Blood Ivory E-Book

Robin Brown

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 456

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

'masterly account of the massacre of the African elephant'- The Spectator It is more than a thousand years since the exploitation of the elephant began, when they were most commonly used as war elephants. However, it is only in the last hundred years, with the coming of the 'great white hunters' and their special elephant guns, that the very existence of the African elephant has been threatened. With an update by John Hanks, WWF's former leading elephant scientist, this new edition of Blood Ivory tells the story of how the professional hunting fraternity was the first to realise the threat to the elephant and how it kick-started the whole conservation movement. It is not a story with a happy ending, however. It is a tale of war: colonialists against traditional practices and customs; newly independent African countries against each other; poachers and smugglers against any kind of constraint. Robin Brown draws on his depth of knowledge and understanding of Africa and his career as a leading wildlife film-maker to paint a vivid picture of hunting's impact on Africa's elephant population, vividly portraying the powerful personalities of those involved on both sides of the massacre.

Leseprobe

For Ailish

First published 2008

This paperback edition published 2021

The History Press

97 St George’s Place, Cheltenham,

Gloucestershire, GL50 3QB

www.thehistorypress.co.uk

© Robin Brown, 2008, 2021

The right of Robin Brown to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the Publishers.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN 978 0 7509 9851 2

Typesetting and origination by The History Press

Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ Books Limited, Padstow, Cornwall.

eBook converted by Geethik Technologies

Contents

Update to New Edition

Foreword

Preface

One White Gold

Two Lay Down Your Heart

Three The Big Bang

Four Across the Limpopo

Five The Lunatic Line

Six White Mischief

Seven The End of the Game

Eight The Last Stand

Nine Africa for the Africans

Ten Bloody Ivory

Eleven EBUR

Twelve Animal Lovers

Thirteen The Great Elephant Indaba

Select Bibliography

Update to New Edition

If there is one animal on this earth that is guaranteed to arouse emotion and an unprecedented level of commitment to ensure its security in a world that is overusing bio-capacity faster than it is being generated, the elephant would be at the top of the list of the growing number of threatened species. Lyall Watson encapsulated the fascination for elephants when he wrote: ‘If elephants didn’t exist, you couldn’t invent one. They belong to a small group of living things so unlikely they challenge credulity and common sense.’

Africa’s elephants have been decimated throughout most of the continent, a result of human population continuing to multiply from 7.9 billion in December 2021 to an estimated 9.7 billion by 2050, with many of these people living in absolute poverty. Humans have transformed landscapes for urban development, crop and livestock production, and deforestation for timber products, and encroached into corridors that link protected areas to one another. Financial support for the conservation and management of endangered species and for Africa’s already threatened network of protected areas has been drastically reduced, with poverty alleviation and, more recently, the funding of mitigation measures for reducing the spread of the global health pandemic, COVID-19, which has received priority in national budgets and in allocations from aid agencies.

An additional cause of the decline of elephants has been the ongoing traffic in the sale of ivory, even after the African elephant was placed on CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) Appendix 1 in 1989, banning all trade in elephant products. It was accompanied by widespread media coverage to urge consumers to stop buying ivory, although limited legal trade has been permitted in two recent one-off sales.

In general, trade bans on rhino horn, ivory and, more recently, pangolin scales have not resulted in stopping the continued illegal harvesting of these products, and there has only been a small reduction in consumer demand, mainly in Western countries. This was demonstrated emphatically as recently as 8 November 2021 when authorities in Democratic Republic of Congo seized $3.5 million worth of these banned products in a joint operation with United States officials. In part, this has been fueled by the steady growth in affluence in China, creating an upward impetus in demand, especially for ivory.

In contrast to the rest of Africa, elephant populations in Botswana and South Africa continue to grow at close to 6 per cent, and Namibia and Zimbabwe also have secure elephant populations. Here, however, numbers must be managed to halt the devastation of woodlands caused by an over-population of elephants, a destruction that accelerates the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services that no country can afford.

Robin Brown is to be congratulated for having the courage to question the unrealistic path too many modern conservationists are following to secure the future of the African elephant, and to advocate a paradigm shift in conservation policies. He has recognized the imperative of securing sustainable sources of funding, especially through investments by the private sector. He has also not hesitated to advocate a generation of funds through strictly controlled safari-hunting; and, where there is an over-population of elephants, to allow culling to take place with ivory and skins sold in a regulated market and meat provided to neighboring communities. Such suggestions are an anathema to the growing number of animal rights activists, but, as Robin has so clearly articulated, if the people of Africa, who live with these animals on their doorstep, decide the wildlife must pay its way if it is to stay, surely international NGOs and donor agencies have no right to prescribe and even dictate how elephants should be managed, even if they claim that elephants are a world heritage and their future should not be determined at a national level.

Blood Ivory was first published in 2008, and I regard all the main conclusions and opinions expressed on management and finance options as relevant today as they were then. One more recent controversy has been the call to destroy the legally held ivory stockpiles to stop them ever getting into the global market. In a review of the academic literature and available relevant data, Sas-Rolfes et al. (2014)* concluded that it was difficult to support the proposed destruction, which was not driven by sound policymaking, and nor was it backed up by a robust economic rationale supported by compelling evidence. It looks like similar contentious issues will be with us for a long time to come!

John HanksZoologist and former CEO of WWF-SAand first CEO of Peace Parks Foundation

* Sas-Rolfes, M., Moyle, B. and Stiles, D., ‘The complex policy issue of elephant ivory stockpile management’, Pachyderm, 2014, No. 55: 62–

Foreword

Blood Ivory: the Massacre of the African Elephant is an exposé of the conflict, politics, personal egos and corruption involved with the conservation of the African elephant. It is a topic, however, which needs exploring because it examines issues central to the conservation of the wildlife of Africa. Such is the passion that these issues arouse, many of those close to the world of elephant conservation would not want to be drawn into the arguments associated with Robin’s exposé even though they may share many of his views.

The book has had a gestation period of over two decades as Robin has observed and experienced the complexities of elephant conservation and the broader challenges of problems since he has a life-long involvement with Africa and as a film-maker he has made films on many of the issues and has met most of the main conservationists and biologists involved.

I remember discussing the merits and shortcomings of different approaches to conservation when Robin first visited me at work in Mauritius. He came to the island to make a series of films on my conservation management work with the highly endangered creatures of that fragile ecosystem: the Mauritian kestrel, pink pigeons and other birds, fruit bats, endemic reptiles and the restoration of small islands, which I am working with still. He, like me, was convinced that the practical management of wildlife was one of the most potent approaches to conservation, and in conflict situations, eclipses the hands-off approach of the protectionists.

Robin, with his nose for sniffing out controversy, was even then convinced that there was an elephant conspiracy of elephantine proportions. Robin’s exposé suggests levels of complicity that are surprising.

What is clear is that endangered species arouse great passion, and when you add a charismatic mega-vertebrate producing such a valuable commodity as ivory, then the atmosphere is going to get very hot.

Blood Ivory challenges current thinking. It takes on international conservation organisations (international conservation movements, as he calls them), questions the bureaucracy of CITES that control the ivory trade, and endorses the ideas of management that have been embraced and developed by biologists and game managers in southern Africa. Here elephant populations have been culled and their ivory and meat used. This is bold thinking, but of course when confronted by the desperate plight of the African elephant in some countries and the conflicts with people in others, we need to challenge some of the conventional thinking. The book is, however, a lot more than just an exposé of corruption and skulduggery in the ivory trade; it is a history of the exploitation of the African elephant and charts out changing attitudes to and perceptions of elephant conservation. It is revealing to read this history to see just how our attitudes have changed. Robin records his own experiences of the Africa in which he grew up, meeting its elephant biologists and game managers. This is the part of the book I enjoyed most.

We have learnt a great deal about how, and how not to, manage elephants and Blood Ivory charts these many lessons. But it is a knowledge that needs to be incorporated with a better understanding of how to manage conservation projects, understand the issues involved in elephant–human conflict and accommodate that needs of the people that have to live with the animals. There are rapid changes occurring in the way we view animals and in the way we manage them.

The problems of conflicting ideologies, clashing egos, and complex politics are common components that are seen again and again in all endangered species projects and they get in the way of the conservation work. There are, for example, parallels between the human problems seen in elephant conservation and those seen in the conservation of the giant panda, that have been raised in the book The Last Panda by George Schaller, and in the conservation conflicts described in The California Condor by Noel and Helen Snyder. What is clear is that most conservation biologists are poorly equipped to address the politics of endangered species management. A university training in conservation biology does not necessarily prepare students for the realities of real-life conservation and consequently the goals that many conservation biologists set themselves are not achieved. We are not approaching conservation in the most efficient way.

Robin examined this underachievement, and in the late 1980s he made a film showing how many of the large flagship projects of international conservation organisations failed to deliver. Projects involving tigers, pandas, whales and elephants all fell short of their goals. With the benefit of hindsight conservationists of the 1970s and ’80s were naïve and were trying to achieve too much, too quickly. Time after time, projects were established in developing countries by highly trained western scientists with adequate resources then, after an obligatory three- or five-year conservation departments. Project after project floundered, starved of money, expertise and vision, although their practitioners often convinced themselves that they had been successful. Spin is not the recent invention of politicians; conservationists have been practising it for decades.

Species can be saved and we can restore some habitats and ecosystems but there are no quick fixes. Saving species takes decades and restoring habitats takes longer. Conservationists are increasingly realising that to achieve population recoveries in endangered species we need resources for developing local capacity support and practical management programmes, often for decades.

Who delivers conservation? Increasingly we are realising that international conservation organisations cannot do this at grassroots level. This is the role of national organisations, especially the smaller specialist organisations and non-government organisations. These are in general more flexible and more effective in achieving species conservation that government departments. Large organisations by nature of their bureaucracies, have to have detailed and rigid work plans and protocols while smaller organisations can be far more flexible and be driven by clear goals.

However, the real drivers of conservation are inspirational leaders; these are the people that make the difference. They have the drive, charisma and bloody-mindedness to achieve results against the odds, are doggedly stubborn and dedicate their lives to their cause. We see these people cropping up time and again in this book and in the African elephant story; Iain Douglas-Hamilton, David and Daphne Sheldrick, Richard Leakey, George Adamson and a host of others. These are not corporate types, not committee conservationists, but determined individuals driven by a vision.

The art of good species restoration is to be able to split the responsibilities between the organisations and people that have the requisite skills. The management of National Parks and large-scale habitat restoration needs to be done by governments and the larger resource-rich organisations, and the detailed species restoration and research should be done by the more flexible and specialist smaller organisations.

I have been lucky enough to work for the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, an organisation committed to restoring endangered species and their habitats. Gerald Durrell, the founder and visionary, realised that saving species meant investing resources and talent in projects for decades and the Trust now has successful species and habitat restoration projects in several countries.

Humans revel in the concept of wild nature; we cherish the idea of pristine habitats. We have long believed that we can restore species and habitats, and once restored they will look after themselves. That is misguided; ‘solved’ conservation problem are a rarity. Man has left his footprint everywhere, few pristine habitats now exist and the conservation failures of the 1970s and ’80s have demonstrated unequivocally the need for long-term management if we want to keep tigers, panda, elephants or the other countless species and their habitats.

During recent decades we have increasingly managed our natural resources. We control some species and encourage others. Our nature reserves and national parks are all managed and there is every indication that the level of management will continue to increase. Wilderness areas that do not need management will require protection, but these areas are few and rapidly declining.

Concomitant with the growth of conservation have been improvements in animal welfare. This has developed as we understand animal needs, and has resulted in a growth in the animal rights movement. It is inevitable that there will be conflict between animal rights and conservation. Conservationists will always put the rights of the species above the rights of the individual, while animal rights activists support the rights of the individual. At its extreme we have seen people lobby to allow the California condor to become extinct ‘with dignity’ rather than be subjected to an intensive management programme that would save the species. Luckily the exponents of management won, and the condor population is now being restored not only in California but also in the Grand Canyon of Arizona.

We have also seen activists from the Channel Islands Animal Protection Association laying out the antidote to a poison being used to thwart attempts to remove introduced rats off the Channel Islands, California. The rats were killing native wildlife. The activists were unsuccessful and the rats were fortunately eradicated, which resulted in the subsequent recovery of the native wildlife.

The conflict between animal rights and conservation is brought sharply into focus when we look at the plight of elephants. This is no surprise since elephants are large, long-lived social creatures with great intelligence, the depths of which have yet to be fully understood. Our relations with this wonderful animal have not always been sensitive and their exploitation hits a nerve of extreme sensibility in many. Robin discusses the relationship that humans have had with elephants and although they have been trained and worked as beasts of burden for hundreds of years, they have never been fully domesticated in the usual sense of the word. Elephants have never been bred in large numbers in captivity and in Asia working females may breed with working males but they have usually been allowed to mate with wild males. Consequently there has never been the rigorous selection for docility that one sees in many domestic animals. Trained elephants may seem calm and tractable, and most are, but some of these highly intelligent animals become seriously mentally disturbed in captivity and may be dangerous.

The history of elephants in captivity has had many sad episodes of crude and improper care. Robin notes how Marco Polo recorded that war elephants belonging to Zanzibar chiefs were given wine to make them more spirited. It seems that Marco Polo’s observation was subsequently taken literally since an elephant given to King James I by his Spanish counterpart in 1623, and kept at the Tower of London, was throughout his short life given nothing to drink but a gallon of wine a day!

Being an elephant keeper or a mahout is a very dangerous job (the most dangerous job in the world according to some!) since many elephants have killed their keepers. Two of these that subsequently met gruesome ends were the Indian elephants Chunee and Topsy.

Chunee, a male, was brought to Regency London in 1809 or 1810. He was originally exhibited at the Covent Garden Theatre, but later joined a menagerie at Exeter Exchange on the Strand in London. When he reached adulthood he became violent, attributed to an ‘annual paroxysm’ (perhaps his musth) aggravated by a rotten tusk which gave him bad toothache. On 26 February 1826, while on his usual Sunday walk along the Strand, Chunee rank amok, killing one of his keepers. He was clearly disturbed and became increasingly enraged and difficult over the following days, and was considered too dangerous to keep. The following Wednesday, 1 March, his keeper tried to feed him poison, but Chunee, not surprisingly, refused to eat it. Soldiers were summoned to shoot the elephant with their muskets. Kneeling down to the command of his trusted keeper, Chunee was hit by 152 musket balls; he trumpeted in pain but refused to die. He was finished off by a keeper with a sword.

When I first read this account I was filled with the images of Chunee’s appalling death. This vision was, however, eclipsed by the images of the death of Topsy, an elephant with the Circus in the USA. Topsy was executed after she killed three men in three years – the last a drunk trainer who had fed her a lit cigarette. The execution was filmed and the resulting Electrocuting an Elephant is very disturbing to watch. Although I saw the short film many years ago I am still filled with horror whenever I think of it.

In an attempt to kill Topsy they fed her carrots laced with cyanide which she wolfed down without effect. A plan to hang the elephant publicly was opposed by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Eventually, the inventor Thomas A. Edison (who with his company had previously designed and built the electric chair) agreed to electrocute the massive Indian elephant.

On 4 January 1903, a crowd estimated at 1,500 gathered at Coney Island, to witness what the New York Times termed ‘a rather inglorious affair’. At about 1.30 p.m., a handful of park employees led Topsy, the 6-ton, 10-foot-high creature to the execution site. There, an employee of the Edison Company helped attach a hawser and a series of electrodes to the elephant, which was clad in copperlined sandals. At 2.45 p.m. the current was activated. Some 6,000 volts of an alternating current shot through the elephant. ‘The big beast died without a trumpet or a groan’, the Commercial Advertiser noted. ‘All this took a matter of 10 seconds’ (actually thought to have been 22 seconds). The New York Times added, ‘There had been no sound and hardly a conscious movement of the body.’ Nevertheless, to see the grainy film of the animal being killed is truly shocking.

Thankfully our attitudes to elephants have changed and in the last twenty years we have seen standards getting better. However, if we are to continue to keep elephants in captivity then we still have a great deal to learn about how to keep them healthy, happy and behaving normally. In the 1970s and early ’80s when I first started working in conservation there was a belief among many that the future for many species lay in establishing self-sustaining captive populations. We now know that this is unrealistic, and is not practical with such large demanding animals. The ideal would be to be able to leave elephants in the wild to look after themselves, but this is not always practical since elephants are increasingly coming into conflict with people. The way forward is to maintain managed populations of free-ranging animals, but we still have to develop techniques and mind-sets to be able to implement effective long-term management from which both elephants and people benefit.

In an increasingly man-modified world the management of our wildlife is going to be more and more important if we wish to keep it. The real challenges lie in how we keep and manage elephants in the wild.

Historically, before firearms, the populations would have probably been limited by food availability and, during times of food shortage, by a depressed rate of reproduction. At the time the elephants had vast areas over which to roam and when they had exhausted the food supply in one area they would move to another. They would return to the formerly over-grazed and browsed areas when they had recovered. This natural cycling of vegetation and elephants may not now be possible for most if not all elephant populations as they are now in fragmented populations, in often disrupted habitats, and there are few or no new areas for them to move into should they exhaust their food supply.

The original southern African model of culling surplus animals for ivory, trophies or meat works in controlling the elephants and making them economically valuable, but is distasteful to many and needs tight controls. Trophy and sport hunting are lucrative ways of making wildlife pay. Hunting has its problems, but it is a relatively straightforward way of channelling money from wealthy western countries to poorer developing ones. I can accept the sustainable hunting of antelope or other ungulates for trophies and rationally I can accept there may be a need for hunting elephants, but emotionally it seems brutal. All these difficult concepts are carefully explored in Blood Ivory.

In an article in New Scientist by Mike Norton-Griffiths, provocatively entitled ‘Whose wildlife is it anyway?’, he argues for the management of Kenyan wildlife along the lines developed in southern Africa and to move away from current protectionist approaches. Since 1977, the year that sport hunting, wildlife ranching and other consumptive uses were banned; Kenya has lost between 60 and 70 per cent of its large wild animals.

Norton-Griffiths argues that since the opportunities to make money from wildlife have been withdrawn it is no longer profitable to maintain wild animal populations. He argues that to reverse the downward trend the legislation needs to be reversed to allow ‘activities such as ranching, the sale of live wild animals, the culling of locally abundant populations, the marketing of trophies, and the most valuable of all – sport hunting’.

However, attempts by Kenyan parliamentarians to update and review current wildlife practices were subverted by the activities of two US animal welfare organisations, the Humane Society and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

Hunting aside, there are many techniques for the management of elephants and there is plenty of room to develop these further and with far more sophistication than is possible at the moment. The great beauty of management is that it can be highly creative and in the future we will manage populations in ways that at the moment we can only dream of. I dream of genetically modified elephants being used to replace the extinct mammoth. How wonderful it would be to travel the treeless steppe-tundra of northern Europe and Siberia, and to come across analogue mammoths moving along in herds, fulfilling the ecological role of their extinct relatives in maintaining a mammoth-mediated vegetation community. Or how about introducing elephants, camels, wild horses and big cats to rewild North America?

This is not as wild an idea as it may first seem and it has been seriously proposed in the premier scientific journal Nature. The authors wish to ‘restore some of the evolutionary and ecological potential that was lost 13,000 years ago . . .’ They add: ‘Managed elephant populations could similarly benefit ranchers through grassland maintenance and ecotourism. Five species of proboscideans (mammoths, mastadons and gomphotheres) once roamed North America in the Late Pleistocene; today many of the remaining African and Asian elephants are in grave danger. Elephants inhibit woodland regeneration and promote grasslands, as Pleistocene proboscidians probably once did. With appropriate resources, captive US stock and some of the 16,000 domesticated elephants in Asia could be introduced to North America, where they might suppress the woody plants that threaten western grasslands. Fencing, which can be effective in reducing human-elephant conflict in Africa, would be the main economic cost.’

These may be flights of fancy but the elephant story has moved a long way in the last three and a half thousand years and it promises to move still further in the future. We need to understand the past so that we can plan the future. Let us embrace management and plan for the day when we can reintroduce elephants in their former ranges and perhaps even replace mammoths. These really are visions to look forward to!

Dr Carl G. Jones MBEInternational Conservation FellowDurrell Wildlife Conservation Trust

Preface

Blood Ivory is a personal history. When I came to write it, I discovered that I had personally experienced all the events I was about to describe. I had met, filmed, documented or been a close friend of all the people I have used as references. This means that the rise and fall of the African elephant has all but happened in the fifty years of my adult lifetime, and I have been party to virtually every tortuous twist and turn along the way.

What I hope to achieve with this account, some of which is admittedly quite hard on those friends, is to identify what works in elephant conservation, what doesn’t, and why. Several of my conclusions are controversial, but this is essentially a hopeful story if new, proven practices for elephant management are employed throughout Africa. There is now no good reason why the largest land mammal on our planet should become extinct, and this was certainly not the case twenty years ago. It is equally a matter of fact that in more than two-thirds of the countries of Africa that could or should be regarded as prime elephant habitat, the animal’s conservation is still a disaster.

Robin BrownHyde, Gloucestershire, 2007

ONE

White Gold

Fifteen hundred years before the birth of Christ the pharaoh of Egypt, Queen Hatshepsut, sent a fleet of five ships to find the legendary Land of Punt. Three years later the ships returned bearing a ‘marvellous’ cargo – the tusks of 700 elephants. Although nobody could have dreamt it then, this was the muted death knell of the African elephant.

The success of the journey was of extreme importance to Hatshepsut, who had declared herself queen of Egypt, ergo a living god. Dangerous journeys into the unknown that were rewarded with fabulous treasure demonstrated godlike prowess, and Hatshepsut, the first women ever to declare herself a divine queen, needed the kudos. From this time on, no Middle Eastern sovereign, from the Phoenician king Hyram to the fabulous Solomon and the Ptolemies, could manage without ivory. Tutankhamun rested in death on a pillow of ivory. Solomon’s great throne was of ivory overlaid with gold. Ahab the Phoenician lived in a palace that became known as ‘the house of ivory’. Harkuf, the governor of Egyptian territory around what is now modern Aswan in the Sudan, ruled a province called Elephantine.

By 500 BC elephants were approaching extinction in Syria and by 270 BC the quest for ivory was proceeding rapidly down the Red Sea to special elephant hunting camps, like that of Ptolemais Theron (the Port of Hunters), served by their own dedicated port, Berenice Troglodytica.

By the time the Roman Empire came to an end in Africa, North African herds were well on their way to extinction. Pliny wrote 2,000 years ago: ‘An ample supply of ivory is now rarely obtained except from India, the demands of luxury having exhausted all of them in our part of the world [Africa].’ So there is nothing new in the sad story of destruction. It is a slaughter as old as man himself. Recent discoveries by Russian scientists prove that some 15,000 years ago the earliest true men survived the last ice ages on the meat, skins, tusks and bones of ancient elephantines, the mammoths, and there is still an active trade in mammoth ivory from subfossil deposits. Palaeolithic anthropologists working at sites of human habitation in France, Germany and Russia have found human-made tools alongside the remains of many elephantines. At least 100,000 years ago the leviathans were being either hunted or scavenged and brought to the Terra Amata habitations in southern France.

Modern horses, camels and elephants emerged as species 40,000 years ago and began attracting the attention of humankind, who were all hunters at that time. All three creatures were prime targets for domestication because they could be ridden and worked. The elephant was particularly prized not just as mode of transport but as weapon of war. Egyptian hieroglyphs of 5,000 years ago reflect a different symbol for wild and tame elephants.

The first evidence of the over-exploitation of elephants by human hunters or collectors emerged 1,500 years ago. Several races of Asian and African elephants became extinct. Elephas maximus rubridens existed in China as far north as Anyang, in northern Honan Province. Writings from the fourteenth century BC state that elephants were still to be found in Kwangsi Province in northern China. However, the small North African elephant was not so lucky and was extinct by the second century BC. There are disputes among biologists about whether the remaining African elephants, Loxodonta africana africana, should be subdivided into ‘Plains’ and ‘Forest’ (Loxodonta africana cyclotis) species. Regardless of the scientific argument, these animals are all we have left.

In Asia, concentrated in India and spreading through to Burma, the smaller Indian elephant, Elephas maximus indicus, won a special place in the heart of early man. The species’ survival, unlike that of the African elephant, is in no real doubt because its usefulness has so long been acknowledged. It also has a sacred place in Indian mythology and religion. However, signs of nervousness about shrinking elephant numbers have emerged even in India in recent years as elephant usefulness declines in the face of modern technology. Today India is one of the most strident advocates of the international ban on the trade in elephant ivory.

The African elephant, a much bigger beast, has larger ears, is taller at the shoulder, has more wrinkled skin, and both male and female bear tusks. The Indian elephant is tallest at the arch of the back, bears noticeable tusks in the male only (the female having tusks so small that they appear absent), and has one lobe instead of two on its trunk. The Indian elephant has two humps on its forehead; the African elephant’s forehead is flatter. A quick way to tell the two species apart is that the ears of the African elephant appear to be remarkably like the map of Africa, and those of the Indian elephant quite like the outline of India.

The African elephant, often weighing in at 7,000kg (15,400lb), is our largest living land mammal. Indian elephants weigh some 5,000kg (11,000lb). In spite of their mass, elephants move with exceptional grace and delicacy. A thick cushion of resilient tissue grows on the base of the foot around hoof-like toes, absorbing the shock of the weight and enabling the animal to ‘walk tall’. Elephants normally walk at about 6.4kph (4mph) and can charge at up to 40kph (25mph). They cannot jump over ditches, but they readily take to rivers and lakes and swim effortlessly for long distances.

They live in small family groups led by old cows, in habitats ranging from thick jungle to savannah. Where food is plentiful the groups join together to form larger herds. Most bulls live in bachelor herds apart from the cows. Elephants migrate seasonally, according to the availability of food and water. They spend many hours eating and may consume more than 225kg (500lb) of grasses and other vegetation in a day. Gestation averages twenty-two months. Mature male elephants annually enter a condition known as musth, which is marked by secretions from the musth glands behind the eye, an increase in aggression, and association with females that usually leads to mating.

There can be little doubt in my view that Indian elephants have survived better than their African cousins because they have been willing, or easily induced, to work for men (and possibly because they have much less ivory than African elephants). It is not generally known that African elephants were also trained to work (by mahouts from India) in the heavy transport and forestry industries of the Belgian Congo. An entire government department was for almost two decades devoted to the affairs of working elephant but it died out with the end of colonialism. Since then the only commercial interest in the African elephant has been the value of their tusks. The largest female tusk ever recorded weighed over 32kg (70lb) but anything over half that would be regarded as exceptional. Males, on the other hand, commonly produce over 18kg (40lb) of ivory on each side, with the record for a single tusk standing at almost 104kg (229lb). The most active (visible) market in ivory today operates out of the Sudan, mostly serving a Chinese ‘art’ industry. The most up-to-date price I can get for ivory values it at between $75 and $105 a kilogram compared to the going price before the CITES ivory ban in 1989 of $16 to $44 a kilogram.

The life span of an elephant rarely exceeds seventy years and is spent almost entirely on the move. The animal’s intake of water is high – an elephant siphons about 20 gallons of water at a time using a delicately muscled trunk. Elephants drink by sucking water up into the trunk and then squirting it into the mouth. They eat by detaching grasses, leaves and fruit with the tip of the trunk and place this vegetation in their mouths by means of a small, lip-like protuberance on the tip of the trunk – African elephants have two of these extremities and Indian elephants have one.

The most famous use elephants have ever been put to is as machines of war, quite literally as the first armoured, death-dealing tank. By the time of Pliny their use was so common that they had their own name: Lucae boves, or Lucane Oxen. Alexander the Great, at the head of a Greek army, had a nasty shock when he went against the Persians at the battle of Gaugamela in 331 BC – fifteen armoured elephants mounting platforms housing several archers. These elephants were almost certainly Indian. Alexander’s army at the battle of Hydaspes in modern Punjab in 326 BC confronted a force of some 200 elephants lined up at 25-metre intervals and designed primarily to stop cavalry. The Macedonian light infantry attacked the elephants with javelins but without success. Alexander then re-formed his troops into squares with locked shields, confronting the elephant squadrons with a mass of spears, and finally drove them back. He captured about 100 of the animals and later built up his own elephant detachment to more than 200. At the end of the fourth century BC, one of Alexander’s captains, Nikator, attempted an unsuccessful invasion of the Indian sub-continent. The peace terms included the hand of Nikator’s daughter in marriage in return for 500 war elephants. Thereafter almost all the armies of Europe had elephants among their ordnance.

Alexander’s successors, the Mauryan kings who controlled much of Asia, treated their elephants almost as a human regiment. In an early treatise of the Mauryan period ascribed to King Ashoka, the duties of the king’s elephant-keeper are described and his responsibilities listed, for veterinarians, trainers, riders, footchainers, stall-guards and other attendants. The elephants lived in sanctuaries in a semi-wild state with guards to protect them and maintain breeding records. These elephants were then re-enlisted as needed for military or other purposes.

Plutarch describes how elephants employed in the Mediterranean were obtained from India (some records suggest that the elephant was used in battle as early as 1100 BC), but there are indications that the African elephant was also called into service. Alexander the Great may well have imported elephants up the Nile from central Africa. On the famous Black Obelisk, dated around 860 BC, Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, is seen receiving tribute with an elephant, presumably from Egypt.

Battle elephants were exceptionally valuable and used in a very formalised way. Their brute strength was often employed against fortifications, although Alexander and his successors used elephants almost exclusively against cavalry. At the battle of Gaza in 312 BC between Ptolemy of Egypt and Demetrius of Syria, some fifty troops armed with javelins, slings, and bows and arrows were positioned between each elephant. The elephants, and the archers on their backs, broke through the cavalry and the infantry cleaned up.

The Achilles heel of the elephant was in fact its sensitive feet and history records that at the siege of Megalopolis in 318 BC heavy wooden frames studded with iron spikes were laid in the path of the animals. Other reports mention spiked devices linked by chains.

In 280 BC Alexander’s kinsman Pyrrhus invaded Italy and introduced the Romans to these living tanks. Pliny the Elder writes about Pyrrhus’ elephants at some length at the beginning of Book 8 of his Natural History, including his belief that their tusks were their teeth. When Alexander died the balance of power he left behind was largely dictated by military elephants. When the Selucids of Syria who had access to Indian elephants moved against the Ptolemies of Egypt where elephants were scarce, the Selucids initially prevailed thanks to their animals.

Ptolemy Philadelphos decided to reinforce his elephant army with animals from central Africa. He developed a series of ports for this purpose on the Red Sea and down the East African coast, including Philotera and Berenice. Holding bays for elephants were installed and the Egyptian port of Myos Hormos was enlarged to become an elephant entrepôt. The trade in elephants for war may indeed have opened up East Africa (certainly East African ports) not just to the movement of elephant livestock but later to the buying and selling of elephant ivory and gold, and eventually to the lucrative slave trade, which was directly linked to ivory exports. The first African slaves were chain-ganged porters sold at the coast after they had carried ivory from the interior.

Polybius, in his description of the battle of Raphia fought between the Ptolemies and the Selucids in 217 BC, the year after Hannibal famously took his elephants across the Alps, mentions that the African elephant was smaller than the Indian. This North African sub-species stood about 2.5 metres at the shoulder, compared to the African plains elephant of 3.5 to 4 metres. It is now extinct.

The Numidians certainly used in battle African elephants captured in the forests of the Atlas mountains. These mini-tanks were not mounted with a tower like the elephants of Kublai Khan’s time, but in addition to the mahout they carried a crew of two or three men armed with bows and arrows and javelins.

The smaller African forest elephants were also commonly ridden like horses. Both the Egyptians and the Carthaginians are on record as capturing and successfully training elephants from the Sudan and Tunisia. The crew of a Carthaginian war elephant typically comprised four men in a tower – an officer, a bowman and an infantryman or two armed with the sacrissa, a 5-metre, iron-tipped lance.

In his account of the battle of Raphia, Polybius gives a graphic description of elephants fighting each other. They met head to head and, echoing the mating and dominance play of their natural environment, interlocked tusks. Each pushed with all its strength, trying to compel the other to give ground. Finally, the stronger would force the weaker to one side and then gore him along the exposed flank.

Armoured towers on elephants seem first to have been used by Pyrrhus when he invaded Italy. The early biblical and pre-biblical records, including the Apocrypha and the books of Maccabees, describe elephants at war mounting wooden towers filled with fighting men. Pyrrhus, who was the king of Epirus (now northern Albania), later took an army of 25,000 men and 26 elephants against the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC, and wrote that his elephants won the day with a crucial charge. Indeed, for some hundreds of years nothing seemed capable of withstanding an assault by well-trained elephants. Marco Polo, in the employ of Kublai Khan, does describe a rare successful resistance by a later Tartar army that lured an Indian elephant squadron into a forest, split the animals up and then cut them down with a hail of arrows and lances. Subsequently, however, the Great Khan assembled as many fighting elephants as he could lay his hands on.

In 218 BC the fighting elephant reached the height of its fame when Hannibal crossed the Alps at the head of an army that included thirty-seven of the animals. This is certainly the bestknown tale of the elephant’s bravery and fortitude but in many ways the most ignominious. In fact the elephants should not have been there in the first place, the terrain and the climate proved too tough for the lumbering beasts and a large number perished on the journey, some of starvation. But Hannibal was a military genius and he knew that even a handful of elephants charging down an alp was an intimidating spectacle; it certainly gave him the advantage of surprise. However, when the Roman general Publius Cornelius Scipio invaded Carthage and defeated Hannibal at the battle of Zama in 202 BC, the elephants were famously judged to have been more of a hindrance than a help. (There is a dispute about whether Hannibal’s elephants were African, Indian or a mixture of both. His most famous elephant, a very large animal at the head of the battle squadron, was certainly known as ‘Sarus’, which means ‘the Syrian’.)

Gossipy old Pliny gives one of his more detailed species descriptions when dealing with the elephant. Philemon Holland’s 1601 translation of the eighth book of the Natural History describes the war of ‘Aniball’ with the ‘Romanes’. Pliny accurately relates the war of King Pyrrhus, claiming that this was the first time elephants were seen in Italy (and, we may confidently assume, Europe). Then, he says, in the year 502 BC, 142 elephants were brought to Rome ‘conveyed upon plankes and flat bottomes’, surrounded by ‘pipes set thicke one by another. They were caused to fight in the great Cirque or shew place, and were killed there with shots of dartes and javelins. L. Piso says they were brought out only in the shew place or cirque aforesaid, and for to make them more contemptible, were chased round about by certaine fellowes hired thereto.’

Pliny records how Hannibal made Roman prisoners he had taken fight single-handed to the death against his elephants, promising freedom as a prize. One such (to the great ‘hearts greefe’ of the Carthaginians) managed to kill an elephant with a sword. Hannibal set him free but, fearful that this would damage the reputation of his elephants, had the man pursued by horsemen and his throat cut!

Pliny also reports that bulls were pitted against elephants in the arena, and in the second consulship of Pompeius, at the dedication of the temple of Venus, twenty elephants fought against gladiators armed with arrows and lances. ‘Among all the others’, Pliny says, ‘one elephant did wonders. When his legs and feet were shot full of arrows, he crept upon his knees and fought even when the entire company of gladiators fell upon the beast. Even then the elephant caught his attackers by their shields and buckles and flung them aloft in the air. This made a wonderful spectacle and gave great pleasure to the audience.’

In spite of his acceptance of the brutalities of the Roman arena, Pliny also shared the common human instinct for admiration of elephants. We think that they ‘never forget’, that they go to ‘graveyards’ to die, that they mourn over collections of elephant bones and so on. Pliny writes admiringly of an arena elephant that had apparently gone berserk and was put down with one shot. ‘The dart was driven’, the author says, ‘but entered under the eye deep into the ventricles of the brain. Whereupon all the other elephants attempted to break loose, causing panic amongst the crowd, even though they were well outside the lists which were protected by iron gates and bars.’

Pliny also anticipates that elephants used in warfare were extremely vulnerable once the opposition had learned how to handle them. ‘Their long snouts or trunks which the Latins call Proboscis, may be easily cut off.’ Armies developed new and effective ways of dealing with elephant attacks and very mobile armies, such as that of the Tartars, out-thought and out-paced the lumbering leviathans. Also, and we are now considering an era of 1,000 to 1,500 years ago, elephants were already becoming increasingly difficult to find. In the so-called ancient world the supply of Indian elephants started to dry up as the Indians found ever more commercial uses for their animals.

When Kublai Khan began to build the greatest empire the world has ever seen (ironically, an empire the western world knew almost nothing about until Marco Polo returned to Italy and wrote about it), the Mongols commandeered all the elephants of the peoples they conquered for themselves. Large elephant squadrons were still a spectacular status symbol for the potentates overthrown by the Khan and were regularly displayed to demonstrate a ruler’s worth. Marco Polo, writing in 1298 about his time at Kublai Khan’s court, describes how the Great Khan’s elephants were paraded at a festival called the White Feast, which was held on 1 February to celebrate the start of the new year: ‘five thousand of them exhibited in procession covered with housings of cloth, fancifully and richly worked with gold and silk in figures of birds and beast. Each of the elephants supported on its shoulders two coffers filled with plate and other apparatus for the use of the court.’

Marco also records the presence of valuable elephants in ‘Ziamba’ (Cochin-China) and how the king there paid his annual tribute to Kublai Khan in elephants and lignum aloes. In Basman (Java), where Marco also records for the first time the existence of Asian rhino, elephants were regarded as a national treasure, and in Madagascar he found on sale ‘a vast number of elephants’ teeth’, while in Zanzibar ‘they are also to be found in great numbers’. The latter must have referred to tusks, because, so far as I know, Zanzibar had no indigenous elephants. This is therefore one of the earliest records of Zanzibar being East Africa’s most important ivory entrepôt (a title it would have confirmed hundreds of years later). Later Marco Polo rather confuses the issue by stating that Zanzibar chiefs occasionally went to war with each other fighting from the backs of elephants on which they placed ‘castles’ capable of containing between fifteen and twenty men armed with swords, lances and stones. (If this is true, these must have been very large African elephants.) ‘Prior to going into combat,’ Marco adds, ‘they give draughts of wine to their elephants, supposing that renders them more spirited and more furious in the assault.’ The truth of Marco Polo’s reporting has long been questioned (his stories were judged so incredible that he was known as ‘Marco Millione’, the teller of a million tall tales), but I have always been impressed by his attention to detail, and this anecdote about Zanzibar chiefs feeding wine to their fighting elephants has an intriguing ring of truth about it.

So while elephants were being widely exploited in classical times, ivory was used much as we use plastic today. Pliny was starting to worry about the future of the elephant if the rich continued to demand so much of the luxury material, but meanwhile the mighty herds of large African elephants remained all but intact. Many, like the hordes roaming in the Congo river basin and the lands of the African great lakes, had yet to be discovered by the ivory traders. Coastal Africa and countries like Ethiopia, which were readily accessible to Phoenician ships and Arab and Indian dhows, were still meeting the demand. However, far sooner than anyone could have suspected, this glorious epoch in the history of the African elephant would end – quite literally with a bang and the stench of black gunpowder.

TWO

Lay Down Your Heart

From about the time of Christ, African elephants ceased to be valued war machines and were sought instead for what they had always been, the earth’s most generous bounty of protein, fat, hide, sinew and, above all, ivory.

Homo habilis, the man-ape, formed cohesive societies between two and four million years ago on the ancient African plains. (Richard Leakey, whom we will be meeting later in this book in his role of wildlife warrior and a champion of elephants, is the son of paleontologists Mary and Louis Leakey and he found some of the earliest of the hominid fossils.) There were also plenty of elephantine creatures with ivory tusks of legendary size browsing the ancient plains of Africa. Later hominids, the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon of 150,000 to 30,000 years ago, were skilled hunters using stone-tipped spears and they rated these mammoths as the prize prey.

Ancient native hunters, however, do not really feature large in our story, although there are Greek accounts from the first century AD of Africans selling ivory and slaves to Arab traders in return for wine and iron implements. These people essentially operated with other predators to keep the elephant herds healthy by culling the old, sick and lame. Their activities never threatened elephant species.

The big bang that began the extermination of the African elephant actually happened in Asia with the Chinese invention of gunpowder. Gunpowder, a mixture of potassium nitrate, charcoal and sulphur, was invented by the Chinese around the second century BC and was first employed in rockets as fireworks in religious ceremonies. By the time of the Song dynasty (AD 1100) these fireworks had evolved into ‘fire arrows’ that carried inflammable materials to the enemy. Scientists claim to have found the earliest illustrations of a cannon at around this period, 150 years before it appeared in the West. The military use of gunpowder, which included the earliest antipersonnel landmines, is believed to have kept the Mongol hordes out of Song territory for several decades. Reports of the battle of Kai-Meng have the Chinese repelling the Mongols with a barrage of ‘arrows of flying fire’. Admittedly these were simple rockets, but their effect was psychologically as well as physically damaging. When the Mongols eventually prevailed, Chinese armaments experts taught them how to use explosives and they carried the technology with them when they conquered much of the Middle East and Eastern Europe as far west as the Dnieper. The story of the development of explosive weapons then moved away from the East. Westerners quickly became expert with cannon and began casting them in bronze, so that by the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Chinese Ming dynasty had to employ western Jesuit priests to cast bronze cannon for them.

The first ‘hand gone’, or prototype rifle, emerged in the fifteenth century in the form of a small cannon mounted on a stand that had to be braced against the chest for firing. It was unsteady, ignited through a touch hole that had to be lit with a match, fired its lead projectile only about 30 metres, and must have had a kick like a mule. Pity the poor musketeer who had to fire one of these at a charging armoured knight bearing down on him from behind a long lance. One must concede, however, that gunpowder has indubitably been one of man’s most far-reaching inventions. Records from the various Kalashnikov factories in Eastern Europe appear to support the incredible statistic that there are more of these lethal firearms (many of which have been used to slaughter elephants) than there are human inhabitants of the planet.

Fortunately for the world’s wildlife in earlier centuries, only minor changes were made to firearms until the early 1700s. Matchlocks proved a considerable advance on the match-lit long gun, as, by automatically lowering a lit wick into a flashpan of gunpowder, it freed up a hand formerly needed to light the gunpowder. But the wicks still had to be lit, which made early musketeers vulnerable to surprise attack, and it was difficult to keep the wicks alight in wet conditions. Like the early Chinese rockets, these guns were mostly valued for their psychological impact, and longbows remained the preferred weapon of war until Francis I organised his musketeers, or arquebusiers, into units, which allowed for much more effective and controlled firepower.

By 1540 matchlock design had been improved with a cover over the flashpan that automatically retracted when the trigger was pressed. This weapon, in the hands of French and English frontiersmen, was used in the conquest of the New World, by which time it had also been introduced by the Portuguese to Eastern countries, mainly India and Japan, where it was used right up to the nineteenth century.

The turning point for the hand-held gun came at the end of the fifteenth century when the Austrian inventor Zoller managed to create grooves inside the barrel of a musket, which caused the bullet to travel straight, at least in theory. Musketballs actually bounce from side to side as they travel down a smooth-bored barrel, reducing their muzzle velocity, range and penetrative potential. A German inventor, Koster of Nuremberg, is believed to have proposed a spiral form of rifling in 1520. Thus ‘riflemen’ and ‘rifles’, two terms we accept without question today, describe a fairly sophisticated development in hand-held guns.