Beasts of the Bible and Babylon
This is a guest article, kindly contributed by Reginald O'Donoghue, a bachelors Student studying Ancient Near Eastern Studies at SOAS University in London. Reginald runs the Šar Rīmī blog, a site exploring various topics related to the ancient near east including the ecology of the region. He also runs a prominent twitter profile @ReginaldODonog1.
“Shout out to Ben Stanhope at Pixels and Papyrus, whose work on Behemoth was of much help.”
The Ancient Near East was home to much wildlife, many of which are now sadly gone. As previous articles on this website have shown, many species of Camel, some of vast size once lived in the region during the Pleistocene, but by the time the Sumerians and Egyptians invented writing in the 4th millennium BC, all but one species was long gone. Nonetheless, many other species, today extinct in the region, or worldwide in some cases, lived in the region of the Near East in the early historical period, such as Elephants, Aurochsen, and Hippopotami. This essay will discuss the identity of several creatures mentioned and depicted in Akkadian, Egyptian, and Hebrew texts and artwork, as well as controversies related to the creatures thereof.
Elephants
The Asian Elephant (Elephas Maximus) was present in the Ancient Near East until the Neo-Assyrian period (10th-7th centuries BC). Later records (with one possible exception, the famous elephant owned by Hannibal Barca known as ‘The Syrian’) are definitely of elephants imported from India for the use of warfare. The elephant (pīru) was apparently a familiar enough creature to the Assyrians to be featured fairly anatomically accurately in the Black Obelisk of King Shalmaneser III, when compared to more exotic creatures such as Monkeys. It is in the reign of Shalmaneser (859-824 BC) that we last see reference to the capture or hunting of elephants in Assyrian records [Pfälzner: 2016], which may suggest the elephant became extinct, or at least very rare in Assyria during or shortly after his reign. This general era is also when we last find elephant remains in the archaeological record before the Seleucid era. Later kings such as Sargon II and Esarhaddon mention taking elephant hides and ivory as tribute, but never actually the hunting or capture of live elephants [Çakırlar and Ikram: 2016]. Earlier Assyrian Kings, such as Tiglath-Pileser I (1114–1076 BC) would apparently hunt elephants in the countryside around Harran, now south-eastern Turkey. The Neo-Assyrian king Adad-Nirari II (912–891 BC) boasts not only of hunting Elephants, but also of ‘forming herds’ in the city of Ashur, for the purpose of canned-hunting [Albenda: 2008]. Egyptians too, likewise, hunted elephants in the Near East. On the way back from a campaign against the Kingdom of Mitanni, Pharaoh Thutmose III (1481-1425) hunted 120 (possibly a symbolic number) elephants in the Orontes valley, an event well attested by several Egyptian records. Archaeological evidence from the Orontes valley also suggests elephants were hunted in the region, with elephant bones found in the region having clear cut and saw marks [Pfälzner: 2016].
An elephant also featured in the menagerie of the 18th century Egyptian vizier Rekhmire (fig 1.), which a scene on the walls of his tomb depicts being carried from Retnu (the Levant). Due to the existence of tusks on what seems to be a small elephant, it has been suggested that the elephant was a late surviving Dwarf Elephant or Mammoth from the Mediterranean islands, captured by Syrian traders. More likely, based on the provenance of the Elephant, it is a stylised depiction of a calf of the Syrian Elephant, or a stylised depiction of an adult. If the latter possibility is true, this need not suggest that the Syrian elephant was of a small size, on the contrary, as elephant remains found at Qatna in Syria seem to be of an unusually large size [Pfälzner: 2016].
Fig 1. Depiction of Syrians bringing an elephant and a bear from the Tomb of Rekhmire. ca. 1504–1425 B.C.
Terms of use: No rights reserved
Due to the lack of Pleistocene and early Holocene fossil evidence for Asian Elephants in the Near East, some have suggested that Elephants in the historic Near East were in fact human imports from the Indian Subcontinent, perhaps for the sort of hunting mentioned before. One 2016 study, by Çakırlarand Ikram even suggests that the Elephants were an ‘invasive species’, whose introduction to the near east caused ecological damage which ultimately led to their own extinction. There is, it must be said however, continuous evidence of elephants living in the basin of the Orontes River in Lebanon, Syria and Turkey during the second millennium BC. Though some have suggested the elephants were kept in human reserves of sorts, this is unlikely [Pfälzner: 2016], as elephants do not usually breed in captivity, due to sexual selection, yet the remains of Juvenile elephants have also been found in the Near East [Çakırlarand Ikram: 2016]. Only in modern-day zoos has it become possible to truly breed them. It is entirely possible, however, that the elephants were introduced to the Near East as free-ranging populations. Against this possibility, it would not have been expedient to transport elephants over vast distances in the Bronze Age, let alone at the frequency needed to establish breeding populations. Whilst the Asian Elephant is indeed suited for long migrations, the fragmented political landscape of the Bronze Age Near East would have made the multiple large-scale operations needed very difficult. Contrast this with the late first millennium, when it is well established (by writers such as Strabo) that the Seleucid dynasty imported elephants from the Punjab to the Near East for use in warfare. They were able to do this precisely because they were the only power between India and Syria. For the elephant to have been introduced to the Near East, a considerable population would have had to have been imported, despite the problems in doing so. All in all, the logistics speak in favour of the Asian Elephant having a natural distribution in the Near East.
Yet a problem exists however, for whilst a species of elephant (Palaeoloxodon Namadicus) did inhabit the Near East during the Pleistocene [Lister: 2007], the Asian Elephant not only has no palaeontological evidence from the Pleistocene, and Early Holocene periods in the Near East, but the earliest depictions of Elephants in Mesopotamian artwork from the 3rd millennium BC seem to derive second-hand artistically from depictions found in the Indus Valley, rather than them being native to the Near East at this point. In some cases, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but here it is, since not only is there an absence of evidence, but the earliest evidence we do have speaks in favour of absence. A solution to this, supported by a 2018 study by Flink, Albayrak and Lister is that the elephants, rather than being artificially introduced, or survivors from the Pleistocene, may have naturally expanded their range into the middle east during an Early Bronze Age moist climatic period, which is suggested by several studies. This seems to be the most likely option, considering the evidence suggesting both in favour of a recent arrival, and against a human introduction.
As said before, the last Assyrian king to have been recorded hunting elephants was Shalmaneser III, in the 9th century BC. Also, the last elephant remains found before the Seleucid era date from around this time, or slightly later, in the 8th century BC (which could be in the margin of error). This therefore has been suggested as the period when the elephant became extinct in the Middle East, which it almost certainly is, the archaeological and historical records showing a remarkable convergence. Pfälzner suggests says of the extinction of the elephant that it is one of the most remarkable and most deplorable acts of anthropogenic extermination of an animal species that can be observed in the history of the Ancient Orient. There is ambiguity however, due to the heavy impact of elephants on their ecosystems, them being a keystone species, meaning that the numbers of the elephant may have increased to the point where the declining ecosystem of the Near East could no longer sustain them, and they increasingly encroached on human agricultural areas, bringing about human-elephant conflict [Çakırlarand Ikram: 2016].
In conclusion, the Asian Elephant likely did indeed have a natural range into the Near East in historic times, as opposed to having merely been imported for the purpose of hunting or for menageries. They seem to have slowly colonised the Near East after the extinction of earlier Elephant species in the region. Nonetheless, hunting of the elephant is well established, in Archaeological records from Syria, as well as from Assyrian and Egyptian records. The elephant probably became extinct, or very rare, due to hunting, and perhaps human-elephant conflict, in the Near East after the reign of Neo-Assyrian king Shalmaneser III, who is the last king recorded to have hunted and captured elephants. In later periods, the Seleucids would import elephants from the Punjab region of India for use in warfare. The name Surus (the Syrian) of one of Hannibal Barca’s famous elephants, may indicate a small population of Syrian Elephants remained in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC, but alternatively the name may have referred to him being a gift from the Seleucids, and nothing more.
Fig 2. An Assyrian king and his retinue hunting a Syrian elephant (Elephas maximus asurus) causing a rampage of Arabian oryx (Oryx leucoryx) and mountain gazelles (Gazella gazella)
Terms of use: Artwork by Hodari Nundu and Commissioned by The Extinctions
Aurochs
Domestic cattle were first domesticated from Aurochsen (Bos Primigenius) in the Near East, but their wild ancestors would also play an important role in the culture of the Near East for millennia to come, until their eventual extinction. The Aurochs (Rīmu), like the Elephant, also features prominently in the lists of game hunted by Assyrian kings, as well as those of older kings such as the Akkadian king Naram-Sin (see volume 14 of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary for more information). By kings such as Assyrian king Sennacherib (722-705 BC), as well as in the famous Epic of Gilgamesh, the Aurochs was viewed as a simile of military (and elsewhere of divine) might (ekdu). We ought to assume the Aurochs remained a familiar sight in Sennacherib’s day, as the readers of his annals would be expected to know what an Aurochs was.
“With my chosen bodyguard footmen and my battle troops of no mercy, I like a wild Aurochs took their lead” [Sennacherib 16: iv 82] (and elsewhere)
Aurochsen remained staples of Assyrian art until the very end, as King Ashurbanipal, one of the last Assyrian kings (668-631 BC) mentioned placing silver statues of Aurochsen at gates which he built [Ashurbanipal 5: ii 6] (and elsewhere). Whether he was referring to actual living Aurochsen, or merely using artistic conventions depicting now extinct beasts, we have no way of knowing from the Akkadian texts. However, the texts of another Ancient Near Eastern civilisation may hold better clues as to when the Aurochs went extinct in the middle east.
Two words in Biblical Hebrew seem to refer to a large species of bovine which is not domestic cattle. The first word, Behemoth, has been of some controversy. Its appearance in the book of Job has led some Young Earth Creationists to propose that it is a sauropod dinosaur. Job 40:15-18 (New Revised Standard Version of the Bible) says of the beast:
“Look at Behemoth,
which I made just as I made you;
it eats grass like an ox.
16 Its strength is in its loins,
and its power in the muscles of its belly.
17 It makes its tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are knit together.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like bars of iron.”
The statement that its tail is like a cedar suggests to some that the creature had a large tail, perhaps like that of a Brachiosaurus. But these speculations are almost certainly wrong. The verse goes on to state that the sinews of its thighs (paḫadim) are knit together. The noun paḫad is not the usual word for ‘thigh’ in Hebrew, occurring nowhere else in the Old Testament. We must turn to related Semitic languages, such as Aramaic and Arabic to learn the meaning. In these languages, the cognate word, though literally meaning thighs, overwhelmingly is used to refer to the ‘testicles’, which is exactly how the Latin Vulgate (and by fiat thereof, the King James Version) translates the term in Job 40:17 [Bernat: 2004].
If the ‘thighs’ in question are ‘testicles’ then by rules of Hebrew poetic parallelism, the ‘tail’ must also presumably be a sexual organ, as is supported by the fact that the passage uses other Hebrew terms with a sexual connotation. Edward J Greenstein, in his translation of Job, states in the footnotes to v17 that ‘tail’ is a phallic euphemism. Far from this passage proving that Behemoth is a dinosaur, it in fact blows such a view out of the water, since dinosaurs lacked external genitalia. Referring to a Sauropod’s male genitals as a ‘tail’ makes little sense.
If not a dinosaur, then what is it? Could this creature, whose etymology (from the Hebrew noun Behemah, meaning Cow) is clearly Bovine, in fact be an Aurochs? Unlikely. The next verses describe the habitat of the creature:
19 “It is the first of the great acts of God—
only its Maker can approach it with the sword.
20 For the mountains yield food for it
where all the wild animals play.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover it for shade;
the willows of the wadi surround it.
23 Even if the river is turbulent, it is not frightened;
it is confident though Jordan rushes against its mouth.
24 Can one take it with hooks
or pierce its nose with a snare?”
Due to its apparent semi-aquatic lifestyle, I would argue that the best fit for Behemoth would not be an Aurochs, but rather a Water Buffalo. On the other hand, there is also a post-biblical Jewish tradition that the Behemoth was a cosmic, mythological beast of some sort, who would be slaughtered on the last day. Such a view fits the fact that Behemoth is paralleled with the mythological sea serpent known as Livyatan (from where we get the word Leviathan) from Canaanite mythology in Job 41.
Whilst I am personally of the opinion that the imagery of the Behemoth’s lifestyle comes from the Water Buffalo, that Behemoth was a mythological creature is a real possibility, based on post-biblical evidence, as well as parallels to the ‘Calf of ‘El’ who appears in the Baal Cycle alongside Livyatan, in his Ugaritic name of Lotan. However, Behemoth does not act as a mirror to Livyatan. If it was meant to be the serpent’s land-based equivalent, why is it given a semi-aquatic, river-dwelling lifestyle?
But be it a mythological beast or merely a Water Buffalo, Behemoth seems to be an unlikely candidate for the Aurochs. Fortunately for our discussion however, there exists another word in Hebrew which refers to a large mammalian beast. The Hebrew word Re’em is often mistranslated, especially in older translations, as ‘Unicorn’, an error which goes back to the earliest translations from the Hebrew, such as the Septuagint. Some have suggested the Re’em was a Rhinoceros, but this is unlikely. The Re’em is treated as a familiar animal to the Ancient Israelites, as though they were expected to know of it, yet there is no evidence that Rhinoceroses ever ranged into the Middle East in the Holocene [Choudhury: 1985; Rookmaaker & Antoine: 2013]. When a Rhinoceros does appear in the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser, the appearance given to the animal by the artist would suggest that the creature was not familiar to the Assyrians. Rather, since the word Re’em is cognate to the aforementioned Akkadian word Rīmu, a scholarly consensus rightly identifies the Re’em with the Aurochs. This is further supported by how the Re’em is compared and contrasted to a domestic ox in Job 39:9-12 and is used as a simile for ferocity in Deuteronomy 33:17, and divine strength in Numbers 24:8, which we also find with the word Rīmu in Akkadian, as we have seen in Sennacherib, and elsewhere (Again, see volume 14 of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary for more details).
The presence of the Aurochs in the Hebrew Bible is interesting and tells us of the distribution of the Aurochs in historical periods. The Hebrew Bible largely being an Iron Age collection tells us that the creature must still have been familiar to the inhabitants of Iron Age Palestine. The Book of Isaiah, whose first half was written by the eponymous prophet in the 8th century BC, speaks of the Aurochs as a creature whom God will slay en masse in a slaughter in the land of Edom, to the south of Israel (Isaiah 34:7). That this is speaking of a future event to the prophet suggests that the Aurochs was well alive in his mind. The book of Job, which is probably post-exilic, (i.e., post 6th century) (based on allusions to the ‘second’ half of the Book of Isaiah) [Seow: 2013] also mentions the Aurochs as a regular animal in Chapter 39:9-12 (New Revised Standard Version of the Bible):
“Is the wild ox (Re’em) willing to serve you?
Will it spend the night at your crib?
Can you tie it in the furrow with ropes,
or will it harrow the valleys after you?
Will you depend on it because its strength is great,
and will you hand over your labour to it?
Do you have faith in it that it will return,
and bring your grain to your threshing floor?”
(Note also that the creature is clearly likened to an Ox, further giving evidence that it is not a Rhinoceros)
This indicates a terminus post quem for the extinction of the Aurochs in the Middle East, in the 6th century BC. One could object by noting the presence of the mythical Livyatan in the divine speeches of the Book of Job, two chapters later. So perhaps the book is not relaying actual nature of its time. However, the Aurochs appears sandwiched between two very real animals, the Onager and the
Ostrich, which did not die out in the Levant until relatively recently, so it seems to be reliable. The Aurochs was probably extinct in the eastern Mediterranean by the time of Aristotle (4th century BC), who, in his notes on zoology, mentioned the European Bison, but nothing of the Aurochs [Beierkuhnlein: 2015]. Roman records occasionally demonstrate that gladiators in the Mediterranean region would fight Aurochsen, but we have no way of knowing where these Aurochsen came from.
In conclusion, the Aurochs played an important role in Mesopotamian culture, being a symbol of military might, a common game for kings, and a common adornment in architecture until the very end. The earliest possible date for the extinction of the Aurochs in the Middle East seems to be 539 BC, the earliest possible date for the Book of Job, which mentions the Aurochs alongside other familiar animals to the Ancient Israelites, such as Onagers and Ostriches. By the time of Aristotle, it was probably extinct in the Eastern Mediterranean, at least.
Fig 3. Assyrian Ivory carving of a cow with a suckling calf, potentially belonging to the Aurochs (Bos primigenius). Ca. 9th–8th century B.C.
Terms of use: No rights reserved
The Nāhiru
particularly mysterious beast is mentioned in the annals of several Assyrian kings, the Nāḫiru. No consensus seems to exist as to the identity of the creature, but enough information exists to make educated guesses. In the Annals of Tiglath-Pileser I (1114-1076 BC), the eponymous king mentions how the gods Ninurta and Nergal… allowed me to kill (a nāḫiru) with a harpoon… (in) the Great Sea of the land Amurru. Clearly this is an aquatic, or semi-aquatic creature, which lived off the coast of Syria (and perhaps other places). Oracc, the Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus identifies the nāḫiru as a dolphin, whilst Miguel Civil [Civil: 1998] identifies the sea lion (presumably he means a monk-seal) as a strong possibility. Others have identified it as a sperm whale [Wapnish: 1995], or even a Dugong [Elayi & Voisin: 2014]. All explanations for the identity of the creature are speculative, but the most-likely speculation considering what little we know of the creature, would indicate a Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) to be the most likely candidate. Tiglath-Pileser refers to the Nāḫiru as a ‘sea-horse’, which is a possible parallel to the Greek ‘Hippopotamus’, which means ‘river-horse’. The terms for ‘sea’ and ‘river’ are often used interchangeably in Northwest Semitic languages (see Psalm 24:2, for a biblical example). A cognate Ugaritic word anḫir also refers to a water-creature that lives in the ‘sea’. Both words are derived from the Semitic root nḫr, which means ‘to snort’, a possible reference to the Hipppopotamus’ distinctive grunt. Alternatively, the word refers to a whale or dolphin, but also a hippopotamus via semantic drift (see below).
(Note: Akkadian is not a Northwest Semitic language, but Tiglath-Pileser seems to be relying on local tradition in identifying the nāḫiru as a sea horse)
One might object (as Civil does) that the nāḫiru hunted by Tiglath-Pileser I is placed ‘in the Great Sea’, which almost certainly means the Mediterranean [Yamada: 2005]. Hippopotami do not live in salt water, however, they do inhabit estuarine habitats, such as (in antiquity) the Nile Delta, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that this would be in the semantic range of the ‘sea’. Though Tiglath-Pileser is said to hunt the Hippo ‘in the midst of the sea’, the same is said for islands, which are placed ‘in the midst of the sea’. Possibly then, he hunted it near an island in a river delta.
Furthermore, the later Assyrian king Aššurnaṣirpal II (883-859 BC) mentions receiving tribute of nāḫiru ivory from Phoenician cities. This is significant, because, as even Civil states, ‘it is believed now that what was thought to be elephant ivory in Mesopotamia comes almost always from Hippopotamus teeth’. The Hippopotamus would make sense as being the identity of the nāḫiru, being an important source of ivory, which is not so for dolphins, sperm whales or monk-seals. That the overwhelming amount of Ivory was from Hippopotami increases the probability of the Hippopotamus being the identity of the naḫiru. It would be strange to think that middle eastern languages lacked a word for an animal so important to them, and naḫiru seems to be the best fit for a word in Akkadian. Though Aššurnaṣirpal identifies it as a ‘sea creature’, since Hippopotami are not native to Mesopotamia, it’s entirely possible that the king was confused.
A 2004 dissertation by KA Lafrenz at the University of South Florida, which analyses the origins of the ivory found in the 14th century Uluburun shipwreck, off the coast of Turkey, confirms, drawing on earlier work, that the presence of the Hippopotamus is well established in archaeological remains from the Ancient Near East. However, according to Lafrenz, the only definitive remains from the 4th millennium BC have been found at Qatif, in the Sinai Peninsula, so it is ‘possible’, but not certain, that the Hippopotamus went extinct in the Pleistocene in the Near East, and only later recolonised the region from Egypt. The next Hippopotamus remains that seem to come from a natural habitat are found in the region around Tel Aviv, and other parts of Israel, perhaps again suggesting a slow northwards expansion out of the Nile Delta. Nonetheless, by the mid-2nd millennium, the Hippopotamus had expanded northwards to at least the Orontes River in Syria, and Iron Age remains have been found in Hatay in Turkey.
One might ask why the Hippopotamus so rarely, if ever appears in historical texts from the region. However, owing to the general aridity of the region, Hippopotami, whilst certainly present, would have been rare, compared to in the Nile Delta of Egypt [Tsahar: 2009]. Furthermore, Hippopotami were not native to Holocene Mesopotamia, so would not be expected to be a creature which Mesopotamian texts commonly mentioned.
It is in the Iron Age, according to Tsahar, that the Hippopotamus went extinct in the Levant. Given the mention of naḫiru ivory being imported from Phoenicia to Assyria in the reign of Assyrian king Aššurnaṣirpal II, it is probable that the Hippopotamus (which was hunted in the same region by one of his predecessors) went extinct in the region at some time after the early 9th century BC, assuming, of course that the naḫīru was a Hippopotamus, and that the Phoenicians had not themselves imported the ivory from elsewhere.
In conclusion, the presence of the Hippopotamus in the Iron Age Levant is well established, and the vast majority of ivory in Mesopotamia was of Hippopotamus tooth origin. However, it rarely (if ever) appears in texts written in the Akkadian and Ugaritic languages, probably owing to the general aridity of the Levant, and lack of aquatic habitat therein. Based on the distribution of its remains in the early historical period, the Hippopotamus may have initially become extinct before the historical period in the Middle East. Only in the 4th millennium BC (according to this theory) did it begin to recolonise from the Nile Delta. By the Iron Age it had reached as far as southern Turkey, but also in the Iron Age, (probably in the 9th century at the earliest) it went extinct for good, perhaps due to human hunting for ivory.
Fig 4. Furniture element made from a hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) incisor found in an Assyrian storehouse. Ca. 9th–8th century B.C.
Terms of use: No rights reserved
Conclusion
The Middle East was probably depleted of much of its fauna in the Pleistocene, due to human hunting. Nonetheless, some extinct species, such as Asian Elephants, and (in all probability), the Hippopotamus recolonised the region in the Holocene. Alongside these creatures was the Aurochs, which probably never became extinct in the region before historical times. It proved to have the longest lasting impact in the Middle East, where it was first domesticated, and played an important role as a symbolic creature in Mesopotamian and Biblical literature and art. Elephants and Hippopotami also played a significant, but largely invisible role as the source of the region’s ivory. The great civilisations, such as the Assyrians, Egyptians and Israelites referred to these creatures, and frequently mentioned the hunting of them in Royal Annals. It is this hunting, carried out by kings and other nobility, which decimated the great beasts, and wiped them out in the region, this time
for good. The Elephant almost certainly went extinct in the region in the 9th or 8th century, the Aurochs from the 6th to the 4th, and the Hippopotamus probably at some point in the Iron Age after the early 9th century, but it is hard to know for sure in the case of the latter
Sources and Further Reading
Assyrian Royal Hunts: Antlered and Horned Animals from Distant Lands – Pauline Albenda
‘When elephants battle, the grass suffers.’ Power, ivory and the Syrian elephant – Canan Çakırlar and Salima Ikram
The Elephants of the Orontes - Peter Pfälzner
Genetic Insight into an Extinct Population of Asian Elephants (Elephas maximus) in the Near East – Linus Girdland-Flink, Ebru Albayrak, Adrian M. Lister
Chicago Assyrian Dictionary: Volume 14
The Unfolding Fate of Leviathan and Behemoth from the Enochic to the Amoriac Literature: midrashic perspectives – Reuven Kiperwasser
Biblical Wasfs Beyond Song of Songs – David Bernat
Job: A New Translation – Edward L Greenstein
Job 1-21: Interpretation and Commentary – CL Seow
Bos primigenius in Ancient Egyptian art – historical evidence for the continuity of occurrence and ecology of an extinct key species – Carl Beierkuhlein
"Adamdun," the Hippopotamus, and the Crocodile – Miguel Civil
Some presicions on the nahiru fished south of Arwad – Josette Elayi & Jean-Francois Voisin
Tracing the Source of the Elephant and Hippopotamus Ivory from the 14th Century B.C. Uluburun Shipwreck: The Archaeological, Historical, and Isotopic Evidence – Kathryn Anne Lafrenz
Distribution and Extinction of Ungulates during the Holocene of the Southern Levant – Ella Tsahar
Palaeoloxodon. (In: Holon, a Lower Paleolithic Site in Israel) – Adrian Lister
Distribution of Indian one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) – Anwaruddin Choudhury
New maps representing the historical and recent distribution of the African species of rhinoceros: Diceros bicornis, Ceratotherium simum and Ceratotherium cottoni – Kees Rookmaaker & Pierre-Olivier Antoine
‘FROM THE UPPER SEA TO THE LOWER SEA" - The Development of the Names of Seas in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions – Keiko Yamada