Â鶹ÒùÔº

Bone tools have been created by hominins for millions of years, with the earliest evidence for the manufacture of deliberately shaped bone tools dating to approximately 1.4 to 0.7 million years ago in Ethiopia. In Europe, the earliest evidence of bone tool production dates back to the Middle Pleistocene during Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11.

The oldest evidence of ivory modification dates to about 120,000 years ago. However, a recent by Dr. Vadim Stepanchuk and Dr. Oleksandr O. Naumenko published in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology on the ivory artifacts from the Lower Paleolithic site of Medzhibozh A in Ukraine pushes back the earliest known use of ivory as a tool-making material to about 400,000 years ago.

The archaeological site of Medzhibozh A is one of multiple Paleolithic sites located in the valley of the Southern Bug River near the town of Medzhybizh, Ukraine. It was discovered in 2011 and has since undergone intermittent investigation up until 2018.

The site spans a long history of hominin occupation, with the oldest cultural layers dated to MIS 35-21 and the youngest to MIS 11.

A total of 24 ivory fragments were recovered from Medzhibozh A layers I, II, III, and V. Based on electron spin resonance (ESR) dating, geology, and paleontology, the upper layers from which these ivory artifacts are from are dated to approximately 400,000 years ago.

Dr. Stepanchuk says, "The ivory fragments were identified during laboratory analysis of ordinary faunal remains recovered from the upper layers of the Medzhibozh A site. This is a Lower Paleolithic site that yielded relatively modest faunal remains and a number of lithic artifacts. Some bones show cutmarks. The study of the ivory began without a specific hypothesis, but their unusual characteristics, indicative of intentional modification, prompted closer examination."

It was determined that of the 24 ivory fragments, 11 showed signs of intentional modifications, six showed evidence of knapping, three were used for bipolar-on-anvil knapping, two were classified as flakes, one was classified as a "point" and one as a "core."

The point and core-like artifacts were the two ivory fragments with the clearest evidence of intentional modification.

"The miniature ivory pieces from Medzhibozh A are rare even in Upper Paleolithic contexts and perform poorly compared to stone tools of similar size due to their low hardness and fragility. Small ivory tools are far less efficient than stone tools of similar size. The Mohs hardness of dentin and cement layers is only 2 and 3–4, respectively, compared to 4–5 for siliceous limestone and 7–8 for flint and quartz. This raises doubts about their practical purpose," Dr. Stepanchuk says.

Despite ivory's limitations as a toolmaking material, the findings at Medzhibozh A indicate these ivory fragments were deliberately worked. Additionally, they provide the clearest evidence of ivory tool production thousands of years earlier than previously thought.

Dr. Stepanchuk elaborates on the oldest known ivory artifacts prior to the discovery of the Medzhibozh A ivory tools, saying, "Ivory begins to be widely and diversely used starting in the Upper Paleolithic—primarily for tools and ornaments—from around 40,000 years ago onward. However, there are scattered indications that ivory may have attracted human attention much earlier.

"In some Neanderthal contexts dated to around 120,000 years ago, there are occasional finds suggesting use or modification. For example, at the Neanderthal site of Zaskalnaya V (Crimea), we documented a pointed fragment made from mammoth ivory."

The researchers suggest that the creation of the Medzhibozh ivory artifacts may have been driven by a situational shortage of high-quality lithic raw materials and perhaps as an experimental attempt to test unorthodox materials using conventional knapping techniques, which are usually reserved for stone.

This is substantiated by the fact that the ivory artifacts exhibit similar processing techniques to those found on nearby stone tools, including the use of the bipolar-on-anvil knapping technique, rotation, edge trimming, and retouch.

Dr. Stepanchuk and Dr. Naumenko also have an additional hypothesis suggesting these items may be linked to socialization processes within early societies.

Dr. Stepanchuk elaborates, saying, "We suggest they may represent imitative behavior, possibly by children, mimicking adult knapping as part of early social learning. The goal, in this case, was not a functional tool, but rather a 'pretend' tool—possibly a play object or training piece."

The authors caution that there is a potential for incorrect dating of the artifact-bearing layer and that the artifact-specific features may be the result of natural processes.

However, they argue that it is unlikely that the ivory artifacts from the MIS 11-dated layers represent reworked artifacts from younger layers. Additionally, the complexity of the processing sequence indicates intentionality in the modification of these artifacts, making it improbable that they resulted from natural processes or were incidental by-products of unspecified utilitarian activities.

© 2025 Science X Network