Begram Web

Objects of many kinds, including items of metalwork, beads, and some sculptures (see Hackin 1939 & 1954; Ghirshman 1946; Meunié 1959), were discovered during the course of the ten years of excavation at the site of Begram by the French Archaeological Delegation in Afghanistan. However, very little attention was paid by the excavators to these miscellaneous finds which paled in comparison to the extraordinary Begram ‘treasure’. And since the main focus of this thesis is the ivory and bone objects from the ‘treasure’, only those types of other archaeological evidence that may contribute to a better understanding of the ivory and bone carvings is discussed here: i.e. the architecture, the coins, a bas-relief with inscriptions, and certain of the ceramics.

The early archaeological campaigns of Meunié and Hackin paid very little attention to the architecture and general layout of the city and it was only during Ghirshman’s campaigns of 1941-42 that the main focus of the work turned to a definition of the general plan of the city and its different architectural levels. The former, according to Ghirshman, was strictly determined by the shape of the terrain (Fig. 14). A large round plateau ascends toward the north where it is backed, and thus defended, by the Panjshir and Ghurband rivers; in the east and west, ravines form natural obstacles against attack; and the south was defended by strong fortifications (Ghirshman 1946:16-22).

Paul Bernard (1982:237) describes the plateau as situated in a plain that is approximately 40 kilometers long and 20 kilometers wide, bordered on the east and north by the Caucasus-Hindu Kush mountains from which the two main rivers of the valley, the Ghurband and Panjshir, emerge. At their confluence, some 15 kilometers from the Hindu-Kush and situated at the foot of a mountain, a large rock, known locally as the Burj-i ‘Abdullah, overhangs the two rivers at a height of approximately 20 meters (Fig. 15). The acropolis is, according to Bernard, about 200 by 150 meters in area and forms the extremity of an isthmus. Traces of an ancient enclosure wall can be seen at this acropolis. The ancient town at Begram was built on the flat plateau adjoining the acropolis and the total surface measured approximately 600 by 450 meters (Bernard 1982:237) (Fig. 16).

Because the south part of the plateau, where the ‘New Royal City’ was excavated, did not have the same natural defenses that protected the acropolis, the city had to be walled against attack. The south wall (Figs. 14, 17, 18) stood on the same level as the plains toward the south, its foundations were of stone and the wall was joined by mud on the south side, while the western end of the wall needed no stone socle due to the presence of sub-surface bed-rock. The exterior face of the wall was made up of bricks (40 x 40 x 12 cm), each carrying a mark resembling the Greek letter ‘theta’ (Ghirshman 1946:16). The wall’s external face was also characterized by recurring recesses, each 6.70 meters in length. The interior wall was only partly uncovered, so its exact characteristics are not recorded. The total thickness of the wall, however, was about ten meters, which suggested to Ghirshman that perhaps it was made up of two walls, each three meters deep, separated by a passageway.[1] David Stronach has suggested that it may be a single wall with a central passageway.

The 1941-42 season also witnessed explorations in the Burj-i ‘Abdullah, or ‘Old Royal City’ as it was referred to by Foucher[2], which lies six hundred meters north of the ‘New Royal City’ (Fig. 14). On the south and east side of this enclosure a further boundary wall completed the natural defenses offered by the Panjshir and Ghurband rivers to the north and west. This defense wall consisted of three types of construction: one part 2.80 meters thick made of brick, positioned directly on bed-rock; a second part, a layer of stones and earth; and a third part, again made of brick (Fig. 19). A drainage system consisting of terra-cotta pipes was discovered running under the foundation of the wall. The city wall had no towers, and in this way it differed from the enclosure wall of the ‘New Royal City’; also, the bricks used in the Burj-i ‘Abdullah carried no marks. In combination, these two characteristics seemed to the excavators to indicate that the construction was of an older period than that of the ‘New Royal City’. No whole buildings were excavated within the walled enclosure of the ‘Old Royal City’, which may be explained by the fact that the site was still in use during the time of the excavation. A village existed on the site, with cultivated land around it. It may well be that centuries of ploughing have disturbed and redistributed what remained of ancient constructions to such an extent that when objects were found, they no longer rested in any kind of secure context. Among those objects which were uncovered from the ‘Old Royal City’ were two parts of two separate Graeco-Buddhist bas-reliefs and a silver coin of Khosroes II (Ghirshman 1946:3).

Most of Ghirshman’s work within of the ‘New Royal City’ took place at Site 1, to the west of the bazaar uncovered by Carl and Hackin in the 1936 and 1937 campaigns (Fig. 20). Here Ghirshman claimed to find three successive levels of occupation (Levels 1-3) which he attributed successively to: 1) the Graeco-Bactrian period or the end of the early Kushan dynasty; 2) the period of the second or ‘Great’ Kushan dynasty; and 3) the eras of the third and fourth Kushan dynasties (Ghirshman 1959:43).

The foundations of Level 1 were made of bricks (40 x 40 x 10 cm) on top of which were walls constructed of stones. An interesting feature, not hitherto recorded in this region, was the occurrence of brick ‘souterrains’ built onto the foundations and probably used for the storage of provisions. The ‘souterrains’ were not constructed to any standard form, but as an example, in the south part of the city near the defense wall (Rooms 1,2 and 3) they consisted of three or four layers of brick. In general, the ‘souterrains’ were ten or twelve centimeters wider than the stone walls (Ghirshman 1959:23).

In Ghirshman’s analysis, the architectural transformations from Level 1 to Level 2 resulted from the lack of stability of some of the earlier constructions (Fig. 21a, 21b). Thus, while the houses of which the walls had remained in good repair continued to be occupied during the later eras (Rooms 27-30), the houses whose walls proved too damaged or unstable for continued use were rebuilt by new layers of brick (Rooms 13-15), and totally new constructions then arose both where the old houses had fallen into disrepair and in some cases where no structures appear to have existed before (Ghirshman 1959:26-30).

The new architectural compositions differed from those of Level 1, with the socles now constructed of stone and the walls made of pisé. As far as is known, this was the first time this type of construction was employed in the regions directly south of the Hindu Kush, though in the north, in the area of the Amu Darya river, such construction had been found in Sogdiana, Choresmia and Aï Khanum (Ghirshman 1959:27).

In Site 2 in the ‘New Royal City’, two successive occupations were discovered by J. Hackin (Fig. 21a, 21b). The foundation of the buildings in this older layer were made of stone and the walls were constructed of bricks. Based on numismatic finds, the buildings were dated in the first century CE.

It remains unclear how life in the ‘second city’ of Begram came to an end. Traces of fire have been observed in certain parts of the city where a layer of ash covered the remains. However, it is not clear whether the fire was caused by an attack from a hostile force or an internal cause. With a view toward determining the nature of the settlement at Begram, it is all the more regrettable that it is not currently possible to examine the layers of ash; sophisticated technical analysis might make it possible to identify the material that had been consumed in the conflagration, and hence, perhaps, to help deduce the nature of the fire as well as form a fuller picture of the building and other materials in use in the ‘second city’ at Begram.

Whether or not the ‘second city’ was abandoned immediately after the fire remains uncertain. At some point, however, the site was reoccupied. For the most part, the walls were no longer founded on the remains of the earlier constructions; and the north/northwest orientation of the buildings was also different. While the houses in Site 1 of the ‘New Royal City’ were now grouped around a large inner court (Fig. 22), the most striking feature in Site 2 proved to be a fortified building with round towers (Fig. 23). This structure, which had been partly uncovered in the excavation of 1937, was fully uncovered in 1938 under the direction of J. Meunié ( Meunié 1959:103). The building itself consisted of seven rooms which surrounded a large rectangular open courtyard. The northern part of the court was raised, and on it were found the remains of two stone columns, perhaps suggesting the former presence of a roof (Meunié 1959:103). The lower parts of the walls were constructed of stone, the upper parts of pisé; and in one room (14bis) the walls were covered by a bluish colored plaster.

A similar building, with four rooms and four towers (Fig. 24), was also discovered at a point 400 m. to the south of the ‘New Royal City’; in keeping with the construction inside the city, the foundations were of stone and the upper walls consisted of pisé. According to Ghirshman (1959:39), another example of this type of building with round towers is known at Sirsukh, Taxila, where it appeared to have been built by Kaniska. In addition, another example at Begram is more recent but in the same tradition.

Over time, several questions have been raised regarding the validity of Ghirshman’s theories concerning the existence of three architectural levels (Rapin 1992; Kuwayama 1974). Kuwayama addresses an apparent contradiction in the accounts of Meunié who excavated the Bazaar in 1936, and Ghirshman, who continued that excavation in 1941-42.

Kuwayama attributes the confusion to the excavators’ insistence on using numismatic evidence as the sole determinant for dating the architectural levels. As he points out, coins often remain in currency after the death of the ruler who issued them (Kuwayama 1974:59).

Claude Rapin, in an appendix to his work on the Treasury of Aï Khanum, also comes to the conclusion that not all Ghirshman’s theories about Begram hold up (Rapin 1992:385). In particular, he suggests that the earliest levels at Site 2 are to be dated -- like those of Site 1 -- to the Hellenistic period. If accurate, this suggestion brings much more cohesion to the site as a whole.

Another point could be raised with regard to Ghirshman’s identification of three separate occupation levels. It seems that much of Ghirshman’s reasoning was hampered by the entrenched notion that there was a clear distinction between a first, or early, Kushan dynasty and a second, or ‘Great’, Kushan dynasty commencing with Kaniska. But following the discovery of a new Kushan inscription, and its subsequent deciphering by Sims Williams, it is now almost certain that Kaniska was a direct descendent of Kadphises and that there was no separation between the supposed ‘early’ and ‘Great’ Kushan dynasties (Sims-Williams & Cribb 1995/96). Since there seems to be no particularly clear archaeological evidence for the separate existence of levels 1 and 2, we are perhaps confronted with only two architectural layers for the entire site. This is one of the open questions regarding the site that can best be answered by further on-site work -- at present an impossible prospect because of the political situation in Afghanistan.

In his Narrative of Various Journeys, Masson recounts his successful coin collecting at Begram. He notes:

The coins collected at Begram by Masson, which were forwarded to the East India Company, were divided by him into five classes: Greek-Bactrian; Indo-Scythic or Mithraic; Ancient Persian (Parthian or Sasanian); Hindu or Brahmanic; and Kufic or Muhammedan (Masson 1836:539). Since for the purposes of this thesis the numismatic evidence uncovered by Masson is not very useful -- the finds were not uncovered in any stratified layer and only give indications of occupation in the vaguest sense -- the studies which examined Masson’s discoveries (Avdall 1836:266-268; Prinsep 1836:548-554 & 639-657;Wilson 1841; Cunningham 1846:182-184) will not be discussed here in any depth.

That the plain of Begram continued after Masson to be a place of coin collecting and vending is suggested by U. Scerrato, who discusses a silver coin of Traianus Decius from Afghanistan which he discovered in the Bazaar of Kabul and which, according to the merchant, had arrived in Kabul from the region of Charikar where a farmer had discovered it in the area of Begram (Scerrato 1962:17-23). Also, MacDowall recounts that in 1971 and 1972, the Afghan custodian of Begram was asked to collect coins ‘washed out’ from the spring rains to compare with Masson’s findings. 46 coins were retrieved during that experiment (1985:558).

In his 1842 publication Masson also alludes to the purchase of a large number of engraved seals. Unfortunately, not much attention has been paid to these seals. Wilson briefly mentions an iron and a brass seal (1841:Lithograph IV) and J. Chapman published a short article in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal (1841:613-615) which describes 20 bronze, copper and gemstone seals, the latter including seals of carnelian, garnet, and agate. Otherwise, subsequent research on Begram omits any meaningful references to these finds.

The successive archaeological explorations of the French Archaeological Delegation in Afghanistan (1936-1946) duly brought to light a further range of numismatic finds. Meunié (1959:101) uncovered approximately 51 identified and 91 unidentified coins during his 1936 campaign in the bazaar of Begram. The earliest of these coins are attributed to Hermaios and the most recent to Vasudeva. Unfortunately for the problem of dating, the individual coins are never attributed to a specific stratified layer, so that once again they only provide a general sense of the time-range.

In MDAFA volumeVIII (1959) Meunié also published two articles on his 1938 and 1946 campaigns. These reports focus on a small fortified building, the Qala, and on the entrance to the city of Begram, respectively. The Qala (which according to Ghirshman dates to the period after the one that relates to the so-called Begram Treasure) yielded approximately 20 bronze coins of which only those of Eucradites and Kadphises II could be identified. The latest coin was one of Vasudeva, which was found on the floor of the building at a lower depth than the other two. This may raise questions concerning the stratification, but it indicated to Meunié that the building could not have been built before the 3rd century CE. (Meunié 1959:106).

In the excavation of the entrance to the city of Begram, Meunié recognized two strata which he identified with two different phases of occupation. In the lower level, he discovered coins of Kadphises II (Vima) and of Kaniska; in the upper strata, those of Huviska and Vasudeva (Meunié 1959:110). Again the coins seem only to confuse matters, since it is difficult to see why there would be two entirely different occupational levels associated with the time of Kaniska and his immediate successor Huviska.

The two catalogues emanating from the excavations led by Hackin in 1937 and 1939 include several numismatic finds. However, there was no analysis of the coins in question since most attention was concentrated on those Roman, Indian and Chinese finds which came to be known as the Begram Treasure. In Room 7 and 10, according to the catalogue (Hackin 1939), only two identified coins were found, one of Vima Kadphises at a depth of 1 m.80 and one of Kaniska at a depth of 2 m.60. Room 13 (Hackin 1954) revealed a larger number of coins; 70 are mentioned in the catalogue. Again only a few were identified, including silver coins of Kujula Kadphises, Huviska and Vasudeva and copper coins of Vima Kadphises and Gondophares.

During the excavation at Begram in 1941-1942, Ghirshman’s team uncovered a total of 380 coins of which 49 were assigned to Indo-Greek rulers; 25 to Indo-Parthian/Indo-Scythian rulers; 114 to the ‘first’ Kushan dynasty; 113 to the ‘second’ Kushan dynasty; and 42 coins combined to the ‘third’ and ‘fourth’ Kushan dynasties. The remaining coins are unidentified (Ghirshman 1946:86).

Although presenting the world with a large fine collection of numismatic finds, the Begram coins are not very helpful indicators for a particular chronology of the site. Never fully, if at all, assigned to specific stratigraphic layers, the coins give only a general indication that the site witnessed continuous occupation from the Graeco-Bactrian through the Islamic period. In particular, they are of almost no assistance in assigning a specific date to the so-called Begram Treasure.

With regard to the chronology of the Begram hoard, those coins which can be placed in some kind of direct relationship to the building in which the numerous objects were found will be discussed in more depth in chapter 5. However, as will be seen, even the coins that can claim some proximity to the so-called Treasure raise more questions than they answer.

With regard to the possible identification of Begram as the ancient Kapisi, an inscription on a bas-relief discovered at Begram has played an important if somewhat problematic role (Fig. 25). The relief depicts the Buddha flanked by Brahma and Indra. The Buddha’s right hand is held in the posture of varada-mudra while his heavily damaged left hand must have rested on his knee. In the far right is depicted a figure with his hands held together in reverence. Other figures to be seen are Vajrapani and a monk (Konow 1935:12).

Under the relief is an inscription in Kharosthi script. According to Konow, this is the first example of a Kharosthi inscription found in Kapisi. [ Interestingly Konow remarks that Kharosthi was in common use in Kapisi, an observation of importance if correct, for artisan marks on some of the Begram ivory and bone objects (see Chapter 2) are in the same script. ] And Konow is in agreement with Hackin that the inscription dates to the end of the Kushan period.

The inscription -- or, rather, a lacuna in the inscription -- has been used to further identify Begram as ancient Kapisa. The legend reads: .......y[e] A[m]tariye danammuhe imena kusalamulena pituno pujae [bhavatun, which Konow translates as: ‘....... gift of Antari; through this root of bliss [may it be] for the worship of [her] father (Konow 1935:14).

When publishing the text of the inscription, Konow had no problem responding to the blank (“......y[e]”) at the beginning of the inscription with the explanation that it read “[Kapisi]y[e]”, translated as ‘ruler of Kapisa’. However, the inscription itself provides no geographic or other reference that would support such an interpolation. And the only apparent reason that Konow felt comfortable, if not compelled, to add the Kapisa reference was that the bas-relief had been found near Begram, which had been tentatively identified as ancient Kapisi by Foucher. Following Konow’s interpretation, the inscription has now come to support, rather than derive from, the identification of the site as ancient Kapisa. This circular route seems unfortunately to demonstrate the way in which certain conjectures come to be supported by other mere conjectures within the parameters of the same argument, each thereby hoisting the other into the position of a generally accepted hypothesis.

Meunié paid almost no attention to the ceramics found in the bazaar at Begram. His catalogue suggests that among other pieces, he uncovered pottery with stamped decoration, which were analogous to pottery discovered by Ghirshman and assigned to the third, and last, in Ghirshman’s chronology, period of occupation. The same lack of attention to ceramic finds appears in each of the two catalogues published on Hackin’s 1937 and 1939 excavations. It seems that after the excavators had uncovered the objects contained in the ‘Treasure’ in Rooms 10 and 13, mere potsherds receded far into the background.

The only researcher who has attempted to create a chronology for the ceramics finds of Begram is Ghirshman. Ceramics found in Level 1 were classified in two categories: (a) a black and gray/black ware which, according to Ghirshman, can be compared with pottery discovered at Nad-i-Ali, in Afghan Seistan; and,(b) a red-ware that is comparable to pottery found at Hamadan in Iran and probably made during the Hellenistic era (Ghirshman 1946:44-46). Other ceramic objects discovered in Level 1 include terra-cotta figures, some of which display traces of Western influence and others which look more indigenous.

With the exception of a few small details, the pottery in Level 2 was not very different from that found in Level 1. Traces of painted decoration were found on one goblet; little gray/black ware survived; and handles, instead of springing partly from the rim, were usually attached to the neck and shoulder. The red-ware component remained in use.

The pottery discovered in Level 3 was characterized by an absence of painted decoration and the appearance in its stead of stamped decoration. On the basis of Ghirshman’s study (1946), then, little change took place between Levels 1 and 2, with the main changes taking place from Level 2 to Level 3.

[1] Ghirshman does not elaborate on this particular architectural feature and it is unclear whether its function was structural or strategic, or a combination thereof.

[2] Foucher 1925, “Notes sur l’itineraire de Hiuan-Tsang en Afghanistan”, p.266.

Previous

Next

Begram Ivory and Bone Carvings