2.2 Preservation and Reconstruction (Continued)

2.2.4 Reconstruction of the ivory and bone carvings

Hackin and Carl published in the 1939 volume two reconstructions, referred to as ensemble 322, also known as ‘chest’ II, and ensemble 329, ‘chest’ IX. Although the text (Hackin 1939:12) indicates that a ‘chest’ III was also reconstructed, it was not published in that particular volume. Hamelin later reviewed these initial reconstructions.

Figure 57	Figure 58

Three photographs and one drawing were published (Hackin 1939: figs. 99-102) of ‘chest’ II. The top of the ‘chest’ II, in Carl and Hackin’s reconstruction, consisted of a centrally placed incised plaque depicting women. To the right of the plaque Carl recognized a hole, which he contended allowed for the storage of objects. Hamelin disputed this hypothesis based only on his recognizing part of a successive plaque on one of the excavation photographs. Carl’s reasoning may also be doubted because the hypothesis of a hole makes the central decoration asymmetrical.

Around the central pieces of ‘chest’ II was a rectangular band made up of a floral design. The remainder of the top part consisted of a broad rectangular register depicting diamond-shaped medallions with ducks. The four sides of this piece were flanked by curved plaques depicting a bird. The short side consisted of large plaques depicting scenes with women and animals, with a band of floral and faunal designs at the bottom. The long sides were made up of several registers, the principal one showing a row of plaques depicting pairs of women.

As previously noted (section 2.2.3), Hamelin reviewed Carl’s reconstruction and discarding the notion of a hole, instead favored reconstruction as a footstool.

Figure 59	Figure 60	Figure 61	Figure 62

Certainly one of the more stunning pieces of the Begram collection, one side of ‘chest’ IX appears on an in situ photograph published along with Carl’s reconstruction in 1939 (Hackin 1939: figs. 153-154). The general outline is very clear in the photograph (Fig. 59). One side of the piece is made up of two vertical corner plaques depicting a woman on a circular and a rectangular platform, respectively. In Carl’s reconstruction, the top horizontal register consists of a band depicting alternating circles and crosses (Fig. 60). The main horizontal register shows alternating plaques with animals and a series of four banisters. The main register is bordered below by a band with a geometric design and stylized flowers. The final register below depicts several fantastic creatures.

The top of the ‘chest’ was a large rectangular plaque with an incised decoration the central scene of which depicts four women, two of whom are attendant figures shown standing in front of their mistresses (Plate 57). The central scene is surrounded by a band carrying a geometric design. The main border register shows scrolls of floral medallions in which floral and faunal motifs are depicted. The scroll emanates out of the mouth of a composite creature which is part horse, part man and part bird on one side; and part man, part feline and part bird, and part elephant, part fish, and part makara on another.

Hamelin eventually completed this reconstruction, as shown by the design included in the 1954 catalogue. However, there is no indication of how he arrived at the reconstruction, in particular since the in situ photographs (Fig. 59) and his reconstruction are not quite identical (Fig. 61). In addition to Carl’s restoration, two more registers were added for Hamelin’s reconstruction. Also, Hamelin offered a design for the short side of the footstool.

Figure 67	Figure 68	Figure 69	Figure 70

These two reconstructions by Hamelin, after the catalogue information from 1939, seem somewhat random. No excavation photos are provided, nor drawings from the time of the excavation in 1937. It seems that Hamelin took ensembles from the catalogue and tried to fit them together. The result is at best highly problematic. In the reconstruction drawing of footstool X, for example, the two vertical curved bands depicting open-mouthed winged lions are not described in the catalogue of the 1937 excavation under Ensemble X. Since no excavation photographs were available, it was not possible to make a detailed investigation of Hamelin’s reconstructions.

Aside from reconstructing individual plaques (Hackin 1954:figs. 656-668), most of Hamelin’s work after the 1939 excavation season consisted of the reconstruction of the original objects. He came to the following reconstructions:

Figure 71	Figure 72

The in situ photograph (Fig. 71)[1] shows the outline of the chair very clearly. Plaques making up the decorative part of the chair were discovered entangled in proximity to the body of the chairback. The decorative part of the chair consists of four registers separated by three plain bands and, following at the bottom, a band decorated with alternating stylized flowers and gammadia. The two main registers consist of plaques in relief depicting pairs of women alternating with a series of four banisters. The decorated register third from the top presents a row of medallions made up of floral scrolls in which various animals are depicted. The scrolls emerge on the left and right from the mouth of a composite creature, part elephant, part human and part fish. Also discovered were decorative copper nails that were used to secure the panels onto their wooden skeleton. The width of the decorative part is approximately 1m.28 and the chairback about 0m.70 high. The reconstructed ensemble is kept in the Kabul Museum (MK 58-1-101).

In reviewing Hamelin’s reconstruction of ensemble 161, one disturbing anomaly appears (Fig. 72). The reconstructed ensemble purports, and is generally accepted, to be the chairback found in Room 13, but in fact was partly restored by including pieces discovered in Room 10. Hamelin is forthright about the reconstruction and indicates that it was executed with Hackin’s blessing. The pieces found in Room 10 and Room 13 are indeed similar, both in technique and style. As such it would not present a problem if some of the pieces of Room 10 had been used as examples for a possible reconstruction of the chairback in Room 13, and had been clearly indicated so. That they found their way into the actual reconstruction, however, is very problematic as is evidenced by the now-general view that the chair back is a unified piece.

In addition, Hamelin mentions the marks found on the back of the objects found in Room 10 and indicates that he used those marks to reconstruct the sequence of the chairback in Room 13. The fact that the pieces were discovered in two separate rooms seems to indicate that they formed part of two different pieces of furniture. That the pieces might still have been in the stage of assembly and thus were going to make their way from Room 10 to Room 13 must be discounted, since the frame of the chairback in Room 13 clearly indicates that the furniture had already been assembled.

The consequences of this hopscotch reconstruction by Hamelin are several. First, by removing pieces from Room 10 to a Room 13 ensemble, he has omitted part of the finds in Room 10 for a reconstruction of the pieces in that chamber. Also he has created an apparently simulated reconstruction which has taken on a legitimacy it does not seem to warrant. And by doing so here and in other reconstructions, in some scholars’ eyes he may have cast doubt on the accuracy of all his reconstructions.

Figure 73	Figure 74	Figure 75	Figure 76

For the reconstruction of chairback 5, Hamelin used photos of the excavation (Figs. 73-74)) which clearly indicate registers II-V. These depict, respectively, a row of small mythological ‘dwarfs’ and winged lions; a series of women (the main frieze); a row of small musicians; and another series of pairs of women in square frames. Some of the latter show one woman seated on the back of a fantastic creature, and another standing next to the creature; other motifs are two women seated on a bed, and a trio of standing women. This latter register, number V, is double-faced. Frieze I, the intermediate frieze referred to as IIbis, and the bottom frieze Vbis, are not recognizable on the excavation photo and Hamelin refers to a drawing of Carl for their reconstruction (Fig. 75). Frieze I, according to Carl’s sketch, consisted of carved plaques (see 192I and 192e, figs. 41-42) alternating with a series of three cylindrical banisters. Hamelin’s reconstruction starts with a plaque whereas Carl’s commences with three banisters (Fig. 76). Registers II bis and Vbis consist of rows of tiny carved banisters. Decorative bronze nails and flat pieces of bronze were used as fastening devices. 

As with the reconstruction of ensemble 161, Hamelin borrowed similar plaques from the Room 10 for his reconstruction of register V, which Carl had noted was incomplete. The problems with this procedure have been noted above. In addition, this ‘completed’ reconstruction led Hamelin to calculate the width of the chair as 1m.48 and the height of the decorated part as 0m.50, figures which instead must be considered approximations only.

Chairback 2 from Room 13 (Fig. 81)

Figure 81

The sketch by Carl, used by Hamelin to reconstruct the other objects from Room 13, indicated that two panels, 1 and 4, and two chairbacks, 2 and 3, had been discovered in close proximity and had entangled to such a degree that many pieces belonging to different ensembles were grouped under the same catalogue numbers (Fig.77)[2].

Figure 77

In the particular alignment of the pieces, the in situ photograph (Fig. 78) also showed the collapse of various groups into one another. Nonetheless, the photograph very clearly shows several registers belonging together. The top visible, register consists of plaques depicting women in various poses. This register is followed by, respectively, a band depicting a floral design; a register showing a series of medallions made up of floral scrolls in which hunters and animals are depicted; a band depicting a row of winged crouching lions; a register that presents alternating frontally-depicted eagles and vyala-yaksas each clutching the vegetative tails of two makaras. The photograph further shows, in the lower left corner, part of a bracket in the shape of a fantastic creature (see also Fig. 79, sketch by Carl), which was catalogued with the same number but seems to belong to a different ensemble, at least according to Hamelin’s reconstructions. The remainder of the pieces in the photograph are not recognizable, as they had not yet been fully uncovered and cleaned.

Figure 78	Figure 79

Taking a look at Hamelin’s reconstruction, which shows nearly a perfect object, it is apparent that not all of his information was derived from the photograph alone (Fig. 81). The upper and lower parts of the chairback were reconstructed with the aid of Carl’s notes on his sketch (Fig. 77). Of the upper register, Carl notes that it consists of hunting scenes[3]. The manner in which Hamelin arrived at the sequence of the plaques is not altogether clear, but one can assume that he tried to regroup the actual pieces while working in the museum in Kabul where the ensemble (202) used for the reconstruction is kept. The bottom of Hamelin’s reconstruction of chairback 2 is missing in Carl’s drawing; Carl’s last notation of chairback 2 is the register depicting alternating frontally-depicted eagles and vyala-yaksas clutching the tails of makaras. The bottom three parts are made up by Hamelin, the first a band with a stylized floral design, then a register of small banisters, and last a frieze with geometric forms. The latter corresponds to a plaque published in the 1954 catalogue, 221g (Plate 367). However, plaque 221g was not discovered until eleven more days of digging had taken place at the part of the site in which the other parts of the chairback were found. Also, in Hamelin’s reconstruction, the motifs decorating the upright bands framing the registers on either side seem arbitrary. For example, the plaques used at the bottom of the uprights in Hamelin’s reconstruction represent a vyala-yaksa with a purnaghata above his head. These plaques correspond to MDAFA 1954, 207 (Plate 398) and 150r3[4] (Plate 399), respectively. However, the latter was discovered more than two weeks before any of the other parts of the chairback were uncovered.

Figure 77	Figure 81

Given all the above caveats, Hamelin arrives at a total width of the upper crossbar of the reconstruction as 1m.42 and a width of slightly above 1m.20 for the horizontal registers (Hamelin 1954:320-321). Total height is 0m.675, with the height of the decorative part as 0m.50.

Figure 82	Figure 83

The documents used by Hamelin for the reconstruction of chairback 3 included two drawings by Carl, C.C. 11 and 15 (Figs. 77, 80), and an unpublished in situ photograph that apparently shows the feet of the chair with plaques depicting a small yak∑a carrying a vase with lotuses on his head. In Carl’s drawing 11, ensemble 3 is indicated in the lower left corner and shows clearly the bracket used to connect the jutting-out crossbar to the uprights of the chairback. In addition, sketch 11 presents some details on the lower decorative registers of the chairback. Carl’s drawing 15 is more detailed and indicates the various scenes, either denoted or drawn, and also provides catalogue numbers for individual or group elements. Carl notes that scenes depicted on the upper crossbar include hunting men on horseback with dogs, and an elephant on the far left. Carl also provided the catalogue numbers of the objects, which helped Hamelin in his reconstruction of the chairback.

Figure 77	Figure 80

The register following the crossbar depicts a row of stylized palmettes and four-petaled flowers inserted in square medallions. The next register presents a narrow band depicting conches alongside an undulating branch or stem. Following this is the main register. Carl does not provide a drawing of the plaque in sketch 15, but gives us catalogue numbers and a sketch of the long thin banisters separating the plaques. The catalogue numbers refer to a series of double-faced plaques. Carl, however, did not present the sequence of these plaques, so the ordering by Hamelin must be considered random. Next, after two narrow registers depicting, respectively, an undulating flowering branch and a series of frontally-shown eagles with spread wings, there is another register made up of a series of oval medallions in which animals and hunters are depicted. Carl’s sketch 15 notes the subject in some of the medallions. The last tiny band depicts stylized four-leafed flowers alternating with rondels, all inserted in square frames.

The foot of the chairback (Fig. 82), reconstructed by Hamelin as presenting a small yak∑a carrying a vase on his head, was not noted by Carl but appears to have been visible on a photograph taken during the excavation (Hamelin 1954:322). In his reconstruction, Hamelin also discovered that one plaque, used as the decorative layer for the foot, had a leaf of mica attached to it and some trace of copper. Hamelin arrives at a length of 1m.085 for the part between the two uprights and 1m.369 total width, including the upper crossbar.

Figure 82

Panel 34 from Room 13 (Figs. 84-88)

Figure 84	Figure 85	Figure 86	Figure 87	Figure 88

The documents used by Hamelin for his reconstruction of Panel 34 were several excavation photographs (Figs. 84-86) (Hackin 1954: figs. 5-7) and sketches by Carl, which were not published in the 1954 volume. According to a plan of Room 13, the semi-circled panel 34 was discovered in approximately the center of the room, between two and three meters from the northern wall. Sketch 135 by Carl indicates the curvature of the panel. The total length of panel 34 is 3m.15

Carl’s drawings provide catalogue numbers and an indication of the series of registers on both convex and concave sides. Of the convex side, one in situ photo shows the curve of the panel, and one plaque of a pair of women under a torana is visible in relief (Fig. 86). Another excavation photo (Fig. 84) shows a heavily damaged section; recognizable is an incised plaque and a carved woman at the bottom of a pillar with capital. Carl’s sketch 5 shows that balustrades made up the upper frieze and that a row of garudas were depicted at the bottom (Fig. 85). The main central register consisted of plaques depicting women under arches. This is indicated on sketch 7, which also informs that the plaques of women alternated in relief and incised. According to Hamelin, the vertical and horizontal disposition of his reconstruction is quite certain. However, some elements, such as the types of decoration above the incised plaques, were chosen for their similarity but the sequence is unsure (Figs. 87-88).

One problem with this reconstruction is the addition of a perpendicular bracket with a console in the shape of a fantastic creature similar to the one in chairback 3. Although a perpendicular bracket with a decorative motif of elephant and torana is indicated in Carl’s sketch 137, the console is not. It is unclear whether such a console existed, since only four (two double-faced) in total were discovered, and all in the northwest corner of the room, not near Panel 34.

The main depiction of women under toranas and Indian arches, and successive broad registers showing figures inserted in floral scroll-like medallions and a series of yak∑as clutching the tails of makaras, are all clearly indicated. The scenes are separated by a narrower band with floral and faunal motifs. Carl’s sketches 4, 6 and 9 also gave information for the reconstruction by Hamelin. Except for the bottom part, which is noted in Carl’s sketches as destroyed, there is no controversy concerning the remainder of the reconstruction.

Figure 89	Figure 90

The panels are noted as identical. The degree of entanglement during the excavation led them, according to Hamelin, to be assigned different catalogue numbers and ensembles. However, since it seems that Panels 1 and 4 are separated from each other by Chairbacks 2 and 3, with Panel 1 found on top and Panel 4 on the bottom, the exact relationship of the ensembles to each other remains unclear, and all reconstructions of entire objects should be taken as hypotheses.

This having been said, Hamelin comes to the following reconstruction: the interior decoration consists mainly of pieces from catalogue ensemble 191(Fig. 93). The principal register consists of a series of toranas under which what seem to be women were depicted. Again, like Panel 34, there are alternating incised plaques and plaques in relief. After the indications of Carl, Hamelin arrived at total width of 3m.02 for the panels.

Figure 93

Hamelin’s Reconstruction of All Ivory and Bone Panels from Room 13 (Fig. 94)

Figure 94

One element of the reconstruction of the Begram ivory and bone material seemed to support quite strongly the early researchers’ theory that the Begram objects formed part of a treasure. That was the report in many of the post-excavation studies of the ivory and bone objects which referred to a large throne, found in Room 13. In Hamelin’s final reconstruction (unpublished)[5], he put all the panels discovered in the room together into one large elaborate throne surrounded on three sides by carved panels (Fig. 94). In Hamelin’s sketch of the reconstruction, a small footstool is positioned in front of the throne.

There are numerous problems, however, with Hamelin’s final reconstruction. First, as noted previously, part of this reconstruction made use of pieces from the other Room 10. It is most difficult to imagine how pieces from the same complete throne wound up in two different rooms. Second, at least three other footstools were discovered in Room 10, yet with Hamelin’s collecting of all the panels from Room 13 into one throne, there would be no chairs to which the stools belonged.

Finally, the individual parts of the panels found in Room 13 and used by Hamelin in his reconstruction of a throne were not found in situ anywhere near each other. A drawing of the finds (Fig. 27) clearly shows that individual panels were discovered in sets, in various parts of the room, indicating that they formed parts of entirely different ensembles.

Figure 27

Hamelin’s reconstruction might be salvageable if one considered the throne as being in the process of assembly, i.e. a workshop product. The in situ photographs (Figs. 71, 73, 74 and 78), however, clearly show each of the sets of panels was an assembled product. It seems more reasonable, therefore, to assume that the panels and ensembles found in Room 13 were parts of different individual pieces of furniture, perhaps chairs, and that the ivory and bone objects discovered in Room 10 were also individual pieces of furniture, most likely footstools, which may have formed pairs with the individual chairs in Room 13.

Figure 71	Figure 73	Figure 74	Figure 78

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

Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative
URL: ECAI.org