Volume II

1. Introduction

The ivory and bone carvings discovered at Begram, Afghanistan, during two seasons of excavation by the French Archaeological Delegation provided one of the largest single find of such objects in South and Central Asia. The Begram ivory and bone carvings were first published in 1939 and 1954 in two volumes of the Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique Française en Afghanistan (MDAFA). Since then, aside from several studies [1] concerning the stylistic qualities of the Begram ivory and bone objects, no attempt has been made to recatalogue these finds. In response, therefore, to the immediate need to supply a suitably organized illustrative complement to the text of this publication, an attempt has been made to reclassify the Begram material into categories other than those presented in the two MDAFA volumes.

Two main problems were faced in the creation of this catalogue. First, since much of the material is, or was until recently [2], at the Kabul Museum, it was not possible to examine that material in person, and so stylistic and technical analysis as to those pieces has depended upon photographic records. However, since not all photographs of the Begram ivory and bone objects were available either for the study of the carvings or for inclusion in this catalogue, those catalogue entries without illustrations and which depended primarily on the information provided by the two MDAFA reports, are listed separately from those which are provided with photographs. In addition, although all the finds carry catalogue entries in the two MDAFA volumes, those volumes contain numerous omissions as to the particular material, bone or ivory, and general description of individual pieces.

The second main problem concerning the creation of a catalogue was how to organize the Begram carvings into categories which not only give the reader an overview of the total finds but which also provide meaningful classifications in light of this work’s discussions concerning the styles, technique and subject matter. This was of particular concern since many of the pieces were not individual objects but parts of ensembles. The two excavation reports published as MDAFA were, in essence, a chronological record of the excavation [3]. Finds were listed in the order in which they were discovered and individual pieces were grouped together in ensembles following the excavators’ interpretations. As a result, the ivory and bone objects, as published in the excavation reports, do not present clear categories of subject matter or technique.

The primary concern in reorganizing this large corpus of material was to determine meaningful categories. Since most of the Begram carvings appeared to have been fastened onto the wooden skeletons of furniture [4], it seemed appropriate to try and group the pieces according to the ensembles they may have belonged to, as well as organizing the material by the room in which the objects were found. However, as discussed in Volume I, section 2.2.4, several questions arose during reexamination of the original retrieval and organization of the objects, questions which bring into doubt certain of the reconstructions [5]. This, in turn, vitiated the categorizing of the Begram material by their purported ensembles.  

Another option was to regroup the Begram ivory and bone objects by distinct carving techniques. Such distinction by technique would seem a workable and useful system if specific techniques could be tied to individual complete objects, and/or to different artistic ‘hands’, different regions of origin, or distinct subjects. Examination of the Begram carvings themselves and of certain in situ photographs (see Volume I, section 2.3) proved, however, that there was no correlation between technique and ensemble. The in situ photos clearly show that pieces carved by different techniques were found within one ensemble. In addition, although one could conceive of different artisans each working in one particular technique on the same ensemble, there is no reason to disregard the notion that one artisans, or at least one atelier, may have worked in different techniques. Indeed, the homogeneity of the subject matter seems to favor the latter idea. And the argument that pieces carved with distinct techniques may have originated in different regions is contravened by the presence of differently carved pieces in the same ensemble.

With grouping by finished object and technique eliminated and without a clear correlation between the material used, i.e. bone and ivory,  and techniques, styles, or subject matter [6], the most useful categorization for the catalogue was deemed to be by subject. Classification by subject matter not only gives the reader a general overview of the scenes on the corpus of Begram carvings but also provides the only homogeneous aspect of the entire find. While not disregarding heterogeneous carving methods, an attempt has been made to group similarly carved plaques within a particular subject category. Technical distinctions are thus noted not by the conspectus of the catalogue but rather by accompanying catalogue entries and illustrations.

The system for organizing the objects by subject manner is frequently adopted for the classification of glyptics, as most recently demonstrated Rika Gyselen’s excellent catalogue of Sasanian seals (Gyselen 1993). It should be noted, however, that the Begram catalogue is only loosely based on Gyselen’s system, since there is such a significant difference between the materials catalogued. The Sasanian seals present single objects which, although stylistically connected to other seals, do not form ensembles. Therefore certain categoric anomalies will be noted in the Begram catalogue, the result of maintaining some pieces within ensembles.

Footnotes

[1] See Auboyer 1954 and 1971; Stern 1954; Kurz 1954; Rogers 1952; Davidson 1971 and 1972; Rosen 1978; Rosen Stone 1994.

[2] The most recent, 1996-97, reports out of Afghanistan suggest that much of the inventory of the Kabul Museum has been looted in the last few years. Some objects have been spotted on sale in Pakistan and Japan. As far as the Begram ivory and bone carvings are concerned, it is not known how many pieces have disappeared.

[3] For an overview of the two excavation MDAFA reports, see Volume I, section 2.2.2: ‘Cataloguing the finds: previous classifications’.

[4] See Volume I, sections 2.2.3: ‘Function of the ivory and bone carvings’ and 2.2.4: “Reconstructions of the ivory and bone carvings’.

[5] One of the main problems was that P. Hamelin (1954) used individual carvings from two different rooms to reconstruct several ensembles. This not only rendered some of his reconstructions invalid but also excluded certain pieces from reconstruction into other ensembles with pieces from the same room in which they were found.

[6] A large number of bone pieces carved in flat relief technique carry zoomorphic designs.However, bone is also used for carvings carrying other themes and is carved in a variety of techniques.

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

Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative
URL: ECAI.org