For decades, the discovery of a stone spearhead alongside the bones of macrocephalians (such as mammoths, mastodons, and gomphoteles) has been regarded as a monumental milestone in archaeology. This evidence is often cited to support the theory that the Clovis people, America’s earliest well-documented culture, were mega-game hunters who contributed to the extinction of these great beasts approximately 13,000 years ago. A new study challenges these conclusions, suggesting they have not been substantiated and that the evidence portrays a markedly different narrative.

“There are currently 15 well-documented Late Pleistocene regions across North America where Clovis points associated with macrofauna remains have been found,” stated Metin Ellen from Kent State University and co-researchers.

“Archaeologists typically assert that these areas provide evidence that Clovis people hunted these colorful ancient animals, often citing this to argue that humans played a role in the extinction of these large mammals.”

“However, the hypothesis that Clovis people actively hunted these species has not been rigorously investigated, leaving open the possibility that they were primarily scavengers—an idea that could clarify the association between artifacts and proboscidean remains at certain locations.”

In their study, researchers thoroughly reviewed all 15 sites where Clovis stone tools were discovered alongside fossils of mammoths, mastodons, and gomphoteles.

The findings revealed that none of the sites provided definitive proof against scavenging practices, suggesting that archaeologists have often overlooked this possibility.

This issue relates to a phenomenon known as equifinality, where different processes can produce similar traces.

Broken spearheads, butchered carcasses, and cut bones may result from directly killing an animal or processing one that was found dead.

Interestingly, no Clovis point or fragment has ever been discovered embedded in a long skull, which would serve as clear evidence of hunting, akin to findings at some of the largest sites in Eurasia where spear tips remain lodged in ancient animal bones.

A 2024 isotopic analysis of the Clovis-era infant known as the “Anzick Child” from Montana revealed that the mother’s diet positioned her at the apex of the food chain, similar to extinct hypercarnivorous cats, suggesting she consumed large quantities of mammoth meat.

Dr. Ellen and his co-authors contend, however, that this finding is not biologically relevant for humans, as they cannot safely consume such high protein levels.

A more plausible explanation may be that the mother’s diet included maggots sourced from decaying carcasses, which studies indicate contain high levels of nitrogen.

The researchers do not dispute the possibility that Clovis people hunted mammoths; rather, they argue that current evidence cannot conclusively differentiate between hunting and scavenging at individual sites. Thus, the narrative that Clovis mega-fauna hunters led to the extinction of these Ice Age giants is not supported by robust evidence.

“We currently cannot discern archaeological evidence of hunting versus scavenging, so it remains uncertain whether the quantity of Clovis proboscidean remains reflects a hunting event,” said Dr. Ellen.

“While it is likely that Clovis gatherers hunted mammoths, it would be unusual if they were, unlike other historical human populations, exclusively hunters without engaging in scavenging,” added Dr. David Meltzer of Southern Methodist University.

“Scavenging may also clarify the high δ15N values noted for Anzick calves, potentially attributable to the consumption of maggots rather than mammoth meat,” he added.

“If predation and archaeological equivalence prevent a definitive conclusion about proboscidean killing at Clovis sites, then the theory of proboscidean overkill is too weak to support,” Dr. Ellen concluded.

“Despite long-held beliefs among some archaeologists and scientists, there is currently no conclusive evidence supporting the role of humans in the extinction of Late Pleistocene proboscidians in North America.”

For more details, refer to the study published on July 1st in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.

_____

Metin I. Ellen et al. Did the Clovis foragers hunt large animals, scavenge their carrion, or both? And can we distinguish between the two? Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports published on July 1, 2026. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2026.105896