2.4 Bone and Ivory

2.4.1 Material differences

Within an analysis of the Begram ivory and bone carvings, it is important to address the issue of differences among the materials themselves. The size of objects may say something about the type and origin of the ivory needed. And the difference between ivory and bone may imply social differences regarding the use, intended destination and circumstances of manufacture of various pieces among the Begram finds.

Although there are a number of animals whose dentine is referred to as ivory, reference to ivory herein is solely reserved for the tusks of elephants. An elephant’s tusk consists of three main parts: the crown, lodged in the jaw; the pulp cavity; and a solid part (Cutler 1985:1). As the tusk grows, dentine fills the bottom of the cavity and thus pushes the tusk forward. There is no measurable correlation between the age of an elephant and the size of the tusk but, as with trees, an animal’s age can be judged by rings on the ivory (Dwivedi 1976:5).

Not all parts of the tusk are suitable for carving. The dentine deposits near the cavity are soft and not useful for fine carving. The further away from the cavity the better the ivory (Cutler 1985:3), and the solid point of the tusk is most suitable for carving. The solid carvable part of an elephant’s tusks contains pores filled with a gelatinous solution which gives the ivory a polish not found in bone (Dwivedi 1976:1-2). Because of this, it is important that the ivory be fresh when carved; if the removed tusk is exposed too long, it dries out and loses much of the sheen provided by the gelatin.

The two main categories[1] in types of elephant ivory are Asian and African. The African elephant produces the largest tusks, averaging 1m.82 in length and 50 lb. in weight while the average length of an Asian tusk is 1m. 52 and has an average weight of 35 lbs. In addition, in contrast to their Asian counterparts, both male and female African elephants have tusks. The African ivory is more yellow than the Asian but is considered of better quality than the Asian since it is harder (Woodhouse 1976:16). Also, the Asian tusks are not as dense as the African, and thus tend to yellow more rapidly, though they start out whiter (Dwivedi 1976:4).

The size differential is important for the question of whether some of the Begram ivories were too large to be carved out of Indian tusks. However, even if less than sixty percent of the tusk is useful for carving a piece of the highest quality (Cutler 1985:6), there would still remain enough of a solid chunk of ivory from an Asian tusk for the carving of the tallest figurine, which measured 56 cm.

The main technical carving difference between ivory and bone stems from their relative structures. Although carved in basically the same way, using the same tools, some scholars assert that bone lacks the oily substance which is present in ivory and which both makes the latter easier to carve and gives it a finer polished finish (Dwivedi 1976:7). Other scholars, however, are of the opinion that bone, when treated correctly, can attain close to the same finish as ivory (Cutler 1994:63). Bone is more brittle and is often subject to splintering, and due to its porous structure bone gets dirty more easily than ivory. Because of its smaller size, bone is only suitable for making smaller items, compared to the variety of objects which can be made with much larger elephant tusks. In addition, bone decays at a much faster rate than ivory, which may partially explain why indications -- i.e. the small number of extant artifacts -- are that bone was not as popular a medium as ivory for the fabrication of non-utilitarian objects (Cutler 1985:61).

2.4.2 Availability and utilization of bone and ivory: the cultural context

As demonstrated by both archaeological and textual remains, the art of ivory and bone carving is an ancient one practiced in much of the world. In analyzing ancient ivory and bone carvings, one of the elements to be examined is the differences in the ways the two materials were used to make carved objects. Archaeological evidence indicates that ivory objects are known to have existed on the Indian subcontinent at least as early as the Indus Valley period (3rd-2nd Millennium BCE.), as shown by finds of ivory dice, an ivory hairpin and ivory needles among other objects at sites such as Harappa, Mohenjo-daro and Lothal (Marshall 1931, Vol.II:557; Mackay 1938, Vol.I:324, 421, 432-433). The material evidence indicates that ivory in the ancient world of Central and South Asia was rarely used for utilitarian objects: most finds of ivory consist of jewelry, boxes, decorative panels, statuettes and the like. The relative scarcity of ivory, compared with bone and other common substances, would certainly explain why its use was limited to ‘special’ objects. By contrast, bone was a common material, a useful byproduct of human consumption. And as such, it was mainly used for objects of general utility such as weapons, tools, and household items. Although there are examples from the ancient world of bone being utilized for more decorative non-utilitarian objects, these usually occurred in regions where ivory was virtually unavailable, which was not the case in the Indian subcontinent.

In addition to the archaeological evidence, early literary references make it clear that ivory was valued more highly than bone. Vedic literature, such as the Aitareya Brahmana, attests that the art of ivory carving was held in great esteem (Keith 1920:VI.27). The famous Indian epics, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, include numerous references to ivory objects and to ivory carving, which seems to indicate that the art had been firmly established during this time[2]. In the Ramayana, for example, King Dasaratha, a broken man after the departure of Rama and Laksmana, is taken to Queen Kausalya’s chambers and laid on a bed made of ivory (Bhaktipada 1989:104). In descriptions of Ravana’s palace in Lanka, mention is made of ivory floors[3] and of couches[4] made of ivory inlaid with gold. And the Mahabharata mentions swords with handles made of pure ivory, and of ivory beds and chairs[5].

In the Buddha Charita, probably written in the 1st or 2nd centuries CE, Queen Maya, after giving birth to the Buddha, “enters for good fortune a costly ivory litter, bedecked with white sitapuspa flowers and lit by precious stones”[6]. The Raghuvamsa[7], composed by Kalidasa during the Gupta period, mentions an ivory chair used by the royal family, and in the Kamasutra (Leiter & Thal 1929:102 and 241) there are numerous references to ivory jewelry (such as earrings -- “dantasankhadibhih” ) and other objects.

Non-Indian literary also sources provide information on ancient ivory carving in Central and South Asia. The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, a trading manual written by a Greek trader in the 1st century CE, notes that the port of Barygaza (modern Broach, in Gujerat) was a place of ivory export[8]. In addition, the Periplus mentions the region of Dosarene as yielding a particularly beautiful type of ivory referred to as Dosarenic. Schoff identifies Dosarene as ancient Dasarna, modern Orissa, and notes: “The ivory from this region has long been famous. It is mentioned both in the Mahabharata and the Visnu Purana, as the most acceptable offering which the king of the Odras could take to the Pandu sovereign.” (Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Schoff (ed.) 1912:253).

Epigraphic remains, too, attest to the importance of ivory in the ancient world. An inscription of the Achaemenid king Darius I at Susa refers to the fact that the ivory used for the decoration of his magnificent palace was brought from Ethiopia, Sindh and Arachosia[9]. Also, the great stupa at Sañci is adorned by a dedicatory inscription which refers to the ivory carvers of Vidisa having contributed to the creation of the building (Dwivedi 1976:16).

Compared to the literary and epigraphic evidence on ivory, bone is only seldom mentioned in ancient texts. The utilitarian aspect of bone objects as evidenced by material finds, plus the dearth of writings on demotic subjects, are the likely combination that explains why there are hardly any references to bone objects. Dwivedi mentions a few texts which refer to bone: the Jaina Angavijja refers to art objects made of bone (1976:23); and early Buddhist Vinaya texts also seem to mention needle-cases made of bone (1976:19). However, these few instances pale in comparison with both the number of references and the high regard in which ivory objects were held in connection to their association with the highest echelons of society.

In addition to the fact that bone was a common, and therefore not highly prized, material, there may have been another reason it was seldom used for high quality ‘art’ objects. The Indian text (Dwivedi 1976:25) Dasopadesa refers to the “goddess Sri of the untouchable chandala” living in a figure of ”dantesu malapurnesu” or dirty ivory. This phrase Dwivedi takes to mean bone, which may have been a more ‘appropriate’ material for the untouchable class, and which may refer to the fact that because bone is more porous than ivory, it holds dirt and also discolors more easily.

With the superiority of ivory over bone clearly established in ancient cultures of Central and South Asia, the question arises why the carvers of the Begram objects utilized both materials in their carvings. Several possibilities may be raised. The first is simply that ivory supplies might have been scarce, as in other regions of the world that have provided large quantities of art work in bone. However, these are mainly areas which have no elephant population at all, which is certainly not the case for South Asia. And, as demonstrated by the Susa inscription of Darius I referring to Sindh and Arachosia (Dwivedi 1976:16), the northern regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan had access via trade to the raw material. There remains the question of how great that access was in the northern regions, depending as it did on the flow of trade from the south. However, scarcity is certainly not attested to by the numerous finds from Taxila, thought to have been an ivory carving center, from the Indus Valley sites which revealed actual tusks, and even farther north than Begram, from Nisa where excavators uncovered beautifully carved ivory rhytons from a presumed local workshop.

Another argument occasionally brought forward for the limited use of ivory is that there may have been some religious prohibition on the killing of elephants. In Kautilya’s Arthasastra (claimed to date from the 4th century BCE) it is stipulated that a person killing an elephant would be put to death. However, it seems that this was not out of religious sentiment but rather because elephants were considered royal property (Kautilya’s Arthasastra Chapter II,49, Shamasastry (ed.) 1923:53), a symbol of the king’s status and strength. The Arthasastra mentions that the king’s men went out to capture the best of the pachyderms for the royal retinue. Unfortunately, the Arthasastra does not provide information on whether the remainder of a herd was permitted to be culled for ivory.

A similar argument is sometimes made regarding Hinduism. Religious ivory imagery in Hinduism is rare, and some scholars infer from this that ivory and bone were considered unclean by Hindus (Pal 1981:91). On the other hand, ivory was extremely popular as raw material for the fabrication of non-religious imagery, as in the core of the Begram objects, such that clearly there was no ‘general’ prohibition on elephant killing.

One might expect Buddhism with its tenets of strict non-violence and which gained popularity during the time of Asoka Maurya and subsequently was diffused to Central Asia under the Kushans, to have at least made a significant dent in the killing of animals for material destined for decorative objects. However, archaeological evidence shows that ivory objects were very popular in the Kushan and Satavahana periods, and Buddhist Vinaya texts indicate that the art of ivory carving was held in high esteem (Dwivedi 1976:19). Finally, Buddhist carvings themselves ultimately argue strongly that there were no prohibitions on the use of ivory even for religious imagery; there exist, for example, some beautiful ivory carvings of the Buddha from Kashmir, dated to the 8th century CE (Pal 1981:94).

Finally, as neither scarcity nor religious sentiments seem to explain satisfactorily the use of so much bone in addition to ivory among the carvings at Begram, the answer may instead lie with the makers, distribution and/or ultimate users of the carved objects. As discussed in section 1.4, most mentions of the Begram finds suggest that the artifacts were originally part of a treasure hoarded at a royal palace. An important component of this ‘treasure’ theory is the contention that the objects were so luxurious that they could only have been afforded by royalty. This certainly was not the case, however, for numerous Roman objects among the finds (e.g. the plaster medallions). Nor was it fully true for the Indian ‘ivories’, more than half of which were bone. Since royalty in the region certainly commanded the resources to supply artisans with the full amounts of ivory needed for fabrication of royal pieces, the presence of so many bone objects suggest that artisans were making them for other purposes, other users. If the ivory and bone carvers were working for merchants instead of, or in addition to, royal and other patrons, or were working as craftsmen/merchants themselves, the mixed nature of the Begram finds seems more explicable. This thesis warrants investigation into the role of artisans in the region and the markets they may have worked for, as discussed in the following section 2.5. And the argument concerning the many seemingly non-royal objects from Begram, and its impact on the wider question of the nature of the finds and of the settlement itself, will be taken up again in Chapter 6.

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

Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative
URL: ECAI.org