Archaeologica.org

RS, don't you think that many of the bones/tusks the structures were made from were gathered at bends in creeks and rivers after winter flooding subsided? Nature would be way more likely to have killed so many.

There's too much @&%$#^& theoretically-based speculation here.

Do you have any facts to disprove the speculation? The hide of a Pachyderm is just a little thicker than that on a Roo BTW, and that's a fact! And the hide was backed with a steel frame as well.
What you say about ham stringing Sam is of course spot on, and never received a single mention in the programme. As for a full on assault I have seen pics of bones that have spear marks on them in areas that would have not been quickly fatal, this would suggest that the animal had not at that stage been brought down.

Roy.

Given a choice between a frontal assault on the one hand and carefully choosing a target on edge of the herd, sneaking up behind and wounding it with a hail of darts in the back legs, I'll go for option "B" every time.

Even in the hands of experts (and I'm sure these fellows were experts or they starved) an atlatl throw which penetrates to the heart would be an amazing shot. You have to bypass the ribs and the penalty for failing to do so would, as noted above, be VERY pissed-off mammoth.
Something not to be taken lightly.

They showed the position of the internal organs within the Columbian Mammoth in the programme Min and it was self evident that to reach heart or lungs required penetration that probably could not be acheived with either atlatl or spear.
The muscles that lift the head and tusks they calculated as weighing in at about the weight of 5 men. The skull was probably impervious so unless you could bring it down PDQ weakening it and slowing it would seem to be a likely strategy.
I rather think crawling underneath and stabbing upwards can be discounted don't you?

Roy.

Digit wrote:What you say about ham stringing Sam is of course spot on

Only he said something about ('Achilles') heel tendons, Roy. Not about hamstrings.

At least you're kind of settling down to one topic: how to kill elephantidae.

Options not yet discussed:
1) pit traps
2) setting its fur on fire
3) poisons
4) finishing off elephantidae wounded by big cats
5) nets/ropes/snares

Now certainly some data must have been recovered from kill/slaughter sites, but no one has mentioned any of it yet.

By the way, elephantidae are herd animals, are they not?

True RS, but I don't think the animal would argue.

Roy.

E.P. Grondine wrote:At least you're kind of settling down to one topic: how to kill elephantidae.

Options not yet discussed:
1) pit traps
2) setting its fur on fire
3) poisons
4) finishing off elephantidae wounded by big cats
5) nets/ropes/snares

Now certainly some data must have been recovered from kill/slaughter sites, but no one has mentioned any of it yet.

By the way, elephantidae are herd animals, are they not?

Yes, they are, EP.
But why the focus on early hominins killing 'elephantidae'? Why would they do it? Elephantidae are virtually unedible, and, the risks to the hunters are much too great. I say they didn't kill elephantidae if they had a choice. And they had plenty choice: all sorts of antelopes, other small mammals, reptilians, birds, and fowl. Much easier to kill, much less risk for the hunters, and much more palatable than elephantidae.

Which neatly completes the circle as my first question was just that RS.

Roy.

E.P. Grondine wrote:At least you're kind of settling down to one topic: how to kill elephantidae.

Options not yet discussed:
1) pit traps
2) setting its fur on fire
3) poisons
4) finishing off elephantidae wounded by big cats
5) nets/ropes/snares

Now certainly some data must have been recovered from kill/slaughter sites, but no one has mentioned any of it yet.

By the way, elephantidae are herd animals, are they not?

Okay, E.P. I'll bite.

1. Yes...but a lot of work. You need to make a fairly good sized pit for a mammoth... and then, you'd have to go down in the pit to cut it up and pass the pieces out. Possible? Of course. I'm not aware of any evidence indicating it was done.

2. A couple of problems with this one. First, the fur would have been a valuable prize in and of itself in a cold climate. Setting it on fire seems like an odd way to obtain it. Second, you'd need some sort of accelerant to get the fire going. Why would the animal let you get close enough? And, if you could get that close, why not stab it in the throat with the spear? Third, most animals have negative reactions to fire. I can't see them standing still for a guy coming with a torch.

3. Administered how? Assuming they had a sufficient knowledge of toxins in their area do they dip their spear points in it?

4. Scavenging is always a fall back position for a predator, no question about that. I imagine the cat who did the wounding might have something to say about interlopers. I don't know how much evidence we have for saber-tooth cats attacking mammoths. In Africa, lions will not go after an adult elephant although they will take a run at a baby if they can get by momma.

5. Yeah....although it would require a hell of a rope/net/snare to hold a mammoth. This isn't a rabbit we're talking about, here.


The evidence on the positive side is that spear points have been found in kill sites or even embedded in the bones. That suggests that some form of direct attack was used. I agree with you that one cannot simply state that this was the only method used and frankly would find such an assertion illogical. I have no doubt that if they came across a dead mammoth they would get to work on it.

What about pit traps with spears in them with the points pointed upward? Over a half century ago, in the Scouts, I couldn't start a fire with sticks but I did catch a few things in pit traps. Maybe even a few friends. They weren't that hard to dig, even for a kid. And I learned about punji stakes in Vietnam, fortunately through training and not experience. Kind of like stabbing one from underneath.

Also...

But why the focus on early hominins killing 'elephantidae'? Why would they do it? Elephantidae are virtually unedible

Not entirely true. I've seen it in markets that sell bushmeat in Africa and it was expensive. I was told it was not only good but some believe it has special powers. I can see a belief in how eating a powerful animal could impart those powers to the eator. And, no, I didn't try it nor the monkey nor the whatever that other stuff was.

Pit traps are fine provided you know that your prey is gonna go that way, digging one for a Mammoth then seeing them go the other way....
and you'd need a BIG hole.

Roy.

Digit wrote:Pit traps are fine provided you know that your prey is gonna go that way, digging one for a Mammoth then seeing them go the other way....
and you'd need a BIG hole.

Roy.

The origin of cursing?

Could well be!

Roy.

Not entirely true.

Probably not true at all judging, again, from the number of Clovis points recovered from mammoth kill sites.