https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2309427120
December 4, 2023

Significance
We have recently learned that around 125,000 years
ago, hunting of straight-tusked elephants, the largest
terrestrial mammals of the Pleistocene, was part of
the Neanderthal behavioral repertoire, for several
dozens of generations. This knowledge is based on
data from one lake-side location in northern Europe
only, and hence possibly of limited value for our
knowledge of the Neanderthal niche. This new study
presents data from two other, contemporaneous sites
on the North European plain, demonstrating that
elephant exploitation was a widespread phenomenon
there. The sheer quantities of food generated by the
butchering activities, aimed at extensive exploitation
of the carcasses, suggest that Neanderthals had some
form of food preservation and/or at least temporarily
operated in larger groups than commonly acknowledged.

Abstract
Neanderthals hunted and butchered straight-tusked
elephants, the largest terrestrial mammals of the
Pleistocene, in a lake landscape on the North European
plain, 125,000 years ago, as recently shown by a study
of the Last Interglacial elephant assemblage from
Neumark-Nord (Germany). With evidence for a
remarkable focus on adult males and on their extended
utilization, the data from this location are thus far
without parallel in the archaeological record. Given their
relevance for our knowledge of the Neanderthal niche,
we investigated whether the Neumark-Nord subsistence
practices were more than a local phenomenon, possibly
determined by local characteristics. Analyzing elephant
remains from two other Last Interglacial archaeological
sites on the North European plain, Gröbern and Taubach,
we identified in both assemblages similar butchering
patterns as at Neumark-Nord, demonstrating that
extended elephant exploitation was a widespread
Neanderthal practice during the (early part of the) Last
Interglacial. The substantial efforts needed to process
these animals, weighing up to 13 metric tons, and the
large amounts of food generated suggest that
Neanderthals either had ways of storing vast amounts of
meat and fat and/or temporarily aggregated in larger
groups than commonly acknowledged. The data do not
allow us to rule out one of the two explanations, and
furthermore both factors, short-term larger group sizes
as well as some form of food preservation, may have
played a role. What the data do show is that exploitation
of large straight-tusked elephants was a widespread and
recurring phenomenon amongst Last Interglacial
Neanderthals on the North European plain.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> We have recently learned that around 125,000 years
> ago, hunting of straight-tusked elephants, the largest
> terrestrial mammals of the Pleistocene, was part of
> the Neanderthal behavioral repertoire, for several
> dozens of generations. This knowledge is based on
> data from one lake-side location in northern Europe
> only, and hence possibly of limited value for our
> knowledge of the Neanderthal niche. This new study
> presents data from two other, contemporaneous sites
> on the North European plain, demonstrating that
> elephant exploitation was a widespread phenomenon
> there. The sheer quantities of food generated by the
> butchering activities, aimed at extensive exploitation
> of the carcasses, suggest that Neanderthals had some
> form of food preservation and/or at least temporarily
> operated in larger groups than commonly acknowledged.

Scavenging.

Why not?

Seems incredibly obvious yet nobody wants to so much
as entertain the possibility.

Everything dies. Not everything is killed. And even if an
elephant or a mammoth isn't killed it still eventually dies.

If a population is stable then roughly one dies for every
one that is born. Roughly.

And you're into the putrid meat thing so, who cares if
they didn't find it under a week later?

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/740429495655432192

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>> We have recently learned that around 125,000 years
>> ago, hunting of straight-tusked elephants, the largest
>> terrestrial mammals of the Pleistocene, was part of
>> the Neanderthal behavioral repertoire, for several
>> dozens of generations. This knowledge is based on
>> data from one lake-side location in northern Europe
>> only, and hence possibly of limited value for our
>> knowledge of the Neanderthal niche. This new study
>> presents data from two other, contemporaneous sites
>> on the North European plain, demonstrating that
>> elephant exploitation was a widespread phenomenon
>> there. The sheer quantities of food generated by the
>> butchering activities, aimed at extensive exploitation
>> of the carcasses, suggest that Neanderthals had some
>> form of food preservation and/or at least temporarily
>> operated in larger groups than commonly acknowledged.
>
> Scavenging.

They did both. Why not? mv thinks all animals that
early hominids had drowned.

> Why not?
>
> Seems incredibly obvious yet nobody wants to so much
> as entertain the possibility.

Oh? Even carnivores are not above scavenging. No
one turns up a free meal.

> Everything dies. Not everything is killed. And even if an
> elephant or a mammoth isn't killed it still eventually dies.
>
> If a population is stable then roughly one dies for every
> one that is born. Roughly.

Not true. What about a creature that has muliple young?

> And you're into the putrid meat thing so, who cares if
> they didn't find it under a week later?

"didn't find it under a week later"?

See earlier posts on this

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/0wIt0CHkcXI/m/XJIWJF8lAQAJ

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/mCotqCTMgAk/m/b6YcKnc-BgAJ

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> > Scavenging.

> They did both.

Maybe.

> Why not?

Wrong question.

> > Seems incredibly obvious yet nobody wants to so much
> > as entertain the possibility.

> Oh? Even carnivores are not above scavenging.

Yet YOU and YOUR CITE say it was hunting. Not scavenging.

> No
> one turns up a free meal.

And yet your cite says, "Oh! They ate an elephant. That means
they hunted them."

> > Everything dies. Not everything is killed. And even if an
> > elephant or a mammoth isn't killed it still eventually dies.
> >
> > If a population is stable then roughly one dies for every
> > one that is born. Roughly.

> Not true.

Of course it's true. It would be either growing or shrinking if
it weren't.

> What about a creature that has muliple young?

If it's a stable population then roughly one dies for every one
born, exactly like I already said.

And thank you for the cites. Totally random, as always. No
apparent connect to any point you're attempting to make or
refute, as usual.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/741355563147984896

JTEM is so reasonable wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>>> Scavenging.
>
>> They did both.
>
> Maybe.

They had to hunt. Northern latitudes get colder in
winter. They need food and shelter. Do you expect
they chopped holes in ice to get fish or clams?

Hint - hunters/gatherers

You cannot exploit cold climes without hunting.

>> Why not?
>
> Wrong question.

Wrong answer.

>>> Seems incredibly obvious yet nobody wants to so much
>>> as entertain the possibility.
>
>> Oh? Even carnivores are not above scavenging.
>
> Yet YOU and YOUR CITE say it was hunting. Not scavenging.

Yet YOU say they couldn't hunt!

>> No
>> one turns up a free meal.
>
> And yet your cite says, "Oh! They ate an elephant. That means
> they hunted them."

And yet up make up quotes!

>>> Everything dies. Not everything is killed. And even if an
>>> elephant or a mammoth isn't killed it still eventually dies.
>>>
>>> If a population is stable then roughly one dies for every
>>> one that is born. Roughly.
>
>> Not true.
>
> Of course it's true. It would be either growing or shrinking if
> it weren't.

Never heard of twins?

>> What about a creature that has muliple young?
>
> If it's a stable population then roughly one dies for every one
> born, exactly like I already said.

By that "logic", how do they reacha stable population
without growing?

> And thank you for the cites. Totally random, as always. No
> apparent connect to any point you're attempting to make or
> refute, as usual.

You wrote
"And you're into the putrid meat thing so, who cares if
they didn't find it under a week later? "

So here they are again:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/0wIt0CHkcXI/m/XJIWJF8lAQAJ
"Putrid meat was quite likely on the menu"

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/mCotqCTMgAk/m/b6YcKnc-BgAJ
Indigenous groups relish(ed) rotted meat

A free meal is not passed up. GO back to film school.

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> They had to hunt.

No they didn't.

> Northern latitudes get colder in winter.

You don't say!

People didn't live in warmer latitudes? They had to
live where it's cold? Wow.

> They need food and shelter.

> Do you expect they chopped holes in ice to get fish or clams?

Ice fishing? Why not?

But we're also talking about the end point of evolution, not
the beginning. You're looking at the finish line, pretending
to be seeing the race.

> Hint - hunters/gatherers

That's circular.

> Yet YOU say they couldn't hunt!

Never said that. But why would they? Modern humans would
prefer to NOT hunt docile animals. Scavenging, even stealing
kills from predators is easier.

I've never hunted wild boar, but I've eaten bacon!

I've eaten turkey..even fed wild turkeys! They make a really
cute "Cooing" sound when they're happy. Officially it's
called a "Purr." Yes, turkeys "Purr."

Anyway, never hunted turkey.

I've fished though. I've dug quahogs.

> By that "logic", how do they reacha stable population
> without growing?

If they're not growing, and they're not shrinking then
they're stable.