This figure of the Crucified Christ was carved from elephant ivory in South China, likely in Zhangzhou (Fujian Province), between the last decade of the sixteenth century and the first decades of the seventeenth century.
Depicted as already dead, with his head lowered and inclined towards the right shoulder, Christ’s facial features are heavily Sinicised, notably the high forehead, long straight hair (painted brown), arched eyebrows, heavy closed almond-shaped eyes, flat nose, and thin lips. The slightly angular treatment of Christ’s finely carved loincloth, with its numerous folds of drapery, is typical of contemporary Chinese sculpture. His right foot is nailed over the left and the outstretched arms are carved separately and attached.
The ivory figure is attached to its original wooden cross, made from two pieces of Ceylon ebony (Diospyros ebenum) joined and pinned together. In addition to ivory finials decorating the ends of the arms, the cross is embellished with ivory fillets. The finely carved hands and feet are nailed to the cross with wrought iron nails.
Among the Christian religious ivory carvings produced in Asia under European influence, the most abundant are those related to the Passion of Christ, featuring figures of the Crucified Christ in various sizes and levels of carving quality, amounting to hundreds of examples.
The Crucifixion is central to Christian theology, symbolising Christ’s sacrifice for humanity’s Salvation. For missionaries working in Asia at the turn of the seventeenth century, the image of the Crucified Christ was a powerful tool to communicate Christianity’s core tenet—redemption through suffering and death.
The Sinicised features of the carving would have made the figure more acceptable in a culture unfamiliar with Western religious depictions, while also serving to highlight Christ’s divinity and humanity, illustrating his role as the intermediary between Heaven and Earth. The image would also link Christ’s suffering to Chinese philosophical ideas, such as sacrifice for the greater good or the purification of the soul, offering a familiar framework for understanding Christian doctrine. Concepts like dà yì (‘the greater good’) and precepts such as shě jǐ wèi rén (‘sacrifice oneself for others’) embody the Con fucian ideal of self-sacrifice, while xiū shēn (‘self-cultivation’) and chán dìng (‘meditation’) focus on the purification of the soul through cultivation and meditation, aimed at achieving moral clarity and spiritual enlightenment. These ideas could have been used by missionaries in their effort to adapt and translate complex Catholic principles. The Crucified Christ could also be interpreted as a symbol of mercy and compassion, virtues valued both in Catholicism and Chinese thought, particularly Neo-Confucianism, which emphasised harmony, sacrifice, and the well-being of others.
The heavily Sinicised appearance of this Crucified Christ, together with the design of its original cross—distinctly different from the crosses seen on similar figurines carved around the same period in the Philippines by Chinese craftsmen settled in Manila, locally known as sangleyes—suggests it was made in mainland China, likely in Zhangzhou. This city, one of the most important coastal cities of Fujian Province, was a notable centre for ivory carving in late Ming China. The tradition of carving secular and religious figures (for Buddhist and Daoist private shrines) in ivory in southern Fujian was bolstered by the emergence of a new appreciation and consumption of luxury goods among the urban elite. This shift, far removed from the more austere tastes of the literati and rooted in the gradual dissolution of Ming social conventions, coincided with the appearance of a new European clientele. In 1592, Gao Lin, a merchant and dramatist from Hangzhou in Zhejiang Province, recorded that ‘In Fujian ivory is carved into human forms, the workmanship of which is fine and artful; however, one cannot put them anywhere, or give them as a decent present’. This seemingly new tradition was poorly accepted by the old-fashioned elite of scholarly connoisseurs to which Gao Lin evidently aspired. Figural ivory carvings were considered unsuitable as gifts and unworthy of artistic appreciation, viewed as novelties, only appropriate for social climbers and foreigners.
Europeans with access to the Fujian markets and their local and hinterland agents—merchants and Christian missionaries alike—and probably some newly-converted locals, likely began commissioning religious ivory carvings. This demand was quickly met by Chinese craftsmen. Although ivory is not specifically listed among the products of Fujian for that period, by 1573 Fujianese merchants were already bringing crucifixes—undoubtedly similar to the Crucified Christ analysed here— to Manila for sale. More heavily Sinicised devotional ivories were likely carved in Fujian in this context, some—such as those from the shipwreck of the Santa Margarita (1601)—making their way to the Philippines and then onward to Acapulco aboard the Manila galleon. Other carvings, commissioned more closely by the new clientele, particularly missionaries settled in the Philippines, were likely produced in Manila and adhered more closely to contemporary European aesthetics. The demand was so high, and the profit margins so enticing, that more and more Fujianese craftsmen and merchants settled in Manila from the 1580s onwards. The growing Fujianese population led to the establishment of a Chinese quarter—aptly called Párian in local Tagalog (from the verb pariyán, ‘to go [to a certain place]’), meaning ‘market-place’—where many religious ivory carvings were produced to meet the increasing European and colonial American demand.
A comparable Crucified Christ (29.0 cm in height), lacking its original wooden cross, yet so similar in proportions, facial features, treatment of the folds of drapery, and overall carving quality that it must have been produced in the same ivory carving workshop, belongs to the Asian Civilisations Museum, Singapore (inv. 2012-00383). According to the museum, the carving was made in Japan or is ‘probably’ Japanese. This attribution, however, is problematic. No documented tradition of ivory carving existed in Japan before the late seventeenth century, and even then, it was confined to small objects (mostly netsuke) made from various types of ivory. Furthermore, given the existence of a small but notable number of similar pieces, distinctly Catholic in character and emerging within a context of significant religious intolerance and persecution in Japan, the opportunity to establish a fully developed ivory carving tradition ex nihilo seems highly improbable. While some argue for its origin within the Jesuit ‘art academy’ established in Japan in the late sixteenth century, evidence suggests this was primarily a Painting Seminar, as indicated by contemporary documentary sources. There is no support in the historical record for the production of such carvings under European supervision and patronage within that framework.

Hugo Miguel Crespo