For decades, archaeologists believed that the use of ivory as a raw material for tools was a relatively recent innovation in human prehistory, emerging with symbolic and artistic revolutions in the Upper Paleolithic. But a groundbreaking discovery at a little-known archaeological site in Ukraine has shaken this assumption, revealing that early hominins were experimenting with ivory as a tool-making material nearly 400,000 years ago—hundreds of millennia earlier than previously believed.
This revelation, published in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology by Ukrainian researchers Dr. Vadim Stepanchuk and Dr. Oleksandr O. Naumenko, not only rewrites the timeline of ivory use but also opens a fascinating window into the creative impulses, technological adaptability, and possibly even the social behaviors of Lower Paleolithic hominins.
Medzhibozh A: A Quiet Valley With a Loud Past
Tucked away in the valley of the Southern Bug River near the town of Medzhybizh, Ukraine, lies a humble Paleolithic site known as Medzhibozh A. Discovered only in 2011 and excavated sporadically until 2018, this unassuming location has proven to be a goldmine of prehistoric secrets. Its layered sediment record reveals a timeline of hominin activity stretching from Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 35 to MIS 11—a span of roughly a million years.
While most visitors to the site might see only a quiet riverside landscape, beneath their feet lies evidence of ancient human ancestors contending with harsh climates, limited resources, and shifting environments. Among modest stone tools and animal bones, 24 fragments of ivory were unearthed—material that would eventually challenge long-standing narratives in Paleolithic archaeology.
An Unexpected Find: Tools Hidden in the Bones of Giants
Ivory, sourced from the tusks of mammoths, was not expected at Medzhibozh A—especially not ivory deliberately worked into tool forms. The fragments weren’t even recognized as significant when first recovered. As Dr. Stepanchuk explains, they were initially sorted with ordinary faunal remains. It wasn’t until closer laboratory analysis that their unusual shapes and marks piqued curiosity.
Out of 24 pieces, 11 showed unmistakable signs of human modification. These weren’t mere breakages or incidental chips—six bore evidence of knapping (the strategic striking of material to shape it), three exhibited signs of bipolar-on-anvil technique (a form of percussion using an anvil to fracture material), and others were shaped into flakes, cores, and even a “point”—a small, tapered tool suggestive of a deliberate design.
This raised an obvious but thrilling question: could early humans really have been crafting ivory tools nearly 400,000 years ago?
Ivory vs. Stone: A Question of Utility
To grasp the significance of these artifacts, it’s important to understand what ivory is—and isn’t. Compared to stone, ivory is a soft, fragile material. Dentin, the primary component of tusks, ranks only a 2 on the Mohs hardness scale, while the cement layer that coats it fares slightly better at 3–4. In contrast, the flint and quartz commonly used by Paleolithic toolmakers register a much more robust 7–8.
So why would early humans bother with such an inferior material?
According to Dr. Stepanchuk, this paradox may hold the key to understanding the deeper context behind the Medzhibozh ivory artifacts. Their low practical utility suggests that they may not have been purely functional tools. Instead, their existence hints at a broader spectrum of behavior—one that includes experimentation, adaptation, and perhaps even symbolic or social functions.
Desperation or Innovation? Reassessing Hominin Ingenuity
The site’s location offers one clue. The region around Medzhybizh is not particularly rich in high-quality lithic (stone) resources. For hominins living there 400,000 years ago, procuring usable stone may have been a significant challenge, especially during certain climatic phases when mobility and trade networks were restricted.
In this context, ivory may have presented itself not as the first choice but as a second-best alternative—an organic material close at hand, easily collected from mammoth remains, and moderately workable using familiar stone-tool techniques. The Medzhibozh ivory pieces exhibit processing methods nearly identical to those used on stone artifacts: knapping, trimming, rotation, and edge retouching. This technological overlap suggests a population adapting known methods to an unconventional resource.
But some pieces tell an even more curious story.
Playthings and Learning Tools: The Social Life of Ivory
Among the most compelling ideas proposed by Stepanchuk and Naumenko is that some of these ivory objects may have had no utilitarian purpose at all. Instead, they may have been part of the social fabric of early human life—possibly made by or for children.
The notion of “play” in the archaeological record is difficult to pin down, but it’s not without precedent. Other studies have identified miniature or poorly crafted tools as possible training objects or symbolic “pretend” items, used by young hominins to mimic the actions of adults. These early socialization processes would have been crucial for passing down skills, norms, and survival strategies.
If this interpretation is correct, it pushes back the earliest evidence not just of ivory use, but of cultural behaviors associated with learning, imitation, and symbolic activity—behaviors that are deeply human.
Rewriting the Ivory Timeline
Until now, the earliest clearly documented use of ivory dated to around 120,000 years ago, largely within Neanderthal contexts. At Zaskalnaya V in Crimea, a pointed ivory fragment suggests that Neanderthals were beginning to explore the material’s utility. However, these instances were few and far between—and none approached the age or complexity of the artifacts found at Medzhibozh A.
The new Ukrainian findings more than triple the timeline, suggesting that ivory was not simply a product of symbolic Upper Paleolithic cultures but a material of curiosity and potential even among much earlier hominin groups.
Importantly, the researchers acknowledge that caution is still warranted. Dating of the artifact-bearing layers is based on electron spin resonance (ESR), combined with geological and paleontological data, which support a MIS 11 age (~400,000 years ago). But the possibility of reworking from younger layers—or natural processes mimicking human modification—must always be considered.
Still, Stepanchuk and Naumenko argue convincingly that the complexity of the modification sequences and their resemblance to known lithic processes strongly support human intentionality. These aren’t broken bones or gnawed tusks. They are tools—or, at the very least, the echoes of technological intention.
A Broader Implication: Ivory as a Cognitive Mirror
Beyond the technical details, the Medzhibozh A discovery raises profound questions about the mental worlds of early humans. To experiment with ivory is to think outside the box—to explore unfamiliar materials, to test hypotheses with hands and eyes, to innovate within constraints. This kind of thinking requires not just physical dexterity, but imagination.
In other words, these artifacts are more than the sum of their parts. They are glimpses into an ancient mind, probing the world for new solutions and perhaps even new meanings.
If such behavior was present among hominins 400,000 years ago, it suggests that the cognitive and cultural seeds of modern humanity were planted far earlier than we’ve assumed.
Looking Ahead: What More Lies Beneath?
The implications of the Medzhibozh ivory tools are still being digested by the broader archaeological community, but one thing is clear: the Lower Paleolithic may have been a far more complex and innovative period than previously thought.
Future excavations in Ukraine and other parts of Eastern Europe could yield further surprises. If ivory was being used here, might it have been used elsewhere and simply gone unrecognized due to its fragility and poor preservation? Could entire classes of organic artifacts be missing from the archaeological record because we’ve never known to look for them?
In the end, the discovery of 400,000-year-old ivory tools reminds us that history is not a static timeline etched in stone—it is a living story, shaped and reshaped by every new find, every fresh insight, every shift in perspective.
And sometimes, it takes a soft, fragile piece of mammoth tusk to crack open the hard assumptions of the past.
Reference: Vadim N. Stepanchuk et al, The Earliest Evidence of Deliberate Ivory Processing Dates Back to Around 0.4 Million Years Ago, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology (2025). DOI: 10.1002/oa.3403