Tracing the Source of the Elephant And Hippopotamus Ivory from ...

usually archaeologically invisible trade in raw materials (often including vast amounts of
metal), and serves as a calibration for the archaeological record (Bass 1991; Sherratt and
Sherratt 1991: 373). The Uluburun is, moreover, confidentially interpreted as a royal or
ruling elite shipment which was following a tramping counter-clockwise course to the
Aegean when it sank (Bass 1991: 76).
The archaeological and historical context of ivory is characteristically elite-
centered, being socially embedded in dialogues of power, conspicuous consumption, and
royal gift-exchange. Recognition of the archaeological correlates of social stratification
has been one of the first steps in the interpretation of the material record, followed by a
focus on the rich and powerful and what was seen as the historically important major
political actors. The acknowledgment of the significance of other social classes and
everyday events to the overall reconstruction of culture history was a just counter-balance
to the previous emphasis on the rich, powerful, and “history-worthy.” It forced
archaeologists to unleash cultures from bounded homogenous units and refract the result
into a spectrum of heterogeneity where population-oriented rather than typology-oriented
thinking was required.
Thus I argue that while the ruling class and elites have been the subject of much
(some would say too much) archaeological research, it is worth considering their role
again in light of an unbounded, population-focused, concept of culture (see also
Schortman 2001: 372). So in the analysis of LBA trade the culture of the elite, the
culture of merchants, and the culture of craft specialists must be considered. The ruling
elite and their merchants, who served as ambassadors of sorts in trading ventures which
were essentially diplomacy via gift-exchange, were operating in an increasingly
175