Begram Web

As previously discussed, the excavations of 1937 and 1939 were initially colored by the first modern, and to that date the only, discussion of Begram, which identified the site as ancient Kapisi, summer capital and residence of the Kushan emperors. The foundation of this identification based on the texts of the Chinese pilgrim Hsüan-tsang is of doubtful reliability, as discussed in the immediately preceding section. Moreover, the archaeological evidence retrieved from the site itself failed to support either that Begram had been Kapisi or that the site -- Kapisi or otherwise -- had been a royal residence. The intrinsic value^[1] of some of the artifacts discovered could reasonably lead to an inference of some royal presence at the site. But this dissertation argues that a close analysis of all the objects taken as a whole and of the structures where they were found leads more reasonably to the conclusion that the presence of some artifacts which arguably might at some point have passed through, or were yet intended for, royal consumption or control does not necessarily imply a royal residence at the site.

One of the primary arguments that has been propounded in support of the assertion that the finds in Rooms 10 and 13 were a royal hoard is that the objects were so valuable that only a royal court would have collected them. However, examination of the full MDAFA catalogues (Hackin 1939; 1954) of the objects, that is, including pieces not normally considered in discussions of the Chinese, Roman and Indian Begram objects, makes clear that many objects stored in the two sealed-off rooms were not ‘treasure’ material at all. Several examples of domestic pottery were uncovered in room 13^[2] although photographs of these objects were never published. (Only one such ceramic object, the so-called ‘Kinnari’ pot, see section 1.4, passed muster and was illustrated in the 1954 MDAFA volume.) In addition, there were several chunks of uncut gemstones, such as a 9 x 4.8 cm piece of rough lapis lazuli, as well as cut and polished carnelian and agate beads. The uncut piece of lapis lazuli seems out of place in a treasure trove and may suggest either that a local workshop existed at Begram or that it was a place where Afghani gemstones were traded with other goods. The Periplus of the Erythraen Sea (Schoff 1912:170, 193) mentions how lapis lazuli from the north (presumably Afghanistan) became part of the Roman trade in the ancient port of Barbaricum in modern Pakistan, and notes that carnelian was a traded from south India. The sources of these materials confirm the general trade patterns as witnessed by the other, Chinese, Roman and Indian, objects discovered at Begram.

In addition to these cut and uncut stones, three other pieces of unfinished material among the objects, ignored to date in all other discussions of the finds, likewise militate toward a view of the finds as a merchants’ stock and perhaps to the existence of a local workshop, and away from the notion of a royal treasure. These are three

uncarved, unworked pieces of ivory^[3] each approximately 22 cm high with a diameter of 12 cm (Hackin 1954: 188, 250). Although ivory itself was of value, there is no reason to assume that rough pieces of material would have found their way into a ‘treasure’ of exquisitely carved objects. And the possibility that at least some of the carved ivory and bone pieces were the store of a local atelier or workshop at Begram, as opposed to a treasure hoard, has never been explored at least in part because no evidence of unworked materials was thought to have been found. The fact that these three pieces, buried in the original MDAFA catalogues, are uncovered here lends support to the possibility of a local workshop.

Aside from the presence of the above-mentioned ceramics and uncut stones and ivory pieces among the Begram finds, not all of the so-called Begram ‘treasure’ itself was of high intrinsic value. As discussed in section 1.4, many of the Roman artifacts were plaster medallions, probably taken from metal originals. It is difficult to conceive why such plaster objects would be included in a royal collection, particularly one allegedly hoarded over two or more centuries. On the other hand, such medallions might well have been of use to a merchant as samples of wares which could be obtained in trade, or which could serve as models for local artisans to create trade ware. S. Mustamandi (1968) pointed to the existence of a perforation in the upper part of some of the plaster medallions which, he suggested, was to hang them as examples in a workshop or store. That the plaster medallions were not themselves meant to be decorative pieces is further demonstrated by the presence of fingerprints on some of the objects (Mustamandi 1968:73).

In addition to the several above-discussed objects as indicators of the non-royal character of the Begram finds, the fact that many of the Begram ‘ivories’ are instead

made of bone may further bolster the assertion that the finds formed part of a traders’ stock. As discussed in section 2.4.2, both archaeological and literary evidence attest to the fact that ivory was held in much higher esteem than bone, with the latter used mainly for utilitarian objects. The common character of bone arose not only from its abundance as a by-product of human consumption but also perhaps from its internal structure with wide pores which tend easily to get dirty and discolored. In this regard, Dwivedi (1976:25) mentions that the term ‘dirty ivory’ was used to refer to bone as a clearly inferior substitute for ivory.

If bone was held in considerably lower regard as a material for decorative purposes, this surely suggests that at least the Begram bone carvings were not intended for royal use at all. Royalty would certainly have commanded the resources to have their furniture decorated with ivory, and if the ‘treasure’ were indeed hoarded over centuries, it seems difficult to understand why pieces of ‘dirty ivory’ would have been included. Although one could assert that there was no elephant population in the northern region of Afghanistan and therefore ivory might have been scarce, the fact that the Kushans controlled much of the Indian subcontinent indicates that there would have been no problem for a royal court to obtain the ivory from elsewhere. Given all of the above, it seems more than likely that the Begram ivory and bone objects were items collected for commercial purposes, perhaps for merchants who did not command the resources to deal exclusively in ivory, or whose markets called for less expensive bone pieces as well.

Not only the objects found at Begram but also the physical structures in which they were found seem to suggest that the site was something less than royal. Of the rooms excavated in what has been termed the ‘Palace’ within the ‘New Royal City’, the two largest were Rooms 10 and 13, the rooms used to store the objects which made up the ‘treasure’. Although only part of the site at Begram has been fully uncovered and thus one cannot draw absolute conclusions about the complete site, as discussed in section 5.2, the excavated area certainly lacked rooms of the size and grandeur one would expect for the summer palace of a Kushan emperor and his court.

In support of the Begram ‘treasure’ theory, a point has also been made of the fact that the two rooms were ‘sealed off’ by brick walls anciently constructed in front of the original wooden doors, presumably to protect the objects during an attack on the city. This, it is contended, bolsters the notion that the objects belonged to a royal personage, someone who could summon the resources to construct such protection and who could imagine later having the objects retrieved. But just the opposite conclusion could also be drawn: if the objects were indeed part of a royal collection, it is more likely that efforts would have been made to take them along with the fleeing inhabitants of the city. On the other hand, if the objects were part of an atelier or merchants’ stock, they would have been less likely to have commanded the resources necessary for inclusion in sudden flight from invaders, particularly if the merchants were not present at the time of flight.

Different explanations entirely of the brick-wall sealing of the rooms also may be available; that is, that such protection was not from some sudden, city-threatening assault but rather was part of the regular protection of goods during those periods when, in the normal course of ancient commerce, a merchant had to leave them unattended. Due to extremely slow travel at the time, goods probably had to remain at storage points or crossroads for substantial periods while awaiting further transport. Since a merchant operating in a trading zone would most likely have had to make journeys in aid of his trade, he might have sought the added protection of such walls while he was away. The fact that the objects appear to have been stored in groups in a rather orderly fashion would also seem to indicate that they were placed there in the normal course of events rather than in haste upon sudden flight from the city.

It is also possible that the rooms were sealed because the stock was impounded by government officials. Given the accounts in ancient literary sources such as Kautilya’s Arthasastra to the effect that taxes were regulated very strictly, it is not inconceivable that if duties were not paid, the stock would have been sealed.

Yet another argument points to the existence of additional brick walls at other points in the ‘New Royal City’, particularly along a corridor behind and parallel to room 13 which does not “seal off” any other rooms (Fig. 23). This suggests that brick barriers may have served as fire walls at least as much as they also served as protection against looters or scavengers. Notable in this connection is the fact that at some point fire did destroy some portions of the “New Royal City” but left the brick-reinforced Rooms 10 and 13 untouched (see section 1.4).

[1] The royal hoard theory has also remained current in part because it might explain the otherwise confounding one or two century difference between the proposed dates of a few individual pieces. But, as discussed in Chapter 5 and Chapter 7, these wide differences in the contended dates of a few pieces all can be effectively rebutted, leaving instead a consistent pattern of 1st century CE dates for all those objects.

[2] See, for example, Hackin 1954: 298-299, 247, 288, 299.

^[3] Hackin’s catalogue numbers 87, XXIII, and XXIV. There are no known photographs or illustrations of these three pieces of ivory, and because they all have been stored at the Kabul Museum, they have not been examined in person for this dissertation.

Begram Ivory and Bone Carvings