That is far from a tragedy. Aside from the fact that 'how little of the animal appears to have been used' is the exact reason we all have the benefit of this discovery, one should realize this extremely rare find is in no way indicative of how early hominids utilized the mammoth population they preyed upon. I'm not sure if you've experienced current Arctic weather, but feel free to compare it to any refrigeration techniques of say, the 19th century, and then consider that at the time of the kill the world was a colder place. It is not unrealistic to assume that roaming hunter-gatherers would find it more efficient to simply store the meat of a literally gigantic kill at the exact site of the kill; harvesting what they needed, when they needed it. If you can assume that, it's not a far leap to assume that those who made this particular kill were unfortunately deprived the opportunity to fully harvest it.

I'm sure if you were around back then, there would be a zero probability such a 'tragedy' could ever occur. By the way, super interested in all of your current acts of altruism that might directly or indirectly combat the innumerable current 'tragedies' levied by humanity on any other species. I'll donate $1 USD in your username to a charity of your choice for every one you feel compelled to list. To deprive a cause you care so deeply about an influx of capital, I dare say, would be a real tragedy.

Dang, this simple observation about ancient hunting practices sure has stirred up some vitriol. How does a 40,000 year dead hunter create an emotional bond like this? That's a more interesting question.

If you believe your observation about one discovery of the remains of one ancient hunt is an observation of ancient hunting practices in general, you really need to look into the importance of sample size. If you believe any response here to your observation was anything close to cruel, how fair do you really believe your observation of those dead hunters is?

Regardless of how long someone has been dead, or how remote they may be to you, slandering them is not something you should do, especially on such a misinformed basis. To label their acts of survival a tragedy is incorrect, it's not an opinion.

> That's it.

What? Do you have a source for that?

In the article? The bones showed spear damage, jaw damage consistent with removing the tongue, and part of one tusk removed. No other 'butcher marks' were mentioned.

So? The fact that they're not mentioned in the article in no way indicates that the meat wasn't eaten. If anything, it's to be assumed by default.

The article mentions that generally, but not speaking to this particular kill, these big game animals were hunted as sources of raw materials for manufacturing (hunting) weapons, clothing, tools as well as for food.

Really? They mentioned the tongue why then?

"Elephant hunters in Africa, for example, often target the base of the trunk to cut arteries, causing the animal to bleed to death. The mammoth also had injuries to its jaw that suggest the tongue was cut out."

As a way to bleed it out.

I think that's the wrong interpretation by quite a ways. No hunter cut a tongue out to injure an animal so it would die (the purpose of the trunk thrusts). Nobody gets close enough to cut a tongue out without the animal being dead already.

An animal can fall and not die for many hours; the elephant might be incapacitated but not be dead.

Because to a modern, american reader it might be not normal to assume that the tongue is eaten?

Of course its eaten! That is the sole butcher mark mentioned in the article. Thus my original comment.