Begram Web

At the start of a discussion on the position of artisans and merchants within the ancient world of Central and South Asia, it should be noted that there is no direct evidence concerning the socio-economic context within which craftsmen and traders produced the Begram ivory and bone objects. There exists no specific, definitive information regarding where they were from, what their ‘ethnicities’ were, nor whether they lived or worked at Begram. As a result, recourse is had to Indian literary and epigraphic remains in an effort to winnow information concerning ivory-carving artisans and traders from the subcontinent in general, which might be reasonably applied to those who produced the ivory and bone objects found at Begram. It is the combination of Begram’s location within the larger, southerly-reaching Kushan regions, and the distinct Indian or Indianesque styles of the carvings, that combine to support research into the role of artisans and merchants in India as a way to arrive at some possible understanding of the Begram carvers.

Of the ancient textual evidence concerning the ivory carvers of India, the most famous is undoubtedly the stone torana inscription at Sañci, which reads “Vidisehi dañta-karehi rupa-kamman-katam” (Buhler, E.I. II, 1892, p.92), roughly translating as “this carving has been done by the ivory carvers of Vidisa”. If the translation is precise and the inscription is to be taken literally, then it appears that these ivory carvers, at least, worked in more than one kind of material as well as at more than one location. The possibility is also suggested by some other ancient texts. The Mahavastu (Dwivedi, 1979: 21), a Buddhist Sanskrit text of uncertain date, for example, mentions a conch-shell cutter (Sankhavalaya-karamattaraka) who was also a master in the art of ivory carving.

Stone is quite a different material to work than ivory and bone, both in structure and size. To be adept in both ivory and stone carving, one would have needed considerable different training. On the other hand, although the scope and exact technique may have been different, the tools would have been somewhat similar, mainly chisels. It is believed that similar tools led some sculptors to work in both wood and stone, as described in the Mahaunmarga Jataka (Pal, 1978: 191, note 2). And, with such overlapping skills not unknown, it is certainly conceivable that the rough work on the torana at Sañci was done by rock cutters and then the fine chiseling by ivory carvers.

Although the inscription at Sañci seems to indicate that the ivory carvers actually made the images, it should be noted that another possibility is that they merely contributed financially to the work. Guilds were known to make such monetary contributions to the construction of religious monuments, and as a recognition in this case may have been inscribed as “makers”. This thesis would be better supported if similar inscriptions existed where the artisans were credited as “makers” but could not have physically created the image. Since this author is unaware of any such inscription, however, the best explanation of the Sañci torana inscription remains the literal one, that the Vidisa ivory carvers worked to some degree in stone as well as in ivory.

The Sañci torana inscription is not the only source of information regarding the organization of artisans and merchants into guilds. The earliest such reference to may be in the Rig Veda, where there is mention of the terms ’ganas’ and ’vratas’, which in later literary works seem to indicate guilds formed for political reasons (Pal 1978:121-122). In the Astadhyayi of Panini (Katre (transl.) 1987:611) there is mention of ‘puga’, or a group of workers, and also of ‘sreni’ (Pal 1978:122), which seems to refer to groups of artisans or merchants as an economic base. In Kautilya’s Arthasastra, there is mention of guilds of workmen (sanghabhrtah) and specific guidelines for the fulfillment of contracts (Kautilya’s Arthasastra, Shamasastry 1923:227). The Ramayana, among other texts, suggests that both ivory carvers, ‘dantakarah’, and ivory traders, ‘dantapajivinah’, were organized in guilds (Dwivedi, 1979: 18). The Mahavastu, too, makes similar mention of the ‘dantakara’ (Dwivedi, 1979: 21). In addition to the Sañci torana inscriptions, from the period of the Begram ivory and bone carvings there exist references to the guilds in some other inscriptions. Several seals from Bhita in the Kushan period refer to ‘nigama’, which most scholars hold to be either guilds or corporations (Pal 1978:129; Sharma 1968:223).

With regard to the exact position of the artisan or craftsman within the larger social hierarchy, opinions are divided. According to Pal (1978:103ff), in the early Vedic period most artisans came out of the Vaisya caste, which also provided other members of the commercial class such as merchants, and from the Sudra caste, which at the time seemed to have enjoyed a high status but which steadily declined thereafter. It has been suggested by Pal (1978:104-105) that it was this declining status of the artisan caste which resulted in the organization of craftsmen into guilds. Kramrish (Miller 1983:53-54) argues that artisans belonged to several castes, including Brahmins who often worked as the chief architects of religious edifices. The type of craft seems to have been tied to the caste: Brahmins were involved with the higher realms of religious art; the Vaisya with slightly lower arts, such as wood-carving; and the Sudra with ‘low’ art, such as leather working and basket weaving, and with labor for the building of monuments. Rocher (1983), on the other hand, is of the opinion that certain types of artisans were tightly hierarchized in the caste system. Referring to ancient law books, he underlines many references “by caste”. He notes, for example, what he asserts are a separate caste of professional wrestlers, a caste of coppersmiths, and a caste of barbers.

The question of caste ties into other aspects of the social position of artisans, the extent to which the role was hereditary and localized. There is ample evidence in early Vedic and Buddhist texts that specific types of artisans were, to some extent, localized in particular villages. The Samuddhavanaja Jataka, for example, relates the story of a previous life of the Buddha in which he was a carpenter living in a great carpenters’ village (Nagar 1993:101). The story also indicates that there was a head carpenter who was the chief, in this case, of five hundred families. Similarly, the Suci Jataka refers to a village of smiths (Nagar 1993:132).

That localization applied not only to artisans in general, but to ivory carvers in particular, is shown in the Silavanaga Jataka (Jatakas, Cowell, 1973, vol. I: 174-177) -- the story of the Buddha’s past in which he was born as an elephant, and his generosity was betrayed by a greedy man. In this story there is mention of the ivory carvers’ bazaar, “dantakaravithi”, in Benares. The forester, after being lost and then helped on his way by the Bodhisattva, goes to Benares and arrives at the ivory workers’ bazaar where he sees artisans working on ivory in different shapes and forms. The description of such a specific bazaar, with different types of ivory work going on in one place, seems to indicate that the ivory carvers gathered themselves together in a particular part of the city, and that the work was significantly organized.

Other sources also suggest that the practice of crafts and the arts was both well-established and well-organized in India from very early on. In Kautilya’s Arthasastra, it is decreed that artisans and other craftsmen were permitted to have colleagues work and reside in their houses (Shamasastry 1923:175). This was also stipulated for merchants, who could have other traders stay and work in their houses and shops. Similarly indicating the organization of and control over artisans is the Arthasastra, which describes how artisans were held accountable for fulfilling their contracts:

Some scholars have argued that a blossoming of the crafts and artisanship during the Kushan and Satavahana eras, as well as a simultaneous increase in trade, was connected to direct royal intercession ( R.S. Sharma 1968:205). Sharma suggests that artisans greatly benefited from state patronage and, in turn, merchants’ and artisans’ guilds tried to gain the state’s favor by contributing to the building of monasteries. The theory of royal patronage would be congruent with the description of the Begram objects as part of a royal ‘treasure’ and of the ivory and bone furniture as used by royalty in their palace, but as will be discussed in Chapter 6, there may well be insufficient evidence to support this hypothesis as to the Begram finds. Moreover, royal support for artisanship and trade does not necessitate the inference that all objects so produced were directly owned by royalty.

Another issue that may be of importance to the question of who were the buyers or patrons of the Begram ivory and bone carvings is the types of markets artisans produced for. In the story of the Silavanaga Jataka , related above, the forester inquires of the ivory carvers whether they would be interested in buying the tusk of a live elephant; the artisans reply that the tusk of a live elephant is worth much more that that of a dead one, and so they would be willing to pay more. The tale indicates that in order to make ivory objects it was not necessary to slaughter the elephant; ivory of a live elephant may have been preferred because it retained more moisture and therefore was easier to carve. More significantly, the story suggests that artisans were direct buyers of ivory; this may permit them to be seen as working for themselves as a more active part of a commercial economy than is usually attributed to artisans of the time, who are mostly thought to have worked only for patrons.

Other texts suggest that buyers of ivory carvings were traders who dealt directly with the artisans. Such a reference, and perhaps a significant one in relation to Begram, is made in the Avasyaka Churani, a Jain text of uncertain date. There it is written that ivory trade was in the hands of the “Tanana Mlecchas” (Jain, 1984: 150). “Mlecchas” is translated as “not Indian”, which is to say, foreign. This suggests to the author Jain that, at least at the time of this particular text, some ivory trade may have been in the hands of people from the northwest. The text goes on to mention that these traders in ivory traveled down from Uttaravaha to Daksinapatha with their ivory, which indicates both that there were ivory carving centers in the north and that ivory objects were traded between north and south[1].

A similar suggestion of itinerant ivory traders, who may also have been carvers, is included in the Guttila Jataka which was compiled, with other Jataka stories, in its present form in the 4th and 5th centuries CE but relates to earlier times. This text is the story of the birth of the Bodhisattva into a musician’s family. In the story there is mention of a group of traders, ready with their wares to set off on a trading journey from Benares to Ujjain (Jatakas, Cowell, 1973, Book II: 172 ff). In some translations, instead of mere traders, the group is described as ivory workers who set off on a trading journey (Pal, 1978: 46).

As noted in earlier descriptions of its technical aspects (section 2.3), it is clear that ivory and bone carving required a high degree of skill. The size and the nature of the materials warranted a delicate and precise hand, which could only be attained after years of training. Also, the dearth of ancient ivory objects recovered in India may indicate that they were relatively scarce -- and therefore precious -- and were thus the creation of master artisans.

One of the most noteworthy aspects of the Begram ivory and bone carvings is the fact that, unlike most of the early ivory and bone objects discovered in South Asia, they consist not of single objects but instead form parts of assemblages. In this regard, it becomes useful to examine marks discovered on the back of some of the objects. A number of Begram carvings carried marks, among undeciphered ones, in the Kharosthi and Brahmi scripts of the Kushan era (Fig. 56)[2]. Because of wear, and the fact that due to their inaccessibility this author has not examined all the pieces in person, it is impossible to say whether all of the Begram ivory and bone objects originally carried such marks. However, if 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 assembled around a wooden frame. That these markings were not artisans’ signatures is further supported by the fact that on at least one piece of furniture several of the ensemble pieces carried such markings on the back. If the marks had been an artisan’s signature, it would seem superfluous to have signed more than one of the same ensemble’s pieces.

Most marks are seen on what can be referred to as secondary pieces, i.e. corner pieces and bands carrying floral and zoomorphic motifs (Plates 249 and 231), although one sequence does appear on central pieces (Plates 1-5). The smaller, less easily sorted repeating-design pieces might well have benefited from assembly instructions that would have been unnecessary for the larger, sui generis central parts. According to the excavation report, each marked piece carries a series of zeroes (Hackin 1939:52-53), which could indicate the sequence of assemblage.

Another point which may be drawn from an examination of the markings on the reverse of some of the objects is that the Kharosthi script suggests that the persons

carving or assembling the objects came either from local workshops or from northwest India; Kharosthi was used primarily in the northwest region and in what is now Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, from about the 3rd century BCE to the 5th century CE[3]. This may well support the hypothesis that the carvers of the Begram ivory and bone pieces actually lived and worked in the region, as opposed to the objects being carved in the Deccan or further south, and then transported to the northwest.

The inscription on the stone torana or gateway at Sañci seems to indicate that ivory carvers may have been organized in a guild (see section 2.5.1). The question remains, however, whether there were not several different guilds in different regions. As has been noted previously, there is ample literary evidence to demonstrate that ivory carving was practiced in widely separated regions. And the heterogeneity of the carving techniques and styles of Begram has led many scholars to believe that these ivory and bone carvings originated from different places. And while such regionality might be supported by stylistically somewhat comparable objects retrieved from a number of sites in India, the exact nature of a large majority of the Begram finds seems to suggest instead that they were made by different ‘hands’ in one place. The precise ordering of the heterogeneous plaques visible in many of the in situ photographs show that for such exact assemblages of objects, each set of ivory and bone pieces must have been created for a specific piece of furniture. This, in turn, seems to rule out the hypothesis that the heterogeneous pieces within the same assemblage had arrived from different regions and were assembled after having been planned and executed independently.

The heterogeneity of styles within the same assemblages could, however, indicate that carvers from different places came together in one place -- perhaps Begram itself -- to create the ensembles. The similarity of a few styles presented on the Begram pieces

could point to a workshop that may have existed in the general region between Sañci and Mathura; the Sañci inscription confirms the art of ivory carving to be well established in this region. However, this thesis would also propose the possibility that a workshop existed at Begram itself. At first glance, a few points militate against such a hypothesis. There is a lack of any direct archaeological evidence of in situ workshops: no tools were discovered, and there were no signs of remnants of the raw materials. Secondly, there seem to have been no elephants that far north, and the availability of ivory might have been problematic for a regular workshop.

This being said, several other points can be made in support of an ivory and bone carving tradition in the north. Many scholars support the hypothesis that there existed an ivory carving center in Taxila. And the presence of a Bactrian ivory workshop at or near Nisa (Masson & Pugachenkova 1982) and Ai Khanum (Rapin 1992) amply shows that the raw material could be obtained in regions far north. Begram, situated on the trading routes between Bactria and Taxila, suggests the routes along which ivory probably was transported.

But more importantly than the availability of ivory for the theory of a northern workshop at Begram or at Taxila are certain motifs on the pieces themselves which demonstrate an analogy with the art of Gandhara and Bactria rather than the Indian ‘heartland’. These motifs have never been fully studied but close comparative examination of them (see section 4.2), it will be argued, seems to bolster the theory of a workshop in the northern regions. In addition, the execution of certain techniques, in particular in the incised ware, in combination with certain motifs, can only be found in analogous ivories from Taxila, Dal’verzin-tepe in Uzbekistan and Tillya-tepe in Afghanistan, as discussed in section 4.1.

The hypothesis that the heterogeneous Begram ivory and bone pieces could have been created by carvers some of whom came out of a southern tradition and traveled north, is supported by certain passages in ancient Indian texts. As discussed in section 2.5.1, either of the translations of the Guttila Jataka proposes a way in which more southern motifs and styles may have ended up on some Begram ivory and bone objects in Afghanistan. And, if the second translation that some ivory artisans were itinerant is accurate, it certainly supports the theory proposed here, that the carvers of the Begram ivory and bone objects might well have moved to the region of Begram, or to Begram itself, as part of international trade in the region.

That such mobility within long-distance economic exchange was politically feasible, and even encouraged, at the time is supported by the fact that Kushan territorial expansion during the early Common Era brought under their control a large area stretching from modern Uzbekistan in the north to the Indian Ganges Valley in the south (see section 1.2.4). Facilitated by the Han dynasty in China and the Roman Empire with their emphasis on international trade, the Kushans’ own trade-based economy ensured a free flow of goods, people and their attendant cultures throughout their empire.

Due to the paucity of texts and artifacts, little can be said with certainty about the lives of ancient ivory carvers during the Kushan period. However, close examination of the Begram ivory and bone objects does indicate that, contrary to early assumptions that the ivories were made in the Deccan and taken to Begram as part of a royal hoard of valuables, there is evidence to support the assertion that the ivories may actually have been made at or near Begram itself.

In addition to the factors discussed in this chapter, examination of the material itself -- that is, the large amount of bone or ‘dirty ivory’ as compared with true ivory -- seems to indicate that the objects may not have been intended for royalty at all but instead were part of merchants’ stock, furniture and other objects intended for commercial trade. This possibility is bolstered by the large number of other non-valuable trading goods -- plaster medallions, for example -- found in the same collection of objects (see sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.5).

Still another scenario could have been the artisans themselves making the goods for direct sale in an on-site commercial setting, perhaps in conjunction with merchants in international trade, rather than, or in addition to, the more commonly supposed patron-artisan arrangement. The Silivanaga Jataka story of the forester offering to sell tusks directly to the ivory carvers may be an example of such commercial practice; reference to an ivory carvers’ bazaar may also indicate more of a commercial system than a patronized one.

Finally, and as will be argued more fully in Chapter 6, each of these assessments of the ivory artisans and their praxis seems, in turn, to support this author’s wider hypothesis that, rather than a palace, and its finds part of a royal treasure, the Begram site might well have been an active commercial trading center. Begram’s proximity to ancient trade routes connecting India with the Silk Route further bolsters this adjusted view of the Begram ivory and bone objects, and the other objects found in two sealed-off rooms, as part of merchants’ stock awaiting trade or further distribution. And as will be demonstrated, an analysis of comparative material (Chapter 4) and the chronology of the artifacts (Chapter 5) similarly support this view.

[1] See Jain, Life in Ancient India as Described in the Jain Canon and Commentaries (6th century BC - 17th century AD, 1984. It is not clear from the text when this particular passage was written.

[2] It is not clear from the excavation reports how many pieces carried such marks. Also, judging from the photos, one should wonder whether some similar signs on the front of other pieces (Plate 300-301) were not in fact part of the decorative motifs.

[3] It has been pointed out to this author that since there is evidence Kharosthi script was used in the vicinity of Mathura during the Maurya period, it might have been used in that region during the Kushan era as well. However, no example exists that corroborates this point

Begram Ivory and Bone Carvings