Volume II

2. Classification

2.1 General Categories

2.1.1 Main categories

From the onset it should be noted that with a corpus of the size of the Begram finds of ivory and bone carvings [7], it is extremely difficult for each individual piece to fall exactly into one, and only one, category. Therefore, in this catalogue classified by subject matter, where an object presents multiple subjects, its dominant subject was chosen as the deciding factor in the categorization. In addition, some plaques and bands carved in the same styles have been grouped together so as to maintain a sense of their commonality, but which results in certain pieces being placed outside their subject categories. This occurs, for example, in the category 12.B - ‘Hunters on foot and horseback’ where one plaque showing only an elephant (Plate 188) would have been categorized by subject under 20.I - ‘Quadrupeds’, but which clearly belongs in the same group of ‘Hunters on foot and horseback’ and so it is placed with that ensemble.

The catalogue main subject categories are ‘Human figures’, “Animals and Birds’, Mythological creatures’, ‘Floral motifs’, ‘Auspicious symbols’, ‘Decorative bands showing medallions with scenes’, ‘Architectural designs’, and ‘Miscellaneous motifs’. The seemingly anomalous category ‘Decorative bands showing medallions with scenes’ was created because the dominant denominator is the scrolls in which a variety of scenes -- humans, animals and birds, mythological or a combination thereof -- is depicted. These main subject categories are classified by Arabic numerals (see Conspectus of catalogue). For example, the category ‘Human figures’ is denoted by the numeral 10, the category ‘Animals and Birds’ by the numeral 20, and ‘Mythological Creatures’ by 30 [8]. Any combination of categories such as, for example, ‘Woman and Bird’ receives first the number of the dominant subject, usually humans (10), plus the first number (2) from the category of ‘Animals and Birds (20). So, the category ‘Humans interacting with Animals’ is denoted by the numeral 12.

2.1.2 Subdivisions

Each main category is further organized into other subdivisions denoted by letters and Roman numerals. The three main subdivision of the category ‘Human Figures’ are ‘Women’, ‘Men’ and ‘Men and Women’ denoted, respectively, by the capital letters A, B and C. This subdivision is maintained in the two other categories in which humans appear, ‘Human interacting with Animals’ and ‘Humans and Mythological Creatures’. In order to retain human denotions for the letters A, B, and C, the subdivisions of the remaining, non-human, categories have been denoted by Roman numerals, I, II, III etc.

As can be seen in the conspectus of the catalogue, the subdivisions are drawn along subject matters need no further explanation. Only the first subdivision, 10.A. Women, the largest single subject category, needed additional subdivisions in order to sort out the mass of materials. The plaques with women have for the most part been organized according to groups which present the same subject matter, such as ‘Women seated on a circular stool’, and to retain a certain coherence of ensembles, at times by subject matter plus technique such as ‘Incised plaques with women under a gateway’.

Further, this large category of plaques depicting women is divided into ‘Single plaques’ and ‘Larger panels’. The former represent those pieces which, although part of a group, display individual scenes, and the latter those which show continuing scenes on different plaques. ‘Miscellaneous plaques’, the third subdivision of category 10.A. Women, is the subdivision for plaques which do not seem to form part of any series or particular subject group.

2.2Particular Groupings

2.2.1 Sets of plaques depicting women

One of the main problems in organizing the large corpus of carvings depicting scenes with women was that no group of them fits exactly into a distinct category which would aid in a critical understanding of the general classification as plaques depicting ‘Women’. To further divide the carvings into categories like ‘Standing Women’ or ‘Seated Women’, or ‘Women and Architectural Constructions’, for example, was unworkable: the imagery of the Begram carvings, although homogeneous in general subject matter, is so diverse in the specific content of the scenes that few plaques could be easily or profitably fitted into smaller subject categories. An added problem was that if an attempt was made to further subdivide the carvings depicting women, certain sets of ivory and bone pieces which clearly belonged together would be dispersed and this, in turn, would undermine the technical coherence of the ensembles.

Bearing these problems in mind, the different sets of carvings showing scenes with women have been grouped according to technical and stylistic analogies and/or subject matter, with the various sets organized by the letters a-x. Set ‘a’, for example, was grouped together because of the stylistic and technical qualities of the plaques and is referred to as ‘Women in square frames in relief’, the only other obvious subject category reference for this set would have been ‘Pairs of Women’, but that would not have distinguished it from other stylistically different plaques depicting two women. In addition to stylistic and technical grouping, when there is a clear uniform theme some sets are referred to by more specific subject matter, such as set d: ‘Women seated on circular stools and cushions’.

2.2.2 Plaques with no illustrations

A problem presented early on in the creation of this catalogue what to do with those Begram ivory and bone carvings for which there were no illustrations. Since the finds and archives at Kabul have been inaccessible for research, it was not possible either to obtain photographs from that museum or to take photographs from their collection. The photo archives at Musée Guimet did include some photographs of objects stored at the Kabul Museum but were far from complete.

The lack of illustrations for part of the finds raised the question whether to include these pieces in the catalogue. As mentioned in the introductory section to this volume, the main aim of this catalogue is to present an illustrative record to the textual arguments of the publication. It therefore seemed more important that the catalogue reflect a fully representative cross-section of the finds than to attempt a complete record of the entire finds. This concern was weighed against the reader whose primary interest may be not so much the work's argument as a record of the entire finds as noted in the two MDAFA excavation reports. This tension between the two purposes was complicated by the fact that for those catalogue entries which neither had photographs nor were available for hands-on research, the only extant information is that presented by the two MDAFA volumes. And while from these volumes the general category of a piece could be ascertained, the descriptions of the pieces without illustrations were not extensive enough confidently to insert them in this new Begram catalogue’s subdivisions. In addition, even if it were possible to insert them securely, having plaques with plates alternate with pieces without illustrative reference would seem to undermine a certain coherence to the catalogue.

In an attempt to resolve the above described problems, those plaques without illustrations have been included in the catalogue’s main categories but have been grouped together at the end of each division. In the conspectus of the catalogue, these entries are in italics so as to separate them clearly from those entries which have plates. In this way, the reader not only is presented with an overview of the entire corpus of Begram ivory and bone carvings but also is given a clear indication of which plaques are accompanied by an illustration without having to leaf through entire sections of the catalogue.

Footnotes

[7] Approximately one thousand pieces, including smaller fragments, were catalogued.

[8] The first part of the catalogue’s subjects carry the same numerals as Gyselen’s catalogue of the Sasanian seals. However, the latter categories do not correspond with Gyselen’s classification, since different themes appeared on the ivory and bone carvings than on the seals.

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

Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative
URL: ECAI.org