4.3 Comparisons to the Arts of Central and South Asia

4.3.1 Introduction

Prior to the discovery of the analogous ivories from Pompeii, Bhokardan, ancient Bactria and Taxila, any attempt at a critical stylistic analysis of the Begram ivory and bone objects presented a difficult threshold problem: what to compare them with? At that point, India had yielded only a few ivory and bone objects, certainly not enough to form a clear and complete view of the stylistic development of ivory and bone carving. The lack of material prompted, and still compels, most scholars to look to stone sculptures as a source for comparisons of styles and motifs. One of the several dangers in relying too heavily on sculpture, however, is that most monumental sculpture, for example from Sañci and Mathura, was religious art. By contrast, the Begram ivory and bone objects appear likely to have been secular in nature, a fact which may have left the artisans room for freer adaptations of styles and motifs.

In addition, one should bear in mind that stone is quite a different material to work with than bone or ivory. The latter two are far more delicate, yet also amenable to extremely precise work. Inevitably, variations in styles must result from both the scope afforded by the different materials and the different ways in which the materials were worked. Adding to these differences is the fact that the ivory and bone objects themselves hardly form a stylistically homogeneous group. Comparing the different ensembles, or even pieces considered to be part of the same ensemble, one can note differences in styles even when they appear to be products of the same atelier or carving center.

 Despite all these caveats, the relative scarcity of analogous finds still leads one toward comparison with stone sculptures as a supplement to analysis of the few extant comparative ivory and bone finds as discussed in section 4.2. The classifications used in the comparative discussions in this section are mainly geographical. The more commonly used dynastic categories such as Satavahana and Kushan, are not very useful classifications, in this writer’s opinion, for distinguishing the practice of crafts. Firstly, determining the impact of a ruling clan on the production of the arts in its empire is highly problematic. One could certainly argue that royal sponsorship of monumental constructions could have an impact on the architecture of the structure and the subject matter of the reliefs. However, the styles of reliefs would be determined almost entirely by the training of the artisans and the even longer developments of the styles of the atelier and the regional artistic tradition. Secondly, dynastic classification is not very useful when comparing the art styles of ‘schools’ that technically belong to different states or empires yet show more in common than some sites within the same dynastic political sphere. For example, the art of Sañci, belonging to the Andhra-Satavahana region, can be viewed closer in style to Kushan Mathura art than to, say, Amaravati which also is included in the so-called Satavahana school.

Despite the advantage of using geographic rather than dynastic classifications as a basis for the comparative study of art styles to Begram, even these distinctions provide only unstable organizing tools, not clearly defined insular regions. To the contrary, it is a fundamental premise of this work that each region, such as Mathura or Amaravati, although having identifiable stylistic characteristics, was also in contact and exchange with other regions and spheres of influences.

4.3.2 Comparison to the art of Central India

Part of the long-standing assertion that the Begram ivory and bone carvings were produced in the Indian heartland rested on their comparison to the art of Sañci (1st century BCE-1st century CE) and Mathura (1st -3rd century CE) (Fig.4a). Although clearly recognized as variations from classical Indian themes, Hackin notes several similarities between Sañci decorations and the motifs on the Begram objects (Hackin 1939:14-15). And the majority of the Begram finds, according to Hackin, find their analogy in the art of Kushan Mathura. Hackin notes the posture and body type of many of the female figurines depicted on the Begram ivory and bone carvings which, like in Mathura, is sturdy and voluptuous. Also, as in the art of Mathura, many women are adorned with a circular ornament worn on the forehead. Hackin further points to analogies in the appearance of certain themes in the art of both Begram and Mathura. The vyala-yaksa (Plates 285, 286, 287), the winged lion (Plates 300-307), and rows of ducks (Plates 227-230) as a decorative motif, are a few of many examples of shared themes (Hackin 1939:16-18).

Following these early comparisons, successive scholars have continued the general placement of the Begram carvings within the art styles of India, and of Mathura and Sañci in particular. Philippe Stern conducted an extensive stylistic analysis of the Begram ivory and bone objects and came to the conclusion that the ivory and bone carvings are contemporaneous with the style of Mathura of the 1st-2nd centuries CE, continuing the older styles of Sañci, but earlier than the longest and last style of Amaravati (Stern 1954:17-57). Stern based these findings on the presence or absence of certain motifs on the ivory and bone pieces. For example, he noted that many of the female figurines on the ivory and bone objects wear the same headdress, with large loops and buns (Plate 77), very reminiscent of the hairstyles of Mathura and a continuation of the style of Sañci. The absence of other hairstyles of the “old style” of Sañci in the art of both Mathura and Begram led Stern to this conclusion about the dating of the Begram ivory and bone objects. In addition, the presence in the Begram objects of tall spiral-shaped anklets, which had been prevalent in the “old style” of Sañci, led him to the same conclusion, that is, placing the style of the Begram artifacts at the end of the “old style” of Sañci and at the beginning of the Mathura style.

Millard Rogers, too, in comparing the Begram griffin or Sardula [1] (Plates 315, 316, 317) motif, compares it favorably to the art of Mathura (Rogers 1952:5-9) [2] . The similarity in type and style of the figurine on the Sardula, as well as the execution of the makara from which the Sardula springs, is very similar, according to Rogers, to examples from Mathura. J. Le Roy Davidson was one of the last scholars to attempt a critical stylistic analysis of the ivory and bone objects from Begram. Davidson compares three motifs, or rather the rarity of three motifs -- the trefoil armlet; a particular, early version of a chaitya arch; and the motif of “overlapping rosettes”-- on the Begram ivory and bone objects as proof that the art style of Begram should be dated contemporary with the style of Sañci I, which forms the transition period for the dissolution of the styles of Bharut, which regularly displayed these three motifs (Davidson 1971:44).

Before discussing the similarities of the Begram motifs to the arts of Sañci and Mathura, it should be noted that earliest stylistic analogy to the art of Begram actually goes back to the decoration on a semi-circular arch on the facade of the Lomas Rsi cave in the Barabar Hills near Bodh Gaya, in eastern India (Fig. 4a), by some scholars (Rowland 1981:64-65; Coomaraswamy 1985:18) said to date to the Maurya period. On the arch is depicted a row of compartments, separated by small pillars, within which elephants are shown (Fig.118). This type of arch is also depicted in several Begram ivory and bone carvings (Plates 70, 73, and 80). The elephants in both Lomas ®∑i and Begram share the same naturalistic rendering and the pillars, although not identical, are similar in shape and decoration. In addition, a latticework panel above the elephant arch at Lomas ®∑i is also shown in a Begram plaque (Plate 75). The type of arched facade presented at the Lomas Rsi cave remained a popular style in subsequent art styles of the Sunga, Satavahana and Kushan periods (Rowland1981:65). The continuation of this type of motif in the Begram objects suggests that the artisans may have known about still extant Maurya monuments, or that the motif was obtained through subsequent renderings on later monuments.

There are several themes on the Begram ivory and bone carvings which seem ultimately to have derived, though it is unclear via which artistic routes, from architectural and sculptural forms of the 2nd century -1st century BCE art of Bharut, of Sañci, the styles of which were precursors of the Mathura school, and of Mathura itself, which reached its height from the 1st to 3rd centuries CE (Fig. 4a). In the first instance, the type of toranas or gateways of the Great Stupa 1 and 3 at Sañci (Fig.119 ) are very reminiscent of the Toranas depicted on the ivory and bone carvings from Begram (Plates 79, 87, and 91). The similarity lies in the architectural elements: two carved uprights and three slightly curving architraves on top. However, the decoration of the Toranas is distinctly different, with the Sañci gateway depicting Buddhist narratives and the Begram example showing decorative motifs. Still closer analogies, including comparable decorations, can be found in the art of Mathura. In one stone relief from Mathura, a similarly shaped gateway is depicted with two uprights and three slightly curved architraves (Fig.120). Although its decoration is not identical, it shows floral designs not unlike the ones on the Begram example and, more strikingly, two triratna symbols depicted on the top curved architrave which are nearly identical in shape to the ones from Begram (Plate 79). These triratna emblems were also present on the gateways of Stupa I at Sañci.

Other architectural features also occur in the same style in Sañci, Mathura and Begram. One is the balustrade made up of plain horizontal bars positioned behind vertical ones (Fig.121 and Plates 80 and 87). Another, derived from Near Eastern art but already present in Mauryan India and still prevalent in the art styles of Bharut (Fig.122), Sañci (Fig.123) and Mathura (Fig.124) is the Persepolitan capital with animal protomes. The Begram examples show a type of Persepolitan capital with a centrally placed palmette (Plate 78). The projecting Ionic volutes of the earlier Mauryan prototypes (Rowland 1981:72), however, have been replaced by brackets of winged creatures and the capital is supported, in one example, by addorsed winged lions (Plate 78) and, in another, by bulls (Plate 74). The Begram example also presents a more Indianized feature, female figurines riding on winged creatures very similar to the ones depicted on the so-called Sardula bracket (Plates 315, 316, 317).

In addition, the motif of the gateway and the slightly ajar door present on Begram carvings (Plates 130-131) can also be seen in a relief from Mathura, where the dividing band between two main scenes is carved with three arched windows the two outer of which are shown with their shutters slightly ajar (Fig.125).

The bodies and adornment of the female figurines depicted on the Begram ivory and bone carvings have often been compared to the figurines depicted at Mathura. The sturdy lower bodies and the seductive poses of the Begram ivories compare favorably with the female figurines depicted in Mathura art. The yak∑is of Mathura (Fig.126) compare favorably to the sometimes still poses of the Begram figurines (Plates 77-80). And the more fluid poses of some of the Begram women are also well known from reliefs at Mathura dated, at least by one author (Sharma 1994:80, fig.20), to the pre-Kushan period (Fig.127). The hairstyles, too, which adorn some of the figurines on Begram reliefs are analogous to the buns and loops known from Mathura (Fig.128). In addition, the clear and prominent depiction of the vagina in some of the Begram figurines (Plates 46 and 177) bears similarities not only to Mathura art but also to the art of Sañci and Bharut.

It has been suggested by some authors (Hackin 1939; Stern 1954; Rosen Stone 1994) that the particular style of the figurines carved on the top of footstool IX from Begram is more ‘advanced’ in style, and therefore may be dated later, than other figurines depicted on the Begram carvings (Plate 57). However, even when considering this piece, the curvature of the bodies with their slender waists could very well be considered analogous to two examples from a Mathura stone carving. (Figs.127 and 129).

Not only in architecture and human representation are there similarities between the Begram ivory and bone carvings and the sculptures of Sañci and Mathura, but also in the presence of similar mythological creatures such as the winged lion, nagas and ganas. In addition, the presence of kinnaras on the Sañci sculptures and vyala-yaksas in the Mathura are themes popular in the art of Begram. Also, depictions of composite or fantastic creatures with animal bodies and human faces are a common theme in both the early arts of central India (Fig.130) as well as the Begram carvings (Plates 202-203).

The type of auspicious symbols seen in the Begram carvings can likewise be seen in early Mathura art. An early Kushan period Jain votive tablet from Mathura (Fig.131), for example, shows the matsya-yugmal, srivatsa and triratna [3] symbols in very much the same style as the Begram versions (Plates 389-399).

The list of similarities between Mathura art and that of Begram is extensive, and it is beyond the scope of this thesis to delve into each of the parallels. However, despite the many similar tendencies and subject matters between Begram and the arts of Sañci and Mathura, none of the motifs on the Begram pieces can be said to find an exact counterpart in any of the objects from these two sites. More importantly, though, the Begram pieces may also be favorably compared to other art styles, for example from south India and from the northern regions of Gandhara and Bactria. As will be discussed in the following sections, other parallels also exist which indicate that the types of motifs and images from Begram can be identified as having existed over a long period of time throughout greater India and beyond, such that a simple equivalent Begram = Sañci and Mathura fails to recognize the breadth and richness of contacts and exchanges that seem to have come together in the ivory and bone carvings of Begram.

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

Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative
URL: ECAI.org