes Oddly, Pal supported his claim that the LACMA sculpture originated in Uttar Pradesh by citing the distinctive type of earring that the Uma wears in her left

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

101

Fig. 14. Hara-Gaur . 9th c. Bhanpura, Mandasor District, Madhya Pradesh, India. Sandstone. Central Museum, Indore. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 33331.

ear. But he then goes on to state that Uma s curious cylindrical ear ornament is more commonly found in gures from Bihar.48 Leaving aside the ornaments use in Bihar as implausible support for locating the LACMA sculpture in Uttar Pradesh, the ornament is typically represented in Bihar sculpture dating from the eighth to ninth century49 rather than in that from the sixth to seventh century, which would correspond to Pals proposed date for the Uma vara. Moreover, the -Mahes ornament is also found on at least one ninth-century stone sculpture from Madhya Pradesh: an image of iva and Uma Hara-Gaur (S ) from Bhanpura in the Mandasor District, which is now in the Central Museum, Indore50 (Fig. 14). Finally, the curious cylindrical ornament is actually a well-known type of ear stud (generically called a ta rki ), which could be made of

various materials, including bone, bamboo, wood, and metal. Its use survives in tribal traditions extending over Madhya Pradesh, the new state of Jharkhand, and Bihar.51 In sum, the comparative framework Pal used to validate his date of circa 600 for the LACMA Uma Mahes vara breaks down under closer scrutiny and in the face of alternative comparisons. The analysis provided above demonstrates that the sculpture most likely dates from the eighth century. It was most plausibly made in southwestern Uttar Pradesh or in neighboring Madhya Pradesh, but iconographic comparisons alone cannot determine which region is more probable. Analysis of gural style, as hereinafter performed on the LACMA Uma vara, is generally far more accu -Mahes rate than iconographic comparisons for establishing the

102

ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

iva Andhaka iva Fig. 15. S suravadha (S Slaying the Demon Andhaka). Ca. 750 800. Probably southern Uttar Pradesh or neighboring Madhya Pradesh, India. Red sandstone; h. 69.2, w. 41.6, d. 28.6 cm. The Brooklyn Museum of Art, Gift of the Ernest Erickson Foundation, Inc., 86.227.145.

correct geographical and chronological attribution of historical South Asian sculpture. That is because gural style typically develops in and is conned to a particular locale and temporal duration. Stylistic differences between adjacent regions during the same time period are often subtle, but they can be ascertained by careful examination. In contrast, iconographic features, such as a particular posture, are normally based on textual prescriptions. Thus, they frequently cross regional boundaries and persist beyond their period of origin. Regret iva head, tably, with the exception of the Ahicchatra S Pal did not attempt to present stylistic comparisons relevant to the Uma vara. -Mahes Although an extensive review of the art-historical literature and image databases failed to discover an extant Hindu temple site with sculpture that stylistically

matches the LACMA Uma vara, at least one -Mahes sculpture now in a museum collection exhibits several iva comparable stylistic featuresthe representation of S Andhaka suravadha (Siva Slaying the Demon Andhaka) in the Brooklyn Museum of Art (acc. no.: 86.227.145) (Fig. 15). It has been attributed by Darielle Mason to probably southern Uttar Pradesh or neighboring Madhya Pradesh, circa 750800.52 Her perceptive stylistic comments include:

Among other features, the rectangular face and closely set eyes, which are pointed at the outer corners, tie this piece to images from ancient Das a a, particularly those of the late rnades eighth-century Jaina temple 12 at Deogarh.53

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

103

Fig. 16. Detail of Figure 1: Head of LACMA Uma (three-quarter view). Photography: 6 Museum Associates/ LACMA.

Besides the analogously rectangular faces of the LACMA and Brooklyn sculptures, the distinctive treat iva Andhaka ment of the Brooklyn S suravadhas eyes, pointed at the outer corners, is highly signicant for rening the attribution of the LACMA Uma vara. -Mahes ivas Erosion has abraded the corners of the LACMA S eyes, but Uma s eyes (Fig. 16) have the same markedly pointed outer corners as those of the Brooklyn image. Additional stylistic features common to the LACMA and Brooklyn sculptures include the deep dimples at ivas disthe corners of the mouth (mentioned above), S proportionately oversized hands (note in particular the ivas huge hand resting on Uma LACMA S s shoulder), ivas chest, with the and the idiosyncratic treatment of S

lower edge of the pectoral muscles dened by a sharp break in the plane of the torso (see Figs. 1, 5). Following Masons stylistic link between the Brook iva and sculptures of the late eighth-century Jaina lyn S Temple 12 at Deogarh,54 let us compare the facial features of Temple 12s main jina image (Fig. 17) with those of the LACMA Uma vara. The comparison -Mahes reveals the same rectangular face, half-closed eyes, and iva Andhaka protruding chin. Thus, the Brooklyn S suravadha and the Deogarh jina strongly suggest the Deogarh region of southwestern Uttar Pradesh as the most likely origin of the LACMA sculpture. One remaining stylistic feature and a nal iconographic feature of the LACMA Uma provide additional

104

ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 17. Detail of head of main jina image. Late 8th c. Jaina Temple 12, Deogarh, Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh, India. Sandstone. From Klaus Bruhn, The Jina-Images of Deogarh (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969), g. 8.

corroboration of its revised date and general place of origin. Under Uma s breasts are three prominent parallel convex rolls that arch in the middle and extend across the front of her torso (see Fig. 5). Mason interprets them as ridges or rolls of esh, but on Uma they could also be intended as a stylized depiction of her ribcagean indication of her ascetic nature and

prowess. These distinctive markings are commonplace in sculpture from Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, primarily of the eighth century and continuing in some areas into the ninth century.55 A representative example of this common stylistic feature can be found on an Ambika from Deogarh dating from the late eighth or the ninth century (Fig. 18). Another iconographic feature

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

105

Fig. 18. Ambika . 9th c. Deogarh, Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh, India. Sandstone. Photograph: Courtesy of the American Institute of Indian Studies, 45638.

common to this general region and period is present on both the Deogarh Ambika and LACMA Uma : goddesses wear a pendant on a long chain that idiosyncratically curves off to one side instead of following the bodys vertical axis (see Figs. 5, 10, 11, 13). Iconographic comparisons relevant to the LACMA Uma vara suggest its general place and date of -Mahes origin to be Uttar Pradesh or Madhya Pradesh, eighth century. By incorporating the more precise analysis pos-

sible with stylistic comparisons, the most probable geographic and chronological origin has been rened to the Deogarh region of southwestern Uttar Pradesh, circa 750800. This revised attribution of the LACMA Uma Mahes vara now allows us to correct earlier misinterpretations of the so-called stern facial expressions of iva and Uma S . It will be apparent from the descriptive comments quoted below that Heeramaneck, Kramrisch,

106
ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

Fig. 19. Four of the seven Mother Goddesses. Ca. 750800. Madhya Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh, India. Sandstone; h. 56, w. 84, d. 15 cm. Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, Gift of Dr. Stephen A. Sherwin and Merrill Randol Sherwin, F2004.38. 6 Asian Art Museum of San Francisco. Used by permission.

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

107

Fig. 20. Uma pati. 4th c. Bhita, Allahabad District, Uttar Pradesh, India. Terra-cotta. Indian Museum, Kolkata, A10380/NS1209. From Doris Meth Srinivasan, Many Heads, Arms, and Eyes: Origin, Meaning, and Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), pl. 19.14.

108

ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

and Pal, went to great lengths in their attempts to explain why the gures countenances differed so signicantly from what would be expected if the sculpture had actually been made in the sixth or seventh century. This representation of Siva and Parvati is of a rather stern and monumental character. That they are indeed deities is indicated by their haloes, but as a certain individualization appears in the faces it is probable that a royal couple are here represented as Siva and Parvati.56 Stern and straight, the Great Lord (Mahesvara) and Uma /Pa rvat , his wife, confront the devotee. . . . Sivas erect bearing and commanding physique show him in his majesty rather than in his grace.57 Siva is sternly dignied and majestic, while Umas facial expression and posture convey aloofness, if not disdain. . . . The unknown sculptor certainly did not represent Sivas spouse as a timid acquiescent female, as she is generally shown in such compositions.58 The so-called individualization and stern facial expressions of the LACMA Uma vara can now -Mahes be more accurately understood as the distinctive countenancecreated by exaggerated facial featurescharacteristic of much sculpture made in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during the eighth and ninth centuries. A representative example that clearly illustrates this stylistic feature is a relief carving of four of the seven Mother Goddesses from Madhya Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh, dating from circa 750800, now in the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco (acc. no.: F2004.38) (Fig. 19).59 Finally, a new iconological interpretation of the LACMA Uma vara can be presented, based on -Mahes a fresh understanding of the sculptures most salient iconographic feature. There are three keys to this interpretation. The rst key is Uma s unusual European posture, about which Pal simply noted, During the Gupta period this posture generally was assigned to Mother Goddesses rather than to Uma .60 The second key is a terra-cotta sculpture of Siva seated with Uma from Bhita, Allahabad District, Uttar Pradesh, dating (by excavation) from the fourth century,61 which is now in the Indian Museum, Kolkata (acc. no.: A10380/NS1209) (Fig. 20). The iconographic feature of this sculpture that makes it crucial for reinterpreting the LACMA Uma vara is that the Bhita Uma -Mahes is depicted in the same European posture. Srinivasan identies the Bhita image as Uma pati and provides a vague transla-

tion of Uma pati as the divine couple.62 Donaldson follows Srinivasan in identifying the image as Uma pati, but also does not perceive the signicance of Uma s Eu63 ropean posture. The third key in the new interpretation is that Uma pati literally means husband of Uma . This specic terminology refers to an aspect of the deities that iva as the primeval Father God and Uma emphasizes S as the great Mother Goddess.64 Therefore, given that the LACMA Uma is represented in the same European posture, traditionally used for images of the Mother Goddesses, the sculpture was likely made in the Deogarh region of southwestern Uttar Pradesh. Also, given that Mother Goddesses are frequently shown seated in the European posture at several sites within this fairly small general area (Deogarh, Besnagar, Badoh-Pathari, and Bhita), it seems logical to interpret the LACMA Uma vara as iconologically emphasizing Uma -Mahes s role as the great Mother Goddess and that of her iva as the primeval Father God. beloved husband S Moreover, in light of the small size of the geographical area in which Mother Goddesses and Uma were shown in the European posture, it is likely that this represents a regional iconographic tradition, one which continued through at least four centuries of artistic production. Since the eighth century in Central India is recognized as a dynamic period of Hindu iconographic development and artistic innovation,65 it is equally likely that the LACMA Uma vara is an inspired expression -Mahes of this fertile, creative age. To conclude, the previously proposed date of circa 600 for the LACMA Uma vara and the afliation -Mahes of the sculpture with the Gupta dynasty cannot be sustained. Stylistic comparisons presented here call for a revised date of circa 750800 for the sculpture and narrow its probable place of production to the Deogarh region of southwestern Uttar Pradesh. The revised date of the Uma vara explains its distinctive facial -Mahes expressions not as anomalies of circa 600, but as characteristic of eighth-century images. Finally, a consideration of the Uma varas most important icono -Mahes graphic feature reveals the deeper iconological meaning of the sculpture.

Notes
1. Suzanne Muchnic, LACMA does an about-face on art sale, Los Angeles Times, Saturday, 17 March 2007, Calendar: E1, E20; and Museum reverses decision: LACMA does an about-face on sale of ancient sculpture, Los Angeles Times. Calendarlive.com. 17 March 2007. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1235303591.html

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

109

2. As The Harry and Yvonne Lenart Curator and Department Head of South and Southeast Asian Art at LACMA, I was principally responsible for initiating the proposed deaccession. The museums ofcial deaccession policy was strictly followed in the formal approval process necessary to authorize the deaccession. 3. I wish to thank a number of scholars for sharing their expertise and discussing this sculptures attribution with me: Robert L. Brown (LACMA and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA]), Tushara Bindu Gude (LACMA and UCLA), Julie Romain (LACMA and UCLA), Walter M. Spink (Professor Emeritus, University of Michigan), John C. Huntington (Ohio State University), Michael D. Willis (British Museum), and especially Darielle Mason (Philadelphia Museum of Art) and Donald M. Stadtner (formerly University of Texas, Austin). Although any errors in this article are, of course, my sole responsibility, it is nevertheless signicant to note that all the aforementioned scholars concur with the revised dating for the sculpture in question. 4. At present, the entire front surface of the sculpture has a coating of a greenish brown synthetic polymer, polyvinyl acetate (PVAc), which was brushed onto it prior to its acquisition by the museum. The uncoated surface of the pristinely cleaned stone visible on the back of the sculpture is gray (see Fig. 1A). 5. According to the museums ofcial records, the Uma vara was part of a group of objects received -Mahes in exchange in 1972 for a purportedly early Indian stone column (M.69.13.1), which had been purchased from the Heeramanecks in March 1969. Prior to its accession, the Uma vara had been on loan at LACMA since July -Mahes 1970 (Loan number: L.70.107.2). No earlier provenance information is available in LACMAs records. 6. Incoming loan record. 7. Accession record. 8. LACMA Bulletin (1973), p. 50, g. 44. 9. Art of Asia Recently Acquired by American Museums 1972, Archives of Asian Art, vol. 27 (197374), p. 99, g. 22. 10. Pratapaditya Pal, Indian Sculpture: A Catalogue of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art Collection. Vol. 1: Circa 500 B.C.A.D. 700 (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: Los Angeles County Museum of Art and University of California Press, 1986), pp. 25657, no. S133. 11. Muchnic, LACMA does an about-face. Pratapaditya Pal, personal e-mail to LACMA administration and Los Angeles Times (12 March 2007). 12. Stella Kramrisch, Manifestations of Shiva (exh. cat.) (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1981), pp. 5859, no. 49. iva-Pa 13. Thomas Eugene Donaldson, S rvat and Allied Images, 2 vols. (New Delhi: D. K. Printworld, 2007), vol. 1, p. 469; vol. 2, p. 448, g. 517. 14. Alice Heeramaneck, Masterpieces of Indian Sculp-

ture from the Former Collections of Nasli M. Heeramaneck (New York: By the Author, 1979), no. 51. 15. Sacred and Sublime: Art from India and Southeast Asia (New York: Carlton Rochell Asian Art, 2007), no. 30. 16. Kramrischs attribution will not be discussed herein because I agree with Pals arguments disproving a Maharashtran origin for the sculpture; Pal, Indian Sculpture, p. 257. Rochell follows Pal in this regard and neither Heeramaneck nor Donaldson provide any justication for their geographical attribution. 17. Muchnic, LACMA does an about-face. Pal, personal e-mail; and Pal, Indian Sculpture, p. 256. 18. Pal, Personal e-mail. Curiously, however, Pal did not include the Uma vara in his major exhibition -Mahes and catalogue on Gupta art. See Pratapaditya Pal, The Ideal Image: The Gupta Sculptural Tradition and Its Inuence (exh. cat.) (New York: The Asia Society, 1978). 19. J. C. Harle, Gupta Sculpture, Indian Sculpture of the Fourth to Sixth Centuries A.D. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974), p. 6. 20. J. C. Harle, The Post-Gupta Style in Indian Temple Architecture and Sculpture, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Arts, no. 5253/125 (1977), pp. 57089. 21. For example, see Pramod Chandra, The Study of Indian Temple Architecture, in Studies in Indian Temple Architecture: Papers Presented at a Seminar held in Varanasi, ed. Pramod Chandra (New Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies, 1975), pp. 3537; Joanna Gottfried Williams, The Art of Gupta India: Empire and Province (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 3; Michael Willis, Temples of Gopaksetra: A Regional History Central India AD 600 of Architecture and Sculpture in 900 (London: British Museum Press, 1997), pp. 2324, 2627. 22. Michael W. Meister and M. A. Dhaky, eds., Encyclopaedia of Indian Temple Architecture. Vol. 2, pt. 2: North India, Period of Early Maturity, c. A.D. 700900 (Delhi: American Institute of Indian Studies, Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 2730; Vishakha N. Desai and Darielle Mason, eds., Gods, Guardians, and Lovers: Temple Sculptures from North India A.D. 7001200 (exh. cat.) (New York: The Asia Society Galleries, 1993), p. 176. 23. Muchnic, LACMA does an about-face. Ascertaining the validity of the assertion is complicated because it is unknown whether the Los Angeles Times qualied rephrasing represents a later clarication by Pal or is the reporters supposition. 24. Besides the Uma vara type of image featur -Mahes iva seated with Uma ing S /Pa rvat (typically with their sons Ganes a and Kuma gi shown in a ra, and the ascetic Bhrn forms include tableau beneath them), related iconographic iva and Pa S rvat playing dice on Mt. Kailasa (one of the iva and Pa earliest forms), Ra vana nugraha (S rvat seated together on Mt. Kailasa with the demon king Ra vana

110

ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART

iva and Pa imprisoned beneath them), Vrsava hana (S rvat iva and seated on Sivas bull mount), and Uma sahita (S Uma standing together). For a recent thematic survey of iva and Pa iva-Pa S rvat rvat images, see Donaldson, S . 25. T. K. Biswas and Bhogendra Jha, Gupta Sculptures: Bharat Kala Bhavan (Varanasi: Banaras Hindu University, 1985), p. 72, no. 91, pl. 37, g. 88. iva-Pa 26. Donaldson, S rvat , vol. 1, p. 296, vol. 2, p. 271, g. 233; vol. 1, p. 367, vol. 2, p. 325, g. 309. 27. Muhammad Zaheer, The Temple of Bh on targa (Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1981), p. 87, pl. 65. Based on the composition, the Bhitargaon scene probably depicts iva and Pa S rvat playing dice. There are gures represented below the divine couple, but the terra-cotta surface is severely damaged. The only gures that can be identied are ivas dwarf hosts ( ganas), one at each end of the two of S right is playing a mrdan panel. The one on the viewers ga drum. The right foot of an additional gure (probably a gana) also remains, but given the small amount of space between the anking ganas, it is highly unlikely that there would have been room for Ganes a, Kuma gi. ra, and Bhrn be more logical for the Iconographically, it would also missing gures to be one or two additional ganas. 28. For example, see Carmel Berkson, Wendy Doniger OFlaherty, and George Michell, Elephanta: The Cave of Shiva (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 34, pl. 27. 29. See n. 24. 30. For other possible interpretations of this scenes meaning and intended locale, see Charles Dillard Collins, iva at Elephanta (Albany: The Iconography and Ritual of S State University of New York Press, 1988), pp. 8185, g. 2. 31. Joanna Gottfried Williams, The Sculpture of Mandasor, Archives of Asian Art, vol. 26 (197273), iva-Pa pp. 5066; Donaldson, S rvat , vol. 1, p. 152, vol. 2, p. 174, g. 2:79; vol. 1, p. 153, vol. 2, p. 176, g. 2:81. 32. Donald M. Stadtner, Nand Chand and a Central Indian Regional Style, Artibus Asiae, vol. 43/12 (1981), pp. 13132, unillustrated. 33. Pal, Indian Sculpture, pp. 25657, no. S133. 34. I am distinguishing herein between an iconographic comparison and a stylistic comparison. The former involves the presence of a particular object worn on the body and its structural form, or the presence of a particular posture or positional arrangement for a body part, while the latter refers to the manner in which a physical feature of the body is represented. 35. Pal, Indian Sculpture, p. 257. 36. V. S. Agrawala, The Terracottas of Ahichchhatra , Ancient India, Bulletin of the Archaeological Survey of India, no. 4 (July 1947January 1948), pp. 132, 106. 37. S. P. Gupta, ed., Masterpieces from the National Museum Collection (New Delhi: National Museum, 1985), p. 62, no. 72. 38. LAge dor de lInde classique: LEmpire des

Gupta (exh. cat.) (Paris: Re union des muse es nationaux, 2007), p. 84. 39. Willis, Temples of Gopaksetra, p. 53, pl. 57. See Thakore, Catalogue of also its unillustrated listing in S. R. Sculptures in the Archaeological Museum, Gwalior, M.P. (Lashkar: Modern Printing Press, n.d.), room 10, no. 1 (b). 40. Pal, Indian Sculpture, p. 257. 41. Muchnic, LACMA does an about-face. 42. Besides the Harle 1974 reference given by Pal, see also Devendrakumar Rajaram Patil, Saptama trka s or Seven Mothers from Besnagar, Proceedings volume of the twelfth session of the Indian History Congress (Cuttack: South Indian History Congress, 1949), pp. 109 12; R. C. Agrawala, Ma trka Reliefs in Early Indian Art, East and West, no. 21/12 (MarchJune 1971), pp. 8485, 8889, gs. 1115, 1924; Joanna Gottfried Williams, The Art of Gupta India, p. 51, pl. 48; Michael W. Meister, Regional Variations in Ma trka Conventions, Artibus Asiae, vol. 47/34 (1986), p. 256, g. 12; Katherine Anne Harper, Seven Hindu Goddesses of Spiritual Transformation: The Iconography of the Saptamatrikas (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), pp. 79 81, 8485, gs. 3139, 4549; and Shivaji K. Panikkar, Saptama trka Worship and Sculptures: An Iconological Interpretation of Conicts and Resolutions in the Storied Bra hmanical Icons (New Delhi: D. K. Printworld, 1997), pp. 7679, pls. 2126. 43. Agrawala, Ma trka Reliefs, pp. 8586, unillus trated; Williams, Gupta India , p. 136, g. 210; Pannikar, Saptama trka Worship, pp. 8889, pls. 4647. 44. Willis, Temples of Gopaksetra, p. 42, pl. 14. 45. For example, see Susan L.Huntington and John C. Huntington, The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain (New York: Weatherhill, 1985), p. 298, g. 14.11. iva-Pa 46. For example see Donaldson, S rvat , vol. 2, pp. 447, 453, gs. 516, 527, 528. 47. Pal, Indian Sculpture, p. 257. 48. Ibid. 49. Frederick M. Asher, The Art of Eastern India, 300800 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980), p. 86, pls. 186, 191. 50. Michel Postel, Ear Ornaments of Ancient India, Project for Indian Cultural Studies II (Bombay: FrancoIndian Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 1989), p. 120, g. V.52. 51. Waltraud Ganguly, Earring: Ornamental Identity and Beauty in India (Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 2007), p. 186; Postel, Ear Ornaments, pp. 3045, gs. A.12.20 and A.12.36. 52. I am grateful to Darielle Mason for suggesting the iva Andhaka Brooklyn S suravadha as a comparison with the LACMA Uma vara. Her research on the Brook -Mahes lyn image is an instructive example of the recent scholarly evolution in the study of South Asian sculpture, for only six years earlier it had been attributed to Rajasthan, 9th10th century in The Collectors Eye: The Ernest Erickson Collections at The Brooklyn Museum (exh. cat.)

STEPHEN MARKEL

The Disputed Uma vara in LACMA -Mahes

111

(New York: The Brooklyn Museum, 1987), p. 155, no. 104. For an additional iconographic discussion of this sculpture and a color illustration of it, see Rob Linrothe and Jeff Watt, Demonic Divine: Himalayan Art and Beyond (exh. cat.) (New York: Rubin Museum of Art, and Chicago: Serindia Publications, 2004), pp. 244, 246, 297, no. 62. 53. Desai and Mason, Gods, Guardians, and Lovers, p. 176, no. 22. 54. See Klaus Bruhn, The Jina-Images of Deogarh (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969). 55. Desai and Mason, Gods, Guardians, and Lovers, pp. 123, 125. 56. Heeramaneck, Masterpieces, no. 51. Rochell (Sacred and Sublime) accepts and paraphrases Heeramanecks royal couple interpretation. 57. Kramrisch, Manifestations of Shiva, p. 58, no. 49. 58. Pal, Indian Sculpture, p. 257. 59. Sights Unseen: Recent Acquisitions, in Treasures: The Members Magazine of the Asian Art Museum Chong-Moon Lee Center for Asian Art and Culture 9/12 (Fall 2006), p. 21. 60. Pal, Indian Sculpture, p. 257. 61. The Bhita image was unearthed in an excavated stratum corresponding to the early Gupta epoch (Sir John Marshall, Archaeological Survey of India, Annual Report, 19111912 [Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, 1915], p. 34), hence the fourth-century dating used herein. Later scholars apparently did not note Marshalls reference and generally attributed it to the Gupta period (Doris Meth Srinivasan, Many Heads, Arms, and Eyes: Origin, Meaning, and Form of Multiplicity in Indian Art [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997], p. 266, pl. iva-Pa 19.14) or to the fth century (Donaldson, S rvat , vol. 1, pp. 296, 469; vol. 2, p. 447, g. 515). 62. Srinivasan briey mentions the Bhita sculpture in a

iva and Uma discussion of Mathura images of S standing together, but she does not stress the importance and dening characteristic of Uma being represented in the European posture; see Srinivasan, Many Hands, Arms, and Eyes, p. 266. 63. Donaldson does, however, provide a more de iva and Pa tailed classication system for images of S rvat . iva Under Donaldsons system, the Mathura image of S and Uma standing together that is discussed by Srinivasan iva] towould more specically be termed an Uma sahita ([S gether with Uma rvat ; Donaldson, Siva-Pa , vol. 1, pp. 296, 469. 64. Jitendra Nath Banerjea, The Development of Hindu Iconography (3rd ed., New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, iva is used in the 1974), p. 446. Uma pati as a name of S Skanda Pura na (VII.1.276.13) to emphasize the union of iva (A.B.L. Awasthi, Brahmanical Uma with the body of S Art and Iconography: Studies in Skanda Pura na, Part IV [Lucknow: Kailash Prakashan, 1976], p. 171; Ganesh Vasudeo Tagare, trans., The Skanda-Pura na, Part XX, vol. 68, ed. in Ancient Indian Tradition and Mythology, G. P. Bhatt [Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003], p. 628). The term is also found in the Maha bha rata and other iva at various texts, chiey in the context of names of S sacred locations; S. So rensen, Index to the Names in the Maha bha rata, reprint, 1904, [Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1963], p. 209; T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Elements of Hindu Iconography, 2 vols. in four; reprint, 191416, [Varanasi: Indological Book House, 1971], vol. 2/1, p. 85; Jagdish Narain Tiwari, Goddess Cults in Ancient India, with Special Reference to the First Seven Centuries A.D. [Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan, 1985], p. 87, n. 193). 65. Krishna Deva, Extensions of Gupta Art: Art and Architecture of the Prat ha ra Age, in Seminar on Indian Art History 1962, ed. Moti Chandra (New Delhi: Lalit Kala Akademi, 1962), App. B, p. 103.