The woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) extinction resulted primarily from rapid and profound environmental changes at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, compounded by pressures from early human hunting.

Scientific research, including recent international studies, reveals a complex interplay between climate-driven habitat loss and anthropogenic impacts that ultimately led to the mammoth’s disappearance.

Climate change at the close of the last Ice Age was the critical driving factor behind the mammoth’s extinction.

As glaciers retreated and global temperatures rose, the mammoth’s extensive tundra-steppe ecosystem—a cold, dry environment dominated by grasses and herbaceous plants—was replaced by more humid conditions favoring forests and wetlands.

This transformation between roughly 12,000 and 10,000 years ago resulted in a marked decline in the availability of the mammoth’s preferred forage.

The tundra steppe's replacement by swampy and forested landscapes reduced the quality and quantity of food, causing sharp contractions in mammoth populations and fragmentation of their habitats across northern Eurasia and North America.

Genetic studies indicate these environmental pressures led to reduced genetic diversity and population bottlenecks, diminishing the species’ resilience and adaptability to further changes .

Human activities contributed additional pressures that compounded climate effects.

Archaeological evidence from Siberia, notably the Berelekh mammoth graveyard, documents that human groups coexisted with mammoths for several centuries during the late Pleistocene.

Radiocarbon dating shows mammoth remains accumulating between approximately 12,400 and 11,800 years ago, coinciding with human presence in those regions.

Tool marks on bones and the use of mammoth ivory for tool production demonstrate that humans hunted or scavenged mammoths.

Although human predation existed alongside environmental threats, it was likely insufficient alone to cause extinction but served as a significant additive factor, especially as populations became fragmented and confined to smaller refugia, such as isolated Arctic islands near Siberia and Alaska .

Importantly, mammoths had endured prior climatic fluctuations over their approximate 300,000-year history, which indicates that while their populations could adapt to various changes, the rapid nature of the postglacial transition was unprecedented.

The speed and extent of habitat transformation, coupled with human hunting, created a synergistic effect accelerating the mammoth’s decline.

This synergy suggests that human impacts on prehistoric ecosystems extended beyond direct species loss to altering ecosystem processes, as large megafauna like mammoths played key roles in nutrient cycling and landscape shaping.

The loss of such species likely caused cascading ecological effects .

In summary, the woolly mammoth’s extinction was principally caused by abrupt and severe environmental changes linked to the end of the last Ice Age.

The resulting habitat loss, food shortages, and population fragmentation were decisive in driving this species to extinction.

Early human hunting contributed to population declines, particularly in already diminished groups isolated on Arctic islands, but these anthropogenic pressures were secondary to climate-induced ecosystem shifts.

The mammoth’s extinction exemplifies how rapid climate change can destabilize megafaunal populations and how human activities can interact with these natural processes to hasten species loss.

This case underscores the importance of considering both environmental and anthropogenic factors in understanding past extinctions and offers lessons for current biodiversity conservation amidst ongoing climate change and human impacts.

The woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius) extinction resulted primarily from rapid and profound environmental changes at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, around 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, compounded by pressures from early human hunting.

Title:

Content: International
2023-03-28 22: 29: 55
Prehistoric meatballs made from woolly mammoth DNA, scientists fear death and dare not eat them.
Share:
How dare you eat woolly mammoth meatballs? Scientists from a meat company in Australia have created “prehistoric meatballs ” from muscle proteins from extinct woolly mammoth remains about 10,000 years ago. Scientists are afraid to eat“ prehistoric meatballs ” because they don ’ t know how the human immune system will react to the proteins of the woolly mammoth. Life.
How to make prehistoric meatballs
After sequencing the mammoth muscle protein, scientists took DNA from the African elephant (the closest relative of the mammoth) to fill in the missing genetic code.
The genes were then sequenced into stem cells from the muscle mother cells of the sheep, from which 20 billion cells were replicated to grow the mammoth meat, which was eventually used to make meatballs.
However, mammoth meatballs are not even available to researchers. Ernst Wolvetang, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Queensland who participated in the study, said, “We haven ’ t seen mammoth muscle protein for thousands of years, and if we eat it, we don ’ t know how our immune system will react ”, or further research can meet regulatory requirements.
He added that the research process for prehistoric meatballs was surprisingly simple and quick, and was completed in a matter of weeks.
Mammoth _ Cultivated Meat Company: Want to show the potential of cell culture meat
Cultivation meat company Vow said the mammoth study was chosen because it symbolizes the loss of biodiversity and the effects of climate change.
The extinction of the woolly mammoth is believed to be due to human hunts and the increase in the temperature of the Earth after the Ice Age.
The company hopes the research will show that cell-grown meat can replace meat from slaughtered animals, and that carbon dioxide emissions from large-scale livestock farming are also linked to global warming.
Privacy Protection Policy
Please read and accept the following privacy policy and disclaimer carefully. By clicking "Accept", you agree to and agree to the privacy policy and disclaimer contained in the am730 website.
LEARN MORE
Acceptance

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

from 300,000 years ago up until 10,000 years ago

When did the wooly mammoth mostly become extinct?

Scientific research, including recent international studies, reveals a complex interplay between climate-driven habitat loss and anthropogenic impacts that ultimately led to the mammoth’s disappearance.

Title:

Content: Cave lions in Europe and mammoths in the United States.
Scientists have told what the Earth would be without Homo sapiens
The researchers say that in general, the planet could be an exciting place, which would be inhabited by representatives of megafauna.
Scientists believe that without humans, the Earth would be a more wild and fertile place, in which giants such as ostrich moa birds with a height of 3.6 meters still lived.
They lived in New Zealand for millions of years, but disappeared 750 years after their land was invaded by man, writes LiveScience.
The vanished giant moas and eagles of Haast, whose wingspan was 2.6 meters or more, are a small example of how human activity has changed the planet.
The survival of such large animals is crucial in thinking about what the Earth would be like without humans, as such giants have a crucial influence on landscapes.
Senior lecturer in zoology at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, Seren Forby, says humans have played a crucial role in the extinction of many large mammals.
Forby led the study, published in the journal Diversity and Distributions.
It said that without humans, the Earth would resemble an ecoregion in East Africa, the Serengeti, teeming with life.
In such a scenario, extinct animals, along with elephants, rhinos and lions, would live throughout Europe.
For example, the African lions (Panthera leo) would still be replaced by cave lions (Panthera spelaea), a larger species that lived in Europe about 12,000 years ago.
At the same time, America would be home to larger relatives of elephants and bears, as well as unique species such as the glyptodon – car-sized armadillos and giant sloths.
“In a world without humans, there would be a lot more different species of large mammals, as well as a much more open habitat, ” says Forby.
Elephants or other species of large animals do not tolerate obstacles in their search for food.
In such cases, the territory acquires a less wooded appearance.
The world would be brighter
During the last Pleistocene Ice Age (2.6 million to 11,700 years ago), the Earth was rich in megafauna.
Much of it went extinct after the end of this ice age or millennia later.
A 2021 study from the journal Nature found that climate change had wiped out woolly mammoths as well as other Arctic megafauna, but humans also put additional pressure on these species by hunting them.
Christopher Doughty, an ecologist at the University of Northern Arizona, modeled how large animals, among other things, affected ecosystems by moving seeds and nutrients during eating and defecating.
The expert found that the movement of elements such as phosphorus, calcium and magnesium, which play a crucial role in life, decreased by almost 90% along with the disappearance of megafauna.
The researcher emphasizes that without human intervention, all the necessary elements would be evenly distributed throughout the landscape.
Thus, the soil would be more fertile and productive.
Agriculture and zoning make land less fertile compared to systems in the wild.
Such increased fertility means that the Earth would be much richer in crops and colors, the planet would definitely be brighter without humans.
Without humans, the climate would be different.
Human induced global warming is known to have raised the average temperature by 1 degree Celsius since the early 20th century.
Consequently, the weather on the planet would be cooler without humanity.
A 2016 study in the journal Nature found that current warming delayed the onset of the ice age by at least 100,000 years.
But this should not have happened for another 50,000 years, so it is unlikely that without humans there would be another ice age on Earth right now.
People are inevitable
Modern humans (Homo sapiens) were not always the only hominins on the planet.
The disappearance of Homo sapiens could open up new perspectives for Neanderthals.
There is no single answer to the question of why the Neanderthals died out about 40 thousand years ago.
There were probably several reasons for their disappearance, and Homo sapiens are the main suspects.
Professor Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London believes that the competition between Neanderthals and humans was one of the reasons for the disappearance of the former.
“If Homo sapiens hadn ’ t come to Europe about 45,000 or 50,000 years ago, I think Neanderthals and their descendants would still have lived on Earth, ” Stringer says.
The expert notes that Neanderthals led a complex life in Europe, they faced climate change, were a small group with low genetic diversity.
“Neanderthals probably were already in distress when modern humans came to their lands, and this factor could be the last, ” the expert notes.
But humans could have influenced the survival of more than just Neanderthals.
At least there is another relative of Homo sapiens who shared land with humans and Neanderthals: the Denisovans.
This line is closer to Neanderthals than to modern humans in terms of genes and appearance.
Judging by a number of studies, people interbred with Denisovans, because modern people continue to find the DNA of Denisovans.
It is assumed that Denisovans had a wider range of habitat than Neanderthals.
They may also have more genetic diversity than Neanderthals.
"Perhaps the Denisovans were even better species for survival than the Neanderthals," Stringer said.
In general, Denisovans and Neanderthals could pave the way similar to H. sapiens, moving from hunting and gathering to the development of agriculture.
"There is no obvious reason why Neanderthals or Denisovans would not have evolved if they had the time to do so," he said.

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

Climate change at the close of the last Ice Age was the critical driving factor behind the mammoth’s extinction.

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What aspects of climate change contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

As glaciers retreated and global temperatures rose, the mammoth’s extensive tundra-steppe ecosystem—a cold, dry environment dominated by grasses and herbaceous plants—was replaced by more humid conditions favoring forests and wetlands.

Title:

Content: Partners news
The cause of the extinction of mammoths
Scientists have found that mammoths died out due to climate change
Photo: Stanislav Krasilnikov / TASS
An international team of researchers found that the cause of the extinction of mammoths in Siberia was primarily a sharp climate change, not human activity.
The article is published in the journal Nature.
Woolly mammoths became extinct only about four thousand years ago.
They were not only the main source of meat of ancient people – the latter made from their bones the basis for dwellings, from their tusks made harpoons and even musical instruments.
Therefore, there is a widespread theory that the main cause of extinction was humans.
Researchers from the Institute of Earth Sciences of St. Petersburg State University together with colleagues from the UK, Denmark, China, Norway and the United States decided to restore the appearance of the tundrosteppe, which was inhabited by mammoths.
To do this, they using the shotgun method — obtaining from a random massive sample of cloned fragments of the original sequence — analyzed the DNA of ancient plants and animals collected from 535 different places in the Arctic, where the mammoth lived, over 20 years.
They also analyzed the DNA of more than 1,500 modern plants and animals.
Researchers were able to map the distribution of populations of mammoths and other representatives of the megafauna of the tundrosteppe.
They saw that over time their populations and genetic diversity became smaller and smaller — making survival increasingly difficult.
With the end of the Pleistocene about 12 thousand years ago and the accompanying retreat of glaciers and the formation of rivers, lakes and marshes, vegetation has decreased in volume, and it has become insufficient to maintain the previous level of populations.
As the climate warms, trees and swamp plants have taken the place of former mammoth pastures.
“We have shown that climate change, in particular rainfall, has directly led to changes in vegetation.
According to our models, people did not have any influence on them [mammoths], ” said the first author of the work, a researcher at the University of Cambridge Yuchen Wang.
However, the extinction of mammoths was influenced not only by the warming of the climate itself.
“His speed was the last nail in the lid of the coffin – they (megafauna tundrosteppe – approx.
“Tape.ru ”) could not adapt quickly enough, when the landscape radically changed and food was not enough, ” said the head of the scientific group, Professor of Copenhagen and Cambridge universities Eske Willerslev.
Only what is important to you is in the “Tape of the Day ” in Telegram.
Subscribe now

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

restricted habitat
pastures becoming swampy
shrank grassland

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What aspects of climate change contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

This transformation between roughly 12,000 and 10,000 years ago resulted in a marked decline in the availability of the mammoth’s preferred forage.

Title:

Content: In one of the most common versions of the extinction of giant mamutes, it is claimed that this was caused by the hunting of ancient people.
Our ancestors literally ate most of the animals.
But recent studies say that this is not the case and people have become far from the main reason for the disappearance of mammoths.
Hunger caused by climate change is the real killer.
Searching for gold, but found mammoths: an incredible story with the Yukon
Drawing of a mammoth on the wall of the cave of Arcy-sur-Cure, France / Photo Wikipedia
The Hungry Death of Great Animals
It would seem that mammoths existed for millions of years and survived several ice ages.
That is, climate change did not affect them critically.
But as soon as they encountered humans, they began to die out.
Finally, we were able to prove that the problem was not only climate change, but also the speed of these changes.
This was the last nail in the coffin – the mammoths could not adapt quickly enough when the landscape changed dramatically and food became scarce.
- says the author of the study Eske Willerslev, a professor at the University of Cambridge and director of the Center for Geogenetics of the Lundbeck Foundation at the University of Copenhagen.
The team, led by Prof. Willerslev, sequenced the DNA of plant, animal, and their fossilized excrement, coprolites.
The selection of these samples lasted about 20 years and allowed us to fully understand why the majestic animals died out.
After the end of the last cooling, the glaciers began to melt.
The environment quickly became quite humid, leading to a chain change in flora.
Typical mamut habitats and pastures became increasingly swampy and vegetation changed accordingly.
As a result, there is simply no food left typical for animals.
From birth to death: scientists have fully investigated the life path of the mammoth
Giants did not have time to adapt to rapid changes, so the total number of mammoths was constantly declining.
Because of this, isolated and partially isolated animal populations arose, which already caused little genetic diversity.
It is clear that all this did not positively affect the chances of survival.
Scientists say climate change is critical.
When such changes destroyed mammoths and probably another megafauna.
Today, we live in a time when the average temperature on the planet is rising again, so we need to take this “harsh lesson ” seriously.

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

food sources disappearing
restricted habitat
shrank grassland

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

from 300,000 years ago up until 10,000 years ago

The tundra steppe's replacement by swampy and forested landscapes reduced the quality and quantity of food, causing sharp contractions in mammoth populations and fragmentation of their habitats across northern Eurasia and North America.

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

food sources disappearing
restricted habitat
pastures becoming swampy
shrank grassland

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

Genetic studies indicate these environmental pressures led to reduced genetic diversity and population bottlenecks, diminishing the species’ resilience and adaptability to further changes .

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

Human activities contributed additional pressures that compounded climate effects.

Title:

Content: What we know as the Ice Age, the last long period during which global temperatures dropped dramatically and the polar ice expanded to cover much of the earth, is more properly called the Last Glacial Period (as there have been multiple ice ages).

Advertisement

It started around 115,000 years ago and lasted for over 100,000 years. In that time many animal lineages rose and fell. In particular, it is known that many large mammal species went extinct during the transition from the Ice Age to the present interglacial period (from around 50,000 to 5,000 years ago).

These extinctions are thought to have occurred due to a combination of a quickly changing climate, changing vegetation and increases in human hunting. These megafauna included some truly huge and charismatic animals, from the iconic woolly mammoth to huge cave bears, to giant sloths standing nearly 12 feet tall! In this list you will find out about some extraordinary (now extinct) animals that lived during the age of ice and snow.

10 now-extinct animals from the Ice Age

1. Neanderthals

Our own species, Homo sapiens, emerged about 300,000 years ago, so persisted through the last ice age. We were not the only ancient humans around, however. Surviving the frigid temperatures along with us were our evolutionary cousins, the Neanderthals. This species of hominid emerged at a similar time to us but went extinct around 40,000 years ago – during the Ice Age.

Theories as to why they went extinct vary, from outcompetion from or diseases introduced by Homo sapiens to assimilation into the human gene pool. However, recent theories suggest that the primary driver might have been climate change. It is thought that despite behavioural and biological adaptations to the cold they simply struggled to survive the frigid conditions and lack of available food. How we survived and they didn’t is an interesting question.

2. Woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius)

Probably the most well-known of all Ice Age animals is the woolly mammoth (in part thanks to the film character Manny!). Woolly mammoths lived from about 300,000 years ago up until about 10,000 years ago. The appearance of these elephant-sized animals is perhaps the best known of any prehistoric creature, due to the many frozen specimens that have been found, with soft tissue preserved.

With their thick coat of hair, large fat reserves, and specially adapted 'antifreeze' blood they were very well adapted to the cold. They were also very important to the survival of ancient humans throughout the Ice Age; their coats, meat and bones provided valuable sources of warmth, food and building materials for homo sapiens and Neanderthals alike.

3. Giant ground sloth (Megatherium americanum)

These beasts were very different to the sloths we know and love today! Standing at a whopping 3.7m when up on hind legs and weighing up to four tonnes (as opposed to the 5kg of a modern sloth), they were truly colossal.

With its ability to walk on its hind legs, it was in fact the largest bipedal mammal of all time. They lived in the woodlands and grasslands of South America, and fossils have been found dating back from around 400,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago. Despite its huge fearsome claws, it was actually a vegetarian, feeding on leaves and grasses.

4. Cave bears (Ursus spelaeus)

Slightly more modest in size, though still pretty massive, was the cave bear. Weighing in at between 400 and 1,000kg, the largest cave bears were comparable in size to modern-day polar bears. They could be found across Europe and Asia, including in the UK.

More like this

We have a very good idea of what they looked like, as in 2020 a perfectly preserved specimen was found in the Russian Arctic, its remains revealed by melting permafrost. Even its teeth and nose were intact.

The specimen was dated to between 22,000 and 39,500 years old, living towards the end of the time of the cave bears, who are thought to have gone extinct 24,000 years ago. It is thought that hunting by humans, as well as competition with them over caves, may have contributed to their disappearance.

5. Dire wolf (Canis dirus)

That’s right, dire wolves are not just fictional pets from Game of Thrones, they were real animals. However, despite the name, and a lot of physical similarities, recent genetic analysis has revealed that they were not actually very closely related to grey wolves at all and were relatively closer to African jackals.

These canids were seemingly a common feature of the American Late Pleistocene landscape (approx. 250,000 to 13,000 years ago), roaming the grasslands, plains, and woods and preying on megafauna including giant ground sloths. There is almost an overabundance of fossil data on this species, with over 4,000 individuals excavated from California’s La Brea tar pits alone.

6. Sabre Tooth Cat (Smilodon genus)

The La Brea tar pits have also been responsible for giving us insights about another iconic Ice Age predator – the sabre tooth cat. More than 3,000 fossilised individuals have been pulled from the ooze, and their teeth in particular have been a valuable source of information about their diets and lifestyle.

Scientists have been able to examine the wear patterns on their iconic gnashers to determine that rather than bringing down very large prey like bison on the open plains, as was previously thought, they most likely fed primarily on smaller forest-dwelling animals like tapirs and deer. They were ambush predators similar to many modern-day big cats.

7. Irish elk (Megaloceros giganteus)

As you can probably guess from the scientific name, this species of deer was BIG. They stood at over 1.8m tall at shoulder height and had the largest antlers of any known deer, extinct or living. These colossal antlers must have been something to behold, spanning up to a whopping 3.5 metres.

Despite the name, this elk was not restricted to Ireland, but some of the most well-preserved fossil specimens have been found there. The most recent remains come from western Russia and have been dated to approximately 7,700 years ago – seemingly another victim of the megafaunal extinction event that occurred around the end of the Ice Age.

8. Giant Beaver (Castoroides genus)

Continuing the theme of larger versions of modern-day animals is the giant beaver, with an average length of about 1.8m. Its teeth were large to match, with some reaching up to 15cm, about the size of a hot dog.

There is no definitive evidence that they built dams as modern beavers do, but it is plausible that these immense incisors could have been used for woodcutting. What we do know is that they had smaller, smoother brains than modern-day beavers, which could indicate that they had less behavioural and social complexity.

9. Megalania (Varanus priscus)

So far this list has focused on mega-mammals, but what about other Ice Age species? Understandably it was hard for cold-blooded species like reptiles to survive frozen ice age temperatures across much of the globe, but in fact, not all of the world was icy, and some places remained habitable.

One of these places was Australia, where giant reptiles ruled. These included huge land-living crocodiles, massive snakes and Megalania – a truly monstrous relative of the Komodo dragon. This monitor lizard reached an estimated length of 7 metres and was a key land predator, at the very top of the food chain.

It has been suggested that the loss of its mega-reptile predators has left the Australian ecosystem out of kilter, allowing introduced mammals to reign unchecked.

10. Diprotodon (Diprotodon genus)

Another feature of the Australian Ice Age landscape was not a reptile, but a huge marsupial mammal – in fact, the largest marsupial to have ever lived. Diprotodon measured an estimated 4m head to tail tip and weighed as much as 3,500 kg, dwarfing the current largest marsupial, the red kangaroo, which checks in at a mere 2.7m and 90kg.

Their closest modern relatives are actually much smaller: wombats and koalas. It also has the distinction of being the only known seasonally migrating marsupial, trekking very far in search of food and watering holes.

Advertisement

Main image: Artist's impression of a sabre tooth cat. © Daniel Eskridge/Getty

Authors

Leoma WilliamsAnimal behavior researcher and science writer

Leoma Williams is currently studying for a PhD at the University of Manchester, and writes periodically for both the website and print magazine

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Archaeological evidence from Siberia, notably the Berelekh mammoth graveyard, documents that human groups coexisted with mammoths for several centuries during the late Pleistocene.

Title:

Content:
This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

proofread

Siberia's 'mammoth graveyard' reveals 800-year human interactions with woolly beasts

Woolly mammoths are evocative of a bygone era, when Earth was gripped within an Ice Age. Current knowledge places early mammoth ancestors in the Pliocene (2.58–5.33 million years ago, Ma) before their populations expanded in the Pleistocene (2.58 Ma–11,700 years ago, kyr). However, as climate changed, their numbers dwindled to isolated populations in modern Siberia and Alaska, until their last dated survival 4 kyr ago.

In the East Siberian Arctic (>70 °N), there is not only evidence of significant woolly mammoth populations, but also how humans interacted with them, the focus of new research in Quaternary Science Reviews.

Along the Berelekh River, Russia, a 'mammoth graveyard' can be found. Here, thousands of disarticulated bones, representing a minimum of 156 individual mammoths, found alongside an indicate the close proximity of these two communities, forming the Berelekh geoarchaeological complex.

Dr. Vladimir Pitulko, of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and colleagues aimed to assess the relationship between the 'mammoth graveyard' and the archaeological site through a re-examination of stratigraphic and paleogeographic data obtained in 2009, with new fieldwork focused on the left riverbanks where have readily yielded from their home in the sediment and appeared on the water's edge. Alongside them are remains of Pleistocene hare, Arctic fox and wolves, as well as soot and charcoal from hearths and worked mammoth tusks (one being an unfinished throwing spear).

The researchers suggest humans created these bone accumulations as a byproduct of the production of mammoth ivory technology, while hares may have been targeted for fur to produce winter clothing.

Notably, evidence of blowfly pupae activity on cavities in skulls and bones is indicative that the mammoth carcasses were added to the 'graveyard' de-fleshed. Indeed, there appears to be evidence of sorting of the bones, with only the most valuable transported to Berelekh from the area in which the mammoth was killed, leaving behind parts such as spinal columns, carpal ('hand') and tarsal ('foot') bones.

There are three radiocarbon dated peaks in woolly mammoth accumulation at 11.8, 12.2 and 12.4 kyr ago, which fall within known human settlement of the area (11.2–12.4 kyr ago) during the Bølling-Allerød deglacial, when the warmed and pollen evidence suggests the region became more arid.

Fluctuations in the abundance of mammoths in the 'graveyard' suggest human settlement of the area may also have changed through time (frequent occupation but not permanent), which the researchers attribute to on the floodplain permitting suitability for erecting campsites.

Radiocarbon dating of mammoth remains identifies their presence here pre-dating human settlement (beginning ~12.5 kyr ago), but also shows that humans remained in the area (until ~11.2 kyr ago) after mass mammoth remains accumulation declined (~11.8 kyr ago).

Given this, four possible causes are suggested by the scientists to explain such a significant mass accumulation of bones: 1) mass death by natural causes or human, 2) repeated group deaths in the same location, likely due to human predation, 3) concentration of remains by , such as river action, or 4) solely derived from human predation or scavenging from deceased carcasses.

However, the latter is considered to be the most likely to produce useful tools from ivory tusks, as well as meat to feed the community, as there is no evidence on the bones for a cause of mass death, radiocarbon ages do not cluster into multiple phases for recurrent death deposits and stream flows were unlikely to reach sufficient velocities to transport such heavy bones.

These findings are concurrent with mammoth remains at the Yana Paleolithic site, also in Siberia. Here, estimates suggest the 'graveyard' increased by 1–2 mammoths per year rather than a mass death event, a figure Dr. Pitulko and colleagues conclude could be similar or even higher for Berelekh.

This research is significant as it alters the previously-held belief that there was a lag of 50–80 years between mammoth bone accumulation from natural processes (such as deposition in flood channels) and , instead now defining a close relationship between the two over 700–800 years. Sadly, now that human-mammoth relationship has continued as ivory hunters have looted the site beyond further study.

More information: Vladimir V. Pitulko et al, From the Berelekh 'mammoth graveyard' to Berelekh geo-archaeological complex: Paleoenvironment, site formation processes, and human-mammoth relationships, Quaternary Science Reviews (2024). DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2024.108692

Journal information: Quaternary Science Reviews

© 2024 Science X Network

Citation: Siberia's 'mammoth graveyard' reveals 800-year human interactions with woolly beasts (2024, June 10) retrieved 10 June 2024 from https://phys.org/news/2024-06-siberia-mammoth-graveyard-reveals-year.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Explore further

Huge trove of mammoth skeletons found in Mexico

0 shares

Feedback to editors

from 300,000 years ago up until 10,000 years ago

Radiocarbon dating shows mammoth remains accumulating between approximately 12,400 and 11,800 years ago, coinciding with human presence in those regions.

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

from 300,000 years ago up until 10,000 years ago

Tool marks on bones and the use of mammoth ivory for tool production demonstrate that humans hunted or scavenged mammoths.

Title:

Content: How would the earth be different if modern man did not exist?
The Libyan Observatory Newspaper
LATEST NEWS
The human footprint can be seen across the planet today, from the towering skyscrapers that define our modern capitals to the pyramids and other ancient relics from our past.
Human activity also represents the sprawling open fields of agriculture, the roads that connect everything together.
But what would the world look like if humans didn ’ t exist before?
Some scientists paint a picture of a pure wilderness and an abundance of species, from fashionable to uncommon.
Trevor Worthy, a paleontologist and assistant professor at Flinders University in Australia, told Live Science: “I think it would be a much more vegetative place with a wealth of animals, of great size, spread across all continents except Antarctica. ”
A world without modern humans may also mean that our extinct human relatives, such as Neanderthals, will still exist.
And, of course, they would have changed the scene as well.
Humans shaped the world at the expense of many species, from the dodo (Raphus cucullatus) to the Tasmanian tiger (Thylacinus cynocephalus), which pushed us to extinction through activities such as hunting and habitat destruction.
The rate of extinction on Earth today is more than 100 times what it would have been without humans, according to the most conservative estimates, and has not been higher since the Cretaceous and Paleogene (K-Pg) extinction event that wiped out about 80% of animal species, including non-floating dinosaurs, 66 million years ago.
In other words, humans collided with the planet like an asteroid, and the dust continues to settle as wildlife continues to deteriorate.
“My great-grandfather was able to see herds of thousands of parrots in the landscape, my grandfather saw a hundred flocks, my father saw little and I ’ m lucky if I could see two in the woods, ” said Worthy.
The human-driven decline of nature suggests that Earth would be a more wild place without us, with some lost giants, such as moas, standing out the most.
This group of ostrich-like birds, some of which extend up to 11.8 feet (3.6 m) in New Zealand, evolved over millions of years.
Within 200 years of humans reaching their land 750 years ago, all nine species of moa have disappeared, along with at least 25 other vertebrate species, including the giant Haast eagles (Hieraaetus moorei) that hunted moa, according to Worthy.
The giant moa and the Haast vultures are recent examples of large animals whose eventual extinction is linked to human activities, such as unsustainable hunting and the introduction of invasive species into new habitats.
They are also indicators of what our relationship with large animals might be like elsewhere.
The survival of large animals is crucial to speculate on the existence of a land without humans, as these monsters have a significant impact on the landscape.
– Serengeti System
Soren Furby, senior lecturer in zoology at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, believes that humans played a key role in the disappearance of many large mammals thousands of years ago.
He led a 2015 study, published in the journal Diversity and Distributions, which suggested that without humans, the Earth would be much like the contemporary Serengeti system, an African ecosystem teeming with life.
In this scenario, extinct animals similar to those found in Serengeti today – including elephants, rhinos and lions – would live across Europe.
For example, instead of African lions (Panthera leo), there are still cave lions (Panthera spelaea), a slightly larger species that lived in Europe until about 12,000 years ago.
Meanwhile, the Americas will be home to relatives of huge elephants and bears, along with unique species, according to Forby.
"In a world without humans, there will be much more diversity than large mammals, and if you see a greater diversity than large mammals, you tend to see a more open habitat," Forby said.
Elephants and other large animals are well identified when finding food, and will not tolerate unnecessary obstacles.
“If you ’ re old enough, it might be easier to knock on a tree and eat fresh leaves on top of it, ” Forby said.
But also, if there are a large number of large mammals, there is a tendency to have fewer wooded plants in the first place, he said.
Large animals, such as elephants, are known as megafauna.
During the last ice age (2.6 million to 11,700 years ago), the world was rich in megafauna, but most of them died at the end of the ice age, or in the thousands of years since.
For example, about 38 genera of large animals went extinct in North America at the end of the last ice age, according to a 2020 study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Over the past century, scientists have debated whether natural climate changes or human activities, such as overfishing, are the main reason for the decline of these large animals.
A 2021 study published in Nature concluded that climate change ultimately wiped out the woolly mammoths (Mammuthus primigenius) and other Arctic megafauna that survived the end of the ice age.
However, humans hunted mammoths.
Scientists who believe humans may have been the main factor in their extinction, such as Forby, argue that mammoths survived climate change before humans appeared and would probably survive to this day had it not been for the added pressure humans placed on them.
Christopher Dottie, an associate professor and ecologist at Northern Arizona University, is modeling how past and present large animals transport seeds and nutrients through eating and defecating.
His work indicates that the transport of elements such as phosphorus, calcium and magnesium, which are important for life, was reduced by more than 90% through the extinction of large animals.
Dotti hypothesizes that without humans, elements would be evenly distributed across the landscape.
This means more fertile soil, which makes ecosystems more productive.
Humans tend to group elements together through practices such as farming and creating fenced areas, so that these areas become less fertile over time compared to terrestrial systems, according to Dauty.
Greater fertility means that plants can devote their resources to more fruit and flowers, so that the world looks more vibrant and feeds more animals.
While it is difficult to determine how humans and megafauna have influenced climate change for thousands of years with evidence obscured over time, it is much easier to judge our impact on Earth ’ s climate today.
Through global warming, caused by activities such as burning fossil fuels, humans have raised the global average temperature by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degrees Celsius) since the beginning of the 20th century.
Therefore, the Earth would have been at least colder without us.
A 2016 study published in the journal Nature concluded that human-induced warming would delay the next ice age by at least 100,000 years.
And it wasn't due for another 50,000 years, though, even without human delay, so it's unlikely that Earth would be in the middle of another ice age today if we didn't exist.
Humans are inevitable.
Scientists aren ’ t sure why Neanderthals went extinct about 40,000 years ago, but because they mate with Homo sapiens, parts of their DNA are found in some of us.
There were probably multiple causes of Neanderthal death, but we're a prime suspect.
Chris Stringer, a professor and research leader in human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, believes competition for resources was a factor in the disappearance of Neanderthals.
“If we weren ’ t around, if we hadn ’ t come to Europe 45,000 or 50,000 years ago, I think they ’ d probably stay here, ” he told Live Science.
According to Stringer, Neanderthals lived a complex life in Europe, similar to modern humans, but they had difficulty adapting to climate change and were relatively few in number, with low genetic diversity.
This is bad news for any species, as it is a sign of inbreeding and ill health.
Stringer said Neanderthals were probably “already in trouble, and when modern humans got there too, I think that ’ s probably what pushed them to the edge. ”
Scientists are still learning about at least one human lineage that lived around the same time as modern humans and Neanderthals: Denisovans.
This lineage appears to be closer to Neanderthals than modern humans in genes and appearance, but it can be distinguished from Neanderthals with very large molars.
There is evidence of DNA in current humans living in places like New Guinea in Oceania — a finding that suggests Denisovans were in Southeast Asia interacting with ancestors of modern humans who later settled in the East, according to a 2012 study published in the journal Science.
These Denisovan interactions, along with fossil evidence, suggest that they had a larger geographic range than Neanderthals, encompassing a variety of environments and, therefore, arguably, were more adaptive than Neanderthals.
DNA evidence also suggests that Denisovans may have had greater genetic diversity than Neanderthals, according to Stringer.
Stringer said: “There ’ s no reason why Neanderthals or Denisovans shouldn ’ t do it eventually, given enough time. ”
He added that they may have overcome any potential intellectual deficiency, which is not clear to them, through evolution.
So maybe the world won ’ t look completely different after all.
Likewise, they could have made the same mistakes we have made since then.
So, global warming could have been here, but with Neanderthals or Denisovans leading it, not us.
"Who knows?"
Source: Live Science

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

Although human predation existed alongside environmental threats, it was likely insufficient alone to cause extinction but served as a significant additive factor, especially as populations became fragmented and confined to smaller refugia, such as isolated Arctic islands near Siberia and Alaska .

Title:

Content: Woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius)

The most famous of the 10 mammoth species known to have existed is undoubtedly the woolly mammoth. Standing at around the same size as today’s African elephants, this magnificent animal roamed the northern hemisphere for roughly half a million years, becoming extinct by around 2000 BC.

Advertisement

The reasons for the woolly mammoth’s demise are multifaceted. As the climate warmed at the end of the last Ice Age, and forests spread across the northern hemisphere, the grassland habitats in which the animal thrived were drastically reduced. This, combined with hunting pressures from humans, meant the woolly mammoth population ended up being restricted to just a couple of islands in the Arctic Ocean near Siberia and Alaska.

Some scientists hope to bring the woolly mammoth back from extinction, but with African and Asian elephant populations still facing a huge range of threats, many believe that our focus should be on preserving those animals instead.

Dodo (Raphus cucullatus)

For a large bird species that only became extinct relatively recently, we know surprisingly little about the dodo and its behaviours. In fact, there is just one near- complete dodo skeleton with bones from one bird, and there is only one specimen that contains soft tissue.

What we do know is that the dodo was restricted to Mauritius, an island in the Indian Ocean off the eastern coast of Madagascar and part of the Mascarene Archipelago, and was a relative to doves and pigeons. It’s thought that natural selection caused the animal to evolve into a flightless bird, with the species no longer needing to fly on an island with no predators.

However, when humans – and the animals they brought with them – first came to Mauritius in the 16th century, the dodo became extremely vulnerable. As well as being hunted for meat, it suffered from habitat loss and the predation of its eggs, resulting in its extinction by c1680.

Thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus)

Also known as the Tasmanian tiger or Tasmanian wolf, the thylacine was a carnivorous mammal originally found in Australia and New Guinea. Despite being similar in appearance to the domestic dog, it was actually a marsupial – a group of mammals that also includes kangaroos, koalas, wombats and opossums – and had a pouch.

Once widespread, the thylacine became extinct on the Australian mainland no less than 2,000 years ago, although the reasons for this are unknown. The species then became restricted to the island of Tasmania, off the south coast of Victoria, with between 2,000–4,000 individuals remaining when the British arrived in the early 19th century.

Eventually, the thylacine was persecuted as it was deemed a threat to livestock. The last known captive individual died from exposure at a zoo in Hobart in 1936 after being accidentally left out overnight. It’s thought that the last wild thylacines died in the 1960s, but that hasn’t stopped persistent rumours over the species’ continued survival.

Great auk (Pinguinus impennis)

Despite being similar in colouration and shape and bearing the genus name Pinguinus, the great auk wasn’t a relative of penguins, but was instead a member of the same family as puffins and guillemots.

Once a relatively common species in the North Atlantic, it bred on remote rocky islands such as Funk Island off the coast of Newfoundland, which was described by one 18th- century sailor as being “entirely covered with those fowls, so close that a man could not put his foot between them.”

However, exploration of the North Atlantic seas by European sailors spelled danger for the flightless seabird, with overharvesting of its eggs and adults for meat, feathers and body parts dramatically reducing the population. Attempts were made to protect the great auk, but that only increased its worth to collectors.

Sadly, the last breeding pair were killed and their single egg accidentally crushed by fishermen on Eldey Island, Iceland, on 3 July 1844.

Xerces butterfly (Glaucopsyche xerces)

Named after the Persian kings Xerxes I and Xerxes II (whose names are sometimes spelled ‘Xerces’ in France), this diminutive blue butterfly species lived among the coastal sand dunes of the San Francisco Peninsula, where its caterpillar preferred to feed on a single plant species.

However, urban development resulted in the loss of the plant, which could not survive in disturbed soil, and thus the loss of the Xerces blue in the 1940s – the first example of a butterfly becoming extinct due to human activity in North America.

Later, the Xerces Society, a non-profit conservation organisation established in 1971, was named in memory of the lost invertebrate.

For a while, there was uncertainty as to whether the Xerces blue was a distinct species or a subspecies of another blue butterfly. However, a scientific paper published in 2021 examined the DNA of a museum specimen collected in 1928 and proved that it was indeed a distinct species.

Passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius)

The passenger pigeon was one of the most abundant pigeon species on the planet. Native to North America, it was called jahgowa by the Seneca Tribe, which translates to “big bread”, as it was a source of food by the Seneca and the rest of the Haudenosaunee people. Despite this, the hunting of the species was carefully regulated by rules set by each tribe.

However, after colonisation by the Europeans, hunting of the passenger pigeon increased and gradually became more industrial and commercialised. As the population declined, the species then became vulnerable to further pressures such as habitat loss and predation by other animals.

The last living passenger pigeon was a female named Martha, who was kept at Cincinnati Zoo in Ohio. She died on 1 September 1914 – one of the few times we have known the absolute date of a species’ extinction. Her death contributed to the creation of the US Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which requires permits to hunt some migratory bird species.

Golden toad (Incilius periglenes)

So-named for the brilliant yellow-orange colouration of the male (the female was black with yellow and red patterning), the golden toad has become a poster child for extinctions connected to the climate crisis.

Found in the Monteverde Cloud Forest of Costa Rica, the amphibian spent most of the year underground. It only emerged for a few days each April, with males fighting with each other around pools of rainwater in order to mate with females.

In 1987, roughly 1,500 golden toads were observed. However, the following year, only 10 toads were found, and in 1989, just one male. That one male was the last golden
toad ever seen, and the species was officially declared extinct in 2004.

While the exact cause of extinction is unknown, the climate crisis – combined with habitat loss and an infectious disease called chytridiomycosis – are all thought to have played a part.

Baiji (Lipotes vexillifer)

The baiji was a freshwater dolphin that lived in the Yangtze River in China, the third-longest river in the world. Although still listed as ‘Critically Endangered’ on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List, having last been assessed in 2017, the species is considered extinct by conservationists. In fact, both the last confirmed sighting of a wild individual and the death of the last captive individual occurred in 2002.

The Yangtze River is also home to the Yangtze finless porpoise, the only freshwater porpoise in the world. Like the baiji, its existence is currently threatened by overfishing, shipping traffic and noise pollution.

However, the 2017 suspension of sand mining in Dongting Lake – a flood basin of the Yangtze in China’s Hunan province – has seen the finless porpoise return to areas that it had previously been avoiding.

Pinta Island giant tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii or Chelonoidis abingdonii)

While there is debate about whether the giant tortoises of the Galápagos Islands are subspecies of the same species or a completely different species altogether, one thing is certain: Lonesome George was the last of his kind.

George was a Pinta Island tortoise, a species (or subspecies) that was already thought to have been extinct until he was discovered alone on the island that gave George and his former companions their collective name.

There were attempts to find other Pinta Island tortoises, and to mate him with closely related females, but to no avail. He died in 2012 of natural causes when he was around 100 years old.

Curiously, scientists believe it might be possible to bring back the Pinta Island tortoise, or at least a closely related version. Researchers have discovered hybrid tortoises with Pinta Island tortoise genes on nearby Isabela Island, with their Pinta Island ancestors having been moved there by whalers and pirates.

Megan Shersby is a naturalist, science writer and communicator. She was previously editorial and digital coordinator at BBC Wildlife Magazine

Advertisement

This content first appeared in the November 2023 issue of BBC History Revealed

Authors

Megan ShersbyNaturalist, writer and content creator
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

According to most recent research, what cause of wooly mammoth extinction is not as important as previously believed?

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

Where were the last areas of wooly mammoth habitat?

islands in the Arctic Ocean near Siberia and Alaska

Importantly, mammoths had endured prior climatic fluctuations over their approximate 300,000-year history, which indicates that while their populations could adapt to various changes, the rapid nature of the postglacial transition was unprecedented.

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

from 300,000 years ago up until 10,000 years ago

The speed and extent of habitat transformation, coupled with human hunting, created a synergistic effect accelerating the mammoth’s decline.

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

This synergy suggests that human impacts on prehistoric ecosystems extended beyond direct species loss to altering ecosystem processes, as large megafauna like mammoths played key roles in nutrient cycling and landscape shaping.

The loss of such species likely caused cascading ecological effects .

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

In summary, the woolly mammoth’s extinction was principally caused by abrupt and severe environmental changes linked to the end of the last Ice Age.

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did climate change affect mammoth' habitat?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What aspects of climate change contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

The resulting habitat loss, food shortages, and population fragmentation were decisive in driving this species to extinction.

Early human hunting contributed to population declines, particularly in already diminished groups isolated on Arctic islands, but these anthropogenic pressures were secondary to climate-induced ecosystem shifts.

According to most recent research, what cause of wooly mammoth extinction is not as important as previously believed?

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

The mammoth’s extinction exemplifies how rapid climate change can destabilize megafaunal populations and how human activities can interact with these natural processes to hasten species loss.

According to most recent research, what is the primary cause of wooly mammoth extinction?

How did humans contribute to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What are the causes of the wooly mammoth extinction?

What aspects of climate change contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?

This case underscores the importance of considering both environmental and anthropogenic factors in understanding past extinctions and offers lessons for current biodiversity conservation amidst ongoing climate change and human impacts.

What environmental factors contributed to the wooly mammoth extinction?


Greenland is recognized as home to some of the world’s largest untapped rare earth mineral deposits.

The most prominent site is Kvanefjeld (Kuannersuit) in southern Greenland, which alone hosts over 1 billion tonnes of mineral resources containing valuable rare earth elements such as neodymium and dysprosium, essential for technologies like electric vehicles and wind turbines.

The estimated value of these deposits runs into the tens of billions of US dollars, though precise valuation fluctuates with rare earth commodity prices.

Extraction in Greenland faces substantial challenges.

Technically, the presence of uranium and thorium at deposits like Kvanefjeld complicates mineral separation, adding processing complexity and costs.

Environmentally, Greenland’s sensitive Arctic ecosystems and local opposition to uranium mining impose further constraints.

Politically, Greenland’s parliament has banned uranium mining outright, effectively halting projects that produce uranium as a by-product.

Logistically, the Arctic climate, remote locations, and limited infrastructure present significant hurdles to large-scale mining operations.

Despite these challenges, several companies and countries have shown interest.

Australian-based Greenland Minerals Limited (GML) leads development at Kvanefjeld, with major investment from China’s Shenghe Resources, though the uranium ban has stalled progress.

The Tanbreez project, with backing from Australian and US investors, targets the Kringlerne deposit, notable for lower uranium content, potentially easing regulatory concerns.

Canadian firm NEO Rare Metals is active at the Surfertog project, seeking to integrate Greenlandic rare earths into European supply chains via magnet production facilities in Estonia.

Greenland’s restrictions on uranium present a key obstacle to Chinese ambitions in this sector.

In summary, Greenland offers a large, potentially lucrative rare earth resource base with significant global strategic value.

Greenland is recognized as home to some of the world’s largest untapped rare earth mineral deposits.

Title:

Content: Greenland ban on uranium mining prevents Chinese companies from expanding rare earths
November 13, 2021 17: 33
Eastern Network Television
More News Clips
As part of its Arctic strategy, China has supported the mining of rare earths in Greenland by Australia ’ s Greenland Minerals, a Chinese-owned subsidiary of Shenghe Resources, through the Belt and Road Initiative.
However, Greenland ’ s parliament passed a new law banning uranium mining and halting the development of rare earth deposits at Kuannersuit, the southern tip of Greenland.
China's rare earth mining accounts for more than 70% of the global mining volume, and China's rare earth magnetic processing volume accounts for 90% of the global processing volume.
Sungho Resources, one of the world ’ s largest producers of rare earth materials, acquired a 12.5% stake in Greenland Minerals in 2016, making it the largest shareholder in the latter.
Guanast in southern Greenland is home to the world ’ s second-largest reserves of rare earths and uranium after China, accounting for 10% of the world ’ s rare earth production.
Since former US President Donald Trump proposed the idea of buying Greenland in 2019, the rich rare earth resources of Guanaster in southern Greenland have attracted attention.
Greenland ’ s local parliament was elected early on April 6. In the end, the pro-environmental left-wing Inuit Ataqatigiit party won the election, and its leader, Mute Egede, became the new prime minister.
He declared that he would do everything in his power to stop the Guanast Rare Earth Mine project.
In response, Greenland ’ s parliament has passed a new bill aimed at banning exploration of uranium deposits, as well as other radioactive deposits such as thorium, and halting the development of rare earth deposits at the southern tip of Greenland.

What does Greenland's Tanbreez mine contain?

over half of rare earth resources
19 million tons of rare earth oxides

The most prominent site is Kvanefjeld (Kuannersuit) in southern Greenland, which alone hosts over 1 billion tonnes of mineral resources containing valuable rare earth elements such as neodymium and dysprosium, essential for technologies like electric vehicles and wind turbines.

The estimated value of these deposits runs into the tens of billions of US dollars, though precise valuation fluctuates with rare earth commodity prices.

Title:

Content: Democracy Dies in Darkness

Sweden’s new rare-earth metal find likely big deal for Western consumers

Sweden has discovered what is billed as Europe’s biggest deposit of rare earth minerals — a crucial component for electronics and clean energy needs — giving a significant boost to the continent’s hunt for trade security.

LKAB, the Swedish state-owned mining company, announced Thursday that it found deposits of more than 1 million tons of rare earth metals in the country’s far northern Lapland province.

Products ranging from smartphones to electric vehicles and even military jets require these rare earth elements which are not currently mined in Europe, the company said. Much of the world’s supply comes from China, which has used them as a geopolitical tool.

LKAB President Jan Mostrom said in a statement that the find could be a “significant building block” for Europe, which faces a “supply problem.” But the company also said that it would take at least a decade before rare earth minerals from the find hit market.

Here’s what to know about this major discovery and what it means for Western consumers.

What are rare earth minerals and where are they found?

Rare earths are not actually that rare. They are a group of 17 chemical elements, composed of scandium, yttrium and lanthanides, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

But mining rare earth minerals is complex, as supply is not concentrated in one location. Mining them also impacts the environment, since their ores can be laced with radioactive materials such as thorium and uranium. Refining the minerals can also generate toxic and radioactive waste, which poses environmental and health risks if not properly disposed of.

China hosts a majority of the world’s reserve of rare earth minerals and is the world’s leading supplier of the product. (The United States was the largest producer several decades ago.) While Brazil and Vietnam have significant reserves, they lag far behind in mining it.

China hints it will choke off U.S. ‘rare earths’ access. But it’s not that easy.

Access to the minerals became an issue during the Trump administration’s trade war with China. Beijing threatened to cut off exports to the United States in 2019 to retaliate against Trump’s measures, pushing prices up, prompting Trump to sign an executive order increasing domestic production. The Biden administration has also pushed for investments in that supply chain.

Other countries have also moved to reduce their reliance on China. Australia is spending millions to develop a rare earths mine and processing plant in its Northern Territory.

What are rare earth minerals used for?

Multiple household goods, including televisions, computers, smartphones, and lighting use rare earth minerals. Yttrium and europium, for instance, light up iPhone displays and allow them to vibrate.

They are also key elements of U.S.-made defense systems, including night vision technology, jets and armored vehicle alloys.

Rare earth minerals are critical for the global clean energy transition, as they are components of the magnets used in electric vehicles and wind turbines. Though recently, some companies have developed motors for electric vehicles that do not require rare earths.

What does Sweden’s discovery mean for the climate?

LKAB’s find was welcomed in Europe, which has faced energy challenges amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The European Union also has a goal of becoming climate neutral by 2050.

In September, a senior E.U. official said that Europe’s climate ambitions were at risk without reliable supply chains. “Take China, with its quasi-monopoly on rare earths and permanent magnets and prices rising by 50-90% in the past year alone,” wrote Thierry Breton, an E.U. commissioner. “Supply of raw materials has become a real geopolitical tool.”

The European Raw Material Alliance notes that while the European Union has a massive electric-motor manufacturing sector, “it is almost fully import dependent” when it came to rare earth permanent magnets.

Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Ebba Busch said Thursday that Europe’s independence from Russia and China will begin with this mine.

Political leadership in the continent, she said, “must give the industry the conditions to switch to green and fossil-free production.”

Extraction in Greenland faces substantial challenges.

Title:

Content: AEX Gold aims to invest in Greenland through its new gold mining project

Traditionally known for its fishing and hunting industries, Greenland is fast becoming the next significant area of exploration for mining businesses. The largest island in the world, Greenland remains one of the least populated areas worldwide with 56,000 citizens, and it has sought to attract local and foreign investment across a number of new projects.

The island’s current position remains complex. A sovereign government, it is positioned under the Danish kingdom who provide grants to support its local economy. To further its independence and bolster its economy to create increased tax revenue, Greenland has embraced the exploration of new mining projects as well as utilising all the renewable and local resources it has to offer.

Rich in rare-earth minerals, gold, iron-ore, uranium, in addition to hydro and wind power, Greenland’s favourable legal framework and robust infrastructure, particularly in South Greenland, have factored into AEX Gold’s vision to explore through its Greenlandic subsidiary, Nalunaq Gold Mine, situated in the Nanortalik Gold belt, Southern Greenland.

Acquiring an existing Exploitation Licence in 2015, the company is at the advanced exploration stage of its Nalunaq property, including the previously operating Nalunaq Gold Mine.   It also holds Exploration Licences at the early exploration stage Vagar and Tartoq properties.

Hosting a high-grade NI 43-101 compliant gold resource estimate of 263k oz (inferred) at 18.7 g/t and a number of regional exploration targets, AEX Gold has undertaken three years of exploration at Nalunaq, developing an updated geological model and an extension of the main vein strike length up to 1km.

“The government is very supportive, so it's about having a sound exploration strategy. We are very much focused on that, as we have an asset package that we think we can grow and create a lot of value,” explains Chief Executive Officer, Eldur Olafsson.

Originating from Iceland, Olafsson has gained extensive experience of the local geography. Focusing on mining projects in Greenland since 2012, he has analysed the country’s potential against the backdrop of environmental responsibilities and associated legalities with partner SRK Exploration Services. Through this process, the business has turned its attentions solely towards gold exploration.

“The known gold deposits in Greenland are in an area where the climate is mild and, given our experience, logistics are relatively easy. Gold opportunities are easier to finance than larger base metals projects and our perception was that we could fully fund projects like these through our support here in Iceland and in the UK market,” he explains.

“We started looking for opportunities in the South Greenland Gold Province and became aware of this historically producing mine. We were attracted by the extremely high-grade potential of the resource and the fact that the project had significant infrastructure in place.  We believed there were significant opportunities to materially improve the mining operation that had been run by previous operators.”

Extensive exploration

Throughout the exploration of high-grade resources, Olafsson is proud to remain hands on and is regularly seen on site. By undertaking various technical studies, AEX has gained the ability to comprehensively analyse similar types of assets with potential.  After acquiring the Nalunaq project in 2015 the company has continued to expand its portfolio. Whilst Nalunaq encompasses the required licence to explore and recommence production at the old gold mine, they own the larger Vagar exploration licence, situated a few kilometres to the west of the mine, where AEX believes the ground is prospective for the discovery of further Nalunaq-type deposits.  In addition, they also own the early stage Tartoq Project to the North West of Nalunaq. Each licence area is at a different stage of exploration which supports AEX’s aim of having a continuous pipeline of projects being brought into production.

“We have a total of 690sqkm of licences in south Greenland and we're the only active listed gold company in Greenland. Previous operators undertook very little forward-looking exploration once the mine was in production.  It's a very under-explored region so we intend to recommence production within the next two years at Nalunaq in order to support our exploration in the larger licences in the next 5-10 years,” he says.

“Iceland is a short distance from Greenland, so logistically it’s good for us. Additionally, in Iceland you need to be really self-sufficient, and the same can be said for those in Greenland. We don't have as many people or the multitude of services that you would have in other countries which encourages you to think creatively,” he adds.

Consequently, the company has sought to maximise efficiency whilst keeping costs down, yet all the time adding increased value across its operations.

By acquiring a high-grade deposit, less material is needed to be broken down, lowering AEX Gold’s carbon footprint. Everything taken out of the mine from underground will be processed and shipped out to a different processing facility, or processed on site adhering to the current environmental guidelines. Historically, electricity has been generated through the use of traditional fossil fuels, something which is steadily changing throughout Greenland.

“We're using oil to put in generators or to power mobile mining equipment which is high cost both in monetary and environmental terms.   Greenland currently has five hydroelectric power plants and they are looking at building more in south Greenland,” says Olafsson.

Seeing huge opportunities, he explains that the use of hydropower and wind power would complement AEX Gold’s operations, not only in its existing exploration activities, but with the implementation of an electric mining fleet with electricity being obtained from local renewable resources.

Providing local opportunities

In the future, it will be essential for Greenland to gain further revenue to unlock opportunities and services for its citizens. This is something Olafsson believes that AEX Gold can help with due to its knowledge of Iceland as it has many similarities to Greenland and has been through a period of comparable change.

“Greenland is in a similar position to Iceland not so long ago. Iceland didn't have a high education rate and wasn’t wealthy compared to other European countries, with economic and cultural activities that were very insular. We are now at the highest level of all parameters in terms of education, wealth per family, etc. and this has stemmed from improving the breadth of schooling and creating opportunities for people to grow and develop outside of the traditional areas of agriculture and fisheries.

“Our aim is that the majority of employees will be Greenlandic, but it will take time. Greenland has a large number of people competing for jobs in the fisheries and tourist centres. It is important that Greenlanders are able to access programmes that will allow them to consider other career options. In Iceland we are importing a lot of people to work in different industries in our country because we don't have enough people. This might be the case for Greenlanders as well if the anticipated growth of the Mining Sector materialises but we want to ensure that, where possible, we use local people first before looking elsewhere.

“The Greenlandic Government provides good support for those who seek education.  There are an increasing number of Greenlandic students attending Danish Universities so that now, for example, we are seeing well qualified Greenlandic geologists available for employment.  There has been a Mining School at Sisimiut for the last 10 years which provides local qualified labour who can take advantage of opportunities in the Mining sector.  You need skilled labour and as we own a mine that was in production for 10 years previously, there is a fair bit of local knowledge that we have been able to use during our exploration work and which we are keen to utilise going forward,” he says.

“We are creating revenue for local communities, creating highly skilled jobs, and are providing benefits where local communities can live better lives and grow as individuals. We need to create opportunities for young people.”

Additionally, by working with local businesses as well as those who have been operating in Greenland for some time, AEX has made a conscious effort to hire companies which can support its growth. AEX have therefore acquired a longstanding relationship with Cartwright Drilling, due to the company’s extensive experience in Greenland and subsequent knowledge of the island’s government systems, processes and practices.

Planning to mine high-grade resources using significant infrastructure already in place, AEX Gold holds extensive licences managed by an experienced team. Previous operations produced between 50,000 to 100,000 ounces a year at 15.4 grams/ton produced and this has provided a benchmark for the company, who will utilise this cash flow to explore the wider region in the long-term.

“We have a five-year plan where we want to get into production at Nalunaq and use the cash generated to fund exploration in the wider district.   We envisage investing a significant amount in exploration assets to provide a portfolio of different deposits that we can bring into production. We are creating a company that has a long-term mission in Greenland to build up local know how to support our aim of ramping up to very profitable production across a number of projects,” notes Olafsson.

“It will create a dramatic effect on the local community and hopefully be a springboard for unlocking much larger potential in Greenland. There are plenty of deposits that have been found, but you have to be able to develop them. You can only do that that with support and cooperation from the local people who believe in your vision.”

Share
Share
Author
Executives
Eldur Olafsson

Technically, the presence of uranium and thorium at deposits like Kvanefjeld complicates mineral separation, adding processing complexity and costs.

Environmentally, Greenland’s sensitive Arctic ecosystems and local opposition to uranium mining impose further constraints.

Politically, Greenland’s parliament has banned uranium mining outright, effectively halting projects that produce uranium as a by-product.

Logistically, the Arctic climate, remote locations, and limited infrastructure present significant hurdles to large-scale mining operations.

Despite these challenges, several companies and countries have shown interest.

Australian-based Greenland Minerals Limited (GML) leads development at Kvanefjeld, with major investment from China’s Shenghe Resources, though the uranium ban has stalled progress.

What countries are invested in Greenland Minerals corp?

What is one of the global key REE manufacturers?

The Tanbreez project, with backing from Australian and US investors, targets the Kringlerne deposit, notable for lower uranium content, potentially easing regulatory concerns.

What countries are invested in Greenland Minerals corp?

Canadian firm NEO Rare Metals is active at the Surfertog project, seeking to integrate Greenlandic rare earths into European supply chains via magnet production facilities in Estonia.

Title:

Content: A Canadian company has been granted a license to mine rare metals in Greenland.
© AP Photo / David Goldman Greenland ice melt August 3, 2017
Follow us via
Toronto ’ s New Performance Materials, one of the few rare earth metal processors outside China, has obtained an exploration license in Greenland from Hudson Resources in Vancouver (Canada).
Washington - Sputnik.
“Through a special-purpose entity, NEO plans to explore and develop the Surfertog project to further diversify its global sources of rare earth ore and expand the supply chains that feed the company ’ s rare earth ore separation facility in Estonia, ” it said in a statement.
NEO CEO Constantine Karianopoulos told the New York Times that his goal was to reduce the company ’ s exposure to volatile global crude prices.
NEO buys semi-processed raw materials from Russia, the United States and Australia.
"Collects Rare Minerals"...
China enters the world of "space mining" with the launch of the first robot...
A picture.
The Surftog Carbonatite complex contains mineral deposits rich in neodymium and praseodymium, which are essential components of the rare earth permanent magnet used in electric vehicles, wind turbines, high-efficiency electric motors and pumps that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
NEO also plans to build a new permanent magnet manufacturing plant in Estonia to supply European manufacturers of electric and hybrid vehicles, wind turbines, and energy-efficient electric motors and pumps, the statement said.
News Ticker
0.
To participate in the discussion
Sign in or Register
loader
Conversations
Заголовок открываемого материала

Greenland’s restrictions on uranium present a key obstacle to Chinese ambitions in this sector.

Title:

Content: The government of Greenland, which is located in the Arctic, said on Monday it had revoked the license of a Chinese mining company to mine an iron ore deposit near the capital, Nuuk.
The move has dealt a blow to efforts by Chinese companies to gain a foothold in the resource-rich Arctic region.
China ’ s General Nice took control of the Isua mine in 2015, replacing bankrupt London Mining.
Junan became the first Chinese company to acquire mining rights in Greenland.
Greenland is an autonomous region of Denmark and is rich in minerals.
As a result of the warming climate, waterways have been opened, allowing the resources of the Arctic Island to be developed and utilized.
The Greenland government pointed out that the mine was idle and Junan did not pay the agreed guarantee and therefore withdrew its license.
Once Junan returns the license, Greenland will re-offer it to interested companies.
At present, the government of Greenland has asked Junan to return all the geological data, pay the remaining 1.5 million Danish kroner (about $226,000) of the deposit, and clean up the mine.
The London mine, which was granted mining rights in 2013, initially planned to employ 2,000 Chinese workers to mine, with a goal of supplying about 15 million tonnes of iron ore to China each year.
Greenland banned uranium mining this year, blocking mining in the Kuannersuit region, one of the world ’ s largest rare earth mines and partly owned by a Chinese company.
Junan tried to buy an abandoned naval base in Greenland from Denmark in 2016, but sources told Reuters at the time that the Danish authorities had rejected the proposal for security reasons.
# Greenland # Junan # Mining # China # Mining

In summary, Greenland offers a large, potentially lucrative rare earth resource base with significant global strategic value.

What does Greenland's Tanbreez mine contain?

30% of oxides are highly sought after heavy rare earth metals