2.3 Carving Techniques and Styles

2.3.1 Techniques and styles: previous classifications

Since there is still considerable speculation about the origin of the Begram ivory and bone objects, and the Begram excavation has yielded no definitive evidence of a workshop -- e.g. instruments, discarded worked ivory -- the exact way in which the Begram objects were created remains conjecture. However, certain technical aspects in the making of ivory and bone sculptures in general are known from archaeological findings, literary evidence and ethno-archaeological studies of more modern ivory carvers. And as indicated by several scholars, the instruments employed in the sculpting of ivory and bone have not undergone many changes since pre-historic times (Dwivedi 1976:14).

The first step in the manufacture of an ivory carving is to choose a suitable piece of raw ivory. The best ivory to carve is that which is farthest away from the pulp cavity; to the outside, the ivory is the oldest and most solid and therefore the best to carve (Cutler 1985:1) (see section 2.4). According to Dwivedi, the Brhatsa◊hita, composed during the Gupta period, gives instructions as to how an ivory tusk should be cut: “one should leave uncut the portion of a tusk, twice as much as its circumference at the root; and the remainder that may be cut should be used for purposes of embellishment. A little more may be cut off in the case of elephants haunting marshy places, and a little less in the case of those inhabiting mountainous tracts.” (Dwivedi 1976:23). Because the tusk is circular, the Begram ivory carver would probably have proceeded by first sawing the circular edges lengthwise to create a rectangular piece for the plaques and bands. For sculptures in the round, this slicing would not have been necessary; such sculptures seem to have been carved each from one tusk, or perhaps half a tusk.

Once the rough shape of an object had been created, the design would be outlined on the surface. In the case of the Begram objects, the design for a complete chair or footstool would have existed and each piece or element of that design would be transferred onto the required number of pieces of ivory and bone. With a chisel and a mallet, the carver would then commence the painstaking process of carving the actual design. Differently shaped chisels would be utilized for different designs. The holes needed to fasten decorative pieces of ivory were probably made by some sort of hand drill, for ivory is subject to splitting and does not lend itself to hammering. Study of nineteenth century ivory carvers has shown that when the carving has been completed, the ivory is then soaked in water, and when dry, smoothed with sandpaper (Pal 1978:note p.205). The final touch is the polishing of the objects; this can be done by using the dust of the ivory (Dwivedi 1976:13).

The majority of ivory and bone objects from Begram consisted of the earlier described plaques and bands which formed the outer decorative layer of footstools and chairs. Small circular holes drilled into most the objects, and green oxidized residue found in some of them, point to small copper nails used to fasten the pieces onto some larger objects made of wood. Also, some of the ivory pieces still display marks of the chisel used for carving the objects (Plates 171 and 172). This could indicate that the object was not yet finished, which would support a local workshop as the place of origin. Or, the carving marks could mean that the ‘fineness’ of the piece was not a great concern, which may support the hypothesis that the buyers or traders of the pieces were not from the topmost, i.e. royal, echelon of society.

The use of mica in some of the Begram objects is an unusual technique, the function of which is not altogether clear. It seemed to be used as an additional, perhaps protective or supportive, layer between the ivory and bone and the wooden frame of the object. Although mica is also common in India, with regard to the possibility of a local workshop at Begram it is interesting to note that one of the region’s largest mica mines is situated not to far from Begram in the modern Kapisa province of Afghanistan. Similarly, with regard to the use of copper nails and in some cases copper sheets in the assemblages, the Prawn area near Kapisa harbors one of the country’s main copper deposits (Amin 1976:111-112)[1].

With regard to the techniques employed in carving the Begram ivory and bone objects, among the large variety of plaques and bands discovered in Room 10, J. Hackin identified three main technical distinctions, which he classified as techniques A, B and C. (Hackin 1939:13) In addition to those three main categories he also pointed to several sub-categories. The decoration of the first main classification, technique A, was characterized by simple engraving with a stylus. In addition, some types of design, such as leaves and petals, were at points hollowed out slightly (Plate 252). The variations on the main classification A are techniques Ate and ABIOS, the former distinguished by intensified hollowing out of the undecorated parts (Plate 260) and the latter, a variation on the same theme, characterized by the strong incision of the contours plus the hollowing out of the decorated area and carving it into a relief in a sunken setting (Plate 49).

Technique B could be defined as technique A taken to its zenith. It is characterized by the presentation of a flat relief created by the deep hollowing out of the undecorated parts of the object. The decorations are engraved and incised lightly. With regard to technique B, it is interesting to note that some of the ivory and bone objects displayed traces of paint. Black paint was used for contours of personages and to accentuate the hair and eyes. Red paint, more importantly, according to Hackin was used mainly on floral and zoomorphic designs (Hackin 1939:13).

The third and final main classification, technique C, is a ‘perfected’ version of the relief in reverse of technique ABIOS. In Hackin’s opinion, its perfection lies in the ‘virtuosity of the anatomical details’ (Hackin 1939:13-14). Hackin’s classifications become a little complicated and confusing for the remainder of the objects. He offers separate categories altogether, though variants of techniques B and C, for ivory and bone objects carved in high relief. Sometimes in Hackin’s classification, as a variation of technique B, the high relief pieces are characterized by the complete removal, by hollowing out, of the undecorated parts, and in other examples, as a variant of technique C, by a slight sunken relief (Plate 285).

Unfortunately, Hackin’s death preceded publication of the second excavation report in 1954, and most of the information presented in that volume about the 1939 excavation was based on notes that Hackin had left behind. In both excavation reports, indications of the exact technique utilized in each individual piece remain sketchy. Some descriptions in the catalogue refer to the technical classification while others do not. In addition to the technical and stylistic analyses, study of the subject matter represented on the objects shows that the decorative motifs[2] on the ivory and bone objects consist of themes well known in South Asian art, such as voluptuous women wearing Indian style garments, typical mythical creatures such as the makara and yaksa, and architectural constructions reminiscent of early Indian caves near Bodh Gaya and the stupa at Sañci. Striking is that among these decorations so few male figures are depicted; only occasionally are a king and horsemen or hunters represented. The scant number of men depicted, plus the particular, mostly ‘private’, personal nature of the many scenes involving women, have led some scholars to believe that the ivory and bone artifacts from Begram most often represent scenes from the women’s quarters at a palace (Auboyer 1954:59-82). And from this it is inferred that these objects, which may have formed parts of footstools and chairs, perhaps were specially designed for use in women’s chambers.

With regard to style, the heterogeneous elements of the ivory and bone objects from Begram have been noted earlier. Some plaques display non-realistic flat, one-dimensional motifs (Plate 178), whereas others are more naturalistic and two-dimensional (Plate 192), others even try to give a sense of a third dimension (Plate 149). In addition, some women figures are carved in a stiff, sturdy style, whereas the bodies of others are displayed with more fluid contours.

Hackin’s stylistic evaluation compared the ivory and bone objects from Begram to several Indian ‘traditions’ of art. He made comparisons to the style of Sañci, of Amaravati, and of Mathura, to which most of the objects compared favorably. Based on these comparisons, Hackin proposed dates for the objects which ranged from the 1st century CE[3] to the third/early fourth century CE.

P. Stern was among the first to challenge Hackin’s reasoning regarding dating the objects, which according to Stern was based solely on the finds of Room 10 which did not provide missing links in the stylistic evolution as did the finds from Room 13. After an extensive study of all the Begram ivory and bone objects, Stern concluded, first, that the objects are far closer to each other in time than previously assumed, i.e. first to second century CE, and second, that differences in style could have been due to regional schools. In addition, Stern argued that there may have existed in the Mathura region a school of painting whose work did not survive the ravages of time but which was reflected in some of the stylistic components of the ivory and bone objects from Begram (Stern 1954:48).

In those instances in which there are technical and stylistic differences among pieces found in the same room, though not within a particular ensemble, it is certainly possible that they were made in different regions and traveled to Begram. This could bolster Hackin’s theory of dating as well as both Hackin’s and Stern’s hypothesis of different regions of origin. The relative merits of the hypothesis regarding comparative material is discussed herein, in Chapter 4, and the chronology analyzed in Chapter 5.

2.3.2 Techniques and styles: alternative categorizations

With regard to classification of objects, four issues and their interrelation seem to be important concerning the Begram ivory and bone pieces; first, an examination of the techniques employed for the carving; second, an analysis of the styles utilized for the decoration; third, a study of the subject matter presented; and last, which material, bone or ivory, was used. Correlations between two or more of these four components may reveal certain indicators about the origin and the makers of these objects.

The technical categorizations by Hackin, A (bis,ter), B, and C, are for this purpose confusing, for several reasons. First, the divisions sometimes seem to imply a progressive chronology of perfection. Hackin describes, for example, technique B as technique A at its ‘zenith’. Implicit in the chronology of perfection is the concept of time, that is the time it takes to ‘perfect’ a certain technique. This argument was used to underline the hypothesis that some of the pieces were from different periods. Secondly, the concept of ‘perfection’ is itself not very useful in classification. It assumes that techniques develop in a linear fashion from clumsy to refined but disregards the possibility of variation due to different hands or different tastes, and the spatial but not temporal variation of different regions[4].

The notion of ‘perfection’ was also used by Hackin in his analysis of styles. Hackin attributed some of the variations in style among the objects to different periods through which a specific art style was refined. Stern was the first to try to place the objects closer in time and concluded that the variations in style were due to various regional schools.

Although both Hackin’s and Stern’s arguments are plausible, neither takes into account that some of the individual pieces they designated with different styles and techniques, and thus are attributed to different times and/or different regional schools, were found -- if the reconstructions are correct -- in the same ensemble. Unless we assume that carved ivory and bone pieces were being recycled from one ensemble to another, the possibility that pieces with the same ensemble were carved at widely different times should be discarded as highly improbable. Also, though Stern’s argument for regional schools seems likely, it does not explain how pieces from different regions physically came together and were assembled into the same ensemble. The nature of the objects, chairs and footstools, seems to warrant an exact plan of assembly which would be extremely difficult if the individual components were created in different places.

A third explanation for the differences in styles is rarely considered. That is, that different craftsmen with different hands trained in different schools and even in different regions could have worked on the individual elements of an ensemble in one place. This third possibility, dependent on the notion of the itinerant artisan, is discussed herein in Chapter 6, section 6.2.

Turning to the subject matter of the ivory and bone objects, as noted previously, it can be assigned to the general Central/South Asian sphere of influence. The topics are a common mix of realistic and mythological motifs found in the arts of Gandhara, Mathura, Bactria and neighboring regions in Central and South Asia. The majority of the central themes on the pieces are depictions of women, in single or multiple form, a motif very popular in the art of the Indian subcontinent. Architectural forms, too, compare favorably with the arts of India. There are also subjects which suggest a blending of various art styles, a result of the cross-cultural tendencies of the Kushan period.

Although a correlation between technique, style and/or subject matter might provide a basis on which to assign common origins for some of the pieces, no such clear connection arises. There is a slight correlation between technique and subject matter in some of the carvings, but it seems to provide no supportable link to a place of origin. According to Hackin, technique B, or flat relief, is mainly used for floral and zoomorphic designs (Hackin 1939:). And, it is also on the flat relief pieces that red paint is used for the grounding. However, while this may be true for objects discovered in Room 10, it does not hold true for the finds of Room 13, among which were several plaques depicting humans, executed in flat relief and showing traces of red paint. Even to the extent Hackin is correct that the flat relief plaques are carved with predominantly floral and faunal motifs, the exact same floral and zoomorphic designs are also present on plaques carved by a different technique.           

There also seems to be no relationship between a certain style and the subject matter it presents. The ‘sturdy’ Mathura style for some of the pieces (Plate 77) can be considered distinguished from the more fluid design of other plaques (Plate 70), but both depict the same subjects: women under a gateway. The same is true for motifs of animal subjects: elephants, for example, are depicted in several different styles. In addition,the incised “grylli” depicted on the elaborately carved footstool IX from Room 10 is almost identical to the one carved in relief from an ensemble in Room 13 (Plates 57 and 429).

Lastly, it seems important here to touch upon the material aspects of the Begram objects. As noted previously, the Begram carvings consist of both bone and ivory, and the question here is whether there is a correlation between the material and the technique, style and/or subject matter. Technique B or flat relief appears almost exclusively on bone. Both ivory and bone are used for the incised or engraved pieces and for pieces in light relief. However, only ivory is used for high relief or pieces in the round. These differences seem to indicate little more, however, than that the bone used in Begram pieces was not technically suitable for thick carving or carving in the round. In addition, bone seems to have been used almost solely, though with a few exceptions, for less important pieces of ensembles, while the main scenes were ivory. This is an unsurprising finding since ivory is virtually always more scarce, and therefore more valuable, than bone. Cutler (1985:59-64), in a study of mainly Byzantine ivory art, also notes that in larger panels bone is mainly used for secondary elements such as floral and faunal motifs. In addition, Cutler makes the interesting observation that objects which were unique, that is, only one piece produced, had no bone elements and that bone appeared most frequently in pieces that were ‘mass produced’. As will be discussed in the following sections, the presence of so many bone objects within the Begram hoard may likewise suggest that they may have been ‘market’ products rather than royal treasure.

What remains is the conclusion that the Begram ivory and bone pieces were an amalgam of styles and techniques which were used simultaneously to create a heterogeneous collection of objects, the dating, origin and nature of which remain subject to other factors for elucidation. In sum, and with few exceptions, there seem to be no direct correlations among technique and style, subject matter and/or material.

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

Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative
URL: ECAI.org