2. The Ivory and Bone Carvings: Technology and Social Context

2.1 Introduction

It is thanks to the tireless efforts of J. Carl that so many of the ivory and bone objects discovered at Begram were preserved in such excellent condition (Hackin 1939:15-16). With the aid of P. Hamelin, Carl’s efforts to reconstruct the original ensembles of the ivory and bone finds from Begram resulted in a beautiful collection which serves as a highly important addition to the otherwise scarce finds of similar figurative ivory and bone objects from the Indian subcontinent (Stern 1954:315-325; Hamelin 1954:326-330). Indeed, it was in part because of his ‘gelatin technique’ for preserving the perishable ivories that Carl was able to save them from the presumed fate of so many other ancient ivories from greater India. That is, the paucity of similar ivory finds from central and southern India has been explained over the years by the hot and humid climatic conditions further south, when compared to the more continental climate in the regions of the sites at Taxila and Begram. Specifically, this lack of analogous ivories further south was not deemed inconsistent with the argument for an Indian atelier and workshop as the place of manufacture for the Begram ivory and bone carvings: the dearth in India itself of similar style ivories -- engraved or incised on plaques -- was explained by those hot and humid climatic conditions, which must have caused those ivories that remained in the south to perish.

This work does not depart from the theory of relative perishability of bone and ivory as a general explanation for why there have been few finds of ancient carved ivory from India similar to those from Begram. However, other sorts of ancient ivory objects have survived in India. And the double negative required when the general theory is extrapolated to the specific case of Begram -- the Begram ivories came from India because all similar ivories never found there must have perished -- may provide room for an alternative hypothesis. That alternative presented herein is that at least some of the particular type of carved ivory and bone objects discovered only in the northwestern (Gandharan and Bactrian) regions at sites such as Begram and Taxila, and the more recently excavated Tillya-tepe and Dal’verzin-tepe, may have been made in ateliers of Pakistan and Afghanistan rather than more southern Indian ones. The heterogeneous styles and techniques presented by the ivory and bone objects from Begram (see section 2.3), and what seem to be artisan marks in Kharosthi and Brahmi scripts on the back of some of the objects (see section 2.2), raise questions of who the artisans were who created these carvings. A number of possibilities arise: artisans trained in different schools and working in different ateliers created the different style pieces; the same artisans worked in different styles and techniques; or, artisans belonging to the same atelier had different training and thus different execution.

With regard to the first possibility, scholars have posited that the art of ivory carving was not easily mastered, that particular schools trained their craftsmen in a particular style which took years to learn, and therefore that each school had a ‘signature’ technique and/or style. Regarding the heterogeneous Begram objects, this could mean that some individual pieces could have traveled to Begram from different ateliers in different regions. However, there were also heterogeneous pieces within the same ensemble, and it seems doubtful that the pieces of one ensemble would have originated in different geographical locations and been put together at a later time (see section 2.3).

The second hypothesis, that the same artists were in command of different styles and techniques and used them freely within the same ensemble, has been little considered but may deserve further attention. As mentioned above, the belief that a single artisan could have mastered several techniques and styles is generally discounted. However, the fact that styles remain consistent within ensembles while only technical execution varies may well suggest that a single artisan was capable of some technical variation. This possibility is borne out by examples of artisans who worked in widely disparate materials (see section 2.5).

In the case of Begram, the third hypothesis also seems a likely one, that artisans and craftsmen trained in different schools worked together in the same atelier, or community of ateliers in the same location, viz. artisan marks in different scripts on the backs of ensemble pieces. Each artisan would continue to work in a distinct and characteristic mode of presentation, but the ensemble would be imagined and formed as units, each piece made with an eye to, and literally on, its partners. And this last hypothesis is not inconsistent with the second theory, that of the multi-technique artisans.

The main problem in addressing these and other issues of style is the lack of information on the ‘traditions’ of ivory carving. The paucity of ivory and bone finds makes it extremely difficult to recognize a certain carving tradition attributed to a particular region. This has caused some scholars to look at other media, such as stone sculptures, as comparative material (see Stern 1954; Davidson 1971; and Rosen Stone 1994). These cross-media analyses have their own problems, however, as is addressed in this chapter.

The use of both bone and ivory as materials for the decorative outer layer of the furniture raises a number of issues in addition to that of its source. In light of the theory that the Begram hoard was a treasure, one must address whether royalty would have commissioned bone to be used alongside ivory (see section 2.4).  Information gathered from ancient texts makes the royal use of bone seem unlikely. On the other hand, the use of bone may point to the fact that ivory was scarce, which might have been the case for the more northern regions. Of course, the difficulty of obtaining ivory in the north would be of importance only if the pieces were made in the north, so that the prevalence of bone objects could bolster the theory of a local workshop at Begram.

Some scholars have also raised the possibility that the spread of Buddhism in the region could have led to a drop in, or even an outright ban on, killing of elephants for ivory. This theory seems contradicted, however, by the numerous ivory images of the Buddha and by many Buddhist epigraphic references to ivory carving.

The use of bone could also indicate that rather than a royal treasure, the furniture was commissioned by the less-than-royally wealthy, such as a merchant or a group of merchants who traded ivory and bone goods for other ware, as was discovered at Begram. And Indian literature seems to indicate that, at least in some cases, ivory carvers worked independently for a market economy, so that bone may have been a cheaper alternative for the makers of the objects.

Finally, another quite different picture of the sources of heterogeneity among the ivory and bone objects can be derived from ancient texts, that is, that ivory carvers seemed to have been itinerant. Instead of pointing to a place of origin in the geographic sense, which has been the basis of the main classifications of ancient South-Asian art, one would need to conceive of a portable artistry. In particular, the different styles witnessed on the Begram ivory and bone objects might mean different hands from different traditions which came together in Begram for the creation of the Begram ensemble decorations. Of course, this does not rule out the likelihood that some ivory and bone objects may have traveled to Begram along trade routes from different regions of the subcontinent. Rather, it adds a new approach to the material, an approach which, alongside the others that remain viable, may enhance our understanding of a remarkably diverse collection of objects.

Website Maintained by:
Information Systems and Services,
International and Area Studies,
UC Berkeley

Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative
URL: ECAI.org