This case study was considered as part of a broader provenancing project. Read the summary and other case studies on the project page.
This case study will examine two Khmer lintels donated by Douglas Latchford to the British Museum (BM) in 1971. The lintels raise many unanswered questions. Where did they come from? How did they make their way into Latchford’s hands? Why did he donate them to the BM? Why did the BM accept the donation? How is it that heavy elements of temple structures are prey to the art trade? How does the difficulty of identifying exact provenance of ancient Khmer materials from Cambodian-Thai border regions become manipulated for market trade? With reference to Lafont, the fact that Cambodia shares a border with Thailand facilitates the trade of Khmer antiquities into the Thai art market and beyond (Lafont 2004, 72-92). Both lintels are currently in museum storage. No exhibition history is provided for them on the BM website.
The Khmer lintel depicting a kneeling figure atop a Kala at the British Museum
Ancient Khmer temples feature decorative lintels above sanctuary doorways. They are intricately carved with narrative scenes or non-narrative floral and zoomorphic decor. This lintel, currently housed in the British Museum collection, is accessioned as 1971,0924.2 (Fig. 1). According to the BM Trustees’ Minutes, D. A. J. Latchford offered this piece to the museum in 1971, along with the Umamahesvara lintel discussed in the next section (Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Trustees, Vol 3, 18 September 1971, p. 1158). The BM website today describes the lintel as ‘Lintel. Floral scrolls spewing from the mouth of a makara; seated deity above. Made of relief carved sandstone‘.1 The website provides two ’heights’ for the lintel: 26.5 and 68 inches, likely confusing the latter with the lintel’s length. No depth is provided. The material is given as sandstone. This type of brownish sandstone is typical of northwestern Cambodia (Uchida & Shimizu, 2010:552-556). The website lists two possible production sites, Thailand or Cambodia; and one find site, Northeast Thailand. It dates the lintel to the early 11th century. This lintel is still in one piece and is sculpted with a deep surface. It appears to have been sawn off at the top, and possibly also the bottom and sides; the back portion also appears sawn off.2 Such practices are typical of looting, as looters seek to lighten their load, taking away only the most valuable part of the stone.
The central motif features a kneeling figure under an inverted V-shaped architectural structure with floral motifs extending from the arch. The figure’s base is better identified as a Kala, a well-known mythical creature in Khmer art which has featured on decorative lintels since the pre-Angkorian period. The figure appears to hold the garland on both sides, as Kala often does. For its posture and positioning above Kala, the kneeling figure could be Yama, although Yama’s attribute, the baton, is unclear (if even existent), making positive identification difficult. A similar composition is seen on a lintel displayed at Battambang Provincial Museum, accessioned as ka.0168 (Fig. 2). This piece is from Toul Prasat, Battambang in northwestern Cambodia, dated in the second half of the 11th century according to the museum.
Stylistic study of Khmer art has established a dating system for Khmer lintels. Typically, these consider the form of the garland, along with other distinctive features such as treatment of figures including dress, architectural elements and the existence or not of upper registers (See Coral-Résat 1935a, Bénisti 2003, Polkinghorne 2008). The BM lintel challenges dating on a number of counts on which it differs from the Tuol Prasat piece: the columned architectural structure enclosing the kneeling figure is relatively unusual, Yama’s attribute is not clearly present, and the Kala figure does not wear the typical jewelry and crown. The BM Kala does however feature a triangular tongue characteristic of the Khleang style (965-1010 AD). The lintel likely dates to this period, but could date from as early as the late ninth century, but no later than the twelfth century.
This case study exemplifies the challenges associated with provenancing Khmer objects which passed through Latchford’s hands, and emphasizes the need for a comprehensive understanding of the BM’s collection practices along with donation practices more broadly.
The Khmer Umamahesvara lintel at the BM
This lintel of Umamahesvara, is also held in the British Museum collection and is inventoried under the accession number 1971,0924.1 (Fig. 3). As for the other lintel discussed above, according to the BM website, this piece was offered by D.A.J. Latchford in 1971. The BM website today describes the lintel as ‘Lintel. Floral scrolls spewing from the mouth of a makara; above, two figures, probably Śiva and Pārvatī seated on a bull. Made of carved sandstone‘.3 The website also presents the dimensions of the lintel, specifying a height of 23 inches and a length of 52 inches; however, no information regarding the depth is provided. Additionally, the website suggests that the production site is possibly in Cambodia, while the find site is in northeastern Thailand. This lintel is made of sandstone. It remains as a whole piece and features a deeply sculpted surface. However, both sides of the lintel seem to have been sawn off, showing evidence of damage.
At its centre, the lintel depicts the lord Shiva and Parvati seated on their bull mount, Nandi, set atop a Kala head. The couple is in a dynamic pose, embracing each other with their inner arms, and raising their outer arms upwards. Shiva is depicted with two arms as is usual in Khmer art. The attribute in his raised right hand is however not easily identifiable. It resembles a flame or a lotus rather than the typical trident or rosary (Roveda, 2005:163). Another figure emerges behind the couple on the bull, peeking out between the bull’s tail and Uma’s raised left arm. For its bulging, menacing eyes and its positioning with this couple, this is likely a representation of the demon Ravana, making this the legendary scene where Ravana shakes the mountain on which the couple reside to disrupt their powerful dominion. A lintel in the Conservation of Angkor (CA) in Siem Reap, Cambodia, depicts an almost identical scene (Fig. 4). This BM lintel also exemplifies the difficulty of dating unprovenanced materials. The male and female deities both wear a typical long pleated sampot with a large fold at the waist fastened by a smooth belt. This style could date back to the 10th century—to the Banteay Srei style. The pediment of Umamahesvara at Banteay Srei temple (10th century) illustrates dress in a similar style (Fig. 5). The inverted arch of the floral garland is connected to Kala biting into it. This type of Kala head baring his teeth is found in the styles of Banteay Srei, Kleang and Baphuon. However, Kala’s blunt nose suggests that the BM lintel belongs to the Baphuon style, mid-to-late-11th century. Floral motifs forming a frieze on a distinct register across the top of the lintel are common in Khmer lintels of the 11th-12th century in Northeast Thailand. See for example, a lintel from Thailand’s Muang Tam temple (Fig. 6), which shows multiple similarities with the BM lintels. Nonetheless, upper registers of a similar order can also be found on lintels from the Cambodian side of today’s border, as in Figure 7 below.
Analysis of the sandstone material might also support provenancing. Naked eye examination of the colour and material makeup of the sandstone suggests that it falls into the group 2 (pale yellowish-brown to deeper yellowish-brown) identified in the study of sandstone materials in Thailand by Uchida, Ito and Shimizu (Uchita, Ito & Shimizu 2010, 552-553). This group of sandstone consists of siliceous rock fragments, opaque minerals with medium to coarse grains. A number of lintels now housed in the Battambang Provincial Museum also bear this yellowish-brown (Fig. 7).
Although a similar narrative composition is found in the lintel in Conservation of Angkor, the tone of the stone of the BM lintel makes it distinguishable. In light of these considerations, we can conclude, in such broad terms, the BM lintel case as an initial basis for further study, a task which will require considerable effort and time; this could best be followed up by targeted fieldwork.
- See British Museum website: lintel | British Museum. Last accessed on February 15, 2024. ↩︎
- I was able to see the lintel in person briefly, without the time to measure it probably. ↩︎
- See British Museum website, lintel | British Museum. Last accessed on February 15, 2024. ↩︎
References
Carò, Federico, Polkinghorne, Martin, and Douglas, Janet G. (2014). “Stone Materials Used for Lintels and Decorative Elements of Khmer Temples.” Metropolitan Museum Studies in Art, Science, and Technology, Volume 2. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
Freeman, Michael (1996). A Guide to Khmer Temples in Thailand & Laos. River Books, Bangkok.
Lafont, Masha (2004). Pillaging Cambodia: the illicit traffic in Khmer art. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland.
Luealamai, Krit (1988). Thaplang nai Prathēt Thai = Stone lintels in Thailand. Bangkok: Muan Boran.
Roveda, Vittorio (2005). Images of the gods: Khmer mythology in Cambodia, Thailand and Laos. River Books, Bangkok.
Siribhradra, Smitthi and Veraprasert, Mayurie (1990). A comparative study of Khmer lintels in Thailand and Cambodia = Kảnsu’ksā priapthiap thap lang thī phop nai prathēt Thai lae Prathēt Kamphūchā. Bangkok : Fine Arts Department.
Uchida, E., Ito, K., and Shimizu, N. (2010). “Provenance of the Sandstone used in the Construction of the Khmer Monuments in Thailand.” Archaeometry 52: pp. 550-574.