5. The Begram Ivory and Bone Carvings: A Chronology

5.1 Introduction: Initial Chronologies

Almost all studies to date of the Begram ivory and bone objects have concentrated on the motifs displayed and have been limited to a general stylistic placing of the objects within the art styles of ancient India. In addition, nearly all stylistic comparisons have been made to stone sculptural art of ancient India, individual ‘schools’ of which are dated by their relationship to other styles rather than by exact dates [1] . Further, the ivory and bone carvings discovered at Begram have been referred to mainly as part of a ‘royal treasure’, a theory has permitted a generous span, from the 1st to 3rd centuries CE, [2] for assigning dates and styles to the various objects.

In the earliest studies of the ivory and bone objects, J. Hackin compared some of the motifs to the mid-first century BCE (at the time, thought to be mid-first century CE [3] carvings of the gateways of Stupa I at Sañci. Hackin compared the majority of the other finds to the school of Mathura of the 1st- 2nd century CE, but stylistically placed ‘Coffret’ or footstool IX (Plate 57) at the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century CE (Hackin 1939:22).

P. Stern viewed the Begram artifacts through the lens of texts and inscriptions as well as by a stylistic examination of the development or transformation of their motifs (Stern 1954:17-57). The latter analysis proved the most useful with regard to the ivory and bone objects. Stern carefully studied numerous motifs -- among which were hairstyles, ornaments, poses and jewelry -- depicted on the ivory and bone carvings and came to the conclusion that the carvings should be dated in the first and second century CE, “contemporaneous to the ‘style of Mathura’, e.g. posterior to the end of the ‘old style’ of Sañci, and prior to the major and latest phase of the ‘style of Amaravati’”(Stern 1954:20).

The later dates assigned by Hackin and Stern were for the most part based on stylistic comparisons of one plaque, the top of footstool IX. According to Hackin, the ‘Gryllus motif depicted on the lid did not surface in the art of the West earlier than the third century CE, and he dated the plaque accordingly (Hackin 1939:22). Stern similarly dated footstool IX later than all the other similar Begram pieces he studied: stylistically, he placed the motif of the creeping vine or acanthus scroll, which emerges from the mouth of the ‘grylli’, in the second century CE, while all the other pieces he dated in the first century CE.

The anomaly of the single object -- the lid of footstool IX -- being stylistically dated a century or more later than all the other similar objects found in the same location was first disputed by O. Kurz, who asserted that all the ‘Western’ motifs on the ivory and bone objects, such as the ‘grylli’ motif from footstool IX, could have been dated much earlier, namely in the 1st century CE. The acanthus scroll, Kurz pointed out, had been used in the Temple of Isis in Pompeii, built in 63 CE and destroyed by the eruption of the Vesuvius in 79 CE. Neither later nor earlier versions of this acanthus motif appear to have the characteristics of the Begram example. In addition, according to Kurz, the medallions with alternating scenes of flora and fauna are likewise very reminiscent of the type found in Pompeii (Kurz 1954:54-57).

Two of the most recent stylistic analyses of the motifs depicted on the ivory and bone objects from Begram, however, again assign more extreme dates for the objects, albeit opposing extremes. J. LeRoy Davidson, in an article published in 1971, rejects a Kushan, i.e. 1st-3rd century CE, date for the ivory and bone objects, and in its stead proposed the 1st century BCE, based on a stylistic comparison to the art of Sañci I. According to Davidson , three motifs indicate an early date for the ivory and bone carvings. First, the trefoil armlet depicted on the so-called ‘Kinnari’ pot (Fig.55), popular during the art of Bharut but not appearing in the monumental art of Sañci or on the Begram ivory and bone objects, indicates a date during the dissolution of what Davidson refers to as the “old syndrome” (1971:31-45). This dating is also reflected, according to Davidson, by the overlapping rosette motif, which only appears once on the ivory and bone objects, and by the representation of both the ‘old’ (Lomas Rsi type) and ‘new’ types of chaitya arches.

In addition, an earlier date was suggested by Davidson for footstool IX. Davidson rejected Kurz’s assertion that the Begram acanthus scroll depicted on this plaque was based on Roman examples and instead compared the scroll to a similar depiction discovered at Mihintale in Sri Lanka. With this comparison, Davidson arrived at a 1st century BCE date for this motif (Davidson 1971:33). Davidson further suggested that the Begram and Sri Lankan examples of the acanthus scroll could very well have been the prototype for the Roman frescoes. In any case, the fact that the acanthus scroll motif was in use from the first century BCE thus seems to rule out the assertions by Hackin and Stern that, based on stylistic comparisons alone, the footstool IX top could only be placed in the 2nd or 3rd century CE.

Elisabeth Rosen Stone, on the other hand, has assigned the latest dates for the Begram ivory and bone objects. Rosen Stone asserts that the carvings belong to the later phases of Andhra art, i.e. end of the 3rd - beginning of the 4th century CE, and may have been produced in Afghanistan based on Andhra prototypes. However, in the same breadth Rosen Stone admits that it is problematic to assign all the ivory and bone objects to this period (1974-75:40). Rosen Stone compares the pairs of women depicted on the Begram carvings to the mithuna [4] couples from Nagarjunakonda, and avers that the “degree of interplay” does not exist anywhere else in India. She also compares a depiction of Siddharta stringing a bow to a Begram figurine holding a necklace in front of her. Despite the lack of stylistic comparison, which Rosen Stone readily admits, she proceeds to assert that the Begram example is a direct borrowing. This is further attested, according to Rosen Stone, by epigraphic evidence of intense exchanges between Andhra Pradesh and Afghanistan. In addition, Rosen Stone suggests that the female figurines shown on footstool IX are similar to the type of figurines from Nagarjunakonda both of which ultimately derived, she contends, from the mid-phases of the Amaravati style. Rosen Stone argues that the hairstyles of the above Begram figurines, too, are identical to the ones from Nagarjunakonda (Rosen Stone 1994:95).

The above-described wide disparities in the dating of the various objects of the Begram ‘treasure’ have arisen, in this writer’s opinion, because of a tendency on the part of most scholars who have considered the finds to extract individual objects from the ‘treasure’ and date them based exclusively on stylistic comparisons, ignoring in great measure the wider archaeological context in which the objects were discovered. Further, scholars have been wont to focus on solely the Indian objects, or solely the Graeco-Roman finds, or solely the Chinese lacquers, without simultaneously taking into consideration the other two groups of objects discovered with them in Rooms 10 and 13. And finally, any particular scholar’s conclusions as to widely separated dates for different objects have been generally supported by the notion of the finds as a royal ‘treasure’ which may have been hoarded over time.

A solution to the problem of the anomalous dating may be found, however, by addressing the Begram finds as a whole. Comparative ivory and bone material, the majority of the Roman ware and all the Chinese lacquers can be dated with considerable certainty in the 1st century CE, which provides a strong indication of the date of the Begram ivory and bone carvings as well. An analysis of architectural remains and numismatic finds likewise point to the 1st century CE. And a reexamination of the individual stylistic dating to earlier and later periods, plus a deconstruction of the royal ‘treasure’ theory, all combine to support a 1st century date for all the ivory and bone carvings from Begram.

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

Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative
URL: ECAI.org