2.2 Preservation and Reconstruction

2.2.1 Discovery and preservation

The extraordinary collection of ivory and bone carvings from Begram is unparalleled in number by any other finds of ivory and bone objects in South and Central Asia. Over one thousand pieces were discovered in the two excavated rooms at the ancient site of Begram[1].

During the 1937 campaign, in a section referred to as Site 2 in the ‘New Royal City’, the excavators uncovered a large room (10) the door of which had been ‘hidden’ by a wall of bricks (Hackin 1939: 9-10). Among the finds discovered in Room 10, which included numerous glass objects, bronzes and alabaster pieces, were sculpted or engraved plaques of ivory and bone. According to Hackin (1939:10-11), these beautiful carved objects, which had been found positioned on the central part to the south part of the floor of Room 10, had been part of ivory and bone caskets (see Section 2.2.3).

Although some ivory and bone pieces were found in good condition, most gave the impression of excellent preservation due to the ‘cast’ offered by the soil, but in fact were on the verge of disintegration, and some pulverized on contact. Several pieces (with openwork decor) had thin leaves of mica attached to them[2].

In 1939, when another room (13) was excavated to the north of Room 10, additional ivory and bone objects were discovered, including several large panels consisting of friezes of sculpted ivory (Hackin 1954). As with the objects found in Room 10, the ivory and bone carvings were decomposed by their long burial and on the verge of pulverization. An added complication was that at sometime the ivories and bone objects had tumbled, creating layer upon layer of ivory plaques which greatly increased the precariousness of the excavation. In addition, the heat in the tent at the time of excavation was approximately 45° C.

A special method of excavating the ivory and bone carvings was utilized by J. Carl, and it has been often exclaimed that but for J. Carl’s ingenuity much of the Begram ivory and bone finds would not have been preserved (Meunié 1954:7-9).  The main problem of the rescue operation was to devise a method which allowed for in situ consolidation, since the only element holding many of the pieces together was the earth they were embedded in. To save the ivory and bone pieces it was necessary to give the objects back the consistency they had lost due to the burial in humid soil (Hackin 1954:16). One of the components of ivory that makes it so suitable for carving and gives it its characteristic sheen is the presence of a gelatinous solution in the pores of the tusk (Dwivedi 1976:1).  To restore the ivory and bone objects, warm gelatin was poured onto the pieces several times, and while the gelatin was still soft some tissue paper was attached to the surface to hold the pieces together. A problem with using the paper was that if the decorated side of the object was facing upward, the process had to proceed quickly, with paper being mounted on the reverse, undecorated, part before the paper on the obverse had stuck to the object completely (Hackin 1954:15-16).

After the gelatin had been poured onto one side of an object and consistency had been returned to that side, a sharp palette knife was used to cut the ivory or bone out of its bed of soil, after which it was turned by a larger flat-face knife and the gelatin method was repeated. It is unclear what effect the gelatin method may have on possible future chemical analysis for source determination, but it seems that without J. Carl’s work most of the ivory and bone objects may have been lost forever.

The remarkable collection of ivory and bone objects thus preserved were divided between the Afghan and French archaeological delegations and ultimately found their

place in the Kabul Museum and in Musée Guimet in Paris. The tragedy of this division of the collection is easily seen. Despite early reconstructions and the identification of certain ensembles, individual sets were inadvertently split up and sent to different corners of the globe, making the study of the entire finds and reconsideration of the initial reconstructions extremely difficult. Amid the political turmoil which has plagued Afghanistan for the last two decades, systematic study of the entire Begram finds was rendered virtually impossible. And with recent information telling of the plundering of the Kabul Museum collection, it may never again be possible to study certain individual parts of the Begram finds, let alone the entire collection.

2.2.2 Cataloguing the finds: previous classifications

All the finds of Rooms 10 and 13 at Begram were catalogued and published in two volumes of the Memoires de la Délégation Archéologiques Française en Afghanistan (MDAFA), volume IX in 1939 and volume XI in 1954, respectively. Each volume includes photographs of approximately half the finds. However, some finds appear never to have been photographed[3] and other objects have been photographed but were not selected for publication in the two excavation reports[4].

After a relatively short introduction by J. Hackin, the excavation report of 1939, published under the title Recherches Archéologiques à Begram, is a chronological report of the excavation of Site 2 and a listing of the finds of Room 10[5]. The finds, not separating the ivory and bone carvings from bronzes or glassware, are listed in the order they were found, which for Site 2 starts with 149[6]. This information is followed by a sequence in brackets denoting the chronology within the excavation at Site 2, starting with 1.

The catalogue includes entries on the room in Site 2 in which the particular object was found and the standard entries such as the date of the find, description, material, size, and the depth at which the object was discovered, as well as references to plates. The catalogue also mentions where the object is kept, in Paris (P) or Kabul (K). Unfortunately, perhaps due to the speedy publication of this excavation report, less than two years after the 1937 season, no museum catalogue numbers are included[7].

The second excavation report of the 1939-40 season did not appear until 1954 as MDAFA XI, Nouvelles Recherches Archéologiques à Begram. J. Hackin, who died during World War II, had left the record of finds and a few descriptive notes, which were published together with several extensive studies on each category of finds. On the ivory and bone objects, papers were published by P. Stern, J. Auboyer and A. Foucher; papers on the Roman ware by O. Kurz; and an essay concerning the Chinese lacquers by V. Ellisseeff. In addition, the volume included introductory papers by R.Grousset, J.Meunié and A. Foucher.

The catalogue in this second report was slightly altered from that of the first report, the different categories of finds now separated by material. There is a category of ivory and bones, one each for lacquers, bronzes, glassware etc. The finds are still listed chronologically, but due to the separation by material there are gaps. All other categories of the catalogue are as in the first report. Again, no museum numbers are included.

Save for the early entries in the 1939 catalogue, where some individual pieces clearly belonging to the same group are given individual catalogue numbers[8], in both the 1939 and 1954 catalogues pieces belonging to one group (e.g. coffret, or ensemble) are denoted by the same catalogue number and then subdivided. In the 1939 report, where the few individual groups were not so large, the individual elements constituting a group were given a-z numbering and, if there was a further subdivision, by a1-z1 etc. In the 1954 catalogue, which describes individual groups far larger than those found in 1937, the system gets a little more complicated. The a-z formula is continued, and as before is further subdivided by a1-z1, a2-z2 etc. However, there are still further subdivisions such as a1bis, a1ter etc. At times, it becomes quite a numerical puzzle.

The two catalogues are an excellent record of the finds of Site 2 at Begram, and provide a chronological look at the two excavation seasons. In addition, the various individual pieces that the excavators and restorers thought belonged together are grouped accordingly in the catalogue. The greatest limitation with regard to this system of recording is that the chronology provides no useful categories for the study of the origin of the objects or their craftsmen. In particular because the initial excavators as well as several other scholars have assigned different dates and/or different regions of origin for the ivory and bone objects, it may have been more useful to categorize and classify the individual objects by technique, style and/or subject matter[9] (see section 2.3 for a discussion on techniques and styles), and to have more thoroughly described the in situ positions in which the objects were found. 

2.2.3 Function of the ivory and bone carvings

Save for a small ivory comb discovered in excavation Site 1 in the ‘New Royal City’, all ivory and bone objects at Begram were uncovered in Rooms 10 and 13 at an average depth of 2m.60 and 2m.50, respectively[10]. As mentioned in section 2.2.1, the ivory and bone objects consist of plaques and bands of various sizes, either engraved or sculpted in low or high relief, and a few sculptures in high relief. Some displayed traces of paint: red on floral and faunal motifs and black at times to accentuate the outline of human figures, strands of hair and eyes (Hackin 1939:13-14).

The ivory and bone objects found in Room 10 during the excavation campaign of 1937 were located on the ground of the chamber, from its center to the south wall. These plaques and bands were initially thought to be the outer decorative layer of caskets or chests, the inner wooden frames of which had long since disappeared due to the humid soil and lack of air. Small holes had been drilled through the objects and copper nails used to fasten them onto the underlying wooden structure. A number of pieces carried marks in “the Kharosthi and Brahmi scripts of the Kushan era” (Hackin 1939:), which most scholars attribute to marks of the artisans (Fig. 56). Other objects carried what are also referred to as artisan marks but they are not in any recognized script (Hackin 1939:24). The marks seem to have been inscribed either with black ink or with a style (see entries in Volume II: catalogue). During the 1937 excavation of Room 10, 25 objects were found carrying artisans’ marks on their backs. In Room 13 only one object was found with an artisan’s mark. Because of the damage to so many of the pieces, it is impossible to say whether all of the ivory and bone objects originally carried such marks. However, if all or most of them did, one could conceive of them not as artisans’ marks of authorship but as marks indicating the particular place of the object in an ensemble to be pieced together around a wooden frame. Such marks would be of particular assistance if the furniture were transported in pieces rather than as whole structures, or if several hands were working together on the creation.

Figure 56

As discussed in section 2.2.2, most of the ivory and bone objects from Room 10 have been organized in the excavation report (Hackin 1939) under various numbered ‘coffrets’ or chests. Several single pieces, however, have been assigned their own numbers. And although similar in execution and subject matter some, such as 251, 252, 253, 260, and 265 (Plates), clearly belong to the same group, but from the excavation report it is not clear whether they belong to any ensembles.  Subsequently, however, the various groups of ivory and bone carvings uncovered in Room 13 were termed, in the second excavation report (Hackin 1954), as ‘Ensembles’.

J. Hackin and J. Carl tried to regroup the various elements of ivory and bone where possible, and chests II, III[11] and IX in particular underwent thorough examination. The exterior of Coffret II (Figs. 57-58) was decorated with plaques and bands made both of bone and ivory and, according to Carl, in the top of the original piece was a cavity through which objects could be deposited in the ‘chest’ (Hackin 1939:12). The dimensions of the piece were 14 cm. high by 43 cm. long by 35 cm. wide; the cavity was measured at 11 x 21 cm. The pieces rest on round jutting feet 18 cm. high, the edges of which were protected by copper. The top part of the piece, around what Carl believed to be an ‘opening’, was formed by decorated bands of bone of various dimensions, and one plaque carried an engraved decoration.

Figure 57	Figure 58

Of these supposed chests discovered in Room 10, ‘chest’ IX was the only one to have a number of small columns in addition to the plaques and bands (Figs.59-62). A large engraved plaque, found broken into several pieces, formed the top (Plate 57), the side pieces were long, narrow, finely engraved plaques (Plates 51-56) which framed smaller ones (Plates 210, 211,and 212) separated by the small columns. Above the columns was another decorative band.

Figure 59	Figure 60	Figure 61	Figure 62

In addition to the plaques and bands, a number of high relief sculptures were found in Room 10. They did not, however, figure into any of the reconstructions by J. Carl and Hackin, or by P. Hamelin. Two ivory sculptures in the shape of elephants (Figs. 63-64; Plates 218-219), 27 and 28 cm. high, had clearly functioned as the legs of a small wooden or ivory stool or table (Hackin 1939:116-117, 342-344)[12]. It is not clear from the excavation reports whether their exact location upon discovery gave the excavators any indication of what kind of construction they had formed part of.

Figure 63	Figure 64

The exact function of three ivory statuettes of women is also unclear (Plates 199, 200, and 201). One cannot determine from the excavation report whether the backs of these statuettes were carved, as were the fronts. If so, they might have been intended to be seen from all sides and thus functioned as the free-standing legs of a small stool or tabouret. If, on the other hand, the backs were not worked and they were intended to be seen only from the front, they may have formed part of a decorative panel. The connection of each of the statuettes to the others also remains a matter of speculation, but their proximity at discovery and their almost identical heights does raise the possibility that they were all part of the same ensemble[13]. An interesting point is that although the later photographs of the figurines show them as single pieces, the in situ photos (Figs. 65, 66) seem to indicate that at least one of the figurines was found encased in an ivory panel, which suggests that she may have belonged to a larger decorative ensemble, or that perhaps she was a free-standing figurine and the box was made to protect her during storage or transportation[14]. In all later photographs showing the restored figurine, the casing has been omitted (Plate 200).

Figure 65	Figure 66

As with the question of carved or plain backs, it is impossible to say without examining them closely whether these statuettes had holes drilled in them, as did the plaques and bands, which could have harbored fastening devices.[15] On this issue, it is interesting to note here three ivory statuettes which were found at Pompeii and at Bhokardan and Ter in the modern Indian state of Maharashtra which probably, judged by the holes drilled in them, formed part of furniture and may give an indication of the function of the three Begram statuettes (see Chapter 4).

The series of ivory and bone carvings found in Room 13 appear to have formed parts of the backs of chairs or thrones which were decorated on both sides[16]. Although the objects were found along the western wall of the chamber at various depths[17], in the excavation report the different groups are referred to as ‘Ensembles’. In some series of ivories and bones, the obverse and reverse sides of the chair backs apparently were not directly joined together. Instead, they were attached to the chair in the following composition: first, a frieze of ivory or bone, followed by a leaf of mica, then a thin piece of copper, all of which was then attached to the wood by means of copper nails. This composition was the same on both sides of the chairs.

P. Hamelin reviewed the initial reconstructions by J. Hackin and J. Carl of the objects found in Room 10, and after extensive study came to the conclusion that rather than chests or caskets, the pieces formed the outer decorative layer of small tabourets, which may have been meant to accompany the chairs discovered in Room 13 (Hamelin 1954:326-329). The fact that none of the pieces had indications of locks, hinges or similar opening devices seems to favor his hypothesis. In addition, Carl’s suggestion that one of the pieces, ‘chest’ II (Figs. 57-58), had a hole in the top through which articles could be placed into the ‘chest’ seems unlikely given the small size of the opening; the space of 11 x 21 cm. would have made it extremely awkward for someone to reach to retrieve objects stored inside. Also, some of the sides of the ‘chests’ were carved balustrades with openings dividing them, or plaques with openwork, which seems to indicate that it would not have been appropriate for storing small items. However, it should be noted that in its original form, as witnessed by the holes in the ivory bands, this object may have had an inner wooden casing which would have prevented objects from falling out. To strengthen his case for footstools, Hamelin notes the bas-reliefs at Amaravati, which carry depictions of thrones that are almost always accompanied by a small footstool. In the examples cited by Hamelin, there are footstools that depict a type of balustrade similar to those found on the objects at Begram (Hamelin 1954:316-317).

Figure 57	Figure 58

In this regard, it is interesting to note that neither Carl nor Hamelin remark on the fact that many of the plaques and bands in Room 10 have their exact counterparts in Room 13. For example, a beautiful series of plaques in relief depicting pairs of women in a square frame from Room 10 (Plates 1-6) is identical to a series found in Room 13 (Plates 6-11 )[18]. In addition, the ‘grylli’ carved on a plaque from Room 10 (Plate 57) is, although carved in a different technique, identical in execution to one found on a band from Room 13 (Plate 429).

It seems probable, judging from the in situ photos, that all the furniture was already fully constructed, such that individual plaques and bands found in either room were not destined to be combined into the same ensemble. However, their striking similarity suggests that at least some completed individual objects from Room 10 may have at least formed sets with individual pieces of furniture from Room 13.

Hamelin was also responsible for the reconstruction of most of the finds in Room 13. His findings were published in the catalogue of 1954 in an article by P. Stern and an article by Hamelin himself. Hamelin based his findings on four types of evidence: a. the photos taken at the time of the excavation before the actual complete disengaging had taken place; b. J. Carl’s sketches, which are detailed records of the excavation; c. descriptions of the objects and their excavation provided by Hackin; and d. examination of the objects themselves.

Of the ensembles discovered in Room 13, six were first reconstructed into four chairbacks and two panels, and later into one whole construction, as an elaborate throne. For each reconstruction, Hamelin provided an exact account of the documents he relied on. In only two ( 161 and 5) of the four reconstructions of chairbacks did the ensembles correspond with the objects given in the catalogue. The individual pieces of the two other chairbacks, according to Hamelin, were distributed over several ensembles in the catalogue. Therefore, the two chairbacks were not given particular catalogue numbers, as were the previous two, but were given Carl’s numbers 2 and 3. Whether one favors the J. Hackin and J. Carl descriptions of chests or the P. Hamelin assertion of footstools for the objects from Room 10, or prefers the four chairs or one throne from Room 13, one should remain cautious about any assumptions concerning the ivories’ and bones’ original composition. As Hamelin notes, in some cases there is no telling what the degree of entanglement was at the time of discovery. Although the sources Hamelin used to reconstruct the furniture, e.g. photographs of the objects in situ, sketches by J. Carl made at the time of discovery, descriptions by J. Hackin, and the fragmented objects themselves, give a good general impression of the original pieces, they do not provide a precise indication of each individual piece’s position upon discovery, nor, still more importantly, each piece’s original position upon storage in the sealed of Rooms 10 and 13. The nature of, and problems with, previous reconstructions of certain individual pieces is discussed in the following section 2.2.4.

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

Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative
URL: ECAI.org