Â鶹ÒùÔº

In a recent study, Dr. Harel Shochat from the University of Haifa and his colleagues analyzed the biological and geographical origins of ivory artifacts from the southern Levant dating to the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age II (ca. 1600–600 BC). The work is in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

Ivory was a luxury commodity used in a variety of ways. During the Late Bronze Age, ivory artifacts were typically composed of furniture components, cosmetic boxes, and other decorative pieces, as well as votive items. At the time, various Canaanite city-states had emerged, but fallen under Egyptian New Kingdom rule.

By the Iron Age I (ca. 1200–950 BCE), the Canaanite city-states had collapsed, and Egypt had withdrawn from the region. Ivory artifacts disappeared from the northern Levant but remained in the southern, particularly along the Phoenician and Philistine coastal areas. Additionally, ivory's function changed to one of utilitarianism, being found in spindles, whorls, and combs.

"It [ivory] percolated further down... in the social strata. During the Iron One, you would say, okay, these are utilitarian objects, because ... first of all, there is no elite who consumes it during the Iron One … it was used by the people who actually brought it, like the merchants. So, we see it mainly along the coast... where people have access … they're not found further inland. Probably, there were no people to procure it further inland," explains Dr. Shochat.

"It could have been … that it was already a valuable material, then perhaps the merchants themselves wanted to present or express their wealth or their success in business. So, they would take it [ivory] and make it into something utilitarian. If someone were to take out their weaving kit and show they had something from ivory, it shows their success, maybe economic success, and maybe their higher social status."

Finally, by the Iron Age II (ca. 950–600 BCE), the southern Levant had consolidated into territorial states, namely the Kingdom of Israel and Judah. However, by the 9th century BCE, these had become Assyrian and Babylonian vassals. While ivory artifacts were once again shifted, their trade was not disrupted. Now they were used primarily as decorative items for furniture and fittings.

Yet despite their varied and significant history in the southern Levant, prior research on southern Levantine ivories has typically focused on their stylistic and art-historical evolution. While attempts to determine what animal these ivories were sourced from, and where these ivories came from, have been minimal and typically have relied on iconographic and epigraphic evidence.

In an effort to biologically and geographically determine the origin of these ivories, 624 pieces of ivory were examined using microscopy, archaeology by mass spectrometry, and stable carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen isotopes.

The results indicate that the majority of ivory was sourced from elephants (85%), with almost 15% coming from hippopotami, while only three pieces of ivory were made from boar tusks.

Hippopotami ivory was both of local and non-local origin, with the non-local sources coming from the Nile River.

Meanwhile, all the elephant tusks came from African elephants, despite the potential of Asian elephant ivory to have reached the southern Levant.

The analysis revealed that the elephant ivory was sourced in the sixth cataract of the Nile, beyond the confluence of the Blue and White Niles, and south of modern Khartoum in Sudan. This indicates that the Nubians were likely the procurers of this ivory.

However, it has long been believed that Egypt's role in the ivory trade would have been particularly extensive, especially given the scholarly emphasis on Egyptian influence on the southern Levant and the ivory craft in general during this period.

Similarly, Egyptian sources consistently portray Nubians as intermediary agents in facilitating the flow of goods from sub-Saharan Africa, including ivory.

However, more recent interpretations of New Kingdom records challenge the view of Egypt as a rigidly centralized bureaucratic economy, instead revealing that trade was more permeable, characterized by individual interests rather than strictly regulated state institutions.

This could explain why, even when both Egypt and the southern Levant experienced periods of political turmoil, demographic change, and collapse in the trade of other commodities (such as silver, copper), ivory was not affected.

While Egypt may have initially instigated the exchange networks, it may have been in the Nubians' best interest to maintain them. Dr. Shochat explains, "Egypt itself instigated this exchange network. I think that following the collapse of Egypt … that the Nubians perhaps took the lead... there was economic incentive to continue with this exchange network, with this supply chain network..."

Dr. Shochat hopes that future research will provide more insights into the beginning of these trade networks. Additionally, he hopes to use this approach, typically reserved for modern tracking of poaching and illegal trade, to understand the biological and geographic origin of other ancient ivories from other areas, such as Cyprus and Syria.

© 2025 Science X Network