Paleoindians coexisted with mammoths, and hunted them until (for reasons still unknown) these gigantic hairy elephant-looking creatures died out some 10,000 years ago. Mammoths managed to survive a bit longer in the Wrangel Island on the north coast of Northeastern Siberia, very close to Bering Strait (see map) until around 3,700 years ago (Source) 800 years after the great pyramid of Cheops was built in Egypt. And these Wrangel creatures are said to be the last mammoths on earht.
Ingram and "elephants" in the 1560s
In a previous post mentioned the account of David Ingram, who said he had seen elephants while he walked all the way from Mexico to Nova Scotia, Canada, as a marooned sailor in the 1560s, and wondered if what he saw was a group of surviving mammoths, creatures unknown to Ingram, but elephant-like.
What do we know about the interactions of humans and mammoths in the Americas? Could they have survived until the sixteenth century?
Mound-builder and Elephants or Mammoths
While reading about mounds and mound-builders, I came across some interesting images in old, late 1800s publications, depicting an elephant or mammoth-like creature. Below are two images from that period, depicting objects that were discovered inside mounds in North America.
The first report was published in 1883, in Animal Carvings from Mounds of the Mississippi Valley, by Henry W. Henshaw. It has some interesting text about a mound shaped like an elephant! See the image below.
Elephant Mound, Grand County, Wisconsin. Fig. 27 in Henshaw's book
The author is skeptical that the mound actually represents a mammoth, I will quote him in full:
"THE "ELEPHANT" MOUND.
By far the most important of the animal mounds, from the nature of the deductions it has given rise to, is the so-called "Elephant Mound," of Wisconsin.
By its discovery and description the interesting question was raised as to the contemporaneousness of the Mound-Builder and the mastodon, an interest which is likely to be further enhanced by the more recent bringing to light in Iowa of two pipes carved in the semblance of the same animal, as well as a tablet showing two figures asserted by some archæologists to have been intended for the same animal.
Although both the mound and pipes have been referred in turn to the peccary, the tapir, and the armadillo, it is safe to exclude these animals from consideration. It is indeed perhaps more likely that the ancient inhabitants of the Upper Mississippi Valley were autoptically acquainted with the mastodon than with either of the above-named animals, owing to their southern habitat.
Referring to the possibility that the mastodon was known to the Mound-Builders, it is impossible to fix with any degree of precision the time of its disappearance from among living animals. Mastodon bones have been exhumed from peat beds in this country at a depth which, so far as is proved by the rate of deposition, implies that the animal may have been alive within five hundred years. The extinction of the mastodon, geologically speaking, was certainly a very recent event, and, as an antiquity of upwards of a thousand or more years has been assigned to some of the mounds, it is entirely within the possibilities that this animal was living at the time these were thrown up, granting even that the time of their erection has been overestimated. It must be admitted, therefore, that there are no inherent absurdities in the belief that the Mound-Builders were acquainted with the mastodon. Granting that they may have been acquainted with the animal, the question arises, what proof is there that they actually were? The answer to this question made by certain archæologists is—the Elephant Mound, of Wisconsin.
Recalling the fact that among the animal mounds many nondescript shapes occur which cannot be identified at all, and as many others which have been called after the animals they appear to most nearly resemble, carry out their peculiarities only in the most vague and [Pg 154] general way, it is a little difficult to understand the confidence with which this effigy has been asserted to represent the mastodon; for the mound (a copy of which as figured in the Smithsonian Annual Report for 1872 is here given) can by no means be said to closely represent the shape, proportions, and peculiarities of the animal whose name it bears. In fact, it is true of this, as of so many other of the effigies, the identity of which must be guessed, that the resemblance is of the most vague and general kind, the figure simulating the elephant no more closely than any one of a score or more mounds in Wisconsin, except in one important particular, viz, the head has a prolongation or snout-like appendage, which is its chief, in fact its only real, elephantine character. If this appendage is too long for the snout of any other known animal, it is certainly too short for the trunk of a mastodon. Still, so far as this one character goes, it is doubtless true that it is more suggestive of the mastodon than of any other animal. No hint is afforded of tusks, ears, or tail, and were it not for the snout the animal effigy might readily be called a bear, it nearly resembling in its general make-up many of the so-called bear mounds figured by Squier and Davis from this same county in Wisconsin. The latter, too, are of the same gigantic size and proportions.
If it can safely be assumed that an animal effigy without tusks, without ears, and without a tail was really intended to represent a mastodon, it would be stretching imagination but a step farther to call all the large-bodied, heavy-limbed animal effigies hitherto named bears, mastodons, attributing the lack of trunks, as well as ears, tusks, and tails, to inattention to slight details on the part of the mound artist.
It is true that one bit of good, positive proof is worth many of a negative character. But here the one positive resemblance, the trunk of the supposed elephant, falls far short of an exact imitation, and, as the other features necessary to a good likeness of a mastodon are wholly wanting, is not this an instance where the negative proof should be held sufficient to largely outweigh the positive?"
The Elephant Pipes
The same author mentions "pipes": "As regards likeness to the mastodon, the pipes before alluded to, copies of which as given in Barber's articles on Mound Pipes in American Naturalist for April, 1882, Figs. 17 and 18, are here presented, while not entirely above criticism, are much nearer what they have been supposed to be than the mound just mentioned." See the image below.
Elephant pipes from Iowa. Figs. 28 & 29 in Henshaw's book
Henshaw points out that neither pipe has tusks, and ivory tusks of mammoths would have been noticed by the natives, who used it for many different purposes. They also lack tails. He also notes that the origin of the pipes is suspicious:
"As the manner of discovery of such relics always forms an important part of their history, the following account of the pipes as communicated to Mr. Barber by Mr. W. H. Pratt, president of the Davenport Academy (American Naturalist for April, 1882, pp. 275, 276), is here subjoined:
The first elephant pipe, which we obtained (Fig. 17) a little more than a year ago, was found some six years before by an illiterate German farmer named Peter Mare, while planting corn on a farm in the mound region, Louisa County, Iowa. He did not care whether it was elephant or kangaroo; to him it was a curious 'Indian stone,' and nothing more, and he kept it and smoked it. In 1878 he removed to Kansas, and when he left he gave the pipe to his brother-in-law, a farm laborer, who also smoked it. Mr. Gass happened to hear of it, as he is always inquiring about such things, hunted up the man and borrowed the pipe to take photographs and casts from it. He could not buy it. The man said his brother-in-law gave it to him and as it was a curious thing—he wanted to keep it. We were, however, unfortunate, or fortunate, [Pg 157]enough to break it; that spoiled it for him and that was his chance to make some money out of it. He could have claimed any amount, and we would, as in duty bound, have raised it for him, but he was satisfied with three or four dollars. During the first week in April, this month, Rev. Ad. Blumer, another German Lutheran minister, now of Genesee, Illinois, having formerly resided in Louisa County, went down there in company with Mr. Gass to open a few mounds, Mr. Blumer being well acquainted there. They carefully explored ten of them, and found nothing but ashes and decayed bones in any, except one. In that one was a layer of red, hard-burned clay, about five feet across and thirteen inches in thickness at the center, which rested upon a bed of ashes one foot in depth in the middle, the ashes resting upon the natural undisturbed clay. In the ashes, near the bottom of the layer, they found a part of a broken carved stone pipe, representing some bird; a very small beautifully formed copper 'axe,' and this last elephant pipe (Fig. 18). This pipe was first discovered by Mr. Blumer, and by him, at our earnest solicitation, turned over to the Academy.
It will be seen from the above that the same gentleman was instrumental in bringing to light the two specimens constituting the present supply of elephant pipes."
Another Account about the Elephant Pipes
The book "The mound builders; their work and relics" by Stephen D. Peet, published in 1892 shows another image of the "elephant" pipe of Fig. 29, it can be seen as Fig. 15 on page 13. and the story of its discovery is given, as follows; notice that Peed does not doubt that the pipes are genuine: "In the Davenport Academy there are two pipes made in imitation of the elephant or mastodon. One of these pipes is said to have been taken out from the depths of a mound in Louisa County, Iowa. A German clergyman, Rev. A. Blumer, having first discovered it, handed it to Rev. J. E. Gass, his companion in exploration. It is unreasonable to doubt the genuineness of this find, even if the re markable discoveries which were made by
the latter gentleman have been discredited. A second elephant pipe (Fig. 13), which had been discovered in a corn-field by a German farmer by the name of Myers, after wards came into the hands of Mr. Gass."
On page 46 he provides more information: (highlight is mine):
"The third discovery is the one the most relied upon. This discovery was also made by the Rev. Mr. Gass, in the spring of 1880, several years after the discovery of the tablets [more on the tablets below]. Mr. Gass was accompanied by Rev. Mr. Blcomer. A group of ten mounds, arranged in irregular rows, was situated along the bluffs overlooking the Mississippi bottoms west of Muscatine Slough [in Iowa, see Google map]. The first mound opened proved to be a sacrificial or cremation mound, situated on the extreme edge of a prominent bluff, having ravines on both sides. It was a flat cone, thirty feet in diameter, elevation three feet. Near the surface was a layer of hard clay, eighteen inches thick; below this a layer of burned red clay, as hard as brick, one foot thick; under this a bed of ashes, thirteen inches deep. In the ashes were found a portion of a carved stone pipe, bird form, by Mr. H. Haas; a very small copper axe by Mr. Gass ; a carved stone pipe, entire, representing an elephant, which, Mr, Bloomer says, "was first discovered by myself." The other mounds of the group were explored, and contained
ashes and bones, but no relics. Mr. Gass makes no report of finding the elephant pipe, but leaves that to Mr. Bloomer. During
the same year he discovered, in the mounds in Mercer County, Illinois, several Mound-builders pipes one representing a lizard, one a turtle, another a snake coiled around an upright cylinder and covered with some very thin metallic coating. Mounds on
the Illlinois side, near Moline, and Copper Creek and Pine Creek, had previously yielded to Mr. Gass carved stone pipes, one of
them representing a porcupine, anothera howling wolf. The pipes were composed of some dark-colored slate or variety of talc, thus showing that the Mound-builders of the region were in the habit of imitating the animals which they saw, making effigies of them on their pipes."
The pipe shown in Henshaw's Fig. 28 is reproduced here too, as Fig. 17 on page 41, it is the one discovered by Myers in a corn field. Peet points out (p. 47) that the pipes lack tusks because they would be difficult to carve, and if carved, they would have broken off easily.
Peet and the Elephant Mound
Peet also mentions the elephant mound in Chapter III, with the same image posted further up. He escribes how the "Elephant Mound" was discovered, and surveyed by Jared Warner in 1874, accompanied by J.C. Orr and J.C. Scott. It was located near Wyalusing, close to the Mississippi River. It was Warner who drew the image shown further up. Peet was not convinced that it was actually an elephant, probably a bear (see page 42): "'The head is large, and the proportion of the whole so symmetrical that the mound well deserves the name. The mound was in a shallow valley between two sandy ridges, and was only about eight feet above high water.' There are many mounds in this section of country in the shape of birds, bears, deer and foxes. We would say that the effigy of the bear, which is very common here, and which was the totem of the clan formerly dwelling here, has exactly the same shape as the so-called elephant, but is not so large and lacks the proboscis. The projection at the nose called the proboscis is not really one, but is the result of the washing of the soil. It was a mere prolongation of the head, had no curve, did not even reach so far as the feet, and can be called a proboscis only by a stretch of imagination."
The Davenport Tablets
Interestingly, Peet mentions that Gass also unearthed tablets with inscriptions on them, dug from mounds! These, Peet deems to be fake, and I agree with him. See the images below (p. 44-45), which transcribe the "text" found on the tablets:
Rev. Gass explored some mounds near the city of Davenport, Iowa (map), on the bank of the Mississippi River in 1874. In Mound number three, he discovered the tablets. The mound contained two graves, and was excavated in 1877. Gass, accompanied by seven men, two of which were students dug and close to the bottom, they found two tablets, with inscriptions.
This finding is surely a fraud, not one committed by Gass, but by another person (or more than one person), who planted them in the mound for him to find. The tablets deserve their own post, which I have published here on April 23rd, 2026).
Mammoths and Paleoindian Rock Art
We do know now that mammoths were depicted in rock art, and they have been discovered in different parts of America by serious researchers. For instance, in Bluff, Utah, US, according to Malotki and Wallace, 2011, there are mammoth images that are ~11 to 13,000 years old.
Purdy et al., 2009 reported an engraving depicting a mammoth, on mammoth ivory, 13 kya, found at Vero Beach, Florida. This is the first, and only one found in America (in Europe, there are plenty of them), and the oldest artistic object in America. It is pictured below (Source)
Further afield, in the Amazon region of Serranía de la Lindosa, Colombia, in South America, Iriarte et al., 2022 have identified rock paintings that depict megafaunal animals, including proboscideans (Gomphotheriidae) and dated to 12.6 kya. See it below:
(a) Gomphothere painting at La Lindosa: 1. proboscis; 2. fingers; 3. flared ears?; 4. moderately domed head. (b) Artistic reconstruction (Mike Keesey). Fig. 4 in Iriarte et al., 2022
Holly Oak Mammoth Pendant: Far too recent
This controversial object was discovered in 1864 by Hilborne T. Cresson, who worked at Harvard's Peabody Museum as an assistant in the archaeology section and W.L. Suralt. Cresson came forward in 1889 announcing that he found it near Holly Oak railway depot in Delaware, US, in a layer of peat. It is incised on the shell of a marine snail (Busycon sinistrum), and depicts a woolly mammoth.
It was considered to be a fake, as it looked very similar to an engraving discovered in France a few years earlier. However, it was reassesed in 1976 in an article published in Science (making its cover, see image below) authored by John C. Kraft and Ronald A. Thomas, they found that the "carvings appear to be aged in asimilar manner to the remainder of the shell."
This meant that it wasn't an old shell recently incised as a hoax! The authors even suggested it could be as old as 40,000 years based on the age of the sediments at Holly Oak.
But the controversy lingers on. A few years later, Griffin et al., 1988 dated the shell to 1,500 years BP, and discarded it as a hoax because the authors stated that there were no mammoths alive in America at that time.
Contemporary Mammoths
This leads me to ask: Isn't the 1500-year-old pendant proof that someone saw and depicted a mammoth at that time? And is proof of its existence? Isn't science built on evidence like this? or, is it based on preconceptions like "mammoths died 4000 years ago and that is final".
This brings me back to David Ingram, who claimed seeing "elephants" in the 1560s. So, why couldn't there have been a pocket of extant mammoths in Delaware in 500 AD? They were seen and depicted as an incised image on a shell.
There are some Native American myths about mammoth-like creatures (Jandác̃ek, 2018) like the "Stiff-Legged Bear - Katci-to-wαck'w... it has skin, which is Pachyderm, resistant to arrows. It is believed by many experts, e.g. Strong (1934:81) to be based on the mammoth and the mastodon" Citing: Strong, W. D. (1934). North American traditions suggesting a knowledge of a mammoth. American Anthropologist, 36, 81. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1934.36.1.02a00060 🔒
I found another source quoting Strong "Naskapi, an Algonquin tribe living in Labrador at
the time, speaks of a monster with large, round footprints, "a big head, large ears and teeth, and a long nose" and was very large overall. These characteristics could not be solely observed from fossilized remains, indicating that a prehistoric memory persists and is contained in this oral narrative - making it a myth of historical traditions" (the natives actually saw the mammoths!)
Other sources mention that the Salish of British Columbia have a mammoth song and a mammoth dance. The Osage people describe sloths, giant bears, dire wolves and mammoths battling each other (See: O'Donnell, J. (2024). Fountain Creek: Big Lessons from a Little River. United States: Torrey House Press). However, authors like Mayor, 2007 while mentioning mammoth myths among Delaware and Shawnee natives considers these, and the Osage "monster battle" myth as constructions built when the natives came across fossil bones of megafaunal animals. They were not contemporaries, they just happened to find fossil bones.
Less serious sources like this creationist one Mammoth Trapping in the Yukon: A review of Northern Tutchone oral history evidence supporting the survival of Woolly Mammoths in the Yukon Territory within the past 1,000 years by Johnson, 2019, published with the intention of promoting the Creationist pseudoscientific viewpoint, offer an insight into other native myths (leaving aside creationism), and the recent survival of mammoths in northern North America.
Patagonian Monsters -
Cryptozoology, Myths & legends in Patagonia
Copyright 2009-2026 by Austin Whittall ©
