David BridgesThe trade of elephant ivory, a durable white substance sourced from the tusks of elephants, is strictly prohibited due to the illegal poaching of these magnificent creatures. In a puzzling twist, however, the sale of ivory harvested from the remains of extinct mammoths remains legal. This ambiguity allows unscrupulous traders to exploit the situation by blending elephant ivory with legally traded mammoth ivory, evading detection. Fortunately, a groundbreaking forensic tool is on the horizon, potentially putting an end to this deceitful practice.
Wildlife forensic experts in China have proposed that law enforcement agencies can effectively distinguish between elephant ivory and mammoth ivory through the analysis of stable isotopes—variants of an element that remain unchanged over time. If widely implemented, this method could provide a rapid preliminary screening of samples, serving as an efficient first step before resorting to more costly and time-consuming analytical techniques.
According to Pavel Toropov, a researcher from the University of Hong Kong and co-author of a recent study published in the journal Frontiers, “Mammoth ivory is significantly less expensive than elephant ivory, and the two materials are perceived as entirely different by artisans and experts alike. Mammoth ivory typically lacks the rich, creamy white hue characteristic of elephant ivory.” He elaborated that one trader likened them to a “Lamborghini and a Ford.” Although mammoth ivory cannot genuinely replace elephant ivory, it might serve as a legal facade for illicit elephant ivory sales.
At present, the most reliable methods for differentiating between these two types of ivory involve molecular analysis and radiocarbon dating, both of which are costly and labor-intensive processes.
The ratios of isotopes can vary significantly based on environmental factors. For instance, Ice Age mammoths that were preserved in the frigid permafrost of Siberia inhabited a vastly different ecosystem compared to today’s tropical elephants. Consequently, the isotope ratios found in their tusks should exhibit distinct differences. In this context, Toropov and his research team aimed to explore whether analyzing these variations could create an improved method for identifying the two ivory types.
The researchers conducted stable isotope analyses on 44 samples of elephant ivory and 35 samples of mammoth ivory, focusing on the stable isotope ratios of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur. Their findings revealed significant overlap in the isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur between the two types of ivory; however, they noted minimal overlap in the isotope ratios for oxygen and none at all for hydrogen.
“The reason for this discrepancy is that the water consumed by mammoths in high-latitude areas such as Siberia has unique isotope signatures, which differ from the water ingested by elephants in tropical climates,” explained Maria Santos, the first author and another researcher from the University of Hong Kong. In simpler terms, by analyzing the stable isotope ratios of oxygen and hydrogen in a suspected ivory sample, it is possible to ascertain whether the material originated from an elephant or a mammoth.
While additional research is necessary before this method can be reliably utilized in legal proceedings, Santos expressed hope that the protocol outlined in their study will facilitate the screening of large quantities of suspected mammoth ivory objects. “Samples that display an isotopic signature indicative of elephant ivory can subsequently undergo more intricate and expensive testing methods, such as radiocarbon dating. This could significantly enhance the fight against the illegal ivory trade and effectively close the loophole that allows this laundering to occur,” she stated.
In my opinion, an even more straightforward solution would be to enforce a complete ban on all forms of ivory.
Daniel Mercer
Brandon Fletcher
