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

king owned the ivories with the greatest prestige, “but a range of stereotyped shapes is
present everywhere, as the property of individuals during life and death; their function or
their significance is considered to be important for they are present also in the sanctuaries
(as ritual furniture? or offerings?). Moreover, the objects are so standardized that no
variants of the shapes themselves exist: the social hierarchy is reflected only in the more
frequent use of ivory for whole objects and of elephant ivory for larger pyxides” (Gachet
1993: 75). The standardization of shapes in my opinion argues for an established and
centralized ivory-working tradition.
Hippopotamus ivory was far more frequently utilized than elephant ivory, yet also
remains a luxury item, which raises more questions about why the traders of Ugarit relied
so heavily on hippopotamus ivory when elephant ivory was available. A number of
possibilities include: either the Syrian elephant population was difficult to utilize as a
source of ivory, the herds were too small or scattered, the Ugaritic traders (whether
independent or acting under royal initiative) preferred to export the more valuable ivory,
or the ivory-carvers were skilled enough to work around the difficulties in working hippo
ivory. The only ivory in the process of being carved was excavated from the priest’s
neighborhood near the temples, suggesting that ivory-workers did not require their own
workshop but could take their work with them to the person commissioning the work
(Gachet 1993: 74-75). There were additionally a “magic wand” and a clapper with
Hathoric head recovered which are possibly Egyptian imports, found in a tomb and the
seer’s house respectively.
67