162 V. A. Smith & W. Hoey — Buddhist Statuettes. [No. 2, 
This seems to mean that the donor was MahadevI, the wife, or 
queen, of CrI Haridasa of the Gupla race. The name Haridasa, with 
the cerebral^, is curious, but it seems impossible to read the name 
otherwise. Many of the characters, especially those in the second line, 
are very rudely incised, and imperfectly formed. 
The epithet Guptavamgodita, ‘ sprung from the Gupta race,’ or the 
‘ race of Gupta,’ is interesting. It apparently means that the donor was 
a member of the family of the sovereigns of the great Gupta dynasty. 
The words Guptavamga are most naturally translated, ‘ the race of 
Gupta,’ that is to say the race of which Gupta was the progenitor. 
Sir Alexander Cunningham to the last {Goins of Med. India , p. 9) be¬ 
lieved that the word Gupta as a proper name could not stand alone, 
because it was impossible that a past participle meaning ‘protected’ 
could itself be treated as a name without mention of the protecting 
deity. The citation by Drs. Fleet and Biililer of the names Upagupta 
and Upagupta failed to change Cunningham’s opinion. The dedication 
on the statuette is a strong confirmation of the view that the name of 
the progenitor of the famous dynasty was simply ‘Gupta,’ i.e ., ‘pro¬ 
tected ’ [by the gods], and not ‘ f ri Gupta,’ ‘ protected by Laksmi.’ 
Several of the published inscriptions use Gupta as a family name 
in the phrase Guptanrpardjyabhuktau {Fleet, p. 102, etc.), ‘during the 
enjoyment of sovereignty by the Gupta kings.’ So the Girnar inscrip¬ 
tion speaks of the ‘ Gupta era ’ ( Guptaprahala ), and the MorbI inscrip¬ 
tion uses the adjective Gaupta. (Biihler, on the Origin of the Gupta - 
Valabhi Bra, pp. 6-9.) 
The English phrases ‘ Gupta dynasty ’ and ‘ Gupta era ’ are thus 
fully justified by Sanskrit precedent. The third statuette (No. Ill) 
is very small, about 4| inches high, and has no pedestal. Probably a 
pedestal existed, which has been lost. The stand shown in the photo¬ 
graph (Plate XI) is a wooden one made by the owner. The aureole, 
of which the upper part is broken off, is arranged as an oval shield the 
full length of the figure. The right hand is lost. The drapery is ar¬ 
ranged like that of the large standing figure No. I, though the attitude 
slightlv differs. The artistic execution, though better than that of 
No. II, is inferior to that of No. I. 
