archives of asian art

7/30/2019 Archives of Asian Art

1/26

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

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

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


2/26

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

s t e p h e n m a r ke l

Los Angeles County Museum of Art

The genesis of this study is a March 2007 Los AngelesTimes article1 on an Indian stone sculpture of Uma-Mahesvara (Figs. 1, 1A) in the Los Angeles County Mu-seum of Art (LACMA) that had been offered for saleafter formal deaccession approval by the museumsBoard of Trustees.2 An e-mail by LACMAs formerSenior Curator of Indian and Southeast Asian Art(19701995), Pratapaditya Pal, protesting the deacces-sion, had engendered the newspaper article. The e-mail,

which objected to the deaccession on the basis of thesculptures art-historical importance, was sent to themuseums Administration and to the Los Angeles Timeson 12 March. Subsequently, the proposed deaccessionof the sculpture was cancelled to undertake an extensivescholarly investigation of its art-historical complexities.The following discussion presents this investigationsanalysis and findings.

The appropriateness of the proposed deaccession of

Fig. 1. Uma-Mahesvara. Date disputed. Uttar Pradesh, India.Gray sandstone; h. 96.52, w. 54.61, d. 19.05 cm. Los AngelesCounty Museum of Art, From the Nasli and Alice HeeramaneckCollection, Museum Associates Purchase. M.72.53.2. Photo-graph 6 2007 Museum Associates/LACMA.

Fig. 1A. Back of Fig. 1. Photograph 6 2007 MuseumAssociates/LACMA.


3/26

the sculpture will not be addressed here; rather thisstudy reviews the sculptures history of attributions andpresents evidence for revising Pals dating and geo-graphical attribution of the sculpture, which were cen-tral to his argument against its deaccession. A later dateand a more precise geographical provenance are postu-lated, which are based on iconographic and stylistic

comparisons with the closest relevant works of art andon recent scholarship on central Indian architecturalsculpture.3 Finally, drawing on a new understanding ofthe sculptures most salient iconographic feature, thedistinctive sitting position of Uma, this investigationpresents a fresh interpretation of the iconological mean-ing of this unusual representation of Uma-Mahesvara.

It is useful to begin by identifying the sculpturesiconography and also by placing it in a scholarly con-text, both of which help trace the sculptures history ofpublished attributions. The sculpture (accession num-ber: M.72.53.2; h. 96.52 cm) is gray4 sandstone and de-

picts the Hindu god S iva and his spouse Uma (a.k.a.Parvat). They are seated on their respective bull andlion mounts, with smaller figures below their feet thatrepresent their two sons Gan

esa and Kumara (riding

his peacock mount), the devout, emaciated Bhrngi, an

unidentified male ascetic, and a female flywhisk bearer.This type of composition is known in Sanskrit texts asUma-Mahesvara (Uma and the Great Lord [S iva]),but is identified in the museums official records by itsmore familiar name, Shivas Family. The sculpture en-tered LACMAs permanent collection in July 1972 aspart of an exchange that included a number of works,which was predicated on the return of an Indian stonecolumn, previously purchased in 1969, to the well-knownNew York dealer Nasli Heeramaneck.5

Over the course of the following thirty-seven years,in various LACMA records, sponsored publications, andaffiliated writings, Pal attributed the Uma-Mahesvarawith 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-Mahesvarahave been published by four other authors: Stella Kram-risch (Markandi, Chanda District, Maharashtra (?),6th7th century);12 Thomas Donaldson (Uttar Pra-desh, 7th century);13 Alice Heeramaneck (Central In-dia (?), 6th7th century);14 and Carlton Rochell (Uttar

Pradesh, circa 600).15 All four authors suggested datesfor the sculpture consistent with those of Pal. The au-thors geographical attribution, Uttar Pradesh, generallyagreed with Pals. The one disagreement came fromKramrisch, who proposed Maharashtra as the sculp-tures place of origin.16

The next step in this investigation is to examine the

evidence and arguments for the aforementioned attribu-tion and dating of the Uma-Mahesvara. Pals earlier,slightly varying attributions in 1970, 1972, 1973, and1974 can be aligned with his 1986 catalogue entry and2007 to form a general consensus of attribution toUttar Pradesh (?), circa 600.17 In 2007 he further de-scribed the Uma-Mahesvara as the only monumentalstone sculpture from the late Gupta period and part ofthe museums small group of Gupta art.18

Ascribing the sculpture to the celebrated Gupta pe-riod imbues it with great importance, but is problematicgiven South Asian art scholars current recognition of

the frequent incongruity between the duration of a po-litical dynasty and an affiliated artistic style. Strictlyspeaking, the Gupta dynasty ruled circa 320550, withthe last seventy-five years being a chaotic, fragmentedperiod disrupted by the incursions of the Hun

as. Ar-

tistically, however, the sublime figural and architecturalmodes of the Gupta period proper continued to inspireworks across a wide expanse of India throughout thesixth century. Accordingly, the traditional artistic chro-nology is that

The Gupta period as a whole may then be dividedinto an early Gupta period, extending, dependingon the region, well into the fifth century, a Guptaperiod proper, and a late Gupta period beginningin the west perhaps as early as the second quarterof the fifth century but considerably later in theeast. Works undertaken after the middle of thesixth century are then considered to belong to thepost-Gupta period.19

The traditional conception of the post-Gupta style in-cludes works made across northern and central India

after the Gupta period, from the mid-sixth centurythrough the tenth century,20 even though the multitudeof works lumped together under the rubric is stylisti-cally diverse and was produced under widely disparatepatronage.

Few Indian art historians still classify South Asianworks of art by dynastic or political labels (includingnumerous labels referring to later, smaller kingdoms).21

Instead, South Asian works of this period are commonlyclassified according to their specific regional traditions

88 ARCHIVES OF ASIAN ART


4/26

and chronological manifestations. In these terms Palsassignment of the Uma-Mahesvara to the late Guptaperiod is outdated. Moreover, even if one accepts,as Pal did, the traditional chronology in which lateGupta art comprises works produced between themid-fifth century and the mid-sixth century, his datingof the sculpture to circa 600 places it in the traditionalpost-Gupta period. This discrepancy calls into ques-tion one of the bases of Pals argument to retain thesculpture. Evidence presented herein for reassigning thesculpture to the Deogarh region, circa 750800, furtherundermines the notion of a Gupta origin, one of Palsbases for the sculptures importance. During this period

Deogarh (ancient Dasarn

adesa) was likely subject tothe political authority of the Gurjara-Prathara rulers ofKanyakubja.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 morerestricted context, the earliest of its kind at LACMA.23

This claim is problematic, because there exist severaldifferent iconographic forms of S iva seated with Uma/Parvat;24 thus it depends upon which specific form(s)Pal meant by its kind.

Nevertheless, despite this claims inherent ambigu-ity, it is possible to assess both versions of the claim of

Fig. 2. Uma-Mahesvara. Mid-8th c.Nand Chand, Panna District, MadhyaPradesh, India. Sandstone. Photograph:Courtesy of the American Institute ofIndian Studies, 7400.

STEPHEN MARKEL The Disputed Uma-Mahesvara in LACMA 89


5/26

earliest by focusing on the basic compositional ele-ments of S iva seated with Uma/Parvat. The sculptureof the Uma-Mahesvara is indeed the earliest represen-tation in LACMAs collection of the two deities seated

together, regardless of whether one accepts Pals datingof circa 600 or follows the revised dating of circa 750800 proposed here. In the overall context of SouthAsian art, again regardless of which proposed date is ac-cepted, the sculpture is certainly not the earliest instanceof S iva seated with Uma/Parvat. Several earlier exam-ples can be cited: a fourth-century image at Mathura,Uttar Pradesh;25 fifth-century images at Nachna-Kuthara,Panna District, Madhya Pradesh,26 and Bhitargaon,Kanpur District, Uttar Pradesh;27 and a mid-sixth-

century image at the great S iva cave-temple at Elephanta(a.k.a. Gharapuri) near Mumbai.28 Significantly, how-ever, none of the fourth- or fifth-century images has theHoly Family tableau represented beneath the divine

couple, which is a defining iconographic feature of thepresent subset of Uma-Mahesvara image.29

At Elephanta the area beneath S iva and Parvatplaying dice on Mt. Kailasa30 is damaged, but enoughof the composition survives to suggest that it was origi-nally a representation of S ivas gan

as (dwarf followers

of S iva) tugging at his bull mount. Comparisons withanalogous scenes at contemporaneous sites, such as atSondni, Mandasor District, Madhya Pradesh, and theDhumar Lena Cave (No. 29) at Ellora, Maharashtra,

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



6/26

indicate that this was a standard iconography duringthe sixth century.31 Thus, it is highly unlikely that aHoly Family tableau originally figured in the Ele-phanta representation.

The earliest known representations of Uma-Mahes-vara images with a Holy Family tableau depictedalong the base are from Nand Chand, Panna District,Madhya Pradesh, dating from the mid-eighth century(Fig. 2);32 Sankargarh, Satna District, Madhya Pradeshdating from the eighth century (Fig. 3); and Banpur,Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh (near Deogarh), datingfrom the eighth century (Fig. 4). Thus, assuming Palsdating, the LACMA sculpture is indeed among theearliest extant examples in South Asian art of an Uma-

Mahesvara image featuring a Holy Family tableau onits base. But in light of evidence presented below for re-vising its dating to circa 750800, and thus, the sculp-ture must be recognized as belonging to the seminal

eighth-century group of examples rather than precedingthem by at least a century.Having discussed Pals general claims about the

Uma-Mahesvaras dynastic affiliation and primacy, it isnow necessary to review the specific works of art that hehas proposed as pertinent examples in support of hisarguments. Each of his comparisons are examined inthe order presented in the catalogue entry in his IndianSculpture, Vol. 1.33 Then I shall suggest alternativecomparative examples that I consider more germane to

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



7/26

the attribution of the Uma-Mahesvara. Pals first com-parison is stylistic; the other three comparisons areiconographic.34 The significance of this crucial distinc-

tion is addressed in detail below.First, for the sake of clarity, Pals argument is quotedhere in its entirety:

While Kramrisch is correct in commenting on theuniqueness of the image and dating it to the sixthseventh century, her suggested provenanceMarkandi in Maharashtrais highly unlikely.Apart from the fact that the Markandi templesare five centuries later, it is very difficult to accept

this work as a stylistic precursor. Moreover, thesculpture generally is not rendered in the style ofthe monuments of Maharashtra. On the contrary,

the elongated faces are somewhat reminiscent of aterra-cotta Siva head found at Ahichchhatra (V. S.Agrawala 194748, pl. XLIV), while Uma maybe compared with the similarly seated MotherGoddesses from Madhya Pradesh (Harle 1974,figs. 3032). Parvatis coiffure with coiled bun atthe back of the head is worn by female figures inthe Gupta-period temple at Deogarh (Williams1982, fig. 204), while the curious cylindrical earornament is more commonly found in figures

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



8/26

from Bihar. Thus, Uttar Pradesh rather thanMaharashtra is a more likely source for thisintriguing sculpture.35

Pal finds that the elongated faces of the LACMAS iva and Uma (Fig. 5) are somewhat reminiscent of aterra-cotta S iva head from Ahicchatra [modern translit-

eration], Bareilly District, Uttar Pradesh, which is nowin the National Museum, New Delhi (acc. no.: 62.243;Fig. 6). The date of the Ahicchatra S iva head is notspecified in Agrawalas excavation report, but may bepresumed to accord with material recovered from thesites Stratum III: A.D. 350 to 750.36 In subsequentpublications the head was more specifically attributedto the fifth century37 and recently to the end of the5th centurybeginning of the 6th century (or c. 490510).38 On the basis of these attributions, the Ahiccha-tra S iva head should be understood as dating at least acentury earlier than Pals attribution of circa 600 for the

LACMA Uma-Mahesvara.A stylistic comparison reveals significant differences

between the Ahicchatra S iva head and the head of theLACMA S iva (and that of Uma, which for the purposesof this analysis can be regarded as stylistically identicalto the S iva head). Although all three heads do indeedhave elongated faces, the Ahicchatra S ivas face ismore oval and narrows toward the chin more thanthose of the LACMA S iva and Uma. Its profile is alsomore pointed, and the nose protrudes farther than onthe LACMA faces. More significantly, moreover, theAhicchatra S iva differs substantially in the specific shapeof its facial features from the LACMA faces. The Ahic-chatra S ivas forehead is triangular, coming to a pro-nounced point at the bridge of the nose, and his browsare incised; whereas the lower border of the LACMAforeheads is continued by the bas-relief brows, andtogether they form the shape of a compound bow atrest. The Ahicchatra S ivas eyes are narrowly almondin shape, angled upward at the outer corners, and set instylized deep sockets formed by the bottom of the brow,which melds smoothly into the side of the nose. In con-trast, the LACMA eyes are rounder, more nearly hori-

zontal and with half-closed lids, and the sockets of theeyes are naturalistically depicted, replicating a facialskeletal structure rather than being stylized into a con-tinuous plane. The Ahicchatra S iva has an overly fulllower lip with uplifted corners forming a broad smile,and its chin is set back from the lips front edge. TheLACMA faces have full lips with deep dimples at thecorners, more nearly horizontal within the facial con-tours, and their chins extend well past the lips in un-natural block-shaped protrusions.

The two S iva heads differ radically even in the for-mal artistic organization of their ascetic hairstyles (jat

a-

mukut

a). The Ahicchatra S iva has a simple tripartite ar-rangement: two thick braids of hair rise to a point thatis clasped by an equally thick circular braid. The jat

a-

mukut

a of the LACMA S iva is extremely elaborate,with numerous thinner braids complexly interwoven.

Prominent vertical braids are clasped at the top andbottom by horizontal braids. The circular braid on thetop is much less emphasized, being at the back of the

Fig. 6. Siva Head. Ca. 490510. Ahicchatra, Bareilly DistrictUttar 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.



9/26

head and partially hidden behind the front and sur-mounting components. Although in South Asian art thearrangement and depiction of contemporaneous ascetichairstyles vary widely, the radical conceptual differencebetween the jat

amukut

a of the Ahicchatra and LACMA

S iva heads is strongly suggestive of different geographi-cal and/or chronological origins. Thus, upon careful ex-amination, the terra-cotta Ahicchatra S iva head must be

recognized as only superficially similar to the LACMAS iva head.

More closely comparable with the LACMA S ivahead is a stone S iva head dating from the mid-eighthcentury that is probably from Kota, Shivpuri District,Madhya Pradesh (Fig. 7). The Kota S iva head, now inthe Archaeological Museum, Gwalior, was published atleast a decade ago.39 Many of its features are remark-

Fig. 7. Siva head. Mid-8th c. Kota?,Shivpuri District, Madhya Pradesh, India.Sandstone. Archaeological Museum, Gwa-lior. Photograph: Courtesy of the AmericanInstitute of Indian Studies, 41305.



10/26

ably similar to those of the LACMA S iva head. TheKota S iva heads jat

amukut

a is arranged in almost ex-

actly the same manner as that of the LACMA S iva

head. It has the same distinctive complex organization,featuring prominent vertical braids of hair clasped be-tween overlapping horizontal braids at the top and bot-tom. Looped braids frame the sides of the face. Indeed,the chief difference between the two representationsis their stylistic treatment. The braids of the Kota S ivahead are flatter, slightly thinner, and more uniformthan those of the LACMA S iva. Therefore they forma more mannered, rhythmic pattern than those of theLACMA S iva head.

Other points of similarity between the Kota S ivahead 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 norsmiling, half-closed eyes (more visible in the LACMAUma), and triple neck lines. The two S iva heads alsohave locks of hair curling gracefully on the shoulders.Thus, the extremely close similarity in the stylistic treat-ment of the facial features and the distinctive mannerof arranging the jat

amukut

a strongly suggests that the

Kota S iva head and the LACMA heads share a generalgeo-chronological origin. There are, however, enoughstylistic differences, such as the Kota S iva heads flatter

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



11/26

surface plane and aforementioned emphasis on rhyth-mic patterns, to indicate that these pieces are probablynot from the same exact site or artists workshop. Addi-tional stylistic comparisons will be presented below inorder to propose a more precise place of origin.

Returning to Pals stylistic comparisons, he com-pares the unusual posture of the LACMA Uma, who

sits with her legs pendent in the so-called Europeanposture (pralambapadasana), with the similarly seatedMother Goddesses from Madhya Pradesh,40 and statesthat the posture of the goddess, sitting imperious withher legs the way they are positioned, goes out of fashionin India after the 6th century.41 The two MotherGoddesses from Madhya Pradesh to which Pal refers

Fig. 9. Matr

ka. Early 5th c. Besnagar,Vidisha District, Madhya Pradesh, India.Sandstone. National Museum, New Delhi,51.101. Photograph: Courtesy of theAmerican Institute of Indian Studies, 6514.



12/26

belong to two well-known groups of Seven MotherGoddesses (Saptamatr

ka).42 Both sets of Mother God-

desses are from the Vidisha District of Madhya Pradeshand date from the early fifth century. One is a rock-cutKaumari from Badoh-Pathari (Fig. 8); the second is anunidentified 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-cutgroups of Mother Goddesses in the nearby vicinity ofDeogarh, Lalitpur District, at least two of which (fromRajghati and Naharghati) show the goddesses in theEuropean posture.43 The significance of these sets of

Fig. 10. Ambika. Late 7th c. Gyaraspur,Vidisha District, Madhya Pradesh, India.Sandstone. Archaeological Museum, Gwa-lior. Photograph: Courtesy of the AmericanInstitute of Indian Studies, 34141.



13/26

Fig. 11. Gajalaks

m. 9th c. Deogarh,Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh, India.Sandstone. Site Museum, Deogarh. Photo-graph: Courtesy of the American Instituteof Indian Studies, 45320.



14/26

Mother Goddesses to the new iconological interpreta-tion of the LACMA Uma-Mahesvara will be further ad-dressed below.

Pals assertion that the European posture used forfemale deities goes out of fashion in India after the 6thcentury is controverted by at least two later examplesthat are, in my view, very close chronologically and ge-ographically to the LACMA Uma-Mahesvara. They arean Ambika from Gyaraspur, Vidisha District, MadhyaPradesh, dating from the late seventh century, now inthe Archaeological Museum, Gwalior (Fig. 10),44 and aGajalaks

m from Lalitpur District, Uttar Pradesh, dat-

ing from the ninth century, now in the Site Museum,

Deogarh (Fig. 11). In addition, the European posturewas used for images in southern India as early as theseventh century and continued for over a millennium.45

It was frequently used for depicting in both stone andcopper alloy images of Uma while seated with S iva.46

The kinship of Umas European posture to those of theVidisha District and Lalitpur District Mother Goddessimages has significant implications for the reinterpreta-tion of the LACMA Uma-Mahesvara.

As Pal also noted, Parvatis coiffure with coiledbun at the back of the head is worn by female figuresin the Gupta-period temple at Deogarh47 (Fig. 12).But the hairstyles of the female attendants on the door-

Fig. 12. Figures on doorjamb. Ca. 500525. Dasavatara temple, Deogarh, LalitpurDistrict, Uttar Pradesh, India. Sandstone.Photograph: Courtesy of the AmericanInstitute of Indian Studies, 43705.



15/26

jamb of the Dasavatara Temple at Deogarh, whichdates circa 500525, consist of multiple bands of coiledhair in front of a multisegmented bun, and are muchmore complex than the single-band bun of the LACMAUma. Much closer to the hairstyle of the LACMA Umais that of a Kanauj female flywhisk bearer from stylesimilar to that of the LACMA Uma; the female fly-whisk bearer is from Kanauj, Farrukhabad District,Uttar Pradesh, dating from the eighth century, andcurrently in the State Museum, Lucknow (Fig. 13). The

Kanauj attendants hairstyle consists of a single bandof coiled hair in front of a nonsegmented bun, and isalmost identical to the LACMA Umas hairstyle. Thus,the close similarity in hairstyle between the Kanaujattendant and the LACMA Uma, and the formerseighth-century date, are additional evidence supportingan eighth-century date for the Uma-Mahesvara.

Oddly, Pal supported his claim that the LACMAsculpture originated in Uttar Pradesh by citing the dis-tinctive type of earring that the Uma wears in her left

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



16/26

ear. But he then goes on to state that Uma s curiouscylindrical ear ornament is more commonly found infigures from Bihar.48 Leaving aside the ornaments usein Bihar as implausible support for locating the LACMAsculpture in Uttar Pradesh, the ornament is typicallyrepresented in Bihar sculpture dating from the eighth toninth century49 rather than in that from the sixth toseventh century, which would correspond to Pals pro-posed date for the Uma-Mahesvara. Moreover, theornament is also found on at least one ninth-centurystone sculpture from Madhya Pradesh: an image ofHara-Gaur (S iva and Uma) from Bhanpura in theMandasor District, which is now in the Central Mu-seum, Indore50 (Fig. 14). Finally, the curious cylindri-cal ornament is actually a well-known type of ear stud(generically called a tarki), which could be made of

various materials, including bone, bamboo, wood, andmetal. Its use survives in tribal traditions extendingover Madhya Pradesh, the new state of Jharkhand, andBihar.51

In sum, the comparative framework Pal used tovalidate his date of circa 600 for the LACMA Uma-Mahesvara breaks down under closer scrutiny and inthe face of alternative comparisons. The analysis pro-vided above demonstrates that the sculpture most likelydates from the eighth century. It was most plausiblymade in southwestern Uttar Pradesh or in neighboringMadhya Pradesh, but iconographic comparisons alonecannot determine which region is more probable.

Analysis of figural style, as hereinafter performed onthe LACMA Uma-Mahesvara, is generally far more accu-rate than iconographic comparisons for establishing the

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



17/26

correct geographical and chronological attribution ofhistorical South Asian sculpture. That is because figuralstyle typically develops in and is confined to a particularlocale and temporal duration. Stylistic differences be-tween adjacent regions during the same time period areoften subtle, but they can be ascertained by careful ex-

amination. In contrast, iconographic features, such as aparticular posture, are normally based on textual pre-scriptions. Thus, they frequently cross regional bounda-ries and persist beyond their period of origin. Regret-tably, with the exception of the Ahicchatra S iva head,Pal did not attempt to present stylistic comparisons rele-vant to the Uma-Mahesvara.

Although an extensive review of the art-historicalliterature and image databases failed to discover an ex-tant Hindu temple site with sculpture that stylistically

matches the LACMA Uma-Mahesvara, at least onesculpture now in a museum collection exhibits severalcomparable stylistic featuresthe representation of S ivaAndhakasuravadha (S iva 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 Mad-hya Pradesh, circa 750800.52 Her perceptive stylisticcomments include:

Among other features, the rectangular face andclosely set eyes, which are pointed at the outercorners, tie this piece to images from ancientDasarn

adesa, particularly those of the late

eighth-century Jaina temple 12 at Deogarh.53

Fig. 15. Siva Andhakasuravadha (SivaSlaying the Demon Andhaka). Ca. 750800. Probably southern Uttar Pradesh orneighboring Madhya Pradesh, India. Redsandstone; h. 69.2, w. 41.6, d. 28.6 cm.The Brooklyn Museum of Art, Gift ofthe Ernest Erickson Foundation, Inc.,86.227.145.



18/26

Besides the analogously rectangular faces of theLACMA and Brooklyn sculptures, the distinctive treat-ment of the Brooklyn S iva Andhakasuravadhas eyes,pointed at the outer corners, is highly significant for re-

fining the attribution of the LACMA Uma-Mahesvara.Erosion has abraded the corners of the LACMA S ivaseyes, but Umas eyes (Fig. 16) have the same markedlypointed outer corners as those of the Brooklyn image.Additional stylistic features common to the LACMAand Brooklyn sculptures include the deep dimples atthe corners of the mouth (mentioned above), S ivas dis-proportionately oversized hands (note in particular theLACMA S ivas huge hand resting on Umas shoulder),and the idiosyncratic treatment of S ivas chest, with the

lower edge of the pectoral muscles defined by a sharpbreak in the plane of the torso (see Figs. 1, 5).

Following Masons stylistic link between the Brook-lyn S iva and sculptures of the late eighth-century Jaina

Temple 12 at Deogarh,

54

let us compare the facial fea-tures of Temple 12s main jina image (Fig. 17) withthose of the LACMA Uma-Mahesvara. The comparisonreveals the same rectangular face, half-closed eyes, andprotruding chin. Thus, the Brooklyn S iva Andhakasura-vadha and the Deogarh jina strongly suggest the Deogarhregion of southwestern Uttar Pradesh as the most likelyorigin of the LACMA sculpture.

One remaining stylistic feature and a final icono-graphic feature of the LACMA Uma provide additional

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



19/26

corroboration of its revised date and general place oforigin. Under Umas breasts are three prominent paral-lel convex rolls that arch in the middle and extendacross the front of her torso (see Fig. 5). Mason inter-prets them as ridges or rolls of flesh, but on Umathey could also be intended as a stylized depiction ofher ribcagean indication of her ascetic nature and

prowess. These distinctive markings are commonplacein sculpture from Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh,primarily of the eighth century and continuing in someareas into the ninth century.55 A representative exam-ple of this common stylistic feature can be found on anAmbika from Deogarh dating from the late eighth orthe ninth century (Fig. 18). Another iconographic feature

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), fig. 8.



20/26

common to this general region and period is present onboth the Deogarh Ambika and LACMA Uma: god-desses wear a pendant on a long chain that idiosyncrat-ically curves off to one side instead of following thebodys vertical axis (see Figs. 5, 10, 11, 13).

Iconographic comparisons relevant to the LACMAUma-Mahesvara suggest its general place and date oforigin to be Uttar Pradesh or Madhya Pradesh, eighthcentury. By incorporating the more precise analysis pos-

sible with stylistic comparisons, the most probable geo-graphic and chronological origin has been refined tothe Deogarh region of southwestern Uttar Pradesh, circa750800.

This revised attribution of the LACMA Uma-Mahesvara now allows us to correct earlier misinter-pretations of the so-called stern facial expressions ofS iva and Uma. It will be apparent from the descriptivecomments quoted below that Heeramaneck, Kramrisch,

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



21/26

Fig. 19. Four of the seven Mother Goddesses. Ca. 750800. Madhya Pradesh or Uttar Pradesh, India. Sandstone; h. 5of San Francisco, Gift of Dr. Stephen A. Sherwin and Merrill Randol Sherwin, F2004.38. 6 Asian Art Museum of San F


22/26

Fig. 20. Umapati. 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.



23/26

and Pal, went to great lengths in their attempts to ex-plain why the figures countenances differed so signifi-cantly from what would be expected if the sculpturehad actually been made in the sixth or seventh century.

This representation of Siva and Parvati is of arather stern and monumental character. That they

are indeed deities is indicated by their haloes, butas a certain individualization appears in the faces itis probable that a royal couple are here representedas Siva and Parvati.56

Stern and straight, the Great Lord (Mahesvara) andUma/Parvat, his wife, confront the devotee. . . .S ivas erect bearing and commanding physiqueshow him in his majesty rather than in his grace.57

Siva is sternly dignified and majestic, while Umasfacial expression and posture convey aloofness, ifnot disdain. . . . The unknown sculptor certainly did

not represent Sivas spouse as a timid acquiescentfemale, as she is generally shown in suchcompositions.58

The so-called individualization and stern facialexpressions of the LACMA Uma-Mahesvara can nowbe more accurately understood as the distinctive counte-nancecreated by exaggerated facial featurescharac-teristic of much sculpture made in Uttar Pradesh andMadhya Pradesh during the eighth and ninth centuries.A representative example that clearly illustrates thisstylistic feature is a relief carving of four of the sevenMother Goddesses from Madhya Pradesh or UttarPradesh, dating from circa 750800, now in the AsianArt Museum of San Francisco (acc. no.: F2004.38)(Fig. 19).59

Finally, a new iconological interpretation of theLACMA Uma-Mahesvara can be presented, based ona fresh understanding of the sculptures most salienticonographic feature. There are three keys to this inter-pretation. The first key is Umas unusual European pos-ture, about which Pal simply noted, During the Guptaperiod this posture generally was assigned to Mother

Goddesses rather than to Uma.

60

The second key isa terra-cotta sculpture of S iva seated with Uma fromBhita, Allahabad District, Uttar Pradesh, dating (by ex-cavation) from the fourth century,61 which is now in theIndian Museum, Kolkata (acc. no.: A10380/NS1209)(Fig. 20). The iconographic feature of this sculpturethat makes it crucial for reinterpreting the LACMAUma-Mahesvara is that the Bhita Uma is depicted inthe same European posture. Srinivasan identifies theBhita image as Umapati and provides a vague transla-

tion of Umapati as the divine couple.62 Donaldsonfollows Srinivasan in identifying the image as Umapati,but also does not perceive the significance of Umas Eu-ropean posture.63

The third key in the new interpretation is thatUmapati literally means husband of Uma. This spe-cific terminology refers to an aspect of the deities that

emphasizes S iva as the primeval Father God and Umaas the great Mother Goddess.64 Therefore, given thatthe LACMA Uma is represented in the same Europeanposture, traditionally used for images of the MotherGoddesses, the sculpture was likely made in the Deo-garh region of southwestern Uttar Pradesh. Also, giventhat Mother Goddesses are frequently shown seated inthe European posture at several sites within this fairlysmall general area (Deogarh, Besnagar, Badoh-Pathari,and Bhita), it seems logical to interpret the LACMAUma-Mahesvara as iconologically emphasizing Umasrole as the great Mother Goddess and that of her

beloved husband S iva as the primeval Father God.Moreover, in light of the small size of the geographicalarea in which Mother Goddesses and Uma were shownin the European posture, it is likely that this representsa regional iconographic tradition, one which continuedthrough at least four centuries of artistic production.Since the eighth century in Central India is recognizedas a dynamic period of Hindu iconographic develop-ment and artistic innovation,65 it is equally likely thatthe LACMA Uma-Mahesvara is an inspired expressionof this fertile, creative age.

To conclude, the previously proposed date of circa600 for the LACMA Uma-Mahesvara and the affiliationof the sculpture with the Gupta dynasty cannot be sus-tained. Stylistic comparisons presented here call for arevised date of circa 750800 for the sculpture andnarrow its probable place of production to the Deogarhregion of southwestern Uttar Pradesh. The revised dateof the Uma-Mahesvara explains its distinctive facialexpressions not as anomalies of circa 600, but as char-acteristic of eighth-century images. Finally, a consider-ation of the Uma-Mahesvaras most important icono-graphic feature reveals the deeper iconological meaning

of the sculpture.

Notes

1. Suzanne Muchnic, LACMA does an about-faceon art sale, Los Angeles Times, Saturday, 17 March2007, 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



24/26

2. As The Harry and Yvonne Lenart Curator andDepartment Head of South and Southeast Asian Art atLACMA, I was principally responsible for initiating theproposed deaccession. The museums official deaccessionpolicy was strictly followed in the formal approval processnecessary to authorize the deaccession.

3. I wish to thank a number of scholars for sharingtheir expertise and discussing this sculptures attributionwith me: Robert L. Brown (LACMA and University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles [UCLA]), Tushara Bindu Gude(LACMA and UCLA), Julie Romain (LACMA andUCLA), Walter M. Spink (Professor Emeritus, Universityof Michigan), John C. Huntington (Ohio State University),Michael D. Willis (British Museum), and especially Da-rielle Mason (Philadelphia Museum of Art) and DonaldM. Stadtner (formerly University of Texas, Austin). Al-though any errors in this article are, of course, my sole re-sponsibility, it is nevertheless significant to note that all theaforementioned scholars concur with the revised dating forthe sculpture in question.

4. At present, the entire front surface of the sculpturehas a coating of a greenish brown synthetic polymer, poly-vinyl acetate (PVAc), which was brushed onto it priorto its acquisition by the museum. The uncoated surface ofthe pristinely cleaned stone visible on the back of the sculp-ture is gray (see Fig. 1A).

5. According to the museums official records, theUma-Mahesvara was part of a group of objects receivedin exchange in 1972 for a purportedly early Indian stonecolumn (M.69.13.1), which had been purchased from theHeeramanecks in March 1969. Prior to its accession, theUma-Mahesvara had been on loan at LACMA since July1970 (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, fig. 44.9. Art of Asia Recently Acquired by American Muse-

ums 1972, Archives of Asian Art, vol. 27 (197374),p. 99, fig. 22.

10. Pratapaditya Pal, Indian Sculpture: A Catalogueof 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 andUniversity of California Press, 1986), pp. 25657, no.S133.

11. Muchnic, LACMA does an about-face. Pratap-aditya Pal, personal e-mail to LACMA administration andLos Angeles Times (12 March 2007).

12. Stella Kramrisch, Manifestations of Shiva (exh.cat.) (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1981),pp. 5859, no. 49.

13. Thomas Eugene Donaldson, Siva-Parvatand AlliedImages, 2 vols. (New Delhi: D. K. Printworld, 2007), vol. 1,p. 469; vol. 2, p. 448, fig. 517.

14. Alice Heeramaneck, Masterpieces of Indian Sculp-

ture from the Former Collections of Nasli M. Heerama-neck (New York: By the Author, 1979), no. 51.

15. Sacred and Sublime: Art from India and SoutheastAsia (New York: Carlton Rochell Asian Art, 2007), no.30.

16. Kramrischs attribution will not be discussedherein because I agree with Pals arguments disproving aMaharashtran origin for the sculpture; Pal, Indian Sculp-ture, p. 257. Rochell follows Pal in this regard and neitherHeeramaneck nor Donaldson provide any justification fortheir 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 didnot include the Uma-Mahesvara in his major exhibitionand catalogue on Gupta art. See Pratapaditya Pal, TheIdeal Image: The Gupta Sculptural Tradition and Its Influ-ence (exh. cat.) (New York: The Asia Society, 1978).

19. J. C. Harle, Gupta Sculpture, Indian Sculpture ofthe Fourth to Sixth Centuries A.D. (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1974), p. 6.20. J. C. Harle, The Post-Gupta Style in Indian Tem-ple Architecture and Sculpture, Journal of the RoyalAsiatic Society of Arts, no. 5253/125 (1977), pp. 57089.

21. For example, see Pramod Chandra, The Study ofIndian Temple Architecture, in Studies in Indian TempleArchitecture: Papers Presented at a Seminar held in Vara-nasi, ed. Pramod Chandra (New Delhi: American Instituteof Indian Studies, 1975), pp. 3537; Joanna GottfriedWilliams, The Art of Gupta India: Empire and Province(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), p. 3; Mi-chael Willis, Temples of Gopaks

etra: A Regional History

of Architecture and Sculpture in Central India AD 600

900 (London: British Museum Press, 1997), pp. 2324,2627.

22. Michael W. Meister and M. A. Dhaky, eds., Ency-clopaedia 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 Uni-versity Press, 1991), pp. 2730; Vishakha N. Desai andDarielle 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. Ascer-taining the validity of the assertion is complicated because

it is unknown whether the Los Angeles Times qualifiedrephrasing represents a later clarification by Pal or is thereporters supposition.

24. Besides the Uma-Mahesvara type of image featur-ing S iva seated with Uma/Parvat (typically with their sonsGan

esa and Kumara, and the ascetic Bhr

ngi shown in a

tableau beneath them), related iconographic forms includeS iva and Parvat playing dice on Mt. Kailasa (one of theearliest forms), Ravan

anugraha (S iva and Parvat seated

together on Mt. Kailasa with the demon king Ravan

a



25/26

imprisoned beneath them), Vr

s

avahana (S iva and Parvatseated on S ivas bull mount), and Umasahita (S iva andUma standing together). For a recent thematic survey ofS iva and Parvat images, see Donaldson, Siva-Parvat.

25. T. K. Biswas and Bhogendra Jha, Gupta Sculp-tures: Bharat Kala Bhavan (Varanasi: Banaras Hindu Uni-versity, 1985), p. 72, no. 91, pl. 37, fig. 88.

26. Donaldson, Siva-Parvat, vol. 1, p. 296, vol. 2,p. 271, fig. 233; vol. 1, p. 367, vol. 2, p. 325, fig. 309.

27. Muhammad Zaheer, The Temple of Bhtargaon(Delhi: Agam Kala Prakashan, 1981), p. 87, pl. 65. Basedon the composition, the Bhitargaon scene probably depictsS iva and Parvat playing dice. There are figures representedbelow the divine couple, but the terra-cotta surface is se-verely damaged. The only figures that can be identified aretwo of S ivas dwarf hosts (gan

as), one at each end of the

panel. The one on the viewers right is playing a mr

dangadrum. The right foot of an additional figure (probably a

gan

a) also remains, but given the small amount of spacebetween the flanking gan

as, it is highly unlikely that there

would have been room for Ganesa, Kumara, and Bhrngi.Iconographically, it would also be more logical for themissing figures to be one or two additional gan

as.

28. For example, see Carmel Berkson, Wendy DonigerOFlaherty, and George Michell, Elephanta: The Cave ofShiva (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,The Iconography and Ritual of Siva at Elephanta (Albany:State University of New York Press, 1988), pp. 8185,fig. 2.

31. Joanna Gottfried Williams, The Sculpture ofMandasor, Archives of Asian Art, vol. 26 (197273),pp. 5066; Donaldson, Siva-Parvat, vol. 1, p. 152, vol. 2,p. 174, fig. 2:79; vol. 1, p. 153, vol. 2, p. 176, fig. 2:81.

32. Donald M. Stadtner, Nand Chand and a CentralIndian 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 icono-

graphic comparison and a stylistic comparison. The formerinvolves the presence of a particular object worn on thebody and its structural form, or the presence of a par-ticular posture or positional arrangement for a body part,

while the latter refers to the manner in which a physicalfeature 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 In-dia, no. 4 (July 1947January 1948), pp. 132, 106.

37. S. P. Gupta, ed., Masterpieces from the NationalMuseum Collection (New Delhi: National Museum, 1985),p. 62, no. 72.

38. LAge dor de lInde classique: LEmpire des

Gupta (exh. cat.) (Paris: Reunion des musees nationaux,2007), p. 84.

39. Willis, Temples of Gopaks

etra, p. 53, pl. 57. Seealso its unillustrated listing in S. R. Thakore, Catalogue ofSculptures 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, Saptamatrkas or

Seven Mothers from Besnagar, Proceedings volume ofthe twelfth session of the Indian History Congress (Cut-tack: South Indian History Congress, 1949), pp. 10912; R. C. Agrawala, Matr

ka Reliefs in Early Indian

Art, East and West, no. 21/12 (MarchJune 1971),pp. 8485, 8889, figs. 1115, 1924; Joanna GottfriedWilliams, The Art of Gupta India, p. 51, pl. 48; MichaelW. Meister, Regional Variations in Matr

ka Conven-

tions, Artibus Asiae, vol. 47/34 (1986), p. 256, fig. 12;Katherine Anne Harper, Seven Hindu Goddesses of Spiri-

tual Transformation: The Iconography of the Saptamatri-kas (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), pp. 7981, 8485, figs. 3139, 4549; and Shivaji K. Panikkar,Saptamatr

ka Worship and Sculptures: An Iconological

Interpretation of Conflicts and Resolutions in the StoriedBrahmanical Icons (New Delhi: D. K. Printworld, 1997),pp. 7679, pls. 2126.

43. Agrawala, Matrka Reliefs, pp. 8586, unillus-

trated; Williams, Gupta India, p. 136, fig. 210; Pannikar,Saptamatr

ka Worship, pp. 8889, pls. 4647.

44. Willis, Temples of Gopaks

etra, 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, fig. 14.11.46. For example see Donaldson, Siva-Parvat, vol. 2,

pp. 447, 453, figs. 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: Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 1989), p. 120, fig. V.52.

51. Waltraud Ganguly, Earring: Ornamental Identityand Beauty in India (Delhi: B. R. Publishing, 2007), p.

186; Postel, Ear Ornaments, pp. 3045, figs. A.12.20 andA.12.36.

52. I am grateful to Darielle Mason for suggesting theBrooklyn S iva Andhakasuravadha as a comparison withthe LACMA Uma-Mahesvara. Her research on the Brook-lyn image is an instructive example of the recent scholarlyevolution in the study of South Asian sculpture, for onlysix years earlier it had been attributed to Rajasthan,9th10th century in The Collectors Eye: The ErnestErickson Collections at The Brooklyn Museum (exh. cat.)



26/26

(New York: The Brooklyn Museum, 1987), p. 155, no.104. For an additional iconographic discussion of thissculpture and a color illustration of it, see Rob Linrotheand Jeff Watt, Demonic Divine: Himalayan Art and Be-yond (exh. cat.) (New York: Rubin Museum of Art, andChicago: 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 (Sa-cred and Sublime) accepts and paraphrases Heeramanecksroyal couple interpretation.

57. Kramrisch, Manifestations of Shiva, p. 58, no. 49.58. Pal, Indian Sculpture, p. 257.59. Sights Unseen: Recent Acquisitions, in Treas-

ures: 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 (SirJohn Marshall, Archaeological Survey of India, AnnualReport, 19111912 [Calcutta: Superintendent Govern-ment Printing, 1915], p. 34), hence the fourth-century dat-ing used herein. Later scholars apparently did not noteMarshalls reference and generally attributed it to theGupta period (Doris Meth Srinivasan, Many Heads,Arms, and Eyes: Origin, Meaning, and Form of Multiplic-ity in Indian Art [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997], p. 266, pl.

19.14) or to the fifth century (Donaldson, Siva-Parvat,vol. 1, pp. 296, 469; vol. 2, p. 447, fig. 515).

62. Srinivasan briefly mentions the Bhita sculpture in a

discussion of Mathura images of S iva and Uma standingtogether, but she does not stress the importance and defin-ing characteristic of Uma being represented in the Euro-pean posture; see Srinivasan, Many Hands, Arms, andEyes, p. 266.

63. Donaldson does, however, provide a more de-tailed classification system for images of S iva and Parvat.Under Donaldsons system, the Mathura image of S ivaand Uma standing together that is discussed by Srinivasanwould more specifically be termed an Umasahita ([S iva] to-gether with Uma; Donaldson, Siva-Parvat, vol. 1, pp. 296,469.

64. Jitendra Nath Banerjea, The Development of HinduIconography (3rd ed., New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal,1974), p. 446. Umapati as a name of S iva is used in theSkanda Puran

a (VII.1.276.13) to emphasize the union of

Uma with the body of S iva (A.B.L. Awasthi, BrahmanicalArt and Iconography: Studies in Skanda Puran

a, Part IV

[Lucknow: Kailash Prakashan, 1976], p. 171; GaneshVasudeo Tagare, trans., The Skanda-Puran

a, Part XX,

in Ancient Indian Tradition and Mythology, vol. 68, ed.G. P. Bhatt [Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2003], p. 628).The term is also found in the Mahabharata and othertexts, chiefly in the context of names of S iva at varioussacred locations; S. Sorensen, Index to the Names in theMahabharata, reprint, 1904, [Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,1963], p. 209; T. A. Gopinatha Rao, Elements of HinduIconography, 2 vols. in four; reprint, 191416, [Varanasi:Indological Book House, 1971], vol. 2/1, p. 85; JagdishNarain Tiwari, Goddess Cults in Ancient India, with Spe-cial 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 Prathara Age, in Seminar on IndianArt History 1962, ed. Moti Chandra (New Delhi: LalitKala Akademi, 1962), App. B, p. 103.


archives of asian art

Documents