Blog – MANUFACTURING&TRADINGBV

October 30, 2020

The Significance Of The Sound Of Shofar

Post By MANUFACTURING BV Blog 506 Comments

Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, and the start of the period known as the High Holy Days, begins on Friday evening at sunset. Interestingly, in the Torah, the Hebrew Bible, the holiday was simply called, “Yom Teruah, the Day of the Shofar Blast.”

The ram’s horn, which is blown to make the sacred sounds, is clearly the emblem, and arguably the most essential component, of the celebration.

Many explanations have been proffered about the symbolism and meaning of the shofar. Some sages suggested we examine the places in the holy text that mention a ram’s horn to discern its deeper message. The very first reference is in Genesis when Abraham was about to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac.

As an angel stops Abraham, we are told that a ram gets caught as his horn is tangled up in a thicket. The animal gets substituted for Isaac. Hence, we are taught that the shofar represents continuity and a hopeful future. Because Isaac lives, he has a son himself, Jacob, who in turn fathers the twelve tribes of Israel.

Later in Exodus, there are various verses that dramatically describe the announcing of the Ten Commandments from atop Mount Sinai. There was lightning, thunder, and the sound of a shofar blast prior to God declaring the Decalogue.

The shofar then calls to mind the need to reconnect oneself to the principles and ideals of a moral and righteous life. To hear the shofar is to hear the voice of heaven.

Sounds from this type of trumpet were also utilized by the wandering Jews in the desert to signal when to break camp, and at times when to assemble for battle. Therefore, when we hear the shofar blasts during our services they make us remember to march forward boldly, unafraid to contend with our past bad habits and to bravely seek self-improvement and betterment for others.

Commentators often talked about the impact of the shofar sound, acting as a wake up call, the noise that stirs you, much like a car horn startles you into action. There are indeed numerous possible explanations. However, this year, I am drawn to one of the ways the Jewish Mystics came to understand the hidden lesson of blowing the shofar.

To the Kabbalists, it was all about breath. Humankind began when the Creator blew a breath of life into Adam and Eve. All the required shofar blasts- called Tekiah, Shevarim, and Teruah – can only be made by forcing air through the wind instrument, literally breathing into it.

Since March, how many have struggled to breathe on ventilators? Think of the number of protests that were sparked by a man whose last words included, “I can’t breathe?”

It is almost impossible to recount how many natural disasters have occurred in recent months that have necessitated first responders to work through exhaustion, to a point where they were “out of breath.”

Fires are raging on the West coast of our country, causing many to flee their homes gasping for air. And, the valiant women and men fighting the conflagrations have to deal with smoke filling their lungs, compromising their ability to breathe.

This year let the shofar inspires us to seriously ponder each breath we are granted, about how it is a gift each time we inhale and exhale. Each of us is given a finite number of breaths over our lifetime.

What will we do with our lives to make life better for all people in need, to make our earth a place where everyone can breathe a little easier, free from any obstruction.

May the ancient sounds of the shofar, caused by the strong flow of oxygen, serve as an aural and awesome reminder to resolve to do the right thing with every breath we take.

October 30, 2020

Facts As To Why Sofar Horns Are Blown

Post By MANUFACTURING BV Blog 56 Comments

We’re familiar with the sights, tastes, and sounds of Rosh Hashanah—the sweet sensation of honey on our tongues, the rhythmic swaying of the congregation in prayer, the cry of the shofar piercing the air. But have we ever stopped to think about the messages behind the deeds of the day?

While every commandment is essentially supra-rational—performed solely because it is the will and command of the Creator—our sages have found meaning and messages behind the commandments we fulfill. Let’s take a look at 11 reasons given for blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah.

1. The Return of the King

Image Source: LOC/Flickr

On Rosh Hashanah, the anniversary of creation, G‑d renews the creative energy that sustains our world. Once more, He is crowned as King of the universe. Just as trumpets are sounded at a coronation, the shofar announces G‑d’s continued kingship.

2. The Great Alarm Clock

Image Source: Chagall

On Rosh Hashanah, the first of the Ten Days of Repentance, we awake from our spiritual slumber. The shofar is like an alarm that calls on us to examine our deeds and correct our ways, as we return to G‑d.

3. The Reminder

Image Source: Departing(YYZ)/flickr

The shofar was blown at Mt. Sinai when the Torah was given. On Rosh Hashanah, we blow the shofar to remind us to rededicate ourselves to Torah study—and to remind G‑d of our original commitment and sincerity.

4. The Voice

Image Source: Zalman Kleiman

The shofar reminds us of the voice of the prophets, who like the blast of the shofar called upon us to correct our ways, follow G‑d’s commandments, and act properly with others.

5. The Tears

Image Source: David Roberts/Wikicommons

The shofar’s cry reminds us of the cries and tears shed for the destruction of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, galvanizing us to bring Moshiach and hasten the rebuilding of the Temple.

6. The Sacrifice

The shofar, made of a ram’s horn, reminds us of the binding of Isaac and the ram G‑d provided as a sacrifice in his place. By blowing the shofar, we remember the faith of the Patriarchs and our own capacity for self-sacrifice.

7. The Awesome

Image Source: NASA/Wikimedia

The shofar fills us with awe and humility as we contemplate the true infinitude of G‑d, how He fills all space and time.

8. The Introspection

Image Source: WeHeartIt/Tumblr

The shofar will be blown on the Day of Judgment when Moshiach comes. We thus blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah to remind us to examine our deeds and contemplate how we can improve them.

9. The Celebration

Image Source: Baruch Nachson

The shofar blast will signal the return of the Jewish people when Moshiach comes. We blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah to remind us of G‑d’s salvation in our own lives.

10. The Unity

Image Source: Michel Schwartz

The shofar blast when Moshiach comes will herald a time of universal understanding and recognition of G‑d’s unity. We blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah to remind us of G‑d’s unity.

11. The Scream

Image Source: Lucas Vieira Moreira

The call of the shofar on Rosh Hashanah reminds us of the primordial scream, the eternal voiceless call of the soul expressing its desire to return to its Creator.

October 30, 2020

What does the shofar symbolize?

Post By MANUFACTURING BV Blog 69 Comments

Definition of shofar

: the horn of a ruminant animal and usually a ram blown as a trumpet by the ancient Hebrews in battle and during religious observances and used in modern Judaism especially during Rosh Hashanah and at the end of Yom Kippur

On the first day of Rosh Hashanah, Jewish people read Genesis 22, a story from the Torah that ends with Abraham sacrificing a ram – instead of his son Isaac – on the altar.

“The ram, in some ways, represents redemption, because the ram saves Isaac,” says London. “We’re hoping that listening to the shofar can save us from our mistakes and sins.”

Rabbi Sarah Krinsky of Adas Israel Congregation, who helped plan DC’s The Blast, adds, “One of the purposes of shofar is to startle the spirit and to wake us out of complacency.”

The shofar has specific responses to traditional Hebrew calls: tekiah (a long, sustained blast), shevarim (three medium blasts), teruah (a number of short blasts in a row) and tekiah gedolah (an extra-long, sustained blast).

The wail of the shofar can sound like sobbing and also like a wake-up call, a dual meaning that seems particularly prescient now, amidst a social justice revolution and a global pandemic.

“Rosh Hashanah is a time when people reflect on the year that passed and think about how we can be better in the year ahead. That sound is a unifying force of looking back, and most importantly, looking forward,” says Jay Sanderson, the president and CEO of The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, which is behind the Shofar Wave. “Frankly, there’s no time in my lifetime when hearing the clarion call of the shofar will have more relevance.”

How will the shofar blowing work?

Many organizers have created online maps with geotagged locations where shofars are expected. They’re asking those interested in hearing the shofar to maintain a distance, because droplets can spray from the end of the horn. Some groups suggest that listeners stay masked and 6 feet apart from each other, and at least 20-30 feet from shofar blowers in certain environments.

It is “recommended protocol” for shofar blowers to cover the ends of their horns with masks, says Krinsky.

“That blue surgical mask will still capture the aerosols, but it doesn’t muffle the sound as much as some of the cloth ones do,” she says.

Each group has a specific time it asks people to join the celebration. For The Blast, it’s 5 EST Friday afternoon, before Rosh Hashanah begins. However, since the holiday shofar is not traditionally blown on Shabbat (which goes from sundown Friday to Saturday), most other organized events are set for a specific time on Sunday afternoon, depending on location. For the Shofar Wave, the time varies across Los Angeles to, yes, create a sports arena-style wave of sound as opposed to one synchronized burst.

Why sound the shofar outside?

The call of the shofar has served as a way to unify Jewish people throughout history, even before it was done in synagogue.

“In some ways, we’re going back to the ancient way of bringing shofar to the street,” says London. “The shofar is such a raw-sounding instrument. To do it in synagogue is almost to domesticate the shofar in this lovely environment inside. But I really feel like it’s suited for outside, where it was originally done.”

And the shofar might return outdoors in the future, too.

“I hope next year, even if we’re back (and able to have a service), I hope this is something we do on an annual basis,” says Sanderson. “Not everyone belongs to a synagogue, but we want everyone to experience the sounds of the shofar.”

October 30, 2020

Why Blow Shofar Horns??

Post By MANUFACTURING BV Blog 1,247 Comments

Mike Huckabee, one of several American Christians in Jerusalem for the opening of the US embassy last week, announced that he planned to commemorate the occasion on live TV with a Hebrew greeting and by blowing a shofar.

The shofar, an obscure instrument made of a ram’s horn and traditionally blown during the Jewish High Holidays, has made its way into evangelical hands in recent decades. Some Christian Zionists, Holy Land pilgrims, and even worshipers at charismatic churches in the United States use the curled horn to call out in celebration and identify with the ancient heritage of their faith.

Crowds of evangelicals at pro-Israel parades, conferences, and worship services turn up with Israeli flags, prayer shawls, and their own shofars. More than a dozen options for the spiraled instrument are for sale at online Christian bookstores.

Sounding the shofar often accompanies the opening prayer or worship set at events held by groups like Christians United for Israel (CUFI), the Christian Zionist organization founded by John Hagee (who also attended the embassy opening last week).

Christian use of the shofar has grown in certain traditions over the past 25 years, along with interest in the Holy Land and dispensationalist understanding of the end times. Believers who incorporate the shofar often echo biblical references to sounding a trumpet, such as its use in warfare by Gideon’s army (Judg. 7:15–22) or the battle of Jericho (Josh. 6), as a call for repentance (Is. 58:1, Hos. 8:1), as a way to gather an assembly (Num. 10:3, Joel 2:15), or for other occasions of praise and proclamation (Psalms and Revelation).

For Christians, blowing the shofar “seems to have an eschatological aspect,” said messianic Jewish theologian Daniel Juster, founder and president of Tikkun International.

“As Israel is fulfilling prophecy, the shofar announces God’s intervention and fulfillment; so the shofar shows support for Israel with the idea that God is fulfilling prophetic events,” he said. “The shofar announces those events. The move of the embassy on the 70th anniversary would be seen as a prophetic event.”

But for Jewish people, the sound of the shofar often comes as a somewhat unexpected alarm outside of the prescribed times and patterns that correspond with holiday rituals. Traditionally, it’s blown every day but Shabbat in the month leading up to the High Holidays, during services for the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah), and at the end of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).

“To Jewish ears, a shofar blast serves primarily as a call to repentance or a call to arms. It’s not something we hear every day, or even every week,” said Monique Brumbach, executive director of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC), whose congregations follow Jewish tradition to use the shofar in the month preceding the High Holidays and on Rosh Hashanah, which the Torah even refers to as the “Day of Blowing.”

“In some Christian worship services, there is a shofar blast every few minutes. It can feel jarring,” she said. “I’d compare it to keeping a Christmas tree in your house all year long. If you use a worship instrument every day or every week, it becomes common, like a piano or a guitar. There is something primordial about the sound of a shofar, but it tends to lose its resonance when you hear it all the time.”

It’s actually Christians who are responsible for most sounds of the shofar outside of the traditional trumpeting during the High Holidays.

Though only about 2 percent of Israel’s population is Christian, Christian pilgrims make up more than half of the country’s annual visitors. At times, they can be hard to miss: Those who visit Israel during the Feast of Tabernacles, or Sukkot, often come waving banners and blowing shofars in celebration, said Tuvya Zaretsky, president of the Lausanne Consultation on Jewish Evangelism and one of the founders of Jews for Jesus.

October 30, 2020

History Of Shofar Horns

Post By MANUFACTURING BV Blog 72 Comments

Shofar, also spelled shophar, plural shofroth, shophroth, or shofrot, ritual musical instrument, made from the horn of a ram or other animal, used on important Jewish public and religious occasions. In biblical times the shofar sounded the Sabbath, announced the New Moon, and proclaimed the anointing of a new king. This latter custom has been preserved in modern Israel at the swearing in of the president of the state.
Judaism: shofar and tallit
Judaism: shofar and tallit
Traditional Jewish shofar (ritual musical instrument) and tallit (prayer shawl).
© Kuvien/Fotolia

The most important modern use of the shofar in religious ceremonies takes place on Rosh Hashana, when it is sounded in the synagogue to call the Jewish people to a spiritual reawakening as the religious New Year begins on Tishri 1. The shofar can be made to produce sobbing, wailing, and sustained sounds in sequences that are varied strictly according to ritual. The shofar is also sounded on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, as a call for repentance and sacrifice and for love of the Torah.
Western Wall: shofar

October 29, 2020

Is it Legal To Sell Mastodon Ivroy

Post By MANUFACTURING BV Blog 66 Comments

Despite a near worldwide ban on the sale of elephant ivory, tens of thousands of African and Asian elephants continue to be slaughtered every year for their tusks.

Now, thanks to accelerating climate change, the melting of permafrost in the Arctic could be leading to a rush on another, larger extinct animal’s incisors: the woolly mammoth’s. And that’s not good for elephants.

For the past 20,000 or 30,000 years, woolly mammoth tusks, some weighing as much as 100 pounds, have been preserved and mostly inaccessible in the frozen tundra of northeastern Siberia. But because of longer and hotter summer seasons brought on by rising temperatures, the Arctic stockpile is now reachable—and ivory traders are taking notice.

“It’s really picked up steam in the past three or four years,” said Daniel Fisher, a paleontologist at the University of Michigan. He has been studying woolly mammoths for more than 35 years, working at dig sites in Siberia for the past 15. When he first started, residents weren’t interested in ivory, but now his team often gets to mammoth excavation sites only to find the animals’ tusks missing.

“A decade ago, a mammoth tusk brought in about a tenth of what you can get today for it,” Fisher said. “The people that live in the area know what they can get for it, so they’re taking them.”

That’s leaving paleontologists with fewer tusks to study to learn about what happened to one of the largest mammals ever to roam the earth, and it’s opening up another avenue for the illegal trafficking of elephant ivory.

To the untrained eye, carved pieces of well-preserved mammoth tusk resemble elephant ivory—a product in high demand in Chinese cities such as Beijing and Shanghai. Because mammoths have been extinct for more than 10,000 years, they aren’t protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the 1989 treaty that outlawed most trade in elephant ivory.

But even with the ban in place, two controversial decisions have allowed elephant ivory stockpiles seized by officials to be sold at auction for legal trade—49 tons in 1998 and 102 tons in 2008. China and Japan traders made up the bulk of the buyers, and now that ivory is being sold back to the public.

Conservationists see the continuation of the legal ivory market as disastrous in the fight to end elephant poaching, as it gives traffickers an avenue to mix illegal tusks with permitted stocks, and the influx of mammoth tusk on the market could be one more way to mask poached ivory.

As the supply of legal elephant ivory dwindles, Chinese ivory factories and retail stores are purchasing more tusks of the extinct variety, according to a 2014 report commissioned by the nonprofit group Save the Elephants.

That’s driven the price for well-preserved mammoth tusks up from $350 per kilogram in 2010 to $1,900 per kilogram in early 2014, the report states. To put that into perspective, one tusk from a large male mammoth can weigh as much as 40 kilograms—that’s $76,000 for a pair of well-preserved bones—a pretty penny for Russia’s northernmost-dwelling residents.

“You’re talking about people who live in villages with less than 100 people in the Siberian Arctic, who try to make a living hunting and fishing, all of the sudden out prospecting for ivory,” Fisher said.

So far, the returns for the new prospectors have been fruitful. In 2013, China imported 31 tons of mammoth tusks, compared with nine tons in 2003—93 percent of which was sourced from Russia.

But the mammoth boom has been a bust for elephants. Conservationists believe mammoth tusks are just one more way for traffickers to disguise illegal stock in elephant ivory.

“You can sell a mammoth tusk and transport it without any proof of documentation, so you can import and export it very easily,” said Iris Ho, wildlife program manager at Humane Society International. “So sellers will ship both elephant and mammoth tusks in the same containers to try and smuggle illegal ivory in with the legal mammoth tusks.”

In retail shops in Shanghai and Beijing, mammoth and elephant ivory are sold side by side—and sometimes in place of each other

Mayu Mishina, marketing manager for the African Wildlife Foundation’s Washington, D.C., office, said China’s ivory retail shops require identification cards for every elephant ivory piece sold to show that it’s legal. “But investigators have found that sometimes the photos on the cards don’t always match the ivory piece being sold,” Mishina said. “That may point to ivory having been sold and cards being kept by the shop owner for reuse.”

In those same stores, mammoth ivory products don’t require ID cards at all—so elephant ivory products could be sold under the guise of mammoth ivory, Mishina said.

The only way to tell the difference between elephant and mammoth tusks is to look at a cross section of the tusk. But that isn’t so easy to see when looking at a carved piece, says Sam Wasser, a conservation biologist at the University of Washington. Wasser studies DNA samples of illegal elephant ivory seizures to determine where the poached elephants originated.

“We just recently had a seizure come in, and when we tested it, it ended up being hippo ivory,” he said. “It just shows that deciphering where, exactly, these ivory pieces are coming from is hard. Some people are getting away with disguising illegal ivory as mammoth ivory.”

Does that mean there should be a full ban on the trade of mammoth ivory?

Wasser isn’t so sure. “It’s a tough question because the animals are already dead, but their tusks are being used to disguise illegal trade that’s endangering elephants,” he said. “Banning the sale of one species to save another is problematic.”

Officials in New York and New Jersey have already enacted ivory bans that include mammoth tusks, said Sara Marinello, director of government affairs for the Wildlife Conservation Society. California is considering similar legislation.

“We have to work to shut down the legal market if it can help stop the illegal killing,” Marinello said.

For Fisher and his partners at Russia’s North-Eastern Federal University, tundra tomb raiding isn’t an immediate threat to the supply of mammoth tusks left to study. But he stressed that the stockpile is finite.

“Look, they’re like diamonds,” he said. “There are a lot of them—nobody knows for sure how many—and they are still rare and incredibly valuable.” Tusks tell researchers the story of the animal—its size, life span, health, and more.

“The more tusks we have to research, the more we can gain an understanding about these animals and learn about what caused their demise,” Fisher said. “The tusks are an important piece of that puzzle.

October 29, 2020

mastodon ivory to gemstone

Post By MANUFACTURING BV Blog 71 Comments

Heat-induced color changes of fossilized Miocene mastodon ivory (13-16 Ma) have been known at least since the Middle Ages. Cistercian monks are believed to have created odontolite, a turquoise-blue “gemstone,” by heating mastodon ivory found in Miocene geological layers next to the Pyrrenean chain, France, to use it for the decoration of medieval art objects. This material has been the object of investigations of famous European naturalists and gemmologists, among them Réaumur (1683-1757). Although vivianite [Fe3(PO4)2.8H2O] is the commonly accepted coloring phase supposed to appear when heating fossilized mastodon ivory, our previous spectroscopic studies using PIXE/PIGE and TEM-EDX demonstrated that the chemical composition of collection odontolite and heated mastodon ivory corresponds to well-crystallized fluorapatite [Ca5(PO4)3F] containing trace amounts of Fe (230-890 ppm), Mn (220-650 ppm), Ba (160-620 ppm), Pb (40-140 ppm), and U (80-210 ppm). No vivianite has been detected. To provide new insights into the physico-chemical mechanism of the color transformation of fossilized ivory, we used the combination of UV/visible/near-IR reflectance spectroscopy, time-resolved laser-induced luminescence spectroscopy (TRLIF), and X-ray absorption near-edge structure (XANES). Contrary to what had formerly been described as the color origin in odontolite, our study has conclusively identified traces of Mn5+ by UV/visible/near-IR reflectance spectroscopy, TRLIF, and XANES inside the fluorapatite. Thus, odontolite owes its turquoise-blue color to Mn5+ ions in a distorted tetrahedral environment of four O2- ions. XANES also demonstrated oxidation of disordered octahedral Mn2+ ions to tetrahedral Mn5+ species in apatite during the heat process. So we give the first evidence of the real color origin in odontolite.

October 29, 2020

The End Product Of Mastodon Ivroy

Post By MANUFACTURING BV Blog 61 Comments

Late Pleistocene societies throughout the northern hemisphere used mammoth and mastodon ivory not only for art and adornment, but also for tools, in particular projectile points. A comparative analysis of the mechanical properties of tusk dentine from woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) and African elephant (Loxodonta africana) reveals similar longitudinal stiffness values that are comparable to those of cervid antler compacta. The longitudinal bending strength and work of fracture of proboscidean ivory are very high owing to its substantial collagen content and specific microstructure. In permafrost, these properties can be fully retained for thousands of years. Owing to the unique combination of stiffness, toughness and size, ivory was obviously the most suitable osseous raw material for massive projectile points used in big game hunting.

Introduction

Organic projectile technology for big game hunting is considered a crucial prerequisite for the human colonization of the northern hemisphere during the Pleistocene^1,2,3,4,5.

In connection with the appearance of anatomically modern humans, there is an emphasis on the use of hard osseous tissues like cervid antler, large mammal bone and proboscidean ivory for the production of spear and lance heads⁶. Antlers from reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) and red deer (Cervus elaphus), which were easily accessible, easy to work and very tough^7,8,9, were clearly the dominant raw material, especially during the Late Upper Palaeolithic in Europe^{8,10,11,12,13,14,15}. However, ivory from woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) and from North American mastodon (Mammut americanum) also played an important role in various Late Pleistocene archaeological traditions throughout Europe^10,16,17,18, Siberia^19,20 and North America^21,22.

But why was ivory used for projectiles? The procurement of mammoth tusks was associated with considerable effort or even risk^23,24,25, the material is challenging to work with lithic tools^8,26,27, and other suitable raw materials like antler and large mammal bone were always abundant. But even as woolly mammoths became increasingly rare and finally disappeared from Europe towards the end of the Late Glacial period^28,29, their ivory which could be extracted from natural permafrost deposits, continued to be used by the societies of the Late Upper Palaeolithic for projectile points whenever it was available in sufficient size and quality (Fig. 1)^10,11,24,30. Of course, the optical and haptic attractiveness of ivory is unsurpassed: No other biological raw material has such sublime colours and patterns and takes on such a smooth polish⁷. This is why mammoth ivory was preferred in humankind’s oldest portable artworks²³. In a projectile point, however, favourable mechanical properties like hardness and stiffness for efficient energy transfer into the prey as well as toughness for fracture resistance are crucial^7,8,13,31.

The widespread use of proboscidean ivory in prehistoric tools indicates that it was a suitable raw material for mechanical applications^18,23. But while there are numerous studies addressing the mechanical properties of antler and bone from different taxa (see Supplementary Table S2), corresponding information for ivory is very limited in the case of elephant and missing in the case of mammoth. In 1976³¹, the archaeologist Gerd Albrecht carried out a small series of mechanical tests on the material to investigate its usability for projectile points. He found that extant African elephant (Loxodonta africana) dentine, although very hard and stiff, was more fragile than antler and mammal long bone. These results, however, although widespread owing to a lack of recent studies^7,12,18, are not in accordance with several ivory working experiments, which attest to both mammoth and elephant dentine having a considerable fracture toughness^23,32,33. To counter this paradox and to explore how permafrost ivory compares to fresh material, new data on the chemical composition, microstructure and mechanical properties of tusk dentine from woolly mammoth (M. primigenius) and from African elephant (L. africana) (Fig. 2) were collected and subsequently compared with published information on antler and bone.

Woolly mammoths and the biology of tusks

The genus Mammuthus Brookes, 1828 is assigned to the subfamily of modern elephants, Elephantinae Gray, 1821, along with the extant Asian and African elephants of the genera Elephas Linnaeus, 1758 and Loxodonta [Vigors], 1827 respectively. The woolly mammoth, M. primigenius Blumenbach, 1799, originated in NE Asia roughly 400 ka BP^34,35. In Europe corresponding representatives of the mammoth evolutionary line first occurred much later, during the late Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 7 or at the beginning of MIS 6, 200–160 ka BP^36,37. Via Beringia M. primigenius reached northern North America during the Late Pleistocene³⁸, where un-glaciated areas were occupied already during the Last Interglacial (MIS 5e, c. 123–110 ka)³⁹. The Holarctic maximum distribution of fully developed woolly mammoths occurred during the last glacial period spanning MIS 5d-2, i.e., approximately the interval between 110 and 14 ka. The verifiable area of the Late Pleistocene range of M. primigenius at that time comprised some 33.301.000 square kilometers³⁷.

Modern elephants have a pair of deciduous and permanent tusks which represent second upper incisors. In woolly mammoth, as in all members of the mammoth evolutionary line both sexes grow tusks. New-born calves have 4–7 cm long deciduous tusks, crowned with a thin layer of enamel. During the first year of the animals’ life, non-enameled tusks replace these milk incisors⁴⁰. The rootless permanent mammoth tusks grow throughout life. They are strictly structured by a succession of dentine cones. Each of these several millimetres to some centimetres thick and up to 35 cm long cones represents the growth progress of one single year. The dentine layers are built up in the tusk pulp cavity, i.e., the most proximal dentine cone is the youngest one. The nutrient- and mineral-rich spring and especially summer months lead to a significant increase of dentine and thereby of the tusks’ length and proximal circumference. During the fall, the growth rate is reduced to come to an end towards the end of the winter. A new growth period begins next spring. The resulting winter / spring discontinuity forms a sharp interface between the dentin cones. Oxygen isotope profiles confirm the annual nature of these cycles⁴¹. The growth history of tusks provides important information about the individual life history of mammoths⁴².

Tusks of M. primigenius, especially those of the relatively small Late Pleistocene forms, are mostly larger in relation to the animals’ body size compared to that of extant Asian and African elephants. Corresponding mechanical features of the ivory (see below) enable such an impressive growth. A stable fixation of the heavy mammoth tusks in the skull is achieved by a strong torsion of the former. The appearance of the teeth is determined by size and shape of the alveolar cavities which contain about one third of the tusks. Changes in alveolar morphology during individual growth of the skull are reflected in the resulting torsion patterns of the tusk.

Male tusks are mostly larger than those of same-age females. The growth pattern of the thinner and less curved female teeth slowed down from their first maternity onwards⁴⁰. As male mammoths, similarly to male extant Asian and African elephants, probably segregated themselves from females over long periods of the year, there was little selective pressure for the latter to increase the size of their tusks⁴³. The tusks of old mammoth bulls can reach lengths of up to 3.5 m and more (measured along the largest radius of the curvature), and weights up to 90–100 kg^40,43. Garutt⁴⁴ refers one isolated case of a couple of fossil tusks from the Indigirka River (Yakutia), each weighing some 150 kg. Observations on African elephant populations show that there is no linear correlation between tusk size and individual age; animals of the same age and sex can develop very different tusk dimensions^45,46.

The original purpose for the evolution of elephantine tusks was presumably intra-specific contest. The size of the teeth signalises the individual status within a group⁴⁷. Well-developed tusks achieve dominance during feeding and drinking competition⁴³ and also act as a threat and weapon in inter-specific conflicts. Observations on extant Asian and African elephants prove, that these animals also use their incisors to gather food by pushing trees down, lifting up rootage or by stripping bark⁴³. The leverage put into action on such occasions can lead to breakage or even to complete loss of tusks, as the existence of recent and fossil “Ganesha” elephants, especially in species with less twisted tusks, testifies⁴⁸. Splintering of the tusk tips occurs also when the animals dig to loosen mineral-rich subsoil⁴³. Elephants have a high individual need especially for calcium and sodium. Rough estimations for requirements of Asian elephants assume up to 60 g Ca and up to 100 g Na per day⁴⁹. Such quantities might have been exceeded by M. primigenius owing to the growth of their larger sized tusks.

The curved incisors of mammoths were less suitable as levers than the tusks of forest or savannah elephants. However, not uncommon sharply deepened scratches and/or extended flat wear facets especially at the outer curvature of the tusks (Fig. 3)^45,50 indicate regular and vigorous ground or ice contact of many mammoth tusks. Probably the animals occasionally moved frozen sediment and wind-hardened or refrozen snow, to prepare and facilitate the taking in of available vegetation of herbs and bushes. The heavy teeth were certainly also used to smash up the ice of frozen-over watering places⁵¹. It seems likely that during all these actions the strongest load was applied to the curved under (respectively outer) side of the teeth.

Results

Chemical composition and structure

Demineralization and deproteinization of tusk samples reveal that both woolly mammoth and African elephant dentine contain mineral and organic phases in similar proportions. According to our experiments the mineral phase is 59.3 ± 0.4 mass-{98880d97af0555a3a517c8aae666eeb64e7bd6d49cbbe05617dcb138f6e48200} for mammoth and 59.4 ± 0.8 mass-{98880d97af0555a3a517c8aae666eeb64e7bd6d49cbbe05617dcb138f6e48200} for elephant. The protein content reaches 33.6 ± 0.7 mass-{98880d97af0555a3a517c8aae666eeb64e7bd6d49cbbe05617dcb138f6e48200} and 33.4 ± 0.8 mass-{98880d97af0555a3a517c8aae666eeb64e7bd6d49cbbe05617dcb138f6e48200}, respectively. The missing proportion of approx. 7 mass-{98880d97af0555a3a517c8aae666eeb64e7bd6d49cbbe05617dcb138f6e48200} can be assigned to the water that evaporated during the drying process. XRD results show that the main crystalline component of proboscidean dentine is hydroxyapatite (see Supplementary Figs S4 and S5). Crystalline domain sizes in the c-direction of apatite were calculated from the (002) peak broadening at 26° using equation (1), and are 21.4 ± 0.4 nm for M. primigenius and 23.0 ± 1.4 nm for L. africana. The intensity ratio I(002)/I(211) of 0.8 for transversal sections of both mammoth and elephant specimens indicates a slight c-axis orientation of the apatite crystals along the tusk axis. The ICP-OES results show that the apatite crystals in both kind of tusks are calcium deficient when compared to stoichiometric apatite (Ca₁₀(PO₄)₆(OH)₂: Ca/P = 1.67) and are substituted by magnesium and sodium ions in a considerable amount (Table 1).

Table 1 ICP-OES results.

Full size table

Mechanical properties

Figures 4 and 5 and Table 2 show the results of the 3-point bending tests. Again, woolly mammoth and African elephant exhibit very similar properties. In the longitudinal direction Young’s Modulus of Elasticity, a measure for the stiffness of a material, is 10.1 ± 0.6 GPa for mammoth and 10.7 ± 0.6 GPa for elephant dentine. The bending strengths are 357.3 ± 26.1 MPa and 369.0 ± 21.8 MPa, respectively. The work of fracture, a measure of the damage tolerance and toughness of a material, is 22.3 ± 10.0 kJ/m² for mammoth and 23.8 ± 6.9 kJ/m² for elephant. In the transversal direction, the mechanical properties are significantly reduced and the Young’s modulus and work of fracture are different for mammoth and elephant. The Young’s modulus is 6.2 ± 0.3 GPa and 5.0 ± 0.5 GPa, and the work of fracture is 0.4 ± 0.2 kJ/m² and 1.1 ± 0.5 kJ/m², respectively. The bending strengths are similar and amount to 94.9 ± 10.7 MPa for mammoth and 97.0 ± 6.4 MPa for elephant (Figs 4a,b and 5a,b).

Table 2 Mechanical properties of Mammuthus primigenius and Loxodonta africana tusk dentine.

Full size table

Additionally, the spatial distribution of both bending strength and Young’s modulus was determined for both orientations as shown in Figs 4c,d and 5c,d. For the longitudinal samples both properties appear to form a gradient with a slight decrease towards the central pulp cavity. Because of the smaller sample size, it is more difficult to see a trend in the distribution for the transversal samples, but there also appears to be a gradient, this time with decreasing values from the inside of the tusk to the outside.

Compression tests of longitudinal sections show that the compression moduli of mammoth and elephant are very similar at 4.7 ± 0.3 GPa and 4.4 ± 0.5 GPa, respectively. The results of the Vickers hardness tests indicate a significant difference in the hardness of the two types of tusks. The mean Vickers hardness (H_V0.1) for mammoth dentine is 35.2 ± 1.2 MPa while elephant dentine has a hardness of 41.2 ± 1.0 MPa.

Discussion

Figure 6 and online Supplementary Table S2 show the mechanical properties of selected vertebrate skeletal and dental elements known from the literature. It is striking that the values themselves are very heterogeneous, even within the same species. In the case of reindeer antler compacta with a relatively coherent modulus of elasticity between 5 and 8 GPa, for example, the bending strength varies by over 300{98880d97af0555a3a517c8aae666eeb64e7bd6d49cbbe05617dcb138f6e48200}. Reasons for this can be the moisture content of the tested samples (fresh, soaked or dry), differing experimental set-ups and inherent variations in a biological material. In any case, there is a clear trend: antler is not as stiff as terrestrial mammal and bird bone, but it is harder to break. This is owing to antler’s lower mineralization⁵². The examined proboscidean dentine, both from permafrost and extant, displays longitudinal stiffness values which are quite high at 10 GPa considering its organic content of 34 mass-{98880d97af0555a3a517c8aae666eeb64e7bd6d49cbbe05617dcb138f6e48200}. For example, the compacta of undomesticated barren-ground caribou (R. tarandus groenlandicus) was previously tested to 5 GPa applying exactly the same test protocol (see Supplementary References S3). At the same time, ivory corresponds to the highest values for bending strength and work of fracture of reindeer and red deer (C. elaphus) antler which is known for its great toughness. Soaked dentine from narwhale (Monodon monoceros) tusk has the same stiffness as dry proboscidean dentine, but is only about 1/3 as strong.

The paradoxical combination of high stiffness, strength and toughness in mammoth and elephant dentine can be explained in particular by its hierarchically oriented microstructure in combination with its high organic content, which essentially consists of the protein collagen⁵³. It is well known that biominerals with a hierarchical organization of their nanoscale microstructure have outstanding mechanical properties in terms of strength and toughness^54,55,56. In the event of a damaging impact, a crack propagates at the interface between the inorganic and organic phase where the specific nano-architecture of the biomineral leads to a significant reduction of crack tip energy owing to energy-dissipating processes such as crack deflection, tilting and twisting⁵⁷. Prominent examples of such biominerals are nacre⁵⁸, conch shell⁵⁹, tooth of marine mollusks⁶⁰, and dermal armour⁶¹.

As with other osseous tissues, proboscidean ivory shows a hierarchical organization on the nanoscale resulting from the specific alignment of apatite crystals along collagen fibrils⁶². Beyond that, the tusks display some unique micro-structural features such as concentric cones that occur during specific growth periods (see above) and a Schreger pattern⁶³ formed by a network of microtubuli that perforate the ivory matrix. In contrast to the parallel alignment of the dentine tubuli in mammalian tooth, the microtubuli in proboscidean tusks are aligned sinusoidal⁶⁴. They form a cross-hatched, helical network of intersecting Schreger lines that is visible to the naked eye. The resulting Schreger angles characterize different evolutionary lines of proboscideans, and can thus help to distinguish between recent and fossil ivory⁶⁵: Schreger angles considerably above 90° are reported for African elephant while for woolly mammoth, they are slightly below 90° (Fig. 2b,d)⁶⁶. This specific orientation also explains differences in the orientation of the apatite crystals in long mammalian bones compared to proboscidean tusk. While the I(002)/I(211) ratio of a hydroxyapatite powder sample is 0.5, it amounts up to 3.4 in long bone⁶⁷. This high ratio indicates a preferred growth orientation of the apatite crystals, whose c-axis is aligned parallel to the collagen fibres in the longitudinal direction of the bone. On the other hand, the intensity ratio of proboscidean tusks is only 0.8, indicating that neither the collagen fibrils nor the apatite crystals are preferentially aligned in the tusk axis, but in a more complex manner following the sinusoidal orientation of the microtubuli. This specific orientation of the microtubuli in proboscidean ivory leads to the observed differences of the mechanical properties in longitudinal and transversal direction, since the majority of elongated helical pores are aligned in the radial direction⁶⁴ and thus facilitate crack propagation. Whereas in longitudinal samples, no significant differences between woolly mammoth and African elephant can be found, in transversal samples, a significantly reduced stiffness but higher work of fracture and hardness for African elephant compared to woolly mammoth are revealed. This indicates that differences in the Schreger angles resulting from a different orientation of the microtubuli (Fig. 2) only have a negligible effect on the mechanical properties when force is applied perpendicular to growth direction but quite a significant one when it is applied parallel to it.

The slightly higher values for longitudinal bending strength and modulus of elasticity in the outer areas of the tusks from both mammoth and elephant might reflect the pattern of mechanical stress caused by their natural use during the animal’s life time (see above).

Conclusion

Proboscidean ivory was an excellent raw material for Late Pleistocene osseous projectile points. Concerning bending strength and work of fracture, mammoth and elephant dentine are comparable to the tough compacta of cervid antler. Thus, corresponding ivory specimens shared their high resilience and durability. In terms of stiffness, proboscidean dentine is superior to reindeer antler, but in some cases can be surpassed by red deer antler. Thanks to its structure, however, it allows the production of completely compact workpieces (Fig. 1a), while antler projectiles of similar size must always consist of a substantial proportion of spongy tissue (Fig. 1b)¹³. Since strength and stiffness are functions of density, the solid ivory projectile is therefore more robust and stiffer than its partially porous antler counterpart. Moreover, with their large dimensions, proboscidean tusks are predestinated for the manufacture of very large projectiles, especially in conditions where suitable timber is scarce or absent^25,68. These unique properties suggest that ivory was the best available osseous raw material for making massive spear and lance heads that could be used to hunt reindeer/caribou (R. tarandus), horse (Equus), bison (Bison priscus), brown and cave bear (Ursus arctos, U. spelaeus) and, of course, woolly mammoth^{10,25,69,70,71,72}. After the regional disappearance of mammoths towards the end of the Pleistocene, their ivory could still be transported from other areas or collected from natural deposits and processed into projectile points of striking appearance and lethal efficiency. Permafrost ivory can not only have the same mechanical properties as fresh material, but was also worked more easily owing to its lower hardness, especially with the groove-and-splinter technique that is typical of Late Upper Palaeolithic projectile production⁷³.

Methods

The experiments used tusks from woolly mammoth from permafrost and extant African elephant (Fig. 2). Both were purchased from the professional ivory carver and authorized dealer Jürgen Schott (Erbach, Germany). The elephant samples come from the left tusk of Loxodonta africana (Cites certification number: DE-122/14 + 2,650 kg). The mammoth samples were taken from a well-preserved Siberian tusk of M. primigenius. Both tusk sections represent seven growth cycles.

To determine the differences in chemical composition and microstructure of mammoth and elephant ivory XRD, ICP-OES, SEM, deproteinization and experimental demineralisation were performed. For XRD, CuKα radiation (λ = 1.5406 Å) and measurement time of one hour per sample were used (2 Theta range 15–72°, step size 0,005°, scan rate c. 1°/min). For each kind of tusk, five samples taken from similar relative positions were measured in the tusk growth direction (Fig. 2a,c). The crystal domain size τ in direction of the crystallographic c-axis was calculated using the Scherrer equation (1)

τ = K λ β c o s θ

(1)

with the shape factor K which was assumed as 0.9, the wavelength λ, the FHWM and the Bragg angle θ of the (002) peak at 2θ = 26°. For each tusk, the mean value, standard deviation and variance were determined (Supplementary Table S6).

ICP-OES samples were prepared by dissolving 50 mg ivory powder in 2 ml of concentrated nitric acid (65 mass-{98880d97af0555a3a517c8aae666eeb64e7bd6d49cbbe05617dcb138f6e48200}) for two hours. After dissolving, 8 ml of pure water were added.

For demineralization, samples with a volume of approx. 300 mm³ were stored in 0.6 M hydrochloric acid. The acid solution was replaced every 24 hours. After seven days, the samples were washed with de-ionized water and freeze-dried for another 24 hours. For deproteinization, samples with a volume of approx. 300 mm³ were kept in a 2.17 wt{98880d97af0555a3a517c8aae666eeb64e7bd6d49cbbe05617dcb138f6e48200} sodium hypochlorite solution for 14 days, which was replaced every 24 hours. The samples were then washed with de-ionized water and dried for 24 hours.

Specimens for 3-point bending tests and compression tests had dimensions of 3 mm*4 mm*25 mm and 5 mm*5 mm*10 mm, respectively. The moisture content was 7 mass-{98880d97af0555a3a517c8aae666eeb64e7bd6d49cbbe05617dcb138f6e48200}. Samples were taken in two different orientations, longitudinal (in growth direction of the tusk) and transversal (perpendicular to the growth direction). To ensure exact orientations, the samples were extracted from 30 mm thick slices cut perpendicular to the pulp cavity (Figs 2, 4c,d and 5c,d).

For 3-point bending tests, 30 longitudinal and 12 transversal samples were used. The samples were cut with a carbide saw blade from the dentine part of the tusks. The samples were then polished before the mechanical test using 1200 grit coated abrasives. Both sawing and polishing were carried out at low speed to avoid dehydration and collagen degradation. The tests were conducted at room temperature on a Zwick/Roell Z020 machine. The distance between the sample carriers was 16 mm. The pre-load was 0.5 N and loading speed 2 mm/min. The breaking point was determined by the total failure of the samples defined by a 20{98880d97af0555a3a517c8aae666eeb64e7bd6d49cbbe05617dcb138f6e48200} decrease in the test load.

To determine the hardness of the ivory, Vickers hardness tests were conducted on polished samples parallel to growth direction with a Vickers pyramid and a Shimadzu HMV-2000 machine. The load was 100 g and load duration was 10 seconds. Twenty measurements were carried out in each case.

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (and its online Supplementary Information files). The samples on which the 3-point bending tests and compression tests were carried out are archived at the Senckenberg Research Station of Quaternary Palaeontology in Weimar, Germany. Mammuthus primigenius: IQW 2018/45 415 (Sibirien 50 724), IQW 2018/45 416 (Sibirien 50 725), IQW 2018/45 417 (Sibirien 50 726). Loxodonta africana: IQW 2018/45 418 (Afrika 50 727), IQW 2018/45 419 (Afrika 50 728), IQW 2018/45 420 (Afrika 50 729).

References

1.
Abramova, Z. A. Zur Jagd im Jungpaläolithikum. Arch. Korrbl. 12, 1–9 (1982).

Google Scholar
2.
Pitulko, V. V. et al. TheYana RHS site: Humans in the Arctic before the Last Glacial Maximum. Science 303, 52–56, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1085219 (2004).

ADS CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar
3.
Thieme, H. Lower Palaeolithic hunting spears from Germany. Nature 385, 807–810, https://doi.org/10.1038/385807a0 (1997).

ADS CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar
4.
Pitulko, V. V. et al. Early human presence in the Arctic: Evidence from 45,000-year-old mammoth remains. Science 351, 260–263, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad0554 (2016).

ADS CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar
5.
Waters, M. R. et al. Pre-Clovis mastodon hunting 13,800 years ago at the Manis site, Washington. Science 334, 351–353, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207663 (2011).

ADS CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar
6.
Langley, M. C. Late Pleistocene osseous projectile technology and cultural variability in Osseous Projectile Weaponry. Towards an understanding of Pleistocene cultural variability (ed. Langley, M. C.) 71–87 (Springer, 2016).
7.
Christensen, M. Fiche characters morphologiques, histologiques et mécaniques des matières dures d’origine animale in Fiches de la Commission de nomenclature sur l’industrie de l’os préhistorique 11 (ed. Ramseyer, D.) 17–27 (Société Préhistorique Française, 2004).
8.
Guthrie, R. D. Osseous projectile points: Biological considerations affecting raw material selection and design among Paleolithic and Paleoindian people in Animals and archaeology 2: Hunters and their prey (eds Clutton-Brock, J. & Gribson, C.) 273–294 (Archaeopress, 1983).
9.
Currey, J. D. Bones: Structure and Mechanics. (Princeton University Press, 2002).
10.
Noiret, P. Le Paléolithique Supérieur de Moldavie. (Université de Liège, 2009).
11.
Langley, M. C., Pétillon, J. M. & Christensen, M. Diversity and evolution of osseous hunting equipment during the Magdalenian (21,000–14,000 cal BP) in Osseous projectile weaponry: Towards an understanding of Pleistocene cultural variability (ed. Langley, M. C.) 143–158 (Springer, 2016).
12.
Pfeifer, S. J. Die Geweihfunde der Magdalénienzeitlichen Station Petersfels, Lkr. Konstanz – eine Archäologisch-Taphonomische Studie. (Dr. Ludwig Reichert, 2016).
13.
Pétillon, J. M. et al. Hard core and cutting edge. Experimental manufacture and use of Magdalenian composite projectile tips. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 1266–1283, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.01.002 (2011).

Article Google Scholar
14.
Villaverde, V., Tortosa, J. E. A., Borao, M. & Roman, D. Upper Paleolithic bone and antler projectiles in the Spanish Mediterranean region: The Magdalenian period in Osseous projectile weaponry: Towards an understanding of Pleistocene cultural variability (ed. Langley, M. C.) 109–130 (Springer, 2016).
15.
Évora, M. A. A review of the osseous projectile points from the Upper Paleolithic of Portugal in Osseous projectile weaponry: Towards an understanding of Pleistocene cultural variability (ed. Langley, M. C.) 131–141 (Springer, 2016).
16.
Klíma, B. Dolní Věstonice. Výzkum Tábořiště Lovců Mamutů. (Československé Akademie, 1963).
17.
Otte, M. L’ivoire paléolithique au Nord-Ouest européen in Le travail et l’usage de l’ivoire au Paleolithique superieur (eds Hahn, J. et al.) 103–113 (Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Estato, 1995).
18.
Wolf, S., Münzel, S. C., Dotzel, K., Barth, M. M. & Conard, N. J. Projectile weaponry from the Aurignacian to the Gravettian of the Swabian Jura (Southwest Germany): Raw materials, manufacturing and typology in Osseous Projectile Weaponry. Towards an understanding of Pleistocene cultural variability (ed. Langley, M. C.) 71–87 (Springer, 2016).
19.
Derev’anko, A. P, Shimkin, D. B. & Powers, W. R. The Paleolithic of Siberia. New Discoveries and Interpretations. (University of Illinois Press, 1998).
20.
Pitulko, V. V., Pavlova, E. Y. & Nikolsky, P. A. Mammoth ivory technologies in the Upper Palaeolithic: a case study based on the materials from Yana RHS, Northern Yana-Indighirka lowland, Arctic Siberia. World Archaeology 47, 333–389, https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2015.1030508 (2015).

Article Google Scholar
21.
Bradley, B. A. Clovis ivory and bone tools. www.primtech.net/ivory/ivory.html (2018).
22.
O’Brien, M. J., Lyman, R. L., Buchanan, B. & Collard, M. A. Review of Late Pleistocene North American bone and ivory tools in Osseous Projectile Weaponry. Towards an understanding of Pleistocene cultural variability (ed. Langley, M. C.) 221–234 (Springer, 2016).
23.
Wolf, S. Schmuckstücke. Die Elfenbeinverarbeitung im Schwäbischen Aurignacien. (Kerns Verlag, 2015).
24.
Gaudzinski, S. et al. The use of Proboscidean remains in every-day Palaeolithic life. Quat. Int. 126–128, 179–194, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quatint.2004.04.022 (2005).

Article Google Scholar
25.
Nikolskiy, P. & Pitulko, V. Evidence from the Yana Palaeolithic site, Arctic Siberia, yields clues to the riddle of mammoth hunting. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 4189–4197, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.05.020 (2013).

Article Google Scholar
26.
Hahn, J., Scheer, A. & Waibel, O. Gold der Eiszeit. Experimente zur Elfenbeinbearbeitung in Eiszeitwerkstatt. Experimentelle Archäologie (ed. Scheer, A.) 29–37 (Urgeschichtliches Museum Blaubeuren, 1995).
27.
Hein, W. & Wehrberger, K. Löwenmensch 2.0. Nachbildung der Elfenbeinstatuette aus der Hohlenstein-Stadel-Höhle mit authentischen Werkzeugen. Experimentelle Archäologie in Europa 9, 47–53 (2010).

Google Scholar
28.
Lorenzen, E. D. et al. Species-specific responses of Late Quaternary megafauna to climate and humans. Nature 479, 359–364, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10574 (2011).

ADS CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
29.
Stuart, A. J., Kosintsev, P. A., Higham, T. F. G. & Lister, A. M. Pleistocene to Holocene extinction dynamics in giant deer and woolly mammoth. Nature 431, 684–689, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02890 (2004).

ADS CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar
30.
Alvarez-Fernandez, E. The use of ivory during the Upper Palaeolithic at the northern edge of the Iberian Peninsula. J. Iberian Archaeology 4, 7–19 (2002).

Google Scholar
31.
Albrecht, G. Testing of materials as used for bone points in the Upper Palaeolithic in Méthodologie appliquée à l’industrie de l’os préhistorique. Deuxième colloque international sur l’industrie de l’os dans la Préhistoire. Abbaye de la Sénanque (Vaucluse) 9–12 juin 1976 (ed. Camps-Fabrer, H.) 119–124 (Éditions CNRS, 1977).
32.
Heckel, C. & Wolf, S. Ivory debitage by fracture in the Aurignacien: experimental and archaeological examples. J Archaeol Sci 42, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.021 (2014).

Article Google Scholar
33.
Khlopachev, G. A. & Girya, E. Y. Secrets of Ancient Carvers of Eastern Europe and Siberia: Treatment Techniques of Ivory and Reindeer Antler in the Stone Age. (Nauka, 2010).
34.
Lister, A. M. & Sher, A. V. The origin and evolution of the woolly mammoth. Science 294, 1094–1097, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1056370 (2001).

ADS CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar
35.
Kahlke, R.-D. The origin of Eurasian mammoth faunas (Mammuthus-Coelodonta faunal complex). Quat. Sci. Rev. 96, 32–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.01.012 (2014).

ADS Article Google Scholar
36.
Lister, A. M., Sher, A. V., van Essen, H. & Wei, G. The pattern and process of mammoth evolution in Eurasia. Quat. Int. 126–128, 49–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2004.01.014 (2005).

Article Google Scholar
37.
Kahlke, R.-D. The maximum geographic extension of Late Pleistocene Mammuthus primigenius (Proboscidea, Mammalia) and its limiting factors. Quat. Int. 379, 147–154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.03.023 (2015).

Article Google Scholar
38.
Agenbroad, L. D. North American Proboscideans: Mammoths: The state of knowledge, 2003. Quat. Int. 126–128, 73–92, https://doi.org/10.1010/j.quaint.2004.04.016 (2005).

Article Google Scholar
39.
Harington, C. R. Pleistocene vertebrates of the Yukon Territory. Quat. Sci. Rev. 30, 2341–2354, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.05.020 (2011).

ADS Article Google Scholar
40.
Mol, D. Some notes on mammoths and mammoth tusks, the function of the tusks and problems of the mammoth ivory trade in Ivory and Species Conservation, Proceedings of INCENTIVS-Meetings (2004–2007) (ed. Bortolaso, G.) 101–114 (Bundesamt für Naturschutz, 2008).
41.
Fisher, D. C., Fox, D. L. & Agenbroad, L. D. Tusk growth rate and season of death of Mammuthus columbi from Hot Springs, South Dakota, USA. Deinsea 9, 117–133 (2003).

Google Scholar
42.
Fisher, D. C. & Beld, S. G. Growth and life history records from mammoth tusks. Occasional Papers in Earth Sciences 5, 34–35 (2003).

Google Scholar
43.
Haynes, G. Mammoths, Mastodons, and Elephants. Biology, Behavior, and the Fossil Record. (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
44.
Garutt, W. E. Das Mammut. Mammuthus primigenius (Blumenbach). (A. Ziemsen Verlag, 1964).
45.
Laws, R. M. Age criteria for the African elephant. African Journal of Ecology 4, 1–37 (1966).

Article Google Scholar
46.
Pilgram, T. & Western, D. Inferring the Sex and Age of African Elephants from Tusk Measurements. Biological Conservation 36, 39–52 (1986).

Article Google Scholar
47.
Estes, R. D. The Behavior Guide to African Mammals Including Hoofed Mammals, Carnivores, Primates. (The University of California Press, 1991).
48.
Adam, H. D. Über Stoßzahnverlust bei pleistozänen Elefanten. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 9, 396–408 (1955).

Google Scholar
49.
Sukumar, R. The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management. (Cambridge University Press, 1989).
50.
Vereshchagin, N. K. & Tikhonov, A. N. A study of mammoth tusks. USSR Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the Zoological Institute 149, 3–14 (1986).

Google Scholar
51.
Kahlke, R.-D. The History of the Origin, Evolution and Dispersal of the Late Pleistocene Mammuthus-Coelodonta Faunal Complex in Eurasia (Large Mammals). (Fenske Companies, 1999).
52.
Currey, J. D. Mechanical properties of bone tissues with greatly differing functions. J. Biomech. 12, 313–319 (1979).

CAS Article Google Scholar
53.
Cui, F. Z., Wen, H. B., Zhang, H. B., Ma, C. L. & Li, H. D. Nanophase hydroxyapatite-like crystallites in natural ivory. J. Mater. Sci. Lett. 13, 1042–1044 (1994).

CAS Article Google Scholar
54.
Gao, H., Ji, B., Jager, I. L., Arzt, E. & Fratzl, P. Materials become insensitive to flaws at nanoscale: Lessons from nature. PNAS 100, 5597–5600, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0631609100 (2003).

ADS CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar
55.
Meyers, M. A., Chen, P. Y., Lin, A. Y. M. & Seki, Y. Biological materials: Structure and mechanical properties. Prog. Mater. Sci. 53, 1–206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2007.05.002 (2008).

CAS Article Google Scholar
56.
Reznikov, N., Bilton, M., Lari, L., Stevens, M. M. & Kröger, R. Fractal-like hierarchical organization of bone begins at the nanoscale. Science 360, eaao2189, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2189 (2018).

CAS Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
57.
Faber, K. T. & Evans, A. G. Crack deflection processes—I. Theory. Acta Metallurgica 31, 565–576 (1983).

Article Google Scholar
58.
Barthelat, F., Tang, H., Zavattieri, P. D., Li, C. M. & Espinosa, H. D. On the mechanics of mother-of-pearl: A key feature in the material hierarchical structure. J. Mech. Phys. Solids 55, 306–337, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmps.2006.07.007 (2007).

ADS CAS Article Google Scholar
59.
Kamat, S., Su, X., Ballarini, R. & Heuer, A. H. Structural basis for the fracture toughness of the shell of the conch Strombus gigas. Nature 405, 1036–1040 (2000).

ADS CAS Article Google Scholar
60.
Gordon, L. M. & Joester, D. Nanoscale chemical tomography of buried organic-inorganic interfaces in the chiton tooth. Nature 469, 194–197, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09686 (2011).

ADS CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar
61.
Yang, W. et al. Natural Flexible Dermal Armor. Adv. Mater. 25, 31–48, https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201202713 (2013).

CAS Article PubMed Google Scholar
62.
Rho, J. Y., Kuhn-Spearing, L. & Zioupos, P. Mechanical properties and the hierarchical structure of bone. Med. Eng. Phys. 20, 92–102 (1998).

CAS Article Google Scholar
63.
Schreger, B. N. G. Beiträge für die Zergliederungskunst I. (Karl Tauchnitz, 1800).
64.
Albéric, M. et al. Relation between the macroscopic pattern of elephant ivory and its three-dimensional micro-tubular network. PLOS ONE 12, e0166671 (2017).

Article Google Scholar
65.
Espinoza, E. O., Mann, M., LeMay, J. P. & Oakes, K. A. A method for differentiating modern from ancient ivory in worked objects. Curr. Res. Pleistocene. 7, 81–83 (1990).

Google Scholar
66.
Banerjee, A. Vergleichende Untersuchung der “Schreger-Struktur” an Stoßzähnen von Elefanten. Mainzer naturwiss Archiv 42, 77–88 (2004).

Google Scholar
67.
Müller, F. A., Müller, L., Caillard, D. & Conforto, E. Preferred growth orientation of biomimetic apatite crystals. J. Cryst. Growth 304, 464–471, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2007.03.014 (2007).

ADS CAS Article Google Scholar
68.
Bader, N. N. & Lavrušin, Y. A. Upper Paleolithic Site Sunghir: Burials and Environment. (NAUKA, 1998).
69.
Wojtal, P. & Wilczyński, J. Hunters of the giants: Woolly mammoth hunting during the Gravettian in Central Europe. Quat. Int. 379, 71–81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quatint.2015.05.040 (2015).

Article Google Scholar
70.
Germonpré, M., Sablin, M., Khlopachev, G. A. & Grigorieva, G. V. Possible evidence of mammoth hunting during the Epigravettian at Yudinovo, Russian Plain. J. Anthropol. Arch. 27, 475–492, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2008.07.003.
71.
Barth, M. M., Conard, N. J. & Münzel, S. C. Palaeolithic subsistence and organic technology in the Swabian Jura in In search of total animal exploitation. Case studies from the Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (eds Fontana, L., Chauvière, F.-X. & Bridault, A.) 5–20 (Oxford University Press, 2009).
72.
Münzel, S. C., Wolf, S., Drucker, D. G. & Conard, N. J. The exploitation of mammoth in the Swabian Jura (SW-Germany) during the Aurignacian and Gravettian period. Quat. Int. 445, 184–199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quatint.2016.08.013 (2017).

Article Google Scholar
73.
Clark, J. G. D. The groove and splinter technique of working reindeer and red deer antler in Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europe. Arch. Prehist. Levantina. 4, 57–65 (1953).

Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank doc. Dr. Zdeňka Nerudová and doc. Dr. Petr Neruda for granting access to the osseous projectile points from Pekárna cave in the Moravské Zemské Muzeum collections (Brno, Czech Republic). We also thank Fedor Shidlovskiy and Dr. Irina Kirillova for the photographs of the mammoth tusk in the National Alliance of Shidlovskiy “Ice Age” collection (Moscow, Russia). The research was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant number PF 841/2-1).

October 29, 2020

Distinction Between Elephant and MastodonIvroy

Post By MANUFACTURING BV Blog 398 Comments

Distinguishing elephant from ancient ivory is challenging and becoming more and more important for the owners of knives with handles of ancient ivory. However, there are two reliable keys to make the determination easier.

Polished cross sections of elephant and mastodon/mammoth ivories display stacked chevrons of cross-hatched lines called Schreger lines or Lines of Retzius—incremental lines of rhythmic deposition of successive layers of enamel/dentine matrix during development. The Schreger lines closest to the outer bark of the tusks are the most visible—and the ones to measure—though there are also inner Schreger lines that are less discernible around the nerve cavity. The intersection of Schreger lines form angles, and this is the key—if the average angle is greater than 115 degrees, then it’s elephant ivory; if the average angle is less than 90 degrees, it’s mastodon or mammoth. Variations in the angles can occur in individual tusks, particularly as the patterns tighten more toward the center. Plus, the visible cross section must be cut square to the axis of the tusk—otherwise the chevrons’ angles will be distorted.

Specimens from both extinct and existing animals can show angles between 90 and 115 degrees in the outer Schreger lines, so the differentiation should never be based solely on a single angle measurement when the angles fall in this range. When averages are used, a clear separation between the ivory of existing elephants and extinct mammoths/mastodons exists. Elephant ivory averages above 100 degrees and mammoth/mastodon ivory averages below 100 degrees.

Another I.D. key, though more involved, can also distinguish mammoth or mastodon ivory from elephant. These ancient ivories can often have blue-green or brownish blemishes on the surface produced by an oxidized iron phosphate called vivianite. Even if the discoloration is barely visible, ultra-violet light will make it stand out with a dramatic velvety-purple appearance. Even if elephant ivory were similarly discolored—though in its natural state, elephant ivory will not display the same discoloration—it would not exhibit the characteristic fluoresence of vivianite.

October 29, 2020

About Mastodon Tusks

Post By MANUFACTURING BV Blog 5,104 Comments

Until recently, I did not fully appreciate fossil teeth. Their significance for identifying species and narrowing down the general diet of extinct animals was obvious, but I didn’t understand that teeth also hold intricate records of an individual animal’s life. Tiny pits and scratches on enamel can reveal what a creature was eating around the time it died; oxygen isotopes preserved inside teeth can be used to make inferences about climate, body temperature, and habitat; and the way teeth respond to stress and strain can allow paleontologists to identify the feeding habits of long-dead species.

Prehistoric teeth can also be confusing. Like modern elephants, American mastodon had large tusks that were actually modified upper incisor teeth. The tusks of these recently-extinct behemoths – known as Mammut americanum to paleontologists – are ivory records of their lives, but isolated tusks have presented scientists with a persistent problem.

American mastodon tusks were obviously quite different from the incisors in our own mouths. For one thing, they kept growing throughout the life of the individual animal, changing shape and size as they did so. Tusks of Mammut were also sexually dimorphic, meaning that the tusks in the adult animals were significantly and consistently different in males and females. Two sexes, two adult forms.

The trouble is that the tusks of young male mastodons look like those of adult females. Even though there were only two adult tusk forms, the tusks of juvenile males passed through a stage in which they looked like tusks from mature females. This has frustrated attempts to determine what an isolated tusk means for the life history of an individual animal. In order to correctly identify the sex of an animal from a tusk, you also have to know its age, without which the details of the animal’s life history are confounded.

In previous studies, for example, University of Michigan paleontologist Dan Fisher has found that signs of pregnancy in female mastodons can be detected by studying the details of the dentin that makes up the majority of their tusks. So too can details of musth – a spike in testosterone associated with mating and aggressive behavior – be seen in the tusks of male mastodons. But these patterns can only be properly interpreted when the sex of the animal the tusk belonged to is known. If the tusk of a young male is confused for that of an older female, the evidence embedded within the tusk will be misinterpreted. In turn, confused findings about misattributed tusks can affect hypotheses about why the American mastodon disappeared, as Fisher has used deep-tusk records from North American proboscideans to argue that they show similar birth intervals to elephants under hunting pressure and were therefore being turned into mammoth steaks by prehistoric humans.

Paleontologist Kathlyn Smith recently worked with Fisher to find a way around the problem of ambiguous mastodon tusks, and a detailed account of their attempt has just been published in Paleobiology. What they were looking for was some kind of distinguishable pattern in tusks of both male and female mastodons that could be used to separate the sexes without any other information from the rest of the skeleton. Twenty one mastodon tusks collected in the Great Lakes region of the United States were investigated in the effort to detect these trends.

The twenty one tusks used in the study already had male or female sex assignments based upon skeletal evidence, dental evidence, or the correlation between tusk circumference and the depth of the pulp cavity. Rather than accept these at face value, however, Smith and Fisher wanted to see if these assignments held true by looking at the details of the tusks themselves using principal components analysis. The purpose of this technique was to cut through variation within the sample to see if certain aspects of the tusks were truly related to one another. The data included the circumference of the tusk at several points, in addition to the depth of the pulp cavity and other features. Since the tip of the tusk was the oldest, and the tusk portion closest to the skull was the youngest, measurements from different portions of the tooth could be used as indicators of tusk anatomy at different points in the a

Smith and Fisher found that the depth of the pulp cavity could be a useful indicator for investigating the sex of some mastodons. Even though tusks grew longer and added to their circumference throughout life, the pulp cavity inside the tusk only changed at a few key times – the pulp cavity grew deeper in young animals, stayed at that depth for some time, and then became shallower in old adults. A tusk with a large circumference relative to the depth of the pulp cavity, for example, came from an older mastodon, while a tusk with a larger pulp cavity compared to tusk circumference represents a young individual. This means that pulp cavity depth can be used as a rough estimate for age, and, compared to the length and circumference of the tusks, may help distinguish between tusks belonging to males or females. Still, this variable would mainly distinguish between the tusks of adults and would not have enough resolution to tell the difference between a young male and an adult female.

Measurements from the circumference of the tusk at various points provided a more refined look at age. Paired with pulp cavity depth, the measurements of tusk circumference allowed the approximate ages of the mastodons to be plotted. These were in accord with what had previously been suggested on the basis of other bones from the same animals. This means that paleontologists can estimate age of a mastodon on the basis of tusk anatomy alone and, in turn, these findings can be used to more accurately determine if a relatively short and thin tusk comes from a young male or an adult female.

Paleontologists can’t simply take the measurements and throw them into the computer, though. Detailed knowledge of each tusk is needed to weed out factors that could trip up age assignments. Smith and Fisher mention a pair of tusks from two different female mastodons informally called North Java and Powers. Both tusks came from females of similar age and generally corresponded in overall shape, but the North Java mastodon had worn down about 50 centimeters from the tip of her tusk, obliterating about six years worth of growth. This would make the North Java female seem younger than she actually was in the analysis, and so Smith and Fisher had to correct for the damage the tusk suffered in order to accurately approximate the animal’s age.

Despite such potential confounding factors, though, the results obtained by Smith and Fisher were consistent with the sex assignments that had been proposed on the basis of other teeth and bones found with many of the mastodon specimens in the study. When analyzed carefully, tusks alone can be used to distinguish between males and females across a range of ages. This might prove to be very useful for paleontologists studying the last days of the mastodons and mammoths. If paleontologists are studying a bonebed with several isolated or disassociated tusks, Smith and Fisher suggest, the scientists can still identify the ages and sexes of the animals those teeth belonged to and determine whether the assemblage is consistent with a herd or instead represents a group of bodies that accumulated in one place over a long period of time. The same techniques may also allow paleontologists to distinguish between male and female mammoths belonging to dwarfed island populations, as well, in which the change in size masks the differences between the sexes. Mammoths and mastodons have been extinct for thousands of years, but they have left us wonderful records of their Pleistocene lives inside their tusks.

MANUFACTURING&TRADINGBV

Cart

Cart

Category: Blog

The Significance Of The Sound Of Shofar

Facts As To Why Sofar Horns Are Blown

1. The Return of the King

2. The Great Alarm Clock

3. The Reminder

4. The Voice

5. The Tears

6. The Sacrifice

7. The Awesome

8. The Introspection

9. The Celebration

10. The Unity

11. The Scream

What does the shofar symbolize?

Definition of shofar

How will the shofar blowing work?

Why sound the shofar outside?

Why Blow Shofar Horns??

History Of Shofar Horns

Is it Legal To Sell Mastodon Ivroy

mastodon ivory to gemstone

The End Product Of Mastodon Ivroy