Unique pictures show prehistoric forensic evidence: spear wounds on the Arctic beast’s bone.
Forensic analysis of the remains of a woolly mammoth, including still-preserved soft tissue, has revealed evidence that the animal was hunted and killed by early humans using primitive weapons.
The discovery, which was first reported in Science journal earlier this year, has sparked international media attention and could have major implications for our understanding of human history.
If the evidence is accurate, it would mean that humans were present in the frozen Arctic wastes 10,000 years earlier than previously thought. It would also suggest that early Siberians were just 2,895 miles from a land bridge that once connected Russia to Alaska. This raises the possibility that Stone Age Siberians colonized the Americas at a much earlier date than previously believed.
The Siberian Times is publishing images of the mammoth’s wounds, which respected Russian scientists believe are clear proof of ancient human activity.
The implications of this discovery are truly remarkable. It could rewrite our understanding of human migration and settlement patterns in the Americas. It could also shed new light on the evolution of human technology and hunting practices.
Overall, the discovery of this woolly mammoth with spear wounds is a significant archaeological find with the potential to revolutionize our understanding of human history.
A 15-year-old male woolly mammoth was found dead on the eastern bank of the Yenisei River in northern Siberia in 2012, its remains discovered by an 11-year-old schoolboy.
The mammoth, now known as the Zhenya mammoth or the Sopkarginsky mammoth, was hunted and killed by early humans using primitive weapons and tools made of bone and stone. This is evidenced by forensic analysis of the remains, which included still-preserved soft tissue.
Lead author of the study published in Science, Dr Vladimir Pitulko, believes that the hunters used a common hunting tactic still practiced in Africa today: bombarding the elephant with a large number of light spears. This causes the animal to lose blood and become immobilized, making it easy to finish off with a single blow.
Dr Pitulko believes that the same hunting strategy was used on the Sopkarginsky mammoth.
This discovery is significant because it provides new insights into the hunting practices of early humans and their ability to survive in the harsh Arctic environment. It also raises the possibility that Stone Age humans may have colonized the Americas much earlier than previously thought.
Fifth left rib with hunting lesion (up). A butchery mark on the fifth rib (D) was compared with the hunting lesions collected by Vladimir Pitulko at Yana Paleolitic Site (A, B, C). Pictures: Pavel Ivanov, Vladimir Pitulko
He said: ‘The most remarkable injury is to the fifth left rib, caused by a slicing blow, inflicted from the front and somewhat from above in a downward direction. Although it was a glancing blow, it was strong enough to go through skin and muscles and damage the bone.
‘A similar but less powerful blow also damaged the second right front rib. Such blows were aimed at internal organs and/or blood vessels.
‘The mammoth was also hit in the left scapula at least three times. Two of these injuries were imparted by a weapon, which went downwards through the skin and muscles, moving from the top and side. These markings indicate injuries evidently left by relatively light throwing spears.
‘A much more powerful blow damaged the spine of the left scapula. It may have been imparted by a thrusting spear, practically straight from the front at the level of the coracoid process. The weapon went through the shoulder skin and muscle, almost completely perforating the spine of the scapula.
‘Taking into account the scapula’s location in the skeleton and the estimated height of this mammoth, the point of impact would be approximately 1500 mm high, in other words, the height of an adult human’s shoulder.’
The injury on the left jugal bone is believed to be ‘the final blow’ aimed to the base of the trunk. Pictures: Vladimir Pitulko
Another injury – possibly evidence of a mis-directed blow – was spotted on the left jugal bone. The blow was evidently very strong and was suffered by the animal from the left back and from top down, which is only possible if the animal was lying down on the ground.
Dr Pitulko, of the Institute for the History of Material Culture in St Petersburg, believes that it was ‘the final blow’, which was aimed to the base of the trunk.
Modern elephant hunters still use this method ‘to cut major arteries and cause mortal bleeding’. Yet in this case the prehistoric hunters obviously missed and struck the jugal bone instead.
Luckily the spear left the clear trace on the bone, making possible to learn what kind of weapon it was.
The bone was studied with X-ray computed tomography – a CT scan – by Dr Konstantin Kuper, from the Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics in Novosibirsk. He also created a 3D model of the injury in the bone. This led to the conclusion that the tip of the weapon was made of stone and had a thinned symmetric outline – and was relatively sharp.
The bone was studied with X-ray computed tomography – a CT scan – by Dr Konstantin Kuper, from the Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics in Novosibirsk, he also created a 3D model of the injury in the bone. Picture: Vladimir Pitulko
Paleontologist Dr Alexei Tikhonov, from the Zoological Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences in St Petersburg, who lead the excavations, said: ‘It’s hard to say which blow was the mortal one, at least judging by the traces on the bones.
‘There was quite a strong blow to the scapula, yet I think it was rather the totality of wounds that caused the death. It is interesting that the most of the injuries are on the left side of the animal.
‘I would suppose that the hunters could attack the mammoth which was already lying on the ground. When we examined the skull, we noticed the abnormal development of the upper jaw.
‘We believe that this mammoth got a kind of injury at a very young age, which impacted on its left side. There was no left tusk and I presume that the left side was weak, so it could help the hunters kill the animal.’
 |
 |
‘A much more powerful blow damaged the spine of the left scapula. The weapon went through the shoulder skin and muscle, almost completely perforating the spine of the scapula.’ Pictures: Vladimir Pitulko
The injuries found on the bones also gave clues what did the hunters with the mammoth after they killed it. The right tusk had the traces of human interference on the tip of the tusk.
They did not try and pull the entire tusk off the killed mammal but instead tried to remove ‘long slivers of ivory with sharp edges, which were usable as butchering tools’, said Dr Pitulko.
A butchery mark was also found on the fifth left rib, seen as evidence that the hunters cut meat from the carcass to take it with them. Ancient man also extracted the mammoth tongue, seen as a probable delicacy to these hunters.
Yet the theory that the animal was butchered does not convince all experts.
Dr Robert Park, a professor of anthropology at the University of Waterloo in Canada, wrote in an email to Discover, that the skeleton is not consistent with other evidence from early human hunters.
The right tusk had the traces of human interference on the tip of the tusk. Picture: Vladimir Pitulko
He wrote: ‘The most convincing evidence that it wasn’t butchered is the fact that the archaeologists recovered the mammoth’s fat hump. Hunter-gatherers in high latitudes need fat both for its food value and as fuel. So the one part of the animal that we would not expect hunters to leave behind is fat.’
But Dr Pitulko countered: ‘Yes, ancient man – and not so ancient, in fact – has used and uses animal fat as fuel and food, nothing to argue about here. Why in this very case they did not use their prey in full is impossible to say.
‘There may be dozens of reasons, for example – they could not – the carcass was lying at the water’s edge, and it was late autumn. Or they did not have time: the carcass fell into the water on thin coastal ice. Or it did not correspond to their plans – they killed the poor animal just to have a meal and replenish the supply of food for a small group.’
