One of the frustrating parts of writing, and especially editing, a book is most definitely having to cut things out or simply omit interesting bits of history to protect your word count. Or in my case, to stop going on irrelevant but (to my mind) utterly fascinating tangents and ruin the flow of the book. So I will be putting them here instead from time to time, starting with this artifact which I didn’t manage to fit into a chapter about the ancient town of Taxila in modern Pakistan.
In the October of 1938, archaeologist Amedeo Maiuri found a small statuette made from ivory, depicting one naked woman, flanked by two smaller women by her side. The style of the sculpture, and the design of the piece were not Roman but were in fact Indian. The discovery was the first of its kind and, even with the recent find of the Berenike Buddha, it is still the only securely identified statue from India to be found anywhere in the old Roman Empire.
The Statue
This extraordinary discovery gave us the earliest known physical evidence for trade between India and Italy; the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE means that this item can’t have arrived any later than this. In fact, the item has evidence of damage, possibly from an earthquake. If this is the case, then the sculpture must have arrived in Pompeii no later than 62 CE. Though our written sources do mention trade coming from south Asia, there is something quite special about finding physical proof to back this up!
The statue is small, standing at a mere 24cm in height, 5cm wide and 6cm deep. It was carved from a single tusk of elephantine ivory and would have been very expensive. While our evidence from the 1st century suggests that Indian goods had begun to enter the Empire freely, many of the goods were considered exotic and costly. While ivory was noted by Pliny as being the most expensive product that came from a land animal – presumably to prevent having to compare its value to things like Tyrian purple dye, which were just extortionately expensive.
The main figure is nude except for her very distinctive jewellery which includes a head ornament, a long and thick necklace, and a number of bangles on her forearms and lower legs. The smaller female figures to her side are similarly naked except for sashes that hang low by their thighs.
The head of the larger female figure has a hole bored down through it, and this led Maiuri to suggest that it was originally a handle for a mirror. However further examination of the statue along with similar finds in India suggest that it was part of a set. Perhaps one of four legs to hold a small table or to support a standing dish of some sort.
Interpretations
The name for the item comes from Lakshmi, the Indian goddess of wealth and good fortune, who the earliest researchers believed this statue depicted. Although, this identification was based on much supposition but little credible analysis. It was noted that she has a lotus flower as part of her head ornament, and parts of her pose was reminiscent of another depiction of Lakshmi found in Sanchi, India. But these are not unique identifying features of Lakshmi. And in fact, during this period it was very unusual to depict any Indian god on such a perfunctory item for everyday use. The carving also lacks many of the artistic identifiers of Lakshmi such as her four arms, or companion elephants.
More recent analyses of the statue do not consider it a specific depiction of a goddess, but rather as a yakshi – a nature spirit that frequently appears in pieces of art at this time.
What we do not know, what we cannot know, is what the owner thought it depicted. So, in someways, what it originally depicted is not important. What is important is that a Roman inhabitant of Pompeii – most likely a merchant, based on other items found in the home – chose to spend a large amount of money on an Indian product and bring it home.
And for us, it is clear physical proof of the global trade networks that existed in the ancient world!