Elephants and Trade (Introduction)

Literary and epigraphic sources provide us with information regarding offices related to elephants in early India. This indicates towards an organized or official dealing in elephants and elephant related products. Treatises on elephants clearly reflect that the animal received special attention and required organised information for experts, users, elephant catchers, traders, army especially the elephant squad and masses at large.

There is no direct information on an organised elephant market or elephant trade from either literary texts or epigraphic material other than a solitary reference to a tax collected on the sale of elephant in a temple shopping arena which will be discussed later. Elephant trade and trade in related products and by-products involved several categories and classes beyond the merchants and traders. One has to situate this issue in a large canvas and broader perspective. It cannot be seen in isolation or as an isolated case. The usefulness of this animal, its demand and demand for ivory, when analysed in detail shows the involvement of several groups and individuals.

The procurement of the animal also involved several issues and expertise was required to identify the need and the correct type of elephant for the specific purpose i.e. need. Identifying the specific requirement or requisite was the initial and prime concern. The first category of people involved in this process was the elephant catchers. This was a specialized group whose geographical knowledge and biological knowledge about the animal made them i.e. this specific group imperative for traders. They not only decided on the technique of catching based on the specific requirement but also could identify the specific animal which would be ideal for the demand generated in the market. After the catching of the elephants they require certain medical aid hence again an expert with knowledge of veterinary medicine specifically with expertise on elephantology was required to treat those who have been injured in the process of catching and also to take proper care of the animals till they reach their owners or buyers. Literary sources indicate specific words being used for specific tasks for example gajagrahāya saciva i.e. an officer in charge of tying the captured elephants to posts, hasti-vaidya i.e. elephant physician, hastyāyurveda-parāyaṇo i.e. a veterinary medicalman who was well versed in elephant science i.e. one who can skilfully cure their diseases, related to elephants and besides this we also get reference to elephant-drivers i.e. yantustaṃ vidyād, matimāna. One also finds other words being used like śilpino i.e. craftsmen who of course would have been expert in carving ivory i.e. an ivory worker. Apart from this there were buyers and sellers (i.e. kretu and vikretu) who would have been the merchants trading in elephants. The catchers would have acquired the required tools, implements, food, bait etc. from another group of artisans, merchants, expert tool makers and so on as per their requirement like socket makers, cutters of the cords of socket, suppliers of wood and food for the catching of elephants, drummers etc. Elephant herdsmen (Hastipā) might have been divided into classes according to their potential suppliers of seductive materials, ointment makers, herders with crowd, rope and noose makers, hole makers or yielders, binders of captured elephants, suppliers of water, cook, musicians, stable makers and protectors, supervisor of elephants, elephant tamers, elephant-manager and trainers.

For catching elephants or for capturing them, several professionals were involved. We also come to know about the koonki elephant that were trained specifically for capturing elephants. Thus there were official elephant trainers who would train koonki elephants for capturing other elephants. Similarly elephants were also captured using a noose or pāśa, there were professional elephant nooser. There is specific term phāndi to denote such professionals. Similarly the elephants which were captured also required to be taken care off. They were to be fed with grass we also get reference to kamlā^[1] who were professional grass cutters. Though it is not sure that these grass cutters were involved in fetching grass or fodder specifically for elephants kept in captivity but Hastyāyurveda of Pālakāpya gives an entire list of grasses for elephants (Yavasādhyāya, IV, v. 24ff)^[2], some of them grew in wild. Thus the work of a grass supplier (kamlā) would include the collection and procurement of grasses from the wild forested zones as well. This also leads us to another issue whether there were specific forests for collection of grasses for elephants or in other words forests which were reserved for elephant fodder. In this connection it is noteworthy that Arthaśāstra mentions an official post of Nāgavanādhyakṣa or Superintendent of elephant-forests. Thus there were specific forests which were designated as elephant forests and one can also notice hierarchy in the positions or posts. On the upper level there was a superintendent of elephant-forests or overseer of the elephant preserve (Nāgavanādhyakṣa) under him were other staffs like guards of the elephant forest, elephant keepers, foot chainers, border guards, forest rangers and attendants. The text mentions that these lower grade officials should disguise themselves with the scent of elephant urine and dung of elephants and concealing themselves with the branches of trees, should move with five or seven female elephant decoys to “find out the size of the elephant herds, by means of signs provided by sleeping places, foot prints, dung and damage caused to river bank,” and “keep a written record of elephants–those moving in herds, those moving alone, those driven from a herd, and the leaders of herds, as well as those that are dangerous, in must, the youngster and those, released from captivity.” They should capture elephants deemed excellent in the judgment of elephant trainers.^[3] However the Arthaśāstra does not include the elephant trainer in the hierarchical list but this leads us to assume that in this hierarchy the elephant trainers would have been in an upper position than the one who worked on site in catching them and below the Nāgavanādhyakṣa. Thus a trainer would approve of the elephant/ elephant herd prior to the capture activity.

In the ideal case a kingdom will have an elephant forest and will resort to it for war elephants and riding elephants. But Arthaśāstra mentions eight regional elephant forests divided into three classes on the basis of their quality. It is in this connection that the Arthaśāstra speaks of the comparative advantages of the Himalayan trade route and the southern route. The first supplies horses and elephants among other things; the second is the better, supplying elephants and a greater abundance of precious goods. This also brings us to the issue that such elephant reserves or forests were state property and hence the elephants too generated revenue for the state. State or monarchical powers would have been the main purchasers of horses and elephants; private ownership of either was hence restricted, and in the case of Mauryas there was a royal monopoly, which was simply the limiting condition of a constant tendency of Indian kingship to treat horses and elephants as crucial military assets.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Sarva Daman Singh. Ancient Indian Warfare–With Special Reference to the Vedic Period, (Foreword by Sir Mortimer Wheeler), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1997 (Reprint), pp. 72-84.

[2]:

K.G. Sheshadri. “Grasses and their varieties in Indian Literature”, Asian Agricultural History, Vol.17, No. 4, 2013, pp.325-334.

[3]:

R.P. Kangle. tr. The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, (Book 2, Chapter 2), Part II, Bombay: University of Bombay, 1963, pp.10-12.