Tusk or Bone? An Example of Ivory Substitute in the Wildlife Trade
Bone carvings (and other ivory substitutes) are common in the modern-day lucrative international ivory trade. Souvenirs for unknowing travelers and market shoppers can be made of non-biological material (plastic "ivory" beads) or skillfully crafted natural objects made to resemble something other than their true origin. Many of these items are received at the U. S. National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory (NFWFL) for species identification as part of law enforcement investigations. Morphologists at the Lab often receive uniquely carved ivory items that have been imported with little or no documentation. In recent years, analysts examined several purported ivory tusks suspected to be walrus, a protected marine mammal. After examination, the Lab determined their origin as carved leg bones of cattle using principles and methods of zooarchaeology and ancient DNA analysis. The naturally long and straight ungulate metapodials had been cut, carved, filled, stained, and polished to closely resemble unmodified ivory tusks. Morphological species identification of these bones proved to be a challenge since diagnostic characters of the bones had been altered and country of origin was unknown. Genetic analysis showed that the bones originated from cattle. While bone is commonly used as a substitute for ivory, this style of artifact was not previously documented in the wildlife trade prior to our analysis. Archaeological ethnobiologists commonly encounter bone tools and other forms of material culture from prehistoric and historic contexts; in this case bone tools come from a modern context, thus the application of methods common in zooarchaeology are situated in wildlife forensics. In addition, results reported here pertain to cross-cultural ivory trade and conservation science.
Abrams, H. N. 1987. Ivory: an International History and Illustrated Survey. Harry N. Abrams, Incorporated, New York, NY.
Espinoza, E. O. and Mann, M. J. 2000. Identification Guide for Ivory and Ivory Substitutes, 3rd edition. Ivory Identification, Inc., Richmond, VA.
Gilbert, B. M. 1990. Mammalian Osteology. Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia, MO.
Krzyszkowska, O. 1990. Ivory and Related Materials: an Illustrated Guide. Classical Handbook 3. Bulletin Supplement 59, Institute of Classical Studies, London, UK.
Locke, M. and R. L. Dean. 2003. Vascular Spaces in Compact Bone: A Technique to Correct a Common Misinterpretation of Structure. The American Biology Teacher 65:701-707.
Locke, M. 2004. Structure of Long Bones in Mammals. Journal of Morphology 262:546–565.
Martin, E. 2006. Are We Winning the Case for Ivory Substitutes in China? Pachyderm 40:89‐101.
Martin, E. B. and Stiles, D. 2000. The Ivory Markets of Africa. Save the Elephants, Nairobi and London.
O’Connor, S. 1984. The Identification of Osseous and Keratinaceous Materials at York. In U.K.I.C. Archaeology Section Conference Proceedings, edited by K. Starling and D. Watkinson. pp 9-21. Institute for Conservation, London, UK.
O’Connor, T. P. 1984. On the Structure, Chemistry, and Decay of Bone, Antler, and Ivory. In U.K.I.C. Archaeology Section Conference Proceedings, edited by K. Starling and D. Watkinson. pp 6-8. Institute for Conservation, London, UK.
Shell, H. 1983. Is it Ivory? Ahio Publishing Co, Tulsa, OK.
Sims, M. E. and B. W. Baker. 2006. Tusk or Bone?: An Example of Fake Walrus Ivory in the Wildlife Trade. Identification Guides for Wildlife Law Enforcement No. 10. USFWS, National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory, Ashland, OR.
Sweet, D. and D. Hildebrand. 1998. Recovery of DNA from Human Teeth by Cryogenic Grinding. Journal of Forensic Science 43:1199-1202
Wilson, D. E. and D. M. Reeder (eds.). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, 3rd edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Copyright (c) 2011 Ethnobiology Letters
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain ownership of the copyright for their content and grant Ethnobiology Letters (the “Journal”) and the Society of Ethnobiology right of first publication. Authors and the Journal agree that Ethnobiology Letters will publish the article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits others to use, distribute, and reproduce the work non-commercially, provided the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal are properly cited.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
For any reuse or redistribution of a work, users must make clear the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
In publishing with Ethnobiology Letters corresponding authors certify that they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. They warrant, on behalf of themselves and their co-authors, that the content is original, has not been formally published, is not under consideration, and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights. They further warrant that the material contains no matter that is scandalous, obscene, libelous, or otherwise contrary to the law.
Corresponding authors will be given an opportunity to read and correct edited proofs, but if they fail to return such corrections by the date set by the editors, production and publication may proceed without the authors’ approval of the edited proofs.