Humans Drove Mammoths and Other Megafauna to Extinction

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Researchers have long debated what caused the mass extinction of woolly mammoths and other large animals in several parts of the world toward the end of the Pleistocene epoch. One popular theory posits that climate shifts during the last Ice Age extinguished the megafauna. But studies described today in the journal Science side with the other leading hypothesis, which holds that early humans brought about the end of these beasts.

In the first study, Australian researcher Richard G. Roberts of the University of Melbourne and his colleagues determined that Australia's megafaunal mass extinction event¿which claimed some early kangaroos and other giant marsupials, to name a few¿occurred not 20,000 years ago, as previously thought, but around 46,000 years ago. The team arrived at the new date using both radiometric and "optical" dating methods on sediments from 27 sites across the country that had contained megafauna fossils. This revised timing for the die-off, the researchers note, means that the climate factors that had supposedly done these animals in can no longer be invoked to explain their disappearance. Moreover, the team's finding places the extinction much closer to the arrival of humans to Australia, suggesting that the two events were linked. The new date alone, however, cannot reveal whether human hunting, habitat destruction or some other human factor caused the die-off.

In the second report, John Alroy of the University of California at Santa Barbara describes a computer simulation of the end-Pleistocene megafaunal extinction in North America showing that even low levels of human hunting would have driven the Ice Age behemoths out of existence. Importantly, the simulation, which assumes a slow human population growth rate and low maximum hunting efforts, correctly predicts the fate of 32 out of 41 megafaunal species. These findings, Alroy argues, show that in fact anthropogenic extinction was unavoidable. "The overkill model thus serves as a parable of resource exploitation," he concludes, "providing a clear mechanism for a geologically instantaneous ecological catastrophe that was too gradual to be perceived by the people who unleashed it."

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe