Extinction of the Mammoth

[nick c]

Here is a fascinating article and comment found on the "Society for Interdisciplinary Synthesis" (SIS) website:

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-coal-mine ... earth.html

https://www.sis-group.org.uk/news/2024/ ... coal-mine/

[nick c]

The Woolly Mammoth's extinction has apparently been moved forward in time. They used to date the extinction to about 10K years ago. It is currently thought to have become extinct in the 3rd millennium BC (conventional chronology), which would make the species contemporary with the Old Kingdom of Egypt. However, many sources date the extinction to 10K years ago, and there may have been stragglers in such places as Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean.

However, there is also evidence from a 18th Dynasty New Kingdom tomb (1500 BC - 1290 BC) of a painting of what looks to be a wooly mammoth. The tomb is of an prominent Egyptian who was involved in the ivory trade. Now, certainly wooly mammoth tusks have been used as a source of ivory even into modern times. However, this picture definitely depicts a living animal on a leash along with some kind of nasty creature, maybe a bear? Note that the woolly mammoth was not an African or Egyptian creature, They lived in temperate and sub arctic climates around the world. Sources report that the mammoth was an Arctic Tundra creature. That is logical since that is where their frozen carcasses, skeletons, and tusks are found.

It is questionable that elephants could find enough food inside of the Arctic Circle, since they need vast quantities to survive. Ginenthal in "The Extinction of the Mammoth" (1997) sets the record straight. The plants found in the stomachs and the mouths of recovered frozen carcasses, do not grow inside of the Arctic Circle, the plants are of a sub Arctic or Temperate climate. The plants cannot grow inside of the Arctic Circle, not only because of the cold, but more importantly that they cannot survive in an environment where the Sun does not shine for 6 months of the year (photoperiodicity). And that is why those plants do not grow inside the Arctic Circle today.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said, once you eliminate the impossible, what you are left with no matter how improbable, must be the truth. The answer is simple. There were enormous herds of mammoths that lived and grazed in a sub arctic or temperate environment, and during a cosmic catastrophe which caused a pole shift, they perished with food still in their mouths and their carcasses were transported into the Arctic Circle as the Earth's pole shifted. Since then they have never thawed and have been preserved to today.


http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2011/ ... moths.html

Egyptian Pygmy Wooly Mammoth.JPG

In the attachment I darkened the outline of the creature.

In the article they describe the mammoth as a dwarf or pygmy mammoth. There was a species of pygmy mammoth but they were still rather large animals as they could reach 6 ft tall and weigh in at over a ton, but that qualifies as a dwarf or pygmy by wooly mammoth standards. A large adult male mammoth could reach 13 ft tall and weigh in at 61/2 tons, similar in to an African elephant, The mammoth in the picture is not a baby because young mammoths do not have large curving tusks.

The tip offs that the picture is of a mammoth are the proportionately (to the body) large arcing tusks, the domed head, and the fur on the body. In the picture the brown areas are furry and the white areas are damaged parts of the painting.

As far as the size. It is important to remember that Egyptian artists did not depict people and animals according normal perspective, but rather importance (see the quote below). It is probable that the bear and the mammoth were much larger than depicted as the man for whom the tomb was made is the focus of the picture. He probably did not actually handle either of these creatures on a leash, but rather brought them to Egypt as curiosities, and the picture celebrated his fame for doing so.


from.....THE PRINCIPLES OF EGYPTIAN ART:

The sizes of figures were determined by their importance. The proportions of children did not change; they are just depicted smaller in scale. Servants and animals were usually shown in smaller scale. In order to clearly define the social hierarchy of a situation, figures were drawn to sizes based not on their distance from the painter’s point of view but on relative importance.

So we need to further reduce the date (in conventional chronology) to at least 1200 BC, possibly even later, since it is highly unlikely that this particulr specimen was the last mammoth.

[Open Mind]

the mammoths is a great and important mystery. Basic questions about how a giant animal that needs tonnes of food to live, can live not only in the arctic, but in the artic during an ice age, when its far worse than it is today, which even today can't support it, is the source for much scrambling to maintain a non cataclysmic paradigm. I fear the last century of science has bastardized alot of logical lines of questioning, just to avoid being accused of cataclysmic biblical literalism.

Then there's also the Hippos and hyena's found in a cave in England. The idea they died and were transported in fluvial flows to their final resting spots, fails to explain how they weren't puree'd into dust on route. That's a turbulent blender of force to move them that far. Stretches credulity to the breaking point.

[webolife]

Hey, sorry I've been away so long to comment on these areas (relative to my catastrophic earth history studies since 1975).
Here's a couple of conjectural points to add in or clarify:
1. "Non-equilibrium" dating of objects with C14 ratios suggesting ages of 10K-50K YBP can be accordion-ed down to dates that can be historically correlated in the 5K-7K YBP range. For those unfamiliar, there is good evidence for an atmospheric structure prior to the ice ages (some would say antediluvian) that hindered mixing of C14 from the upper atmospheric layers with the troposphere, leaving us with decaying lifeforms lacking/devoid of the C14 concentrtions expected from "equilibrium" dating models. Equilbrium = Level production of C14 into living systems
2. The re-dating of Egyptian chronologies based on the realization that Aminhotep and Thutmose were names/titles given the to the SAME pharoah(s), when they occupied different ranks/posts (eg.visier vs pharoah) -- especially prominent in the hieroglyphs from the 18th dynasty, which importantly suggested that the Egyptian chronologies were traditionally vastly stretched out from their actual spans. The re-dating brings Egyptian history much more in line with the records from other contemporary cultures.
3. "Polar shift" is often more easily described or explained by a look at the stage of continental drift relative to the geologic era. Prior to Pliocene/Pleistocene fossil records indicate genrally/globally warmer climes. This generalization applies (perhaps surprisingly) to the entire fossil record prior to the so-called ice ages. Looking at continental drift, we can surmise that the geographic locations of the former subcontinents going back in time progressively place the continents into a more equatorial posture. This subtropical/tropical positioning correlateswith the additional observation that mountain ranges of the type we see are a relatively late-coming topography in the story of continental drift. The further back we look, the "flatter" the topography becomes, lending to a more global climate, which goe together nicely with the observqtion of tropical to subtropical flora and fauna at all latitudes of the fossil record (eg. vast coal seams in Antartica, swamp critters on Ellesmere Island)
4. In addition to the observations of #3, conjectures of the speed of continental drift being much more rapid in the past (present "fingernail growth" rates due to the "bulldozing" lift of mountain ranges along leading edges of the moving continents) fit with a realization that mammoths could have been happily eating subtropical flora one hour and getting a very cold mud bath the next.

[Brigit]

webolife says » "Hey, sorry I've been away so long to comment on these areas (relative to my catastrophic earth history studies since 1975)."
"Equilbrium = Level production of C14..."

--Yeah, that is a problem!

It is really nice to see you, webolife. Glad you dropped by!

[Open Mind]

Hey, sorry I've been away so long to comment on these areas (relative to my catastrophic earth history studies since 1975).
Here's a couple of conjectural points to add in or clarify:
1. "Non-equilibrium" dating of objects with C14 ratios suggesting ages of 10K-50K YBP can be accordion-ed down to dates that can be historically correlated in the 5K-7K YBP range. For those unfamiliar, there is good evidence for an atmospheric structure prior to the ice ages (some would say antediluvian) that hindered mixing of C14 from the upper atmospheric layers with the troposphere, leaving us with decaying lifeforms lacking/devoid of the C14 concentrtions expected from "equilibrium" dating models. Equilbrium = Level production of C14 into living systems
2. The re-dating of Egyptian chronologies based on the realization that Aminhotep and Thutmose were names/titles given the to the SAME pharoah(s), when they occupied different ranks/posts (eg.visier vs pharoah) -- especially prominent in the hieroglyphs from the 18th dynasty, which importantly suggested that the Egyptian chronologies were traditionally vastly stretched out from their actual spans. The re-dating brings Egyptian history much more in line with the records from other contemporary cultures.
3. "Polar shift" is often more easily described or explained by a look at the stage of continental drift relative to the geologic era. Prior to Pliocene/Pleistocene fossil records indicate genrally/globally warmer climes. This generalization applies (perhaps surprisingly) to the entire fossil record prior to the so-called ice ages. Looking at continental drift, we can surmise that the geographic locations of the former subcontinents going back in time progressively place the continents into a more equatorial posture. This subtropical/tropical positioning correlateswith the additional observation that mountain ranges of the type we see are a relatively late-coming topography in the story of continental drift. The further back we look, the "flatter" the topography becomes, lending to a more global climate, which goe together nicely with the observqtion of tropical to subtropical flora and fauna at all latitudes of the fossil record (eg. vast coal seams in Antartica, swamp critters on Ellesmere Island)
4. In addition to the observations of #3, conjectures of the speed of continental drift being much more rapid in the past (present "fingernail growth" rates due to the "bulldozing" lift of mountain ranges along leading edges of the moving continents) fit with a realization that mammoths could have been happily eating subtropical flora one hour and getting a very cold mud bath the next.

From #3 with mountains being a geologically more recent manifestation, it seems to support the wild idea of an expanding earth, where global curvature experiences stops and starts of flattening out through expansion, which suggests that when a curve relaxes, its outer surface must 'bunch up'. You go on to suggest a 'bulldozing lift' dynamic from continental spread, but in an expanding paradigm, it seems planetary curvature flattening isn't realistically happening consistantly over the surface, and weakness points separating thicker more resilient parts of the curvature, and thinner parts, are the natural points of ocean spreading, and at the very edge of the relief point, its reasonable to expect the most surface texture 'bunching up' at transition points of thin to thicker crust. Can't prove expansion, but it is an interesting thought exercise perspective switch.