Home   l    The Authors   l    Forewords   l    Gallery   l    Reviews   l    Press   l    Order

This important Buddha image is shown standing with both hands performing the vitarka mudra, a teaching gesture. The Buddha’s robe, worn in the covering mode, is depicted in a highly stylized manner to achieve a pleasing symmetry. The Buddha’s hair is arranged in tiers of tight curls that diminish toward the ushnisha. The figure has a conjoined tang attached to the bottom of the feet, indicating that the image was cast upside down. The tang represents the remains of the runner through which the molten metal was poured during the cast process, the traditional casting process used at the time.1

The ultimate source for this frontal, asexual body-form with clinging drapery is fifth-century Gupta through Pala India. The presentation of both hands executing the same mudra is a specific characteristic that developed in Central Thailand during the seventh century and became the major hallmark of Dvaravati Buddha images.2

The present Buddha was found in northeast Thailand with a cache of similar but smaller Buddha images. The remains of fabric imbedded on the surface corrosion indicate its ritual importance in antiquity and suggest that it must have been buried with care and reverence, perhaps during a period of political and religious unrest.

The Buddha is slightly later in date but relates stylistically to the famous eighth-century Korat Plateau–style bronze Buddha excavated at Khao Plai Bat II, near Yai Yam in Buriram Province, to which it bears a striking resemblance.3 The full wide lips suggest some contact with contemporary Khmer bronzes cast in northern Cambodia. A fragmentary bronze Buddha recovered from the Western Baray at Siem Reap and dated to the end of the seventh century presents a similar blend of Korat Plateau and Khmer styles.4 This blend of styles suggests that the Houston Buddha was cast by metalworkers familiar with styles of both the Korat Plateau and the Siem Reap region, possibly due to the participation of itinerant artisans.

1. A visual and stereomicroscopic examination by Pieter Meyers, May 2003, has revealed that the method of manufacture and the type and extent of the corrosion are consistent with the suggested date of manufacture.
2. Boisselier 1975, p. 200, no. 6; Bunker 2002, p. 113.
3. Bunker 2002, p. 106, fig. 1.
4. Dalsheimer 2001, pp. 228–29, no. 120.

This charming devata sits on a pillow-shaped base with her open right hand resting on her bent knee and the other leg folded under her as she leans slightly back on her left arm. Her hair is dressed in a bun at the back and enhanced by a narrow diadem with lotus-leaf peaks. She wears a sampot with a jeweled belt, and lavish jewelry: bracelets, armlets, a pectoral, and a body band beneath her breasts. Her pierced lobes suggest that she might have been adorned with moveable earrings on festive occasions.

The image has been lost-wax cast integrally with the base from a wax model formed around a wrought-iron armature, of which the tip is visible on the top of the head. Several chaplets used to hold the core in place during the casting process are visible here and there, and are typical of ancient casting methods.1 Core still remains inside the figure. Some features were carved in the wax before casting, but post-cast chasing appears to have sharpened the details. Pieces of metal with a broken edge occur along the base.

This image was allegedly found in the Koh Ker region, but where it was originally cast has not been determined. The posture and demeanor suggest that she may have belonged to a larger assemblage of sacred images from which she has become separated. The jewelry and coiffure are reminiscent of hairdos and jewelry depicted on some minor female figures on a Cham tenth-century stone pedestal from Tra Kieu, Vietnam, but none are identical.2 The posture is also one that is similar to that represented in Cham art.3 Similarities also exist with images cast in peninsular Thailand. For the time being, the origin of this lovely image remains a mystery, and the question of authorship demonstrates clearly how much is still to be learned about the art produced in Southeast Asia.

1. Visual and stereomicroscopic examination revealed that the iron of the armature has corroded: the corrosion has penetrated the bronze surface at the knees where rust has discolored the surface. There are several protrusions on the base with broken surfaces, indicating that something more was attached to the base.
2. Guillon, 2001, p. 190, fig. 4c; pp. 110–16.
3. Ibid., pp. 92:35–36; 99:47.

This elegant bronze female figure is shown standing on a square base. The hair is braided in multiple loops that form a high complex chignon, on which the remains of an attribute are still visible. The eyes are inlaid with silver and obsidian, lending the image an inner spirituality that balances her outward sensuality and making her one of the loveliest bronze female images in Khmer art. She wears no jewelry, but her long pierced lobes suggest that real jewels may have once enhanced the ears. Incised beauty lines mark her neck. She is clothed in a simple unpleated sampot with a long undulating panel with tiny curvy folds at the hem. This is typical of the lyrical style of Banteay Srei, a small temple in Siem Reap consecrated in 967 (fig. 8.6). The same simple unpleated sampot with the curvy folds at the hem is worn by the Durga figure in a relief on the west gopura I at Banteay Srei.1

The image is lost-wax cast integrally with its base. It was most likely cast upside down, and the square tapered tang under the base represents the remains of a sprue for pouring the molten metal into the mold during the casting process.

Here we have a divinity whose identity was altered when the attribute marking her chignon was abraded and her hands with their attributes broken off, probably deliberately when the religious focus of the ruler changed from Buddhism to Hinduism. Just such a period occurred under Jayavarman VIII (r. 1243–95), a fervent Shivaite iconoclast who managed to alter and damage innumerable Buddhist images during his reign, removing their attributes and transforming them into Hindu deities.

This female deity must have represented Prajnaparamita, Goddess of Transcendent Wisdom and Mother of all Buddhas, and would have displayed a tiny seated Amitabha Buddha in her chignon, now abraded.2 She would have also held a Buddhist sutra-book in one hand and a lotus bud in the other, which may account for the hands having been broken off. Prajnaparamita was much revered by the Khmer, and was the only Buddhist goddess praised in tenth-century inscriptions.3

1. Roveda 1998, p. 90, pl. 125.
2. For several Prajnaparamita images, see Dalsheimer, 2001, pp. 163, 303; Coed่s 1923, pl. XXXIV, pp. 48–49.
3. Dowling 1996, pp. 329–30.

Identity of this elegant female figure is difficult to ascertain. It has been suggested that she represents one of the major Hindu female deities, either Uma, Shiva’s consort, or Lakshmi, the consort of Vishnu. It is also possible that this is an idealized portrait of some royal or noble lady.1 The lack of a chignon or jatamukuta may indicate that the image represents a royal female rather than a major goddess.

The figure is clothed in a pleated sampot with a plain sash and richly adorned with a diadem, pectoral, earrings, armlets, bracelets, and anklets, all of which have been highlighted by mercury-gilding.2 The eyes and three beauty lines on the neck are inlaid with silver. The eyebrows are scooped out and must once have been inlaid. An incised design marks the palm of her hand. The figure is lost-wax cast integrally with the base which has been severely damaged. An iron armature is visible where the left arm is broken off.

The hair is not dressed in a chignon but is indicated by flat stylized curls depicted by indented lines. One of the important features of this figure is the superb rendition of the jewelry, especially the seven pectoral pendants that hang down the figure’s back.

This figure is said to come from Si Saket Province, Thailand, but would have been cast somewhere in Cambodia, as mercury-gilding was not practiced this early in Khmer-occupied Thailand.3 The empty inlay incisions marking the eyebrows relate this figure to the foundry tradition that produced the bronze male image (no. 70) and numerous other bronzes found in both Thailand and Cambodia.4 As pointed out by Lerner, this figure dates to the late Baphuon rather than to the Angkor Vat period,5 as once suggested.6

1. Pal 1977, p. 244.
2. Technical examination by the Cleveland Museum of Art Conservation Department; Strahan and Maines 2000, p. 199, note 2.
3. Strahan and Maines 2000.
4. Felton and Lerner 1989, p. 225–26.
5. Ibid., p. 226, no. 8.
6. Pal 1977, pp. 244–45.

This leaping mythological creature has a fierce expression characterized by bulging eyes, a pierced ruff, and an open mouth with visibly sharp teeth and a protruding tongue. This bronze was found on the Korat Plateau in northeast Thailand. Although it shares some features with a simha (lion) image on a bronze fitting found in Cambodia (no. 137), there are distinct differences in spirit and appearance between the two images. The present image, found on the Korat Plateau in northeast Thailand that was once part of the Khmer Empire, is more stylized and less naturalistic in appearance than the simha found in the Khmer heartland of Cambodia, which itself is semimythological, since lions are not indigenous.

This fanciful animal appears to have been cast in four parts. The front half of the body, the rear half, the mask, and the tail were each cast separately and then assembled mechanically. The four paws are each designed to form a circular socket that must have been used to attach the animal to some larger object, as yet unidentified.

The present animal is a curious mixture of two mythological creatures, a simha and a makara. Like the Khmer simha from the Angkor Vat vicinity in Cambodia, it is male and wears a fancy collar (no. 137). The stylized mask, claws, and tail derive from a lion, but the long serpentine body and snout are more like those of the mythical makara. Kubera, whose traditional vehicle is a lion, sits on a similar creature in a late twelfth- or thirteenth-century bas-relief at Phnom Rung on the Korat Plateau.1 An almost identical creature is shown under Vishnu in two anantashayin scenes at temples in northeast Thailand,2 and a third at Preah Khan near Angkor Vat, a scene that traditionally and iconographically calls for a naga with a water association.3 Two more of these creatures are represented in a water scene at Phimai,4 and another in a water scene at Angkor Vat.5

This creature, a combination of lion, elephant, and makara features, has been identified as a gajasimha, a mythological animal that appears to have been closely associated with Suryavarman II.6

1. Smitthi and Moore 1997, p. 298.
2. Ibid., pp. 289, 309.
3. Jacques and Freeman 2000, p. 181.
4. Smitthi and Moore 1997, p. 251.
5. Tyson 2002, fig. 6.
6. Tyson 2002, passim.

The enormously popular deity Ganesha sits with crossed legs on a rectangular base. As the remover of obstacles he is still widely worshipped in South and Southeast Asia before the start of new ventures or a journey. This chubby Ganesha is particularly charming, with wonderfully curvy ears and ornate jewelry. Nagas with erect heads form both the armlets and the sacred cord placed across his upper body on the left side. He wears a sampot can kpin with a folded edge in front and a big butterfly bow at the back over a pendant panel that falls gracefully over the edge of the base in a late-thirteenth-century style. He holds the usual attributes, his own broken-off tusk in the right hand and a sweet in his left hand.

Ganesha, the elephant-headed son of Shiva and Parvati, is a major deity in the Hindu pantheon in India dating back to Vedic times but is not documented in Cambodia until the seventh century.1 Ganesha became enormously popular in Cambodia and acquired specific Khmer characteristics that are not apparent in earlier Indian representations of the deity.2 For example, the use of nagas to form the armbands is a specifically Khmer detail.3

Jayavarman VIII, who ruled the Khmer Empire in the second half of the thirteenth century, was a devout Shivaite and violently opposed the pious form of Buddhism practiced by Jayavarman VII. Many handsome Hindu images, such as the present Ganesha, were produced during his reign. The piece is hollow cast by the lost-wax process and exhibits an attractive patina.

1. Jessup et al. 1997, cat. no. 26.
2. For a discussion of complexities of the Ganesha myths and representations of him in art, see Jessup et al. 1997, pp. 326–27.
3. Dalsheimer 2001, pp. 256–57.

This dynamic eight-armed representation of Shiva radiates a powerful blend of calm and restrained inner energy. The great god Shiva, richly jeweled and wearing a sampot can kpin with an ornate girdle, is perfectly balanced on one foot. His pectoral and girdle are decorated with pendants front and back. The long earrings fall to the shoulders. The peaked top of the chignon is decorated with a lotus-flower design. Shiva is shown with ten arms, eight of which are raised on either side, and the other two are held in front of the body with the palms of the hands facing outward. The Shiva image is cast in a post-Bayon Angkor Vat–revival style, and reflects Jayavarman VIII’s renewed enthusiasm for Hinduism during the latter half of the thirteenth century, probably as a reaction to the Buddhism of Jayavarman VII.

Shiva’s characteristic third eye is shown on his forehead, and the Sanskrit symbol for the mantra Om is displayed on the front of his chignon. Early in Hindu mythology Shiva was known as a yoga master, and the third eye, crown of hair, and symbol Om combined present Shiva in the guise of a yogin.1 In its original assemblage, the figure was probably shown dancing on a supine figure on a bronze base, both of which are now lost. So little is known of Khmer Tantric Hindu images that there is no known Khmer mandala with which to associate this figure. His “dance” posture is the same dance posture in which Hevajra is depicted (no. 144).

This Shiva image is lost-wax cast in several parts. The two sets of five arms were each cast separately, and then attached to the pre-cast head and torso. This type of construction is typical of twelfth- and thirteenth-century Khmer bronze sculpture, especially when the deity portrayed is multi-armed.

1. A twelfth-century bronze figure of Vishnu-Vasudeva-Narayana in Phnom Penh also displays the character for the mantra Om on the front of his chignon, see Jessup et al. 1997, pp. 260–61.

Home   l    The Authors   l    Forewords   l    Gallery   l    Reviews   l    Press   l    Order

For further information or inquiries please contact us directly at info@artmediaresources.com
Design by THIP