2026/07/01 by Metin I. Eren, David J. Meltzer, James F. O’Connell +2
Social Sciences · Earth and Planetary Sciences · Psychology · #Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology #Evolution and Paleontology Studies #Primate Behavior and Ecology
paper · doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2026.105896
There are currently 15 well-documented Late Pleistocene localities in North America in which Clovis points are found associated with proboscidean remains. These localities are routinely assumed to represent evidence that Clovis foragers hunted proboscideans, and in turn are often invoked as evidence for a human role in the extinction of Pleistocene large mammals. Such assumptions have never been thoroughly tested, nor have archaeologists fully considered the possibility that Clovis foragers were facultative scavengers, which might account for the association of artifacts with proboscidean remains at some or even all these localities. A significant obstacle to differentiating hunting from scavenging archaeologically is the challenge of equifinality. Here we explore whether Clovis foragers hunted, scavenged, or did both, and whether we can tell the difference. To set a broad foundation for considering the question, we begin with an overview that shows the near ubiquity of scavenging among non-human animals. Our survey of the paleoanthropological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic records shows that scavenging is quite common as well among human groups past and present. Following that, we consider the opportunities scavengers have – and Clovis foragers might have had – in exploiting proboscidean carrion. We then assess the proposed archaeological evidence for Clovis hunting and scavenging and show that while Clovis foragers likely practiced both, we cannot currently distinguish the two archaeologically and thus cannot reliably show how many Clovis proboscidean sites represent hunting versus scavenging events. Nonetheless, it would be odd indeed if Clovis foragers – alone among ethnohistoric and ethnographic human groups and nearly all omnivores and carnivores – did not scavenge. Scavenging could possibly explain the high δ 15 N values recently reported for the Anzick child, which could readily result from his mother eating maggots and not mammoth meat. Given the present state of knowledge, the Clovis archaeological record cannot be used to argue that Clovis groups routinely hunted proboscideans, or that there are sufficient “kill sites” to support a human role in proboscidean extinctions.